Digital BW, The Print

On 28 Sep 2004 at 6:18, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> > Along the same lines:
> >
> > Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital 
> > Negative (DNG). More information here: 
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
> 
> Odd that Adobe listed the alleged benefits for photographers and
> hardware/software manufacturers, but failed to list the benefits for
> Adobe, even though they were the only reason for creating the format:
> 
> - Adobe can shore up its flagging profit picture by concocting a
> brand-new "non-proprietary" proprietary file format, knowing that in the
> computer world, whoever brings something first to market becomes the de
> facto owner of it, whether it is technically "open" or not.  (Notice
> that the symbol for the format already carries the "TM" trademark
> assertion, which is a bit strange for something that Adobe claims is
> non-proprietary.)
> 
> - By developing software in secret long before Adboe releases
> specifications, Adobe already has products ready for market and a huge
> head start on other vendors at the time the specs are released.
> 

This all falls apart at a certain point, it's only improved in NEW cameras, for 
example say I buy a camera with DNG V1.03  even when DNG V1.98 comes out, 
the camera is still DNG V1.03.  

> - Adobe can encourage the formation of an "open" committee to nourish
> the standard, of which Adobe will of course be the founding and
> controlling member.
> 
> - Adobe can continue to make subtle but incompatible changes to the
> standard as "enhancements," always making sure that its own software is
> modified to handle them _first_, so that other vendors must constantly
> scramble to accommodate the changes.  This gives Adobe ever-increasing
> market share.

Not really, camera vendors can be slow to update firmware, because it's hard to 
change firmware.

> - Adobe can leave the simplest part of the format "non-proprietary," and
> then make a large set of virtually essential enhancements proprietary
> and available only in its own software or under license.  If anyone
> tries to work around this, Adobe will pull a fat list of patents out of
> its hat and threaten the upstart.
> 
> Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
> don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
> You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
> you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.

Actually they do, instead of trying to support 15 different formats, there would only 
be one format, however standards are much better when developed by industry 
consortiums and then governed by a standard body like ISO.  

W