Sean of cheesebikini posts five good uses for "networked cameras"

As I've written many times -- and will continue to write until the situation changes -- the cellular industry in general has done a miserable job of advertising and marketing the numerous useful ways to employ camera phones, especially for business applications.

As a result, many people still don't understand that camera phones are not just a crummier version of digital cameras and that they will have a major effect on social and business interactions and processes.

Sean Savage at cheesebikini also has found that many people, even techies, don't understand why a camera phone makes sense. He, too, seems disgusted with some of the lame TV commercials for camera phones.

Unique value of networked cameras

Sean has posted five reasons -- that you won't find promoted in television commercials -- for using what he calls "networked cameras". As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what technology is used.

Cellular will be the overwhelmingly dominant wireless technology for transferring photos to the Web and via e-mail. But WiFi cameras also are being developed, such as one from Nikon.

Sean's reasons

I've included just the first sentence of each reason (read the entire article at Sean's site) along with my comments.

"1. A photographer can use such a camera to send all her photos to a single, central storage place as she takes them."

Comment: It had better be a WiFi-enabled digital camera because you don't want to use the slow data rates of today's cellular networks to transmit large files. Indeed, the upload speeds of cellular networks are a "gotcha" that most articles don't discuss. Professional photographers certainly wouldn't dream of using today's 640 x 480 resolution photos (except in unusual situations, such as when no other camera is available).

Sean says cameras can be lighter and cheaper because you won't need massive amounts of storage space. Well, any professional (or amateur photographer would be insane to rely solely upon transmitting photos via wireless rather than also ensuring the images are stored on some type of removable memory card. Even today's "large" compact flash cards don't take up that much space, and Secure Digital cards are even smaller.

"2. Networked cameras provide the ability to annotate photos as they're created, or soon afterwards."

Comment: I like the idea of being able to easily include information about photos, including one "catch-all" phrase that could be applied manually or automatically to a batch of photos. I use this technique for camera phones. I'll write more about this in another post today.

"3. Networked cameras allow the capability to publish and share photos online as they're taken."

Comment: See the importance of this in reason No. 5.

"4. Most users usually have their phonecams on hand, just as so many people nowadays usually have a mobile phone on hand."

Comment: A photo doesn't have to be "forever." This is a very interesting concept that began in earnest with the advent of digital photography and is taken to a much greater extreme with camera phones. One of the great advantages of digital photography is the ability to delete unwanted images. No need to waste film on photos you don't want.

In Japan, camera phone users are snapping photos in conversation settings, and deleting the photos when the "conversants" move on to other things. A photo is used as a way to enhance social gatherings rather than considered a permanent record. One more instance of how people are using camera phones in ways the designers never imagined.

"5. Networked cameras provide the ability to transmit photos to audiences without permission from the authorities."

Comment: This is a fascinating example of how camera phones are going to have a major impact. Sure you can bring a digital camera, but how quickly can you post the photos? In dangerous situations, the ability to immediately post a photo -- whether you are in danger from the weather, a war, the police, etc. -- can be critical to getting out the news.

Take a photo of secret police brutality, send the photo to the Web...and then you get killed. Suicide photographers. Sure I'm being melodramatic. But war photographers risk their lives every day. Ordinary citizens with camera phones will risk their lives to document brutality, criminal activity, etc.

Indeed, I am waiting (though not eagerly) to read the first report of a citizen killed because he/she was taking an important photo -- whether it would be of a bank robber, a political protest, a police action, etc.

Comments

[Sean]

Thanks for the post and the press, Alan.

A couple of points:

RE: whether cellular will be the dominant wireless tech for transferring photos. I'm not so sure that it will. Recent papers and articles (especially a recent Scientific American cover story about smart antennas) provide reason to wonder whether cellular tech will be overtaken by newer technologies. I've started covering my bases by using the term "mobile phone" instead of "cell phone."

RE: currently slow data rates -- You're absolutely right; the agonizingly slow upload rate that today's phonecam users put up with is a problem. And an important associated problem is the fact that in many scenarios the interfaces on these devices make you sit and wait for one item to be transmitted before you can go ahead and start up other tasks. I didn't explore this tangent in my essay because I assumed that transfer rates and compression algorithms will continue to improve, and I'm sure hackers will create better front-end software that queues up the transfers so you can tell your phone what to do, then just put it in your pocket and let the slow transfers take place while you do other things.

[Sean Savage]

PS- RE: wi-fi cameras- Here's another reason to look foreward to wi-fi-capable phonecams:
http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000254.html

[Alan A. Reiter]

1. Cellular will be the dominant wireless technology for posting photos until something better comes along. It will be years -- many, many years -- before any technology comes close to supplanting cellular. The "smart antenna" companies face an uphill battle and even if they score some wins, cellular still will prevail for a long time.

2. Transfer rates certainly will increase. Today, the typical cellular upload speed is 10K bps - 40K bps. That might improve in 2004, maybe, if CDMA 1x technology is enhanced, possibly by the end of the year. But cellular uploads will be a problem for a while, which is one reason why WiFi has lots of value.