The Sony brand is in trouble: deja-vu all over again?

Discussion in 'Sony/Minolta' started by phil_derosier, Apr 15, 2012.


    Or, will Sony fans soon experience another "Minolta moment?"
  2. Can't read it without an account; have no interest in creating one.
  3. OTOH, comes post-gazette ...

    ... to the rescue. Having skimmed it now, seems like the old news, c. Apr 9 2012, about restructuring:
  4. When my Sony BluRay player cought live fire and smoke, I suspected something was brewing at Sony...:)
    The report is highly biased, sensationalizing and exaggerating.
  5. Don't need to read it. We know Sony had its largest loss ever last year. However, the photographic and imagining division is doing very well and Sony will be continue to concentrate/focus in this area. The Tsunami, Thailand flooding and falling behind in areas like Televisions were big problems for Sony. In no way can you compare Sony Imaging with Minolta's excellent products, but extremely poor marketing that led to their demise.
  6. Regardless of the performance of Sony Imaging, the behemoth corporate structure that is Sony, Inc., has the potential to
    — in full Titanic style — drown the innocents.
  7. I came across this today
    The article refers to the sony owned system called hawk-eye which is used at tennis tournaments to track the flight ofa tennis bal and determine whether it is in or out. I have seen this on TV but didn't realize it was owned by Sony.
    I suppose one of the question is that if you can track a tennis ball at 140+ mph and determine whether it is in or out then why is this type of technology not transferrable to a the AF in camera ;-). Obviously way different regimes! I realize that Sony did not invent this thing but they bought it so obviously they have an eye for technologies. I suppose it could see application in video/stills world at some point
    I thought it was interesting. The following is a synopsis of operation from Wikipedia
    "All Hawk-Eye systems are based on the principles of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by at least four high-speed video cameras located at different locations and angles around the area of play.[2] The system rapidly processes the video feeds by a high-speed video camera and ball tracker. A data store contains a predefined model of the playing area and includes data on the rules of the game.
    In each frame sent from each camera, the system identifies the group of pixels which corresponds to the image of the ball. It then calculates for each frame the 3D position of the ball by comparing its position on at least two of the physically separate cameras at the same instant in time. A succession of frames builds up a record of the path along which the ball has travelled. It also "predicts" the future flight path of the ball and where it will interact with any of the playing area features already programmed into the database. The system can also interpret these interactions to decide infringements of the rules of the game.[2]
    The system generates a graphic image of the ball path and playing area, which means that information can be provided to judges, television viewers or coaching staff in near real time.
    The pure tracking system is combined with a backend database and archiving capabilities so that it is possible to extract and analyse trends and statistics about individual players, games, ball-to-ball comparisons, etc."
    Please note that it is an optical system. It was invented and developed by the Brits so good on the UK :)
    Just thought it was of interest.
  8. Suppose Sony will die soon ... Some other company will buy it and everything goes on. When I bought the Maxxum 7D, people warned me that Minolta is (was) dying. But even now, it's very easy to find A mount lenses (at a good price)
  9. The point, however, is how willing will the risk-averse consumer be in sinking 1 or 2 "big bills" into a system that may not
    survive? The corporate bean-counters at Sony are surely asking themselves the same question.

    Look at this another way: is it possible Sony may seek to avoid a "Kodak moment"? All business is about "buy low, and
    sell high", or "escape while the exit doors are still visible". Kodak—with all its tech prowess and patents—couldn't detect,
    or refused to acknowledge, the paradigm shift.

    I've been with Minolta since the very early 90s, and it pains me to see this happen (again). But life goes on ...
  10. Sony will survive, there is no doubt about that. And they have clearly stated that they will focus on the camera and imaging products as one of their several main lines of business. This should be nothing but good news for anyone planning to get a new camera from them.
  11. I don't think that Nikon and Canon are in immediate danger from Sony :). That said the integration of computers, optics, sensors and processing are changing things very rapidly. I have an a900, 700 and a 5n and abunch of lenses including some pretty rare MC/MD mount. I am particularly impressed with my 5n as a digital back for those manual lenses.They are appear to be working pretty hard on evolving sensor tech (witness the supposed 100 Mp organic sensor). So they appear tobe investing the R&D including their relationship with Zeiss.
    I think their weak point is the lack of support at the pro level. Their marketing approach seems a little haphazard at the moment. These are structural issues. I think their technolgy is there albeit it can do with some tweaking aka the JPEG engine. This is true for all maunfacturers to some extent.
    As far as I am concerned, I am awaiting the a99 announcement which I plan on buying. There is nothing in Canon or Nikon that has me salivating and I frankly don't see anythng in those brands which are marketly better than what I have. Sure they are better in some regards but they are also less in others. Overall I'd say they are pretty close to being equal.
    I have been with Minolta since the 70s. Other than Hassie's and Bronica's, Minolta/Sony has been my mainstay. I see no reason to lose that legacy and , believe me, from time to time I've looked for a reason!!
  12. Sony needs to get on the stick with pushing their DSLR cameras (or DSLT cameras) through retailers. You go to CompUSA or Best Buy or just about anywhere, and where are the Sony cameras? They are in the compacts section. It's like Sony wants to have a monopoly on the high-end stuff, for their own stores. Silly. They produce a number of good cameras under $1,000. Why not put them up against Canon and Nikon at places like Office Depot, Staples, Best Buy, etc?
    They could keep the A900, A850, A77, and A99 and all the Zeiss lenses for their Sony Style Stores to have exclusives. Oh, and they need MORE Sony Style stores! There isn't a single one in South Beach or down-town. THAT is where the money is! That's why the Apple Store is in the middle of Lincoln Road in South Beach, and it is busy ALL the time. WTF Sony?!?
    Who said Sony is a smart marketer?
  13. Sony stores are only in 10 states! I wonder why? Apple has stores in 45 states. Sony should have stores in Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix/Scottsdale, etc. I wonder how many stores they have in places like Sydney, Rio, Dubai, and London? Those would be GREAT places to put stores. Again, Apple has 16 stores in Florida, but Sony only has 4. I would think that Sony could get financing right now to build at least 100 stores! That would be at least two in each state they don't have stores in now, and they could put more in some places. IMHO they could and should out-do Apple with stores. After-all, they not only sell computers, computer accessories, computer software, and MP3 players, but they sell TVs, game consoles, and cameras (of all sorts). Sony should have MORE stores than Apple. Not less stores. There are more than 100 cities in the U.S. that have 200,000 people or more. There should be a Sony store in every one. Sony currently only has 38 stores in all the U.S. Hell, they have a store in Boca Raton! Why don't they have a store in Scottsdale or Atlanta?!?

Share This Page