Is Apple working on a digital camera?

Err, did it not cross your mind that this might be for a new iSight?

I used to work in our campus computer store and before I left I was cleaning out the back room closet and low and behold I found a QuickTake 200 with everything but the CD. There was even a picture still stored on the card from back when the store originally got it in 1997. It's a solid camera that I now use for experimental stuff and for pure nostalgia, feels great in the hand and has a nice 90's Apple touch to it. While I agree that it would be unwise for Apple to enter that market again, I would still love to see them design a camera today. (We can always dream can't we?)

Apple is NOT making a stand-alone camera. Isn't it obvious that this would be for iSight? They've already built a camera into the new iMacs, and I'm guessing PowerBooks might be next. It might be some software based method of altering the perspective of an image, so that it looks like it has been taken from the right angle. This would be usefull if they wanted to put iSight into PowerBooks, as it would reduce the mechanical complexity, as it would just be a small hole like the with the iMac, rather than a pivoting part of the laptop like some of the Sony laptops.

Oh! Forgot to add this bit of trivia to my comments above -- The QuickTake camera was also probably the FIRST product Apple made for the Windoze world! Apple sold the PC version in a separate box with a different cable and Windoze compatible connection app, otherwise the hardware was almost identical. Needless to say, it never caught on like the iPod. Guess there are more music lovers than photographers, eh?

Once again, Apple was ahead of the market with the QuickTake 100 back in Jan. 1994 (the Newton was ahead of its time, too). The QT100 was a sleek, sandwich-style case that was quite lightweight despite its size. You turned it on by sliding the lens cover "door" over with a click (clever--you never had to worry about "leaving the lens cap on"). Built-in flash, grayscale LCD (small) on back for settings only, 2-setting timer, 640x480 max. resolution (24 bit) but you could choose from hi-rez and low-rez settings, fixed internal storage space (so, 16 images at hi-rez, or 32 at low-rez, or variable total if you combine different rez images). Saved in 5 formats (JPEG, TIFF, QuickTake, BMP and PCX), 8mm fixed focus lens. You hooked directly from it to your Mac via serial cable. I took shots, ported to my Mac, edited and put on website and was up live with the images in 10 minutes (very cool back then). It took very good images, relatively speaking (there were not many digital cameras around period back then). It was actually developed in '92! I owned the 100, 150 and 200 models (the 200 was the last, much different casing than the 100-150 shape, and is the one pictured in your blog). No doubt in my mind Apple COULD make a great digital camera again, but do doubt they will (as other reader commented, it's a shark industry out there). If you need a pix of the QT100, David, let me know.

You guys are retarded.... All the patent is for is the "adjust" console in iPhoto 5 where you can rotate and zoom an image simultaneously.

Apple needs to be really careful when adding features. As Steve once said, once they add iPod features, it's hard to remove them. I can't see Apple go with these "convergence" products that mash everything into one box. The digital photo market is so crowded. The iPod hard drive would be a nice feature other digicams can't match.

I love how everyone says every industry doesn't make money. PC's done make money, digicams, printers, mobile phones, this, that, those... apparently nothing makes money these days. I'm no economic expert, but nothing making money just doesn't seem to add up. And "the accessories are where the money's at" doesn't cut it either, as there's plenty of people who'll tell you that the flash memory industry is a "profit-less, cut-throat industry" too. Something's making money guys. These companies don't report billions in profits for nothin'.

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.

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.