My opinion is that competition between vendors is inhibited. This includes marketing flexibility. If I pay 100.00 for a flashlight and want to sell it for 1.89 as a loss leader, free as part of a bundle, or whatever marketing scheme my little head can concoct I should be able to do it.
Admittedly, I CAN do exactly that, and Surefire can then retailiate by not selling me another particle of product. It's their right to do so in a free market. It's my right to not like it and not buy any more product.
I also find the exemption of certain seqments of our society from the policy as somewhat elitist. Again, its their right to do it, it may even be the right thing to do, but I reserve the right to feel vague disquiet therefrom.
One must also take into consideration that SF is at the bleeding edge of illumination tool technology, and that innovation and R&D comes at a cost.
Agreed 100% - however, assuming no change in unit count sold, there will be no change in Surefire's profits to pay for R&D. Their policy is only changing profit margins at the secondary market level. They're not, so far as I can gather, changing the price they charge their dealers.
I also agree that it's one fine product. I just don't care for the attitude. IME, such tactics have typically been inspired by whining full price resellers. Whether this is smart marketing, taking care of your supply chain, or caving into whiners is a matter of perspective.
FWIW - I'm not proposing anybody follow suit - I doubt SF will be much troubled by my missing 500.00 or so retail dollars a year. I wasn't buying my stuff from the absolute lowest bidder anyway - but I mourn the loss of the option to do so.
Thanks for the reminder - I'd flat forgotten about CPF.