I just read back and I'm not sure where I've been any of those things*, unless disagreeing is automatically regarded as such...
anyway, name calling aside - would you like to discuss the merit of the devise and if it has a place or market?
*are you referring to not want to continue the discussion with you about it being a camera or not? because I meant that due to the fact that we have both formed our opinion on it, and due to the rather loose definition of what can be a camera, we could have been going around in circles forever - I wanted to try to move the discussion on to other points I raised...
Last edited by himself; 09-16-2012 at 03:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: muddled, terribly muddled language
Maybe TIP have read a page or two of Steve Jobs' And Edwin Land's musings on product development. Never rely on market research, if the market knows what it wants, you're too late. You need to come up with something the market didn't know it needed. The fact that most people do not print their instagrams, hispatermatics and what not is what TIP is trying to address. It may fail, but as Wayne Gretsky said, you miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Eirik (aka Ezzie)
DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x17 | DIY 6x24 anarmorphic pinhole | Pentax' SV & SP 1000 | Rolleiflex | Kalloflex | Weltix | Royal 35-M | Leica M4-2 | Polaroid 250 | Polaroid 110A / 600SE conversion | DIY Polaroid View | DUO Polaroid TLR | Vito CL | Pentacon SIX | Kiev 6C | Canon EF | Mamiya 1000s
My APUG Gallery
It's a brilliant idea and I definitely see it spurring further sales of their films. In some ways, it's akin to shooting film, editing and printing only a select few. Whether the cost of the film migrates south is another question and I hope it does but am not holding my breath. I also think stores would be stupid not to get these units into their stores as the walk in business would be huge imo.
but there atempts to address the lack of market are with a poorer (at the moment) more expensive version of what's already available. I just don't see how that can work... long term at least, which is what the industry needs.
I don't doubt they'll sell a few, but the fad wont last.
not like the "fad" of MP3s, comparing it those is a mistake I think, mostly because they were new ideas, almost totally new, work really well and offer more than any other compition to them could.
This I'm afraid is only a slight inovation, so would need to be an improvement on what came before to make any really impact other than ooh-a-new-toy.
i think its a great idea.
people who spend hundreds of $$ on an iphone
have plenty of $$ to spend printing their cool photos out ..
and they probably had wide spectra polaroid cameras back in the
day, so it is kind of like them enjoying what they used to love ... NOW ..
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
An email I got from IP today confirmed that they are working on two new cameras, both based on the FPU that they are using in the iPhone image copy camera. One is a pinhole camera, an obvious choice since it should be relatively cheap and easy to make. The other they call a viewfinder camera, which is the same FPU, but with a viewfinder and lens on top. It looks vaguely similar in form to a Polaroid One Step. Interestingly, it has some lens mounted in a Copal shutter. I imagine that is just a prototype, and it could well change. But I hope it doesn't. A good quality lens in a standard Copal 0 or 1 shutter would make it a highly desirable camera, in my opinion.
The funding on the Instant Lab camera has hit $463k, so it appears IP hit on a great idea to fund further product R&D. More power to them.
Last edited by SkipA; 09-21-2012 at 12:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
but won't that funding have to go to making the thing that the people are funding?
not sure you can ask them to fund a iphone printer and then use the cash to build other stuff.
the other, with the manual shutter, that would be something worth funding, why not just start with that?
get all the iphone types off the iphone...
Of course that funding will go to the Instant Lab development. But sales of the Instant Lab can fund further R&D, and that is why I think they want to make and sell the Instant Lab first. There is clearly a lot of interest, a huge market, and thus a high potential for sales.
Why not start with a traditional manual camera? Because while that would appeal to many of us on this forum and others devoted to photography as a hobby, the market is far smaller than that for the iPhone (and eventually other smartphone) user. By getting a large user base hooked on analog film output from their smartphone, you build a broader market for your more traditional camera products.
The site speaks about the FPU in these terms (underlined of mine):
After 18 months of intense research and development, Impossible introduces a groundbreaking module for analog instant photography: A high precision platform named "Impossible FPU" (Film Processing Unit), that processes and develops Impossible instant film. This highly advanced device is the basis for a range of new analog instant cameras and hardware concepts to be introduced in 2013.
This indicates, in my view, that the project focussed since the beginning on the development and launch of the FPU platform which is to be "declinated" in several products. The basic module being the same or almost the same, it makes sense to launch the other devices as soon as industrially possible. Who knows, one day the FPU could be used to make a back for MF cameras! (That doesn't look very likely to me, but if the module is, in itself, "almost" a film back then why not).
Standardising production of several products around a common module is, I think, a very clever move. Film quality and film cost remain the biggest hurdles IMO.
sales of the instant lab will only fund further manufacture of instant labs, if the demand is half of what you believe it too be.
just one last thing on the market or no market malarky (because we will never agree) - potential market is not the same as there actually being a market. Funding it was always going to be easy, but getting people to then risk purchising it is another story, especially when you read that most people are still holding out for the film to be perfected before they even buy that.
it could already be used to make a back because that's what it essentially is, just like the old integral backs that polaroid made, but this is neither here nor there because you are right the film quality doesn't justify spendnig the money on it or the film.
and someone said earlier that people that buy iphones can afford to buy this too, that may be true, but then most iphones are free on upgrade or with a contract in the UK (or at least they were last time i was in the UK)