jkoch2: Olympus expects to cut losses from imaging products from Y23b to Y5b for the year ending this March. To turn a profit in the next year will not be easy, though, if unit sale continue to decline. To date, none of the companies publish any analysis of profitss or losses on particular categories. the big unknown is whether, after discontinuing most P&S operations, sales of system or high-end cameras will generate sufficient returns to justify the R&D, overhead, and capital. Not an easy assignment! FYE Mar-15 will be the camera world's end time and final judgment of the quick or dead.
Did Mr. Imano's phone ring during the interview? Wonder how many camera company execs are fond of smart phones or using them as cameras?
R&D cross-pollination is most certainly not unique to Olympus. Every major camera company has other significant optical businesses, and they all benefit from R&D crossover (in both directions, by the way -- i.e. Olympus's R&D for medical optics, which is huge compared to its camera R&D, has undoubtedly helped cameras over the years).
As for Nikon, its current position where 3/4ths of its revenue comes from cameras is historically somewhat unusual for the company. But, yes, Nikon is definitely much more vulnerable to a downturn in the camera business than any other major company.
anteportas: For me as a journalist the interview misses to many points in detail. Examples?
1.) Mr. Iida says, users are asking for new flashes. Why does the interviewer not ask if there is something in the pipeline and what these flashes will look like?
2.) Mr. Iilda says that Fuji has to refresh the lens lineup. What does it mean? Which new lenses can we expect from fuji?
3.) When will there be an x-pro 2 an what will be the differences to the x-t1? Only the hybrid-viewfinder?
4.) Mr. Iida sys Fuji has to be innovative. So what are the areas of technical innovation we can expect from fuji in the near future?
Just a few examples abaout information this interview is not providing.
Not sure what type of journalism you do, but it's clearly not consumer electronics. Companies almost never reveal answers about specific future product plans. Asking those kinds of questions is just a waste of your time and theirs.
SHood: "Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon."
Ummm. Did you miss their press release saying they have 500k camera units unsold in warehouses, most of which are the Nikon 1. Nikon also said they are re-evaluating the Nikon 1 product and cutting back on Marketing and R&D.
This quote looks like it came directly from Nikon trying to save face.
Ummm, did you read their press release?
Nikon revised their ILC _forecast_ for this year (ending March 31, 2014) down by 550,000 units; they did not say they had 500K unsold cameras sitting in a warehouse.
And they said they would "reconsider product planning of Nikon 1". They said nothing about cutting back marketing or R&D.
They might _increase_ marketing and R&D. The phrase "reconsider product planning" simply means they believe they may need a new feature/design/price mix to meet the sales targets they had set for themselves. What they do to accomplish that is anybody's guess. It might mean doubling down on their investment, not cutting back on it.
My friend Nick Didlick, a professional photographer and Nikon School Instructor, has been doing this for years with a very cheap and simple setup.
He uses a plastic trash can that he buys at the local drug store, cuts a hole in it near the bottom, then expoxies the cover glass from a 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 picture frame over the hole (on the outside of the trash can).
I've seen some nice shots of trout and other fish that he's taken in rivers and creeks using his "BucketCam", as he calls it. But, yes, he has pushed it a little too far into the water and doused a camera once or twice. He likes to dry them on the heater vent of his car during the drive home.
Walter: A lot of people are predicting the demise of Adobe. I personally doubt they will ever go back to the "old' way. That would truly lead to their demise and would end up totally compromising a software which was always aimed at the professional/serious photographer. Letting it succumb to the $1.99 app world would not be good for anyone.
The new set up will be too expensive for many especially if you take into account the global nature of this internet forum...
I suspect Adobe recognise that to survive they will need to look at a smaller more lucrative professional market much like Hasselblad always has done. There will always be that high end market. Photoshop will get more and more expensive but don't be surprised if Adobe come out with a cheap version in the near future which will adequately suit the masses.
Hating Adobe is a waste of energy and will change nothing..... there is more to life.
@ Walter: "don't be surprised if Adobe come out with a cheap version in the near future"
It's amazing to me how many people don't get this simple idea. Adobe just might have a little plan to fill the hole for photographers that the CC model is creating. With, oh I don't know, something like Lightroom and maybe some as yet unannounced upgraded version of Elements or something similar, all still available for a competitive price on a license model that the market will be comfortable with. Who could imagine such a revolutionary idea?
CC is about the suite, not the individual programs. It's a much more compelling offer for people who use multiple apps -- some combination of Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects, Dreamweaver et.al. every day in their jobs (and there are at least hundreds of thousands of those people). For other people, Adobe may have a different plan. (Disclaimer: I don't know, but it's an easy guess.)
madeinlisboa: OMG. CC is already out, not by subscription, if you know what I mean. They are sinking faster than I thought.
Unless you can cite a source, Stu 5's comment stands. Adobe has actually said that the Creative Cloud will not affect the piracy situation. That's obviously the case and nobody would know that better than Adobe.
Some journalists and commentators made the assumption that CC was partly an anti-piracy measure and reported that, but they were a little too far over their skis, as the saying goes. Adobe, as far as I know, never made that claim.