«

http://tinyurl.com/Olympus-Sony

September 14, 2012

Not a rumor, but an exciting piece of news: Sony and Olympus announced
yesterday, September 14th, that they have entered into exclusive
negotiations to conclude a capital partnership:


Olympus discussed with several potential partners but eventually chose
Sony

Sony will invest ¥50bn (i.e. €485m or $640m) in Olympus

Olympus and Sony will set up a joint-venture to develop medical
devices of the next generation, such as high definition endoscopes
with video and 3D technology

In order to leverage Olympus’s business of digital cameras, which is
in a slump, Olympus and Sony will promote cooperation and jointly
develop some components

Both parties expect to sign a definitive agreement within a month.

http://tinyurl.com/Olympus-Sony


It is also worth reading the comments at the bottom of the article
regarding Sony's strong desire to stop making the heavily loss-making
Alpha SLTs and concentrate on the profitable NEX business.

One can only speculate as to the future of the Olympus 4/3 DSLR range
and whether Sony would be happy to sanction continuing investment in
Olympus's heavily loss-making m4/3 mirrorless range.

On 16/09/2012 10:17 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012.09.15 17:57 , Bruce wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/Olympus-Sony
>>
>> September 14, 2012
>>
>> Not a rumor, but an exciting piece of news: Sony and Olympus announced
>> yesterday, September 14th, that they have entered into exclusive
>> negotiations to conclude a capital partnership:
>>
>>
>> Olympus discussed with several potential partners but eventually chose
>> Sony
>>
>> Sony will invest ¥50bn (i.e. €485m or $640m) in Olympus
>>
>> Olympus and Sony will set up a joint-venture to develop medical
>> devices of the next generation, such as high definition endoscopes
>> with video and 3D technology
>>
>> In order to leverage Olympus’s business of digital cameras, which is
>> in a slump, Olympus and Sony will promote cooperation and jointly
>> develop some components
>>
>> Both parties expect to sign a definitive agreement within a month.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/Olympus-Sony
>
> If it helps both parties serve their customers with lower cost
> components, then fine.
>
> But similar efforts by Japanese companies (in television) have not borne
> fruit.
Not yet...
Sony/Panasonic have a JV to develop large OLED TV panels. Using Samsung
(Sony) and LG (Panasonic) for large panel LCD supply was a financial
disaster for them both.
I hope they succeed. Japan at least had Sharp with LCD panel
production, but not price competitive with LG/Samsung production.
>
>> It is also worth reading the comments at the bottom of the article
>> regarding Sony's strong desire to stop making the heavily loss-making
>> Alpha SLTs and concentrate on the profitable NEX business.
>
> Not worth noting at all as it's just a comment from some guy named jake.
>
Olympus camera division don't have anything of value to offer Sony,
except as an outlet for components. Combining fractional players too
often has the effect on market share of multiplying fractions, not
adding them together.

Rich <> wrote:

>Bruce <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/Olympus-Sony
>>
>> September 14, 2012
>>
>> Not a rumor, but an exciting piece of news: Sony and Olympus announced
>> yesterday, September 14th, that they have entered into exclusive
>> negotiations to conclude a capital partnership:
>>
>>
>> Olympus discussed with several potential partners but eventually chose
>> Sony
>>
>> Sony will invest ¥50bn (i.e. €485m or $640m) in Olympus
>>
>
>Why would Sony? For the name Olympus? I can't see m4/3 and NEX existing
>side by side. Please, don't let APS replace 4/3rds.


The photo division of Olympus is very small indeed when compared with
the medical imaging division. Olympus's many suitors are only
interested in the medical imaging division.

Sony would not be taking over Olympus, just investing in it. I don't
know what percentage of Olympus shares $640 million would buy, but
previous articles have suggested only 10% - 15%. That would not be
enough to gain control.

However, Sony will want to see Olympus making some specific changes in
response to the new investment, What those changes would be will not
become apparent until the deal has been sealed.

In article <k33nvv$g28$>, Me <> wrote:
>>
>Olympus camera division don't have anything of value to offer Sony,
>except as an outlet for components.

The OM-D was very hard to get for a while, and the reviews seem to be
very positive. How do sales compare to Lumix?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On 18/09/2012 5:43 a.m., Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <k33nvv$g28$>, Me <> wrote:
>>>
>> Olympus camera division don't have anything of value to offer Sony,
>> except as an outlet for components.
>
> The OM-D was very hard to get for a while, and the reviews seem to be
> very positive. How do sales compare to Lumix?
>

I don't like the OM-D at all - too small for my hands with too many
fiddly and hard to find controls, and a not very nice low-res EVF. I
suspect it's main appeal was for a "retro" look. But it is only a
"look", as the thing is jam-packed with technology and not
simple/intuitive to use, so there's really nothing there but a passing
resemblance to the thing it was based on.
That's been a successful formula for VW ("new" Beetle), BMW ("new" Mini)
etc, but in the camera business I suspect only Leica has the heritage to
pull it off medium term - now we're in the day of the disposable digital
camera body.

In article <k38554$iq5$>, Me <> wrote:
>On 18/09/2012 5:43 a.m., Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>
>> The OM-D was very hard to get for a while, and the reviews seem to be
>> very positive. How do sales compare to Lumix?
>>
>
>I don't like the OM-D at all - too small for my hands with too many
>fiddly and hard to find controls, and a not very nice low-res EVF. I
>suspect it's main appeal was for a "retro" look. But it is only a
>"look", as the thing is jam-packed with technology and not
>simple/intuitive to use, so there's really nothing there but a passing
>resemblance to the thing it was based on.
>That's been a successful formula for VW ("new" Beetle), BMW ("new" Mini)
>etc, but in the camera business I suspect only Leica has the heritage to
>pull it off medium term - now we're in the day of the disposable digital
>camera body.

"Disposable" for people who are able to treat something costing hundreds
of dollars as "disposable", I suppose.

But my question was about sales. Is the OM-D doing well or not?
And with other camera makers trying to get into mirrorless, does
micro four-thirds have a future? Or is everyone trying to come up
with a standard that will force you to buy only their lenses?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On 18/09/2012 10:19 a.m., Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <k38554$iq5$>, Me <> wrote:
>> On 18/09/2012 5:43 a.m., Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>
>>> The OM-D was very hard to get for a while, and the reviews seem to be
>>> very positive. How do sales compare to Lumix?
>>>
>>
>> I don't like the OM-D at all - too small for my hands with too many
>> fiddly and hard to find controls, and a not very nice low-res EVF. I
>> suspect it's main appeal was for a "retro" look. But it is only a
>> "look", as the thing is jam-packed with technology and not
>> simple/intuitive to use, so there's really nothing there but a passing
>> resemblance to the thing it was based on.
>> That's been a successful formula for VW ("new" Beetle), BMW ("new" Mini)
>> etc, but in the camera business I suspect only Leica has the heritage to
>> pull it off medium term - now we're in the day of the disposable digital
>> camera body.
>
> "Disposable" for people who are able to treat something costing hundreds
> of dollars as "disposable", I suppose.
>
It could be much worse - look at the mobile phone market.
>
> But my question was about sales. Is the OM-D doing well or not?
> And with other camera makers trying to get into mirrorless, does
> micro four-thirds have a future? Or is everyone trying to come up
> with a standard that will force you to buy only their lenses?
>
I don't know how the OM-D sales are going. There was no shortage here -
my local "real" camera stores had OM-Ds on the shelf when there was
supposed to be short supply in the USA. The folks in the camera store I
deal with were telling me that sales of the OM-D had fallen sharply
since the D3200 release. I don't know if that was because it had more
megapixels at a lower price, or was just because it was the "latest"
model in store on the day I was there. Nikon and Canon still seem to be
dominating dslr sales, and I suspect of what's left - in other makers
dslrs, slts, and milcs, the market is probably quite fickle.

"Me" <> wrote in message
news:k38bi0$ubd$...
>> "Disposable" for people who are able to treat something costing hundreds
>> of dollars as "disposable", I suppose.
> >
> It could be much worse - look at the mobile phone market.

Computers just as bad. But nowhere near ladies fashions of course!

Trevor.