The manual for those says (c) 2002
The 279FC shows a March 2016 date in its manual, so my point remains standing even if the 787B and 789 are removed from the equation.
The whole FC line is fairly recent, I believe. Also, I think this is new-ish:
https://www.fluke.com/en-us/product/electrical-testing/portable-oscilloscopes/mda-550
But the kind of support and quality that Fluke produces costs money, and that obviously has to be passed on to the buyer.
But the kind of support and quality that Fluke produces costs money, and that obviously has to be passed on to the buyer.
As noted earlier: Fluke sells $100 meters with Fluke build quality and an ordinary "free from defects" warranty.
How many people need Fluke 'support' beyond that level anyway?
As noted earlier: Fluke sells $100 meters with Fluke build quality and an ordinary "free from defects" warranty.
How many people need Fluke 'support' beyond that level anyway?
If you think the $100 meter is just as good and don't value a support promise, you can buy that.
What is it you want? A meter 'better' than the 87V without the lifetime warranty for less money? Don't you already have that?
(round in circles)
The $100 meter is missing important features, Fluke carefully engineers it that way, you know it.
From other brands? Yes.
Oh yes, I forgot that part. So you think that the 17B+, for example, has all the mechanical and electrical robustness of the 87V
and Fluke could just make a few tweaks to the firmware and maybe a few upgraded components ($20 tops, of course) and produce something superior--but they don't for strategic reasons.
Why don't we just agree to disagree on all that?
From other brands? Yes.Really? After the BM789 thread? Anyway, I was referring to your 89IV.
Has it been mentioned yet that there is a service manual with schematics for the 87?
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1505585/Fluke-87-V-An.html
Try fining one of those for a Bryman or other lower cost meter. A proper service manual for a tool I'm going to use potentially for decades is a substantial value, especially in this day and age where it's such a rare luxury. I'm willing to pay more for something that is meant to be repaired if it breaks.
Why would you need it? Don't Fluke just swap them with no questions asked?
eventually the product goes obsolete and the warranty ends anyway.
No, they often repair them. And there are scenarios that might not be covered by the warranty--and eventually the product goes obsolete and the warranty ends anyway. So many years from now the manual might be nice to have. There are multiple threads of people successfully repairing 30+ year old original 87 models.
It is easy to assign irrationality as the cause for others actions when you don't understand them, or try to apply a limited understanding and don't get the result you expect. What is really going on is that you simply don't understand the reasons for what you are observing. That applies to cola drinkers, politics and DMM buyers. And even if you studied it with some particular methodology, you still would only have a limited and likely flawed understanding.
Who mentioned a chemical plant? - what about a decent sized electronics lab.
I don't really even understand the discussion of cost here, we're not talking a $20 tool vs a $20,000 tool, it's $450 vs maybe $250, that's nothing. And that's ignoring the fact that the slightly higher price buys you the reputation and support.
That's true, the cost is really secondary. The main point was why Fluke is so stagnated.
Where's the meters that persuade people like me to part with $450? Why doesn't Fluke have any ongoing R&D?
A refresh of the 87V every decade or so doesn't seem out of line, nor does a new model every now and again.
This is the reason the traditional IT world, the stock market, and the media were/are always surprised by Apple’s success: they didn’t (and still don’t) understand the company and its customers, so they assign its success (erroneously) to “fashion” and “stupid” customers (i.e. exactly the “irrationality” you mention), despite all the clues that this isn’t the reason.
Who mentioned a chemical plant? - what about a decent sized electronics lab.Electronics labs definitely are not the target market for the Fluke 87.
But they keep the original 87V around because it keeps selling. Does it even matter why? It does, and they don’t appear to have any trouble getting components to build them, so what’s the motivation to discontinue it? (Your offended sensibilities do not constitute a valid reason.)
This is the reason the traditional IT world, the stock market, and the media were/are always surprised by Apple’s success: they didn’t (and still don’t) understand the company and its customers, so they assign its success (erroneously) to “fashion” and “stupid” customers (i.e. exactly the “irrationality” you mention), despite all the clues that this isn’t the reason.
I would be willing to bet that the main reason a company might switch to Amprobe, Greenlee or the like is that they are less attractive to thieves. Other than that, for an organization large enough to need that many meters, the money is peanuts considering the warranty and the perceptions of the employees--even if the devices themselves were actually equivalent.
I never said they should discontinue it, I'm wondering why they stopped evolving it.
So in light of the above, the real question is why you think the 87 MAX isn't a suitable successor for the market the 87V plays in