Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here it is - the most intelligent and important and informative tech article for photographers that I have seen in a long time. No surprise, it's from Lens Rentals.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/disruption-and-innovation#more-17135
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/disruption-and-innovation#more-17135
NY_Dan
Well-known
Yes, read the analysis and it's nice to see it presented so coherently. I'm waiting for a mirror-less camera that lets me shoot pro assignments on the same level as a D4.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
He comes across as someone who knows what he's talking about and talks about what he knows.
I'll take up only one thing. It seems to me that what he's calling "Disruptive inovation" is highly subjective. After well over thirty years in the IT industry, I'm used to the shifts and turns of technology. I've had to learn, on average, two new languages or systems for each of those years. It's a given in modern industries that continuous innovation is the rule, rather than the exception. When I've worked on the hardware side, I've met people who have to get their heads around new chip sets or manufacturing technologies on a continuous basis. After a short time, you learn to love it or get out. Surprisingly few get out until retirement age pushes them out, when many of them become consultants.
I'll take up only one thing. It seems to me that what he's calling "Disruptive inovation" is highly subjective. After well over thirty years in the IT industry, I'm used to the shifts and turns of technology. I've had to learn, on average, two new languages or systems for each of those years. It's a given in modern industries that continuous innovation is the rule, rather than the exception. When I've worked on the hardware side, I've met people who have to get their heads around new chip sets or manufacturing technologies on a continuous basis. After a short time, you learn to love it or get out. Surprisingly few get out until retirement age pushes them out, when many of them become consultants.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I keep thinking that the market is marking time somewhat until truly disruptive developments occur -- and actually, I think the relevant technology is out there already. Once disruptive technology is developed, it takes a while before manufacturers are able to introduce it (the economics make it feasible to do so, and the markets are receptive). As the article points out, being first on the market isn't necessarily where you want to be. So we have a series of interim, incremental products while manufacturers ponder what Big Thing they want to introduce next.
zuiko85
Veteran
Some people never adapt. Cranks like me who still love their old mechanical cameras. Of course I don't have to make a living at it and that is a huge factor in my decisions. That and limited 'hobby income' that must be spent wisely. It sure is not a quality issue, I am amazed at what can be done today with even $600 entry level Nikon and Canon SLR's with kit lenses. They are worlds ahead of top of the line DSLR's of ten short years ago, if not in ruggedness at least in image quality.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
He comes across as someone who knows what he's talking about and talks about what he knows.
I'll take up only one thing. It seems to me that what he's calling "Disruptive inovation" is highly subjective. After well over thirty years in the IT industry, I'm used to the shifts and turns of technology. I've had to learn, on average, two new languages or systems for each of those years. It's a given in modern industries that continuous innovation is the rule, rather than the exception. When I've worked on the hardware side, I've met people who have to get their heads around new chip sets or manufacturing technologies on a continuous basis. After a short time, you learn to love it or get out. Surprisingly few get out until retirement age pushes them out, when many of them become consultants.
As someone who got out of high-tech, and is getting crankier about the pace of change as I get older, my questions are: "why? what's the point? to what end?"
The answer, of course, is corporate profits, but we're at a point in most technology now that the real-world gains to the target audience are relatively minor however "revolutionary" they may be touted. I've never felt the need to be on the 'bleeding edge' and as is described in the article, probably only 10% of the tech change ever sees any continuity past the splashy introduction.
I think much of the population is now growing weary of having to upgrade to stay current, and I think that percentage will continue to grow over the next few years. Consumer-goods markets are saturated. For example, where there was a mass-adoption of the M9 and variants, we haven't seen the same rush for the M240. There is certainly innovation to be made yet, but I'm not sure that they're going to be as revolutionary as we've seen in the past, nor am I confident that consumers are going continue to buy in the way we've seen consumerism work for the past 20 years.
Time will tell.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Great article. I printed it out to discuss at dinner tonight with photog friends. Wine will flow.
doolittle
Well-known
+1
A very good read, thanks for the link.
A very good read, thanks for the link.
Pioneer
Veteran
I enjoyed the article. I think that Roger does a pretty good job of presenting his ideas. Of course predicting the future is fraught with difficulty as has been proven over and over. While I do agree with Rogers premise that the next disruptive technology probably exists already, I have my doubts that he has actually identified them. But, what the heck, speculation is always great fun.