Atlantic Tech (outlaw 950 clone) prepro review now out (1 Viewer)

[Kevin C Brown]

I finally got a chance to read the review today too. I was kind of surprised, because the (low) scores he gave at the end, didn't seem justified by the text (which was quite glowing in fact). (I would have guessed much higher marks.) Especially when compared to even just the other reviews in the same edition. (Pioneer dv-45a, Onkyo 800, Marantz 8300; sure they are all DVD players at variously different price points, but the pre/pro was on average rated lower than all of them.)

The P-2000 delivered the sort of "reach out and touch" believability that sets the very best gear apart from the merely good.

 

[Ted Kim]

I was kind of surprised, because the (low) scores he gave at the end, didn't seem justified by the text (which was quite glowing in fact). (I would have guessed much higher marks.) Especially when compared to even just the other reviews in the same edition.

Well you have to keep it in context of who the reviewer is. Guttenberg tends to be more conservative and gives lower ratings than the others. Like I said previously, he's been one of my favorites since he was writing for the now defunct Fi magazine and etown.com website. I actually prefer his rating bias, since its easier to tell how good a product is this way. If everything gets a 92 - 96, it gets a bit harder to determine what really is outstanding.

On that whole interview with Peter Tribesman, it gave me the impression that Tribesman was really dodging the question of who designed the pre-pro and the design details. His wanting to talk about movies rather than design details is uncharacteristic of any who has designed a product, who generally have a "proud papa" attitude and can't speak enough of the design process.

 

[BruceD]

That unwillingness to discuss design supports the theory that the design was essentially done by Eastech (engineering team overseas) and not by Outlaw.

Outlaw simply contracted for some modifications to the design and contracted for the manufacturing, as well as agreeing to non-exclusive rights to the design.

Just IMHO, but I do have experience doing the same thing for LAN hardware, and it fits the profile.

 

[Ted Kim]

That unwillingness to discuss design supports the theory that the design was essentially done by Eastech (engineering team overseas) and not by Outlaw.

If you said not by Atlantic Technology, I can agree with that theory since Tribesman is from Atlantic Technology. However, you can't rule out the design work was done by Outlaw, just because of someone from AT being unwilling to discuss the design. So it doesn't either prove or disprove that theory.

 

[Jason Brent]

Isn't Tribeman aslo the "Head Outlaw"??

 

[Jeff Kohn]

But wasn't he speaking on behalf of Atlantic Tech? Would it have looked good for the AT pre/pro if he said, "me and my buddies designed it after-hours for our other company, Outlaw Audio, which sells basically the same pre/pro for $600 less."

 

[Ted Kim]

You're right about Tribeman, I forgot he wears two hats. However, as the head of either company, he might not be the designer. Furthermore, a lot of the design process between suppliers and the retail companies is collaborative. For example, I remember reading some years ago that B&K was an alpha tester for Motorola processors (don't know their current relationship), so they had a head start on using their chips in their prepro's. Norh contracted out their design work for the CD player, the CD-1, to the guys who used to work for California Audio Labs. Many prepro manufacturers use the surround modules produced by SRS Labs, who is most famous for their Spatializer circuit and their Circle Surround ambiance mode.

 

[BruceD]

Take a closer look at Eastech's capabilities and what they do with their large workforce vs. the tiny Outlaw workforce for engineering design of a prepro. I think you get my drift.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Actually, could you spell out your drift a bit more clearly? I'm supposed to be working here, and I don't have time to decipher innuendo!

I'm guessing you're saying that Outlaw doesn't have the staff to design such a complex bit of machinary, whereas Eastech does, and all this somehow relates to the question of why Outlaw's pre-pro is $600 cheaper than AT's, despite the fact that they appear otherwise identical...

Am I within the tug of your drift? If so, could you please make it clear how this relates to the $600 premium on the AT pre-pro over the Outlaw?

 

[BruceD]

Rich,

drift was simply who has more engineering design resources applied to the development of the 950 (and all clones), i.e. Eastech. Outlaw struck the best deal with Eastech giving them the lowest cost versus all the other vendors using the same design.

Certainly Outlaw had some engineering (features) input into the product development process, but I'd guess the core platform was already developed/in-development at Eastech.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

That unwillingness to discuss design supports the theory that the design was essentially done by Eastech (engineering team overseas) and not by Outlaw.

Don't matter to me none , because, 1) you can't buy an Eastech pre/pro, 2) Dell makes PCs, but not microprocessors, hard drives, memory, operating systems, etc., but still I think they make kick-ass computers. Their manufacturing is contracted out too.

 

[Mary M S]

This is begging to remind me of “professionals” whom, dig deep/dig hard for something/anything
To flesh out a slow lead day. Sort of like when a politician has a squeaky clean past (rarer than total eclipse as they are members of the human race). And some reporter exposes the eyewitness account of how much the ‘name’ in question drank at a Homecoming party in High School, by a witness who had the same history teacher.

What is the ‘point’ being attempted here? As Kevin aptly stated, you can’t buy a prepro by calling up Eastech or a Dell by calling up the OS provider.

By the way what do you think of Dell’s successful catch of percent of market share when market is declining?

“Direct selling, from manufacturer to consumer, was a key component of its strategy Dell could best understand consumer needs and efficiently provide the most effective computing solutions to meet those needs by selling computer systems directly to customers. This direct business model eliminated retailers, who added unnecessary time and cost, and also allowed the company to build every system to order, offering customers powerful, richly configured systems at competitive prices. Dell introduced the latest relevant technology much more quickly than companies with slow-moving, indirect distribution channels
. Two trends in the early 1980s allowed Michael Dell to radically reengineer the PC industry value chain. First, corporate customers were becoming increasingly sophisticated and therefore did not require intense personal selling by salespeople. By the late 1980s, individuals-especially those buying their second or third PCs-had become savvy and experienced technology users,
2002 “School of Business at Dartmouth * William F. Achtmeyer Center for Global Leadership”

I wonder if Mr Tribeman ran into Michael Dell and had an epiphany a few years back?

"We know what we are and what we're not. We are a really superb product integrator. We're a tremendously good sales-and-logistics company. We're not the developer of innovative technology."
Mort Topfer, Dell.

Outlaw deviates from Dell’s extremely successful business model however in not cutting costs by only offering the reductions on technology which has had time to mature but Outlaw seems to be blending the best of both these worlds, slashing costs using the Direct to Consumer approach, yet still capable of sticking their design oriented neck out on the development of an “innovative” response to consumers needs (ICBM)


“Outlaw struck the best deal with Eastech giving them the lowest cost versus all the other vendors using the same design.” Yes I think they did. But if as you state. “but I'd guess the core platform was already developed/in-development at Eastech.” Then why did not everyone else get the same deal?

No other company involved was capable of striking as good a deal? Or was the ‘lowest cost’ due to the collaboration on R&D that allowed Eastech to platform out the Outlaw initiated product. Reducing R&D for Outlaw, allowing the ‘larger’ company (Eastech) to provide this low cost deal, if Outlaw with stipulations traded off proprietary control of the contract with an included allowance for the production of clones?

Personally it doesn’t bother to me to share kudos’ on my satisfaction level with the 950 between Eastech and Outlaw, however it traveled down the pike. I have it and appreciate it.

 

[BruceD]

Mostly, the Taiwan Eastech design/development angle helps to explain the excessive problems Outlaw had getting the product out the door on time and the early production problems.

Some of the same issues I ran into with my companies Ethernet LAN equipment which was mostly designed and manufactured in the Taiwan/Malaysia/China corridor.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Bruce- You're probably right. Kind of ironic then, that Outlaw is the company that gets bashed for all those problems, and most of them might not have been Outlaw's fault! (Although since it's their name badge on the front and not Eastech's, ... Ah heck...)

 

[Nick V]

This thread was a great read. Any more info on the design and/or performance differences between the Outlaw 950 and it's clones from Sherbourn and Atlantic Tech??

Hopefully somebody's got something...

 

[Chriss M]

Well, i have an AT P-2000 sitting in a box next to me right now. I'll be hooking it up when i get home and replacing an Outlaw 950. My real reason for purchasing was because i couldnt stand the looks of the outlaw (and i got the p2000 for a price very close to what the outlaw sells for), but i'll be sure to post if i find any differences in performance.

 

[Brian Corr]

I think Bruce's theory is dead on. I'll venture even further to say I doubt Outlaw "designed" any of their products. They either went to an Asian manufacturer and told them what they wanted (and they designed it) or simply made changes to a product that was already in the works.

There is nothing wrong with taking an idea to a company and having them produce it but I think Outlaw's marketing is to lead consumers to believe they do design their own product. (I obviously don't believe they do)

In my experience in the import/export business, this is how things were done. Our customers would always say they designed the product we sold them when they actually just made some minor changes (if any) to an existing design or came to us with an idea and we had it produced.

As to the price difference between Outlaw and AT, it's simple (IMHO).
Tribeman is taking care of customers on both sides of the fence with 2 different companies. He can't offer the exact same product or he'll piss off his biggest customer base, the retailers and custom installers. So he makes a few minor changes (faceplate).

Outlaw is internet only, basically selling at wholesale, catering to the enthusiast who isn't going to require the services of a third party to install and program it.
AT is for retail, catering to the custom installer. The enthusiast and DIY type is going to know about Outlaw and appreciate what they offer. The person who doesn't want to research a product (and calibrate and hook up cables) is going to use a custom or retail company to install their system. The custom installer is going to purchase the AT piece for, yep, you guessed it, about $900 cost. Your not paying extra for the processor as much as you are paying for having a store with professional's to back you up, to program and set up your equipment, and to answer questions.

I think Tribeman is a pretty smart guy for catering to different types of buyers. He's managed to sell basically the same product to both the enthusiast (at a price they love) and to Mr. Joe in a Suit (who isn't concerned with saving $800 as much as having somebody to come fix it when it doesn't work)

Just my .02

 

[Philip Hamm]

I think Bruce's theory is dead on. I'll venture even further to say I doubt Outlaw "designed" any of their products. They either went to an Asian manufacturer and told them what they wanted (and they designed it) or simply made changes to a product that was already in the works.

Brian, you really think that the ICBM was not designed by Outlaw? That's pretty far-fetched if you ask me. There's absolutely nothing like it on the market.

 

[Claude M]

Hey Chriss, shoot me a price on the 950

 

[Chriss M]

Claude,
I'm still within the initial 30-day period on the Outlaw, so i'm just going to return it for the full refund. Sorry