7 ms·

I could only imagine if Apple took all of their camera expertise from the iPhone and all of their existing Chip expertise and all of their Operating Systems exp

I could only imagine if Apple took all of their camera expertise from the iPhone and all of their existing Chip expertise and all of their Operating Systems expertise to create a Semi-Pro Mirrorless camera. Imagine full iOS integration, super fast A-11 Bionic chip (same as iPhone), high throughput wireless components, custom OS (like WatchOS), developer API, W2 chip for Bluetooth pairing, OLED screen, and beautiful lightweight aluminum housing. That would completely change the market. But we can only dream.

buildbot 9y ago
They could buy Leica and build a new M series camera, it could be massively expensive and still be an insane hit.
- askafriend 9y ago
  This is closer to what a real world vision of my description would look like. However as others mentioned, it’s an incredibly small category relative to everything else Apple do. Apple isn’t one for distractions. Beats worked because it built on their iPhone and music streaming strategy rather than replacing pieces of either.
  - nihonde 9y ago
    Leica Q is a really nice camera that compromises between ease of use and high quality optics. No need to bring Apple into the mix. I’ve owned many M series bodies and lenses but I still use the Q the most often.
- abshultz 9y ago
  I don't think the majority of the traditional Leica clientele would appreciate a camera manufactured by a hip computer and phone maker.
pavlov 9y ago
The profit potential isn’t there. Apple probably makes more money selling dongles than they’d ever make with a camera. Also, the Mac Pro fiasco makes me doubtful that Apple wants to be in any pro markets anymore.
- ndtoeuin324tv 9y ago
  How many years in a row are people going to make this proclamation? First it was not making screens anymore, then it was Final Cut Pro X, then it was iOS and the iPad, then it was the Mac Pro. Never mind that the Mac Pro is a great machine, and they've already announced the iMac Pro and hinted at a newer Mac Pro that is more in line with people's expectations. At this point, no matter what they do, people will say, "they don't care about the Pro market anymore." It's ridiculous.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    The controversy was not about nothing. Lots of professional users did not upgrade because they were not happy with the new offering.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
Sounds like an iPhone with a bigger camera chip. I don’t think Apple will venture into dedicated camera equipment. The iPhone camera is one of the big selling points and keeps people upgrading. Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. A dedicated device also goes against the unification that Apple seems to pursue.
- jaggederest 9y ago
  Especially considering that they're delving into multiple cameras, phased array cameras would let them create 'virtual' apertures the size of the phone back, for example. I would very much enjoy playing with something along those lines.
- hashmal 9y ago
  Apple has no problems cannibalizing its own products. That being said, I don't think they would do dedicated cameras.
- mysterypie 9y ago
  > Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. I never understood that reasoning. As an individual, I can't simultaneously develop 10 different products, but a large company sitting on billions in cash could develop 1000 niche products simultaneously. In fact, some large companies (Procter & Gamble, 3M, General Electric) have thousands or tens of thousands of products. To use your Apple example, why couldn't Apple create a professional camera division, giving them $25 million startup money, and tell them to never bother the iPhone team, but do give them access to the source code, engineering drawings, and contacts in the supply chain. It seems very fashionable for tech companies to be very narrowly focused. They work on the one thing that is making the most money at that moment. If any experimental development isn't a wild success, it's shut down right away. All of those make sense if you're an individual or struggling startup, but if you have billions just sitting there, what's the harm in trying many things at once?
  - oblio 9y ago
    Big companies usually work either by C-level exec fiat or by middle management promotion plans. Neither of which usually want small fish. If you work for a $100 billion company and you say: I need $25 million to pursue an idea that might make the company 2x or 3x, there's a good chance they'll say: no, sorry. We prefer to invest that $25 million to either improve our $5 billion product or invest in an idea that could become another $5 billion product. And from this we get the innovator's dilemma :)
dflock 9y ago
It's a fairly small and rapidly shrinking market - mostly because of camera phones, so this is incredibly unlikely, obviously
- ekianjo 9y ago
  The Full Frame and above DLSR market is not really shrinking though. It's certainly not a huge market, but it's ripe for disruption since the pace of innovation of the current incumbents is very, very slow.
  - mark-r 9y ago
    The DSLR market is shrinking, simply because everyone who wants one already has one and there are no compelling reasons to upgrade. There was a golden period of a few years where if you wanted a decent camera a DSLR was the best option, so the market expanded quickly. Those days are over. Adding the features identified in the post would cure the "no reason to upgrade" problem, at least temporarily. But the market for serious cameras is pretty much fixed and easily saturated.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      I was talking about "Full frame and above" please don't just my comment about DSLRs in general. APS-C size sensors DSLRs do not fit in my description, and that is the category that is shrinking the most.
      - mark-r 9y ago
        OK, that may be true. But I propose that it's still a temporary situation, as APS-C DSLR users upgrade. The larger sensor camera market will saturate as well.
newsbinator 9y ago
Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook. There's no argument that it would be the finest netbook of all time. But that, too, would be moving in the wrong direction.
- Numberwang 9y ago
  Finest and most expensive.
- askafriend 9y ago
  You are absolutely right. It makes no sense for them to invest in something like that. Especially at the scale that they operate at. iPhones have completely changed what photography means at a basic level. However, I would still love to have something like I described.
- dagw 9y ago
  Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook. They kind of did when they released the MacBook Air.
  - anoother 9y ago
    And even moreso, the new 'macbook'
- richardknop 9y ago
  What about Macbook Air? That should count. Or what do you imagine as a "netbook"? Something even smaller? Or something cheaper?
Angostura 9y ago
They were pretty pioneering with the Quicktake camera in the 1990s, but ducked out when digital cameras started to become mainstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
Mikeb85 9y ago
> That would completely change the market. But we can only dream. No, it really wouldn't. Look at the heavyweights right now, they all either have a ton of expertise in optics or in sensors. That market cares more about glass selection, sensors and taking pictures than bells and whistles like iOS would provide.
headcanon 9y ago
An alternative - a partnership with Canon on Nikon where they would build a shell around the iPhone that would accept DSLR lenses, and build an iOS app to have all the DSLR features, with deep integration (like panorama, could make use of the other lens, AI, etc). They make more money on lenses anyway, let apple sell razors while they continue to sell razorblades. Furthermore, the case itself would cost $100-$200, which coupled with the phone would be > $1000, while the "normal" DSLR sensor shell is already about $600, so it still leaves room for both products. Also, it would even lower the barrier to entry to purchase DSLR lenses for current iPhone owners, which would increase lens sales. Assuming it works from a technical perspective, I don't really see a downside with this business model.
r00fus 9y ago
It would only make sense from a financial perspective if the market they were entering (think: auto) is bigger than the one they could be endangering (mobile). Also, would they then be making camera sensors? Or would they just figure Sony (whose profits they'd be stepping on) would just take it? Do they have a 2nd source for this critical component?
djrogers 9y ago
No - what Apple will do is evolve the iPhone camera(s) and computational photography, over and over every year, pushing it further and further until most of the needs for a mirrorless camera are gone. Rather than disrupt the high end consumer camera market with a camera in 2 years, they’ll do it with iPhone in 5 or 10 years.

buildbot 9y ago

They could buy Leica and build a new M series camera, it could be massively expensive and still be an insane hit.

askafriend 9y ago
This is closer to what a real world vision of my description would look like. However as others mentioned, it’s an incredibly small category relative to everything else Apple do. Apple isn’t one for distractions. Beats worked because it built on their iPhone and music streaming strategy rather than replacing pieces of either.
- nihonde 9y ago
  Leica Q is a really nice camera that compromises between ease of use and high quality optics. No need to bring Apple into the mix. I’ve owned many M series bodies and lenses but I still use the Q the most often.
abshultz 9y ago
I don't think the majority of the traditional Leica clientele would appreciate a camera manufactured by a hip computer and phone maker.

pavlov 9y ago

The profit potential isn’t there. Apple probably makes more money selling dongles than they’d ever make with a camera. Also, the Mac Pro fiasco makes me doubtful that Apple wants to be in any pro markets anymore.

ndtoeuin324tv 9y ago
How many years in a row are people going to make this proclamation? First it was not making screens anymore, then it was Final Cut Pro X, then it was iOS and the iPad, then it was the Mac Pro. Never mind that the Mac Pro is a great machine, and they've already announced the iMac Pro and hinted at a newer Mac Pro that is more in line with people's expectations. At this point, no matter what they do, people will say, "they don't care about the Pro market anymore." It's ridiculous.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  The controversy was not about nothing. Lots of professional users did not upgrade because they were not happy with the new offering.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago

Sounds like an iPhone with a bigger camera chip. I don’t think Apple will venture into dedicated camera equipment. The iPhone camera is one of the big selling points and keeps people upgrading. Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. A dedicated device also goes against the unification that Apple seems to pursue.

jaggederest 9y ago
Especially considering that they're delving into multiple cameras, phased array cameras would let them create 'virtual' apertures the size of the phone back, for example. I would very much enjoy playing with something along those lines.
hashmal 9y ago
Apple has no problems cannibalizing its own products. That being said, I don't think they would do dedicated cameras.
mysterypie 9y ago
> Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. I never understood that reasoning. As an individual, I can't simultaneously develop 10 different products, but a large company sitting on billions in cash could develop 1000 niche products simultaneously. In fact, some large companies (Procter & Gamble, 3M, General Electric) have thousands or tens of thousands of products. To use your Apple example, why couldn't Apple create a professional camera division, giving them $25 million startup money, and tell them to never bother the iPhone team, but do give them access to the source code, engineering drawings, and contacts in the supply chain. It seems very fashionable for tech companies to be very narrowly focused. They work on the one thing that is making the most money at that moment. If any experimental development isn't a wild success, it's shut down right away. All of those make sense if you're an individual or struggling startup, but if you have billions just sitting there, what's the harm in trying many things at once?
- oblio 9y ago
  Big companies usually work either by C-level exec fiat or by middle management promotion plans. Neither of which usually want small fish. If you work for a $100 billion company and you say: I need $25 million to pursue an idea that might make the company 2x or 3x, there's a good chance they'll say: no, sorry. We prefer to invest that $25 million to either improve our $5 billion product or invest in an idea that could become another $5 billion product. And from this we get the innovator's dilemma :)

dflock 9y ago

It's a fairly small and rapidly shrinking market - mostly because of camera phones, so this is incredibly unlikely, obviously

ekianjo 9y ago
The Full Frame and above DLSR market is not really shrinking though. It's certainly not a huge market, but it's ripe for disruption since the pace of innovation of the current incumbents is very, very slow.
- mark-r 9y ago
  The DSLR market is shrinking, simply because everyone who wants one already has one and there are no compelling reasons to upgrade. There was a golden period of a few years where if you wanted a decent camera a DSLR was the best option, so the market expanded quickly. Those days are over. Adding the features identified in the post would cure the "no reason to upgrade" problem, at least temporarily. But the market for serious cameras is pretty much fixed and easily saturated.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    I was talking about "Full frame and above" please don't just my comment about DSLRs in general. APS-C size sensors DSLRs do not fit in my description, and that is the category that is shrinking the most.
    - mark-r 9y ago
      OK, that may be true. But I propose that it's still a temporary situation, as APS-C DSLR users upgrade. The larger sensor camera market will saturate as well.

newsbinator 9y ago

Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook. There's no argument that it would be the finest netbook of all time. But that, too, would be moving in the wrong direction.

Numberwang 9y ago
Finest and most expensive.
askafriend 9y ago
You are absolutely right. It makes no sense for them to invest in something like that. Especially at the scale that they operate at. iPhones have completely changed what photography means at a basic level. However, I would still love to have something like I described.
dagw 9y ago
Apple could take their MacBook experience and make a phenomenal netbook. They kind of did when they released the MacBook Air.
- anoother 9y ago
  And even moreso, the new 'macbook'
richardknop 9y ago
What about Macbook Air? That should count. Or what do you imagine as a "netbook"? Something even smaller? Or something cheaper?

Angostura 9y ago

They were pretty pioneering with the Quicktake camera in the 1990s, but ducked out when digital cameras started to become mainstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake

Mikeb85 9y ago

> That would completely change the market. But we can only dream. No, it really wouldn't. Look at the heavyweights right now, they all either have a ton of expertise in optics or in sensors. That market cares more about glass selection, sensors and taking pictures than bells and whistles like iOS would provide.

headcanon 9y ago

An alternative - a partnership with Canon on Nikon where they would build a shell around the iPhone that would accept DSLR lenses, and build an iOS app to have all the DSLR features, with deep integration (like panorama, could make use of the other lens, AI, etc). They make more money on lenses anyway, let apple sell razors while they continue to sell razorblades. Furthermore, the case itself would cost $100-$200, which coupled with the phone would be > $1000, while the "normal" DSLR sensor shell is already about $600, so it still leaves room for both products. Also, it would even lower the barrier to entry to purchase DSLR lenses for current iPhone owners, which would increase lens sales. Assuming it works from a technical perspective, I don't really see a downside with this business model.

r00fus 9y ago

It would only make sense from a financial perspective if the market they were entering (think: auto) is bigger than the one they could be endangering (mobile). Also, would they then be making camera sensors? Or would they just figure Sony (whose profits they'd be stepping on) would just take it? Do they have a 2nd source for this critical component?

djrogers 9y ago

No - what Apple will do is evolve the iPhone camera(s) and computational photography, over and over every year, pushing it further and further until most of the needs for a mirrorless camera are gone. Rather than disrupt the high end consumer camera market with a camera in 2 years, they’ll do it with iPhone in 5 or 10 years.