"Smartphones Destroying High-End Camera Sales"

[analoguey]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thestreet/2013/07/12/apple-holds-upper-hand-in-pc-decline/

Not that small, and it looks like they have a plan.

They are, in commercial. Maybe not that small in personal.
As the Forbes article says, MS still makes enough money from Enterprise sales - and not just from Windows, but from the its many flavoured (and very very well integrated and executed) enterprise suite of software.
Win 8 has taken a hit, but its mainly because of people griping about it. Funny part being everyone welcomed apple removing all buttons but one on its phones but went the other way on Windows - if that isnt the result of smart marketing, tell me what is?
The large user base of Windows is just crying to be made use of and integrated really seamlessly for enterprise - and neither Apple nor Google can make a dent there.

The first apple phones were different but not mature at all(ditto ipad - no USB/BT). And I doubt apple's Maps would have had the same flak with Jobs around - even with the same performance. As a customer Apple keeps turning me away by forcing me to stick to their road or the high road - that recent bluetooth experience was from an Imagine store just two days ago - I want to test the screen capability with images (film ones) that I have on phone, but hey - there's no bluetooth to transfer files, only for music! I have to use a cable(!!) or connect to the internet and then login on that apple ipad to see the image. Ludicrous! Bluetooth existed in 100$ phones as early as 2003!

And dont even get me started on their insistence on everything having to be via itunes, heck they even came up with a new way to brick an iphone with their new activation system.

 

[JohnRichard]

I have used Appl products before. I don't now, and I'll save my ranting about their business practices for another day.

I have never liked all in one devices. I prefer to pay up front for the correct tool to do the job.

My phone does take pictures but I don't ever use it for serious photography because I can't control it.

And just like everything else, art forms and knowledge are being lost today never to return. Students learn photography in highschool on film, but at university theyblearn filmmaking digitally...

The old addage of the tractor replacing the horse doesn't apply anymore. Cellphones have not replaced cameras, only the knowledge that such things exist. If we don't teach our children that there are better things then how are they to know.

After encouragement, one of my students discovered his father's vinal collection and instead of lissening to modern pop, he is now exploring music written 50 years ago (velvet underground, floyd, zepplin, and the like).

I'm not sure what my point is, but this technology replacement thing isn't new. Of course, capitalalism is unsustainable ( to use a buzz word) and that's something at which we should all be outraged.

How about yelling at the cell hardware makers for using the plastic we need for film?! Or yelling at everyone for using the corn in plastic instead of food...

I can only control my little universe, in which some technology is allowed, and others shunned. Choose wisely.

Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I have used Appl products before. I don't now, and I'll save my ranting about their business practices for another day.

I have never liked all in one devices. I prefer to pay up front for the correct tool to do the job.

My phone does take pictures but I don't ever use it for serious photography because I can't control it.

And just like everything else, art forms and knowledge are being lost today never to return. Students learn photography in highschool on film, but at university theyblearn filmmaking digitally...

The old addage of the tractor replacing the horse doesn't apply anymore. Cellphones have not replaced cameras, only the knowledge that such things exist. If we don't teach our children that there are better things then how are they to know.

After encouragement, one of my students discovered his father's vinal collection and instead of lissening to modern pop, he is now exploring music written 50 years ago (velvet underground, floyd, zepplin, and the like).

I'm not sure what my point is, but this technology replacement thing isn't new. Of course, capitalalism is unsustainable ( to use a buzz word) and that's something at which we should all be outraged.

How about yelling at the cell hardware makers for using the plastic we need for film?! Or yelling at everyone for using the corn in plastic instead of food...

I can only control my little universe, in which some technology is allowed, and others shunned. Choose wisely.

Nice mini-rant...



Ken

 

[Truzi]

It's often suggested that Apple computers are some how not as vulnerable to virus attacks, etc. I question that. They are such a small percentage of the commercial computing environment (think money or access to info that will lead to money) there just is no incentive to focus on them.

There was a similar suggestion years ago about windows versus Linux. However, a study examining the Server market found, while windows servers were far fewer at the time of the study, they were infected/compromised far more often than non-windows servers. I cannot find a link to it at the moment.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't fully comprehend what you're saying.

You can use air drop to transfer any file you want via bluetooth. Photos too.

Of course business applications hoover around PC solutions, because of the prominent market share of those platforms.
Plus, what entrepreneur in their right mind will pay twice as much for Apple hardware?

I think people get hooked on Apple products because they are beautiful, and they feel luxurious. It's not a rational decision. If all decisions were made by cost/benefit analysis, Apple's market share would be a lot less.

They are, in commercial. Maybe not that small in personal.
As the Forbes article says, MS still makes enough money from Enterprise sales - and not just from Windows, but from the its many flavoured (and very very well integrated and executed) enterprise suite of software.
Win 8 has taken a hit, but its mainly because of people griping about it. Funny part being everyone welcomed apple removing all buttons but one on its phones but went the other way on Windows - if that isnt the result of smart marketing, tell me what is?
The large user base of Windows is just crying to be made use of and integrated really seamlessly for enterprise - and neither Apple nor Google can make a dent there.

The first apple phones were different but not mature at all(ditto ipad - no USB/BT). And I doubt apple's Maps would have had the same flak with Jobs around - even with the same performance. As a customer Apple keeps turning me away by forcing me to stick to their road or the high road - that recent bluetooth experience was from an Imagine store just two days ago - I want to test the screen capability with images (film ones) that I have on phone, but hey - there's no bluetooth to transfer files, only for music! I have to use a cable(!!) or connect to the internet and then login on that apple ipad to see the image. Ludicrous! Bluetooth existed in 100$ phones as early as 2003!

And dont even get me started on their insistence on everything having to be via itunes, heck they even came up with a new way to brick an iphone with their new activation system.

 

[ntenny]

There was a similar suggestion years ago about windows versus Linux. However, a study examining the Server market found, while windows servers were far fewer at the time of the study, they were infected/compromised far more often than non-windows servers. I cannot find a link to it at the moment.

OS X is POSIX under the hood now, so that analogy should apply pretty strongly.

It's not really that Macs are so virus-resistant, it's that Windows has always been *incredibly* insecure, and M$ has consistently been willing to deliver features that were flashy but vulnerable. There are technical reasons why the underpinnings of Windows were originally flaky about security; Macs used to be just as insecure as anything else back in the 80s (when security was for mainframes), but Apple got out from under those legacy issues when they introduced OS X.

-NT

 

[batwister]

It's not a rational decision. If all decisions were made by cost/benefit analysis, Apple's market share would be a lot less.

Come on, I don't think shooting film is a rational decision, based on sound financial sense either. It's frequently talked about in terms of the senses and at times, people even use mystical reasoning for, that's right, consuming film. If we only ever made rational decisions, we probably wouldn't be human. I don't think that 'it's not rational' is a fair criticism of Apple consumers because I've found that many exceptionally creative and intelligent people use iPhones. They also maintain healthy relationships and manage to pay their bills.

I moved to a HTC One recently - so I'm not biased... anymore.

And I didn't change devices for smug 'logical' reasons (a word that's thrown around a little too much of late, along with "I can't process what you're/they're/he's saying"), but simply because I was bored.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You're quite good at reading things literally.

Just because a decision isn't rational, or logical, or whatever, it doesn't imply that it's stupid either. What I am saying is that Apple manages to get BEYOND the rational decision and appeal (very successfully too) to our senses, like no other manufacturer can.

Apple products are very good devices, so naturally people can choose them on basis of that too.

Come on, I don't think shooting film is a rational decision, based on sound financial sense either. It's frequently talked about in terms of the senses and at times, people even use mystical reasoning for, that's right, consuming film. If we only ever made rational decisions, we probably wouldn't be human. I don't think that 'it's not rational' is a fair criticism of Apple consumers because I've found that many exceptionally creative and intelligent people use iPhones. They also maintain healthy relationships and manage to pay their bills.

I moved to a HTC One recently - so I'm not biased... anymore.

And I didn't change devices for smug 'logical' reasons (a word that's thrown around a little too much of late, along with "I can't process what you're/they're/he's saying"), but simply because I was bored.

 

[pbromaghin]

Come on, I don't think shooting film is a rational decision, based on sound financial sense either.

I know this isn't the right place, and I hate to threadjack, but that isn't always true. A few years ago I wanted to pursue photography as a serious hobby and had to choose between film and digital. I did the calculations based on equipment costs and my projected volume (purely as a hobbyist, with no pro pretensions) and made the decision to go into film. The only thing I didn't account for was format-size creep. But even that would not seriously change the outcome.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Let's see ... I shoot 8x10 film. My favorite camera has realistically appreciated in value 600% since I bought it. All the lenses have appreciated. All gear still highly in demand. I average one shot a week. ... There is nothing capable of providing equivalent quality in portable digital options. But if there was, it would probably cost $200,000 and then lose 90% of its resale value within five years. Then there's my lab, which would have to be wholly redone for the sake of significantly diminished print quality. But at least I would have bragging rights for a month or two, if I could ever learn Geek-speak. ... So which is cheaper? For the same amount of money required for even a remotely comparable level of quality - I could shoot even color 8x10 film for about a thousand years using my present equipment. And then I'd still
have a hundred times more shots on hand than I could ever possibly print. Now maybe you machine-gunners look at all this differently...

 

[cliveh]

"Smartphones with powerful cameras have begun to take a toll on sales of expensive, dSLR cameras."

Why should I care? I use film.

 

[batwister]

I know this isn't the right place, and I hate to threadjack, but that isn't always true. A few years ago I wanted to pursue photography as a serious hobby and had to choose between film and digital. I did the calculations based on equipment costs and my projected volume (purely as a hobbyist, with no pro pretensions) and made the decision to go into film. The only thing I didn't account for was format-size creep. But even that would not seriously change the outcome.

Don't forget to account for discontinuation and subsequent 'investments':

Fuji Velvia 50 5x4 (10 pack) - Quantity [200] - Add to cart.



(Did any of you actually trying clicking 'Add to cart'?)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Funny how so many anti-film people keep showing up on APUG ... Maybe things will improve once the electronics stores begin their Christmas sales, and all the naysayers are tied up standing in line to buy the latest Dick Tracy camera watch.

 

[batwister]

Funny how so many anti-film people keep showing up on APUG ... Maybe things will improve once the electronics stores begin their Christmas sales, and all the naysayers are tied up standing in line to buy the latest Dick Tracy camera watch.

Cheer up. I think you can begin to take the good with the bad. I love film and only film (if that matters), but a roasting is never amiss. The word 'sales' is in the thread title btw, so doom and gloom, we should admit, was probably inevitable!

Looking at the page count, it's become the currency of APUG as of late...

Anyway, optimism! So back to Apple then.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well ... just the advertising budgets that go into promoting "gotta have" consumer electronics probably exceed the entire film industry by a factor of a million to one. That alone would tell you how the game is skewed.

 

[removed account4]

Funny how so many anti-film people keep showing up on APUG ... Maybe things will improve once the electronics stores begin their Christmas sales, and all the naysayers are tied up standing in line to buy the latest Dick Tracy camera watch.

DREW

who here is anti-film and a naysayer ??

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Anti-film!? HERE!? Quelle horreur. Where is the guillotine...

 

[hoffy]

DREW

who here is anti-film and a naysayer ??

Exactly. I am not anti-film, but I am not anti-digital either.

Its funny that when I started shooting film again about 5 years ago, I had many people say to me "why would you do that? Film is done". Now, I find that many of the same people say to me "Wow, you still shoot film. Thats cool".

It seems to me that the only anti anyone's I am coming across of late are those who have never owned a digital camera. It also appears that the bigger the format, the more anti they get... So much so, that I have re-activated my account on a forum I used to hang out on years ago. They seem to be quite happy to accept that I shoot film and funnily enough, they don't seem to be so equipment centric (take of that what you will...)

 

[ambaker]

It seems to me the folks most resistant to change, are the ones invested in the previous generation. Photography is not art, said the painter.
Talking movies are a fad, said the silent film star.

Some here decry the digital image. Interestingly, there is not a single image in our gallery that is not digital. They may have started out analog, they are digital now. Yet we eschew discussing hybrid images even though every single image here, and on the rest of the internet, is at least that.

For many images, a camera phone is enough. If what you want are snap shots, why buy (in comparison) an 8x10 camera to take a picture of your three year old blowing out birthday cake candles?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Naples]

Why should I care? I use film.

Oh, you misunderstand. The OP wasn't directed at you.

 

[vpwphoto]

and all the smartphone pictures people take are filtered to look like film anyway so...

The yellowed ones with scratches crack me up most.

 

[vpwphoto]

I agree... (with post title).
Matter of time perhaps that the only people that have DSLR's are the ones attempting any sort of living from it or passionate people.
I muse off and on that the only way to make a mark in the portrait business is stop doing what everyone is doing now..."photojournalist style... run and gun"
I like it when someone say's can you shoot photojournalist style and I say... I actually have a degree in photojournalism.
And go back to tripod, careful lighting, and perhaps.... film... or at least MF digi.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Everyone who truly enjoys imaging as a form of human communication really has nothing against either film or digital images. Or any other type of images. In the end they're all good.

The problem isn't the other technology, it's the venue. By definition and design, that other technology is simply out of place here. And that's not some difficult to interpret or discern, or even obscure, rule. The very first letter in the acronym representing the very first word of the name of the site itself makes it abundantly clear. And everyone here knows this in advance of signing up.

Those who come here to gleefully continue stirring the pot do not do so from a position of ignorance.

Ken

 

[Tom1956]

The last word for me (not the forum), is that photography with film is an excellent escape from winding back up on the computer for every dmn thing we do in life any more. Seems like all roads lead to a computer any more. Soon we will have digital bullets for guns, digital chainsaws to cut down trees for firewood. And for my Dad, a blasted digital golf club. I LIKE taking pictures, I Like splitting firewood. I Don't like golf, but that's 2 out of 3 where I wouldn't need a dadburn computer to do it.

 

[Truzi]

OS X is POSIX under the hood now, so that analogy should apply pretty strongly.
It's not really that Macs are so virus-resistant, it's that Windows has always been *incredibly* insecure, and M$ has consistently been willing to deliver features that were flashy but vulnerable. There are technical reasons why the underpinnings of Windows were originally flaky about security; Macs used to be just as insecure as anything else back in the 80s (when security was for mainframes), but Apple got out from under those legacy issues when they introduced OS X.
-NT

OS X is actually a descendant of Unix, having a strong influence from BSD (via something else Jobs did before rejoining Apple). Windows had implemented some POSIX compliance at one time. I'm not sure if it's still lurking in there, but it was back in XP. Being POSIX compliant, however, doesn't necessarily have to do with security.

Still, if windows is less secure than it should or could be, that makes other systems less "vulnerable" in comparison. Plus, the basic structure of the 'Nixes is more secure in general.