Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Rockbox future strategy
saratoga:
--- Quote from: ethanay on November 06, 2016, 08:39:27 PM ---Away from low-end point and shoots, not cameras generally. Canon will not abandon successful product lines just because unrelated product lines aren't working out.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't work like that. To have a successful product line, you have to make money. But as volume falls, the cost of each component goes up because you are making fewer of them. As costs go up, you make less money, and successful products become unsuccessful because people no longer want to pay what they cost to make. I worked with Canon before, you should not underestimate how disruptive losing a huge source of revenue that used to pay for factories and sensor development was to them. It doesn't also help that SLRs are selling less than they did before.
This is exactly what happened with DAPs by the way. It is not actually possible to sell high end DAPs without also selling low and medium end devices, since you need to maintain a very high volume of sales to pay for things like software development, engineering, factory time, etc. So as volume fell, one by one vendors became unprofitable. Now most of what is left is repurposed Android phones, and low end equipment (by historical standards) sold at a high price, which just further depresses sales, which then raises prices even more, etc.
--- Quote from: ethanay on November 06, 2016, 08:39:27 PM ---There's probably a market unfolding for a high-value DAP that delivers exceptional performance and reliability and is built to last (upgradeable capacities; internal and external modularity and serviceability).
--- End quote ---
There is a market for that product, just not at the cost it would take to make it profitable. Electronics and software is about volume. If you have to have each unit pay off hundreds or thousands of dollars of development and engineering costs, you don't have a product. That is what people don't understand when they ask why no one makes something as good as the Sansa Clip anymore. You can't because in the numbers you'd sell them, they'd be extremely expensive, so you have to cut costs, and you end up with a Clip Sport.
ethanay:
I seriously doubt that Canon has been subsidizing its SLR line with point and shoot revenues! It depends on how the company manages its product line, though. Most components are not interchangeable, and the few that are don't undergo a ton of R&D and are often just "off the shelf" components.
Often times, it works in reverse: the high end equipment comes first and subsidizes the R&D for the low-end stuff. We commonly use materials now that were developed specifically for NASA. This trend is common in manufacturing: successful high-grade products spur a proliferation of lower-grade "more affordable" products. Guitar manufacturing is a great example of this. You don't see much innovation coming out of Korea in guitars. You see a lot of copying. And a lot of really good (and some really bad) copying. And yet, the specialized use scenarios and form factors between consumer and pro-grade doesn't necessarily mean that "today's consumer grade" uses "yesterday's pro-grade" equipment. But that just means completely different revenue streams, unless a company is mission driven and feels it is necessary to subsidize something important but not viable with something with more market viability. That rarely happens. Companies just want their stuff to sell. Canon's DSLR is not a charity.
Regardless, not sure where you are coming from since it looks like DSLR sales are going up, not down. DSLRs have their own revenue stream. Canon expanded into point and shoots from SLRs and related technologies, not the other way around. If we start with product A, and then expand to product B, and then product B drops, we still have product A. It might require downsizing, but a multinational company like Canon still sells plenty of SLRs to cover its costs in producing them. Otherwise its SLR line would contract, not expand. And that's what we are seeing: a large contraction of low-end special purpose hardware, and a small or moderate expansion of high-end special purpose hardware. Smartphones and DSLRs don't really compete.
Which comes back around to the discussion: It does not sound like those currently involved in Rockbox are interested, willing or able to refocus and adapt to changing market conditions, which is completely different than blaming market conditions for killing off Rockbox. It's not bad. It's just different, but I think a little goes a long way: If people in Rockbox want to only make Rockbox for affordable consumer grade DAPs, then that's fine, let's just be clear about it. It has its challenges and there may be potential to pull together multi-sector partnerships (e.g., Rockbox + OEMs + institutional vs individual bulk consumers) to overcome, but again that depends on willingness to explore that as an option.
saratoga:
--- Quote from: ethanay on November 06, 2016, 10:10:59 PM ---I seriously doubt that Canon has been subsidizing its SLR line with point and shoot revenues!
--- End quote ---
Then I don't think you understand how this works. Product lines absolutely subsidize one another. This is how manufacturing works.
--- Quote from: ethanay on November 06, 2016, 10:10:59 PM ---Regardless, not sure where you are coming from since it looks like DSLR sales are going up, not down.
--- End quote ---
DSLR sales have been in decline for a while now. Google it.
--- Quote from: ethanay on November 06, 2016, 10:10:59 PM ---Which comes back around to the discussion: It does not sound like those currently involved in Rockbox are interested, willing or able to refocus and adapt to changing market conditions, which is completely different than blaming market conditions for killing off Rockbox.
--- End quote ---
I think you aren't listening to what people are saying, which makes people less interested in talking to you.
ethanay:
Your assertion about subsidizing conflicts with this data:
"Interchangeable lens cameras, including ILCs and DSLR cameras, brought in 5% more revenue than compact cameras in sales in 2012, and that difference is likely to continue growing."
http://petapixel.com/2013/12/18/crunching-numbers-4-insights-camera-sales-data/
Also, the downward dips more closely follow devalued currency, not trends in smartphone sales, which greatly conflicts with any assertion that smartphones are negatively impacting high-level camera sales.
and also: "2. DSLR Sales Show Strong Growth Sometimes it seems like there’s no room for anything but doom and gloom when discussing sales forecasts for the photo industry. Even if analysts are willing to write off the fixed-lens compact market, there’s still good news: while the total number of cameras shipped has fallen off rather dramatically since a peak in 2010, DSLR sales have shown steady growth."
Even with mirrorless taking market share, DSLR use still grew by 1% on flickr:
http://petapixel.com/2015/12/18/heres-how-camera-brands-have-fared-on-flickr-over-the-past-5-years/
And even that is with a lot of professional photographers moving over to 500px
Declines are more likely macroeconomic factors as well as a market maturity that has (over)reached saturation. Professionals do not like to upgrade equipment. And if an industry can't handle a stable market and only functions with constant growth, then it simply doesn't have a sustainable business model and is guilty of intertemporal discounting, which is basically a self-imposed Ponzi scheme. I don't see where you get your info other than "I worked at Canon."
Canon and Nikon haven't been adapting. They could have participated in new format lens and sensor development, but they didn't. To expect revenue growth from each of a stable and mature saturated market and from a mature market getting the rug pulled out from under it is magical thinking.
Here's a good example of market adaptation and success with a technology that in your argument should be dead or not viable: http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/fujifilms-instax-instant-film-business-booming/
This trend indicates market contraction and stabilization, not collapse: http://petapixel.com/2015/11/14/camera-sales-may-be-stabilizing-after-a-few-years-of-freefall/ New technologies with usage overlap destabilize the market for a while, but well managed projects regularly weather such storms.
Smartphones do not cause the contraction, not the collapse of the camera industry. If the camera industry dies, it's more likely due to mismanagement or other contextual economic factors. We can same the same for DAPs.
You clearly care about Rockbox, but I don't understand how it is that you work so hard to try to prove that it is not viable and worth adapting to changing market conditions, especially when using abstract arguments that appear to conflict with reality without providing any backing information. Again, it indicates to me you are trying to prove that the project is done, whereas maybe you are just done with the project? Someone who wants a project like this to continue doesn't ask, "Can it continue?" They ask, "How can it continue?" and explore all those options. I don't see anyone involved in the project asking that question. All I hear is, "It won't continue." And so it probably won't. Self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else.
Well, I came here to engage about possibilities, not participate in cynical navel gazing. I'm still interested in exploring many possibilities, if someone reads this and wants to.
wodz:
So to conclude whats your silver bullet to salvage rockbox?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version