Bob wrote: > You could not be more correct. As the pixels go up and the prices come > down, the cameras of next year will render those of today obsolete.
Pal wrote: > My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in > planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them > similarly. Just as an aside, note that the camera manufacturers are not at all happy about the short production lifespan and market viability of these products at present. What it has meant for them is that the R&D costs are very high yet the products barely have enough time on the market to earn back their cost, much less any profit, unless they are real "hits" with consumers like the Nikon 950 was. This is a major reason why so few companies are earning any money on digital yet. Manufacturers would be MUCH happier with 2 - 5 year product viability than with .5 - 2 years. They do need to earn back the products' development costs. In fact, the situation is becoming rather desperate for many of them. The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. --Mike
