Canon Sales Continue to Plummet

I know the reasons why for most of this but can’t go giving away company knowledge on a public forum. But it has nothing to do with any form of collusion and mostly to do with how stuff is designed and manufactured. You need to be inside Star Fleet to properly appreciate why things work on a starship.

DLD said:
I think I'd made a compelling case that the consumer cameras have, as JSC said, a jigsaw puzzle market fit with each other. If you prefer to call it purely incidental, then it's your call. I reject the idea that not having a 10-bit video in A6600, SA7III and A7RIV is incidental. I reject the idea that Canon lack of 24P on 90D is accidental. Or that Canon can't offer a beefier codec and other features while Fuji XT-3 can do both. I reject the idea that FS-7 not being replaced in the last four years is incidental, especially because EVA1 and C200 have superior features for the same price.

And why isn't Sony making a Medium Format stills camera, while Fuji is with Sony's own sensor? Maybe there was a deal that Sony wouldn't compete on some features with XT-3 while letting Fuji have a free run at the MF market. That sounds quite reasonable. And if such a deal exists, then everything else falls into place too.

BTW, isn't it amusing that Sony users who have been clamoring for A7SIII for four years now have been dutifully rewarded with Z6 and S1/H? With a videocentric Sony sensor.

PS. ARRI is obviously above the market and possesses a unique pricing power a la Panavision of old.
Click to expand...
 
Mitch Gross said:
I know the reasons why for most of this but can’t go giving away company knowledge on a public forum. But it has nothing to do with any form of collusion and mostly to do with how stuff is designed and manufactured. You need to be inside Star Fleet to properly appreciate why things work on a starship.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But how much money would you need to talk? We can offer you protection too. I have a doomsday shelter which you are welcome to stay in for the rest of your life. Panasonic would never find you there.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I know the reasons why for most of this but can’t go giving away company knowledge on a public forum. But it has nothing to do with any form of collusion and mostly to do with how stuff is designed and manufactured. You need to be inside Star Fleet to properly appreciate why things work on a starship.
Click to expand...

In other circles, this is called plausible deniability. And it's obviously done at the highest levels of corporate governance. And in secret, in order not to disturb the force.

James0b57 said:
Wait, you guys have starships, and you JUST released the S1H?
Click to expand...

And it was supposed to be called A7SIII ... until it changed its brand affiliation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcs
I couldn't get a job.

I graduated from film school and already had 42 short films under my belt --- if that's what you called all the videos I made with my friends since junior high. I ate, drank, and slept filmmaking. I checked out books from the library and daydreamed about directing. I dressed up as George Lucas for a class presentation on a famous person of your choice. After graduation I mailed my resume to a hundred companies across the country. I knocked on the doors of production companies in Austin. Naively I thought I could get a job as an hourly employee, just like in any other field. Maybe I could have got a job in the mail room had I moved to Los Angeles, but I was not ready to take the jump.

After a few months, I bought a Canon GL2 and instead of a resume sent a flyer advertising myself as a "second camera." Suddenly I started getting calls. A gray-haired solo operator named John even took me out to lunch. He started sending jobs my way (weddings mainly) that he couldn't do, due to scheduling conflicts. He also told me about the local public television station, which hired camera operators for $12 an hour to film high school football games and edit orchestra performances. I established similar relationships with half a dozen other people, some of whom knew each other. We were competitors or friends? It seemed like friends.

1. A couple of times John would ask me how much I charged for wedding videos. His response was always: raise your prices. I distinctly remember him silently jabbing his thumb upwards.

2. Another friend of mine sent me jobs here and there. I remember telling him one time that I appreciated all his help and I would not pursue contracts with clients he already had. It seemed a natural thing to say, and he said he appreciated it.

3. Some time late in my career of four years (I hated nonfiction filmmaking) the head of the TV station gave me a call and said something like this. "I have a project. I'm going to give it to John, but I need at least three bids. Submit your bid, but make sure it is over $2,000 [or whatever it was] because that was what John bid." I told him I was uncomfortable doing this. He said that's okay and the call ended quickly. I had done a bunch of jobs for this government-run television station but never again.

Price fixing, market segmentation, collusion. All of this arose even among the smallest-time producers. When I did it, when I said I wouldn't pursue contracts with my friend's clients, I didn't even understand what I was doing. If there's a thread on a forum about "Hey, guys, how much do you charge for this service," that's technically collusion.

---

I have no insight into the dealings of the major camera manufacturers. But from my decades of being a human being, I know that it is hard to maintain a strict level of competition with your peers, people you rub elbows with at dinner parties and industry conventions. With so-called career mobility, maybe you used to even work at that other company and are friends with the people there.

Also I think that non-stop pure competition is exhausting. And I know that large corporations are set up to crank out widgets, not innovate. If you consider yourself creative and efficient, the company will do its best to beat it out of you. The 1999 movie Office Space was not so much a comedy as a documentary. Many of you who have ever only owned your own business may not appreciate that. I work in a large company, and Office Space is what I watch to salve my wounds. (Or 24, where Jack Bauer's own coworkers constantly sabotage his efforts to do something well, that's a good one too.)

---

I have a hard time believing that the big camera companies meet in a secret mansion once a quarter to plan world domination, like something out of a James Bond movie. This is because I don't think people are that well organized, and it's the same reason that conspiracy theories in general fall flat with me.

However, why did it take so long for any of those companies to come out with a camera with a sensor larger than 2/3"? Dalsa showed off the Origin in 2003. Red released the One in 2007. Canon came out with the 5D Mark II in 2008. It kind of goes along with my theories that products from large companies take three to five years, but then again the popularity of the 5D is thought to be unexpected. And anyway, wouldn't it make more sense, if a company was being intentional about it, to introduce large-format 24 fps on their most expensive camera, not one of their cheapest?

---

So I while I would be surprised and somewhat impressed if all the major manufacturers had established an elaborate jigsaw puzzle of product hierarchy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some casual collusion and a major dose of bureaucratic sloth that explained it all.
 
Always good to know a little more about where someone has come from. Especially from you, friend! Thanks for sharing something genuine!
 
combatentropy said:
The 1999 movie Office Space was not so much a comedy as a documentary. Many of you who have ever only owned your own business may not appreciate that. I work in a large company, and Office Space is what I watch to salve my wounds.
Click to expand...

Office Space has been on my mind of late! The production designer on my current series built one of our sets as an homage to the movie, you'll recognize the style of banner even if the quote is a little altered.corporation.jpg

It took me back to those weeks spent in Austin on the real deal. Little did we know then that we were making a future classic! officespacesign.jpg
 
Very nice! I just shared the clip with that very sign, where the boss introduces the consultant. I emailed it to my coworkers, after we all an email from one of our many bosses, saying that she was hiring a consulting firm to analyze the organization and everybody's role. Mike Judge hit it out of the park -- and I bet it was fun working on it!
 
combatentropy said:
... So I while I would be surprised and somewhat impressed if all the major manufacturers had established an elaborate jigsaw puzzle of product hierarchy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some casual collusion and a major dose of bureaucratic sloth that explained it all.
Click to expand...
Actually, the "jigsaw puzzle" is quite brilliant. Just think how many models they have to take into account in order to placate everyone to some extent. IOW, Sony manufactures Fuji's XT-3 sensor (as I said, unlike with most other models, it's Fuji's own design) but then Fuji also decides to buy the Medium Format (50 MPX and 100 MPX that also go into Hasselblad and Phase One) sensors from them. But it isn't a straight purchase. First, Fuji doesn't want Sony itself entering the medium Format market. The number of units moved may be small but the profit margins are hefty and it helps the bottom line. Sony agrees. Then Fuji asks to cripple the APS-C A-6XXX line. Sony agrees because they want to move to full frame anyway and the only effected 8-bit camera is really A6600. Others are fine for their price points. Then they have to haggle about the actual sensor prices, number of sensors obligated to be purchased and any other aspects that they can find useful.

"No high end primes for you!"

"Fine, but I want auto focus on Medium Format".

"Why would you want that? No one has AF in MF".

"That's why we want it".

"Fine but we will make a full frame with more megapixels than your lowest priced MF".

"That's pretty backhanded, Mr. Sony-san, if you ask me".

"Don't fret. I'll give you a discount on a bucket of Carnival paint. See, it's usually $11 but I'll sell it to you for $10".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcs
From Mr. Canon itself. (via Google Translate)

"Compact digital cameras were sold at 114 million units in 2008, the peak year, but it was 10.5 million or less than one-tenth in 2008. Single-lens cameras also peaked at 18 million in 2012. In 18 years, the number of units decreased by almost half to 10.3 million units, and this trend will continue for another two years, both of which are prepared to fall to 5-6 million units. It ’s a change. ”
Click to expand...

I think the second 2008 ought to be 2018, as the later sentence indicates. "Lost in Translation".

This is the original Japanese language page - https://newswitch.jp/p/19039
 
They can blame cellphones all they want, but the reason i stopped buying after 2012 ish, was because i realized they weren’t going to make anything better than what already existed. They were going to get by and incrmentally upgrade.

I think most people have a negative reaction when they spend $1000 on a cool camera, and they still get ugly digital highlights and crunchy shadows. The tone curve under natural light that looks good to the eye, ends up looking bad in camera. So, i am sure everyone gave up caring. The cellphone can take crappy pictures too, but easier.

Camera companies never got past that 15stops DR barrier, which is a minimum requirement for natural organic looking images across the normal lighting conditions we encounter.

Instead, they put their RnD into incremental updates, and new never before seen “ergonomics”. Slow clap. Good job.

People have an intuitive reaction to the photos they take, and digital cameras still don’t capture naturally. They capture in a way that helps one model look better than the other model in Best Buy. So.... long term psychological reaction.... cell phone it is.
 
combatentropy said:
So I while I would be surprised and somewhat impressed if all the major manufacturers had established an elaborate jigsaw puzzle of product hierarchy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some casual collusion and a major dose of bureaucratic sloth that explained it all.
Click to expand...

Collusion has happened in the electronics industry. That is a fact as proved by the guilty verdicts of electronics vendors over the decades. BUT, I've never seen any evidence that it happens at the product level. There some certain satisfaction to thinking there is collusion and the big guys are pulling the levers and knobs to hold back things from us poor wage slaves. But the fact is that these guys hate each other on a competitive level and the idea of collusion is laughable in most cases. Is is possible that there is collusion going on at camera companies? Sure. Is it really happening? I very much doubt it.

Ok, Ok, since Mitch teased 'I know something you don't know' AND he said 'Star', well, that's it. I also know something you don't know. I know the story behind Darth Vader's infamous 'NOOOOOO' that was added. I had lunch with one of the sound designers from Skywalker Sound and he spilled the beans. Oh, and likewise I can't tell you. True story.

Now tell us your 'I know something you don't know' story.
 
Paul F said:
Collusion has happened in the electronics industry. That is a fact as proved by the guilty verdicts of electronics vendors over the decades. BUT, I've never seen any evidence that it happens at the product level...

Now tell us your 'I know something you don't know' story.
Click to expand...

Stuff you don't know but you can learn about just by finding an appropriate Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Television_Cartel
 
Batteries: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...y-sanyo-panasonic-battery-units-price-cartel/

https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/caught-act-inside-international-cartel
Brazen Nature of Cartels
One of the characteristics we see over and over again in international cartels is the brazen or lawless nature of the conspiracies. By that, I refer to the contempt and disregard that the members of the cartel typically have for antitrust laws and enforcement. I think this is a good place to begin because we are sometimes asked by defense counsel to treat a certain member of a cartel more favorably because he/she resides in a country where cartel activity is treated differently than it is in the United States. The fundamental problem with this argument is that it is our experience, without exception, that the conspirators are fully aware that they are violating the law in the United States and elsewhere, and their only concern is avoiding detection. The international cartels that we have cracked have not involved international business persons who for cultural, linguistic, or some other innocent reason find themselves mistakenly engaged in a violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Rather, the cartels that we have prosecuted criminally have invariably involved hard core cartel activity -- price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market and customer-allocation agreements. The conspirators have discussed the criminal nature of their agreements; they have discussed the need to avoid detection by antitrust enforcers in the United States and abroad; and they have gone to great lengths to cover-up their actions -- such as using code names with one another, meeting in secret venues around the world, creating false "covers" -- i.e. facially legal justifications -- for their meetings, using home phone numbers to contact one another, and giving explicit instructions to destroy any evidence of the conspiracy. Moreover, the cartels typically involve senior executives at firms -- executives who have received extensive antitrust compliance counseling, and who often have significant responsibilities in the firm's antitrust compliance programs.

Fear of Detection by U.S. Enforcers
While cartel members know full well that their conduct is illegal under the antitrust laws of many countries, they often have a particular fear of detection and prosecution by U.S. antitrust authorities resulting in jail sentences. Shortly after this investigation became public in 1995 and cartel members realized that the FBI might be watching, we learned from cooperating defendants in several investigations that the cartels changed their practices in order to avoid having meetings or calls in the United States and tried, where possible, to exclude the participation of U.S. personnel in the conspiracies. These same cartels continued to target U.S. businesses and consumers, but the meetings, the calls, the documents, and the participants largely resided safely overseas, or so they thought. This next segment demonstrates the initial reluctance of one of the foreign cartel members in the lysine conspiracy to conduct cartel activity in the United States for fear of detection. The conversation is between an ADM executive, who also was a cooperating witness, and an executive at the Japanese firm, Ajinomoto. They are discussing the location for the next cartel meeting. As you will hear, the Ajinomoto executive is clearly reluctant to have a cartel meeting in Hawaii, but ultimately agrees to consider it because Hawaii is a convenient location for everyone and because of the lure of the golf courses located near the meeting site. The Ajinomoto executive's reluctance was well founded, as the meeting was video taped by the FBI and became a critical piece of evidence in the prosecution of the lysine conspirators.

Using Trade Associations as Cover
Another characteristic of international cartels is that they frequently use trade associations as a means of providing "cover" for their cartel activities. In order to avoid arousing suspicion about the meetings they attended, the lysine conspirators actually created an amino acid working group or subcommittee of the European Feed Additives Association, a legitimate trade group. The sole purpose of the new subcommittee was to provide a false, but facially legitimate, explanation as to why they were meeting.

As I mentioned, the lysine cartel members did end up meeting in Hawaii, and the FBI was there to video tape the meeting. As you are about to see, the executives discussed how they would use the trade association as the "perfect cover" for their price-fixing meetings. They also talked about such details as preparing false agendas and false minutes of the meeting to send to the parent association based in Brussels. In addition, they discussed their shared concern that the EU authorities not discover their activities.

[...see link for more...]

III. Conclusion

These tapes demonstrate the awesome power of cartels to rip-off businesses and consumers. Unbeknownst to their customers, five executives sitting in a hotel room can raise and fix prices around the world effective the very next day. International cartels, like the one involving vitamins, can operate profitably for a decade or more wholly undetected. The fact is that the obstacles to cracking cartels are huge. These are sophisticated, premeditated crimes committed by highly-educated individuals in absolute secrecy. In most cases, there will be no smoking guns left around and no cameras hidden in the lamps to capture the moment. Today's workshop will examine effective strategies for fighting cartels, but their successful deployment in a particular jurisdiction depends in large part on how seriously the jurisdiction views the threat posed by cartels to its economy. I hope that viewing these tapes has set the stage for today's program by making the case that hardcore cartel offenses deserve to be treated as crimes and that, wherever possible, competition authorities and public prosecutors must work closely together to prosecute these harmful offenses.
Click to expand...

Japan has a long history and tradition of https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/japanese-keiretsu.asp . Again, IMO I don't think it's a bad thing per se, ultimately it keeps one company from dominating and helps create/keep many jobs. The issue is when they violate laws and ultimately hurt other companies not in the cartel that it's an issue. And for consumers, there's probably one or two people on this forum annoyed by the selective jigsaw camera crippling.

Are all brands based worldwide affected? Anyone needing to purchase components at scale can be affected. As consumers we can debate this topic and vote with our wallets until the next cartel operation is exposed publicly.

As a pragmatist, I'm using one of the most crippled of cripple-cams, the Canon EOS R, as it works best for my needs (gimbal) vs. the other cartel cams (zero interest in the 'A7S III placeholder'*, which even has decent AF in good light! (kudos but no thanks: good/bad PR has side effects)). When the real A7S III is finally released, if it has Venice-like color and 10-bit, I'll be very interested! (and one or two people here might be too).

* which requires another all new line of lenses to be purchased to use (no continuous AF with adapters). Canon's EF/RF was the limit (e.g. can use existing EF with no limitations on RF body).
 
Forum Sliding is an effective tool for subject changing, including driving a thread into a topic which causes thread locking (e.g. politics).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top