"Gee, and that 96MB disk is only $220 for high-volume OEM purchasers. I guess that will be about $350 to $400 for end users.
Compared to only 30 bucks for 120MB of Clik! disks.
THAT is how Clik! will compete."
Allen,
First off, this is not a "disk" but solid-state memory (no moving parts). I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to make it clear to others who may not.
Your guess about the end user cost may be a little high, but we'll use it. As you pointed out, you can get 3 clik! disks (120MB)for about $30 (when purchased in 10-packs). But, you also have to buy the clik! drive for another $200 (using an external version). I know…, it's a one-time cost (see number 1 below). So that makes the cost about $230. Now let's compare the two product uses.
1. With clik!, you must also have a flash card which is an additional cost (which I have not included in this discussion) until a camera comes with only a clik! drive. Anyway, for comparisons sake, let's say you fill up your flash card with Mpixel shots. And your camera came with an 8MB card like Lipo's. That means after 8 pictures, you must stop taking pictures for at least 1 minute (time it takes to xfer data to clik! disk) and probably more like 3 to 5 minutes since you have to take the flash card out of the camera and get out the clik! drive and then put things back. So, depending on where you are and what your taking pictures of, you could miss some great shots fumbling with the clik! drive. And more importantly, this is much more time than people are used to when "changing film". Multiply this time out and you get 12 x (3 to 5 minutes) just transferring data to the clik! drive (you also don't want to forget to label those disks so you don't overwrite them). Also, you have to store the clik! drive and disks somewhere until you need to use them. One way to reduce this transfer time is to use a larger flash card (but this will add even more cost), which brings me to the next product in the comparison.
2. Again for comparison, let's say you purchase the 96MB compact flash instead of a clik! drive and disks. You could then take up to 96 Mpixel shots without taking any breaks to "change film". This would be similar to using 3 rolls of 36 exposure film. Probably enough so that the vast majority of users won't need to transfer the images until they are conveniently located at their computer. With this solution, the user never has to buy another flash card, since they will just download the data to a zip or CD media and then be ready for another 96 Mpixel shots. Therefore, the clik! one-time cost argument does not apply here. The other advantage to using flash cards is the higher reliability associated with solid-state memory.
Therefore, with this quick and simple comparison (I'm sure there are things I didn't think of), using your numbers, you pay ($350 to $400) for the 96MB flash card versus the $230 for the clik! and 3 disks. Now granted, you spend $100 or so more for the total flash memory solution, but I believe that it's capabilities, convenience and reliability more than make up for the additional cost. And it's truly not a x10 cost difference like your post suggested. Plus, this is comparing a 96MB card when there are lower density cards available now for less money.
Finally, IMO, the external clik! does not have the density or cost advantages necessary to be a success in the portable electronics applications. This may not have been the case a couple of years ago when n-hand was first discussed. I haven't been able to decide if an internal clik! stands a chance against flash. It will be interesting (to say the least) to see a camera with an internal drive. Or for that matter any portable device with a internal clik! drive.
rll
|
