[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gphoto-devel
Subject:    Re: New standard (Re: [gphoto-devel] Re: gPhoto2 licensing
From:       Scott Fritzinger <scottf () gphoto ! net>
Date:       2000-08-27 22:25:45
[Download RAW message or body]

Ole Aamot wrote:

> I recently saw Lexmark announcing drivers for their inkjet printers.
> They have been quoted on various places for being the first company
> to provide an (binary) "inkjet driver for Linux".  I thought Alladin
> Enterprises was the first?
> Sales of printers and digital cameras are connected these days.

this is (hopefully) true. I would love to see things waterfall like
this.

[snip]
>    "PTP makes it easy to get pictures from a digital camera, and into a
>    computer or printer", said Thomas J. Dufficy, PIMA Executive Vice
>    President. "The PIMA-sponsored group, led by imaging and computer
>    experts from Kodak and Microsoft, developed the standard.  The team
>    also includes experts from Agilent Technologies, Apple Computer,
>    FlashPoint Technology, Hewlett-Packard, Polaroid, Questra Consulting,
>    Zing (FotoNation), and many others."
[snip]
>    PTP eliminates the need for camera-specific drivers for computer
>    operating systems and other devices.  In their place, it provides one
>    simple protocol with the flexibility to support devices such as
>    digital cameras, photo printers, set-top boxes, and handheld devices.
>    With a PTP-enabled platform and a PTP-enabled camera, users can plug
>    in their digital camera and quickly view and use the images on their
>    personal computer or printer without having to install software. 

With however much i would love to see all digicams use the same
protocol, notice that several big companies (Olympus, Nikon, Sony,
Epson, etc...)
are absent from the list of vendors. 

One of the downsides to the PTP spec, though, allows for vendor-specific
extensions. This opens the same hole as the Kerberos protocol does
(fields for extension). I would not be surprised if a PTP camera does
not work with another PTP camera driver because of this, creating the
same situation we have now (different protocols). PIMA should not have
allowed the extensions if they wanted a standard protocol. There was
probably simply too much pressure from everyone involved to not allow
it. But that is another discussion for a different thread :P

PTP is a prime example of what i'm talking about though. The companies
who use PTP don't have to worry about developing their drivers in-house.
Someone will make the drivers available for them (they off-load their
own driver development by adopting this standard). 

Why else would they be involved in the PIMA spec? There must be money,
value, and/or exposure involved somewhere for them!

By making the specification open, Kodak pushes it as a standard and
their cameras are supported. Kodak also get the name-brand recognition
associated with the standard; other camera companies would hesitate to
use a standard that was (heavily) developed by Kodak.

So we have yet another standard that is controlled by corporate
interests (Apple and Microsoft in there too!), and the end-user is no
better off. Why not push an open and Free standard instead? Pair that
with a Free driver, and the end-user has the most amount of Freedom
possible.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-------------------- - - -   -    -
Scott Fritzinger		email: scottf@gphoto.net
gPhoto Project			  icq: 15884777
www.gphoto.net

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]