Apple's camera

[Flounder]

[quote]Originally posted by preston:

I have long advocated that the iPod will soon be a truly portable digital hub

p[res0[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Out of curiosity, how is it possible to have "long advocated" a fucntion for something that is only three months old?

[Spartacus]

It would be great if Apple take some license from Kodak or others and set a firewire port on the camera that would be used with the iPod to store the pictures. (5Go of pictures woaou)

What do you think about it?
The iPod could be the storage center of other digital devices this to keep the prices of the other devices low.

[MacsRGood4U]

Apple will eventually release a digital still camera and camcorder as well. They did have 2 digital cameras with their name on it in the mid 90s. I believe Fuji made them. Any camera will have built-in storage. Using the iPod for storage would be a GIANT step backwards. Why have two pieces of equipment when you can have one like every other digital camera and camcorder? I also believe Apple will eventually offer a desktop printing box, possibly licensing Polaroid's new Opal system. It produces color prints at half the cost of current inkjet ones, has dyes rather than inks (built into the paper rather then being printed on) for stability (won't fade) and provides color resolution better than anything else currently on the market. Conjecture on my part, of course.

[preston]

I would say this is a for-sure. The iPod will go beyond mp3s, simply because the design of it begs to be used as a POD, not as a PLAYER. Have you seen the "digital wallet" the iPod will eventually have the same functionality.

I have long advocated that the iPod will soon be a truly portable digital hub, connecting a camera, camcorder, ext. firewire drive will only be a matter of time.

p[res0

[Aphelion]

Quicktake - Quicktime (MPEG4?) video & still camera that does it all. Built in 10 or 20 GB Toshibia 1.8" hard drive with firewire to download to Mac or ANY firewire hardrive (including iPod).

Fujitsu would be a great choice to build this, they have an advanced CCD system and no video camera as yet (that I know of).

[New]

I doubt Apple will ever release a Apple-branded printer again...

[qazII]

Bumping back to the top. This thread was pushed to the bottom as a reply was added to it when the AI clock was somehow set to April 15/16, 1990.

[Caler]

Digital cameras are pretty ubiquitous out in the wider world, can Apple make money marketing a digi cam just to their installed base? I'd say it would have to be priced competitively to succeed, but...

&lt;looks at iPod sales, shrugs&gt;

:p

Caler

[Gustav]

[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:
<strong>Apple will eventually release a digital still camera and camcorder as well. They did have 2 digital cameras with their name on it in the mid 90s. </strong><hr></blockquote>

They had 3.

The QuickTake 100, 150 - the 150 was just an improved version of the 100.

The QuickTake 200 that was a rebranded Fuji camera.

[Matsu]

The iPod WILL NOT be used as the storage system for any other digital device, camera, video, or otherwise. It is a needless step: it adds weight, adds bulk, adds complexity, and is completely out of character with Apple. IT WOULD INDEED be a gaint step backward to start using the iPod as the storage system to a digital camera. It will NEVER dock with anything in that kinda way -- firewire is all the docking you're ever gonna get, and it's all the docking you're ever gonna need. That HDD shoud be in a camera, but the camera will have it's own enclosed HDD, and NO I/O except for firewire. That it can function as a small portable HDD is just a nice bonus that Apple through in because the could (at negligible extra cost) but it is not now and never will be a HUB, that is the role of your mac, the iPod (and any other future devices) will be the spokes. Get over it, it's a stupid idea.

whew, sorry, I just got tired of that 'it's more than an MP3 device' silliness. It isn't.

Now, Fuji just released three new superCCD cameras: A 6/12MP pro camera, and two 3/6MP pro/consumer cameras. All can use IBM micro-drives and MMC cards. How much better to skip all the needless complexity and extra expense of cards, the possibility of loss, th slow write speed etc, and just build a camera around one of those sensors and a nice big, 'BUILT IN' 5GB (or 10GB???) 1.8" HDD.

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>

[MacGregor]

I can see the coolness factor for an Apple camera, but history shows that Apple is about innovation. The QuickTake got thousands of digital cameras into the hands of many before anyone else could do the same. The camera market is no longer that way. It would have been nice for Apple to spin off a camera division at the beginning and just like Sony did, but it is too late now unless Apple is sitting on some technology that could change the playing surface.

The comment about Apple not making printers anymore is important. The more Apple makes its own stuff, the less it becomes a digital hub for other equipment and devices. Sure Apple should innovate with iPods and hopefully a new kind of pda, but other than partnering with Canon or another company, Apple should stick with software in markets of technology that are already mature.

I like the iPod as a hardrive accessory to other FW devices, though. Why not carry an iPod with your DV camera? It's like having a pouch of extra film, but one can also play songs, too.

[Eugene]

[quote]The iPod WILL NOT be used as the storage system for any other digital device, camera, video, or otherwise.<hr></blockquote>

You're being needlessly crabby here. Will the iPod lose any functionality because of this? No. Look at it like this:

1) FireWire is a peer-to-peer technology
2) iPod already functions like a HDD
3) It's 5 GB (maybe more in the future.) Do you know how much a 1 GB microdrive costs? Do you know how much a 512 MB SD/MMC card costs?

The ability for the iPod to store stuff live from a digital camera or camcorder is a welcome addition. It's taking the digital photo wallet one step further.

[Matsu]

yep,

It's still a stupid idea that is completely out of character with Apple. If a camera comes it won't use the iPod for storage. It might have it's own internal 5GB HDD. Which I agree would be leagues better than a microdrive (go back and read my post) or any kinda MMC. Sure, as a firewire HDD you'd be able to use the iPod as a Digital wallet but it won't dock into any camera in the way people here like to hope. Your Camera will work 100% independently of the iPod. It will have it's own storage system. They'll talk over firewire if you want, but you won't need one to use the other. :p

[Junkyard Dawg]

[quote]
It would be great if Apple take some license from Kodak or others and set a firewire port on the camera that would be used with the iPod to store the pictures. (5Go of pictures woaou)

What do you think about it?
The iPod could be the storage center of other digital devices this to keep the prices of the other devices low.
<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I've been saying this since the iPod's inception. This sort of functionality would put the iPod in a league of its own, and it would fly off the shelves since virtually everyone with a digital camera would want one. I'm sure Apple's working on some variant of this idea. At least I hope they are..

[Spartacus]

I'm not the only one that thinks differnetly. ;-)

here is someone else:
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-828494.html" target="_blank">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-828494.html</a>

[Eugene]

[quote]They'll talk over firewire if you want, but you won't need one to use the other<hr></blockquote>

Who said that?

[Eugene]

[quote]They'll talk over firewire if you want, but you won't need one to use the other<hr></blockquote>

Who said that? Only Spartacus, and I think everybody disagreed with him.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>

[2far]

[quote]Originally posted by Spartacus:
<strong>The iPod could be the storage center of other digital devices this to keep the prices of the other devices low.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In the meantime, have a look at Mindstor <a href="http://www.mindsatwork.net/" target="_blank">http://www.mindsatwork.net/</a>
- 5-20 GB
- FireWire and USB
- Memory Stick, Compact Flash, SmartMedia, MMC, ...

[clonenode]

There are some very insightful comments here about how the iPod will NOT be the storage device for an Apple digital camera. I agree.

Look at it this way. See the iPod as a proof of concept for a small device using some new technology; flat lithium polymer battery; thin, high capacity hard drive; slick, intuative interface.

The iPod is just a prelude to another, slightly more complex device.

[Matsu]

Hub = Mac

Using an iPod in that role simplifies nothing. Devices that click into each other are badly conceived from the get go. Look at laptops for clues. No More swappable bays. Why? Cause it really is a needless expense in terms of cost durability and proprietary nature. Firewire is better. Firewire DOES NOT dock, it connects. What is the point of a dock? You still need to carry both perifs, you don't save any weight, or if you do you must sacrifice some functionality. Do I carry the extra battery or the extra hard disk? Get the point. It only seems like a good idea, but in practice it only makes things messy. iPod is great because it simplifies. No cards, just huge fast storage and syncing. Using the iPod as the primary storage for another device is akin to using it as a very bulky, very expensive, and comparatively fragile PC card. Not smart. Not focused/refined. Not Apple.

I certainly agree that iPod technology could be great in another device. A camera with ITS OWN 5-20GB internal hard drive and lithium polymer battery plus easily navigable menu/file system, and rapid firewire sync? Yeah! That is a great idea, but not a lense that has to be plugged into another expensive piece of equipment. You don't save anything. It seems like you might, but when you get down to engineering the thing you find hat you actually have to INCREASE COSTS to pull it off.

Why? Easy. You need a color screen. A music player doesn't. You need a much faster/more sophisticated DSP. A music player doesn't. You need more battery Power. A music player doesn't. So lets say you wanted to make a new iPod that could be the guts of a camera. You have to make it more expensive than it needs to be for music. Not Good at all.

Or you can take the other route and let the iPod be a strictly storage device for the camera. Fine. The iPod stays cheap. But you still need a DSP, a CMOS or CCD, a lense, a firewire port, a strong battery or battery port, a screen, and a viewfinder. Lots of duplication/overlap (albeit increased in power) yet you still have an utterly useless standalone device. It is much easier to simply give the thing it's own internal storage than needlessly duplicate a superfluous DSP, flash memory, battery, interface, and display. Even the controls are not all that great for photo use. You can either comprimise the photo performance of the controls, duplicate them in a better version on the camera body (again extra expense) or redesign them to be less ideal in for music/menu work.

With such a dockable vision, if we may borrow some Steve/Ive design philosophy, NOTHING ends up being true to itself. All you really get is a choice between poor comprimises, needless expense, or fruitless integration. Instead of two great devices built to the best feature/cost ratio possible -- Or even one such device -- you get two devices with lackluster price-performance.

IT IS A BAD IDEA TO MAKE MORE OF THE iPOD THAN WHAT IT IS &lt;-- not shouting, think s-l-o-w r-o-b-o-t-i-c speech. You know, to give yourselves enough time for it to sink in.

[bunge]

The iPod IS a portable firewire harddrive.

So, if Apple makes a camera it could easily attach to an iPod and use it as an extension of any built in storage. This would be an extra feature, not the only method.

At least that's what I suspect.

[vinney57]

Apple will NEVER produce either a still or video camera...accept and move on.

[Matsu]

Here's another way to look at it. You see those palm pix cameras, or handspring type PDA camera pluggins. They absolutely stink! They take bad pictures, are an ergonomic mess, and they're expensive. For the price of one you can buy nice entry level digital camera in the 1.3 to 2 megapixel range that takes exponentially better pictures. For the price of the PDA plus the pluggin, you can buy a really great consumer camera in the 3 to 5 megapixel range that'll better pictures than any amatuer is likely to produce with film. It sounds cool, but it never works out.

iPod as a SUPPLEMENTARY storage? Absolutely. Just like you could use it as supplementary storage for your mac. iPod as the primary storage for the iCamera? NEVER, NO WAY, NO MAS! You can do it cheaper and better if you give the camera its own independent storage. Try to imagine needing an iPod in order to get your iBook to work. Stupid right? This is no different.

[MacGregor]

The zdnet.com article does make a good, simplified format of the arguments for peer to peer vs. digital hub.

One of Microsoft's disadvantages is the fact that personally networked appliances can become mini-IS nightmares for consumers who only look for the obvious or the analogous.

Apple will need to keep that in mind as the spokes of the hub get connected via FW, since people will be plugging any FW port to any other FW port they have until something works. The computer desktop keeps everything sorted out in nice easy to understand icons.

An Apple camera could be cool and the iPod could be its portable HD, but the whole thing needs to evolve at a human speed, not a technological speed. I imagine that is why Apple keeps many functionalities "covered up" until needed, like the whole HD aspect of the iPod.

Apple's iApps are already approaching a level of complexity beyond the average user. Windows boxes are dog simple unless someone who wants to adds more to them. Apple boxes have all the toys already in them, especially now with the new iMac, waiting to be found. Unfortunately in the big world of the unwashed masses, those toys can become pretty mixed up.

One thing that will be interesting is that Apple has avoided tiny storage formats like Sony memory sticks. In a possible Apple camera future, will holding on to the images until you find a FW mac be enough? Will iPods really take that function? Will Apple have its own memory unit, or are optical drives all we get beyond 3rd party zip drives and the like?

The Sony Mavica camera with small CD burners have very compelling specs, especially if you want long term curation/storage of photos, but they come with compelling costs. What would Apple do?

[Jay]

[quote]Originally posted by vinney57:
<strong>Apple will NEVER produce either a still or video camera...accept and move on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As Gustav said earlier, they ALREADY did. It was called the <a href="http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n17410" target="_blank">QuickTake</a> I had one.

[ThunderPoit]

i too would like to see the ipod used for other storage methods as well, but the way some of you are arguing it, it sounds like you think the ipod would have to be connected to the camera at all times. imagine this.

youre at some family get to gether and and youre taking pictures like crazy. you glance at your camera and see that your 256mb cf card only has room for 5 pictures, so what do you do? your computer is 45 min away at home and you want to take more pictures. you suddenly remember you left your ipod in your car. you go to your car, plug the camera into the ipod, dump your pictures, and youre set for more photos.

dosent somthing like this seem at all plausable?

[Jeremiah Rich]

I agree with many that it just would not be a good idea. Job's goal seems to be, "Connect all the devices to the computer. But let them operate independently" Truth be told, I think the only device we will be seeing connect to every peripheral is the mac, or digital hub. Personally, I prefer this myself. When I was once a *shivers* Wintel user, I had a Casseopia running WINCE. Anyways, it did everything. Mp3's, video, email, you name it. The problem was, while it did all of this, it did not do any one thing WELL. That is where Apple's strategy is so ingenous. Release more than one device, piece of software, (like the iPod) that serves one purpose and does it well. I think the iPod may have some more features we have yet to see, but as a whole, it does what it was meant to do, play mp3's, and does an incredible job at it.

[ricRocket]

Interesting debate - I'll chime in...
I LOVE the idea of the iPod as *supplementary* storage for either an Apple Camera or existing cameras.

I mean why not?
a)Because it's too complicated? If you're smart enough to sync your iPod with iTunes, you're smart enough to connect a camera to your iPod and press a button.

b) Because the iPod won't do it well (it'll only work well as an mp3 player)? Sorry, the iPod wouldn't be doing anything new. It ALREADY acts very well as a portable hard drive, all I need is a cable to connect my camera to it and voila!.

c) The Hub needs a mac. Yes, that's true, but storing your photos an an iPod also needs a mac to view them, or iPhoto-Share them.

d)Connecting peripherals to each other is conceptually confusing. Well then fine, let's all scrap this peer-to-peer Firewire nonsense and give over to USB 2, a nice clean master-slave relationship.

Sure, maybe this'll never happen - Apple pretty much does as they (read: Steve-o) please anyway - but it would still be a great feature to have for a LOT of people.

rr.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: ricRocket ]</p>

[vinney57]

Jeez, Jay... I know they used to make Quicktakes; I had a 150. They will not however be making any in the future <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

The pro Nikons and Canons have FW connectors and I CAN see the iPod (or indeed any miniature FW drive) as a temp. portable storage for these. Those 1Gb microdrives are pretty expensive.

[Paul]

[quote]Originally posted by Jay:
<strong>

As Gustav said earlier, they ALREADY did. It was called the <a href="http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n17410" target="_blank">QuickTake</a> I had one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think this is the main reason why they will NOT make a camera... remember when jobs came back and he axed a whole bunch of projects to save the company? well a big reason why a lot of them arnt coming back (pda, quicktake, etc.) is because STEVE WASNT AROUND WHEN THEY WERE MADE, they did not hatch from his head and do not fit his vison, so its a no go. just because Apple made a quicktake 5 years ago does not mean that they will in the future...

Personally, I think cannon/sony/hp have the market pretty well covered... Now you can say that it was the same deal with the MP3 player market before the iPod, but I disagree. MP3 players are a realtively new phenomenon(sp?) as are PDAs and I think Apple has good reason to be tooking for ways to make using them easyer... cameras and camcorders on the other hand have been around 20X longer then PDAs and MP3 players and they are MUCH more refined and MUCH more mature... even if they have only been going digital recently... Apple will stay out of these markets for that reason...

As for the iPod as a portable "dock" for things like CF, MMC, and the like, dont count on it... I would look to a SEPARATE device from the iPod to perform these functions that syncd with iPhoto. also, I think that the "iPod" monkier will be used to encompase all the "iDevices" so there will be an iPod Music player, an iPod Picture station, etc. actually on second thought, that doesnt make much sence... but then again neither does the iPod name for an MP3 player ("What is in a name? Wouldn't a rose be just as sweet if it had any other name?"---ahhh, butchered shakespeare!)

-Paul

[MacGregor]

Yeah, the naming thing still gets to me about the iPod, why not say iTunesPlayer or something that emphasizes the software rather than the hardware if you hope to sell Macs with it?

The only reason i see for Apple to make a camera is to make it a QuickTime camera so that QT becomes the mp3 of video (c'mon QT6 we're counting on you!!) and it is the simplest way to "share" your video with others like the way iPhoto does with jpegs...I assume they are jpegs. Just plug in the camera and it goes to QT first rather than iMovie. The view screen on the camera would look like a QT Player. Again emphasizing the software over the hardware.