Imagine this.
You and your family are on a lovely getaway at some beautiful town in Maine. You’re spending one of the first days of your vacation walking around and taking in the sights and decide you’d like to capture some images of your surroundings. You reach into your pockets and pull out your Samsung Galaxy Camera and start taking shots of everything around you. Now you have an urge to share these photos with the rest of your family, friends, and colleagues who were unable to join you on your trip, but you decided to shed some weight when you packed your bags and didn’t bring your laptop. Don’t worry, though, you have a Samsung Galaxy Camera. You can upload your pictures to Facebook, flatter them with silly filters and share them to Instagram, and tweet all of the photos until your fingers fall off.
This sounds great. It sounds easy. It sounds like a great idea.
Unfortunately, this was a great idea, and then it happened.
Last week, at the IFA trade show in Berlin, Germany, Samsung uncovered its Samsung Galaxy Camera: A connected camera running a modified version of the Android mobile operating system. The camera specifications themselves are impressive. It features a 16-megapixel sensor with 21x optical zoom, which is nothing to scoff at. It features an edge-to-edge 4.8-inch LCD HD display, which looks incredible. It has a great 1.4GHz quad-core processor, which will surely provide a great image processing experience.
Oh, and then Samsung added Android and 3G/4G wireless radios, as well as a WiFi radio for good connectivity measures.
Look, my beef with the Galaxy Camera isn’t that it’s a connected device. I actually think that’s great. I would love to not have to worry about offloading my images to my computer to edit and share them with the world. I’m not even concerned that this will encourage everyone to Instagram every single photo they’ve ever taken and spruce them up with over contrasted grungy filters.
When Samsung got to the part of their press conference where they’re supposed to announce pricing and availability, the murmured the following words: “The Galaxy Camera will hit stores sometime in the fourth quarter of this year and will be marketed and promoted with wireless carriers.”
So here’s my beef. Nowhere in that statement did Samsung mention anything about a WiFi only Galaxy Camera. 3G and 4G radios aren’t cheap pieces of hardware to include in your product. Surely, this is all speculative, but if Samsung is selling one model of the Galaxy Camera through wireless carriers, it’s going to be a subsidized item. It’s going to require a one or two-year agreement with monthly wireless service. It’ll require a data plan or a fee to added on to your Verizon Wireless or AT&T Mobile Share Data plans as an extra device.
I love technology and I love new things. I want more people to be open to exploring new pieces of technology like this, but when companies demand that consumers sign lengthy and expensive contracts when debuting a new technology, I can’t help but be a tad bit annoyed. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest reasons that Android tablets never really made it. When they launched, they were launched as carrier-only devices. They weren’t sold as WiFi-only devices. Customers had to sign contracts and pay a monthly fee for something they were unsure they’d use for more than a few weeks out of the year. They were expensive, they didn’t work very well, and they didn’t offer them to the masses until they were already a laughing stock.
For something as cool as this – a connected camera where I can take some great photos and share them immediately, I want everyone to be able to embrace it with open arms. I want this to be something that a grandparent can buy so she can share photos of family parties with members of the family who are across the country. But my grandmother won’t go out and buy a camera if she has to pay a monthly bill for two years just to carry around a device she’ll use once a month.
So, companies, I’m asking, pleading that you reconsider your stance on delivering new technologies to wireless carriers who price gouge without fear of losing customers. I want to be able to buy this camera at Best Buy for $200 and use it whenever I please and not need to worry about using it ENOUGH because I have to throw the bill on my credit card at the end of every month. I don’t want there to be an off-contract price of $699 because of the expensive radio technology on the inside.
Consumers like options. Give them to us.
Let’s stop this trend before I end up paying a monthly fee to use the Bluetooth hands-free system in my car that allegedly helps me from crashing into trees.