Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet

[time123]

...The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides...

Not to worry, the U.S. government has just addressed the "connectivity" part. The FCC has voted to take over control of the Internet in their move toward "Net Neutrality."

The major DSLR providers can relax now, the FCC will screw it up so badly that no one will be able to upload their photos without a serious per picture charge tax. That will kill off discourage all those smartphone toting 'togs Facebooking their way to the future. :-\

Do you think that's the solution?

I hope you are joking or simply have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality actually means. Net neutrality as supported by the FCC and the bulk of technology companies (Google, etc.) means that when you have an Internet connection you are simply paying for a connection to the Internet in which your Internet Service Provider (ISP - Comcast, etc.) cannot modify or force you to pay extra to use the bandwidth you are already paying for based on what you want to do on the Internet. No net neutrality means you are completely at the mercy of your ISP in what you do on the Internet meaning they will have the capacity to slow down or even prevent access to visit or use sites on the Internet unless you pay them even more. Net neutrality ensures that an Internet connection is simply an Internet connection and ISPs cannot add additional fees and charges to use specific sites or services - in fact net neutrality forbids this.

Hypothetically, would you like the Netflix package where if you are already paying for Netflix and now Comcast can say you have to pay an additional $10 per month if you want it in HD on top of what you are already paying, even if you are already paying Netflix for the HD package? Or how about the Youtube Premium package for an additional $5 per month where you can watch full videos without them stalling out every 20 seconds? Performing these feats from a technical perspective at the ISP level is exceptionally easy and their anti-net neutrality position is just a scheme that ISPs want to use to bilk the consumer out of more money for their already excessively expensive and crummy Internet connection provided (USA is already around 11th place in Internet speeds and in the rankings of around 28th in total Internet users). Net neutrality ensures the exact opposite of what you happen to think the USA government is attempting to do.

 

[privatebydesign]

A more simple analogy is postage.

What the cable companies were trying to do was charge the receiver (you) and the sender (the package provider) postage for the same package. And if the sender wasn't prepared to pay the postage service extra money they had the option to not deliver, or even to not allow you to see it actually existed.

But you are already paying to be allowed to see everybody equally, you currently have a choice of places to buy even though you probably don't have a choice of internet provider.

Say B&H paid Time Warner/Comcast to not show Adorama as a result in a web search, or Amazon, or any other camera retailer? You would have no choice, B&H could charge what they need to and Time Warner/Comcast would get even richer for doing nothing other than making you, who already pay for a service from them, pay even more to B&H to cover their cable bill.

 

[old-pr-pix]

The comment was intended to be sarcastic. Besides, CR is not the place for a debate over net neutrality. That said, time will tell if this is a good move or not for the typical user and what will be the cost impact. Years ago I used to manage a nationwide corporate computer network. Based on that background I have little confidence the FCC can improve anything. Perhaps I am wrong; but there are several extremely technical network management issues that are totally misunderstood or overlooked by this very politically driven FCC move. The general media representation that this will benefit the average user is by no means the full story. Look into the publications of IEEE and other technical societies to see examples of the problems that will result from the intended government controls.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, I'd far rather trust the cable companies, they are so reasonable, fair, efficient and such good value!

 

[lintoni]

Yes, I'd far rather trust the cable companies, they are so reasonable, fair, efficient and such good value!

 

[unfocused]

I don't know how this discussion veered off into "net neutrality" but achieving "neutrality" by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service (As the FTC has now done) ought to scare anyone who values internet privacy, freedom and innovation.

This opens up the possibility of a broad range of regulatory requirements that will have a far more detrimental impact on internet access than the problem it was supposed to fix. In order to protect their jobs, regulators need to be regulating something and this new ruling will give them an opportunity to wade into a whole range of regulatory schemes with the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences and innovation-crushing rules.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't know how this discussion veered off into "net neutrality" but achieving "neutrality" by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service (As the FTC has now done) ought to scare anyone who values internet privacy, freedom and innovation.

This opens up the possibility of a broad range of regulatory requirements that will have a far more detrimental impact on internet access than the problem it was supposed to fix. In order to protect their jobs, regulators need to be regulating something and this new ruling will give them an opportunity to wade into a whole range of regulatory schemes with the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences and innovation-crushing rules.

In a choice between incompetent fools who are bought and paid for by money grabbing criminally inclined corporations, and putting 100% trust directly in those money grabbing criminally inclined corporations, one can't fail to believe, however naively, that at least we might have some sway over the former.

The problem isn't the way it works now, the problem is the way the cable companies are pushing it to work. Roll on Chattanooga, that is how all cable should be financed and run. Do you know how much internet costs and the standard bandwidth you get in South Korea? Can you explain how the capitalist credo is working in an industry where most consumers have the choice of one provider? And where the two biggest providers by far are being given a green light to merge into a single mega corporation?

 

[IgotGASbadDude]

I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces

Not everyone makes those STUPID duck face photos . . .

I currently own both an iPhone 6 and a 1DX. Each has its purpose but in the right hands (and the right circumstances) both can produce impressive work. Not comparable results of course, but good stuff if one knows what they're doing.

Just 10 minutes ago I was having a text discussion about SLR vs. phone photos. I used my phone to snap a quick pic of two 16x20 framed photos I have on the wall. Both were concert photos--one taken with my old iPhone 5 and the other with my "old" Canon 5D3. The iPhone photo is hardly exhibition quality, but it held up pretty well even enlarged that big.

The camera in your hands is the best one, and I'm not running home to get my SLR when a simple snapshot accomplishes my goal getting a quick photo. So I guess I'm saying you must not take snapshots . . . ???

 

[Ozarker]

I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces

So I guess I'm saying you must not take snapshots . . . ???

I just do not take photos with my phone. Almost never, ever. That's part of my point, I think. The camera is a part of the phone, but for many people doesn't matter. The fact that people tend to get a new phone with every contract renewal (with attached camera) and the fact that cell phone plans keep getting cheaper, and the fact that so many more 10s of millions of people can afford to get a cell phone every year naturally means that the camera feature is in higher demand whether the camera is ever used or not. That's really what I meant. Obviously, for a huge number of people, the camera on the phone may be the only camera they ever have. But let's face it... the vast majority will only use it for snapshots, or social media, etc. and really do not have an interest in taking photography any deeper than that. Just like most people who get a car have no interest in being a NASCAR owner or driver.

In the current world economy it makes sense to me that DSLR cameras and gear sales have gone down compared to the demand for "free" cell phones with ever cheaper plan rates. Essentially, the cell companies are financing the phone gear through the phone plans. There is no comparison to DSLR sales at all that would be honest.

A DSLR is a luxury item for most people in the world. Yup, for most it really is.

23 years ago I was a Bell South Mobility franchisee. There were no free phones. One had to have stellar credit to sign up, and a 400 minute plan ran about $450 a month. That is if one stayed in the home network. Roaming fees were $2 a minute. If one ventured more than 5 miles or so from the interstate... he was roaming. Now, nobody gets charged for roaming and anybody can sign up. What does an unlimited talk, text, and data plan cost these days? I think Sprint advertised $50 a month a few minutes ago. That includes a free Phone, camera, and pocket computer all rolled into one.

As far as, "The best camera is the one in you have" statement? I have no idea what that means. We know that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't all be hanging around here hoping for the next grail to be announced. That is sort of like the gun forum I frequent where guys get a new rifle and say, "It shoots better than I do." What?

Comparing the two markets is silly to me. They are not the same market. It is like comparing tricycles to downhill mountain bikes. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[apmadoc]

I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.

One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years

Look at the current stats on Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Beyond just cameras - Tablets are now replacing PCs as a trend

 

[Ozarker]

I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.

One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years

Look at the current stats on Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Beyond just cameras - Tablets are now replacing PCs as a trend

You know what is funny? I remember when getting the smallest cell phone possible was the way to go. The tinier the better. Now the phones are pretty much miniature tablets and much bigger than the tiny phones people wanted in the mid 90's (Those phones were unbelievably small). Then phones with cameras were born... then with browsers, then smart phones. It sort of makes sense that the point and shoot is disappearing in that regard. I am starting to see lots of people take pictures with their tablets now, and my Kindle Fire does a pretty good job. I still don't see them as replacing the DSLR though. I could be very wrong though.

 

[jeffa4444]

I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.

One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years

Look at the current stats on Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Beyond just cameras - Tablets are now replacing PCs as a trend

You know what is funny? I remember when getting the smallest cell phone possible was the way to go. The tinier the better. Now the phones are pretty much miniature tablets and much bigger than the tiny phones people wanted in the mid 90's (Those phones were unbelievably small). Then phones with cameras were born... then with browsers, then smart phones. It sort of makes sense that the point and shoot is disappearing in that regard. I am starting to see lots of people take pictures with their tablets now, and my Kindle Fire does a pretty good job. I still don't see them as replacing the DSLR though. I could be very wrong though.

Actually recent Stats suggest Tablet sales have stalled, larger smartphones and better featured small laptops are squeezing the growth (hence Apple new 12" Macbook).

 

[IgotGASbadDude]

As far as, "The best camera is the one in you have" statement? I have no idea what that means. We know that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't all be hanging around here hoping for the next grail to be announced.

The gist of this phrase is the simple fact that if you don't have a camera, in any form, you can't take a picture.

If something unexpected or spectacular happens, you'd rather have a phone photo than nothing.

When that alien ship lands right in front of me, I don't want to have to say "WOW, you guys wait here while I run home and get my 1DX." ;D :

 

[Rudeofus]

I think your being rather idiotic.

Stating such an unwarranted insult in a sentence with such a glaring grammar error is not only idiotic, it's actually quite funny.

Before smartphones the vast majority of photographs were prints made at the local chemist or photography store shown to the family & friends and put away in a cupboard. Some where shown at camera clubs etc.

Allow me to call to your attention the time period between 2003 and 2012, when most images were taken on a digital camera (P&S, DSLR) and sent via email or posted on image hosting websites. This is actually the process which smart phones plus social media all but replaced during the last few years.

Everybody, including Vincent Laforet in his blog, agrees, that superior image quality and additional artistic freedoms, available predominantly to users of professional level photographic gear and post processing, tend to yield better images. What the author argues, though, and rightfully so IMHO, is the apparent fact that communication efficiency trumps image quality heads down for most people, and as a result the overall market has boldly moved in a direction which you personally may or may not agree with.

Don't be afraid, the market trend police is not going to take away your camera, and the fact that you can still buy large format cameras, glass plates and collodion, should tell you that there is plenty of room for people who prefer to surf the trailing edge of technology ...

 

[LonelyBoy]

I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.

One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years

Look at the current stats on Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Beyond just cameras - Tablets are now replacing PCs as a trend

Except the tablet trend is reversing as the people who want them, have them. It's always tempting to assume that lines continue in the same direction indefinitely into the future, but they don't.

It's similar to the claim that people don't read anymore, while Harry Potter, Twilight, and Fifty Shades of Grey sell massive numbers. And, of course, the young generation is ruining the world and has no appreciation for anything, as has always been the case.

 

[Tugela]

I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.

"Smartphones already won."

The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

Sure, there's some overlap. Point and shoots are a dying breed in large part because of smartphone cameras because the image quality is comparable and the size is smaller, and you always have it with you. Laforet has a point here. But that's where it ends.

The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides, does not mean it's taking anything away from the other markets. It just means that there's smartphone camera growth. The Apple comparison he makes with Pro apps actually proves my point better than his. Pro apps stay constant even through the explosive growth of App store "consumer" apps. It did not precipitously fall - if pro apps had been at war with consumer apps, it would have. It did not fall because those are two different, distinct markets. No one is using a 99 cent app versus Final Cut Pro. No one is using a free iOS app instead of color grading with a pro app. They are two distinct markets that exist independently of each other.

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.

This is in part because he's not adjusting for the number of photos taken either. Yes, smartphone photos are becoming more and more dominant versus still camera photos if you look at percentages. But when you realize that the number of photos taken overall has increased exponentially, you'll realize that no one is ditching their higher end kit for a smartphone. Some people are taking thousands of photos a year with their phone, where previously they had taken none. There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.

But that is exactly what most of these "expert" analysts do.

It was the same thing when tablet sales were in their growth phase. The same "experts" were claiming that PCs were doomed because there was no growth, but guess what - it didn't happen. The role of the PC is just as valid today as it was before, but there is no market growth because the market is saturated. The same thing then happened to tablets, are these same people now going to claim that tablets are "doomed" because the market has saturated?

 

[jeffa4444]

I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.

"Smartphones already won."

The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

Sure, there's some overlap. Point and shoots are a dying breed in large part because of smartphone cameras because the image quality is comparable and the size is smaller, and you always have it with you. Laforet has a point here. But that's where it ends.

The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides, does not mean it's taking anything away from the other markets. It just means that there's smartphone camera growth. The Apple comparison he makes with Pro apps actually proves my point better than his. Pro apps stay constant even through the explosive growth of App store "consumer" apps. It did not precipitously fall - if pro apps had been at war with consumer apps, it would have. It did not fall because those are two different, distinct markets. No one is using a 99 cent app versus Final Cut Pro. No one is using a free iOS app instead of color grading with a pro app. They are two distinct markets that exist independently of each other.

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.

This is in part because he's not adjusting for the number of photos taken either. Yes, smartphone photos are becoming more and more dominant versus still camera photos if you look at percentages. But when you realize that the number of photos taken overall has increased exponentially, you'll realize that no one is ditching their higher end kit for a smartphone. Some people are taking thousands of photos a year with their phone, where previously they had taken none. There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.

But that is exactly what most of these "expert" analysts do.

It was the same thing when tablet sales were in their growth phase. The same "experts" were claiming that PCs were doomed because there was no growth, but guess what - it didn't happen. The role of the PC is just as valid today as it was before, but there is no market growth because the market is saturated. The same thing then happened to tablets, are these same people now going to claim that tablets are "doomed" because the market has saturated?

Looks like your finally coming around to my opinion.

 

[K]

The desktop PC is a perfect comparison.

The fact is, the DSLR simply does MANY things that cell phones (and even mirrorless cameras) can't do.

The PC does things that tablets and other computing devices cannot do, or at least not do very well.

The DSLR will be dead when mirrorless cameras can autofocus as fast as and as accurately, and have a view finder that is as good as an optical view finder.

As for cell phones....they will never kill real cameras. Ever. All they did was take away all the casual shooters who either A. didn't really take many photos before in the first place, and thus weren't technically "in the market" B. weren't the types to carry any kind of camera in the first place C. The few who did bring a camera, but used small point and shoots.

Cell phones only satisfy those seeking total convenience. Anyone looking for image quality will seek a dedicated camera. So long as there are people seeking good image quality, the DSLR will exist.

 

[jeffa4444]

I played around with the Panasonic Lumix CM1 last week its technically a camera with a phone rather than the other way around Panasonic in the UK will retail it through camera stores.
its a 20MP 1" sensor, fixed lens with 4K video about the size of an iPhone 6 but twice as thick, Android with currently Kitkat about to be upgraded to Lollipop. The pictures on display were pretty impressive much better than any iPhone and the shutter button is more like a regular camera two stage. The ring on the front screws off and you can fit say a Lee Seven5 filter holder with a 37mm adaptor or its for additional future attachments. Seems that the two i.e. smart phones and compacts are finally merging.

 

[dolina]

Actual shipments in 2014
Forecasted shipments for 2015


CIPA2015Forecast by alabang, on Flickr

Point & shoots is the most affected in drop in sales.

Interchangeable lenses and bodies the least affected.

People on photo forums will still buy dedicated still cameras.

People who dont will probably use what they have until it is too expensive to fix or just get a new smartphone.