Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive

Reply
Thread Tools

P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive

 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:47:02 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <mBq3m.11056$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> However, the point is that while Osborne created a
>> wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
>> his cost of production and for the entire life of the
>> product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
>> went bankrupt due to the "success"!

>
>That's not what happened to Osborne Computer at all.
>
>Several things killed Osborne.
>
>1. Kaypro came out with a 9" screen model hurting sales of the 5" screen
>Osborne 1.
>
>2. Compaq offered their suitcase computer which was IBM compatible.
>
>3. Adam pre-announced the Osborne Executive (7" screen) and sales of the
>Osborne 1 tanked because everyone waited for the new model.
>
>4. The company was under-capitalized so they could not ride out the
>sales lull and develop new products fast enough.
>
>5. He could not produce the original model in sufficient quantities to
>meet demand, and by the time he could, prices had fallen.
>
>Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books.


I see you've now read the Wikipedia article and changed your tune but
without acknowledging or apologizing for your prior bad information:
<news:_do3m.1970$(E-Mail Removed)>
Why am I not surprised.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:02:05 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <uPq3m.11059$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough
>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for
>photography rather than "snapshots."


Nonsense.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:47:02 -0700, SMS wrote:

> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> However, the point is that while Osborne created a wonderful computer,
>> he failed to accurately calculate his cost of production and for the
>> entire life of the product he sold it for less than it cost to make...
>> and went bankrupt due to the "success"!

>
> That's not what happened to Osborne Computer at all.
>
> Several things killed Osborne.
>
> 1. Kaypro came out with a 9" screen model hurting sales of the 5" screen
> Osborne 1.
>
> 2. Compaq offered their suitcase computer which was IBM compatible.
>
> 3. Adam pre-announced the Osborne Executive (7" screen) and sales of the
> Osborne 1 tanked because everyone waited for the new model.
>
> 4. The company was under-capitalized so they could not ride out the
> sales lull and develop new products fast enough.
>
> 5. He could not produce the original model in sufficient quantities to
> meet demand, and by the time he could, prices had fallen.
>
> Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books.


The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
ray wrote:

> The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess.


Well at least as Adam Osborne and John Dvorak tell it! I used to talk to
former colleagues that went to work there.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
tony cooper wrote:

> I am looking forward to your book on market analysis. In which
> chapter will you explain how the market segment base size makes the
> percentage of sales to that market segment a meaningless part of the
> overall sales?


You spend a lot of time trying to explain things to the king of
cluelessness.

Filters are your friend.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:27 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <umr3m.11063$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>ray wrote:
>
>> The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess.

>
>Well at least as Adam Osborne and John Dvorak tell it! I used to talk to
>former colleagues that went to work there.


The cleaning staff have no idea what's going on.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >However, the point is that while Osborne created a
> >wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
> >his cost of production and for the entire life of the
> >product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
> >went bankrupt due to the "success"!

>
> What actually happened is that sales of the Osborne 1 dried up, in part
> because Osborne pre-announced major upgrades (Executive and Vixen), in
> part because the Osborne 1 wasn't so wonderful as compared to newer
> competitive models, in part because the pre-announced Osborne Executive
> was actually *overpriced* as compared to better competitive models
> (e.g., Kaypro), and in part because Osborne failed to properly manage
> its manufacturing inventories and ran out of cash. The pre-announcement
> part came to be called the Osborne Effect.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect>


here's what thom hogan has to say:

<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=28933374>

First, note that the source you quote says this is a myth. And they're
right--though they don't have all the details. As I was the number 2
public person at Osborne behind Adam and one of the five-member design
board I could tell you much, much more about what actually happened.
But I'll just say this: Osborne was out of control. Indeed, as was
discovered in all the law suits that got filed I kept a full set of
(accurate) accounting books for my groups (software, publishing,
product marketing, etc.) because the main accounting department simply
wasn't accurate or even close to being timely. Even the auditor--a
famous company that doesn't exist any more because of repeated problems
they had--didn't know I kept that set of books and ended up losing a
major suit because of that. Bottom line: Osborne did not fail because
it preannounced something.

<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30610128>

I could give a very long explanation here about why Osborne Computer
failed. It wasn't because a product was preannounced, as common myth
has it. It was because that project was internally postponed by new top
management (a CEO brought in from a soda pop company), a cash boost
from selling off old inventory was canceled, and the company ran out of
cash (it was severely under capitalized to start with). I was there for
all those meetings, and I argued consistently then as I do now. And I'm
convinced Osborne would still be going if my advice was taken. But what
did I know? After all, I'd never run a soda pop company before ;~).

> Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a
> tiny bit of checking first.
>
> (Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual
> ad hominem instead?)


what a hoot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:00:23 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <030720091500239015%(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a
>> tiny bit of checking first.
>>
>> (Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual
>> ad hominem instead?)

>
>what a hoot.


It's amusing to watch BSers and trollers scramble after the fact to try
to claim they knew the truth all along, but only mildly so.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2009
On Jul 3, 3:06*pm, "P&S Pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably
> the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most
> interesting, involving photos of the action.


Super-zoom P&S cameras are especially poorly suited to action shots.
They could not do their job with a P&S.

I've gotten some good P&S landscape shots outdoors, but you want to
avoid P&S cameras if you need low noise, high resolution, fast
focusing, and if you need to shoot in low light. All the experts agree
on this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2009
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:06:26 +0100, P&S Pete wrote:

> "John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:02:05 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote in <uPq3m.11059$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough
>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs
>>>for photography rather than "snapshots."

>>
>> Nonsense.

>
> Now, this seems funny to me.
>
> I was lucky enough to be at a tennis tournament in London today, and in
> the press pits, I saw not one pro with a super-zoom P&S. Not one.
> Why would that be?
> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and


And most of us don't. So why would we be expected to use the same
equipment?

> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest,
> brightest, most interesting, involving photos of the action. The man who
> can move from Centre Court to Court No. 1 and back with the least
> encumbrance will earn the most - who needs those big wide, heavy lenses?
> These guys embrace technology - it's their living.. It isn't like the
> old days, when they needed to use the medium that was most compatible
> with everyone else, i.e. 35mm because that's what the papers could
> handle..
> Now, they simply blast off whatever photo or crop by WiFi or 3G. So why
> use DSLR?
> They must be the stupidest blokes on the planet - I mean, can't they
> read or something?


No, they simply have a different set of parameters to work with than most
of the general populace - not everyone is a professional photographer.


>
> Puzzled of SW19.
>
> Just a 0.02 euros.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mirrorless camera sales continue to gain ground ... Bruce Digital Photography 15 03-23-2012 07:26 PM
Lazy people and "smartphones" continue to erode P&S sales RichA Digital Photography 231 03-13-2012 02:03 PM
Cruddy P&S sales drop for Sony, DSLR sales jump Rich Digital Photography 0 08-01-2009 12:29 AM
Blu-Ray sales tank for good reasons Gander DVD Video 258 05-21-2008 01:30 PM
DVD Sales Join CD Sales Heading South. Allan DVD Video 15 05-01-2006 06:14 PM



Advertisments