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."
It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Informative)
Ritz Camera store where the pictures inside are downloaded to a CD
or printed. The camera itself is kept by Ritz and recycled to another
customer. In other words your $10.99 is a _rental_ of the camera
with processing of the pictures included in the rental price.
There's a picture of one of these cameras here [technogadgets.com].
The USA Today article has some more details [usatoday.com]
on the camera and its use including the fact that it is likely to be sold at Walgreens
and Walt Disney theme parks (seems like a good idea to me).
The camera has a 2-megapixel sensor.
John.
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting if that wasn't a good business model.
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since there's essentially no processing cost, you can take pictures EVERY DAY, and keep an album of the good ones. These are the kinds of shots you don't bother to take with a film camera.
I suspect that after a few rentals most people would decide that they want one of their own, so I doubt there's much of a long-term market for this.
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:3, Informative)
Not the CMOS sensor like the Canon D30 and D60, but a buffed version of the teensy ones in cellphones like Omnivision's [ovt.com] and Pictos (ESS Tech)'s [pictos.com].
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Informative)
The camera costs $10.99, and then the photo processing is another $10.99. The camera contains no LCD, but you can delete the last picture taken. The image is still stored on regular film, and the capacity is 25 images. There is a self-timer on it for when you want to take pics and have yourself in it. That's pretty much it. The camera's film is unloaded by Ritz personnel, and the empties are sent back to the manufacturer to be reloaded with new film.
Aside from the ability to delete the last picture before it's stored on film and the self-timer, there's nothing new about them. However, the ability to kill that picture you know sucked might be worth the extra dollar or two.
How does it 'erase' pictures from film??? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Unless the 'film' is really some kind of magnetic media, I'm stumped.)
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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 wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:5, Funny)
We're on slashdot --- it's worth spending your life savings just to get the proprietary camera working as a normal $100 camera. Or getting it to play OGG files, or running linux, or
Re:I wonder if you could snag other peoples pics (Score:3, Funny)
35mm is cheaper and better then digital (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming from an ex-Ritz camera employee, if you want to go through the work of engineering all of that, printing them out and all the rest of that work Ritz does, it will cost you more (in time and materials) then it will to have Ritz do it in 1 hour.
Then again you will spend less money and get better quality images if you buy a 35mm disposable camera (about $5 for 24 exp)and then get them to burn you a CD at 1600x1200 resolution (1.92 mega pixel equiv.) for ~12 dollars.
just my opinion
dave
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.
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?
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:2, Insightful)
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:3)
They can't and won't claim copyright to the pictures you took with their camera. Unless they have a required CC deposit or written/signed rental agreement w
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:5, Funny)
The DMCA, maybe?
Re:It's not disposable... it's reusable. (Score:3, Insightful)
A simple non-standard camera-to-PC connector, even only on the camera side, would deter most casual attempts.
A camera with the public key can encrypt all uploaded pictures to deter nearly everyone without the corresponding private key. For added security, use multiple key pairs for different batches of cameras (so that if one key is compromised, not all the cameras are compromised).
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.
I'll take that bet. (Score:5, Insightful)
My bet: Standard ports, nonstandard pinouts. Standard protocol. Standard format for the data on the media.
Rationale:
1) Nonstandard ports = cost to develop a new controller from the ground up.
2) Nonstandard pinouts = no cost.
3) Nonstandard protocol that can't be trivially reverse-engineered: cost to code and test.
4) Nonstandard format for the data on the media: Cost to develop controllers and firmware.
Summary: "Oh, fuck it, use a two-pin connector and a standard USB controller. We'll supply +5 and GND at the photo lab. Nobody'll ever suspect it's USB with only two pins! Rot13 the bits as they go onto the chip. Nobody'll ever look for permutations of known plaintext like 'JFIF'. Everything else can be the reference design from the chipset's datasheet."
(Alternate: "Oh, fuck it, use a 3-pin headphone jack and RS-232 signals. Nobody'll ever guess. And Rot12 it, just in case anyone looks for ROT13.")
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:Cheap rental (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The camera does use film. I've read about these in "Popular Photography and Imaging." Though the images may be captured digitally, they are stored on plain old 35mm film.
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..
Re:More recyclable than disposable... (Score:2)
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. $10.99 doesn't seem very competitive when you can get better resolution, higher resolution negatives, and 36 exposure for about half the price. Plus you get to keep your fancy film camera.
If you can afford a decent Canon digital camera, it's worth it as a replacement for film. A disposable
um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Interesting)
how hard could i tbe to determine the method used to download the pics, and then sell a cable & driver for 20$?
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think these guys might be related to the Digital Convergence [slashdot.org] guys?
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99-Boogieman bush busin (Score:2)
Ok, but only if I get to make the rules.
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:2)
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Funny)
(Wow, that was terrible. I'm sorry to subject you to that...)
--RJ
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:4, Insightful)
Hacking stuff is neat and all, but this would be like hacking xboxes for linux. You spend twice as much for a second rate result.
Re:um, a 2mp camera for 10.99 (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure about that. What kind of CPU would you need to encrypt 2 MegaPixels of data in a decent amount of time with public key algorithms? You might be surprised by how much power would be needed to be able to take 2 consecutive pictures within a decent time frame.
Same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same thing (Score:3, Informative)
You can delete pictures and shoot them again. Can't do that with a film-based camera.
Re:Same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The 35mm disposable camera may be less expensive today, but every beautiful picture you take of the mountains contributes to the destruction of those same mountains. The digicam only needs to be manufacturered once, so the environmental impact is reduced. Prices will quickly fall as vendors compete for market share.
Re:Same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because there isn't film needing to be replaced each time with the digital camera doesn't mean that it's creation doesn't cause pollution. I don't have any numbers available for comparison, but I know tha
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.
Mea
2 megapixel CCD for $10?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:2 megapixel CCD for $10?! (Score:2)
Misnomer? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Misnomer? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Den of Thieves (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a cheaper option. (Score:2, Interesting)
If Ritz can get the pictures out why can't I? (Score:3, Funny)
Wait. That's an MS idea. Damn.
I'd love to know more (Score:2)
Anyone know who actually makes these, what hardware they run on, etc.? How hard would it be to hack it, maybe take out the chip and dump your pics without ever hitting the 25 photo nuke point?
Anyway, hackable or not, I would definitely choose one of these over a normal disposable cam
Re:I'd love to know more (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this seem like a bit of a semi-useless feature? Most of my bad shots, I can't even tell are bad until I get 'em on my laptop. There's a couple I can decide to delete just from the camera's screen, but I'd say that with most of my bad shots, I didn't know they sucked when I took the shot.
So without a preview (review?) unless someone walks in front of you right as you take the shot, or some other way you know it's screwed up, it's just like a disposable film camera, in that you pay out the nose, only to get your shots back and have 2/3 stink.
Damn you, slashdot! Three days too late (Score:2)
Ritz Camera has begun to sell (and in Wisconsin, Walgreens is test-marketing) a single-use digital camera...
And I was just in Milwaukee earlier this week! In a Walgreens, even!!
Oh well, just have to have someone there mail me one I guess.
BTW: As others have surmised, this puppy will be reverse engineered in no time at all. I've got my $5 on September 24th.
--
Re:Damn you, slashdot! Three days too late (Score:2)
That long? If they've already released them to a test market, I'd give it about a week. Especially now that Slashdot has mentioned it, geeks everywhere will swarm to Wisconsin to buy a few and see how they work.
Expect a hack for this before they even hit stores outside the test market (likely meaning they'll never hit stores outside the test market, since Ritz will very quickly discover that they've started taking a HUGE loss when people buy these but don't return them
Good source for cheap CCDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I can build a camera for my telescope cheaply.
Re:Good source for cheap CCDs (Score:5, Funny)
But I would not, however, like to shake his hand.
2 megapixels? (Score:2)
2 megapixels won't get you superior 8.5x11 prints. A 300 DPI print would be 2550 x 3300 pixels, which is ~8.5 megapixels. A 150 DPI print would be 1275 x 1650 px, which comes out to ~2.1 megapixels...
People who need good prints for school/work need larger pictures, but then again most of us have cameras already.
Judgment: decent deal for families or people skeptical of digital cameras. Maybe it will encourage the sale of full-fledged digital cameras, who knows.
Re:2 megapixels? (Score:2)
2MP still doesn't get you there, but 300DPI is more than one needs.
You can bet... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can bet that somebody is going to figure out how to open it and extract the images without destroying the camera, and then Ritz camera is going to have a loss leader on their hands.
It's going to be just like the cuecat. Many, many geeks are going to acquire them, and not recycle them in the way that allows Ritz to make it's money back...
Hacking them (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, if the camera store can download the photos quickly, it can't be very hard for the rest of us. It's probably got either a hidden/internal USB connector, or some proprietary thing (unlikely, would require new equipment at all the places to print/burn the pics).
How long until... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, about 15 seconds. (Score:3)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:3, Insightful)
If that version is also cheap, then that's that.
I'm betting they're waiting on the LCD version. The first roll-out is probably a test to see if they get their cameras back or not. If this is hacked, or people just plain lose them, it's a lot cheaper to lose a less expensive model.
Found out how they do that..... (Score:4, Informative)
One is properity IR connection. The other is a headphone jack that somehow sends/receives data. And it DOES connect through a usb dongle to either type of camera.
Dang (Score:2)
Wow.. Talk About Great Minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I love slashdot. As we read, there are thousands of geeks pondering ways to circumvent whatever protection Ritz has installed on these things. Even better, odds are Ritz has no idea. It will probably take them a few weeks -after- the cameras are hacked before they even notice.
Then, the lawsuits will fly, but by then it will be too late. The cameras will be re-released with stronger protection, and shortly-after they'll be hacked as well. Ritz will at this point likely give up altogether and drop the product. End result: every geek on the planet gets a cheap digital camera (or three).
Buy them early, in case Ritz catches on! In five years, these things will be as "cool" and "old-school" as the old Cap'n Crunch whistles.
Re:Wow.. Talk About Great Minds... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.. Talk About Great Minds... (Score:3)
Exactly. For all the "Wow, 2MP for $11!" posts, I wonder how many people have thought about the quality of the lens, or the non-adjustable (and probably very high) jpg compression level used by the camera, or just how crappy the auto-focus probably is? (And that's for the brand-new cameras; what if you get one that's been reused a few hundred times?) For that matter, is this camera a tru
Negatives (Score:2)
8x10? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Wisconsin? (Score:2)
More information and pictures here (Score:5, Informative)
Matrix EFX (Score:5, Interesting)
Now it's only a matter of time before it pops up in Bar Mitzvah videos.
Re:3 Seconds? (Score:3, Insightful)
video is 30 frames/second
do frame doubling (or "twofers" if you're an oldschool stop motion animator) and you're at 15 frames per second, so 45 are enough for 3 seconds.
As for triggering them, I'm assuming that they will be duct taped onto horizontal poles or 1x2's or whatever, so rigging up a string attached to a little lever to depress the shutter button shouldn't cost too much.
so what would be a slashdotty way of wrapping this up? hmnn, maybe;
In Russia, YOU circle th
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]
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.
Is it... (Score:5, Funny)
No!
Is it hacked yet?
No!
Is it hacked yet?
No!
Is it hacked yet?
Fine! Yes, it's hacked! Are you happy now?
Does it run Linux yet?
Arrrrgh!
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!
Last act of a deperate company... (Score:3, Insightful)
With digital, that part of the business evaporates. Sure, they can sell printer ink and flash cards, but so does everyone, and they can't sell the 'service' of developing the film and printing, which has a huge markup. Last time I got film developed at Ritz, it was something like $25 a roll. When I got my first digital camera three years ago, I stopped using film -- and stopped going to Ritz. My story is typical, I'm sure.
I see this as the last act of a company clinging to a decades-old business model.
Good Grief, Charlie Brown... (Score:3, Insightful)
More specifically about this one-time digital camera - They removed the only real advantage that digital cameras have: the ability to preview. In this case, you still turn the stupid thing in when you're finished playing with it.
In Japan for at least 18 months (Score:5, Informative)
Rich.
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...
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
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.
Real price is $21.98 for 25 prints (Score:5, Informative)
New! Available in June in selected areas
- Delete & Retake last shot
- self timer
- Return the camera to Ritz Camera or Wolf Camera and get:
-- 25 hires prints
-- index print
-- Your pictures on a Big-e CD
$10.99 Camera Only
Digiprint processing package: $10.99 (Frequent Foto Benefits not applicable)
Avalable at selected stores in the following areas: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Birmingham, Chicago, Dallas, North Carolina, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Tenessee, Washington DC.
I talked to the lady in the store, and she said that only the stores with a Pioneer system would be able to process it (whatever that is). There was only one store in the RTP area that had this, and they were already closed at 7:45 pm.
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.
Re:countdown has begun (Score:2)
Oh no, those poor kitties! [rense.com]
Re:Target audience? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:This is Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. They are advertising this as a disposable camera. When I buy a disposable camera at a store I am under absolutely no obligation to return the camera. I can keep it, or develop the film myself, or any number of other things.
The article didn't say that the cameras were rented (meaning a rental agreement, a promise to return the camera, etc) though it may be an ommission on the writer's part. If they are sold like disposable cameras than I see nothing either illegal or immoral about buying one and using it in a manner the seller didn't intend me to.
If I rent a digital camera (which sounds like a pretty good thing to try actually) I'd be under obligtaitons to return it, not to mess with its innards, and so forth.
This is exactly like MS selling the X-Box below production price and then whining when people use their legally purchased hardware in a way that MS doesn't like. There is absolutely no legal or moral obligation to support a business model that doesn't work.
If its a purchase, not a rental, than it can't be stealing to use it any way I want to.
Re:This is Great! (Score:2)
It's not so Black & White (Score:2)
I only steal in my spare time!
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)