Thom Hogan on declining camera sales

[kirkt]

Hopefully the ubiquity of, and user satisfaction from, the smartphone camera market will free up the camera makers to shed all of the useless crap from some of their top-level "professional" dSLRs so someone who is interested in photography can have a tool that is meant for photography.  Please remove useless controls on important dials, let JPEGs go to pasture (or at least offer the option to completely disable all of the JPEG-related options and menu items) and emphasize raw image acquisition, reassign printing from camera and other buttons that could be given more useful roles by the user, etc.  Please include a streamlined menu system, a raw histogram, unlimited bracketing, intervalometer, etc.  Thankfully, as a Canon user, the Magic Lantern Project has partially reclaimed the dSLR for photographers in this regard - in fact, it demonstrates what a dSLR could be if Canon gave priority to photographers who use the camera as a creative tool.  Strip out the bloat, cut the fat and redefine photography for digital users based on the working assumption that digital photography has changed in the last 10 years.  These changes don't need to be applied across all models, but please, define a level of camera that removes distraction and unnecessary "features" and adds important functionality for a modern digital workflow.

I am obviously being extremely picky, but this shift in the market seems like an opportunity for camera manufacturers to let go of the feeling of obligation to please everyone all the time and concentrate on meaningful innovation, especially for its long-time users.  Of course, I can only imagine that some marketing strategist is noting the small the fraction of users that would like this approach in comparison to the gazillions of potential users that would like a slim, wifi and cell-enabled P&S that has a Facebook browser built into it and comes in 8 colors with cute names.  Such is life and I realize that my 5DIII with Magic Lantern is good enough.

kirk

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

^^^ Amen, brother!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm...

Because there are two types of people, those for whom "less is less" and those for whom "less is MORE"?

[Misirlou]

Umm... for me it is more so I can build a map of where shots were taken, and be able to easily revisit a location if needed/desired. That said, few of mine are geo-tagged (seriously, Olympus needs to add it to their cameras...). You can always stirp the exif data before posting online if you want, but you can't magically create it if you never had it.

There are some other benefits as well. When the camera is synced to GPS time, you never have to worry about updating the clock when you change time zones. Keeps your EXIF cleaner for sequencing purposes. I imagine that would be very helpful for the guy who shoots high school yearbook shots in the park across from my house. The biggest problem he has is making sure he can tie each shot to the correct individual for ordering, uploading, etc. If you're trying to manage that with multiple cameras, accurate time is a big help.

Personally, I wish I had accurate times and locations for the many thousands of shots I took in the film days. I always geocode now when I can. And if you don't want it, you just turn it off.

[kirkt]

Interesting article that serendipitously appeared in a feed of mine, sort of relevant to the topic:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/feb/03/instagram-generation-amateur-photographers-art-plagiarism

kirk

[BJL]

Because there are two types of people, those for whom "less is less" and those for whom "less is MORE"?

Slobodan,
    I am well aware of that slogan "less is more"; but also note that it is often thrown out in the absence of actual concrete arguments relevant to the situation at hand, in order to support an irrational, sometimes puritanical mindset -- especially when the proposed "less" simultaneously makes products less capable and more expensive.

So do you have any rational arguments or evidence on the particular subject of the evil of offering GPS support to those who have a good use for it?

Kirk instead offers some reasoning:

... shed all of the useless crap from some of their top-level "professional" dSLRs so someone who is interested in photography can have a tool that is meant for photography.  Please remove useless controls on important dials, ... (... offer the option to completely disable all of the JPEG-related options and menu items) and emphasize raw image acquisition, reassign printing from camera and other buttons that could be given more useful roles by the user, etc. ...

In the case of GPS, the claim of "useless" sits poorly with the number competent photographers who have stated a use for geotagging, so let's not equate "of no use to _me_" with "useless crap that does not belong on any professional camera".  However, I do heartily agree that prominent buttons and dials should not be permanently wasted on functions that a good number of users rarely or never want, and so I like the solution that Olympus for example often uses: all but the most universally important functions are on programmable buttons (like "video record" becoming "activate manual focus" or "set white balance" or just "inactive").  An idea inspired by the Olympus E-2: have just a couple dials with core functions, and then have programmable (and deactivatable) buttons that when pressed turn the dials into the control for the more exotic setting assigned to that button.

One frontier (where Olympus is instead not so good) is reconfigurable menus, allowing each user to put the stuff that is used often readily at hand while burying the rest -- as with the "other ..." menu so common on phone apps, where minimizing interface clutter is far more advanced than in most digital camera design.

[kirkt]

Kirk instead offers some reasoning:In the case of GPS, the claim of "useless" sits poorly with the number competent photographers who have stated a use for geotagging, so let's not equate "of no use to _me_" with "useless crap that does not belong on any professional camera".  However, I do heartily agree that prominent buttons and dials should not be permanently wasted on functions that a good number of users rarely or never want, and so I like the solution that Olympus for example often uses: all but the most universally important functions are on programmable buttons (like "video record" becoming "activate manual focus" or "set white balance" or just "inactive").  An idea inspired by the Olympus E-2: have just a couple dials with core functions, and then have programmable (and deactivatable) buttons that when pressed turn the dials into the control for the more exotic setting assigned to that button.

One frontier (where Olympus is instead not so good) is reconfigurable menus, allowing each user to put the stuff that is used often readily at hand while burying the rest -- as with the "other ..." menu so common on phone apps, where minimizing interface clutter is far more advanced than in most digital camera design.

I think you may have conflated my grouchiness with the discussion of GPS, which I made no mention of in my post.  That said, I have never considered it necessary enough to think about buying a camera that has it, so maybe I do not know what I am missing.

If you like GPS, more power to you.  If your camera does not have it, you can carry a GPS unit around with you and insert geo-tagging after the fact, synchronizing your GPS breadcrumb with your images via time.  In other words, GPS might be useful, but it is not necessary to have built-in to the camera (forensic or other validation-specific tasks or applications notwithstanding).  Using an external GPS also takes the battery load off of the camera.  With an actual GPS unit you can even navigate to your destination and find your way back if you get lost.

For example:

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps

since there are many Lightroom users here.  Jeffrey Friedl is apparently really into geo-encoding his images, as the initial part of the tracklog description notes:

The Tracklog Tab

Lightroom has tracklog support built in, but this plugin's tracklog support is far superior:

In addition to the latitude and longitude, this plugin actually fills in the altitude from the tracklog, which Lightroom's built-in support inexplicably ignores.
The plugin adds “speed” and “bearing” metadata to each image.
The plugin can automatically add map links (to a variety of online mapping services) to the metadata for each image, easily accessible via Library's “Metadata” panel (especially if you use my metadata-viewer preset builder to include the map link in the default metadata view Lightroom shows for each photo).
This plugin can handle multiple tracklogs at once.
This plugin has no built-in limit on the size of the tracklogs.
The plugin can handle almost any kind of tracklog format (not just GPX like Lightroom's built-in support) via automatic conversion with gpsbabel. The plugin also has built-in support for the incorrectly-formatted tracklog files produced by some popular phone location-tracking apps.
The handling of timezone offset is clear and actually works.
You can easily compensate for a camera clock that was off a bit.
You control the “fuzziness” for how close in time a photo can be affected by a tracklog data point.
You can easily view the tracklog in Google Earth.
You can automatically apply custom reverse-geoencode data as you apply the tracklog, so (for example) a photo taken at a park you frequent automatically gets the name of the park filled in to the “location” metadata item, as well as the city/state/country metadata items.
This plugin supported tracklog geoencoding for years before Lightroom supported any kind of geoencoding. (I've geoencoded all my photos with it since 2008; Lightroom didn't get built-in geoencoding until 2012.) The passion and care I have for geoencoding comes out in the many features this plugin has.

kirk

[BJL]

If your camera does not have it, you can carry a GPS unit around with you and insert geo-tagging after the fact, synchronizing your GPS breadcrumb with your images via time.  In other words, GPS might be useful, but it is not necessary to have built-in to the camera (forensic or other validation-specific tasks or applications notwithstanding).

I know you were not arguing against in-camera GPS specifically, that was just the specifically example at hand.

Syncing GPS data after the fact seems like something that many people would legitimately prefer to avoid.  However I agree that an external device might handle it, if it is wireless enable device like a phone that the camera can ask for GPS information and add to the image metadata without need for later effort by the user.  Wireless connectivity (maybe Bluetooth low-energy for its minimal effect on battery life) plus a decent software environment in cameras might address many of Thom Hogan's wishes with negligible hardware effect on the camera itself.

[kirkt]

I know you were not arguing against in-camera GPS specifically, that was just the specifically example at hand.

Syncing GPS data after the fact seems like something that many people would legitimately prefer to avoid.  However I agree that an external device might handle it, if it is wireless enable device like a phone that the camera can ask for GPS information and add to the image metadata without need for later effort by the user.  Wireless connectivity (maybe Bluetooth low-energy for its minimal effect on battery life) plus a decent software environment in cameras might address many of Thom Hogan's wishes with negligible hardware effect on the camera itself.

I think making the camera able to communicate with external devices in an SDK-supported way will have to be one tine in the fork of innovation.  For exactly the kind of interconnected access that you proposed.  I am not sure why geo-encoding after the fact is a big dilemma, but, again, I do not use it, so forgive my ignorance.

kirk

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,
    I am well aware of that slogan "less is more"; but also note that it is often thrown out in the absence of actual concrete arguments relevant to the situation at hand, in order to support an irrational, sometimes puritanical mindset -- especially when the proposed "less" simultaneously makes products less capable and more expensive.

So do you have any rational arguments or evidence on the particular subject of the evil of offering GPS support to those who have a good use for it?

Kirk instead offers some reasoning...

Well, in the spirit of less-is-more, I refrained from elaborating

Anyone who belongs to the less-is-more tribe, intuitively understand the arguments for, without the need to enumerate them. Besides, Kirk did offer some reasoning, rather eloquently, I and wholeheartedly agreed before posting my "slogan."

However, if you insist...

I believe that people should have the freedom of choice. So, if some find it useful (and I am not just talking about GPS), so be it, let them have it, but let me have my choice as well:

1. Either the same model as the crowd wants, but stripped down to bare essentials, i.e., no GPS, no damn video, no "creative" modes, no "art" filters, no direct-print button (oh, the horror of horrors), not Super Bowl light show in the viewfinder. The simpler it is, the less I have to think about it instead of what's in front of it. I would be even willing to pay a small premium for it, the likes of what Nikon charges to remove its OLP filter in 800e.

2. Or, as a minimum, let me remove all the unused menu items myself, so that I do not have to wade through the clutter of multi-level menus every time I need to adjust something

The ignoring argument: I can't ignore something that is permanently in front of me and clutters the dials or menus. Imagine that crowd wants to have a bobbing head permanently attached to new car's dashboard... would you be able to ignore it? I can't just ignore something on the menus that forces me to use the skip button repeatedly to get to the one I want. A plethora of menu options makes it more difficult to remember where are those that matter to me the most. Yes, I am aware of the "My Menu" option on many camera models, but they are typically limited to 5-6 options.

The cost argument: I am frankly impressed by your pretzel-twisted logical spinning, in which extra features do not result in extra cost, but in a cheaper product. What!?

The battery argument: GPS drains it, period. You say just switch the battery... during my amateur years, I never had the need for extra batteries. They are expensive, they need to be recharged, packed, etc., i.e., one more thing to worry about. I bought one when I started shooting professionally. And even then, switching it is not as simple as it seems. Certain camera models require to take them off tripod to do so. And it might happen just when I do not have those extra few minutes to fiddle with it. So, anything that reduces battery drain is welcome in my book.

Now, there are certain features that are not traditionally photographic that I do welcome: wi-fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity with my phone. Phones are  always with us, and they have much better maps and GPS functions than cameras anyway. Or, if you really go into a deep wilderness, a separate GPS is much more useful and potentially life-saving. Connecting with a phone also allows for remote shooting.

Modern cameras are more like jumbo-jet cockpits: millions of blinking lights, instruments, needles, buttons, levers, handles, etc. It seems to me that some photographers confuse fiddling with it with photography.

[BJL]

Slobodan,

Since I agree with some of your points let me focus mostly on them.

1. I too am happy to be free of features that get in the way, like a Direct Print (or video) button that cannot be reassigned to another use, and as I mentioned already, I would love a configurable menu system that lets me bury items that I rarely or never need.  But if that hiding/reassigning option is done right, this decluttering should not require having a separate stripped-down model, and running a second model for a smaller market could very well increase prices, due to lower sales volume, worse economies of scale etc.  The cost benefits of economies of scale are hardly "pretzel logic".  (As a possible example, the Nikon Df costs more than the Nikon D750, by far more than the cost of the shiny old-school knobs on top.)

2. ... so I like your option 2.

3. "Wi-fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity with my phone" sounds good to me too.


But please drop this "GPS drains batteries argument"; it has already been mentioned that a feature like this can be turned off if and when not needed!

[Ray]

The problem of falling DSLR sales is a general economic problem related to the requirements for continuous economic growth. Most people don't buy stuff because they need it. They buy stuff because it's 'cool', or fun, or enhances their status in the eyes of their friends.

This applies to all products. If products were manufactured with durability in mind, the economy would soon collapse. The car industry is one obvious example. We've all heard of that Henry Ford quote when he asked his engineers what part of the car never fails . The answer was 'the drive shaft'. Henry Ford's response was, 'Make it less strong'.

The clothing industry is another example. Modern technology is able to produce fabrics which will last a lifetime, excluding accidents which might tear the fabric. My own shirts and shorts are in this category.
Without a large percentage of the population motivated by concerns for fashion and appearances, the clothing industry would be in trouble.

On my recent travels in SE Asia, including Angor Wat in Cambodia which is completely over-run with Chinese tourists, I was amazed to see the proliferation of the 'selfie stick'. This is a device like a short walking stick which allows one to place one's iphone at a greater distance than arm's length, so one can photograph oneself and partner in front of any background.

My overall impression is that the vast majority of people with cameras are mainly interested in photographing themselves, wherever they may be. Vanity prevails.

I think there's a relatively small percentage of us who are motivated by fundamental image quality, and who get pleasure from processing RAW images in Photoshop to our individual taste

[dwswager]

The problem of falling DSLR sales is a general economic problem related to the requirements for continuous economic growth. Most people don't buy stuff because they need it. They buy stuff because it's 'cool', or fun, or enhances their status in the eyes of their friends.

This applies to all products. If products were manufactured with durability in mind, the economy would soon collapse. The car industry is one obvious example. We've all heard of that Henry Ford quote when he asked his engineers what part of the car never fails . The answer was 'the drive shaft'. Henry Ford's response was, 'Make it less strong'.

This is a fallacy. You were more correct in the 1st paragraph.  First, there are essential and discretionary spending.  There are also durable and non-durable goods.     Once a person's wages exceed his basic needs, it his then his discretion to save, invest or spend the remainder of his income.

For example, most people do not run the wheels off their cars.  They sell them off and buy new at intervals shorter than the need and that interval is determined by personal preference and discretionary income.  Higher income people tend to turn their cars over more quickly.

For some, upgrading cameras is a based on value.  For a professional, they may have perfectly working cameras, but they perceive value and payback in the upgrade in some manner.  It might be more DR, Higher MP, reliability, etc.  For non-professionals, cameras are purely a discretionary purchase.  For us, there must be something to entice us to upgrade AND we must have the discretionary funds to do so.  In addition, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, all which has been fostered, at least in the US, by our political administration, plays.  I may have the money now, but if I am uncertain of my future, I may hold on to it.

I would argue that a lot of discretionary spending has been curtailed for 2 reasons.  Wage stagnation and unemployment is a real problem.  People in the top 20 percent are doing pretty well, but the rest of the country have been stagnating.  The 2nd is real inflation.  The Government removed food and energy from the inflation numbers and those two items have seen, until recently tremendous inflation.  5 years ago, ground chuck was $2/lb.  Today it is $4/lb.  At least falling gasoline prices should help free up more discretionary spending.

[Misirlou]

In the film days, I tended to buy my more "serious" cameras used. I never once bought a new 4X5 or MF camera for example. So the pros who had bought those cameras new must have had good reasons, but also some idea in their minds that they could recover a good portion of the price if they sold them on later.

With digital, things are different. I still have my first digital camera, because it became completely obsolete (worthless) in a very short time. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think and research very hard before buying any new digital equipment, because I know I'll never be able to recover my investment later. I'm on my 3rd DSLR in 11 years, and if anything, I'll probably keep using the current one longer than the previous two. I can make the prints I need with it just the way it is, and it's hard to imagine needing more than that any time soon.

When I read about people switching brands because of incremental improvements, I always want to know where I can find the market where they're selling the slightly older stuff.

[scooby70]

My overall impression is that the vast majority of people with cameras are mainly interested in photographing themselves, wherever they may be. Vanity prevails.

I think there's a relatively small percentage of us who are motivated by fundamental image quality, and who get pleasure from processing RAW images in Photoshop to our individual taste

What tosh. Is it at all possible that people aren't vain but simply want a picture of themselves on holiday? Perish the thought...

I was taking a picture of my girlfriend in the local park when a woman came up to us and asked if I'd like her to take a picture of us both... getting someone else to take a picture is one answer and the other is to take a selfie and neither option necessarily involves vanity.

I'm not so sure about your last comment either as I'm pretty sure it's possible to like or even love JPEG's and hate wasting your life in from of a computer running PS. That may not be your view but it's a valid one and maybe not just amongst Fuji owners.

[Ray]

This is a fallacy. You were more correct in the 1st paragraph.  First, there are essential and discretionary spending.  There are also durable and non-durable goods.  Once a person's wages exceed his basic needs, it his then his discretion to save, invest or spend the remainder of his income.

For example, most people do not run the wheels off their cars.  They sell them off and buy new at intervals shorter than the need and that interval is determined by personal preference and discretionary income.  Higher income people tend to turn their cars over more quickly.

This is not quite correct. There are goods which are durable by their nature and some which are unavoidably 'not durable' by their nature, such as food.

When a manufacturer designs and engineers a product, a decision is always made regarding the intended durability of the product. I recall a revealing comment from a documentary I watched some time ago, relating to this subject. Apparently, the early manufacturers of the electric light bulb were very concerned about this issue of durability. Initially, there would have been a great lack of durability. However, after technological advances, such as the invention of the tungsten filament, and a general drive towards a more durable product, the board members of the major manufacturer of electric light bulbs at the time(can't remember the details) issued directives that the light bulbs should not be made 'too' durable, because this would affect future sales.

The same principle applies to the automotive industry, as expressed in the Henry Ford quote. Ideally, car manufacturers would like their customers to trade in their car for a new one every year, which is why they often introduce new models which have little improvement over older models, but just look a bit different. They have no incentive to produce durable cars that don't begin to disintegrate after the first 100,000 kms, but they could, technologically, if they had the economic incentive. Such a car might cost a bit more initially, but not nearly as much as the cost of a new car every 5 years or so.

Digital cameras are in the same category as computers. The driving force for new sales is an increase in performance coupled with a decrease in price. The increase in performance and the decrease in price over the past 15 years or so, has been staggering. Every DSLR I've bought, the first one about 12 years ago, has had a significant leap in performance over the previous model I owned.

As others have mentioned, we seem to have reached a plateau of technological improvement regarding the DSLR. I'm very satisfied with my Nikon D800E and have little incentive to buy a D810 for what appears to me to be rather minor improvements. However, if Nikon's next model were a 54mp full-frame with BSI sensor, had an additional full stop of SNR and DR at all ISOs, had 4K video capability including the facility to select individual video frames in RAW mode, and a LiveView system which worked like Canon's, I'd buy the camera in a shot, if the price were right. 

[Ray]

What tosh. Is it at all possible that people aren't vain but simply want a picture of themselves on holiday? Perish the thought...

I was taking a picture of my girlfriend in the local park when a woman came up to us and asked if I'd like her to take a picture of us both... getting someone else to take a picture is one answer and the other is to take a selfie and neither option necessarily involves vanity.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. A picture of oneself on holiday is not necessarily vain, or even 2 or 3 or 4 pictures of oneself. However, the selfie stick is designed to facilitate only taking photos of oneself. Many tourists nowadays walk around with their iPhone continuously attached to such a stick. Most of the photos they take, and the impression I get is that sometimes it might be all of the photos they take, seem to be of themselves. Rarely do I see someone photographing just the place they've traveled to visit.

There seems to be a general ethos among the majority of people taking photos nowadays, that any place worth visiting is not worth photographing unless the scene includes themselves, sometimes obscuring the most interesting part of the scene.

I'm not so sure about your last comment either as I'm pretty sure it's possible to like or even love JPEG's and hate wasting your life in from of a computer running PS. That may not be your view but it's a valid one and maybe not just amongst Fuji owners.

I agree completely. If you're not really interested in photography, jpegs are definitely the way to go. Only those with an artistic streak would bother processing RAW files. Sitting in front of a computer, adjusting the contrast of an image, raising black levels, recovering detail in the sky and so on, is akin to sitting in front of a canvas and painting a picture. Not for everyone.

Of course, there are also good practical reasons for using jpegs. They're easier to transmit over the internet, ideal for the journalistic photographer, and great for those whose main interest is sharing images of themselves. It would be a complete waste of time taking a RAW selfie. 

[dwswager]

Digital cameras are in the same category as computers. The driving force for new sales is an increase in performance coupled with a decrease in price. The increase in performance and the decrease in price over the past 15 years or so, has been staggering. Every DSLR I've bought, the first one about 12 years ago, has had a significant leap in performance over the previous model I owned.

I agree.  Who would want to shoot with a Nikon D1?  And is was like $7000.  There were always 2 levels we were looking for.  The first was image quality of film.  For 35mm we passed that in MP terms at about 10MP.  The next level is GOOD ENOUGH.  That varies for everyone, but I think the D750 and D810 pretty much hit this point.

As others have mentioned, we seem to have reached a plateau of technological improvement regarding the DSLR. I'm very satisfied with my Nikon D800E and have little incentive to buy a D810 for what appears to me to be rather minor improvements. However, if Nikon's next model were a 54mp full-frame with BSI sensor, had an additional full stop of SNR and DR at all ISOs, had 4K video capability including the facility to select individual video frames in RAW mode, and a LiveView system which worked like Canon's, I'd buy the camera in a shot, if the price were right. 

I will disagree here.  The D810 is a whole different camera than the D800e.  First, it does not have the OLPF.  The D800e has the effect of the OLPF filtered back out.  In addition there are probably 50 upgrades in the camera.  If you only use this camera in a methodical manner like landscape shooting, then yeah, there isn't all that much there.  But if you use it as a general purpose camera, then the D810 is a standout while the D800 would be merely acceptable.

[Ray]

I will disagree here.  The D810 is a whole different camera than the D800e.  First, it does not have the OLPF.  The D800e has the effect of the OLPF filtered back out.  In addition there are probably 50 upgrades in the camera.  If you only use this camera in a methodical manner like landscape shooting, then yeah, there isn't all that much there.  But if you use it as a general purpose camera, then the D810 is a standout while the D800 would be merely acceptable.

Did you upgraded from a D800 (or D800E) to a D810?

I upgraded from a 12mp D700 to the 800E. The main reason I chose the D800E instead of the cheaper D800 was not because I was particularly impressed with the subtle increase in resolution of the D800E, compared with the D800, but simply because the D800E, at the time, was less popular and therefore available for immediate purchase. The D800 was on a long waiting list.

I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous to introduce an AA filter, then include a second filter to undo the effects of the first filter, and I would expect that the double filter would result in some slight reduction in the full benefits of a sensor with no AA filter at all.

However, I wouldn't expect the resolution differences between the D800E and the D810 to be greater, or even as great as the resolution differences between the D800 and the D800E.

As regards the other upgrades in the D810, are they not all relatively trivial? A slight increase in continuous frame rate is of little consequence for me. I shoot in manual mode using a single focusing square, constantly adjusting aperture and shutter speed to suit the occasion. I'd be interested in hearing what upgrades, out of those 50 you mention, you consider significant.

[jjj]

So long as you can turn GPS off if/when you do not need it, why are you bothered by the fact that sone other people like a convenient record of where they took a photo?

I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm.  Especially when adding such a feature (like video in a CMOS camera) has a favorable ratio of popular appeal to cost, so that its presence is likely to move the camera to a higher volume, lower margin, lower price point, benefiting even those who do not use the feature.

Indeed.
Selfishness and a complete lack of empathy combined with a dash of stupidity make up many posts online. So numpties moaning about 'bloat' when they really mean features that they do not use even though they are extremely useful to others are sadly all too prevalent.