Jump to content

I Don`t Understand What Minelab Is Doing


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Marty said:

...1/2 its circuitry in the coil like the Nox has...

It does?

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


if Minelab is not interested in selling any other aftermarket coils for our zed's then they are missing the boat not selling us overpriced security chip enabled adaptors from technology already developed so we can buy from other vendors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phrunt said:

That's what I thought, two hundred bucks for a good quality Minelab adapter wouldn't be out of the question for most people.  Most would pay it for piece of mind knowing they're not risking their detector.

I suspect trying to look at this from MLs view, if they were to make a "patch lead" they`d be leaving themselves open to warranty claims for damage done to the GPZ caused by an incompatible coil. Anyone could then knock up a coil and put on the Z. It would open a whole can of worms, I know this is so with the GPXs but they may have the ability to be not damaged by an incompatible coil wheras the GPZ being the 1st of new tech (ZVT) may not have this ability and thus suffer damage. 

I don`t think we will get that peace of mind and those of us who go for the X coil should be prepared to shoulder that risk themselves, as you know I`ve gone for the X coil with my 3rd in the mail, but to me the rewards are worth this risk. That old saying comes to mind "if you take the risk be prepared to push the pram"

No doubt ML have Z2 in the pipeline and perhaps it will address the issue that we the customer want a variety of coils.

An Explainer: I spent 20 years of my working life manufacturing and selling a then niche product, the most 5 year warranty claims I had by far were caused by user misuse and were easily solved most just by telephone conversation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Norvic said:

"if you take the risk be prepared to push the pram"

I`ve never heard that saying but I like it ?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ML wouldn't even need to sell a physical patch. They could just update the firmware to bypass the chip authentication if they really wanted to allow customers to use more coils. It'd be free and require no cable doctoring and would cost ML $0 in manufacturing costs. They could still charge $200 for that probably if they wanted to and make even more profit.

But then we are right back to square one wondering why instead they wouldn't simply license a code to a 3rd party to build coils and allow that code in a firmware update rather than disabling their code altogether, the manufacturers would pay for the license instead of the customers. And the snake just eats it's tail again leading us around an endless circle of wondering why this or that isn't happening.

The GPZ was designed for firmware updates and coil upgrades yet they appear to have no desire to let either of them happen and no desire to tell us why. Some larger piece of the puzzle is clearly missing that altered business road maps, and which we as general public are not privy to.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re minelab putting chip in coil conection, they were obviously hoping to or are still going to produce more coils.   Look at there previous machines, there is so many after market coils that can plug in and go and look at the profits that they lost by not producing them themselves. Business sense tells me that if you develop a product you want to make the most out of it. If I owned minelab I would want to make as many $$$'s as possible out of my investment.

But for us users we always want more benifits, power, depth, whatever so we try and modify to our advantage.  I for one never thought twice about cutting my lead coil and trying a competitor made coil. And very happy as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Travelergold said:

  I for one never thought twice about cutting my lead coil and trying a competitor made coil.

Sure, trying a competitor coil is what it's all about - having to risk your machine in any way seems odd but I'm all for these x-coils if they are the only game in town.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I learned from my trip to Australia is that they, like many Americans like to modify things.  I could see this in the cars and equipment and trailers and agricultural machinery.  This spirit of modification and innovation has to have come in part from the gold miners coming from all over the world with their own ideas and then adapting to the bush realities.  The same thing is happening in WA now and will continue forever.

We wonder why there is not 'open source' access to Minelab technology when it seems to have made the computer world bigger and more competitive.  I think Minelab might be trying to act more like Apple rather than Android.  They are different business models.  Apple has few business partners and Android has many.

I'd like to have Minelab open up the Z and also make available their next technology.  Licensing would be great if China and other knockoff countries would license rather than steal which is the case now.  Innovation can also turn into theft and loss of shareholder and company value if protections are not considered.

Are they pleased by the Xcoil success?  Probably not but with modifications to their existing technology as Phrunt has said it may give a longer life to the Z.  Do I think they have an Xcoil on their test benches right now?  Yes.  Could they make a deal with the Russians?  Yes.

Will any of these things happen?  Who knows.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...