Hasselblad to be acquired by DJI

[hcubell]

You sure lecture. Maybe YOU try to read what Steve said more carefully. Is his post negative to you?

First, Steve mentioned that 100 units of X1D per month was realistic. Ramping up from that is a long process and not over night, as you must know if you any manufacturing experience as many on this thread do have. I hope they can do it sooner than later from their current total capacity.

Next I have no pre-order for the Fuji GFX in place, but I might have a pre-order for for this camera.

Let me quote from Steve's post:
"So - this 100 per month number to me doesn't seem unrealistic.

However, if it's true Hasselblad projected 3,000 units for the X1D, they would likely have already made arrangements for increased monthly production. But if the pre-orders are indeed in the 5,000 - 10,000 unit range, then they would necessarily need to make a lot of changes to those initial considerations to produce the increased capability to ship within a reasonable amount of time, and as someone said, this adjustment would take some time.

Traditionally, new digital backs/cameras start shipping in small numbers (I would guess 40-60 per month), and then eventually ramp up to 100-200 per month). If Hasselblad was thinking 3,000 units per year and the number turned out to be 10,000 - 12,000 units per year, that is indeed an unforeseen problem that would have significant consequences. It would require a complete re-think on the costs and methodology of production. This second round of DJI investment could have been planned from the very beginning. Or, it could have come about as the production situation became starkly clearer to both parties. No one knows for sure."

The second sentence states quite clearly that, if HB had projected 3,000 units per year, they would likely have ALREADY made changes for increased monthly production beyond 100-200 units per year.
Second, read the second paragraph. It states that, if the projected sales turned out to be 10,000 to 12,000 units per year, that would require a complete rethink of the costs and methodology of production. HB has publicly acknowledged that that was the case. However, Steve did not make any factual assertion as to when that increased level of production would come on line. Steve doesn't know, I don't know, nobody knows. We just have you posting that HB can only make 100 units per year, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about HB's ability fill orders.

Now, as to whether you have pre-ordered the Fuji GFX, I am referring to post #3 here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...60663-gfx-suddenly-taken-off-b-h-website.html.

 

[pegelli]

I have to wonder, if Kevin Raber had got wind of a new finance deal for Phase One, would he have published prior to any announcement from his former employer and without their approval?

Why wonder, why not ask him?
In what way would knowing the answer help you?

Btw, the way you phrased your question assumes Kevin published the article without HB's approval, is this a speculation or a fact?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

You sure lecture. Maybe YOU try to read what Steve said more carefully. Is his post negative to you?

First, Steve mentioned that 100 units of X1D per month was realistic. Ramping up from that is a long process and not over night, as you must know if you any manufacturing experience as many on this thread do have. I hope they can do it sooner than later from their current total capacity.

Next I have no pre-order for the Fuji GFX in place, but I might have a pre-order for for this camera.

To be more accurate, 100-200 units per month seems commonplace for traditional medium format monthly production from Phase One/Hasselblad, but if it is true they expected 3,000 units sold annually with the X1D, they logically would have already begun a process of increasing production to accommodate those levels, though again, this doesn't happen overnight.

Either way, what's the difference, really, they have a lot of pre-orders, it's gonna take a while to get them filled, end of story. If someone has an order placed, and it was placed in June - August time frame, maybe you'll see it 1st/2nd quarter this year. If you placed an order in November - December, then who knows. They're not the first photographic company that took 6-12 months to deliver product after an announcement.

We're all adults and I think everyone here can assess their own level of instant gratification tolerance, yes?

I also think that Mr. Raber maybe is guilty of nothing more than trying to get out in front of the news, knowing that he was hearing this scuttlebutt everywhere, perhaps even from Perry himself. In fact, it could be possible that Perry was aware he was going to write about it, and was ok with it.

Again, who knows?

But I don't see any great sin from Kevin, he seemed to jump the gun on the announcement, and he amplified some personal/professional legacy feelings about some of Hasselblad's previous business strategies.

I don't see the big deal. If the X1D was shipping in quantity and lots of people had their hands on it and were reporting, I would hope we wouldn't still be talking about this.

Glass of red wine, anyone? Or maybe a quaalude would be a better antidote in this case?


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[hcubell]

I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.

I agree with you that we don't know that Kevin's intent was to spread FUD about HB and the X1D in order to benefit his former employer. However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did). That inevitably leads to speculation as to why Kevin wrote the article the way he wrote it. Clearly, he could have communicated the "news" about the change of control in a neutral way.
It's also worth noting that, in his video review of the X1D, Kevin states toward the end that he would not buy an X1D now because there is another player about to enter into this space with a competing offering. Doesn't that strike you as a textbook case of spreading FUD? And of reporting rumors, which Kevin says he doesn't do.

 

[pegelli]

I agree with you that we don't know that Kevin's intent was to spread FUD about HB and the X1D in order to benefit his former employer. However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did). That inevitably leads to speculation as to why Kevin wrote the article the way he wrote it. Clearly, he could have communicated the "news" about the change of control in a neutral way.
It's also worth noting that, in his video review of the X1D, Kevin states toward the end that he would not buy an X1D now because there is another player about to enter into this space with a competing offering. Doesn't that strike you as a textbook case of spreading FUD? And of reporting rumors, which Kevin says he doesn't do.

If that is what you conclude from Kevin's article that's your choice, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I personally see it different and that's fine too (I hope )

It just reminds me of a quote from John Lubbock "What we see mainly depends what we look for", so maybe I look less for conspiracy theories and hidden agendas then you do.

 

[Iktinos]

I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.

There is always a motive behind posts. If a post fails to its reasoning and additionally the intention to harm the subject's reputation is obvious, it's natural for readers to suggest the MAL reasoning behind the "article".

Certainly "articles" like that mainly damage the reputation/credibility of the "author" (and media) behind it, but as a natural consequence, they hurt the reputation/credibility of the one that is accused (from the readers of the "article") that would benefit from it.

One can't post a questionable "article" and then ask the public to prove the motive, the motive can only be speculated by the public after the "article" has been proven to be of Mal intentions. This is common sense.

Nothing wrong with the public reaction, the one that wrote the "article" is also responsible for the consequences it creates against him, his business, or the side that the "article" may have intended to favor.

 

[jerome_m]

I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.

I feel like citing Kevin Raber's post last paragraphs without further comments.

What does this mean? Well, we can speculate all we want. I have been in this industry a very long time. I can imagine that many of Hasselblad’s employees are a bit worried, to say the least. It could be that a few of them are no longer with the company or are already looking elsewhere for employment. I am sure that DJI is going to come in and make significant changes. The investors have most likely arranged a share transfer program so that they will get some of their investment back. But what about the new X1D, the H line, and most importantly, the future of the company?

There are a lot of orders to fulfill and a lot of questions. Will DJI be able to expedite the orders and keep the present management team in position and find ways to increase production and delivery? There are many questions one naturally asks when a turnover like this happens. Let’s hope DJI shares their plan with their team and their customers as soon a possible.

It would be comforting, albeit naive, to think that everything will remain consistent and that no significant changes will take place, but I can assure you that this will not be the case. DJI sees a future in Hasselblad. I’m sure the Chinese market loves a brand like Hasselblad and it will be wildly successful there. But, what about the rest of the world? Can DJI maintain the iconic tradition and sales of such a mature and recognized brand?

In all fairness, another Swedish iconic company – Volvo, is now owned by Chinese investors and Volvo’s new models promise really well – if they sell. So there is hope. Or is this simply a brandname takeover?

Time will tell and I’m sure we will hear more news in the coming weeks. It’s starting out to be an interesting year so far. I wish Hasselblad all success but frankly, it isn’t the Hasselblad we all once knew and loved. What will the future bring?

DJI Please let us know what is going on.

 

[pegelli]

I feel like citing Kevin Raber's post last paragraphs without further comments.

I don't think re-reading or re-posting Kevin's article is going to make a difference, without repeating myself I'll just quote what I said in an earlier post:

It just reminds me of a quote from John Lubbock "What we see mainly depends what we look for"

 

[pegelli]

There is always a motive behind posts. If a post fails to its reasoning and additionally the intention to harm the subject's reputation is obvious, it's natural for readers to suggest the MAL reasoning behind the "article".

Certainly "articles" like that mainly damage the reputation/credibility of the "author" (and media) behind it, but as a natural consequence, they hurt the reputation/credibility of the one that is accused (from the readers of the "article") that would benefit from it.

One can't post a questionable "article" and then ask the public to prove the motive, the motive can only be speculated by the public after the "article" has been proven to be of Mal intentions. This is common sense.

Nothing wrong with the public reaction, the one that wrote the "article" is also responsible for the consequences it creates against him, his business, or the side that the "article" may have intended to favor.

But, what if there is no obvious intention to harm the subjects reputation? Then there should be no damage to the credibility of the author, then speculation about his intentions are no more than that, a speculation without proof. The author cannot be held accountable for things he didn't say.

 

[jerome_m]

"What we see mainly depends what we look for"

What a suitable quote for a photography forum.

 

[JoshMerwin]

If you want to run a site like his and present it as news and that you are impartial, then you have to be aware of how people can potentially interpret what you write and its potential bias. Even more so if you have a long history with the direct competition. If he wanted to be impartial and just present facts, he failed to do that. There was just too much speculation, then he follows that saying that he's sure so and so is going to happen...

On the plus side, I bought a DJI Osmo mobile stabilizer today and it seems to be a great product after playing with it for a few minutes. Much better than the stabilizer that I had before.

 

[Wayne Fox]

However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did).

hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.

Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...

It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.

 

[alajuela]

hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.

Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...

It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.

Most Astute Comment posted

 

[hcubell]

hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.

Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...

It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.

I think I have been quite clear that Kevin has every right to write his article the way he wants. He is free to spin the supposed news about DJI assuming majority ownership any way he wants. However, I have every right to call the article out for what I believe it was...a very negatively slanted piece that could not have been more effective in spreading FUD than if Phase One or Fuji had written it. As with most things in life, the glass can be seen as half full or half empty. One could have described the change of control in favor of DJI as a major, positive development, which I believe it is (assuming the rumor is true). Or, you could discuss it in the context of closing the H system, selling Lunars and Stellers, and employees running for the exits, and the iconic brand now being owned by, of all things, a Chinese maker of drones that may further debase the brand. It was his choice. Your points above strike me as an extended justification for the article being so negative... sort of, hey, they got what they deserve.

 

[Geoff]

The "slant" of the article is the issue here. Its not clear how much of the slant was intentional or simply the result of a cultural shift, in that we no longer feel comfortable with criticism. His critique (and it is that) is read as negative, as he touches and hints at a number of rather dark images about a company in deep transformation. His original intention may have been something else entirely - just observations, but sadly the piece went beyond that point. Whether he fully intended that remains unclear but it leaves one with a gloomy feeling.

The MF digital world is a very small one, with only a few manufacturers, and even fewer credible "journalists" covering them. So the power of commentators is quite large, especially with a passionate set of consumer/customers. So a small move or story about Hassy by Lula has large ripples.

Yes, KR can write what he wants, but he is a major player in the MF field, and with that authority comes responsibilities. He had major access into Hassy, interviewed their CEO, and his commentary has more weight than a journalist writing more casually about Canikon. The negative tone in the article carries a lot of weight.

I suspect he was a bit torn in writing the piece, between on the one hand, a desire for good journalism and calling Hassy to come forward and tell us what the heck is going on, and on the other hand loyalty to their larger and historic role in medium format. Its possible there were motives behind the piece, but these remain unknown. Not worth speculating on that.

With hindsight, I suspect he'd probably reword some of the article. Its too bad its gotten such legs, and raised anxieties about Hassy. Having a great product without much delivery is a shame. Hopefully they can work themselves out of this bind and in a year or so we will all see this as merely a tempest in a teapot, something best forgotten in the long run.

Later note: his later review of the X1D was much more evenly balanced.

 

[stephengilbert]

It seems to me that people (like me) who don't have a rooting interest in Hasselblad good/Hasselblad bad wouldn't find Raber's article out of line.

This is just another of the threads that go on well past their use by date. It's worse than the stuff at LuLa.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think personal attacks are substantiated. If you have issues with Kevin Raber's article you can post on the relevant forum at LuLa.

Constructive comments are another thing but nothing is gained from slander.

Best regards
Erik

I think I have been quite clear that Kevin has every right to write his article the way he wants. He is free to spin the supposed news about DJI assuming majority ownership any way he wants. However, I have every right to call the article out for what I believe it was...a very negatively slanted piece that could not have been more effective in spreading FUD than if Phase One or Fuji had written it. As with most things in life, the glass can be seen as half full or half empty. One could have described the change of control in favor of DJI as a major, positive development, which I believe it is (assuming the rumor is true). Or, you could discuss it in the context of closing the H system, selling Lunars and Stellers, and employees running for the exits, and the iconic brand now being owned by, of all things, a Chinese maker of drones that may further debase the brand. It was his choice. Your points above strike me as an extended justification for the article being so negative... sort of, hey, they got what they deserve.

 

[hcubell]

Hi,

I don't think personal attacks are substantiated. If you have issues with Kevin Raber's article you can post on the relevant forum at LuLa.

Constructive comments are another thing but nothing is gained from slander.

Best regards
Erik

I have already registered my opinion at LuLa about Kevin Raber's article. I don't think there is much to be gained at this point in a further discussion of Kevin Raber's article. There are many who see it the way I see it. There are many who do not. Such is life. However, to be frank in response to your ad hominem remarks, I will say that if you spent less time posting here, there, and everywhere at a rate that makes me wonder if there are multiple Erik Kaffehrs, you might have some time to understand the difference between criticism that is based upon one's opinion about the tone or slant of an article and slander.

 

[Iktinos]

hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.

Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...

It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.

I found this post as annoying as I did with KR's "article", I guess what it means, is (according to KR) that for Hasselblad "to be the Hasselblad it used to be", or (as you say) "not to be in a position that can't be worst", they shouldn't be doing the following that "the competition does (IYO) right":

1. Significantly reduce prices with respect to competition.
2. Collaborate with Arri as to supply lenses for the best motion picture system in the world and have access to high end 4K RAW video technology at the same time.
3. Provide hi-end motion picture (free) processing software.
4. Collaborate with ALPA and provide the communication interface as to automate ALL (not only for the FPS) ALPA cameras for professional level stills and motion picture captures.
5. Provide film compatibility with their cameras as an alternative to MF digital.
6. Provide multishot solutions to their customers for (far) superior true color captures in stills.
7. Offer the best color (for neutral color accuracy), combined with the simplest and most accurate color calibration method.
8. Offer compatibility with tech cameras with direct sync (no "one shot" cable required).
9. Make a mirrorless camera (X1D)
10. Compete by using the same TOP end sensor as competition does (the Sony 100mp one).
11. Trade competition products too at higher prices than the brand name maker does, thus making their offerings even more tempting.
12. Provide the HTS 1.5 tilt/shift adapter which adds technical camera capabilities on the existing system without further expenses required for a new system.
13. Make the CFV at a tempting price so that users of technical cameras have access to a high end image area with LV.
14. Provide ultra long exposures & higher flash sync than competition on their products.
15. (perhaps most important) Sell significantly more products with respect to competition (obviously due to all the above).

I guess if Hasselblad wasn't doing all the above, then it would be (IYO) "in ...a better position" and (according to KR) "the Hasselblad it used to be"!

Please, bring some sense (from your "POV") into the conversation. "Phase" (as you call it - why don't call Hasselblad "Hassy"?) doesn't need KR's "help", nor your (again) bold post as to compete, they need all the above that Hasselblad is doing.

If they have the technology and it is only capital required for them to do the above, then they better find it. Racism doesn't exist into capital. You only have to prove that you have the technology and know-how, and then capital will find you... Only thing that attracts capital is the proven secure profit.

 

[algrove]

As I understand from Hassleblad financials they have not made money for 10 years. This that is not a proven secure profit for many years. Therefore, enter DJI.