Erwin: Parallels between Apple and Leica?

[jtdnyc]

http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c037.html

[jtk]

As I pointed out in another thread, they're both run by Californians.

[Sanford]

I'd trade my M6 for an 24" Imac right now!

[mark_amos]

If a digital M only took images as raw files, could they do away with the LCD altogether, not because it's not useful, but as one of several simplifications for cost saving? I mean, in raw mode, you wouldn't need sharpening or white balance to be set as on an LCD, and you wouldn't really need the RD-1 type gauges either would you? I don't know enough about digital to know the answer.

 

A well made plastic CL-size digital CL-D with shorter RF baselength, no LCD, no TTL flash, slower flash sync and maximum shutter than the M8 would be no substitute for an M8, but at $1000, I could have fun doing what I want to do with my lenses. They could offer it with a Cosina lens as a "kit". Heck, give it an aperture priority mode only. There may be more people than they think that would be more comfortable downloading raw images through simple packaged software onto a computer, but not have to worry about messing with settings on the camera. The plus for most of us would be that you could also use your expensive M glass and process through your own preferred raw software also.

[Brad_]

Not even close. Silly comparison...

[christoph_hammann]

Somehow, I don't see Leica coming out with the equivalent to an iPod in the next few years...

[Spearhead]

Or in the last fifty years.

[ev1]

One difference between Leica and Apple is during the development of the M line, Leica has

been an inconsistant innovator with 10 to 15 year intervals. The M3 set the bar, however

true innovation didn't not happen for 15 years until the M5 in the early 1970's and then

the M6 in the mid 1980's. Models from the m2 to the m4 were elegantly designed by

today's standards, however their overall level of product development was minimal

compared to their Japanese competitors at the time.

On the other hand, Apple had the intestinal fortitude to produce a wide variety of products

at different price-points aimed at different segments of the market. Granted, some were

elegant failures, however for a company with a miniscule share of the personal computer

market, they eventually prevailed to become the design and innovation reference that they

are today. If there is a lesson for Leica in Apple's success, I think it would be how to

overcome a niche market mentality (a la carte) to offer well-designed and affordably priced

products that appeal to a wider range of consumers. The answer is obvious; Leica has

never been that type of company. And as much as I enjoy collecting and using my Leica

cameras and lenses, I don't think they will ever do it.

[elmarfudd]

It's a great comparison, unless one is trying to say that they're similar in anyway.

[boris c umanso]

"true innovation didn't not happen for 15 years until the M5 in the early 1970's and then

the M6 in the mid 1980's"

 

The M6 was innovative? My M6s are just M4s with not

especially

good meters. Am I missing something?

[fred_c1]

>Am I missing something?

 

Let's see: self-timer, brass top plate, hot shoe, finder flare, script engraving, M syc post ...

 

Actually, Leica's innovation (i.e. not done by anyone else) is churning out endless variations of the same camera for decades on end, be it regular or "special" editions.

[boris c umanso]

"self-timer, brass top plate, hot shoe, finder flare, script engraving, M syc post ..."

 

Not a single thing that alters the basic form and functionality of the camera to a

photographer; the problem of "finder flare" is an online myth - even if it appears a slight

shift in view cures it. An M6 really is just an M4 with a meter, just as an M4 is just an M2

with...

[Brad_]

Maybe leica needs to open up a couple hundred high-tech leica stores - similar to what

apple's has done over the last 6 years. Yeah, that should get things going...

[boris c umanso]

The similarities actually are there. Don't forgot the uproar when Apple changed the

beautiful brass

casting of the original iPod to the cheap zinc of the MiniPod, only to return to classic brass

for the

iPod

nano. I also hear strong rumors that the Apple faithful are fed up with their quad-core

Mac Pros, and that, in response, Steve Jobs is preparing to re-release the classic Apple II

as

the Mac Pro MP. It'll have a zillionth of the functionality of the present Mac Pro, but it'll be

twice the price and available in a range of beautiful a-la-carte animal skin finishes.

[fred_c1]

>Not a single thing that alters the basic form and functionality of the camera to a photographer;

 

And exactly why is that different from "endless variations on the same camera" like I said?

 

>the problem of "finder flare" is an online myth

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but my experience with my camera are anything but "easily cured online myths."

[boris c umanso]

"And exactly why is that different from "endless variations on the same camera" like I

said?"

 

My original comment was in response to the suggestion that the M6 was an example of

"true innovation". Which it clearly isn't. Go back and reread the thread and all will become

clear...

[fred_c1]

>My original comment was in response to the suggestion that the M6 was an example of "true innovation".

 

Then why did you quote my message which never made such "suggestion"?

 

>Go back and reread the thread and all will become clear...

 

It's never been anything but clear that either you quoted the wrong message, or you don't even bother to read what you quote from, or you missed my obvious sarcasm in calling Leica's rehashings "innovation."

 

Anyway, thank you for not "responding" to me anymore.

[boris c umanso]

"thank you for not "responding" to me anymore."

 

No need for thanks, it'll be a pleasure.

[jerry_sousa]

Dunno much about Apple...but currently use 2 M6's, (used to own M4P and M5). Personally, I think that Leica made a big mistake in putting their new digital M8 into basically, an old design. The transition to digital was surely as good a time as any to make a clean break from tradition. One which had turned from being the camera of choice for hard working photojournalists, to the object of desire for well-heeled amateurs.

 

The digital M's ought to have been chunkier: rubber armoured, with a built in hand grip and wider, deeper base. Dust and weather-proofed seals. Anti-shake too. Then charge $5000 for it!

[michael_londarenko]

Erwin had one statement there that pretty much sums the reality - "The second lesson lies in the adoption of a design model around the needs of the consumer, not around the demands of technology."

<p>

<br>

Car industry is great example - American car manufacturers should take that to heart if they still wonder why BMW and Lexus are continuously getting more market share despite higher sticker prices.

<p>

<br>

As someone who works in Silicon Valley I do see some similarities between Apple and Leica. Apple wasn't doing too well right until the most recent "return of the Jedi" Steve Jobs to the company he helped found. Even then, it took him a while to bring the company around. For more than half the time of the entire company's history (Apple has been around since 1977) Apple was a small niche market computer and OS vendor/manufacturer. Now almost everyone knows Apple.

<p>

<br>

Today, ease of use, overall quality and reliability have to be the most important traits of all Apple products. Innovation is not really one of them. Innovative product that requires ten engineers to operate is borderline useless if its purpose is solving a rather simple problem.

<p>

<br>

They didn't really invent MP3 player for example. What they did though is made it so easy to use with good reliability record and the whole service behind it (their online music shop) that now anyone that has couple hundred bucks to spend and can't live without music has one. iPod became "chic" thing to have. I don't have one. But tens of millions of people apparently do. Even if all it does is sit on the shelf collecting dust.

<p>

<br>

That's where Leica can take a note for themselves. If they find a way to make their already reliable, well designed and easy to use products more relevant to what masses want today - they can have a winner on their hands. It is, however, nearly impossible for M line. M line today is appealing primarily to collectors and hobbyists that really love simplicity and reliability of their M cameras. They want a camera that will work 50 years from now without software upgrade or new type of batteries or special 7-finger gloves. They want to enjoy the "slow" and methodical approach of taking photographs.

<p>

<br>

Modern-day ADD/ADHD afflicted crowd that can't form a finished sentence without going into some kind of self-induced stupor demands digital gizmos. NOW! Or else they switch their focus to some other "cool" stuff.

<p>

<br>

King Camp Gillette would have loved this market :)

<p>

<br>

Current market hype is all about digital, mostly auto-everything, "gee, check out my new digital camera!" soap-boxes and there isn't much Leica can do about it except perhaps play along. Remember, it's no longer Apple Computer precisely because computers no longer make the bulk of Apple's sales. It's now Apple Inc.

<p>

<br>

In a sense, if Leica is to become big again it has to stop being a Leica!

<p>

<br>

I think in that sense D-Lux and C-Lux are possibly steps in that direction. Electronics are continuously getting cheaper, "better" and faster. Modern-day computer has life expectancy of less than 3 years. Servers under 5 years. Digital P&S camera probably around 2-3 years. If Leica manages to get those D-Luxes and C-Luxes to the point that there is nothing out there that would be as easy and effective to use they can certainly become big again.

<p>

<br>

That's not the case for mechanically engineered pieces of perfection. German auto transmissions are getting more expensive every year and they last decades. They're being constantly improved, their prices however practically never go down. Leica M cameras aren't getting any cheaper either - they're not getting any easier or cheaper to produce.

<p>

<br>

From Leica's corporate page I read "In financial 2005/2006 the Company's workforce of 985 people generated sales totaling 106.739 million Euro". Just for the sake of comparison, financial results of Apple in 2001 - "For the year, the Company reported a net loss of $25 million on revenues of $5.36 billion, compared to net earnings of $786 million on $7.98 billion in revenues in 2000." ( <a href=http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/oct/17results.html>Link to Article</a> )

<p>

<br>

And Apple's headcount "as of September 30, 2006 was estimated at 17,787 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,399 temporary equivalent employees and contractors" ( <a href=http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/03/apple_retail_commitment_headcount_surge_over_55_percent.html> Link to Article</a> )

 

<p>

<br>

I for one hope that Leica keeps making M-line products for a long time to come, even if that means that Leica Camera AG becomes Leica AG, the consumer electronics company with mechanical camera "luxury" division.

<p>

<br>

Mike.

 

[jeroen dommisse]

They both have a huge following of evangelists. Other than that, they're very different: Leica makes cameras, Apple makes computers.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Wishful thinking. Leica has outsourced the tech part of digital to Panasonic. They don't have expertise in core digital technologies. What is their value add? Lenses and packaging? A Hermes edition M8?

 

So now I can pay $5k for a camera that isn't nearly as good as my $1.5 k Nikon D200.

[Karim Ghantous]

Every damned time there is a slightly controversial thread topic there always has to be a couple of immature posters who simply have to argue over something.

 

I think even hard controversies (say, oh, every time Riefenstahl comes up) can be either solved or laid out without resorting to infantile behaviour. Think before typing - please!

[dave_bernard]

The companies are similar to each other in that they have built a marketing image that is greater than the product.

 

Not to slam the products at all.

 

But Apple sells rather conventional technology with great cosmetic appeal and external materials. They market themselves as the choice for the unconventional, the free spirit, the artist.

 

Likewise, Leica sells conventional technology (at best) with great cosmetic appeal and external materials. They market themselves towards the elitist, the smart sophisticate, the savvy daredevil, the artist.

 

When a product itself is not enough to build a market it's the job of marketing to build product perception to do so.

 

When such marketing is successful, companies are able to charge a premium price for a cosmetically appealing if functionally pedestrian product.

[jerry_sousa]

Whilst I was in town, and contemplating this thread, I actually saw a pro with a Leica M6! (here in HK). Can't remember the last time that happened!

Anyway, where Herr Puts erred in his article,(and God bless him) was in not comparing the changes which Leica made to it's M series rangefinder cameras, to the evolution of the Volkswagen Beatle. Both made in Germany, and of similar vintage. Apart from the difference between a Leica and a VW, mainly being that the first was a luxury item, and the second a vehicle for the masses, they do share a similarity in their Germanic development. Simply that they evolved over decades with little external changes. And few internal ones either. A VW Beatle from 1959, is still familiar to one from 1970. Likewise, a Leica M3 is comparable to an M6.

 

However, when Volkswagen decided to reintroduce the new Beatle, they designed a new body for their car. Even with the new mechanics,such as the water-cooled engine in FRONT, it remains recognizably, a VW Beatle. Leica though, stuffed their digital innards into basically the same 1954 body!

 

They could have used the Konica Hexar, with it's M mount, as a modern template/design...big German eff up there. I was very dismayed when I first saw photos of the digital M8. I don't think highly of today's Leica designers.