eStarling 2.0 WiFi digiframe gets larger, maintains price

Quite a few digiframes have come and gone since eStarling's original iteration hit the market early last year, but the company is coming back swinging with a swankier, larger, and soundly priced 2.0 edition. The eStarling 2.0 WiFi digital photo frame now dons a sleek, piano black casing, a seven-inch widescreen display, 480 x 234 resolution, support for 802.11b/g, WEP, and WPA, a four-in-one multicard reader that handles MMC, MS, CF, and SD, and the obligatory Web 2.0 features that make this thing attractive. As with version one, you can still view photos from a Flickr RSS feed, and you can even email pictures in from your mobile or alternate location to give your household pets a glance at where the master's currently hanging. Notably, you will need a Windows-based computer to get things up and running, and while we've certainly seen frames with more detailed displays and classier motifs, the web-enabled WPF-187 still only costs $249.99.

[Via TRFJ]

[nomadicalloy @ May 11th 2007 5:09PM]

first comment.... this looks nice

[S. Brown @ May 11th 2007 5:11PM]

I've never seen the point in these things. I can never see myself owning a digital photo frame.

[engadget.com @ May 11th 2007 5:15PM]

I am not really impressed, a few months ago I would have been,or $100 cheaper..

The I-Mate momento comes in 7" ($199) and 10" ($299) via amazon.

For $50 more, the 10" momento is a much better option.

Basic specs
* Enhanced for Windows Vista™, Windows® XP compatible
* 10.2" High resolution TFT 800x480 display
* Wireless 802.11 b/g
* SD/MMC/xD/SmartMedia/Memory Stick®, USB support
* WMA, MP3, Audio Out
* Built in storage for favorite pictures
* Built in clock & calendar display mode
* Landscape or portrait
* Customizable slideshow
* RF Remote included
* Support for Windows® SideShow
* MomentoLive capable

[aeo @ May 11th 2007 5:27PM]

It seems to me that a short, wide (or tall, skinny depending on the orientation) is a pretty bad idea. Analog picture frames have been shaped in the 4:3ish format for centuries for a reason, generally, so that you can see people. The wide format is more for the purpose of watching movies or looking at landscapes so its use as a picture frame for, presumably, people, is ineffective because it will chop the tops of their head's off. We have wide-format monitors and TVs for watching 16:9 movies... we don't have any use for an ineffective, expensive frame that hangs on the wall simply because 16:9 is the in-thing these days.

[Jon @ May 11th 2007 5:30PM]

Hm.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/estarling-handson-update-buyer-beware-223990.php

[david @ May 11th 2007 6:32PM]

I'd give it to that white chick.

[sygyzy @ May 11th 2007 6:53PM]

What's with the resolution?

[Hannes @ May 11th 2007 8:11PM]

The resolution is 480 x 234, as written in the text. That's a lower-end resolution, for a frame that is designed for high-end consumers. Sometimes I do not understant these digital photo frame manufacturers. Some try to make a high-end product and then take a cheap frame or the cheapest remote, and others try to make a low-end model and then put many extras on it.

http://www.digital-photo-frame-market.info

[sygyzy @ May 12th 2007 5:48PM]

Hannes - I understand what the resolution is. I can read. I was asking "what's up" with it as in it's so ridiculously poor.

[spam_from_engadget @ May 11th 2007 6:59PM]

All these frames are ridiculously small.

I have made myself one with a 1440x900, 410x260mm panel (I suppose that's about 19 inches diagonally), and I wish that I had made it larger.

My challenge for this weekend is to find a way to hang it on the wall so that I can rotate it. Something involving pulleys I think. Any suggestions?

[Michael @ May 11th 2007 7:15PM]

I bought the original one for my parents for Christmas last year. The resolution was SO BAD! I was apalled. That, and the wi-fi only worked within 15 feet of a base station. Needless to say, I promptly returned it.

What did they add with 2.0? Another crappy-res screen. Cell phones take higher res photos than that. This is just abysmal, even at that price.

[Sam Costello @ May 12th 2007 12:02PM]

According to eStarling, the v. 2.0 frame is also Mac compatible, contrary to your post.

Also, if folks are interested in eStarling's take on the problems with v. 1.0 and trying to fix them in this version, I did an interview with their exec. VP a few days ago: http://www.wirelesspictureframe.com/2007/05/08/interview-with-andrew-caffey-executive-vice-president-pf-digital/

[Hannes @ May 12th 2007 9:51PM]

Sorry. I got that wrong, didn't read the "with". You are right. The resolution is really poor. I don't understand that, because the other features are more for a high-end model, why do they use such a low-quality screen? As it is a 7-inch frame, it is also probably an analogue panel. The price for that panel is about 20$.

http://www.digital-photo-frame-market.info

[TrackZero @ May 14th 2007 1:41PM]

Sure hope this one doesn't suck out loud like v1.0. I'd ordered the first one as a gift for my parents...finally gave up on it a couple weeks ago, had it returned. Bad programming, crap hardware, major quality control problems...

Think I'll wait before trying another version.