Jan Brittenson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Steve would have made it use the same remote as all other Apple products. (And Apple remotes use a standard button cell.) The camera would have had wifi and you'd be able to select your Apple TV as the output from a pulldown menu, just like you do with iTunes, and the discovery would be automatic with nothing to set up. There would be no need for hacks like PictBridge, because you'd be able to print directly to the Epson printer attached to your Airport access point - from the Apple TV display no less. With a couple of touches it would sync itself to the image storage service in the cloud. It would automatically download firmware updates. It would have its own app store with tested, verified, and vetted products, and like with the iPhone you could easily become a developer for it and an active participant in the ecosystem. There would soon be apps for B&W modes and filters, special effects, compositional aids, GPS data labeling, etc. It would have significant value proposition, not by being the best camera ever made, but by eliminating hassles and offering features for people who aren't photographers. Within a week Microsoft would announce it's working on one too, and a year later would announce a confusing product with a million options and levers, inconsistent UI, controls scattered hither and dither, and with no device interoperability, showing they didn't understand the value proposition in the first place and have no clue what they're competing with. In six months they quietly kill it off. It wouldn't have exposure modes, drive modes, AF modes - in fact there would only be a button to take a picture and maybe a few more to manage it. And it would do a good automated job, probably better than any other P&S of similar size.
|
