Canon up, Sony down

[clinton_abe]

Canon had a profit of $942,000,000 in the first quarter of this

year, thanks in large part to its digital cameras. In the same

period, Sony had a loss of $578,000,000. Let's hope that Sony can do

something with its DSLRs, because if they don't, it may be the end

of line for the A-mount KM lenses. Canon is the 800 lb. gorilla and

it is unlikely that Sony will be able to reach its goal of 20%

market penetration in the DSLR market.

[bill_thorlin]

The $942,000,000 figure is for sales not profit. Of this sales figure business machines account for 68% and cameras 20% and the same relative basis applies to the profits figures.

 

Sony are forecasting annual profits of 100 billion yen which would be larger except for losses in the games division.

 

Cameras/photographic are a much larger proportion of the Canon business overall than they are for Sony.

 

It all depends on what effort Sony will make as regards a fairly small element of their total business but despite their problems they still have clout. At least they have been making some noises lately on the areas that interest us but it is still a wait and see situation for me.

[james_frater]

Numbers like this mean little to Sony at the moment. For example they still dominate the games Market with their playstation, and have been able to do this by making cheap machines, and can afford to do this because of profits in other divisions.

 

Sony can make losses in the camera market. Sony is a world monster and clearly shows no intention other than to make and spend more money trying to dominate the camera market.

[bill_thorlin]

They may well dominate the games market but at present they do so at a loss and release of PlayStation 3 has been put back 6 months. Figures and situations like this do mean something to Sony - they do not like them !

 

Domination is pointless without profit and that applies to the camera/photographic market just as it does to anything else.

 

Sony are in it for the money pure and simple and if it is not there they can be pretty ruthless with a small element of their business. As regards the games they are so heavily committed that they feel they have to make it work.

[oceanphysics]

<i>The $942,000,000 figure is for sales not profit.</i>

<p>

Wrong. It's net income, also known as profit. Canon's sales are on the order of $40 billion a year.

[nate_macdonald]

It's too bad Sony doesn't have something else to maintain its business, like audio equipment or video games or something.

[chris_harley1]

Buy a flippin Cannon Clinton for Christ's sake and do us all a favour. It has been, is and always will be with you doom and flippin gloom.

[chris_harley1]

If you're in such a researching mood Clinton why not find out who manufactures the most digital camera sensors, or in which markets Sony leads in, or a brief synopsis on how Sony saw the profits being made by Sega and Nintendo and decided to corner the market in Games machines or who are market leaders in Video technology or how much of the world music business Sony owned 30 years ago against now.In fact I would say Sony are by far the bigger company to Cannon. There are of course terrible catastrophes where Sony tried to foist proprietry systems on the market ie Video recorders but as you point out the camera market is allready established so I see a greater correlation to the games market.

[clinton_abe]

Chris- If I do the research, will you agree to learn how to spell?

[lawrence_palumbo]

good job chris. my sentiments exactly.

 

imho, in a few years we all will be very happy that sony is involved here.

[clinton_abe]

Lawrence- You and Chris are wrong. When news of Sony buying KM's asset for the DSLR came out, other posters moaned and groaned. I, on the other hand, welcomed the news, as I saw it as an opportunity for me to continue to use my A-mount lenses. (If you don't believe me, just go research the past postings I made on this subject.) Just because I report the truth, does not mean I have a negative message to convey.

 

When Sony came out with their statement that they were looking to capture 20% of the DSLR market, other posters also noted how hard that would be.

 

Based on the numerous spelling errors that Chad made in his posts, I would say he made them after a night at the pubs, as he doesn't normally make such errors.

 

If I wanted to post something regarding 'doom and gloom', I would have posted what I heard from a rep for a major film manufacturer the other week. However, due to the response I got when I posted some time ago about the decline in film, titled "Film is Dying", I chose not to do so. I figured that to do so would only inflame the die hard film users out there, and in a few years, they will find out for themselves the truth.

[james_frater]

"Film is dying", sorry "Film is already dead"

 

I like this debate........

 

Anyone who buys a consumer film camera these days is not only stupid, but really stupid.

 

A cheap digital camera will give better results than a cheap film camera.

 

Film companies should only target high end professional markets for pro film shooters. but give it another year and those pro film shooters would have moved to high end pixel digital cameras and expensive printers. (Thats if they are not already there now)

 

Even the wedding photographers who used to praise film only, many have now gone digital.

[shirish]

Thank you, Jimmy. I had been wondering for a while where I stood on the IQ scale, and you cleared it up for me pretty well.

 

I always thought I was more or less average, and occassionally stupid.

 

Finally, with Jummy's help, the light has dawned. I bought a mechanical film camera the other day, so, as Jimmy emphatically says, I am not just stupid, but 'really stupid'.

 

Thank you, Jimmy, thank you.

 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart to finally clear up all my doubts.

 

Thank you for saving me from making more of a fool of myself when I pull out my film camera to take photographs.

 

Thank you for letting me take pictures with my mechanical when the batteries on a digital die.

 

Thank you for color prints when I drop off the roll at Costco and get beautiful 12 x 18 enlargements with a zero megapixel film camera

 

I bow my head to thee, O wise one.

 

Shirish

[cmphoto1]

Clinton,

 

I got $30 buring a whole in my pocket. I'll give it to anyone who wants to part with their 85mm G.

 

I am getting this strong feeling that, what ever Sony does, it will never, ever be good enough.

 

Unless you are masochist, cut youre losses and buy a Canon.

 

chad

[bill_thorlin]

Shock ! horror ! but I think we are being a little harsh on Clinton for once. Sony is not as healthy as it should be and they have not really said much as yet that is concrete. The DSLR business is the only really profitable bit of the digital camera business as the price competition on the P&S level is fierce to the point of suicidal ( example - Nikon say DSLR will only account for 10% of sales but 30% of profit ). Furthermore the prediction is that the P&S market will move from a new sales to a replacement market pretty soon - a much more difficult market to trade in. Sony does need to get a bit of a move on.

 

"Film is already dead" - if I go to the funeral can I pick up the $8 billion film market for free ? Just the sort of legacy I would really like !

 

Shirish - don't feel lonely there are plenty of "really stupid" people about. Just go on fleabay UK & US & Germany for example and see how many film cameras there are for sale - the odd bit is how many of them find buyers. Did a calculation a while back on a very conservative basis and it seems like there are only a few million people buying them - all dinosaurs with their head in the sand ? Of course they/you/I are :)

[clinton_abe]

Chad- How am I down on Sony? I merely reported what I read on the internet regarding Canon's and Sony's financial situation. Sony is reducing their work force and has discontinued their Qualia line of upper-end products among other cost savings measures. If they aren't able to make their projections for the Alpha line, they may be forced to a tough business decision. I think they will give it 5 years before they decide one way or the other. Sometime within that time frame, I will probably buy at least one of their DSLRs.

[Brian]

Clinton, what is your game? If you feel you are tied in to the KM lensmount, then you might as well just sit tight and wait for the Sony Alpha cameras to appear. If you are not committed, then there are several players to consider. Canon of course, but other 800 lb. gorilla-size contenders are Olympus with the new Panasonic backing for the 4/3 mount, and Pentax with Samsung's backing. Even Nikon... and if you feel masochistic, Sigma is still churning out DSLRS with the Foveon sensor.

[oceanphysics]

<i>A cheap digital camera will give better results than a cheap film camera.</i>

<p>

What a load of crap. Digicams give acceptable results at ISO 100 and slower. Their low-light capability is nil.

[chris_harley1]

As regards to Film becoming unavailable I think you should consider the impact of the internet on the world market place. A little research into long-tail economics may help ( try the wikipedia entry if you can understand it Clinton ( you started the slanging as usual)).

Basically, where an item is unpopular locally but is relatively cheap to store an internet supplier can fill the niche by tapping into demand over a much larger market. Film is easy and cheap to post anywhere in the world, sure your local store might not stock it but if there's a demand it will be supplied.

[clinton_abe]

Brian- I'll ask you the same thing I asked Chad. What have I said that says I'm down on Sony? I just reported what was reported about Canon's and Sony's financial report for the first quarter. Is there something in the water you and Chad drink, that prevents you two from understand this?

[clinton_abe]

Chris- While what you say is true, it becomes a business decision whether the film manufacturers continue making film. Fuji has (or will soon) ended production of film at two of the three factories around the world that makes film. They've shut down the US factory and is only making film at its Japan facility. While they have said they will continue to produce film, they are looking to reduce the variety they produce. The Fuji warehouse in my area is having a hard time even ordering the minimum amount of rolls from Japan, as demand for certain types of film has dropped and they can't sell all the film before the expiration date, which they then have to dump and which they lose money on. This is especially true of the 'professional' films. As more and more photographers of all levels, switch to digital, both Fuji and Kodak have to examine their commitment to film production, in spite of their stated commitment to film.

[bill_thorlin]

Clinton - you are being disingenuous - the first half of your original post did indeed selectively cover some facts but the second half was your opinion on what those results could be interpreted to mean. I think Chad and Brian are entitled to respond as they have if they feel more positive about things than you now appear to be.

 

Still no problems getting film either on-line or off-line in my area or the UK in general - we must be a really backward little place :)

[clinton_abe]

Bill- I hardly think the second half of my post constitutes a 'doom and gloom' statement. With its late start entering the DSLR market, Sony will have a hard time capturing 20% of the DSLR market. They need to spend some serious money to promo the line inorder to catch up.

 

In a side note, I got the latest issue of Popular Photography and Imaging, where they finally get around to talking about KM exiting the camera business. They mention the two mistakes which lead to the demise of Minolta's presence in the camera arena. The first was the costly patent infringement suit by Honeywell, which hurt Minolta. The second was error was Minolta's decision to spend so much money in the APS format. These two costly mistakes led to KM finally selling off the Photo Imaging division.

[james_frater]

Kiss and make up girls. Fact is Sony wants to WOW the Digital SLR world, and get all those doubting KM users into bed.

 

Expect a lot of money to be thrown around, not only with advertising the camera, but also the price.

 

Sony has a habit of making some good stuff with a cheap price tag in order to gain market share.

 

"It's a Sony"

 

One does not have to have been around for 100 years in the biz to gain control of it.

 

Sony has "Only from the minds of Minolta" technology and idea's. Expect the Minolta mind to live on in innovation with Sony D-SLR's.

 

Think positive, after all it's christmas time on the planet 'Polis'.

 

Yibida Yibidaaaa

[clinton_abe]

"Sony has a habit of making some good stuff with a cheap price tag in order to gain market share."

 

Jimmy- Since when does Sony sell anything at a 'cheap price'? They don't sell their TVs, computers, game systems, or anything else at a low price to draw customers. They sell their products at a premium because "It's a SONY". Just the other day, I was looking at a small tripod that carried the Sony name that had a MSRP of $129.95!!! Right next to it was a similar unit that was being sold at $29.95. The MSRPs of a Sony unit is set by Sony, however what it sells for is up to the dealer. Usually, Sony sets a MAP, Minimum Advertised Price, that if the dealer goes below, Sony will not pay for co-op advertising. However, if you compare a Sony product against a comparable unit from a competitor, the Sony unit will normally have a higher MSRP.

 

They sell at a premium price to convey tthe message that it is a superior product, whether it is or not. When I was a sales rep for Sony Corp., I worked a big sale with one of my large dealers. I was showing a couple the various TVs on sale, and showed them the sale price the store had set. The couple asked me 'what was wrong with the unit, was it a factory second, or a discontinued model?'. I had to assure them that there was nothing wrong with the unit and it was a new model.