Missing The Point Of Cameraphones
from the people-don't-make-slides-much-either dept
It must be a slow news week, as EE Times trots out a tired story breaking the big news that cameraphones don't take pretty good pictures, asserting that they must improve if they're ever to make "competitive headway" against standalone digital cameras. The problem is the reporter is completely missing the point -- the value of cameraphones isn't just in their image quality, but in that people are always carrying them and that they're connected to the network. The writer backs up their assertion by citing vendor statistics that 90% of cameraphone users never print their photos, which sounds like a lot until you consider the number of images taken with digital cameras that are never printed. People don't share photos only by exchanging prints -- they're far more likely to use online photo-sharing services or email. Then there's the further point that just because users are carrying a camera with them all the time -- whether it's in a phone or standalone -- doesn't mean they're always using it. Labeling cameraphones a failure because of their inferior image quality to standalone cameras, and particularly because people aren't printing the photos they take with them, is silly. After all, what's that saying photographers have: any camera you have with you is infinitely superior to a camera you don't.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just the other day I was asked "Why are you taking your camera?" because we weren't going anyplace special. So I left it at home and ended up taking 3 pictures with my phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pop Sensation
Granted, cameraphones more portable than carrying a separate device. However, I don't care to see pictures of you and your current girlfriend in front of the Orange Julius at the local mall on Flickr. Everyone in the world does not need to see your "sentimental" cameraphone pics. (mark them as private)
Just because you have the ability to take a picture of anything anywhere, and immediately upload it, does not give you the warrant to proceed in doing so. "I feel like taking a picture of my reuben from Arby's, because I'm bored."
If you're trying to take pictures for artistic sake, go out and buy a digicam. In the meantime, keep your useless and personal pics to yourselves and stop uploading them as 'public' on Flickr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pop Sensation
Just because a picture is marked public doesn't mean the poster is seeking your approval. Move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pop Sensation
I think the same applies to blogs in general. While mine isn't behind any sort of password system so only those I know can read it, it isn't really meant for the world at large either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pop Sensation
Part of my problem is that I don't see the real use of cameraphones. As people have brought out, they're crappy in quality and are not very intuitive to manage photos outside of the phone.
I think it's just part of the fact that they're more of a fasion statement than ease of portability. Can you imagine if a teenager in a public school bought a new phone and it didn't have a camera? Heaven forbid! Who cares about what the phone was originally designed to do, most people think they look cool if they can snap a picture *with their phone* in a mall, at a restaurant, etc.
I do agree that the day the cameraphones begin to bring themselves up to the level of midrange digicams, is the day people begin expecting professional camera use out of their phones - something phone manufacturers could care less about. The more things we start cramming into phones, the more things will break.
Personally, I'd rather save hardware space for devices that will increase the stability of my calls, whether it be a larger antennae, more memory for contacts, faster CPU, whatever; because, get this - I personally care about what phones are supposed to be used for more than if I can take a crappy picture of my turd inside of a public toilet. *Gasp!*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pop Sensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pop Sensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are nothing more or less than a mini-camera that a lot of people 'just happen' to have on them when things happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video iPod screens must get larger if they're ever to make competitive headway against their larger screened cousins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than a pop sensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is missing the point?
When did quality every lose to quantity?
Instead, why not offer GOOD to EXCELLENT quality pictures from a camera phone by just putting in a decent 3 - 4 megapixel CCD in it. I mean, they are starting to offer lots of storage space and expansion slots on cellphones, so offering larger resolution CCD's make more sense.
Where you are also missing the point is that since cell phones rely on subscription based data transfer charges, or even a per kilobyte charge, sending larger photo files will make cellular service providers more money because of more killobytes and longer transfers.
Sorry, I don't use my cameraphone simply for the reason it takes crappy pictures. I have never emailed or sent a photo through my cell phone. From my perspective, cameraphones ARE a failure because my celluar provider has not earned one penny in profit by offering me a cheap cameraphone. Perhaps if I was able to take lots of good quality pictures on my camera phone, I would actually be a customer that paid for more digital data service, rather then using my cell phone just to talk on.
ANY service on a cell phone is designed to increase profits by phone companies. Cameras, MP3's, Text messaging, ringtones, TV, video, etc are not put on cameraphones for our enjoyment, its to offer "value added" features that will make the phone comanies more money. If cameraphones are not generating revenue for phone companies, then they are a failure, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is missing the point?
Some people are never satisfied.
SB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is missing the point?
The answer? All the time. I direct your attention to Apple, and their puny market share. I direct your attention to how recently HDTV's have taken off, despite the technology existing since the advent of color television. I direct your attention to my high school economics classes, when my teacher taught me about diminishing returns. Any time the extra quality isn't worth it to the majority of users, the quality loses, unless they can make a profit off of the minority that does need the better product. Here, they can't, or at least that's what the cell phone companies believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blog It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm, someone actually *had* to spent time researching that to realize that fact?
LOL, omg what is the world coming too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do I do with them now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do I do with them now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm from the UK so this is particularly true as we like a drink or two.
- I would be cautious of technicle comparisons with stand alone phones as the audience that cares about truly excellent quality photos is different from the mainstream usage of both stand alone camera's and mobile camera's.
High quality camera's are used primarly by tech-savy men, where as its women who use the camera phone most.
Also I believe the main limitation upon camera phones is not the mega pixels but limitations on lens quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This makes me hate my digital camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This makes me hate my digital camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
Ps. If i press "save me a cookie", do i really get a cookie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? 2
So my opinion is: If you have a decent phone, the ones that are coming out already, with 2Mp or 3MP, you can print them. And 3MP is already good quality. They give you like 2048x1024 or something like that resolution. Even though i dont print photos, i think the resolution in mobile phones, and they're MP are getting pretty good to be printable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras are just fluff anyway
That's why we have really awesome browsers now, and schedulers which automatically share updates via SMS and sync via bluetooth -- indeed, why my current camera sends updates of my own changing address and scheduling details to everyone on my address book.
Of course, its well understood that the camera phone is this year's CDRW which everyone's convinced they need and which no one uses more than once a year. The point is, we suffer with this crap because they've effectively removed our ability to choose, upon which capitalism depends -- it's why our cars all get 60mpg and our medical care is both competent and affordable. We need the same ability to choose when it comes to service providers, so we can provide the critical competition to drive the necessity that nurtures invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and a bajillion other uses for camera phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... *ahem* which is to say that phone cameras aren
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future ...
PS where do I get my saved cookie from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the original author obviously does not have kids
I figured I wouldn't even use it... then my first child was born... and that little low res camera became a God send. Obviously I don't use it for family photos or any time it is convenient to use the real camera but I don't question its value anymore.
The article's author seems to not understand "the right tool for the right job, used in the right way."
It is unfortunate that said author however, represents IMHO the vast majority of decision makers in the world now.
On a side note, what I really would call a need for "staying competitive" and thus a relevant use of comparison, is the issue of portability of the phones.
Last I checked, my car can take fuel from any gas station. Said car also does not require a significant learning curve to drive coming to/from any other vehicle. I can tune in radio just fine thank you.
Yet my cell phone will only work with one and rarely two vendors. YMMV, but I would love to be wrong... or at least see the market start behaving like a free market and eliminate that nonsense. (read: no external welfare interference)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf? why would anyone use a P&S when they could us
for that matter, why would anyone use digital instead of film? film captures a larger dynamic range.
oh, wait, that was it.
*CONVENIENCE*
hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Slow News Day Indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did find one good use for the camera though. I took a picture in the dark so I could get a plain black background for my phone desktop instead of a beach or a turtle or a clown or whatever excellent options come with it out of the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera phones are crap
Camera phones are also highly restricted when going into many work places. At my last 3 jobs over the past 5 years, Semi-conductor, DoD, and military have all had restrictions on camera phones.
The phone networks in MOST places in America not NYC, LA, Chicago, etc, but that area 30-40 miles outside of it encompassing the other 80% of the country the technology is useless. Having lived in Iowa, Illinois, Virginia, Texas, Washington, Idaho, and Colorado network coverage is a challenge I acknowledge, but every area I listed has limited to no support for this technology in the majority of its territory.
All in all, I call it a good concept, but it should have been trashed from the start for the majority of users/locations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]