I've been bitching and moaning about the poor screen on the P backs for years. The new screens on the Plus backs were a minor improvement at best.
Whenever I've raised the issue with Phase management or engineers what I'm told is that the problem is both heat and battery life. The larger and brighter the screen the more heat it generates and the greater its effect on image quality. Also, the larger and brighter the screen the more battery drain, and Phase backs are already battery vampires.
It would seem to me that the new OLED screens would address both issues, but who knows? There may be sourcing and supply issues, or technical ones which we are not aware of.
Speaking more generally, it amazes me when people think that camera companies are not aware of what their customers are saying. Maybe in the case of the Japanese companies they are a bit more insular, but I know that their European and American management make sure regularly that the factories know what their customers are saying.
In the case of companies like Phase One, and the others like Sinar and Leaf and Hasselblad, their management is VERY aware of what is being said by their dealers and customers, as well as on forums such as this.
But knowing that you have a shitty screen isn't enough. You then have to solve the supply, manufacturing and technical issues. Sometimes there are factors involved which we as simple users are not aware of. In previous lives I've run medium to large high-tech companies (two of them public) and am well aware of the push / pull that these factors exert on management and engineering. Things aren't always the way that they appear from the outside.
And as for the pricing issue, which Bernard has been harping on, all I can say is that Phase One is owned and run by its management team. There's no outside board, and no mega-corporation behind the scenes and who might have other agendas calling the shots. One can only assume that Phase, like other management owned and run companies, are driven by the desire to succeed, which means making the best products that they can and subsequently making the most money that they can for their shareholders (themselves). If that means selling a product at a price which seems to high to some, then there obviously is a reason for this. Spreadsheet jockeying is easy. One can make assumptions about sales volumes, material and manufacturing costs and decide how best to price a product.
As potential consumers we can then decide whether or not the price / value relationship works for us or not. But to assume that the people that make these decisions are stupid is to miss the point. They're not. The just have taken the factors available to them and made certain (hard) decisions.
Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. It's as easy as that, or as hard as that, because sometimes making what turns out to be the best decision isn't always easy. A good case in point is one that I've harped on for the past two years in which a certain camera company made a product / marketing decision which I found at fault, and I've said so publicly on more than one occasion. Am I right and their management wrong? We don't know yet. But in any event, if they're right or wrong their jobs and livelihoods depend on it, not to mention their shareholders interests. If I turn out to be right or wrong I simply smile, or say mea culpa, depending on the result.
Being a pundit vs being a manager is a bit like the situation at the breakfast table for the pig and the chicken.
The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. In this case we're the chickens – interested, but not as commited as the pigs.
Michael
