Originally Posted by Chronoptimist
With 140 million sales in 2010, the camera market isn't that small.
The digital SLR market is small, sir. The vast, vast, vast majority of digital cameras are not digital SLRs. And, by the way, Sony has competing in digital cameras since the beginning of the digital camera era. But let's focus on those SLRs for a second.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ra-models.htmlhttp://www.1001noisycameras.com/2011...are-yir-6.html
"In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data."
So in the 5 years you claim Sony has been focusing on the DSLR market, they have grabbed a stunning
12 percent share. (In all digicams, Sony sits at #2 with a 17.9 percent share.)
Impressed? Well consider this.....http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a1tNArNUlcUU
"Aug. 24, 2006 (Bloomberg) -- Sony Corp., the world's second- biggest consumer electronics maker, won more than a fifth of Japan's digital single-lens reflex camera market in its debut month, claiming third place after Canon Inc. and Nikon Corp., a market researcher said."
And from August 2010:
"Furthermore, Sony enjoys around 20% market share in the SLR Japanese market in August 2010."
So in the first 4 years in Japan, they gained... zero share!
Just to be clear, I failed at Google-ing an accurate figure for 2010 DSLR sales, but it appears to be ~11 million.http://bythom.com/2010predictions.htm
So 5 years, 12% share, and this is helping Sony sell an amazing total of about 1.5 million cameras per year. It's a nice, little business that doesn't probably amount to $1 billion on their income statement.
Integrated GPUs are still useless for just about anything other than 2D content.
Anandtech and everyone else disagrees with you. Running at lower settings they can play modern games just fine. Discrete GPUs are much better and are totally required for serious gamers. Serious gamers represent ~1% of the market.
Notebooks are moving towards smaller and lighter form-factors that rely on the integrated GPUs. The CPU power is still relatively good in machines like the MacBook Air, but the GPU is useless. Even if you aren't playing games, GPUs are used for many other tasks these days now with their compute abilities.
I use a Macbook Air. I also have an integrated GPU HTPC. I also know a fair amount about GPU co-processing. The vast, vast majority of computers are built without a discrete GPU. And guess what? The percentage is rising
. Plus, if Intel is to be believed, Ivy Bridge will add another 50+% to graphics performance.
With an external GPU, something like the MacBook Air could replace the need for a desktop machine to get more demanding tasks done for a lot of people.
Guess what? Without it, it's already replacing the desktop machine. You are caught in John C. Dvorak's 1990s vision of computing, where everyone needs giant amounts of processing power. News flash: Almost no one does. Oh, also, Apple makes Macbook Pros with discrete GPUs that are equivalent to desktop cards from 2009 or so. Those meet the needs of about 80-90% of the people who "need" a GPU. And none of those GPUs in Macbook Airs (or HP Envys, or Toshiba Qosmios) are built into docking stations. Sony's solution is desperately searching for a problem.
Broadcast or not, they're still the only company putting out OLED displays of that size.
Yes, and that's the only product on their OLED roadmap. It's not a consumer product. It's not being fabbed on a line that allows them to convert it into a commercial product. They have no announced or speculated-on plans to be in the OLED panel business for TV. It would take 2-3 years from now to change their mind if they chose to and had the capital to
. They don't have the capital. They also don't have a TFT line to convert to IGZO and use for substrates.
LCoS is still big in projection, both in the consumer and professional markets. RPTVs are a dead market. (and never took off outside USA)
Yes, Sony backed yet another dead end -- projection TV -- and blew up manufacturing both plasma and LCD. Good move, forward thinking. LCoS is "big" in projection if you mean "dwarfed by like 50:1 by DLP". If that's your definition of big then yes, it's big. It has 0% share in office projection, 0% share in education/corporate, 0% share in the low end, some share in home theater (much less than DLP), some share in commercial theater (less than DLP).
Consoles are going away, GPUs are dead? Gaming is a pretty big market that isn't just going to disappear.
Funny, I don't recall suggesting gaming was going away. Again, your arguments would be persuasive if you paid attention to the market. Here are the facts from reality on the sad state of discrete GPUs. For example:http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic..._Analysts.htmlhttp://www.guru3d.com/news/nvidia-st...te-gpu-market/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphic...ics_Cards.html
"Jon Peddie Research's report also suggests the discrete GPU market as a whole is shrinking. Discrete graphics shipments slipped from 19.01 million units in the first quarter to 16.1 million in the second, and JPR expects total revenue from discrete graphics to be 33% lower this year than the last. JPR blames increasingly speedy integrated graphics, specifically those built into AMD's and Intel's latest CPUs, for the shift."
"Advanced Micro Devices has admitted inevitable: the decease of the market of graphics processing units as a result of high-performance offered by accelerated processing units (APUs) with built-in graphics engines. In the long run, parts of [graphics cards] business will be cannibalized and the low-end discrete GPUs will be replaced with Fusion-type products."
I'd call 33% lower revenue a market in free fall. What do you think is going to happen next year when Ivy Bridge comes out and the successors to Llano are out at AMD (I forget the code name)? Hint: It ain't going to cause people to want more discrete GPUs.
And your theory that most people can use a GPU, whatever merit is has, is pretty much ignored at AMD and Intel. They are basically both saying: High end GPUs? Sure, if you need 'em. Otherwise, we have you covered. The market agrees.
"I never said to "bet on Sony" but Sony have been driving innovation in the display markets for decades and whether they're successful or not is immaterial."
No, this is just false. False false false. Sony drove innovation with the Trinitron. They did not drive innovation with RPTV. They did not drive innovation with microdisplay RPTV (see below on Qualia). They did not drive innovation on flat panels of either type. They had a couple of really nice products. So did Optoma. We don't call them a "driver of the industry". And it's not immaterial. By the same logic, you ought to credit Toshiba for its foolish SED venture and its more foolish attempt to win with HD-DVD. Gee, they tried! Toshiba will be gone from the CE landscape soon. Many believe Sony won't survive the decade at current rates.
The Qualia line may have failed, but they were the best displays you could buy if you had the money, and that technology trickled down into consumer displays a few years later.
OK, this is ridiculous. By the time the RPTVs were out, DLP already owned the RPTV market and said market was dying to flat panels, which Sony punted on. By the time Sony had an affordable LED-backlit LCD, everyone did. Sony has had some nice LCDs. Until recently, with the HX929, I don't recall anyone thinking they had an industry-leading product in flat panels. And before they could even ship the HX929 65" flagship, Sharp outflanked them with a set this is bigger and apparently at least as good / comparable / possibly better.
They may only have larger OLED screens in the broadcast market right now, but it's more than anyone else has and it seems better for them to start out proving they can make high quality OLED displays than focusing on making them as cheaply as possible. (obviously getting the cost down is important for mass-market adoption though)
That'd be relevant if they intended to do anything with their lead like build an 8G fab and make TVs. They don't have any intention of doing that. So who cares? There's a guy who can make D/IF synthetic white diamonds. He doesn't actually do it. Instead he makes yellows. The fact that he can make the valuable whites is irrelevant. Sony can't actually make OLED TVs even though it can make the equivalent of a few of those white D/IF diamonds.
(By the way, the diamond guy doesn't do it because DeBeers and the other diamond cartels would shoot him dead. Or his family. Or his partners and their families. Sony's problem is different. They lack any ambition to actually own the next generation of flat panels. And they lack the capital to do anything about that lack of ambition.)
Let me say, every round of this, I cite facts, data, etc. to back up my points. You then make sweeping, opinionated claims that the facts actually demonstrate are false or -- in the best case -- are merely unsupported. I'm getting fatigued so at some point, you'll get the last word. Please don't interpret that as me agreeing with you.