So because Canon wants to make a profit, they dont care what customers think?
I thought their customers were the ones spending money to make them a profit.
They do. But that doesn't mean they care what you think.
They don't - unless you talk about the top-of-the-line models. For the smaller models, you specifically lose functionality. So no accelerometers. No GPS. Less camera resolution. Less memory (often puny, which can be seen in all the complaints from users who are angry that specific programs can't be run on external memory). Removal of support for external memory card.
When you have the lower-tier phones, they are designed to sell in millions. So the hardware is a pretty exact fit. When you build the phone in 10 million, you don't mount a sensor if you don't want to sell the phone with that sensor. So you, as customer, don't get to know if the chipset inside the phone would have supported a GPS or not.
But an important thing here is that phones are commodity products. There aren't any big investment to switch from one brand to another. So customers may rotate around between the different brands (with exception of iPhone and to some part Blackberry where people tends to be polarized - like or hate).
When selling commodity products, the competitors have to fight almost to death to figure out if a color stripe or an extra sensor or a specific program may be the difference to trick some % extra customers to go for their brand instead of a competitors brand.
It is quite similar for the P&S cameras, but it isn't so for DSLR. It's a much more long-term commitment because of lenses etc. Adding a GPS to a DSLR isn't something that makes a large number of customers to switch brand. It is more a thing that can get customers to switch between two different models from the same manufacturer.
Look around - lots of people comment about the dynamic range of Nikon cameras with newer Sony sensors. Or how Canon have better live view. But not too many customers jump to Nikon for the sensor or to Canon for the better live view. The lock-in from lenses etc are much too big.
So Canon would do wrong if they would pretend they were a mobile phone company, and try to just adapt the strategies that the mobile phone manufacturers are using.
But why can't you be more creative in your posts. Why not tell what specific functionality you miss or would want to work differently, instead of using so creative words as "crappy" which really doesn't mean anything. No manufacturer listens to any customer who is only able to use the word "crappy".
I can connect to the internet with it, and download bazillions of different user made applications, some of which will ring the absolute neck out of the phone's hardware.
And your point is? That cameras should be like phones, with Android and download of a large number of programs? I'm not convinced a smartphone come DSLR would really be a good tool for a professional photographer, even if it would be nice to be able to run a DoF calculator on the display, or have the camera have a great sequence timer internally.
In time, it is likely that we will get app functionality in cameras, but that isn't one of the primary goals with them.
Apps, on the other hand, is one of the primary goals with a "smart phone" - that is what separates it from a dumb phone and what makes the manufacturer able to charge several times more. Your Samsung phone may be cheap. But it is still many times more expensive than the dumb phones available. All because it is designed for a completely different customer group.
The question here is how large customer group there would be for an Android DSLR. We know the customer group for smart phones is many, many, many millions.
Sure - but what doesn't this analogy have to do with a DSLR? A smart phone is a computer that just happens to be able to make phone calls (just about - you often have to make do with 24-48 hours battery time). A DSLR isn't a computer that just happens to be able to take photos. And it isn't expected to be a computer that just happens to be able to take photos.
You see the difference? A smart phone doesn't even have "phone" as primary function. An old Nokia N95 or Ericsson t68 manages phone calls so very much better than todays smartphones.
Look closer - the big brands do a huge amount. Samsung don't sell their phones by just bringing an Android phone to the market, leaving it to everyone else to populate it with software.
On the other hand? How many times have you run out of battery in your phone because one of all the lousy programs? The freedom to install random programs isn't always good. What do you think the support costs are, from all angry customers who fails to separate issues with their phone from issues with ****ty programs they have installed?
But you still fail to show how this would be a valid example when comparing to a DSLR. Does it sell more cameras if the camera can be a lap timer? Does the camera become easier to use? Can it be sold cheaper? Will more people stop buying smartphones and instead carry a stupid phone + a "smart camera"?
Well, you are always free to dream up random scenarios. If we find them likely is another matter. Why? Because Canon seem to sell products that are fitting their market segments for just about all market segments Canon have products in. So it is likely to believe that if Canon did sell phones, they would sell phones that would be comparable to the competitors phones.
And I have no doubt that there would be huge issues with a camera with Android. So the question is how the benefits would balance against the problems. And the main question: Would it give a significant boost in camera sales?
When even a cell phone can do that, if you download an app. DSLRs arent sold in a vacuum, they are competing against other electronic goods, and also what people expect from electronics is changing on account of Android / Iphone type devices / tablets etc.
Yes, I would like that intervalometer in the camera. But that is about the only real stupidity when it comes to software functionality Canon doesn't supply us with.
No - DSLR aren't competing against other electronic goods like that. Especially since the owner of a DSLR is most probably already an owner of a smartphone meaning there weren't any competition between them.
Next thing - separate what people "expect" and what people are willing to pay for. Especially if their "expectations" are likely to make their new camera harder to use.
Just about no one every postprocess photos from their cellphone. Guess it's the same with a DSLR? Switch to P&S cameras and you see lots of them that can stitch - they are sold in a market segment where the customer aren't expected to post-process so it is reasonable to supply ready-to-use panoramas directly out of the camera. Look at the DSLR from the same manufacturers and you notice that they normally don't stitch.
And so on and so on.
Intervallometer as app is a bad example, since it should be a feature that should be in the camera directly from factory. So it isn't a good sales argument for Android support.
Yes - I have regularly complained to Canon why their cameras can't make phone calls. After all - even a low-end cellular phone can do it...
The point and shoot market is very special because the customers for low end P&S are the same customers who also have a phone with similar functionality.
The only single thing that makes it meaningful for low-end P&S to exist, is that they are allowed to be thicker than phones. So they can have zoom and a slightly larger lens + sensor. The the difference is tiny.
Similarly for MP3 players. They are smaller and gives better battery time. But it doesn't much matter that they are smaller when people are already carrying their phone. So it is a niche product with a greatly diminishing customer base.
But neither of the above is even closely relevant to DSLR.
For better P&S, I think only Nokia have tried to compete.
This function isnt even available on the top of the line models, as best I know, so it's not as though they're protecting that portion of the market.
Don't live too much on that single missing intervalometer. Most people on POTN probably think it's bad it is missing. But it really isn't enough of an argument for claiming Canon ships crap or doesn't listen to their customers. And it doesn't motivate why Canon should stop differentiate between different models with different price levels.
Remember that video is secondary - they have a separate product line for video.
Video is to a large part a "checkmark" to get some sales - while video at the same time is a thing many photographers do not want in the camera. Especially as our stills lose quality from compromises made with the low-pass filter.
Having something like an intervalometer could be the tipping point between someone choosing Nikon or Canon, for the expense of getting someone to spend 1/2 a day writing a software routine.
The DiGIC have nothing with operation of the camera to do. It is the image processing chip.
Having the same DiGIC in multiple camera models doesn't mean the models should all make full use of the chip - what would then differentiate the models?
So no one got my money.
Until I found out about ML, then bought a 600D.
Well, why not use your phone as intervalometer? There are solutions that uses the audio out of a phone to control a camera. After all, you like your phone with all the nice apps. Then you can select which one to get out of many.
Canons internal politics should not have anything with you enjoying taking pictures.
And it is Canons "laughable innovations" that ML can make use of - without Canons "laugable innovations" you would not have any ML.
If enough wants the same as you, you might get such a camera. But most probably not too many are ready for an Android camera.