Hassleblad Jumps the Shark

[Tom1956]

Apple turned in a good quarter only when applied to the "market's expectations". These were set up days earlier by sapper analysts who overstate, with full knowledge, their expectations of Apple's price drop. Apple "beats the street", everybody cheers and the charade goes on. Fact is Apple was down, what, 22%? I'm OT enough as it is but, believe me, there's a rogue Nobel out there for anyone who studies stock analysts's "failures" rather than their methods.

A collaboration with Ferrari is a not-so-rare marketing ploy. Colnago did it too: More curves, that paint color, that horse, done. Enzo too would be as heartsick as would Hasselblad.

s-a

You took the words right out of my mouth. Now up $20.00 in pre-market. I'm not touching it.

 

[analoguey]

The rational side of me realizes that camera manufacturers sees much increased competition from nontraditional competitors - manufacturers of phones, tablets/iPads, even eye glasses (Google) - they realize they can't keep selling something that is increasingly perceived by the general public as something big, bulky, impractical, etc ad nauseum. So they have to do something in this marketplace of commodities.

To me, they should have focused on building premium products, and maintain the ergonomics and design that they have become so famous for. Why not build a camera that is modular and upgradeable? How many of us are tired of things that become obsolete every few years? Example, my iPhone 4 is not only two years old, and even though it's as shiny as it was when I first got it, it feels old somehow. If I could have one where the buttons wouldn't wear out, and I could instead upgrade the 'guts' of the phone, and pay less than I do for a brand new phone, I'd do it in a heart beat. .

I don't buy that first argument. When were hassies anything but premium? The ones that actually got screwed over by everything digital are in-fact the yashicas konicas etc.,

Re the modular system, it's kinda funny, having been in the software world, where emphasis is on re-usability and modularity, I find it weird that a lot of software instead is run or pushed into hardware that isn't modular.

One problem I guess is the size. Beyond a certain size, I guess it's kind of superfluous.

- via tapatalk.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't buy that first argument. When were hassies anything but premium? The ones that actually got screwed over by everything digital are in-fact the yashicas konicas etc.,

Re the modular system, it's kinda funny, having been in the software world, where emphasis is on re-usability and modularity, I find it weird that a lot of software instead is run or pushed into hardware that isn't modular.

One problem I guess is the size. Beyond a certain size, I guess it's kind of superfluous.

- via tapatalk.

With the new camera they are entering the realm of items that are rebranded and old model Sony. How is that premium?

It is a fact that people are ditching cameras for iPhones and the like. What would you do if you owned Hasselblad today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Moopheus]

I don't buy that first argument. When were hassies anything but premium? The ones that actually got screwed over by everything digital are in-fact the yashicas konicas etc.,

Really--Hasselblad's primary market for some time now presumably has not been film cameras, but high-end digital studio cameras, the ones that cost $30K+. The real problem for Hasselblad is not that there's no market for 503's, but that the market for $30,000 cameras is being eroded by $5,000 cameras. I would think that what their buyers really want is not a $5,000 Nex-7 (no one wants that), but an $8,000 H4D.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hmm, the article linked out to another Hasselbad - the Lunar.
I think I have seen enough screwed up designs for today.

Although going by their digital MF bodies, one wouldn't really know if they have deviated much in "design" terms

Sometimes, one wished these guys learn a little bit from exotic supercar makers. Ferrari, for example, haven't made a rebadged Punto.

Aston Martin, on the other hand....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...-martin/6826549/Baby-Aston-Martin-Cygnet.html

It's a Toyota IQ with a $30,000 interior and some hood louvers.

 

[Tom1956]

I forgot--what's the word in economics where there's too many goods chasing too-few buyers? I think this 15,500 Dow is a crock. I just don't buy it. Who is buying this junk?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I forgot--what's the word in economics where there's too many goods chasing too-few buyers? I think this 15,500 Dow is a crock. I just don't buy it. Who is buying this junk?

I think it's a hype too, but the index is all about perception, and has very little to do with reality. Rich people are getting richer, is about all you can tell from it. It's a very poor indicator of the general state of the economy.

 

[Tom1956]

I think it's a hype too, but the index is all about perception, and has very little to do with reality. Rich people are getting richer, is about all you can tell from it. It's a very poor indicator of the general state of the economy.

I know why it is, but it's a political observation, and that's off-limits here. Yes, like no other time in my life this is a rich-getting-richer environment, on steroids.

 

[omaha]

Really--Hasselblad's primary market for some time now presumably has not been film cameras, but high-end digital studio cameras, the ones that cost $30K+. The real problem for Hasselblad is not that there's no market for 503's, but that the market for $30,000 cameras is being eroded by $5,000 cameras. I would think that what their buyers really want is not a $5,000 Nex-7 (no one wants that), but an $8,000 H4D.

Exactly right!

So much of this is driven by the sensor fabs. I wonder if they are even going to bother making MF digital sensors in the future. The market is just so tiny. Better to sell a zillion tiny sensors (in phones) than a few thousand big ones, even if you get $5k per for them.

 

[analoguey]

Exactly right!

So much of this is driven by the sensor fabs. I wonder if they are even going to bother making MF digital sensors in the future. The market is just so tiny. Better to sell a zillion tiny sensors (in phones) than a few thousand big ones, even if you get $5k per for them.

Underestimating the lure of luxury goods or gadgets there. China, for example is the big big market. India is catching up too - I see more luxury cars everyday on the roads even in a midst of gloom - and luxury car prices in India are usually at twice the imported price, mind you.(as are iPhones!)


- via tapatalk.

 

[analoguey]

With the new camera they are entering the realm of items that are rebranded and old model Sony. How is that premium?

Absolutely! It isn't. That's why I think it's stupid. That's what Moorpheus hinted at as well, I think. (though I probably bit off too much on the car analogy, I reckon! ;-) )

It is a fact that people are ditching cameras for iPhones and the like. What would you do if you owned Hasselblad today?

Target the large premium market in Asia. No-brainer really.


- via tapatalk.

 

[ntenny]

Hasselblad has made some strange glitzy co-branding items for some time---I remember seeing a truly awful display of their stuff in the Frankfurt airport, maybe including that Ferrari-decor camera posted upthread.

The thing is, the heart of their market used to be pro photographers, and they've lost much of that market to the high-end DSLRs now; they have their business in big digital sensors priced out of any normal retail range, but even that must be a shrinking market, and it's one that's more vulnerable to commodification than the old film-camera market was. Complex mechanics done with stellar ergonomics have a certain intrinsic value, because they're hard to do together; but if you no longer need the mechanical complexity, the functional heart of your product (the CCD) is a commodity, and all you have to compete on is good ergonomics and a brand name, that's a tough freakin' situation.

Sure, they probably should "target the large premium market in Asia". But with what kind of product? A high-dollar fancy camera that relies on glitz and status rather than special functionality? That's exactly what this disturbing product is supposed to be, I think.

-NT

 

[PtJudeRI]

Agreed with above... want a solid business move?? Get people to buy an H4d at prices that rival the high end dSLR cameras, then make your money on the lenses, the accessories, and such. You need to get people into a system they like, and they'll stay with it.

Personally, I would agree that Hasselblad should come out and sell some digital backs that will fit their 500 series and 200 series. Those suckers would sell damn quick. Actually, thinking out loud, if someone could produce digital "backs" that would fit old film cameras, you would have a pretty good product on your hands. No need for a preview or functions, just a download port. I'd grab one for my Nikons, no sweat.

 

[I.G.I.]

The real problem is the capitalist drive for endless expansion: obviously, like the makers of fine mechanical time pieces for a company like Hasselblad is impossible to expand rapidly and endlessly, and at the same time maintain their traditional identity. The other huge problem is modern capitalism speculative investment climate: rapid capital inflow and outflow have a devastating effect, not just on companies, but on entire countries (Spain and Latvia housing bubbles are the first to spring to mind). Looks like Hasselblad is a dead man walking.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Most of the digital backs that have been made fit the Hasselblad 500-series cameras, and one of the ways to use a digital back on a large format camera is with a Hasselblad adapter plate. The standard may be around longer than the cameras are made.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Personally, I would agree that Hasselblad should come out and sell some digital backs that will fit their 500 series and 200 series. Those suckers would sell damn quick. Actually, thinking out loud, if someone could produce digital "backs" that would fit old film cameras, you would have a pretty good product on your hands.

My opinion too!

 

[omaha]

I don't think the problem is so much the structure of capitalism as it is that the nature and evolution of technology (specifically manufacturing technology) has largely eliminated the value of Hassy's historic core competencies.

Which is a fancy way of saying that those things that they used to be uniquely good at are not so rare anymore. Lots of companies can produce precision components and assemblies these days. The ability to do so, in and of itself, is no longer sufficient to gain competitive advantage.

What they are doing is not particularly irrational. If I owned a brand with the "premium" appeal of Hasselblad, I'd do the same thing: Cash in. Milk it. Sell over-priced, "prestige" products to every sucker who is willing to buy, knowing full well that each sell has the side-effect of diluting and diminishing the value of the brand.

Its not particularly pleasant to watch, but it makes sense.

 

[I.G.I.]

I don't think the problem is so much the structure of capitalism as it is that the nature and evolution of technology (specifically manufacturing technology) has largely eliminated the value of Hassy's historic core competencies.

Which is a fancy way of saying that those things that they used to be uniquely good at are not so rare anymore. Lots of companies can produce precision components and assemblies these days. The ability to do so, in and of itself, is no longer sufficient to gain competitive advantage.

What they are doing is not particularly irrational. If I owned a brand with the "premium" appeal of Hasselblad, I'd do the same thing: Cash in. Milk it. Sell over-priced, "prestige" products to every sucker who is willing to buy, knowing full well that each sell has the side-effect of diluting and diminishing the value of the brand.

Its not particularly pleasant to watch, but it makes sense.

It only make "sense" if you are a vulture fund/equity. For all others - the company tradition and image, the workforce, and the society at large - that "sense" has huge negative impact. Human history would have been immeasurably poorer had it been driven by such anti-values.

 

[lxdude]

I wonder how many of those lipsticked-up pigs do they sell, anyway? Enough to make a strong difference on the bottom line? Enough to make it worth trading brand equity for? I just don't know. Maybe they sell well to the status-conscious newly affluent in China. If so, it looks like the Marxists got what they wanted- a classless society. That is, a society without class.

 

[omaha]

It only make "sense" if you are a vulture fund/equity. For all others - the company tradition and image, the workforce, and the society at large - that "sense" has huge negative impact. Human history would have been immeasurably poorer had it been driven by such anti-values.

Human history WAS driven by such values. Its just the way things are.

A company is not a museum. It does not exist to satisfy our sense of nostalgia, or to perpetuate itself so we can enjoy an artificial sense of stability.

The environment in which Hasselblad became the company we once admired no longer exists. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will bring it back (either the environment or the company).

I can look at things like the abomination that was posted at the start of this thread and feel sad that it has come to this. But I don't blame the owners (either former or present) for doing what they can to maximize their value. Things like painting a camera red and then charging double for a "Ferrari Edition" is ridiculous to my taste, but if that's what people with more money than sense want to buy, then who am I to say Hassy shouldn't sell it to them? Same with grafting a wooden handle onto an otherwise unremarkable camera. If the suckers want to buy, that's what I'm selling.

 

[RattyMouse]

I wonder how many of those lipsticked-up pigs do they sell, anyway? Enough to make a strong difference on the bottom line? Enough to make it worth trading brand equity for? I just don't know. Maybe they sell well to the status-conscious newly affluent in China. If so, it looks like the Marxists got what they wanted- a classless society. That is, a society without class.

 

[analoguey]

The thing is, the heart of their market used to be pro photographers, and they've lost much of that market to the high-end DSLRs now; they have their business in big digital sensors priced out of any normal retail range, but even that must be a shrinking market, and it's one that's more vulnerable to commodification than the old film-camera market was. Complex mechanics done with stellar ergonomics have a certain intrinsic value, because they're hard to do together; but if you no longer need the mechanical complexity, the functional heart of your product (the CCD) is a commodity, and all you have to compete on is good ergonomics and a brand name, that's a tough freakin' situation.

Sure, they probably should "target the large premium market in Asia". But with what kind of product? A high-dollar fancy camera that relies on glitz and status rather than special functionality? That's exactly what this disturbing product is supposed to be, I think.

-NT

Quite a few people buying the full-frame DSLRs are hardly professionals. As someone said above - Get them in with body design and stuff, then show difference w optics.

But seriously, if other manufacturers can make a play without making red coloured super-expensive holgas, surely, hassie can innovate, and think beyond gimmicks.




- via tapatalk.

 

[clayne]

Leica is doing the exact same thing.

Rich people and vapid consumers are to blame for this, as usual.

 

[removed-user-1]

Actually, thinking out loud, if someone could produce digital "backs" that would fit old film cameras, you would have a pretty good product on your hands. No need for a preview or functions, just a download port. I'd grab one for my Nikons, no sweat.

About 15 years ago, a company named Imagek (later known as Silicon Film) "announced" a drop-in digital device for use in 35mm SLR cameras. It never made it to market, and eventually become a classic example of vaporware. Here's a link to one article on dpreview; the company apparently no longer exists.

Personally, I'm glad such a device didn't become a viable product.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

About 15 years ago, a company named Imagek (later known as Silicon Film) "announced" a drop-in digital device for use in 35mm SLR cameras. It never made it to market, and eventually become a classic example of vaporware. Here's a link to one article on dpreview; the company apparently no longer exists.

Personally, I'm glad such a device didn't become a viable product.

Well, say what you will, but I would love it if such a device became reality, so that I would never have to worry about being able to continue to use some of my favorite cameras when film is no longer available/affordable. I hope that this event horizon is beyond my lifetime, but it would be nice to have the alternative available should it happen sooner rather than later.