Slashdot Mirror
Polaroid Can't Compete with Digital Cameras
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".
They do, expensive ones. Polaroid has been on the ropes for a while now. Articles examining this have pinned it on a failure to innovate.
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...
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Forget about Polaroid CAMERAS. They're consumer products, and crappy ones, too. But you can use Pola-Backs with almost any medium or large format camera (and there are even adaptors for 35mm cameras).
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).
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
Don't forget, they have had a lot of name recognition for "instant photos" on the world market. They could have had a big jump on the rest when it came to marketing digital camera technology.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.