Thread: SAWSTOP - The Argument

Oh, sorry, one more thing I forgot:

I have no patience for deliberate ignorance

I don't give a flying ???? what you do or don't have patience for. Just so that there's no confusion on that point, OK?

Ok guys, calm down.

Beers on the house!

Zelk

It's OK Zelk, I'm quite calm. Just having a little difference of opinion with my very good friend from the North. We're all grown ups here

Besides, it's not even 11:00 yet. Too early to start drinking unless you're still carrying over from the night before.

Originally Posted by silentC

It's OK Zelk, I'm quite calm. Just having a little difference of opinion with my very good friend from the North. We're all grown ups here

Besides, it's not even 11:00 yet. Too early to start drinking unless you're still carrying over from the night before.

That's good, I don't have to bring out the sedatives.

Originally Posted by silentC

If the politics of the guy who invented this thing affected your decision in any way, I find that very odd. Say you had decided that it was a great idea, it was worth the money and you could afford it, but you wont buy one because you don't like his approach to selling it. Odd.

Hey Silent, I don't want to come between you and Toolin, but I'd take task with this. A lot of people have morals and scruples (punch punch, one two ), and will make decisions based on these. The more options they have, the easier they will forego something. For example, I didn't like what Shell was doing in Nigeria and happily boycotted their petrol stations. Now I know that Shell actually supplies other brands in Australia - IIRC, there are only two suppliers to all of Australia - but, along with the groups that were publicising the activity and thousands of other people, I was happy to be part of it. Thousands, if not millions of people do the same things everyday. McDonalds for work practices at one time for example. Would you buy a rocket from Werner von Braun?

Seriously, I think you're wrong in believing people don't act that way. In fact, I know you're wrong since I've looked at a number of psych studies on the edge of this idea (it's part of my work). People don't act logically. Emotion is part of all our actions. The politics of someone, the way they act and their visibility are key aspects in sales. Just look at how people change their votes in elections when their is the perception of something wrong, even if it's not proved at all.

Let's go to woodworking: there are a whole lot of people who won't touch the EZ-smart system. They simply don't like the way the proponents have marketted themselves and the system. Very few boycott it because it doesn't work, simply because of their "politics".

Do you buy a car from someone who looks and acts shonky, who ripped off someone you know, or do you go next door? Oh, so the same car isn't available next door, but they have one that's pretty close - I'll buy that. In fact, that's what I did 5 months ago. Car 1 had a better price, but was lacking one feature I wanted and I really didn't like the salesperson. Next door treated me well, I lost a couple of features I'd have liked, but gained one I really wanted. That's why, echoing Stuart, I'd like to see the mechanism available for any saw (for a "reasonable" price ). The inventor should get a good return on their idea. But that doesn't stop me disliking their way of doing business and refusing to do business with them (almost) solely on that basis. In fact, it would be nice to be able to separate out the idea/mechanism from the current company, Sawstop (there, mods, I got some relevance in there at last ).

[shock, more relevance] Actually, Brendan, do you know whether SS licenses the idea or technology from the inventor or other holding entity, or SS the company actually owns the patent?

Rob

The guy who invented it must just shake his head in frustration. I mean, the thing is supposed to save you from cutting off one or more of your fingers. If you would seriously forgo that simply because of the way it was marketed, you are really only spiting yourself. Same goes for the EZ-Smart system.

If you were a person who had lost a finger to a table saw and I walked up to you and said "I can give you your finger back, but you will have to give $5,000 to this bloke over here" how many would turn it down?

Boycotting MacDonalds etc, well that I can understand because a) there are alternatives and b) a significant enough boycott might convince them to change their practices. At the very least, you are not contributing to their profiting from what might be perceived as immoral practices.

With this Saw Stop thing, he tried to get the legislation through to make it a compulsory feature of all new table saws manufactured for sale in the US. Understandably, the power tool manufacturers got p'ed off about it. I don't know why that has extended with such vehemence to the woodworking fraternity over there in general, but apparently it has.

What I'm objecting to is that this whole issue is brought in by some people as a reason to dismiss the product. I have a whole lot more respect for TA's other arguments about the technology. These are rational and form a good basis for making a decision.

To me, it would be no different to saying I refuse to buy Festool because my Grandfather fought Germans in World War II. I'm depriving myself of a whole range of benefits on the basis of a principle deriving from an event that my decision can in no way affect.

That's my point of view. I don't research the background of every inventor or retailer whose technology I adopt. I might well be rsupporting white collar criminals or Scientologists for all I know. It just doesn't factor in the decision about whether or not to buy.

Something else I wanted to say. In Europe, a riving knife is compulsory on a table saw, especially in a commercial environment - correct me if I'm wrong. At some point, somebody must have proposed that in legislation because they felt strongly enough that it would be beneficial from a safety point of view. That argument was accepted. Presumably the person who pushed that wheelbarrow was not the patent owner, so that appears to be the major difference here. People object that this guy tried to get legislation passed to make compulsory a technology that he owned the patent on. Whether he did this purely to profit, or because he felt he was doing a community service, only he knows. There are two sides to the story of course - he will present a more philanthropic point of view no doubt. That is human nature.

What I am saying is that this situation has no bearing on whether the thing is effective and suitable for it's purpose. There is a wider question on whether, should it be proven to save fingers, it should be made compulsory on saws in commercial or educational settings. That's where politics come in to it.

I just think that discussion of this issue doesn't really have a place in the debate over whether the Saw Stop is a gimmick or not/worth the money etc etc. To give it as a reason for dismissing it is just irrational to my mind.

Originally Posted by silentC

The guy who invented it must just shake his head in frustration. I mean, the thing is supposed to save you from cutting off one or more of your fingers. If you would seriously forgo that simply because of the way it was marketed, you are really only spiting yourself.

That's the whole point - the EZ-smart guys, like the SS inventor who's "shaking his head" - have no idea about people . They have a brilliant idea, but hardly a smidgen of selling, about how people work, about why they choose what they choose! Logic plays but a small part. Getting p*ssed that logic plays a small part isn't going to change it. Brendan has sold how many of these in Australia? It's no use saying that it's only just become available - we've all purchased over the web before. There's a whole ton of reasons why it hasn't sold here, but money is only one of them; personality and method of selling of the developer is another. If you don't believe there's money around, just look at the sales of huge LCD and plasma TVs (). Unfortunately true, it's very, very rare that a person with the talent for invention also has the people-nouse to carry that invention to success. There are lots of failed dotcoms. In woodworking terms, perhaps the Triton would be an example, at least for a while, of a successful move from invention to market?

Personally, I think the idea behind the SS tablesaw is a very good one. Done right, it could have already made a big difference. To anything from 0-316 or so people, it presumably has made a difference. If SS has, at some off-the-head guesstimate, 5% of the market (), then there are 199,500 saws sold and people without that technology in America for the same period; and, if the percentage of possible appendage loss or damage carries over, about 6004 people are maybe one digit shy (hand wave, hand wave ). So if the inventor had originally hired someone with the business, marketing and people skills, and worked out a way to sell it to the manufacturers, 6004+316 people would be happier! Instead of getting p*ssed at the companies for not taking the technology on (8%?! ), and taking a look from another perspective, perhaps 6004 people should be a leeettle annoyed at the inventor for not making it more widely available?

Rob
Disclaimer: I know nothing more about SS or the tech. than what I've read here, seen in the press and web including videos, and have dreamt up. I certainly have no knowledge, personal or otherwise, of the inventor, the details of issues at the time of the invention and subsequent marketing. In fact, if you've read this far, you need to get back to woodwork .

Again, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief that people make decisions this way. As a rule, I would imagine social skills would be somewhere way down the list of being a successful innovator. Yes you need to have a marketing brain to get the idea out there. Perhaps where this bloke went wrong is that he decided to try and do it himself and rubbed people up the wrong way in the process.

It still has no bearing on whether the idea is a good one or not. Nor should it reflect on the success of the product. Look at Bill Gates. Does anyone buy Windows because they love him, or do they buy it in spite of him?

I was trying to think what this argument reminds me of. Then I recalled the debate about whether or not Shane Warne should be dropped from the Australian Cricket team because of his antics off the field. People were calling for his blood on the basis that he was an idiot. I preferred to keep him because, despite being an idiot off the field, he was/is the best spin bowler the world has ever seen.

Originally Posted by silentC

I was trying to think what this argument reminds me of. Then I recalled the debate about whether or not Shane Warne should be dropped from the Australian Cricket team because of his antics off the field. People were calling for his blood on the basis that he was an idiot. I preferred to keep him because, despite being an idiot off the field, he was/is the best spin bowler the world has ever seen.

There you go silent I disagreed with you on the above, but agree with you on SS Seems like a good idea, wish I could afford it (Cant even get agreement to buy a tsb10). Now all they need is to license it to other manufacturers and all will be well

Originally Posted by silentC

Look at Bill Gates. Does anyone buy Windows because they love him, or do they buy it in spite of him?

They buy it because it has a virtual monopoly in the marketplace. Most people don't really have a choice. It comes pre-loaded on the machine when you buy it. Most software requires it to run. The only way to avoid it is to buy a mac or work out Linux. IOW, windows works, and Bill Gates has a bundle of money because they managed to do what SS failed to do - make it compulsory or nearly so on every machine sold. The only thing is that they did it with marketing rather than legislation. The other difference is that your computer won't work without an OS. None of the software will run. It's kind of like a blade on a saw - not a safety device.


Peter

It's hardly compulsory to run windows. Do you remember OS/2 or Warp? They gave it a big shove but couldn't defeat Windows.

But the analogy is not meant to compare Windows with Saw Stop. The point is, here you have a company which has been convicted in a court of law of using anti-competitive tactics, and yet people are quite prepared to buy Windows every day.

There are alternatives to Windows which people are free to choose (and many claim they are better products). The Saw Stop has no alternative. I hope that none of the people who refuse to consider a Saw Stop on the basis of the attempt to legislate it in the US are Windows users.

Originally Posted by silentC

What I am saying is that this situation has no bearing on whether the thing is effective and suitable for it's purpose. There is a wider question on whether, should it be proven to save fingers, it should be made compulsory on saws in commercial or educational settings. That's where politics come in to it.

True, but politics is everything after the actual invention . So, for example, would you advocate that the SS mechanism should become mandatory in Australia if you knew that 100 sole traders would certainly go out of business because of the extra cost, and another 200 are likely to? Or how about that 200 jobs would be lost because businesses costs would rise and they couldn't put on extra staff since SS doesn't "increase productivity"?

Now of course I'm making up the amounts, but these are the sort of issues that go into the post-invention, should-it-be-mandated, equation. It's not simply a matter of not giving the finger(s). Why are 4WD's still sold in cities of >3million people when it's known they have a disproportionately high fatality rate in crashes (e.g. here but lots of others)? Why are cigarettes not entirely banned (that usually stokes the fires )? Should every single drug that may benefit someone be put on PBS? Should a monopolistic technology - ie. a patent holder - be given preferential treatment? If it's simply not possible to convert existing saws to the mechanism, then mandating it would give the patent holder a monopoly situation, both unwelcome and rather difficult under Australian law.

In the overall score, it's usually inventors: 1-2, individuals, society, government: millions. The mechanism behind SS may be the best thing since sliced digits, but apples can be tasty. That's often about the same level of logic and linkage between an invention and public good and uptake and legislative change on the issue.

I'd better let Lignum, Toolin, et. al. get a word in .