There isn't much that's different about a Mac (from a component standpoint) yet Mac-heads everywhere argue that a Mac is a very different thing.
Same with cameras, the market is huge, and it isn't by any means dominated by camera makers. There's a very good blend of camera and consumer electronics based companies at work in digital imaging (still and video).
Making the product is no different than making a TV or DVD player or computer from a stock of generic parts. You hire people with know how and make business decisions.
I'm not saying Apple should do this, but the market is far from closed or saturated. People will buy the newest gadget, they've been doing it consistently, and there's plenty of room for many players.
Apple may want to focus on better things, of course, like their hardware and software offerings, but they aren't locked out of this market. None of the consumer products are radically different from each other (for better or worse) most users won't note the differences between competing models at various price points. It's all pretty standard and it all sells well. Style and marketing may be more important than performance, actually...
anyway, I digest,
Apple will do what's best for Apple, but there is room for more players in the market.
Anyway I think you are wrong Matsu. Internally the components on a Mac are generic to an extent but then who gives a toss who makes the PSU and disc drives? The motherboards, the case design and aesthetic style are unique as is of course the operating system.
I don't believe there is any room for new entrants in the digital camera market unless they have a technological advantage, e.g. Foveon. Even then its going to be a struggle for survival.
A well thoughtout arguement Matsu, but again I have to respectfully disagree.
What makes the Mac different is its operating system. It is unlike anything else in the industry and, according to most of us, it is better.
If Apple is going to make a camera then it has to have one (or more) feature(s) that are better than anything else out there. What could this be?
Better lenses? Well, some cameras today are using Zeiss lenses. And, since Carl Zeiss has been making lenses for about 150 years I'd be surprised if Apple has found something better (something that none of the other manufacturers have)
Better CCD? Fayeon will be happy to tell you all about the Foveon chip, and it's pretty cool...but it's been around a while and some other manufacturers are already developing it. Does Apple have its own proprietary chip that is better? Hard to imagine. They would have had to buy it from someone else, and I think we would have heard about that by now.
Better Storage? This is debatable. Some folks here seem to think that a HD-based camera would be great. I know some photographers that wouldn't touch it. There's the size issue, the added cost and the power needed to keep a HD spinning (meaning bigger batteries). MiniDV has a pretty strong foothold and even Sony (a company many times Apple's size) is swimming upstream with its MicroMV format. In still most folks still use Compact Flash cards and even the MicroDrives (up to 1 GB) haven't really had much impact on consumer cameras. But even if Apple found a 20GB HD the size of a matchbook I don't know that it would matter. A camera is not a storage device. It's a capture device.
Better OS? Most cameras today are point-n-shoot simple.
More features? There are lots of hybrid cameras out there that shoot stills, video, record audio, play MP3s, print without a computer and even make calls. I don't know what feature is missing.
Better Controls? A slick Apple-styled camera would probably look great and be easy to use...but then, you could say the same about the Canon Elph.
But hey...just my opinion. I've been wrong before.
[ 10-15-2002: Message edited by: Michael Grey ]</p>
Anyway I think you are wrong Matsu. Internally the components on a Mac are generic to an extent but then who gives a toss who makes the PSU and disc drives? The motherboards, the case design and aesthetic style are unique as is of course the operating system.
I don't believe there is any room for new entrants in the digital camera market unless they have a technological advantage, e.g. Foveon. Even then its going to be a struggle for survival.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree to some extent. The iPod didn't really have a technological advantage, there were a couple of other MP3 players using similar technology (if you discount Firewire).
What Apple did was rationalise the design and make it work in a very simple way with iTunes on the mac (the hub). If you own a mac it makes little sense to buy any other kind of music player (despite the price) and as the iPod is considered the leading MP3 player it makes people consider the mac as a platform.
The whole point of iDevices is to sell more macs in the long run but would any kind of camera do this? I think it's doubtful that any camera that Apple could produce would be technologically superior to other cameras on the market and Apple have concentrated heavily on making other manufacturers cameras work with iPhoto.
I can't see it myself, I think any iCamera would have to be a rebranded product from another manufacturer which isn't Apple's style.
The iPod was not really in the same situation; there were not a dozen extremely well branded, experienced companies producing hundreds of models in a technologically advanced market. As you say Apple integrated the parts available to make a better whole. The innovation was in the design process which you can read about on Apple's site (I think).
I don't agree with this at all, but even if it were true, what would differentiate this camera from the 600 others that are out there? Apple can't just cobble together a camera and expect it to sell because it has an Apple logo on it.
It has to do something better than all the other cameras and it's very hard for me to believe that Apple can come up with something better than all the companies out there who have been making cameras for decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh gosh. *I* could come up with a better design than all of the sub-$1,000 cameras out there put together - and I'm not a designer. They suck. They ALL suck. They're not user-friendly, they all use tapes (TAPES! Or do you still have an 8-Track?), they're bulky, the still cameras can't do video well and the video cameras can't do still well.
The problems you guys are having at conceptualizing this is that you're expecting it to do everything. It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. Just as you wouldn't purchase any existing $1,000 camera for professional work, you wouldn't purchase this for professional work. Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. Kind of like they buy memory. Kind of like they buy HDs. Kind of like they buy monitors. Kind of like they buy superdrives. Kind of like they buy....
Oh gosh. *I* could come up with a better design than all of the sub-$1,000 cameras out there put together - and I'm not a designer. They suck. They ALL suck. They're not user-friendly, they all use tapes (TAPES! Or do you still have an 8-Track?), they're bulky, the still cameras can't do video well and the video cameras can't do still well.
The problems you guys are having at conceptualizing this is that you're expecting it to do everything. It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. Just as you wouldn't purchase any existing $1,000 camera for professional work, you wouldn't purchase this for professional work. Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. Kind of like they buy memory. Kind of like they buy HDs. Kind of like they buy monitors. Kind of like they buy superdrives. Kind of like they buy....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Faeylyn, you are right on. I haven't been able to visit this little thread of mine in a few days, but it is in good hands with your input.
Once again for those who don't get it: Consumer level video and consumer level photos in one small, gorgeously designed box with no removable media. I'll take two.
It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. . .
Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to decide whether you are a prophet, a spy, or an orator. Your unconscious wavering between "will" and "would", in this as well as in some of your previous mails indicate that you want to be either of the two former - but actually are the latter. Come to think of it, "sophist" is probably a better label.
The iPod owes a lot of its success to its seamless integration with the mac and iTunes.
In what way can an Apple camera (be it DV or still) make the user experience better for someone using iPhoto or iMovie?
My experiences with these applications and third party devices have been great. So what killer benefits would this camera bring that would make us all want one instead of cameras by long established manufacturers?
Lets not forget that Apple used to make a whole host of peripherals such as scanners, printers and cameras. I don't think the cameras on the market are badly designed at all, they are not 'Apple' designed but not bad either, MP3 players suffered from file navigation problems prior to Apple's innovative thumbwheel and sub menu system yet I've found most cameras I've used to be quite navigable and I'd go as far to say that some are even 'instinctive' in their approach.
I'm not saying that nothing can be done here, but I'd like to know what specific improvements people thing Apple could add to a camera to justify its existence.
You need to decide whether you are a prophet, a spy, or an orator. Your unconscious wavering between "will" and "would", in this as well as in some of your previous mails indicate that you want to be either of the two former - but actually are the latter. Come to think of it, "sophist" is probably a better label.
Look, Faeylyn, nothing personal but you're kinda contradicting yourself. First you say Apple is such an innovator they can make something 'better' than everyone else. Then you say they can just get someone else to build these cameras for them. Which is it?
<strong>Look, Faeylyn, nothing personal but you're kinda contradicting yourself. First you say Apple is such an innovator they can make something 'better' than everyone else. Then you say they can just get someone else to build these cameras for them. Which is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is getting tedious. Take the iPod. Does Apple make the HD? No. Why would they? Does Apple make the screen? No. Why would they? Does Apple make the earbuds? No. Why would they? What they did was take what was currently available and repackage it. Could someone else have built the iPod? Yes, absolutely. Could someone else STILL build something as good as the iPod? Yes, absolutely. Why don't they then? I dunno. Do you?
So for the camera being talked about here, would Apple make the HD? No. Why would they? Would Apple make the screen? No. Why would they? Would Apple make the earbuds (assuming it comes with them)? No. Why would they? The only major piece of hardware left is the lens. Would Apple make that? No. Why would they? But would they be able to take those parts and repackage them into a better form using a better OS than what's currently out there? Yes, absolutely. And are others able to take those same parts and do the same thing? Yes, absolutely. And will they? All the evidence to date indicates no.
For a long time I thought this would be a bad idea for Apple, but I am beginning to come around to the opposite view.
As pointed out in the link above (Japanese Schoolgirls) there are niches where special products can prosper that wouldn't fit the general market. I've lived in Japan and have seen the product referenced. In that society, that degree of crowding, that culture, it fits.
Apple could make a camera really dedicated to being a digital hub component. Current DV cams have too much excess baggage; titlers, edit functions, special effects functions, memory sticks and such. You don't need any of that if you are using iMovie and iDVD. You don't need LANC compatibility or connectors for such interfacing. Manufacturers of cameras want to draw attention to that product so they load it up with useless features. A digital hub device can focus on being a high quality sensor and delete all the other junk.
Taking this into account I can imagine Apple making a slimmed down digital camera/DV cam with a fast lens, good sensor, good autofocus, good stabilization, one FW port and none of the rest. I'm still not sure they will, or should, do this, it just is becoming easier to imagine.
I don't agree with this at all, but even if it were true, what would differentiate this camera from the 600 others that are out there? Apple can't just cobble together a camera and expect it to sell because it has an Apple logo on it.
It has to do something better than all the other cameras and it's very hard for me to believe that Apple can come up with something better than all the companies out there who have been making cameras for decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
For one thing I can't see apple using the Fovean chip, Apple are not a particularly experimental company and this is a very new piece of technology.
What Apple does best is evaluate existing technologies, look at where other companies are going wrong with that technology and figure out how ownership of a mac can make that technology simpler and more compelling.
There also seems to be this idea floating around since the inception of the iPod that adding a hard drive to just about anything is a good design solution when clearly it isn't likely to be the case in most instances. Nor is it good design to make one device do many tasks, while this can obviously be achieved it always ends in compromise.
I will conceed that many consumer items such as DV cameras have an array of annoyingly small and badly designed controls and I think Apple could do a very good job of rationalising the design. But then Apple I'm sure could make and excellent job of redesigning fridges.
But the main point is, how does an Apple branded camera/DV camcorder become more useful when it is connected to a mac than an existing camera. People forget the 'hub' strategy, the device has to be compelling when used with a mac in a way that no other device is. Current third party devices do an excellent job so what will be the advantage?
...and are others able to take those same parts and do the same thing? Yes, absolutely. And will they? All the evidence to date indicates no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right Faeylyn. It's probably never occured to camera giants like Canon, Nikon and Kodak to try and design a better digital camera. Only Apple can come up with stuff like that, right? Because they made the iPod, right?
And yea, I thought this was getting kinda tedious, too. But now it's fun again.
Comments
Same with cameras, the market is huge, and it isn't by any means dominated by camera makers. There's a very good blend of camera and consumer electronics based companies at work in digital imaging (still and video).
Making the product is no different than making a TV or DVD player or computer from a stock of generic parts. You hire people with know how and make business decisions.
I'm not saying Apple should do this, but the market is far from closed or saturated. People will buy the newest gadget, they've been doing it consistently, and there's plenty of room for many players.
Apple may want to focus on better things, of course, like their hardware and software offerings, but they aren't locked out of this market. None of the consumer products are radically different from each other (for better or worse) most users won't note the differences between competing models at various price points. It's all pretty standard and it all sells well. Style and marketing may be more important than performance, actually...
anyway, I digest,
Apple will do what's best for Apple, but there is room for more players in the market.
Anyway I think you are wrong Matsu. Internally the components on a Mac are generic to an extent but then who gives a toss who makes the PSU and disc drives? The motherboards, the case design and aesthetic style are unique as is of course the operating system.
I don't believe there is any room for new entrants in the digital camera market unless they have a technological advantage, e.g. Foveon. Even then its going to be a struggle for survival.
What makes the Mac different is its operating system. It is unlike anything else in the industry and, according to most of us, it is better.
If Apple is going to make a camera then it has to have one (or more) feature(s) that are better than anything else out there. What could this be?
Better lenses? Well, some cameras today are using Zeiss lenses. And, since Carl Zeiss has been making lenses for about 150 years I'd be surprised if Apple has found something better (something that none of the other manufacturers have)
Better CCD? Fayeon will be happy to tell you all about the Foveon chip, and it's pretty cool...but it's been around a while and some other manufacturers are already developing it. Does Apple have its own proprietary chip that is better? Hard to imagine. They would have had to buy it from someone else, and I think we would have heard about that by now.
Better Storage? This is debatable. Some folks here seem to think that a HD-based camera would be great. I know some photographers that wouldn't touch it. There's the size issue, the added cost and the power needed to keep a HD spinning (meaning bigger batteries). MiniDV has a pretty strong foothold and even Sony (a company many times Apple's size) is swimming upstream with its MicroMV format. In still most folks still use Compact Flash cards and even the MicroDrives (up to 1 GB) haven't really had much impact on consumer cameras. But even if Apple found a 20GB HD the size of a matchbook I don't know that it would matter. A camera is not a storage device. It's a capture device.
Better OS? Most cameras today are point-n-shoot simple.
More features? There are lots of hybrid cameras out there that shoot stills, video, record audio, play MP3s, print without a computer and even make calls. I don't know what feature is missing.
Better Controls? A slick Apple-styled camera would probably look great and be easy to use...but then, you could say the same about the Canon Elph.
But hey...just my opinion. I've been wrong before.
[ 10-15-2002: Message edited by: Michael Grey ]</p>
<strong>I think you mean 'digress'.
Anyway I think you are wrong Matsu. Internally the components on a Mac are generic to an extent but then who gives a toss who makes the PSU and disc drives? The motherboards, the case design and aesthetic style are unique as is of course the operating system.
I don't believe there is any room for new entrants in the digital camera market unless they have a technological advantage, e.g. Foveon. Even then its going to be a struggle for survival.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree to some extent. The iPod didn't really have a technological advantage, there were a couple of other MP3 players using similar technology (if you discount Firewire).
What Apple did was rationalise the design and make it work in a very simple way with iTunes on the mac (the hub). If you own a mac it makes little sense to buy any other kind of music player (despite the price) and as the iPod is considered the leading MP3 player it makes people consider the mac as a platform.
The whole point of iDevices is to sell more macs in the long run but would any kind of camera do this? I think it's doubtful that any camera that Apple could produce would be technologically superior to other cameras on the market and Apple have concentrated heavily on making other manufacturers cameras work with iPhoto.
I can't see it myself, I think any iCamera would have to be a rebranded product from another manufacturer which isn't Apple's style.
<strong>
I don't agree with this at all, but even if it were true, what would differentiate this camera from the 600 others that are out there? Apple can't just cobble together a camera and expect it to sell because it has an Apple logo on it.
It has to do something better than all the other cameras and it's very hard for me to believe that Apple can come up with something better than all the companies out there who have been making cameras for decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh gosh. *I* could come up with a better design than all of the sub-$1,000 cameras out there put together - and I'm not a designer. They suck. They ALL suck. They're not user-friendly, they all use tapes (TAPES! Or do you still have an 8-Track?), they're bulky, the still cameras can't do video well and the video cameras can't do still well.
The problems you guys are having at conceptualizing this is that you're expecting it to do everything. It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. Just as you wouldn't purchase any existing $1,000 camera for professional work, you wouldn't purchase this for professional work. Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. Kind of like they buy memory. Kind of like they buy HDs. Kind of like they buy monitors. Kind of like they buy superdrives. Kind of like they buy....
<strong>
Oh gosh. *I* could come up with a better design than all of the sub-$1,000 cameras out there put together - and I'm not a designer. They suck. They ALL suck. They're not user-friendly, they all use tapes (TAPES! Or do you still have an 8-Track?), they're bulky, the still cameras can't do video well and the video cameras can't do still well.
The problems you guys are having at conceptualizing this is that you're expecting it to do everything. It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. Just as you wouldn't purchase any existing $1,000 camera for professional work, you wouldn't purchase this for professional work. Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. Kind of like they buy memory. Kind of like they buy HDs. Kind of like they buy monitors. Kind of like they buy superdrives. Kind of like they buy....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Faeylyn, you are right on. I haven't been able to visit this little thread of mine in a few days, but it is in good hands with your input.
Once again for those who don't get it: Consumer level video and consumer level photos in one small, gorgeously designed box with no removable media. I'll take two.
<strong>
It will NOT be a competitor to the professional or even semi-professional cameras. There's no way Apple could compete in that market. So throw away all of the "will it have better lenses than Zeiss?" garbage. It won't because it doesn't need to. . .
Besides, why would Apple go into the lens business anyway? They wouldn't. They'd just buy something from another company. . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to decide whether you are a prophet, a spy, or an orator. Your unconscious wavering between "will" and "would", in this as well as in some of your previous mails indicate that you want to be either of the two former - but actually are the latter. Come to think of it, "sophist" is probably a better label.
engpjp
In what way can an Apple camera (be it DV or still) make the user experience better for someone using iPhoto or iMovie?
My experiences with these applications and third party devices have been great. So what killer benefits would this camera bring that would make us all want one instead of cameras by long established manufacturers?
Lets not forget that Apple used to make a whole host of peripherals such as scanners, printers and cameras. I don't think the cameras on the market are badly designed at all, they are not 'Apple' designed but not bad either, MP3 players suffered from file navigation problems prior to Apple's innovative thumbwheel and sub menu system yet I've found most cameras I've used to be quite navigable and I'd go as far to say that some are even 'instinctive' in their approach.
I'm not saying that nothing can be done here, but I'd like to know what specific improvements people thing Apple could add to a camera to justify its existence.
<strong>
You need to decide whether you are a prophet, a spy, or an orator. Your unconscious wavering between "will" and "would", in this as well as in some of your previous mails indicate that you want to be either of the two former - but actually are the latter. Come to think of it, "sophist" is probably a better label.
engpjp</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you think it's unconscious?
<strong>Look, Faeylyn, nothing personal but you're kinda contradicting yourself. First you say Apple is such an innovator they can make something 'better' than everyone else. Then you say they can just get someone else to build these cameras for them. Which is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is getting tedious. Take the iPod. Does Apple make the HD? No. Why would they? Does Apple make the screen? No. Why would they? Does Apple make the earbuds? No. Why would they? What they did was take what was currently available and repackage it. Could someone else have built the iPod? Yes, absolutely. Could someone else STILL build something as good as the iPod? Yes, absolutely. Why don't they then? I dunno. Do you?
So for the camera being talked about here, would Apple make the HD? No. Why would they? Would Apple make the screen? No. Why would they? Would Apple make the earbuds (assuming it comes with them)? No. Why would they? The only major piece of hardware left is the lens. Would Apple make that? No. Why would they? But would they be able to take those parts and repackage them into a better form using a better OS than what's currently out there? Yes, absolutely. And are others able to take those same parts and do the same thing? Yes, absolutely. And will they? All the evidence to date indicates no.
As pointed out in the link above (Japanese Schoolgirls) there are niches where special products can prosper that wouldn't fit the general market. I've lived in Japan and have seen the product referenced. In that society, that degree of crowding, that culture, it fits.
Apple could make a camera really dedicated to being a digital hub component. Current DV cams have too much excess baggage; titlers, edit functions, special effects functions, memory sticks and such. You don't need any of that if you are using iMovie and iDVD. You don't need LANC compatibility or connectors for such interfacing. Manufacturers of cameras want to draw attention to that product so they load it up with useless features. A digital hub device can focus on being a high quality sensor and delete all the other junk.
Taking this into account I can imagine Apple making a slimmed down digital camera/DV cam with a fast lens, good sensor, good autofocus, good stabilization, one FW port and none of the rest. I'm still not sure they will, or should, do this, it just is becoming easier to imagine.
<strong>
I don't agree with this at all, but even if it were true, what would differentiate this camera from the 600 others that are out there? Apple can't just cobble together a camera and expect it to sell because it has an Apple logo on it.
It has to do something better than all the other cameras and it's very hard for me to believe that Apple can come up with something better than all the companies out there who have been making cameras for decades.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
For one thing I can't see apple using the Fovean chip, Apple are not a particularly experimental company and this is a very new piece of technology.
What Apple does best is evaluate existing technologies, look at where other companies are going wrong with that technology and figure out how ownership of a mac can make that technology simpler and more compelling.
There also seems to be this idea floating around since the inception of the iPod that adding a hard drive to just about anything is a good design solution when clearly it isn't likely to be the case in most instances. Nor is it good design to make one device do many tasks, while this can obviously be achieved it always ends in compromise.
I will conceed that many consumer items such as DV cameras have an array of annoyingly small and badly designed controls and I think Apple could do a very good job of rationalising the design. But then Apple I'm sure could make and excellent job of redesigning fridges.
But the main point is, how does an Apple branded camera/DV camcorder become more useful when it is connected to a mac than an existing camera. People forget the 'hub' strategy, the device has to be compelling when used with a mac in a way that no other device is. Current third party devices do an excellent job so what will be the advantage?
<strong>
...and are others able to take those same parts and do the same thing? Yes, absolutely. And will they? All the evidence to date indicates no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right Faeylyn. It's probably never occured to camera giants like Canon, Nikon and Kodak to try and design a better digital camera. Only Apple can come up with stuff like that, right? Because they made the iPod, right?
And yea, I thought this was getting kinda tedious, too. But now it's fun again.