Originally posted by juu They are the future in the way that LCDs have largely displaced CRTs.
Of the interchangeable lens camera market segment.
There are real dis-economies to owning two incompatible camera systems. There are some incentives if they are dissimilar enough (e.g., FF + m43) but quite little if they are similar (EVIL APSC + DSLR APSC).
Read the m43 forum, it does mean exactly that in many cases.
They likely used to have a high gross profit margin. And for companies with decent CDAF there probably isn't that much new tech.
Let's not be silly. The costs for developing NEX are not a huge part of the Sony balance sheet and cannot be the reason why their stock is under-performing.
With their marketing, they actually indeed risk that. Then again, with their marketing they risk even worse things if they don't do that.
Good Lord. I'm an economist and a marketing analyst. You're just painting a company into a deathtrap scenario by arguing that they can join another company's standard and then out-market them. Out-market Panasonic? Pentax? Are you kidding? Do you know the disproportionate economies-of-scale you are talking about relative to unit sales? Pentax's entire revenue stream from unit sales is a rounding error in Panasonic's entire marketing budget. I am actually surprised that Olympus is in bed with them (which may explain why Oly and Panny lenses actually don't work so well on each other's bodies, IS etc.).
There are as many dis-economies of scale in owning a P&S and a DSLR. You're making it sound like every lens from the DSLR era forthcoming under EVIL/M43 is going to supremely compatible for the ever after, when it is known that theese lenses are specifically designed with proprietary, in-camera algorithms that maximize their use on one brand at the expense of another brand (and we're starting to see that in Adobe LR as well as in-camera with Pentax as well as other brands).
Your mistake is treating the entire interchangeable lens market as homogeneous, which it most certainly is not. Look how Flip has turned upside down the videocam market with a totally proprietary system.
The entire history of cameras is to not have compatible lens systems to "lock in" the consumer. It's worked pretty well so far, and it will continue to work in the future. When Konica Minolta saw that they could do what you are suggesting or exit the market, the took the latter. It was really their only choice save become somebody else's optics maker.
There are solid reasons for EVIL, but not necessarily economically substitutive ones, nor even as the dominant force in interchangeable lens bodies. Studies have shown that a large# of DSLR users never buy a 2nd lens!!!
This is not a Schadenfreude scenario. The history of photographic companies is those that cheapen their product often lose. Look to he stereo and hi-fi market for cross-comparisons of companies (McIntosh for example) that take "older" tech and become extremely profitable in niches because the demand for quality exceeds the costs of amortizing a commodity infrastructure.
Do you have any idea how many new camera systems have failed relative to those that have succeeded? it's probably a deathrate of over 90%. There's a very solid reason why the extremely well-run Canon has not dipped in here yet. There's market data showing that the EVIL market has limits to its appeal for many consumers. It will surge, then settle, then it will have to compete. I am not sure that small sensors can compete for many, high-margin consumers.