Filed under: Peripherals, Rumors
Is Apple working on a digital camera?
MacSlash picked up on a Macsimum News report that Apple has been awarded a patent reissue for an "Apparatus and method for rotating the display orientation of a captured image", which smells quite a bit like part of a digital camera. (I also learned something from their post: this image isn't a Photoshop job - Apple actually had a digital camera by the name of QuickTake, way back in 1997. Ahead of the times, were we Apple?).They also feature some detailed information from the patent (but not the entire patent), explaining the apparatus and its imaging subsystem.Macsimum News also notes that Apple is long overdue for a digital camera, what with iPhoto, the new Aperture and some "iPod" thingy that's so popular with the kids these days. Yet I can't help but wonder: how many toes could Apple step on here? The company has been introducing software that's made a few competitors jump the OS X ship already (Adobe Premiere, anyone?), which makes me worry that a digital camera from Apple could damage at least the consumer level imaging support from the likes of Canon, Sony and Nikon. While I love Apple's stuff and I believe in their design abilities, I'm sure it's possible for even the Mighty Fruity to spread themselves too thin. Guess we'll all (hopefully) see what Apple has cooking at the upcoming Macworld in January '06.
[UPDATE: I'd like to thank Jared C. Benedict for the image, which came from the Wikipedia entry about the QuickTake camera]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Doug Friedman said 10:34AM on 12-01-2005
Actually from the wikipedia site it looks like QuickTake was actually introduced in 1994 and discontinued in 1997.
Reply
Dan LaMee said 10:40AM on 12-01-2005
Or... this could be a patent for technology in Apeture.
Reply
iData said 10:25AM on 12-01-2005
I Vote for iPod Photo w/ a built in 3 or 4MP digital camera... If apple comes out w/ a standalone digital camera - ur.. I'm gonna stick to mah Canon SD400
Reply
Dr. Webster said 10:28AM on 12-01-2005
Apple actually had three digital still cameras -- the Quick Take 100 and 150, and the Fjui-made QuickTake 200.
Reply
Brian Allen said 10:32AM on 12-01-2005
Sony helped them with the 100 and 150.
Reply
Alex Crouzen said 10:39AM on 12-01-2005
And I'm guessing it's gonna be the.... 'iTake' - remember, you read it here first :)
Reply
Ryan said 10:41AM on 12-01-2005
Hmm.... this is an interesting proposition. However, I don't know if the outcome would be desirable. I think that for now I'll just stick with my Nikon, unless Apple really has something up their sleeve. If Apple does come out with something like this, I'd expect it to be a joint effort with another company rather than alone. Apple-branded stuff does sell like hotcakes to us mac-faithful.
Oh, and this apparatus for rotating display orientation of a captured photograph is already built into some cameras. My Nikon D50 has an orientation sensor in it to determine if the camera is upright when snapping a photograph. If not, it automatically rotates the file before saving it.
Reply
JT said 10:44AM on 12-01-2005
The reason Apple leads in MP3 players is because they are the best out there. Failing to do so in the digital photography field will only lead to poor sales and a scratch (no pun intended) to Apple's image. Bottom line: they'd better have a killer lens & CCD provider and sleek product, otherwise it'll be a laughing stock.
Reply
kmok1 said 11:07AM on 12-01-2005
Digital camera is a cut-throat market. Only Canon and Nikon are able to make $$$ from it; everyone has been losing their shirts. Some companies have announced that they had discontinued to produce digital cameras.
Will Apple introduced a stand-alone digital camera? Of course not! It is suicidal. Will Apple intergrate a digital camera w/ the iPods? Yes! That is the next step (along with the phone).
Reply
Brad said 10:53AM on 12-01-2005
Apple wouldn't make a camera in the current market. The concept is much the same way as the tablet PC and PDA market.
Apple knows who are the big players out there, and they know that they couldn't possibly get a good start since they're coming out a bit late into the market.
Apple will leave the cameras to the current makers.
Reply
Justin said 11:02AM on 12-01-2005
Zomg, you didn't know about the QuickTake? Seriously? What kind of Apple fans _are_ you?
Reply
Mark Studdock said 4:26PM on 12-02-2005
An Apple camera doesn't seem likely. I hope they don't add camera features to the ipod- I hate camera phones enough as it is...
Reply
MacMove said 10:59AM on 12-01-2005
Umm.. Apple already makes a camera: the iSight.
Yes, I know you need a computer to make it work. But - remember - Apple is a *computer* company. They make money selling hardware... not peripherals. Even the iPod (with its famous "halo effect") is a strategy to sell more computers.
Apple marketed the QuickTake because their computers could use digital pictures and nobody else was making a digital camera for consumers in 1994. That landscape has changed; Apple will not be selling a camera.
Perhaps there will be a camera attachment for the iPod... but, if there is, Apple will not sell it. A third party will.
Reply
Ogre said 11:24AM on 12-01-2005
I'm with Justin, how can you be an Apple blogger and unfamiliar with the other too-early-for-it's-time (other being the Newton) piece of consumer hardware that Apple rolled out in the early '90s?
Images weren't worth a damn and it wrote directly to a 3.5" disk...
But it did introduce me to the world of Apple fanboyism thanks to highschool computer science teacher Steve Bergen who gushed over it's capabilities...
Thank you QuickTake!
Reply
Jumi said 11:28AM on 12-01-2005
The worry that Apple might offend Canon, Nikon, etc. and cause them to do less stellar work on bundled image apps made my spew my tea -- HILARIOUS! What a sense of humor you guys have! Wow! (wipes tears from eyes). Clearly this was a joke, as anyone who has used those bundled apps (at least ones bundled by Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus -- which I've tried) can attest to the fact that they are really pathetic, and hardly warrant loading on your Mac at all. No loss there!
Reply
mr black said 11:27AM on 12-01-2005
in my humble opinion, we are in the middle of a convergence period. handheld devices (still photo, video, pda, phone, sms, email, music, video and still image display) are evolving into one device. we have crude combinations of these right now. but if apple designs the ultimate handheld device which combines all these functions in an elegant and easy to use package, they have a killer app. and they've got the name already ... ipod. and i've put my money where my mouth is, i own apple stock, and if it gets any cheaper i'm going to add to my position.
Reply
AndyB said 3:33PM on 12-01-2005
I would LOVE an attachment for my iPod photo that would allow it to take pix 2 or 3 MPs, that's all I need.
Reply
Nigel Hall said 1:06PM on 12-01-2005
Wasn't their a rumor recently about the new PowerBooks sporting a built in camera? Seems to me that this patent would apply to those cameras, not a standalone unit.
Reply
Steve P said 1:51PM on 12-01-2005
More likely Apple is working on an iPod with image capture - possibly with a phone/wifi/BT incorporated. It would be simple enough to incorporate into the existing form factor and at 5 megapixels or so, not strain the processor or memory or power.
Makes sense. An enhanced iPod. Looked at as a camera alone, it would be lame.
Reply
Billy K said 1:44PM on 12-01-2005
My office had a Quicktake in '94 or '95. It was garbage. Absolutely unusable images. But it WAS one fo the first, and we were all spellbound by the dang thing.
I disagree with all you who say Apple couldn't profit from a digital camera. As long as the thing looked like an iPod and was a quality camera, they could sell boatloads. They would be more expensive than a Canon or Fuji - Apple always makes money on their hardware - but people would pay for it if it was better than the competition.
iPods are more expensive than Rios and Sonys and Dell DJs, and people buy iPods anyways. I know I'd pay 20% more for a camera that didn't suck. With the "Halo Effect" and all, I bet the camera would do well.
BUT - don't ya think this might be related to the new iMacs with the built-in iSight? That's my guess.
Reply