Why do so many people here go nuts over very low quality gear from China?

[Kilrah]

That is not an issue. Someone who isn't able to figure out and take the cheap products for what they are is never going to buy your good expensive one.
There is no such thing as someone being discouraged from getting a given tool because a cheap one didn't have the required performance.

I don't think that's true. It's clear that these purchases are an effect of impulse buying (otherwise they'd buy something from a reputable manufacturer). This means that the impulse buyer, if the impulse is strong enough, could actually buy a quality product that would serve him well and help the market.

Depends on the price difference, but usually in test equipment it's large enough that this has no chance of happening.

I will "impulse buy" a $100 tool, but a $1000 one will not go through without thorough reflection of whether I really need it, how much I'm going to be using it, and whether I can find an alternative solution. Most of the Chinese tools <$100 I'll get one "just in case" and not care whether I actually end up using it, but the day I do I'll be happy with my purchase.

[schmitt trigger]

Remember the old saw:

"If it is too good to be true, then it is not true".

"Caveat Emptor".

"A sucker is born every minute".

And many similar.

Deceit in sales is as old as mankind itself.
I am pretty sure that in ancient times during the bartering process of -let's say, certain amount of sheep for certain amount of olive oil, perhaps a sheep in the flock was sickly, and some of the fresh oil had been mixed with stale one.

[ogden]

You keep pushing the idea that it's food from the heavens, when I just showed you that it's not.

I say that NanoVNA works upto 300MHz, provided screenshot, you did not show anything that disproves that.

Click those links, see for yourself. Also, it's marketed as a 900 MHz VNA, not a 300 MHz one, and no, it's not great under 300 MHz either.

Define great. Every VNA shall have specs same or better than industry leading boat anchors costing (new) > 2000$? Thats nonsense argument.

Regarding the $40 VNA, I'd like to underline the fact that you don't have a $40 VNA that works either, and yours can't be fixed.

NanoVNA works. Proof is all around the internet. Seems, you choose to ignore everything that do not match your beliefs and fallacies.

I actually got a 6 GHz VNA for ~$200 several years back. It was a fixer-upper but I got it working.

So even broken VNA was 5x times more expensive than 40$. You disproved your own claim that for 40$ there are better options. - There are not.

[ebclr]

This isn't for your market only, is from every market from chairs to VNA's 

The fact is that China is killing all industries, in any part of the word, and as time passes China's quality increase, and other markets decrease due to low quantity markets. I guess is too late, and  China is starting to take a bite of high end, things also look at the 1st Rigols Scope and look at the latest, we must admit that the quality increased a lot.

The only real problem in China products is the Chinglish and do not have real aftersales support, but sooner or later they will learn these also.

Unfortunately, this is an incontestable reality, and the situation just keeps worse, while they improve, and now are starting to play the innovators  rule.

[maginnovision]

Many EEVBlog forum members are guilty to have heard instinct.

$10 process calibrator?

I had a good laugh when I first saw the video about it being a POS and only then the original thread

The difference with that is the parts were worth way more than the units. I stripped one of mine for a project and I'm probably up $40.

[BillB]

Why do people who seemingly know the value of good and reliable test equipment, go for things like that, which are clearly poorly designed (if you can call them that), and which are destroying the market for genuine manufacturers who really want to make a quality product. It's like buying a caliper that has the accuracy of a ruler.

I believe that this is an incorrect assumption as there is no singular market for any product.  As other posters have noted, there is more than one market for test equipment, VNAs or whatever and to again repeat the previous sentiments, competition is always good.

The growth of low cost segment does not necessarily 1) affect any other segment nor 2) need to affect any other segment negatively.  A low cost offering introduces more people to the product which GROWS the markets for all segments (new users will then upgrade to higher cost units for better performance).  Furthermore, it fosters competition and ensures the market leaders keep innovating and offering value.

[jadew]

You keep pushing the idea that it's food from the heavens, when I just showed you that it's not.

I say that NanoVNA works upto 300MHz, provided screenshot, you did not show anything that disproves that.

Ok... first of all, let's point out that you agree that it only works for 1/3 of the advertised bandwidth (which supports the points I was making on the actual topic of this thread). Second of all, I'm going to disagree with that too, because look at these harmonics: https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/attachment/1707/0/IMG_0564.JPG

That's a 10 MHz output signal from it. It might not mean anything when you're analyzing a linear, non-active device, but stray from that and it's gonna waste your time. By comparison, the $200 boat anchor has an extremely clean output (see attached).

Click those links, see for yourself. Also, it's marketed as a 900 MHz VNA, not a 300 MHz one, and no, it's not great under 300 MHz either.

Define great. Every VNA shall have specs same or better than industry leading boat anchors costing (new) > 2000$? Thats nonsense argument.

I think the beginning of this reply shows exactly what I mean. It doesn't have to match the boat anchor, but when I look at that output, "not great" is the nicest thing that comes to mind.

Regarding the $40 VNA, I'd like to underline the fact that you don't have a $40 VNA that works either, and yours can't be fixed.

NanoVNA works. Proof is all around the internet. Seems, you choose to ignore everything that do not match your beliefs and fallacies.

It doesn't work across the specified bandwidth, aka "doesn't work".

I actually got a 6 GHz VNA for ~$200 several years back. It was a fixer-upper but I got it working.

So even broken VNA was 5x times more expensive than 40$. You disproved your own claim that for 40$ there are better options. - There are not.

I never claimed that there are better options for $40, I claimed that for people willing to spend $40 for this, there are better options (for example, a $200 broken VNA, that may require some work). If anything, what I claim is that you can only produce garbage for $40.

Why do people who seemingly know the value of good and reliable test equipment, go for things like that, which are clearly poorly designed (if you can call them that), and which are destroying the market for genuine manufacturers who really want to make a quality product. It's like buying a caliper that has the accuracy of a ruler.

I believe that this is an incorrect assumption as there is no singular market for any product.  As other posters have noted, there is more than one market for test equipment, VNAs or whatever and to again repeat the previous sentiments, competition is always good.

The growth of low cost segment does not necessarily 1) affect any other segment nor 2) need to affect any other segment negatively.  A low cost offering introduces more people to the product which GROWS the markets for all segments (new users will then upgrade to higher cost units for better performance).  Furthermore, it fosters competition and ensures the market leaders keep innovating and offering value.

I'm inclined to disagree here. This is not the reason I started this thread, but the reason I mentioned NanoVNA specifically is because it has actually killed a tiny market segment I was targeting with one of my products. NanoVNA was launched about one month before my product was 100% ready, but by the time I was ready to hit the production button, it was too late and I realized it would have been a tremendous waste of money.

This is not the only time this has happened, and I'm sure I'm not the only small time manufacturer who faces this, so I would argue that not only it affects MANY segments negatively, but it completely kills competition in some areas and hinders innovation.

[langwadt]

You keep pushing the idea that it's food from the heavens, when I just showed you that it's not.

I say that NanoVNA works upto 300MHz, provided screenshot, you did not show anything that disproves that.

Ok... first of all, let's point out that you agree that it only works for 1/3 of the advertised bandwidth (which supports the points I was making on the actual topic of this thread). Second of all, I'm going to disagree with that too, because look at these harmonics: https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/attachment/1707/0/IMG_0564.JPG

That's a 10 MHz output signal from it. It might not mean anything when you're analyzing a linear, non-active device, but stray from that and it's gonna waste your time. By comparison, the $200 boat anchor has an extremely clean output (see attached).

Click those links, see for yourself. Also, it's marketed as a 900 MHz VNA, not a 300 MHz one, and no, it's not great under 300 MHz either.

Define great. Every VNA shall have specs same or better than industry leading boat anchors costing (new) > 2000$? Thats nonsense argument.

I think the beginning of this reply shows exactly what I mean. It doesn't have to match the boat anchor, but when I look at that output, "not great" is the nicest thing that comes to mind.

Regarding the $40 VNA, I'd like to underline the fact that you don't have a $40 VNA that works either, and yours can't be fixed.

NanoVNA works. Proof is all around the internet. Seems, you choose to ignore everything that do not match your beliefs and fallacies.

It doesn't work across the specified bandwidth, aka "doesn't work".

I actually got a 6 GHz VNA for ~$200 several years back. It was a fixer-upper but I got it working.

So even broken VNA was 5x times more expensive than 40$. You disproved your own claim that for 40$ there are better options. - There are not.

I never claimed that there are better options for $40, I claimed that for people willing to spend $40 for this, there are better options (for example, a $200 broken VNA, that may require some work). If anything, what I claim is that you can only produce garbage for $40.

Why do people who seemingly know the value of good and reliable test equipment, go for things like that, which are clearly poorly designed (if you can call them that), and which are destroying the market for genuine manufacturers who really want to make a quality product. It's like buying a caliper that has the accuracy of a ruler.

I believe that this is an incorrect assumption as there is no singular market for any product.  As other posters have noted, there is more than one market for test equipment, VNAs or whatever and to again repeat the previous sentiments, competition is always good.

The growth of low cost segment does not necessarily 1) affect any other segment nor 2) need to affect any other segment negatively.  A low cost offering introduces more people to the product which GROWS the markets for all segments (new users will then upgrade to higher cost units for better performance).  Furthermore, it fosters competition and ensures the market leaders keep innovating and offering value.

I'm inclined to disagree here. This is not the reason I started this thread, but the reason I mentioned NanoVNA specifically is because it has actually killed a tiny market segment I was targeting with one of my products. NanoVNA was launched about one month before my product was 100% ready, but by the time I was ready to hit the production button, it was too late and I realized it would have been a tremendous waste of money.

This is not the only time this has happened, and I'm sure I'm not the only small time manufacturer who faces this, so I would argue that not only it affects MANY segments negatively, but it completely kills competition in some areas and hinders innovation.

you lost, so NanoVNA  is not competition or innovation ??
 

[jadew]

you lost, so NanoVNA  is not competition or innovation ??

Not sure where you're going with this. It's not fair competition.

[ogden]

Ok... first of all, let's point out that you agree that it only works for 1/3 of the advertised bandwidth (which supports the points I was making on the actual topic of this thread).

No. Performance is specified for each frequency range separately:  Measurement range: 70dB (50kHz-300MHz), 50dB (300M-600MHz), 40dB (600M-900MHz));

Second of all, I'm going to disagree with that too, because look at these harmonics: https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/attachment/1707/0/IMG_0564.JPG

Right. Test signal is square wave. You correctly point out that it won't do any good with nonlinear RF devices. That is no secret, nearly every review points that out.

By comparison, the $200 boat anchor has an extremely clean output (see attached).

BS. Broken 200$ VNA is not VNA until fixed. How much it cost in good condition?

I never claimed that there are better options for $40

Short memory? See for yourself:

Nah. For a hobbyist without lots of money the alternative is NO test equipment.

That is not true. Someone who's willing to use a VNA that doesn't work, has plenty of better options in the used/broken market.

[langwadt]

you lost, so NanoVNA  is not competition or innovation ??

Not sure where you're going with this. It's not fair competition.

what part is not fair competition?

[jadew]

you lost, so NanoVNA  is not competition or innovation ??

Not sure where you're going with this. It's not fair competition.

what part is not fair competition?

The part where they got so many sales because they lied about the specs. If a local company would sell you shit and said it's roses, it would go out of business, even if people figured it out 1 year from now. That's not the case with these sort of products tho. These sellers' goals don't extend past getting your money, because once that's done, you're stuck with it, regardless if it does what it's claiming to do or not.


Edit: The unfair competition comes from the different application of the law I guess, but that doesn't mean you can just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there, it's something you have to find a solution for, and so far I haven't heard any.

[ogden]

what part is not fair competition?

The part where they got so many sales because they lied about the specs. If a local company would sell you shit and said it's roses, it would go out of business

LOL. I wonder - why Rolex is not out of business then?

[jadew]

what part is not fair competition?

The part where they got so many sales because they lied about the specs. If a local company would sell you shit and said it's roses, it would go out of business

LOL. I wonder - why Rolex is not out of business then?

I'm willing to bet Rolex watches are working within spec. Are you suggesting they're lying about something?

[ogden]

what part is not fair competition?

The part where they got so many sales because they lied about the specs. If a local company would sell you shit and said it's roses, it would go out of business

LOL. I wonder - why Rolex is not out of business then?

I'm willing to bet Rolex watches are working within spec. Are you suggesting they're lying about something?

No. I am suggesting that you are wrong. There are so many Rolex fakes coming from .cn yet they do not even seem to be concerned, not to mention that they are doing pretty well. Search "rolexable watch" or "custom logo watch" in alixpress, you will see.

[blacksheeplogic]

what I claim is that you can only produce garbage for $40.
....

I'm inclined to disagree here. This is not the reason I started this thread, but the reason I mentioned NanoVNA specifically is because it has actually killed a tiny market segment I was targeting with one of my products. NanoVNA was launched about one month before my product was 100% ready, but by the time I was ready to hit the production button, it was too late and I realized it would have been a tremendous waste of money.

This is not the only time this has happened, and I'm sure I'm not the only small time manufacturer who faces this, so I would argue that not only it affects MANY segments negatively, but it completely kills competition in some areas and hinders innovation.

Couple of points:
1. If the $40 widget does all that is needed (meets the user requirements), it's useful and money well spent.
2. So they killed your yet to be released product because they came out with a widget for the same market you wanted to sell your widget in. It's not their fault your widget failed and in a free market they are not obliged to consider the impact of their product on your business. You developed a product that got crushed by the competition and staring a thread to blame the Chinese for your products failure archives what?

Perhaps you could have added value, or differentiated your widget, perhaps priced it differently, thought about an expanded market, I don't know you've not made your case why your product should have been given special consideration or even why it's better than the $40 widget. It's tough when you misjudged the opportunity and price point but you seem to be implying the need for protectionism in the market because in this case it woulds suite you and shifting the blame away from where it really belongs.

[jadew]

Couple of points:
1. If the $40 widget does all that is needed (meets the user requirements), it's useful and money well spent.

I see, so if I tell you I'm selling you a Ferrari, but instead you get a moped, it's ok, because it turns out you only wanted to get to work?

2. So they killed your yet to be released product because they came out with a widget for the same market you wanted to sell your widget in. It's not their fault your widget failed and in a free market they are not obliged to consider the impact of their product on your business. You developed a product that got crushed by the competition and staring a thread to blame the Chinese for your products failure archives what?

I'm not blaming anyone (maybe the lawmakers a little), I'm trying to find a solution.

Perhaps you could have added value, or differentiated your widget, perhaps priced it differently, thought about an expanded market, I don't know you've not made your case why your product should have been given special consideration or even why it's better than the $40 widget. It's tough when you misjudged the opportunity and price point but you seem to be implying the need for protectionism in the market because in this case it woulds suite you and shifting the blame away from where it really belongs.

Pretty sure I made that point several times already. Anyway, I invite you to re-read the thread and formulate a rebuttal for my points before attacking whatever you think I'm doing, because your answer implies that this is a level playing field, which I have already proven that it is not.

[langwadt]

Couple of points:
1. If the $40 widget does all that is needed (meets the user requirements), it's useful and money well spent.

I see, so if I tell you I'm selling you a Ferrari, but instead you get a moped, it's ok, because it turns out you only wanted to get to work?

none expects to get a Ferrari for the price of a moped, so if they get a moped for the price of a moped and all they needed was a moped everyone is happy except the Ferrari dealer who was never in contention anyway

[CatalinaWOW]

I don't understand the complaint.  Apparently you (almost) have a product which does something similar to the nanoVNA, which you would have brought to market at some price higher than the nanoVNA.

If your assertions are true, that your product is far superior to the nanoVNA, your product should compete well.  As long as it is priced to be in the range of the target market. 

Traditional VNAs are targeted towards companies with large measurement budgets and will never be purchased new by hams and other hobby people (with the occasional exception of a very wealthy dilettante).  Broken VNAs require luck and skill and time to be brought into operation.  I, for example, have a very good VNA that was acquired for virtually nothing.  But it will require a few hundred dollars of cables and other parts to even reach the point of turning on and finding out if it works.  Thus this path to very low cost will be viable only to a very few fortunate people such as yourself.  But it does indicate a general price range that might generate quite a few sales.

So why haven't you tried marketing your magic widget?  Even as a test by posting a thread here with the specifications of your device, some pictures of your prototype and some test results and then asking how much interest there is in buying at the proposed price point.  You seem to have given up on your product without really trying, and are blaming the Chinese for your retreat.  Your complaint is only partially legitimate.  At worst they have only taken a portion of the bottom end out of your market.  Of course you have been warned in this thread that V3 is on the way, and it may take a much bigger chunk.  If you wait long enough your market opportunity could disappear completely.

Your assertion that the nanoVNA claims to be more than it is has some merit, but the market usually sorts these things out very quickly.  Your marketing could very easily show the areas of superiority of your widget, and your claims of superiority will be quickly tested by several on this forum and in other venues.  Those who need the added performance will pay more to get it.  The only question is whether they will pay as much more as you think they should, and more importantly, enough more to let you profit on your device.

There are markets for all kinds of measuring instruments.  I own and use rulers, steel rules, cheap calipers, good calipers, cheap micrometers and good micrometers.  All measure distance.  All do a useful job even though the best ones have accuracy roughly three orders of magnitude better than the worst.    Your device per your description fits in this range of measurement quality, and could well have a market.

[jadew]

@CatalinaWOW, your analysis is correct, with one exception, and I agree with the rest (hopefully you don't edit it to something silly ).

The exception is that I have tested the waters. And the answer was clear, and so was the reason.

To remove all ambiguity, and hopefully switch the discussion back on topic (finding a solution for this situation), the device in question was a simple 2.9 GHz tracking generator that met the linearity and spectral purity specifications of the 85640A. So it was targeted at a subsection of the market the NanoVNA is targeting.

Regarding pricing... let's just say that single components in that device are more expensive than the shipped NanoVNA. You simply can't do RF on the cheap - I tried.

That said, I'm not blaming anyone, contrary to what it was suggested by some posters here. I think everyone does what feels normal to them and this is the situation we're in. This includes local manufacturers, chinese manufactures, buyers and even law makers. Also, while I do get pissed off occasionally when things don't pan out, I don't hold grudges and if tomorrow it would make sense for me to, for example, work for NanoVNA or any product that inconveniences me, I would.


So to clarify, the "complaint", or better yet, the problem that I'd like to find a solution for, is that manufacturers from this side of the pond, are competing against some practices against which it's very difficult to compete, while being held back by laws (that I honestly find normal to a degree).

I think that finding the answer to this puzzle, of how to compete in this situation, is key to a success story in today's economy.

[ogden]

To remove all ambiguity, and hopefully switch the discussion back on topic (finding a solution for this situation), the device in question was a simple 2.9 GHz tracking generator that met the linearity and spectral purity specifications of the 85640A. So it was targeted at a subsection of the market the NanoVNA is targeting.

Tracking generator is very specific product for advanced (existing or future) users of spectrum analyzer who knows what they are doing. Such knowledgeable "customer" with much deeper than 40$ pockets, would never trade proper spectrum analyzer with quality tracking generator for something like NanoVNA. You have to find another excuse for failure of your product.

So to clarify, the "complaint", or better yet, the problem that I'd like to find a solution for, is that manufacturers from this side of the pond, are competing against some practices against which it's very difficult to compete, while being held back by laws (that I honestly find normal to a degree).

Bullshit. Customers of test equipment are not like those who are easily influenced by TV commercials. It is already said - people are not stupid. Also if 40$ VNA does not work but your device does - then why you are whining? NanoVNA is training ground for your future customers!

[jadew]

To remove all ambiguity, and hopefully switch the discussion back on topic (finding a solution for this situation), the device in question was a simple 2.9 GHz tracking generator that met the linearity and spectral purity specifications of the 85640A. So it was targeted at a subsection of the market the NanoVNA is targeting.

Tracking generator is very specific product for advanced (existing or future) users of spectrum analyzer who knows what they are doing. Such knowledgeable "customer" with much deeper than 40$ pockets, would never trade proper spectrum analyzer with quality tracking generator for something like NanoVNA. You have to find another excuse for failure of your product.

Don't know why you keep ignoring what I say I literally mentioned in the previous post that I did the market research prior to going into production. And I wouldn't say the product failed, because I'm a happy user, it just didn't go into production because of <Stack overflow. Infinite recursion detected>.


Edit:

So to clarify, the "complaint", or better yet, the problem that I'd like to find a solution for, is that manufacturers from this side of the pond, are competing against some practices against which it's very difficult to compete, while being held back by laws (that I honestly find normal to a degree).

Bullshit. Customers of test equipment are not like those who are easily influenced by TV commercials. It is already said - people are not stupid. Also if 40$ VNA does not work but your device does - then why you are whining? NanoVNA is training ground for your future customers!

That's what I thought too, but it's clearly a bad assumption. I've been following this phenomenon a lot and I can give you at least 5 other examples from the top of my head, but I don't want to go on another tangent like the one we just finished (I hope).

Edit 2:
In fact, let me state that I've been guilty of this myself, and I still can't fully understand why.

[Kilrah]

Exactly. If your device IS significantly better then show that it is and that might justify the price difference.

Again I maintain it's probably not the same market entirely. The customers for a $40 VNA will expect it to have severe limitations, if they buy it it's either that they feel that'll do for them anyway, or just that there is no better option that's viable for them becasue the next step up is multiple thousands - in which case your device could be filling a gap.

And for many (most) people an old used item is not an option, especially if in need of repair.

Don't know why you keep ignoring what I say I literally mentioned in the previous post that I did the market research prior to going into production.

The fact you've done a market research doesn't mean you came to the correct conclusions at the end of it

[VK3DRB]

Most people, including I would guess most of the people here, want more for less and in so doing turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, sweatshops and exploitation as long as they can get more stuff for themselves. India and China are basket cases of forced child labour so their rich can get richer, and we in the west can enjoy something for next to nothing. In Australia, we are seeing rich CEOs being exposed for robbing their lowly paid workers of their basic entitlements.

We need to think twice before buying some test gear and other electronics from China. Maybe there should be a global good corporate citizen register, so we can avoid dealing with those those who are dodgy; and support those who care for the environment and their employees; and make a good quality product that they innovated (ie: not made with stolen IP).

There is one company at least in the USA that recently shined a light on generosity...

[CatalinaWOW]

@CatalinaWOW, your analysis is correct, with one exception, and I agree with the rest (hopefully you don't edit it to something silly ).

The exception is that I have tested the waters. And the answer was clear, and so was the reason.

To remove all ambiguity, and hopefully switch the discussion back on topic (finding a solution for this situation), the device in question was a simple 2.9 GHz tracking generator that met the linearity and spectral purity specifications of the 85640A. So it was targeted at a subsection of the market the NanoVNA is targeting.

Regarding pricing... let's just say that single components in that device are more expensive than the shipped NanoVNA. You simply can't do RF on the cheap - I tried.

That said, I'm not blaming anyone, contrary to what it was suggested by some posters here. I think everyone does what feels normal to them and this is the situation we're in. This includes local manufacturers, chinese manufactures, buyers and even law makers. Also, while I do get pissed off occasionally when things don't pan out, I don't hold grudges and if tomorrow it would make sense for me to, for example, work for NanoVNA or any product that inconveniences me, I would.


So to clarify, the "complaint", or better yet, the problem that I'd like to find a solution for, is that manufacturers from this side of the pond, are competing against some practices against which it's very difficult to compete, while being held back by laws (that I honestly find normal to a degree).

I think that finding the answer to this puzzle, of how to compete in this situation, is key to a success story in today's economy.

OK.  There are still two parts of this I don't understand.

First.  Parts cost exceeds $40.  Sure.  I don't know your BOM, or how you determined BOM cost.  There may be opportunity to cooperate rather than fight by using Chinese components.  They do have labor cost and environmental law advantages which makes them viable at lower price points.  And business models that lets you get OEM prices at small lot quantities.  And your sales price doesn't have to be $40.  It has to be a value proposition for someone who wants your tracking generator.  I don't know what methods you used for your market research so can't comment, but you haven't revealed anything which makes your product impossible.

Second is similar to first.  Join most other western manufacturers and have your widget manufactured in China.  Again to get your costs down. 


Ability to compete in this economy in my opinion requires three elements.  First, a realization that first rate brains are a worldwide commodity, and that your intellectual labor will be competing with those willing to work for less than western world salaries.  This means that your business model must either allow much more efficient use of that intellectual labor due to your unique knowledge or experience or willingness to compete on price.   Second, there will be a period of very unfair competition as low cost economies have less stringent requirements on a number of cost elements (environmental, work protection .... ) in all phases from raw materials to final assembly and test.  As these economies become more mature the playing field will level somewhat, but probably still by tilted by different opinions on what is fair and just.  The only way I know to compete with this is to join it, but buying material, sub-assys and so on in those markets.  And finally an intense focus on small, unique markets that don't bring on the full force of competition.    Those of us in this forum are fortunate.  Almost everything we do meets this requirement by definition.  Just be glad your product isn't a sweatshirt or a coffee maker.

A fourth element may exist.  We have it so good in our western economies (even here in the US with our patchy safety nets derided by most of Europe and the ex British empire) that it is hard to be as motivated as those who are one generation away from starvation level farming.  It is worth thinking about whether this applies.