Nils Frohberg wrote:
> (Disclaimer: I didn't look into C*non's new body, I don't care much.)
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:43:19PM -0700, Moose wrote:
> [C*non's SSWF]
>
>> But I sure have to respect Canon.
>>
>
> To me, this move only shows, again, that C*non's not willing/courageous
> enough to be innovative. Until today, C*nonites were always repeating
> the same sermon: "Olympus' SSWF? Hah! No need for that! It doesn't
> help keeping dust out, ...etc..." Now watch them praise their new
> achievement: SSWF.
>
> It's the same in every industry, the big guns pick all the good things
> that the little companies come up with, and the customers cheer. Yay.
I don't wish to get in a pissing match, but I do really disagree with
you on two important levels and suspect that you are unaware of some
complex systems theories about the the sources of success and failure in
economic systems.
If you wish to understand and relate to the world through an emotional
model that puts value only on stories that support a particular
perspective/belief, certainly, you are right. Read no further. Really!
First:
I don't tend to see large corporations, regardless of size, as wearing
black or white hats. They are all gray to me. If a stingray kills you,
there is nothing personal in it, it's just the nature of the beast.
One view is "There is no evidence Mr. Irwin was threatening or
intimidating the stingray," Keating said, addressing speculation that a
man who became famous by leaping on crocodiles and snatching up snakes
must have been too close for the animal's comfort." AP
Another is "[A stingray] is spooked by someone stepping on it or
swimming too closely over it, frightening it, the tail raises
involuntarily." Victoria Brims, a marine life expert at OceanWorld, an
aquarium in Sydney, AP
By analogy to your view of the "big guns", Steve meant no harm, the ray
should have known that and not harmed him. It must have done so out of
evil intent. My view is that he misunderstood or miscalculated the safe
distance for swimming over a large ray, it acted as expected and known
by those who study them. Thus, if there is fault to be laid, it is Steve's.
One of my approaches to understanding corporations, large or small, is
to understand that they are creatures with certain characteristics, many
of which are essentially involuntary. If you swim too close....
My understanding of the 'personality' of Olympus, or at least the part
that makes consumer photo equipment is that it is a company with great
creative talents that often is dysfunctional in turning those creative
ideas into products that will sell well in the market place. It also
appears to be shy and easily frightened. Sort of a nerd (And I speak as
a possibly ex nerd, with a soft spot in my heart for them.)
My reading of the Canon consumer photography 'beast' is that it is
market driven and will do whatever it can to meet the demands of those
who buy the kind of products it makes. It appears tht it expends some
effort in listening to its customers. And they seem to be opportunistic,
willing to find solutions wherever they can, rather than worrying about
whether they invented it or not.
As a person who buys and uses those kind of products, I find Oly's
approach frustrating, because I still have an emotional attachment to
Oly. And I find Canon's approach very attractive. Why not like the one
who gives you what you want?
Second:
I believe your statement about Canon and creativity is wrong and the
unstated assumption about Oly creativity is also wrong.
- According to Panasonic, they designed the first commercial optical
image stabilization system.. It moved the whole imaging system, lens and
sensor, so was only suitable for small video systems. It was too big and
heavy, so it was dropped (unstated: failed in the market) in favor of
electronic IS
" Then, in 2000, Matsushita Electric President Kunio Nakamura accurately
predicted a major market trend when he set his engineers to work
non-stop on digital still camera development." Another truth about the
behavior of corporations, they embellish and spin the truth. By 2000,
when Kunio had his vision, the first zoom with OIS, a Canon, was five
years old. Looks to me like his vision was of photographic sales figures.
So was Canon's development of a practical internal IS based on moving
only small parts of the optical system "pick[ing] all the good things
that the little companies come up with"? Or was it genuine innovation? I
don't know, but I do know that Canon was first to market with a really
useful technology that allowed photographers to take images they
couldn't before. And I know Panasonic didn't call foul. When they saw
which way the wind was blowing in the segment they wanted to do well in,
they dug in and developed their own OIS using similar principles to
Canon. Nikon too saw the handwriting on the wall and jumped on
development of their own system, VR.
- Not long ago, everybody in the imaging industry KNEW that CCD was the
technology that would dominate still camera imaging above the
cameraphone level. Canon quietly investigated further on their own - and
turned the DSLR industry on its head with CMOS sensors that others are
still scrambling to catch up with. Did they steal that from somebody?
No. Was it innovative, creative? I think so, but you make up your own mind.
- Khen just remarked on the T32 flash. Well, I love the T32. The TTL
flash system on my long beloved OM-2n is the cat's meow. Dappled direct
sun through trees into the shade of a kid's birthday party? Just leave
camera and flash on auto, focus and shoot, all balanced, great shot.
I've had lots of good shots over the years with that combo. Guess who
developed and patented the TTL flash design? Hint, not Oly, they
licensed it from someone else. Does that somehow make Oly bad? Not in my
book. They combined their own innovations in the OM system with someone
else's creativeity in another area to create a wonderful camera flash
combo for me to buy, use and enjoy. What's not to like?
Third,
If you have any interest in understanding the behaviors you refer to,
you might do a little reading. The first part of "Complexity", by M.
Mitchell Waldrop, might change your understanding of how and why some
companies become big and others don't. Hint, the answer has nothing to
do with good or bad, or even intentions and practices.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|