I lurk here a lot, but I don't usually feel like I have more to add to the discussion that what has already been said by others. I actually had to make an account for this one. When a company makes marketing decisions, they craft the narrative that will go along with it. Sometimes they even believe it, but that part is 100% optional. Does it become "truth", simply because it is the official position of the company? Does "New and Improved" really mean that something is really new, or that it will really do anything noticeably better? There are two old sayings that come to mind about this situation. The first is: "Who are you gonna believe... me, or your lyin' eyes?" The second is, "Don't p*** on my head and tell me it's raining."
We can see and feel that this Curado is not what the old ones were. We're not stupid. So the question many of you should really be asking is, If you totally cheapen a well-known product, to the point that it's something totally different, is it really still the same product? Or is it a new, lower-end product, riding on the popularity of the old name? What Shimano just did was give a bunch of other brands a free shot at their reputation and brand loyalty. If you doubt it, go look what happened when GM re-packaged a Chevy Cavalier and called it a Cadillac (Cimarron) - and make sure and look at how much that move helped BMW, Volvo, and Audi. I know Shimano has always had their low-end weekender products. But this time they cannibalized perhaps the most well-known and respected name in the industry. Customers don't forgive that.
And don't tell me about "platform", or that this material is "just as good" as the other. If it was really better, they would have given it a new name, and sold it at a higher price. They made it a lot cheaper, and then gave it a slightly lower price. We're supposed to be so happy about getting a genuine Curado for 20 bucks less, that we will buy them in mass quantities and say Thank You.
Good luck with that.
