edz said:
I think the "average person" can be made to care. Its called information. Its called issue perception. Its called marketing. Instead the consumers have been sold digital as a replacement for film pared with the lie that its cheaper lacking film. Following an initial optimism for demand of digital prints the market has noticed a weaking of growth and a decline in revenues.
Probably since their 3 year old camera probably does not work.
If so what a camera (like the HPs I mentioned) at the supermarket for 70 EUROs?
Do I think the average person will need to "discover" what it means? YES.
It does. Its part of the silicon economy.
Most of the cellphones sold today in Europe include digital cameras. They have caught on big time and its really only the mega-pixel lead-up of the low-end consumer cameras (like 5 Megapixel for under 100 EURO verses the 1 or 2 Megapixel in the phones) that continues to allow for product differentiation. Current market analysis seems to suggest that as processor and memory technology develops to allow for mass 3 mp camera cell phones--- maybe a year away--- that this might change. What has not caught on is 3G services but there is a long case history that should have made this clear--- back to the failed AT&T picture phone of the 1960s. Its really quite consistent that even WAP did not catch on yet SMS did.
Almost all new phones include cameras don't they?
And that's the model application of the camera in the cell-phone. No need to even hook anything up. If that's the main application of digital cameras then we'd see a lot of images being send by these phones yet we don't. The main use seems to be the same as with the mass cunsumer digital cameras: a little gadget to take a picture, store it and look at it later (maybe with friends) and then throw away.
Don't confuse apples with oranges. A 1990 computer and a 2000 computer and a 2005 computer are completely different objects. Its like talking about the hot dog you ate in 1965. Its long ago passed through the food chain into many generations of hot dogs.
First off, the product cycle you mention, you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing: you say "part of the silicone economy" - exactly, its not a matter of need, its a matter of being able to get away with it in a market that has trained its consumers to accept this "reality"
And yes, it IS exactly the same as the computer issue - its a market driven by what the manufacturers tell us we need, not what we tell them we need. But, yes, it works... The fastest airplane in the world was desgined in the late 60's with a slide rule and some paper - today an elementary school child NEEDS the internet and a P4 computer to pass his classes... Really? No, but we believe it. When the Canon FD lense got phazed out by the incompatible EF's, Canon users raised a storm. Today, when someone is told that his or her camera no longer works for no other reason than the need to sell them a newer one( discised as technological advancements), they accept it without asking a question, because they are as conditioned to this reality of built in obsolescence as Pavlov's dogs to getting fed when the bell rings...
Why, we all know that a 50 year old Leica will still take a better picture today than any digital, so much so that most people just consider it a bench mark and stop trying (and please, this is not a Leica good or bad thread, so just let it go - substitute your favorite camera here if it bothers anyone...).
As you can see, actual quality and capability are of no consequence here...
As far as teaching the masses - I think you are right, I don't disagree with you on the very principles of what you are saying, merely on the logical extrapolation of what is likely to happen. Sure,
YOU, or
I, can teach someone a great deal. But the large imaging companies will not because they DO NOT WANT TO. And they have access to millions of homes, while you and I can maybe tell a dozen people, half of whom will still believe the smiling lady drooling over her new digi-cam in a TV ad.
You say:
"
Its called issue perception. Its called marketing. Instead the consumers have been sold digital as a replacement for film pared with the lie that its cheaper lacking film"
Sure, and which company will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by teaching the public that those eggs are in fact painted dog poop? Why are you so completely oblivious to the fact that this has nothing to do with reality, merely the perception of it, one which you and I have no ability to change, and in which so many powerful players have so much invested?
And most of the cell phones have cameras because the cell companies bet on it - here in North America they have to pretty much pay consumers to take camphones, since even the lowest common denominator realized they simply don't have a need for a crappy digitalpinhole. The phone companies want to recover the costs of development and hope to make big $$$ on the fees for sending those crappy little pixelated images across their airways. Most phones have cameras, because the suppliers want us to have those things - like I said earlier, we will learn to use them, and need them if we are told we do. Right now, most people are not biting on it, but they will.
And as to the assessment that digital photos are:
"The main use seems to be the same as with the mass cunsumer digital cameras: a little gadget to take a picture, store it and look at it later (maybe with friends) and then throw away"
YES! What do you think the masses want from a roll of film??? THE SAME THING! Its just a huge hassle and expenditure to them to load film, develop it, pay for it... wonder if it was done right by the pimple faced kid at the gorcery store mini lab...The pictures they want to keep tey get taken at a low cost studio like wal mart or glamour shots, framed and there you go! Those are now digital, too, by the way... because a professional photographer, on average,has to go digital in order to stay competitive price wise... And he or she, the "expert" will of course tell the consumer that "oh sure, digital is better! Definitely!"... because to do otherwise, while honest, would be bad for business.
And hence the problems the manufacturers are having. I do not know, but am willing to wager, that the B&W Agfa proiducts were probably doing OK, as someone else pointed out, they are losing the fight against other manufacturers in other areas. Unfortunately, B&W is the part they percieve as expendable - they won't fight for it. They will sacrifice it first and frankly, I can't blame them - unlike me, they have no vested personal interest in it, and surely no emotional attachment to the subject.