1991 - $1,900
http://www.apple-history.com/classic_ii2011 - $1,999
http://www.apple-history.com/imac_mid_11Not exactly apples to apples (sorry.....)
But technology doesn't always get better and cheaper. There's plenty of examples of that. It does usually get better, and sometimes cheaper. But if you want an all in one Mac, maybe not cheaper.
Personally, I'd like to see more MFD prices in the reach of (at least some) more photographers. I only engage in the discussion because regardless of my or anyone else's opinion, Phase One (Hasselblad, Leica, Leaf, whoever) has the right to target any part of the photographic market they wish. To be able to produce - quite good! - products for a segment that doesn't really have many other choices that offer (at least some) of the features and occupy that price range is, from a business standpoint, a very nice space to play in. As long as your products continue to sell in sufficient numbers, which they have. I do believe Phase One does strongly like making products for the photographic industry. I don't have the sense that some of those talented individuals would necessarily enjoy toiling at some other pursuit with the same gusto. Just my sense.
However, that is different from some sort of ethical obligation to provide photographic products for a certain segment of photographers (working photographers who might be able to afford just a little more than a Canon/Nikon). Phase One's primary early market segment really was working pros
who could afford their products. And they still target that segment today. The difference is that in the early days, they really only competed against film, and the cost justification for a working pro was not so difficult. Today, the cost justification is much tougher, because a working pro can get a lot done with so many cameras costing 10% or less what MFD costs. So - the competitive landscape for digital capture products changed the equation for the working pro from a cost justification standpoint. When products are being produced that cost 90% less than your technology and fulfill the requirements of most of your client base, then you have some choices to make. You can try and compete on price and operate in that lower cost space where most working pros went to. But from a competitive standpoint, what a mess. So many more competitors, and the price pressure to create a winning competitive product, but with a restricted production budget. Why would they want to? It doesn't sound like much fun to me. Another option is to create the best and most unique product they can at whatever price the market can bear (within some amount of parameter that will profitably enable enough users to purchase). That sounds like a nice gig. It sounds like a business plan that might be a good model for some (but not too many) photographers to adopt.
Apple has also been linked to particular user markets. Similarly, a big part of Apple's success drew from imaging professionals (and still does). But there has been a strong sense in recent years that Apple has "abandoned" the professional market, meaning graphics professionals. What Apple has really done instead, is to continue to leverage their innate technology to create products that convey what they are all about as a company. The market for their products is more fluid than the technology itself. And I feel Phase One operates in a similar vein.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
