[MarkJerling]

Sal, here are the results of my short poll: (From this thread - Digital photo frame quick poll - PentaxForums.com )

1/3 of respondents would buy a digital photo frame, 2/3 would not.
Of those who would buy a digital photo frame, 78% said they'd buy a rectangular one. Therefore, 22% of the 33% would buy a square photo frame. That's roughly 7% of those who would buy a digital photo frame.

What's interesting too, is that 1/3 of those who said no to a digital photo frame could be persuaded to change their vote if a square frame was available to purchase. That's roughly 1/3 of 2/3 so 22% of respondents. That would seem to indicate that, all up, roughly 29% of respondents would be open to the idea of a square photo frame.

This is of course a tiny poll, but interesting none the less that, of those polled, almost a 1/3 would buy a square digital photo frame.

Hope this helps Sal!

[Steve Beswick]

Serious question: did the poll indicate that there would likely be a price difference between square and rectangular?

[Sal R]

Serious question: did the poll indicate that there would likely be a price difference between square and rectangular?

Steve, the cost of the display material (LCD/LED etc.) is determined by the total surface area, not the shape or the diagonal measurement. As such, as long as the surface was identical in area the price would be the same. ie. 16X9 inch is equal in area to 12X12 inch and should cost the same.
Sal

[Steve Beswick]

Steve, the cost of the display material (LCD/LED etc.) is determined by the total surface area, not the shape or the diagonal measurement. As such, as long as the surface was identical in area the price would be the same. ie. 16X9 inch is equal in area to 12X12 inch and should cost the same.
Sal

I’m sorry Sal, but that isn’t even remotely true. The commonly available pre-fabricated panels come in either 16:9 or 4:3 ratio. For a 1:1 screen you are looking at a custom run, and unless you are ordering 100,000 panels at a time, the per unit costs will be significantly higher. That is before you consider the posible need for custom controller circuitry, and the likely need for custom software to look/work right on a square screen.

[Sal R]

I’m sorry Sal, but that isn’t even remotely true. The commonly available pre-fabricated panels come in either 16:9 or 4:3 ratio. For a 1:1 screen you are looking at a custom run, and unless you are ordering 100,000 panels at a time, the per unit costs will be significantly higher. That is before you consider the posible need for custom controller circuitry, and the likely need for custom software to look/work right on a square screen.

Steve, Do you think for a minute that if there was a demand for a square photo viewer that Sony or Samsung for example, couldn't run off a couple of hundred thousand square panels? If the demand were there, it would simply add another product to their line. As for custom software, if current software can rotate an image on a screen, downsizing when necessary, couldn't it rotate the image without downsizing? If the screen could be divided equally into squares instead of rectangles, couldn't it do the same for multiple images? The only software adjustment needed is to remove the current step of downsizing images to fit within an oblong shape.

You have to understand that I have no intention of building a square photo viewer in my garage, but I would love to license my patent to someone with the wherewithal to do it. Call it a backup photo drive with a better photographic viewing option. The photographic equivalent of an e-reader.

As I've said before, the frame is optional. I only used the Digital Photo Frame as an example because it is the only current device that is specifically designed for viewing photographs and in that capacity I think it is a disappointment.

[Steve Beswick]

Steve, Do you think for a minute that if there was a demand for a square photo viewer that Sony or Samsung for example, couldn't run off a couple of hundred thousand square panels? If the demand were there, it would simply add another product to their line. As for custom software, if current software can rotate an image on a screen, downsizing when necessary, couldn't it rotate the image without downsizing? If the screen could be divided equally into squares instead of rectangles, couldn't it do the same for multiple images? The only software adjustment needed is to remove the current step of downsizing images to fit within an oblong shape.

You have to understand that I have no intention of building a square photo viewer in my garage, but I would love to license my patent to someone with the wherewithal to do it. Call it a backup photo drive with a better photographic viewing option. The photographic equivalent of an e-reader.

As I've said before, the frame is optional. I only used the Digital Photo Frame as an example because it is the only current device that is specifically designed for viewing photographs and in that capacity I think it is a disappointment.

And right there, in the first sentence, you hit the nail on the head, you apparently just don’t realize you did.

There is by any practical measure zero demand for such a product. ZERO. Well, I guess there’s you, so that makes one, but that’s hardly a market. There really isn’t a market for digital frames in general. Most people have either bought a tablet or a smart tv, and no longer see a purpose in having a dedicated photo viewing device.

As far as my software comment was concerned, I was referring to user interface, not photo display.

[Sal R]

And right there, in the first sentence, you hit the nail on the head, you apparently just don’t realize you did.

There is by any practical measure zero demand for such a product. ZERO. Well, I guess there’s you, so that makes one, but that’s hardly a market. There really isn’t a market for digital frames in general. Most people have either bought a tablet or a smart tv, and no longer see a purpose in having a dedicated photo viewing device.

As far as my software comment was concerned, I was referring to user interface, not photo display.

I've got to say that I thought there would be more than just me interested in such a device. I mean, you've got to backup your photos anyway, why not on a device that offers what I perceive to be a more consistent treatment of the images. It is some consolation knowing that, even though the poll was small, at least a third of the participants saw some merit in the idea. It may not be for everyone to have a separate viewer dedicated to photos, but then not all avid readers own a Kindle.