Hasselblad victory?

[Giedo]

Victor might refer not only to their founder, bust also to their new strategy: victor is Latin and it's meaning is all to clear...
Hasselblad wants to fight their competitors out of the marketplace. It is their right to try. But they also might commit suicide this way...
Isn't this new closed system just about the same strategy as Apple imposes? They seem to be pretty succesfull so far. If Hasselblad will be as innovative as Apple was, then consumers might even benefit. I think we have to wait and see.
The biggest loosers will undoubtedly be Phase One and Leaf: their market has suddenly shrunk considerably.

[BernardLanguillier]

Isn't this new closed system just about the same strategy as Apple imposes? They seem to be pretty succesfull so far. If Hasselblad will be as innovative as Apple was, then consumers might even benefit. I think we have to wait and see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, but Apple is a niche player that has been playing the same game for years, while Hassy is dominant and is chaning the rules half way through...

In a way, Phaseone has also been pushing a full back + sofware integrated solution. 35 mm DSLR manufacturers have been pushing an integrated body + lens system. It is clear to me that these integrated solutions have some advantages in terms of performance at a given moment in time. Hassy is trying to go even further with the full integration of the back, lens and software.

In the end, the choice is ours. Do we prefer an integrated solution that could be best when we purchase it, but is likely not to keep offering the best component for all the segments of the chain for long, or a modular system that will be cheaper to updagrade piece by piece?

As often, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the road, and Hassy could have kept their system open while proposing their own integrated solution. They could also have developped an open archtecture in which a lens is able to pass to a body/back information about its characteristics for instance. The information could also be made available for 3rd party RAW convertion softwares.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ChongLi]

Isn't this new closed system just about the same strategy as Apple imposes? They seem to be pretty succesfull so far. If Hasselblad will be as innovative as Apple was, then consumers might even benefit. I think we have to wait and see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The last time I checked, Apple doesn't force you to use an Apple branded: keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, scanner, camera...

I think you see where I'm going on this one.

[michael]

The Apple analogy is complete off base. In addition to not needing to use any Apple accessories, they have been champions of open systems, including industry standards such as firewire, USB, SCSII, various card interfaces for video, and so on. They even have based OS X on Unix, which sits underneath the user interface. It doesn't get much more open than that.

Oh yes, and you can now run Windows on any new Mac.

A closed system? Hardly.

Michael

[BernardLanguillier]

The Apple analogy is complete off base. In addition to not needing to use any Apple accessories, they have been champions of open systems, including industry standards such as firewire, USB, SCSII, various card interfaces for video, and so on. They even have based OS X on Unix, which sits underneath the user interface. It doesn't get much more open than that.

Oh yes, and you can now run Windows on any new Mac.

A closed system? Hardly.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

Apple has mostly been said to be promoting a closed system approach because - as far as I know - their have always prevented competition from offering Mac OS compatible boxes.

Once you have started to buy software for Mac, you have basically no choice but to buy Apple core hardware to run the OS.

I don't really have a problem with this, because, as i wrote above, they have always been clear about this philosophy. The reaons that they have been evoking are incidently the same reasons Hassy is quoting also. "for the good of the user, we prefer to control as many key elements of the chain as possible".

My next box will most probably be a Mac Pro workstation by the way. I have only been waiting the quad core version to show up.

Regards,
Bernard

[Giedo]

he Apple analogy is complete off base.

I'm sorry if I said something wrong, but I was refering to Apple's protective format in mp3. Their Ipod is pretty much closed as far as I know for third parties. I thought that the government in France even fights Apple in court for this.

I'll just shut up and listen to Michael from now on..  

[svein]

Think it's great that someone focus on the way Hasselblad close their system. Guess it was inevitable that they would try something like this when they suddenly have their "own" backs, but let's hope it's possible to make them reverse their decision.

A bit surprised by Michael's "not a dslr" comment though. I'm not a medium format user, but I've always thought about Hasselblad as a (d)SLR. It is, and can't see why it shouldn't be called that. If you do a Google search on "medium format dslr" you'll get quite a few hits.

Also think the Apple anaolgy is quite good. They've always tried to keep their system as closed as possible.

[BernardLanguillier]

Also think the Apple anaolgy is quite good. They've always tried to keep their system as closed as possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Svein,

The key difference though, and what makes it acceptable for Apple, but completely revoltingfor Hassy, is that Hassy is closing a system that was once looking like THE opened MFDB platform.

The analogy that comes to my mind is the Russian revolution.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ysengrain]

This way to consider customers is like mafia acting.
Another way to look at this is to tease Hasselblad.
We use to say in french: "Les cons se permettent tout. C'est comme, ça qu'on les reconnait".
A possible translation could be: Assholes do anything, that's the way we know who they are.

[svein]

The key difference though, and what makes it acceptable for Apple, but completely revolting for Hassy, is that Hassy is closing a system that was once looking like THE opened MFDB platform.

Well, Apple allowed cloned Macs for a period and then ended that again. See the "Official Mac clone program" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone so I still think it's a pretty good comparision.

And like someone already mentioned they use the same type of arguments (it's better for the users).

I believe that companies must try to make money and secure their future. That's their jobs. The consumer's "job" is to choose other products if they don't agree with the business decisions. Or to speak up like Michael do, but that's not possible for most users.

[trichardlin]

A bit surprised by Michael's "not a dslr" comment though. I'm not a medium format user, but I've always thought about Hasselblad as a (d)SLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True.  The whole DSLR vs "medium format" is so film era.  What 35 mm?  What medium format?  What matter are sensor dimension, pixel count, lens mount, etc.

Nikon, Canon and most other 'DSLR' are closed system, and their high end offerings are not exactly cheap.  I don't see why Hasselblad has to be 'open.'  Also, I don't think it necessarily means that future Phase One backs won't work with H3D.  

Just my two cents.

Richard

[jcarlin]

The Apple analogy is complete off base. In addition to not needing to use any Apple accessories, they have been champions of open systems, including industry standards such as firewire, USB, SCSII, various card interfaces for video, and so on. They even have based OS X on Unix, which sits underneath the user interface. It doesn't get much more open than that.

Oh yes, and you can now run Windows on any new Mac.

A closed system? Hardly.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael

The Apple analogy is verry good.  For a long time Apple did promote closed system accessories (their old keyboard standard for example).  They have generally only gone "open" where their closed system has failed to provide performance or features.  BSD based OS X provides a number of features that where never really present in any previous version of the Mac OS.  And of course the move to the open standards based PC system is only because the competition between Intel and AMD has pushed performance of the PC so far ahead of Mac they had no choice.
The iTunes-iPod system is what I think the poster was talking about is a fantastic example, if you use iTunes you can really only use an iPod.

[trichardlin]

The more I think about it, the more I feel Hasselblad is taking a logical step in camera design.  Formats, as in traditional film size, are dead.  There are no more so-called 35 mm or medium format anymore.  The H3D is simply another DSLR comera, just like a Nikon or a Canon.   Except that its very modular.  It may not work with the current Phase One backs, but I don't see why future 3rd party backs won't work with it or future Hasselblads.  So instead of 35 mm vs medium format, the future may also have two major formats: modular body vs non-modular body.  And that's what Hasselblad is trying to tell us.  

Cameras are in the last phase of entering into the digital age.  By making its backs available for use with view cameras, Hasselblad is making an interesting move.   I hope Hasselblad succeed in what they are doing.  I'm afraid if they don't survive, the whole compact modular digital camera sector will be non-existent.  There will always a small view camera community, representing the non-compact modular camera sector.

So, what's the point of having a modular design?  In the film days, it means the ability to quickly change the type of film in mid-roll.  But that advantage is gone with being digital.  The only advantage I can see with a of a modular digital camera is a cost-effective way of upgrading the image sensor/LCD screen.  But in order for this to work, the relative cost of camera body and back has to change, so that it makes sense to keep the investment in the body and upgrade the sensor/back.  Am I making any sense?

-Richard

[michael]

Several people here seem this think that there is no reason why a Phase One or Leaf or Sinar back won't be able to be attached to the H3D. This needs an explanation.

We are not talking about physical attachment. That's easy, but only a small part of the story.

To work with a modern camera a lens or back must communicate electronically. This means two things; understanding the communication protocol and having a license to do so.

The protocal can be reverse engineered, but the license is something else. Some companies currently pay Hasseblad a license fee for attaching their backs to H cameras. Some don't, for reasons that involve legal issues which I won't go into here.

The paying of license fees is not uncommon. If one wants to make a lens to work on a Canon EF body, for example, one has to pay Canon a license fee. The issues involve patents and other types of intellectual property.

So, with the H3D and the new generation of Hasselblad lenses we have a situation where the company has decided to close the door. They have said that they will enable their backs to process the information from the lenses, but not provide interface protocols and licensing to third parties. Thus the new 28mm lens will mount on an H2 but won't produce a proper image. It requires the processing code that only an H3D and its propreitary back contains. The same applies to any future lenses which may require specialized processing to fucntion properly, and existing backs as well, which will no longer be able to read the new protocols in the H3D.

Hasselblad is always free to change their mind on this, but at the moment they have publically stated their intention to keep the new protocols closed and not to license the H3D's new interface to others.

So wishful thinking aside, it will come down to Hasselblad's oorporate decision making process, not some other company's ability to decipher protocols or build physical interfaces.

This is my understanding of the situation, based on Haselblad's public statements and discussions with some industry insiders at several companies. I believe it to be a fairly accurate reflection of the current situation. If Hasselblad would like to come forward and discuss their position on the subject openly with their customers, I would be pleased to be corrected if I have stated things inaccurately in any way.

Michael

[BernardLanguillier]

Hasselblad is always free to change their mind on this, but at the moment they have publically stated their intention to keep the new protocols closed and not to license the H3D's new interface to others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very clear Michael, thanks for the detailed write up.

This is really infuriating.

My plan to equip one day my H1 with a MFDB looks like its going down the drain. Mamiya here I come!

Regards,
Bernard

[BJL]

The best that I can say for Hasselblad's new more closed approach is that it is still posibly less closed than the "sensor in body" approach that Mamiya seems to be taking (with the ZD body), and that the coming Pentax "645 D" and all smaller digital formats take.

I agree though that the change to a more closed H system must be very annoying for those who have substantial investments in H system lenses, H system compatable backs, and such.

[JBM]

Hasselblad is clearly struggling to formulate a coherent and lucrative future for their brand, as is their obligation to their majority shareholder. I don't have ready access to unit sales, other than CIPA's export projections, but the market is clearly small enough to make any player fight hard to remain solvent. Brand penetration amongst well-heeled enthusiasts is likely insignificant compared to the adoption amongst working pros and, importantly, the academic sector (ie. photo schools, which I read recently are turning out record numbers of graduates). It isn't enough to just maintain one's market share but necessarily to make it grow beyond the current demographic. Well-crafted marketing can certainly lure current 35mm DSLR shooters toward MF and , here, Hasselblad has the acumen to succeed, excepting the current fiasco of course.

If the apparent trend takes root - controlling end to end imaging - then a vendor has the choice, and obligation, to funnel currently meagre R&D capital to where it's likely to yield the highest ROI. Or bail out as Mamiya did after failing to get the ZD to market in time.

When looking at the various links in the chain - lens, body, back, software - what disturbingly springs to mind is that software may very well be where the best R&D yields are. I could very well be wrong about this, and would rather I was quite franly, because what it logically suggest at first pass is a formula for cheaper glass and more expensive and complex computation. The so called "dumb" body might eventually share some traits with "dumb" glass - the unfortunate result of a poorly-served niche market.
It seems to me that until such time as some serious money flows into MF I expect Hasselblad to pursue even more egregious practises. There's no advocacy groups championing an "open architecture" similar to "four thirds" and even if there were it would serve little purpose if the market for MF were to remain as small as it is.
To succeed, Hasselblad would have to fatten it's margins and grow its market, putting it right in the path of 35mm DSLR.

Canon/Hasselblad/Leica vs. Nikon/Mamiya/Zeiss (circa 2020?)



I still haven't heard anything from the MAC group about Mamiya's US launch. I would bet that ZD sales to the academic sector would easily outstrip Hassie sales.

Just a thought...

JBM

[MarkKay]

Do you think it would do any good to write to Hasselblad and explain our displeasure with their decision. I know at least a few photographers who have already told me they are dumping their Hasselblad H2 gear because of the recent announcement.  Mark

Several people here seem this think that there is no reason why a Phase One or Leaf or Sinar back won't be able to be attached to the H3D. This needs an explanation.

We are not talking about physical attachment. That's easy, but only a small part of the story.

To work with a modern camera a lens or back must communicate electronically. This means two things; understanding the communication protocol and having a license to do so.

The protocal can be reverse engineered, but the license is something else. Some companies currently pay Hasseblad a license fee for attaching their backs to H cameras. Some don't, for reasons that involve legal issues which I won't go into here.

The paying of license fees is not uncommon. If one wants to make a lens to work on a Canon EF body, for example, one has to pay Canon a license fee. The issues involve patents and other types of intellectual property.

So, with the H3D and the new generation of Hasselblad lenses we have a situation where the company has decided to close the door. They have said that they will enable their backs to process the information from the lenses, but not provide interface protocols and licensing to third parties. Thus the new 28mm lens will mount on an H2 but won't produce a proper image. It requires the processing code that only an H3D and its propreitary back contains. The same applies to any future lenses which may require specialized processing to fucntion properly, and existing backs as well, which will no longer be able to read the new protocols in the H3D.

Hasselblad is always free to change their mind on this, but at the moment they have publically stated their intention to keep the new protocols closed and not to license the H3D's new interface to others.

So wishful thinking aside, it will come down to Hasselblad's oorporate decision making process, not some other company's ability to decipher protocols or build physical interfaces.

This is my understanding of the situation, based on Haselblad's public statements and discussions with some industry insiders at several companies. I believe it to be a fairly accurate reflection of the current situation. If Hasselblad would like to come forward and discuss their position on the subject openly with their customers, I would be pleased to be corrected if I have stated things inaccurately in any way.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jd1566]

Hasselblad's new product offering is a brave new approach to making and selling cameras.. They have taken their MF cameras and pushed them as far into the digital realm as possible.  The new "Full Frame" sensor will become the de-facto standard of the future, as far as MF sensors are concerned, and much like reduced-frame lenses for the DSLR's of the 35mm mold, future Hassy lenses will be made with this new standard in mind.  

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a re-play of the Canon EF lens scenario, where Canon in the mid 80's completely reinvented it's whole camera and lens system.  It worked for them (after much gnashing of teeth), so it is possible that it may work for a venerable brand like Hassy..

As for it's closed nature, being open is fine for a standard, but not fine for the companies making that standard.  Look at IBM today, the creator of the personal computer.  A company called Dell is now top dog in that market.  Hassy obviously wants to avoid the pitfall of other companies out there.

The success of their strategy hinges on three aspects -

Firstly their product offering must be top-notch in order to get existing Hassy users to dump their present (expensive) systems for this new one.

Secondly they need to avoid the sort of backlash that Nikon got caught in when they tried to encrypt part of their raw files

Thirdly, the availability of credible alternatives.  Today there are none, but the smoldering remnants of Mamiya, Contax and Pentax MF may yet be revived (like Minolta) with a shining knight coming to the rescue and injecting cash and technology.

My view is that consumers want choice, and having a single dominant solution provider is bad for consumers choice, and bad for the market.   Market bully's are not sufficiently motivated to offer innovation, and do so only when competition hots up.  Case in point is Canon's 400D which incorporates "new" technology that other makers have had for a while.. Why? Because those other manufacturers are coming up with viable alternatives to the Canon model (Sony, Pentax, Nikon etc), and Canon, previously complacent within it's own model, had to react.  Competition is good!

So ultimately I hope Hassy fails(in it's closed system), if only to allow for more choice and the possibility of interoperability of camera bits.  I still enjoy using my manual lenses from yesteryear on my 5D Canon.. I would like to hope that we can do that and more with future systems.

So Viktor, please come back and give some direction to your lot!

[Steve Kerman]

Look at IBM today, the creator of the personal computer.  A company called Dell is now top dog in that market.  Hassy obviously wants to avoid the pitfall of other companies out there.

Funny you should mention that...

A few days ago I was thinking about making a post entitled:


[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Hasselblad Announces New PS-2 with MicroChannel Architecture® Bus![/span]

IBM's attempt to lock out competition with the PS-2 and the MCA bus massively backfired, and is the primary reason IBM is now an also-ran in the IBM PC marketplace.  Corporate IT departments that had been blue for decades and previously wouldn't even consider the possibility of buying something that didn't have an IBM logo on it  were forced by IBM's arrogance to look for other alternatives that were compatible with things they had absolute requirements for being compatible with.  Once that door was opened, there was no going back.

It appears to me that Hasselblad is doing exactly the same thing.  Loyal Hassy customers who've spent $30,000 on a Leaf or Phase One back are now in the position that future Hasselblad offerings are incompatible with what they already own.  Many are going to make the decision that there are better offerings elsewhere, offerings that are much more flexible.  Had Hasselblad not locked them out, they would have remained loyal customers for many years to come.