Use of Embedded Camera Lands Man in Jail

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4045991.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/...tol/4045991.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"A man has been given a six-month custodial sentence for taking photos in court with his mobile phone. Shaun Nash, 19, also used the phone to take video footage while sitting in the public gallery during a robbery trial at Bristol Crown Court. Nash, of Wilinton Road, Knowle West, pleaded guilty to contempt of court. Sentencing Nash, Judge Michael Roach said: "What you did was extremely serious. The public need to know that mobile phones cannot be used in court.""</i> <br /><br />And folks ask why embedded camera could cause problems. ;-) This is exactly the soft of thing that is causing a backlash against embedded cameras. I was shopping for a new mobile phone and contract this weekend and the number of phones with Bluetooth and without an embedded camera, was exactly 0. Choice? I’m sure they’ve heard of it. Two German Mobile Telcos seem to spotted a <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34744&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;start=0">gap</a> in the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33798&amp;">market</a>, but that does not help the rest of us who don't live in Germany. :? Four out of the seven new <a href="http://www.firstloox.org/VGAppc.htm">VGA PPCs</a> have a camera, which is a very bad trend. All I am asking for is the opportunity to have a phone and Pocket PC without a camera. As they would be lighter, cheaper and smaller, why is that such a hard thing?

[Duncan]

I take your point about wanting the choice of not having a camera - but this story doesn't support your thesis.

Firstly - this person was in trouble for using his camera - not simply having it.

Secondly - he was in trouble for mobile phone use full stop. Taking pictures, texting or making a call would all have led to the same charge.

[Fishie]

I have NEVER seen someone whine as much as you do about embedded Camera´s.
Even in threads that have nothing to do with em you enter to complain about a camera being integrated in a device you had no itentions of purchasing to begin with.
What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

[surur]

I take your point about wanting the choice of not having a camera - but this story doesn't support your thesis.

Firstly - this person was in trouble for using his camera - not simply having it.

Secondly - he was in trouble for mobile phone use full stop. Taking pictures, texting or making a call would all have led to the same charge.

Seconded

Surur

[dh]

Well I'm 100% on the anti phone side.

Over half of my customers are either electronic or defense companies (some are both) and cameras are simply not allowed. What's the point of going to a meeting and having to leave all my information in the car, or at the security desk.

At least 2 or 3 times a week, my bags are searched, looking for recording or camera devices, so such a hting would be useless for me.

In any case, cameras on phones or PDAs are crap. If you want to take photos, might I suggest asking santa for a camera :)

[chris234]

I'm confused, you complain there is no choice but by your own statement 3 of 7 new PPC offerings, or just under half, don't have an imbedded camera. Sounds like choice to me.....

[David C]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut. Infact, if you really hate that camera, you can use a drill, and break that camera out of the phone. However, the oppsite can not be done to phones that do not have a camera. You can't simply tape a camera to a phone and expect it to be a camera phone all the sudden. I rather go with the camera phone, and remove it if I really hate the camera.

[GroovBird]

I got myself a new phone right when I wanted/needed Bluetooth connectivity. It came with a camera that I didn't need but didn't mind.

I have a six month old son. Lately I've come to the conclusion that there are moments when you say to yourself "if I just had a camera this instant" and then it becomes obvious what the camera phone is meant to do. Sure the pictures are crappy but no relative on this planet cares about quality when you have the cutest picture of your son being fed vegetables instead of milk.

Sure they're a security and privacy hazard, but sometimes they're just handy.

I haven't seen a Bluetooth digital camera for that matter, apart from my Sony DV camera for which I never saw any use for the Bluetooth functionality in there.

But I concur. There should be more options. But bluetooth it mostly bought by people who either really need it (and don't care about the extras and are willing to pay whatever the cost) or gadget freaks. Everyone else goes "blue-what?".

Good night.

[SHC]

I'm with Jonathon on this one, mobile phone companies want them on phones for the income they expect to gain from all the MMS messages. O2 charge me the equivalent of 4 SMS for one MMS sent. Also the US doesnt buy into the whole SMS craze as much as us Europeans have and maybe this doesnt affect them as much as us.

[dmy]

I have NEVER seen someone whine as much as you do about embedded Camera´s.
Even in threads that have nothing to do with em you enter to complain about a camera being integrated in a device you had no itentions of purchasing to begin with.
What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

No... In Jonathon's defense.... I AM the one who's the most outspoken against phones in PPC's and Phones and constantly comments against them. For me, it's a limitation on making a living. If I don't have my phone, I can't talk to clients. If I don't have my PPC I don't have my appointments or contacts. Most of my clients ban phones and PPCs with cameras to the extent that they don't allow anyone (employees, visitors, contractors.... no one) to get past security without visually inspecting all devices for cameras.... any that do go back to the car or stay at the security desk.

[vtaerodoc]

I have NEVER seen someone whine as much as you do about embedded Camera´s.
Even in threads that have nothing to do with em you enter to complain about a camera being integrated in a device you had no itentions of purchasing to begin with.
What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

No... In Jonathon's defense.... I AM the one who's the most outspoken against phones in PPC's and Phones and constantly comments against them. For me, it's a limitation on making a living. If I don't have my phone, I can't talk to clients. If I don't have my PPC I don't have my appointments or contacts. Most of my clients ban phones and PPCs with cameras to the extent that they don't allow anyone (employees, visitors, contractors.... no one) to get past security without visually inspecting all devices for cameras.... any that do go back to the car or stay at the security desk.

I have to put my two cents in here as well. I am a defense contractor and like DH and DMY both mention there are places cameras just aren't allowed. Most of those places I can still have my phone and in some cases my X50v (since it doesn't have a camera.) I have specifically avoided so-called converged devices for those same reasons. I want bluetooth on my phone since I really like my Jabra Freespeak but my choices here in the US are limited 'cause all the manufacturers think we want cameras too. I finally resorted to buying a Sony T-68i from ebay even with some of its issues. Are any of the phone makers listening to those of us who don't want the embedded phones? (And just a note about black tape, it's easy to remove so most secure facilities aren't going to let that go as a means to disable the built in camera.)

Chuck

[whydidnt]

Love camera phones or hate them, this article has no bearing in the argument. The guy was arrested for TAKING pictures, not for having the capability. This is as it should be. Blame the person, not the tool.

As far as the arugment on VGA devices, if 3 out of 7 PPC's don't have a camera, then what the heck is your complaint - oh I know you want to force your wishes on everyone else and don't want anyone to have the option to buy a PPC with a camera in it. Choice is a good thing and in this regard I think you have choice and are wrong.

As far as bluetooth phones go, you're correct, there should be more choice, but that seems to be changing. We've seen the HP 6360 and the Sprint 6600 both released recently without cameras. Hopefully the trend will continue for those of you that can't carry camera phones.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I have NEVER seen someone whine as much as you do about embedded Camera´s.

Whining? Dear me, that won't do at all. :) I am simply one of the few folks that make my opposition to these things known. Most folks don’t seem to have a set opinion one way or the other on the subject, but I do. It’s a dealbreaker for me and many others.

Even in threads that have nothing to do with em you enter to complain about a camera being integrated in a device you had no itentions of purchasing to begin with.

Umm Fishie, if the Loox 720 did not have a camera, I may well have bought one. Seriously, I do like the device - apart from the camera. If a device has an onboard camera, it means that indeed, I will have no intention of buying it. Duh. :wink:

What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

:D You know, I take that as a compliment. :wink:

This is a 'Thoughts' site. These are my thoughts. Some folks like embedded cameras. Many don’t care. I and many other don’t like them as they limit our choices. As a freelance software tester/integrator I visit a lot of companies and sites. Many, most if not all of them ban cameras.

If we don't speak out about things we feel strongly about, we have no right to complain if those things change or are taken away. However of course, in the big picture it's not important. Very few things ultimately are. :wink:

However, it’s something many of us are interested in. If enough of us make our case; less embedded cameras please, then maybe the Mobile operators and PPC manufactures will listen. It’s a Thought.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I'm confused, you complain there is no choice but by your own statement 3 of 7 new PPC offerings, or just under half, don't have an imbedded camera. Sounds like choice to me.....

Over half have and that's bad trend. :? I CAN'T get a bluetooth mobile phone without a camera and that means I can't have one. I can see the PPC market going that way unless we make ourself heard. :|

[Fishie]

I have NEVER seen someone whine as much as you do about embedded Camera´s.
Even in threads that have nothing to do with em you enter to complain about a camera being integrated in a device you had no itentions of purchasing to begin with.
What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

No... In Jonathon's defense.... I AM the one who's the most outspoken against phones in PPC's and Phones and constantly comments against them. For me, it's a limitation on making a living. If I don't have my phone, I can't talk to clients. If I don't have my PPC I don't have my appointments or contacts. Most of my clients ban phones and PPCs with cameras to the extent that they don't allow anyone (employees, visitors, contractors.... no one) to get past security without visually inspecting all devices for cameras.... any that do go back to the car or stay at the security desk.

Yes but you CAN do those things, plenty of models around witouth a camera.
If it is indeed a work instrument and not something you buy out of gadgetlust you go for a functional device and VGA or no VGA, bt with or without camera there are plenty of devices for exactly that with exactly the same functionality without a camera.

What I have isseus with is for instance the newsitem on infosyncworlds review of the FS 720.
A good device if it wouldnt have a camera.
Excuse me?
The fact that it has a camera brings down the functionality and qualities of the machine and if it wouldnt be there but be exactly the same for the rest it would be a better machine?
Simply stating that its a good machine but cant be used by people who are barred from carrying camera devices with em and that therefor he hopes a version witouth a camera comes out for those people is apparently too much.

They have a word for that sort of behaviour on messageboards, its called trolling.

I have had a warning from Jason and yes maybe I have gone too far in this thread but I wont retract what I said earlier in this thread nor in this post.

In case im banned, I liked this board a lot, I will miss it.

[Fishie]

To use an NRA line: Cameras dont take pictures :devilboy:

Oh and Jonathan I think its far more effective if you actually say as much in your newsposts instead of making remarks that can be clasified as childish and petty.

Like most people I dont care about embedded cameras, I dont mind if they are in there but I dont care either way.
I can certainly understand that there are people for who it is a dealbreaker but it does get kinda annoying when you spice all your posts with such remarks.

[IpaqMan2]

I can understand why the need of no cameras on PDAs and phones, such as was the case at my last job (though not very well inforced). Still I'd rather see more PDAs and smart phones include them and work towards better quality over time than to see them disappear all together. I think they contribute to make PDA more daily friendly to use throughout our days. It's easy to ignore the camera if you don't want to use it. I don't believe it will add to the weight noticeable, and as for cost... if more oems add them on, the prices will eventually drop to an unoticable amount as others compete for sales of the same features.

[Duncan]

Ahem...

VGA Pocket PCs with camera:

Loox 720

{Asus a730/a730w}
{Loox v70} - both basically the same design/make


VGA Pocket PCs *without* camera

iPAQ hx4700
Loox 718
Axim X50v
Toshiba e800/e830
Caso DT-10

So - in a nutshell - those not wanting a camera currently have the greater choice. In fact those who want a camera have to have either an Asus a730 or a730 clone OR a Loox 720 - which now has the camera free Loox 718 as an alternative.

[Zathras]

Has anyone suggested that PPC and phone companies offer models both with and without cameras? The one without could have have a plug put in instead. Better yet, make the camera removeable.

I work for a large commercial aircraft company. I don't think my company would ban a camera pda, yet, but big companies tend to ban first, ask questions later. I'd feel pretty sore if I had a camera pda and was asked to leave it home.

I don't have a pda choice now anyway. Not until HP sees fit to put a VGA screen and 128mb of ram in a hx2750.

[Janak Parekh]

What I have isseus with is for instance the newsitem on infosyncworlds review of the FS 720.
A good device if it wouldnt have a camera.
Excuse me?
He did not say that. Reread his comment:

InfosyncWorld have done a two-page review of the Fujitsu-Siemens LOOX 720 and they seem to quite like it, apart from the price. It does indeed look like a decent unit, if you overlook the onboard camera. ;)

He didn't say it wasn't a good device because it had a camera or that it would be good solely out of removing the camera, but rather said "ignoring the camera, this is a good device".

One thing that's unique about PPCT is that all the editors have biases here, and we don't pretend not to unlike some other sites. ;) I like to think that's what makes us different.

Incidentally, I totally disagree with Jonathon -- I'm a big proponent of cameras and am frankly afraid of a society that thinks banning them is a "solution" by any measure, as quite frankly the kinds of cameras spies would use would be those embedded lapel or pen cameras (yes, they are available) and that legitimate uses are hurt by such draconian measures -- but I don't mind Jonathon opining on the subject, although I will tease him (the key is gently!) a little now and then. :P

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

What Ed is to Palm you seem to be to embedded camera´s.

:D You know, I take that as a compliment. :wink:

:way to go:

[Jason Dunn]

Has anyone suggested that PPC and phone companies offer models both with and without cameras? The one without could have have a plug put in instead. Better yet, make the camera removeable.

I know it's been brought up before, but so far they're not listening. From where I'm sitting, the solution is painfully obvious: there should be two different versions for each type of device: one with a camera and one without. Yes, it might increase the cost a bit, but they should offer people the choice.

Personally, I don't mind my devices having a camera (in fact I quite like them), but I can fully sympathize with the frustration that people have then they find the PERFECT device but can't buy it because it has a camera and their workplace won't allow it. Talk about frustrating! Those of you criticising the people who want the OPTION of having a camera-less device should try to put yourself in this scenario: let's say you found the perfect device, and you really wanted to buy it, but it only came in bright pink, and you worked at an ultra-conservative law firm where only black PDAs were allowed in the door. Would you voice your complaint about not being able to buy this otherwise perfect device? Sure you would. So keep that in mind when you're bashing the people who want the option to have camera-less devices please.

And I seriously doubt that putting a piece of black tape over the lens is enough of a solution for the security people at some of these companies. Breaking the lens seems like an even sillier solution - we shouldn't have to destroy a part of our devices in order to get something that works for us. :-) And I have a feeling that many security people wouldn't let through a lens-less device as well...it's just not a viable solution.

[Jason Dunn]

Incidentally, I totally disagree with Jonathon -- I'm a big proponent of cameras and am frankly afraid of a society that thinks banning them is a "solution"...

But surely you're not against people having the OPTION to NOT have a camera - you're not suggesting that every device MUST include a camera, right? Jonathon merely said he was frustrated that when he went mobile phone shopping none of them were camera-free devices. To me, that means the phone companies aren't listening to the needs of their customers.

[Janak Parekh]

But surely you're not against people having the OPTION to NOT have a camera - you're not suggesting that every device MUST include a camera, right?
Of course not. But I have to admit, I'd love to see a world where, for a day, cameras existed in everything so we could kill these stupid no-camera laws. :devilboy: ;)

More seriously, I think the "don't embed" workaround is shortsighted -- yes, necessary for folks like Jonathon who don't have a choice, but nevertheless shortsighted. Given current trends, we'll next have all Pocket PCs banned in some places because they all have microphones built in. :|

--janak

[Jonathon Watkins]

As far as bluetooth phones go, you're correct, there should be more choice, but that seems to be changing. We've seen the HP 6360 and the Sprint 6600 both released recently without cameras. Hopefully the trend will continue for those of you that can't carry camera phones.

We can all agree on that. :)

I (am a few others) would really like that black camera-less XDA-III to be available in the UK. I know a fair few folks that would jump on the PPC bandwagon if they could get hold of one.

[Fishie]

Then order them from Belgium.
All those models are released/get released here and locking phones is actually illegal here.

[Jonathon Watkins]

...... it does get kinda annoying when you spice all your posts with such remarks.

You know, at a marriage seminar once, we were told never to use the words, 'never' and 'always' in an argument.

I believe that if you check my front page posts you will find the vast majority contain no reference to cameras. Please do keep things in context.

I know I made two posts in a row that mention the topic. It happens occasionally. I will endeavor to space these things out more and be wittier. :P

We all have our hobbie horses. Just as long as we don't flog them too hard and they become dead horses. :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

I know I made two posts in a row that mention the topic. It happens occasionally. I will endeavor to space these things out more and be wittier. :P
And for the record, whenever we get a "no-camera" device in the queue, I assign Jonathon the post, so maybe I'm partially to blame. :P ;)

We all have our hobbie horses. Just as long as we don't flog them too hard and they become dead horses. :wink:
Maybe you should comment more about the poor quality of the cameras, which everyone can agree on. :mrgreen:

--janak

[Jonathon Watkins]

It's easy to ignore the camera if you don't want to use it.

IpaqMan2, umm, no, you can't ignore the camera. That's one of my main points.

Camera = device not allowed at work, school, gym etc.

[Jonathon Watkins]

We all have our hobbie horses. Just as long as we don't flog them too hard and they become dead horses. :wink:
Maybe you should comment more about the poor quality of the cameras, which everyone can agree on. :mrgreen:


Janak, last time I did mention that the optical quality of these 'cameras' was equivalent to the bottom of a smeary beer glass, I got roundly accused of camera snobbery and elitism! I can't win here. :lol:

For the record I am a very keen photographer and am very keen on high quality optics. I don't ever see a camera phone matching a real camera. You may get 'acceptable' with good light and a fair wind, but not 'good' quality pictures.

Many Megapixels do not a good picture make. :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Lately I've come to the conclusion that there are moments when you say to yourself "if I just had a camera this instant" and then it becomes obvious what the camera phone is meant to do. Sure the pictures are crappy but no relative on this planet cares about quality when you have the cutest picture of your son being fed vegetables instead of milk.

Or, radical thought, you could actually have a real camera that will give you good pictures? You can get really tiny, cheap ones that will give high quality images. Why settle for second best? For precious memories, go for quality.

Sure they're a security and privacy hazard, but sometimes they're just handy.

If you can't carry them into work, play etc. then they are not handy. :D

[Jonathon Watkins]

iPAQ hx4700
Loox 718
Axim X50v
Toshiba e800/e830
Caso DT-10

I was going off the list on your site, and the Loox 718, Caso DT-10 and Toshiba e800 aren't listed. :P

It's the trend I am worried about. Having many features on a PPC is generally good. However there are some things like cameras and screen size that are divisive. If a device has a 4 inch screen, it can't be pocketable. If you want one, you can't have the other.

One man's meat is another man's poison........

[lapchinj]

...All I am asking for is the opportunity to have a phone and Pocket PC without a camera. As they would be lighter, cheaper and smaller, why is that such a hard thing?
Bravo! I'm also in places where cameras are simply not allowed. Besides if I need to take a picture I have some fine cameras to use and I'm not going to spend the bandwidth sending it via SMS. All we need is to have a choice with the new PPC's phones coming out.

Jeff-

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I'm firmly in support of Jonathon on this one. While the article prosecutes the guy for USING the camera instead of just having a camera, I think many here are missing the point.

The more incidents we have like this, the more I feel companies and institutions will panic and ban cameras consistently across the board.

I don't agree with the action. As Janak mentioned, it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm not one to trust that the corporate world or government institutions will react the right way in dealing with this. To me, it's a foregone conclusion that I'll have to make some undesirable sacrifices in order to have a mobile phone, still be able to use BT, and still be able to use my mobile phone everywhere I go.

With that being said, we do still have some choice with PPCs, but for mobile phones supporting BT, we have literally none.

I now have to carry two phones with me: my current SE k700i and my very old and worn out SE T68i. I also have multiple colleagues who have not adopted Bluetooth strictly because none are offered without the camera as well.

At some point, one of these companies will get a clue and decide to market a solid BT phone without the camera and I think it will do very well.

[Jonathon Watkins]

While the article prosecutes the guy for USING the camera instead of just having a camera, I think many here are missing the point.

The more incidents we have like this, the more I feel companies and institutions will panic and ban cameras consistently across the board.

Bingo. That is indeed what I meant when I said this:

And folks ask why embedded camera could cause problems. ;-) This is exactly the soft of thing that is causing a backlash against embedded cameras.

It leads on to this:

I don't agree with the action. As Janak mentioned, it's incredibly short-sighted, but I'm not one to trust that the corporate world or government institutions will react the right way in dealing with this.

Again, agreed. I don't like the fact that camera are banned, but often, they are. Real world etc. I would respectfully disagree with Janak about cameras everywhere resulting in total openness. Not going to happen I'm afraid. There will remain many places where cameras will not be allowed.

With that being said, we do still have some choice with PPCs, but for mobile phones supporting BT, we have literally none.......

At some point, one of these companies will get a clue and decide to market a solid BT phone without the camera and I think it will do very well.

Spot on again. :D Lets hope the time comes soon.

[Fishie]

We all have our hobbie horses. Just as long as we don't flog them too hard and they become dead horses. :wink:
Maybe you should comment more about the poor quality of the cameras, which everyone can agree on. :mrgreen:


Janak, last time I did mention that the optical quality of these 'cameras' was equivalent to the bottom of a smeary beer glass, I got roundly accused of camera snobbery and elitism! I can't win here. :lol:

For the record I am a very keen photographer and am very keen on high quality optics. I don't ever see a camera phone matching a real camera. You may get 'acceptable' with good light and a fair wind, but not 'good' quality pictures.

Many Megapixels do not a good picture make. :wink:

Check the latest Samsung Cameraphones(or should that be phone camera´?) excellent CCD, optical zoom, and up to 5mp+.

[gibson042]

For the record I am a very keen photographer and am very keen on high quality optics. I don't ever see a camera phone matching a real camera. You may get 'acceptable' with good light and a fair wind, but not 'good' quality pictures.

Many Megapixels do not a good picture make. :wink:

Check the latest Samsung Cameraphones(or should that be phone camera´?) excellent CCD, optical zoom, and up to 5mp+.
You beat me to the punch. The 3.2 megapixel SPH-2300 and 5 megapixel SCH-S250 are definitely more camera than phone, and should take pictures that rival any camera with similar resolution. Here's a picture of each:
http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/6166407973127264.JPG http://idg.se/ArticlePages/200410/20/20041020103730_MD/Samsung_5.0_stor.jpg

[felixdd]

Or, radical thought, you could actually have a real camera that will give you good pictures? You can get really tiny, cheap ones that will give high quality images. Why settle for second best? For precious memories, go for quality.

And go two-piece? Or god-forbid -- 3 piece! PDA + phone + camera.

Or one piece PDA + phone + camera.

I'd much prefer the latter. But of course, it all depends on many things -- size, quality of camera/pda/phone, etc. etc.

So in the end...it's all a matter of preference. I think the only way to settle this demand is to produce phones/pdas that have both camera and camera-less versions. Of course, some models won't work well -- especially phones like the aforementioned samsung, the nokia 7610, the SE S700, and arguably the K700, etc. etc. that are marketed as a phone-camera, and not a camera-phone.

[IpaqMan2]

It's easy to ignore the camera if you don't want to use it.

IpaqMan2, umm, no, you can't ignore the camera. That's one of my main points.

Camera = device not allowed at work, school, gym etc.

This is true about cameras = device not allowed as was the case at my last employers, still I'd rather see more embedded camera's in PDAs and smartphones. I'm no OEM, but I would think making a device, one with a camera and one without a camera would be just to fill a "nitch" market and would think it might not be worth the OEMs time to go through the hassel of manufacturing both devices when just making one would and could work. Keep in mind, that many of these companies aren't in the business of producing a product based upon the needs of what you and I want or need, but are in the business to sale their product to the largest audience they can and make profits. I would rather see some type of technology implemented that would allow the embeded cameras to be completely disabled but at a later time to be enabled again, or an external casing that could sealed or block the camera but could be replaced at a later time. Sure this could be taken advantage of by a dishonest person, but no different than someone doing it now no matter what rules are inplaced. And last I'm not for removable cameras, like an SD or CF expansion. The point of the embedded camera is for it to be embedded, or in other word never needing to worry about making sure you have it when you want it.

[Gen-M]

One more supporter of Jonathon's position. I have been in too many places where people with guns make sure that you do not have cameras.
Possession of a camera in certain places is a national security issue. And yes, I have been ordered to leave my Ipaq behind because of its built-in recorder. Other places are concerned about industrial espionage. Realistic or not, the concerns and penalties are real.

As a private citizen, I do not like the idea that my picture can be taken by anyone at any time without my knowledge or consent. I know that I cannot prevent it. All I ask is that I not be required to participate.

I have the requirement to use a hands free phone in the car in places that do not allow cameras. Anyone know of a phone I can use that has bluetooth for under $500?

[surur]

I don't ever see a camera phone matching a real camera. You may get 'acceptable' with good light and a fair wind, but not 'good' quality pictures.


Oh no, you've hit my hot button too. The best single purpose camera will always be better than camera phones, but many camera phones in the east are better (with optics, flash and megapixels) than my old Kodak 2Mpixel lying in the drawer. And the point is you will always have it with you, so you would be able to take shots you would otherwise miss.

The argument for poor quality of pictures is not a argument against cameras, but for improving them. They are obviously a feature people are willing to pay for, and this is forcing manufacturers to improve the quality, else people would not buy them.

I have just bought the SE V800 3G camera phone. It has a 1.3 Megapixel camera with a brilliantly bright LED flash. It takes very good pictures. A lot of newer camera phones come with CCD's, not CMOS sensors. Cameras in camera phones will just continue to improve.

I understand the problem however. I actually think it s a business opportunity for mobile phone shops. These camera sensors are modular, and Im sure they can just be unplugged after opening the phone. Why dont they offer a service to "make a phone safe" doing this? They could do it for free, and have the benifit of making some money by selling a phone.

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/media/users/4259/embeddedcameras.jpg

Its possible however that the demand for this is too small to be sustainable. :)

Surur

[moaske]

Ok, i can understand that any form of communication from within a court would be prohibited, but what about the voice-recording feature of all ya PocketPC's ? 8O I can't remember having such a fuz about that.
And what's there to hide anyway in a courtroom ? Personaly i feel all trials should be public.
But a sentence like this looks like an ugly future... :?

[bjornkeizers]

As a journalist, sometimes I can't carry a camera with me - so I use a camless phone. Can't bring my PDA? I use pen and paper. Can't bring neither? Well, then I just don't. No sense whining about it.

I personally think these bans are ********. As the old saying goes, it's the people you trust most who are in the best position to screw with you. I'd be more worried about an inside job then a visitor with a cellphone. Camphones are too obvious anyway. If I was so inclined, I'd put one in a pen, calculator, maybe the lining of my jacket, my watch...

[Fishie]

As a journalist I found they actually trust me, even at places where cameras are not allowed they more often then not either don check or trust me not to take pictures.

[Stik]

And what's there to hide anyway in a courtroom ?

Juror and witness safety issues.

Photos of either could be used as a way to intimidate. :wink:

I also find it ironic that both Samsung and LG Electronics, some of the world's largest makers of these devices, also ban the use of them in some of their own workplaces.

More currently...

Camera phones have been banned at the Honda car factory in Swindon because it is feared employees may take photos of the latest models.
The company's 4,000 workers have been told to leave their mobiles at home and visitors must hand theirs in to security guards.

The ban was imposed after pictures of the new Civic car appeared without permission in a magazine.

Nobody from the Japanese firm has been available to comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/4048313.stm

This debate strikes directly at privacy and security concerns. With the millions of cameraphones in circulation, both of these same issues will in no doubt, IMO, be abused to the detriment of individual and corporation privacy rights alike. Cameraphones are much more stealth-like in capturing images, witness gibson042's pictures here as an example, as a camera would alone.

" You talking on the phone? "
" Well no, I'm taking pictures."

[Jonathan1]

I'll buy a Palm before I buy a phone with a camera in it. I don't want it. I don't need it, and I won't buy it. If I want crappy low rez pictures I'll look at the zapruder film or pictures of big foot. I should make my own anti-camera phone commercial where our hapless character makes first contact with some alien. They take about 10 to 15 pictures with the "guys" culminating in a group photo taken by one of the aliens.
He uploads the pictures on his website and the public dismisses it as a midget in a grey leather coat.

[Ken Mattern]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.

Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic. I guess that's too easy!

I like having a phone in my camera for those times when a quick picture, such as at my stepson's karate cllass, is worh a thousand words. Otherwise I'll take my digital camera.

I too work with defense and it is a pain to have to hand my phone over, but most of those times it is because cell phones aren't allowed in the first place!

[surur]

I too work with defense and it is a pain to have to hand my phone over, but most of those times it is because cell phones aren't allowed in the first place!

True. I go into prisons occasionally as part of my work. They wont even allow in a USB thumbdrive, not to mention a pocketpc, camera OR phone. IM surprised they dont take my digital watch at times.

Surur

Mmmm would they take a SPOT watch, or a palm OS watch......

[ppc_kiwi]

We're back to where we started. I think we already had this discussion before. Phone with camera and phone without. We did not have a solution then, we will not have one again. Different people had different needs. If there are fewer options to chose from is because of market trend. If I can sell more to public who wants a phone with camera then I will create more phone with cameras. :D

[gibson042]

We're back to where we started. I think we already had this discussion before. Phone with camera and phone without. We did not have a solution then, we will not have one again. Different people had different needs. If there are fewer options to chose from is because of market trend. If I can sell more to public who wants a phone with camera then I will create more phone with cameras. :D
We don't have a solution; we now have three! Offer two models, make the camera removeable, or have swappable back plates for camera and cameraless modes. The only one that has seen the light of day is the first, and that only grudgingly by very few manufacturers.

[dmy]

This is as it should be. Blame the person, not the tool.
As it should be, but not as reality is.

As far as the arugment on VGA devices, if 3 out of 7 PPC's don't have a camera, then what the heck is your complaint - oh I know you want to force your wishes on everyone else and don't want anyone to have the option to buy a PPC with a camera in it. Choice is a good thing and in this regard I think you have choice and are wrong.

and quite frankly I think it's BECAUSE we've complained that we have this choice. I'm very happy that I now have a choice in PPCs without cameras now.

As far as bluetooth phones go, you're correct, there should be more choice, but that seems to be changing. We've seen the HP 6360 and the Sprint 6600 both released recently without cameras. Hopefully the trend will continue for those of you that can't carry camera phones.
Agreed.

[dmy]

Yes but you CAN do those things, plenty of models around witouth a camera.

Wouldn't say "plenty", but as for PPC's yeah... there are models out there. As fo phones... that's a drastically DIFFERENT story.

If it is indeed a work instrument and not something you buy out of gadgetlust you go for a functional device and VGA or no VGA, bt with or without camera there are plenty of devices for exactly that with exactly the same functionality without a camera.

For PPC's there are.... Phones there are not.... and it's obvious that PPCs are (or at least have been) going down the same road.

I would also argue (at the risk of sounding antagonistic) that those with "gadgetlust" would not want a camera either.... with the rate that camera resolutions improve, it would seem to me that an SDIO camera would be a better choice. You can upgrade your camera quickly and easily as better resolution comes along without having to get a new PPC or phone.


What I have isseus with is for instance the newsitem on infosyncworlds review of the FS 720.
A good device if it wouldnt have a camera.
Excuse me?

An opinion, and like many other things everyone has their own. Yours and ours differ.... doesn't make one right and one wrong.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.
Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic. I guess that's too easy!
That's not the answer either. Even if you had a case that covered the lens, there's no way you can guarantee that you wouldn't remove the camera from the case at some point and start shooting pictures. At least that's how security personnel would see it. In fact, any kind of contraption designed to cover the camera lens wouldn't make any difference since you'd still be able to remove it fairly easily once inside.

[RobertCF]

Those who work in or have to deal with the defense industry, not to mention a number of high-tech, developmental industries, understand why having any kind of recording devices integrated in phones or PDAs are prohibited---and should be. In fact, you'll find in most DoD agencies any kind of wireless capability is prohibited in certain areas.

The point is, while choice clearly remains in the PocketPC realm, it's much less so in phones. The backlash that has been spoken of is quite real and quite justified. I don't think we're advocating banning of all super-integrated devices. That would be a knee-jerk response akin to those fanatic gun-banning groups. What we're saying is a large number of us would prefer to be able to purchase devices that don't have quite so many bells and whistles. We'd simply prefer to not have the hassle of such things as surrendering our devices upon entering sensitive areas or meetings. We'd like to use our tools when are where we need them. A camera is NOT a critical appliance for most business operations. If it is, I'm certain one would be using an actual camera that has MUCH more quality and capability than a lousy cellphone or PDA camera.

I started out with an iPaq 3630 and now have an X5. I suspect this will be the last device I can use in my job, since very few PocketPCs are coming out without at least Bluetooth, which is a prohibited capability where I work. Infrared is even banned, so I have that physically disabled.

BTW, I've never, ever been in a situation where I wished I'd had a camera that very second.

[SteveHoward999]

It's the trend I am worried about. Having many features on a PPC is generally good. However there are some things like cameras and screen size that are divisive. If a device has a 4 inch screen, it can't be pocketable. If you want one, you can't have the other.

One man's meat is another man's poison........


I like lots of features, but I absolutely do NOT want a camera in my PDA unless it is a high-quality, multi-mega pixel device. I absolutely do Not want a camera in my phone unless it too is a multi-mega pixel device. I want separate devices and I demand separate devices.


By the way a 4 inch-screen does not make a device unpocketable. My e750 lives in my left-front jeans pocket happily. I use the original leather slip-case, not one of these bulk-adding aftermarket cases.

[SteveHoward999]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.

Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic. I guess that's too easy!

I too work with defense and it is a pain to have to hand my phone over, but most of those times it is because cell phones aren't allowed in the first place!

So what are you saying here? That you are too stupid to think of taking your phone out of its case when you want to take illicit photographs illegally? That you could never think so far ahead as to remove the tape and replace it when you are finished with your espionage trip?

[Jonathan1]

One thing of note: banning of cameras goes beyond simple business releated security. I worked a sci-fi con this summer and one of the standing rules in the art show is NO cameras. Well this year, for the first year actually, we started checking phones and PDA's. I can't tell you how many pissed off people there were who, 10 minutes before the art auction closed, had to run back to bag check because of their camera and a couple PDA's. Its fast becoming a serious PITA to deal with these @#@# things.

[bkerrins]

As for those that want a phone with BT and no camera, you may want a Seimens S56. I'll sell mine if you want it. And if someone out there can fix the one my wife put into the washing machine...just pay for postage :)

I however, look forward to a fully integrated one device PDA+Phone+camera. I wouldn't use the camera as my main device for taking pictures, but it's great for those silly times in life (snowball fights) when you wish you had one. Also those tragic times in life (abductions, accidents) when it could save someone or explain what happened to the insurance company. Nor would I give up my laptop and use a PDA exclusively.

As for going to jail, a camera is like a lot of things, there are appropriate times to use one and inappropriate time. Don't take pictures up someone’s skirt - you WILL get in trouble. Don't take industrial espionage pictures - you WILL get in trouble. People need to learn to behave (anyone hear about a little fight at the basketball game??). Again, it's not the device, it's the behavior.

[surur]

Those who work in or have to deal with the defence industry, not to mention a number of high-tech, developmental industries, understand why having any kind of recording devices integrated in phones or PDAs are prohibited---and should be. In fact, you'll find in most DoD agencies any kind of wireless capability is prohibited in certain areas.

The point is, while choice clearly remains in the PocketPC realm, it's much less so in phones. The backlash that has been spoken of is quite real and quite justified. I don't think we're advocating banning of all super-integrated devices. That would be a knee-jerk response akin to those fanatic gun-banning groups. What we're saying is a large number of us would prefer to be able to purchase devices that don't have quite so many bells and whistles. We'd simply prefer to not have the hassle of such things as surrendering our devices upon entering sensitive areas or meetings. We'd like to use our tools when are where we need them. A camera is NOT a critical appliance for most business operations. If it is, I'm certain one would be using an actual camera that has MUCH more quality and capability than a lousy cellphone or PDA camera.

I started out with an iPaq 3630 and now have an X5. I suspect this will be the last device I can use in my job, since very few Pocketpc's are coming out without at least Bluetooth, which is a prohibited capability where I work. Infrared is even banned, so I have that physically disabled.


Two points.

1) Wouldn't a voice recorder (built into your pocketpc) be a much bigger security risk at a meeting than a camera (unless its the attendees, rather than the content that was secret).

2) How did you physically disable the infrared? Surely the same people who verified the removal of infrared can do something similar for your camera in your pocketpc.

You just illustrate that there is always some-one under worse restrictions than most people. You cant even have infra-red, not to mention bluetooth! You can not satisfy everyone. The question is how large the minority is, and if it is profitable to support them.

To Jonathan:

Why dont you tell the people you work with that if some-one wanted to take a photo of their exhibits they would be able to, using a variety of pen cameras and key-chain cameras and MP3 cameras etc. You will only end up alienating the geeks that attend these conferences, who will remember the bad time they had there last time, and how they ended up being out of contact. They wont blame their phone, they will blame the people who made stupid security policies. And next year the organisers will be mystified why the attendance is lower.

Surur

[bjornkeizers]

As a journalist I found they actually trust me, even at places where cameras are not allowed they more often then not either don check or trust me not to take pictures.

:-) Yeah, that happens sometimes. I usually err on the side of good manners and turn off my phone or leave it at home.

[KimVette]

[quote=David C]A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.
Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic.

Agreed. Taking a device with an embedded camera, even a sealed one, into a restricted facility can easily land you in federal prison for a long, long time.

[tigerhunter]

Sonny Ericsson had this great T-39, no fancy screen, no camera, nothing but reliable BT, and it was discontinued...

[gmontielh]

When considering upgrading to a new PPC I ended up choosing the HX4705 and keep my phone which has BT and NO camera. I was seriously considering the RZR V3 from Motorola but no Wi-Fi and too expensive for what it is despite subscribing on a cell phone plan. I would like to use Motorola phones as they seem to be the only ones in the US market with quad-band which I find more useful than my SonyEricsson T-68i. I tried to upgrade to the latest SE but new one in the US lack the 900 band and those with BT come with a camera. Any of the Motorolas that have BT come with a camera. The "slow" HP 6315 comes with a camera. So I still hold to my T681. I support the NO CAMERA market. To me this has allowed more privacy intrusion issues than ever. Is a gadget I don't need at all and would really hate when visiting a client that my device gets confiscated till the end of my visit. If you like a camera buy the add-on for your PPC or get a real one. What happened to the time when using a phone was to hear a voice?

[sponge]

What happened to the time when using a phone was to hear a voice?

What happened when the internet was just for e-mail?
What happened when TV was just for relaying messages/news?
What happened when PDAs were just used for address books?

And countless other examples I'm sure.

It's a thing called progress.

[Darius Wey]

I was reading a magazine today and saw an advertisement for a Kyocera phone fitted with a 1.2MP camera. It's funny to see that their catch-phrase was: Finally, a camera that makes calls. (as opposed to a phone that can take pictures)!

You can *run* but you can't *hide* from the ever-growing market of camera-phones... :lol:

[Ken Mattern]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.
Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic. I guess that's too easy!
...In fact, any kind of contraption designed to cover the camera lens wouldn't make any difference since you'd still be able to remove it fairly easily once inside.

Fairly easy for you, perhaps, but I just closely examined my phone (Nokia 3560) and can not see how to easily, or otherwise, remove the back. But my question now is whether security personnel will know that the phone is equipped with a camera if there is no external evidence?

[Ken Mattern]

A simple solution to your problem would be to use a black tape and tape the camera shut.

Excellent point. what I do not understand is why the manufacturers don't simply make a case available that keeps the camera covered. All that is involved is not casting the hole in the plastic. I guess that's too easy!

I too work with defense and it is a pain to have to hand my phone over, but most of those times it is because cell phones aren't allowed in the first place!

So what are you saying here? That you are too stupid to think of taking your phone out of its case when you want to take illicit photographs illegally? That you could never think so far ahead as to remove the tape and replace it when you are finished with your espionage trip?

That's begging the issue. For those who do not want camera capabilities but have no choice because they like/want the rest of the phone, the concept of recasing the phone with a blank where the lense would normally reside makes sense. That kind of person would not be even remotely interested in prying the back cover off the phone to try to use the camera.

As I said in an earlier post, it is not necessarily easy or fast, to remove the cover. If you are in a secure area and begin to fumble with the back of your phone someone will surely catch you. I've been in enough secure DoD installations to know that an escort is always provided to visitors anyway.

[KimVette]

As I said in an earlier post, it is not necessarily easy or fast, to remove the cover. If you are in a secure area and begin to fumble with the back of your phone someone will surely catch you.

Not necessarily. If you're there to pound away on a keyboard - sure. If you're going to be upgrading or installing infrastructure elements, up on a ladder or in a crawlspace, there is going to be an escort on the ground or in a truck, and you're expected to be fiddling around with stuff ANYHOW so do you think a security grunt is going to suspect something is up when you're fiddling with your phone, but it LOOKS like you're working on a power supply, network component, or security sensors? No, what you propose about embedded cameras being simply covered by supposedly-difficult-to-remove covers is NOT a solution - nor is cracking the lens, as it's fairly trivial to remove or crack a lens, and slip a new micro lens in its place (temporarily) in the field and have a functional camera, as long as the CCD or CMOS is even partially intact.

I've been in enough secure DoD installations to know that an escort is always provided to visitors anyway.

[Ken Mattern]

As I said in an earlier post, it is not necessarily easy or fast, to remove the cover. If you are in a secure area and begin to fumble with the back of your phone someone will surely catch you.

Not necessarily. If you're there to pound away on a keyboard - sure. If you're going to be upgrading or installing infrastructure elements, up on a ladder or in a crawlspace, there is going to be an escort on the ground or in a truck, and you're expected to be fiddling around with stuff ANYHOW

If you are going to be doing work like that you will have a security clearance, such as I have. You will be authorized to do the work and you will be checked at the gate. The phone/camera won't get in. In my current job, when I pay a visit to my client, I am met at the gate and escorted wherever I go, even to the lunch room. Security checks my brief case and belongings - and that's at the main gate. At the building I am visiting I go thorugh it all again. Security minded people will either vet you because you work there, or they will accompany you. Besides which you will need a visitor letter in order to get onto the base. That letter must include little things like your security clearance level, who you will be meeting and where you will be going. You will also have a Common Access Card (CAC) issued by the military to prove who you are. It's just not that easy.

But we stray from the thread. Nuff said.

[davea0511]

When is the handheld industry going to get a clue from the PC industry? More gimmicks don't sell. Faster, smaller, more powerful, and more versatile (read: compatible with external devices) is what drives technological sales, not gimmicks like built in cameras. And yet they wonder why PDA sales have been fledging for the last 3 years.

This is what has been wrong with the handheld industry for the last 3 years. They get gimmicky to improve sells, but what they should be doing is improving a handhelds ability to simultaneously interface with a dozen different kind of wireless and add-on accesories and improve the intrinsic parts of the PDA (screens, processor, core memory, Operating system, compatibility, and versatility). For way too long gimmicks have been a distraction from improving the intrinsic parts of the PDA. That's why PC speeds double every 2-3 years, and handheld speeds have taken almost 4 years to double... all because of wasted time integrating gimmicks. HP had a CF slot Camera 4 years ago which worked great - imagine how much further PDA development would be if they left that as is since then and instead focused on making the PDA intrinsically better - not "more" but better.

In short, if something can be added as a wireless or add-on accessory then it should be an accessory otherwise it's distracting engineers from actually making the PDA a more powerful and versatile device, thereby opening up new markets and increasing it's potential - THAT'S WHAT DRIVES SALES.

But then, if it were up to me, even the processor would be a drop-in ZIF-slot add-on. Dreams are free.

[ipaqgeek]

They get gimmicky to improve sells, but what they should be doing is improving a handhelds ability to simultaneously interface with a dozen different kind of wireless and add-on accesories and improve the intrinsic parts of the PDA... if something can be added as a wireless or add-on accessory then it should be an accessory.


We need a barebones 600+MHz VGA PPC with regular buttons, no gimmicky peripherals, and at least 3 (preferably 4) expansions slots (1 for memory, 1 for a wireless card, and 1 or 2 for accessories), and a USB a host, and greater effort by manufacturers to supply WinCE USB drivers. Of course, you'll need a simple disappearing door of some sort to hide all the slots. Then handheld manufacturers would be back in good graces with me.

Oh yeah, and a CDMA and a GPRS phone edition with these specs.

No more built-in peripherals! Give us the ability to configure it as we want!

[davea0511]

We need a barebones 600+MHz VGA PPC with regular buttons, no gimmicky peripherals, and at least 3 (preferably 4) expansions slots ...

No more built-in peripherals! Give us the ability to configure it as we want!

This device would be perfect... But what kind of slots? I'd say 1 CF and 3 SDIOs. I like the idea of a disappearing door to cover the slots.

[ipaqgeek]

Here you go:
http://www.kionetics.com/ultimatepda-side-open.gif

http://www.kionetics.com/ultimatepda-side-closed.gif

That's what I want! I can swap out Wifi, Bluetooth, Memory with my PPC apps on it, memory from my Digital SLR, a a storage brick, GPS, a Camera, etc. And I'm not stuck with a gimmick that I don't want!

[Fishie]

Tht would be huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge
like two thirds of a tablet PC

[ipaqgeek]

Tht would be huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge
like two thirds of a tablet PC

It's a side view conceptual drawing, totally not to scale. You should be able to easily do this in a standard PPC form factor.

For example... How much space does a freaking camera take up? You got lenses and a CCD and electronics taking up space. Get rid of it and replace it with 3 stacked SDIO slots.

[KimVette]

For example... How much space does a freaking camera take up?

Very little, actually. A camera, microlens, and supporting chipset takes up less space than which is required by three SDIO slots would. We're not talking DV quality here, nor the quality of industrial C-mount cameras.

[Kadegboye]

I have read quite a number of the replies to this subject and I still have some points to make.
Having cameras on PDAs can be very good and sometimes bad. It will not be a good gadget in such circumstances where some companies ban them for whatever reasons and hence you have no access to your information. However, it can be an extremely useful instrument in an emergency situation where you witness a crime being commited (robbery, police brutality, motor vehicle accidents, rape, terrorist operations etc) or some impromptu celebrations like parties. It must be said that it is the abused use of PDA cameras that prompted this debate like the guy who is video-recording a court proceedings or taking nude pictures of women. These are outrageous! They deserve the punishments they get for their offences.
All said and done, the choice of PDAs with and without camera should be available. My personal choice is one with a camera and that does not mean that those without cameras should not be available.
Kay.

[Steve Jordan]

It really doesn't matter how silly I think embedded cameras are (and I do). The fact is, as long as there are places that will not allow them (like the government offices I regularly visit for work), there will be a good reason to have a cellphone without an embedded camera.

I was not happy to find out that Verizon's Motorola phones all seem to be camera phones now... since I like Motorola's reception and sound quality better than any other brand, it means it will be a lot longer before I upgrade my phone. Think about that, phone makers: You've lost a sale. Happy holidays.

I don't want a million things on my phone... I just want a good-working phone. And embedded cameras are simply not so great that they need to be on all phones. It makes sense for those who can't be bothered bringing a real camera with them, but for the rest of us (who have real cameras, and know when to bring them), they're useless. Give us a choice, please.

[ipaqgeek]

Cell phones with cameras aren't a problem if you use the DeSnoopifier:

>>> Click Here for the DeSnoopifier &lt;&lt;&lt; (http://kionetics.com/ackthpt/desnoopifier.htm)

YOU CAN NOW PARADE YOUR CELL PHONE AROUND THE OFFICE WITHOUT FEAR OF RETRIBUTION!

[Ed Hansberry]

When is the handheld industry going to get a clue from the PC industry? More gimmicks don't sell. Faster, smaller, more powerful, and more versatile (read: compatible with external devices) is what drives technological sales, not gimmicks like built in cameras.
Right now, they are getting a clue from the phone industry, where gimmickry abounds! :|

[ipaqgeek]

When is the handheld industry going to get a clue from the PC industry? More gimmicks don't sell. Faster, smaller, more powerful, and more versatile (read: compatible with external devices) is what drives technological sales, not gimmicks like built in cameras.
Right now, they are getting a clue from the phone industry, where gimmickry abounds! :|

Ain't that the truth! I think they'd have greater success if they tried to get more PC enthusiasts to buy PDAs than add gimmicks to try to lure the Cell Phone crowd. Yes, the PC enthusiast crowd is a smaller market, but if manufacturers could make the PDA an indispensible part of the PC then they'd make a lot more money than selling to 10 times more cell phone customers who refuse to spend more than $100 on a cell phone.

It's time for manufacturers to reconsider their whole target market.

[Stik]

" Avnish Bajaj, country manager of Baazee.com, owned by U.S. giant eBay Inc., was arrested last week under the Indian Information Technology Act after he was called in for questioning in Bombay, India's financial hub. ]

Justice Vikramjit Sen of the Delhi High Court directed Bajaj to surrender his passport and not leave India without the permission.

The images of the boy and 16-year-old girl, from an upmarket public school in New Delhi, caused a sensation in largely conservative India and sparked concern about the increasing use of camera phones by students. "

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&amp;storyID=7148053&amp;pageNumber=0