Has the HVX Stolen JVC's Thunder?

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

I don't know about you credit card rules. A couple of years ago I ordered close to a thousand dollars worth of software before it was available, my card was charged, and there ended up being delays and the product was delivered several months late, about 9 months after the card was charged. This was a big operation. As I look back, there were so many customers, that if the practice was illegal I would have thought someone would have called them on it.

It is illegal. Credit cards are not to be charged until the product is ready for immediate shipping. If enough people complained the bank for that company would have shut down their account and they would have been blacklisted from doing further credit card transactions. I know a few businesses that have had this happen to them.

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Fine, it might have been an unhappy choice of word, I haven't changed my mind but I'll avoid using that "v" word in a public forum.

I understand your POV of charging for something that isn't there and I even agree with you that RED as a company as such doesn't have a track record.

I suppose it is just a choice. The 'normal' route would be searching an investor or a bank. You'll need to convince them of the bankability of your project, but that's just talking. Problem is that investors and banks want more in return then they put in so you loose there.

If you can get some of your money for R&D straight from customer investments, that seems cheaper because they don't want more in return then they put in. Of course before you'll be able to get a lot of customers to put in an advance before there's anything, you have spend a lot of money on marketing (for hyping your product).

In the end a part of your money goes to investors, banks or marketing companies. I can't say I'm morally negative towards this method. I'm a businessman, it is all about the return and this way might be slightly more profitable then the standard way of using banks.

Nevertheless, as a businessman, I wouldn't invest in RED. I think the only point that's unfair to the customer is the lack of communication. Not communication of the product (this kind of communication is there a gogo - even without the product), but communication about the RISC involved in the investment (albeit a small investment and limited risc due to refund). There's always some risc and that's what banks and investors are after - yet that's what end-customers as investors might overlook.

As I said, I wouldn't do it, but there's nothing wrong with the business tactics. If you would invest $1000, you invest it in a product with paper specs. If the RED CAM doesn't become a reality you seem to be garanteed to get your money back (I'm not certain how that's garanteed, but it should be legally), so you can only loose about $30 interests over the span of a year I suppose. On the other hand: if the camera gets a reality and you have pre-ordered, but it's not what you expected it to be (and that's always a reality), will you still be entitled to get a refund?

I think no-one can be blamed for calling it vaporware. It might be, it might not be, but at the end of the day it is a product of a new/unknown company that has been hyped for a long, long time and there still isn't anything tangible out. It might not be vaporware, but people should be forgiven for thinking it is. Besides, it might still be. And this is exactly where business tactics might backfire. To get customper input BEFORE some of your R&D, you'll need to hype it. RED has done that succesfully. If the R&D takes too long the effect of the hype is lost and investors might get edgy. Customers with pre-orders are less strict about deadlines then investors, but they haven't got endless patience either. Businesswise this might be and interesting story, especially if there's no product any time soon...

I would never blame anyone for buying into hype (well,... I might, but hey), but some of the arguments are bogus. Someone said he wants to pay $1000 for knowing he'll have a better camcorder next year. Well that sounds like a salesguy's argument: 1) you don't know anything: it might just not be there in the end - perhaps unlikely but still a possibility 2) a better camera? By the time red will be eventually out, there might be other competitors on the market. And you have already payed your advance and thus you've made your choice before it was clear what the competition might have on offer. (let's face it, in between the first rumors of the XL-H1 and the product officially being announced were only a few weeks - the same with the JVC GY-HD100/HD200/HD250 - the same with the HVX200 - who's going to put his money on the fact that there won't be ProHD XE by the end of next year? or perhaps sony has something up its sleeve? Panasonic might be able to bring a HVX300 or HVX500...?)

[Drew Curran]

Has the Red stolen the HD-100's thunder then? Whats the outcome?

Andrew

[David Tamés]

Originally Posted by Drew Curran

Has the Red stolen the HD-100's thunder then? Whats the outcome?

How did we get from HVX vs. H100, and what accounts for the RED shift? Comparing a RED, akin to a Porsche Boxter to the HD100, akin to a Camry, us such fun, but not really a fair comparison given radically different design criteria and price-points. But it's so fun! We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion thread (with a smile on my face).

[Chris Hurd]

The RED-related posts might need to be split out of here and become their own topic.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Werner, a very well balanced and worded post. I think that it summarizes the whole deal. Where I disagree with you is the definition of "investment". The people who gave the $1000 advance didn't really invest. If I invest in a movie I espect to recover my money and then some. Othewise I basically lend money at 0% and that is not a good business model.

Take care.

[Chris Hurd]

The $1000 reservation is not an investment. It is a deposit. RED does not "use" the money (nor does it need to). What the reservation holders get for their $1000 deposit, along with an early place in line, is $1000 deducted from the total cost of the camera. $17,500 for the RED One body minus the $1000 early deposit equals $16,500 final cost before taxes. The deposit is fully refundable at any time with no questions asked. Yes deposit holders did receive a physical item, a token RED icon, when their credit cards were charged. The $1000 deposit is completely without risk. The idea behind the reservation with deposit was to accurately determine the serious response to the camera in order to guage the initial production run. It is not possible to invest in RED, nor they are not seeking investors. Given the tremendous financial backing behind the project, the last thing RED needs is more money. They could probably use some more time. But they've got plenty of money already.

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Oakley is another company. They make glasses.

Both Oakley and RED are Jim Jannard companies. However, it's an unfortunate misconception to characterize Oakley as merely a maker of glasses. While it's true that Oakley is one of the largest manufacturers of ballistic protective eyewear on the planet with enormous law enforcement and military accounts worldwide, that is only one facet of what Oakley does. Oakley is best described as an industrial design firm covering a wide variety of markets (see examples here).

Just because the parent company is reputable it doesn't meant that the new company is managed in the same way.

Oakley is not the parent company of RED. Oakley is Jim's other company, separate from RED, it's just been around a little bit longer. It's safe to say that Jim has at least the same level of enthusiasm for RED as he did when he first started Oakley.

In fact there are different people managing and taking decisions in RED than in Oakley.

Incorrect. Jim Jannard runs both companies.

Somebody asked *me* about my opinion and simply said that there is no opinion that can be made because there is nothing to use to create an opinion.

For the sake of our readers here, I desire only to clarify a couple of misconceptions. Chief among them is the notion that there's nothing to use to create an opinion of RED. That's mistaken. Perhaps the single best example of something tangible upon which to to create an opinion of RED is the actual 4K image output itself. This has been shown several times recently in well-documented public screenings that were heavily attended, most notably at IBC, NAB New York, and just recently at the NuArt theater in Los Angeles last month.

The camera is not the thing that makes you a filmmaker.

Fully agreed -- you're preaching to the choir on that one!

If you have an idea today grab any camera and shoot it, don't wait for RED.

Exactly what I've been telling people for years. If you have something to shoot now, then now is always the right time to buy. Don't wait for anything, especially hardware. Don't wait for RED. I agree with you completely.

Talking about non-existing cameras is just a waste of time.

Except that RED is not "non-existing." RED is real, it most definitely exists, it has been producing images for more than a month. It may not be shipping just yet, but yes it is very real. And thanks to the proactive participation online of the RED design team, talking about it has been highly productive in that the people who are going to use this camera have provided a lot of input regarding the actual feature sets, ergonomics and workflow and a lot of that discussion is being incorporated into the camera. Basically, the customers have had a partial hand in designing what they'll be using. And that's probably one of the best uses of time online that I've seen yet. Hope this helps,

[Diogo Athouguia]

By the way... has the HVX stolen JVC's Thunder?

[William Hohauser]

Oh Great Grinch, please get the RED out.

[Steven Thomas]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

By the way... has the HVX stolen JVC's Thunder?

Definately not mine. Almost a year ago, I cancelled my preorder for the HVX200 after checking out the HD100. I haven't looked back.

We also did a lot of one-on-one with the HVX. In fact the person who owned the HVX sold it and bought the HD100. He's a member of this forum.

I do like the HVX200 concept. In my opinion it fell short of its expectations.
To be fair, this problem can happen with a lot of technology.

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

I do like the HVX200 concept. In my opinion it fell short of its expectations.

I would like HVX200 concept if the media was an affordable solution and if they have designed a HD100 style body.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

I would like HVX200 concept if the media was an affordable solution and if they have designed a HD100 style body.

That concept is already avalable although it's more expensive to own The Sony F-350 is, as far as I'm concerned, next to the ideal camera before the 4:4:4 big guys (Genesis, F-950, Viper).
The recording to BlueRay DVD is a dream to wok with. The integration with FCP is ready *today*, the DVD represents both the recording media and the archiving system, this latter detail being sorely missing with thd HVX200. The transfer of the clips, with set In and Out points, is faster than realtime. The 1/2 " sensor allows the use of native lenses and 2/3" standard lenses with a simple adapter. If Sony manages to create a similar system for smaller body cameras, like our HD100, the BlueRay HiDef DVD will be the future of camera media. At $30.00 for 90 minutes of recording time it's exidingly more convenient than the P2.

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Diogo Athouguia

By the way... has the HVX stolen JVC's Thunder?

This topic has been started recently, but I always felt that the HVX wasn't such a succes as some people previewed. I mean: before the HVX was actually available everyone was talking and speculating whether or not the HVX would kill the JVC sales. After that the HVX became available those rumors and talk just died away and I haven't really experienced that they picked up again. Perhaps in other parts of the world, but over here in Europe, I'd say: no... (DVCPRO / DVCPRO50 was not that big of a succes here either (rather Betacam SX, ...), that might explain some things)

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

That concept is already avalable although it's more expensive to own The Sony F-350 is, as far as I'm concerned, next to the ideal camera before the 4:4:4 big guys (Genesis, F-950, Viper).

Grass Valey has the REV Pro disc which is a much more affordable solution than the P2 media, I'm not sure about it's price but I heard it would be around $75. But this is another reality, not the HD100 or HVX200 owners world.

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp

Perhaps in other parts of the world, but over here in Europe, I'd say: no... (DVCPRO / DVCPRO50 was not that big of a succes here either (rather Betacam SX, ...), that might explain some things)

That's because Sony always dictates the rules in Europe, I know few people who work with Panasonic DVCPRO50 cameras here in Portugal. Everyone owns a DVCAM, when I say to some clients that I have a DV camera they ask me if I can get a Pro DVCAM one... than I start explaining that DV and DVCAM is basically the same.