Disposable Digital Cameras Have Arrived 585
damiangerous writes "American chain Ritz camera has begun offering disposable digital cameras for $10.99. The price includes 4x6" prints and a Photo CD of the camera's 25 photo memory. Pictures can be deleted, but there's no LCD."
More recyclable than disposable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not being able to review the pics instantly is a drag too as its one of the main reasons I like using digicams (well that and not having photo guy check out my, um, arty pics) and I'm also a little dubious of their claims that a 2 megapixel camera can give you decent prints at 8x10, all that being said having a self timer is neat and I'm sure they'll be pretty popular.
In fact thinking about the recycling a bit more, I wonder if you could ever grab somebodies old pics off of a recycled unit.... I know you can recover deleted pics from a normal digicams media.... Something to think about..
um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Interesting)
how hard could i tbe to determine the method used to download the pics, and then sell a cable & driver for 20$?
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a feeling these suckers'll be hacked faster than a Cue:Cat
2 megapixel CCD for $10?! (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a cheaper option. (Score:2, Interesting)
Good source for cheap CCDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I can build a camera for my telescope cheaply.
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm trying to figure out what keeps the user from permanently "renting" this camera (downloading the pics to the computer and then deleting them off camera). Anyone want to fill me in?
It's not stealing. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I can provide said value on my own, I have no reason to return it to them.
Simple economics ^_^
Re:This is Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to tell if you're trolling or just missing the point. If IHBT, then IHL.
It's not stealing. They're selling a $10.99 camera. They're also telling you that the only way to get your prints is to bring that camera back to them.
I'm buying a $10.99 camera, but I don't like someone telling me "The only way you can
And yes, I do have a CueCat. No, I didn't ever install the software, so I never agreed to the EULA that was on the software CD. No, I didn't steal my CueCat.
--
Re:Same thing (Score:3, Interesting)
My mom, despite a reasonably technical background, bought a Kodak PLUSDigital [pricegrabber.com] camera -- which sounded to her like a "disposable digital" camera. In reality, it was simply a standard, film-based camera with CD-ROM processing included in the price. Of course, the price was several buck$ higher than she would have paid for a regular disposable camera.
I don't think she's gotten around to developing the pix yet, so I don't know how well the concept worked.
Meanwhile, Ritz' idea sounds like a winner:
* I can get rid of the obvious "oops" pix, even without the LCD.
* I'll be able to afford $10 bucks a pop a lot easier than $200, for the small number of pix I take.
* Developing onto both CD and 4x6 hard-copy is better than I could do with a $200 camera, anyway.
* By the time I get serious about taking digital pictures, someone on Slashdot will have hacked together an interface. If they can hack Furby [homestead.com], a "simple" digital camera can't be that tough.
By the way, guys... when you hack the interface, don't forget the IR [apogeephoto.com] mods [go.com]!
Cheap rental (Score:5, Interesting)
Walmart runs prints from a digital camera (bring in your own cdr or flash card) for $0.29/print. That runs about $7 for 25. Index print and cd-r will be an extra $1-2.
That's $8 in product, for $11, or only $3 for the rental of a 2MP digital camera, which makes perfectly good 4"x6" prints. (Bearable, but not good, 8"x10"s.)
That's not bad at all, for people that primarily want prints, and not just digital images. Myself, I have a digital camera, and my preferred output is just the cd-r with image files. I get prints made, but far fewer than I keep image files on cd-r.
I'm curious how many rentals each camera has to make to pay for itself. $3/rental, camera probably costs... less than $100. Say about 30 rentals to pay for the camera and related labor expenses?
I can see how this would be a good thing at theme parks, where people are likely to rent and return them in the same day, possibly several times per day... They'd reach break-even in a month, and after that actually start making money.
The nice thing from the business point of view is that the continuing costs are lower. You just wipe the storage card and recharge the batteries, and you rent it again. Don't have to pay a couple bucks in film every time you rent the camera. The battery cost is higher than for a "disposable" film camera because the power draw is higher, but without the LCD, not that much higher.
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:2, Interesting)
Encrypt the pictures before you store them, and if you use a good encrytion algorithm, there's not much an attacker can do to reverse engineer the device. They could put a USB connection on the outside and it still wouldn't let an attacker get at the pictures.
All that reverse engineering a well designed one of these devices will give a hacker is either of two things:
A.) A cheap CCD and some optics. This is what happens if it's a two-chip design with the CCD on one chip and everything else outside the CCD chip.
B.) Just some optics. This is what you get if it's a one-chip design with the CCD on the same chip as the encryption circuits. In this case the pictures go in the CCD and come out of the chip encrypted so there's not much the attacker can do.
Either way there may be some other tricks to pull (like overwriting the encryption key), but there's nothing that prevents this from being hard-wired into the device and changed periodically as upgrades come out.
Now, all of this neglects social engineering at the company, which may be the real weak point of attacking these devices. If an insider gives out the private key, then that could compromise all of them.
Re:More recyclable than disposable... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. You get great resolution.
2. You have a permanent, compact record of the images.
3. At Walgreens, it costs less to get your film developed and digitized onto CD. Prints cost more. $10.99 doesn't seem very competitive when you can get better resolution, higher resolution negatives, and 36 exposure for about half the price. Plus you get to keep your fancy film camera.
If you can afford a decent Canon digital camera, it's worth it as a replacement for film. A disposable low-quality camera is not worth it just to get crappy digital pictures. You can buy a cheap scanner or your own digital camera and get crappy-but-usable photos for less than $50.
Matrix EFX (Score:5, Interesting)
Now it's only a matter of time before it pops up in Bar Mitzvah videos.
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:3, Interesting)
PKI = unhackable (Score:5, Interesting)
Each camera has a UUID -- a universally unique identifier, like a MAC address.
Before sending the camera out, I'd create a pair of public/private keys. I store the public key on the camera, the private key at the camera store (or centrally, whatever, so long as it can be retrieved later during processing).
When the camera takes a shot, it is stored *only after being encrypted* using the public key.
When the camera comes back for processing, the private key is retrieved (thanks to the UUID) and used to decrypt the images.
W/O the private key, the data retrieved is worthless. Generate a new key set before sending it out again.
This being the case, I'd use standard USB or IRDA or whatever and not worry about people violating my rights by reverse engineering the system.
Mozo - DVD sharing networks [mozo.com]
Re:I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:5, Interesting)
Encryption? Proprietary image format? (Did they manage to persuade a digital camera manufacturer to design a new chip, for what price?)
Oh wait, but but it doesn't necessarily need memory cards, most (usually cheaper) cameras offer on-board memory, I'm guessing that's what they probably have. It'll be pretty hard trying to get access to what's in that RAM chip soldered to the PCB. That and a proprietary plug should stop a lot of people.
DONT HACK THESE! ......waaaaaiiiiiiit a litttle... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, plan, then strike!
Here are a couple more tidbits: I believe this is similar to a older kodak camera [broaddaylight.com], in which case the interface is probably a serial to 1/8th jack.
This /. post [slashdot.org] describes a possible icky drawback (60 bucks down, 39 refund on return ) Hope that isn't the case!
This is a little more detailed about the marketing [privatelabelmag.com] behind the camera, and it gives the location of the test store.
If this post is not karma-whorelicious, your money back!
Re:Den of Thieves (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:5, Interesting)
2 minute thought on this: Have an RFID tag with a key that emits to the camera. If the camera doesn't sense that, and the case-removal screws are taken out erase the pictures. If the RFID key doesn't match a checksum, erase the pictures.
You could even, rather easily, destroy the hardware after deleting the pictures.
I think this would be rather silly to do, but it's possible. You just have to make it more expensive to hack a single camera than it is to buy a real camera. If the station for unloading cost $200 in parts, they still make a profit (many cameras to one base station) but the user would take a hit spending $210.99 for a 2mp digital camera with no LCD.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Interesting)
As I read it, you can delete the pix in the camera and re-shoot, but you can't view it.
The viewing software is for the CD you get when you bring the camera back - at which point they dump the RAM onto the CD, give you the CD and prints, and keep the camera.
My guess on what keeps you from keeping the camera forever:
1) You can't get the pix out without cracking the camera software, which no doubt includes some serious access control as well as undocumented and perhaps non-standard interfaces, connectors, and protocols. (And they might hit you for DMCA violation by a number of routes, including claiming copyright to the pix themselves until you return the camera.)
2) Eventually the batteris will run down if the camera is not returned for recharging.
Still: I bet there will be a crack within a few months - after which it may go the way of the cue cat. (Depends on whether the loss rate from crackers keeping 'em is higher than their budgeted loss rate - which MIGHT not happen even if they ARE cracked.)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:4, Interesting)
The current 'disposable' film cameras have some reusable innards (I think), some breakable innards and a cardboard outer shell. From the pic at Technogadgets it looks like this camera has a molded plastic shell, but perhaps it is molded shut and has to be broken to get to the interface. That could be one control to discourage 'permanent renting'. Perhaps the breakable shell holds the lens in place or maybe if the shell is broken too much light will leak and ruin the picture quality of future pics.
Or, maybe the I/O interface is proprietary and/or the processing lab has a device that contacts the chip package leads directly. Sure, a few web pages would go up describing how to read from it, but look at Xbox and Playstation. They're cracked, but it doesn't seem to be significantly impacting their business plans.
Re:I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:2, Interesting)
OR (for lower performance requirements)
Every time a shot is taken you write it to storage un-encrypted. When the camera isn't busy taking shots, it works on encrypting any photos that have been taken but aren't encrypted yet. This way you have to protect the storage or you're still distributing free CCDs, but that's not really the attacker you're worried about anyways.
You don't allow file transfers until a file is finished being encrypted, with an error something like "Please wait while camera finishes processing your photos."
I'm going to try it out... IF Has_Clue == True (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, if I can get through the cloud of Clueless Salespeople.
Despite their positioning as photography experts, I haven't had the best of luck at Wolf Camera (part of the Ritz family). We took some film to them one time, in the hopes that they would push-process the low-light pictures, and got no better results than we would have had at Wal-Mart. Having to explain push-processing to the clerk should have been our first tip-off.
So this time, I called the big store in the industrial section of town (Harry Hines Blvd store). They sounded knowledgeable, but said they didn't stock them. I was referred to the suburban Irving location.
The clerk in Irving... didn't know what I was talking about. He said I'd have to hold for the "camera person"... hello, I thought the store was called [Wolf|Ritz] Camera, shouldn't they all be camera people? While waiting, I asked the non-camera person where he was located... he mumbled a bit and gave me a location several miles south of where I really, really thought the store was. Asked him for the store's address... boy, that really threw him for a loop! He found it, finally, and it was right where I thought it would be.
But when I talked to the "camera person", it turned out I didn't need to make the trip. At first, he said "Yeah, we have plenty of digital cameras." Explained the concept of "single use" to him. "Yeah, we have Fuji and Kodak, but we only develop the Kodak". Now, he was talking about the disposable film-based cameras that come with "free" developing to CD. It took a while to explain to him about this new product, big buzz on the 'net... so he gave me the number of another store. That's 15 minutes of my life I won't get back.
So I called location #3. This guy seemed very clueful, and assured me that yes, they have it... yes, they develop it... no, it's not the film-based version, it's the real single-use digital camera.
I'll head over there after work... details will be posted here! Hope my wife doesn't get upset about my new toy...
Re:Matrix EFX (Score:2, Interesting)
More info here:
http://www.maya.com/web/what/clients/what_clien
That was a hack for a big party a client was having. Later on we did the same thing using more reliable hardware with better resolution (and USB: always nice) for the exhibit/tradeshow industry. You can rent one here:
http://www.flip360.com/
But yeah, I expect cheap digital cameras will make more and more of these lo-fi real-time special effects things possible.
Nearsightedness is fatal (Score:5, Interesting)
To which I say "Print them out? WTF d00d?"
Ritz' target market is "Less-technically-inclined people who want to print their pictures out and look at them in photo albums with their friends."
There is another market out there, however: the market for "Ten-dollar 2-megapixel digicams, and who the hell ever prints their photos to dead trees anyways when it's cheaper/faster/easier to just email the pics to your friends?"
The relative sizes of these two markets is what will determine whether Ritz' business plan succeeds or fails.
Netpliance of I-Opener fame made the same mistake - their target market was "people for whom AOL was too complicated and who didn't want to buy a $799 eek-its-scary e-machine computer thingy when they could have a $99 flat-screen appliance that'd give them the ability to do email and teh intarweb for $20/month."
Part of why Netpliance failed was that there was a small - but sufficiently large - market of people who thought "$99 flat-panel PCs that can be h4x0r3d to run Linux! Wow, I gotta get me some of that! The parts alone are worth $500!"
Moral of the story: Don't be nearsighted when it comes to your target market. Think ahead and make sure you're aware of any other markets, particularly non-target markets that break your business model.
Not at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
Flash the encryption memory with "null" key.
Add a circuit to circumvent the encryption.
Since the encryption would work like "fifo" just remove the encryption chip and replace with plain bus buffer.
Get the CCD and attach it to self-made "backend" circuit.
Just hack 'doze box they use to download it and steal damned keys.
Brute-force the encryption if weak.
There's no uncrackable solution.
Getting Pics Off Cameras (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:2, Interesting)
I just bought two of these at Ritz. (Score:3, Interesting)
FREE Photo CD
FREE Index Print
* Camera price does not include processing
The I/O connector is a PCB card edge with 10 wires. Kind of looks like the cassette port on a C64.
Since when has cost been an issue? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not always. How many readers here besides me have built $1,000 PC based "mock" TiVos? I'd love a ten buck 2 megapixel camera. My time is free.
Since it's not technically rented. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
The only flaw with this theory is that they've likely got the pictures stored in some proprietary manner that makes it difficult to extract the images for the average consumer.
Disposables suck. Yes, even ours. (Score:2, Interesting)
Get a real camera. A nice film one. Developing film is cheap. Then buy a film scanner and you'll have the best of both worlds.
Got camera, scans linked... now what? (Score:3, Interesting)
The purchase itself was no problem: walk in, find the single-use camera section, and a cardboard display full of "Digital Single-Use Camera" was perched on top of the original display. Grabbed one, paid the saleslady (who was very sweet, and also very clearly working on commission), and left. No EULA, no strings, just eleven bucks for a 25-shot 2-mpix camera.
By the way, only 4 of the 6 Dallas-Fort Worth "Digital Labs" (out of 35+ total locations) are set up to handle the new cameras (3 Dallas, 1 Fort Worth).
Here are my scans [tripod.com] of the packaging. The front is the same as seen before, but the back has the details:
* Tag line: "The only digital camera that's easier to use than film." Depends on your definition of "easier", I guess, but then, I'm a geek.
* A blurry picture of the back of the camera. It's got a typical disposable viewfinder, an unlabelled light that may indicate flash readiness, the LCD "information window", and buttons for "self-timer" and "delete". I haven't opened the package to see how closely the picture matches reality.
* The LCD window appears to have a frame counter, and the words "Wait", "Timer", "D[???]", "Formatting...", and "Return for Prints". I can't make out the "D" word, and I'm not 100% on "Formatting".
* It points out that "Camera does not connect to home computers. Return camera to a participating Big Print Central location for processing." FYI, these are Ritz, Wolf, Kits, Inkley's, and The Camera Shop.
* The "Ritz Camera Recycling Pledge: 100% of this camera (not including batteries) will be recycled or reused when returned to Ritz Camera for processing." Of course, it will -- 'cause it's not a disposable in the first place.
* 9 features listed under "Why Choose Digital?", most of which are basic digital stuff (deleting, no winding). But two of them are a bit misleading: "FREE! Index Print" and "FREE! Photo CD with your pictures", because of the last item:
* "Camera price does not include processing"
The only legalese is the "Limitation of Liability", which is mostly a boilerplate saying "will replaced if defective... except for replacement, you ain't getting cash for your lost pix of Grandma". Also noted, though: "This product may contain recycled parts." And, "Camera made in China", which sparks the whole [explotation|employment] argument.
No EULA, no deposit, no DMCA warnings, no expressed or implied committment to return the camera to anyone. I bought it, it's mine, I can clearly do whatever the heck I want with it. As far as I can tell, it would be perfectly appropriate to keep the two AA batteries for my own use when returning the camera for processing (though I'll probably just swap them out for a couple of dead batteries).
Of course, that's assuming someone on Slashdot doesn't take care of the "processing" part for us.
Here's my little challenge: I'll personally pay $15 via PayPal to whoever comes up with a way to hook up my camera to my computer that I personally can implement with my medium-geek level of technical expertise. I'm a programmer and I can solder, but I don't have access to any fancy testing equipment.
Of course, the Wolf Camera circular advertising the new camera also includes a 2.0 Mpix camera from "Concord" for $79.99 -- less than the price of four "disposable" digital cameras plus processing. But $11 is a small price to pay for this much geek value, right?