On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 09:03:37 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02..._device_fails/

Very interesting.

I was about to post more but I was interupted and poxstponed the
effort.

What I found so interesting about this was the way in which Apple has
consistently aimed at being a high achiever and have got there inspite
of the occasional failures which are the subject of this URL. I can
think of other companies which have followed different policies and
achieved differently: MSFT, IBM, Nokia, Kodak, - even Sony. There are
many others.

The moral can be summarised as, if you want to achieve high, you have
to aim high and learn to survive the inevitable failures. And that
includes pricing and profit margins. The path followed by Apple is
almost unique.

What prompted me along this line of thought is general puzzlement
about what Nikon is up to. It has produced some industry leading
technology - high density sensors, sensors sans anti-aliasing filters
etc. Unlike Apple, while there is the new D4s at an eye-wateringly
high price a lot of new cameras have come on to the market at a
remarkably low price e.g. the D5300.

It maybe that Apple has been able to take advantage of design/styling
to hold their prices up, while in the main Nikon has not been able to.
After all one camera tends to look much like another. Unless I get
really close I often find I have to read the name on the front to tell
a Nikon from a Canon. Maybe this is why Nikon has brought out the Df.
Is it signs of an attempt to break out of a rut?

Nikon does not seem to be able to emulate Apple so maybe Apple will
remain unique in it's approach to becoming the market leader.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens