this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Slarm@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

There are just two insightful comments on the PetaPixel article:

Allen Mac:

It's likely due to patent issues - patent trolls demanding outrageous loyalties for using their ideas.

Mick:

100%, I guess they’ve got some large corporate client who has asked for this feature, so they’ve done a deal with the patent owners and offered it as the patent licensing fees they wanted, plus development costs. I doubt Sony is making a profit on this feature, they’re doing it to sell more cameras.

That would make a lot of sense. I hope it is the case and not just milking it. On a body that expensive adding upcharged soft/firmware without a good cause is repulsive. Sony took a huge share of the market by dropping FF mirrorless, but with their competitors showing up ready to fight I don't think they can afford to pull this stuff off unless they get into a cabal together...

[–] Omnitographer@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A patent makes no sense here, an overlay on a screen is something computers have done for decades. I certainly can't imagine how anyone could have a patent for something done by the bespoke hardware of each camera manufacturer.

[–] Sarkos@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

You'd be amazed at the ridiculousness of patents. Apple has a patent for detecting phone numbers in text.

[–] sturmen@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This makes the most sense to me. Assuming this is true,it would be idiotic of Sony to pay even $1 to those trolls on every camera they sell for such a niche feature. Better to pass the cost on to the people that desperately need it and pay for it out of corporate coffers anyway.

[–] frankchn@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Seems like that particular patent has expired due to the non-payment of fees in 2014:

PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362

[–] ZeAthenA714@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Meh, every time there's a company that makes a greedy or stupid move there's someone to comment "it's probably because of patents", but it's almost never the case.

Sometimes companies are just greedy.