digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at boston.com

Polaroid: the iPod of another generation

boston.com — FTA: "The Polaroid camera was my generation's iPod, our BlackBerry, our GPS, our Kindle - that piece of technology that wows and then becomes an extension of the hand. And Dr. Edwin Land, always called Dr. although he didn't have his PhD, was our Steve Jobs."

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 12, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

83 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • WalterSobchak88, on 01/12/2009, -0/+30outkast couldnt even save them
  • STBAT25, on 01/12/2009, -0/+27My mom would always shake the picture. Did that really make any difference?
  • Zippo, on 01/12/2009, -2/+23♫ Shake it, shake it like a Polaroid Picture, shake it, shake it
    Shh you got to, shake it, shh shake it, shake it, got to shake it ♫
  • chanop, on 01/12/2009, -0/+19Pogs were my generation's ipod
  • mediablitz, on 01/12/2009, -1/+20Polaroids were responsible for the first pass at homemade porn...
  • elizabethb221, on 01/12/2009, -0/+15Remember Pogs? They're back! In Alf form!
  • oiooioio, on 01/12/2009, -0/+13http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111696,00.html

    fta:
    The Polaroid (search) company has issued a statement in response to the refrain of OutKast's (search) infectiously catchy hit song "Hey Ya!" — you definitely should NOT "shake it like a Polaroid picture."

    "Shaking or waving can actually damage the image," the company writes on its Web site in answer to a consumer's question about the song. "Rapid movement during development can cause portions of the film to separate prematurely, or can cause 'blobs' in the picture."
  • ahawks, on 01/12/2009, -0/+13.... what? I have never heard that CD/marker nonsense
  • omgwhataguy, on 01/12/2009, -1/+13It was just like the iPod, except it didn't play music and it wasn't as cool.
  • ryan83189, on 01/12/2009, -0/+12Polaroid should release all of the patents associated with their film if they are serious about getting out of the business, and let other companies make it.
  • reallytempting2, on 01/12/2009, -1/+11Its a shame Polaroid seem to be a company that just never moved forward. Some how I doubt their latest efforts will help them much.
  • macfan93, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9Or shuffle
  • mustache, on 01/12/2009, -0/+8You just wanted to use musical quotes. Though I must admit, appropriate.
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+7yeah.. why would anyone want to learn about something, right?
  • isunktheship, on 01/12/2009, -1/+8Polaroids, the lossless pictures. By lossless I really mean that they don't fade over time, something that beats regular film.. AND the picture is basically instant, back then this was equivalent to magic.
  • SkippyDoorknob, on 01/12/2009, -0/+7Kindle? Really? Those haven't exactly taken off gangbusters...
  • rinote, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6The cd player was the ipod of my generation. I remember lugging around my massive cd case just to listen to a few songs over and over and over again. But then I got an ipod, and it was much, much better.
  • Zippo, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6Yeah, most people want to share their photos over Facebook (or the web in general)... it's far cheaper than buying bulky Polaroid cartridges.
    The idea of a built-in printer on a digital camera is neat, but why bother when you can hook most cameras up to a TV... and a lot of HDTVs these days have memory card slots with built-in slideshow programs.
  • RumpleForeskin3, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6You mean you learned to never trust strangers?
  • Khast, on 01/12/2009, -1/+7Digital Cameras are today's Polaroid. One major difference, not only can you print the image, you can e-mail it, burn it to CD, and much more.
  • neseus, on 01/12/2009, -1/+7polaroid cameras are coming back around, they're part of the whole low-fi fad in the art/design community.
  • Zippo, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6I'd argue that... small, compact digital cameras and Facebook are more similarly today's Polaroids.
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -2/+7"And then the world shifted. Polaroid announced recently it would no longer manufacture instant film. No two photographers can get together without talking about Polaroid. What happened?"

    Um, the digital revolution happened. The author named lawsuits, greed, and other ***** for Polaroid's demise, but neglected to mention that it's obsolete. Why would anyone carry a bulky Polaroid camera when they have a 4mp camera in their phone?
  • Acrinimiril, on 01/12/2009, -0/+4Yeah, shake it, turn it upside down, and leave it on the table to "cure."

    Funny, it was probably just a rumor? Like coating the edges of your CDs with permanent marker to get better fidelity, but only green!
  • JugularJuice, on 01/12/2009, -2/+6No. But shaking your iPod does help................ it break.
  • jo21, on 01/12/2009, -1/+55 mpx are standard in phones now.

    going to 8mpx now
  • jonmac, on 01/12/2009, -2/+6Every *click-whirrrr* means my stockpile of 600 and spectra film becomes smaller. :(
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+4Nice argument, except, you take a picture with your phone and send it to your friend's phone or email. If he wants a hard copy, let him print it. And if my batteries run out, I still have all my pics on my PC, and my online album, so not worried about them getting lost or damaged like if they were on film. Also, yes many digital devices are traded in annually, but so were Polaroids, new models came out often. Also, Polaroid film is notorious for degrading prematurely. But suppose there were a big enough market of Polaroid afficianadoes, for them to produce a digital Polaroid camera. The cheapest lens they could put would probably be 2mp. Polaroid film cant come close to that resolution.
    I'm not a "in with the new, out with the old" person, but in the case of Polaroid, it just make any sense to use it. How much was a pack of film for a Polaroid, wasn't it like 12 bucks in the 90's? I understand the nostalgia, it was an awesome invention, but it's time has passed.
  • rotundo, on 01/12/2009, -0/+4It is a shame. They focussed too much on the specific technology and not enough on what they were enabling people to do. A good business should always focus on what they're enabling the customer to do.

    I heard the example once that you shouldn't start a company that sells drills, you should start a company that helps people make holes. Drills are fine for now, but you don't want to be married to that system should a better one come along.

    Polaroid should have been the first to market with digital online photo sharing too, if they were on top of the ball. Ah well, they did make great stuff for a while.
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+4i remember this one kid stole my golden super slammer from school. I never got it back....from that point, i never learned to trust strangers.
  • 1awesomeguy, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3When I tried to digg you up a "fatal" error occurred. Not an ordinary error, but one that resulted in a death!
  • heyitsdi4n4, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3Me too..what a bummer. You can't reproduce that aesthetic--so depressing that they think that an instant photo printer is an appropriate replacement!
  • rinote, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3If I was Polaroid I would get into bringing the Japanese-style photobooths to mainstream America.
  • terracottapai, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3Funny, transistor radios seem a more apt comparison.

    I don't know that there would be an Edwin Land/Steve Jobs type figure for those, though.
  • icabodane, on 01/12/2009, -1/+4Because you can't stick a TV or PC in your dashboard and watch a good memory reflecting on the windshield. The simple life is better. I, for one, do not allow myself to be so dependent on technology that I can't relive a great memory without having to power up thousands of dollars worth of electronics like HDTV's with USB ports or wireless networking equipment so my cell phone and computers can exchange memories that have been reduced down to 0's and 1's so I can upload my images digitally and crop/edit them before I share them. Society is so heartless and sterile now. Nothing real is ever good enough. I mean, come on man. It is a phone. You talk on it. That's all it needs to do. Also, it should last 20 years. I hate living after the "year 2000" (referencing 2000 as it was always referred to as "the future" when technology would snuff the humanity out of humanity). We don't need any of this new *****. It is just more bills and more stuff to buy. We've become fodder to the capitalist machine. The more we have, the more we need.
  • tdclark23, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3I love how fast technology changes. Jugular Juice probably forgot about the new feature.

    Someday, if we all live long enough we might find ourselves talking about quaint old digg in the days when the 'net was mostly copper.
  • venomoushealer, on 01/12/2009, -0/+3And we are forever in their debt for that.
  • TEEMANOID, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Dugg for the hottie beside the camera.
  • zydeco, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2The old Land Camera prints always felt really "wet" when the back was pulled off. I always thought people waved the prints in the air to help them dry faster, even though that wasn't necessary.
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Really, I remember the day other kids at school brought Pogs, I rushed my mom out to buy them that evening...a week later no one gave a ***** anymore.
  • Itsaah2o, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2sounds like a good investment?
    make some film.. cause i agree.. its commin back in a new trend forsure
    people take pictures with polaroids all the time and scan them in to put them on their myspace and what not.
  • dystra, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2hands down the nerdiest woman i have ever seen.
  • Spoomeister, on 01/14/2009, -0/+2No, that'll turn it into some yuppie hobby thing, like homebrewing.

    Someone should just reverse engineer all the tech and chemistry involved, release how-to info on the web, and let all the information-should-be-free types have at it. It'll be all cool and edgy because it will be vaguely illegal.
  • secrity, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Shaking made no difference, the only thing that made any difference was temperature. If it was cold out, the developing prints should have been put inside your coat.
  • GovernmentsGun, on 01/13/2009, -0/+2Prisons still use polaroids for taking instant photos of contraband and inmate injuries.
  • inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Here, don't say I never did nuthin for ya. http://digg.com/gadgets/The_Polaroid_camera_is_bac ...
  • PaulOwen, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2C'mon shake it.
    Shake it.
    Shake it LIKE A POLAROID PICTURE
  • johnnyrotten, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2I hardly knew anyone with a Polaroid. I used a professional Polaroid a few times in college, but they were in no way as widespread as an iPod. Cassette players were more prevalent in my generation.
  • CaviMike, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Too, many, commas, makes, things, hard, to, follow.
  • venomoushealer, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2@icabodane
    You place such great hope on the past, but seem to forget the great strides that have come with improved technology. Simple doesn't always mean better. I (as well as many other people) like to get as much done as possible in as little time as possible. So instead of relying on the USPS, we use email, cell phones, and other services that rely on these 0s and 1s that you despise. Sure, you can't stick a TV on your dashboard. But if you really want to give the finger to technology, paint of picture of your family instead.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.