Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nosmo_king who wrote (26886)	6/27/2000 10:35:00 AM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Even though digital cameras have been improving, the quality of the photographs is not as good as film based cameras (at least the sub $1000 models). The new 3 megapixel models for around $899 from Nikon and $799 from Canon make film quality 8x10 prints and very nice 10x14 prints. These models seem to have created the overlap between digital and film photography for advanced amateurs. If you are interested, here is a fantastic web site dedicated to digital cameras. imaging-resource.com I know a pro photographer and he is using digital equipment almost 100% of the time. His cost per shoot has gone way down and his customers expect to be able to select the best photos from the shoot then and there and walk out the door with them or have them in their e-mail by the time they get back to their office. With film, his clients are not able to review the shoot for days and then must wait additional days for the selected shots to be ready. In my opinion, digital photography is now a match for film photography in quality and far superior in cost, convenience, and capability.

To: nosmo_king who wrote (26886)	6/27/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Am I splitting hairs? My intent is in trying to understand whether the discontinuous innovation must be better,... Nosmo, I think it depends on how you define "better." As Lindy likes to remind us, the product that does anything faster, with greater quality, with greater convenience and reduced cost is the killer product. Most products don't achieve all four categories but some do and those are the ones we want to invest in. When determining if a product is "better," I also believe it's important to break down by sub-sector. Using digital photography as an example, there's no doubt that digital photos are far superior to film-based photos for insurance adjusters and car body shops doing work for the insurance companies. But depending on the requirements of other end users, the digital advantage may not be quite so obvious. When deciding whether or not a product has to be better, I think it's also important to determine how long it's going to be better. Using your example of Polaroid's instant photography, I'd suggest that its competitive advantage period is a lot shorter than that of the airplane. Probably a bad example but you get the point. --Mike Buckley

To: nosmo_king who wrote (26886)	6/27/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 54805

Whether digital, in its present state is "better" than conventional photography overlooks many key factors. I think "better" is the wrong word. A better word would be "different." If you compare a 35mm image on fine-grain film with the resolution from a 2.1 mpixel digital image, there will be noticeable differences in overall quality and sharpness in prints of, say 11" x 14" or larger. With smaller size prints, the differences would be more difficult to pinpoint. Notice that I say prints, not other types of display, such as a computer screen or TV. But it would also be much easier for the average user to improve a digital print, in terms of color, hue, contrast, shadow detail, overall sharpness, bluring of unwanted features, or outright removal of disconcerting objects (like a tree growing out of the head of the person standing next to the tree). The altered final print would not be exactly the same as the original, but it would, at least in the eyes of the photographer, represent a closer approximation to what he or she saw when making the photo, that was deemed worthwhile in the first place. So, the better description is "different," not better or worse. As to the comparison between Polaroid shots and conventional photos from film, the purported inferior quality of Polaroid does not extend across the entire line of Polaroid type products. For example, Polaroid 11 x 14 film has been used to copy important paintings for archive purposes, using studio cameras capable of accommodating that film size. The quality is better than that obtainable from conventional film products, but admittedly, this is not for the average photographer. I have also used Polaroid 4x5 sheet films and have obtained results that were far better than could be obtained from conventional 4x5 films, and with much greater convenience. The idea of convenience is what will eventually result in the decline of conventional film and paper processing, as it is doing now for insurance companies and for many amateur photographers who have computers and printing capabilities. For a growing number of photographers, digital photography is not only different but better. Art

To: nosmo_king who wrote (26886)	6/27/2000 3:58:00 PM
From: Apollo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Sandisk...... from the SI SNDK thread, and Art B.: "As to how all of this might affect SNDK, I can see both favorable and unfavorable impacts. Since demand for flash memory exceeds available capacity, a reduction in demand, unless it is huge, will have little or no impact on unit sales or prices per unit, at least for the next six months. Since several companies are increasing their facilities for making flash memory, eventually we could see some initial overcapacity and price cutting, but this situation will probably not occur for another year or perhaps even longer. Meanwhile, as often happens with new technology, improvements in production and technology often bring the price down, thereby increasing consumer demand. Here are three key trends that I see at this time: 1. The downward moving costs of small sizes of flash memory, up to about 32 mb capacity, increase the certainty that conventional photography for amateurs will decline rapidly over the next three years, confirming Eli Harari's earlier statement that by 2003, the only remaining viable market for conventional photography will be throw away cameras. Existing conventional cameras will be used, particularly in countries such as China, but eventually conventional film will become the exception, rather than the rule. 2. Digital cameras will be designed to work with wireless phones to transmit photos from camera storage to an online facility, whether it be an Internet Service Provider or the user's own e-mail file. This feature will have wide appeal as more people come to rely on wireless phones, instead of older wired phones. It will also ensure that smaller capacity flash memory will be sufficient to store a limited number of photo images until they can be uploaded via wireless connection to another storage facility. My source on this is a very recent conversation with a retired official from Kodak, who had a very high ranking position there. I think it is a good source. 3. Flash memory will be the technology of choice for storage of popular music (short selections, rather than the much longer selections typical of classical music) and many kinds of books, including textbooks. Flash memory will displace CD's as the technology of choice for popular music, since the fidelity is almost as good as CD and the convenience of having a player with no moving parts surpasses any CD advantage. Since consumers will want to keep their music and book selections, they will buy more flash units to store these selections, creating a very large aftermarket for MP3 players and the like. Conventional record/CD/book/video stores will become a relic of the past. As long as the SNDK patents hold up to challenges, as I think they will, I don't see any negative factors for SNDK for the foreseeable future. Would embedded flash memory be a low cost substitute for removable flash cards in, say, cameras with wireless photo transmission capabilities? Probably, but again, the wide acceptance of compact flash format precludes a major shift to another format in the near future. Art"