5 ms·

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

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 :)
  - spiderfarmer 9y ago
    That's why they should take that 25 million and invest it in startups that might become competitors one day.
    - oblio 9y ago
      I don't think they're that afraid of digital camera startups :)
      - spiderfarmer 9y ago
        It's not about being afraid, it's about letting other companies try innovations that won't succeed within your own company.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      It's just not elegant to try to put everything under one company. Better to buy back 25 million of stock from an investor, who can then buy one of those startups and run it independently.
- icebraining 9y ago
  what's the harm in trying many things at once? Bad PR when you eventually close them down. See Google: they ran Reader for eight years and gave people plenty of time to migrate. Half a decade later, it's still used as an example of why they can't be trusted. Regardless of whether that's justifiable or not, it's an harm to the company's image. Better to just dump money into external startups (see Google Ventures) and then acquire them if they're interesting.

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 :)
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  That's why they should take that 25 million and invest it in startups that might become competitors one day.
  - oblio 9y ago
    I don't think they're that afraid of digital camera startups :)
    - spiderfarmer 9y ago
      It's not about being afraid, it's about letting other companies try innovations that won't succeed within your own company.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    It's just not elegant to try to put everything under one company. Better to buy back 25 million of stock from an investor, who can then buy one of those startups and run it independently.
icebraining 9y ago
what's the harm in trying many things at once? Bad PR when you eventually close them down. See Google: they ran Reader for eight years and gave people plenty of time to migrate. Half a decade later, it's still used as an example of why they can't be trusted. Regardless of whether that's justifiable or not, it's an harm to the company's image. Better to just dump money into external startups (see Google Ventures) and then acquire them if they're interesting.