What's Behind the Camera Market Collapse

[Soocom1]

. . .
legally speaking they are Sony products. NOT Minolta.

Ok, you aren't getting my point, so I'll lay it out for you:

If you buy any of these interchangeable lens cameras or lenses, you have a warranty for the particular item. Even that much might not be truly a legal contract with the Mfrs directly, but through a sub-contractor (the store). Beyond that, you have nothing except "good will" or "reputation" or "marketing reasons" or whatever else you want to call it. None of the companies are obligated to continue making a "system" tomorrow. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc., doesn't matter. You have no contract with them. All you have is what you bought.

So if Sony has continued support for A-mount all these years without need, to support people with A-mount products in the past, then good for them. They seem to have respected the wishes of Minolta buyers from years ago. That is commendable. But none of the other companies have any more reason to do so than Sony. It's that simply. We buy the "reputation" as much as the products.

So the answer to my question is: There is no difference.

Its akin to using third party parts in a Chevy. They fit and work perfectly, but are not made by the manufacturer.
There is no mystery here.

You think "Chevy" makes all the parts on the shelf in their parts department in the "GM" boxes? They don't. I don't know how many are outside contractors these days, but all you know is that GM feels they make the standard. But even that is not the same thing. Unless you have a Pro support service contract, again, for camera companies, all you have is their reputation that the next thing you buy will be of "similar quality" as what you have already bought. Call it "good will" or "reputation" or whatever you want to, it's not a contract. There is no legal obligation and there never has been. Minolta isn't Sony? So what?

Your not getting what I said.

You stated that "not really, sony took over minolta so minolta really didn't go away (not in so many words, but that's the jist).

You need to understand that the physical structure of the mount system was developed by Minolta and SOLD which means OWNED BY Sony.

Parts made for GM or any other OEM is a different story. Fisher bodies is NOT Chevrolet, they are Fisher Bodies.
\ Contracted through GM.
But the parts are part of the GM structure built to the GM design to GM standards and GM OWNS the rights to the design.
therefore they are GM parts.
With Sony, they bought the legal OWNERSHIP of the design and thus Minolta is NO LONGER part of the equation, they are the Sony A mount system.
Period.

go talk to a lawyer about that.

 

[Derrel]

Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.

Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Ok, at this point I think that I'm about to get just a bit boring for everybody who is not me, but you guys have touched a point I'm curious about:

. . .

You stated that "not really, sony took over minolta so minolta really didn't go away (not in so many words, but that's the jist).

You need to understand that the physical structure of the mount system was developed by Minolta and SOLD which means OWNED BY Sony.

. . .

Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.

Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.

Now you guys are confusing me. Derrel, you say Sony owns ... intellectual property of Minolta and Konica ..." Now, part of the "intellectual property" is branding, including company names. I don't know what happened because I was not doing any photography when this all happened, but I thought that Sony bought the rights to the brands too. So in effect, Sony probably owns the name Minolta (and Konica too, but that isn't the point right now). Now this gets into real lawyering territory, but it is also "just a business matter." Exactly what is the point of a brand? Well, it identifies the source of a product. I don't think there is anything beyond that. Anyway, my point is that if Sony owns the Minolta brand, then they can use it again, unless they did something else that we might not know about (like give it away to someone else). But Soocom1, you don't think that Sony bought that part of company? I have no idea. I had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I think I'm getting boring for everyone, so if you don't reply, I'll understand.

 

[Derrel]

Minolta ran into deep financial trouble and they needed the cash infusion to keep the doors open so they sold out to Konica. Konica Minolta did not last too long, until Sony bought all of their patents and lens designs and other intellectual property, including the brand names, which they decided not to carry on. Just like Pontiac died after almost 90 years as a brand name, so did the names of Konica and Minolta as cameras. I am not sure if Konica still makes copiers.

One might say that Sony bought Konica Minolta for their share of the hobby Photo Market, as well as for the excellent Minolta lens designs. I don't quite understand what is so difficult to comprehend here, or why it even matters. As a camera company, Konica no longer makes products. As a camera company, Minolta is dead. You can't buy a new Konica camera, and you cannot buy a new Minolta camera, but you can buy a new Sony camera. I believe that you are correct, Sony owns the brand names, but so far they have shown no interest in resurrecting them. Who knows what the future might bring.

 

[TWX]

As a camera company, Konica no longer makes products. As a camera company, Minolta is dead. You can't buy a new Konica camera, and you cannot buy a new Minolta camera, but you can buy a new Sony camera. I believe that you are correct, Sony owns the brand names, but so far they have shown no interest in resurrecting them. Who knows what the future might bring.

It's possible that Sony's rights to use either "Konica" or "Minolta" ended after so many years of being discontinued, and that those rights have returned to the entity that sold that camera division to Sony. But this is admittedly a nitpick.

 

[malling]

After so many years out, that name would bear little to no meaning as not many can remember it any Longer. It only hold value for a closed group of people who is old enough to have owned one or who are familiar with it one way or another. In a market that is shrinking fast and where name means far less than it used to, there is no point in resurrect it.

 

[Derrel]

No one cares.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Well thanks for the summaries anyway. It's a piece of the history that I had not really thought about much. I've been too busy trying to learn how to get things done. . . .

 

[Soocom1]

OK.. Go hoer:

KONICA MINOLTA

Konica-Minolta is still VERY MUCH ALIVE and well making copiers WITH THE MINOILTA BLUE DOT symbol.

This is critical in the discussion of this.

The patent for the old SR mounts of Minolts expired decades ago. Minolta no longer owns or has control over the SR mount design, and they SOLD the rights and intellectual aspect of the A-Mount (formally known as the Minolta Automatic, hence "A Mount) and it was re-branded by sony to "Alpha" mount.

This is because sony though taking over the system wanted their own legacy process. BUT does NOT own the name "Minolta", the branding or the logos. just he photo hardware designs.

You talk about why a brand matters, and in all honesty and in the grand scheme of things... not a damn thing. its all Fan-Boy garbage.
But, the brand identifies who made something and the market determines if that brand goes on living or dying.

GM almost disappeared under our previous president.

Ford almost bought it in the 1970's with their brilliant moves of Mustang II, Pinto, Fairmont, the luxo-boat Cougars (formally a muscle car) and the early version of the Escort. And their desire to make more money off of repairs than the car itself. It almost killed the brand after Lee Iacocca left.

 

[Derrel]

Soocom1, this has got to be one of the best hijacks in recent memories! Great detective work. PM me for some help in fitting my old Minolta 50mm F 1.4 to a new Konica Minolta copy machine! I would love to hear more detail as well on how Obama allegedly almost killed off GM .I'm sure Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh would be interested as well.

 

[Soocom1]

It is what it is.....

 

[Derrel]

Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.

Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.

It is what it is.....

Please re-read what I wrote and note the use of the words " camera division ".

 

[Derrel]

Please carefully re-read what I wrote above. Konica Minolta does not make any more cameras. they make office equipment and medical equipment and so on but they do not make cameras or lenses for Consumer use. This is not a discussion of office equipment, or photo copiers, or medical imaging devices, or IT services, all of which Konica Minolta still has a hand in. this is a discussion of the camera business.

 

[Soocom1]

Please carefully re-read what I wrote above. Konica Minolta does not make any more cameras. they make office equipment and medical equipment and so on but they do not make cameras or lenses for Consumer use. This is not a discussion of office equipment, or photo copiers, or medical imaging devices, or IT services, all of which Konica Minolta still has a hand in. this is a discussion of the camera business.

Read what I wrote.
I didnt make the claim.

 

[Derrel]

Once again this is a thread about the camera market decline, and not about how you allege that General Motors almost disappeared under the Obama Administration, or how Konica Minolta still lives on as an office automation company and a medical imaging technology company.

Camera,camera,camera. This is not about photo copiers or MRI machines that bear that Minolta blue circle, despite your repeated attempts to focus on two dead brands of camera. I have no idea why you seem to be fixated on two dead camera brands.