P3D Re: Film redesign

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> coating could just as well have been applied to 35mm.  I agree the 35mm
> cartridge is an improvement over rollfilm in terms of ease of use, but
> Kodak didn't have to discontinue 127 film just because it invented 35mm,

The do it because sales fall off of 127 film, or does the sales of 127 film
rival 35mm sales?  When you make and price something for the point where
you are selling it in mass quanities and the volume falls off massively,
there is a problem.  It's an economic decision, not a technological one.
They *could* raise the price of the older technology to make up for the
volume loss, but that only accellerates the demise by making the new product
all the more desirable.  And in the current climate of competition, not
one that would work.

In other words, it wasn't the invention of 35mm that caused 127's demise,
it was the market moving to purchase 35mm that probably did the deed.


> nor have they discontinued all rollfilm, just as the phone company
> hasn't discontinued support of the rotary phone.

"Support" for rotary phone is trivial and truly costs next to nothing. The
off-line detection is already there.  It makes no significant economic impact to 
leaving that legacy support in there.  A B&W TV will still work because
it costs nothing to keep the support in the current broadcast structure.

> I'm not complaining about advances in technology when they truly ARE
> advances, I am annoyed by gratuitous obsolescence of functioning
> hardware by a company that once had a near-monopoly on the market.

If the people who buy their goods don't think it's an improvement, then
why do they stop buying the old stuff and buy the new?  If nobody bought
APS and everybody bought 35mm, does one think that they'll phase out 35mm
and continue APS?

Mike K.



> 
>      -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)
> 
> 
> 


------------------------------