> Now, why do I think the MP race continues? It's not the Marketing > Dept, it's the Engineering Dept. If let loose, those engineers will > try to make stuff smaller, faster, and any -er they can think of...as > long as it's a measurable quantity. It's in the nature of Engineers to > be like this. > > Not that the Marketing Dept don't have any blame, because they're > probably rubbing their hands gleefuly and giggling like little girls > at their first prom thinking how easy their job is because all they > need to do is print "New, better, improved, MORE MEGAPIXELS!" on the > new camera's box and call it a day. > > I have more ideas and opinions, but I'll shut up now. > > > ?M.
The real driver is $$$ which = survival. Some have pondered 'who needs a camera with more MP?'. No one truly NEEDS it. A company that produces what the customer NEEDS, can pretty much just keep producing the same thing year after year. Toilet paper comes to mind. For 75+ years no real innovation in light bulbs was required, because everyone needs light bulbs. They're commodities. Companies that produce those kinds of products essentially have a guaranteed revenue/customer stream because what they produce is consumed and must be replaced. When it comes to WANTS (versus NEEDS), things change. A company that produces what the customer WANTS (or comes to WANT) does not have a guaranteed revenue/customer stream. When a product has saturated its market, the customers who have purchased the product no longer WANT it. The revenue/customer stream dries up and is essentially limited to mostly new customers. What to do? Only one thing. Create a new product (WANT) that will attract both new customers and the saturated market of prior customers. Otherwise small sales volume = small revenue = out of business. Hence the endless cycles of microprocessors, operating systems, PC's, iPods, iPads, and digital cameras. It's not engineering, or marketing, or customer demand that's driving the MP wars. It's basic economic reality in a capitalist system when a company produces products that are 1) not consumables or 2) not truly NEEDED. For proof of this look at Kodak and the photography business in the pre-digital era. Aside from a small camera business, Kodak made the vast majority of their money by producing film, paper, and chemicals. It was like light bulbs and toilet paper. The items continually needed to be replaced, hence innovation in the camera/hardware arena was comparatively slow because they had a guaranteed revenue/customer stream. When customers no longer NEEDED the film, paper, and chemicals, and Kodak was not producing what the customer WANTED, what happened to Kodak? If Pentax (or any other camera manufacturer) does not continue to innovate and generate new WANTS, what will happen to them? Tom C. (If a customer already has a ##MP camera, how many more ##MP cameras is the customer likely to purchase?) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
