Re: Low-level protocols for the QuickCam (fwd)
Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > From: Vishal Nanda <email@example.com>
> > > Subject: Low-level protocols for the QuickCam
> > >
> > > Dear Developer,
> > > We have received your request regarding low-level protocols for the
> > > QuickCam. While we value your interest in developing new applications for
> > > QuickCam, Connectix is unable to release the low-level protocols for the
> > > following reasons:
> And I assure you that whatever support you choose to give us, even
> though it be unofficial, incomplete, and contradictory, will be
> greatly appreciated. If, for example, a FAX, containing various
> technical information about the QuickCam/PC, were to appear on my FAX
> machine, I would neither question nor pester the source.
> -russ <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
I agree. They are losing TENS of THOUSANDS of potential customers.
What they don't realize is that making open protocols allows thousands
of developers to work on quality software for free. They are also
loosing teh unix side of users. I know that if there was a
binary for linux that will simply take a snapshot from the cam, I would
die to pay for it. Just imagine every linux box with a cam on it. :)
I guess right now they don't need this segment of the market yet, those
cams are selling like hotcakes...
What I would be willing to do is solicit a list of linux users who
agrees that "if there exists software for the connectix quickcam, I will
buy it ASAP" I can simply petition for a list of email addresses.
What do you think Vishal?
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332