dun dun dun duuuuun....

Nokia Predicts Death of Music Industry

Nokia Also Predicts Nokia Will Rule The World in 10 Years

I see some market share going to the camera/mp3/game phones but just not enough to kill off entire industries. Even the shape of these devices is aimed at making them easier to use. For example, I don't want to use my phone for video because it is awkward to use like that, even if the quality is just as good. Same thing for the camera. My digital camera has a beefy flash a big battery a 12x zoom (read Big lens) and a shape that fits my hands just right. You cannot get that in a phone unless it is shaped like my camera. I am never going to wear something that size on my belt. My mp3 player will mount in my car...but I don't want to buy another phone just so I can leave it in the car.

I agree with the other posters, the Nokia dude is smokin some bad weed.

Oh yeah, the camera business is dead alright, that's why my brother just spent $700 on an Olympus E20N, and I just got an HP Photosmart M22. What about Camera phones? 2 1/2 Pixel resolution? hey, I think I can make out an eyeball in one of those pictures! The hell with camera phones.

EdenAdore You made some interesting comments about your RAZR phone. You said you have issues with response times etc with your RAZR.
Recent firmware updates and indeed modified firmware has "fixed" some of these features. A good source of information to modify your Motorola phone can be found here : http://www.planetmotox.net/
I have a "Music Handset" with a 2mp camera. A motorola V3x with a 512mb transflash from 3 Mobile in Aust. The phone is fantastic now but wasn't allways that way. Thanks to 3 some of the features of the phone are crippled including bluetooth implimentation.
Pitiful battery life, delays in response times locked menu items are just a few of the issues that have cropped up. Fortunately I have updated and modified the firmware which has overcome all these issues ( Something that you shouldn't have to do ).
I listen to music, store documents, surf the web ( no not wap ) check my emails make calls take happy snaps ( I don't refer to snaps taken by camera phones as photos ) can record 30 minute videos and also watch full length converted dvd's.
Companies like Motorola should watch out when Apple brings out their own mobiles. Ease of use, stability and funky design should have been something that companies like Moto should have got their head around years ago.
Isn't amazing that people in the USA have such issues with their mobile networks. Come live in Australia, our network is light years ahead of yours, then again so are many countries. The USA wants to dominate the world and spread their supposed "freedoms" to the rest of the world yet they can't even get a mobile network phone network to work properly.

The camera business still huge.
The one which cannot survive is the one who did not innovate enough.
Canon, Nikon, panasonic and Kodak still make big money.
Now digital camera still very hot, and new innovations is always welcomed by user.
and camera phone will not replace the digital camera, by quality, etc

Oh, so Nokia knows everything it seems.
I predict people will get sick of cheap, annoying and crummy phones, and the high connection costs associated with owning them.

I also predict the camera phone craze will not neccesarily usurp the desire to own a video camera which thankfully doesn't have a crappy phone attached to it.

As for music devices, what's he talking about? I still like vinyl, but then I enjoy listening quality sound as opposed to mp3 digital harshness.

BLEH! Who in the world really uses a camera phone for anything serious? Camera phones are *novelty* items at best. I'll stick with my xxMP +optical zoom CAMERA any day.

This executive is on some good stuff if he believes for a second that camera phones are killing the photography industry HAHAHAHA.

I still see storage being a barrier.

Cell phone companies have established a few neat standards - blue tooth and SIM cards... those are the only standards that I see widely accepted.

My Motorola RAZR phone has 'decent' blue tooth support, and I mean that literally. It's not really adequate ... it's alright. I'm not thrilled. It should be instant on and instantly connect with few difficulties, reliable battery monitoring and interaction with the phone.

One thing I'm happy with my RAZR is that the charger port is USB based, which allows me to connect my phone to my PC and use special software to transfer data back and forth.

With my new little RAZR, which I see advertised on the right column of this site - there is one thing that occurs to me (every time I use it).

This phone sucks. It's a decent phone, but the integrated features suck. They are not convenient, they are not simple, they are not as responsive as I would like in a PDA-style device.

I can consider myself a photographer. I love my Canon PowerShot G5 -- it's responsive and reliable -- two things that I do not think when I think of my Moto. Perhaps a Nokia =) -- but certainly not a Motorola.

I'm considering getting a Canon EOS Digital SLR -- why? Instant response time and SLR vs. a standard lense increases quality.

I had a Sharp phone at one time that was truly amazing. The features were great, it was a beautiful phone. Data was stored on a flash memory card, which was fantastic and I actually started to use the phone a good amount for casual 'fun' pictures. However, same thing - poorly integrated, and with that, poor battery life.

My experience with cell phones so far is that they are best for talking and some have overpriced gadgets that aren't conventional or ready to be used.

I'm sure that casual photographers love to use their camera phones to shoot pictures of their friends smiling together in groups and the occasional 'oh s*** I don't have my camera' shots, but for the professional camera market, I see cell phones as never taking over.

There's a simple reason -- try having an SLR lense on a cell phone. That's not going to happen.

In the same respect, try having a 60GB HD on a cell phone with a simple, fast, responsive interface and instant-on abilities. Sorry, my RAZR delays 2 seconds when answering a call. That alone is irritating.

--

I don't know why I'm complaining about my RAZR so much ... Motorola phones in general seem to be full of half-assed features that are quirky -- Nokia seem to be less feature filled, but much more user friendly and the features available tend to be solid. If Nokia would like to continue to improve their offerings, I'll watch.

I'm just looking forward to seeing propery digital camera features on a cell phone =)

All I want to know is why these phone makers can put all this other stuff into there phones but still can't put in a answering machine to record a message when I can't answer my phone.

Uh, ever hear of voicemail? All wireless carriers have it and most, if not all, include it for FREE. Why put an answering machine in the phone when voicemail is better?

Voice mail aint free in Australia. Answering machine capability would deny our mobile network providers extra revenue. It costs to access your voice bank. Recently optus introduced an annoying feature. They set the ring out to be as little as about 3 or 4 rings, then a message from optus tells the caller that the person they are trying to call is not available and that they can automatically leave their number and time they called as an SMS. (for a cost of course). I think this is redundant since, the fact that you arent answering tells the caller you are not available, plus 3 to 4 rings isnt enough time anyway. You *can turn this 'feature' off if you ring them up. My point, they wanna make money so answering machine capability is not in the best interest of phone manufactureres who work in conjunction with carriers.

I use film and digital. They both throw out superior results, granted you know how to use them properly. But this is based on a consumer study. Not professional. I have to use both, or I make no money! :) If I was just taking pictures of my family, and cats.. go camera phone!

LP records. Someone once tried to convince me that listening to the diamond crossing a vinyl album covered with dust and particles complete with the physical limitation of gravity scratching a surface and returning sound via some small needle is better than sound eminating from a Digitally recorded CD.

those people are DEAF! They are also stubborn. You cannot truly believe that static on a record floating a needle along the surface making physical contact (which every play is a slightly different - temperature, speed, humidity - it may be miniscule but it is different every time) to that of a CD which is laser, no physical contact, moisture, dust is not a factor, there is *NO* I repeat *NO* way it can EVEN be compared, that's the pinnacle of stupidity and stubborness right there.

I won't even entertain the very idea that a diamond (probably the worlds hardest known substance) striking vinyl is going to yield good sound. That is utter, and complete BullS#$%T!

Yes, I know this is about digital cameras, but its the same basic principle.

Remember when we did those experiments with a piece of paper in a box, cut a hole, just enough light to shine on a aluminum foil to superimpose a picture onto a surface which produced a very faint picture?

A 35mm film (which is sensitive to not only light, but humidity, changes in temp, and chemical change) you are telling me it yields better images than a digital camera, taking an instant picture, which is a series of electrical impulses, sealed in a vacuum, that won't be far superior?

You are taking some real good purple pills from the 60s, because you are absolute NUTS! That's just crazy.

We all live in the computer age, and see (beta news software products) advancing every single day.

Paper stays the same. Film stays the same. Cameras made to transfer images onto paper/film are built for a specific function, for a type of film and speed, and you are telling me that a digital camera which adopts to the need at hand, can't keep up?

hogwash. This is a totally rediculous and irrelevant argument.

Yes, I know this is WAY off topic, but you started it!

lmao..

Way to take it a bit out of context there, that was nice!

"you are telling me it yields better images than a digital camera, taking an instant picture, which is a series of electrical impulses, sealed in a vacuum, that won't be far superior?"

Yes, I, in fact, am. :)

The film camera was diesigned to see the world as it is. The digital camera presents the user with a series of 1s and 0s assembled into a picture.

I really don't care how much you spend on the Digital camera, it's still 1s and 0s. Magnify the image using a lens, scope, whatever, compared to a real film-photo... no, you're not going "see" 1s and 0s, but you will see pixelation. There is *no* way to avoid it in digital photography.

It's simply a question of compromise. Ease of use, instant gratification, for a smaller and smaller decrease in quality.

Yes, digital cameras have advanced by leaps and bounds. And it is, to the naked eye, nearly impossible to tell it's not digital now. But it's still possible.

And that's why there will always be a film niche. Yes, many of those involved may be stubborn, hell most probably are. But they're also right. ;)

There are some parallels... let's see.

Imagine a CD was 8-bit audio. I'd prefer LP then.

Film is able to be magnified to an infinite level - occasionally that's a good thing. Also, 35mm is indistingushable from digital near 13MP by even the most expert of eyes. It's almost there. However, lighting on CCDs will never be quite the same as on KodaChrome.

I'd rather listen to music at 96k/24bit. We'll get there.

Jeez, don't get crazy about it all. Analogue normally sounds warmer than digital that's all.

In case you didn't know, many digital recordings are "warmed up" with analogue filters to make them sound more like the vinyl recordings we all used to enjoy in the last century, and what about those covers? I haven't seen an mp3 that comes with anything resembling an LP cover from the sixties.

As for being deaf, I suggest that's in the ear of the beholder. Maybe you need to take one of today's purple pills, you sound a little uptight.

First of all Film Photography will never "die". It will religate it's self to the professional who wishes to continue and prefect excellence. A good comparison is the professional who expresses his Art via B/W media instead of Color. Show me a B/W digital camera that can produce what fine grain b/w film can. None exist. It is the supply and demand that drives what these camera companies do. If there was a strong demand for high end film products, then they would be there. We drive the market, we decide what products succeed or fail, not the companies that produce them.
So if someone is to blame for film loosing it's flair, then look to ourselves. Digital Photography is here to stay, film will fall to the niche and the fine art classes. Film cameras will become collectors items and become valuable for their "antique" worth.

The problem is that most big music studios are too self interested to reach the "other side". Hopefully it's a very painful death to those inconsiderate people.

FUD.

Vanjoki must be joking. That's a ludicrous assumption. He fails to note that the "collapse" of the photo industry is nothing more than a s*** of paradigm. Thanks to advances in digital technology, photography has experienced a rebirth and digital cameras are now ubiquitous. Digital cameras won out over tradional film cameras because they perform the exact same functions as the product they're replacing (only better) and with the added bonuses of being more convenient and allowing the user more control over the final output. The photography market didn't "collapse", the market was unfocused and over-crowded to begin with; digital technology simply forced companies like Kodak and Konica Minolta --who were asleep at the wheel and coasting along on past glories -- to snap out of it. Rather than ramping up their investments and R&D, they chose to consolidate their holdings and bow out. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict "survival of the fittest".

Stating that "music device and camcorder makers" will be the next industries to feel the pinch from mobile phones is laughable. Those industries are already feeling the pinch -- but they're not quaking in their boots from the chilling threat of mobile phones. They're simply not keeping up with the pace and desires of their customers; the markets are oversaturated, yet they haven't offered anything truly revolutionary or exciting in years.

Bill Gates said himself that the reason Microsoft have not made a portable is that they see the industry going to phones. Yes, this is FUD, but it has some basis.

"because they perform the exact same functions as the product they're replacing (only better)"

Wrong.

Ever taken the same pic with a 35mm and with a (even 8mp) Digital Camera?

No comparison...unless you're partially blind.

I'm not against Digital Camera's, they are great for archival. They *suck* for art.

Never try to tell people otherwise. Someone will call you on it. To anyone who truely cares about picture quality and realism, Digital simply does not cut it.

Tool, yes I have and the results have been stunning. Google for some photography reviews/comparisons if you're bored. I own and happily use both 35mm and digital cameras. If you seriously think digital camera "suck for art" then you must not know what you're doing.

Bill Gates has his own reasons (and excuses) for missing the boat. We've all seen his attempts at revolutionizing the gadget industry. I think he'd do best to keep his yap shut on this one and defer to Jobs.

OK, now this is where I have to say *YOU* are wrong.

I have seen Nikon Digital cameras that would put *ANY* 35mm (I don't care how much you paid, quality, or type) to shame!

They cost about 8-10 thousand dollars.... but they ARE better, or at least as good.

So maybe those convenience store, Walmart branded, Kodak shelf cameras *suck* for ART, but don't put ALL digital cameras in the same category.

The quality and the technology is there, its how much you are willing to pay for the convenience

And for the same reason the 35 mm is better for regular pictures, (vs generic cameras) is the same reason why Digital Cameras are better, no time wasting developing, instant gratification, you can take as many bad pictures as you want, eventually, you will get a really good one. You can see your results, download them on a laptop, and publish them immediately. That is *good* for art.

I will tell you otherwise, and I *DARE* you to call me out on it, because my Dad is a professional Photographer, and I have several friends that work as photographers, and I can send you link after link after link of camparison pictures and you will *NOT* be able to tell me which is digital (original) picture and which is 35mm. You may be able to guess, but I can show you 10 pics and you can select which ones are Digital.. but you won't be able to do it.

Digital cuts it, you have not SEEN the good stuff. So don't think you are the definitive authority on Digital quality, because I can guarantee you are NOT!

yes, those that are stuck with usual standards or tradition, are the ones that continually believe things don't change.

Digital is superior to 35 mm in my opinion, because you can't "see" what the camera is doing with 35mm.. you can with Digital.

Hey PC_Tool do you have a Flickr site? I'd love to see your photos since they are probably magnificent compared to any photo I have probably ever seen produced with a digital camera.

Sure, you can get Digicams that are at the same level of film cameras for $8-10k, or you can buy a SLR film camera for $50 that will compare to (and often outperform) a $8-10k digicam. Hmm.

It depends on what you are looking for. You can get digital pictures which are, like you say, instant gratification -- just keep taking pictures until you get the right one and you're happy. Saves time, yadda yadda yadda.

Or you can get a film camera, take your picture once, develop it, and feel the gratification and surprise of seeing that you took a great shot, or sometimes didn't. Sometimes there's imperfections -- imperfections permeate life, and make it beautiful.

Film cameras are unbeatable for producing enlargements. If you want comparable results from a digicam you have to shell out $2k+, and those will only work well for enlargements up to a certain size before they get blurry/pixelated.

Again, just really depends on what you're after and preference varies from person to person. There's no way you can make such a blanketing statement that one is better than the other universally. If you do and believe so, you are simply ignorant.

It was blatantly obvious to me after reading your first comment on this page (about vinyl vs. CD's) that you grew up in the digital age, and thus swear by it, proven by your "my dad" statement and how he is a photographer. You're a kid -- it's OK =) We grew up in different times. A lot of us grew up before CDs (or when they were first arriving), grew up before digital cameras and tiny do-it-all cell phones, grew up seeing audio and video compression progress, saw it all come about and change the world.

To us, there are vast differences between the digital and the analog. For vinyl vs. CD, you can again consider the imperfection of the sound making it more lifelike and warm vs. the cold sterility of a digital, always the same, "perfect" transfer. There are also issues of range and mastering -- analog recordings (vinyl) typically have greater range, whereas CDs that are mastered properly and have proper range are harder and harder to find nowadays.

There's also issues of equipment -- you can buy CD players that do the job that sound like crap or shell out $5k+ for a CD player that sounds magnificent. You can do the same with record players -- some are very inexpensive and will damage your records and sound like crap, whereas others are substantially more expensive, are properly balanced, and will -really- floor you with their accurate reproduction. Try walking in to a high-end stereo equipment store (talking nothing below $1k, selling vacuum tube amps that go for $15k+ for example) and ask for a demo of digital vs. analog. Do a blind test, closing your eyes and really listening and feeling the music. See which one sounds better.

Also take lifestyle and profession -- talk to any DJ (not a club DJ or a bar DJ or radio DJ, a real DJ) and they will swear by vinyl because of the versatility it allows. CDs just can't do the same thing.

Your example about calling you out on digital vs. analog photography is moot. You're showing analog pictures that are scanned and displayed on a monitor next to a picture that was taken digitally. If you really wanted to do a real comparison, you'd have do to that as well as compare pictures on a physical transfer (develop/print) and compare them that way as well.

I personally have a digicam and thousands of pictures archived on my computer as well as hundreds from print (that I took before my camera was stolen), and am saving up to purchase a nice SLR film camera. My music collection is vast and is 75/25 MP3 and CD, but also have a large collection of tapes and very much appreciate vinyl and plan on owning vinyls of recordings that were produced before the advent of digital recording -- the transfers simply sound like crap.

Long and short, you can not make blanketing statements such as yours unless you want to just be stubborn and ignorant, then go for it. It is a matter of preference, need, utility, cost, etc. To each their own. One is not better than the other. They each have their own purpose.

lmao...

Now that *was* amusing. Flickr...to display film photos.... Nice.

Dude....sending a link to scanned film shot vs a link to a digital shot isn't going to prove squat. They're both digitized at that point.

I admit I have *not* looked at shots from an $8000 digital camera, so cannot comment on it's quality.

Again, I stress that Digital may "cut it" for quite a bit, but unless you are willing to spend $8,000, Film will still get you the best quality for the $.

:)

Argue away...

How hard is this to understand, folks?

Side by side 2 pics...

1 from a $300 Film camera.

1 from a $300 Digital Camera.

Compare Quality. If you can make out *any* pixelation, you lose.

:)

Thank you, and have a nice day.

He isn't talking about collapse of analog photography because of digital photography. He is talking about collapse of all photography specific business because of camera phones.

Sure, you just scan em and upload em !...wait a minute though, that would just turn em into those pixelated digital things wouldnt it. lol

Gates is pretty consistant about missing the boat, he is really very good at doing the about-face and utterly destroying the target once he realizes what he's missed though. Unfortunately he is not above breaking the law to do so. (In my opinion, backed by the numerous lawsuits won and or settled by his company in recent years.)

Ah Yeh. Flickr to display film photos - that is what I said. How about you take up the challenge. We're talking "art" here right? Let's see your beautiful shots. Regardless if you have to scan them shouldn't your wonderful work that you complain digital *cameras* cannot reproduce still show through with your wonderful art? Lets see your wonderful work and judge it on composition, angle, subject and it's "artistic" aspects.

I guess we'll never know eh? I suppose if we want to see what you're talking about we'd have to come over and view your positives on a light table with a loupe.

PC_Tool> I'm not against Digital Camera's, they are great for archival. They *suck* for art.

I disagree.

The problem is that all those awesome 6, 8 and 10 Megapixel phones that they have in Europe and Asia aren't making their way over here. Eventually, I would like a phone that would store and play 60GB of music on a Flash drive - powered by iTunes, take 6 Megapixel photos stored on an SD card and allow me to transfer them to my computer via the card, USB 2.0 or at least Bluetooth/Wi-Fi (meaning FREE!) have an optical/digital zoom and also run some sort of Mobile Windows and be a SmartPhone (e-mail, web, scheduler, contact list, etc.). On top of that, I would want it to be a great phone and not drop calls and sound great. And, I would want it in a 4 oz, 3" by 2" clamshell package w/ a large, bright, color screen. Now, can and will that ever happen, especially here in the U.S.? I'm doubting it. As long as there's choice and better products out there (mp3 players, digital cameras, video cameras), no matter if they're separate pieces of equipment, I'll buy them and so will other people. People will buy an iPod because they're well designed and easy to use and hold a ton of songs. They'll buy a Canon ELPH because they're small, relatively inexpensive and produce great photos. They'll buy a DV video camera because it produces great video. People will NOT give up quality just to have some sort of all-in-one device, especially if it's hard to use and produces 1.5 Megapixel photos and crappy video. Camera phones are a fad, seriously. They're not getting any better here in the States and I'm losing interest fast.

Have a phone that supports WMV and WMA files would be more realistic and better for the consumer.

"Now *there's* a man who knows what he wants!"

People have enough trouble keeping their eyes on the road with a normal phone, we don't need to have them tangled in music, punching up numbers, surfing the web, getting streaming news, dialing up FM channels, withouth complicating the issue.

that is true

Why?

Why not Divx and OGG, or XVid and MP4?

What makes WMV or WMA better?

I use WMV and WMA because that's what *MY* devices support but that by no means makes them better.

I can't wait until it's illegal to talk and drive EVERYWHERE.

I don't think the Photography industry will ever *really* die, I'm sure they'll just develop into a niche.

Same with video cameras, really. The Analog(Film, tape) vs. Digital debate will rage on, as it has in the audio industry.

The Die-hards will continue a niche market for these things.

look at pionner and technics ....
they still produce hi-end LP disc players

Laserdisk is a format, not a type. 1.44 meg floppy disks use the same technlogy as some tape drives, but would you use 1.44 meg floppies? Of course not, they are too small.

People keep what they have a huge investment in, LP discs costs tons, and those people probably have thousands upon thousands invested, LP is great for them, but not for new people.

DVD is superior, quality, size, convenience.. even a good hard drive is better suited for storing photos and movies, but its not all that portable.

Its the whole ADD DAD Direct digital debate.

We had these arguments way back when, when tapes were newly emerging. Converting, I don't care how clean the transfer or what quality of instruments are used, will *ALWAYS* reduce or diminish quality.

A tape is analog. If you have to convert to digital medium, that is Analog to digital conversion, if its not recorded in digital originally, you will lose some amount of clarity and quality.

Direct Digital is the best. Analog is at some point, pre-set. It has to be, that's the nature (and limitation) of Tape. Its set for some speed (a la 400 speed, 200 speed, 100 ISO speed film) at some light (aperture, lens, all those things are set for film).

Digital can adapt to the environment, the subject, the camera, lighting..

So hi-end LP disc players are still utilizing technogy that was used for that purpose, WHEN it was developed, its not going to be as good as today's HD,DVD formats. You can use whatever format you want, but the technology follows the newest TYPE. there is no more advancement in LP disc. Otherwise you would still see them in a store. People want CD, DVD, smaller formats, and that's where they concentrate the technlogy.

They may produce units to support their niche, but its a very, very small market I assure you.

You "Photo" guys are really retarded if you think just becuase you have a negative that you can make your print any size you want, you are surely mistaken. The final size of your print depends on your film speed. The higher speed of the film the looser the grain is in the film therefore the more "grainy" it becomes. Digital has pixels similar to film grain but it is square in shape. If you look at Kodak T-Max 3200 BW film all you supposed "experts" would think it was shot with digital, but in fact it was shot with film and can only enlarge to a 8X10 print without loosing too much quality. The reason why you need such a high speed film is due to lack of light. On the other hand you have digital. High end digital cameras that I use "Canon 1Ds Mark II" in the same low light situation produces far less grain than that of the film allowing me to make perfect enlargements up to 40"X60". Before you people blast your opinions think about the technology that is out there. BTW digital cameras dont work like your TV sets with a vacum tube. They have a light sensitive CMOS sensor or CCD (based on what brand of SLR you are using) behind a shutter just like film cameras.