Meade/Celestron...possible solutions?

I agree, from personal experience, that the majority of Meade and Celestron's low-end scopes are basically junk. Furthermore, and perhaps even more egregious, are the outrageous magnification claims made on the boxes...which trumpet magnitudes to the tune of 500 power or so. In addition, the box is adorned with beautiful, misleading photographs of planets and star fields implying that you'll see the same with your included, virtually useless 4mm eyepiece and the omnipresent, plastic 3xbarlow. That said, here is my question. From a business standpoint what favorable solutions do Meade and Celestron have? Several posters provided data indicated the bulk of sales/revenue from low-end merchandise. Does anyone believe that by increasing the quality/price of their basic scopes that revenue could be maintained? If not should they simply fall on their swords for the love of astronomy? Should they downsize their workforce and specialize in high-end optics? I completely agree with the criticisms leveled, and abhor cheap, mass produced, unreliable junk. However, given the nature of an economic market I'm wondering what, if anything, people would propose be changed? Thanks.

As a consumer and amateur astronomer contemplating a new scope purchase, what I want is a working, well made instrument that I can rely on. I want optics that are diffraction limited with a very sturdy mount. I want "standard features" included in the base price (dew shield, anti vibration pads, wedge, adequate covers or protection for the scope. Don't undersize anything to economize. Perhaps one good quality low power eyepiece. I want the scope to perform as advertised and meet theoritical limits. And, most of all, I want the mfg. to stand behind the product and be accessable. I don't want constant busy signals when I call and I don't want to spend a long time on hold and I don't want to leave a message for them to call me back. I want to speak to a live body. If I feel the price to obtain these features is fair, I will pay it. If I am charged a lesser price and have to spend more to get what should have been included in the first place, well, that is "smoke and mirrors".

Not much to be done. They are giving the customers what they want -- a cheap telescope. Keep in mind that $100 scope has to have a profit in it for Meade and a profit for the retailer. Not much money left for quality. If they made them any better, they'd be more expensive and they'd sell a lot fewer. The people would buy someone else's cheap scope.

Many parents buy these things because the kid _really, really_ wants a scope. But last week, he _really, really_ wanted something else in which he has now lost interest. Next week it will be something different. How much should they spend on something that is likely to end up in the closet anyway?

About the only change I see necessary is that the manufacturers should be prevented from lying on the box. No Hubble pictures. In that respect, Meade is _much_ worse than Celestron.