High Resolution GSM Phones

Well I am not so sure. The thing is that a lot of the cost of a camera comes
from the digital processing ability and the computing power and so the
phones..smart phones especially would be able to take care of that end and
so the only restraining factor would be the available memory on the phone as
well as the lens quality...i think $600 is probably a high ball estimate...

imho.

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:boqlt3$b4i@library1.airnews.net...
> Jack wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am about to jump and switch to T-mobile so that I can message to
Europe
> > and Asia and with the number portability act going into effect the last
bit
> > of restraint has been lifted.
> >
> > I want to get a camera phone but they are all 640x480 resolution.
> >
> > Does anyone know when we can expect a phone that can take a decent
> > resolution photograph? 2megpixels or even more?
>
>
> We'll start seeing high-res cam phones at precisely the same instant
> people are willing to pay $600+ for one. More often than not, one
> gets what one pays for.
>
> --
> jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
> "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
> what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
>

Jack wrote:
> Well I am not so sure. The thing is that a lot of the cost of a camera comes
> from the digital processing ability and the computing power and so the
> phones..smart phones especially would be able to take care of that end and
> so the only restraining factor would be the available memory on the phone as
> well as the lens quality...i think $600 is probably a high ball estimate...
>
> imho.


Well, I'm trying to consider the cost of the phone AND camera
functions. Decent megapix point-and-shoot cameras + decent cell phone
sounds like $600 to me.

imho

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
http://JerDun.airweb.net http://www.seahoss.com
http://www.reefkeeper.org http://www.oceanfutures.com
http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org http://www.bluewaternetwork.org
"WHAT? NO OCEAN? - Then we are NOT going!"
Divers do it deeper.... I'd rather be diving.
\~=~=~=~=~---------~=~=~=~~----------~=~=~=~~
O
<o((((((((>{ O
<o((((((((>{
0 <o((((((((>{
o
o
[:])

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bov5ge$hdf@library1.airnews.net>...

> Well, I'm trying to consider the cost of the phone AND camera
> functions. Decent megapix point-and-shoot cameras + decent cell phone
> sounds like $600 to me.

I think you're both missing the point. The crappy camera quality in
phones is not a cost issue, IMHO.

You don't see 3 megapixel cameras in phones for the same reason you
don't see phones with built-in toasters- it does the wireless CARRIER
no good. The point to VGA (640x480) cameras in phones is to get us to
e-mail pictures to each other- not to provide the convenience of
always having camera with you!

Zapping 50k VGA pix to your friends makes money for wireless carriers.
Transferring 1MB JPGs from your phone to your PC doesn't!

Just my two centavos on the issue, but it seems to make sense to me.
What will bring hi-res cameras to phones is when a digital camera
maker, like Fuji, Canon, Nikon, etc. decides they want in on the
camera-phone biz, which will only happen if they feel heat in lost
camera sales (which will only happen if the public is so stupid as to
think these camera phones are actually a substitute for a camera!)
Alternatively, we'll see hi-res when carriers can support us litzing
1MB files to each other cheaply and quickly.