GPX 6000 - How Do Others Compete?

[Lunk]

On 1/25/2021 at 7:32 AM, afreakofnature said:

It actually saves you a bunch of money to not have to buy a bunch of coils for a machine you already own 😂.

Especially with the inflated coil prices these days; the same amount of money that buys a 14”x9” NF Evo used to get you a Coiltek 27”x21” Bonzer. I was delighted when the GPZ 7000 was released because the stock coil found gold of all sizes at depth, eliminating the need for a coil arsenal; the only exception being the lack of a small coil for tight spots and heavy scrub, which appears is also going to be the same deficiency on the upcoming GPX 6000, with the 11” round mono coil being the smallest offering.

[Gold Catcher]

The 11 in will reach SDC applications,especially it being a mono and  the 14/17 will be more GPZ type applications. So you got it all. Not sure what else you would need.

[Lunk]

Agreed GC, I'm just saying that it would be nice to have an optional 8” or 6” elliptical for the really tight spots.

But getting back on topic, IMO Minelab are so far ahead of the other detector manufacturers in technology and production, that I don't see how they can have any real competition with the GPX 6000.

[Gold Catcher]

Yes that would make sense, good point

[matt]

I was hoping that the new Fisher AQ Gold would be out soon to create some competition. Unlikely that it would really be comparable, but having another choice would be nice.

[Steve Herschbach]

I think it is business, nothing more. If you want to understand Minelab, think like a shareholder, not a detectorist. This is pure speculation, but I bet I'm close.

They found they can make an Equinox with three coils, call it good, and own 100% of the market if they block everyone else. It really is that simple from a business perspective which I am convinced is how Minelab must be analyzed. In my opinion they ran the numbers, and money going into coils past the first three is a waste of resources that need to go to the next machine instead. I think that is literally it. They decided each machine is a unique product, they do choose coils to help keep them distinct and want it that way. So make a detector, make three coils for it, block everyone else, move on. That appears to be the plan and it is because they think it is the best plan for them and the shareholders. You don't think they are working for us except to please the shareholders do you? I promise when you ask why, the answer has to be they think it makes them more money. We think otherwise, but honestly we could all be wrong. They are not a failing company.

I hope we do not see this with the 6000. I like the selection they are providing and can live with it just fine, but man or man I still want a 6x11 just like is on the Gold Monster, even if compromises had to be made for that to happen. They do not seem to get that if you can't get the coil over the target, performance is moot. If a coil can be wound that is in theory sub-par, but fits where I need it to go, I want it!

So this is a test of my theory. Equinox with three coils, done, block the rest. Vanquish with three coils (different than Equinox coils) done, block the rest. I will not be shocked if this is a 6000 with three coils, done, block the rest, move on again.

It just is what it is, and as I businessman I get it. You can't be all things to all people and can't afford to do everything at once. You have to focus resources where they make the most sense, and I do not think management are dummies. Far, far from it. Though were I Minelab I'd establish a genuinely separate coil division with its own people, accounting lockbox, and task them with making accessory coils for all types of detectors. I'm a shark when it comes to business, and I would attempt to capture the entire coil aftermarket. If others can do it for profit, so could Minelab. But they see unfortunately see themselves as a detector company, not a coil company. It could change though. Cash flow rules all, and they probably do need all the cash flow for new detector development. It took many years and over a million dollars just to do GPZ and the 6000 was no doubt a huge chunk of change, and there are multiple product lines to tend to. I honestly if I were a shareholder would be quite happy. But as a end user and a businessman, I'd say the minute they have excess cash flow they are looking to use - set up that separate Minelab coil division with dedicated people that do for coils what they do for detectors. Which is generally to wipe out the competition over time.

Now, having just typed that ask yourself this. Would you want Minelab to have that kind of power? Be careful what you ask for. Everything has unintended consequences.

[GB_Amateur]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I honestly if I were a shareholder would be quite happy. But as a end user and a businessman, I'd say the minute they have excess cash flow they are looking to use - set up that separate Minelab coil division with dedicated people that do for coils what they do for detectors. Which is generally to wipe out the competition over time.

Aren't they doing that already without a coil division?  Coiltek and NF appear (from my vantage point) to have thrived or at least survived with a business model that makes coils almost exclusively for Minelab detectors.  Minelab has thrown NF a bone with the new GPZ coil.  I've seen rumors here that Coiltek has some in the works, too.  But think how much Coiltek (and the Eastern European companies) could have added to their bottom lines if allowed to (flipside: have suffered not being able to) make Equinox coils.

Without competion ML can do pretty much whatever they want (within the laws) and I think your speculation is spot on that their only concern is maximizing profits.  (Hope I didn't put words in your mouth....)  We consumers have the choice of riding the bus (with fares of their choosing) or walking.

We can hope that ML is at least an enlightened monopoly, but that seems optimistic based upon what we've seen.  I don't know if it's even realistic to think that there once was a time when multiple detector companies duked it out by producing innovative products that they had to carefully price to attract the consumers' money.  Sure doesn't seem that way today.... 

[Jonathan Porter]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It took many years and over a million dollars just to do GPZ and the 6000 was no doubt a huge chunk of change, and there are multiple product lines to tend to.

From memory I think the GPZ 7000 cost well over $12 million to develop. 

Another little thought bubble to consider with coil sizes ect.🤔 If you look at the graphs placed hereabouts on performance you will see the 6000 seems particularly good on the smaller more plentiful gold and that it seems to be walking the park with the SDC2300 which we all know is a dynamite small gold sniffer.

Extend that thought into the supplied coil sizes and you very quickly see the disparity of the standard coil size of the SDC compared to the standard go-to size of the 6000, now extrapolate that thought into how damn sensitive would a smaller coil actually be or the thought ‘is it even possible to make a smaller coil’ because the tech is clearly pushing the boundaries well beyond what any of us are familiar with.

Disclaimer: These comments are all ‘what if’s’ on my part that are easily teased out of the information that is freely available, not the ‘What is’ that I actually know on the subject but can’t really talk about. 😜😇🤐

[Northeast]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Porter said:

you will see the 6000 seems particularly good on the smaller more plentiful gold and that it seems to be walking the park with the SDC2300 which we all know is a dynamite small gold sniffer.

The 'Star Chart' which shows the 6000 is 3 X better on small gold than an SDC and 1 star better than a number of other detectors on gold across a range of sizes - this is the exact reason that I am pulling the trigger on a 6000. 

My only unknown (and great hope) is that for the most part the 6000 has the extreme ground/rock handling abilities the SDC has.   Geo-Sense?  Well, let's hope I've got some Good-Sense in thinking that this little marketing catch phrase has something to do with that.  

 

[Steve Herschbach]

2 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

Aren't they doing that already without a coil division? 

The point of a separate division is it makes easier to determine profitability as they get their own budget. It also helps keep talent from being robbed. I've been there done that sort of thing, and the coil guy probably keeps getting shunted into other "more important work". It is hard to run two businesses with two different goals (detectors and coils) under one roof and maintain focus.

We wanted, well, my partner wanted to get into motorcycles. In summer we are a boat shop. So we would bring in some cycles, but the reality was boat sales had precedence. It never worked. I argued for twenty years it never would until we had a separate building for the cycles with a dedicated staff. Dudley and I are still on the board and help guide the big decisions, so we just closed a deal to buy a nearby competitor and lease their facility back from them. We are finally setting up that separate division to do just what I suggested for all that time. If you want a boat, go to a boat shop. You want a motorcycle you go the the cycle shop. First big move we have made for some time, very exciting!

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's similar. I do not see coils working well for Minelab as a separate revenue stream unless it gets set up like that. Otherwise inevitably by default it will always be the bastard child.