Sunday musings: if Steve Jobs ran a camera manufacturer

<ul>

<li>Filter threads would have died out 20 years ago (even though the only filters that most digital cameras need are UV/clear and polarizing).</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>There would be no under-performing lenses and all would have neutral or pleasant bokeh.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>DSLRs would not have an LCD on the top panel.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>The professional DSLRs would have fewer features (e.g. no 'art' filters etc.). They would allow third-party software 'applets' for such things but they'd never be allowed to move, delete or modify captured images nor would they be allowed to interfere with the camera's controls.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Pro bodies would have always had dual SD card slots.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Lenses would allow manual focus and zoom but would not have aperture rings (as is the case now)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Materials used for construction would be chosen on the basis of best suitability. Plastic would not be shunned by default but not used for the sake of cost-cutting; transparent ceramics might be used as well.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>No more 3:2 aspect ratio. All sensors would be 4:3 with optional 16:9 mode.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not saying all of those are good or necessary (excepting the first two). But they seem to me like ideas that Jobs would promote.</p>

<p>You forgot to mention <em>price</em>.</p>

<p>+1 @ Matt. They'd cost 50-100% more than the camera I'd be using.</p>

<p>Look at the camera he did create in the iPhone4. Auto everything including flash and HDR. It will never replace a DSLR, but it has replaced the P&S for many.</p>

<p>Okay..........stating the obvious....it would be named....<br>

1. iCam or iCamera<br>

2. iShoot<br>

3. iCapture<br>

Okay vote for you favorite or add your own....<br>

There would be no silly 350xsi naming etc.......</p>

 

<p>People aren't even embarrassed to hold up an iPAD cellphone style to take a picture. There wouldn't be "prosumer" DSLRs. <br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Yep and you would only be able to download the pictures from the camera with iTunes.</p>

 

<p>You would be allowed to photograph a new subject only by loading a new applet from Apple Store. There would be no way to move the focus point except by touching the screen since there are no cursor keys. Neither the battery nor the memory card could be removed from the camera, since there are no doors. Only wireless transfer of data would be allowed, and files would be truncated to 2MP upon storage to computer. If any part of the camera were damaged, the whole camera would have to be replaced. Only Apple lenses could be mounted. There would be white versions of the camera and lenses available. Numerous Nikon and Canon patents would be violated by the product and there would be fierce court battles. Despite of these limitations, 20% market share would be a given since 20% of the population follow Jobs like a god.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Despite of these limitations, 20% market share would be a given since 20% of the population follow Jobs like a god.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1.<br>

If Steve Jobs is really as good as the sheep are wanting me to believe (and in fact, I think he is that good), Apple will do equally fine without him as it did with him. Companies this large are a team, not a one-person show.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure there would still be prosumer model. However, it would be such a minor upgrade over the consumer model that it's only purpose would be to drive undecided people to the pro model. <br>

And if the consumer model were good enough to start draining pro sales, they'd cripple features on the base model for the next upgrade cycle....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Companies this large are a team, not a one-person show.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Normally that is true but Apple is different. Look at the late 80's to mid-90's after Sculley got rid of Jobs. Even though Apple bought NeXT, the actual result was that NeXT effectively took over Apple.</p>

<p>They would be overpriced, over rated and style would trump function.</p>

<p>Included in the name would probably NOT be 'Lisa", "Newton", "Performa", "Pippin", "Copland", and some others that nobody would use for a camera.</p>

<p>Your next camera would be the <a href=" 2</a> linking Nikon, Ken Rockwell, your mouth and Facebook.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn">Foxconn</a> would build it and further employ as many people as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.">Apple</a> has employees (~50,000). </p>

 

<p>Yeah, yeah.</p>

<p>Have your fun, but Charlie Rose asked Bill Gates what music he had on his <em>iPod</em>.</p>

<p>I'd suggest you ask what a camera built by Bill Gates would be like</p>

<ul>

<li>go to blue screen of death once a day</li>

<li>phone home to mama whether you ask it not to or not</li>

<li>would be "just as good as an iCamera"</li>

<li>would not be released on schedule, but "real soon now"</li>

<li>would have an uncanny superficial resemblance to the iCamera</li>

<li>installation of new control software would take 10 hours</li>

</ul>

<p>you get the idea...</p>

 

<p>I suspect Bill Gates' involvement with philanthropy and other post-Microsoft projects means he would be too busy to build a camera.</p>

<p>Oh, and the camera would detect and refuse to let you shoot nudes or other controversial subjects.</p>

<p>JDM, you are aware that Canon cameras used to use an MS-DOS clone and i86 architecture NEC V processors, right?</p>

<p>Would one really, really want a "Pro" camera with dual SD card slots? If one is that unsure of the camera's media, you'd want a cell-phone connection to back up your images as you shoot. Compact Flash (CF) cards are less prone to being *lost* in the rush of doing your task under pressure.</p>

<p>And where in the world would <strong>the cheapest labor be found</strong> for the Mr. Jobs' Camera Company? South Korea makes optics, and thanks to sharing with Pentax, they now can make a digital camera...</p>

<p>Nikon, Canon, and Sony seem to be handling the camera design business just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well if Gates made a camera<br>

it would be released with a kit zoom and one prime lens with a not very useful focal length, you would be forced to use third party adapters and lenses for other cameras.<br>

it would be lacking viewfinder and they would make the camera incompatible with the later released EVF thus forcing you to buy a new body<br>

if would have it's own special flash mount so you only use specially made flashes<br>

oh wait doesn't his camera sound familar....</p>

 

<p>If Gates made cameras, it would be frustrating to try ejecting the media, which would of course still be in use, even though it wouldn't be. Whenever you would press the shutter, a cartoon camera critter would show up on the LCD and ask you what you want to do (change a menu setting, play back images, create a photo CD, or take a picture). If your settings wouldn't result in a proper exposure, you'd get another message saying, "Your camera settings will result in an exposure error 00006." Then you would have to use some buttons to select "OK" while grumbling to yourself, "NOT OK!"</p>

<p>Of course if it were Jobs' camera, there would be no real buttons. Everything would be touch-screen -- very chic, but awfully difficult to use.</p>

<p>And of course both would want to move us to photography in the cloud, where all of our images would be automatically shared on Facebook, whether we wanted that or not.</p>

<p>An Apple iCamera would take only proprietary memory cards, have unreplaceable batteries, and put the on/off switch where you can't find it.</p>

<p>Oh, and for tethered shooting the port would be on the bottom.</p>

<p>Let me put it this way. I'm working on a XP machine that still can run new software and my iMac has been essentially dead since 10.3. So if he ran a camera company you'd be upgrading every year just to keep up with the changes in software that your old camera couldn't interface with. This is why Apple makes so much money.</p>

<p>If Apple made a camera, it would be beautiful, touch-screen only and lightweight. It would also have enormous pixels on the back and only capture at 2MP, because that would be "the perfect resolution", until a later version was released and described as having "all the detail the eye can see". It would be incompatible with anything else; my guess would be taking bayonet filters. As suggested, it'd be internal storage only and the battery would be irreplacable. The first three versions would be much less capable than the competition but cost twice as much and be slightly easier to use so long as you only want to do what Apple planned. I wonder whether the Nikon 1-system is a collaberation between Apple and Ken Rockwell.<br />

<br />

If Microsoft (ignoring Mr Gates, whose philanthropy I commend in the hope that it might ever undo the damage that Microsoft's business tactics have done to the software industry and computer usability over the last twenty years) made a computer... they'd set up a research department which would come up with many leading-edge camera features lauded by industry experts; they would apparently ignore this, and buy Pentax, who have a well-regarded camera interface. They would take the opportunity to mangle every nice feature of the camera, while adding some unwanted ones, probably by adding a mouse interface and introducing a ribbon system (and, possibly, Clippy). They would also produce versions which support the Eos, F and micro 4/3 mounts, but do then add a slightly mangled feature to the specification which ensures that anyone else's camera is subtly incompatible. Oh, and it would have a red ring of death.</p>

 

<p><em>T"hey would be overpriced, over rated and style would trump function."</em><br>

And years later, everyone else would be making inferior imitations.</p>