The patent describes the camera detecting an infrared signal and interpreting the data. One signal could be used to disable both still photography and video recording.

From what I understand, you will still be able to photograph your friends and other people, but not when the camera is pointed towards the stage, etc.


This article discusses censorship concerns:

the guardian

---

Northern California Coast

That seems like a real slippery slope to me. I don't think the Guardian article even begins to explore the privacy concerns.

The paper I was with, and many others, have stopped covering many concerts because the promoters want ownership of all images. We wouldn't agree and just didn't cover it, or promote it.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

I have several IR filters available.

Why in the world would Apple do this? It is stupider than taking away the headphone jack on the iPhone. How much are they being paid to do so??

Quote
fauch
Why in the world would Apple do this? It is stupider than taking away the headphone jack on the iPhone. How much are they being paid to do so??

Video on phones is getting better and better. It becomes content that competes with what they're selling.

Quote
fauch
Why in the world would Apple do this? It is stupider than taking away the headphone jack on the iPhone. How much are they being paid to do so??

Because Apple can sell the transmitter to numerous venues for big bucks. This would just be for stadium concerts, but potentially every music venue, every sports venue, every movie theater, every strip club, etc. They are looking at thousands of outlets as potential customers. If Apple is smart they will open the patent (like Volvo use to do with safety improvements) so other maker's phones have the same limitation.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

I saw this and thought it was an Onion article... Totally stupid precedent. Where else would they sell these to ?

Quote
Ombligo

Quote
fauch
Why in the world would Apple do this? It is stupider than taking away the headphone jack on the iPhone. How much are they being paid to do so??

Because Apple can sell the transmitter to numerous venues for big bucks. This would just be for stadium concerts, but potentially every music venue, every sports venue, every movie theater, every strip club, etc. They are looking at thousands of outlets as potential customers. If Apple is smart they will open the patent (like Volvo use to do with safety improvements) so other maker's phones have the same limitation.

And it would be worth the consumer outrage and potential loss in sales (IDK if I would buy a device that can be disabled like that)? They made this huge stink about not helping the FBI break their encryption, now they are going to sell devices for profit that disable major features of the phones that they sell for a LOT of money? Doesn't sound too wise to me... Also before this is even released someone will have a way to defeat it, so what is the point? I understand that DRM was to appease the record labels, but this is just too much...

Not surprising. Big companies do stuff like this all the time. Will Apple push a product here? I actually doubt it, but you never know.