Though I like that the AP-1200 has been updated, it handles more weight and is more rigid, all good. But the added weight makes it less portable. However, the AP-1600 is more of an observatory mount than the AP-1200 because of this weight. That is fine and I think again, a good idea.

I think that the AP-900 is the medium capacity mount that doubles as a portable mount, size and weight make it great for that. Adding weight to this mount, not as good of an idea. If it gets as heavy as the AP-1200, then it becomes less adapt as a mobile platform. Making the AP-900 better would be very nice, but adding too much weight would not be.

The loss of the AP11-1200 puts a big gap between the capacity of the AP-900 and the AP-3600. I would have thought the AP-1600 would have just be added to the line up. But I do understand that too many models is not good and it interferes with production by making the runs further apart, so it is understandable why it was eliminated.

Still, I think there is a gap that would be nice to fill between the AP-900 and AP-1600. I would just hope the AP-900 does not get replaced by a mount that places a bigger gap between the AP-Mach1 and the AP-900, this too would not be optimal in my opinion.

Of course a manufacturer must produce what the consumer demands and that is something that those in charge must determine and produce. AP has always been good at recognizing what was in demand, so I guess they will see the need and fill it.
Floyd