Live photos are a selling factor.

[lordofthereef]

There's a very good reason.
Perhaps it's the new camera itself, perhaps A9 makes it possible, perhaps additional RAM helps with the live capture, perhaps another tent pole feature was needed for the marquee. Any and all of those are legitimate reasons, none of which you "need" as a consumer.

Perhaps all of those things are true. A guy can still be curious.band what about more powerful iPads?

Can't blame people for being cynical. On the surface it looks like s feature Apple wants to restrict to newer devices to get you to buy them. Without an explanation as to why, we don't even know that's NOT the case.

 

[gordon1234]

We upgraded every phone in the house, but I would still love to hear the technical reasoning about why previous devices are incapable of producing Live Photos.

we will probably never get s technical reason, much like why we will never know for sure why Apple gave us another year with 1gb of ram on the 6 and 6 plus, and various other decisions that don't seem to make sense to consumers.

The feature requires that video be recorded continuously as soon as you open the camera app. This appears to be possible on the latest hardware with no performance degradation. That may not have been possible on older hardware. If they had ported it to older hardware and as a result it made the camera app slower and less responsive, people would be complaining how Apple only tested and optimized features for the latest hardware, instead of complaining that they don't always get the latest features.

 

[lordofthereef]

The feature requires that video be recorded continuously as soon as you open the camera app. This appears to be possible on the latest hardware with no performance degradation. That may not have been possible on older hardware. If they had ported it to older hardware and as a result it made the camera app slower and less responsive, people would be complaining how Apple only tested and optimized features for the latest hardware, instead of complaining that they don't always get the latest features.

My understanding is that everything you see in your viewfinder effectively operates that way anyway. Things are "constantly recording". Obviously there is still going to be more post processing.

 

[Nanotyrns]

But often times isn't that exactly what a gimmick is? Something that doesn't serve a purpose... Yet.

iPod Video. MacBook Air. Siri. TouchID. Apple Watch. Live Photos. Force Touch.

Just because they (may) eventually evolve to be a key feature doesn't mean they didn't start off as Gimmick 1.0

Don't think of TouchID as a gimmick just because that first year it only unlocked your phone. Apple doesn't have a Eureka! moment in year two of a hardware feature and figure out what to do with it. Maybe, just maybe, TouchID was a sort of beta test on 10 million phones for a year. They gathered a enormous amount of information on how well it worked and figured out how to do it better. All in preparation for Apple Pay. Apple Pay was in the planning stages probably a couple years before we ever saw TouchID. We didn't get Apple Pay because TouchID was already there. We got TouchID because Apple Pay was the plan all along.

Now I don't think there is some grand plan that Live Photo is a part of, and I sure hope it gets better because I just shot one of a ballon waving gently in the breeze of the a/c and even that slow movement looks jerky, but when it comes to hardware Apple doesn't seem to add that sort of complexity without a purpose or plan.

And I used the heck out of video on my iPod + Video...

 

[rp39]

But often times isn't that exactly what a gimmick is? Something that doesn't serve a purpose... Yet.

iPod Video. MacBook Air. Siri. TouchID. Apple Watch. Live Photos. Force Touch.

Just because they (may) eventually evolve to be a key feature doesn't mean they didn't start off as Gimmick 1.0

Touch ID was never a gimmick. The people who didn't understand how to set it up or use it were the ones calling it a gimmick. I've had my 6s Plus for two days and love the Live Photos. They catch the atmosphere of the photo, the funny thing your dog did before posing for the photo, or the chaos that went into the perfect picture of your child. Force touch saves so much time with emails, or the one link or picture you want to glance at without changing screens.

I know Apple uses gimmicks, but these three features are not gimmicks.

 

[CaCHooKa Man]

I had an HTC One M7 and M8 that had Zoes which are pretty much the same thing. The novelty wears off quickly and it just becomes a waste of space. I made a couple Live Photos when I first got my 6S and show the feature to my friends when they ask but I won't be using it on a regular basis. At least with the Zoes you could make little automated compilations.

 

[Shazamadoo]

The whole ideology of a smartphone is a gimmick..

Having a camera on a phone is a gimmick, having a fingerprint scanner on a phone is a gimmick..

If Live Photos is a gimmick. It's a gimmick I like.

 

[james-jones]

If 0% of viewers can see a live photo you are trying to share on the web then I think it's clear why people think this feature is a gimmick.

How long do you really think it will take Facebook/Instagram et. al. to add this feature? They already support video.

 

[haruhiko]

The feature requires that video be recorded continuously as soon as you open the camera app. This appears to be possible on the latest hardware with no performance degradation. That may not have been possible on older hardware. If they had ported it to older hardware and as a result it made the camera app slower and less responsive, people would be complaining how Apple only tested and optimized features for the latest hardware, instead of complaining that they don't always get the latest features.

I think they will complain it's Apple's master plan to slower their device over time i.e. planned obsolescence.

 

[Rayy42]

I think it's the same gimmicks as the slo-mo camera and time lapse. Seems cool in theory but definitely not used in day to day life.

 

[SeanZy]

We upgraded every phone in the house, but I would still love to hear the technical reasoning about why previous devices are incapable of producing Live Photos.

we will probably never get s technical reason, much like why we will never know for sure why Apple gave us another year with 1gb of ram on the 6 and 6 plus, and various other decisions that don't seem to make sense to consumers.

Here is the reason for all of those things: Because people like you still upgrade every phone in your house lmao.

Why should they pack every feature into a phone when it sells anyways? Am I saying what they do is right? Not at all.

But I mean, it really is not that big of a mystery why these decisions are made.

 

[jssrea]

What do you guys think of this? I haven't got my 6s yet, but this could be enough for me to not use live photos...

Bad low-light photos on iPhone 6s? Try turning off Live Photos for a better picture

 

[pika2000]

I can see the attraction of Live photos. Apple showed it in the demo. Kids.
Imagine trying to take a picture of your kids. Those seconds before and after the picture can record unforgettable moments, and being able to capture that automatically is great imo.

I do agree the issue of sharing the live photos. Not sure how it can be shared universally across the web, unless Apple worked with the popular social network sites like Facebook to wrap their own plug-in and not having Facebook mess with it. Doubt it would work seamlessly though.

I love HTC Zoe. When I saw it on the HTC One, that was one feature I hope Apple would copy. The problem with HTC Zoe is that it left a mess in your picture folder (multiple images). But I love the automatic video creation. It would be great if Apple can make iMovie to do something similar, utilising all media, including live photos, regular photos, and videos.

 

[haruhiko]

I think it's the same gimmicks as the slo-mo camera and time lapse. Seems cool in theory but definitely not used in day to day life.

I even forgot about Time Lapse until I read iPhone 6s website and thought it was a new feature for the 6s.

 

[maflynn]

Beautiful BC! I took this photo as a Live Photo and I agree with you, the feature is not a gimmick. View attachment 586758

Given that many people who cannot see the live photo, makes it a gimmick. I think its a nice thing, but since its limited to certain platforms makes it a gee whiz look what I can do thing.

 

[Newtons Apple]

To me it was a waste as I will never use this feature.

 

[pika2000]

Given that many people who cannot see the live photo, makes it a gimmick. I think its a nice thing, but since its limited to certain platforms makes it a gee whiz look what I can do thing.

Well, I beg to differ. For example, taking live photos of your children. When grandma/grandpa visit, one can show them on an iPad. It adds another dimension to the classic photo-album viewing.

Not everything revolves around sharing over the internet. Besides, Facebook has stated they will support it.

 

[thatsthequy]

Given that many people who cannot see the live photo, makes it a gimmick. I think its a nice thing, but since its limited to certain platforms makes it a gee whiz look what I can do thing.

Lucky I don't care what other people think about my phone. I know what I like and that's why I got this phone. Sucks to be them from my point of view.

 

[maflynn]

Lucky I don't care what other people think about my phone. I know what I like and that's why I got this phone. Sucks to be them from my point of view.

My point is sharing the live images - its nice you get to enjoy them, its such that if you want to share something special, you don't get the same effect if the recipient is not able to see the live image.

I take pictures so others get to enjoy what I shoot, and if a feature that is promoted is not available to the people I want to share, then its not a great feature imo.

 

[urkel]

Given that many people who cannot see the live photo, makes it a gimmick. I think its a nice thing, but since its limited to certain platforms makes it a gee whiz look what I can do thing.

i think the term "Gimmick" needs to be defined again because it feels people take offense to a term that isn't actually offensive.

To me then a "Gimmick" is something that has a "Wow Factor" but isn't actually practical for most users.

For example, the Apple Watch Heartbeat Sensor is a Great Feature. But Sending Heartbeats is a Gimmick. That doesn't mean it's bad or it shouldn't exist. Sending Heartbeats just isn't really a reason to buy an Apple Watch.

And in the same way Live Photos falls on that line where it's cool because it's new but if a year from now then someone has 1000 Live Photos where 990 contain dad yelling at the kid to smile or end with them abruptly putting the camera down and have been unable to share them with anyone then it isn't necessarily a practical feature.

Again, I love the concept of Live Photos and I just bought a little tripod so I can use it right. But just because a feature works doesn't mean it isn't a gimmick. (Or that later iterations will make it a practical feature)

 

[lordofthereef]

Here is the reason for all of those things: Because people like you still upgrade every phone in your house lmao.

Why should they pack every feature into a phone when it sells anyways? Am I saying what they do is right? Not at all.

But I mean, it really is not that big of a mystery why these decisions are made.

I don't think you're wrong here. Thad actually what I was alluding to. I don't think this is a hardware limitation (though I can't be sure).

 

[nickchallis92]

If it was a headline feature in any other handset other than the iPhone, people would be calling it a gimmick.

 

[urkel]

My point is sharing the live images - its nice you get to enjoy them, its such that if you want to share something special, you don't get the same effect if the recipient is not able to see the live image.

I take pictures so others get to enjoy what I shoot, and if a feature that is promoted is not available to the people I want to share, then its not a great feature imo.

If you look at a Live Photo in your Macs Image Viewer then you see that the "Moving Picture" has a corresponding .mov file. Thats a file that can be seen and used by ANY Apple product and that jarring blur effect is simply Apple transitioning to a .mov playback that is activated by your big ole thumb.

So it seems Apple is making a choice to restrict playback and usage by setting requirements that only a specific product can see. In other words, theyre turning a universally playable feature into a gimmick.

 

[maflynn]

To me then a "Gimmick" is something that has a "Wow Factor" but isn't actually practical for most users.

That's kind of the context I've been using. A feature that has some gee wiz to its but in practically limited appeal and usage. Its a cool feature don't get me wrong, but for my perspective, only a couple of people I know could fully enjoy this.

 

[nowise]

It's gross and I already turned it off. In anything but good shooting conditions, the "live" part of the photo is noticeably lower quality and brightness. Not to mention that horrible blur in the beginning. And I have shaky hands so most of my live photos turned out like an awful shakycam youtube video. Wait for Gen2 on iPhone 7 where it can be the same quality and use OIS as a normal video or photo.