# An article Canon should read.



## HughHowey (Aug 30, 2011)

Excellent article explaining why large companies are often "disrupted," why Apple hasn't succumbed to this, and why Canon SHOULD try to cannibalize its own products by innovating new ones. Anyone with Canon gear should read this. Very eye-opening.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/08/29/jobs-made-apple-great-by-ignoring-profit/


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 30, 2011)

"When the pressure is on and the CEO of a big public company has to choose between doing whatâ€™s best for the customer or making the quarterâ€™s numbersâ€¦ most CEOs will choose the numbers.

Apple never has."

Haha, yeah right.


I agree that Apple is a terrifically run company. But let's not pretend that their practice transcends the rules and norms of business. I really hate Apple worship.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Aug 30, 2011)

I'll start this by saying I am not an Apple fan boy. Been using Mac's since the mid 90s, and lately they've been too consumer driven (bad quicktime X, bring back matte monitors for real work, strange mice, Final Cut X disaster). But still, the good out weights the bad.

One thing that is NOT debatable, is that Canon has far, far LESS vision than Apple. Canon is so conservative and only really cares about the numbers. They won't even fix simple, 4 year old problems with their DSLR video.

Canon will never be an Apple which is sad, because that mean we will never have cameras that could reach their full potential since there are so few camera companies. Instead, we are stuck with incremental upgrades from Canon or Nikon.

Sony with their latest releases, seem to have a bit of spark and some desire (but nowhere near what Apple probably would do); but at least maybe it will trigger some forward progress in the camera industry. I mean 4 year + product cycles? That's so horrible. In any other tech industry, Canon would be completely destroyed with that. Dead. Fortunately for them, their only really competitor in Nikon who equally lags, and probably Sony is the near future who is making moves.

Whether you love or hate Apple, one thing is for sure, they pretty much kick the crap out of the competition by offering innovative products that are well designed, sexy and forward looking; something Canon can't say. They can't even come out with Digic V after 4 long years for God's sake. Pathetic.

If in the future, Nikon or Sony even had 1/2 the vision of Apple (which I doubt they ever will), Canon in all their conservatism would fall like a house of cards, just like what Apple has done to their numerous competitors.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I agree that Apple is a terrifically run company. But let's not pretend that their practice transcends the rules and norms of business. I really hate Apple worship.



Apple was the ONLY company to release a price-beating/spec beating competitor to the iPad at the time that it was #1. That didn't take courage, it took true understanding of it's market.

Securing deals for supplies, and in some extreme cases putting down cash in advance for components was another business savvy move.

Hate whatever you want, but the people worshiping Apple these days are less fanboys and more investors.

:

All that said, different markets, different strategies for Canon/Apple. Some people on this forum would prefer that Canon chase Sony & Nikon . . . that's not going to get/keep them ahead . . .


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 30, 2011)

dstppy said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that Apple is a terrifically run company. But let's not pretend that their practice transcends the rules and norms of business. I really hate Apple worship.
> ...



Yeah, ya know what? Forget I said anything at all. I hate the Apple debate and I simply don't care.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 30, 2011)

One wonders how the 1D/5D/7D ranges would develop given a one year product cycle like the Apple products ?

Evolutionary rather than revolutionary ? But would the first version have to be revolutionary like the Apple product ? Maybe we need Apple to enter the market and upset a the establishment, (rediscovered) innovation like 5" rear touch screens, built in wifi/3G, HDR, smart tagging, crop sensors that emulate full frame.... However, we might end up with factory sealed storage and batteries !


----------



## Viggo (Aug 30, 2011)

I love my Imac, but to call the Iphone 3g, and 3gs and 4 and Ipad2 innovative is just crazy talk. What they know is marketing. Make people sell their kidney (ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN) to get the Iphone because it's now available in white??? 

It's just minor subtle changes, and with the Iphone 4 making people believe that videocall is something revultionary?? LOL, I had that on my 7 year old Ericsson cheap-ass phone. 

Apple knows their computers, purley stated by me as my personal opinion, and not to start a debate with windows or Linux users. I'm just sayin'. I always used a pc, and nearly got so upset with it not working when I wanted to , that I had a heartattack every single day. But Apple isn't that innovative. They make people want to buy their products even if it lacks very much of the basic functions that others have had for a long time. 

And I read a "yeah right" comment above here for Apple caring more about customers then numbers... Cooooome ooon!!!! NO, they don't, they care about money first, second and a long way down that list comes customers. What people need to learn from Apple is marketing and how to sell products. 

With photo, I would hardly say Canon is doing something wrong. Yes, we have waited a long time for a new 1ds4 and a 5d3, but we know they're coming, and now we want them, right? If they came out every year, there wouldn't be much to upgrade from. And no one would be so excited about a new release.

Consider this; For us who owned a early mkIII and bought the mk4 when it first released, MINOR updates wasn't exactly what we thought when first using it, and it became more and more apperant what an astonishing upgrade it is!! 60% increase in resolution and the same noise levels (but better looking) at 12800 as the mk3 had at 3200 is pretty insane, except the faulty AF of the early mkIII's it wasn't exactly a useless camera. 

Go out and use your camera instead of bitching about things you can't control, I mean , really!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2011)

> I agree that Apple is a terrifically run company. But let's not pretend that their practice transcends the rules and norms of business. I really hate Apple worship.



+1

Let's see...if Canon were more like Apple we would have a proprietary file format for all images that would allow us to view, print and manipulate those images using only Canon hardware and software. 

Canon would create a lens mount that would only function with Canon lenses, so that no third-party lenses could be used on its cameras.

Canon would abandon all but the low and highest-end markets, creating only mass consumer products and specialized products for a very narrow segment of the professional class. 

If it continued to offer any mid-range products (Such as DSLRs) it would charge significantly more than Nikon or other competitors for products that have poorer specs. 

It would constantly change the form factor and design of its cameras, so that every year the previous year's models would be obsolete.

It would find a way to charge consumers for each image and lock up the marketplace so that consumers could not freely exchange their own images.

If other companies (Adobe) developed industry-dominant applications, Canon would hobble their cameras so that the applications would not run on their cameras. 

It would abandon full-frame and probably APS-C sensors and instead compress images into a more narrow dynamic range, figuring that eventually everyone would get so used to seeing the compressed images that they would forget what it is like to see an image with a full range of tones and colors. 

Eyeone, I share your pain. I too, tire of the Apple worship.

When it comes to pictures, I'll take stodgy, conservative Canon any day.


----------



## -zero- (Aug 30, 2011)

@unfocused

you forgot to add that the only way to get the pictures out of your camera is by syncing it with itunes and only on 1 computer


----------



## waving_odd (Aug 30, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> The iPod was the first indication that they were, in fact, thinking different. Here was a personal computer company, used to selling $2,000 computers, willing to take a risk on a gadget that would sell for a fraction of that price. Most big companies would not invest the time and energy to develop a device that was not nearly as profitable as their existing products, in a market that did not even exist yet.



Hey folks, just some random thoughts: what if Jobs comes back in the future and wants to challenge the camera industry like what they did with iPhone on mobile phone industry?! They might make iCamera that is not necessarily a DSLR, RF nor MF... The iCamera simply revolutionizes the imaging industry and freaks the hell out of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Hasselblad, Phase 1, etc... Apple again does it from the scratch and it beats all these industry leaders to death...

Imagine...


----------



## rocketdesigner (Aug 30, 2011)

[/quote]

Hey folks, just some random thoughts: what if Jobs comes back in the future 

[/quote]

Don't hold your breath. Pancreatic cancer is virtually a death sentence. He has been fighting it for awhile and I would venture to say that he would not have totally stepped down unless there is little hope for survival.


----------



## PXL_Pusher (Aug 30, 2011)

You know, I'd say any other kind of worship done outside of any religious means is probably over the line. 
I normally stay out of the whole "Apple fanboy / hateboy" debate. It's irrelavant that people become obsessed with a tool, or to the contrary, become obsessed with hating it and bashing it as if it has no merit. 

I've been an art director for 3 years. The projects I work on include package design, billboards, catalogs... web design/development, photography and 3D modeling... oh don't forget motion graphics.... they all require a fast, dynamic and most importantly STABLE environment or aka Operating system. 

I used PC's for a long time... in fact my whole life, until I began using adobe CS 2,3,4,5 master collections and maxing out consumer PC's like it was going out of style. Then it quickly became evident why most, not all, creative professionals use apple products. Not iMacs, although it is possible, but I'm talking about a professional workstation such as a mac pro 8 core with 8g or + ram, and serious storage and a nice graphics card. No... it's not cheap, it's expensive. That's why it's a professional workstation, like a 1D is a professional DSLR. I have the computer described here, and it's been going strong for 4 years without A SINGLE issue. I've upgraded hard drives, ram, and 2 operating systems. Did I mention I run Autodesk 3Ds Max in windows xp through a simple hard drive partition? all from the same OS?

Anyway, I'm not going to write an essay, although I got pretty close already. I just have to point out that computers have to be a fit for the end user, and as a professional designer / art director... there is no PC on the market that will hold up for me as steady and as long as an apple, (running creative software), without serious maintenance, defragmenting, and of course.... virus software. But I am sure there are people that can say they opposite from their experience... and I would never try to argue personal experience over opinion. Thats just my 2Cents. I also hate fanboys, And the people who are quick to hate on the "fanboys"...

It's like people complaining about politics... when they aren't registered to vote....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2011)

Apple has stuck with their 65% profit margin. 

If Canon did that, prices would double. Apple responds to competition by filing lawsuits making all sorts of outrageous claims and tying up the competitor in court for years before Apple finally loses the court battle, but wins by keeping competition away.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 30, 2011)

dstppy said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that Apple is a terrifically run company. But let's not pretend that their practice transcends the rules and norms of business. I really hate Apple worship.
> ...



my professor used to say "apple knows how to play the idiots".

itunes, drm, a closed shop system, etc. etc.

no way that microsoft could have done the same without an uproar from the user.

hell in europe they even tried (and succeeded in part) to forced microsoft to remove email, AV and the internet explorer from the OS. all because of market regulations. no way Microsoft could have done such an closed APP store or cripple their software the way apple uses too.

if canon would act the apple way.. you would have to use canon SD cards and send all your pictures to canon for approval!
NO NUDE PICTURES FROM CANON CAMS!

apple is babysitting and parenting itÂ´s users. 

and for the money of an apple system i rather buy an BOXX workstation.
i am a 3d max user too. no way i would run 3d max on XP (even XP 64 bit) it runs way better on win7 64 bit and itÂ´s real a memory hog. even my 24 GB ram are maxed out quite often.


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 31, 2011)

"Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profits"

What a load of tripe. If they're ignoring profits, then why do they use what amounts to slave labor in China? (The conditions at one factory were so bad, they had to put up nets to put an end to worker suicides at the building where they were "warehoused.") And why do they charge such a premium over other manufacturers?

No disruptions, huh?  Well, here are a couple of recent examples (didn't have to look to hard to find some):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-18/apple-has-trouble-getting-enough-iphone-4-displays-rodman-renshaw-says.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/03/04/apple-ipad-will-production-hiccups-delay-launch/

------------------------------

Jobs was finally successful (Lisa, Newton and NeXT to name a few of his failures), because the iPod became a "fashion" item. If you wanted to 'keep up with the Joneses,' you had to have one. By keeping inventory low at product launch (to create a "feeding frenzy") and by charging a premium (to make it a "must-have" item), his success is ultimately attributable to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."


----------



## gmrza (Aug 31, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> ....
> 
> If in the future, Nikon or Sony even had 1/2 the vision of Apple (which I doubt they ever will), Canon in all their conservatism would fall like a house of cards, just like what Apple has done to their numerous competitors.



Time to play devil's advocate...


With the AE-1 Canon led the charge to mass-market adoption of SLRs. Supposedly the AE-1 was the first camera with an embedded microcontroller.
Canon introduced the world's first inkjet printer.
Didn't Canon lead the market to the adoption of a full electronic lens interface? (EOS 650 and EF lens mount in 1987)
Canon led the market for full frame studio professional DSLRs with the 1Ds. (It wasn't the first full frame pro DSLR, but it was a major departure in terms of utility.)
Wasn't Canon the first company to market an enthusiast-level full frame DSLR? (5D Classic)
Wasn't Canon the first to release HD video in a full frame DSLR? (5D mkII)
Wasn't Canon the first major camera manufacturer to launch a 70-200mm image stabilised lens?

Canon has made some daring bets - 

abandoning the FD lens mount and unseating Nikon as the undisputed leader in the pro SLR segment in the process.
Cannibalising the market for the 1DsIII with the introduction of the 5DII 
I'm sure I have missed a few.

Canon may be managed conservatively, but I don't think we can accuse Canon of not having vision.

Canon has made some innovations which have fallen flat - like the use of a pellicle mirror, or eye-controlled auto-focus. But Canon has also led some ground-breaking market changes - the AE-1, EOS 650, EOS 300D and EOS 350D immediately come to mind.

I will grant that Canon have not introduced any tectonic shifts in the market place lately, so time will tell whether they might lose the edge on innovation.
As for Canon and Nikon being non-entrants or late entrants (Nikon) into the CSC market - I would contend that that is a market which has not proven itself to have given customers a great product yet. Nikon seems to be entering that market reluctantly - Canon may too. Time will tell whether either of them can introduce the "iPad" of that market - to tell the truth, most products in that market at the moment are the equivalent of the Apple Newton.


... Time to don the flame-retardant suit...


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 31, 2011)

gmrza said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Excellent retort, sir! (No flames here! ;D) Besides, it's not as if Canon hasn't been the industry leader for the past two decades.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 31, 2011)

Apple has combined great products with excellent marketing and now have a very loyal customer base. As a company, it has done exceptionally well over the last 15 years. But to ascribe this success to altruistic notions means you've just been suckered in by their marketing. Apple is a profit making beast, just like every other large company. Its just that Apple is a "cooler" brand than most of its competitors.

An interesting article about Apple that has been popular is Australia for the last few days...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/apple-cult-really-makes-me-shudder/story-e6frg6ux-1226123118856

The other thing is that it generally doesn't matter who is first to market with something. What matters is how well you implement it. I think it is generally accepted that Apple products aren't entirely new inventions. But they've hade some top people who have figured out how to make things work better. If there is a lesson to learn from Apple it is that you can't ignore new advances, better ideas for usability and ergonomics, better menu layouts and integrating new technologies.


----------



## Dave (Aug 31, 2011)

If canon would be like apple...
...there would be just ONE dslr and ONE compact model with a new release every year
...it would cost twice as much as every other cam 
...there would be no USB connector. the only way to get your photos from your cam is to use a proprietary software - from canon
...there wouldn't be any memory cards either. You'd have to decide if you want to buy a 8, 16 or 32 version of your SLR
...to use your camera you have to activate it first via that particular software
...the batteries would be build in with no way to change it yourself
...there wouldn't be any manual mode anymore because the mass market don't need that
...canon would sue, nikon, sony, panasonic and every other manufacturer who build cams who look like... well, who look like a cam, because canon thinks that it has invented cams
...canon would buy Adobe (for example) would sell the Creative Suite for just to decide that some functions like auto tone are note needed anymore and have to be kicked out to fit the mass market...


----------



## -zero- (Aug 31, 2011)

Dave said:


> If canon would be like apple...
> ...there would be just ONE dslr and ONE compact model with a new release every year
> ...it would cost twice as much as every other cam
> ...there would be no USB connector. the only way to get your photos from your cam is to use a proprietary software - from canon
> ...



I want to stay away from the Apple love/hate argument but,

why does that sound absolutely unacceptable on a camera but most people accept it for their smartphone?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 31, 2011)

I've been watching the IPhone and the IPad frenzy lately and I finally got up my courage to ask a few questions about the IPad with an eye toward downloading photos for viewing (daily shoots) and for connection to a live camera to use it as a monitor for my cameras out in the field. When I say "the field", I mean forrest or sea coast or other minimally habitated area. Read few or non-existant cell towers. Yes I know everyones needs are different. However here is what I asked the Ipad user at Starbucks:

1. Where is the Compact Flash port? How about the SD port?
2. Where can you hook up an external hard drive?
3. How many apps can you run without being connected to the Internet?
4. How many apps can you load into a 64gb machine? 
5. I often shoot more than 32GB of photos in a day, how do I down load them in the field without the Internet?
6. If I can do it without being connected, how long would they take to download and how would I do it?
7. Do programs and data have to share the meager 64GB of ram? What happens when I shoot more than 64GB?
8. Does CS5 and adobe camera raw work on an Ipad? Does Lightroom?
9. Where can I wire in my camera so I could use the Ipad as a Monitor? Simple to do on a laptop - any laptop.

These are just off the top of my head. I waited to hear answers to my enquires but I'm still waiting.....


Perhaps someone else knows.


----------



## hhelmbold (Aug 31, 2011)

> I've been watching the IPhone and the IPad frenzy lately and I finally got up my courage to ask a few questions about the IPad with an eye toward downloading photos for viewing (daily shoots) and for connection to a live camera to use it as a monitor for my cameras out in the field. When I say "the field", I mean forrest or sea coast or other minimally habitated area. Read few or non-existant cell towers. Yes I know everyones needs are different. However here is what I asked the Ipad user at Starbucks:



I think there is a time and place for everything. From what I gather your use will be in remote areas where there is no internet and will there be power?

The iPad is great for certain uses and really falls short on others, it's not to say that it cannot do what you want. But it is definately not made to run applications like Adobe CS5. You can buy an external camera connection kit for the iPad which is basically a SD card reader and a USB port where you can connect your camera straight to the iPad to download the photos - BUT it doesn't allow you to connect an external HDD. You need to jailbreak the iPad to get this feature. Looking at your need I would say the iPad is not for you...

I wanted to do the same thing, except I have access to power to keep the battery charged. I also travel a lot and wanted to be able to actually edit my photos while flying. I bought myself the ASUS E121 Slate (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/asus-eee-slate-121.aspx) and I am REALLY happy with it. It is more like a laptop and looks like an iPad.

The only negatives I have at the moment is
1) Battery life - for photo editing about 1.5 - 2 hours (It's a full PC, so it is power hungry and I can understand the battery life)
2) Limited to 4GB of RAM 
3) WiFi coverage can be poor at times, not sure if it is interferance
4) Is quite heavy because of the tough glass

But I shoot tethered with my camera, edit photos in Photoshop, display photos to clients, take notes... anything I can do on my Workstation, I can do on the tablet. I bought a 64GB SD card which I leave in the tablet as an extended HDD, and I can connect an additional HDD if I wish (has 2 USB ports)

I was very sceptical at first because everyone compares this to the iPad, but you need to know that these 2 tablets fall in 2 very different categories. I know it sounds like I am promoting the ASUS tablet, but I am just giving you what I decided on after doing a lot of homework on tablets. I do believe that we will see a boom in the tablet market from next year when Windows 8 is launched. I also won't be surprised if Apple launches something between the iPad and the MacBook, maybe a MacPAd or something 

Hope this helps a bit...


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 31, 2011)

archangelrichard said:


> For all you Apple haters responding here; (a) you need to get your facts straight...



You want facts? Okay, here goes:

The Mac GUI was lifted from the Xerox Parc (so much for it being "original").

No other company tries to control what you can and cannot do with your software and hardware (so much for it being "open source"). This is one of the major reasons why Windows runs on the majority of business computers. The other being, of course, that Microsoft doesn't care which hardware you run it on.




> Cannibalising the market for the 1DsIII with the introduction of the 5DII --- actually, NO; this doesn't cannibalize that market at all; these are for different markets (I don't think you understand build quality, waterproofing, etc.)



Yes, it does. What you fail to realize is that many professional shooters will forgo the build quality, waterproofing, etc. and choose the 5DII because the sensor is essentially the same at less than half the cost. Sport and wildlife shooters are _usually_ the ones who *need* the waterproofing, and they use the 1D line (1.3x crop), not the 1Ds.

Oh, and "leading" and being "first" are 2 different things.


----------



## Sunnystate (Aug 31, 2011)

Fascinating!
All kind of crawlers are coming out from under rocks to beat the drums against Apple.
Apple story is about the battle of true talent, genius and visionary against nepotism, establishment, cliques, and elitism in business.
If the critics only were sure that Jobs days are really counted! Unfortunately they still have to be wary that he just may stay alive and active long enough to influence Apple and eventually destroy couple more industries, yes just like photography.

It really is time to start investing in people that know how to create, innovate and deliver, especially in recent economy. 
Your beloved "chosen" guy, with yellow arm pits will not cut it anymore, even with the help of industry giants like IBM and every lawyer in the family, to satisfy demands of the world.
It is time to just get over it, accept and use the lessons to make better things in the future, starting with replacing those well educated, soft spoken, but really dull characters from privileged circles as leaders.
Think for the moment and imagine where could we be if every company was as successful and innovative as Apple, what level of competition will be created in all industries, and what kind of inventions will be already here for everybody to enjoy.


----------



## hhelmbold (Aug 31, 2011)

> Oh, and "leading" and being "first" are 2 different things



Yes... the one means you're finished


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 31, 2011)

For Hhelmbold: Thank you for really providing a true answer to my potential usage of a tablet. I will look into the Asus. For now, it seems that my Laptop will probably be ok. As far as a field monitor I've considered the Marshall field monitors as well as a new one from Adorama. Power would be a problem but maybe one of the solar solutions would be practical or I could just carry another battery. I was attracted to the iPad because of the long battery life. I just don't understand why they didn't put ports on the ipad - seems like they were just trying to save money not to have at least a USB port so you could attach devices. I guess you could save alot of software development costs if you never supported any devices (other than what is inside the machine). No need for device drivers - what a savings... Now where was my pencil?


----------



## Peter Hill (Aug 31, 2011)

I'm not about to dive in and join the debaters about Canon vs Apple. I just cannot accept that a business model that apparently works for a big American company making phones and computers is deemed suitable for a big Japanese company making photographic equipment because they are both ..... companies? For starters, has anyone ever been to a Canon store? No!


----------



## ZeuZ (Aug 31, 2011)

Peter Hill said:


> I'm not about to dive in and join the debaters about Canon vs Apple. I just cannot accept that a business model that apparently works for a big American company making phones and computers is deemed suitable for a big Japanese company making photographic equipment because they are both ..... companies? For starters, has anyone ever been to a Canon store? No!



Actually here in Belgium there is one : canonline.be, the only photography store which sells only Canon.


----------



## hhelmbold (Aug 31, 2011)

I see this has become an issue of attacking people rather than discussing a plain comment... Maybe archangelrichard needs to apply for a name change.

Sure, some of the questions might seem stupid to YOU but only because you have actual knowledge of the product. Some people actually ask questions to gain that knowledge and blasting them from a dizzy height only proves one thing... your own ignorance.
Some people know how to use a camera and that is all they are concerned with. Unfortunately they have to step into the world of computers and apples to get their final product out, and I think they have more guts trying the unknown than just leaving their work at a point of comfort.


To respond to Bruce


> I was attracted to the iPad because of the long battery life. I just don't understand why they didn't put ports on the ipad - seems like they were just trying to save money not to have at least a USB port so you could attach devices



One of Apple's big marketing strategies was the battery life - but also a practical strategy as the iPad is used for on the go business. Comparing it to a laptop is actually a mistake as it is completely 2 different tools. USB ports provide power to the devices plugged into them and will decrease battery life. The processor on the iPad cannot be compared to the processor in a more powerful laptop for instance. Processors are also power hungry and this is why the ASUS has a much shorter battery life. From what I can gather it sounds to me like you will be much better off with a laptop. The ASUS is basically a laptop without the keyboard - it is a full PC. There are other tablets like the Galaxy etc, but most of these compete with the iPAd and once again you will be stuck on specific apps. Stick to a platform you are used to working on... it might not look as cool as an iPad or tablet, but in the end you know what you get.


----------



## macfly (Aug 31, 2011)

The opening posts are very interesting. 

I have long observed the difference between corporations and visionaries, and corporations after their visionaries leave. Ferrari, Ford, Apple, Microsoft, Getty Oil, Standard Oil, Pan Am (on TV now!) the list goes on and on.

In Japan the culture of honoring a founders vision is very different, but none the less that vision is at the core or Honda and Toyota for instance. Canon is part of a much larger industrial conglomerate, and a relatively small part. With the iPhone, iPad and Androids advance into their traditional money making space the writing is on the wall for the p&s camera. All that will be left is the pro-sumer and pro market. This could be bad for us, because it will destroy their camera business, or it could be good for us, because we'll get bundled in with the cine division who make incredible lenses. For sure it'll push prices up, but I'll pay the price for ground breaking quality. If Canon are asleep at the wheel then Sony, Nikon or maybe even Red, an American company founded and run by a visionary, will fill that slot.

Change is happening at a vastly accelerated pace, but since the original EOS 1 Canon have always been the ones defining it. I hope we will see a 1Ds IV shortly that confirms their commitment to visionary change, but if not I'm buying from those that will.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2011)

archangelrichard said:


> What's next, attacking the apple because it is named after a fruit?



Well, the apple is a fruit. Apple, Inc. is a maker of consumer electronics, computers, and software. 



archangelrichard said:


> NO you don't have your facts straight and have repeatedly demonstrated this here



Behavior of which, yourself, have also been guilty of in previous posts (or do you still maintain that a 17mm lens should have a rear element that is 17mm from the image plane?).



Dave said:


> If canon would be like apple...
> ...there would be just ONE dslr and ONE compact model with a new release every year
> ...it would cost twice as much as every other cam



Because Apple only makes one model of computer, right? And I'm sure there are plenty of equivalents to my 17" MBP or 13" MBA (oh, wait, that's two models right there!) that provide the same functionality in the same form factor with the same ease of use. Please, point me to them!



Dave said:


> If canon would be like apple...
> ...there wouldn't be any manual mode anymore because the mass market don't need that



Because Mac OS X doesn't include the Terminal app for a command-line Unix shell interface that allows me to alter most system parameters at will. 

But in a _relevant_ comparison, every current Canon dSLR outside of the 1-series bodies includes the green square mode for a reason - that same 'mass market'.



Dave said:


> If canon would be like apple...
> ...canon would sue, nikon, sony, panasonic and every other manufacturer who build cams who look like... well, who look like a cam, because canon thinks that it has invented cams



Because Canon hasn't ever filed infringement lawsuits, right? FWIW, Nikon recently sued Sigma for patent violations around their VR system.



archangelrichard said:


> "Yes, it does. What you fail to realize is that many professional shooters will forgo the build quality, waterproofing, etc. and choose the 5DII because the sensor is essentially the same at less than half the cost. Sport and wildlife shooters are usually the ones who need the waterproofing, and they use the 1D line (1.3x crop), not the 1Ds."
> 
> Again demonstrating that failure to engage brain before opening mouth - NO they are NOT the same sensors, the 1DS has a much higher pixel count (for example), faster processing, etc. NO they are NOT essentially the same sensor



A good example of taking something out of context then offering unwarranted criticism. Let's look at the original quote:



DJL329 said:


> > Cannibalising the market for the 1DsIII with the introduction of the 5DII --- actually, NO; this doesn't cannibalize that market at all; these are for different markets (I don't think you understand build quality, waterproofing, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. What you fail to realize is that many professional shooters will forgo the build quality, waterproofing, etc. and choose the 5DII because the sensor is essentially the same at less than half the cost. Sport and wildlife shooters are _usually_ the ones who *need* the waterproofing, and they use the 1D line (1.3x crop), not the 1Ds.



Clearly, DJL329 was stating that the 1DsIII and the 5DII have essentially the same sensor. Do you disagree with that? (If so, you're disagreeing with Canon's published statements, but as you know ALL THE FACTS, you should have no problem with that.)




macfly said:


> The opening posts are very interesting. ...Change is happening at a vastly accelerated pace, but since the original EOS 1 Canon have always been the ones defining it. I hope we will see a 1Ds IV shortly that confirms their commitment to visionary change....



Agreed!!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2011)

Well, this certainly confirms that there is nothing quite like Apple to get the juices flowing on both sides (all started by one person re-posting a rather silly p.r. story masquerading as commentary).

Archangelrichard, you do realize that your extreme reaction only reinforces the impression that many have about the cult-like loyalty that Apple inspires in some users?

Apple and Canon are both successful companies. They are in the business to make money. It is very tragic that Mr. Jobs is apparently in the end stages of pancreatic cancer (I have had two friends die of this disease in the last several years and I hate to see anyone with this disease), but he is and always was a businessman, not a saint. To suggest that Mr. Jobs did not care about profit is silly. He returned to Apple in order to return it to profitability.

What I take issue with is the suggestion that somehow Canon should be "more like Apple" when people don't really think through the consequences of that kind of statement.

On this forum people endlessly debate the relative merits of esoteric technologies and standards. Some people actually get angry that Canon has so far been unable to produce a camera that shares or exceeds the human eye's ability to reconcile range, tone, speed, focus, etc. (in fact there are even those who get angry because Canon hasn't yet produced a sensor that exceeds the human eye in low-light sensitivity).

The fact is that each new generation of today's digital cameras are improving upon the image quality of previous generations. The quality and flexibility available today was completely unimaginable just a few short years ago when film dominated the marketplace.

This has happened because Canon and Nikon have not (at least so far) abandoned the quality-conscious consumer and professional markets, even though they could certainly do so and probably increase their profits and reduce costs. 

In contrast, Apple has undeniably "dumbed-down" the audio quality of recorded music. As a result of Apple's admittedly impressive ability to innovate and market its innovations, all of us are condemned to a marketplace where recorded music sounds less, not more, like real life.

I am able to enjoy my 7D and the quality of images it produces because Canon has integrated my narrow market segment into their business plan. I know they are doing that because it makes them money, but none-the-less I appreciate their investment in quality and willingness to serve a niche market. 

Wherever I travel I see people happily snapping pictures with their phones and it reminds me what I dinosaur I am with my big, heavy SLR. I hope that there will always be a market for consumers like myself, but I have to admit I am fearful that "innovative" products like the iPhone and iPad will further erode the camera market. I really don't want photography to suffer the same fate that recorded music has, where "good enough" displaces great. 

I may be on the path to extinction, but for the time being, I'm kind of happy that companies like Canon and Nikon continue to compete for my money.


----------



## Sunnystate (Aug 31, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Well, this certainly confirms that there is nothing quite like Apple to get the juices flowing on both sides (all started by one person re-posting a rather silly p.r. story masquerading as commentary).
> 
> Archangelrichard, you do realize that your extreme reaction only reinforces the impression that many have about the cult-like loyalty that Apple inspires in some users?
> 
> ...



Seems like you knew how to get right, sophisticated enough for your needs camera, but you just don't know how to get good quality music, and this is Apple's fault in your mind?
If you desire, there are even vinyl still produced, CD's and digital music without any compression available.

Do you really expect educated enough consumer to run $30.000 sound system from the iPod, listen to downloaded Beethoven from iTunes? At the same token expect uncompressed 1 GB file on the teenagers iPod to listen lady Gaga on the school bus? Really?

I am really tired of this kind of flowed rhetoric that it is everywhere now, especially on all political sites.


----------



## jgrabner (Aug 31, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Let's see...if Canon were more like Apple we would have a proprietary file format for all images that would allow us to view, print and manipulate those images using only Canon hardware and software.


actually, Apple would "invent" an entirely new storage card which it has patents on and will only be sold by Apple itself. It would cost three times as much as an SD card but would have the "benefit" of nobody being able to transfer pictures from one card to another without not paying Apple $100 per year for their online sharing software.



> Canon would create a lens mount that would only function with Canon lenses, so that no third-party lenses could be used on its cameras.


and every company that dares to make an adaptor would get sued



> Canon would abandon all but the low and highest-end markets, creating only mass consumer products and specialized products for a very narrow segment of the professional class.


the cameras would only have one button: "take picture"



> It would find a way to charge consumers for each image and lock up the marketplace so that consumers could not freely exchange their own images.


well, they would ship a viewer software with each camera for free, which has to be installed on your computer and which is then the only way to transfer the images to your pc. You would not be able to process these pictures in any software that is not made by Apple, so they will sell you special versions of Lightroom and Photoshop for big bucks, which then can use the images from the Apple cameras. 

and of course you image recognition software will prevent you from taking "obscene", "racist", "violent", or any not picture not deemed "appropriate" by Apple censorship.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2011)

jgrabner said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see...if Canon were more like Apple we would have a proprietary file format for all images that would allow us to view, print and manipulate those images using only Canon hardware and software.
> ...



Yeah...but the data throughput would be faster than anything in the industry, and it would have a cool iSomething name. :


----------



## dstppy (Aug 31, 2011)

jgrabner said:


> well, they would ship a viewer software with each camera for free, which has to be installed on your computer and which is then the only way to transfer the images to your pc. You would not be able to process these pictures in any software that is not made by Apple, so they will sell you special versions of Lightroom and Photoshop for big bucks, which then can use the images from the Apple cameras.
> 
> and of course you image recognition software will prevent you from taking "obscene", "racist", "violent", or any not picture not deemed "appropriate" by Apple censorship.



Boy, you saved me a bundle there -- I thought the iphone had a browser, mms and e-mail.

I'da been real upset if my MMS pictures to my friends get filtered because I like to send updates on my dirty socks.

How much time a week do people who dislike apple spend obsessing about it?


----------



## Dave (Sep 1, 2011)

Bruce Photography said:


> why does that sound absolutely unacceptable on a camera but most people accept it for their smartphone?


I keep asking myself that question for a long time... And well... haven't come to an answer... I really love the design of the iPhone. But I still don't have one (and probably will not).



archangelrichard said:


> so there is just 1 iPod?, 1 iMac?, 1 iPad? 1 iPhone?


Okay three iPods (the touch is just a crippled iPhone). But yeah. Basically ther is one iPhone, one iMac and one iPad. An iPhone 16GB and an iPhone 32GB are'nt different models. They are just the result of the restrictions from Apple concerning expansion.
Imo this is the secret oft Apples success... Look at Nokia or Samsung, how many different mobile phones they have. , resulting in a lot of costs for development, production and support.



> not their market; you are blaming Apple for making a product for a market you are no part of


Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I know many (I mean MANY) iPhone useres who really love their iPhone but are CRAVING to have an SD Card or an USB. I really love iPhones. But this is the only reason I will buy a Samsung S2



> and again the proof would be that Apple could easily buy adobe and has not;


But they did that on Software like Logic or Final Cut




> are you now claiming that Apple has sued every maker of MP3 player


Here in Germany Apple just have sued Samsung for building... oh wait... let me quote Apple...



> - a rectangular product with four rounded edges
> - a flat clear surface covering the front of the product
> - a metalic frame aroudn that surface
> - a display that is under that clear surface
> ...



No this not a joke... This are Apples charges against Samsung. Since these is the description for the patent of the iPad.

And sorry, I have Apple products here. And I have no general problem with apple. But like it or not: These ARE facts.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> "When the pressure is on and the CEO of a big public company has to choose between doing whatâ€™s best for the customer or making the quarterâ€™s numbersâ€¦ most CEOs will choose the numbers.
> 
> Apple never has."
> 
> ...



1. I hate Apple worship when it comes to tech since their Apple II's were very soon outdated junk and yet even when there were advanced computers running at 16x the speed, with 4096 colors at once, stereo wave sampled sound built in and pre-emptive multi-tasking, salesman were still pushing the same priced APple II trash over the vastly better stuff. The MAC was basically junk within a year compared to competition and people worshiped that forever. And so on.

2. But you do have to say that they certainly knew how to market and run a company, MS too, way better than the likes of the other players (who actually had FAR more inventive and powerful hardware and OS). In fact, the fact that most people don't even know this just goes to show how good Apple and MS management actually was.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> Excellent article explaining why large companies are often "disrupted," why Apple hasn't succumbed to this, and why Canon SHOULD try to cannibalize its own products by innovating new ones. Anyone with Canon gear should read this. Very eye-opening.
> 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/08/29/jobs-made-apple-great-by-ignoring-profit/



Yeah I've been saying this for almost half a decade now. They used to be so far ahead they could've run away with it for stills and then they even had chance with video, instead they have slowly bled stills market share and the video market share might plummet soon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> Excellent article explaining why large companies are often "disrupted," why Apple hasn't succumbed to this, and why Canon SHOULD try to cannibalize its own products by innovating new ones. Anyone with Canon gear should read this. Very eye-opening.
> 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/08/29/jobs-made-apple-great-by-ignoring-profit/



that said, i do hate how jobs switched over from the early hackers computer to a total 1984 closed down, locked down system, simply awful, as bad as Canon in that regard


----------



## Peter Hill (Sep 2, 2011)

_"Actually here in Belgium there is one : canonline.be, the only photography store which sells only Canon."_

No, that's not a Canon store, that's just a shop selling only Canons. There are heaps of those, and that's not what I meant. Canon, unlike Apple, does not do retail business.


----------



## ZeuZ (Sep 2, 2011)

Peter Hill said:


> _"Actually here in Belgium there is one : canonline.be, the only photography store which sells only Canon."_
> 
> No, that's not a Canon store, that's just a shop selling only Canons. There are heaps of those, and that's not what I meant. Canon, unlike Apple, does not do retail business.



 tomatoes tomaatoes, it's a store and it only sells Canon, a Canon store, but you're right, Canon doesn't run retail like apples.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2011)

archangelrichard said:


> "Clearly, DJL329 was stating that the 1DsIII and the 5DII have essentially the same sensor. Do you disagree with that?" -- yes, I do. --



I'm going to assume you disagree with the clause about the 1DsIII and the 5DII having the same sensor. If you're disagreeing with the fact that that was the intent of DJL329 statement, reading comprehension is clearly an issue for you, and you might want to go re-read his original post, which I quoted. 



archangelrichard said:


> "If so, you're disagreeing with Canon's published statements" -- well. Canon never said they were the same sensor but Similar; or as dpreview puts it "21 megapixel CMOS sensor (very similar to the sensor in the EOS-1Ds Mark III)"



They are similar, true. The 5DII's sensor has modified circuitry for NR. The photosites themselves are identical, in size, number and electronic characteristics.



archangelrichard said:


> being so much longer your basic notion of handholding at 1 over the focal length is out the window; that depended on lenses with normal gemoetry that have a smaller arc of movement; the longer the lens the greater the arc so you have to use the actual length - and just eyeballing it it is close to 135mm real length at 17mm focus so you hand hold at 1/125th of a second and no slower



Silly me, I didn't realize that the 1/focal length rule was based on the physical length of the lens. I though it derived from the field of view relative to the impact of angular motion. It's great to know that I can handhold a 200mm f/2.8L II prime at a 1/125 s, but a fully-extended 70-200mm f/2.8L zoom needs 1/200 s. Speaking of the 70-200mm, as an internal zoom lens I suppose it can be handheld at the same shutter speed at both 70mm and 200mm settings, because the physical length of the lens doesn't change - right? Oh, and that must also mean that sensor size has no effect on the shutter speed at which a lens can be handheld, because a different sensor won't change the physical length of a lens. But maybe you were talking only about the 17-85mm lens - you can handhold that at a minimum 1/125 s whether it's set to 17mm or 85mm? Since Canon bodies are programmed uses the 1/focal length rule to select the shutter speed in Av mode, I suppose the camera would avoid shutter speeds less than 1/125 s with that lens set at 17mm? Try it...I bet you know something Canon's engineers don't. Maybe you should send the engineers at the Canon Optics R&D Center in Utsunomiya those links to Wikipedia and the MIT lecture notes, because your understanding of optics probably surpasses theirs as much as it surpasses my own. But thanks for the link to the lecture notes/slides. A bit basic, though - since I've built multiphoton microscope systems from the ground up, I've got a reasonable understanding of optical physics. 



archangelrichard said:


> "Because Apple only makes one model of computer, right?" - actually; NO. Please get your facts straight
> 
> "Because Mac OS X doesn't include the Terminal app for a command-line Unix shell interface that allows me to alter most system parameters at will." - It doesn't? Really?
> 
> NO, I don't know everything but clearly I know and more importantly understand more than some



Clearly, you can't include _sarcasm_ on that short list of things which you understand. In case it wasn't clear to you, the above discussion of the 1/focal length rule was replete with sarcasm. 

But just as clearly, I'm guilty of feeding the troll. Apologies to the members of this forum who maintain the ability to be civil and carry on _intelligent_ discourse.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Sep 4, 2011)

If Canon were more like Apple, they would insall a direct print button on their cameras that would interface with Canon printers...

People, lets settle this thread down. Obviously Apple and Canon are both doing something right, as they are both profitable companies. Complain all you want about one or the other, but you cant dismiss that hard fact.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 4, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just as clearly, I'm guilty of feeding the troll. Apologies to the members of this forum who maintain the ability to be civil and carry on _intelligent_ discourse.



Quite right, neuroanatomist. The best course of action for us all is to simply ignore this person. Don't read his responses and certainly don't reply to them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2011)

archangelrichard said:


> this is for lettherightlensin
> 
> "I hate Apple worship when it comes to tech since their Apple II's were very soon outdated junk" - this hasn't happened yet; and for reasons of what the Apple II is - completely modifiable. Don't like the keyboard? Get any ascii encoded keyboard and build a cable end (I did and had 25 feet of cable to boot) Don't like the video? You can add a video board and run at higher resolutions (e.g. I had a Spies Labs "double Hi-Res" board with 80 columns of text and 64 colors (well, OK; 8 were black and variations of black). Want Sound? Choose from a number of sound cards from aftermarket manufacturers like the Solid State Music board with 16 voices and synthesizer in and out ports (in fact the standard speaker could be connected to an external speaker - I did with a 12" shelf speaker and the tone drops a bit like a boy going through puberty). Add-on tenkey keyboards, add on 8088 processor board with the Original Seattle Computer DOS (bought by Microsoft and changed into PC DOS / MS DOS) AND add in an 8080 board and run CP/M (OK so I ran BOTH - at the same time!); etc. Disk drives? you can get dual double side double density, Hard drives, 8" floppies, you name it. Memory? There is available on the aftermarket a 786K board (more than you could put on a PC)



yeah and how many programs actually took advantage of all that stuff?
exactly

It had a slow 1MHz 6502 chip which had to drive not just regular calculations but audio and video as well. No custom graphics or audio bus. No nothing. Most bare bones boring design you could imagine. It's not like the other makes couldn't take expansions either, you could plug stuff into them as well although not many expansion cards were made for the others.

the Apple II didn't usher in any modern hardware design, not a custom chip or advanced bus in the thing
I give it credit for starting the whole home computer thing, it gets a lot for that. But boom it was quickly blow away by the Atari 800 which foreshadowed the modern home computer by using custom chips for various tasks as a standard.



> there is no way to obsolete a generic computer like this but what made it end up obsolete was the added convenience of other computers that came out later based on what Apple did: for example, the reason the first PC had openly documented slots was to compete with Apple, used Shurgart Assoc. standard floppy interface was to compete with Apple, had openly accessible video standards was to compete with Apple -- and the bad news? Apple's 1.85 Mhz processor had a 1 Mhz throughput but IBM's 4.77 Mhz 8088 "16 bit" (not really but) had to PAGE the processor to read commands OR inputs (unlike the true 16 bit 8086 which needed 32 bit memory) AND had to page memory to get above 64K because of this; had a throughput of 1 Mhz! (the cp/m based 8080 processor computer got up to 8 Mhz throughput but had no graphics capabilities nor as easy to interface as the Apple II's 6502)



Yes, the original IBM PC was every bit as much of a wreck as the Apple II. IBM didn't even believe in the home market and put a trash team on it since they didn't want to devote any good resources to it.

At the same time people were spending thousands and thousands for creaky IBM clones running MS-DOS or still Apple IIs believe it or not or the original MACs some people were getting stuff like Amiga 1000s with 8Mhz fully 16bit 68000 CPU (ok MAC had that part), custom audio/graphics bus, advanced custom chipsets to drive audio, graphics (with display processors that could sync graphics code to be run to exact location of current place the beam was scanning a CRT),DMA to discs/ports and a fully pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with a GUI that had some modern innards that Linux only wishes it had. 

And remember the mess people had to go through each time they installed even a basic soundblaster or something in a clone or an Apple? Well it was autoconfig plug and play baby with the Amiga from day one. Plug it in and flick the on switch and it works perfectly, automatically.

All included, all standard and supported by all programs and all for only a fraction of the price of the PC clones or the MAC and shockingly for not even much more than a bare bones Apple II, come on.

How long did it take for Windows or MAC to get pre-emptive multi-tasking? First they didn't even do any sort of multi-tasking and then they did non-premeptive fixed slices and other messes. It took them a while. Years. Amiga had it back in 1985! While clones were clunking along with MS DOS junk and then early rudiments of Windows which couldn't even handle "windows" properly at first. Windows on amiga were 100% full as on the MAC and they could also run at different resolutions on different vertical segments of the monitor, by using the copper chip to reprogram the display output on each scanline.

Plus the code was a heck of a lot more efficient taking only 1/4 and 1/16th the amount of code needed to be run through to accomplish each task switch (once the other two finally even got around to offering task switching).

And look at a modern PC, with it's custom PCIe buses, DMA, custom chips offloading everything. The hardware looks a heck of a lot more like an old Amiga than an old Apple or Clone.

It sure is a shame that it wasn't OS like Amiga or BeOS or something that everyone was using now (obviously in more modern form).



> This is a horrible oversimplification - which matches the extremely horrible one that you used; completely ignorant lies like "when there were advanced computers running at 16x the speed" - NO there were not, the TI 99 was a real 32 bits and the most advanced but their Midsize computer division insisted it be so handicapped that they never made a dent in the PC market and NOBODY ran at 16X the speed. "with 4096 colors at once" - I don't know what you are talking about; Atari couldn't do this (but they could "strobe" the color register so it would appear to go through it's 16 colors and rotate through others; the PC's CGA did 16 where Appkle did 8, EGA only got to 256 colors and that was years later; "stereo wave sampled sound built" - actually built in is an issue with new rechnology as it locks you into something that could easily get obsoleted but you could easily add this to an Apple II; "pre-emptive multi-tasking," - you could do this with add in processor boards as I said I did above



Really so now the Apple II OS was pre-emptive multi-tasking? Not even the MAC did that until years after release.

The Amiga did 4096 colors at once in 1985. Granted that is too late to be fair to compare to the Apple II, except.... Apple fanboys used to routinely tell people to not get Atari or CBM toys and to at least get an Apple II instead! Yes I even had dealers tell me that the Apple II was a far better buy than any Amiga! Some told me that because the Amiga used custom chips to offload audio and graphics and could do sprites and multi-hardware overlayed bitmaps and show 4096 colors at once that meant it was a toy since no serious, professional computer of any use for anything real would ever have 4096 colors or sprites or custom graphics chips (and the same jokers I see today bragging about their latest nvidia cards and how serious their machines are, LOL). So it is fair to compare the Amiga to the Apple II since the other side made it fair by trying to promote it over the Amiga back then as utterly laughable as that was.

And yeah the Amiga did have 16x, actually more than that, times the computing power of an Apple II (and sure plug in some new APple card that a few obscure pieces of software use, well heck then plug one into an AMiga, etc.). And 4096 colors at once, etc.



> "The MAC was basically junk within a year compared to competition" -- and again you just have no idea and spout the same fanboy ignorance; what competition? Who made computers that did what the first Mac did?



wow.
you must be kidding.
Atari ST??
Amiga 1000??




> Windows 3 was almost ten years away, nobody else was using graphics fonts - a very basic technology to what we do today; the Mac used SCSI (a Parallel interface rather than cheaper one-bit-at-a-time serial li8ke IBM used); if you don't understand the technology you don't know what you are talking about



hate to say it but there were other things other than clones and some of them did use graphics fonts and SCSI and they even had direct DMA for floppies and stored more on a floppy and had faster throughput than the MAC

they had GUI like the MAC only they also had much more serious and robust command line interfaces as well compelte with UNIX-like pipes and so on and one of them even had multi-tasking back then



> There are no facts to what you posted, no proof, no sense. All you did, in the worst fashion imaginable, was lash out ignorantly for no apparent reason - thus is the illogic of the fanboy



Funny then how your precious Apple (and IBM and MS) hid Amigas under the desks to run their own booths at some computer trade shows since their own computers couldn't cut it half as well. If the actually companies decided to hide other brands under the table rather then show off using their own on the table top then maybe that says something. And maybe you are the fanboy.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2011)

gmrza said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Yes they have. They were often at the forefront pushing things. And during this time you did see sidelines turn from black to white. They really did drive things forward.

More recently they have bragged about being infinitely far ahead of Nikon for FF (just months before Nikon released FF hah) an dhow they didn;t need to do anything other then rest on their high throne. And they have become super stingy and market droid driven when it comes to body specs or showing any recent ingenuity and foresight. So yeah until a few years ago give them props. But they are not doing what they could with the computer inside a camera day and age they are fully into now and they have been doing dumb little things like going back and removing MFA from the 60D just to entice 70D upgrades and even with the 7D heaven forbid they just give the full 1 series AF, etc. etc.

A few years ago they had it in them to basically bury Nikon and take over but instead they went into hyper protect current products and segmentation and now they are actually losing market ground a bit. (although it is possible in the long run that is better they did this since if they had blasted away the competition they may have become sluggish and expensive for years upon years)


----------



## Civius (Sep 5, 2011)

Yeah, it would be so supergreat if Canon was more like Apple. We wouldn't have these stupid memory cards but you could choose between 7D 16GB, 7D 32GB and 7D 64GB. Oh and the prices for all the products would be double what they are now but you wouldn't mind because, cmon, it's a Canon product so it's just pure awesomeness and really, really easy to use because there would be only one button.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 7, 2011)

Very interesting article/business case indeed. But I happen to disagree with it. I agree with the general notion of disruptive technology and how these things have been handled pretty smartly by Mr. Jobs. He is an exceptional leader. In no way does the situation compare to the auto industry. Detroit's problems are rooted in running companies like bureaucracies - thanks in part to the outrageous deals that the unions were able to make over decades. This is not about "cheaper and smaller cars" as some people claim. Today's European and Japanese car fleets for the most part are neither cheaper nor smaller.

Canon and Nikon are in a very unique market segment. The only similarity that I see with Apple is that a lot of the sales are based on image and perception. And I would argue that Canon and Nikon actually live up to a lot of the expectations of the pro-level and mid-range buyer, while mostly satisfying the vast number of P&S buyers. Not a bad business concept in my book. If Apple on the other hand will survive without their big follower-creating Steve Jobs has yet to be seen. I don't see how most Apple products are in any way superior. I came pretty close a few times to buying an Apple computer and decided against it any time. Those that are used by pros in the creative industry are very expensive and at the same time very limited in a number of ways. If photography and/or music was not only my passion but my day job I'd probably have one of the big ones. Everything else is a toy. Pretty styling (obviously important if you sit at Starbucks all day) and good enough to write emails and to be on Facespace or whatever. Other than that I find most of their stuff more than annoying. I do like my iPod classic though - simple and big enough to hold my entire CD collection at a halfway decent sample rate. But their laptops are a joke. Either big and expensive or they don't even have a firewire connection that I need for a bunch of hardware that still serves me well. And anything touchscreeny just makes me cringe. That's why I still love my ThinkPads, regular PCs with Win XP and my old fashioned BlackBerry with a real keyboard.

But that's me. Obviously a lot of way more hip people think otherwise. The question remains for how long. Apple got really lucky with the iPod. Nobody was ever able to come up with an alternative. The iTunes store was a very smart move. I doubt that they will be able to continue this with their other gadgets. There are already plenty of alternatives to the iPad and iPhone for those folks who like this approach. Image alone may not cut it for much longer, especially after Mr. Jobs retirement.


----------



## archangelrichard (Sep 8, 2011)

let - 

It is obvious you are a fan boy (of Atari and Amiga no less) but you still have your fundamental facts wrong

Apple II came long before the Atari ST and Amiga, (as was IBM) so you are comparing Apples to oranges here. NO, the 6502 Apple used was 1.85 MHZ (it had a 1 MHZ throughput - Just like the 4.77 MHZ 8088 IBM used - that chip had to page itself for instructions and then page through a number of 64K pages of RAM)

Custom chips? The deal was that Apple wanted others to make video and audio cards (which would have those chips); NO it did NOT do audio, it strobed (flashed on or off) a speaker, faster or slower, which generated different tones; if you wanted audio you bought a sound card or a synthesizer card or ..... NO it did NOT do video (other than text), that was the LANGUAGE chips (Integer basic or Applesoft)

The Atari 800 used the same 1.85 Mhz 6502 Apple did but they designed their system to be all Atari - and paid the price (from dumb things like a dual drive unit with one controller that - if one drive went down it took the other with it, to plug in memory modules and rom cartridges to ALL SERIAL interfaces), this was a toy in design as opposed to the Apple which was a hobbyist's computer

Coincidentally I was a dealer and supported the silicon valley club which had several Atari employee members (and, yes; Nolan Bushnell who founded Atari was an alcoholic who ended up buying a bar in sunnyvale as it ended up being cheaper than paying his present and expected future bills)

I was also a Commodore dealer but all their products were a little off - from the CBM 8032 and Pet which were designed as instrument controller / readers to the Vic 20 (which had 3 major ROM versions, each larger than the last and each disrupted the start point of aftermarket games) to the 64 (which still did not have a real DOS) and on (Jack Trammiel left the company he turned from a calculator company into a computer company and formed Sirius Computer (later renamed Victor) which made IBM semi-compatible (he had better video which wasn't compatible and needed Sirius dri9vers; he had a 4 speed floppy drive with over 4 times the capacity of IBM standard - it went faster as it went inward, but it could not read IBM standard disks; he had a special keyboard / mode that when you hit the "Calc" key became a calculator until you hit that key again at which point it would transfer the current total into whatever program you were in - but some IBM programs choked when you did this, again it needed special drivers)

The Amiga was not designed by Commodore but was bought, and yes it had special video and audio chips (as did the Mac II - it's competitor and the Atari ST as well) and for those who watched Babylon 5 all the graphics were Amiga based running Videotoaster

"the Apple II didn't usher in any modern hardware design, not a custom chip or advanced bus in the thing" - how is that modern hardware design? The PClones still don't have custom chip and just what do you think is an advanced bus? The only two bus designs at the time were S-100 (generic CP/M computers but not enough bandwidth for 16 bit computers) and Apple II; you are again confusing the mother design for the daughters - and that would be the Mac II comparing to the Atari ST and Amiga

"But boom it was quickly blow away by the Atari 800" - Uh, NO! As i said above the Atari was a consumer product, you could not do even ten percent of what you could with an Apple II and that WAS their purpose (coincidentally the all serial usage was because of TV interference, Atari was in a consumer market but Apple was not) the Atari had GAMES, GAMES, and more GAMES; while the Apple had a lot of business and personal software (and the educational market pretty much to itself as they gave Apple II's to schools); there was no way to make an Atari run 80 column nor using it with a higher res monitor rather than a TV

The Atari had "Shepardson" Basic (which had funny math and no floating point; they later added a Microsoft basic on floppy but it had few users), an absolutely horrible DOS (there was an aftermarket DOS and a better Basic from another company in cupertino whose owner spec'd the shepardson basic while at Atari - a friend of mine); it was designed against modification (I confused one of the Atari Tech people at my store - I had changed the default background color by adjusting the potentiometer and he thought it must be broken)

This goes back to the fanboy issue; these computers were in different markets but you fail to recognize that; FLAO

"And remember the mess people had to go through each time they installed even a basic soundblaster or something in a clone or an Apple?" -- I'm sorry you don't remember but Apple had Plug-and-play in the Mac;s and IT WORKED (that nasty forcing manufacturers to follow the rules in order to sell software guaranteed to work on the Mac)

I am sorry you weren't there when this was happening as you clearly demonstrate with your confusion of generations, I was. There were a lot of computers coming out almost daily and then the industry partially collapsed during the first Reagan Recession, Atari home computer division got sold to Warner Bros; TI (which actually had a real live 32 bit processor but could not get the computer the small computer division wanted to sell because it stepped all over the mid size computers in performance) got out of the market, Osborne bombed when they announced a full screen version years before they could deliver, Eagle computer's founder, Dennis Barnhart, discovered that Ferrari's do not fly wel when upside down at 140 + mph (it went off the street and into a city park and trees do not move out of the way); George Morrow could not make enough money out of his innovative designs and sold his "lunchbox" portable to Zenith who made millions from it; the main authors of Wordstar formed a new company (newstar) but could not find enough of a market (they were programmers, not sales people) so they merged back into wordstar (MicroPro) in time to write the best selling version (3); and on and on

See, what fanboy's do not understand is that everything has it's market, even the Timex Sinclair (which did develop an aftermarket) An individual computer may be the best IN IT's TARGET market and lousy for other people looking for other things. Rant all you want, nothing is going to change reality and this is the reality - Commodore had a better computer (Amiga) for what it did but that wasn't enough; the Mac II beat it because you could adapt it to do all that and then some; the Atari ST was tied to a company that wanted consumer products and it was not one

This is not what the thread is about; that is about companies (for a good short book "The Macintosh Way" by Guy Kawasaki describes how Apple had product evangelists with the mac who went to companies developing hardware and software for the Mac, saw that they had current examples of the systems; any Apple tech support they needed, and generally promoted the product like to retail as well[ no one else was doing this - Canon does this with marketing reps who come to stores, give demo's, usually do rebates with the store to push sales, etc.)

Unlike computers, Cameras are evolutionary; you don't change the lens mount without a damm good reason; you don't change the basic shape or function of cameras (the new EF is an example of a trend growing up from pocket cameras and the consumerization of the DSLR); so there is no particularly disruptive technology here (unless you think that smartphone / cameras are in the same market as DSLR's)

Canon and Apple aren't in the same kind of market and I don't agree with the article; which oversimplified what Apple does


----------



## tt (Sep 16, 2011)

Isn't it fair enough to say that built into Apple's nature is a want not to be nostalgic, and not minding about reducing lines, making changes - this is much harder for some other companies. 

An interesting example of this may be soon what happens to the iPod. It's been superseded, so where it goes we'll find out shortly.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/24/corporate-antibodies-why-apple-seems-to-be-immune/

Apple has the company so they basically can create walled off skunkworks, assigned to do specific projects, no-one else apart from top level staff know about (see the recompile to Intel, iPhone/iPad design for example). Most all Apple staff get to find out what their colleagues have been working on the day of the release, same time consumers do. They they get to work on making their area of coding/projects fit in once it's announced. 

If I was at Canon - i'd be wondering if the convergence train steamrolling in from Android and iOS isn't going to start biting harder - when do dSLR manufacturers get seen as dumb hardware creators, who need someone else to help with better OS?
It's not there, but 8MP within a smartphone - it's biting at point and shoots. We've already seen apps to control dSLR, but when do consumers start asking for their dSLR to be slaved remotely/tethered wirelessly to their tablet/iPhone, with live preview? Wouldn't many people want to review the focus/depth of field on a shot, but are hindered by the screen on their camera? 
Maybe it won't happen yet, but the skunkworks that Google is doing on computational photography could be interesting. 
Especially as cameras become better video recorders - who wouldn't want pre-created focus pulling, automated focus/aperture/ISO/other bracketing, quick review, wireless flash control via an smartphone app etc...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2011)

> If I was at Canon - i'd be wondering if the convergence train steamrolling in from Android and iOS isn't going to start biting harder



What would make anyone think that Canon is unaware of the trends that are occurring? Some of us are old enough to remember when Canon was just one more undifferentiated manufacturer of consumer cameras. Canon did not become the incredibly successful company they are by being slow-witted. 

Just because we are not privy to what their marketing, engineering and other development divisions are working on doesn't mean they are not working on hundreds of innovative technologies at any one time.


----------

