[clackers]

Spinning of electronics as a subsidiary is what Sony should have done a lot time ago.

Probably.


When a business dependent on R&D is spun off because of problems, it usually doesn't survive unless it's acquired by some other large company and brought under their wing, so it's sad for us they couldn't turn things around, let alone reassume market dominance.


You spoke of interdepartmental fighting - Sony was the company best placed to take recorded music online. They had it all end-to-end: the content creation (through the artists signed with them) to the software to the Walkman hardware. They chose not to buckle under and surrender to Steve Jobs and the iPod as the other companies did.


But their civil wars meant their own offerings didn't get acceptance.

[Emacs]

I would not call anything that sony does at camera market as innovation. Their decisions looks rather like a simple admit of obvious: FF is ready for mass market, since smartphones destroyed small sensor cameras, things like RX100, LX100 are too close to what APS-C systems can do, so obviously anything is ranked a step below compared to what it did four years ago. So, they did series of new FF cameras. And no one of them is "innovative": any their camera, all these RX1, RX100, A7X, etc inherit outdated and legacy control schemes of cameras that were limited by natural reasons. Damn, Sony even spoiled it further! Those reasons exist no more, but sony have too much of copycats. Frankly, this refers to any manufacturer at camera market. It is like pre-iPhone era smarthones: tiny screens, huge package due to keyboard, software designed to be used with a keyboard. And it doesn't seem things would change without Jobs. Unfortunately, since human nature is stagnation and we need a specific culture to overcome it, we won't see any real improvement for years: asian societies are not what we could call as renovation favour.

[RGlasel]

I don't know if some of the comments here are wishful thinking or lack of familiarity with global business-speak, but Sony is very clearly not going to invest in any new designs in their imaging products division. Sony still feels there are at least three years of profits to be taken from that division, but there is no longer a need for engineers and technicians dedicated to new products. They already have the personnel to maintain and support the current product lineup, in fact if you know that you will be pruning the lineup instead of adding to it, you can reduce the number of staff tied to those business functions as a means to maintain profit margins in the face of declining sales volume. Once you lose the technical staff to design cameras, there has to be a very strong business case over the long term to get back into that market.

Sony has decided to exit the finished camera business, that much is clear, but it won't happen overnight. The lifetime of a camera body is relatively long for an electronic device, so if you are invested in a current model, enjoy the next ten years. But if you are an early adopter kind of customer, looking to upgrade on a regular basis, find a different brand to follow.

[osv]

Sony has decided to exit the finished camera business,

that is unsubstantiated idle speculation.

the fact is that sony has carved out some high-end camera niches that no other manufacturer has been able to touch, and since they make the most expensive component of the camera in-house(the sensor), they can offer cutting-edge at a very competitive price.

the choice to make mirrorless cameras means that parts can be more easily shared across models, similar to what happens with automobile assembly lines... and eliminating the mirror means much lower production costs.

sony has big market share, and mirrorless is growing while dslr is dying; the future is bright for sony.

they are rolling out a bunch of ff glass this year: Sony showed (again) prototypes of their upcoming FE full frame lenses at CES | Photo Rumors

[clackers]

sony has big market share, and mirrorless is growing while dslr is dying; the future is bright for sony.

(Laughs).

Your true colors revealed again, Osv.

The Sony board does *not* agree with you.

[rawr]

Sony is kill.

More room for Ricoh in future.

[osv]

(Laughs).

Your true colors revealed again, Osv.

The Sony board does *not* agree with you.

clackers, always guaranteed to offer nothing of substance

and no, your ongoing trolling behavior does not represent the "sony board"

Sony is kill.

More room for Ricoh in future.

yes, pentax 1% market share is money in the bank

[clackers]

yes, pentax 1% market share is money in the bank

With statements like that, no wonder you're so popular on Pentax Forums, OSV - Rawr, let's blow him a kiss!


Actually, Shigeki Ishizuka is clearly a good executive and should cope with the reduced investment by the company in his division, and can take cues from Pentax,


Ricoh obviously has decided to limit its liability in Pentax, and investment is safe and small (they clearly can't work on many things simultaneously). Yet, that team's quietly done or are releasing the K-3, 645Z, 1.4 WR TC, K-S2 and now FF body.


You only have to be radical if you're thinking of upsetting the Canon/Nikon duopoly, but I think Sony and Samsung - who could attempt high volume - may be rethinking that now. If you'd bothered reading Christine's PDF, you'd see the board predict the Imaging unit to be down by as much as 9% in 2017, and you've got to think that's camera sales being hurt, since sensors will increase as developing countries lift their mobile phone adoption rates.

[osv]

With statements like that, no wonder you're so popular on Pentax Forums, OSV - Rawr, let's blow him a kiss!

as opposed to what, pentax fanbois trolling this "sony forum" with misinformation(see below)?

Ricoh obviously has decided to limit its liability in Pentax, and investment is safe and small (they clearly can't work on many things simultaneously). Yet, that team's quietly done or are releasing the K-3, 645Z, 1.4 WR TC, K-S2 and now FF body.

hel-lo... pentax doesn't have a ff body on the market, and it won't for a long time.

You only have to be radical if you're thinking of upsetting the Canon/Nikon duopoly, but I think Sony and Samsung - who could attempt high volume - may be rethinking that now. If you'd bothered reading Christine's PDF, you'd see the board predict the Imaging unit to be down by as much as 9% in 2017, and you've got to think that's camera sales being hurt, not sensors.

sony is seeing imaging revenue going down *because revenue for the entire imaging market is going down*... that has been proven repeatedly on this forum, with the cipa data.

why do you think that sony should be able to sell sensors to companies that aren't selling cameras? that is just plain silly

"Sony will boost the output capacity of image sensors by 33 percent to 80,000 wafers by the end of June 2016, the company said Monday. It’s also shifting 220 employees involved in the development and production of chips for gaming consoles to the image sensor business and other operations.
The company gained a competitive advantage after switching to a technology known as complementary metal-oxide semiconductors, or CMOS. The sensors help record images in low light or with strong backlight, boosting the quality of pictures from smartphone and car cameras.
The electronics company expects camera modules and sensors to generate about 63 percent of its device unit revenue in the year ending March 2018, it said in November."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-04/sony-narrows-annual-loss-f...rs-playstation

[bobmaxja]

Sony sensor division is a different division of Sony Imaging and after the change Sony Imaging will be different entity. I do not believe The imaging division is getting a better price on sensor.

[osv]

Sony sensor division is a different division of Sony Imaging.

that's not how i understand it... "(Besides stand-alone cameras, Sony's imaging unit supplies camera sensors used in smartphones like the iPhone.)" Sony to spin off video and sound division as restructuring continues | Circa News

there is a lot of unsubstantiated speculation in this thread.

[clackers]

as opposed to what, pentax fanbois trolling this "sony forum"

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that you have diplomatic immunity for your trolling in the 'Non-Pentax Cameras" section. No, it's not an embassy, you're not Julian Assange.




Anyone wants to know about Osv, he couldn't afford a 645Z or D810, so he got an A7R instead and still hangs around Pentax forums telling us we all own the wrong camera.


The Hong Kong guys at DRTV have encountered their share of hyped-up mirrorless fanbois:

You Tube

You Tube

[osv]

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that you have diplomatic immunity for your trolling in the 'Non-Pentax Cameras" section.

thanks for proving my point.

[Christine Tham]

I don't know if some of the comments here are wishful thinking or lack of familiarity with global business-speak, but Sony is very clearly not going to invest in any new designs in their imaging products division. Sony still feels there are at least three years of profits to be taken from that division, but there is no longer a need for engineers and technicians dedicated to new products. They already have the personnel to maintain and support the current product lineup, in fact if you know that you will be pruning the lineup instead of adding to it, you can reduce the number of staff tied to those business functions as a means to maintain profit margins in the face of declining sales volume. Once you lose the technical staff to design cameras, there has to be a very strong business case over the long term to get back into that market.

Sony has decided to exit the finished camera business, that much is clear, but it won't happen overnight. The lifetime of a camera body is relatively long for an electronic device, so if you are invested in a current model, enjoy the next ten years. But if you are an early adopter kind of customer, looking to upgrade on a regular basis, find a different brand to follow.

I am not sure Sony has decided to exit the market, but other than that I tend to agree with you. They are saying clearly that it is not a growth market for them, and they will be treating it as a cash cow.

Don't blame them - Nikon is hurting badly, so is Canon. Sony saw the writing on the wall - imaging products is a declining market. Sony is probably in a position to maintain market share and profits for the next few years because of past innovation (and no, I don't want to enter into a debate about what constitutes innovation) and they are likely to adopt the same strategy as Canon - go into trickle mode improvements rather than make the big bets.

Of course I could be wrong and I sincerely hope I am. But even Sony in drop feed mode can still release some wonderful products.

[RGlasel]

I am not sure Sony has decided to exit the market, but other than that I tend to agree with you. They are saying clearly that it is not a growth market for them, and they will be treating it as a cash cow.

The decision to milk the imaging division will eventually doom it. It can be a slow death, but at some point the camera lineup needs to be re-designed to keep up with the market, and Sony won't have the internal resources to do that. The tipping point to exit the camera market will depend on who is calling the shots in the executive suite, but there is no foreseeable growth surge in the dedicated camera market, so even if the next chairman wants to revive the imaging division, the numbers to justify the necessary investment won't be there.

Another nail in the coffin for finished imaging products is the evident success of the sensor division, whose customers will scrap it out for market share and sacrifice margin on their camera bodies to save their corporate lives, while allowing Sony to charge full dollar for innovative components that can be utilized to obtain a competitive advantage. Canon will sacrifice its own sensor fabricating to save its camera body business if it can't compete with Sony's sensors.

As I said in another post, Sony doesn't need to sell cameras to sell sensors. It wants to sell sensors, and is investing in that business; it will only sell cameras as long as it makes money doing so, will only invest in that business if there is an immediate return and that doesn't allow for "innovation" regardless of how it is defined. This story is being told in many ways in many industries, but the ending doesn't change.