Polaroid Can't Compete with Digital Cameras 327
mobydobius was among several who noted that poloroid can't keep up in the era of digital cameras. They filed for chapter 11, and have a billion dollars of debt. This deal gets them a bit of cash, but none of this seems surprising considering the cost of their instant film. In just a few short years, digital cameras knocked 'em down. There's a lesson here, but I think it's something like "Don't eat the Yellow Snow".
quick! pass a law! (Score:5, Funny)
Love,
Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti
Re:quick! pass a law! (Score:2, Funny)
Come now, I know you mean to be funny, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Digital cameras, and other techological advancements of its kind, provide a superior and more economical service to all necessary parties. In other words, they are both superior and exist organically, that is to say, without leaching off the outside world.
"Advancements" such as filesharing certainly disrupt, but they do not necessarily provide a complete solution for all involved--even for its own continued existence (e.g., once novel IP dies, the need for those kinds of services dies). This much simply is not arguable. What is arguable, is whether or not such a solution is even POSSIBLE. I lean strongly towards the IMPOSSIBLE side, but nonetheless I think even the IP owners' critics should be aware of the difference.
Re:Come now, I know you mean to be funny, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Polaroid went bankrupt because their business model had lost its value. That is, with chipmakers providing a form of nearly infinitely reusable film, the model of selling expensive, single-use film was outmoded.
Similarly, you could say that the RIAA's business model is becoming outmoded-- that is, holding an expensive single-provider monopoly on the distribution of easily-duplicated bits doesn't work anymore. It's unfortunate that this fundamentally flawed model may be the only way to justify the creation of content (although many would argue with that.)
The shame of the situation is that yes, the file-sharing networks might rely on the RIAA for the content they distribute (although I'd imagine there would still be music in a post-RIAA world, don't you think?). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the RIAA's business model can continue to exist. I'm not sure that the deliberate maintenance of a broken business model through increasingly strict copyright laws is going to save anyone.
Early music companies distributed music via telephone wires, and charged for it. That method of distribution was soon outmoded by radio-- the problem being, of course, that it was damn hard to charge for a broadcast service. But business soon found a way to deal with the situation, and now we can listen to free radio anytime we want. Rather than come to that solution, the industry could have attempted to collect mandatory license fees for home radio sets. If it had been powerful enough, it probably would have gotten the laws passed, and they would have probably been flouted and eventually reversed. But thankfully, we came to another solution.
Re:Come now, I know you mean to be funny, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, you could say that the RIAA's business model is becoming outmoded-- that is, holding an expensive single-provider monopoly on the distribution of easily-duplicated bits doesn't work anymore.
The difference is that Polaroid is suffering because digital cameras are actually on the market and competing with them.
RIAA isn't really having a serious problem with competition from independant labels and musicians selling their music directly to fans. The potential is there, but it just isn't happening in very high volume yet.
What RIAA is mainly bitching about is piracy. A lot of people think piracy isn't hurting them much, and that the real reason they are buy new laws is that they want to prevent competition from developing. But they aren't really fighting existing competition yet.
Re:quick! pass a law! (Score:4, Insightful)
Painting didn't disappear when photography was invented and film photography won't vanish just because digital imaging has appeared. Polaroid's problem was that they were a one-trick pony and didn't understand that digital was a better way of doing that one trick. They spent the billion dollars they got from Kodak for the instant film patent infringement lawsuit trying to design instant film products to help fight off the newer digital photography. They just didn't realize that their instant film market would die so quickly. Traditional film photography still has a lot of life to it, despite the inevitable contractions in products which are already occuring. But I believe that there are still enough of us out here who prefer film to keep it alive for a while, anyway. I don't view digital as the enemy, and most of the photographers I know don't, either. It's just another tool and some day the resolution and tonality will cheaply and conveniently rival the film equipment that I use. When it does, maybe I'll change over. Until then -- nothing matches a large format contact print. At least, nothing I can afford!
Mike
how about... (Score:2, Insightful)
So really it's like, you're paying a ton of money to replicat what you can do with a disposable camera and 1 hour film developing.
Re:how about... (Score:3, Insightful)
They make some professional "instant" cameras that take dynamite photos. However, there is only so big of a market for those.
I saw one where the film was poster-sized. Some model photographer in NYC used it. Real good pictures. Real small target-market.
Notjust polariod. (Score:3, Informative)
The film for such a monster is exceptionally expensive, but the results are breath taking. I've used polaroid instant film backs for my Medium format and view cameras, which were invaluable in teaching me how to use the cameras effectivly.
Polaroids foray into digital was both ill managed and ill concieved, but to say that Digital has trumped Film is a mistake. It's much more valid to say that overfinancing your company on junk debt is a sure way to bankruptcy. So don't see this as the end of fil, film can do a lot that digital can't do and I'm sure that will be true for some time (10 years+). There isn't a digital camera out there that can do what a view camera can do in competent hands. This is not to dis digital, I love my digital camera with a passion too, but the color reproduction on it (yes, even in tiff mode) is not as nice.
Chris DiBona
I'm sure there is a hasselblad back ... (Score:2)
They were headed down (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, if you read yesterday's nytimes article, the company had been headed down at least since 1988, (before digital cameras) when they were first in debt. Their demise is attributed not just to a failure to keep up with digital, but to a string of bad business decisions.
Besides, even before digital cameras they had to compete against disposables and the general drop in camera prices and features.
A traffic accident waiting to happen (Score:2)
So the effect is similar to a drunk stumbling out of a bar out into heavy traffic. BLAM!
They got into some things that screwed them up, then got nailed.
they did themselves in (Score:5, Insightful)
Digital beat Polaroid in the fact that Polaroid's photos never really improved over the years. The cameras lacked good zoom lenses, quality never improved, lighting was an issue, each photo was an expensive $1/print, not to mention sheer size of the cameras meant it was tough to carry around.
Digital, OTOH, has zoom, high quality photos, adjusts for lighting problems, and have hardly any cost per photo.
IMO, Polaroid's downfall was their failure to further develop their camera to compete with the modern world. Their only major advancement was in providing fancy party borders to photos.
Re:they did themselves in (Score:2)
Re:they did themselves in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:they did themselves in (Score:2, Interesting)
That may be true, but it's also somewhat beside the point. Polaroid may keep some business by continuing to serve professional photographers (though I expect that professional model digital cameras are going to start eating that market, too) but the demise of the consumer market is still a terrible blow. The professional market you describe is obviously only a tiny fraction of the total market. Losing the biggest portion of your market is a terrible blow, and one that the company is going to have a hard time dealing with. Whether or not they continue to exist in some form, you can pretty well guarantee that it won't be anything like the company today. That's going to hurt whether it means completely closing shop or just shrinking by an order of magnitude.
Re:they did themselves in (Score:5, Interesting)
So you set everything up (including your Hasselblad or whatever camera you use), and put on the Pola-Back and take a test-shot. Now you can check the lighting, light-temperature (within certain limits), composition, etc. That is much easier than while looking through the viewfinder, and you're less likely to miss something. You can also put shots from several different setups side by side and compare them. And the photographer can retain a crude idea of the image if he gives the negatives or slides away.
But there are also Polaroid black/white films where you get a negative in addition to the positive (the print). You can use that to make an enlargement - I have already seen a very expensive, very well done calendar done entirely using Polaroid films.
So there are a lot of things you can do with Polaroids (much more than just what I mentioned here) - just forget about cheap plastic cameras and i-Zone crap!
And that is the market where digital cameras are no real competition. Yes, there are digital backs etc. But there are things you just can't do with digital cameras. And with the speed of current scan-backs, I wouldn't be surprised if photographers still used a Polaroid before making that final scan (a scan-back scans the are where the image is normally projected onto the film).
Re:they did themselves in (Score:4, Interesting)
If you feel compelled to adjust your projector without instrumentation, you can easily tell if it close to correct by taking a Polaroid color photograph (without flash) of the 11 step crossed gray scale on Video Essentials or AVIA. Although Polaroid color film is balanced for 5600 degrees Kelvin, the difference between the film primaries and the proper CIE tristimulus filter response causes a display which has been properly adjusted to D65 (6500 degrees Kelvin) to photograph well. Polaroid color film has is very sensitive to color temperature errors and cannot be fooled. The eye is easily fooled, and most people judge display color temperature between 9000 and 13000 degrees to be perfect.
Any color tint that you observe in the black and white gray scale pattern is the error in your white balance. If the photograph is blue, you have too much blue. Either decrease blue, or increase red and green. If the photograph is magenta, decrease red and blue or increase green. If the photograph is yellow, increase blue or decrease red and green.
http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/cgi-bin/dcforum
In a perfect world, intelligent life doesn't evolve.
Re:they did themselves in (Score:3, Interesting)
For examples, go here: http://www.soulshapes.com/ [soulshapes.com] and click on images on the left navbar. (framed page)
For info and howto stuff about polaroid transfers, try http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/ [frii.com]
:)
Mike
Re:they did themselves in (Score:2, Interesting)
like here. [pola-art.de]
polaroid doen not only come in the small sizes most consumers know them, they have some verry big film as well (think poster size)
History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Polaroid thought they were in the instant camera business, when they were really in the camera business.
Re:they did themselves in (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, some of Polaroid's cameras did have good lenses, zoom and otherwise; they made professional-level cameras up until the early '90s. They still make ones for niche markets--but niches where photo quality isn't that important.
If you're a photography buff, you'll recognize that importance of what those Polaroid cameras really were: they weren't just "instant" cameras, they were medium format cameras. When I say they had a professional line, they were low-end professional, to be sure--but they were endorsed by no less a professional than Ansel Adams. (And by "endorsed" I don't mean he was paid to be a spokesman--as far as I know he never was. He wrote about them with some enthusiasm in his classic photography textbooks.)
Really, that might be the place where they most significantly missed the boat. They couldn't compete with digital cameras for the instant part, but they could easily have continued their "prosumer" line and even enhanced it--instead of fruitlessly trying to undercut digital cameras, they should have been marketing themselves as a way to get into medium-format photography with prices competitive with 35mm SLR cameras. If I ran the zoo, er, camera company, I'd have probably even done something radical like make that prosumer line be able to accept both instant film cartridges and cheaper ones that required external development. If you could do that, then given the way the Land Cameras were designed--pretty simply, with the ability to have changable backs in some models--the next step would have been to work on a "digital cartridge" that converted the camera into a digital medium format camera. (Right now digital medium format cameras are... let's just say they're not as cheap as digital SLRs. If you know how much most digital SLRs cost, that should worry you.)
It's kind of surprising to me, in retrospect, that a company as innovative as Polaroid had been instead decided the best course through the '90s would be to refocus themselves as the Kiddie Camera Company. One does honestly wonder what the hell they were thinking.
that's progress (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of technologies that we have outgrown right? Polaroid still serves some purpose that only polaroid technologies can address. Using a Polaroid usually indicates that the photo hasn't been tampered with and serves as good proof in some areas.
I hope they can strategize a way to come back.
Re:that's progress (Score:2)
Yeah, like the law.
Private investigators use Polaroids all the time. If somebody breaks something of yours, take a Polaroid of it and write the date and time on it immediately: it's much better evidence than traditional film, because it's harder to modify.
The problem with digital cameras is that their images are easy to modify. While this is great for artists and people who Want to Look Beautiful, it sucks for use in court.
Polaroid shows 'dot-com' is a state of mind (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as an owner of a Digital Polaroid (PDC1100), one issue was that their digital camera just wasn't that well made.
Looking at their instant cameras (which I also own one of), these weren't particularly ergonomic and certainly not cost effective. It was simply that they were the only instant cameras (due to patents).
And CostCo warehouse was having weird Polaroid-sponsored rebates-- buy a 4-pack of film and get a camera for free! After you have 4 cameras just by buying refills, you start to think maybe Polaroid's profit model was a little wacked.
Let's see... lossy marketing schemes, shoddy goods, reliance on a patent instead of a good product, entrance into new markets with substandard goods... yep, they were a dot-com without the dot or com part
Hubris (Score:5, Insightful)
Many moons ago Polaroid sued the pants off of Kodak for patent infringement, winning back exclusive rights to "instant" film and cameras as well as a good chunk of cash.
Their corporate culture didn't allow them to recognize that the "instant" film market, their baby, had reached the end of its lifespan.
Times had changed and Polaroid didn't change with them. They never gave more than a nod to anything other than their heritage.
Those who insist on living in the past have no place in the future.
Re:Hubris (Score:2)
True, but not the case here. Polaroid also makes digital cameras. Hell, they even made a digital picture frame and digital microscopes! Go see for yourself on www.polaroid.com [polaroid.com].
I don't think their problem is living in the past. Their problem is probably something like bad marketing or something.
What planet have you been living on? (Score:2, Interesting)
Moreover, the instant film market isn't gone, it's just oblivious. Every january I go to a science fiction convention and bring several recent-model polaroid instant cameras, and walk around with at least one in my hands so I can stop people with costumes in the hall and tell them "smile!" I take two pictures of each person, and you should see how excited they get when they see I'm giving them a polaroid. The usual reaction is "Wow, I thought Polaroid went out of business years ago! You can still buy the cameras and film? Where do I get it? Can I buy it right here at the hotel? I want one right away!" I tell them what it costs and they tell me that's fine. I tell them they can buy it at Sears and they're amazed.
What that tells me is, Polaroid's market exists, and their products are fine, they just have lousy advertising.
I wish Polaroid well. I wish them a good ad agency. I've used their cameras all my life and loved them. My father and grandfather before me used polaroids for seemingly forever too. We've always had superb experiences with the products. I wouldn't want to see them die.
From their site... (Score:4, Funny)
If they put that kind of crap on their site, they've got problems indeed...
Re:From their site... (Score:4, Funny)
Transforms into Giant Robot! With Real Firing Missiles!
I know, it's sad. :-(
The REAL reason they went under: (Score:2)
You have to use www.polaroid.com [polaroid.com].
Re:From their site... (Score:2)
So what exactly were they smoking when somebody at Polaroid said, "Sticker! That's what people want!"
It's funny, I just had this conversation with some friends who are staying with us.
Apparently they are quite a hit with the 9-14 crowd but the cost of film is prohibitive.
Re:From their site... (Score:3, Funny)
Talking to strangers? My mommy told me never to do that!
Re:From their site... (Score:2)
This was a long time coming. (Score:2, Insightful)
--Blair
Re:This was a long time coming. (Score:2)
But then the lawyers came to the rescue [purdue.edu]! Yay!
Wrong (Score:2)
Re:This was a long time coming. (Score:2)
The funny thing is that they are still shipping these "newer products" -- Their core lines of the 600 and the Spectra are EXACTLY the same as they were 20 years ago, down to their bogo-sonar autofocus thing. They've barely changed the plastic molds.
Go to any flea market and get a perfectly good Poloroid camera for about $5.
Poloroid has always had a weird string of failed ideas to try to break out of their little instant camera mold
-- Instant 8mm movie film (just as VHS cameras came onto the market.
-- Instant 35mm Slide film (with a really cool machine that 'develops' the slides), but the quality was pretty much horrible and you have to mount the slides manually.
-- Various aborted attempts at highend and lowend digital stuff
Anyway, you can tell the company is screwed up by their confusing website.
Re:This was a long time coming. (Score:2, Funny)
Polaroid sued Kodak out of the instant photo mkt (Score:2, Interesting)
-Eric
Re:Polaroid sued Kodak out of the instant photo mk (Score:3, Insightful)
Go down to your local Salvation Army and look around -- you'll often find a Handle kicking around. It'll be about 8 inches tall and almost rectangular, with a viewfinder and yes, most have a crank on the side -- hence the name. It has all the quality feeling of an Instamatic.
Now go find an SX-70. Granted that it's weird in the hand, but it's also a by-God SLR, it collapses down to almost nothing, and it's kind of cool just to watch it unfold. It's usually brushed chrome, mine at least has leather facings, and it just feels well-made. It's no Leica, but it's not a Swinger either. Ansel Adams had one, and I don't recall his ever endorsing any other picture boxes or film.
Re:This was a long time coming. (Score:2)
If Kodak's SX-70 technology was such a threat, it would be on the market, not polaroid's "laughable" design.
I'd say you have no clue what you're talking about. Polaroid sued Kodak for nearly a billion dollars over patent infringement.
Re:This was a long time coming. (Score:2)
My guess is Polaroid's been surviving because of that patent infringement you mention. Nothing like making your competitor pay you for competing.
--Blair
Technology Versus Business Practices (Score:4, Insightful)
Polaroid isn't necessarily suffering because of technology change, technological innovation, or anything else that geeks care about. Polariod could be in trouble because of more mundane "old business" reasons, such as lack of innovation, not focusing on core competencies, out of control costs, poor management, and so forth. Sure, these things might be related to technology, but I think it is silly to blame only technology for their problems.
Re:Technology Versus Business Practices (Score:3, Interesting)
My grandmother purchased two Polaroid cameras for my kids (11 & 12) last Christmas. They took instant "sticker" photos, the size of a postage stamp.
Cute, for about 5 minutes. The pictures were way too small, and the replacement film cost and arm and a leg.
The cameras lasted about a week. Real crap.
Re:Technology Versus Business Practices (Score:2)
Even more so, when you go back to the technology. Picture quality wasn't comparable to regular film. And you would NEVER see a profession with his camera, tripod, zoom lens, and flash, out taking professional pictures. It is so incredibly silly because the quality is poor. That, and you lose the ability to make copies of your negatives.
Given all the shortfalls, they really had a niche product. Personally, I think they grew their company far larger than their niche would allow. $1B debt is a result.
Of course, you could blame this all on the business, too. They should have realized their technology isn't ALL THAT.
Not a single cause, certainly not just digital (Score:3, Interesting)
Instant photographs were an absolutely great thing to base a business on. It's certainly as good as sweet fizzy water or a million other things. Before Polaroid you took a photo and either developed it yourself or waited a few days for someone else to do so. After them you had it THERE, right NOW (well, a minute or so.) That's a profound thing - it was revolutionary then and still fundamental now.
This is fantastic in a consumer market. Put one on a table and the fun begins. Take the first picture, see how it came out, try a next, then a third, now it's the photographers turn to get snapped. Did Sue's tan come out - no - try again.
Industrially/governmentally they are also invaluable. For a generation any photo ID made that you could walk away with was a Polaroid. Driver's licenses, school IDs, badges, passes, whatever. Anyone who had to document things also loved these as they immediately saw what they had photographed, were sure if they'd captured what they wanted or not, could drop it in the folder and the matter was closed.
Professional photographers also find Polaroids invaluable. The look is distinctive yet mesmerizing. Rich colors that blended almost like pastels. Aside from their visual quality they were also the perfect tool for proofing a shot, seeing how it would come out before the "real" one was taken. Ask any studio photographer and they'll show you their stock of Polaroid film.
Can quick-develop machines do this? Well only if you want to go to the drop-off, come back in an hour, try and figure out what each shot was, hope they got what you wanted, etc. Quick is NOT the same as instant.
What about digital? If you want to lug along a camera with finicky light requirements and so-so resolution then go print it the pic. It only takes a set of electronics that costs from a few hundred to a few thousands of dollars and is often far less compelling in court then an less tamperable analog photograph.
No, Polaroid had a good business model. Unfortunately they didn't expand from that model (well, not in any significant way) so when it began to contract they were hurt. They also have/had a really dysfunctional culture and an inability to effect fundamental changes internally. Disposable cameras hurt them, digital cameras hurt them, debt-service hurt them, massive overhead hurt them, their pension plan and employee benefits hurt them, their pricey office spaces hurt them, the credit crunch hurt them, but they were broken inside long before these pushed them over the edge.
Frankly they should've outsourced the film & camera production side of things, cut instant-film R&D to maintenance mode, done some customer research and come up with things like the i-Zone ten years ago, streamlined their operations, accelerated their product development time from it's apparent many-year cycle to something reasonable, gotten over their not-invented-here phobia & partnered with a good maker of consumer digital cameras offering their brandname/distribution/cash in return for a private label series, slashed their staffing at all levels 50%, cleaned up their baroque & cumbersome internal policies, legendary bureaucracy and self-destructive infighting.
No, much of the blame for Polaroid goes to the Board for never having put in place a strong President and giving her/him the backing to really go and fix things. It would have meant tearing out the broken parts of the company and slicing off much of the fat but it needed to be done and instead the whole place just ground along until it suffocated.
I've worked with a large number of recent refugees from Polaroid over the years and they all tell the same stories of intrigue, incompetence, infighting, dysfunction and lack of direction.
Just a little Story (Score:4, Interesting)
Took polaroids and had a digital:
The digital was untouched and the polaroid took 405 pics before we ran out of film.
Polaroids are instant (no shutter lag), give you a hard, permanent picture within seconds.
Polaroid's current problems are due to a load of debt assumed in 1988 due to a hostile takeover bid.
However, assuming money is not an object, give people at a party a choice between taking polaroids and using a digital and the polaroid will win out.
I just wish that polaroid film was cheaper. It is a superior technology to digital in many ways. Sure it is an "analog" technology versus a digital one, but the world is analog not digital.
BTW, didn't get any good chick pix that I can publish, so don't rub it in.
Re:Just a little Story (Score:2)
(On the other hand, if I had taken 405 pix, I imagine I woulda gotten some racier ones eventually)
Re:Just a little Story (Score:2)
Wow, so you're the guy that's been keeping them in business since 1988!
Seriously, how much did that cost? That must have been one hell of a special party.
Re:Just a little Story (Score:2)
Digital cameras can almost do this, but it's pretty expensive (~$500 for a printer/camera combo, plus consumables) and simple, immediate and easy.
~$500 for a printer/camera combo? (Score:2)
I know about these things because 6 months ago I shelled out nearly a thousand on the setup my wife and I are now using. The prices haven't gone down that much except in the most recent of times and it still wouldn't be ~$500.
Re:Just a little Story (Score:4, Insightful)
The digital was untouched and the polaroid took 405 pics before we ran out of film.
Polaroids are instant (no shutter lag), give you a hard, permanent picture within seconds.
This is key for some uses. I'm thinking of a community theater, where we would hold auditions and more than a hundred people would show up. For those who didn't bring head shots, we'd take one quickly, and have it for the director and staff to use almost immediately. If he needed it the next day, or even just "on file for reference," a digital camera would have been just fine or better (cheaper), but not for immediate use.
There is a market here: a cheap, small, self-contained printer for digital cameras (or, best, for digital images in general). I bet we'll see these come out (if they aren't already), and I also bet that at first we'll see them mostly as accessories to individual specific cameras. Ideally, what I'd love to see is all digital cameras use to moving (say) compact flash cards for storage, and then digital printers that have a simple and fast way of printing images from a built-in flash reader.
-Rob
Already there... (Score:2)
Re:Just a little Story (Score:2)
To each his own. I prefer digital. My camera cost $800, but there are NO ongoing costs. I just recharge the batteries once in a while. I'm cheap, and that is important to me.
I have also found that if I am lucky 20% of the photos I take are worth keeping. I would really hate to blow all that money on FILM for only a handful of pics worth holding on to.
Polaroid instant pics have always looked really skunky to me, too. Weird color, bad contrast... Ick. Maybe it's better now, I haven't used an instant camera for years.
I want a video camera now, but digital video tape is a crummy medium. You can't re-use the tapes much, I hear, because they wear easily. So I am waiting for a digital camcorder that has a hard drive in it... I am ALL about eliminating the ongoing costs.
Disruptive Technology... (Score:4, Insightful)
For the consumer, the choice was almost obvious. Do you want buy a camera, and have to pay for film all the time, or do you want a more expensive camera that takes "free pictures"? (Okay, not quite free, but very close.)
Customers don't like the pay-per-use model. They hate it. Anything that moves away from that will win consumers. You see this happen over and over again. Companies need to latch onto this and embrace it.
I feel bad for Polaroid, but it is really a win for us that technology has managed to create something better that has succeeded in the marketplace.
Re:Disruptive Technology... (Score:2)
One odd note in Polaroid's attempt to get new market with the i-zone cameras; they had some of the most sexual commercials I've seen in a long while. Serious PG-13+ stuff. I can't say I didn't like it, but I didn't buy their camera.
Re:Disruptive Technology... (Score:2)
That sums me up entirely. I went digital, and didn't work out usage, precisely because I didn't want to be worrying about it. I carry my digital (and rechargeable batteries) everywhere and use it without a second thought. My filtering is done at leisure later. With a Polaroid(tm) I'd have to make my editing decisions before taking the picture. Even if I ended up keeping the same number of pictures with both cameras, with the digital I've got much more chance of keeping the ones that I really want.
Time to license that name... (Score:2, Funny)
Technology Patent Backfired (Score:5, Insightful)
The cornerstone for Polaroid's business was their patents on instant film technology. No other company could compete in that market because of it. When Kodak attempted to enter the market in the 1970's, Poloroid stopped them, as they were violating their patents.
Because they had no competition, they didn't diversify. Actually they did, but it was too little, too late. Sure, they add low end 35mm cameras, 35mm film and digital cameras to their product line, but they couldn't establish a leadership role in any of these market segments. They still relied on their instant film business as a core.
New technology killed their own older, proprietory technology. Had they tried to embrace other technologies earlier (like been in the 35mm market about 10 years before) they might have build enough diversity on "open" technology to carry them through the predictable demise of their proprietory technology.
Polaroid should be a lesson for other technology companies: continue to innovate or else!
Re:Technology Patent Backfired (Score:2)
That's why it's a reversal film, or do you have this same beef with Kodachrome?
Products and Processes (Score:2)
This is an interesting example of a technology replacing a process with a product. The process: buy camera, buy film, take photos, buy film processing, store prints/slides somewhere physical. The product: digitalcamera/computer/web site. Polaroid had a different technology to replace the same process, but it lost out because it wasn't digital.
But there are other examples. Some are older such as mail being replaced by fax machines then replaced by email. Email elminates the step of requiring a hard copy.
The general pattern is: old process is augmented or partially replaced by new not-completely-digital product, and then a completely digital product which almost eliminates the process requirements takes over.
Nothing to do with digital tech (Score:2)
Kodak has also blown billions on trying to adapt to new digital technology, and they haven't made much of a dent in the market either. Kodak just has deeper pockets.
The biggest problem here that I see is that Polaroid never recovered from Kodak's pirating their patents for instant film. Polaroid received a hefty payment of damages, and Kodak was required to stop making instant film and recall all their instant cameras. Kodak tried to put Polaroid out of business, and now, in retrospect, it looks like they succeeded (just a lot later than they expected).
Re:Nothing to do with digital tech (Score:2)
Excuse me Mr. Coward, I have a degree in Photography, and unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. I was working in the photo biz when digital cameras first started coming on the market. I was using Japanese pro digital cameras about 5 years before Kodak ever released a digital camera.
Re:Nothing to do with digital tech (Score:2)
Re:Nothing to do with digital tech (Score:2)
True.
Possibly true. I feel some trepidation when using the word "never." However. Assuming it is true, is it therefore true that the market for 35mm film is fixed and large?
No. Most 35mm film is shot in movie studios, in highly controlled conditions. This is an enormous market, and it's being invaded right now by DV.
The next battle, IMO, is Sony vs. Kodak, and I'm betting on Sony. DV (not the consumer version, i.e. FireWire, known as mini-DV) has made significant inroads already in the independent film market, and has begun to show up in mainstream Hollywood releases. There are things you can do with it that are impossible with film, mainly native digital editing. Also, there's the CGI industry to consider: I would suspect that, given a choice, ILM would prefer an all-digital environment today (where they would not have in the early '80s, when model effects were king).
Polaroids 2 fatal mistakes (Score:2, Funny)
Polaroids #1 mistake: having Sinbad as their mascot
Even a disposable camera beats polaroid (Score:3, Informative)
1. Use my digital camera and buy a photo printer.
2. Buy a polaroid camera and film.
3. Use my conventional camera and get I one hour processing at the drug store down the street.
My evaluation:
1. too expensive >$200 for printer
2. too expensive >$30
3. didn't have my camera with me so bought a disposable for $3.00 and developed for $6.99 (took a 1/2 hour).
Of course, as you scale option 1 would become the winner since polaroid film is (can't quite remember exactly) more than $2 per photo.
I expect that polaroid would still be in business if they got the cost down to about 50 cents per picture and sold disposable cameras. They did market the the fun-shot cameras but these are just plain stupid.
Side Note: I think digital cameras will be the next to go as dv cameras become more main stream. My sony dv camcorder takes as good a still shot as my olympus digital camera and it has that cool night vision.
photo printers aren't good at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Even a disposable camera beats polaroid (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Your DV camcorder does not take 4 megapixel shots. My digital camera does, meaning I can get lots of detail into an 8x10 photo, while you would get nice blurs at that size, especially with wide-angle or distance shots.
Do 4-process color on that 2880 dpi printer... (Score:2)
Re:Do 4-process color on that 2880 dpi printer... (Score:2)
Anyone feeling brave enough to actually try it, now that they're dumping them as surplus?
Re:Even a disposable camera beats polaroid (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, supposedly prints from a photo lab give prints that are approximately 300dpi. How is a photo printer going to be worse quality (at least in terms of resolution)?
I think you misjudge the actual (print) resolution required to get photo quality results.
That's not saying that photo printers (and prints) are inexpensive and/or have high quality, since I have not seen the quality myself, but from resolution alone 300dpi sounds okay to me.
A Fallen Giant (Score:5, Insightful)
Polaroid did pioneer instant photography. Dr. Edwin Land had the 2nd largest number of patents assigned to him personally in the US. Polaroid was the prototypical high-tech startup that pioneered a new market. They *owned* the instant film market.
Ironically Polaroid also did much of the early work on digital photography and held a number of early patents. They could have rolled out digital cameras long ago but feared cannibalizing their existing markets. So they stayed with the tried-and-true and eventually became irrelevant.
Polaroid was also the classic engineering-run company. Never did market studies. Never did usability testing. Never attempted to create a design identity. If anything they were known for the incredibly clever & complex folding of their cameras (the awesome chemistry was hidden.)
They did try to branch out a bit. In the late 70's they introduced "Polavision", their instant movie system which bombed in a big way. In the recriminations Dr. Land "moved on" and Polaroid was left to continue the course he had left it on, never to really change significantly afterwards.
Oh, they came out with kiddie cameras and cheap cameras and cameras that printed to stickers. Some were decent successes but nothing really ground shaking. Other companies slowly but steadily took away their drivers-license photos and other markets with alternative technologies. For the past few years there've been promises of a new line in digital photography but many of the proposed products are dubious (dual instant-photo with a digital copy?) and all are vapor still.
Polaroid does have about 2 billion in assets - properties, patents, plants, contracts, etc. Their employees have all been aware of what has been happening and even in a company famous for dedication folks have been jumping ship for the past few years. The retirees are all up in arms and are likely screwed as their benefits are tied up in the company.
Lessons? Don't stop innovating. Don't define yourself as "The Something Company". Complete domination of your market is only important as long as your market is unique. Don't rely only on completely amazing technology to sell your product; you need to identify, listen-to & cultivate your customers.
Re:A Fallen Giant (Score:2)
- Quality -- The older peel-off style color photos had much higher quality than the current style. Why they stopped making those is a mystery. The current stuff is just so bad that people only use it as a last resort.
- Hourly developing -- A while back, Kodak poured a lot of R&D into making the materials and equipment for one hour photo processing affordable, so now you can get your photos developed in an hour on just about any street corner. Every drugstore, grocery store, camera shop, etc. has on-the-spot photo developing now.
Like you said, if Polaroid had just done a few market studies or customer surveys, they would have figured some of this out, but they had too much of a head-in-the-sand mentality to do so.someday retro cool (Score:2)
i love my olympus E-1 but i think i am still going to go out and pick up a couple of cases of instant film at sams club in anticipation of tomorrows trick polaroid technique and ebay squabbles... remember those fisher price kiddy video cameras that used cassette tapes, those are know so retro cool that tarintino snapped up a half a dozen for a small fortune. my point is about the money, it's about the fact that analog techniques in art sometimes evolve after the media is less consumable...
Never! (Score:5, Funny)
Me: TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
*Neema throws down photos on desk*
Senator: *GASP*
Me: That's right. You. Dancing with the forbidden monkey. Dancing the forbidden dance with the forbidden monkey!
Senator: Please... if these get out, I'll never get reelected. And if I don't get reelected, I can't get the Senator's discount at Ben and Jerry's!
Me: And don't even think of ripping these up! I have copies at home! But, I think we can work something out...
*Senator pulls out check book*
But now, with these god damn digital cameras:
Me: TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
*Neema gently places digital camera on desk, so it doesn't break*
Senator: Yeah, my daughter has one of these.
Me: No, no, no. Argh. It turned off. It does that. Turns off automatically after 3 minutes... ok... gimme that...
*Neema turns on camera, places on desk again*
Me: OK, TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
Senator: It's a dog.
Me: Oh yeah, that's my dog Scruffy. Argh. Yeah, press the right arrow. Get past those pictures. Yep, that's Aunt Sally. Come on, a bit faster. ARGH, JUST GIVE IT TO ME!
*Grabs camera, scrolls to incriminating pictures*
Me: THERE YOU ARE! YOU, DANCING THE FORBIDDEN DANCE WITH THE FORBIDDEN MONKEY!
Senator: Please... if these get out, I'll never get reelected. And if I don't get reelected, I can't get the Senator's discount at Ben and Jerry's!
Me: Yeah, well, I'm going to stop by staples to get glossy photo paper and I'll be printing out a bunch of these!
*Senator pulls out check book*
I still like the first situation better.
Re:Never! (Score:2, Informative)
And that's one of the problems with Polaroids, in my experience... you can't have copies at home. Short of photocopying the original photo (which, let's face it, is ugly), you're stuck with a single copy of each shot.
Re:Never! (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
*Neema gently places digital camera on desk, so it doesn't break*
Senator: Yeah, my daughter has one of these.
<snip>
*Grabs camera, scrolls to incriminating pictures*
Me: THERE YOU ARE! YOU, DANCING THE FORBIDDEN DANCE WITH THE FORBIDDEN MONKEY!
Senator: That looks like something my daughter did with Photoshop.
Me: Yeah, well, I'm going to stop by staples to get glossy photo paper and I'll be printing out a bunch of these!
*Senator looks dubious*
What Goes Around... (Score:5, Insightful)
Polariod is doomed (debtor in possesion financing) (Score:2, Informative)
I've worked for one publically held company in a similar situation. Debtor in possesion financing like this is a pretty good sign that someone sees some value in Polaroid's business but it isn't sufficient to make the company a going concern.
If you read the docs filed with the court very carefully and pay particular attention to any 'turn around team' that is brought in you should be able to figure out what is going on - check the 'turn around' management carefully - they're likely the undertakers.
Polaroid suck (Score:2, Funny)
Instant photography was terrible quality and was good for two things: documenting car accidents, and taking naked pictures of your girlfriend. Now with digital cameras that's redundant.
The Technology Is Not the Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Poloroid has never been in the self-developing photograph business. Nobody wants self-developing photographs. People want instant photographs, and Poloroid has been in the instant photography business for ages now.
Digital photography also provides instant photographs, so Poloroid has new competition.
This is exactly what happened to the "rail" industry. "Rail" companies were and are railroads in the freight hauling business and the passenger transportation business. Because they thought of themselves as a rail business, they didn't invest heavily in the new technologies of tractor-trailer trucks, coach bussing, and passenger airliners. As such, they saw their market failing, when what was happening was that their market was working quite well--serviced by companies which invested in new technologies.
A word to the suits. The market you are in is not the technology you sell or use, but the benefit you give your customers. You're not in the rail business, you're in the freight business. You're not in the pinball business, you're in the arcade entertainment business. You're not in the floppy disk business, you're in the removable media business.
Companies that understood this survived the tractor-trailer, the video game, and the CD-RW. Those that didn't have gone the way of the dodo.
A digital Polaroid story (aka Polaroid suicide) (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why I bought a Polaroid digital camera a few years ago when I was looking that (at the time) cost me $350.00. I figured that if anyone was going to take care to make a nice digital camera it would be Polaroid, considering the importance of their name and their stake in instant photography. I had been a long time Polaroid film camera user, and felt like I'd be willing to pay a little more (once again) for someone who did instant (this time digital) photography properly.
The camera was a total piece of 1-megapixel-shit. It took horrible, grainy, blurry pictures whose colors bled into each other. The chromatic aberration was something to behold, the hue reproduction was nasty (everything was brown!), the flash was weak, and it would eat a set of lithium AA batteries in only about 10 minutes of use. The worst part of it was that the construction was horribly cheap -- battery and connector doors were like parts of a McDonald's happy meal toy -- made of thin, brittle plastic and held in place by friction alone.
Figuring that maybe I had just been unlucky and got ahold of a lemon or a preproduction model or a customer return or something, I took it back and exchanged it for another. Same deal. I was about to give up on digital photography. It still hadn't occurred to me that Polaroid was at fault for putting out a truly lousy product.
Then I had a chance to work with a friend's Olympus digital camera in the same price range. It took great pictures that really completely outdid 35mm consumer-level products. Compared to the Polaroid camera I had bought, it had a similar 1-megapixel resolution, had more features, had removable/expandable memory (via SmartMedia), was built very solidly, and was about the same price as the Polaroid with batteries lasting about four times longer.
I bought the Olympus camera and was thrilled at the first download of photos, which were TRULY great (esp. the macro shots) and was able to compare and see just how awful the Polaroid's photos were.
Since then, a number of friends who were considering Polaroid digital cameras have looked at my early shots and decided to buy Olympus instead. And last year, when I wanted to upgrade to a higher resolution camera to get 8x10 photos out of it, I ended up going with a Nikon Coolpix without even considering Polaroid after using their film cameras for years.
With their initial foray into digital, they lost me and many of my friends as customers. Too bad they didn't take the technology more seriously.
a new niche for polaroid?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope that polaroid stays afloat enough to keep its basic product line alive, but they definitely need to make changes to respond to the changing marketplace. I'm thinking of emergency cameras or survival cameras. If they can make a completely disposable instant camera along the lines of the disposable 35MM, they might have a sustainable niche.
-tpg
Professional photography (Score:2, Informative)
product that will not go away. Polaroid backs and
polaroid professional film are a must in a studio
flash photography to get quick preliminary results
out of the same camera that will be used for the
real shoot.
So for better or worse they will have a litte
segment of the market forever:))))
slashdot making up our minds? (Score:2, Informative)
please, slashdot, let your users make up their own minds.
Polaroid vs. Digital (Score:3, Interesting)
I think form factor is really the biggest limitation of the format. Quality is acceptable, and with the right film, you can do some really artistic things to the print. (Emulsion/Negative transfers for 669 [geocities.com], swirly-Van-Gogh effects [goinggallery.com] with SX-70).
Getting an Autographed Polaroid, and knowing that there is only one, and that it's unique has value to me as well (unless they used a slide enlarger [polaroid.com] to run off a few hundred)
whoa now (Score:5, Informative)
Personally I think that polaroid cameras, and the entire idea or polaroid pictrures, is also superb in that it can provide you with instant, hard proof of an event. Not to discount the quality of digital photography, but where I work (in the ER of a large hospital) polariod cameras have time and again allowed us to document abuse, sexual abuse, rape, accidents, and other events that would incur an unholy amount of paperwork were we unable to provide visual proof. I can assure you that many a polaroid photo has been used in saving many young girls', battered womens' and childrens' lives. A picture is worth a thousand words, and by being able to provide images of the bruise, wound, or overall condition right before it's covered up in bandages and dressings is important. Another thing that makes them so valuable is that they're point-and-shoot-and-develop; any nurse, doctor or tech can do it. I hope polaroid doesn't stop selling their film, at least!
Good riddance to 'em...(Polaroid digital...) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm the unfortunate owner of one of their low-end "Fun! Flash 640SE" cameras.
My complaint with it has nothing to do with the low quality of the images (which look as though they are merely "interpolated" to 640x480 rather than actually BEING 640x480 as advertised) nor the cheap construction - I rather expected both for a ~$80 digital camera.
My complaint is their horrendous support for it. In my specific case, I'd emailed to them asking about protocol specs so that the gPhoto project [gphoto.org] might be able to put together a working driver. Now, the fact that they would give no useful information is, sadly, not all that unusual, but the form of the response was rather unimpressive. Over a month after sending the email, I got back a medium-sized email in reply. ALL BUT ONE LINE of that email was form-letter "thank you for contacting polaroid blah blah blah". The very first line was the only unique one. It said "that information is not available."
Given that Xirlink actually made the camera core, and there APPEARS to be some sort of business-stifling "Intellectual Property" agreement between Polaroid's digital division and that "ArcSoft" company that makes the obnoxious 'pretty bird' program (I forget the name of the windows 9x-only software - its mascot is a clown-colored bird...) that is supposed to keep it such that only the Polaroid/ArcSoft drivers are able to get to the camera, so I wrote back asking if they meant that they didn't HAVE the information (i.e. that I should contact Xirlink or ArcSoft instead) or that they were not allowed to release it. Over a week later, another one-terse-line-plus-formletter-crap response - "We do not make that information available." (which is not only somewhat rude but as before doesn't even answer the question.)
It was then that I figured they were screwed...if they had no interest in AT LEAST being polite to potential new markets, let alone actually encouraging their development, it seemed pretty obvious that other digital camera companies would roll over them, and, as others have already pointed out in this vein, considering how expensive and low quality their other "instant photograph" products were, that digital cameras would slowly devour that market as they got cheaper, and polaroid would have nothing to fall back on. Nice going, Polaroid.
(On the plus side, last I heard there was some progress in getting recognizeable images from the Polaroid "Fun!" cameras, so maybe I'll be able to actually use mine eventually...More info about the cameras here [dogphilosophy.net] and, more currently, here [tripod.com].)
all your base... (Score:4, Interesting)
Commercial space in Cambridgeport rents at around $60/sq foot, when it can be found. Even with the current "recession" prices haven't budged. Hop on over the the WSJ [wsj.com] for some insight.
With their name, their engineering talent, their land (to provide some cash) and a reasonable restructuring, Polaroid could relaunch themselves as a player in the digital market in under two years.
Real market for Polaroid cameras. (Score:3, Funny)
With a digital camera you can also post them on the internet.
Digital cameras win!
That's what you get for being a monopoly. (Score:2)
There are still uses for polaroid film (think of any situation where you want an instant hard copy or are not near any photo labs). But because consumers have moved away to digitals so fast, Polaroid won't be able to get any income for advancements to their technology.
To be cliche, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
This is terrible news! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, well... (Score:5, Interesting)
No major changes in their models, and no improvements in prices.
Main moral to gain from this is don't sit back and relax just because you (were) on top...
My Poloraoid only cost $69.00 (Score:2)
Maybe microsoft will consider buying out the digital camera line, they're the only reason I still got windows on my machine.
They have a digital ID division too... (Score:2, Informative)
They take professional-grade digital cameras (not polaroid at the time), and set them up with the software and machines to spit out real drivers licenses, which are actually used in several states to let you preview the picture, then have the license immediatly (or later from some states that choose to go the cheaper centralized-pringing-location route).
It was a pretty interesting job, working on ancient non-commented DOS-based C code that was thrown together by an independant contractor in a few weeks, stretched FAR beyond it's intention, with little company documentation available to new programmers. Then there was sitting at those card-producing machines, making up fake names and details, and watching the desk fill up with piles of real drivers licenses with pictures of action figures, hands, etc. in the image part of the card.
Then there was the corporate videos we all gathered to watch, the corporate panic showing through the idealistic industry-speak, and "great new ideas". I guess the sticky photos didn't sell to the kiddies as well as hoped. Our division was always mentioned as a relatively unimportant afterthought, and ironically now the Digital ID department is propably the most profitable part of the overall company what with all the demand for new ID's for company security and better watermarks on drivers' licenses.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Re:Polaroid & large format (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My experience (Score:2)
Its all over for celluloid. (Score:4, Insightful)
In which case she was probably going to be outta luck. The cinema has been headed digital for both production and distribution for years. While there is some purpose to learning the old technology nobody uses super 8 film for quality purposes.
The market for professional film is nowhere near big enough to support a company the size of Polaroid. The Professional and serious amateur market for film is negligible compared to the market for holiday snaps. Polaroid's share of the professional market was much smaller proportionately than that of Kodak or Fuji. For a start you have to use a medium or large format camera.
The only part of the professional market that uses film in quantities big enough to support major corporations has been movies. A movie camera eats 12 35 mm snaps worth of film a second. To make an hour of movie takes ten hours (at least) of film stock.
The shift at the moment is on the production side. Digital editing has been arround for some time. Directors like Lucas have been moving towards shooting with digital cameras. While some directors will stick with film for years the bulk of the market will go digital. Remember that a bad movie takes as much film stock to shoot it as an art house flick. The transition will be complete in three to five years time when low cost digital projectors become available. The $10K cost of striking a print is what keeps many makers of celluloid film in business.
There will always be people who have to bore us with the reasons why celluloid was better. Just as there are still bores who will explain at inordinate length why vinyl is better than CD or why gas light is much better than electricity.
Recently I talked to an audiophile type who went on for hours about the spiffy new CD player he had bought for several thousand dollars which allegedly had a precision made drive that rotated the CD at exactly the 'right' rate. As if the circuitry feeding the D2A converter would be affected by the rate at which the input buffer was filled.
The fact is that within a couple more generations the top end digital cameras will outstrip the resolution of 35 mm film. There are also interesting possibilities for configuring digital film that are impossible with analog, logarithmic response to light for example giving a much greater dynamic range than the 100:1 that is possible with film.
Some celluloid use will continue, but it will be a minority even amongst the professional market.