Kodak teases smartphone Recovered-from-bankruptcy camera concern Kodak has teased a new smartphone. The company popped out the Tweet below last week and in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation chief executive Jeff Clarke mentioned "a completely different approach" to the smartphone, adding that "The camera will be exceptional as …
As if the market was not crowded enough with 'Meh' phones. By 'Meh', I mean they work perfectly well but for most Fandroids and Fanbois, would just laugh at them.
I'd love to know how Kodak plan on making 'loadsamoney' from this venture when most phone makers are failing to break even.
Since most reviews concerning SmartPhones, in the last 3 years or so seem to concentrate more on the Camera than they do on Voice Quality etc, then I can only presume that they are aiming at the Snapchat, Instagram, TripAdvisor "quick take a pic of the meal before we eat " crowd since they seem to have become the marketeers top choice when attempting to flog another meh device.
Shit, I couldn't find anywhere to put a pause in the above phrase....
a few weeks ago, I made a comment that there are probably quite a few "failed" innovations which might benefit from a revisit, now we have better tech.
Rabbit phones (ask your grandparents) are such a thing.
Yes, I know you could probably approximate it with some apps etc. But I am talking about the whole thing as an off-the-shelf package.
Weren't Hutchinson Telecom French btw ?
Rabbit 2016 would be a phone that relies on Wi-Fi, perhaps. (It's not the "personal accessory" Rabbit. Probably.)
I think you can make a phone today switch onto your home Wi-Fi to make and/or take calls. And then there's a Wi-Fi where you go out and about and borrow anyone else's Wi-Fi if they subscribe to the same home provider as you. I think.
But, can you get all of that in one package?
And, why would you, since real mobile data is moreorless affordable.
Perhaps: Internet of Portable Things?
Or is that another very bad idea?
You've fallen into the "it's all about me" trap of life. When, if you stop and think about it, it hardly ever is about you.
You may not see the value of getting a 2016 version of Rabbit in a box from Tescos. I can tell you that half my neighbours would jump at something like that as long as it didn't look like most smartphone solutions that are held together with string and blu-tak, but really was "buy and play".
@AC "Weren't Hutchinson Telecom French btw ?"
No Hutchison Whampoa (now CK Hutchison) are based in Hong Kong. You are probably thinking about Orange group plc - which was based in the UK and had Hutchison as a majority owner (and owner of the Rabbit service mentioned elsewhere in this thread). That Orange was acquired by Mannesman AG in 2000, Mannesman was then swallowed shortly after by Vodafone Airtouch plc (as it was then) which meant Voda had to dispose of the former Orange group, which they did to France Telecom more or less in tact. Over time FT migrated to using the Orange brand on all their services not just wireless stuff and would be considered Orange now. In the UK FT's Orange and DT's T-Mobile merged to become EE, now owned by BT, consigning the Orange brand to history apart from some still on old legacy contracts.
Ah, the Kodak of Tri-X on which I and million others stepped into photography and the supreme Kodachrome that mesmerized me (and I'm sure countless others) into the world of colour. Did you know that Japanese pro photographers were overwhelmingly KR users and the best KR processing lab was in Tokyo? (Which spurred Fuji's E6 improvement).
Otherwise Kodak was also Instamatic world. So Kodak phone probably Instamatic equivalent.
"[...] the Kodak of Tri-X [...]"
IIRC Black & white Tri-X was tested against consumers to determine what film speed rating Kodak were going to state for the new product.
They asked many people off the street to judge sets of print of typical subjects. Each photograph was repeated with several different exposure ratings.
Kodak released Tri-X with the speed rating determined from the surveys. It was soon realised that people on the street had only the experience of films developed in small stores. They had consequently chosen the photographs that matched their expectation of a low contrast range - giving various shades of grey. Professionals and keen amateurs then had to reduce the film speed rating - to produce the black shadows and white highlights of which the film was capable.
"Professionals and keen amateurs then had to reduce the film speed rating - to produce the black shadows and white highlights of which the film was capable."
Ahhh, the long gone days of school photo club ... bulk rolls of Tri X and therefore disappointments of film cannisters popping open and endless arguments of the right film speed adjustment and flash GN corrections. If Kodachrome were available (as well as processing) I'd love to get back into photography again.
Never really saw one. Most Kodak cameras were aimed at the "snapshot" consumer market, with a few midrange exceptions, like the 1950-60 Retina models. After all, the Kodak obsession for proprietary film formats and cartridges never really helped to develop an high-end, "exceptional" camera (the modified Nikon/Canon digital models rebadged Kodak - i.e. DCS 520 - are not really Kodak cameras).
PS: there were professional cameras for very specific markets like aerial photography, IIRC, but not what you immediately think when someone says "camera".
"I think that Kodak could make more money by bringing back Kodachrome 25"
Kodachrome certainly had vivid colours. For skin tones I preferred Agfachrome 50 slides - although natural light shots indoors were tricky. To overcome the lighting problems I moved up to the Agfa Professional series - but that had to go off to specialist developers for its different chemistry. Home development was possible but not really worthwhile.
A colleague made contact prints from the colour slides for me. Cibachrome glossy paper had a very good dynamic range and a long life - and was quite expensive. It was considered the highest standard for prints from slides.
If Kodak made real money from Kodachrome, I guess it would have kept it available. You'd also need a lab capable of processing it, which again is expensive if just for few users. Maybe in another universe there is a Kodak that was capable of keeping alive a small niche market for high-end reversal films, unluckily not in this one.
Note that still films (no reversal ones, though) are now moved to the Kodak Alaris company, a spin-off or something alike. The old "Kodak" AFAIK now makes only movie films - including the recently (re)launched Super 8 ones (but not Kodachrome ones).
They're clearly trying to reach the younger generation since too many of us oldies hear the name Kodak and the only thing we think is film. The memorable cameras were few such as the Brownie and Retina but for many of us the key trigger is film. Whether that's still or video it was always about the film.
True, but "memorable" has not the same meaning of "exceptional" :-)
The Brownie popularized photography, but was exactly the inverse of an "exceptional" camera.
I don't want to dismiss the importance of Kodak cameras too in the history of photography, especially for often being cheap enough to allow many people access and learn photography (I started too using my father's Retinette 022), just Kodak never became famous for their "exceptional" cameras.... which were mostly a way to sell films - often trying to reinvent the wheel trying to replace established formats with new ones like 110, Disc or APS, in attempts to increase revenues...
Had Kodak a thriving "exceptional cameras" business, they could have shifted revenues to it when film became a niche product. After all Canon and Nikon didn't suffer too much...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
