Slashdot Mirror
Polaroid Can't Compete with Digital Cameras
mobydobius was among several who noted that poloroid can't keep up in the era of digital cameras. They filed for chapter 11, and have a billion dollars of debt. This deal gets them a bit of cash, but none of this seems surprising considering the cost of their instant film. In just a few short years, digital cameras knocked 'em down. There's a lesson here, but I think it's something like "Don't eat the Yellow Snow".
I'm kind of suprised they don't have a digital camera division. Most other traditional manufacturers have.
Well, i guess this means I should pick them up on FuckedCompany.com Sux0rs.
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
It looks like a company's distribution model is outmoded! Computers are making perfect digital copies of photographs easy to distribute over the internet. We need to ban these so called "digital cameras" (more like digital crowbars if you ask us) before even one more dollar of profits has to die! We must outlaw all disruptive technology!
Love,
Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
After so many of the 'new ecomony' companies have gone kaput, it's interesting to see that a so-called 'old economy' company couldn't cut it against all the new technology out nowadays.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
...the fact that Polaroid images are very grainy and crappy and you really can't ge a Polaroid camera that produces a good image.
So really it's like, you're paying a ton of money to replicat what you can do with a disposable camera and 1 hour film developing.
...shit that you can't get developed. a picture of your gf shoving a dildo up her ass. a picture of the snitch you just killed. a picture of you standing naked in front of a mirror.
those are all *illegal* to have processed. the problem is not 1hr processing. the problem is digital, which also takes the developer out of the picture and lets you snap shots of whatever you want
Actually, if you read yesterday's nytimes article, the company had been headed down at least since 1988, (before digital cameras) when they were first in debt. Their demise is attributed not just to a failure to keep up with digital, but to a string of bad business decisions.
Besides, even before digital cameras they had to compete against disposables and the general drop in camera prices and features.
I met a lady taking super 8 movies for a
class. The film costs $8 minute. $12 for 3
minutes of film and $12 to get it developed.
Wouldn't take long to pay for a nice digital
8 camcorder.
Polaroid made some of the best advances in providing instant photos, but that was back during their golden years. Digital cameras entered the market a few years ago, also providing instant photos, and Polaroid acted like they werent there.
Digital beat Polaroid in the fact that Polaroid's photos never really improved over the years. The cameras lacked good zoom lenses, quality never improved, lighting was an issue, each photo was an expensive $1/print, not to mention sheer size of the cameras meant it was tough to carry around.
Digital, OTOH, has zoom, high quality photos, adjusts for lighting problems, and have hardly any cost per photo.
IMO, Polaroid's downfall was their failure to further develop their camera to compete with the modern world. Their only major advancement was in providing fancy party borders to photos.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I hate to say it like that because it seems so callouse but I don't think anyone will feel sympathetic with horse ranchers enough to stop buying cars or gasoline.
There are a lot of technologies that we have outgrown right? Polaroid still serves some purpose that only polaroid technologies can address. Using a Polaroid usually indicates that the photo hasn't been tampered with and serves as good proof in some areas.
I hope they can strategize a way to come back.
Summary: "Polaroid invented the dot-com model before anyone else!"
:)
Speaking as an owner of a Digital Polaroid (PDC1100), one issue was that their digital camera just wasn't that well made.
Looking at their instant cameras (which I also own one of), these weren't particularly ergonomic and certainly not cost effective. It was simply that they were the only instant cameras (due to patents).
And CostCo warehouse was having weird Polaroid-sponsored rebates-- buy a 4-pack of film and get a camera for free! After you have 4 cameras just by buying refills, you start to think maybe Polaroid's profit model was a little wacked.
Let's see... lossy marketing schemes, shoddy goods, reliance on a patent instead of a good product, entrance into new markets with substandard goods... yep, they were a dot-com without the dot or com part
A.
They have always been a one-trick pony. Instant cameras and film were it for them, and everything else was just a little sideline.
Many moons ago Polaroid sued the pants off of Kodak for patent infringement, winning back exclusive rights to "instant" film and cameras as well as a good chunk of cash.
Their corporate culture didn't allow them to recognize that the "instant" film market, their baby, had reached the end of its lifespan.
Times had changed and Polaroid didn't change with them. They never gave more than a nod to anything other than their heritage.
Those who insist on living in the past have no place in the future.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If they put that kind of crap on their site, they've got problems indeed...
About 15 years ago I was in a B-school class that did a case study on Polaroid. They were in trouble then because Kodak's SX-70 instant-picture technology that didn't require user intervention or a wastebasket had obviated Polaroid's 35-year-old watch-your-watch system. Their newer systems didn't quite have the technical quality of Kodak's, and their product design was laughable. But they were clearly survivors, because they should have been dead then, not now.
--Blair
People are looking at this through their geek googles. You've drank too much Slashdot!
Polaroid isn't necessarily suffering because of technology change, technological innovation, or anything else that geeks care about. Polariod could be in trouble because of more mundane "old business" reasons, such as lack of innovation, not focusing on core competencies, out of control costs, poor management, and so forth. Sure, these things might be related to technology, but I think it is silly to blame only technology for their problems.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Had a party last night.
Took polaroids and had a digital:
The digital was untouched and the polaroid took 405 pics before we ran out of film.
Polaroids are instant (no shutter lag), give you a hard, permanent picture within seconds.
Polaroid's current problems are due to a load of debt assumed in 1988 due to a hostile takeover bid.
However, assuming money is not an object, give people at a party a choice between taking polaroids and using a digital and the polaroid will win out.
I just wish that polaroid film was cheaper. It is a superior technology to digital in many ways. Sure it is an "analog" technology versus a digital one, but the world is analog not digital.
BTW, didn't get any good chick pix that I can publish, so don't rub it in.
evanchik.net
This is one of the things that, say, Scott McNealy would point out as a "disruptive technology". Digital Cameras came, and Polaroid didn't change.
For the consumer, the choice was almost obvious. Do you want buy a camera, and have to pay for film all the time, or do you want a more expensive camera that takes "free pictures"? (Okay, not quite free, but very close.)
Customers don't like the pay-per-use model. They hate it. Anything that moves away from that will win consumers. You see this happen over and over again. Companies need to latch onto this and embrace it.
I feel bad for Polaroid, but it is really a win for us that technology has managed to create something better that has succeeded in the marketplace.
Polaroid needs to give up on manufacturing entirely, and just trade on the name. They can do what half the tech industry already does; buy dirt cheap asian hardware, silkscreen a logo onto it, package it with some bad software and double the price.
Polaroid is really a victim of their own patents.
The cornerstone for Polaroid's business was their patents on instant film technology. No other company could compete in that market because of it. When Kodak attempted to enter the market in the 1970's, Poloroid stopped them, as they were violating their patents.
Because they had no competition, they didn't diversify. Actually they did, but it was too little, too late. Sure, they add low end 35mm cameras, 35mm film and digital cameras to their product line, but they couldn't establish a leadership role in any of these market segments. They still relied on their instant film business as a core.
New technology killed their own older, proprietory technology. Had they tried to embrace other technologies earlier (like been in the 35mm market about 10 years before) they might have build enough diversity on "open" technology to carry them through the predictable demise of their proprietory technology.
Polaroid should be a lesson for other technology companies: continue to innovate or else!
This is an interesting example of a technology replacing a process with a product. The process: buy camera, buy film, take photos, buy film processing, store prints/slides somewhere physical. The product: digitalcamera/computer/web site. Polaroid had a different technology to replace the same process, but it lost out because it wasn't digital.
But there are other examples. Some are older such as mail being replaced by fax machines then replaced by email. Email elminates the step of requiring a hard copy.
The general pattern is: old process is augmented or partially replaced by new not-completely-digital product, and then a completely digital product which almost eliminates the process requirements takes over.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Polaroid's problems have nothing to do with any failure to compete with digital cameras. Polaroid did have some of the first really high-rez digital cameras on the market, but it was too early in the market for such an expensive product.
Kodak has also blown billions on trying to adapt to new digital technology, and they haven't made much of a dent in the market either. Kodak just has deeper pockets.
The biggest problem here that I see is that Polaroid never recovered from Kodak's pirating their patents for instant film. Polaroid received a hefty payment of damages, and Kodak was required to stop making instant film and recall all their instant cameras. Kodak tried to put Polaroid out of business, and now, in retrospect, it looks like they succeeded (just a lot later than they expected).
Polaroids #2 mistake: not catching on to the digital revolution
Polaroids #1 mistake: having Sinbad as their mascot
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
About a year ago I was in a situation were I needed a high quality print (hard copy) quickly. My options:
1. Use my digital camera and buy a photo printer.
2. Buy a polaroid camera and film.
3. Use my conventional camera and get I one hour processing at the drug store down the street.
My evaluation:
1. too expensive >$200 for printer
2. too expensive >$30
3. didn't have my camera with me so bought a disposable for $3.00 and developed for $6.99 (took a 1/2 hour).
Of course, as you scale option 1 would become the winner since polaroid film is (can't quite remember exactly) more than $2 per photo.
I expect that polaroid would still be in business if they got the cost down to about 50 cents per picture and sold disposable cameras. They did market the the fun-shot cameras but these are just plain stupid.
Side Note: I think digital cameras will be the next to go as dv cameras become more main stream. My sony dv camcorder takes as good a still shot as my olympus digital camera and it has that cool night vision.
Polaroid did pioneer instant photography. Dr. Edwin Land had the 2nd largest number of patents assigned to him personally in the US. Polaroid was the prototypical high-tech startup that pioneered a new market. They *owned* the instant film market.
Ironically Polaroid also did much of the early work on digital photography and held a number of early patents. They could have rolled out digital cameras long ago but feared cannibalizing their existing markets. So they stayed with the tried-and-true and eventually became irrelevant.
Polaroid was also the classic engineering-run company. Never did market studies. Never did usability testing. Never attempted to create a design identity. If anything they were known for the incredibly clever & complex folding of their cameras (the awesome chemistry was hidden.)
They did try to branch out a bit. In the late 70's they introduced "Polavision", their instant movie system which bombed in a big way. In the recriminations Dr. Land "moved on" and Polaroid was left to continue the course he had left it on, never to really change significantly afterwards.
Oh, they came out with kiddie cameras and cheap cameras and cameras that printed to stickers. Some were decent successes but nothing really ground shaking. Other companies slowly but steadily took away their drivers-license photos and other markets with alternative technologies. For the past few years there've been promises of a new line in digital photography but many of the proposed products are dubious (dual instant-photo with a digital copy?) and all are vapor still.
Polaroid does have about 2 billion in assets - properties, patents, plants, contracts, etc. Their employees have all been aware of what has been happening and even in a company famous for dedication folks have been jumping ship for the past few years. The retirees are all up in arms and are likely screwed as their benefits are tied up in the company.
Lessons? Don't stop innovating. Don't define yourself as "The Something Company". Complete domination of your market is only important as long as your market is unique. Don't rely only on completely amazing technology to sell your product; you need to identify, listen-to & cultivate your customers.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
a girl i know picked up an old polaroid circa 196? at an antique shop in wisconsin, had funky plates that came with it and the images are so olde time cool that she matts the results.
i love my olympus E-1 but i think i am still going to go out and pick up a couple of cases of instant film at sams club in anticipation of tomorrows trick polaroid technique and ebay squabbles... remember those fisher price kiddy video cameras that used cassette tapes, those are know so retro cool that tarintino snapped up a half a dozen for a small fortune. my point is about the money, it's about the fact that analog techniques in art sometimes evolve after the media is less consumable...
Digital cameras lack something real cameras have. Take the classic blackmail example:
Me: TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
*Neema throws down photos on desk*
Senator: *GASP*
Me: That's right. You. Dancing with the forbidden monkey. Dancing the forbidden dance with the forbidden monkey!
Senator: Please... if these get out, I'll never get reelected. And if I don't get reelected, I can't get the Senator's discount at Ben and Jerry's!
Me: And don't even think of ripping these up! I have copies at home! But, I think we can work something out...
*Senator pulls out check book*
But now, with these god damn digital cameras:
Me: TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
*Neema gently places digital camera on desk, so it doesn't break*
Senator: Yeah, my daughter has one of these.
Me: No, no, no. Argh. It turned off. It does that. Turns off automatically after 3 minutes... ok... gimme that...
*Neema turns on camera, places on desk again*
Me: OK, TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SENATOR!
Senator: It's a dog.
Me: Oh yeah, that's my dog Scruffy. Argh. Yeah, press the right arrow. Get past those pictures. Yep, that's Aunt Sally. Come on, a bit faster. ARGH, JUST GIVE IT TO ME!
*Grabs camera, scrolls to incriminating pictures*
Me: THERE YOU ARE! YOU, DANCING THE FORBIDDEN DANCE WITH THE FORBIDDEN MONKEY!
Senator: Please... if these get out, I'll never get reelected. And if I don't get reelected, I can't get the Senator's discount at Ben and Jerry's!
Me: Yeah, well, I'm going to stop by staples to get glossy photo paper and I'll be printing out a bunch of these!
*Senator pulls out check book*
I still like the first situation better.
I would have gotten the digital pic printed out at kinkos where they have high quality printers, consumer models just can't get the colors right.
Photos.
So the effect is similar to a drunk stumbling out of a bar out into heavy traffic. BLAM!
They got into some things that screwed them up, then got nailed.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Polaroid sued Kodak out of the instant photo market even though Kodak had a vastly superior product.
-Eric
Make that the ACMD.
What if I suffer from a complete loss of near-term memory and want to hunt down my wife's killer? I can't bloody well lug a laptop around all the time not to mention trusting digital data!
I don't know why I feel so indifferent about this. Maybe its because I have an Uncle who worked for Kodak (in Rochester NY). I remember when I was about age 11 or so, He was telling me how Kodak lost their battle in court to continue making their Instamatic (sp?) cameras. Polariod has a history of trying to edge out competition, just like any other corporation. If they can't keep up, hey, what goes around...
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
I've worked for one publically held company in a similar situation. Debtor in possesion financing like this is a pretty good sign that someone sees some value in Polaroid's business but it isn't sufficient to make the company a going concern.
If you read the docs filed with the court very carefully and pay particular attention to any 'turn around team' that is brought in you should be able to figure out what is going on - check the 'turn around' management carefully - they're likely the undertakers.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Instant photography was terrible quality and was good for two things: documenting car accidents, and taking naked pictures of your girlfriend. Now with digital cameras that's redundant.
The RIAA seem to know how to convice everybody that new technology is evil, if polaroid borrowed some lawyers from RIAA they could just make digital cameras illegal, then they could have their money back
that they were not compeitieve with digital is hard to dispute, but regradless, as an artist i can say instant film is a unique medium with qualities that other photo technologies cant offer. it will be a sad day when the instant picture, with its trademark white frame is no longer part of culture.
I remember taking pictures of dead and mutilated animals with Polaroid party film.
Not only did it get a lot of laughs, but it forever secured my place in the neighbourhood as a sick freakin' wierdo.
And had my digital camera + laptop running the results as a slidshow.
People would come up and say "I'd like this pic" and I'd put them as E-mail in the Out Box.
This morning they found them in their In Box.
Cost: Next to nothing. ;-).
Quality: Excelent.
Bonus 1: Any number of copies.
Bonus 2: You can edit out the undesirables
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
someone tell me more about this pattent infringement suit....
when did it take place? Was it a legitimate suit or did kodak just give in for the sake of expedience.
evanchik.net
For those with an interest in large-format photography, Polaroid's 4x5 film backs are wonderful. They allow you to preview your image before sticking real film into your camera. There aren't many people into large-format photography but Polaroid sure made it easy for you to check your exposure, composition, etc., before exposing a $2 sheet of film.
Problem is, they are trying to sell junk nowadays, like cameras that will play radio stations. Pathetic!!!
Poloroid has never been in the self-developing photograph business. Nobody wants self-developing photographs. People want instant photographs, and Poloroid has been in the instant photography business for ages now.
Digital photography also provides instant photographs, so Poloroid has new competition.
This is exactly what happened to the "rail" industry. "Rail" companies were and are railroads in the freight hauling business and the passenger transportation business. Because they thought of themselves as a rail business, they didn't invest heavily in the new technologies of tractor-trailer trucks, coach bussing, and passenger airliners. As such, they saw their market failing, when what was happening was that their market was working quite well--serviced by companies which invested in new technologies.
A word to the suits. The market you are in is not the technology you sell or use, but the benefit you give your customers. You're not in the rail business, you're in the freight business. You're not in the pinball business, you're in the arcade entertainment business. You're not in the floppy disk business, you're in the removable media business.
Companies that understood this survived the tractor-trailer, the video game, and the CD-RW. Those that didn't have gone the way of the dodo.
--The basis of all love is respect
This doesn't make sense. The SX-70 was made by Polaroid, not Kodak. The code name was Aladdin. See this, for example.
You have to use www.polaroid.com.
Don't forget, they have had a lot of name recognition for "instant photos" on the world market. They could have had a big jump on the rest when it came to marketing digital camera technology.
That's why I bought a Polaroid digital camera a few years ago when I was looking that (at the time) cost me $350.00. I figured that if anyone was going to take care to make a nice digital camera it would be Polaroid, considering the importance of their name and their stake in instant photography. I had been a long time Polaroid film camera user, and felt like I'd be willing to pay a little more (once again) for someone who did instant (this time digital) photography properly.
The camera was a total piece of 1-megapixel-shit. It took horrible, grainy, blurry pictures whose colors bled into each other. The chromatic aberration was something to behold, the hue reproduction was nasty (everything was brown!), the flash was weak, and it would eat a set of lithium AA batteries in only about 10 minutes of use. The worst part of it was that the construction was horribly cheap -- battery and connector doors were like parts of a McDonald's happy meal toy -- made of thin, brittle plastic and held in place by friction alone.
Figuring that maybe I had just been unlucky and got ahold of a lemon or a preproduction model or a customer return or something, I took it back and exchanged it for another. Same deal. I was about to give up on digital photography. It still hadn't occurred to me that Polaroid was at fault for putting out a truly lousy product.
Then I had a chance to work with a friend's Olympus digital camera in the same price range. It took great pictures that really completely outdid 35mm consumer-level products. Compared to the Polaroid camera I had bought, it had a similar 1-megapixel resolution, had more features, had removable/expandable memory (via SmartMedia), was built very solidly, and was about the same price as the Polaroid with batteries lasting about four times longer.
I bought the Olympus camera and was thrilled at the first download of photos, which were TRULY great (esp. the macro shots) and was able to compare and see just how awful the Polaroid's photos were.
Since then, a number of friends who were considering Polaroid digital cameras have looked at my early shots and decided to buy Olympus instead. And last year, when I wanted to upgrade to a higher resolution camera to get 8x10 photos out of it, I ended up going with a Nikon Coolpix without even considering Polaroid after using their film cameras for years.
With their initial foray into digital, they lost me and many of my friends as customers. Too bad they didn't take the technology more seriously.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
It is easy to see why digital photography has given Polariod's instant camera technology a challenge in the marketplace. Both live on removing the need for an outside processing lab. Digital photography gives the additional features of being able to send and manipulate the photographs. I see some areas where the polaroid technology still has some advantages- Cheaper upfront equipment cost, disposable equipment and comes with a built in printer. I have both a couple of polaroids and a digital camera. The polaroid is kept for emergencies. My digital camera has replaced my 35MM camera.
I hope that polaroid stays afloat enough to keep its basic product line alive, but they definitely need to make changes to respond to the changing marketplace. I'm thinking of emergency cameras or survival cameras. If they can make a completely disposable instant camera along the lines of the disposable 35MM, they might have a sustainable niche.
-tpg
While this is not a largest market - its essential
product that will not go away. Polaroid backs and
polaroid professional film are a must in a studio
flash photography to get quick preliminary results
out of the same camera that will be used for the
real shoot.
So for better or worse they will have a litte
segment of the market forever:))))
i'm sorry, but i don't see where in that link anything was said about not being able to keep up in a digital market.
please, slashdot, let your users make up their own minds.
Polaroid is a cheap way to take pictures in the short term. The camera's never get outdated (I'm using a 1968 Land camera witht he peel apart 669 film). Yeah, a $1 a shot is a lot, but compared to the bleeding edge Casio QV-10 that I paid $450 in 96 (320x240), I think the initial $20 laydown for a Polaroid camera is well worth it.
I think form factor is really the biggest limitation of the format. Quality is acceptable, and with the right film, you can do some really artistic things to the print. (Emulsion/Negative transfers for 669, swirly-Van-Gogh effects with SX-70).
Getting an Autographed Polaroid, and knowing that there is only one, and that it's unique has value to me as well (unless they used a slide enlarger to run off a few hundred)
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
The suit was legitimate, and Kodak sure as hell didn't just give in. Polaroid had patented every little detail of how their cameras worked- not just the film itself but also all of the niggly bits about film handling and the like. Kodak tried very hard to develop non-patented alternatives to everything that Polaroid did, but in some cases they weren't able to find any. They then went ahead and produced their camera even though they knew that it violated some of Polaroid's patents. Polaroid then sued them for about $1 billion in damages, and Kodak fought back tooth an nail. Polaroid won on the merits of the case and got a big judgment, though not as big as they had asked for, and Kodak was forced to stop producing their cameras.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I am not surprised...
I recall when they were suing Kodak over instant film camera patents and after a protracted court case won.
It seems spending money and energy on court battles instead of putting the same resources into R&D is the kiss of death.
Remember Lotus 123 Look & Feel battle?
Remember DBase court battles?
Remember Aple v Microsoft GUI battle?
The Kiss of Death for those companies!
Oh, if you think Apple isn't the victim of the Kiss of Death, just look who is their biggest stock-owner.
It's really too bad that polaroid is going out of business (well, filing bankrupt, anyway) because if you ask a lot of photographers, they will tell you that polaroid film has unique and beautiful saturation and color levels. The film often adds a hazy, almost surreal glow to it's pictures, and the photos have a filtered, artistic feel to them. The polaroid 'following' is almost that which is similar to the lomo following - practically a cult.
Personally I think that polaroid cameras, and the entire idea or polaroid pictrures, is also superb in that it can provide you with instant, hard proof of an event. Not to discount the quality of digital photography, but where I work (in the ER of a large hospital) polariod cameras have time and again allowed us to document abuse, sexual abuse, rape, accidents, and other events that would incur an unholy amount of paperwork were we unable to provide visual proof. I can assure you that many a polaroid photo has been used in saving many young girls', battered womens' and childrens' lives. A picture is worth a thousand words, and by being able to provide images of the bruise, wound, or overall condition right before it's covered up in bandages and dressings is important. Another thing that makes them so valuable is that they're point-and-shoot-and-develop; any nurse, doctor or tech can do it. I hope polaroid doesn't stop selling their film, at least!
I wonder if it will someday become a valuable collectible? The camera that brought down a corporate giant! Own the legend!
Clickety Click
I'm the unfortunate owner of one of their low-end "Fun! Flash 640SE" cameras.
My complaint with it has nothing to do with the low quality of the images (which look as though they are merely "interpolated" to 640x480 rather than actually BEING 640x480 as advertised) nor the cheap construction - I rather expected both for a ~$80 digital camera.
My complaint is their horrendous support for it. In my specific case, I'd emailed to them asking about protocol specs so that the gPhoto project might be able to put together a working driver. Now, the fact that they would give no useful information is, sadly, not all that unusual, but the form of the response was rather unimpressive. Over a month after sending the email, I got back a medium-sized email in reply. ALL BUT ONE LINE of that email was form-letter "thank you for contacting polaroid blah blah blah". The very first line was the only unique one. It said "that information is not available."
Given that Xirlink actually made the camera core, and there APPEARS to be some sort of business-stifling "Intellectual Property" agreement between Polaroid's digital division and that "ArcSoft" company that makes the obnoxious 'pretty bird' program (I forget the name of the windows 9x-only software - its mascot is a clown-colored bird...) that is supposed to keep it such that only the Polaroid/ArcSoft drivers are able to get to the camera, so I wrote back asking if they meant that they didn't HAVE the information (i.e. that I should contact Xirlink or ArcSoft instead) or that they were not allowed to release it. Over a week later, another one-terse-line-plus-formletter-crap response - "We do not make that information available." (which is not only somewhat rude but as before doesn't even answer the question.)
It was then that I figured they were screwed...if they had no interest in AT LEAST being polite to potential new markets, let alone actually encouraging their development, it seemed pretty obvious that other digital camera companies would roll over them, and, as others have already pointed out in this vein, considering how expensive and low quality their other "instant photograph" products were, that digital cameras would slowly devour that market as they got cheaper, and polaroid would have nothing to fall back on. Nice going, Polaroid.
(On the plus side, last I heard there was some progress in getting recognizeable images from the Polaroid "Fun!" cameras, so maybe I'll be able to actually use mine eventually...More info about the cameras here and, more currently, here.)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Although I'm confident Leonard could have come up with a spiffy solution involving a Visor Prism and an eyemodule2 camera. (Although not as cheaply as the Polaroid.)
The film for such a monster is exceptionally expensive, but the results are breath taking. I've used polaroid instant film backs for my Medium format and view cameras, which were invaluable in teaching me how to use the cameras effectivly.
Polaroids foray into digital was both ill managed and ill concieved, but to say that Digital has trumped Film is a mistake. It's much more valid to say that overfinancing your company on junk debt is a sure way to bankruptcy. So don't see this as the end of fil, film can do a lot that digital can't do and I'm sure that will be true for some time (10 years+). There isn't a digital camera out there that can do what a view camera can do in competent hands. This is not to dis digital, I love my digital camera with a passion too, but the color reproduction on it (yes, even in tiff mode) is not as nice.
Chris DiBona
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
record w/ the bitrate set as variable, that way then more data is need to create a complete sound, then higher bit rate, and vise versa.
rekarc@hotmail.com
Try more like ~1-2k for a combo. The printer will set you back something like $300 for the good baseline printer and $500 for the top of the line one (get the top of the line- prints faster and better...). The camera needs to be at least 2 megapixels in resolution- that means $400-600 at least.
I know about these things because 6 months ago I shelled out nearly a thousand on the setup my wife and I are now using. The prices haven't gone down that much except in the most recent of times and it still wouldn't be ~$500.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
HP, Epson, and Canon already HAVE inkjet printers that do this.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
there is a world of difference between new technology making old technology obsolete through superiority and new technology making traditional methods of protecting intellectual property harder to enforce.
Digital cameras, and other techological advancements of its kind, provide a superior and more economical service to all necessary parties. In other words, they are both superior and exist organically, that is to say, without leaching off the outside world.
"Advancements" such as filesharing certainly disrupt, but they do not necessarily provide a complete solution for all involved--even for its own continued existence (e.g., once novel IP dies, the need for those kinds of services dies). This much simply is not arguable. What is arguable, is whether or not such a solution is even POSSIBLE. I lean strongly towards the IMPOSSIBLE side, but nonetheless I think even the IP owners' critics should be aware of the difference.
Digital camera: $600.
Cost to develop: $0.
Web site for party pictures: $20/month.
Expression on photographed person's face when everyone in the office cruises that site: Priceless!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
If they can make a completely disposable instant camera along the lines of the disposable 35MM, they might have a sustainable niche.
It's the Polaroid PopShots (their biCapitalization, not mine). It's been around for over a year now, and retails for about $20 USD (which is only 5-10 bucks cheaper than the basic Polaroid OneStep that most people are familiar with). I don't know how well it's selling.
This is symptomatic of Polaroid problem, really. There are half-dozen posts in this thread proposing a "miracle product" to get Polaroid back on track. The problem is, Polaroid already makes most of those products. They make digital cameras. They make photo-printers. They make high-end cameras with good lenses. Etc, etc. They even produce (in a joint venture with Olympus) a hybrid camera that stores pictures digitally and prints them on Polaroid film. It's a cool concept that nobody (even here on a gadget-happy site like Slashdot) seems to know about. Their R&D department isn't the problem.
Polaroid makes the stuff, they just can't seem to market it worth a damn. They're either going after the wrong market niche, or just not advertising at all. They only people who knew Polaroid was making new cameras were kids (the iZone is Polaroid's biggest seller now) and people who work in camera stores (that's my excuse).
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since they don't do something like dye-sublimation, you've got to do 4-process color. Since that requires dithering, etc. your effective dots per inch just dropped to something like 300 or 600. So, do photo printers look like crap because they're 300 dots per inch or is it more like they've got a poor implementation of color representation? I suspect that Polaroid's photo printer prints pretty good (I wouldn't know- never saw a print from it...) because they're using their instant film as the print media... It would be true color, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Polaroid had the SX-70 technology, not Kodak.
With real estate prices as they are in Cambridge, I bet Polaroid could cut a chunk of debt just by renting or selling off their land. They have properties in some very desirable locations.
Commercial space in Cambridgeport rents at around $60/sq foot, when it can be found. Even with the current "recession" prices haven't budged. Hop on over the the WSJ for some insight.
With their name, their engineering talent, their land (to provide some cash) and a reasonable restructuring, Polaroid could relaunch themselves as a player in the digital market in under two years.
Go down to your local Salvation Army and look around -- you'll often find a Handle kicking around. It'll be about 8 inches tall and almost rectangular, with a viewfinder and yes, most have a crank on the side -- hence the name. It has all the quality feeling of an Instamatic.
Now go find an SX-70. Granted that it's weird in the hand, but it's also a by-God SLR, it collapses down to almost nothing, and it's kind of cool just to watch it unfold. It's usually brushed chrome, mine at least has leather facings, and it just feels well-made. It's no Leica, but it's not a Swinger either. Ansel Adams had one, and I don't recall his ever endorsing any other picture boxes or film.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Polaroid has, for many years, made a variety of products besides instant film and instant cameras, such as various lenses, glasses (as in eyewear), DIGITAL CAMERAS, and SCANNERS. Their scanners are well rated, and their digital cameras may have been nothing special but were stunningly cheap and performed well for the price. My aunt bought one for $50, and it was quite a nice thing for simple snapshots, which is all most people want out of a digital camera anyway. (Perhaps not us slashdotters, but we're not most people.)
Moreover, the instant film market isn't gone, it's just oblivious. Every january I go to a science fiction convention and bring several recent-model polaroid instant cameras, and walk around with at least one in my hands so I can stop people with costumes in the hall and tell them "smile!" I take two pictures of each person, and you should see how excited they get when they see I'm giving them a polaroid. The usual reaction is "Wow, I thought Polaroid went out of business years ago! You can still buy the cameras and film? Where do I get it? Can I buy it right here at the hotel? I want one right away!" I tell them what it costs and they tell me that's fine. I tell them they can buy it at Sears and they're amazed.
What that tells me is, Polaroid's market exists, and their products are fine, they just have lousy advertising.
I wish Polaroid well. I wish them a good ad agency. I've used their cameras all my life and loved them. My father and grandfather before me used polaroids for seemingly forever too. We've always had superb experiences with the products. I wouldn't want to see them die.
It happened to the Swiss in the 1970's, it's happening to Polaroid now, and inevitably it will happen again to another company. Why is it that success seems to turn individuals and institutions, once hailed as brilliant for their insight and achievement, into complete idiots with no respect for history?
The only reason Polaroid cameras became popular in the first place is that you could take pictures of your girlfriend having sex with a dog without the embarassing looks you'd be subjected to at your friendly neighborhood WalMart (not to mention the arrests, etc.) Now that there are digital cameras, you can take dozens of cheap pictures of your chick having sex with a dog, and not only enjoy them yourself, but send them out on the internet to your buddies / other perverts. It's not about technology, it's not about business savvy, it's about taking dirty pictures without John Q. Law intervening.
Polaroid thought they were in the instant camera business, when they were really in the camera business.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
In which case she was probably going to be outta luck. The cinema has been headed digital for both production and distribution for years. While there is some purpose to learning the old technology nobody uses super 8 film for quality purposes.
The market for professional film is nowhere near big enough to support a company the size of Polaroid. The Professional and serious amateur market for film is negligible compared to the market for holiday snaps. Polaroid's share of the professional market was much smaller proportionately than that of Kodak or Fuji. For a start you have to use a medium or large format camera.
The only part of the professional market that uses film in quantities big enough to support major corporations has been movies. A movie camera eats 12 35 mm snaps worth of film a second. To make an hour of movie takes ten hours (at least) of film stock.
The shift at the moment is on the production side. Digital editing has been arround for some time. Directors like Lucas have been moving towards shooting with digital cameras. While some directors will stick with film for years the bulk of the market will go digital. Remember that a bad movie takes as much film stock to shoot it as an art house flick. The transition will be complete in three to five years time when low cost digital projectors become available. The $10K cost of striking a print is what keeps many makers of celluloid film in business.
There will always be people who have to bore us with the reasons why celluloid was better. Just as there are still bores who will explain at inordinate length why vinyl is better than CD or why gas light is much better than electricity.
Recently I talked to an audiophile type who went on for hours about the spiffy new CD player he had bought for several thousand dollars which allegedly had a precision made drive that rotated the CD at exactly the 'right' rate. As if the circuitry feeding the D2A converter would be affected by the rate at which the input buffer was filled.
The fact is that within a couple more generations the top end digital cameras will outstrip the resolution of 35 mm film. There are also interesting possibilities for configuring digital film that are impossible with analog, logarithmic response to light for example giving a much greater dynamic range than the 100:1 that is possible with film.
Some celluloid use will continue, but it will be a minority even amongst the professional market.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Hello CmdrTaco their name is Polaroid, not Poloroid. Its not by Ralph Lauren... idiot.
I haven't seen an inkjet yet that can compare with the quality of a fulle-color laser printer. They have beautiful output, and it's FAST.
the pics are 320x240 no flash, fixed focus, but its great starter camera and I use it for a lot of web stuff, low bandwidth :).
Maybe microsoft will consider buying out the digital camera line, they're the only reason I still got windows on my machine.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
With a digital camera you can also post them on the internet.
Digital cameras win!
I'm sure you didnt' get laid at this party too.
... so that we can send you our complimentary serving of white powder.
that take Poloroid film. real popular with the pro because they can test light and composistion before burning up a lot of expensive 220 film and model time at $100-150 an hour. Immagine trying to rebook some super-model to reshoot because the lighting wasn't right
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Have you ever done studio photography? It is common to have two seperate backs for the camera. One has polaroid film, the other has your real film. You use the polaroid to make sure the lighting is right, then use the real film for the real photos. Saves a lot of time and money...
I was under the impression, having seen a review of one, that Polaroid was making digital cameras?
A little over a year ago, I worked at a subdivision of Polaroid here in Fort Wayne called "Polaroid Digital ID", which used to be an independant company that naturally was purchased by Polaroid.
They take professional-grade digital cameras (not polaroid at the time), and set them up with the software and machines to spit out real drivers licenses, which are actually used in several states to let you preview the picture, then have the license immediatly (or later from some states that choose to go the cheaper centralized-pringing-location route).
It was a pretty interesting job, working on ancient non-commented DOS-based C code that was thrown together by an independant contractor in a few weeks, stretched FAR beyond it's intention, with little company documentation available to new programmers. Then there was sitting at those card-producing machines, making up fake names and details, and watching the desk fill up with piles of real drivers licenses with pictures of action figures, hands, etc. in the image part of the card.
Then there was the corporate videos we all gathered to watch, the corporate panic showing through the idealistic industry-speak, and "great new ideas". I guess the sticky photos didn't sell to the kiddies as well as hoped. Our division was always mentioned as a relatively unimportant afterthought, and ironically now the Digital ID department is propably the most profitable part of the overall company what with all the demand for new ID's for company security and better watermarks on drivers' licenses.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
"With a Polaroid camera you can take pictures of your naked girlfriend."
And chances are, she'll probably be more agreeable, knowing there's only one copy of each photo! (Which you can then scan & post on the internet...)
The only reason Polaroid stayed alive for so long was because they went out and attacked anyone who developed instant film similar to theirs. With no competitors, why would Polaroid want to spend money on R&D to make new cheaper products? When digital came out, it provided instant pictures just like polaroid film, but without the actual physical film, so there was nothing Polaroid could do about it.
There are still uses for polaroid film (think of any situation where you want an instant hard copy or are not near any photo labs). But because consumers have moved away to digitals so fast, Polaroid won't be able to get any income for advancements to their technology.
To be cliche, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The saddest thing about Polaroid going 'rupt is it's effect on intimate photography. The technology is perfect for those special moments that you want to record, but don't want to share with the photolab techs or have hacked out of your computer and posted on the internet. With polaroids, you had a unique confidence that private records would stay that way.
Sigs are for kids
Polaroid: expensive, fiddly, make porno snaps without going through Boots developers, and show them to your friends
Digital: expensive, fiddly, make porno snaps without going through Boots developers, and show them to the entire civilized universe
Clear case of better technology wins out, IMO.
... that's your support staff right there! It isn't just Polaroid - its anything it seems. .. oh well.
I was asking Westwood about their "Dune" game, something like 15 ! mails back and forth, and NOT ONCE did they answer my question, only gave me a slew of pretype nonsense... now, on the one had i think its nice of them to hire some mentally handicapped people, give them a chance to make a little money, on the other hand its very annoying
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
And that lesson is, "You can't fight economics forever, no matter how good your intentions," something that VALinux and other open source companies are learning the hard way.
transportation (trnspr-tshn)
n.
The act or an instance of transporting.
The state of being transported.
A means of conveyance.
The business of conveying passengers or goods.
A charge for public conveyance; fare.
Deportation to a penal colony.
:D
I love my I-ZONE camera. I also own a couple of shelves of digital and traditional cameras... but just being able to make those little stick-on images, especially outdoors where the sky comes out as an awesome deep blue, is really a blast.
The worst terrorist attacks in recorded history, blah blah blah, and Polaroid is going out of business? My *god*, people, what will become of the Rockford Files dude!?!?
The drop in crime is likely a factor. With so few crime scenes being photographed, perhaps Congress should act to fund criminals and provide some relief to the photo industry.
Instant photographs were an absolutely great thing to base a business on. It's certainly as good as sweet fizzy water or a million other things. Before Polaroid you took a photo and either developed it yourself or waited a few days for someone else to do so. After them you had it THERE, right NOW (well, a minute or so.) That's a profound thing - it was revolutionary then and still fundamental now.
This is fantastic in a consumer market. Put one on a table and the fun begins. Take the first picture, see how it came out, try a next, then a third, now it's the photographers turn to get snapped. Did Sue's tan come out - no - try again.
Industrially/governmentally they are also invaluable. For a generation any photo ID made that you could walk away with was a Polaroid. Driver's licenses, school IDs, badges, passes, whatever. Anyone who had to document things also loved these as they immediately saw what they had photographed, were sure if they'd captured what they wanted or not, could drop it in the folder and the matter was closed.
Professional photographers also find Polaroids invaluable. The look is distinctive yet mesmerizing. Rich colors that blended almost like pastels. Aside from their visual quality they were also the perfect tool for proofing a shot, seeing how it would come out before the "real" one was taken. Ask any studio photographer and they'll show you their stock of Polaroid film.
Can quick-develop machines do this? Well only if you want to go to the drop-off, come back in an hour, try and figure out what each shot was, hope they got what you wanted, etc. Quick is NOT the same as instant.
What about digital? If you want to lug along a camera with finicky light requirements and so-so resolution then go print it the pic. It only takes a set of electronics that costs from a few hundred to a few thousands of dollars and is often far less compelling in court then an less tamperable analog photograph.
No, Polaroid had a good business model. Unfortunately they didn't expand from that model (well, not in any significant way) so when it began to contract they were hurt. They also have/had a really dysfunctional culture and an inability to effect fundamental changes internally. Disposable cameras hurt them, digital cameras hurt them, debt-service hurt them, massive overhead hurt them, their pension plan and employee benefits hurt them, their pricey office spaces hurt them, the credit crunch hurt them, but they were broken inside long before these pushed them over the edge.
Frankly they should've outsourced the film & camera production side of things, cut instant-film R&D to maintenance mode, done some customer research and come up with things like the i-Zone ten years ago, streamlined their operations, accelerated their product development time from it's apparent many-year cycle to something reasonable, gotten over their not-invented-here phobia & partnered with a good maker of consumer digital cameras offering their brandname/distribution/cash in return for a private label series, slashed their staffing at all levels 50%, cleaned up their baroque & cumbersome internal policies, legendary bureaucracy and self-destructive infighting.
No, much of the blame for Polaroid goes to the Board for never having put in place a strong President and giving her/him the backing to really go and fix things. It would have meant tearing out the broken parts of the company and slicing off much of the fat but it needed to be done and instead the whole place just ground along until it suffocated.
I've worked with a large number of recent refugees from Polaroid over the years and they all tell the same stories of intrigue, incompetence, infighting, dysfunction and lack of direction.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Speaking as someone who worked for two years as a consultant on the PDC-2000 (Polaroid Digital Camera) project I can safely say that the overly pregnant management of Polaroid is what killed Polaroid.
Edwin Land started the inevitable downfall by blowing nearly half of PRD's equity in developing the instant video film camera...about 3 months before the first VHS camcorders hit the market place. He died shortly after, and Polaroid suffered through horrible management that couldn't get out of their own way.
I'm sorry to say PRD gets what it deserves. I feel sorry for all those pension holders however.
My prediction is that this will singlehandedly setback the amateur pr0n induistry by at least 5 years!
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Remember that America is killing innocent civilians and not even in the name of any deity.
Last time I had some passport photos taken it was done on a Polaroid camera. Couple of minutes later I had four glossy pictures of my shining face - all alike.
Question: What will replace that?
Sure on our drivers license they take a photo with a digital camera thingy and send it off for printing and laminating onto plastic, but what about tertiary institutes which want you to post them a photo of yourself? Or when you post off to apply for your passport? And the fine print specifically states that it must not be printed out from a computer (ie, digital camera + Epson Stylus)
hahahahahahah it looks better in konqueror under BSD.
I sure hope there will be a source for Polaroid 667 black and white film used in Tektronix oscilloscope cameras. Surely Fuji or some outfit will sell an equivalent.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
to a terrible terrible source of pollution and waste. Especially for an 'instant developing' camera like that.
The entire photo industry for its entire history has been one of the most toxic professions you could have.
The 'barrier' to completely stopping Silver-Based photography is the difference in quality. Only recently have consumer model digital cameras quality match that of a disposable camera. (Displosable camera has a plastic lens 4 times smaller than a cracker jack magnifying glass, and consumer digital cameras have really lame lenses as well.)
Anyway. If you are shopping for a camera. PLEASE get a digital one. And please don't use disposable cameras. (Which do for the most part get reused / remanufactured multiple times. Its that FILM and the millions of AA batteries they use. Thanks)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Earth to Polaroid: 3 packs of your instant film = cost of 1 decent digital camera... What's your advantage?
Neat while it lasted, but yet another 1950's king of the hill gets knocked off...
So what's the problem then? Are digital photographs not acceptable for the courtroom? If not there are certainly electronic signatures and whatever can guarantee the chain of evidence from the point where the picture was uploaded to its use in court (before that the photographer is responsible).
See my journal, I write things there
You and your allah can blow me and the camel you rode in on
ok, that was not nice, sorry bout that, just reading the anthax news and placing assumed blame...strike the camel statement
I just got a new Canadian Passport.
There are specific instructions that, if it is a digital image, the printed out photos must be from the same file.
Sounds straightforward to me. I can imagine that in a few years they will just want the digital version. My drivers licence has a digital pic on it. When I got a new one for a changed address, they reprinted it with my new address, but my stored scanned signature and photo.
At 39, I was born at the end of baby boom and many of my memories of early childhood have a poloroid camera in it. My father had a poloroid B&W instant land camera with the folding bellows, the stinky coatings drying and how eager we were to hold the pictures as little kids. That's when you did'nt just take a picture you took a "Poloroid".
My brother had the Swinger camera. One of the first instant cameras acessible everyone. In its cool white plastic case. Not to mention the hip ads from the later...
Growing older in high school and college the SX-70 cameras, through the lens focusing and a new film. The picture spit out the front. It was so cool! I always wanted on....(still do)
A friend from the 80's used to take dozens of pictures at parties with his One-Step and when the picture came out he would draw on the surface while it was developing with a key creating neon like lines on the people. He'd draw hats and beards and all kinds of interesting designs. He'd then leave them laying around on coffe tables, counters where ever they dropped. People loved it.
Last Christmas I bought my daughter (11 years old) a Poloroid that takes those little pictures. the iZone. It was flying off the shelves this past Christmas. She has a little scrap book of her friends and family.
What about those sexy "Joy cam" ads? Suddenly its normal to take the camera to bed...
If there is not a buyer it will be sad to see it go. There are a lot of great memories for all of us around Poloroid. I think I will go buy a camera before they are gone. I'm sure someone will at least keep producing the film.
The impact that Poloroid had on our popular culture will live on even if the company does not.
Last time I went to buy a camera when I was out and needed to take some quick pics I decided against the Polaroids and disposables and just bought the cheapest digital camera they were selling (~ $65) which happened to be branded by Polaroid. That Walmart didn't happen to sell the model of digital camera I was wanting to spend big bucks on so I went cheap. It did what I needed and still works fine. I wouldn't use it for professional level work but for a few snapshots or for children it's great. Being so affordable it certainly beats the price point of even a few rolls of Polaroid film.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Years before the ubiquitous desktop machine, Xerox perceived a threat to their market space from the possibility of the paperless office. They were concerned that as new technology marched forwards, the market for traditional photocopiers would dwindle. They took the threat seriously, and started work to be in the vanguard of the new paperless office. Many of the features of the modern desktop still have their roots in Xerox PARC.
OK, so Xerox are a second tier player in most of the markets they trade in, and paper copying is still a major part of their business (perhaps *the* major part - I don't know), but they are a good example of a one horse company which did open its eyes to the changes, and *potential* changes around them.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
What's the basis for the statement that it is failure to compete with the digital camera that is the cause of Polaroid's financial woes? Well, there is none, except of course that in Slashdot world, the digital realm is the cause and explanation of everything.
We're talking totally different markets, basically: For one thing, digital cameras are at least on the scale of an order of magnitude more expensive than Polaroids, and while Polaroid film is rather expensive, the dollars you'll spend on the computer and printer you need to get a physical artifact out of your digital camera would buy a whole lotta film for your Joycam. Polaroids new little cams did quite well, last time I heard. And for that matter, Polaroid is in the digital market, both hardware and software.
Polaroid's financial fumbling is just bad business decisions and a sluggish economy. Digital has next to nothing to do with it (yet)
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
They are the Poloroid Land Corporation.
The local oscillator(s) in superhet. receivers (all modern b/c receivers are such) radiate enough to be picked up by monitoring vans. Color subcarrier oscillators and scan circuits also radiate a bit.
I'm not a Brit, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Pretty sure, though!
TRF receivers (and crystal sets) don't radiate, but they aren't useful for VHF (FM b/c); only AM (and longwave, which we don't use in the US for b/c).
Enby in Waltham
Good God. Among the audiophiles, stupidity combined with delusion can appear mandatory. He plainly never heard of a low-jitter buffer clock. Question: would he panic if he saw the disc change speed?
>the polaroid took 405 pics before we
>ran out of film.
Cool, so all Polaroid has to do is focus on the "partygoer with $400 film budget" demographic and they'll be on top again in no time!
Professional photographers will still use polaroid film. All photographers that use standard film, shoot a few polaroids before they shoot their normal film. Its to save money, and be able to get the lighting right. You can't get a digital camera into this, since polaroid makes film the goes right in the same spot as standard film in professional cameras.
It's the Olympus C-211, review here, Olympus product page here.
It takes Polaroid 500 film.
By the way, the digital->polaroid printers sort of screw up that "evidence" advantage of Polaroids don't they?
I like ink tanks and longer-life printheads; that means (some) Canon, or costly HP or Epson.
Low budget-Enby in Waltham.
I found a press release date January 5, 1998 on their website entitled "Polaroid Introduces Improved PDC Digital Camera". So it would seem that they did try to move aware from their instant film image and into the digital media. The problem is Sony, Canon and others are putting out top-notch digital cameras. How can Polaroid compete against that?
grep >= ! == $your
I think this is a problem not only for Polaroid but conventional photography business models are at serious risk. Kodak, Fuji see drastic loss with selling their photo paper. Digital photography reduces the need for all film and prints, not just instant. Cameras too will be a problem as they are becoming rather similar in function. Realistically, 99.9% of the population doesn't need any higher resolution than 3.3 megapixel and I get the feeling that most manufacturers purchase cmos and ccd sensors from a handful of producers... which means that quality of image won't be a factor either.
Each Poloriod film pack has a specialy designed battery in it, it's about 2x3 inches, thin, and can supply a very high current.
I use them for lauching my model rockets, but there are lots of other things they can be used for. I hope it doesn't become a lost technology.
I don't think it was digital cameras that killed them -- they were going down long before digital cameras were prevelent. To say they were killed by digital cameras is a logical fallacy.
I know I made a joke above about the DMCA, but this "law" isn't related to the DMCA. I think it's more in line with all sorts of debates about timeslicing - TV people want to force their old way of generating revenue to continue working by forcing people to watch their advertising. I know this isn't as hot an issue as the DMCA and friends, and I don't have any definite sources, but there have been some mini-debates here and on some other site about this.