Sandisk Offers Inexpensive Storage Cards for Permanent Storage

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.sandisk.com/corporate_press.html' target='_blank'>http://www.sandisk.com/corporate_press.html</a><br /><br /></div>"SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ:SNDK) today announced a new line of inexpensive flash memory cards designed to allow users to save their pictures indefinitely without using a computer for downloading, thus giving millions of consumers a major incentive to switch from film to digital photography and providing them with a durable, permanent way to store a lifetime of images. With an initial suggested retail price of $14.99 each–a breakthrough in the industry–the Shoot & Store™ cards are expected to allow people to order prints on a “cost-of-use” basis that is equal to or less than that of traditional analog film. And they won’t have to worry about leaving expensive flash memory cards with retail photo finishers."<br /><br />An interesting tactic, but do you think it will work?

[EricMCarson]

My only concern is whether these are write-once cards. If not, they could work in a grocery store environment (next to the film).

[dmacburry2003]

MORE FLASH MEDIA!??!?!?! 8O

[JonnoB]

I don't get it... how is this any different than what is possible today? Please enlighten me.

[Pat Logsdon]

The cards also provide options for consumers to get quality snapshots from the retailers’ do-it-yourself photo kiosks or from in-house processing services instead of toiling over home printers to make photos that end up costing more and may be prone to fading in a few months.
It seems like they're going to try to make money by putting kiosks that can accept SD cards in retail stores. I would imagine that the cards would have to be read-only to sell them at a $14.99 price point.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I don't get the concept either. :? Is it even lower quality than existing Sandisk products? (Is this even possible?) :lol:

The low cost, convenience and simplicity of the cards are designed to generate new business to the stores that consumers visit frequently

Don;t quite see the point of what they are getting at.

The first card types in the Shoot & Store line are Compact Flash (CF), SD and SmartMedia. The CF and SD cards initially will be offered in 50-picture (32-megabyte) sizes while the SmartMedia cards will be offered with 50 pictures only. By the middle of the year, SanDisk plans to distribute 100-picture (64-megabyte) cards at an initial price of $24.99, as well as add other card formats including Memory Stick PRO and xD.

No no different format - thank heavens for small mercies. :?

[Jason Dunn]

I don't get it... how is this any different than what is possible today? Please enlighten me.

It's pretty much the card size + price point - it's hard to find 32 MB cards anywhere today (at least in most places where I look), so I think their idea is to revitalize the small card market. &lt;shrug> We'll see what happens...

[William]

I would imagine that the cards would have to be read-only to sell them at a $14.99 price point.
I guess you mean write-once instead of read-only?

Anyway, I don't see how this would work. In the end a large multiple use card will be much cheaper. And would you really send in an even inexpensive card without making backup copies on your computer in case the card gets lost?

[Howard2k]

Could they actually be any less reliable and slower than the current cards??


I'm going nowhere near them.

[xboxlord]

I don't see how this will work. I understand the concept, but it makes no sense to me why they would try doing this. William was right in saying the larger use cards are much cheaper. And nowadays, nobody really goes to get their digital film developed because printer quality is good enough that the cards are used at home for photo quality prints. And in digital photography, the card doesn't really matter, it is the camera. Having a 2MP card "developed" at a retail store will not give you a better quality picture than what you would "develop" at home.

[JackTheTripper]

seems to me the whole point of digital is cost savings. you buy it once and reuse it over and over and over. OK, say the photo place DOES lose you card. how many times have you used it before that where they DIDN'T lose it. Besides, everybody (at least anyone doing digital) has a CD burner. I would never give a SD card to a photo finnisher. I'd put it on CD. If they lose that I'm out $0.10.

[T-Will]

WHY would anyone buy a 64 MB write-once read-only SD card for $24.99 when you can buy an unlimited use 64 MB for $31 (http://www.flash-memory-store.com/64mbsd.html)??? :? Only $6 more...

Unless I don't fully understand the technology, this sounds like a dumb idea... :roll:

[Jonathon Watkins]

It really is hard to see what they are trying to do here. :?

[Horus]

Just me, but I think they will probably do alright with this business.
I wouldn't be in the market for this and it sounds like most of the people here wouldn't be either - but most people are not like us at all - and yet they have money to spend too. I guess SanDisk wants to get some of it from them! :D

[[email protected]]

Jason is right. the technology is the same. the CF card is the same as you can buy today. it really goes to marketing strategy more than anything else. Money, REAL MONEY, is made in selling devices to the masses, not to geek freaks like myself. If a company can convince grandma and grandpa that they can partake in the "digital age" and still maintain that feeling of film cameras, you will get more of them off their lazy boys, and into the stores to buy digital camers, and therefore digital media. Never forget, that the PDA, Digital camera companies, etc, are not nearly as interested in the High Tech, Gotta have it now, gotta be the best and the newest consumers. They want joe schmo and his millions of clones. Mass consumption means mass profits. 'nuff said!

[GoldKey]

And nowadays, nobody really goes to get their digital film developed because printer quality is good enough that the cards are used at home for photo quality prints. And in digital photography, the card doesn't really matter, it is the camera.

Actually, if you look at the cost of paper and ink, it is usually cheaper to have prints made at a retailer whether BandM or online. $.29 a prnit for 4x6 at multiple local drugstores.

[glaggle]

One of the attractions of digital photography is that you can take as many pictures as you want and throw away any that you didn't like. Write-once media makes this kind of picture-taking wasteful and I think it detracts from one of the main advantages of digital photography.

Now if it was about 1/20 the price that they are talking about, I would be okay with it be disposable media.

[Christian]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to permanently store their photos on 32 or 64MB flash cards instead of CDs or on their hard drive. It offers no cost advantage and no convenience advantage - actually, quite the contrary :? Not to mention that modern high resolution digital cameras would require one to "switch film" as often or more than in a conventional camera. It almost seems like Sandisk is trying to convince users of film cameras to switch to digital by replicating all of their disadvantages. 8O

Maybe I'm just missing the point in a serious way...

[ctmagnus]

Inexpensive Cards... Eliminate Computer Downloading

In my experience, the main reason people buy digital cameras is so they can download the pictures to computers and manipulate the images there.

:confused totally:

[Jude]

The way I understand it, I don't think these are write-once, read-only SD, SM, or CF cards (do those even exist?). It sounds like these are just plain old 32 MB flash memory cards. Since the market for 64 MB and below memory cards is shrinking among the techno elite, it looks like Sandisk is just re-marketing them for the masses. Most non-digital camera using people don't even know WHERE to buy memory cards, or even WHAT they are. So spreading them around will definitely help in their adoption.

They probably have loads of unsold 32 MB cards that they want to get rid of, and this actually seems like a smart way to do it. I'd think twice before buying a $50 128 MB card, but I won't even blink at a $15 32 MB card.

Also, with the costs of photo paper and printer ink, unless you buy and print in bulk, it actually comes out cheaper and is more practical to have your photos printed in a shop.

[Tom W.M.]

Seems like a pretty silly idea to me. Maybe if each card cost $0.50 for at least 128 megs, but until then I see no reason to permanently keep photos on a small, easily lost card (that you may not even be able to read twenty years from now). And a CD would still cost a tenth as much, for far more storage. Of course, we'll probably be using blue-light DVDs by the time these cards could hit that price point.

This also eliminates one of the most important advantages digital cameras have over film—you can delete photos you don't like on the camera to make room for more.

Most importantly, this will make an already confusing field (with five or six common formats) even more confusing. I suppose consumers could adapt eventually, as with CD-R and CD-RW, and for that matter DVD-R, DVD+R and all the rest, but it will just lead to consumer frustration in the proccess.

[jimski]

OK, lets start over. These are the same 32 and 64MB cards that any of us who have been doing this for a few years has tucked away somewhere, because we have grown out of them into 128, 256 and 512MB cards.

They are just being remarketed by indicating how many pictures they can hold, just like blank videotapes tell you how many hours they hold, not how many feet of tape you are buying.

Sandisk is going to promote these cards in retailers like, mass drug store chains, supermarkets and probably gift and souvenir shops. Anyplace you can buy an instant camera today, you are going to find instant flash memory in a bright new package (same old memory-no restrictions).

Believe it or not, many people are afraid of their computers and say a prayer when they turn on without it spitting up a few error messages. Connecting a digital camera to a computer a couple years back was a daunting experience, and while USB drivers and software have gotten a lot better, old stories take a long time to die.

Average consumers are not ready to start dealing with CD burners (even though their machines probably already have this feature built in to their drive) and connecting digital cameras and card readers to their machines. In the last 18 months, I have purchased five different card readers for two different machines (desktop and laptop) and only recently have I found two that stay connected (don't vanish from time to time) and seem to work without me having to reboot my machine each time I insert and remove a card.

So don't be so critical and give Mr. Average Consumer a chance to go out and purchase a moderately priced digital camera and a few of these photo cards (formerly know as flash memory) to snap some snazzy pictures.

[dean_shan]

Inexpensive Cards... Eliminate Computer Downloading

In my experience, the main reason people buy digital cameras is so they can download the pictures to computers and manipulate the images there.

:confused totally:

That and email them.

SanDisk can do what they like. I'm not going to buy these 'new' 'photo cards' of theirs.

[bjornkeizers]

Most of us wouldn't buy them, but I could see this taking off. Most of us have a digital camera and a ton of cards, but we're not the target audience.

Let's take a trip to say... a zoo or an amusement park. You're out and about with the family and you buy one of those disposable cameras. You snap away all day, and when you're done, you go to a kiosk and have them develop them, but instead of prints, you'd get the 32 mb card, ready for editing or E-mailing.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Most of us wouldn't buy them, but I could see this taking off. Most of us have a digital camera and a ton of cards, but we're not the target audience.

Let's take a trip to say... a zoo or an amusement park. You're out and about with the family and you buy one of those disposable cameras. You snap away all day, and when you're done, you go to a kiosk and have them develop them, but instead of prints, you'd get the 32 mb card, ready for editing or E-mailing.

By jove, I think he's got it! :wink: Now with that and Jimski's post - I'm begining to see the point. Kind of.......

(Still think it's a daft idea though).

[Brad Adrian]

They are just being remarketed by indicating how many pictures they can hold, just like blank videotapes tell you how many hours they hold, not how many feet of tape you are buying.
That's what I'm assuming to be the case, too. They've simply been able to drive down the cost of production to the point where they can claim the cards are single-use.

Notice, though, that some of this marketing language is due to disappoint a lot of digital camera users, especially newbies. Fifty photos on a 32MB card? With the growing prevalence of 2-3 megapixel cameras, there's no way that many full-resolution snaps will fit on a 32MB card.

With traditional film, there was very little variability in the number of shots that would fit on a roll advertised as holding 24 exposures. If SanDisk sticks to the marketing/labeling methods they seem to have outlined, it's going to cause confusion and disappointment. Imagine going on vacation, equipped with two 32MB cards, and finding out that you run out of storage space after 20 or so snaps instead of the promised 100.

[Christian]

They are just being remarketed by indicating how many pictures they can hold, just like blank videotapes tell you how many hours they hold, not how many feet of tape you are buying.
That's what I'm assuming to be the case, too. They've simply been able to drive down the cost of production to the point where they can claim the cards are single-use.

Notice, though, that some of this marketing language is due to disappoint a lot of digital camera users, especially newbies. Fifty photos on a 32MB card? With the growing prevalence of 2-3 megapixel cameras, there's no way that many full-resolution snaps will fit on a 32MB card.

With traditional film, there was very little variability in the number of shots that would fit on a roll advertised as holding 24 exposures. If SanDisk sticks to the marketing/labeling methods they seem to have outlined, it's going to cause confusion and disappointment. Imagine going on vacation, equipped with two 32MB cards, and finding out that you run out of storage space after 20 or so snaps instead of the promised 100.

Even worse, what will they do when the average resolution of digital cameras increases? Imagine the customer confusion of labeling future flash cards with the same amount of storage space with a smaller number of pictures. :roll: