Slashdot Log In
The Growth of Picture Phones
Posted by
Hemos
on Sun Jan 05, 2003 06:30 AM
from the where-do-they-end-up dept.
from the where-do-they-end-up dept.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Is this necessary? (Score:2, Funny)
~S
You just say that... (Score:2)
Just great.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just great.... (Score:4, Funny)
Have you seen the resolution of these phones? People'd probably think you were playing Caverns of Mars or something.
Parent
Re:Just great.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I got so tired of al the pet-and-other-cuteness pcitures we testers were MMS'ing and Bluetoothing to each-other that I enabled the POP3 mailboxes (yes, it can check POP3 mailboxes over GPRS, and decode MIME mail attachments like pix) and told my friends to send me some skinpics.
I can safely report that a porno MMS service, or a dating/hook-up service over XHTML & MMS is completly feasible and probably will be a massive hit. Use the browser to check out the profiles of the people logged on looking as well, send your instant pic to the ones you like, exchange locations, get laid. The operator will love it, the service-maker will love it, and sex will be driving technology forward again, as it should.
More afraid of the phones' security holes (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that these phones give any software the ability to use the phone fuctions, when are we to expect the first virus that spreads via multimedia messaging and automatically calls a number in a far away country outside of any jurisdiction?
Or even better, let the CIA & co. make your phone call back so that you pay for being eavesdropped and watched by the nice little camera.
The last thing I need is one of these phones...
Re:More afraid of the phones' security holes (Score:2)
My vote: don't buy one until it is really necessary (well, I can't see any reason for a picture phone anyway).
Re:More afraid of the phones' security holes (Score:2)
Of course not! It's a feature!
Toilet in a phone (Score:2, Funny)
~S
Dogbert's videophone (Score:4, Funny)
Bah, who cares. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no! Accidently sent grandma my ass again. (Score:2)
This is not the same issue at all as government camera networks. Government cameras give the government a power to enforce their power that they wouldn't have otherwise. Leagues of schoolgirls running around snapping pics at Burger King don't pose the same threat to society.
As it is I often walk the streets taking photos and movies of anything and anyone I find interesting. For me this can range from snapshots of public toilets (with no persons included.. just the bathroom conditions) to artwork and buildings to sweethearts kissing to wildlife. It certainly isn't harming anyone for me to take such pictures so I'm sure cellphone cameras won't destroy society either.
As far as the option of people to require photo evidence when placing phone calls.. this comes as a shock.. you could just refuse. It's your right not to take a picture if you don't want to. Tell mom or the boss or whomever to go blow themselves.
I also agree that ever time a new technology presents itself certain people (often journalists and politicians) decide said technologies are the end of civilization. As always I must point out that any technology is a tool, like a hammer. Technology cannot harm or help on it's own. It all depends on how people use it.
It's not quite that simple though :-( (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you up to a point: I'm naturally quite a private person, but I keep private things private.
However, I am slightly concerned by ever increasing surveillance of public life. It's just too easy to misconstrue something you see in a single photo. What about the girlfriend who sees an incidental photo of her boyfriend cuddling another girl in the park? She doesn't know it's an old friend who's just suffered a personal tragedy and needs comforting. She just sees her (ex-)boyfriend with another girl.
Your point about government surveillance is really just a special case of this problem. The "I don't care, I've got nothing to hide" crowd make the naive assumption that no-one will ever make a mistake in interpreting the data that's being collected. History strongly disagrees.
This I do have a problem with, and the problem is that "voluntary" things that become the norm are no longer voluntary. It's like a "voluntary" ID card: you don't need it. Unless, of course, you want to buy a drink, open a bank account, rent a car, take out a mortgage or travel abroad.
If you start telling your boss to go screw themselves then, unless everyone else is doing the same, you're just putting yourself first in the firing line. Fortunately, since many ailments serious enough to keep someone off work legitimately don't actually exhibit dramatic physical signs, this one's unlikely to catch on.
I can see the point in family cases and such, though. How am I supposed to go buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend discreetly if I can't tell her I'm going away with the lads at the weekend and I'll be back on Sunday? And would I want to marry a girl who felt that much need to check up on me anyway?
Re:Oh no! Accidently sent grandma my ass again. (Score:2)
This is assuming that you send your pictures taken with your cellphone, through your cellphone, to some sort of web archive first. Which you won't because the service isn't designed that way. And even if you did, I fail to see how that changes anything about every other picture already posted somewhere on the web today. (and if you did that of course, you should expect stuff like this to happen to you in the natural order of things)
Re:Bah, who cares. (Score:2)
This technology, like the Internet-connected PC, has the potential to change our lives in yet to be determined ways, some of which are good, some of which are bad, many of which, in my opinion, go beyond the realm of "who cares?" When Berners-Lee was inventing the Web, did he forsee the intrusion of pop-up ads, the need for firewalls, and the ubiquity of porn?
Today the thousand dollar home encyclopedia is extinct because of computers. I don't know if anybody saw that happening besides Microsoft. Certainly it took Britannica years to figure out they couldn't charge a huge premium for their services any more.
So what I propose to you is that having web connected cameras everywhere carried around by everyone is going to lead to societal changes that we cannot completely predict. Even today I know people who simply hate to have their photos taken. What will happen to those people when everyone has a camera pointing in their faces? Will they become shut-ins? What about employers? Will they do an image search of prospective hires to see if there are any pictures out there of the prospect in a drug den or a whorehouse? Will all sorts of currently face-to-face meetings take place over videophone?Will the government require a picture record submitted into a central registry of all cash transactions over a certain amount? Who knows? "The Jetsons" seemed to come up with all sorts of funny/amusing uses of picturephoes which won't seem so funny or amusing when happening in real life.
Re:Bah, who cares. (Score:2)
No it's not. I still consult paper when I can, and you can't beat the layout. Plus it doesn't require me to be sitting at the computer (think couch and fireplace here)...
You're right for that, we won't and can't predict what's going to happen to us after that.
Now for the people who don't want camera pointing in their faces, I fail to see how in the first place carrying a picture phone will differ from the current (and *HUGELY better*) generation of digital cameras. I don't trust that they became shut-ins, and yes, employers still need employees to come to work in the morning !
I just don't care what other people do with their own lives, and if they want to send a low-quality photo of me taken from far away over their expensive phone service for whichever reason they might have, I still don't care !
Re:Bah, who cares. (Score:2)
Come on, Forged. Stop beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel!
How I really feel (Score:2)
yes but phone != webcam (Score:2)
(I know that some people have nothing better to do, but this isn't the answer I was expecting
Re:Bah, who cares. (Score:2)
Fact is... (Score:4, Insightful)
And who needs drive-by snoop photos, as long as Photoshop is handy. This thing about being worried over one's photo being snapped in public is overblown...I don't see anyone being up in arms over the video being captured by using ATMs or speed cameras.
Re:Fact is... (Score:2)
That's just because you're not looking hard enough. There are plenty of people concerned, particularly about speed cameras being used to track people's movements (as is being proposed here in the UK).
Re:Fact is... (Score:2)
As it is, cameras at every intersection and along stretches of highways are being used more and more every day. I'm saying the concern we hear about is nothing more than rhetoric.
Give me a break... (Score:2)
Concern: disquiet, worry, anxiety.
If I were simply concerned over identity theft/malignment, etc., I'd be a bit slow on the uptake, me thinks. Concern and protest are two different things. No one will take to the streets over this, as they are only concerned, and that's my point. There is and there will be no protest, thus is it not an issue.
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
You might also want to check your definition of the noun "issue" [reference.com] - yours (if no protest than not an issue) seems to be way off. I can't find any requirement for public protest in the A.H. definitions. You are of course welcome to have your own definitions of words and own ways to classify urgent problems. I don't think I agree with them, though.
[1] Whatever exactly that may be - it's obviously highly subjective which taints this whole discussion.
I have an issue w/your issue, sir (Score:2)
The discussion as begun seemed to hint that public unrest (serious problem?) is just around the corner, so if there is taint casting a shadow on the carpet, it was here when I walked in...sorry if I stepped in it
Go ahead... (Score:2)
The real news here is that S. Jobs has positioned QuickTime as a leader in the field of compressed video for use in said picture phones, and...oh wait, I can't talk about that before next week's expo. Sorry
I'm not allowed one of these. (Score:5, Interesting)
The same goes for many other people.
I guess this means that they will still have to make many cellphones without picture taking capabilities.
Re:I'm not allowed one of these. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Non issue (Score:2)
Chances are, involvement in any of these activities would be exposed sooner or later, new phones could make this just a bit quicker.
Otherwise, it's clearly a non-issue.
Re:Non issue (Score:4, Interesting)
- Although CCTVs and webcams are quite widespread in public places, and digital camaras likewise in tourist spots and on special occasions, adding picture-taking ability to mobile phones makes coverage much more ubiquitous: essentially, you have to assume that you might get imaged anywhere where there are other people present.
- There are lots of things that may not actually be "fishy", but which might at first sight appear that way, or which can cause considerable embarassment or worst if taken out of context - intentionally or otherwise.
I'm not so concerned about misuse as such, as that fear of misuse will make people even less willing than they are now to risk getting involved in day-to-day minor emergencies.I beg leave to differ.Parent
It's very much an issue, I'm afraid (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if you are involved in something fishy. It only matters if you appear to be.
Unfortunately, history suggests that an awful lot of innocent people will take the heat for something completely benign if mass surveillance gets implemented. Governments already screw up like this when some techie analyst misunderstands what's happening in a picture, or looking at several sources concludes that 2+2=17.
What makes you think it'll be any different when your significant other, or your boss, or your parents see something that looks (but isn't) out of line?
[Aside: Hell, most western governments can't even manage a routine social security or tax database without screwing up all over the place. For three months, I was doing two full-time jobs on opposite sides of the UK according to the tax office, after someone there mistyped a number one day. I was overtaxed by several hundred pounds as a direct result. I called to fix this, was asked for my address and date of birth to confirm my ID, and was told that they were very sorry, but they couldn't deal with me any more, because what I'd told them didn't match their records. And this was something where obviously what their records said was actually impossible.]
I'm not sure about it being a matter of Privacy... (Score:2, Insightful)
In the age of American Parinoia, and the subsiquent squeeze that's been put on privacy and the right to freedom, we're all used to being video taped everywhere. Digital Cameras are all over the place, and most stores have some kind of video surveylance systems in place.
I believe the idea of employers asking for pictures of a sick person is a little out of place, since they could go so far as make you bring in a doctors note, but most don't.
Now I will believe that business will violate some sort of ethical boundry with devices like this, just like they have with their other surveylance devices. It's nothing new... as long as there has been a camera there has been someone abusing them. Things will get posted for people to see until someone does something about it, and then they will be posted for employees to see.
think outside the box, why don't you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time there is a story about a new advanced mobile phone, you hear people go "Why does my phone have to do X? it's a phone! Why can't it do one thing well?".
Well, first of all, at least with GSM, which is what most of the world except the USA and Japan use, the phone has worked "very well" for about 10 years now. Coverage is excellent. Sound quality is excellent. Text messages work great. No problems.
Second, "phone" is just a traditional term that is attached to these devices. Just because people call it "phone" doesn't mean that the only feature it should and could have is voice communication. PDA's are getting phone features now, and "phones" are getting PDA features. You might as well refer to all of these handheld computer & communication devices with some new term. But why? What's wrong with continuing to call them "phone" or "PDA"? It's just a name for crying out loud!
And as far as the features themselves go, some of them are quite convenient.
It's quite clear that North Americans have not yet grasped (based on statistics) the convenience and un-obtrusiveness of text messages. It's weird too, as they are basically the equivalent to instant messaging or email, which are both quite popular in North America. Text messages cut down on ringing phones and annoyance quite a lot.
Cameras, while clearly more of a novelty, can be quite cool too. "Hey, is the bar crowded?" "Here, I'll show you!", and then you send an MMS with a 10 second old photo. "You wouldn't believe how much fun we're having here on our vacation!", and a photo to go with it, like a post card, only instantaneous. Yes, it's not something that is necessary, but it's fun and can be quite convenient and nobody is forcing you to buy one of these devices.
Always on internet? You don't HAVE to surf or check your email, but if you're sitting in a restaurant, wondering if there are still tickets to that one movie you wanted to see, you can do it and you can reserve those tickets. Sport freak? You can check those soccer / name-the-sport scores. Or perhaps you're camping and want to check the weather forecast.
Java or native (compiled for the particular device and OS) games? With phones / PDA's that have CPU's as fast as the 486's of a few years ago and as much or more RAM, why not? It means your device doubles as a Game Boy Advance. If you spend a lot of time commuting, waiting on delayed planes on airports, then games can be great!
There are some "phones" now that also double as mp3 players. Why carry two devices if one is enough? Sure, they may not have a 20GB hard drive like the iPod, but the basic idea is good.
Bluetooth - it allows you to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, with a hands-free set but without cables to get tangled up in, without having to take the phone out from your pocket. It also allows you to - without cables - synchronize your address book from your PC to your phone. It allows you to use the Internet connectivity on your phone to get your laptop online from anywhere in the world (provided you use GSM, supported in countries on the planet).
And if you like your phone to be just a traditional phone for voice communication, then go right ahead and buy one of those models that are just that. The cellphone manufacturers still make those too.
Missing the point (Score:2)
You'd be surprised to see how fast some people can send you a note on their cellphone these days. Most devices also feature multilingual dictonnaries to speed-up text input, and you can use abbreviations. For 10c a message to any other cellphone in the world, that is great.
That, and europeans just don't like voicemail like americans do. It's two different cultures, and gsm phones give you both options. How cool is that !
You know MS's Stinger phone? (Score:3, Funny)
(it's a variant of the old 'sending "LO BATT" to people with alphanumeric pagers' joke...)
Not as popular as you think (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the problem is actually getting people to use them, now while three of the four UK networks are offering a free trial period in the hope that people will continue using it
A lot of people from the research we've done said that they'll use the phones to take the pictures, but copy them over to a computer and send them through the email rather than paying 25-40 pence per message, we don't expect this attitude to change for at least another 12 months on most users.
This won't be another SMS/Text Messaging phenomenom.
Cameras in the hands of citizens are good (Score:3, Insightful)
AA Words Clog (to) (Score:3, Interesting)
The art of snapping someone in a compromising position in a pub or wherever with your camera phone and emailing it to a web site. VK
From The Guardians "Survival guide 2003" [guardian.co.uk]
Interesting guide, by the way
Is this like the web phones? (Score:2)
If anyone is interested in the web phones [abnormal.com], I've got 130+ of them I would love to unload... Make an offer... they will display most pages that netscape 4 would display.
I'm sceptical (Score:4, Insightful)
1) These are not good cameras. Compared to what's available these days as a stand-alone digital camera, the picture size and quality is pathetic.
2) Unlike text messaging, it is driven from the top down, not the bottom up. I can't speak for the USA, but for the rest of us, SMS (text messaging) has become a valuable social tool. The mobile phone networks did not predict this, it caught them by surprise when this added-on extra became one of the main events. Most mobile phones, with the 0-9 keypad, are appallingly badly designed for text entry. SMS is a killer app in spite of this.
Now they have come up with picture messaging - 1/10th the expressive power, 1000 times the bandwidth (and they can therefore charge more for it) backed by big ad campaigns here in the UK. Well, SMS never needed ad campaigns to make it popular, people made it popular because it worked for them, not because some company told them that they needed it. After you've had your picture-phone for a year, when the novelty has worn off, I wonder how often you'll use the photo-message function compared to the text message function?
Re:I'm sceptical (Score:3, Interesting)
I was hooked, it was so much fun. Took photos of everything that moved (and didn't). The photo quality was *great*. 640x480x4096 colours. Perfect for "web-ready" images.
Now, you and I can use a digital camera, connect to a computer and email it to somebody.
But guess what, most people don't have the skills or equipment to do it. I expect these things will sell like hotcakes once the price drops to the "mass consumer" level.
Re:I'm sceptical (Score:2)
SMS was just a novelty in the US for a long time, just like picture phones are now. Why type something in on that silly little keypad when I can just talk to them directly? I use it all the time now, but I had an SMS-capable phone for almost a year before I ever even tried the feature. I think photo capability is another means of communication that will also find its niche once it becomes commonplace and cheap.
Does he cover his face at Disney World... (Score:2)
I'm skeptical that these phones will catch on. It all fits into the general tech concept of lets make a combination microwave oven-refrigerator with a built-in web browser. Frankly, if I want to take pictures, I'll use a camera dedicated to that purpose. It will undoubtedly have better capabilities. Furthermore, in the real world how often does someone need a camera unexpectedly. And as for his examples of professionals, in most cases I think a dedicated camera, with better functionality, would be better for them.
REAL uses for picture phones (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, just imagine how useful one of these things could be for a field service engineer, customer service, etc. ("OK, you've got cover opened, right? See the board? Do you see a little switch pack down at the left?" "[Click] This one?" "Yes... could you get a little closer?" "OK [Click]" "Good, now see switch #6, set to 0... set it to 1."
Insurance adjusters (who now have to carry digital cameras and laptops with them)...
All sorts of situations where someone in an unfamiliar situation wants to CONSULT with someone at a remote location...
Re:REAL uses for picture phones (Score:2)
And you can't imagine this happening in the non-proefessional domain?
"Okay, I'm in the cookies aisle, but I don't see the cookies you were talking about. Where are they again?"
"Show me where you are...okay...no...they're further down...near the Oreas...that's it."
But, as the article implies, I think the "killer app" is people checking to see if the person they're talking to is lying about his or her whereabouts. Parents checking on children, jealous boyfriends checking on girlfriends, bosses checking on employees, and the biggie is...drum roll...wives checking up on their husbands.
poor limeys (Score:2, Flamebait)
My picture phone (Score:2)
Having a camera built into my mobile (which I carry all the time anyway) is a cool thing, although the picture quality of the 7650 isn't that great. The 640 x 480 res is ok, but the colour quality, sharpness and light response are pretty bad. It's fine for sending a postage-sized image to another phone, but it's not good enough for use as a cheap digicam. When the quality improves a bit (perhaps enough to produce a decent standard-sized print), these devices will be really useful.
The whole messaging aspect depends on everyone else having the capacity to actually receive the pictures you send. Phone manufacturers are already pushing for this, and including the facility to view transmitted images on their new mobiles, even if they don't include a camera.
Re:Great for stalkers... (Score:4, Interesting)
The next big thing, happening now, actually, is GPS data as one of the EXIF digital photo variables. You can match a photo to where it was taken, not just when, or of whom, and in what light, with what lens, etc.
Parent
Re:Picture phones = gimmick (Score:2)
But I was pleasantly suprised by the Sanyo SCP-5300. My wife has been taking as many as 20 pictures per day and uploading them to her webcam site [carlazone.com], and the phone has yet to run out of battery...this usually includes flash pictures as well.
I believe the imaging element is CMOS, not CCD, which means it can run at very low power, but really looks bad/banded in low-light.