It's amusing to me to see how backwards so many people here are about new tech. Lim is 100% right. Unconnected devices will be meaningless. They're already meaningless to me, now. Maybe some of you find the work spent getting photos off your camera and on to Flickr (or whatever you use) to be edifying. I don't. Even today, Eye-Fi gets my photos geotagged, archived and uploaded automatically by walking in the door at home and turning on my camera. The dinosaur is dead.

'Once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless,'...

That applies to all devices we use... not only cameras.

Here we are... Huge Brother! ... err, Large Brother?

Humongous Brother?...

Hmmm.... Expansive Brother?... Massive Brother?

(*ponders...*)

.

Dear Samsung, Fix your shortcomings in your current cameras before adding more nonsense to them. Also look at any other cameramaker to understand how to run an imaging division and support customers. Incessant, embarassing facebook postings are not "customer service". 12 different imaging websites of thinly-disguised ads don't fool anyone, except for maybe a couple here. Put some of those resources elsewhere, like into the R&D for the cameras.

The next issue is that ideas like this are a sign of smartphones being expected to dominate the lower end camera market. If IQ was the priority with the cams, Samsung wouldn't have a huge amount to worry about, but instead, they'll gadgetize the cams, rather than fixing lots of issues.

Cloud-connected cameras? Great, now millions of people can look at billions of poorly composed pictures *wirelessly*

I think Samsung is smart to pursue this.

Other posters have mentioned it, but I want to emphasize that "The Cloud" is more than just Facebook and Twitter. Think Dropbox and Crashplan Pro. On a long vacation, your new photos could be backed up automatically every night while you are sleeping. By the time you return home they could already be downloaded automatically to your home computer.

The Samsung spokesman was so polite! What he meant to say was that the professionals, hobbyists, and old farts* that frequent dpreview will be the last people in the world to appreciate a connected camera. I think most of the comments on this thread bear him out.

* I first used a camera in the 1960's. Unlike most of my peers I also learned to use a computer in the 1960's.

Eventually, the "gee whiz tech fad" will collapse, and people will start using pencil and paper again. Books and magazines will make a comeback.Someone will market phones with cords that have rotary dials. And phones will return to being "communication devices" rather than high class Ninetendo gameboys.

Checkbooks will replace debit cards. People might even start buying filing cabinets again... to replace their "cloud storage."

All this geek stuff will stop being trendy. It will be cool to be "old school."

It's bound to happen when people get fed up with every new electronic device requiring a $14 a month connection fee.

Subsidized camera. Next picture you take will have strangers advertising beer or tampons in your picture....don't worry though it'll be targeted ads so it'll mostly go well with your picture.

Well, I just have to pipe up!

Obviously, the guy quoted in the article is a marketroid, so he's going to swear the sun, moon and stars. Folks here have pointed out that some aren't that keen on sharing everything. True. Others are. So what's the common link? The cloud is a tool, not a destination.

IMHO, a good deal of modern pocket gadgets, although cool, are sold to folks who buy one just because their neighbor has one (especially those gotta have an iPhone types) Keeping up with the Joneses and all that. Half those folks can't find the off button.

The commercial idea is clear. One would need a monthly data plan for their camera a la the cell phone. Cash register drum roll, please.

The idea that everything is going to be "on the cloud" is a load of bulldung.

Why on earth would anyone want to post all of his or her data--of all types--on someone else's servers?

As long as someone doesn't have to subscribe, there's nothing terribly wrong with putting quick upload features in a digital camera, but that itself is not the totality of taking pictures, or even using a computer.

That will be just another way to indiscriminately throw your crappy pics on social networks on a higher resolution.

"he suggested a combination of customer expectations and wireless carriers' desire for greater data usage will encourage compact cameras to become ever-more-connected devices. "
Translated this means folowing: We and wireless carriers will make sure that your new camera makes a deep hole in your pocket when purchased and will continue to do so on monthly basis even after you payed for it once.

I do not wish to be "connected" all the time mainly because I also have a REAL life unlike looser's that seem obsessed with updating their status 14 billion times a day.

I have no desire to be "connected" - to anything, ever.

Speculating about the future takes a little more attention to the details than this.

One thing that makes the internet so important is the nature of the computers that are connected to it. Computers facilitate both the production and consumption of information by people. Smart phones are quite a bit like that because they are small, general-purpose computers.

Cameras are different. They only facilitate information production. That information, video and stills, will be useful and meaningful outside of the cloud for a long time because there are and will continue to be many useful ways to share and consume their output besides blatting it into the cloud.

There is also the small matter of artists and professional photographers not wishing to automatically share everything that strikes a light sensor. They will continue to choose and refine their output.

To suggest that a camera that's not connected to the cloud will be meaningless is just plain nonsense.

Theres quite a lot of negativity here. That just proves how most thick the ego of a lot photographers are...

Then there are those of us who simply don't want our everyday lives up on the "cloud". Which as the data gets used against us for add targeting or in the worst case, Blackmail popularity will quickly die away. Example: You take a picture relaxing on an outing when you told your boss you were sick and you forgot not to share with everyone.

The Cloud makes it far too easy to screw up on epic scales.

Quote,'In the future, maybe', Lim told us. 'Right now people use phones more than cameras. But once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless. In that case, the camera will need real-time connectivity, and [carriers] are looking for devices like this'.

Of course he can say this, they don't make a camera worth posting larger than 1600x on the long side.
Right now carriers are limiting data and throttling bandwidth, can you imagine having to overpay for your phone and now a camera? What about battery life?
Not everyone wants to post what's for dinner on facebook or have to pay for that service.

I think for point and shoot and simple travel photography, the "cloud" and instant facebook/blog of photos is becoming more and more important. I don't think anyone trying to produce fine art or higher end photos is ever going to want to post unedited instant shots to the web.

Another "back door" for the government to monitor us. Oh boy, how thrilling.