Re: Alex Ant, see the WHOLE board
Assuming the iCam isn't already in development, it wouldn't really take Nikon any longer to pick up a Foveon sensor than it would take Apple, would it? Even if Apple had a 6 or 12 month head start over their major competitors, (to repeat what I've been saying) that advantage would last exactly 6-12 months and no longer. A good amount of time to make a quick opportunistic buck, but not enough time around which to base a long-term business plan.
I know the iCam won't sit still either, but my point in mentioning the ever-growing sizes and ever-dropping prices of CF cards was to note that digicam storage is now so plentiful and cheap that, with $100 spent on a flash card, most people are really no longer concerned with how many pics their camera can store. They can go hog wild snap-crazy and still find that their card is only 75% full (if they delete the pics they don't want to keep as they go). In the coming months/years, people will feel less and less inhibited by flash card size. I cringe at the thought of a full-blown image browsing interface on the iCam's little OLED display. If having a "portable photo album" is the big benefit of the hard drive, well, I've got an iBook for that, running great image browsing software with much higher display resolution.
As the iPod demonstrates, it's not a given that a consumer electronics device with Firewire will spur competitors to implement Firewire on their own devices. So I can perhaps see Firewire being an advantage of the iCam for as long as it takes for USB2 cameras to start showing up. Yeah I know Firewire is better, but we have to keep in mind that this is just a picture-downloading interface. Not one of a camera's primary features or selling points.
But you think an iCam in 4 months is likely?
I probably am! My point though was to illustrate the differences between the MP3 player and digital camera markets and show how success in one doesn't necessarily carry over to success in the other. As for why - I think I explained that pretty clearly in my last post.
I don't know if it's lack of vision or lack of ambition. Personally, if I had a choice between a camera with USB and a camera that with on-board 802.11 or Bluetooth that cost $50 more, I would get the USB camera, because it would offer faster transfers with better compatibility (a minority of computers have wireless capability). Maybe the reason Canon doesn't put Bluetooth in their cameras is because they realize it would be very slow at transferring and it wouldn't really be very popular? Maybe the reason they don't put WiFi in their cameras is because it's more important for them to be less expensive, and their customers aren't really clamoring for it anyway.
Here's the deal: If it could be contractually ensured that Apple would be the only user of Foveon sensors in the <$1500 digicam market for the next 2-3 years, I would say an iCam would be a great idea. The problem is, I don't think that's very likely. A digicam's photosensor is the single most important component of that camera, more important than even the lens. It's what makes a digicam a digicam, and if Apple were to enter this market, I would want them to have a fundamental advantage here - not a handful of relatively insignificant temporary advantages with supplementary technologies like the Firewire interface, the OLED display, Bluetooth, etc.
I do think that an iCam as we've outlined it would be a smash hit if it were released tomorrow - but not for very long. The competition is too manic. It is in Foveon's best interests to get their sensors into as many cameras as possible. Unless a superior technology comes along, it could be thought of as inevitable that this will happen. The question then becomes "by when," and I'm not sure I would want Apple to bet its future success on the answer to that question.
To counter this, though, I also think an Apple-branded washing machine could be very successful. I think Apple could take advantage of a design process similar to that used in the iPod which that article you supplied touched on, and I think the final product could end up competing favorably with the likes of Maytag and Whirlpool. Who knows, maybe they could come upon a new motor technology that used only half the energy of a conventional washing machine with half the soap requirements. Even having said all this, I'm not sure I would want to see an Apple-branded washing machine, even if it could be highly profitable. I realize washing machines aren't digital cameras - I'm just trying to find a way to creatively say that I hope if Apple decides to stray this far from the Macintosh, they know what they're doing. (I was undecided in the iPod debate, but in retrospect it was a great idea.)
If only the RIAA thought like this! They obviously recognize the market's demand for digital music, but for some reason, instead of capitalizing off it, they're ****ting themselves trying to capitalize off DRM-controlled music, pay-per-download music, pay-per-listen music... anything they can control. And mostly failing. (Their products tend to play MP3 only to the extent that they have to in order to stay competitive.) They don't make an iPod-like DRM device because... actually, I'm not sure why they don't. Sony has a $299 "Network Walkman," but it uses memory sticks. Maybe it has something to do with their competitor Toshiba being the only supplier of 1.8" hard drives. (As for why Toshiba doesn't make one - I'm not sure of that either, but I don't believe they are in the portable audio market.)
I think if MP3 were not MP3, if it were some secure format like WMA owned and controlled and promoted by RIAA member companies, and Apple had come along with the iPod which played only this and other secure formats, Apple would have gotten clobbered by Sony et al, in whose best interests it would have been to make portable devices to play this format. Right now, Apple's market position here is very unique. I think Sony could make a better iPod than the iPod if they wanted to (assuming they could strike a deal with Toshiba for its portable drives).
In summary: I think the success of the iCam would hinge mostly upon the Foveon sensor and who else would have it in their cameras. I don't think integration and simplicity (Apple's forté) would be as big of a plus as with the iPod. We've debated this pretty thoroughly, so I think that if I haven't swayed you yet, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Assuming the iCam isn't already in development, it wouldn't really take Nikon any longer to pick up a Foveon sensor than it would take Apple, would it? Even if Apple had a 6 or 12 month head start over their major competitors, (to repeat what I've been saying) that advantage would last exactly 6-12 months and no longer. A good amount of time to make a quick opportunistic buck, but not enough time around which to base a long-term business plan.
I know the iCam won't sit still either, but my point in mentioning the ever-growing sizes and ever-dropping prices of CF cards was to note that digicam storage is now so plentiful and cheap that, with $100 spent on a flash card, most people are really no longer concerned with how many pics their camera can store. They can go hog wild snap-crazy and still find that their card is only 75% full (if they delete the pics they don't want to keep as they go). In the coming months/years, people will feel less and less inhibited by flash card size. I cringe at the thought of a full-blown image browsing interface on the iCam's little OLED display. If having a "portable photo album" is the big benefit of the hard drive, well, I've got an iBook for that, running great image browsing software with much higher display resolution.
As the iPod demonstrates, it's not a given that a consumer electronics device with Firewire will spur competitors to implement Firewire on their own devices. So I can perhaps see Firewire being an advantage of the iCam for as long as it takes for USB2 cameras to start showing up. Yeah I know Firewire is better, but we have to keep in mind that this is just a picture-downloading interface. Not one of a camera's primary features or selling points.
But you think an iCam in 4 months is likely?
I probably am! My point though was to illustrate the differences between the MP3 player and digital camera markets and show how success in one doesn't necessarily carry over to success in the other. As for why - I think I explained that pretty clearly in my last post.
I don't know if it's lack of vision or lack of ambition. Personally, if I had a choice between a camera with USB and a camera that with on-board 802.11 or Bluetooth that cost $50 more, I would get the USB camera, because it would offer faster transfers with better compatibility (a minority of computers have wireless capability). Maybe the reason Canon doesn't put Bluetooth in their cameras is because they realize it would be very slow at transferring and it wouldn't really be very popular? Maybe the reason they don't put WiFi in their cameras is because it's more important for them to be less expensive, and their customers aren't really clamoring for it anyway.
Here's the deal: If it could be contractually ensured that Apple would be the only user of Foveon sensors in the <$1500 digicam market for the next 2-3 years, I would say an iCam would be a great idea. The problem is, I don't think that's very likely. A digicam's photosensor is the single most important component of that camera, more important than even the lens. It's what makes a digicam a digicam, and if Apple were to enter this market, I would want them to have a fundamental advantage here - not a handful of relatively insignificant temporary advantages with supplementary technologies like the Firewire interface, the OLED display, Bluetooth, etc.
I do think that an iCam as we've outlined it would be a smash hit if it were released tomorrow - but not for very long. The competition is too manic. It is in Foveon's best interests to get their sensors into as many cameras as possible. Unless a superior technology comes along, it could be thought of as inevitable that this will happen. The question then becomes "by when," and I'm not sure I would want Apple to bet its future success on the answer to that question.
To counter this, though, I also think an Apple-branded washing machine could be very successful. I think Apple could take advantage of a design process similar to that used in the iPod which that article you supplied touched on, and I think the final product could end up competing favorably with the likes of Maytag and Whirlpool. Who knows, maybe they could come upon a new motor technology that used only half the energy of a conventional washing machine with half the soap requirements. Even having said all this, I'm not sure I would want to see an Apple-branded washing machine, even if it could be highly profitable. I realize washing machines aren't digital cameras - I'm just trying to find a way to creatively say that I hope if Apple decides to stray this far from the Macintosh, they know what they're doing. (I was undecided in the iPod debate, but in retrospect it was a great idea.)
If only the RIAA thought like this!
They obviously recognize the market's demand for digital music, but for some reason, instead of capitalizing off it, they're ****ting themselves trying to capitalize off DRM-controlled music, pay-per-download music, pay-per-listen music... anything they can control. And mostly failing. (Their products tend to play MP3 only to the extent that they have to in order to stay competitive.) They don't make an iPod-like DRM device because... actually, I'm not sure why they don't. Sony has a $299 "Network Walkman," but it uses memory sticks. Maybe it has something to do with their competitor Toshiba being the only supplier of 1.8" hard drives. (As for why Toshiba doesn't make one - I'm not sure of that either, but I don't believe they are in the portable audio market.)I think if MP3 were not MP3, if it were some secure format like WMA owned and controlled and promoted by RIAA member companies, and Apple had come along with the iPod which played only this and other secure formats, Apple would have gotten clobbered by Sony et al, in whose best interests it would have been to make portable devices to play this format. Right now, Apple's market position here is very unique. I think Sony could make a better iPod than the iPod if they wanted to (assuming they could strike a deal with Toshiba for its portable drives).
In summary: I think the success of the iCam would hinge mostly upon the Foveon sensor and who else would have it in their cameras. I don't think integration and simplicity (Apple's forté) would be as big of a plus as with the iPod. We've debated this pretty thoroughly, so I think that if I haven't swayed you yet, we'll have to agree to disagree.