<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Gizmodo: Polaroid]]></title>
		
		<link>http://gizmodo.com/tag/polaroid</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Gizmodo posts tagged 'polaroid']]></description>
			
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Pulls an About-Face, Decides to Re-Launch Instant Film Next Year]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/thumb160x_polaroidonestep.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" />Polaroid broke a lot of hearts when it discontinued its <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged INSTANT FILM" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/instant-film/">instant film</a> cameras. Luckily, new management has realized the error of old management's ways: they're re-launching the One Step Camera and instant film in 2010. Booyah! [<a href="http://www.polapremium.com/news?date=2009-10-13">Polapremium</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5380735/polaroid-pulls-an-about+face-decides-to-re+launch-instant-film-next-year]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5380735]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[instant film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid one step camera]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:16:29 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Frucci]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5380735&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Last Original Polaroid Instant Film to Be Sold at Urban Outfitters]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/127640.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/500x_127640.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" /></a>Polaroid <a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">killed</a> production of its iconic instant film, but it hasn't gone quietly. The very last of the original film, along with Polaroid ONE600 cameras, will be sold in <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged URBAN OUTFITTERS" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/urban-outfitters/">Urban Outfitters</a> to diehards.</p>
<p>Only 700 of these limited-edition camera-film sets will be sold at Urban Outfitters, and we've got to admit we really want one: Unless <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5134845/crazy-polaroid-zealots-making-film-themselves">The Impossible Project</a> can get production up and running again, these are the last in a proud lineage of instant developing. Keep in mind, those 700 sets are spread throughout the US and UK, so if you see one, make sure to grab it and hold it tight. [<a href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/19/last-polaroids-ever-to-be-sold-at-urban-outfitters/">Crunchgear</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5341356/last-original-polaroid-instant-film-to-be-sold-at-urban-outfitters]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5341356]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid instant film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[urban outfitters]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:00:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Nosowitz]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5341356&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A House Wallpaper Made With a Thousand and One Polaroids]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/08/1_rect540_01.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/08/504x_1_rect540_01.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a>Here's one more reason to go low tech, and snatch a Polaroid camera (or a clone, since <a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">the Polaroid instant format is dead</a>): I want one room in my house like photographer <a href="http://louobedlam.com/home.html">Luciano Noble</a>'s home, covered with instant prints.</p>
<p><script type="text/javascript">
gawkerGallery(5335165,4,'Polaroid Wallpaper');
</script></p>
<p>Obvious simple idea, but sweet and perfectly executed. [<a href="http://louobedlam.com/home.html">Luciano Noble</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/louobedlam/3683125899/">Flickr</a> via <a href="http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/la/inspiration/simple-and-classic-decor-a-wall-of-polaroids-092603">Apartment Therapy</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5335175/a-house-wallpaper-made-with-a-thousand-and-one-polaroids]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5335175]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[diy]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:20:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesus Diaz]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5335175&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid SX-70: The Joy of Instant Photography Before Digital]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p>The <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged POLAROID SX-70" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/polaroid-sx_70/">Polaroid SX-70</a> was not the first instant camera. Released in 1972, it was the first instant SLR, and the first to use Polaroid's iconic integral print film that developed automatically. It folded up so it fit in your pocket.</p>

<p>Multiple models followed <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_SX-70">the original SX-70</a>, adding features like a rangefinder autofocus system. In the 1980s, the original SX-70 film was replaced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SX-70">the "Time Zero" variant</a>, which developed much faster. Time Zero film for the SX-70 went out of production in 2005.</p>
<p>The sentimentality for analog photographs (or anything, really) rooted in fetishisms of authenticity and physicality, is perversely self-destructive: Analog media age and degrade, they die, like our bodies. The idea of the "original" is somewhat warped as well, since in the process of aging, the photo itself <em>changes</em>. In a way, the original photo ceases to exist a second after it's created. The long set time for the SX-70's film was particularly interesting in this regard&mdash;there was a 2-3 day window where you could manipulate it with temperature.</p>
<p>The bits that make up a digital photograph don't age. They will be the same 30 years from year now that they are today. And unlike a scan or reprint of an analog photograph, copies are of digital photos are literal clones&mdash;the bits are the exact same. The "original" is preserved forever, even as digital wholly obliterates the concept of the original.</p>
<p>Bits can lie, though. That's why people don't trust them. Plastic and paper are real. You can touch them. They bare scars when you change them. A faded photo has been places, seen things. It's lived. Maybe longer than you have. Material inscription guarantees authenticity. Which is important when so much else is not genuine.</p>
<p>These are some photos taken with the SX-70 I found poking around on Flickr. There are a lot more in <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/sx-70/pool/">this Flickr pool</a>.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or does it always seems like summer in old Polaroid photos?</p>
<p><em>Images: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/11952861@N07/3709003002/">sandys2</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/angus88/3629394974/">Angus柒</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/asalexander/3524657947/">asalexander</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clspeace/3510613372/">clspeace</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clspeace/3503802693/">clspeace</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwanzshop/3482621625/">kwanz</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dejvicka/3444080592/">dejvicka</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/antiparticle/3357301661/">antiparticle</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaidominato/3301779115/">kaidominato</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/macomaco/3215409320/">@Maco</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justephens/3089634903/">justephens</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justephens/3089635243/">justephens</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mangabanane/1799676561/">Davide Rascone</a></em></p>
<p><em>Polaroid SX-70 Photos: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/artysmokes/3607493579/">The Artster</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timmythesuk/2097355364/">TimmyToucan</a></em></p>
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/artysmokes.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_artysmokes.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/angus.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_angus.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/clspeace2.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_clspeace2.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/daviderusconi.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_daviderusconi.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/asalexander.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_asalexander.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/dejvicka.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_dejvicka.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_kwanz.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"><br>
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_maco.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/kaidouminato.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_kaidouminato.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/justephens.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_justephens.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/clspeace.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_clspeace.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_sandys2.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/justephens2.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_justephens2.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/antiparticle.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_antiparticle.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a><br>
<a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/TimmyToucan.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/07/504x_TimmyToucan.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"></a></p>
<p><i><a href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/gizmodo-79/">Gizmodo '79</a> is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.</i></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5315737/polaroid-sx+70-the-joy-of-instant-photography-before-digital/gallery/]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5315737]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[gizmodo 79]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid sx-70]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[retromodo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[sx-70]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[matt buchanan]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5315737&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[AnalogColor Ruins Quality Photos to Create Mock-Polaroid Results]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5310518/analogcolor-ruins-quality-photos-to-create-mock+polaroid-results">The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.</a>For those who cared enough to be hurt at the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">death</a> of <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged POLAROID INSTANT FILM" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/polaroid-instant-film/">Polaroid Instant Film</a> but not enough to <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5270545/fans-get-one-step-closer-to-bringing-back-polaroid-film">make it themselves</a>, there's AnalogColor, which turns your crystal-clear photos into murky, nostalgic simulacrums of the classic format.</p>
<p>There's definitely other software that'll do this kind of thing, but AnalogColor lets you create faux-Polaroids by degrading your current photos in several different ways, including those fun streaks that resulted from light leaks. It's available for $10 on OS X and Windows. [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.pentacom.jp/pentacom/toycamera_analogcolor/%23buy&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8">Pentacom</a> via <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/fun-polaroid-simulator-will-waste-many-hours/">Wired</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5310518/analogcolor-ruins-quality-photos-to-create-mock+polaroid-results]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5310518]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[fauxlaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[analogcolor]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pentacom]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid instant film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Nosowitz]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5310518&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Fans Get One Step Closer to Bringing Back Polaroid Film]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/05/504x_polaroid.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" style="display:block;">The NYT just visited the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5134845/crazy-polaroid-zealots-making-film-themselves">Impossible Project</a>, a group of Polaroid lovers (which include Dutch scientists), who dedicate their time in bringing back <a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">Polaroid film</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5134845/crazy-polaroid-zealots-making-film-themselves">Last time</a> we saw these people, they leased a Polaroid factory and are trying to not just re-invent <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged POLAROID FILM" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/polaroid-film/">Polaroid film</a>, but something slightly better.</p>
<p>What's interesting is that the "Project" was able to get ahold of vital pieces of technology because the man who held Polaroid's assets was arrested by the US. Polaroid's assets (including its name and IP) were sold off this month. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/technology/26polaroid.html?_r=1">NYT</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5270545/fans-get-one-step-closer-to-bringing-back-polaroid-film]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5270545]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[chemicals]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[impossible project]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroids]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 26 May 2009 16:40:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Chen]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5270545&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Seatbelt Camera Straps Buckle Up Your DSLR]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/04/car_strap_01.png"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/car_strap_01.png" class="left image500" width="500"  style="display:block;float:none;"/></a>Or your Polaroid. End those angry red neck marks left behind by your pack-in strap with these wide, smooth seatbelt vinyl straps. They're $20, recycled and made by hand. [<a href="http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/seat-belt-camera-straps">Photojojo</a> via <a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/04/buckle-up-seat.html">Gadget Lab</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5209868/seatbelt-camera-straps-buckle-up-your-dslr]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5209868]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[camera straps]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[dslrs]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[seatbelt]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[seatbelt camera straps]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[seatbelts]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[straps]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:20:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5209868&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Cameras: Happy 200th Birthday, Charles Darwin]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/02/darwinbday_cameras_804.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/02/darwinbday_cameras_804.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"  style="display:block;float:none;"/></a></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5152435/cameras-happy-200th-birthday-charles-darwin]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5152435]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[5d mark ii]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[charles darwin]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[designmodo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[dslrs]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[nikon]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[nikon f]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[slrs]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[sx-70]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:55:19 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5152435&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Crazy Polaroid Zealots Making Film Themselves]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/01/polaroid_factory_01.JPG"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/01/polaroid_factory_01.JPG" class="left image500" width="500"  style="display:block;float:none;"/></a>They call themselves the <a href="http://www.the-impossible-project.com/beta/">Impossible Project</a> (Oh, what a name), and they want to give you a chance to purchase Polaroid instant integral film at a reasonable price next year.</p>

<p>The Impossible folks say they're not aiming to simply replicate the Polaroid instant film of old: no, they are seeking new techniques and new materials to create the instafilm pack of tomorrow. If I were them, I'd go for keeping it simple, but according to their website, some "essential components" of the packs are "not available any more." I can't imagine they're having to circumvent any patents, because I would imagine that is something Polaroid would be more than happy to license.</p>
<p>Team Impossible has at least secured a 10 year lease on one of two remaining 'roid factories (the other is in Mexico), so it seems like they're serious. Sure you could question the validity of it all, but when it comes down to it, I'd love to have something to put back in my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SX-70">beautiful folding SX-70</a> someday. [<a href="http://www.the-impossible-project.com/beta/">Impossible Project</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5134845/crazy-polaroid-zealots-making-film-themselves]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5134845]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[impossible project]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:40:00 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5134845&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[New PoGo Instant Digital Camera Still No Instamatic, But Cool Enough]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/01/newpogocamera.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/01/newpogocamera.jpg" class="left image500" width="500"  style="display:block;float:none;"/></a>No matter what they do, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant digicam will never have the magic nature, heartwarming charm, and craptastic retro quality of their good old Instamatics. But they are kind of cool, anyway.</p>

<p>Sure, the new Polaroid PoGo Instant Digital Camera can print 2 x 3-inch photos in 60 seconds. That's moreless what it took for the Instamatic images to appear. And like the Instamatic, the PoGo doesn't use ink for the images, and can print with and without "fun" borders in sticky-backed paper. It's also smaller than the Instamatic, at 10 ounces and 4.7 inches wide by 3 inches tall. And you can review the images before printing them out.</p>
<p>OK, so it's more convenient and probably has better quality. But still, no analog charm (hopefully, they will add an Instamatic filter mode at one point).</p>
<p><script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8">
galleryPost('PolaroidPOGOInstaDigiCam', 12, ' ');
</script></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Polaroid Introduces the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera</p>
<p>Digital version of the company's iconic instant camera</p>
<p>LAS VEGAS (January 8, 2009) – Today Polaroid announces the launch of the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera, the first digital camera and instant printer combination available in the US and Europe that is portable enough to take anywhere. With the push of a button, consumers can select from among the digital photos on the camera, crop or edit them and in less than 60 seconds, print full-color, 2x3-inch prints - all with a single device.</p>
<p>"This is the digital version of our traditional instant camera, which consumers have loved since the 70s," says Jon Pollock, vice president and general manager, Digital Imaging. "With this product, Polaroid will bring the magic of instant photography to a whole new generation. It's what consumers have told us they want – a fun, easy way to use a digital camera to print photos and share their memories instantly."</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera is the second product in the Polaroid PoGo™ family of products. Like the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Mobile Printer, which hit store shelves in July 2008, the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera uses the same ZINK Paper™ and ZINK™ Zero Ink™ Printing Technology from ZINK Imaging. ZINK is an ink-free printing technology which replaces ink cartridges or ribbons with ZINK Paper™ - a composite material that has embedded, heat-activated dye crystals. Before printing, ZINK Paper appears white like regular photo paper. Once the pictures are printed, they are immediately dry to the touch, durable and smudge and water resistant.</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera offers a full-feature digital camera with 100 percent inkless printing, 2x3-inch sticky-backed photos with or without fun borders and the advantage of reviewing the captured photos on a three-inch color LCD screen before printing. The instant digital camera measures 4.7-inches wide by 3-inches tall and weighs only 10 ounces.</p>
<p>"Unlike traditional instant film, photos from the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera emerge fully developed," Pollock says. "While many of our most passionate customers tell us "shaking" a Polaroid photo is part of the fun, with any Polaroid photo, the "shake" is totally optional."</p>
<p>The Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera will be available beginning in March 2009 at major retailers for a suggested retail price of $199. Ten-packs of ZINK Photo Paper™, which can be used in both the Instant Digital Camera and the Instant Mobile Printer, retail for $4.99 and 30-packs for $12.99, and widely available at national retailers everywhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>[<a href="http://thenewinstant.com/">Polaroid</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5126433/new-pogo-instant-digital-camera-still-no-instamatic-but-cool-enough]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5126433]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[ces 2009]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital camera]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[instant digital camera]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pogo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[Polaroid Pogo]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:45:00 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesus Diaz]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5126433&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[This Is How the Japanese Want To Sell You a Tomy Xiao TIP-521 Photo-Printing Camera]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><object width="506" height="417" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sARczR72ZDY&hl=en&fs=1">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sARczR72ZDY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="506" height="417" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2"></embed></object>Well, that is, if you're a scatologically inclined Japanese television viewer. What's that, <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5078729/tomy-xiao-tip+521-is-polaroid-wannabe-without-all-the-charm">Xiao-san</a>? Squeezing my <a href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/zink">Zink</a> sticker prints off at the pool? <em>Arigato gozaimasu</em>. [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARczR72ZDY&eurl=http://www.crunchgear.com/page/3/">YouTube</a> via <a href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/08/takara-tomy-uses-pooping-camera-in-tv-commercial/#more-57423">Crunch Gear</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5104760/this-is-how-the-japanese-want-to-sell-you-a-tomy-xiao-tip+521-photo+printing-camera]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5104760]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[it poops]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[ads]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[great moments in advertising]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[japan]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[takara]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[TIP-521]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[tomy]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[Tomy Xiao TIP-521]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:40:00 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5104760&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Giant Polaroid Flipbook Machine Holds 987 'Roids, Plays Your Short Film]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2008/09/590_mutoscope_copy.jpg"><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/09/590_mutoscope_copy.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" /></a>Can it get any more adorably indie than a short film portrayed on 987 Polaroids that display flipbook-style on a giant drum inside a machine called the "<a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #processenactedmutoscope" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/processenactedmutoscope/">Process Enacted Mutoscope</a>"? I'm thinking no. The rig is pretty cool, though—letting you control the speed of playback frame-by-frame, as you can see in the video that follows. The obvious genre for films using the ol' Mutoscope, though, should be "Victorian Softcore."</p>
<p><object width="494" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HCJeOca-GQU&hl=en&fs=1">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HCJeOca-GQU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="494" height="370"></embed></object></p>
<p>[<a href="http://www.thechasefactory.com/mutoscope.html">The Chase Factory</a> via <a href="http://www.woostercollective.com/2008/09/the_process_enacted_mutoscope.html">Wooster Collective</a> via <a href="http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/09/polaroid_flipbook_machine.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890">MAKE</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5046687/giant-polaroid-flipbook-machine-holds-987-roids-plays-your-short-film]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5046687]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[Nickelodeon, Updated]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[diy]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[flipbook]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mutoscope]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[process enacted mutoscope]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[retromodo]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:30:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5046687&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Bringing Back Classic 4x3 Insta-Prints With Forthcoming Digital Zink Cam]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/08/polaroid3.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" />While the tears spilled mourning <a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">the death</a> of Polaroid's <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #instantfilm" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/instantfilm/">instant film</a> division are still somewhat damp, the company has a little spark of an announcement that could make hardcore 'roiders (of the best kind) happy—the company looks like it's finally getting serious about building its Zink instant digital printing tech into a camera. And it won't use the diminutive 2 x 3 inch format currrently spit out by the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5013248/lightning-review-polaroid-pogo-wireless-mobile-printer">PoGo printer</a>, which is the only product that currently features Zink tech. Instead, the new camera is planning to use the classic 4x3 vertical rectangle size, which became the company's trademark. And they're even taking (or pretending to take) suggestions from the public on the camera's features.</p>
<p>Just drop by the <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_to_shape_polaroid_history_news_265337.html?aff=rss">Amateur Photographer</a> site and fill out the form, rating which features are important. Not a whole ton of flexibility here, but it's a nice gesture.</p>
<p>Zink's dye crystals are built into the paper itself, so there's no need for the white chemical pack/label area/shaking handle of the classics, but let's hope they keep that anyway, for old time's sake. I would encourage everyone to vote for that, as a write-in.</p>
<p>We've <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/first-look-zink-camera-has-a-printer-in-its-back-232964.php">already seen</a> a prototype camera packing Polaroid's Zink instant digital printing tech (at the 2x3 size), which is still apparently going to ship, someday. The new 4x3 cam is scheduled for "sometime in 2009." [<a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_to_shape_polaroid_history_news_265337.html?aff=rss">Amateur Photography</a> via <a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/new-polaroid-ca.html">Gadget Lab</a> - Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mocvdleung/252966183/">mocvdleung</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5036267/polaroid-bringing-back-classic-4x3-insta+prints-with-forthcoming-digital-zink-cam]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5036267]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[shake it]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[instant film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[instaprints]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pogo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[printer]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:00:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Mahoney]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5036267&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Lightning Review: Polaroid PoGo Wireless Mobile Printer]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2008/06/87/2a/340x_872a504834d8359e1ec31e776313f692.jpg" class="left image340" width="340"  style="display:block;"/><strong>The Gadget</strong>: The Polaroid PoGo, an inkless printer that prints 2” x 3” sticker pictures from <a class="autolink" rel="nofollow" title="Click here to read more posts tagged DIGITAL CAMERAS" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/digital-cameras/">digital cameras</a> via USB and cellphones over Bluetooth.</p>
<p><strong>The Price</strong>: $150 for the unit, 30-packs of photo paper cost $10.</p>
<p><strong>The Verdict</strong>: Though, like you, I wasn't totally sure about the PoGo, after using it, I was surprised at how promising and unique the little gadget is. It solves the biggest problem with taking pictures on cellphones, the fact that you can't look at them anywhere besides your phone. The credit-card size prints look decent enough for what they are (though in Wilson's expert opinion, they're still “lousy”). It prints using <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/first-hands-on-the-zink-bluetooth-camphone-printer-232947.php">Zink</a>, an inkless technology that uses photo paper with billions of colorless dye crystals in CMY layers that change color when activated by heat. This means that the pictures are dry as soon as they develop, and you NEVER replace ink or toner cartridges. The prints are also waterproof, tear and fade resistant, and have an adhesive backing so you can stick them anywhere.</p>
<p>Another great thing about the PoGo is its portability. Its a little larger than a deck of cards, so if you've got pockets, you can take it around. It also connects to phones via Bluetooth so you don't have to worry about cords. We easily paired it via Bluetooth connection to a year-old, mainstream LG phone from Verizon, though it isn't compatible with every phone&mdash;Polaroid says it works with about 70% of Bluetooth-enabled phones out today. I asked them about iPhone compatibility—they said not this one.<br>
<img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/06/pogo2.jpg" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2" style="display:block;"><br>
There are a few things holding me back from totally loving the PoGo. First of all, it's slow. The process from phone to picture took 60-75 seconds, which makes printing in the moment a little less exciting. Secondly, the Li-ion battery only lasts for 15 prints, and takes two hours to charge back up. It can print while it's charging which is nice, but that really takes away from the mobility factor.</p>
<p>Finally, I'm not sure I would use this on a long-term basis. The product guys said to use it in a bar to pick up ladies, but I don't know how many ladies would want stickers of me—at least, not right away. It seems like a fun fad, but when I showed it to Wilson, he couldn't wait to print pictures of his baby. High school kids, too, could probably find ongoing use for its sticker prints. There may be a wider appeal, even if I'm not the target demo.</p>
<p>The PoGo is a fun toy for now, and with a few tweaks and improvements, it could bring practicality and excitement back to printed pictures for a guy like me. [<a href="http://www.polaroid.com/PoGo/">PoGo</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/5013248/lightning-review-polaroid-pogo-wireless-mobile-printer]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-5013248]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[bluetooth]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cellphones]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[lightning review]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pictbridge]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pogo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[printer]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:58:54 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Benny Goldman]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=5013248&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Instant Digital Picture Frame Is the Only Frame I Want]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/polaroid03.jpg" class="left image340" width="340" />The Polaroid instant digital picture frame is just that, a digital screen in the shape and size of an old Polaroid instant photo (<a href="http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century">my favorite</a>.) It may not seem as ingenious as the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/digital-jewel-box-returns-portable-cd-album-art-to-digital-music-250686.php">Digital Jewel Box</a>, but we can't resist its retro charm, and the possibility of writing messages on its dry erase surface. Not to talk about pinning them to a cork board or the way it shows the images themselves.</p>
<p><img alt="polaroid01.jpg" src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/polaroid01.jpg" width="250" height="318" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2">Once you put the flash memory card in you can select to way to show your photos. The standard one works like any other picture frame. The <i>classic</i> one, however, is the one that I would be using: using this the photos fade from white to the picture in one minute, imitating the real Polaroid instant photo process.</p>
<p>Sadly, it's just a concept, but Polaroid should get to work on this as soon as possible instead of doing <a href="http://gizmodo.com/341336/polaroid-unveils-2008-lineup-media-storage-tv-and-digital-imaging">crappy me-too picture frames</a> and other assorted digital stuff. [<a href="http://www.ironicsans.com/2008/02/idea_the_last_product_polaroid.html">Ironic Sans</a> via <a href="http://www.gizmodo.es/2008/02/27/marco_fotografico_digital_en_forma_de_polaroid_veredicto_es_el_unico_que_pondria_en_mi_casa.html">Gizmodo ES</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/361241/polaroid-instant-digital-picture-frame-is-the-only-frame-i-want]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-361241]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital photo frame]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:00:17 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesus Diaz]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=361241&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Instant Film Killed By The 21st Century]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2008/02/polaroidlovesjesus.jpg"><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/polaroidlovesjesus.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" /></a>Polaroid is closing its last remaining film plants in Mass. so the oh so fun instant Polaroids will soon become a thing of the past. Well it's already a thing of the past, but this time it's serious since no more instant film will be produced.</p>
<p>Over the last two years Polaroid has stopped production on the instant cameras and now it's the film, which will be available till around next year. It was only a matter of time till Polaroid killed off the film since it was obviously a declining / nonexistent profit. So for all those Polaroid users out there, were sorry, looks like you'll only have another year left to take random pictures at house parties. [<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020802903.html">Washington Post</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/354567/polaroid-instant-film-killed-by-the-21st-century]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-354567]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA["instant]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[closing]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[dead]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[factory]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[film']]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[rip]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:23:51 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Mascari]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=354567&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Sony #1 in LCD; Biggest Names Hold Fast, But Cheap-o Brands Taking Out Weaker Competition]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img alt="Sony_Hulk.jpg" src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/Sony_Hulk.jpg" width="150" height="113" align="left" hspace="4" vspace="2">Last quarter was an all-out TV-maker battle, and <i>you</i> my friends were the territory. DisplaySearch's results for Q4 '07 declared the victor in the US LCD category to be Sony for the very first time. Panasonic handily crushed all comers in the smaller US plasma race. Samsung, with strong <a href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/2/" class="posthashtag">#2</a> finishes in both, ended up remaining the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/1/" class="posthashtag">#1</a> overall TV brand in the country, and LG also held its own. But...</p>
<p>While these Big Four gained ground&mdash;often by keeping profit margins slim and exploring cheaper manufacturing&mdash;other well-regarded brands like Sharp, Philips and Hitachi fell back. The strongest competition in LCD came from Vizio and Polaroid, but many other brands clamored like barbarians at the gate.</p>
<p>DisplaySearch's charts with market share number are just below, but first answer this simple question:<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://polls.gawker.com/poll.js.php?key==EDOzQTM">
</script><noscript>
<p><b>Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.</b></p>
</noscript></p>

<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/DisplaySearch_1_Q407.jpg" class="center" width="600" height="309" style="display:block;float:none;" /><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/DisplaySearch_2_Q407.jpg" class="center" width="600" height="302" style="display:block;float:none;" /><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/DisplaySearch_3_Q407.jpg" class="center" width="600" height="293" style="display:block;float:none;" />[<a href="http://www.displaysearch.com/">DisplaySearch</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/353571/sony-1-in-lcd-biggest-names-hold-fast-but-cheap+o-brands-taking-out-weaker-competition]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-353571]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[tvs]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[displaysearch]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[hitachi]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[home entertainment]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[lcds]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[lg]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[panasonic]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[plasmas]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[samsung]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[sharp]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[sony]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[verizonbestmodo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[vizio]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:10:01 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wilson Rothman]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=353571&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Unveils 2008 Lineup: Media Storage, TV and Digital Imaging]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Polaroid's CES lineup is a little on the underwhelming side, but there are a few products that are worth a quick mention. These products include the Freescape Media Exchange, the Freescape mobile player, a full-HD widescreen LCD TV, a Wi-Fi digital frame and an 8.0 megapixel camera. More details after the break.<br />
<script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8">galleryPost('polaroid', 5, '');</script> </p><blockquote>&bull;Freescape Digital Media Exchange: Offers a simple solution to media storage and sharing using a digital entertainment center than unlocks recorded television, movies, and photos and channels them into a living room or home theater. It can also wirelessly transfer data to another Freescape device to another &nmdash;anywhere in the world.

<p>&bull;Freescape Mobile Player: Takes the Freescape  Digital Media Exchange experience mobile. Features a 4.3" LCD screen.</p>

<p>&bull;Full HD Widescreen LCD TV with Digital (ATSC) Tuner: Features full 1080p High Definition with 1920 x 1080 resolution, a built-in hybrid digital and analog tuner, and 18 inputs and outputs - including three HDMI.</p>

<p>&bull;Freescape 10.2" Wi-Fi Digital Photo Frame: Features a 10.2" color LCD screen, 16:9 widescreen picture, 800 x 400 resolution, 32MB internal memory, MP3 support, integrated speakers and remote control. </p>

<p>&bull; 8.0 Megapixel Camera: 3.0" TFT screen, 32MB internal storage, 20 different scene modes, 3x optical and 4x digital zoom. </blockquote> There has been no word yet on pricing or release dates.</p>

<p>[<a href="http://www.polaroid.com/select_country.jsp;jsessionid=HB7FYQDCy9313y3vS9CLnhT3f2Zw3pZYDM11hxJv1GqH7zRk2jzh!-1867483319?bmUID=1199668165031">Polaroid</a>]</p>]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/341336/polaroid-unveils-2008-lineup-media-storage-tv-and-digital-imaging]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-341336]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[camera]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[ces 2008]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital frames]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[freescape]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[hd tv]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:00:54 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Fallon]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=341336&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Cellphone Printer Uses Zink Tech]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2007/12/zinkprinter_10dgre_blkpic1finfin(1).jpeg"><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/zinkprinter_10dgre_blkpic1finfin%281%29.jpeg" class="left image500" width="500" /></a>Zink's zero-ink technology was developed in Polaroid labs, so its nice seeing the tech making it back to its home marquee. More on Zink's cellphone printer and camera with the printer built in, <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/zink">here</a>.</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/337520/polaroid-cellphone-printer-uses-zink-tech]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-337520]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[printer]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[peripherals]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:41:01 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian Lam]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=337520&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA["Innovative" New Polaroid t703 Camera Not Innovative But Definitely Cheap]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/07/Polaroid.jpg" class="left image340" width="340" />Polaroid, once the fun company that marched to its own weird drum beat, is now officially in lockstep behind every other electronics maker. The "innovative" new <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #polaroidt730" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/polaroidt730/">Polaroid t730</a> digicam boasts the following:</p>
<p>&bull; Bright 2.5" color LCD screen lets you "see it before you shoot"<br>
&bull; It can tag audio to any picture<br>
&bull; It can take AVI video clips<br>
&bull; 3x optical/4x digital zoom lets you "get close to your subject"<br>
&bull; Other features include panoramic mode, 20 different scene modes, slide show options, a host of automatic settings (focus, exposure, etc.), and 32MB of built-in storage<br>
In other words, it can do what basically every other 7-megapixel 3x optical-zoom compact camera on the market can do. Except sell at Target for $180. Okay, so maybe it's the price that's innovative.</p>

<blockquote>POLAROID LAUNCHES HOLIDAY SEASON WITH NEW 7.0 MEGAPIXEL DIGITAL CAMERA Immediately Available in Metallic Red
<p>June 29, 2007, New York, NY - Polaroid, an innovative leader in family-centric consumer electronics, has launched its latest digital camera just in time for the holidays. The sleek, ultra-thin 7 megapixel is eye-catching in its vibrant, glossy red case. An ideal stocking stuffer, the fun, feature-packed t730 is available at Target stores for $179.99.</p>
<p>With point-and-shoot ease, Polaroid's t730 digital camera captures your favorite holiday moments in sharp detail for fantastic printed photos or for sending to family and friends via email. A bright 2.5" color LCD screen lets you "see it before you shoot", then view all your captured images. Plus, the feature-packed camera lets you tag audio to any picture, takes AVI video clips, and has a 3x optical/4x digital zoom that lets you get close to your subject. Other features include a panoramic mode, 20 different scene modes, slide show options, a host of automatic settings (focus, exposure, etc.), and a 32 MB built-in storage which is compatible with 1G SD expandable memory. Start your holiday off with Polaroid's t730 and a smile that will last a lifetime!</p>
<p>About Polaroid<br>
Polaroid Corporation, a company of Petters Group Worldwide, designs, develops, manufactures and markets a variety of consumer electronics products including LCD TVs, portable DVD players, <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #digitalcameras" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/digitalcameras/">digital cameras</a>, GPS, instant cameras and film, and more, all of which are marketed worldwide. Polaroid offers retailers a merchandising solution through a full line of products backed with one of the most recognized brand names in the world. For more information, visit www.polaroid.com.</p>
<p>"Polaroid" and "Polaroid and Pixel" are trademarks of Polaroid Corporation.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/276734/innovative-new-polaroid-t703-camera-not-innovative-but-definitely-cheap]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-276734]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[dealzmodo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid t730]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:35:33 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wilson Rothman]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=276734&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Technology Review Nominates its Objects of Desire: Gizmodo says 'Phwoar!']]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/05/0507POLAROID_x600.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" /></p>
<p><a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #technologyreview" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/technologyreview/">Technology Review</a> has rounded up a bunch of objects that it feels are design classics from the past 30 or so years and got a bunch of industrial designers to talk about them. And you've gotta admit they're right&mdash;on some of the candidates, at least. First up is the Polaroid SX-70, which dates back to 1972.</p>
<p>Polaroid's first fully automatic, motorized camera was an instant design classic. Detailed with tan leather, it folded into a rectangle the size of a paperback book. Andrew Logan, principal designer at Frog Design, admires it for the "immediacy of a favorable output." He explains: "Instead of waiting days to see if you took a good photo, you could take it again right away."</p>
<p>There's a gallery below, and after the jump you can vote for your favorite piece of shiny loveliness.</p>
<p><script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8">
galleryPost('beautifulthings', 9, 'beautifulthings');
</script><br></p>

<p><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://polls.gawker.com/poll.js.php?key==MDM1MTM">
</script><noscript>
<p><b>Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled Web browser.</b></p>
</noscript></p>
<p>Mine has got to be the Sony Walkman, because I was always in my room making mixtapes as a kid. <span class="byline">&ndash; Ad Dugdale</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18620/page1/">Objects of desire</a> [Technology Review]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/259258/technology-review-nominates-its-objects-of-desire-gizmodo-says-phwoar]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-259258]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[amazon]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[atari]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[beauty]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[hp]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[icons]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mac]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mit]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[motorola]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[netscape]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[next]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[palm]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[sony]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[technology review]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[v]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 10 May 2007 09:16:11 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Addy Dugdale]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=259258&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid ClickFree Lets Moms Back Up Photos]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/04/clickfree.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" /><a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/polaroid">Polaroid</a>'s ClickFree backup drive is supposed to let regular people back up the data on their hard drives just by plugging it into the USB port and hitting go. They plan on releasing two versions, one standard (which backs up all data on your drive) and one photo oriented (which searches and only grabs the photos).</p>
<p>The folks at TechieDiva don't like the latter idea because the software will probably grab <i>all photos</i> including Windows photos, icons, and stuff in your internet cache. Which actually may be a pretty cool idea to take this into a buddy's machine and leech out all the porn he painstakingly downloaded and organized. Who knew Travis liked furries? <span class="byline">&ndash; Jason Chen</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.goclickfree.com/">Product Page</a> [Clickfree via <a href="http://www.techiediva.com/weblog/2007/04/polaroid_clickf.html">TechieDiva</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/250073/polaroid-clickfree-lets-moms-back-up-photos]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-250073]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[peripherals]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[backup]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[clickfree]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[hard drive]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:30:52 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Chen]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=250073&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Zink Pocket Printer: iPhone Companion?]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2007/01/thumb160x_ziik.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" />Polaroid is not dead yet. Apparently it was only sleeping, but now its research labs have smelled the coffee and spun off Zink, a company whose first product will be a stand-alone printer that's about the size of a deck of cards. This one-button printer is designed to easily connect to a camera phone, and will cost less than a hundred bucks.</p>
<p>Looks like a perfect companion to the iPhone, and might just work pretty well with <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/seagate-dave-tiny-hard-drive-packs-20gb-bluetooth-and-wifi-232445.php">D.A.V.E.</a>, that Seagate pocket drive with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi we mentioned earlier.</p>
<p><a href="http://scobleizer.com/2007/01/30/iphone-gadget-suite/">iPhone Gadget Suite?</a> [Scobleizer]<br></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/232549/zink-pocket-printer-iphone-companion]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-232549]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cellphones]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[iphone accessories]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pocket printer]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pogo]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[printer]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[zink]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:38:10 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charlie White]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=232549&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The Worst Digital Cameras]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/10/canon-powershot-a70-75x75.gif" class="left image340" width="340" />Any Tom, Dick and Jane can write up a list of some of the best <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #digitalcameras" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/digitalcameras/">digital cameras</a> out there, but it takes a real cynical critic to roundup the worst digital cameras. Kodak, Canon, Polaroid and Pentax all make up the list. Jump to find out which cameras you should avoid come holiday gift time.</p>

<p>&bull; <b>Canon A70</b><br>
This camera may look nice, be fairly cheap and even received pretty solid reviews from CNET and the like, but there are hidden factors lurking making this one lame camera. Users at Digital Camera HQ began experiencing a lot of hardware flaws throughout the life of this camera including purple lines across the LCD, blurred photos, unusual colors and an E18 Error.</p>
<p>&bull; <b>Seal Life SC500</b><br>
<i>Time Magazime</i> said this camera was one of the best inventions from 2005. Essentially it is just a digital camera in some plastic water-protecting housing. Users complained on the flash working only 20 percent of the time and the camera frequently locking up.</p>
<p>&bull; <b>Kodak EasyShare One</b><br>
The EasyShare One burst onto the scene looking hot and ended up flopping. It was a four megapixel camera with some nice features like Wi-Fi, but a clunky interface and plaguing hardware problems has made the EasyShare One one of Kodak's bigger point-and-shoot flops.</p>
<p>&bull; <b>Polaroid PDC-5080</b><br>
A manly 5.1 megapixels for $90. Sound too good to be true? Well, it is. It is just a bad camera overall. Not much else to say, it sucks. Stick with the old school Polaroids&mdash;they are more dependable, as long as you can shake it.</p>
<p>&bull; <b>Pentax Optio E10</b><br>
Ease and affordability were the selling points of this camera. A promising 6.1 megapixels gave this camera high hopes. Digital Camera HQ reviews seemed to saw the 6.1 megapixels looked more like 2 megapixels. One user says that Optio is really an acronym for "Oh, please turn it off!"</p>
<p>Follow the linkage below to get some more takes on horrible digital cameras. <span class="byline">&ndash; Travis Hudson</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/digital-cameras/worst-digital-cameras-ever_guide.html">The Worst Digital Cameras Ever</a> [Digital Camera HQ]<br></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/210034/the-worst-digital-cameras]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-210034]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[kotak]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pentax]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[worst]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:37:00 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis Hudson]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=210034&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid Portable DVD Player, No Shaking Required]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/08/image_060731.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" />Polaroid&mdash;yes, that Polaroid&mdash;has announced their latest portable DVD player, the PDJ-0793. Most of the time I don't get a flying hoot about these portable players because a laptop can do the same job and is a bit more functional, but this one looks a little better than the average bear and has a reasonable price. The PDJ-0793 has a 7-inch screen mounted on a swivel base. It displays at a 16:9 aspect ratio and the battery life is average at about three hours. It also includes a headrest mount for the kiddos in the minivan. But the best feature of all, it doesn't require shaking to get the image to fade in&mdash;good job stepping it up in the technology world, Polaroid. Available for $175 or so. <span class="byline">&ndash; Travis Hudson</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.polaroid.co.jp/aboutpola/press/060731.html">Product Page</a> [Via <a href="http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/polaroid_pdj-0753_player.html">MobileTracker</a>]<br></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/191926/polaroid-portable-dvd-player-no-shaking-required]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-191926]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[portable media]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[dvd players]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pdj-0793]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:02:46 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis Hudson]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=191926&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid i1032 10 Megapixel Camera]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2006/05/Polaroid-i1032.jpg"><img src="http://gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/Polaroid-i1032.jpg" class="left image500" width="500" /></a>A point and shoot that gives you 10 megapixels and doesn't cost over $300? That's what Polaroid's serving for brunch with the i1032. Keep this 3x optical zoom camera in your purse for convenient high quality photo shooting, provided you can keep yourself balanced on your Yamaha while fending off ninjas with your other arm.</p>
<p>Other features, 640x480 movie shooting, 32 MB flash memory built in with SD card expandability, and AA batteries instead of a proprietary rechargeable.</p>
<p>For $300, Polaroid most likely skimped out on the extras, but novice photographers probably wouldn't notice. <span class="byline">&ndash; Jason Chen</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.dcviews.com/press/Polaroid-i1032.htm">Polaroid launches the 10 Megapixel i1032</a> [DC Views via <a href="http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/polaroid_i1032_digital_camera_-_massive_10_megapixel_camera.html">Mobile Whack</a> via <a href="http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/336/C8070/">Mobile Mag</a> via <a href="http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2006/05/polaroid_i1032_offers_10megapixel_goodness.html">Uber Gizmo</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/177206/polaroid-i1032-10-megapixel-camera]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-177206]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[i1032]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 30 May 2006 21:20:37 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Chen]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=177206&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid MGX-0550 GPS Navigation And DVD Player]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/polaroidgps.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" />This thing's probably not legal in the UK, or many states in the US, like California, but Polaroid has combined a GPS Nav system with a <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #dvdplayer" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/dvdplayer/">DVD Player</a>.</p>
<p>The navigation itself isn't anything out of the ordinary. It uses the Sirf Star III GPS Processor and has a touchscreen interface. But, the 5.6" screen allows you to watch <i>The Fast and The Furious</i> while you're barreling down the 101 at 5 miles an hour.</p>
<p>Also, the system has a built-in FM transmitter, so that means you can listen to the audio from your movie through your car's speakers. However, you can't listen to music and this at the same time, unlike in-dash navigation systems.</p>
<p>Available at Target.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.polaroid.com/global/detail.jsp;jsessionid=E0JfHZVtW0or591PUTLYBmwMLpCTCvJD9t1KKMyIHk2J16dkUOgb%21805229236%21-1979950377%217005%218005%21-769962199%21-1979950386%217005%218005?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441764404&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302032644&bmUID=114">MGX-0550: Portable GPS with DVD Player</a> [Polaroid via <a href="http://www.dlmag.com/1695/polaroid-takes-a-shot-at-the.html">Digital Lifestyle Magazine</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/176129/polaroid-mgx+0550-gps-navigation-and-dvd-player]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-176129]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[dvd player]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[gps]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[mgx-0550]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[navigation]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 24 May 2006 19:35:33 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Chen]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=176129&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Adesso Polaroid Guest Book Kit]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/images/adessopolaroidguestbook.jpg" class="left image340" width="340" /></p>
<p>We hate how expensive Polaroid film is but we're suckers for their look and feel. If we ever get hitched we might just splurge out on Adesso Album's Polaroid Guest Book Kit: $139.95 for a fabric-covered book that holds 30 photos in archival paper and still closes flat, a Polaroid ONE 600 Ultra Camera and two packs of Polaroid 600 film (40 exposures). Additional albums are $59.95 each or you can get custom leather-bound ones starting from $350, depending on how many pages you want in them.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.adessoalbums.com/begin-polaroids-p-30.html">Polaroid Instant Photo Guest Book - Begin Now Kit</a> [Adesso Albums, via <a href="http://swissmiss.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/instant_photo_g.html">swissmiss</a>]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/166860/adesso-polaroid-guest-book-kit]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-166860]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photo albums]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[photos]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:44:02 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[gizmodo.com]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=166860&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Low End Theory]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/PolaroidOneStep.jpg" class="right image158" width="158" /><br></p>
<h3>Polaroid: Still Raging Against the Dying of the Light</h3>
<br>
<i>By Brendan I. Koerner</i>
<p>Bidding <i>adios</i> to longtime attachments is always difficult, even when cutting the cord is obviously the smart, rational choice. Whether it be a girlfriend whose poor dental hygiene can be tolerated no longer, or a pet hamster who hasn't moved in days and is starting to attract flies, ending a relationship always includes at least a small dollop of pain for the entity doing the ending. But time marches forward, and tough choices must be made. Reality is a harsh mistress.</p>
<p>If only the honchos at Polaroid could come to grips with that truism. Four years after the company went bankrupt, their still churning out instant cameras en masse, pitching them as budget solutions to the world's photography needs. This, of course, is a common tactic for companies trying to squeeze every last dollar out of a sunsetting technology&mdash;go low-end with your pricing scheme, and you can still attract a consumer segment that otherwise wouldn't mess with you. Except in Polaroid's case, it's simply too late; the future of instant photography is all about ironic university students and artists cursed/blessed with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaesthesia">synaesthesia</a>, rather than mainstream (albeit cash deprived) consumers. After the jump, some hopefully coherent thoughts on Polaroid's sad inability to accept its fate. <i>PLUS: Looking for nominees for the worst factory-installed mobile games!</i></p>

<p>Now, I'll give Polaroid some modicum of credit for recognizing early on that it had to shift the instant-camera marketing strategy&mdash;even before there was a digicam in every handbag and pants pocket. I remember back in 1997 when Polaroid slashed prices on its entry-level instants and launched an ad campaign touting them as great party gifts. Heck, I'll confess to actually buying a few in the twilight of the Clinton Era; before there was <a href="http://www.thecobrasnake.com/">The Cobrasnake</a>, there were a bunch of us running around drunkenly with OneSteps trying to get cleavage shots.</p>
<p>The problem, of course, is Polaroid's long-standing reliance on what I'll call the razor approach to revenue creation: sell the hardware at a loss, but sell the "software" (i.e. the technology that actually makes the hardware more than a doorstop) at a premium. It's a tried-and-true method of conning consumers, one that maybe started with the Schicks and Gillettes of the world, but now can be found in every single supermarket aisle. Case in point: all those Proctor & Gamble cleaning products that look and act like mops, except you've got to replace the $2 pad every 10 minutes. Evil genius.</p>
<p>Polaroid probably thought they could rock this strategy for a long, long while. Except they got blindsided by the quicker-than-expected low-ending of digicams. I've discussed this <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/low-end-theory-digicams-now-cheaper-than-zantac-119125.php">before</a>, but was reminded of the phenomenon on a visit last weekend to Brooklyn's <a href="http://www.fultonstreet.org/">Fulton Street Mall</a>. The place is low-end electronics heaven, in addition to being home to New York's <a href="http://www.beatstreet.com/">best record store</a>. Checking out the windows as I slurped some coffee, I noticed an Olympus D540 on sale for a mere $39. No, it's not a camera with specs to die for, but it does have a 3X optical zoom&mdash;more than I can say for the $120 Sony CyberShot I bought three or four years ago. It's certainly a good deal better than any craptacular Sakar you can buy at CVS or Duane Reade.<img alt="OlympusD540.jpg" src="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/OlympusD540.jpg" width="250" height="161" class="left"></p>
<p>Right below the D540 was a Polaroid OneStep. The price? $19.99. Now, that's low end, to be sure, but once you factor in the film costs (upwards of $25), it's still a total rip. There's just no way Polaroid can slash its hardware prices enough to make the technology a good deal&mdash;not unless it can also find a miracle way to manufacture the film for way, way cheaper.</p>
<p>Polaroid, though, doesn't seem to get this. In an October 2005 interview with <i>The New York Times</i> (full disclosure: an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12goods.html">employer</a> of mine), company chairman Stewart L. Cohen just wouldn't 'fess up that instant is doomed to nicheness. He hedged a little, but basically said that he expects growth in the Third World "where not everyone has a digital camera," as well as in the security ID biz. Okay, maybe I can buy the former argument a little, at least in the short term. But security IDs? Even the New York Public Library is using digicams for cards now, and they're no spendthrifts.</p>
<p>If Polaroid is really, really wedded to keeping its instant film business alive, it better forget about continually slashing prices on the hardware, and focus on the film. Either that, or just send a free OneStep to every household in America, and hope that induces folks to spend $25 per film pack. Hey, that's how I got hooked on the Mach 3 Turbo razor.</p>
<p>FACTORY GAMES: I was drinking Knob Creek with some <a href="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/frog/index.php">frog design</a> folks the other night, and the conversation eventually turned to all the useless features that gunk up affordable mobile handsets. I mean, when's the last time you used the Calendar feature on the $49 Samsung that Verizon gave you?</p>
<p>But you know what's really useless? Those games, man. Now, granted, I've played my fair share Push Push on my cheapo cell. But given all the hundreds of man hours that probably went into coding and QA testing those games, couldn't they have smoothed out the UI in some more meaningful ways?</p>
<p>This carping is all a roundabout way to get some reader input, of course. My phone's got Push Push, Fly Ribbon, and Spider Hunter&mdash;all monochromatic. Can anyone beat those in terms of sheer pointlessness? <a href="mailto:brendan@gizmodo.com">Drop me a line</a>, brothers and sisters.</p>
<p><a href="mailto:brendan@gizmodo.com">Brendan I. Koerner</a> is a contributing editor at <i><a href="http://www.wired.com/wired">Wired</a></i> and a columnist for both <i><a href="http://www.nytimes.com">The New York Times</a></i> and <i><a href="http://www.slate.com">Slate</a></i>. His <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #lowendtheory" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/lowendtheory/">Low End Theory</a> column appears every Thursday on Gizmodo.</p>
<p><a href="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/low-end-theory/index.php">Read more Low End Theory</a></p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/155259/low-end-theory]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-155259]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[columns]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[low end theory]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[olympus]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[samsung]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:30:35 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brendan I. Koerner]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=155259&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid's 80GB PMP]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/Polaroid_80GB_PMP.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" /></p>
<p>Polaroid is going to hit the PMP market big it seems. The company's new <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #portablemedia" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/portablemedia/">Portable Media</a> Player with 80GB of storage was shown at CES and it looks promising. Aside from the huge amount of storage that's included, it features a widescreen display for crisp movie viewing. The interface seems to work fine, and even though the size of the player itself is somewhat big, it works well with such a nice screen. Kind of like the PSP was first received. It's got a late August of 2006 release date, but word is that the price will be around $600. Pretty expensive when you think of the other alternatives and such out there, but it could still be a winner if the price dropped down to $500. Keep an eye out for it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/polaroid_80gb_pmp.html">Polaroid 80GB PMP</a> [Mobile Whack]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/147955/polaroids-80gb-pmp]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-147955]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[portable media]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[ces]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[pmp]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:30:56 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[gizmodo.com]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=147955&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Printer Phone Coming Soon??]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/polaroid.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" />This is the HS-RSS, a concept for cellphone photo printing. Add one of those <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphonestelephoto-lens-for-your-phone-141114.php">telephoto lenses</a> and you're a 2-megapixel Ansel Adams. Seriously, though, let's say we start getting cellphones that take pictures worth looking at (image stabilization would help). Would you print photos from a cameraphone?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20051206-too_cool_for_your_phone.php">Too cool for your phone</a> [Gadget Madness]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/141209/printer-phone-coming-soon]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-141209]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[cellphones]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[cameraphones]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[hs-rss]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[printing]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:07:20 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[tgrumet]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=141209&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Kids Poloroid Booth-Bring on the Fun]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/myphotobooth.jpg" class="left image158" width="158" /></p>
<p>If you miss stuffing yourself into one of those curtained booths to take photos that always came out looking awful, you'll really appreciate the <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #myphotobooth" href="http://gizmodo.com/tag/myphotobooth/">My Photo Booth</a> Polaroid camera ($35). Of course, it's really made for kids, but you don't have to tell anyone if you really dig it. It's got a little mirror and comes with a timer and flash for the same type of booth photos you know and love. Of course, the pics you get are on the tiny iZone film, and will only be one-inch by one-inch, but they can be made into stickers, so it's all worth it. Comes with a roll of film, though it looks like it only uses the older iZone film, not the newer iZone 200, making it harder to find. However, check Amazon.com or go straight to Polaroid for refills.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.popgadget.net/2005/11/mini_polaroid_p.php">Mini polaroid photo booth</a> [Popgadget]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/134740/kids-poloroid-booth+bring-on-the-fun]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-134740]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[my photo booth]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:43:08 EST]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[tgrumet]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=134740&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
				
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Polaroid iZone 300]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[
<p><img src="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/izone300_image.gif" class="left image158" width="158" />Polaroid seems to have carved out a niche for themselves in the teenage female market, especially with their fun iZone line. They've stepped it up to the digital age with the iZone 300, which is marketed to young women in general. The white design is reminiscent of the iPod, and while it's only 3.2 megapixels, it'll supposedly sell for cheap. The iZone 300 also sports a 3x digital zoom, a 1.5 inch LCD display, 8MB internal memory, and an SD card slot so ladies can take more photos of slumber parties or night club bouts or whatever it is young girls do these days. Although with a camera that looks this sweet, guys would probably want to get their hands on it too.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.polaroid-digital.com/site.php?cid=14&lid=1&pid=23&serid=2">Polaroid iZone 300</a> [Polaroid via <a href="http://www.t3.co.uk/news/imaging/digital_camera/polaroid_eyes_ups_the_ladies_with_izone">T3</a> ]</p>
]]></description>
			<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/113441/polaroid-izone-300]]></link>			<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[Gizmodo-113441]]></guid>
			<category><![CDATA[digital cameras]]></category>
			<category><![CDATA[polaroid]]></category>
			<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:52:14 EDT]]></pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[gizmogo]]></dc:creator>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&amp;postId=113441&amp;view=rss&amp;microfeed=true</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		</channel>
</rss>
