Re: [Leica] Which way the future of camera companies?

[Andre Jean Quintal <megamax@abacom.com>]

At 23:34 -0400 22/08/99, Stephen wrote:
. . .
>Expensive interchangeable lens SLR systems would be replaced with ever more
>competent fixed zoom digital cameras.  Not only would the system approach
>as we
>know it today  be increasingly difficult to assemble, film itself will get
>harder
>and harder to buy.

	--> it's called a market shake-up . . .

	--> it's NOT every household who needs or has a use for
	high end SLR systems, much as it's not every household
	who buys into better quality audio components.

	--> while it can be argued that Leica products tend to be
	rather for the well to do, it's quite impressive how some
	quite good SLR models are inexpensive.

	--> magazines don't help. In France, they said the Nikon F4s
	was way too expensive. Strange, they couldn't refrain
	from saying how well made it was.

	--> the mass market evolves and it probably will spell
	a lower, perhaps much lower market share for "traditional"
	photography, but then, how many SLR owners have EVER
	been at a photo exhibit, let alone know the names of 3
	great photo masters ... ?

	--> eventually, Leica may benefit from all this
	because it enjoys a rather photo oriented clientele,
	to underplay the facts. Although one needs quite a financial
	surface to justify buying into Leica stocks, for instance,
	the company may very well survive pretty much intact,
	photography markets wise, and stands to gain from
	all things digital simply because of its outstanding status,
	perhaps OEM stuff in a first phase, but I happen to think
	highly of its corporate capabilities to further its expansion
	profitably by entering digital based technology markets,
	if not at the mass market level, certainly at the prosumer
	level and in various vertical markets.

	--> the trend of so many manufacturers, in various markets,
	to lower quality beneath an acceptable floor, may provoke
	situations where many will loose their reputation in less
	than a decade and have to rebuild it or exit their base market.
	Not so with Leica. If someone needs a quality Leica, the salesperson
	only has to say: "Which one will it be, Sir? "

	--> we still have to admit $200 gets a family quite an interesting
	camera, much easier to use than those available 25 years ago.

	--> Are not, in most markets, the profits derived mostly
	from the consumables? Photo film or digital camera gizmos
	are still going to sell by the billion$ .

	--> bean counters notwithstanding, a mutual fund portfolio
	gains by having Nikon, Canon or Leica stocks, just as well
	as other recognized brand names, and star profits from lesser
	known firms. This also is a matter of balance.
	Immediate and quarterly profits aren't everything in ANY
	business. The bean counters' business is bean counting !
	Let's NEVER forget that.

	--> I've seen many excellent firms
	go to the dogs when some hip bean counter came into power,
	witness Apple Computer under the Pepsi guy, John Scully:
	things went well a while under steam from Steve Jobs' earlier
	policies and product development, then problems creeped up,
	until, a billion dollar loss later, Steve Jobs came back in.
	In business, I contend, there IS such a thing as "SPIRIT",
	and insight from specific experience. Not all inventory is meant
	to sell in loads and generate 10, 20 turnovers a year
	with three model changes a year !

	--> ... you should see what profits are left in retail TV
	sales. Are they exiting the market? NO. I wonder why.
	(Especially as the Grand Alliance models are due in this year...)

	Andre Jean Quintal