Hacker News Reader

You have to applaud Kodak for taking a risk.

If the camera functionality is that much better, some customer segment might be compelled. It's hard to say until the product is available.

Future iPhone customers will benefit from this product release. If it's at all better, you better believe this will only push Apple's camera engineering team harder.

Certainly - Kodak has been making some big, bold moves in an attempt to stay alive. They're not dying quietly, that's for sure.

But I will say that I doubt this will impact iPhone owners at all; Kodak would have to demonstrate some truly amazing tech - be it lenses, sensors, or image processing - that can blow iPhones out of the water. And I just don't see that happening. They're touting... filters. Ok, maybe be charitable and talk about the editing experience with access to raw camera data - histograms! - but iPhones just got that too. So it's parity, at best.

What DOES put pressure on the iPhone is the new Pixel that came out of nowhere with a ridiculously good camera. Everybody (ok, "I") thought Apple's camera and picture quality was one of their biggest competitive advantages, but clearly, great photo quality is more commodity now.

This device is not made by Kodak. It's made by a British company called Bullitt Group that is licensing the Kodak name.

Source: https://www.dpreview.com/news/7643905711/kodak-launches-ektr...

That is the key insight here, particularly when you see what other branded gadgets this Bullitt Group have, Kodak have just become a brand name that can be licensed by third parties. There is no connection to the Kodak we know, impetus came from outside.

It seems that Bullitt can innovate, their camera-phone for Caterpillar has some thermal imaging aspect to it. Here I think they have gone for nostalgia with the name and form factor rather than innovation. There certainly is no leveraging of Kodak's patent portfolio going on or anything truly new brought to the product, a decent interface with a few more advanced settings is expected.

I think an opportunity was missed here. Kodak made photography accessible and easy, that could have been the thing here with an auxiliary camera that worked with someone's phone to bring decent zoom and optics to them. They could have also made the camera double up as a recharging brick so there would be reason to always have it with you. If it also had USB-C storage for your device with cloud backup and some VSCO service for the pictures then it could work.

The first Kodak digital cameras for the pro-sumer market had a programming language that you could use to get the camera to do things. You could get it to work out the height of a building by focusing on the top and then the bottom - it would do the trig for you, fantastic. Maybe a Kodak camera could revisit this and make it work for the IoT connected world, so the Kodak camera could be set up to do ad-hoc CCTV, timelapse and other things. Or just a remote camera for taking selfies, a market could be made for that even if the product was sold on doing super clever stuff. Instead there is this nostalgia trip.

Here's a neat idea: a smartphone, with a great camera, that doubles as a recharging brick. For itself.

So basically a high-end smartphone like we have today that isn't "Half a millimetre thinner TM" but a full centimetre thicker.

Now that would be innovative!

Another one would be a 6" slider with a decent keyboard, like the original Droid. There are people actually composing serious documents on the go (e.g. lawyers, journalists), that would love it

So basically like n900... I miss it so much.

I should have kept both of mine, but the platform was essentially dead and I had to move on. These days there are two potential replacements for such a device, one is a continuation of the platform, the Neo900[1], the other is the Pyra[2]. I'm going to save up for a Pyra since it's half the cost of the Neo900 and looks like a more capable platform. I don't need a device like that anymore, given how good smartphones have become, but it would be nice to have a pocketable true computer with a keyboard for certain situations. The mobile retro-gaming aspect also appeals to me.

[1] http://neo900.org/

[2] https://pyra-handheld.com/boards/pages/pyra/

You say, and it's here (Moto Z mods)

https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/incipio-offgr...

Kodak is an "innovators dilemma" case study, and what they're doing by bringing in an outside group to compete with itself is exactly one of the solutions that is often prescribed.

Kodak is bankrupt. The old company no longer exists, and is being run by its creditors. If they can make back some of their losses by licensing the name, they absolutely will do so.

They did have an innovators dilemma back in the 1970s when they developed (one of?) the first digital camera. They didn't do much with it.

Maybe. If the quality of those test shots on the OP are anything to go by I doubt it. I have some very similar outdoors photos (overcast and green) from my Nexus 5X which at least to my eye look a lot better - http://imgur.com/a/3U9sv - and allegedly the Pixel is even better still.

Certainly those on the page seem to be very noisy and strangely lit even when scaled down to thumbnails. i dunno, maybe it's like "hardware instagram".

I have a similar experience with the Nexus 5. The photos look good. But the ergonomy is horrible. It isn't a camera, it's a smartphone. I can't hold it still for 5 seconds. And I almost always block the lens with my hand because they put it in the corner. It's great for taking shots of cats and having it always on you but if you ever used a good camera, then it's no replacement for a real camera.

It's Kodak. They don't have much to lose. I wouldn't necessarily call it a risk.

As a photographer, I want to correct you. Camera sensors are good, actually amazing for their sizes. What sucks is the lens + the sensor size combination. On most phones you get a fixed wideangle lens, some phones have two lenses, some have sucky zooms (Galaxy S4 Zoom). None of them come even close to a cheap DSLR/mirrorless with large sensors. All 100% of the phone cameras suck in low light. Yes, even the latest iPhone and Google Pixel.

Phone cameras are orders of magnitude worse than the cutting edge cameras when it comes to light sensitivity. It's just physics, there are only that many photons falling into the lens.

Believe me, I know. I carry my D3300 on all my vacations - it's the cheap, entry level DSLR for people like me who want to take better pictures but don't want to invest thousands in high level cameras. Or training ;) But I am like head-over-heels for my 50mm prime.

That aside, that's not really the point at hand. The hypothesis is that there is still a value desert between smartphone cameras and DSLRs that isn't adequately filled by traditional point-and-shoots. And perhaps, Kodak could uncover some by pairing a pocket space computer with a data connection and a better lens (think about what Nokia put on their smartphonecamera) but dropping the phone requirement. This Ektra isn't it, obviously, but it might be a step in that direction.

Camera bodies aren't what you want to be investing in anyway; it's lenses. After a few years the body is basically disposable as far as resale value is concerned, if the body is even still working. Today's entry level cameras are miles ahead of what the pro cameras were ten years ago.

To add to your sentiment, I have a Sony camera that can:

* Wirelessly transfer images to my phone.

* Do so with a tap, as it has an embedded NFC tag. (Sets up a wifi-direct connection.)

* Be remotely controlled by my phone, including a laggy but usable viewfinder display on my phone screen.

Cameras that are phone accessories already exist, and they're pretty cool.

My Fujifilm cameras do the same (and the X30's implementation is pretty great as of the latest Remote App updates) -- the remote viewfinder and controls aren't even that laggy now! Crazy stuff considering it's consumer equipment :)

"As mentioned already, Nokia tried the "photography first" smartphonecamera - it didn't fly."

It didn't fly largely because it was running a 3rd rate OS that no one really wanted.

Also, "Nokia" is not a camera.

But anyway, there is probably a customer segment, but it might not be that large.

But the camera design language make sense, i think, especially the leather and larger knobs - even on a phone.

Functional-ish instead of apple minimalist - at least I can tell a difference from the rest.

But then maybe they should have a real lens and not a faked plastic thing around it to make it look bigger.

There should be a modular sensor/lens assembly that lets you swap between a standard low profile phone cam and a larger sensor with true optical zoom, shutter, and aperture control. Throw in a simulated focus ring and you'd have a saleable product.

I wonder how many people actually use their smartphone more as an actual mobile phone than as a camera, laptop replacement, navigation aid, or whatever else. Given what these little computers are mostly used for, I wish the term PDA, or Personal Digital Assistant, would come back into popularity.

> I wish the term PDA, or Personal Digital Assistant, would come back into popularity.

Good idea. I'm going to try that and see what happens.

My phone calls and texts. I'm sure that Android can do more. I deleted every program I could delete. If I could make it so there were two big buttons - one that said "PHONE" and the other that says "TEXT" on my homescreen without adding a widget, downloading a program, etc., I would. My iPad is a tablet computer and serves in that capacity. My main computer is my laptop.

Why did you buy a smartphone when you wanted a featurephone ?

My fp has amazing battery life compared to my sp and I can tether through it for my 7" tablet. Its a great combo

Because TracFone & Rite Aid put the smartphone on better sale when my old phone died.

> Because, honestly, iPhones are already top of the line smartphonecameras.

Given that outside US and a few other countries they have a market share around 20%, and most of those countries use pre-paid mobile phones, I think there are plenty of opportunities there.

But how much market share do they have among people likely to buy expensive digital photography equipment?

Lots, because it is cheaper than buying an iPhone off contract or even taking into consideration the monthly contract rates, in countries where most folks get to see 1000€ or less monthly.

Folks that get to see "1000€ or less monthly" don't care about a novelty camera-first phone. They can get a good phone AND a better than the Ektra compact for way less.

Which is my exactly point regarding the iPhone use as camera.

In which case, well, err, we agree I guess.

I like the idea of this as a second device that has phone capabilities. I wish it were easy/quick to switch between multiple devices on the same cell plan. I don't particularly want to go out running with my google pixel, better to use my 4 year old phone for that. I could see taking the Ektra out on a hike if I could toggle it on as the activated device without going through the hoops of calling verizon.

That WOULD be neat.

Wow, I really like this idea. It could open up entire new segments of products that improve with some occasional needs for cellular network capabilities. I've never been taken by the idea of getting a gadget that can use a cellular data connection because I already hate paying for the one I do have, I don't want another transaction for more data that I have to monitor and not buy too much of. I feel like that's part of the reason it never caught on with mobile gaming devices like the PS Vita etc.

Hi, this is a great idea. I'm curious if you would pay a little extra (say $5/month) to have say, up to 3 devices? What about if they could all just stay active? Just curious about it as a mental exercise.

Yes, I would pay a little more. $5/mo is the max -- any more than that I would probably just do a family plan or something. I would prefer something nominal like $2/per device/per month

Google Fi actually allows you to have multiple SIM cards on the same plan, for free. The cards are data only, so it won't work for phone calls, but it would be fine for uploading photos, listening to music, SMS, etc.

> Nokia tried the "photography first" smartphonecamera - it didn't fly

I worked at Nokia at the time. The Lumia 1020 didn't fly because it failed to ship with an OS that was considered "good enough" (and yes, "good enough" means "has apps") by consumers.

A Lumia 1020 with Android would have sold better (and shipped sooner)

May have been a reference to an older device, the 808 pureview.

That said, Nokia has had multiple devices over the years that had a heavy focus on camera.

Did any run Android though?

An entry level DSLR, for most users, won't beat a top tier smartphone like Google pixel. A bulky professional DSLR is too much for most users. High quality mirorless cameras with ASPC or full frame size sensors are the only type of cameras that are relevant to mass consumers. If Kodak makes such a camera with a smartphone like interface, that would be interesting. They missed the opportunity.

You must have not used DSLRs or smartphones recently. A cheapo DSLR is just fine in point and shoot auto mode, and with its multi-cm lens it will get you much more satisfying pictures of your toddler running around or of your friends at the night-time BBQ than any pixel or iphone with pinhead-sized lenses. (And we are not even talking about the optical zoom and bokeh and a proper flash or other "advanced" features....)

According to the IDC[1] iPhone currently has less that 12% of the overall market. While that might represent a larger percentage of people who care about photography, there appears to still be a very large potential market for this.

[1] http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp

That's a percentage of phones. Presumably a decent portion of those are very very cheap and not particularly comparable to this or an iPhone other than "includes phone and a browser".

<Nitpick> > Because, honestly, iPhones are already top of the line smartphonecameras

You meant Google Pixels are ... (latest iPhone is not even in the top 3 groups of smartphone cameras)

Source: https://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles/Pixel-smartphone-camera-revi... </Nitpick>

>as a phone, it will suck

I'm not sure why you assume that. The form-factor isn't particularly weird and the specifications are excellent. If they're sensible enough to use bone-stock Android, I expect that it'll be a very good phone.

If by "phone" you mean "pocket computer with native apps and a slick UI," then I agree, Kodak will probably suck as a "phone."

Otherwise, I can't imagine the phone part could be that much worse than Apple.

Your comment made me look - the iOS phone app is probably my least used app. According to the battery usage statistics it uses 3% of battery. I took a couple of calls this week so it's probably abnormally high too. I wonder what typical smartphone "phone" usage is?

In what way. Functions fine for me

This would be fine for me, because I'm a photographer that uses only a subset of smartphone features. I'd like to have a camera that performs well as a camera and can make calls if I need it to.

Other companies have gone that route already.

Nikon has had a model or two that is basically an Android phone in a camera shell.