4 ms·

I don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+

by turndown 3y ago

oh_sigh 3y ago
Products like this cost what people will pay for them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Sosh101 3y ago
  That's true for any product.
  - Epa095 3y ago
    Tja, with more competition the price (should) approach production cost. For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).
allenu 3y ago
I was shocked to see the price tag on this. On the other hand, I could see it being used as mostly a marketing tool to provide an aspirational product to essentially set an anchor price that makes all their other lines feel more affordable. I honestly found that when I looked at their product line, all of a sudden, a $150 instant camera felt "affordable" after seeing the $600 one. I won't be buying one, but this had some small effect on me.
- iNerdier 3y ago
  It’s an analogue camera with all the complexities involved in making something that exposes and results in a physical object and with relatively low production numbers and a high r&d spend required to make it. Why, coupled with a lack of anyone making anything else like this for Polaroid film would you think it would be dirt cheap?
  - allenu 3y ago
    I didn’t think it would be “dirt cheap”. It’s a surprising product to make in a world where there are already more affordable models produced by the same company to satisfy the urge for instant photos and everyone already has a camera in their pocket for around the same price.
theshrike79 3y ago
Some people REALLY like the shitty quality aesthetic that Polaroid pictures give. I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  Yes, and it's not even that hard to emulate the effect digitally. I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo. I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.

I don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+

oh_sigh 3y ago

Products like this cost what people will pay for them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Sosh101 3y ago
That's true for any product.
- Epa095 3y ago
  Tja, with more competition the price (should) approach production cost. For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).

allenu 3y ago

I was shocked to see the price tag on this. On the other hand, I could see it being used as mostly a marketing tool to provide an aspirational product to essentially set an anchor price that makes all their other lines feel more affordable. I honestly found that when I looked at their product line, all of a sudden, a $150 instant camera felt "affordable" after seeing the $600 one. I won't be buying one, but this had some small effect on me.

iNerdier 3y ago
It’s an analogue camera with all the complexities involved in making something that exposes and results in a physical object and with relatively low production numbers and a high r&d spend required to make it. Why, coupled with a lack of anyone making anything else like this for Polaroid film would you think it would be dirt cheap?
- allenu 3y ago
  I didn’t think it would be “dirt cheap”. It’s a surprising product to make in a world where there are already more affordable models produced by the same company to satisfy the urge for instant photos and everyone already has a camera in their pocket for around the same price.

theshrike79 3y ago

Some people REALLY like the shitty quality aesthetic that Polaroid pictures give. I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Yes, and it's not even that hard to emulate the effect digitally. I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo. I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.