Dear Canon: Time to add communications to your low-end cameras(scripting.com)
scripting.com
Dear Canon: Time to add communications to your low-end cameras
http://scripting.com/stories/2010/06/29/dearCanonTimeToAddCommunic.html
7 comments
FWIW, I had an iPhone for 2 years or so. I probably made about 20 voice calls on it. I don't know it that's typical or not, but I agree - less people use the phone these days.
On my Nexus one, I can sms, GTalk, facebook, email etc etc far easier than voice calling someone and waffling around to a point and interrupting them.
I think low end cameras are doomed whatever. Same with mp3 players.
On my Nexus one, I can sms, GTalk, facebook, email etc etc far easier than voice calling someone and waffling around to a point and interrupting them.
I think low end cameras are doomed whatever. Same with mp3 players.
I actually use the iPhone primarily as a mobile web browser + a couple of apps, with a cheap nokia phone for voice. I swap out the iPhone's SIM abroad, so the only time I make voice calls with it is when I make local calls abroad to avoid roaming charges. As far as I can tell I'm far from the only one doing that.
Last week my wife was able to snag us free tickets to a Yankee game. My father and his two brothers were all long-time New Yorkers, but they're scattered now, and none of us had been inside the new stadium up until then.
I emailed them all some photos from my phone (Droid Eris) during the game. My dad was amazed by the quality of pics from the camera (relative to what he remembered of phone cameras), and we ended up having this exact conversation. Should there be an affordable non-phone but always-networked mid-level camera? He uses a cheap, yearly pre-pay phone and has no interest in paying $100 a month or more for phone+data, but he would get a camera with a small monthly fee for data use in a heartbeat. (He's a photo buff with some higher-end cameras, but that's obviously a whole different market.) I suspect he's the minority and more and more people will just move towards smart phones (high monthly fees or not), but I wonder if there's a market there.
I emailed them all some photos from my phone (Droid Eris) during the game. My dad was amazed by the quality of pics from the camera (relative to what he remembered of phone cameras), and we ended up having this exact conversation. Should there be an affordable non-phone but always-networked mid-level camera? He uses a cheap, yearly pre-pay phone and has no interest in paying $100 a month or more for phone+data, but he would get a camera with a small monthly fee for data use in a heartbeat. (He's a photo buff with some higher-end cameras, but that's obviously a whole different market.) I suspect he's the minority and more and more people will just move towards smart phones (high monthly fees or not), but I wonder if there's a market there.
Most importantly,
It's time for one of the products that are in Apple's cross-hairs to do the necessary innovation before Apple does.
Yes please — and don't try to convince the world that you had it before Apple, because it doesn't matter unless someone actually wants it. It makes me sick that the only desirable tablet right now is the iPad, which was predicted by years of rumors. Nobody saw it coming?
I look forward to when it's as easy to make a startup around hardware as it is to make one around software.
It's time for one of the products that are in Apple's cross-hairs to do the necessary innovation before Apple does.
Yes please — and don't try to convince the world that you had it before Apple, because it doesn't matter unless someone actually wants it. It makes me sick that the only desirable tablet right now is the iPad, which was predicted by years of rumors. Nobody saw it coming?
I look forward to when it's as easy to make a startup around hardware as it is to make one around software.
Interestingly, Thom Hogan (a well-known Nikon commentator) recently published a fairly similar list as suggestions for Nikon to put into their DSLRs:
http://bythom.com/design2010.htm
http://bythom.com/design2010.htm
The article talks about simple sharing to online services, then says "Apple and Google still do not have this functionality."
But that's not true. My android phone has a 'share' button in the gallery, from which I can choose a variety of destinations, including Picasa and Facebook (and any other app that registers itself as a picture sharing endpoint).
But that's not true. My android phone has a 'share' button in the gallery, from which I can choose a variety of destinations, including Picasa and Facebook (and any other app that registers itself as a picture sharing endpoint).
You could get really close to this with an Eye-Fi (SD Card that will upload to wherever you want over WiFi) and a MiFi (mobile WiFi hotspot).
Why not their high-end cameras?
I don't think serious photographers want a button on their camera body labelled "Facebook this!"
But they probably do want "post to flickr/smugmug/etc."
They want that in their editing software, but even if high-end cameras start getting a screen as good as the iPhone4; most pros are very careful about what they make public.
I disagree. I certainly wouldn't buy a serious camera that tied me to any one online service. Definitely put that stuff on cheapy kids cameras, but not on better cameras.
I'm guessing that most professionals would probably want to do post processing of the photos before uploading them.
Publishing != uploading.
Uploading can get images to durable storage, so they can't be lost. Uploading can also make images available to co-workers.
Yes, the shooter can do the upload after the fact, or interrupt, but automatic/loose-real-time means that it happens reliabily and in a timely fashion. The alternative is an assistant.
Uploading can get images to durable storage, so they can't be lost. Uploading can also make images available to co-workers.
Yes, the shooter can do the upload after the fact, or interrupt, but automatic/loose-real-time means that it happens reliabily and in a timely fashion. The alternative is an assistant.
All their cameras should communicate, but where they're under attack, where their lunch is going to get eaten if they don't do something soon, is at the low end.
They can already, although only Wi-Fi: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/wft/wft-e2/index.html
Sure the phone on the iPhone doesn't work, but who uses the phone these days?
Is the one anti-iPhone rant I really hate. He asks:
If you ranked all the things an iPhone does by how well it does it where would It's a Phone be on the list?
I'd say #1... because whatever else is wrong with the iPhone it is a damn good phone (it has even replaced the Nokia 3310 in my #1 rank of "Best Phone that is Actually a Phone").
Bleh.
On the topic of the article; the phone makers have a massive advantage over Canon in this area. They alreayd have a data connection on a device you carry with you for much of the day. Slapping on a camera is relatively trivial. Canon need to add in a data connection - which is much more complicated.
A better approach would be for Canon to partner with phone manufacturers to build better cameras for phones.