Apple iCam precedent

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Ok, I know there's been way too many rumors about an Apple iCam, but FujiFilm announced a new digital still/video camera at Photokina 2002.

<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;

XD card (wish this was SD) and microdrive support makes this a great memory capture device for vacations...

Now if only Apple would make one and integrate iPHoto, iMovie and iDVD to make a complete industry busting solution...

What do you think?


  • Reply 1 of 44
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Shh, here is a picture of a secret prototype Apple camera. You'll notice NO Photoshop tomfoolery in this picture:

  • Reply 2 of 44
    HA HA right on!

    This looks just like the first digital camera I ever used..

    Ahh.. the good old days. Remember when Photoshop had no layers?

  • Reply 3 of 44
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    To Appleize that Fuji would require a 20GB toshiba HDD and a design that wasn't butt ugly. The sensor is decent but nothing special, same with optics, and the microphone surely sucks ass. BTW, they have to keep it small, but it needs a long battery life. They'll probably need to use a CMOS sensor to save power. Considering the 20GB iPod already costs 500USD, it wouldn't be possible to do such a device for less than 700 and that means Apple wouldn't do it for less than a 1000 cause Jobs would rather go out of business than compete on price.
  • Reply 4 of 44
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by JasonPP:

    <strong>HA HA right on!

    This looks just like the first digital camera I ever used..

    Ahh.. the good old days. Remember when Photoshop had no layers?


    Layers? Who needs them, just a newfangled gimick if you ask me..... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 5 of 44
    That "secret prototype" looks a lot like the Apple QuickTake series of digital Cameras. Get the legacy documentation about them in this <a href=";SaveKCWindowURL=http:% ge&searchMode=Assisted& &showButton=true&randomValue=100&showSurvey=f" target="_blank">Knowledge Base Document</a>. :-)
  • Reply 6 of 44
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    [quote]Originally posted by monsterjaeger:

    <strong>That "secret prototype" looks a lot like the Apple QuickTake series of digital Cameras. Get the legacy documentation about them in this <a href=";SaveKCWindowURL=http:% ge&searchMode=Assisted& &showButton=true&randomValue=100&showSurvey=f" target="_blank">Knowledge Base Document</a>. :-)</strong><hr></blockquote>

    psst... don't tell...
  • Reply 7 of 44
    Please let this happen!

    As a precursor, the Fuji device adds the missing link of both video and high resolution stills. Apple needs a follow on to the iPod. An Apple iCam could be the home run APPL needs to position itself as a consumer space leader and innovator.

    Apple! innovate! use a Foveon chip and make it slick!
  • Reply 8 of 44
    zozo Posts: 3,117member
    well guess what, seeing that since Jaguar, FireWire Webcams have a driver to go on (built in to OS) and USB has never and still doesn't have good support, Apple will be creating/selling a FireWire based camera.

    Aside from that, what it will be like, is any one's guess.

    USB webcams are such shite on MacOS. wtf.
  • Reply 9 of 44
    The only thing I don't understand is why did Apple stop makeing cameras, scanners, printers, etc.?
  • Reply 10 of 44
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    A 5 GB MicroDrive is only going to be store 15 minutes of MiniDV quality video. I don't really believe in HDDs as the primary medium for camcorder devices. First, you need 20 GB for 60 minutes. Second, you need to download movies somewhere after shooting 60 minutes of video instead of just popping in a new tape.

    I really hope that if Apple makes a digital still camera, it focuses on the higher-end consumer market. I bought my iPod because it was best of breed. Apple needs nothing short of the best for the iCam. this probably means 4 or 5 megapixel, at least a 3x optical zoom, a nice glass optics, lots of manual control, and some killer feature...
  • Reply 11 of 44
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Altivec_2.0:

    <strong>The only thing I don't understand is why did Apple stop makeing cameras, scanners, printers, etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    The money in printers is in sale of consumables. The printer market is based on a loss-leader sales model, where you sell the main piece of equipment at a razor thin margin or at a loss and make money on the sale of accessories and supplies. It's like the console market where the console makers make their profits on software/accessory licensing.

    Apple tried to sell rebranded Canon and HP printers at a premium. People had no reason to buy Apple printers. Apple's OneScanner was a horrible device. Apple's QuickTake cameras were way before their time.

    I really wouldn't want Apple to start selling printers OR scanners again. Apple's not as big as it was. They really shouldn't take risks like that. They'd also have to spend a ton on distribution of ink and toner cartridges.

    The same applies to Dell, it really doesn't make sense for Dell and Lexmark to collaborate, especially if the new Dell printers are going to require specific ink and toner cartridges. When a kid printing out a term paper runs out of ink, he needs to be able to get a replacement cartridge immediately. Dell's direct sales model doesn't allow this. When the Dell printers appear in 1Q03, Dell will have to start selling consumables at retail, even if they don't sell the printers themselves at retail. All in all, this is going to cost Dell money and cost consumers a lot of confusion.

    You see one major OEM PC, you've pretty much seen them all...this is not the case with printers. People actually like to see sample printouts from printers they might buy...and not the laminated preprepared samples on photo quality papers...they want to see samples spat out sstraight from the printer on plain paper.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    These are certainly profitable endeavors, especially digital cameras which will mature over the next decade and all but obliterate film, eventually. People want them, and though they're getting pretty good, they will keep get better for a good long while before that market cools! The printers to go along with those cameras are the next step. Right now it's still an expensive process: photo-paper, special ink, dedicated printers, a hodge-podge of print technologies that while good can be alternatively expensive or difficult to supply (for the consumer).

    Personally, I think this market could be even bigger than digital video, if only because paper has staying power. We like printed photos. We won't print them all, we'll keep the scores of bad ones strictly digital, but when we get a good one, we want to show it off. Books (good move Apple!), 8x10's, 4x6's, wallet size, photos for friends, to set off the decor, pretentious black and whites, etc etc... got a good image? I'll take two.

    But, you'll need to buy mechanisms for printers certainly and optics and sensors for cameras too, and scanners. In a lot of ways this is no different than buying the many generic components Apple uses to build it's desktops, and yet in some ways it isn't (as Eugene described.)

    Hopefully Apple has been building relationships with suppliers, learning about these technologies, hiring qualified personelle, and preparing to make some spokes for their digital hub. Keys for such a line should be simplicity both of use and in offerings. Something for the consumer, and something more feature rich for the pro-sumer. A scanner, a slide scanner, a photo-printer, a laser prinetr, a digital still and a digital still/miniDV combo camera, iPods (exhanced to function as digital wallets), and some new things too.

    How about a digital 'slide' projector? Like a LCD projector, but one that automatically reads digital pictures over USB or firewire -- you navigate via an attached iPod? Nice for presentations, I think. Of course, having an iPod that can do that with any number of TV's would be pretty cool too! Apple should have, if not a bread and butter imaging division, at least one that makes printing and copying as absurdly simple as the Apple brand suggests. And sell the stuff to the PC side!!! There's no shame in making money on PC peripherals. An iPod sale for a PC is as good as an iPod sale for a Mac, so it should be with a camera, or scanner, or printer, etc etc... The finest integration or special interoperability would often be mac only, but that's really the Mac's business to sort out -- make it good and easy for both platforms and you'll sell a lot of them. Doesn't hurt to have a PC customer walk into an Apple Store and walk out with an Apple branded something even if it's not a mac it's money in the bank and it's a better chance that a few of those people will make a full "switch"

    I think the problems described above could be overcome by having a very simple line-up. Not more than one or two of each.

    [ 09-25-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 44
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I have to respond to the printer remarks because basically you're right about the printer and ink model. You need to be a big player to pawn cheap printers and make your money the ink. But this is only on the extremely low end. I don't think Apple would go there, they haven't anywhere else, not with their computers and not with the iPod. So they could use a mechanism compatible with an established player to give consumers peace of mind, and make the priter valuable through other enhanced features. Perhaps an 802.11 network printer, or they could enter spaces where none of the other players are really entrenched, like a home/consumer full page photo printer. A bus powered firewire portable printer? I dunno. I does seem dicey.

    Scanners though? No consumables there (which is the major problem in the printer market). Just because Apple made a crappy scanner in the past doesn't mean it can't make a good one now. Consumer scanner: Firewire, letter size with a good slide/film scanning template, works with iPhoto, slim-clean-smooth-icy-white design, fast scanning times, good color depth and resolution, auto power on/off, a good OCR feature. I think they could sell them. Maybe a nice bundle with Adobe or Corel (don't laugh, they're getting better)

    Cameras? Same difference. Apple needs alternative revenue streams and well judged imaging products could help supply it, it goes hand in hand with Macs.
  • Reply 14 of 44
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Half of Apple's business is the consumer market. When you talk about the high-end printer market, what do you mean specifically?

    If you mean a good photo-capable printer, then inkjet is not the answer. Dye-sub? Maybe, but for anything other than photos it's a waste.

    If you mean large-office oriented laser printers with 4 paper trays and crazy PPM, then I don't see Apple competing with HP, Canon and Xerox.

    Apple doesn't fit into the printer business any more than Dell does...Wait a year and the Dell+Lexmark collaboration will end up looking like a very expensive mistake. HP and Epson won't allow Lexmark to gain any ground, especially if they start offering every other OEM similar deals.

    What exactly can Apple do to innovate the scanner market? My Epson Perfection Photo 2450 already works pretty well with Image Capture. iPhoto support wouldn't be hard at all. Since most people scan photos, digital cameras are making scanners less important every day anyway.

    Out of all these markets, the only feasible product is the iCam, because it's seen remarkable growth in the last year and a half. it would be a shame if Apple missed the boat. Apple has to start with small, pocketable devices first, then move on to bigger things like printers and scanners (a long way off if anything.)
  • Reply 15 of 44
    I agree Steve knows what he is doing. The iPod allows PC users to see how great apple stuff is and some of them will switch or at least consider an apple next time they buy. Just like if you buy a good watch that lasts for every. Then if you ever buy another watch for yourself or a friend you will most likely buy it from the same company. The iPod will help apple gain market share.


    \tIf apple can come up with a great digital camera. I think it would be great step for them. What features do you think apple will come up with. Hopefully something a little more innovative than the iPod. For even though the iPod is a great(Best one) MP3 player it wasn't really revolutionary.

    \tI'm thinking about a camera that has the ability to capture small amounts of video as well. One thing I hate about my DVC is that it never works right. But besides that I can't think of anything to revolutionary at the moment.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    I don't understand why people are so bent on getting Apple to make a digital camera, camcorder, printer, or anything else of the sort. Let them stick to what they are good at, computers. There are plenty of other GREAT camera companies, Nikon, Canon, and Mamiya (645AFD is pictured with a TiBook on their web site, digtal and film backs doesn't get much better). Just to name a few. Canon, Lexmark, HP, Epson, all make really nice printers that work very well with Macs. I don't even know where to begin with camcorders. My point is that Apple is good at making good quality components work extremely well with their computers. The reason they made the iPod was because there was nothing that worked well with Macs. Since all of these products work VERY well I don't think that we will see any of these products because Apple knows their place is making awsome computers. Just my two cents.

  • Reply 17 of 44
    While I agree Apple should be concentrating on what they do best, high margin products with mass appeal and growing market that can integrate into their iApps are very attractive. Digital cameras are no where near saturation and still in the growth phase.

    High margin digital devices that enhance the Mac experience are critical to Apple's growth in the down market. If you're not willing to spend lots of $$$ on a new computer, you might be willing to get a iApp enhanced digital camera. This may even drive a new computer purchase sooner.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    Um, you guys remember Polaroid, right? Like, one of the biggest camera makers in the world. Up until last year, anyway when the company went bankrupt!

    "...the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company's core business suffered from the rise of digital cameras while being late to develop its own digital technologies." (Reuters)

    Oh yea. Now's a great time for Apple to get started in the digital camera market. Hey, while they're at it, why don't they develop their own line of bottled sodas. There's a market that really welcomes competition.

    [ 09-26-2002: Message edited by: Michael Grey ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 44
    So because no one buys expensive (film cost) instant cameras anymore, Apple shouldn't make a digital camera?

    Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."

    Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."

    Homer: "Thank you, dear."

    Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."

    Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"

    Lisa: "It doesn't work."

    Homer: "Uh-huh."

    Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."

    Homer: "Uh-huh."

    Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"

    Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
  • Reply 20 of 44
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Michael Grey:

    <strong>Oh yea. Now's a great time for Apple to get started in the digital camera market. Hey, while they're at it, why don't they develop their own line of bottled sodas. There's a market that really welcomes competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Presumably they would partner with a major camera maker like Canon for the core components like the optics, image sensor, Digic image processor, etc. They would, of course, influence the menu driven interface, the and exterior design.
Sign In or Register to comment.