Sorry, I edited out the line from mine where I said that I thought "the masses" still don't really want a phone that does video. Most people I know don't want a complicated phone. They make do stills from their phone because it's convenient, but view video differently - they want good quality, and they don't trust phone video for that (quite rightly, so far).
And a Nokia phone that costs many hundreds of pounds/dollars isn't attractive to them. iPhone obviously attracts some people - but those people generally still want a good video camera as well that shoots HD. For years, I've been trying to persuade people to use the video function on their stills cameras instead of buying a separate camcorder - but they still go out and spend a couple of hundred on a crappy quality Sony or Panasonic. Now that HD is all the rage, they're more likely to buy separate devices. That's why I say, a good quality small flat two-in-one camera and camcorder is attractive. I'm sure in time there'll be expensive smartphones that shoot HD, but my guess is that "the masses" will still want a separate HD video and photo device as well. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 12 Jan 2010, at 06:37, David Jones wrote: > I think you missed my point on that one a tad. "the masses" do not > want to carry a second device at all, be it a still camera, video > camera, or MP3 player/iPod, everything is and will ultimately converge > to the mobile phone. > > But yes, I agree, your points are valid. > > Dave. > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Rupert Howe <rup...@twittervlog.tv> > wrote: > > True. But that's the very reason I see more and more people with > > Flips and Kodaks. They like the idea of this phone-like flat object > > to slip in the pocket, that does both photos and HD video. > > > > They don't want separate chunky video camera and stills camera, if > > they can have both in one. > > > > Up til now, people have assumed all-in-one devices are sub- > standard - > > eg that the video on a Canon pocket stills camera can't be any > good - > > when actually, it's probably brighter and clearer than their $400 > > video camera. > > > > Hard for most people to choose between Flip and Kodak, though. The > > extra features like mic in don't mean much to them. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > > > On 12 Jan 2010, at 03:19, David Jones wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Joly MacFie <j...@punkcast.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > But this is my point, the flipHD fits in the pocket, costs > $150, and > >> > all the editing one might need is built in to the software - > hey it > >> > even has "magic movie" to make your edit decisions! It's instant > >> > videoblogging for the masses! > >> > >> "the masses" don't want to carry around yet another device! > >> > >> Dave. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
