The Emperor's Memory Cards Are Wearing No Clothes !!!

dcoughla said:
Nothing was substantiated as far as I could see, but there was an implication/accusation that Phil had not been accurate when it came to answering these questions/disclosing relationships. The accusation was then retracted.

Legal issues aside, I can totally understand not wanting to have a space where your integrity is questioned and a narrative starts to get assembled by random people on the internet. This is a small industry where image really matters (pun intended) and that sort of thing could do damage.
Click to expand...
I get that, Phil has stuck his neck out and spoke out on the behalf of RED. He has made statements and people have made choices based on those statements... Are we going to sue because someone referenced your statements?
 
Mestizo Devon said:
I get that, Phil has stuck his neck out and spoke out on the behalf of RED. He has made statements and people have made choices based on those statements... Are we going to sue because someone referenced your statements?
Click to expand...

Can't speak specifically to this, but I can say that generally, if someone says something (in person, online, in print, wherever), and another person takes action in reliance on that statement, then there are situations where the first person could be legally liable for consequences of making the statement to the second one. No idea if that's what happened here, but it's something people should always be sensitive to. Easy to forget who you're communicating with on the internet.
 
dcoughla said:
Can't speak specifically to this, but I can say that generally, if someone says something (in person, online, in print, wherever), and another person takes action in reliance on that statement, then there are situations where the first person could be legally liable for consequences of making the statement to the second one. No idea if that's what happened here, but it's something people should always be sensitive to. Easy to forget who you're communicating with on the internet.
Click to expand...
I guess I should clarify, true statements, if the are false or intentionally misleading, well....
 
robmneilson said:
Remember when everyone was mad that Panasonic P2 cards were just SD cards soldered to the board?
Click to expand...

Slightly more than that, but at its very base, yeah. Did Panasonic ever hide that fact, though? And, to my understanding, they actually manufacture their own memory chips. Also, speaking strictly from my experience, P2 has been the absolutely most reliable media I have every owned and used. Knock-on-wood, in eight years I've never had a card failure or lost so much as a frame. I wish I could say the same about the various tape flavors, CF, SD, XQD and HDD's.
 
NorBro said:
lol...the funny thing is I would actually buy all of those similarly made accessories/modules for their current prices if the body was like $3K....
Click to expand...
3K for $3K?

I think I have heard that somewhere before. Now, it's 6K for $4K.
 
"While it does not replace its big RED brothers, it will certainly be a complimentary camera for cinema grade images at the highest level at lower pricing."
 
I think what most people are missing is that RED is a marketing company, not a technology company. Their cameras are secondary to their main function; marketing and branding. It’s the same founder as Oakley, which convinced millions of teenagers to spend $300 on 99 cents worth of plastic. The same dynamic is at play here.

Ask yourself: why does RED’s CEO spend hundreds of hours on a message board?

Why do they have an exclusive deal with Apple Stores?

Why do their cameras lack BASIC industry standard features such as internal ND, XLR inputs, viewfinders, and redundant media inputs?

Why did their phone flop in spectacular fashion?

Answer: they’re a marketing company, not a tech company!

They have built an incredible image, based around aspirational marketing: buy our camera, and you’ll be just like your favorite Hollywood DP (...who signed an NDA not to reveal how much RED paid him...) Don’t believe me? Then research how Oakley built their brand name. It’s the same way, by “sponsoring” established athletes. At least in sports it was transparent.

It’s ingenious, but there is a downside which we’re now seeing.

Every other camera manufacturer makes millions of dollars on licensing their technology to 3rd parties, and they have a diversified portfolio of products. This allows them to stay competitive. Sony and Canon are great examples of this.

RED does not have either, since RED *is* the 3rd party that others are licensing technology to. So, they need to make up cash deficits another way, as they don’t have any technology to license. They decided to do this by exploiting people into thinking their media is worth 40x more than it is. I am certain that their cameras are hyper inflated as well, given that they lack basic features that come standard on even the cheapest Canon and Sony cinema cameras.

RED cameras have limited competitive advantage over anyone else; they compete simply on paper features: “dynamic range” and “color science” and other things that lack standardized testing.

I would also not be surprised to find out their sensors are being built by some sort of subsidiary or other major manufacturer like Foxconn, and that the specs have been manipulated much like their memory cards. They have an “8K” sensor but they use $18 Kingston memory cards? That is exceedingly hard to believe.

It’s incredibly clever marketing, but that’s also exactly where it ends.
 
dipstik said:
I think what most people are missing is that RED is a marketing company, not a technology company. Their cameras are secondary to their main function; marketing and branding. It’s the same founder as Oakley, which convinced millions of teenagers to spend $300 on 99 cents worth of plastic. The same dynamic is at play here.

Ask yourself: why does RED’s CEO spend hundreds of hours on a message board?

Why do they have an exclusive deal with Apple Stores?

Why do their cameras lack BASIC industry standard features such as internal ND, XLR inputs, viewfinders, and redundant media inputs?

Why did their phone flop in spectacular fashion?

Answer: they’re a marketing company, not a tech company!

They have built an incredible image, based around aspirational marketing: buy our camera, and you’ll be just like your favorite Hollywood DP (...who signed an NDA not to reveal how much RED paid him...) Don’t believe me? Then research how Oakley built their brand name. It’s the same way, by “sponsoring” established athletes. At least in sports it was transparent.

It’s ingenious, but there is a downside which we’re now seeing.

Every other camera manufacturer makes millions of dollars on licensing their technology to 3rd parties, and they have a diversified portfolio of products. This allows them to stay competitive. Sony and Canon are great examples of this.

RED does not have either, since RED *is* the 3rd party that others are licensing technology to. So, they need to make up cash deficits another way, as they don’t have any technology to license. They decided to do this by exploiting people into thinking their media is worth 40x more than it is. I am certain that their cameras are hyper inflated as well, given that they lack basic features that come standard on even the cheapest Canon and Sony cinema cameras.

RED cameras have limited competitive advantage over anyone else; they compete simply on paper features: “dynamic range” and “color science” and other things that lack standardized testing.

I would also not be surprised to find out their sensors are being built by some sort of subsidiary or other major manufacturer like Foxconn, and that the specs have been manipulated much like their memory cards. They have an “8K” sensor but they use $18 Kingston memory cards? That is exceedingly hard to believe.

It’s incredibly clever marketing, but that’s also exactly where it ends.
Click to expand...

Simply wrong.

Red is a fashion company.
 
dipstik said:
I think what most people are missing is that RED is a marketing company, not a technology company. Their cameras are secondary to their main function; marketing and branding. It’s the same founder as Oakley, which convinced millions of teenagers to spend $300 on 99 cents worth of plastic. The same dynamic is at play here.

Ask yourself: why does RED’s CEO spend hundreds of hours on a message board?

Why do they have an exclusive deal with Apple Stores?

Why do their cameras lack BASIC industry standard features such as internal ND, XLR inputs, viewfinders, and redundant media inputs?

Why did their phone flop in spectacular fashion?

Answer: they’re a marketing company, not a tech company!

They have built an incredible image, based around aspirational marketing: buy our camera, and you’ll be just like your favorite Hollywood DP (...who signed an NDA not to reveal how much RED paid him...) Don’t believe me? Then research how Oakley built their brand name. It’s the same way, by “sponsoring” established athletes. At least in sports it was transparent.

It’s ingenious, but there is a downside which we’re now seeing.

Every other camera manufacturer makes millions of dollars on licensing their technology to 3rd parties, and they have a diversified portfolio of products. This allows them to stay competitive. Sony and Canon are great examples of this.

RED does not have either, since RED *is* the 3rd party that others are licensing technology to. So, they need to make up cash deficits another way, as they don’t have any technology to license. They decided to do this by exploiting people into thinking their media is worth 40x more than it is. I am certain that their cameras are hyper inflated as well, given that they lack basic features that come standard on even the cheapest Canon and Sony cinema cameras.

RED cameras have limited competitive advantage over anyone else; they compete simply on paper features: “dynamic range” and “color science” and other things that lack standardized testing.

I would also not be surprised to find out their sensors are being built by some sort of subsidiary or other major manufacturer like Foxconn, and that the specs have been manipulated much like their memory cards. They have an “8K” sensor but they use $18 Kingston memory cards? That is exceedingly hard to believe.

It’s incredibly clever marketing, but that’s also exactly where it ends.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. You nailed it perfectly. The only thing you left out were the cultivating of cult members that keep the company afloat.
 
NorBro said:
lol...the funny thing is I would actually buy all of those similarly made accessories/modules for their current prices if the body was like $3K.

Even make the camera a nice super-sampled 2K...and just add all of the other great stuff (REDCODE, 120fps, ProRes, at least 3:1 compression for the 24p and up to 8:1 for the 120p if you must, etc).

A little micro RED like BM's would be so cute!
Click to expand...

About time...

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/07/27/red-komodo-we-know-what-it-isnt-but-not-what-it-is/

(...if it is what I/we think it is.)

Still may end up being too expensive though.
 
They got this whole peekaboo horse-play going with their existing customers. Maybe that's what will keep the loyalty to the brand. Maybe this is the marketing technique of the future.

To the outsiders, this looks beyond absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top