But remember that the product concept here is a picture frame.
That means:
1) it shows a picture all the time, 24/7, until a new picture is uploaded.
2) it should fit on a shelf, coffee table, anywhere else a picture frame
goes.
3) it should look like a picture frame (thin, etc.) for familiarity.
4) it should be flicker-free.
5) it should be hands-free.
Making this video-based violates all of those. The limited viewing angle
is less important than the added convenience and sense of familiarity
(Grandma, it's just like a picture frame). I know grandparents who cannot
watch a movie in their VCR unless you come over to help them. They're 80
rather than 65, but still. Asking them to tune their TV into the picture
server when they want to see the grandkids just ain't going to work.
-Matt Jensen
NewsBlip.com
Seattle
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Justin Mason wrote:
> "Stephen D. Williams" said:
>
> > My point is that a less than perfect LCD (which is expensive anyway) is
> > probably not as good as TV output, especially for vision challenged elderly
> > grandparents.
> >
> > Odd that they were so enamoured of LCD vs. video out. I would have produced
> > two models initially or even the video version first.
>
> It does seem odd. I must ask our hardware guy why this might be... (we
> used to make internet appliances, and went for LCD instead of video out,
> so he'd know the pricing and hardware limitations.)
>
> BTW I would guess it's probably a "product concept" problem rather than a
> "hardware cost" problem.
>
> --j.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:30 PDT