when do you think Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus et al will be subject to international price fixing fines?
its probably a moot point discussing this amongst their main fans, as a lot of us justify the price of DSLRs and such by saying "R&D is expensive, the currency conversion has changed, silicone die process is inefficient, weather sealing (lmao)" etc
but given that:
1) sony for instance, is a usual suspect in price fixing
2) and the price of DSLRs do seem to experience quite a bit of collusion and feature trickle
3) japanese companies. yes, that is a complete thought.
I think it is worth looking into. The SEC (an american regulator) should demand information since they surprisingly do have jurisdiction on these companies (I think FTC and DOJ will have difficulty effectively getting enough information on japanese companies). I think this will reveal something that both the Department of Justice as well as the EU Commission will disagree with
the end result being much cheaper cameras for everyone, as well as better technology since competing imaging technologies will be able to compete more efficiently (where basically price fixing cartels make a consistent margin on outmoded technology, you know, such as DSLRs lol)
so lets take bets on when this case will be presented
I'm not so sure there really is price fixing.. If that were case, I'd think there would be close pricing between mfg as well as features.. Nikon and Canon certainly prove that's not happening..
And to kinda add to what Good Egg posted, my first DSLR, Canon D30 3MP was 3K.. The 5D Mark III I'm considering is 22MP, better quality in every aspect is under 3K.. If anything, I'd say we're actually getting more for less or at worse, the same..
Also, I'd say there are more costs to produce digital than film because of the tight QC needed for sensors.. And at this point, I think most people don't really trade up until about 4 years after.. A working pro probably would have spent close to, if not more, than 100K plus in film and processing over that same timeframe.. So in the grand scheme, it's still cheaper overall..
D700 - $3500 12MP 8fps with grip 2008 FX sensor. AMAZING ISO3200 performance 922k dot LCD, 1005 pixel metering.
D800 - $3000 36MP 4fps early2012 FX sensor. Great ISO1600 performace 922k LCD, 1080p video capture. 91k pixel metering
D600 - $2000 24MP 5.5fps late2012 FX sensor. Good ISO1600 performance 922k LCD, 1080p video, 2016 pixel metering.
D3200 - $600 24MP 4fps late2012 DX sensor. Good ISO1600 performance 922k LCD, 1080p video
explain this price fixing and feature creep scam?
lol are you being sarcastic, I think this is a great exhibit to send to the regulators
well for one, the alleged cartel is using a collusion of profit margins to avoid introducing better technology
you know, such as removing the SLR from DSLRs, as they are now. or modular systems like REDs or refining the light field technology that lytro is peddling or in 2012 just beginning to introduce modern connectivity options for sharing photos in response to a market that is finding a way to move without the cartel. These are all EXAMPLES that I am not saying they should pursue, but "single lens reflex" definitely is outmoded technology in digital just like CF cards was outmoded technology back in 2008 since SD cards were already just as fast and faster then with equivalent capacity, just like there was no functional reason that DSLRs didn't have video processing ability back in 2006 although being a favorable form factor for many situations, as the data bandwidth required to do "unlimited 12mp jpeg burst" is much more than a 24 fps HD video requires, which is basically 2 megapixel images.
I think the regulators can really shake things up. the EU commissions recent $1.92 billion fine on LCD makers is a good example of things regulators don't like. A lot of it is relevant to what I observe in the prosumer camera market.
Tropical Photography wrote: I'm not so sure there really is price fixing.. If that were case, I'd think there would be close pricing between mfg as well as features.. Nikon and Canon certainly prove that's not happening..
And to kinda add to what Good Egg posted, my first DSLR, Canon D30 3MP was 3K.. The 5D Mark III I'm considering is 22MP, better quality in every aspect is under 3K.. If anything, I'd say we're actually getting more for less or at worse, the same..
Also, I'd say there are more costs to produce digital than film because of the tight QC needed for sensors.. And at this point, I think most people don't really trade up until about 4 years after.. A working pro probably would have spent close to, if not more, than 100K plus in film and processing over that same timeframe.. So in the grand scheme, it's still cheaper overall..
okay so you have priced it into your budget, thats fine but doesn't negate what may be happening. people accept the price of LCD hdtvs, they probably use the same rationale about how much better it is than 5 years ago, with their hdmi ports and 240hz, the EU Commission doesn't find these arguments sufficient to drop the $1.92 billion fine
R A V E N D R I V E wrote: I think it is worth looking into. The SEC (an american regulator) should demand information since they surprisingly do have jurisdiction on these companies.
You're a bit off track. The Federal Trade Commission (not the SEC) has responsibility for regulating price fixing. And the FTC's definition of price fixing is when two or more companies collude to take actions that will impact market pricing. Do you really think that Canon, Nikon and Sony are working together to keep prices high rather than competing like hell for market share? Right now you can get a Canon 60D for $799 or a Nikon D7000 for $899 at B&H. That's a heck of a lot of camera for those prices.
Let There Be Light wrote: You're a bit off track. The Federal Trade Commission (not the SEC) has responsibility for regulating price fixing. And the FTC's definition of price fixing is when two or more companies collude to take actions that will impact market pricing. Do you really think that Canon, Nikon and Sony are working together to keep prices high rather than competing like hell for market share? Right now you can get a Canon 60D for $799 or a Nikon D7000 for $899 at B&H. That's a heck of a lot of camera for those prices.
I was thinking the SEC will be able to get information on japanese companies because the SEC regulates publicly traded companies here
the SEC will then forward its findings to applicable regulators.
Let There Be Light wrote: You're a bit off track. The Federal Trade Commission (not the SEC) has responsibility for regulating price fixing. And the FTC's definition of price fixing is when two or more companies collude to take actions that will impact market pricing. Do you really think that Canon, Nikon and Sony are working together to keep prices high rather than competing like hell for market share? Right now you can get a Canon 60D for $799 or a Nikon D7000 for $899 at B&H. That's a heck of a lot of camera for those prices.
I think much more advanced technologies can be competing for market share right now.
when they introduce the successor to the 7d, the most compelling addition will probably be the flip-out back panel from the 60d. wait another 4 years for a real upgrade, maybe they'll rebrand another DIGIC processor with better noise handling at higher ISOs, as if they did something
...instead of maybe 4:4:4 lossless video, or some highly advanced video compression technology to keep file sizes low and quality high, or replacing the single lens reflex mirror component with something more durable and mirrorless
Would it be off-topic to note that the OP, who is apparently asking that the government to intercede in the case of possible price fixing recently posted a thread (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=869668) seeking ways to circumvent the copyright laws of that same government?
lol are you being sarcastic, I think this is a great exhibit to send to the regulators
well for one, the alleged cartel is using a collusion of profit margins to avoid introducing better technology
you know, such as removing the SLR from DSLRs, as they are now. or modular systems like REDs or refining the light field technology that lytro is peddling or in 2012 just beginning to introduce modern connectivity options for sharing photos in response to a market that is finding a way to move without the cartel. These are all EXAMPLES that I am not saying they should pursue, but "single lens reflex" definitely is outmoded technology in digital just like CF cards was outmoded technology back in 2008 since SD cards were already just as fast and faster then with equivalent capacity, just like there was no functional reason that DSLRs didn't have video processing ability back in 2006 although being a favorable form factor for many situations, as the data bandwidth required to do "unlimited 12mp jpeg burst" is much more than a 24 fps HD video requires, which is basically 2 megapixel images.
I think the regulators can really shake things up. the EU commissions recent $1.92 billion fine on LCD makers is a good example of things regulators don't like. A lot of it is relevant to what I observe in the prosumer camera market.
Do you understand that prices don't go down in a price fixing scheme?
Now, Coke and Pepsi are almost certainly price fixing their products.
Rays Fine Art wrote: Would it be off-topic to note that the OP, who is apparently asking that the government to intercede in the case of possible price fixing recently posted a thread (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=869668) seeking ways to circumvent the copyright laws of that same government?
Ironic at the very least, IMHO.
I am very keen on exploiting political inefficiencies, if there is a gap in the regulatory framework, I'll find out about it
play by a more effective set of rules
if I'm a buyer in America, suddenly I'm against price-fixing
if I'm a seller in Brazil, price fixing is encouraged and insider trading isn't prosecuted
what I observe from these Japanese camera makers fits the criteria for prohibited price fixing in Japan, USA and EU
I don't really care about the utility of antitrust regulations or the copyright regime, I only care about consequences
I am also a fan of irony, so that will be a common theme if you follow my threads, thanks for the promotion
I think the OP has a conspiracy theory issue. He also doesn't seem to understand that it is almost never in a market-leading company's interest to be among the first to implement new technology, unless they were the one that invented it.
You do know that Apple didn't invent touch-screens or hand motions, right? And that Canon wasn't the first company to use a larger than APS-C sensor? And that one of the first companies to build a mirrorless SLR (and stake their reputation on it) is borderline out of business, after all the execs got jail time for covering up how horribly they were doing?
Yes, every company could use Lytro's tech. It would also involve a redesign of the camera, sensor, and processors, a hefty licensing fee, and all to get results that don't even impress any of the major reviewers. Because that seems like it would be an excellent business decision.
As for RED's rates? And MF digital cameras, while we're at it? Super high-end gear has ALWAYS been stupid expensive. It has never had ANYTHING to do with price-fixing. It is because if your clientele is willing to pay $30,000 for a camera, then they are either a large-scale professional organization, or an extremely wealthy individual. In either case, if they're willing to pay $30,000 then they'll pay $35,000, so why not charge $35,000? Do you honestly think that Terry Richardson (who probably doesn't even pay for his own cameras) is going to complain?
And Sony. Sony, Sony, Sony. I have no idea why you would ever accuse a company who has earned a reputation for selling products at a loss of price fixing.
Between this and the OP's other threads, it's obvious that he has no idea what price fixing really is, and this is his way of complaining that he doesn't have enough money to buy the things that he wants. It MUST be someone else's fault.
I call troll. Worse yet, I call ignorant troll - I don't even think he understands what he's saying.
Perhaps since I'm watching the Giants game I'm not thinking about this enough, but I really don't see a problem with camera prices.
First of all, it's called capitalism. The prices are at what the market will bear. If no one buys the product, there will be accelerated refinements at an acceptable price point until the product sells or the company goes out of business.
Second, as Good Egg has clearly pointed out, we currently get more for our money (which is worth less today thanks to the Federal Reserve devaluing our currency by printing money backed by nothing) with the current line up of DSLR's. This despite baseline cost increases in fuel and materials for manufacturers and suppliers.
Third, no company wants to put out every bleeding edge technology into it's cameras at the same time; why would there be a reason for people who MUST have the latest and greatest to upgrade every time a new model comes out?
The upgrade cycle would be too long to maintain steady capital into the company (especially a company like Nikon), or the cameras themselves would be prohibitively expensive and not sell in great enough numbers, again reducing income to the company. Reduce the income enough, the company suffers and goes out of business.
If you don't NEED a new camera, it doesn't matter what the camera costs, as you're not buying one.
If you NEED or WANT a new camera, you will no doubt get more for your money than you did with the camera you are replacing.
If there is a real or perceived market demand for new technology, a company may well take the chance and go after it. This is not the Soviet Union, it is not the role of the government to tell companies how to produce and price their products. (although the current administration would likely disagree with me)
The government is too involved with every aspect of our lives, I see absolutely no point in involving it even more.
If these companies are in fact price fixing and reaping great profits from artificially slowing down the rate of innovation/progress/features and the price decline of technology then why don't you one of the following:
1) buy stock in Canon, Nikon, Sony and share in this vast low-risk wealth which is virtually guaranteed by this cartel you have enlightened us about
2) compete with them. Go ahead - if it is so easy to accelerate technology and drive prices down then all you need to do is jump in to the market and refuse to join the cartel.
or you could just whine about it and call the police.
Never. They will charge what the market will bear. If the market is swayed by people voting with their money to not buy expensive cameras, the prices will come down across the board. If people continue to buy expensive cameras, then they will remain expensive.
I want what you want. Cheap fantastic camera equipment. But if you are counting on the SEC to come in and strong arm a regulation through for us, you probably shouldn't hold our breath. If you believe that the SEC is an institution that is going to represent the people's desires before those of international fabrication companies, think again. They will think about it if it benefits them and their cronies, not you and I.
My phone has a camera. I don't need a $3000 DSLR. Hell, I don't need a camera, period. I bought it because I wanted it. The 36MP camera I own was a $36,000 Leaf or Hasselblad back three years ago.
As far as feature creep.... If Nikon is holding back technology because Canon is, the Sony should drop a 40MP, 4K/60 video cam on the market to boost their market share.
What?? They're not doing that? Is that because they CAN'T sell it at a price the market will bear?
As someone mentioned, it's capitalism and simple economics.
There is no illuminati.
Zack Zoll wrote: I think the OP has a conspiracy theory issue.
Saying this can allow many to mentally write this off, but price-fixing involves conspiring by definition. Just like how everything the intelligence community does is a conspiracy by definition. So yes, by definition these are conspiracy theories.
Zack Zoll wrote: And Sony. Sony, Sony, Sony. I have no idea why you would ever accuse a company who has earned a reputation for selling products at a loss of price fixing.
David Kirk wrote: If these companies are in fact price fixing and reaping great profits from artificially slowing down the rate of innovation/progress/features and the price decline of technology then why don't you one of the following:
1) buy stock in Canon, Nikon, Sony and share in this vast low-risk wealth which is virtually guaranteed by this cartel you have enlightened us about
2) compete with them. Go ahead - if it is so easy to accelerate technology and drive prices down then all you need to do is jump in to the market and refuse to join the cartel.
or you could just whine about it and call the police.
lolol, you haven't been following my threads, there is a common th€m€ and it is not altruism
a price fixing charge from multiple regulators on two different continents would adversely affect the price of those stocks and I will be on the short side, so its like... negative investing haha
regulator intervention in a capitalist market doesn't really change the price for consumers, you get a 50 cent rebate and a lawyer makes millions. the innovative ramifications can be intriguing though, which I do like to think about the consequences of, the future can't get here fast enough
Matthew Grogan wrote: First of all, it's called capitalism. The prices are at what the market will bear. If no one buys the product, there will be accelerated refinements at an acceptable price point until the product sells or the company goes out of business.....This is not the Soviet Union, it is not the role of the government to tell companies how to produce and price their products. (although the current administration would likely disagree with me)
haha nice idealist post, but it seems you are already familiar with reality.
I am looking to use all administrative remedies available within the framework of this system
Are there international price fixing laws with fines?
not effectively
the DOJ has more power than the EU commission does
but lately the regulators have been doing their own collusion and doing simultaneous fines
so like, the SEC will charge someone (if a public company is involved), the DOJ will charge someone and the EU commission will charge someone simultaneously!
R A V E N D R I V E wrote: thats not true. Try again
David Parsons wrote: Which part? If you think so, provide some proof.
that price fixing means that prices do not go down.
price fixing simply involves collusion where the regulators would like to see that companies set prices much more independently in response to supply and demand
not having 3+ companies notice that they can control the supply and demand if they all just set a price the same way
for instance, I am not convinced that one tier of cameras from both nikon and canon actually cost $600-$800 from a raw response to the market.
similarly, I'm not convinced that the next 'tier' from both of them actually costs $1200 more, from simply processor features and weather sealing
Matty272
Posts: 216
Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
R A V E N D R I V E wrote: the DOJ has more power than the EU commission does
In the USA, the US DOJ has more power than any commission in the EU. That's, quite simply, because all EU commissions are based in and report in the EU, are not US bodies and therefore have no power in the USA.
US DOJ has no jurisdiction in the EU.
Therefore: ***ALL*** EU commissions have more power than the US DOJ which contradicts your statement.
Matty272
Posts: 216
Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
R A V E N D R I V E wrote: the DOJ has more power than the EU commission does
In the USA, the US DOJ has more power than any commission in the EU. That's, quite simply, because all EU commissions are based in and report in the EU, are not US bodies and therefore have no power in the USA.
US DOJ has no jurisdiction in the EU.
Therefore: ***ALL*** EU commissions have more power than the US DOJ which contradicts your statement.
Good Egg Productions wrote: As far as feature creep.... If Nikon is holding back technology because Canon is, the Sony should drop a 40MP, 4K/60 video cam on the market to boost their market share.
What?? They're not doing that? Is that because they CAN'T sell it at a price the market will bear?
Actually, Sony just did something pretty close to that... I'm not sure about the 40 MP stills part, but their two new CineAlta cameras have PL mounts, support for 4K uncompressed, and one even has a global shutter.
Their prices are lower than their competitors' although RED has a lower priced model in its lineup still.
Not that RED has been sitting around butt-slapping though; RED had a new product announcement of its own... more than one, actually.
Matty272 wrote: In the USA, the US DOJ has more power than any commission in the EU. That's, quite simply, because all EU commissions are based in and report in the EU, are not US bodies and therefore have no power in the USA.
US DOJ has no jurisdiction in the EU.
Therefore: ***ALL*** EU commissions have more power than the US DOJ which contradicts your statement.
lmao, this thread is about joint enforcement actions on two continents by their respective regulators....
hahha
the EU commission has less teeth than the DOJ, regardless of what jurisdiction we are talking about simply because EU federalism is weak. I thought you were going to say something intelligent too
I just checked back in, because I was curious if you guys were still arguing with Ravendrive here. Like Poe's Raven, it seems like he just says the same thing over and over, and hopes that it will have new and better meaning every time.
Sony did not price-fix their optical drives - at least not in the US. As someone who has sold DVD and Blu-Ray players since they were readily available products in the regular consumer market, I can tell you that prices have dropped drastically, and periodically.
Did the companies agree to all drop their prices at once? Perhaps. But that is not how a price-fixing scheme works. A price-fixing scheme is when all companies agree NOT to drop prices, so that they can all make more money. Agreeing to drop their prices all at once might technically be price-fixing, but it's the worst price-fixing scheme possible, and isn't worth litigating. It's like trying to prosecute someone for a Ponzi scheme where the investors ALL make money.
The only people that are hurt by this are dealers like me, who see our profit margins shrink to the low double digits, or sometimes even single digits. You wouldn't save any money. Costs would fall more slowly, and *I* would make a little more money.
You really don't understand how this works. Stop trying. You're just embarrassing yourself, and wasting everyone's time.
Zack Zoll wrote: I just checked back in, because I was curious if you guys were still arguing with Ravendrive here. Like Poe's Raven, it seems like he just says the same thing over and over, and hopes that it will have new and better meaning every time.
Sony did not price-fix their optical drives - at least not in the US. As someone who has sold DVD and Blu-Ray players since they were readily available products in the regular consumer market, I can tell you that prices have dropped drastically, and periodically.
Did the companies agree to all drop their prices at once? Perhaps. But that is not how a price-fixing scheme works. A price-fixing scheme is when all companies agree NOT to drop prices, so that they can all make more money. Agreeing to drop their prices all at once might technically be price-fixing, but it's the worst price-fixing scheme possible, and isn't worth litigating. It's like trying to prosecute someone for a Ponzi scheme where the investors ALL make money.
The only people that are hurt by this are dealers like me, who see our profit margins shrink to the low double digits, or sometimes even single digits. You wouldn't save any money. Costs would fall more slowly, and *I* would make a little more money.
You really don't understand how this works. Stop trying. You're just embarrassing yourself, and wasting everyone's time.
Kevin Connery
Posts: 15,391
Fullerton, California, US
R A V E N D R I V E wrote: says the dealer
enlightening information
You really don't understand how this works. Stop trying. You're just embarrassing yourself, and wasting everyone's time.
Laws in different countries, where something is legal in one and not another: going to be difficult to get an international law when the various countries don't agree on the legality of what you consider price fixing. That's not a trivial subject, but ignoring the realities (different countries: different laws: differing moral positions) makes it at best amusing and at worst deliberately misinformative.
Technology development is different than manufacturing. A little basic research will show the flaws in your arguments vis-a-vis this aspect.
There's a handful of other issues, but either of those obvious ones should be sufficient to kill your assumptions.
Matty272 wrote: You assert that there's price fixing, but you haven't given any evidence to back that assertion up.
Please provide evidence if you want a proper debate
I don't believe that the "tiers" of cameras actually are actually justified by their $ values
tier 1 being $600-$900
tier 2 being $1200-$1700
tier 3 being being $2000-$3000 etc etc
some of which are called "prosumer" or hobbyist or professional
I think it is interesting that tiers are even prevalent amongst different camera makers, where each tier has similar features, a similar level of durability etc for features that simply don't cost $1000 extra, such as a metal case or faster autofocus
sure, you all grew up with that kind of capitalism, but the regulators don't buy it anymore
Kevin Connery wrote: You really don't understand how this works. Stop trying. You're just embarrassing yourself, and wasting everyone's time.
Laws in different countries, where something is legal in one and not another: going to be difficult to get an international law when the various countries don't agree on the legality of what you consider price fixing. That's not a trivial subject, but ignoring the realities (different countries: different laws: differing moral positions) makes it at best amusing and at worst deliberately misinformative.
Technology development is different than manufacturing. A little basic research will show the flaws in your arguments vis-a-vis this aspect.
There's a handful of other issues, but either of those obvious ones should be sufficient to kill your assumptions.
all three jurisdictions in mind will be more than happy to pursue a price fixing allegation: Japan, USA, EU
we can scratch out japan because of collusion with its technology companies
leaving USA and EU which already do simultaneously pursue independent fines against the same company on two different continents
I don't believe that the "tiers" of cameras actually are actually justified by their $ values
tier 1 being $600-$900
tier 2 being $1200-$1700
tier 3 being being $2000-$3000 etc etc
some of which are called "prosumer" or hobbyist or professional
I think it is interesting that tiers are even prevalent amongst different camera makers, where each tier has similar features, a similar level of durability etc for features that simply don't cost $1000 extra, such as a metal case or faster autofocus
sure, you all grew up with that kind of capitalism, but the regulators don't buy it anymore
So, do you get off on trolling, or are you really this naive?
So am I.
| 
| 
| edu