PPC Phone Edition & Built-in Cameras

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1086882442.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1086882442.html</a><br /><br /></div>Do you have a device that runs Pocket PC Phone Editions? Does it have a built-in camera? Chances are that the answer is yes. Ars Techica have put up a story abut the increasing resolution and functionality of cameras in mobile phones. Toward the end of the article they pose an interesting question: <br /><br /><i>"…do people really want or need three megapixel camera phones, or is this a case of cell phone makers hoping to create a new market? In the US and other countries where camera phones are banned in some places for privacy and security reasons, marketing a cell phone as a camera replacement may prove to be a tough sell. Sprint has already begun shipping a camera-less Treo 600 to satisfy the demands of consumers who want all the functionality of the phone without worrying about where they can and cannot take it."</i><br /><br />So does your Pocket PC Phone Edition come with an embedded camera? What do you think of it and have you had any problems with taking it with you? I'm working to put up a separate Thought / Poll about PPCs and embedded cameras very soon, so lets keep the discussion in this thread to the Phone Edition devices. :)

[ricksfiona]

I don't care much for a phone on my PPC for personal use. For business though, it can be great for documentation purposes/vertical applications.

[vtaerodoc]

Am I the only one in the universe who doesn't want a camera built into their phone or PPC???? There are some really nice phones out there that have features I'd really like to have except that they have the blasted built in camera. In my business there are places I can't take such a device and I don't want multiple phones.

Are any of the phone companies listening???

[carphead]

I've had a camera on my phone for about theblast three/four years. In that time I've used it about a dozen times. My kids love it but I've notbreally found a use for such a low res unit. Now if it got to 4-5 mp then maybe I'd use it more but only if it had a decent flash as well.

[surur]

The only place I have ever run into a restriction was when visiting patients in prison, and then they dont allow ppc's mobile phones or any memory devices (e.g. usb keys) in there in any case.

Surur

[farnold]

For me two aspects are important:

I have a camera in my XDA II - it's the one single component I don't use at all since it doesn't work as a video conference camera together with something like MS Portrait. I really don't need to take photos using my PocketPC - the quality is too poor anyway...

Current restrictions to take cameras into some environments just reflect that technology development is faster than law making. That'll change over time anyway...

[ReDeVil]

i'm working for the government and in contact with restricted stuff all the time.........cameras are banned for a reason......

which i why i hope companies consider this when producing phones/pdas...........
i'm sure there are corporations out there which also restrict the use of camera devices...... :?

[Sven Johannsen]

Am I the only one in the universe who doesn't want a camera built into their phone or PPC????

Absolutely not. I'm with you, as are several others so far. I got a phone with BT, partially to comply with handsfree rules, and for the convenience. Could I find one that had no camera? Heck no. so I am limited in where I can take it. I do work at Government facilities..Phones, PDAs OK, Camera's...NO.

Are any of the phone companies listening???

I sure hope so. If the camera is in such consumer demand, then make it an optional attachment, and see how many are bought.

Current restrictions to take cameras into some environments just reflect that technology development is faster than law making. That'll change over time anyway... No, I don't agree here. The technology was there before the rules caught up to include the camera phones, because of the idiots that can't respect other's privacy. I think we will just see more restrictions because we haven't yet figured out how to ban idiots.

[Dennis]

I've got an i-mate PPC Phone Edition and a mobile phone (Motorola V600) that I like to carry around instead of i-mate when I'm not working and I don't need my PPC extended functionalities.

Both have a camera.
As did the phones / Smartphones I used before (i.e. P900, Treo 600, Nokia 6600 or SE Z600).
And, except for the very first camera-phones I played with, I never use the camera.
I agree: most devices should be available with and without camera.
For sure, I would buy without!

[murrayim]

Hi,

A three megapixel camera / phone is exactly what I'm waiting for. I always have my phone on me, but hardly ever my camera. A combination phone / camera would be perfect for capturing those funny moments. Of course I'd expect the camera to have same quality / features as my existing camea, optical zoom / flash / removable memory etc.

murray

[Jason Dunn]

Are any of the phone companies listening???

This is an unfortunate case of "cool features" coming at the expense of rational market realities. I think this is the year when you'll start to see two versions of most phones - one with a camera, and one without. The best thing to make this happen is to tell the companies that you want a version without a camera...

[vtaerodoc]

Sven wrote:
Am I the only one in the universe who doesn't want a camera built into their phone or PPC????

Absolutely not. I'm with you, as are several others so far. I got a phone with BT, partially to comply with handsfree rules, and for the convenience. Could I find one that had no camera? Heck no. so I am limited in where I can take it. I do work at Government facilities..Phones, PDAs OK, Camera's...NO.


I've got the same problem, and in fact in the same town, I work for the government as a contractor in Colorado Springs, CO as Sven does. There are some really nice BT capable phones that I would like to get my hands on if they just didn't have a camera. I'm one of those lucky AT&T Wireless folks who got "upgraded" to the Sony T226 from my T68. Should have paid more attention at the time. :?

[kzemach]

Doing work for the gov't, but luckily (???) in the places where I wouldn't be allowed to take a camera, I sure as heck wouldn't be allowed to bring a phone at all, or, lord forbid, a phone with BT/802.11! Not to mention that being able to drop a small GPS in the SD slot makes it a quadruple no-no.

However, for my work, I really like having the integrated camera. I pretty much SHOULD have a camera on me 24/7, but sometimes you forget it, so being able to snap a quick picture on my iMate is stellar. Have used it FOR work many times already.

But, I think this discussion shows a few things: people are saying that for their business they need to have a phone without a camera. I say where cameraphones are going to take off is with the "everyday" people who don't have access to classified material or important business secrets. Heck, I keep a disposable camera in my car at home all the time in case I get into an auto accident. Now when I return, I'll just use the camera integrated into my phone!

I for one would welcome a good camera integrated into my phone, and I'll be you'll see other people wanting the same thing. Remember all the arguments AGAINST cell phones when they were first becoming ubiquitous? I heard so many people, mainly business people, whine about how with cell phones they couldn't get away from work or get privacy or have freedom (whereas I'd argue that a cell phone gives me MORE freedom...). I'll bet in a few years "regular" people (e.g. my mom, friends, etc) will love having a good camera with them all the time to snap shots while mtn biking, skiing, at a party, at the beach, hiking, whatever without having to specially bring along a camera.

By the way, if you really don't want a camera on your camera phone, just take a dremel tool, dremel out the lens, and fill the hole with epoxy. What's the big deal?

[Jonathon Watkins]

By the way, if you really don't want a camera on your camera phone, just take a dremel tool, dremel out the lens, and fill the hole with epoxy. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that this is not good enough. If a PDA/phone has the a camera, it is usually not allowed, full stop. It's easy enough to 'fake' a disabled lens, so the simplest/easier/most secure thing is to ban all cameras, PDAs that have them built in. Which is what they do.

In the UK many/most government departments have bans on camera phones/PDAs, and 'removing' them does cut the mustard.

I can't get a mobile phone with a contact in the UK, that has BT but no camera phone. Sure I could pay big bucks to buy one separately, but you see the way this is going. The manufactures *need* to understand that putting a camera on a PDA/phone is a deal breaker for a very large number of people.

[surur]

By the way, if you really don't want a camera on your camera phone, just take a dremel tool, dremel out the lens, and fill the hole with epoxy. What's the big deal?

In the UK many/most government departments have bans on camera phones/PDAs, and 'removing' them does cut the mustard.


3 points:

1) If you were going to go to all that trouble trying to trick them into letting in your phone, whats to stop you from bringing in a variety of micro-cameras of even phone camera attachments?

2) As a person living in UK, I am quite concerned by the statement that most government departments are so hellbent on secrecy. What are they trying to hide form us, the people that are paying their salary?

3) As this is a problem that most business people are facing (trying to get a good phone without a camera) why dont the business supply a service to disable the camera easily (e.g. a tamper-evident sticker or permanent paint or epoxy) applied by the security at the department itself? This would be similar to having your access card and photo being taken by security.

Lets see some truimp for common sense, not paranoia.

Surur

[kzemach]

The big deal is that this is not good enough. If a PDA/phone has the a camera, it is usually not allowed, full stop. It's easy enough to 'fake' a disabled lens, so the simplest/easier/most secure thing is to ban all cameras, PDAs that have them built in. Which is what they do.

In the UK many/most government departments have bans on camera phones/PDAs, and 'removing' them does cut the mustard. .

Hmmmm, good point. I guess practicality and reality are at odds! Am guessing thought that Jason D is right: cellphone/smartphone manufacturers will find it best to release two versions (one with and one without) of each model and perhaps reduce the total number of different model variations.

My question is: how hellish is it going to be for companies and gov'ts to be filtering through every cell phone that someone brings in a building to check if it has a camera or not? And really, isn't it all kinda silly? I mean, you really want to take pictures of stuff, you can get small plastic cameras hidden in the button of your shirt for pretty cheap. James bond gadgets have come down in price significantly I can tell you. Sure, banning the cell phone cameras does deter the 'casual espionager' in a manner similar to having a lock on a door deters theft. But getting and using a covert camera is a heck of a lot easier than picking a lock, which in itself ain't all that hard! Is the fact that cellphones CAN have cameras going to make companies/gov'ts require that no cell phones can be brought in simply to make the enforcement possible?

[kzemach]

3 points:

1) If you were going to go to all that trouble trying to trick them into letting in your phone, whats to stop you from bringing in a variety of micro-cameras of even phone camera attachments?

2) As a person living in UK, I am quite concerned by the statement that most government departments are so hellbent on secrecy. What are they trying to hide form us, the people that are paying their salary?

Surur

Surur, you beat me to it! But to address your second question, I think I can answer that, albeit from the US side. You'd actually find that most people would be bored silly by 98% of the stuff that the government classifies as "secret" or even "other" levels. It's not that there's all that much in these areas or operations that NEED to be hidden, it's that the government, or any organization, needs to infuse some consistancy as to how to govern the dissemination of material that may or may not have reason to be classified and protected. And a lot of this stuff that they're "hiding" is not covert gov't secrets, it's personal information on everyday citizens that the gov't is privy to. I, for one, do not want my tax return, phone number, address, email, whatever accidentally released by our tax guys because they decide that it isn't a matter of national security! In a way, a lot of the information they're protecting is actually protecting the privacy of you!

So it's not that your government is tyring to do all sorts of underhanded and questionable, secretive stuff behind your back, it's more that in order to ensure protection of the 2% of material that passes through these places that IS important, they need a cohesive, even-handed policy otherwise mayhem and chaos ensue. And that, my friend, is the overhead price you pay with bureaucracy! And trust me, it's a LOT of overhead.

[surur]

Ive got nothing against proper classification of sensitive information. What I am concerned about is the blanket banning in all government facilities. And I am sure most of these places have photocopy machines in any case, if e.g Tony Blair's tax return were to cross their desk.

One has to remember that most leaks from government showed them to be quite an underhanded and untrustworthy bunch, and the only reason their leaks are embarrassing is because they are doing something wrong. We never hear New Hospital being built, story at 11, do we. We more often hear Waiting list being fudged.

The less we defend their unnecessary secrecy, the better.

Surur

[Jonathon Watkins]

But meanwhile back in the real word, :wink: that is the way things are and it is the way that things will remain. AS Kzemach thoughtfully pointed out, it's about consistency and security. Once you make expectation's, you are no longer in control of the process and all kinds of things can get out. The rules are the rules and they are there for a reason. If people break them, then there are consequences. Want to bet how long someone passing over Tony Blair's tax return would keep their job after it appeared in the papers?

Cameras are only one of the many ways that information can leak. But, in a responsible environment the idea is to reduce leaks and security breaches. I work in many R&D labs as a software tester and cameras are banned, as are USB sticks etc.

The best way to deal with it is not to fight it, but to not take USB sticks or cameras into work. My clients dictate their security requirement; I comply with them. Guess how far I would get if I tried to fight them?

A lot of others are in the same situation and the manufactures are in danger of forgetting us. We do NOT want cameras embedded in PDAs by default. It should always be a secondary model with camera, not vice versa. If you want an embedded camera, get a smartphone. Decent ones without a camera are very hard to get hold of............. :|