New Disposable Digital Cameras with LCDs 485
del_ctrl_alt writes "Pure Digital Technologies are set to introduce the world's first ever disposable digital camera [ed. note: see below], retailing in the USA for $19.99. Ritz, CVS, Disney World and Longs Drugs are all going to stock the 2-megapixel camera, which somewhat amazingly has a color preview screen and allows you to delete images before you take it to the store for processing (where you will receive a free picture CD along with your prints)." It's not the first disposable digital camera, which was hacked shortly afterwards, but these include a LCD display (they're made by the same company which made the first ones). Have fun!
Heh, this should be short lived. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do this?
Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally my point is proven - this is what happens when the marketing department controls projects !!
I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disposable Society (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh, this should be short lived. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disposable Society (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, they're banking that a $20 disposable digital is worth about two $10 disposable film cameras, or more.
LCD's and Muvo's (Score:1, Insightful)
hmm.. come to think of it.. i'll get my orders in now!!!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
how about you give a reason why it's crappy then? (Score:5, Insightful)
ever used crappy disposable cameras? the worst thing about them is that a lot of the pictures you take turn out as total crap. a preview screen on them would be a great improvement.
it's a replacement for MEGACRAPPYSHIT disposable cameras, and a lot of folk visiting disneyworld or whatever would like one of these. it's cheap for them(customers), so they don't have to have even any stress about if it breaks in the rides or if they lose it and yet they can take better pictures than with a normal disposable one.
20$ for a rent of a 2mpix camera and service to get the pics on a cd isn't _that_ bad at amusementparks & etc..
I just want the LCD (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the hardware gurus recycle all of the parts, so we can have a webcam, a display, and a memory stick, all for the low low price of $20.00
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardware hackers rejoice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems strange to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh, this should be short lived. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disposable = Poor Quality Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole retard movement just devolves us to jumping more conclusions that has lower and lower sense. Hence the saying "You've never taken a disposable film camera back to the drugstore!?!? WTF!?!?!?!".
Sound familiar? Back in the day, ALL slashdot posters were sensible enough to figure this was the same deal, flash substituting for film. You could blugeon someone senseless with your big antique camera and they would still be alright enough to know this. You can't do that with today's slashdot ijits.
Granted some "disposable" stuff do in fact get reused, such as moronic slasdot rants, but for others, we should actually take the time to decide if they are truly disposable.
More "rentable" than disposable (Score:5, Insightful)
The business model is basically to rent them out for a rather steep $20, which gets you use of the camera until you fill the on-board memory and then a CD with your images after.
My guess is that the retailers have a minimal markup on the camera with the expectation that they will make their money doing digital prints.
The manufacturer makes their money by being able to rent the same camera multiple times.
Certainly some of the cameras will be "lost" to hackers, but this is a cost of doing business and is probably far cheaper than creating and inforcing some sort of deposit mechanism since, for the average user, the "deposit" is the precious memories stored on the camera that they can only get back by returning the camera.
If "hacking" of the cameras become widespread, then one can expect that the company will either take action or go out of business.
If they take action, there will no doubt be much grousing among the slashdot community, but really, what right does a parasite have to complain when the host its bleeding dry seems to extingish it? Better to keep a low profile.
Re:Disposable = Poor Quality Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got an old Toshiba laptop somewhere - powered by a 7.14MHz 8086. The machine is heavily built and works fine, has decent battery life and, apart from being a bit grubby and yellowed, works just the same as it did when new.
Except it's almost entirely useless when it comes to working alongside modern computers. It and my modern iBook have no ports, disks or anything in common. I'd need a third computer to get data between the two.
Then there's digital cameras. I've got a Fuji FinePix 6900 Zoom [steves-digicams.com], which I've had for a bit over two years now. It still takes really good photos, and continues to work extremely well, but I have a feeling I'll be replacing it because of obsolescence rather than it breaking.
I'm eyeing up Canon DSLRs, looking at new things they can do which my camera can't - new advances that simply hadn't been (affordably) available when my camera was designed. Long, low-noise exposures, high-capacity rechargeable AA batteries, higher resolution, and so on...
Technology advances ridiculously quickly. Yes, you can stick around with something prehistoric, but unless you have very limited needs you're likely to constantly lust after what's you're missing on a newer device. I'm not advocating disposable hardware, but at times I understand why things now are rarely (over-) engineered to last. By the time they break, they'll be dinosaurs surrounded by smaller, faster, cheaper descendants...
Re:Processing (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds to me like they've got a pretty solid market.
this is great for the environment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disposable = Poor Quality Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Because at the rate (this) technology is advancing, you might as well consider all digital cameras disposable within a few years. Also, there are people who demand desposable cameras so they won't be afraid to take it on their mountain climbing trip.
This whole disposable movement just evolves us to making more stuff that has lower and lower quality.
Yes, because we all know that this 2 megapixel camera with LCD display is of extremely poor quality as compared to the 1 megapixel cameras that cost several times more. (Won't even bother to tell you that these are returnable, not disposable)
Hence the saying "They don't make 'em like they used to."
Reminds me of another old saying, "Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." -- Ecclesiastes 7:10
it is not wise to ask such questions." People have been complaining about how good the old days were for 3000 years already. Maybe you should just accept progress and be happy with our improvements in medicine, travel, etc. (You can mod me down now, for mentioning the bible.)
Re:cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketting - Its a number that they can stamp on the front of the Unit, and to most people "bigger number" = "Better camera".
There are a few of us who would actually see the difference between a 2MP and an 8MP image, but you are dead right is stating that optics in a standard consumer grade camera probably aren't up to scratch.
Me, I'm waiting for a Canon's next- or next-next- generation EOS digital so I can use it with my existing lenses. In the meantime I have a shitty Kodak digital camera that I use for taking shots to post to the web.
Re:how about you give a reason why it's crappy the (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I envision the park security no longer allowing you to bring your own camera. You know, to improve safety and give you a more enjoyable experience.
Hey, a bottle of water costs 3 bucks in there.
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, better yet.. At the front gates. "Sorry sir, but to improve the customer experience, our Fun-gineering department now requires that no cameras or recording devices may be allowed in the park. If you like, you can buy one of our disposable cameras on Main Street USA".
Thirsty? We have water. 5 bucks. Etc. It's no secret to anyone who's been to a theme park that they do everything they can to gouge you once inside.
Re:This seems strange to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't. The shops which sell these things pay more than $20 for them. They can "sell" them at $20 because people have to return them to get their photos. Once they have the camera back, they can repackage and resell it again for $20. And again. And again. Until it gets too scratched up, dirty, or gross to sell any more.
There hasn't been some magical advance in technology to make these things so cheap. They aren't. It's just that there's a big incentive to return the camera (i.e., you can't get your photos if you don't).
Do you really think the camera shop just tosses a perfectly good, reusable digital camera in the trash after a single use?!
"Equivalent of 2 MP sensor" ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
What does "the equivalent of a 2-megapixel sensor" mean? Is it not 2 MP?
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You described it correctly - as the company that markets it would. However, unless I have to sign a lease agreement to take one of these home, my transaction to purchase it can be considered final. There's no law that stops me from buying a radio, or a camera, or a disposable camera, or a disposable digital camera, then taking it home and smashing it with a mallet. Or, from taking it home and scrapping it for parts.
The DMCA might (might**) prevent me from reverse engineering the encoding scheme on the memory to extract my pictures, but it certainly doesn't stop me from reusing the LCD screen.
** "might" is important. As the owner of the photographs I took, I have the rights to those pictures. It's not illegal to circumvent copy protections if you own the rights to copy the materials in question.
Of course, if they do make you sign a lease agreement when you get the camera, which could include a requirement that you not destroy the camera, or that you cannot claim ownership of the photos in their encoded form, all of this may be moot.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, at 2 Mp I'm thinking you'd get better pictures off the cheaper film version anyways.
What about batteries?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to mention that there were, uh, problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, to a point...I would never be happy with a 1.2 megapixel camera. I like to be able to crop after I shoot pictures, and I like to blow up the occasional good one. On the other hand, for people who are just going to be printing snapshots to stuff in a shoebox or tack up on a bulletin board or something, high resolution just isn't all that important. For that matter, some people may only want to put the pictures on the web--in which case they'll probably downsample them further anyway.
There is also the issues of privacy when the pictures are of any, uh, salacious nature. How do you know your pictures won't end up where you don't intend?
This is an issue? People will drop off 35mm film at Wal-Mart that has their homemade porn on it. There always was the analog hole (*ahem*). Very few people bother to develop their own colour film, now or ever. Those same people will not worry about using their disposable digital to share their intimate moments with the clerks at the grocery store. Everybody else who wants to take their own naughty pictures will use Polaroid or buy their own digital camera. Home porn is probably not the target market for this technology....
Re:How to make a digicam unhackable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Better cameras retail for under $100, so the total value of the parts in this one, new, can't be more than $40-$50. You really think there's anything worth more than a buck or two other than the LCD? I can't see there being much profit in eBaying these, especially after people start posting where you can get the bits cheaper yourself.
I'm sure individual tinkerers will buy a few, but I can't imagine that's going to be enough to hurt them.
Re:Heh, this should be short lived. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hack the thing, you still have to buy, so they're going to make a profit off of you. Not as much as the sheeple who'll just drop the thing in the slot, but a bucks a buck.
Re:Environmental disaster in the making (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to thank the first responder for being sensible and polite.
Fuck the rest of you.
Re:Heh, this should be short lived. (Score:4, Insightful)
So how much does it cost to produce the camera if they still make an acceptable profit selling them for $20?
Their business model relies on people returning the cameras for recycling. I'm sure they accounted for a loss of devices over time (mostly people losing/breaking them through general clumsiness rather than hacking), but overall they are hoping a camera will get recyled 10 times or more so they can make their money back on the hardware plus profit.
=Smidge=
Re:I dont get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Well one use (I could sell these by the dozen in the UK) is for nightclubs... you want the convenience of digital (instant review, quick uploading the morning after) but don't want to have hundreds of quids worth of equipment lost, stolen, trampled or dropped in a beer!
Re:I know I'm trolling, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)