It's hard to say what would constitute a high end consumer printer, I haven't given it enough thought, but I do know that printers still have a lot of gremlins and the same people willing to overpay for macs would probably be willing to spend money on a printer that had it's interface and integration perfected. Things like paper and ink management, auto power-on off, silent operation, managing different paper stocks etc etc. But for reasons mentioned elsewhere, I'll admitt it's dicey.
As for scanners and digital still and/or video, there's a lot of room in those markets for Apple. You'll recall that what hurt Polaroid the most is having too much film based focus. Digital cameras killed them because they weren't ready with a digital line-up of their own. The market moved on and they didn't join it, they didn't go bankrupt selling digital cameras, they went bankrupt not having digital cameras to sell. Big difference there. While cameras will supplant much of the need for scanning, there's still a lot of copying that needs doing, especially text and OCR. I think Pentax makes a camera that can be used to 'scan' text pages: take a picture then 'read' it with special software. I could put one of those to good use during long nights at the library.
Okay, so Apple is going to partner with Canon or Kodak or whomever to make... uh...what exactly? What is it that Apple brings to this deal that the big camera makers can't do by themselves? Most big name cameras are already compatible with the Mac OS and Apple already makes iPhoto.
I know, I know..if they made a white camera with an Apple logo on it...then it would be...ya know...better. Be sure to act out that scene from the Simpsons when you're trying to convince the guys at Kodak of this. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Um, the camera manufacturer makes money selling Apple the parts or even the finished product, and Apple bundles the equipment or uses other incentives to increase a particular company's marketshare. it wouldn't be a silent partnership. Apple could partner with Kodak, who has a dwindling digital camera marketshare and tout it as the perfect match for its online printing services...they could somehow tie it into the system, perhaps finding a way to correctly utilized ColorSync...something iPhoto currently lacks.
What does Lexmark get out of the Dell deal? What did HP and Canon get out of the Apple printer deal? What does Kodak get out of selling CCDs to other camera manufacturers? What did Palm get out of licensing PalmOS? When you sell stuff, you get money.
Also, let's say one of these companies is able to define something totally new...a standard *something* that other camera manufacturers don't have. To have a company like Apple back the technology would be a definite win.
It would be foolish for Apple to go back to making cameras again. To much competition from companies with way more experience in photography. What they could have though is a photo storage device like the<a href="http://www.nixvue.com/products/Vista/index.html"; target="_blank">Nixvue Vista</a>. I think this would do for photos what the iPod did for music. I travel for months at a time in less developed countries and I don't want to lug around a laptop to store my photos since it likely to either get broken or stolen. I am sure Apple could improve greatly on the Vista by making it smaller (using the Toshiba drives used in the iPods) and improving the interface. It would be great to be able to store thousands of photos while on the road as well as being able to sort through them at the end of the day to throw out the crap ones. If you get tired of looking at them on the small LCD you can hook it up to any ol TV. I really thought Apple would have brought something like this out by now...but seems they are concentrating on the elusive iPhone instead
I don't think it would be foolish. The digicam market was non-existent back then. It's one of the hottest markets right now, though the economy has slowed the market's growth a bit this year. There's still a lot to be done to make really affordable, small and high-quality cameras...If you want a Digital Elph capable of shooting 8x10 sized photos, you'll need to shell out ~$400...and that only gives you a 2x zoom...
Of course I don't think an iCam is anywhere near reality. If an iCam were to appear, it would appear a year from now for the 2003 holiday buying season...probably when the economy has picked itself up off the ground and when affordable digital cameras are really good, and Apple's iCam would be really, really good.
We'd be foolish to assume the iPod is Apple's only entry into the consumer electronics, digital device market. Apple needs its own brand of products to use in its digital hub. The digital camera is the next big ticket, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to find a company willing to colloborate with them for even more exposure and revenue.
I think it would be way foolish, and I don't think it is a fair comparison to lump cameras into the 'digital device' market. PDAs and MP3 players are essentially very small computers. Apple already builds computers so it was easy for them to produce the iPod. But cameras are a whole different animal. Camera's aren't just about storageand a nice GUI. They're about CCDs and lenses. The only way that Apple could hope to make a decent product is to buy an existing product (which they've done in the past) or partner with someone as mentioned above..which they've never done.
I could see them making a storage device similar to the one mentioned above. I could even see them making a small firewire webcame. Or even -- a couple of years in the future -- something like this, for storing and playing video and stills:
But I really don't see an Apple camera in the cards. I think we would see some sort of phone first, and I'm not too sure that is very likely.
Of course, keep in mind I'm on record as saying that 'no one in their right mind will pay $400 for an MP3 player!.' Actually I paid $399 for mine.
Casio has a 2 Megapixel CMOS and lens asembly on chip. They're using it in their 3.5" x 2" x 0.4" thick Exilim cameras. Apple can add this and the minimal supporive chipset (taking up what looks like around 1 inch square) into the EXSITING IPOD case, add a colour screen, enhanced sofware and a few buttons. Since picture chipset is cheap they can increase their GM and profit.
I get my 35mm film developed to CD, and they scan the images at 1400x1000. This is fine for up to 8x10 prints. 2MP is 1600x1200 which is even better.
the Nokia 8390 is a $600 CDN wholesale phone. Rogers (a wireless provider here in Canada) sells it for $99 with 2 year contract.
How is Apple going to make money selling a phone? No one else seems to be able to do it.
Michael Grey, I'm beginning to think your synapses are misfiring.
1) I was the same person that mentioned a possibility of a collaborative effort. The camera maker would be in it for the money, and maybe for promoting a new standard technology.
2) Apple has always used third party parts. Apple's printers used HP, Canon, and other mechanisms. Apple's cameras have used Casio, Kodak, etc. components. What makes any of this wildly different from Apple making monitors out of Samsung or LG-Philips TFTs? What about iPods and computers out of third party HDDs?
OEM sales are nothing new. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. It wasn't the other end that stopped supplying the components. They would have been happy continually selling Apple parts.
You ridicule the digital camera idea and then propose an Apple AV iPod equivalent? Who would use that?? Not me. Would it perhaps be a PDA? Look at Palm and Handspring's financial health. The PDA market is flailing.
And, yes, an mp3 player is a computer, but Apple assembled it from available components.
1) third party OS
2) third party CPU
3) third party DSP
4) third party battery
5) third party LCD
6) third party HDD...
What makes Apple using a third party lens, image sensor and image processor any less likely?
<strong>Casio has a 2 Megapixel CMOS and lens asembly on chip. They're using it in their 3.5" x 2" x 0.4" thick Exilim cameras. Apple can add this and the minimal supporive chipset (taking up what looks like around 1 inch square) into the EXSITING IPOD case, add a colour screen, enhanced sofware and a few buttons. Since picture chipset is cheap they can increase their GM and profit.
I get my 35mm film developed to CD, and they scan the images at 1400x1000. This is fine for up to 8x10 prints. 2MP is 1600x1200 which is even better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That slim Casio camera takes crappy photos, and I would never buy an Apple device that used something equivalent...
Now for an 8x10. You're shooting at 1600x1200, that essentially creates an 8x10 photo with 150 pixels per inch. Most cameras resolve well beyond that kinf of resolution. Plus, the benefit of digital is the way you can generously frame shots and crop. An Apple camera needs to be a distinct product...a camera only. No pearl sized lens will do. No 2 megapixel image sensor will do. It needs to be at the top of its class + a gimmick.
I am very certain we'll see more Apple peripheral solutions in the future. I'm thinking one of the next ones will be a better DV cam solution, which can also do stills of course. Then maybe a printing/scanning outfit. And sometime, who knows when, an Phone/PDA with possible iPod features. But before all this has to happen, Apple has to really secure the iPod as the best of the best, and reassure the Mac and PC industry/community that Apple can make really decent consumer electronics that are innovative and work well and that they want. The PC iPod was a big step toward this.
I give Apple a year or two, max, before we see some more Apple-branded non-computer consumer electronics hardware.
First, let me apologize in advance for the whole - quote/reply thing. They waste space and I hate 'em. But I need to impress on my good friend Eugene here that he's not going to change my mind about this (nor I his, most likely)
[quote]Michael Grey, I'm beginning to think your synapses are misfiring.
1) I was the same person that mentioned a possibility of a collaborative effort. The camera maker would be in it for the money, and maybe for promoting a new standard technology.<hr></blockquote>
My synapses are fine, but thanks for asking. What is this 'new standard technology?' Does this come from Apple? This would imply that Apple suddenly has some insight into digital photography that has eluded all other camera makers up to now. And as far as just 'being in it for the money' how can a camera maker make more money if they have to share the profit with Apple? For that matter, how would Apple? I'm not sure what kind of relationship you are describing here. Can you give me an example of another company's 'collaborative' effort with Apple?
[quote]
2) Apple has always used third party parts... What makes any of this wildly different from Apple making monitors out of Samsung or LG-Philips TFTs? What about iPods and computers out of third party HDDs?<hr></blockquote>
No arguement here. Just about everything in my Mac was made by someone other than Apple. But this is hardly a "collaborative" effort. My Apple LCD is only available from Apple and sure won't work on any other computer.
[quote]OEM sales are nothing new. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. It wasn't the other end that stopped supplying the components. They would have been happy continually selling Apple parts.<hr></blockquote>
You hit the nail on the head here. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. And they did that for a reason. It wasn't profitable back then and Apple had 25-30% market share. What makes you think that they could suddenly jump back into this market and be competitive, let alone profitable. Camera makers have about a decade headstart. MP3 players, on the other hand, have only been on the market for a couple of years. If Apple had waited a few years longer they never would have been able to get a foothold with the iPod.
[quote]You ridicule the digital camera idea and then propose an Apple AV iPod equivalent? Who would use that?? Not me. Would it perhaps be a PDA? Look at Palm and Handspring's financial health. The PDA market is flailing.<hr></blockquote>
Again, we agree. I don't think that video playback/storage device is a particually good one idea. I hacked that image together a while back and even then I didn't think there would be much of a market for it.
[quote]
And, yes, an mp3 player is a computer, but Apple assembled it from available components...
What makes Apple using a third party lens, image sensor and image processor any less likely?<hr></blockquote>
Wow, where do I start with this? You're suggesting that Apple buy third-party components and cobble together a camera...and that camera will be somehow better than what OEMs like Kodak or Fuji already make? How? Apple knows about some secret lens and CCD combination that none of the other camera manufacturers know about? I hope so because, bottomline, unless an Apple-branded camera takes better pictures than the other cameras on the market, it's not going to sell. No cool interface and no amount of HD storage is going to entice enough photographers to switch.
You can't compare an iPod to a camera here. The iPod isn't a success because it makes MP3s sound better. It is a success because it lets you carry more MP3s in a smaller space with a really easy to use interface. Are you suggesting that Apple make a camera that is smaller and easier to use? Today's cameras are already the same size as my iPod, are point & shoot simple and can take hundreds of high-rez photos and even video clips!
Now if Apple was to, say, be the first out the gate with something like the <a href="http://www.foveon.com"; target="_blank">Foveon chip</a>, then maybe, maybe they could make a unique video camera. But I gotta believe that all the other camera makers have already been working on this.
Okay, so, here's where we agree. Apple could work with some other developers to make produce digital camera.
Now here's where we disagree. I don't think this would be profitable at all for Apple. If they're using components that are already available, then they are basically building something that's already on the market. So, aside from a few thousand diehard Mac-users, who would buy this? If you think Mac-users are brand-loyal, talk to photographers sometime. There are Canon-loyalists, Nikon-loyalists, etc. That kind of loyality doesn't exist in other digital devices, like MP3 players.
As a Mac-fan I would secretly love to see an Apple-branded camera. But as an Apple shareholder, I really hope they're not working on this.
[quote]You hit the nail on the head here. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. And they did that for a reason. It wasn't profitable back then and Apple had 25-30% market share. What makes you think that they could suddenly jump back into this market and be competitive, let alone profitable. Camera makers have about a decade headstart. MP3 players, on the other hand, have only been on the market for a couple of years. If Apple had waited a few years longer they never would have been able to get a foothold with the iPod.<hr></blockquote>
Good grief! Printers are sold at a loss. Apple couldn't compete with HP and Canon in this respect because they sold at a premium and couldn't make up the sales on ink cartridges. This has NO relevance to the digital camera market, where Apple was just far ahead of its time. Nobody bought digital cameras back in 1995-1997. Of course they dropped the QuickTake line.
[quote]Wow, where do I start with this? You're suggesting that Apple buy third-party components and cobble together a camera...and that camera will be somehow better than what OEMs like Kodak or Fuji already make? How?<hr></blockquote>
Oh I don't know. They hobbled together an mp3 player out of 3rd party components and it currently has a hair under 10% of the mp3 player market. If Apple could hobble together a camera with a few iPod-esque gimmicks and grab even half that kind of marketshare, it would be a raging success. I can't really think of any specific innovations, but even the smallest UI improvements or details like ColorSync calibration or whatever can make a difference. Imagine if Apple could put its programmers to some use and create an even better point and shoot experience, where a casual photographer didn't have to turn a dial to switch to an outdoor mode, indoor mode, landscape mode, macro mode, etc.
Of course other manufacturers would play catch-up, but just like the iPod, it would be a hard catch if Apple played its hand right. We'll see who ends up being right...pretty soon too perhaps...
[quote]Now here's where we disagree. I don't think this would be profitable at all for Apple. If they're using components that are already available, then they are basically building something that's already on the market. So, aside from a few thousand diehard Mac-users, who would buy this? If you think Mac-users are brand-loyal, talk to photographers sometime. There are Canon-loyalists, Nikon-loyalists, etc. That kind of loyality doesn't exist in other digital devices, like MP3 players.<hr></blockquote>
In the pro-space there are Canon and Nikon loyalists because they've invested 10x the money they spent on the cameras themselves on Canon or Nikon compatible lenses. Don't confuse consumers with professionals. In the last few years, I've switched between Olympus, Canon and Minolta point-and-shoot cameras. There's hardly any brand loyalty here.
And if you think Apple can't break away, or make headroom into a market with a product built from commodity parts, look at Dell. At least Apple can put a pretty shell around those parts, and add a bit of Apple twist.
You're going to be a disappointed shareholder. Maybe it's time to dump AAPL.
Oooooh. Okay. I get it now. MP3 players are just like digital cameras. You were totally right and I was totally wrong. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Sure they are. Commodity parts are all over the digital camera market, sir. Take the Sony DSC-S85, Canon PowerShot G-series, and equivalent Epson or Casio cameras and look at the lenses. While Sony purports its lens to be a Carl Zeiss piece of glass, it's the exact same lens each of the other manufacturers use. Take a look at the CCDs in all the cameras on the market and you'll discover they're made by only a handful of manufacturers. It's all about putting personal touches on the look and feel, and using the best internal image processing. Deciding which digital camera to buy is very hard. Everyone I know who bought a camera recently spent weeks deciding. Most of the better cameras out there are very closely spec'd. All it takes is Apple to use those same specs + one more must have feature or combination of features (like the iPod's capacity:weight ratio.)
Apple's QuickTakes were decent cameras for their time. If they could go out there and sell cameras in a pre-mature market, they can do it now in a market that still has room to grow.
If Panasonic can just come in and copy Canon's PowerShot G2...if Leica can just come in and rebadge that Panasonic, Apple can come in and join the party too. And don't try to tell me there's no room for innovation (or gimmicks) in the digicam market.
There is huge difference between an MP3 player and a digital camera. The iPod does not CREATE music, while a camera's main function is to CREATE photographs. It is true that many cameras across brands use the same lenses and CCDs, but what makes one camera produce better photos then another is the proprietary processing done by the cameras internal software and hardware. Where the established camera companies have the advantage over Apple is many years of experience writing software that analysis a scene and produces a photo with accurate colors and exposure. The software must also overcome the limitations of CCDs and reduce noise. That is why a camera like the Canon G2 is so popular over others that on paper appear to be superior. It just produces obviously better photographs. I don't think Apple can catch up with the accumulated experience these camera companies possess.
Where Apple can add something to the market is in making a device to allow people to store, view, and share photographs and short video clips in a similar way to how they store, listen, and share music with an iPod.
craiger, that was almost my point. Apple would be buying "digic" image processors or licensing the tech to use, possibly in conjunction with a complimentary chip that provides additional image adjustments.
Consequently, the Powershot G2 is actually noted for its noisy photos by some of the review sites...although in the camera is superb in general.
Comments
As for scanners and digital still and/or video, there's a lot of room in those markets for Apple. You'll recall that what hurt Polaroid the most is having too much film based focus. Digital cameras killed them because they weren't ready with a digital line-up of their own. The market moved on and they didn't join it, they didn't go bankrupt selling digital cameras, they went bankrupt not having digital cameras to sell. Big difference there. While cameras will supplant much of the need for scanning, there's still a lot of copying that needs doing, especially text and OCR. I think Pentax makes a camera that can be used to 'scan' text pages: take a picture then 'read' it with special software. I could put one of those to good use during long nights at the library.
I know, I know..if they made a white camera with an Apple logo on it...then it would be...ya know...better. Be sure to act out that scene from the Simpsons when you're trying to convince the guys at Kodak of this. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
What does Lexmark get out of the Dell deal? What did HP and Canon get out of the Apple printer deal? What does Kodak get out of selling CCDs to other camera manufacturers? What did Palm get out of licensing PalmOS? When you sell stuff, you get money.
Of course I don't think an iCam is anywhere near reality. If an iCam were to appear, it would appear a year from now for the 2003 holiday buying season...probably when the economy has picked itself up off the ground and when affordable digital cameras are really good, and Apple's iCam would be really, really good.
We'd be foolish to assume the iPod is Apple's only entry into the consumer electronics, digital device market. Apple needs its own brand of products to use in its digital hub. The digital camera is the next big ticket, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to find a company willing to colloborate with them for even more exposure and revenue.
I could see them making a storage device similar to the one mentioned above. I could even see them making a small firewire webcame. Or even -- a couple of years in the future -- something like this, for storing and playing video and stills:
But I really don't see an Apple camera in the cards. I think we would see some sort of phone first, and I'm not too sure that is very likely.
Of course, keep in mind I'm on record as saying that 'no one in their right mind will pay $400 for an MP3 player!.' Actually I paid $399 for mine.
I get my 35mm film developed to CD, and they scan the images at 1400x1000. This is fine for up to 8x10 prints. 2MP is 1600x1200 which is even better.
the Nokia 8390 is a $600 CDN wholesale phone. Rogers (a wireless provider here in Canada) sells it for $99 with 2 year contract.
How is Apple going to make money selling a phone? No one else seems to be able to do it.
But if Apple is developing a camera, I really hope they are aiming a little higher than Casio.
Check it out:
<a href="http://www.exilim.com"; target="_blank">http://www.exilim.com</a>;
sample shots: <a href="http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/2002/0829/yamada.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/2002/0829/yamada.htm</a>;
review: <a href="http://www.digit.no/Tester/casio_exilim2/exilim2_intro.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digit.no/Tester/casio_exilim2/exilim2_intro.htm</a>;
1) I was the same person that mentioned a possibility of a collaborative effort. The camera maker would be in it for the money, and maybe for promoting a new standard technology.
2) Apple has always used third party parts. Apple's printers used HP, Canon, and other mechanisms. Apple's cameras have used Casio, Kodak, etc. components. What makes any of this wildly different from Apple making monitors out of Samsung or LG-Philips TFTs? What about iPods and computers out of third party HDDs?
OEM sales are nothing new. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. It wasn't the other end that stopped supplying the components. They would have been happy continually selling Apple parts.
You ridicule the digital camera idea and then propose an Apple AV iPod equivalent? Who would use that?? Not me. Would it perhaps be a PDA? Look at Palm and Handspring's financial health. The PDA market is flailing.
And, yes, an mp3 player is a computer, but Apple assembled it from available components.
1) third party OS
2) third party CPU
3) third party DSP
4) third party battery
5) third party LCD
6) third party HDD...
What makes Apple using a third party lens, image sensor and image processor any less likely?
[ 09-28-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>Casio has a 2 Megapixel CMOS and lens asembly on chip. They're using it in their 3.5" x 2" x 0.4" thick Exilim cameras. Apple can add this and the minimal supporive chipset (taking up what looks like around 1 inch square) into the EXSITING IPOD case, add a colour screen, enhanced sofware and a few buttons. Since picture chipset is cheap they can increase their GM and profit.
I get my 35mm film developed to CD, and they scan the images at 1400x1000. This is fine for up to 8x10 prints. 2MP is 1600x1200 which is even better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That slim Casio camera takes crappy photos, and I would never buy an Apple device that used something equivalent...
Now for an 8x10. You're shooting at 1600x1200, that essentially creates an 8x10 photo with 150 pixels per inch. Most cameras resolve well beyond that kinf of resolution. Plus, the benefit of digital is the way you can generously frame shots and crop. An Apple camera needs to be a distinct product...a camera only. No pearl sized lens will do. No 2 megapixel image sensor will do. It needs to be at the top of its class + a gimmick.
[ 09-28-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I give Apple a year or two, max, before we see some more Apple-branded non-computer consumer electronics hardware.
[quote]Michael Grey, I'm beginning to think your synapses are misfiring.
1) I was the same person that mentioned a possibility of a collaborative effort. The camera maker would be in it for the money, and maybe for promoting a new standard technology.<hr></blockquote>
My synapses are fine, but thanks for asking. What is this 'new standard technology?' Does this come from Apple? This would imply that Apple suddenly has some insight into digital photography that has eluded all other camera makers up to now. And as far as just 'being in it for the money' how can a camera maker make more money if they have to share the profit with Apple? For that matter, how would Apple? I'm not sure what kind of relationship you are describing here. Can you give me an example of another company's 'collaborative' effort with Apple?
[quote]
2) Apple has always used third party parts... What makes any of this wildly different from Apple making monitors out of Samsung or LG-Philips TFTs? What about iPods and computers out of third party HDDs?<hr></blockquote>
No arguement here. Just about everything in my Mac was made by someone other than Apple. But this is hardly a "collaborative" effort. My Apple LCD is only available from Apple and sure won't work on any other computer.
[quote]OEM sales are nothing new. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. It wasn't the other end that stopped supplying the components. They would have been happy continually selling Apple parts.<hr></blockquote>
You hit the nail on the head here. Apple stopped making printers and cameras. And they did that for a reason. It wasn't profitable back then and Apple had 25-30% market share. What makes you think that they could suddenly jump back into this market and be competitive, let alone profitable. Camera makers have about a decade headstart. MP3 players, on the other hand, have only been on the market for a couple of years. If Apple had waited a few years longer they never would have been able to get a foothold with the iPod.
[quote]You ridicule the digital camera idea and then propose an Apple AV iPod equivalent? Who would use that?? Not me. Would it perhaps be a PDA? Look at Palm and Handspring's financial health. The PDA market is flailing.<hr></blockquote>
Again, we agree. I don't think that video playback/storage device is a particually good one idea. I hacked that image together a while back and even then I didn't think there would be much of a market for it.
[quote]
And, yes, an mp3 player is a computer, but Apple assembled it from available components...
What makes Apple using a third party lens, image sensor and image processor any less likely?<hr></blockquote>
Wow, where do I start with this? You're suggesting that Apple buy third-party components and cobble together a camera...and that camera will be somehow better than what OEMs like Kodak or Fuji already make? How? Apple knows about some secret lens and CCD combination that none of the other camera manufacturers know about? I hope so because, bottomline, unless an Apple-branded camera takes better pictures than the other cameras on the market, it's not going to sell. No cool interface and no amount of HD storage is going to entice enough photographers to switch.
You can't compare an iPod to a camera here. The iPod isn't a success because it makes MP3s sound better. It is a success because it lets you carry more MP3s in a smaller space with a really easy to use interface. Are you suggesting that Apple make a camera that is smaller and easier to use? Today's cameras are already the same size as my iPod, are point & shoot simple and can take hundreds of high-rez photos and even video clips!
Now if Apple was to, say, be the first out the gate with something like the <a href="http://www.foveon.com"; target="_blank">Foveon chip</a>, then maybe, maybe they could make a unique video camera. But I gotta believe that all the other camera makers have already been working on this.
Okay, so, here's where we agree. Apple could work with some other developers to make produce digital camera.
Now here's where we disagree. I don't think this would be profitable at all for Apple. If they're using components that are already available, then they are basically building something that's already on the market. So, aside from a few thousand diehard Mac-users, who would buy this? If you think Mac-users are brand-loyal, talk to photographers sometime. There are Canon-loyalists, Nikon-loyalists, etc. That kind of loyality doesn't exist in other digital devices, like MP3 players.
As a Mac-fan I would secretly love to see an Apple-branded camera. But as an Apple shareholder, I really hope they're not working on this.
Good grief! Printers are sold at a loss. Apple couldn't compete with HP and Canon in this respect because they sold at a premium and couldn't make up the sales on ink cartridges. This has NO relevance to the digital camera market, where Apple was just far ahead of its time. Nobody bought digital cameras back in 1995-1997. Of course they dropped the QuickTake line.
[quote]Wow, where do I start with this? You're suggesting that Apple buy third-party components and cobble together a camera...and that camera will be somehow better than what OEMs like Kodak or Fuji already make? How?<hr></blockquote>
Oh I don't know. They hobbled together an mp3 player out of 3rd party components and it currently has a hair under 10% of the mp3 player market. If Apple could hobble together a camera with a few iPod-esque gimmicks and grab even half that kind of marketshare, it would be a raging success. I can't really think of any specific innovations, but even the smallest UI improvements or details like ColorSync calibration or whatever can make a difference. Imagine if Apple could put its programmers to some use and create an even better point and shoot experience, where a casual photographer didn't have to turn a dial to switch to an outdoor mode, indoor mode, landscape mode, macro mode, etc.
Of course other manufacturers would play catch-up, but just like the iPod, it would be a hard catch if Apple played its hand right. We'll see who ends up being right...pretty soon too perhaps...
[quote]Now here's where we disagree. I don't think this would be profitable at all for Apple. If they're using components that are already available, then they are basically building something that's already on the market. So, aside from a few thousand diehard Mac-users, who would buy this? If you think Mac-users are brand-loyal, talk to photographers sometime. There are Canon-loyalists, Nikon-loyalists, etc. That kind of loyality doesn't exist in other digital devices, like MP3 players.<hr></blockquote>
In the pro-space there are Canon and Nikon loyalists because they've invested 10x the money they spent on the cameras themselves on Canon or Nikon compatible lenses. Don't confuse consumers with professionals. In the last few years, I've switched between Olympus, Canon and Minolta point-and-shoot cameras. There's hardly any brand loyalty here.
And if you think Apple can't break away, or make headroom into a market with a product built from commodity parts, look at Dell. At least Apple can put a pretty shell around those parts, and add a bit of Apple twist.
You're going to be a disappointed shareholder. Maybe it's time to dump AAPL.
Apple's QuickTakes were decent cameras for their time. If they could go out there and sell cameras in a pre-mature market, they can do it now in a market that still has room to grow.
If Panasonic can just come in and copy Canon's PowerShot G2...if Leica can just come in and rebadge that Panasonic, Apple can come in and join the party too. And don't try to tell me there's no room for innovation (or gimmicks) in the digicam market.
[ 09-30-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Where Apple can add something to the market is in making a device to allow people to store, view, and share photographs and short video clips in a similar way to how they store, listen, and share music with an iPod.
Consequently, the Powershot G2 is actually noted for its noisy photos by some of the review sites...although in the camera is superb in general.