Steve Jobs on Xerox PARC - this video explains EXACTLY why photography companies are failing to innovate with consumer cameras

[douglaurent]

I don't agree with this blog entry.  Canon for example has all the technology to build perfect and modern cameras.  The only thing you can criticize is that they limit the specs of their products to make people buy 2-4 different instead of 1 cameras, and try to set the prices as high as possible.  This is exactly what Apple is doing!!!  It's all capitalism and strategies of big companies with decision makers that are not complete idiots. 

I don't think camera companies have problems to sell their product because of a lack innovation, more likely it's the competition of smartphones and the consumer's old exisiting DLSR's that are still enough for them for years to come!

In hindsight, even Apple had only detail innovations in all their product series over the years.  They don't give you an open file system in an iPad (which makes no sense at all) and won't do that until they lose significant market share.  I will not upgrade my iPad2 until they do that.

If you look back from the year 2020, then probably Canon and Nikon came out with a GH4 and A7R2 competitor probably 3 years later than Pansonic and Sony.  But so what?  Mercedes just did release a competitor to the BMW X6 more than 7 years later.   In former decades it wasn't like Nikon came out with an answer to a Canon innovation 3 months later, it took years.  People are just too impatient now.  

Other than that of course I am also happy if the perfect camera is out tomorrow for little money.  But a wish doesnt always become reality.

[Orangenz]

Yup, especially point two. The links to the phone should be seamless. If the phone costs $800 and the camera costs $800 it should be possible to use the phone as the cameras storage, communication, and control device without problems. 

[dustatron]

The innovation in the camera world that needs to happen is in the multi device communication.
why can't you use an iPad to apply meta data to the clips in the camera? you can use an ipad to change setting.
why can't wireless mics talk directly to the cameras? 
why can't cameras talk to each other?
We have more and more recording devices on each set and its the editors job to sort them and figure it out but the cameras and the other devices could be doing a huge amount of the labeling, sync data, notes, circle takes, etc...

 

I think there is a huge opportunity in an adhock wireless mesh networking in production. No one seems to want to bother.  

 

[Eno]

A very good article!

[Damphousse]

It is delusional to think Apple's success has nothing to do with a healthy heap of marketing and excessive margins.  Nobody made an iphone before Apple because no one could convince the average person to spend $1,000 on a phone of all things.  Once they got people to pay exorbitant prices for mp3 players it was easy to design a nice phone.

 

 

I don't think camera companies have problems to sell their product because of a lack innovation, more likely it's the competition of smartphones and the consumer's old exisiting DLSR's that are still enough for them for years to come!

Yes.  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.  Although I picked up a BMPCC I still use my T3i.

Having lived through the PC/MAC years I don't remember it as a slam-dunk.  Keep in mind that Gates did the same thing with IBM.  Hindsight for all this is 20/20.  

No it wasn't a slam dunk.  If I remember correctly the first Mac was a flop and Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple.  My first recollection of Apple being a force to be reckoned with was the ipod.  That was in 2001.  And stuff didn't go completely crazy until the iphone was released.  That was in 2007.  Jobs' Xerox parc visit happened in 1979.  So you are talking a quarter of a century until fruition of the dream (no pun intended).  What corporation has quarter century plans?

We went through this same exercise when it was popular to mention the Canon being offered a chance to purchasing Photoshop myth.  It was actually a very early version of photoshop and it was a distribution license not a full purchase of the software.  Further more Canon is a camera company.  It is not a software company.  Anyone who uses Canon software would not want their software engineers anywhere near Photoshop.  If Xerox had kept all their patents and pursued some kind of computer in house there is little evidence to me that it would be some kind of run away success... let along lead to a Xerox iphone.

 

Anyone that watches the first minute of this video and says Canon isn't innovative is kidding themselves...

 

I don't know what Canon's strategy is for consumer cameras.  I wish they could give us some kind of APS-C 4k at a reasonable price.  But even if they did I know that wouldn't halt the overall down trend in camera sales.

When I was growing up, the only people carrying 35mm SLRs were enthusiasts...school newspaper dweebs like myself...and professionals. "Consumers" carried Kodak Instamatics, Polaroid SX-70s, etc.

Today, SLRs have been supplanted by ILCs, and Instamatics by cell phones.

So maybe nothing has changed, really. And all this hand-wringing about the death of DSLRs is just the market figuring that out.

I've stated that point a couple of times on this forum.  On the block I grew up on I didn't know of a single person who had a 35mm SLR other than my dad.  Maybe some other people had one but they never took it out.

[Andrew Reid]

EDIT: Present-day A9 chips are as fast as top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo CPUs in 2007, and still faster than entry-level laptop CPUs today. Smartphones and tablets have become absolutely adequate for creative work if you don't run heavy-duty stuff like color grading and 3D animation on them. There's no reason why a tablet along with a bluetooth keyboard (and some clever snapping/convertible mechanism like in the Yoga or the new iPad Pro) shouldn't be used as laptop replacement. The division between an iPad Air and a MacBook Air has more to do with marketing and sales than with engineering or usability.

OK now you are taking out of your arse hole and not even a human arse hole but a rats one.

Why would anyone want to do desktop work on a Present day A9 = Core 2 Due from 2007 when they can get a laptop that is double that speed for half the price of the iPad Pro with A9X.

Unless I am missing a huge problem that we have with laptops, the tablet however fast it is is not going to step in and solve it. Not until Premiere and FCPX are completely redesigned for a touch UI...

When it comes to productivity apps that need a keyboard, which is most of them, a tablet is nothing more than a slow laptop with touch user interface and no keyboard until you add it separately.

I have the new 12" Macbook which essentially has a mobile chip in it and is as thin as a tablet... it runs Premiere but not once have I thought "hey this is great for video editing and would be even better if it were a tablet!!"

For email and internet I'd much rather use the Macbook 12" than an iPad... for very simple reason. I can type much faster on a physical keyboard and I prefer OSX to using a tablet.

[tugela]

iOS is OSX based. They are very similar with same development tools.

Why would you want to run desktop apps on a touch screen device that are designed to be used with a mouse and keyboard?

Just get a laptop!!

Surface Pro, apart from being very expensive, does it do the desktop apps better than a desktop or the tablet apps better than an iPad Pro?

No to both.

So what is the point??

There is a reason to have a separate device for your power hungry desktop apps and a separate device for your tablet apps & games.

Tablets are not that useful for creative work anyway. Most people use them for internet, email and games. They have not taken off for Photoshop and video editing at all.

And Surface Pro does?

Really???? Have you heard about these things? http://www.wacom.com/en-us/products/pen-displays

These are the original "Tablets" btw, before there were such things as iPads and the like.

[Andrew Reid]

Nice try. By tablets you know what I mean. General purpose consumer touch screen tablets not the professional pen displays you seem to have plucked out of your arse.

And those are mainly for illustrators.

Have a nice time using Premiere on your pen tablet.

[Jimmy]

The surface, pen and illustrator/Photoshop is a stunning creative tool, to say otherwise is just to admit you are vehemently arguing about something you don't actually know about.

My wife is a clothes designer and it has changed her creative methods almost 180 degrees.

Microsoft didn't get it all right, not even close... But the surface is pretty special for alot of creative uses.

[Andrew Reid]

You seem to be talking about illustration, clothing design and Photoshop.

I thought I was talking about video editing and all-round desktop app usage.

I could be wrong on that, maybe I have just read my own thread wrongly.

[eleison]

You seem to be talking about illustration, clothing design and Photoshop.

I thought I was talking about video editing and all-round desktop app usage.

I could be wrong on that, maybe I have just read my own thread wrongly.

just because one cannot imagine a world where video editing is done on a tablet does not mean it is not posible in the future.  As steve jobs would say "imagine the impossibe."  Tablets editing video is definitely NOT a bridge too far..

[cantsin]

OK now you are taking out of your arse hole and not even a human arse hole but a rats one.

You are out of your mind. And, by the way, what you write is not covered by free speech in the country (Germany) where you live but counts as a civil offense of libel, with a court fine between $500-$1500 and a call to order by the Federal Board of Press.

I won't take you to court, but please delete either your posting or my account.

I also advise you to seek psychological counsel - this is not meant as a pejorative, but well-meaning advice.

[Andrew Reid]

 

just because one cannot imagine a world where video editing is done on a tablet does not mean it is not posible in the future.  As steve jobs would say "imagine the impossibe."  Tablets editing video is definitely NOT a bridge too far..

Nobody said it wouldn't be possible in the future.

Staying on the point...

Surface Pro is not a desktop or laptop replacement for most people.

[maxotics]

In a strange way, Andrew, you're making the argument for the other side.  If computer technology isn't powerful enough to put video editing in a tablet, or smart phone, why should it be powerful enough to read and write RAW data to memory cards (which would remove the need for problematic LOG curves).  More powerful chips would mean faster WiFi connections, or multiple transmitters, etc.  The camera companies have done amazing things with the electronics they have.  The argument that they aren't innovating fast enough, or well enough, is difficult to buy when, as you point out, there are serious speed/power/battery obstacles in all imaging/computing technology.

Steve Jobs was all about simplicity, aesthetics before function, and a wager that people are generally not to be trusted with advanced, open, OS's.  He was right, but sadly so IMHO.

BTW, after the above skirmish, I looked at Cantsin's videos on Vimeo.  Very nice stuff!!!  Whatever the merits of his arguments, he knows how to make film.

[Jimmy]

You seem to be talking about illustration, clothing design and Photoshop.

I thought I was talking about video editing and all-round desktop app usage.

I could be wrong on that, maybe I have just read my own thread wrongly.

Was Jobs talking about video? No.

Have the majority of posts in this thread been about video? No

Were you talking about video when you said "Tablets are not that useful for creative work anyway."?

[tugela]

Nice try. By tablets you know what I mean. General purpose consumer touch screen tablets not the professional pen displays you seem to have plucked out of your arse.

And those are mainly for illustrators.

Have a nice time using Premiere on your pen tablet.

Those were the first tablets however, and probably the inspiration for the iPads and similar gear that came after them.

And they were created specifically for content creation (which is more than just video FYI).

Regarding tablets in general, I use mine all the time for doing quick previews of what a photograph is actually going to look like after crops and using that to decide what I need to do, so saying they are not useful is incorrect anyway. It is a tool that you can use (or not use, as you see fit).

Tablets with real processors in them (such as the Surface) are capable of doing editing just as much as any laptop (and probably better than most).

[Dean]

Intersting ... I love Apple but I can't help but think they're heading down the same path as well. Seems like the iPad Pro is just a new size bottle.

[Andrew Reid]

Tablets with real processors in them (such as the Surface) are capable of doing editing just as much as any laptop (and probably better than most).

So what if they are capable. What is the advantage of doing editing on one?

In a strange way, Andrew, you're making the argument for the other side.  If computer technology isn't powerful enough to put video editing in a tablet, or smart phone, why should it be powerful enough to read and write RAW data to memory cards (which would remove the need for problematic LOG curves).

You're just not seeing this the way I am. So what if the hardware is or is not powerful enough to put video editing into a tablet? That is not the question.

The question is about the ergonomic benefit of doing so. And so far I don't see a Surface Pro improving my workflow.

That is a very strange link you've made with raw data by the way.

Raw requires less processing power than compression. It is just a dump of data to the card. So all you need is a fast card interface. Easy.

LOG curves are not all problematic.

Canon LOG is good in 8bit.

Canon LOG 2 is good in 10bit.

S-LOG 2 works pretty well in both.

S-LOG 3 works very well in 10bit.

V-LOG is very nice.

They all save us the large file sizes of raw and I'd rather work with 10bit LOG ProRes than raw at the moment, because the image quality is just so good in both formats.

More powerful chips would mean faster WiFi connections, or multiple transmitters, etc.  The camera companies have done amazing things with the electronics they have.  The argument that they aren't innovating fast enough, or well enough, is difficult to buy when, as you point out, there are serious speed/power/battery obstacles in all imaging/computing technology.

The article isn't about the computer companies not innovating, it's about the DSLR manufacturer's product designs.

Canon CMOS and semi-conductors quite innovative actually.

But the product design department is not, in my opinion.

My advice to you sir is argue on the topic rather than keeping diverting into unrelated areas.

Steve Jobs was all about simplicity, aesthetics before function

Except that is bullshit.

NEXT's hardware was THE most powerful desktop workstation stuff available at the time in the early 90's, the platform for Pixar and Tim Berners-Lee inventing the internet no less.

Fast forward to the G5 10 years later - the Power PC hardware Apple used with RISC processors... that architecture was way ahead of it's time in the desktop computing market. They went 64bit way before Windows.

Apple's software under the hood is better engineered than the rest as well. Ask the developers.

With the iPhone, again - extremely cutting edge custom ARM processor, some of the best hardware performance in that market with only Samsung really challenging them.

and a wager that people are generally not to be trusted with advanced, open, OS's.  He was right, but sadly so IMHO.

Eh?!

[nickl]

Fascinating topic.  I was operating a digi betacam as late as 2005 while working for IBM so feel I have some background in both spheres.  Just think.  This wasn't even HD, as that was around the corner.  £27k that lens and camera cost. Prior to that we had the ungodly mess that was lo-band u-matic, a separate monstrosity of a recorder linked with an umbilical cord to a pretty average camera.  Now, I can reach into my pocket (OK, just) and take out the Sony DSC RX 10 II and shoot 4k for what?  £900 quidlets? Sony, Canon and Nikon are victims of their own success.  They have democratised this technology and how do we thank them?  We demand smaller, better, faster.  However, I agree with you on Canon. But maybe, like IBM they will weather this storm and return with something nobody has thought of, because that is truly innovative.

[maxotics]

deleted