This is a false premise to start off with, digital cameras are cheap, easy to use and easy to get your files from. All the manufacturers offer "iPhoto" style software to catalogue your images with, and for those that want more there's iPhoto or commercial applications.
Apple simply does not have a unique proposition to enter this market.
This kind of "it's easy enough to use already" argument is all too common among the computer literate. In fact, I was guilty of it myself. I was a Mac pro, worked at a big time Hollywood design studio and made fun of anyone confused by technology. Then I became a full-time Mac consultant to consumers, small businesses and Edu and learned that people are RETARDED, when it comes to ANYTHING to do with computers. I could tell you stories you honestly wouldn't believe. I can assure you that for 99% of people, digital cameras and their bundled software, even iPhoto, are NOT "easy enough to use."
My own real-life mother is the smartest person I've ever met. Harvard Law degree, speaks three languages, the whole nine yards. When it comes to her iMac though, she can still only barely handle email. A year ago we bought her a Canon digital Elph and a Canon ZR45 camcorder. She takes stills with the Elph fairly often, but not nearly as frequently as we all (and she) assumed she would. More tellingly, in that time she has shot exactly one iMovie of a trip up the California coast.
I asked her why she doesn't use the camcorder more often and she said: "It's just for big events. It's a hassle with the tapes and that carrying bag with all those cables and keeping the battery charged."
Just a few weeks ago I got her an iPod. After several hilarious hours of getting her head around the concept ("I don't understand, where are the songs?") she is now in love with the thing and uses it daily.
This is the kind of person who would love an iCam. She wants an iPod style solution to her photography and videography needs. One box, one cable, no tapes, no external or removeable batteries, and most importantly the ability to choose still or video on the fly.
Current solutions are not anywhere near adequate. Spend one day with real people in the real world and you'll agree. There is a massive need for the first truly useable all in one camera. Apple will build it. It will be gorgeous. It will be drop dead simple to use. It will be on the cover of Time.
Well that's exactly what I'm saying. They won't re-enter the digital camera market because that's commoditised, they won't enter PDA/phone market becaue it's commoditised, they entered the digital music player market because it was new and exciting, it'll soon also become commoditised and they will exit that market...
Do you honestly believe Apple will stop making iPods soon? What the hell is the point of that? So iTunes just goes back to supporting dozens of crappy third party MP3 players? What about the iTMS? Steve convinced the Big 5 to license their music for an MP3 player that's going to be abandoned "soon"? C'mon Clive, get a clue.
Many, many products today are way too complicated. And not just for the "average" person but sometimes even for the technically literate.
I have Panasonic DVD player. This stupid thing has more buttons on the front panel (and remote control) that I know what to do with. All I want to do is PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, EJECT. What is so hard about this. Yet I am baffled by the remote control.
I've looked for simpler, better designs. Few (if any) to be found.
This is the thing that amazes me about Apple. They actually give you less, and you think it's more! But that's okay! I love it. I WANT less. I wanter simpler. I just want the friggin' thing to work! I just want to PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, EJECT.
I want Apple to make everything (starting with a DVD player). Mobile phone? Sure! DVD player? Why not? Digital still camera? Okay. DV Camcorder? Definitely!
They are putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Slam iPod and iSight together and you have a DV camcorder!
Dang, Pulver's post makes a lot of sense. He's right, you know. And he's got me wanting one now.
I can TOTALLY back up the "mom" angle of his story. Same thing here. My Mom bought a Canon PowerShot S45 (GREAT 4 megapixel camera!), but it seems like she hasn't taken to the finer points/features of it. My sister and her husband have the same model and I think they basically "point and pray".
Part of me lays some of the blame squarely on them because neither have honestly cracked the accompanying manual to actually LEARN about the camera and what all the various buttons and switches on it do. That's on them.
But even so, it would be cool to see what Apple could do in this arena. If my Mom and sister start mulling over digital camcorders, there's a whole new range of things that won't be taken to easily or glossed over.
The cables, the tapes, the batteries, the "one camera for one thing, another for motion", etc.
I'd LOVE to see - in light of the "yeah, THAT'S how it should be done..." nature of the iPod and iSight - Apple apply the same sort of smarts to a harddrive-based digital camera/camcorder combo unit.
You KNOW it would rock. You KNOW it would trump everything else out there in ease-of-use and common sense. You KNOW it would work seamlessly with iPhoto and iMovie. And you KNOW it would look cool as could be.
Will probably never happen, but I agree wholeheartedly that there IS indeed a problem waiting for a solution. Like Ensign Pulver, I'm around people who "use computers", but they don't really "USE computers". They can e-mail and surf and maybe encode a CD or two. Much beyond that is a complete and total crapshoot and question mark.
I give it the "Grandma test". If my grandmother could see it, figure out what exactly it's supposed to do and how to work it, then it passes and is a good, worthy consumer-oriented device.
Shouldn't have to be that way, I know (people should read the damn manuals and learn their way around this stuff...but we live in the real world and we all know that ain't gonna happen).
Thanks, pscates. I knew I could count on you for a level headed view of consumer's real needs.
Perhaps the biggest thing supporting an iCam is what the hell else could the next DLD be? If it's not a phone, then what other pocket size device could Apple come out with? A camera of some type just seems so inevitable.
I've heard about the "real" world and "real" people too. But what is so bad about RTFM?
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
Sounds good, but I fear that if one follows this aproach all functionality which can not be made "consumer oriented" (drop dead simple) will not make it into the product. And this would be a really bad idea.
What I mean is, some things just can't be made easy.
All technical aspects aside: Making a real good picture with a camera (digital or analog) isn't an easy task any way. It's as hard as making a good drawing, although a pencil is zeroconfig.
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
The FM for my Canon DV camcorder is a 1/2" thick!
I agree here.
Part of the issue with many of these products (still and motion) cameras today is that they are "burdened" with many extraneous features that are made irrelevant with something like iMovie. I don't need/want special effects in my camera. Just get the picture for me. I'll play with it in iPhoto or iMovie. THAT is the argument in favor of an Apple iCam!
Secondly...I want someone to put all of the ports in logical places on my camera(s).
I've heard about the "real" world and "real" people too. But what is so bad about RTFM?
Nothing. Re-read my post. You're asking the wrong person
I AM a "manual reader" (I actually ENJOY it), but I know I'm in the minority. I tell my Mom all the time "you know, you might like your camera even MORE if you knew what all it was capable of and exactly what all those buttons and switches do...".
I "RTFM". But tons don't. That's the "real world". I have no control over that.
... I AM a "manual reader" (I actually ENJOY it)...
I confess, I love to read manuals too. The bigger, the better.
So maybe, that's why I don't want things to be too simple... Nah, I also enjoy simple things. But then again, I do like women! ... ... Now, things are getting very confusing indeed.
Matsu isn't the SD9 $3,000? I'm talking two or three digits. Even my Nikon was my whole Christmas, considering it was $480 or something, and on sale. Some things, like cameras and cell phones, keep getting more expensive it seems. I wanted a Bluetooth phone for my PowerBook G4 12" but it seems the only BT phones are the all in one color Java Solitaire playing ones. I'll believe Foveon when I see it. Then again I said that about G5s.
Ensign Pulver you make a good point. However you forget one thing: Apple is TINY. Sony is more in a position to make an easier version of everything. Maybe they will maybe they won't. Maybe they could partner with Apple. Frankly I'm surprised Apple's bought as much and made as much new innovations this year as they have. I mean iTMS, Panther, G5s, new PowerBooks pioneering Bluetooth, new iPods, new software like Shake, FCP (with India software), Logic 6. PowerSchool. Don't forget all their other software. Filemaker, WebObjects, and they have a lot of updating to do with iApps like iCal, iChat AV (wow! needs real conferencing though), etc.
Apple was smart to boil the product line down to a grid of 4 products: iMac, iBook, PowerBook, and PowerMac. eMac is a stopgap since LCDs are still pricey and iMacs are a ripoff. And really it was only for education originally. XServer well that was just cool. With the G5 I see them selling a lot and starting to make serious cash. KISS!
If someone can't RTFM then Apple can't help them. They're not magic.
Sony is more in a position to make an easier version of everything.
Then why don't they? Sony is one of the worst at this "button/feature explosion" nightmare. Don't get me wrong. I like Sony a whole lot better than a lot of vendors. But they have not made things simpler. They've had the chance.
Sounds good, but I fear that if one follows this aproach all functionality which can not be made "consumer oriented" (drop dead simple) will not make it into the product. And this would be a really bad idea.
Would it?
That's good design, if you ask me. If a feature can't be made easy to use, then it's not going to be used, and it might as well not be there in the first place. If it's not there, there's that much less clutter between you and the features you actually do want to use. Play, pause, stop and rewind, to quote someone upthread.
Gadget monsters will always have the option of buying a non-Apple solution.
Quote:
What I mean is, some things just can't be made easy.
All technical aspects aside: Making a real good picture with a camera (digital or analog) isn't an easy task any way. It's as hard as making a good drawing, although a pencil is zeroconfig.
But that doesn't matter. The point is that if you want to make a drawing, a pencil is zero-config. If you want to take a picture, the camera should be zero-config too. Whether the result is Art depends on the person using the tool, not on the tool itself - and there's no requirement that the result be Art, either. If what matters is that you have a photo album of your grandchildren's visit, you should be able to pick up a camera and take the pictures you want, and then assemble them into an album. Whether any of the photos is a compositional marvel is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, there's nothing Apple could do to assist.
Do you honestly believe Apple will stop making iPods soon? What the hell is the point of that? So iTunes just goes back to supporting dozens of crappy third party MP3 players? What about the iTMS? Steve convinced the Big 5 to license their music for an MP3 player that's going to be abandoned "soon"? C'mon Clive, get a clue.
Depends what you mean by soon? I'd say there will be no iPod within three years. Is that enough of a clue?
The iTMS is not reliant on an iPod, any compatible player will do.
...The point is that if you want to make a drawing, a pencil is zero-config. If you want to take a picture, the camera should be zero-config too. Whether the result is Art depends on the person using the tool, not on the tool itself - and there's no requirement that the result be Art, either. If what matters is that you have a photo album of your grandchildren's visit, you should be able to pick up a camera and take the pictures you want, and then assemble them into an album. Whether any of the photos is a compositional marvel is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, there's nothing Apple could do to assist.
Sometimes I really hate reading your razor-sharp analysis.
I'm a nonconformist and therefore like to mess with logics. Now, you got me exposed! But having evoked a response from you also makes me proud.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Gadget monsters will always have the option of buying a non-Apple solution.
Now this comment was way below your usual level of well thought out considerations. \
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
The thing is people buy on "features", not on interfaces (you know the *great* example here), so the whole retail machine is driven towards this.
It's no good saying that the consumer wants "simple", because they quite obviously do not (just look at the stuff in the shops).
Now this comment was way below your usual level of well thought out considerations. \
I plead guilty to not being able to resist use of the phrase "gadget monster," but the point stands: There will be plenty of feature-packed cameras available to the power user - and some of them will be inexpensive, for the broke power user - because of the logic Clive posted above, so there's no need for Apple to address that market. Anyone willing to read a manual can sit down and figure out the current interfaces sported by the various digital cameras, given enough time.
What there is a need for is someone who can make complicated technology simple. The company best able to do the work necessary to present an elegant interface to a complex technology (instead of succumbing to feature-list engineering and leaving the consumer holding the bag) is Apple, passim. So if they do release a camera - and, to address the topic of this thread, I'm not yet convinced that they will - it will be the sort of deceptively simple device that the iPod is, or for that matter the iMac.
Consumer digital cameras currently suffer from the same fragmention. You have to spend $200-$500 on a still camera and then $400-$1000 on a DV camcorder. Yes, many still cameras shoot video and many camcorders shoot stills, but they all suck at it. They take one kind of image well and the other kind terribly.
[snip]
Apple can do for consumer photography and videography what no one else can. The combination of Foveon tech, a 40-60GB Toshiba drive and MPEG-4 will create a HD based hybrid camera/camcorder that does everything in one box with no compromise. The stills and the video both look great.
But you've said it yourself: all the technology is there. 3-colors-per-pixel has been the holy grail of digital imaging for years now. All the major camera companies have been working on this. Some may liscence Foveon, some may finally come out with their own solutions. IMO (and it's just my opinion), Apple would be better served by continuing to offer great compatibility and ease of use on the Mac, than to compete head to head with the likes of Canon, Olympus, Sony, etc. on their home turf (granted Sony's turf is...everything and everywhere, but still...) in a very competitive market. iPod took off because it offered so much more than what was out there, looked cool, and could benefit from Apple's HID experience, as well as the fact that the big-boys were absent, or merely dabbling. iSight is taking off because up till now, videoconferencing has pretty much required an on-site tech to make it work well, and--again--the big-boys are absent.
(BTW, Look for iChat AV Pro, allowing "video chat rooms"--multiple streams using expose-like auto-orientation, drag-n-drop file transfers, etc.--for the business market, possibly with a pro (wide-angle, room-appropriate) version of the iSight (under a more-professional sounding moniker) as well.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
OK, let me anticipate the objections.
1. HD based DV capture will be substandard. If you want good DV you have to use a traditional tape based camcorder.
This may or may not end up being true. Even if it does, so what? The MPEG-4 stuff will be more than adequate for 99% of consumers. It's just like the MP3 format. You give up a little quality in return for massive convenience.
Good point. (But what keeps the Canons, Olympuses, etc from doing this as well?)
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
2. I like my DV tapes. I can bring extras with me for more storage and they double as a backup of my video. A HD based camera won't offer enough recording time for video.
This is true. Those little $8 DV tapes are a marvel and I'm a fan of them. 99% of consumers however, won't care. All they want is ease of use. Give them 60-90 minutes of raw video footage along with a couple hundred high rez stills, all in one sealed box and they'll be thrilled. Most people don't shoot more than that on one outing anyway.
First time I used my DV camera (on a trip to Alaska), I shot over 10 hours of tape. I had no access to a computer that whole time. In fact, if a camera (still or DV) had a limit on the amount I could take before DLing to a computer, I would never even have considered buying it. Not all of us have laptops, and many that do still have smallish HDs. (The low-end iBook still ships with a 30GB HD...as much as the iPod!) Because of the flexibility with tapes, I routinely take ridiculous amounts of footage because I know I can edit it all down on the computer. (I edited those 10+ hours of Alaska footage down to 90 minutes to make a kick-ass DVD for the whole family.) The vast majority of stuff people shoot on a DV camera sucks...which is why iMovie is such a hit.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
3. A HD based consumer hybrid camera is a toy. I want a "real" camera.
You are a geek. The iCam is not for you. Don't buy one.
Err...it's geeks that want the toys. Pros want the real stuff.
Anyway, most of what you say makes absolute sense, but I just think the big guns will get there soon enough. All the trade mags say the same thing. Almost every serious article on digital photography mentions the 1-color-per-pixel drawbacks. The big guns know they need to get there. They will.
When Apple swings, it wants to make sure it hits it out of the park. (In the meantime, they don't mind taking a few balls...or even a strike (like that whole "what's a CD-RW drive?" thing.) They're playing conservative...but where the market is weak and sparsely populated and potentially very cool, they come out with both barrels blazing.
Comments
Originally posted by Clive
This is a false premise to start off with, digital cameras are cheap, easy to use and easy to get your files from. All the manufacturers offer "iPhoto" style software to catalogue your images with, and for those that want more there's iPhoto or commercial applications.
Apple simply does not have a unique proposition to enter this market.
This kind of "it's easy enough to use already" argument is all too common among the computer literate. In fact, I was guilty of it myself. I was a Mac pro, worked at a big time Hollywood design studio and made fun of anyone confused by technology. Then I became a full-time Mac consultant to consumers, small businesses and Edu and learned that people are RETARDED, when it comes to ANYTHING to do with computers. I could tell you stories you honestly wouldn't believe. I can assure you that for 99% of people, digital cameras and their bundled software, even iPhoto, are NOT "easy enough to use."
My own real-life mother is the smartest person I've ever met. Harvard Law degree, speaks three languages, the whole nine yards. When it comes to her iMac though, she can still only barely handle email. A year ago we bought her a Canon digital Elph and a Canon ZR45 camcorder. She takes stills with the Elph fairly often, but not nearly as frequently as we all (and she) assumed she would. More tellingly, in that time she has shot exactly one iMovie of a trip up the California coast.
I asked her why she doesn't use the camcorder more often and she said: "It's just for big events. It's a hassle with the tapes and that carrying bag with all those cables and keeping the battery charged."
Just a few weeks ago I got her an iPod. After several hilarious hours of getting her head around the concept ("I don't understand, where are the songs?") she is now in love with the thing and uses it daily.
This is the kind of person who would love an iCam. She wants an iPod style solution to her photography and videography needs. One box, one cable, no tapes, no external or removeable batteries, and most importantly the ability to choose still or video on the fly.
Current solutions are not anywhere near adequate. Spend one day with real people in the real world and you'll agree. There is a massive need for the first truly useable all in one camera. Apple will build it. It will be gorgeous. It will be drop dead simple to use. It will be on the cover of Time.
Originally posted by Clive
Well that's exactly what I'm saying. They won't re-enter the digital camera market because that's commoditised, they won't enter PDA/phone market becaue it's commoditised, they entered the digital music player market because it was new and exciting, it'll soon also become commoditised and they will exit that market...
Do you honestly believe Apple will stop making iPods soon? What the hell is the point of that? So iTunes just goes back to supporting dozens of crappy third party MP3 players? What about the iTMS? Steve convinced the Big 5 to license their music for an MP3 player that's going to be abandoned "soon"? C'mon Clive, get a clue.
Many, many products today are way too complicated. And not just for the "average" person but sometimes even for the technically literate.
I have Panasonic DVD player. This stupid thing has more buttons on the front panel (and remote control) that I know what to do with. All I want to do is PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, EJECT. What is so hard about this. Yet I am baffled by the remote control.
I've looked for simpler, better designs. Few (if any) to be found.
This is the thing that amazes me about Apple. They actually give you less, and you think it's more! But that's okay! I love it. I WANT less. I wanter simpler. I just want the friggin' thing to work! I just want to PLAY, PAUSE, STOP, EJECT.
I want Apple to make everything (starting with a DVD player). Mobile phone? Sure! DVD player? Why not? Digital still camera? Okay. DV Camcorder? Definitely!
They are putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Slam iPod and iSight together and you have a DV camcorder!
I can TOTALLY back up the "mom" angle of his story. Same thing here. My Mom bought a Canon PowerShot S45 (GREAT 4 megapixel camera!), but it seems like she hasn't taken to the finer points/features of it. My sister and her husband have the same model and I think they basically "point and pray".
Part of me lays some of the blame squarely on them because neither have honestly cracked the accompanying manual to actually LEARN about the camera and what all the various buttons and switches on it do. That's on them.
But even so, it would be cool to see what Apple could do in this arena. If my Mom and sister start mulling over digital camcorders, there's a whole new range of things that won't be taken to easily or glossed over.
The cables, the tapes, the batteries, the "one camera for one thing, another for motion", etc.
I'd LOVE to see - in light of the "yeah, THAT'S how it should be done..." nature of the iPod and iSight - Apple apply the same sort of smarts to a harddrive-based digital camera/camcorder combo unit.
You KNOW it would rock. You KNOW it would trump everything else out there in ease-of-use and common sense. You KNOW it would work seamlessly with iPhoto and iMovie. And you KNOW it would look cool as could be.
Will probably never happen, but I agree wholeheartedly that there IS indeed a problem waiting for a solution. Like Ensign Pulver, I'm around people who "use computers", but they don't really "USE computers". They can e-mail and surf and maybe encode a CD or two. Much beyond that is a complete and total crapshoot and question mark.
I give it the "Grandma test". If my grandmother could see it, figure out what exactly it's supposed to do and how to work it, then it passes and is a good, worthy consumer-oriented device.
Shouldn't have to be that way, I know (people should read the damn manuals and learn their way around this stuff...but we live in the real world and we all know that ain't gonna happen).
iPod, iTMS, iSight, iCam, iPlay (ala TiVo), i**** (ala Kormac (sorry Matsu
Apple swamps consumerville with so many cool, must-have gadgets that they absolutely, positively must get a Mac. If only to run their gadgets!
Perhaps the biggest thing supporting an iCam is what the hell else could the next DLD be? If it's not a phone, then what other pocket size device could Apple come out with? A camera of some type just seems so inevitable.
Originally posted by Quick
I've heard about the "real" world and "real" people too. But what is so bad about RTFM?
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
Sounds good, but I fear that if one follows this aproach all functionality which can not be made "consumer oriented" (drop dead simple) will not make it into the product. And this would be a really bad idea.
What I mean is, some things just can't be made easy.
All technical aspects aside: Making a real good picture with a camera (digital or analog) isn't an easy task any way. It's as hard as making a good drawing, although a pencil is zeroconfig.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
The FM for my Canon DV camcorder is a 1/2" thick!
I agree here.
Part of the issue with many of these products (still and motion) cameras today is that they are "burdened" with many extraneous features that are made irrelevant with something like iMovie. I don't need/want special effects in my camera. Just get the picture for me. I'll play with it in iPhoto or iMovie. THAT is the argument in favor of an Apple iCam!
Secondly...I want someone to put all of the ports in logical places on my camera(s).
Originally posted by Quick
I've heard about the "real" world and "real" people too. But what is so bad about RTFM?
Nothing. Re-read my post. You're asking the wrong person
I AM a "manual reader" (I actually ENJOY it), but I know I'm in the minority. I tell my Mom all the time "you know, you might like your camera even MORE if you knew what all it was capable of and exactly what all those buttons and switches do...".
I "RTFM". But tons don't. That's the "real world". I have no control over that.
Originally posted by pscates
... I AM a "manual reader" (I actually ENJOY it)...
I confess, I love to read manuals too. The bigger, the better.
So maybe, that's why I don't want things to be too simple... Nah, I also enjoy simple things. But then again, I do like women! ...
Ensign Pulver you make a good point. However you forget one thing: Apple is TINY. Sony is more in a position to make an easier version of everything. Maybe they will maybe they won't. Maybe they could partner with Apple. Frankly I'm surprised Apple's bought as much and made as much new innovations this year as they have. I mean iTMS, Panther, G5s, new PowerBooks pioneering Bluetooth, new iPods, new software like Shake, FCP (with India software), Logic 6. PowerSchool. Don't forget all their other software. Filemaker, WebObjects, and they have a lot of updating to do with iApps like iCal, iChat AV (wow! needs real conferencing though), etc.
Apple was smart to boil the product line down to a grid of 4 products: iMac, iBook, PowerBook, and PowerMac. eMac is a stopgap since LCDs are still pricey and iMacs are a ripoff. And really it was only for education originally. XServer well that was just cool. With the G5 I see them selling a lot and starting to make serious cash. KISS!
If someone can't RTFM then Apple can't help them. They're not magic.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Sony is more in a position to make an easier version of everything.
Then why don't they? Sony is one of the worst at this "button/feature explosion" nightmare. Don't get me wrong. I like Sony a whole lot better than a lot of vendors. But they have not made things simpler. They've had the chance.
Originally posted by Quick
Sounds good, but I fear that if one follows this aproach all functionality which can not be made "consumer oriented" (drop dead simple) will not make it into the product. And this would be a really bad idea.
Would it?
That's good design, if you ask me. If a feature can't be made easy to use, then it's not going to be used, and it might as well not be there in the first place. If it's not there, there's that much less clutter between you and the features you actually do want to use. Play, pause, stop and rewind, to quote someone upthread.
Gadget monsters will always have the option of buying a non-Apple solution.
What I mean is, some things just can't be made easy.
All technical aspects aside: Making a real good picture with a camera (digital or analog) isn't an easy task any way. It's as hard as making a good drawing, although a pencil is zeroconfig.
But that doesn't matter. The point is that if you want to make a drawing, a pencil is zero-config. If you want to take a picture, the camera should be zero-config too. Whether the result is Art depends on the person using the tool, not on the tool itself - and there's no requirement that the result be Art, either. If what matters is that you have a photo album of your grandchildren's visit, you should be able to pick up a camera and take the pictures you want, and then assemble them into an album. Whether any of the photos is a compositional marvel is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, there's nothing Apple could do to assist.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Do you honestly believe Apple will stop making iPods soon? What the hell is the point of that? So iTunes just goes back to supporting dozens of crappy third party MP3 players? What about the iTMS? Steve convinced the Big 5 to license their music for an MP3 player that's going to be abandoned "soon"? C'mon Clive, get a clue.
Depends what you mean by soon? I'd say there will be no iPod within three years. Is that enough of a clue?
The iTMS is not reliant on an iPod, any compatible player will do.
Originally posted by Amorph
...The point is that if you want to make a drawing, a pencil is zero-config. If you want to take a picture, the camera should be zero-config too. Whether the result is Art depends on the person using the tool, not on the tool itself - and there's no requirement that the result be Art, either. If what matters is that you have a photo album of your grandchildren's visit, you should be able to pick up a camera and take the pictures you want, and then assemble them into an album. Whether any of the photos is a compositional marvel is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, there's nothing Apple could do to assist.
Sometimes I really hate reading your razor-sharp analysis.
I'm a nonconformist and therefore like to mess with logics. Now, you got me exposed!
Originally posted by Amorph
Gadget monsters will always have the option of buying a non-Apple solution.
Now this comment was way below your usual level of well thought out considerations.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Consumer electronics devices should put ZERO burden on the user. Pick it up and start using it immediately. If your supposedly simple, consumer oriented interface requires reading a manual, then it is poorly designed.
The thing is people buy on "features", not on interfaces (you know the *great* example here), so the whole retail machine is driven towards this.
It's no good saying that the consumer wants "simple", because they quite obviously do not (just look at the stuff in the shops).
Complicated technology is complicated, full stop.
Originally posted by Quick
Now this comment was way below your usual level of well thought out considerations.
I plead guilty to not being able to resist use of the phrase "gadget monster," but the point stands: There will be plenty of feature-packed cameras available to the power user - and some of them will be inexpensive, for the broke power user
What there is a need for is someone who can make complicated technology simple. The company best able to do the work necessary to present an elegant interface to a complex technology (instead of succumbing to feature-list engineering and leaving the consumer holding the bag) is Apple, passim. So if they do release a camera - and, to address the topic of this thread, I'm not yet convinced that they will - it will be the sort of deceptively simple device that the iPod is, or for that matter the iMac.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Consumer digital cameras currently suffer from the same fragmention. You have to spend $200-$500 on a still camera and then $400-$1000 on a DV camcorder. Yes, many still cameras shoot video and many camcorders shoot stills, but they all suck at it. They take one kind of image well and the other kind terribly.
[snip]
Apple can do for consumer photography and videography what no one else can. The combination of Foveon tech, a 40-60GB Toshiba drive and MPEG-4 will create a HD based hybrid camera/camcorder that does everything in one box with no compromise. The stills and the video both look great.
But you've said it yourself: all the technology is there. 3-colors-per-pixel has been the holy grail of digital imaging for years now. All the major camera companies have been working on this. Some may liscence Foveon, some may finally come out with their own solutions. IMO (and it's just my opinion), Apple would be better served by continuing to offer great compatibility and ease of use on the Mac, than to compete head to head with the likes of Canon, Olympus, Sony, etc. on their home turf (granted Sony's turf is...everything and everywhere, but still...) in a very competitive market. iPod took off because it offered so much more than what was out there, looked cool, and could benefit from Apple's HID experience, as well as the fact that the big-boys were absent, or merely dabbling. iSight is taking off because up till now, videoconferencing has pretty much required an on-site tech to make it work well, and--again--the big-boys are absent.
(BTW, Look for iChat AV Pro, allowing "video chat rooms"--multiple streams using expose-like auto-orientation, drag-n-drop file transfers, etc.--for the business market, possibly with a pro (wide-angle, room-appropriate) version of the iSight (under a more-professional sounding moniker) as well.)
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
OK, let me anticipate the objections.
1. HD based DV capture will be substandard. If you want good DV you have to use a traditional tape based camcorder.
This may or may not end up being true. Even if it does, so what? The MPEG-4 stuff will be more than adequate for 99% of consumers. It's just like the MP3 format. You give up a little quality in return for massive convenience.
Good point. (But what keeps the Canons, Olympuses, etc from doing this as well?)
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
2. I like my DV tapes. I can bring extras with me for more storage and they double as a backup of my video. A HD based camera won't offer enough recording time for video.
This is true. Those little $8 DV tapes are a marvel and I'm a fan of them. 99% of consumers however, won't care. All they want is ease of use. Give them 60-90 minutes of raw video footage along with a couple hundred high rez stills, all in one sealed box and they'll be thrilled. Most people don't shoot more than that on one outing anyway.
First time I used my DV camera (on a trip to Alaska), I shot over 10 hours of tape. I had no access to a computer that whole time. In fact, if a camera (still or DV) had a limit on the amount I could take before DLing to a computer, I would never even have considered buying it. Not all of us have laptops, and many that do still have smallish HDs. (The low-end iBook still ships with a 30GB HD...as much as the iPod!) Because of the flexibility with tapes, I routinely take ridiculous amounts of footage because I know I can edit it all down on the computer. (I edited those 10+ hours of Alaska footage down to 90 minutes to make a kick-ass DVD for the whole family.) The vast majority of stuff people shoot on a DV camera sucks...which is why iMovie is such a hit.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
3. A HD based consumer hybrid camera is a toy. I want a "real" camera.
You are a geek. The iCam is not for you. Don't buy one.
Err...it's geeks that want the toys. Pros want the real stuff.
Anyway, most of what you say makes absolute sense, but I just think the big guns will get there soon enough. All the trade mags say the same thing. Almost every serious article on digital photography mentions the 1-color-per-pixel drawbacks. The big guns know they need to get there. They will.
When Apple swings, it wants to make sure it hits it out of the park. (In the meantime, they don't mind taking a few balls...or even a strike (like that whole "what's a CD-RW drive?" thing.) They're playing conservative...but where the market is weak and sparsely populated and potentially very cool, they come out with both barrels blazing.
-DCQ