Why is APS so disliked?

<p>Digital is just new to some folks; and real old to others.<br>

<br /> Here APS came out eons after printing a zillion :) digital inputs from folks.<br>

<br /> For other their first digital camera might be last year; their first cellphone in 2005; their first cordless saw or drill in 2002; their first color TV in 1980. My dads first color TV was in 1976; a neighbor back in Indiana had one in the late 1950's. My dads usage of Kodacolor was in 1944; Kodachrome in the mid 1930's; another person might have first shot Kodacolor back in 1963 With an Instamatic; not a 616 Kodacolor roll in 1944. It is human nature to think one is the first in area with a gizmo; and it did not exist before; its marketing too!.</p>

<p>APS is a good system; it is actually overkill for common 4" wide prints. The point about bringing up digital is that APS when introduced didnt address the NON PRINT users of digital images; ie massive growing web; ebay; email; shooting images to document parts.<br>

<br /> IF APS processors had a bundled optional scan service too like 35mm already had in many places; APS might have had more followers. The real estate and appraisal customers of mine liked the tidy APS cassette; but their "work flow" was placing the complete job in a folder in a filing cabinet; a sleeve of 35mm negatives; or floppy from a Sony Maciva takes up less space. I still have apparisers that use a floppy based Sony Maciva for digital images; getting decent floppies is now a problem; many are crap. It is easier for me to accept a dumb floppy than mess around with the APS scan of a few frames. With the Canon FS2710 APS module you advance the film and hunt for frames the chap wants.<br>

<br /> With old 126 Instamatic/Kodapak I do not think it took hold in Russia; like APS one had a weird new cassette to deal with; licensing.</p>

<p>If APS processing was the same cost as 35mm in Venus; more in Mars; alot more on the Moon; users will have radically different *takes* on why APS was not liked or used much. It is *easy* to spend anothers money; or preach that there is or was no APS tax if one ignores regional differences.</p>

<p>Consider one long time customer of ours that is hockey mom. She had a web site for the pee wee, mites, juniors kid leagues before APS was out. We scanned here better 800 asa C41 stuff for here web site; all shot with a Canon rebel. She later went to a digital Olympus 3030; they a 5XXX camera; then a Canon dRebel. She also bought and sold her kids too small hockey gear on ebay. Thus for an amateur; ie ahgockey mom APS had no advantage; no real way to get a digital output.</p>

<p>Maybe Rochester New York's Kodak narrow minded directors could not fathom why or how a 1996 Simi Valley or Chatsworth hockey mom already was using digital to show their kids hockey stuff on the web; or that ebay allowed saving money buying kids hockey gear; or reselling the old stuff.</p>

<p>The *old guard* did not understand that some folks; even amateurs were well into digital when APS came out.<br>

<br /> <br /> APS's focus was on prints; the whole possible usage of some being digital was ignored.</p>

<p>Thus a hockey mom used the same 35mm Rebel and 800 asa film; the gems were scanned and made into digital files; for web usage; to sell prints to parents; to email to others; to sell old hockey stuff on ebay. All this stuff was available at Kmart.</p>

<p><br /> ***As many folks preach on this thread; digital was irrelevent; it did not matter in 1996.</p>

<p><br /> ***For those amateurs like my hockey mom customers and friends; it DID MATTER; thus they passed up the APS system; an old farts system for folks with a a narrow mindset; prints only.</p>

<p>A narrow midset is a good mix for a product failure; you ignore WHY a radically growing number of folks shoot images; you ignore the per print costs; you ignore why the gizmo is harder to use to make a few digital images now and then.</p>

<p>The whole low cost affordable Canon Rebel 35mm film slr with a F2.8 was already being used by hockey moms to shoot kids hockey when APS came out. One could have the whole roll developed and printed plus get a CD if one wanted; as bag service from Savon's drug store or Vons grocery etc. Or one could have a service bureau scan select images; or one could buy ones own goober flatbed at Frys; but a unit was often just 300 dpi then; 600 dpi for a expensive one.</p>

<p>An fine Epson 600 series flatbed here from 1997 has a transparency unit for 4x5; 6x6 /6x7; and 35mm slides and negatives; but no APS. It was from Frys in the valley; it is good enought for web shots from 35mm even.</p>

<p>Saying that XYZ is irrelevent is a GOOD TAKE with a product launch; one truncates the possible buyers; one writes them off as garbage useless folks ; your rigid world with more expensive APS print system will replace 35mm.<br /> <br /> The Photo magazines had folks preaching that APS would replace 35mm in a few years; maybe it would have if the web was shut down; and print prices were the same as 35mm.</p>