La Marzocco GS3 Disappointment - Page 4

[Teme]

..for a machine expected to sell in the tens of thousands

This is not true. LM produces just over 2000 machines annually of which over 90% are of the full commercial models.

...the GS3 is widely unavailable, has some reliability issues...

The availability in Europe is getting a lot better. Afaik, the delays in the US are caused by the recently changed regulations, not LM. What are the reliability issues?

Br,
Teme

[Richard]

Afaik, the delays in the US are caused by the recently changed regulations, not LM.

Recently someone with whom I was in conversation pointed out that ESI is now owned by Franke and was wondering what motivation Franke can possibly have to import, market, and sell the GS/3 direct to consumers and then provide support to those same purchasers. Without having any factual information, I must say the (non)availability in the U.S. is perhaps not so simple as some might suggest.

[Teme]

Recently someone with whom I was in conversation pointed out that ESI is now owned by Franke and was wondering what motivation Franke can possibly have to import, market, and sell the GS/3 direct to consumers and then provide support to those same purchasers. Without having any factual information, I must say the (non)availability in the U.S. is perhaps not so simple as some might suggest.

They don't have to sell it directly to customers themselves if they don't want to. But what would be the point of building a machine and then not selling it?

Br,
Teme

[Marshall]

Without having any factual information, I must say the (non)availability in the U.S. is perhaps not so simple as some might suggest.

When one has no factual information, it is usually a good time not to say anything. Franke has owned ESI for a couple of years. The machine was brought to market-ready design stage primarily by Bill Crossland, an American, under the Franke regime. Kent Bakke came all the way from Seattle to Long Beach last summer just to demonstrate the machine for consumers at the SCAA Homecoming, and, of course, Bill and Kent were on hand in Long Beach for the May 2007 Conference to answer questions from one and all (we asked a lot).

LM has jumped through the hoops for NSF certification in the U.S. (no simple feat), which was granted a few months ago. UL is all that remains. Franke/ESI/LM is happily selling the GS3 to consumers throughout the rest of the world.

I am as unhappy about the delays as anyone, but, this kind of speculation is really out of hand.

[boar_d_laze]

I guess I confused LM's sales expectations with something else., believing they expected to sell more than 1,500 units worldwide, annually. Clearly erroneous. Nevertheless, my mistake does alter the fact that kludgey "fixes" reveal the GS3 to be a work in progress.

Roxemary's machine was rendered unreliable by the poor fit of the tray. I'm sure I've read of several other instances where GS3s did not function up to expectation for one reason or another, but cannot point to any examples. On the other hand, GS3 inspires great loyalty at least among some owners.

That LM is starting to expand sales in Europe does not necessarily mean much for North America in general or the U.S. specifically. I've dealt with UL. I find LM's story as told here thin -- unless they are considering other changes and have not submitted a unit for testing they are willing to warranty as a final design. That would makes sense at least. Furthermore, the U.S. is a unique market when it comes products liability and warranty of merchantability. LM may be listening to their attorneys regarding vulnerability to suit if they sell an unfinished design. That also makes sense.

The GS3 is, at least at this point, sui generis. I doubt Franke is really worried about competition since they have nothing similar under any name.

Rich

PS My part in this thread is close enough to quibbling that I'm done. I don't mean to attack LM or the GS3 with my suggestion that its unavailability and teething problems are good reasons to consider other machines.

[Psyd]

When one has no factual information, it is usually a good time not to say anything.

I am as unhappy about the delays as anyone, but, this kind of speculation is really out of hand.

Speculation will always be nurtured by the lack of facts. If there were facts to had, there would be no soil for speculation such as this to take root.
Speculation has gotten out of hand because no one is supplying the facts in any useful way. For good or for ill, it's human nature.

Do you know how Lamborghini got into the car business? Lamborghini got rich making tractors, and as a rich, married playboy with several mistresses, bought a Ferrari. But he couldn't get it to run right, and got the runaround from the Ferrari underlings. He ambushed old man Ferrari at a party and complained. Ferrari told him, "Looks fine to me."

Enzo said a bit more than that. To be clear, Enzo was in the business of racing cars, and produced the street cars to support that end, and Ferrucio was a farm implement (and air conditioning) manufacturer, and Enzo wasn't about to get schooled by him (publicly, mind you) at his own party. While Ferrucio may have had some points, this was neither the time nor the place to bring them up, and Enzo had some of the best automotive engineers in the business building cars for him. Ferraris are built to race, and race cars are finicky, by their very nature. If you want a tractor, by all means, get a tractor, but if you want a race car, by all means drive it and maintain it like a race car. Some people were not meant to drive race cars. Somewhat of a paraphrase of what Enzo told Ferro at the party.
I think that it's telling that Lambo has never (ever) in it's history, supported any racing, and have never supported their cars in any racing.
There never was anything wrong with the Ferraris, and there is no parallel regarding 'Italian engineering' here. Ferraris are finicky, finely tune race cars. La Marzocco is making an espresso machine.

[another_jim]

Speculation will always be nurtured by the lack of facts. If there were facts to had, there would be no soil for speculation such as this to take root.

I think speculation is mostly caused when the effect is out of proportion with the cause. Nobody wants to hear that certification trivialities are delaying their enjoyment by a year and a half. Such a deprivation demands a more stately cause, which speculation supplies.

[Psyd]

I think speculation is mostly caused when the effect is out of proportion with the cause. Nobody wants to hear that certification trivialities are delaying their enjoyment by a year and a half. Such a deprivation demands a more stately cause, which speculation supplies.

This may be true, but if the word were out that LM had submitted in March, and the reply in June as that they had to have a UL stamp on the heating element before they could get their boiler done, and the paperwork had gone to the man. of the HE, and they had said that it would be end of July before they could get it ready, and that they'd be on vacay til Sept, and that this process would take til the end of November, and that the UL folks would be out of the office for December and the first week of June, and that once LM got the stamp from the HE man. that they could re-submit and that would probably happen in February, and they'd get it back and probably start shipping units in the US by April of next year, (wheew!) the answer to the question, "Why isn't LM shipping the GS3 in the US?" would be, "Paperwork". And folk's'd deal with that.
Nature abhors a vacuum, but gossips love 'em.
The more stately speculation thrives simply because the details of the certification trivialities are vague, therefore mysterious. If there were some office clerk at LM, or someone that was in contact with that clerk, supplying the trivialities of the process, every outlandish speculation could be quickly and quietly quashed with a link to that thread.

[Marshall]

Me, being overly optimistic a year ago (with photo): http://www.home-barista.com/forums/prototype-la-marzocco-gs3-pros-perspective-t759-240.html#17457

[Psyd]

Me, being overly optimistic a year ago (with photo):

Shoulda grabbed it and ran while you were that close! ; >

[Niko]

I think they make them close to 100lbs just for that reason!

[Rosemary]

I am very relieved to say I phoned Greg at Allpress this morning and they are putting the matter right and replacing the machine. I said I was happy to wait for the next shipment in September so after clearance etc am looking at roughly mid September. I will let you know of the baby's arrival. Allpress have been very supportive in resolving this problem.

Rosemary

[boar_d_laze]

Ro

Somehow the concept of "Rosemary's Baby" is disquieting. In all seriousness, I'm happy you're getting a new machine, and trust it will be the machine you hoped when you purchased it. I'm also relieved that someone, somewhere in the chain took responsibility for replacement.

Rich

[boar_d_laze]

Meanwhile, back on the road paved with good intentions ...

A.
UL is not a giant bureaucracy throwing up immense "paperwork" obstacles and delays in a manufacturer's path "because it can." It's a private business existing on fees paid by the voluntary participation of manufacturers desiring a UL seal for their products.

I've never dealt with them directly. As a refugee from high-end audio, I assisted someone running a couple of products through.

The process works like this:

1) A manufacturer fills out a request form including some basic description. UL responds and requests a detailed description and plans, sometimes requesting a preliminary evaluation fee. The manufacturer sends what UL requires. UL assigns an engineer who creates a testing proposal. Usually within a couple of weeks, UL sends the manufacturer a description of what type of testing will be required, an estimate of how long testing will take, and the price. UL will listen to time/money negotiation but unless the manufacturer is willing to pay beaucoup bucks for a slightly shortened time, it's "take it or leave it." If the manufacturer agrees, the manufacturer sends as many samples as necessary to UL, UL puts together a team, and the team tests. UL issues a final report detailing the tests and results, and an analysis. If the product passes, certification is issued within a few weeks, and the manufacturer can start using those little stick-ons.

Paper is moved efficiently. UL seldom underestimates time for testing, and never by much. It's a for profit business, extra time costs the money formerly known as profit. Screw ups cost them customers. I've heard that start to finish that the typical start to finish time for fairly complicated products has increased to 180 from 120 days.

2) If the product fails, and the manufacturer still wants certification the manufacturer can (a) redesign -- sometimes with advice from the UL team; (b) rebuild; and (c) resubmit. UL requires resubmission and testing for any significant design change, or they'll yank certification.

B.
If there are long delays in the UL process, look to 2(a) and (b) as the probable bottleneck. As long as the ball is in UL's court, things run on a fairly definite time table.

Admittedly, I don't KNOW what's going on "to a metaphysical level of epistemic certainty" (John McLaughlin). Given UL's straightforward nature, it seems unlikely LM is caught in some limbo, not mostly of their own making. The story, as told, "we sent it in, we haven't heard back, we have no idea how long it's going to take," is implausible -- not because I'm so disappointed by the delay, but because that just isn't how UL works. It's as though the bank told me my account is overdrawn because a US Treasury check came back NSF. Not impossible -- just very, very unlikely.

There's no statute requiring UL approval to sell in the USA. Manufacturers (and distributors) seek it because (a) it's an opportunity to get a second, expert, pair of eyes focused on the safety of a product; (b) the weight U.S. consumers assign it, and (c) it's some protection -- or at least "a mitigating factor" -- in PL law suits. In turn, consumers and juries give it weight because UL testing is comprehensive. Let us assume LM's motive is a, and applaud them for waiting for UL approval before entering the U.S. market. Brava. Molta brava.

C.
FWIW, The point of the Lamborghini/Ferrari story, obscured by poor writing, had nothing to do with the relative merits of the cars. Despite the absolute superiority of their race machines, Ferrari created a competitor in that part of the business where Ferrari actually made their money. They refused to humor OP consumers, who not only couldn't get their street machines to work right, but couldn't get the kind of hand-holding high zoot buyers expect. LM's operation in the commercial and residential markets appear similar to Ferrari's in some ways.

D.
I promise not to compare Hasselblad to Pentax, or dis Manley amps.

Rich

[Psyd]

As a refugee from high-end audio

This explains a bit about your point of view!

OK, that was cruel. As a sound designer, I had to lash out! ' >

Admittedly, I don't KNOW what's going on "to a metaphysical level of epistemic certainty" (John McLaughlin). Given UL's straightforward nature, it seems unlikely LM is caught in some limbo, not mostly of their own making.

There is that speculation in lieu of facts again. While Rich's suppositions sound imminently plausible, and may actually reflect exactly what is going on with LM, we won't know if his version or other versions (and those yet to come) are correct, and LM puts their home barista consumer image in the hands of anyone who wishes to ponder a guess as to why they won't let us all have a GS3. A tiny bit more transparency would put this mystery to rest. In the harsh light of the 'stonewalling' that they're doing (yeah, that' is full-on devil's advocate mode there), the least interesting explanation is, well, the least interesting. The one with intrigue and villainy is going to get the most play. Humans are simple, easy creatures, for the most part.

C.
FWIW, The point of the Lamborghini/Ferrari story had nothing to do with the relative merits of the cars. Despite the absolute superiority of their race machines, Ferrari created a competitor in that part of the business where Ferrari actually made their money. They refused to humor OP consumers, who not only couldn't get their street machines to work right, but couldn't get the kind of hand-holding high zoot buyers expect. LM's operation in the commercial and residential markets appear similar to Ferrari's in some ways.

Not exactly. Ferrari made race cars and sold them because folks wanted race cars. When they complained (and I gotta say, Enzo was a proud Italian car racer) in front of his competition and his peers at a social function that Enzo was footing the bill for, having no experience in the business, Enzo was less than accommodating.
The comparison is not apples for apples. If I were to take am FB80 to my house and run a bucket into the water inlet, turn it on a half hour before I pulled my shots, never clean it or backflush it, and then complain to LM that my machine wasn't as good as my Gaggia that I've had for years and treated the same way, I'd be Ferro and LM would be Enzo. This is why Ferro got the cold shoulder. And, the 'modification' that he made with a tractor clutch added a kilo and a half to the curb weight of the race car that he had purchased, to make it quieter. This is a criminal act in racing, but an understandable mod for a grocery-getter.
A lot of the 'history' of Ferrari vs. Lambo is legend, some is myth, very little is fact anymore, and even that is dependent of which side of the coin you look from.
Ferrari's prancing pony logo is the most recognised commercial logo on the face of the planet, and second only to Manchester United as a recognised sports logo. Something tells me that Enzo wasn't worried about Lamborghinis taking over the world.

[Marshall]

Ferrari's prancing pony logo is the most recognised commercial logo on the face of the planet, and second only to Manchester United as a recognised sports logo. Something tells me that Enzo wasn't worried about Lamborghinis taking over the world.

It's not even the most recognized car logo (Mercedes Benz's star is). I'm not sure where Ferrari ranks, but it's waaay behind Coca-Cola and a bunch of other marks.

Are we getting far enough off topic?

Marshall (does trademark and marketing law)

[Psyd]

It's not even the most recognized car logo (Mercedes Benz's star is).

Are we getting far enough off topic?

I should have added that that information was a few years old (cheez, could it be ten? time flies). This info was passed on by a patent lawyer, too, and I should say that at the time, he thought it was correct. I bow to your more recent information. The point being that it is still one of the most powerful brands on earth, regardless of where it falls in the top ten, and few can name the animal adorning the Lambo logo. Probably more here than on some other fora.
Since you've been following the thread, you should be right up on how we got here. This story was supposed to indicate that LM's treatment of the HB'ers waiting for the GS3 is really parallel to the Lambo/Ferrari spat back in the day, and indicative of high-end Italian engineering or sales/service practices (?), as well as indicate a shift in the wind which might send a manufacturer on the rocks of a competitor.
It was on topic, as the topic had expanded to discuss these aspects of the manufacturer in question, and their dealings with their customers. The Ferrari/Lambourghini story was an analogy, I was just pointing pout where the analogy was, well, not analogous.

[boar_d_laze]

What's a sound designer?

FWIW, I was "Pure Logic," which was mostly high-end audio cable. Mostly. You're either old enough to remember or you're not. It was pretty much before the internet.

IThe point being that [Ferrari] is still one of the most powerful brands on earth, regardless of where it falls in the top ten, and few can name the animal adorning the Lambo logo.

Bull.

Love those straight lines,
Rich

[cannonfodder]

While I do enjoy a side point in a thread now and then, as one of the moderators I feel compelled to ask that we drift back to the topic. A quick read back over the thread shows we have gone from discussing Rosemarie's GS3 delivery disappointment to discussing a problem with someone else's rotary pump, conspiracy theories, auto manufacturers, trademark logo's and audio equipment.

So back to the original issue, I am pleased that your vendor is working with you and getting a replacement GS3 for you. Finding an online vendor that sells a shiny box is easy, finding one that goes the extra mile in today's market to make things right is worth their weight in gold, or Panama Esmeralda.

It would be curious to find out if your replacement machine has the same 'machined out' drip tray holes. Did I understand your comment correctly; when your steam boiler fills the water tap opens and drains the boiler? The fix was to disconnect it and wait until a programming update is released to fix the bug? It sounds like LM needs to revisit the QC on the GS3 production line.

[Ken Fox]

While I do enjoy a side point in a thread now and then, as one of the moderators I feel compelled to ask that we drift back to the topic. A quick read back over the thread shows we have gone from discussing Rosemarie's GS3 delivery disappointment to discussing a problem with someone else's rotary pump, conspiracy theories, auto manufacturers, trademark logo's and audio equipment.

So back to the original issue, I am pleased that your vendor is working with you and getting a replacement GS3 for you. Finding an online vendor that sells a shiny box is easy, finding one that goes the extra mile in today's market to make things right is worth their weight in gold, or Panama Esmeralda.

It would be curious to find out if your replacement machine has the same 'machined out' drip tray holes. Did I understand your comment correctly; when your steam boiler fills the water tap opens and drains the boiler? The fix was to disconnect it and wait until a programming update is released to fix the bug? It sounds like LM needs to revisit the QC on the GS3 production line.

Dave,

You raise some good points. Among them (ok, it is hidden) is an important issue that may merit being split off from this thread: to what extent do we want our espresso machines to be "electronic wonders," and to what extent do we want them to be fairly simple electro-mechanical devices that we can coax good shots out of?

The GS3 strikes me as the current champion electronic marvel. It purports to take a lot of the variability out of shotmaking by controlling shot temperatures and other factors. On the other side are simpler machines that with a bit of effort can produce (presumably) equivalent shots. On the plus side, the GS3 does this sort of stuff for you, and on the minus side it has more fancy stuff inside that can break.

Many owners have modified their machines will all sorts of add on devices that make their shotmaking experience (perhaps) more repeatable. These hackers, of which I am one, are plodding a middle ground between, say, a stock Silvia and a GS3.

Speaking for myself, I prefer the more basic approach, as I know that I can compensate for the deficiencies of the machine myself, and with a simple machine, will have something I can always fix when it breaks and will not be put in a position later with a failing machine needing a $1000 brainboard replacement which will cause me to decide whether or not it is worth repairing my machine; if I am the brainboard, then the machine is always fixable for a reasonable price.

Others may come down on this issue differently, and perhaps it merits further discussion.

ken