Minolta killed by apathy, or electronic giants?

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Rich, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    It's conceivable Minolta, Pentax and Olympus could have gone along
    on their own, had the electronics giants and Kodak not destroyed the
    low-end P&S market. Margins were just too low to sustain
    profitability. Even Kodak apparently makes little money in this end,
    despite sellling more cameras than anyone else.
    Canon made a graceful transition to digitals because they started
    early and had the resources to do it. Nikon got lucky, they did what
    they had to do to enter the DSLR market and they've carved a good
    enough piece to stay afloat. Minolta and some others DID drag their
    feet, unreasonably hoping that the frenzy of cost-cutting by the
    electronic giants like Samsung, Fuji, Casio, HP, etc, wouldn't go too
    far and ruin the low end market. The net result was the lesser
    players are or were teetering on the edge of dissolution
    or absorbtion by whatever electronics firm they "partnered" with.
    But the partnerships are about as one-sided as the Chrysler-Daimler
    partnership is. The electronic giants run the show or will shortly
    run the whole show.

    Had the digital remained solely in the domain of legacy camera
    companies, it would have been interesting to see the state of the
    industry today. It's unlikely we'd have $299 5-megapixel cameras.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    RiceHigh Guest

    IMHO, Minolta is killed by aggressiveness, opposite to apathy.

    They have been losing great money in producing great cameras and
    compete with Canon and Nikon head-to-head since 90s. But indeed they
    couldn't get back what they paid as they failed to seek more market
    share in the end.

    Minolta as in their "closing down" announcement mentions, have been a
    very innovative company and create great things and invention, which I
    really appreciated their efforts and contribution to all the
    photographers and to the industry too:-

    http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html

    The saddest thing is that even Konica ends her business just because
    she had put all the bets in Minolta but both still can't survive in the
    new digital era.

    Anyways, new comers will appear sooner and later and no one will shine
    forever in this planet. That's Life! Minolta was once a giant but she
    still collapses. Even somedays the current market leader Canon can
    collapse, who knows? (but just that we all don't know when)
     
    RiceHigh, Jan 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. They are killed because they made products nobody wanted.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 21, 2006
    #3


  4. exactly. They have been marginalised photographically for at least 20 years.
     
    Steve Franklin, Jan 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Rich

    nrh Guest

    Try telling that to our Mod!

    Don't you just hate it when people use nonsensical catch-all phrases purely
    for effect.
    Utter tripe.

    N.

    In
     
    nrh, Jan 21, 2006
    #5
  6. What's tripe, they failed in the business. You fail because people
    don't buy your product.

    People need to be reminded in simple ways about the way markets work,
    since they seem unable to understand more complex ideas.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    But is this "want" natural, or created? Advertising does wonders
    and the companies with the best ad programs reap better sales.
    Word of mouth is only worth so much. But Minolta was late to the game
    with an inexpensive DSLR.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Rich

    Jasen Guest

    The product didn't fail, the marketing and timing failed the product. The
    product is excellent and the future, although Sony, will continue it in some
    form I am sure.
     
    Jasen, Jan 21, 2006
    #8
  9. If people don't buy it, the product failed.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Rich

    Stacey Guest

    Doesn't mean it wasn't the better product. Morons buy fram filters and bosch
    platinum spark plugs every day. Marketing is what drives most peoples
    purchases, they follow like sheep.
     
    Stacey, Jan 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Rich

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly and unfortunately morons that fall for advertising ("Look at what
    the pros use! I want one!!!!!) are also the ones who are the foaming at the
    mouth zealots for the products they then purchase.
     
    Stacey, Jan 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Rich

    Jasen Guest

    Hmmmmmm............BetaMax.......VHS.......Hmmmmmmm........Beta was Betta.
    Need I say any more?
    Your statement is oversimplified.
     
    Jasen, Jan 22, 2006
    #12


  13. It matters not a jot either way. You must produce a good product and market
    it well. That is how it works whether you produce cameras or use them for a
    living.

    Realistically, Minolta produced cameras completely fine for any professional
    to make great images, just as good as Nikon and Canon but if you can't sell
    enough to cover your costs you whither and die.

    If you truly had no brand allegiance what so ever and you were presented
    with 4 brands. Say Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax - How many people would
    NOT choose either Canon/Nikon over Minolta and Pentax?

    They quality, the continuing commitment to technology , the vast range of
    equipment, the global support network, the peer recommendation and the just
    the plain fact that although Nikon and Canon are not the sharpest lenses
    that can be had in the world, the fact is that they are very very good for
    the price and do the job superbly.

    Advertising and marketing only go so far. The products have to stand up to
    the task which I think Canon and Nikon have clearly done for decades.

    Imagine this scenario. You are professional photographer arriving in Beijing
    to cover athletics for the Olympics. You discover that your 300mm 2.8 has
    been 'lost' in transit and you must buy another one immediately. Who is more
    likely to locate both new and second hand versions? The minolta photographer
    or the Nikon photographer? Even if you couldn't locate an AF version chances
    are brilliant you could locate something post 1960 that would at least bolt
    on the mount.
     
    Steve Franklin, Jan 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Rich

    Stacey Guest


    Most people don't buy cameras to use for a living.
     
    Stacey, Jan 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Most people don't buy cameras to use for a living.


    Agreed.

    My point really is that it's not enough to have a product that may even be
    superior to another brand if you don't market the product sufficiently well.
    The R&D costs and the fast moving technology means you must recoup your
    costs quickly with high volume sales right?

    And of course people want to use what the pros use. What is wrong with that?
    This is how this world we live in turns. Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Leica et
    al are all 'aspirational' brands aren't they? It's something to shoot for
    (pardon the pun) and is great for the photographic industry in general.
     
    Steve Franklin, Jan 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Rich

    Father Kodak Guest

    If M, P, and O had managements that didn't believe that their margins
    would deteriorate, then they don't deserve their jobs.

    If .... then things would be OK.

    That is "hope," and not reality. And, "hope is not a plan."

    Exactly. If M didn't believe that they could be affected by vigorous
    competition, then they deserved to disappear as an independent
    company.
    And unlikely we would have more than 5 mp cameras, period. Why
    should any of the incumbents "wasted" resources on an "untried"
    technology?

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jan 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Rich

    nrh Guest

    In
    As I said, he just wanted to look cool.

    N.
     
    nrh, Jan 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Markets don't care about "better product". If the product doesn't
    sell in the market at a rate to produce the expected return for the
    manufacture it has failed.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 22, 2006
    #18
  19. No, products which sell (people buy) succeed. Those that don't fail.
    Better has nothing to do with it.


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 22, 2006
    #19
  20. snipped
    If you are a Canon Pro and member of CPS, you just walk over to the
    Canon CPS tent and they will loan you a 300mm 2.8 until you can the
    "lost" straightened out.

    http://www.canon.com.au/CPS/about_526.html


    **********************************************************

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.