I don't know if Apple should necessarily make a scanner, but I wouldn't mind then seeing create some neat, universal driver/app (iScan?) that somehow worked with existing USB offerings from Epson, Canon, HP, etc. and - as the opening thread stated - gave the whole "Apple approach" to scanning: a simple, "don't need the manual" interface that tied in nicely with iPhoto and Panther's FAX.
Anyone remember "Ophoto?" This was at the time, the best scanner software around. But yeah, Apple should leave this market to Canon and HP, who are selling scanners for about $70 CDN.
People don't buy scanners because there is nothing new about them so why replace the one they baught 3 years ago with a new one thats still just as much of a pain in the ass to use as the old one. The only reason I would buy a new scanner is if my current POS broke or if apple made a pretty brushed alluminum one
And as far as bashing the new posters, I'm glad there are new posters so we don't have to read the same old BS from all the old posters. Its nice to see some new BS every now and then
The best possible thing Apple could make is a PROFIT. The way to do that is make products people want and will buy. Scanner and printers = loss. Computers, iPods and digital toys = Profit.
there is still a big market in scanners. You guys seem to be just thinking of the person who scans in there family photo prints. What about all the artists? We will alwase need scanners. Digital cameras will never replace them.
most of the market for real scanning is in the mid/hi-end repro market. archiving existing paper materials is an ongoing task, and one does still get transparencies to scan. however even this market is contracting and many players (heidelberg being one example) have cut their range and have not natively supported OS X with their software. i'm not sure what support there is for OS X with hi-end drum scanners and the like ... perhaps some board members work in a repro house and know what's out there ...
as for the consumer market, well apple did provide basic scanning support in 10 and 10.1, and better in 10.2, but it was developers who were slow to adopt the new OS. Products like Vuescan have developed and thrived on this uncertainty, and have allowed many legacy pieces of kit to be used ... thank god for 3rd party developers
now, as other posts have referenced, companies like microtek, hp and canon are producing cheap, reasonable quality consumer-level scanners. most ship (finally) with some form of X native plugin or software. it's not been an ideal situation for years, but the market at this level has moved massively towards digital photography. apple has led from the front with the plug and play support of almost every recent digital camera and printer out there. they COULD try and do the same thing with scanners, and the architecture of OS X does allow this thru image capture, but it's not really worth it. there are more players on the cheap scanner market than for, say printers; and it could be argued that there is a lower quality threshold with scanners. you can pick up some really cheap POS PC-only scanners which produce negliable results. why would apple put unnecessary resources into supporting something which the end user will still go 'this old photo scan looks like cr@p honey, this apple sucks'. it's just not worth it.
and they will def not market their own scanner ... they'd sooner release a SCSI device. a scanner won't be the next digital lifestyle product
I still, however, wouldn't mind seeing some universal, "works with all USB scanners and ties in directly with iPhoto (or Photoshop or Painter...you choose)" scanning software iApp from Apple that makes the process as easy and idiot-proof as it can be.
"I've got my nice Canon scanner, but I LOVE using it with iScan...flawless, intuitive and never fails!"
Oh absolutely! An app like iScan would be GREAT. Import scans right into iPhoto if you want to... it would save me buying a new scanner with OSX drivers.
I've recently started farting around with a 2MP camera I got for a great price (FREE!) and iPhoto kinda gives me fits. Where do the pics go? Arranging them seems a bit more work than it should be. I just want an app that doesn't hide things in a fancy directory and lets me get at the pics I want and move things about as I see fit.
But yeah, scanners should work with iPhoto. iPhoto itself though, needs a lot more flexibility.
I've recently started farting around with a 2MP camera I got for a great price (FREE!) and iPhoto kinda gives me fits. Where do the pics go? Arranging them seems a bit more work than it should be. I just want an app that doesn't hide things in a fancy directory and lets me get at the pics I want and move things about as I see fit.
But yeah, scanners should work with iPhoto. iPhoto itself though, needs a lot more flexibility.
iPhoto needs a lot of work.
Files are located in users\\pictures\\iphoto library.
The file system looks way too convoluted. Wait until you get 3-5000 photos in the library - iPhoto slows down quite a bit. Also, if you have to import the library onto a new machine (or after reformatting your hard drive), the import function imports both the original picture and thumbnail. Also, periodically, photos just seem to disappear from the library (while the original is buried deep down in some folder within iPhoto library).
I'm not sure why Apple set the file handling system up this way (folder for year, subfolder for month, subfolder for day). Seems to me that they should have either set it up as a database file (where photos are imported into some kind of master repository) or left the files alone and used a PhotoShop-style "Browse" function.
iPhoto does offer some quite good functionality and integration into mail, photo albums, quicktime etc. However, Apple really should go back to the drawing board and figure out a better (and more importantly, transparent) way to handle the underlying files.
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
I don't know if Apple should necessarily make a scanner, but I wouldn't mind then seeing create some neat, universal driver/app (iScan?) that somehow worked with existing USB offerings from Epson, Canon, HP, etc. and - as the opening thread stated - gave the whole "Apple approach" to scanning: a simple, "don't need the manual" interface that tied in nicely with iPhoto and Panther's FAX.
Anyone remember "Ophoto?" This was at the time, the best scanner software around. But yeah, Apple should leave this market to Canon and HP, who are selling scanners for about $70 CDN.
And as far as bashing the new posters, I'm glad there are new posters so we don't have to read the same old BS from all the old posters. Its nice to see some new BS every now and then
Originally posted by Ti Fighter
there is still a big market in scanners. You guys seem to be just thinking of the person who scans in there family photo prints. What about all the artists? We will alwase need scanners. Digital cameras will never replace them.
most of the market for real scanning is in the mid/hi-end repro market. archiving existing paper materials is an ongoing task, and one does still get transparencies to scan. however even this market is contracting and many players (heidelberg being one example) have cut their range and have not natively supported OS X with their software. i'm not sure what support there is for OS X with hi-end drum scanners and the like ... perhaps some board members work in a repro house and know what's out there ...
as for the consumer market, well apple did provide basic scanning support in 10 and 10.1, and better in 10.2, but it was developers who were slow to adopt the new OS. Products like Vuescan have developed and thrived on this uncertainty, and have allowed many legacy pieces of kit to be used ... thank god for 3rd party developers
now, as other posts have referenced, companies like microtek, hp and canon are producing cheap, reasonable quality consumer-level scanners. most ship (finally) with some form of X native plugin or software. it's not been an ideal situation for years, but the market at this level has moved massively towards digital photography. apple has led from the front with the plug and play support of almost every recent digital camera and printer out there. they COULD try and do the same thing with scanners, and the architecture of OS X does allow this thru image capture, but it's not really worth it. there are more players on the cheap scanner market than for, say printers; and it could be argued that there is a lower quality threshold with scanners. you can pick up some really cheap POS PC-only scanners which produce negliable results. why would apple put unnecessary resources into supporting something which the end user will still go 'this old photo scan looks like cr@p honey, this apple sucks'. it's just not worth it.
and they will def not market their own scanner ... they'd sooner release a SCSI device. a scanner won't be the next digital lifestyle product
I still, however, wouldn't mind seeing some universal, "works with all USB scanners and ties in directly with iPhoto (or Photoshop or Painter...you choose)" scanning software iApp from Apple that makes the process as easy and idiot-proof as it can be.
"I've got my nice Canon scanner, but I LOVE using it with iScan...flawless, intuitive and never fails!"
But yeah, scanners should work with iPhoto. iPhoto itself though, needs a lot more flexibility.
Originally posted by Matsu
I've recently started farting around with a 2MP camera I got for a great price (FREE!) and iPhoto kinda gives me fits. Where do the pics go? Arranging them seems a bit more work than it should be. I just want an app that doesn't hide things in a fancy directory and lets me get at the pics I want and move things about as I see fit.
But yeah, scanners should work with iPhoto. iPhoto itself though, needs a lot more flexibility.
iPhoto needs a lot of work.
Files are located in users\\pictures\\iphoto library.
The file system looks way too convoluted. Wait until you get 3-5000 photos in the library - iPhoto slows down quite a bit. Also, if you have to import the library onto a new machine (or after reformatting your hard drive), the import function imports both the original picture and thumbnail. Also, periodically, photos just seem to disappear from the library (while the original is buried deep down in some folder within iPhoto library).
I'm not sure why Apple set the file handling system up this way (folder for year, subfolder for month, subfolder for day). Seems to me that they should have either set it up as a database file (where photos are imported into some kind of master repository) or left the files alone and used a PhotoShop-style "Browse" function.
iPhoto does offer some quite good functionality and integration into mail, photo albums, quicktime etc. However, Apple really should go back to the drawing board and figure out a better (and more importantly, transparent) way to handle the underlying files.