Post by whoopi on Apr 20, 2006 8:29:02 GMT 8
A rough decade for traditional camera makers
4/18/2006 11:07:52 PM, by Nate Anderson
ARS Technica
It's a been a rough century for the traditional camera kings. Many
of the traditional camera makers were late to embrace the new
digital upstarts, and when they did, they found themselves at a huge
disadvantge. The new cameras required very different kinds of
technical know-how from the older models, and film-based companies
suddenly had to understand the market for CCDs and semiconductors.
Most of these companies didn't have their own CCD tech or fabs, of
course, and so had to license the core element of a digital camera
from someone else—a less than ideal situation, since it put their
technology at the mercy of another firm.
Things got ugly, fast. How bad is the situation for the old-school
giants? Check out this recent rundown of their collective troubles:
Camera buffs were stunned in January when Konica Minolta Holdings
Inc., which traces its roots to 1873, said it was quitting the
camera business altogether - digital and film - and selling its
digital assets to rival Sony Corp.
Nikon Corp. said the same month it would stop making seven of its
nine film cameras and concentrate on digital models.
Fuji Photo Film Co., which plans to cut 5,000 jobs, changed
directions last month announcing it would spend nearly $8.5-million
(U.S.) to diversify into pharmaceuticals.
Europe's biggest film maker, Germany's AgfaPhoto GmbH, couldn't
adapt at all; it's now bankrupt and liquidated.
Meanwhile, Antonio Perez, who is leading Eastman Kodak Co. through a
four-year digital remake, has warned that Kodak, the pioneer of
point-and-shoot photography, is now "at the worst possible place"
after a $1.03-billion third-quarter loss.
Kodak, in particular, is having a rough time of it. They're still in
business, but they had a horrendous 2005 and managed to lose US$1.3
billion by the time it was over. Despite the company's push into
digital, Kodak is still a major supplier of film products for those
purists who insist that film has a certain je ne sais quoi that
pixels lack. Unfortunately for film lovers, Kodak's troubles and the
recent rise in oil prices (which translates into higher production
and distribution costs) mean that the company will raise the price
of its film products up to 17 percent.
As if its traditional film business wasn't in enough trouble, Kodak
now finds its digital products in potential jeopardy as well. A new
lawsuit filed by U.S. Philips Corp. (a subsidiary of European tech
conglomerate Philips Electronics) alleges that Kodak's digital
cameras violate a patent on JPEG encoding held by Philips.
Obviously, it will be some time before this case is settled or
decided, but it certainly does not come at a good time for Kodak,
which is already bleeding cash heavily. Companies like Canon, which
embraced the digital revolution early, are doing incredible
business; those that didn't jump on the digital train early,
however, are now in danger of being run down by it.
As the owner of a built-like-a-tank Minolta SLR from Back in the
Day™, part of me is saddened by all this grim news. There was
something so tangible and satisfying about the clicks, whirrs, and
pops that the machine made, and something luminous about the
excellent pictures that it took. There's another part of me, though,
that knows why I finally gave the camera away. It's the part of me
that hated driving to the photo shop to drop off prints, then paying
US$8 bucks to pick them up—and find that half the roll was garbage.
It's the part of me that hated loading film, disliked handling
negatives, and was driven to distraction trying to perfectly crop
reprints. It's the part of me that loathed the process of scanning
pictures into my PC in order to show Aunt Ethel my astonishing shot
of Sacre Coeur as seen through the tremendous transparent clock
built into the wall of the Musée d'Orsay. So all hail digital—but
it's still a shame about Minolta.
4/18/2006 11:07:52 PM, by Nate Anderson
ARS Technica
It's a been a rough century for the traditional camera kings. Many
of the traditional camera makers were late to embrace the new
digital upstarts, and when they did, they found themselves at a huge
disadvantge. The new cameras required very different kinds of
technical know-how from the older models, and film-based companies
suddenly had to understand the market for CCDs and semiconductors.
Most of these companies didn't have their own CCD tech or fabs, of
course, and so had to license the core element of a digital camera
from someone else—a less than ideal situation, since it put their
technology at the mercy of another firm.
Things got ugly, fast. How bad is the situation for the old-school
giants? Check out this recent rundown of their collective troubles:
Camera buffs were stunned in January when Konica Minolta Holdings
Inc., which traces its roots to 1873, said it was quitting the
camera business altogether - digital and film - and selling its
digital assets to rival Sony Corp.
Nikon Corp. said the same month it would stop making seven of its
nine film cameras and concentrate on digital models.
Fuji Photo Film Co., which plans to cut 5,000 jobs, changed
directions last month announcing it would spend nearly $8.5-million
(U.S.) to diversify into pharmaceuticals.
Europe's biggest film maker, Germany's AgfaPhoto GmbH, couldn't
adapt at all; it's now bankrupt and liquidated.
Meanwhile, Antonio Perez, who is leading Eastman Kodak Co. through a
four-year digital remake, has warned that Kodak, the pioneer of
point-and-shoot photography, is now "at the worst possible place"
after a $1.03-billion third-quarter loss.
Kodak, in particular, is having a rough time of it. They're still in
business, but they had a horrendous 2005 and managed to lose US$1.3
billion by the time it was over. Despite the company's push into
digital, Kodak is still a major supplier of film products for those
purists who insist that film has a certain je ne sais quoi that
pixels lack. Unfortunately for film lovers, Kodak's troubles and the
recent rise in oil prices (which translates into higher production
and distribution costs) mean that the company will raise the price
of its film products up to 17 percent.
As if its traditional film business wasn't in enough trouble, Kodak
now finds its digital products in potential jeopardy as well. A new
lawsuit filed by U.S. Philips Corp. (a subsidiary of European tech
conglomerate Philips Electronics) alleges that Kodak's digital
cameras violate a patent on JPEG encoding held by Philips.
Obviously, it will be some time before this case is settled or
decided, but it certainly does not come at a good time for Kodak,
which is already bleeding cash heavily. Companies like Canon, which
embraced the digital revolution early, are doing incredible
business; those that didn't jump on the digital train early,
however, are now in danger of being run down by it.
As the owner of a built-like-a-tank Minolta SLR from Back in the
Day™, part of me is saddened by all this grim news. There was
something so tangible and satisfying about the clicks, whirrs, and
pops that the machine made, and something luminous about the
excellent pictures that it took. There's another part of me, though,
that knows why I finally gave the camera away. It's the part of me
that hated driving to the photo shop to drop off prints, then paying
US$8 bucks to pick them up—and find that half the roll was garbage.
It's the part of me that hated loading film, disliked handling
negatives, and was driven to distraction trying to perfectly crop
reprints. It's the part of me that loathed the process of scanning
pictures into my PC in order to show Aunt Ethel my astonishing shot
of Sacre Coeur as seen through the tremendous transparent clock
built into the wall of the Musée d'Orsay. So all hail digital—but
it's still a shame about Minolta.