I was reading this article on CNET about the future of digital cameras. There is interesting technology on the horizon where a lot of production standards will be set by the camera software rather than post-production software, such as iPhoto or Photoshop.
Similar to the cellphone market, camera manufacturers try to control their product well beyond their field of expertise. The maker chooses the hardware and the software that makes the most marketable, but not necessarily the best camera combination. Each maker's user interface is different from the other. Choosing a new camera, like choosing a new cellphone, comes with a steep and uncomfortable learning curve.
Many of us have purchased a new camera only to return to the old familiar one because we did not want to commit the time and mental energy to learning a new maker's curious choice of interface and software. In fact, it creates a situation where consumers don't want to purchase a new camera because the perceived benefits are not as great as the perceived learning curve necessary to conquer the new camera.
Consumers are forced by manufacturers into a search for the Holy Grail of cameras - ease of use and high quality hardware at a reasonable price.
In the old days of cameras, it was easier to choose among camera brands. Each brand had a reputation for its level of quality in optics and mechanics of the hardware. There were resource magazines that reviewed and provided apples to apples comparisons to help make the purchasing decision. The software remained comfortably in the consumer's brain.
But now, each maker's quality is of similar mediocrity and the only distinguishing characteristic is one poor user interface after another. It is only a matter of time until the digital camera market reaches a point of stagnation.
Style is usually a good market distinguisher that enables items of similar quality too create new market niches when a market reaches stagnation. Unfortunately, style is a horse that cannot carry the digital camera market.
Unlike cellphones, style is less important in cameras because cameras themselves are not carried often enough nor are as visible when used. The public don't attribute any good connotations to the consumer's taste if the device is largely unseen. And as we've seen to date, slapping a color on the same boring hardware does little to distinguish the mediocre field.
As the iPhone has shown in the cellphone market, style is not enough. It requires style and an intuitive interface to slay the competition. Were the iPhone to be merely stylish, but contain the same unintuitive user interface of its competition, its style would not have been enough to draw the attention and consumers it has enjoyed. But because it is so easily understood how to operate it, the style and ease of use makes it an easy sell.
A better business model would be to standardize camera hardware so the software on the camera could be user upgradeable. The OS would need to be standardized as well.
Users could choose and install software for their cameras based on software features and interfaces that work best for each person and her art.
It would free up hardware makers to manufacture cameras based on actual quality in optics and electronics. People will always need or want new cameras.
In fact, it makes it possible to sell the same person several cameras based on specific uses. A portable and micro range for travel and those who just want to snap the occasional photo, bulkier SLRs for the serious hobbyists and controlled light situations, and professional grade cameras for those who need to coordinate lighting and other hardware with the camera shutter.
Most people would be willing to buy one or two cameras if they were shown the benefits of each type. More so if the user interface were the same so there were no steep learning curve as currently exists. The users would benefit from a standardized OS and user interface that makes switching between cameras easy and intuitive.
Standardized hardware would also return the hardware to it's pre-digital state - where it is easier to compare apples to apples in the camera hardware world.
A standardized hardware and OS would also set the standard that extends the user interface to the third-party software. Suddenly it becomes easy to take produce great quality photos by anyone who is familiar with the common interface. Adding software to the standardized hardware enhances the experience and quality of photos. Software becomes easy to sell, install and use.
In short, it would make camera hardware into what it has become - a portable computer. The field is crying out for an Apple iShot with standard hardware and an intuitive user interface, allowing consumers and professionals alike to focus on the art of photography and not with working around the shortcomings of manufacturers' software incompetence.
Otherwise, camera manufacturers will find themselves increasingly obsolete. Cellphone makers are already learning how to combine standardized hardware with style and intuitive interfaces. Since cameras are already part of that market, how long until the software market takes advantage of those common operating systems and interfaces? Then the entire casual camera consumer market will dry up for the current makers.
Once the consumer benefits in the casual market, how long until the demand for the same occurs among serious hobbyists and professionals? If camera makers wait until then to learn the lesson, they may not be able to survive the new competition that springs up by embracing the inevitable turn this market will take.
No comments:
Post a Comment