Some Canon compact cameras can be hacked and get capabilities normally reserved for big cameras.
If the cameras really are capable of all that, it seems idiotic to hide it away. Surely the reasons are fear of complexity for the normal user, and fear of the compacts cannibalizing the markets for bigger cameras, but still.
5 comments:
I thought it was common practice to have one set of code and to limit function by some sort of access key. That way the unit is "generic" through testing and production, and is only the last "packaging" which determines product and pricing.
It is definitely common practice in board design to develop a single board, then the BOM (bill of materials) specify what is populated on the board, this gives a single design, and the reduced component count/reduced functionality gives the low end product.
Can you imagine buying a digicam and being sold "upgrade" packages, enabling, say, color modes (B&W, Sepia etc) or "Digital Zoom" to augment the optical zoom.
Most interesting hack I heard of was for the single use digital cameras they were selling a year or so back. That was an interesting product, strange how film based disposables are more prevalent then digital still.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-puredigital_x.htm
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422124/digital_camera_hack_secret_the_stores_dont_want_you_to_know/
Well it's common practice across most industries to limit features for the mass consumers in order to justify the higher price for luxury consumers. It could also be not to complicate things for those consumers who get flustered at too many options.
eg. 1st and 2nd class compartments in trains/airplanes or the decor in discount stores vs upscale shops. It doesn't cost the company much more to provide the "luxury" amenities such as a nicer seat+table or better lighting and floor layout.
For some consumers it's the feeling of being privileged when compared to what is denied others so they don't mind paying a few hundred extra for that foot rest in 1st class compared to the masses stuffed into coach.
And at the other end I read a case study where KMart (a discount store in the USA) experimented with having an upscale looking store with better lighting, better quality shopping trolleys, and other changes that didn't cost them that much more money. They kept the same prices on their goods and surveyed customers opinions.
The customers did not feel comfortable in the store and felt that the look of going as cheap as possible on the atmosphere of the store would mean a more bargain price as well.
The Loughborough to London movie on the canon hack page reminded me of these two BBC films
London to Brighton in 4 minutes
and
London to Brighton in 3 1/2 minutes
There was one filmed from an RAF trainer, Around Britain in 20 minutes or some such too.
Really feels like the Canon hardware is designed around some RTOS (real-time operating system), on top of which the actual application (the user interface the customer sees) is running. A common practice that makes a lot of sense as it decouples hard & soft development -> the hardware team supplies the RTOS, and then lets the product design group focus on the application(s).
Such an architecture is ideal for the kind of temporary hacks we are talking about here. It is very possible that at some point, the RTOS specs were leaked out of Canon labs and started the whole thing. But an even more plausible scenario is that Canon did not develop the RTOS, but rather used something supplied by the micro-controller's manufacturer, and for which specs are thus more-or-less widely available. A dream target for hackers.
This might even be done with the full knowledge and (at least tacit) blessing of Canon, simply because user-modifiable products are the future, as they are the logical extension of the open-source thinking. For example, take a look at the openmoko products: mobile phones that run 'nix, and they even supply the CAD files if you don't like the housing and want to design your own (if I only had time, what I wouldn't do with that!). So, coming next: a whole new world of user-enhanced products, ready to be pushed to their very limits. Interesting times ahead indeed.
As far as what and why features are included in this or that "traditional" product, that is determined by a marketing team, usually through a process involving focus groups & such. The end result of the exercise is the definition of a product (in this case a camera) which is ideally suited to that particular focus group.
It is therefore somewhat futile to try to logically analyze the reasons for the choices made, beyond the broad lines that directed the selection of the members of the focus group in the first place. Simply put, the camera's feature set was decided upon based on the wishes, comments & feedback of a group of persons which are not expert in the field, so there is no hidden logic behind that.
The open-source approach opens a door by which we could eventually get rid of the above marketing nonsense. Might not please everybody, though. I wonder how control freaks like Apple would (and I really should say will) adapt in such a brave new world...
Now that the US Air Force wants full control of any and all computers I suppose we can expect them to want to control our cameras too.
This may help push the OSS trend in cameras (and mobile phones) further. People will want full disclosure not so much in order to enable latent features but to ensure privacy.
Post a Comment