Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
It's because ten years ago they where what KR calls "the Hasselblad it used to be" (and wants it to be back for the benefit of competition). It's the 2015 and (mostly) the 2016 recent introductions of new products that made Hasselblad to shine out from (direct) competition.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.
If one wanted to report the merger facts in a neutral way, one would have either have written the simple fact that there was a merger or presented the positive and negative sides in the article. Kevin Rabber has obviously chosen to do it differently: as you wrote it is "a very negatively slanted piece that could not have been more effective in spreading FUD than if Phase One or Fuji had written 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.
Why so many people on photography forums suddenly feel motivated to write extended justifications for the article is also beyond me.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.
The standard of Volvo safety features, it will be a while before the Chinese bastardised the safety features to its level. As for Chinablad, that's another story...Hope you don't drive a Volvo (guess who own it?) either.
"Chinablad"? I have never heard the iPhone being referred to as a "Chinaphone". I have had quite a few of them and they are beautifully made.The standard of Volvo safety features, it will be a while before the Chinese bastardised the safety features to its level. As for Chinablad, that's another story...
Maybe, but you don't publish articles under the guise of journalism.Thankfully I'm biased
Because it is not presented as such. That is the problem with the article. I said it before: Phase One is certainly entitled to run their own forum if they feel like it, just like Leica, Nikon, Canon run forums for their users. And I don't complain if dpreview finds amazon to be the best place to shop, because it is public knowledge who owns whom. But in the case of that article, we do not have a warning at the top of the article as we do in the magazines when they published paid content. It is deceptive.So if it's a slanted piece written than WHY in the world does anyone even care.
They do: http://forum.phaseone.com/En/index.phpPhase One is certainly entitled to run their own forum if they feel like it, just like Leica, Nikon, Canon run forums for their users.
Seriously, have you read a newspaper lately?Maybe, but you don't publish articles under the guise of journalism.
Sure, if I read the "Pravda", I will not quite have the same articles than if I read the "Economist". Which may be a reason why the press is finding it more and more difficult to sell, as reader find themselves less and less motivated to pay for what is little more than thinly disguised advertisement. But I digress: if I buy the "Pravda", I know what I am buying. If I read "luminous landscape", where does it indicate it is a Phase One subsidiary?Seriously, have you read a newspaper lately?
Impartiality doesn't exactly spring to mind.
This is a dirty blow below the belt and not the right spirit in this forum. You're free to disagree with Kevin Raber and his article on DJI and HB, but such statements are without merit. How can anyone take you seriously if you spread blatant lies!If I read "luminous landscape", where does it indicate it is a Phase One subsidiary?
Maybe, but you don't publish articles under the guise of journalism.
I took issue with Kevin Raber's article and said as much here and on LuLa, but it was as I expected it to be and therefore I wasn't deceived.Sure, if I read the "Pravda", I will not quite have the same articles than if I read the "Economist". Which may be a reason why the press is finding it more and more difficult to sell, as reader find themselves less and less motivated to pay for what is little more than thinly disguised advertisement. But I digress: if I buy the "Pravda", I know what I am buying. If I read "luminous landscape", where does it indicate it is a Phase One subsidiary?
You can turn it whichever way you want, it still is deceptive.
Erik
I am sure you mean they (Hasselblad) need to puchase inventory to produce and sell product not assets right now.