Re: What has changed in the Apple world last 6 months?

[SynABit@kc.invalid (Dennis Doms)]

In article <3A33D86A.DFCFF929@inetnebr.com>, Roy and/or Janet Miller
<millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:

>Dennis Doms wrote:
>
>> [You know, I usually just lurk past these discussions, but I think
>> this one has been pretty good.]
>>
>> To visit back to the digital camera issue: I consider them a niche
>> product, but an important one. They're the modern "replacement" for
>> the hold "Polaroid" concept. They're more expensive, but they have
>> three advantages: immediacy (when you absolutely, positively, have to
>> have it right _now_), resolution (_better_ than a Polaroid),  and
>> operation cost (Polaroid film was _expensive_). In certain
>> applications (high volume of "instant shots" required), it's a
>> no-brainer. Post-shot scanning is feasible, but it removes the
>> immediacy, consumes a fair amount of time, and adds another layer for
>> distortion.
>
>But a Polaroid is still cheaper (at least in the relative short run) over a
>digital camera. Even when using a scanner with it.

Run some numbers; you may find the differential is less than you
think. Don't forget to include the cost of a person to operate the
scanner, and cost of the computer apportioned to running that task. (A
business has to count _all_ costs. A hobbiest may decide their time is
free, but I think that's an error. :)

Assume you take 20 shots an hour. Neglect the cost of the person
taking the pictures (same with a Polaroid or digital). Assume $0.50 a
picture (may be low for a Polaroid) and $10 an hour for someone to
scan the pictures in and they spend 15 minutes doing each set
(probably too conservative). If you do this 40 hours a week, that's
$100 for the person scanning and $400 in film saved (hope I did that
right in my head :). You've bought the camera. And that's the first
week.

Of course, you have to pay maintenance for camera and the cost of
prints. But our cameras have been durable over several months (under
rough use) and we primarily database pictures, only printing a few.
The math works out in digital's favor. And even with the limits of
JPEG, you'll get a "better" picture for some purposes.

[some content snipped]

>> And the
>> interaction is more seamless if everything is GUI.
>
>Not so. Many times applications running under GUIs don't follow standards with
>their menus. Even the Mac doesn't MAKE the programmer use the same standard - but
>the buying public with Macs have avoided programs that don't.
>
>I'm not opposed to GUIs, but it isn't necessary to have a graphical interface to
>have windows, or seamless interfacing. One thing is sure though - it takes more
>CPU horsepower to do a GUI than text, programming capability being equal.
>
>Roy

These problems are relatively minor and rare (I use both kinds of
systems daily). And multiple screens (I've run them under Unix and on
<cough> mainframe aps) aren't really useful without content exchange.
I think it would be tough to prove this is done agressively well
outside of a GUI environment.

As a market, I don't know of large segments maintaining competition
with the environments described. Single-minded transaction-based
systems can, but they aren't flexible. And a computer that's not
flexible... well, it doesn't compute anymore. :)

[some more stuff snipped]
 --
Dennis Doms  SynABit@kc.invalid
[ObSpamFoil: substitute "rr.com" for "invalid" above to reply via mail.]
"In the end, only kindness matters." - "Hands", Jewel Kilcher