Man happy after cheap smartphone downgrade

Because it’s the camera you have with you that matters.

2 Likes

You overestimate how much work I’m willing to do to save 50 cents each day.

2 Likes

The cost-per-day arithmetics however works only in case nothing unplanned happens. In case of phone loss, you’re screwed out of all the money. In case of taking too many photos and exhausting the battery, you’re screwed as well, albeit more temporarily. Are you calculating with the best-possible case or do you have some screwup-probability coefficients in the equations?

my iPhone4 with the data plan turned off is pretty reliable, though the battery has been getting tired of late. 4 years later.

Kind of depends on what you enjoy shooting. if you enjoy shooting things with a normal lens, under decent lighting conditions, that don’t move very much, then sure, the camera you have with you doesn’t matter.

If however, you enjoy shooting at birds, something that has a long focal length, can track moving objects, and doesn’t break down completely at high ISOs is a must. Sure you might try to take the shot with a cell phone camera, but the resulting shot is an simply an aide-memoire-- “I saw a bird with beautiful plumage off in the distance,” but it captures little of the emotional connection to have a picture that’s 95% sky and trees, and 5% bird.

1 Like

Sorted!

1 Like

If you have other apple devices, it’s really helpful if they can exchange information through the cloud.

I’m willing to carry more than one device because I carry a bag with me-- it’s easy to have two things in there-- and because the camera takes better pictures than a phone. Or at least, better pictures than any phone I could afford. (I suspect better pictures, period, because the lens is larger and I have greater control over things like aperture and shutter speed.)

2 Likes

NSA agrees.

2 Likes

Certainly not the solution for Richard Stallman, then. It would be nice if Apple’s solution embraced peer to peer exchange of data, but they don’t . I doubt that many of the established players do.
what Apple has in mind, is a scheme whereby a user can access a common daraset with whatever device is most appropriate at the time. The two caveats are: it must be an Apple device, and if the service is useful enough where you need to access a common data store of more than 5GB, rent is charged.

Given the limitations of an ipod touch, it’s best used for consuming data, not producing it; and if you want to consume data that you’ve already produced, iCloud is quite helpful. To use iCloud, an up to date version of iOS-- without the retro graphics-- is required.

1 Like

Which I fully understand. That man may be crazy but a high percentage of what he does makes sense. I myself am trying to avoid The Cloud whenever I can.

Personally, I prefer the BLUESKY family of solutions. Anything that does not rely on cloud, or at least where you can run your own.

Break their protocol, write a proxy that feeds the data to a local daemon instead, which then sends them to a personal cloud and/or shared local storage, or a P2P grid.

The Big Players won’t do it willingly. They are too big and can benefit from their own walled garden. Break them into pieces, decouple hardware/software from services, disallow deployment of undocumented protocols, let Apple Cloud compete on the open field with Generic Clouds, with fully documented and swappable API.

Good idea in principle.

And that’s the proverbial cup of sewage in the barrel of wine.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.