Apple's camera

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
[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?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 30
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 30
    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
  • Reply 4 of 30
    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).
  • Reply 5 of 30
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    I doubt Apple will ever release a Apple-branded printer again...
  • Reply 6 of 30
    qaziiqazii Posts: 305member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    calercaler Posts: 29member
    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;







    Caler
  • Reply 8 of 30
    gustavgustav Posts: 824member
    [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.
  • Reply 9 of 30
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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>
  • Reply 10 of 30
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    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.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    [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..
  • Reply 14 of 30
    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>;
  • Reply 15 of 30
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]They'll talk over firewire if you want, but you won't need one to use the other<hr></blockquote>



    Who said that?
  • Reply 16 of 30
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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>
  • Reply 17 of 30
    [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, ...
  • Reply 18 of 30
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 30
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.