A lot of bad takes in this thread. Just because this item doesn't fit a use case for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't for anyone.
For those of us that care about getting our photos out of our phones and out into the real world, there are two ways to do that: print them, or display them digitally. I do both.
There are a few different ways to display them digitally: as a screensaver on your mac / apple tv, with an iPad, with a TV like the Samsung Frame, or with a digital photo frame. All are worthy of consideration. We wanted a way to display photos on a digital frame in the kitchen - the best way to do this, by far, is with an Aura frame. Maybe not with this bigger one, but with one of their smaller ones. An iPad could also work (I tried it) but was compromised.
FWIW, prior to getting my Aura frame, I had an old Mac Mini hooked up to an (even older) 20" Cinema Display who's sole purpose was to run a slideshow of a chosen apple shared album that my wife and I both contributed to. I loved it generally (mostly for the large screen size), but you couldn't deny that it felt like you were just looking at an old monitor, even if that monitor was one of the most beautiful monitors ever made
I’m not particularly opposed to the idea of a print quality digital photo frame, though the cost of this seems to be quite high.
In terms of “feeling like you’re looking at an old monitor”, I’d have to think that a photo frame like this evokes similar sensations. Picture frames don’t typically emit light, while displays do. The better way of doing something like this would be to use some sort of reflective display technology like e-ink. But 15” color e-ink panels don’t exist yet, if I’m not mistaken, and color e-ink isn’t photo quality yet (color pixel density is usually less than 100dpi, and they’re limited to 4096 colors). They’re great for colored notes, comic books, and app icons but are awful for photos (trust me on that one).
In terms of “getting away from using interactive screens”, this frame would be a plus. But I can put frames with photo prints anywhere that they’ll fit, I don’t have to charge them or worry about outlet location. So I’d have to really be wed to the idea of wanting to see quite a few photos but not wanting to see them on a smartphone, tablet, or smart television for this to make sense.
As an aside, neither the article nor the product page mention display technology. Is it LCD or LED? For pictures, the washed out blacks of LCD would be pretty distracting. It’s described as “Walden Ink”, but I know e-ink isn’t capable of this level of photo recreation yet. It also mentions video, which is another thing e-ink doesn’t do particularly well (you CAN do it, but it’ll be so ghosty as to be distracting). And the only source of the term “Walden Ink” for a display seems to be for this product, yet they don’t explain it (a mistake if this is indeed a novel display technology). Edit: The photos seem to suggest that the frames are emitting light, I strongly suggest they’re LED. Still, I shouldn’t have to guess about something like this.
Make or break for a product like this, as a gift, would be the ease of setup. Would a complete tech Luddite like my grandmother be able to use this frame? She doesn’t have internet at home, nor does she have a smartphone, as far as I know. We gave her a sub-5” Polaroid branded tablet at one point for simple picture taking (back when Polaroid film was getting harder and harder to come by), and she just couldn’t grok it at all, as either a photo viewer or camera. I also suspect that she just flat out didn’t understand concepts we take for granted, like recharging devices. I doubt she’d really understand how to use this, so someone would almost certainly have to play tech support for her. So, you’re left with giving it to someone who can manage to add their own photos (and has home internet), yet wants to have photo displays that aren’t interactive. You have to know that it’s a gift the person would be into, otherwise it’ll probably just get returned or regifted or left to gather dust somewhere.
Last edited:
