[mecrox]

Back to Heie's conversation with Jim Malcolm.

I'm a bit worried about the 'generic' goal of the Pentax Ricoh Imaging, which is, (to use Malcolm's own words) to define imaging industry with Nikon and Canon.

If my memory does not fail me, I think Fuji also wants the same: be the third one right after Nikon and Canon. And Sony too — or better to say, they want to be number one, but are just being polite to Nikon's and Canon's own heritage, and to hide their own pompousness.

So the advancement and future of imaging .. is defined by those who want to be the third player?

He may be thinking of the well-known Rule of Three? The theory here is that many markets have three major players who are large enough to be generalists while the other smaller players are forced into being niche-players to survive? That said, in terms of R&D and marketing ammunition, it is hard to see how Pentax can pull decisively ahead of Sony to secure a #3 slot without some pretty big changes. I mean, it would be great if it was the plan but no sign yet of the $$$ investment required. Fuji strike me as a very niche player whereas Pentax is much more a generalist looking at their whole range of products. OTOH, Sony start with the advantage of a massive brand-name and bridgeheads in MILCs and FF which Pentax doesn't yet have..

---

Last edited by mecrox; 03-08-2013 at 04:23 AM.

[Uluru]

that[/I] were unrealistic, but it is far more realistic than saying Pentax is to be the premier imaging company of the entire world.

It shows that Mr. Malcolm is in tune, honest, and realistic...

Thank you for the answer Heie.

What I wanted to say above was this: why should anyone accept the statement from Jim Malcolm (Pentax Ricoh's official) any more seriously than the same statement coming from Fuji's, or Sony's official? What is that pill of deep realism we have to swallow that will give us true confidence in such words?

For that matter, both Sony and Fuji show a bit more constant work and enthusiasm that reaches towards that goal. They excite their customers, they show more than old roadmaps. Sony especially; they are working hard, they show the results of it. Their marketing also works very hard. They steadily go forward. One could almost 'foolishly' believe that they really mean what they've said.

On the Petax Ricoh's side, however, we have lots of reassuring words. Words about plans. Words about visions. Words about thinking about plans. Words about thoughts they have after the initial thoughts they had before. Words about thoughts they share increasingly among themselves, but no one else but them know what they are. In summary, words only.

So that's why I'm not only worried about the realisation of such a vague mission statement (if that statement was real mission statement at all? ... I mean, if it was only uttered as a lullaby to comfort Pentax users for a little longer while), but also worried about the negative consequences of it. Such a statement offered with no (immediate or immediately forthcoming) convincing proof can damage company's reputation, render it delusional.

But some people would say, why would we even listen to such 'marketing talk', when the next day it's hardly remembered? However, if we dismiss such marketing talk for 'being unrealistic anyway', then even when the real evidence comes .. one day .. who's going to take them seriously anymore? Who in their right state of mind would support them without any doubt that Pentax Ricoh may not be quite serious about their offer?

Contenders must fight both time (for them twice as short), and twice as many expectations (twice as demanding) than winners must do. Thus more Pentax Ricoh waits, or more lullabies they talk, more their users will become too nervous, too picky, too irritated, harder on judgment, and finally, totally phlegmatic. Nothing will excite them, they will find thousands of faults even if they are not there. Even if the new equipment is great, it will be 'too little'. Read this as: 'too little' to become 3rd, barely enough to stay the 5th or 6th. Get it?

They are not only on the right track to achieve that with the Pentax users, but especially with the Ricoh camera users. Thus I rather hope that Jim Malcolm would pause for a moment, and start thinking more seriously about what he's talking about. And then say something else instead.

[monochrome]

It seems that as technology becomes more and more pervasive in our everyday lives, our subconscious becomes more and more "instantaneous" with its acceptance of change and results (film --> digital; solid camera back --> LCD screen; recording settings in a notebook --> embedded exif, etc), and right in step our "long-term" memory. It reminds me of a quote from a movie whose name escapes me at the moment: "Jesus, nothing is ever fast enough for you kids."

The theory here is that many markets have three major players who are large enough to be generalists while the other smaller players are forced into being niche-players to survive? That said, in terms of R&D and marketing ammunition, it is hard to see how Pentax can pull decisively ahead of Sony to secure a #3 slot without some pretty big changes. I mean, it would be great if it was the plan but no sign yet of the $$$ investment required.

A business plan is not implemented in a few quarters. A business plan is implemented over 20 years, in cycles of 3 - 5 years.There is a strategy that informs the major markets or sectors entered and there are tactics that are much shorter in implementation, measurement and conclusion.

We see Pentax through its products, each compared to the prior and the competitors at the time of release. We compare, we contrast -- and then we complain.

We forget that each product is tactical. Ricoh's different business plan (from Hoya's) might result in changing tactics from the perspective of Pentax.

Ricoh has grown over the last twenty years by acquisition. Read the Wiki to learn the globally famous brands Ricoh has acquired or manufactured under license or in partnership. Many of these companies had become small players in the business but thrived under Ricoh due to Ricoh's skill and expertise - and capital.

Who is to say Pentax will be different under Ricoh than the copier companies- and NOT thrive?

Who is to say Ricoh won't acquire another camera brand over time (after all, acquiring Pentax will certainly change Ricoh Cameras from a tiny niche player to a broader competitor) and in so doing, for instance, solve the supposed register distance problem of the K-mount for mirrorless cameras?

Acquisitions (such as Pentax) are strategic. It is less likely Ricoh's Imaging business will employ a different business strategy from what Ricoh already understands than it is that tactics (product plans) will change. Whether Pentax was the strategic acquisition to change Ricoh Cameras or there is another strategic acquisition out there, investing in and developing Pentax / Ricoh is surely the implementation part of the long term plan.

We don't know and we can't know Ricoh's plan. We do know they have one - a philosophy to be the third way. How that happens is unclear to us but we can be confident it is clear to Ricoh. We can and should comment, observe, criticise and applaud, as appropriate. I don't believe we should denigrate, nor should we nit-pick every little thing.

Be of good cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy.

But be patient.

[Uluru]

We don't know and we can't know Ricoh's plan. We do know they have one - a philosophy to be the third way. How that happens is unclear to us but we can be confident it is clear to Ricoh.

Be of good cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy.

And be patient.

... E tu Brute ... :-)

[wildimages]

My post was probably harsher than it should have been. I apologize to those who read it.

[monochrome]

... E tu Brute ... :-)

That's next Friday.

[Kunzite]

Well put, monochrome - as usual.
Though, I don't think acquiring another camera brand would be required (given Pentax the time to grow). But, who knows?

[geoles2]

Just had my talk with Jim! Very excited and glad that out of all the cameras years ago I picked up a Pentax!!!

[northcoastgreg]

That said, in terms of R&D and marketing ammunition, it is hard to see how Pentax can pull decisively ahead of Sony to secure a #3 slot without some pretty big changes.

It all depends on what is meant by "pulling ahead." Malcolm didn't quite say he wanted to be number 3 in terms of sales or marketing or even innovation. He suggested there might be a day when Pentax-Ricoh will be one of the imaging brand and imaging companies of the future. Now that doesn't necessarily mean the company with "best" innovation or marketing. Rather, it means the company producing the best system camera for serious photographers, i.e., not the best camera for consumers, gearheads, upgrade junkies, fauxotographers, or even "enthusiasts," but rather the best camera system for advanced amateurs and professionals. Those are the individuals who are in for the long haul, who will invest in the system, and who will provide a steady source of income for the company over many years. Sony may be the most innovative imaging system company out there right now, but what have they gotten from that? Sony's camera division is still hemorrhaging money. They've been poor stewards of the Alpha mount. They don't seem to understand the strengths and weaknesses of APS-C compact mirrorless cameras, and have wound up with a system with over-sized lenses incapable of getting the most out of their technologically advanced sensors. Even now, I'm not sure Sony deserves to be considered the third best imaging brand and imaging company of the future. Before that can happen, they've got to show they can make the best tools for serious photographers, and that they can make money selling cameras and lenses.

In terms of making the third best system camera for serious photographers, Pentax is already there. The only problem is that they are a very distant 3rd. Improve the flash system, the tracking AF, and SDM and they won't be so distant.

[pentee]

A decade ago Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, now they're the leader in the computer world. Do you think they were aiming for third place? Hell no! They put out the most innovative, well thought out and beautifully designed products in the business.
Give me one reason why Pentax couldn't do the same thing in the camera world?

[CrazyNuts]

A decade ago Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, now they're the leader in the computer world. Do you think they were aiming for third place? Hell no! They put out the most innovative, well thought out and beautifully designed products in the business.
Give me one reason why Pentax couldn't do the same thing in the camera world?

Advertising...that's what put Apple in the spotlight.

It wasn't their products so much as their ability to market them. Something Pentax seems to be lacking.

[thibs]

A decade ago Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, now they're the leader in the computer world. Do you think they were aiming for third place? Hell no!

Indeed they shot for anything but bankruptcy. As any company should. C'mon. Don't buy Apple marketing.
It's so easy to say what they did when you don't have a singly clue (nor do I).

[monochrome]

Apple exploited the music industry with iTunes. The iPod products are profitable but incidental. Getty Images already owns the content so Apple can't do photography - and neither can anyone else.

Once they had scale, phones were a sport - an iPod with other stuff. They were in the right place ...... and apps are the content.

Google is trying to make a phone and has released a high-end laptop. Samsung is doing great with hardware but how does Android match iTunes and iCloud (I don't have an Android device)?

An iPad is a just big iPhone without the phone part that combines WiFi and data access. Apple's art is locking data streams into their devices by making preemptive deals with content and data stream providers.

FWIW, Apple is about to do it again - to Hulu, Youtube and Netflix (and DVD player makers). 40% of first-run episodic television watched by under-30 viewers is done on a laptop through Hulu or YouTube. Netflix OWNS Legacy movie viewing.

The key is, unlike Getty, the producers still own the content and will sell a single view through.iTV for a dime and a download for a dollar, all delivered though i(Tunes)TV.

[Medium FormatPro]

all delivered though i(Tunes)TV

The main thing missing visually from any television content from Apple is that a majority of it is not anywhere near 1080. So when one goes to play it back on a quality monitor - then it doesn't look all that great

[monochrome]

The main thing missing visually from any television content from Apple is that a majority of it is not anywhere near 1080. So when one goes to play it back on a quality monitor - then it doesn't look all that great

The "hardware" part of the equation is a new iTV box that will access i(Tunes)TV directly. It will replace the Netflix/Hulu/internet/Media Center access available on most DVD players and DVR's. And of course it will natively link to any Apple product already in range.

U-Verse doesn't deliver 1080i or 1080p anyway. You'll still need Blu-Ray for that.

Don't get me wrong here - not fanboying for Pentax. They're clearly competing for the #3 slice of the market and they'll likely never become #2. They make mistakes and have been capital-starved for years.

But one of the #3 competitors will take share from Canon and Nikon and emerge the clear third (perhaps 10% of the market). Unless I don't really understand the market, Pentax has the fullest range of dSLR products offered aside from the big two, thus the best opportunity to eventually emerge as #3.