Thinkcorps

Just picked up a Dakota Digital single-use digicam from Ritz for $11. Gonna hack it this weekend – yay! Just need to find an old USB cable and find a old Palm hotsync cable.

Yes, it’s basically a piece of crap. But it cost $11, and I once I get the cable rigged, I can go buy another one (which should be the same) and crack it open. The lens sucks, so I’m thinking of modding it to a pinhole digital. Yeah, who’s laughing now?

Good overview here
Building a USB interface

So, Microsoft is going to open a music store. This should be a surprise to no one, since it is Microsoft’s own Windows Media Audio DRM that’s powering many of the current downloadable music stores. What does it mean? It means more competition in the PC music space, which is probably good for Apple and bad for everyone else.

Apple’s AAC format makes the files it sells compatible with iTunes and the iPod and little else. If you’ve bought tracks from the Apple Music Store and you own an iPod, you’re a happy camper and you could care less what Microsoft does. If you’ve bought tracks and you don’t own an iPod, then you’re probably planning to. Point is, Apple’s built up a nice defense with the best jukebox player and excellent music management software.

The PC world by contrast is reeling in competing offerings. True, most of your WMA files will transfer to most any device or software, and that’s the problem. No competitive barriers. Microsoft can move in now and just mow the competition down. The only thing they can’t suck in are Apple’s AAC files (and they could if they wanted to).

If this does anything, it should put a fire under Apple’s ass to build cheaper iPods and more mobile versions (flash memory-based).

Then again, I could be wrong. I’m firmly entrenched in the Apple camp and I buy songs from Emusic. What the hell do I know?

Microsoft music store to open next year [CNet]

Is it really progress when you have no other options? Cameraphones are taking off, not because people want them, but because manufacturers are selling them with no regard for the consequences.

Economics is driving the inclusion of cameras in new cell phones. It’s cheaper to make more of a particular model (and the cameras are not that expensive themselves to add), so you choose to build the phone with the most potential to generate usage and service fees. Exactly.

This is probably the first major “over the fence” product the US has seen, the repercussions of which should be very interesting. Let me explain. By “over the fence,” I’m talking about a technology/product developed by the R&Ders (often in Japan) and, in effect, tossed over to bewildered marketers (often in the US). These products can flounder—not because they are inferior—but because marketing never gets comfortable enough to find a way to generate momentum and sales. (People, you can’t take away their focus groups and expect them not to suffer.)

The first product I ever came across that was tossed over the fence was a Wacom graphics tablet with a built-in LCD. At the time, the LCD was expensive, but the product’s audience was very clear—graphic designers. The tablet allowed you to draw on the screen, a much easier prospect than regular tablets. When I asked the US PR and marketing people about the product (which I’d seen on the company’s Japanese HQ Web site), they were pretty confused about what to do with it—they hadn’t been given any advance notice, had no samples, and hadn’t done any testing.

[This is also one of those early examples of “Internet effect,” where unlike in the past, I was able to see what other company divisions were doing, even before other divisions knew.]

So do US consumers want cameraphones? I doubt it. Better billing and number portability are much higher on the list for most people.

But that doesn’t affect the impact of toting a camera around with you everywhere. Impromptu meetings with friends, spying, documenting car accidents—the applications are almost endless, and we’re just now starting to deal with the effects of a technology unleashed on our cultures through forced ubiquity. On one hand, you can argue that forcing the tech down our unwitting throats has accelerated societal awareness and adaptation, closing the window that early adopters had to abuse the new cameraphones. On the other hand, with the present ubiquity of cheap cameras, the cameraphone’s real impact is in the new ways it can be abused.

Life has now changed—and not for the better. You can bet that there are many more new technologies in the pipeline that companies will soon rollout with little to no thought as to their larger consequences. Should corporations be responsible for what they’ve unleashed? Good question.

[via USAToday]
Camera phones rival DVD players as fastest growing Devices fly off shelves while prices plummet

To date, 80 million camera phones have sold worldwide vs. 6 million in the USA, research firm IDC says. This year, analyst Ron Glaz of IDC says more camera phones will be sold worldwide, 57 million, than digital cameras, 44 million.
By comparison, DVD players, introduced in 1997 and called the fastest-growing consumer tech device by the Consumer Electronics Association, sold 30 million players in its first three years, says researcher In-Stat/MDR.

I’m sorry, but that Dell MP3 jukebox is bugly. I’d be embarassed carrying that thing around. And for that matter, why are all the Dell laptops colored silver plastic and royal blue? Who thought that up?