Tag Archives: Camera

Whoopsie

9to5Mac: “After being rejected, taptaptap stealthily revealed that the rejected function can be enabled via a simple Mobile Safari URL. Many thought the app wouldn’t last long after this was revealed and tonight, it’s gone.”

This is a real shame. The VolumeSnap feature actually makes the camera usable. It is very apparent to me Steve Jobs has never taken a picture with his iPhone, he probably has an assistant doing it, because he couldn’t possibly be happy with the UX. I believe it makes the process error prone and touch isn’t the best UI for a camera. Pressing a button on the upper right of a camera is. This is one case where pushing the envelope doesn’t really work, it puts the photographer in an awkward position.

But, we do have to play by the store rules if we want to ship product, and as a developer I still believe in the App Store. It our simple app on the same footing as the big boys and provides an instant distribution channel.

That said I still believe Camera+ is a MUCH better camera than the default camera, and VolumeSnap is a much needed feature.

Let’s hope Apple will listen to tap tap tap’s request for a new “feature.” From their rejection blog post.

“Title: Provide a way to allow hardware volume controls to be used for other purposes
Summary: We’d like to be able to use the hardware volume controls to be used for things besides controlling volume. In particular, for our app, Camera+, we’d like to allow the buttons to be used to control the camera shutter for taking photos. We’ve gotten many, many feature requests for this and would like Apple to reconsider its policy of not allowing the hardware controls to be repurposed and provide developers with an official, supported mechanism to do so.

Apple Bug Reporter ID # 8288022”

Apple rejects Camera+ VolumeSnap

Tap Tap Tap Blog: “Unfortunately, Apple decided to reject it. This doesn’t come as a complete surprise since it wasn’t our first time being rejected for that very feature. Their exact reason for the rejection is the following:”

Darn. I’ve been trying to convince my wife she needs this application. I thought I could sale her on the update because using the volume keys to snap a picture makes taking a picture more like using a camera. It’s a nice feature.

Wireless cameras? DUH!

Dave Winer: “Imagine how a camera with the Twitter or Facebook logo would work. You wouldn’t even need to configure it beyond telling it your Facebook username and password. If Canon isn’t working on this now they’ll be out of the low-end camera business in less than five years. That’s how quickly the Apple/Google juggernaut is moving.”

It would make complete sense for camera manufacturers to embed wireless into their cameras, especially at the low end. Dave’s hit the nail on the head. If they’re not doing this now, they’re not very smart. I’d imagine it would be quite easy to get a wireless chipset with an entire IP stack that can do everything Dave mentions above for fractions of a penny, they don’t need some fancy schmancy OS, just the basics on the camera. The configuration can be done on the client, or better yet, on the web.

For me the question is, who will be first?

I know I’d written about this at one point or another, I just can’t find it. Must have been in a tweet.