It's a Fuji Instax because Polaroid is licensing the name for them to put on it because people know Polaroid and instant film like they know kleenex and tissues, people will pay for it. It costs more because Polaroid has to make their licensing fees off the product. They are not setup in any way to make anything themselves, film or otherwise.
As for people who compare this to anything digital or wonder how or why anyone would shoot instant film...well for reasons mentioned, it's convenient for certain professions, it's also a great evidentiary tool since you can't photoshop it. As for artists and photographers...plenty of us still shoot film. Shocking as that may be to some of you, we rather take pictures that come out looking a certain way rather than take bland pictures and spend ours on a computer to make them look that way. We also aren't all old fogies or hipsters. I shoot only film because it gives me the results I want and how I want. As for the 'overpricing' of say Impossible's film or Fuji's....perhaps you're not aware, the reasons Polaroid went bankrupt in 2001 was because they were unwilling (not unable) to change their practices to the changing markets. By that I mean they kept producing large amounts of film, even though they couldn't sell it all, they perhaps thought that if they kept the film cheap, it would find buyers.
Clearly they were wrong, but instead of producing less film at a higher per-capita cost and raising prices, they simply folded. It's apparent now that there is a market there with people willing to pay higher prices to keep the product around. It's simple economics that if you produce less of something, it costs more per unit, and you have to sell it for more. Operations like Fuji can charge less than Impossible because they can make the film a loss-leader having other products be more marked up while at present Impossible only has the film as their revenue stream.
HP has had plenty of time to fine-tune its finger-friendly TouchSmart software, and now, its newest model, the TouchSmart 610, ushers in a fresh design, highlighted by a hinge that allows the display to slide down and lie nearly flat.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's a Fuji Instax because Polaroid is licensing the name for them to put on it because people know Polaroid and instant film like they know kleenex and tissues, people will pay for it. It costs more because Polaroid has to make their licensing fees off the product. They are not setup in any way to make anything themselves, film or otherwise.
As for people who compare this to anything digital or wonder how or why anyone would shoot instant film...well for reasons mentioned, it's convenient for certain professions, it's also a great evidentiary tool since you can't photoshop it. As for artists and photographers...plenty of us still shoot film. Shocking as that may be to some of you, we rather take pictures that come out looking a certain way rather than take bland pictures and spend ours on a computer to make them look that way. We also aren't all old fogies or hipsters. I shoot only film because it gives me the results I want and how I want. As for the 'overpricing' of say Impossible's film or Fuji's....perhaps you're not aware, the reasons Polaroid went bankrupt in 2001 was because they were unwilling (not unable) to change their practices to the changing markets. By that I mean they kept producing large amounts of film, even though they couldn't sell it all, they perhaps thought that if they kept the film cheap, it would find buyers.
Clearly they were wrong, but instead of producing less film at a higher per-capita cost and raising prices, they simply folded. It's apparent now that there is a market there with people willing to pay higher prices to keep the product around. It's simple economics that if you produce less of something, it costs more per unit, and you have to sell it for more. Operations like Fuji can charge less than Impossible because they can make the film a loss-leader having other products be more marked up while at present Impossible only has the film as their revenue stream.