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.
"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.
Upvote
0