Re: reply to alex-ant
Originally posted by doddsk
Foveon sensors might be a bit more expensive but that it is because they are new to the market with a better technology.
(edited because of the 10k character limit)
...
You're right, but I don't believe Canon/Nikon etc. have any long-term contractual obligations to use Sony CCDs. Sony may be a major supplier of conventional CCDs, but they are only a small slice of the digital camera market. When Foveon sensors become economically appealing to the consumer and prosumer markets, conventional CCDs will disappear, whether or not Sony has anything to say about it. And when this happens, everybody will be using Foveon sensors, and Apple's temporary leg up in the digicam marketplace here will disappear.
This is different from the portable MP3 player market in that all of Apple's competitors in the MP3 player market are jokes. Creative? Archos? Diamond? The iPod is a great product in part because it has no serious competition. It hasn't changed much in over a year, and it's still awesome. Sure that says a lot about the iPod's greatness, but it also says a lot about Apple's inept competition. The digicam marketplace is completely different. Canon and Nikon and Fuji are simply rocking in all categories. Cameras are constantly getting smaller, using less battery, with higher resolutions, better lenses, more intuitive operation, etc. At first thought, one would think, "Yeah, just take the iPod and slap a lens on that sucker and it's good to go." But then one looks at a beautiful, near-perfect little camera like the Canon S230 or the Fuji A303 and is forced to think twice about that.
When my dad asks me if he should buy a digital still camera, I tell him no.
...
Last summer I paid $60 for a 64MB CompactFlash card, and now I could get a 128MB card for less than that. Flash card size is becoming less and less of an issue as they approach 1GB in size. With a 128MB card, a 3-megapixel camera can store about a hundred photos at high quality, and over 200 at standard quality. I'm not sure how much benefit consumers will see in an expensive built-in hard drive when memory cards continue to get bigger and fall in price. The only real advantage I could see to a portable hard drive would be to store photo albums on the camera, navigable by an iPhoto-like app. But when flash cards already hold hundreds of photos and digicams already include thumbnail browsers, I don't see the advantage of the iCam here.
Yes OLED is coming and soon everyone will have it. So what? Apple will have it first.
So, if every camera manufactuer uses OLED, Apple's edge will disappear with regard to its OLED display. If being first is good strategic move, then great, but this hardly is. Not that it's bad, either - it's just that, wooptie-doo, an OLED display. Who cares, when everyone else will have one in 4 months anyway?
There are a number of iPod imitators that have harddrives now, it doesn't lessen the value of the iPod.
...
The reason iPod imitators don't lessen the value of the iPod is that none of the iPod imitators are able to match the total package of the iPod. Individually, they can each do certain things better, but they can't do everything better at once. This is the value of the iPod, and it wouldn't carry over into camera-land. Apple's competitors are too experienced, sharp, and numerous. Apple would be going straight up not only against the masters of photography in Canon/Nikon/etc., but against Sony, who are practically the masters at the kind of thing Apple would be looking to do.
Yes the odds of two people having Bluetooth equipped iCams in the same room are small today, but look at the longer term.
...
You're right that Bluetooth is a good idea and will catch on, but I don't understand how this carries over to the importance of Apple coming out with a Bluetooth camera. Why bother, when everyone else will be including it in a matter of months anyway? Being first here would be good for bragging rights, but not for much else.
Price and size? The work is already done with the iPod.
...
So there's an iPod-sized digicam on the shelf next to a Canon S230, which is about the same size. They're both 3 megapixels, they both have 2X zooms, they're both beautiful. One is by Canon, a reputable company who knows its stuff when it comes to cameras. The other is by... Apple? And it costs nearly 3X more? If you ask me, Apple would have an uphill battle against a camera like that, nevermind against a solid prosumer camera. Have you seen the Olympus C-50? Five megapixels in your pocket for a little over $500. I wonder how long the advantage of the Foveon sensor will last against the ever-improving digicam lot, many of whom are poised to make the switch to Foveon themselves in the coming months/years.
I have to admit, of all the arguments you make for the iCam, this is the one that seems like it should be the craziest. But I think this is the one is actually the strongest. In order for it to work, though, the iCam has to be successful on its own as a consumer camera. (Either that, or it has to cost a few thousand dollars to compensate for its low volume.)
"It would be impossible for an Apple camera to compete with Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Fuji in image quality, features, or even build quality..." In a word: Why?
...
I look at cameras like the Canon S230 and the Olympus C-50, and I think, "If Apple could beat either of these cameras, it would take the best ****ing point-and-shoot camera ever to do it." So I'll echo my comments about the iPod's success being a function of its market position. I think if Sony and Matsu****a wanted to go after the iPod, they could, and they could deliver a hands-down better product at a lower price. The iPod is in a unique position because it is in an "illegitimate" market - none of the big players want to compete with it because these big players also happen to be media companies, and to compete with the iPod would be to legitimize and popularize the MP3 format, which we all know
)) is nothing but a vehicle for piracy. I think if Apple tried the same thing in the digicam marketplace, they would get clobbered by companies who would be capable of delivering a better product at a lower price. It doesn't matter how many innovations Apple were to bring to the table, or even what they would be, really, because the cutthroat competition in the digicam marketplace would lead everyone else to assimilate whatever those innovations might be and pull the rug right out from under Apple's feet in a matter of months.