I can't see it either.I do however disagree with Joe in that it needs to be 2+MPixels to 
be useful.  Value is not always necessarily defined by quality 
(just look at 802.11).If I had a self-contained communications unit that let me share 
things: documents, the weather, my new hairdo, by newborn baby, 
etc. and it fit in my pocket then it might encourage me to share 
those things more often.  If we're talking on the phone and you ask 
me what the weather is like and I say "hang on", outstretch the 
device with my arm extended, press a button, and instantly send you 
a picture on me with blue sky in the background, that has value.But if I say "hang on", fumble around in my briefcase for a digital 
camera, and  after 5 minutes of plugging and praying with USB 
finally am able to take a photo of me, bound by several feet of 
cable and multiple devices, well, that doesn't really have value.If I'm a Paparazzi I'd love to be able to send high-res photos 
using my mobile phone because that has real economic impact, and I 
could put up with the hassle for the amount of time it saves me.  
However, I don't think that is the market that Sprint PCS is 
contemplating.The fact that Sprint has not made the assumption that both the 
sender and recipient of the picture are using their mobile phones 
will help this survive. Gets around the whole "fax" problem (where 
both sender and receiver have to have faxes in order for that 
technology to be useful).On the whole, not very useful for regular Joes (pun intended).  Put 
the camera in the phone (even a low-res one) and then it'd at least 
be cool.-Ian.On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 05:04 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:> Rob Shavell wrote:
>> sprint, if you haven't seen the marketing yet, is 1st to US 
>> market w/postwap
>> mobile data svc.  to me, there is nada more interesting and 
>> impactful going
>> down in the tech world than mobile visual communications.. and 
>> yet no one
>> seems to give much of a damn that right now that 2 persons can 
>> take photos
>> and share them instantly across space.
>
> You're right. Or at least, I don't. I saw an advert for it on TV 
> last night (can't miss Futurama :-) and I thought, "boy, that's 
> dumb."
> If I wanted to share pictures with someone, I'd email them to them,
> where they could see them on a 1024x or 1600x display, instead of
> looking at a postage stamp on their cell phone. Or, I'd bring a 
> printout
> if they needed to see it. Etc. We all have 2+Mpixel cameras now 
> anyways,
> right? (This is one reason why I never bought the camera attachment
> for my handspring visor -- resolution was too poor.)
>
> In fact, with a 1GB microdrive in my camera, I often just keep
> old pictures around, and I can show people pictures using the
> camera's display. Which is bound to be better than the cell phone's.
>
> - Joe
> -- The Combatant State is your father and your mother, your only
> protector, the totality of your interests. No discipline can
> be stern enough for the man who denies that by word or deed.
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/forkhttp://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork