BJL,
I'm bored and weary of this game. I suspect others are too. If you choose to post your assumptions regarding the financial and R&D relationships between Hasselblad and Fuji, have at it. If readers want to believe it based on your memory of "various items I have read including articles in photography magazines" and your "understanding", then they can believe what ever they would like to believe (as you do).
In a nutshell, what you are asking people to believe is that "Fuji is paying most or all of the R&D costs for the non-digital side of the H system" and that Fuji does nearly all of the manufacturing of the "H" system, and that despite Fuji carrying nearly all of the financial burden for R&D and manufacture, they give decision making authority to Hasselblad to discontinue the H1 and H2, replace the H2 with the more limited appeal H2F, to limit the use of the 28mm lens to the H3D and focus on selling a smaller volume of "H" systems that are integrated with Hasselblad's digital backs! Please explain the logic of this scenario! In the high-tech business world that I know, the company providing the investment, capital, resources and R&D calls the shots. With all of this investment, lead design work, R&D and Hasselblad being just a marketing device, why doesn't Fuji just sell the H1 body themselves–now that Hasselblad is no longer doing so?
In your view, Fuji pays nearly all of the costs, does all of the R&D, does all of the essential manufacturing and in return all they want is the right to sell a limited version of the system in Japan! Hey, I want to be a business partner with Fuji! You expect me to believe that they will pay all of the costs and do all of the work, while I collect the money and the brand recognition! They must not know anything about business and have business lawyers with collective brains the size of a pea!
The relationship that you have presented makes NO business sense, defies common sense and is devoid of any logic or reason. But then again, you do recall reading about in a magazine somewhere, though you are "open to the possibility of being in error on some points". What a waste of time. I'm done.
As for me, I'm NOT digging up documentation on Fuji or Hasselblad's financing, R&D or production of the "H" system. I don't have any and neither do you and never have. I have, however, visited Hasselblad facilities in Scandinavia in the course of business (NO, I've never been a Hasselblad employee), I've seen the R&D departments and talked with engineers and talked with the CEO on a few occasions (a very interesting and intelligent guy to talk to). I'm satisfied that they are a very creative, industrious and smart group of people. They are hardly sitting back and relaxing with the "H" system while Fuji pays all the bills and does all the work–despite your illogical assumptions.
Just so you can be factual in the future on at least ONE thing, despite your attachment to that DP Review article's mistake, there is NO "Hasselblad-Imacon" company. Imacon was simply folded into the umbrella of the existing Hasselblad structure and use of the Imacon name disappeared. For the record the complete and correct corporate names are: Victor Hasselblad AB (Sweden), Hasselblad A/S (Denmark) (formerly Imacon before merger), Hasselblad USA Inc., Hasselblad Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Germany), Hasselblad (UK) Ltd and Hasselblad France SAS.
Have at it. I'm done with this silly game.
