Pandigital's PanTouch WiFi / Bluetooth photo frames -- 'cause buttons are scary

A digital photo frame should do one thing well: display photos. If it can't do that for a reasonable pixel-per-penny then we've lost all interest. Along swaggers Pandigital touting touch sensitive displays as the prime selling point of its new PanTouch WiFi and Bluetooth frames. Why touch? Because pushing buttons has suddenly become too cumbersome. Smudging? No problem, Pandigital claims that its displays are resistant to prints. The concern they don't address is the fact that touch-sensitive displays at low price points are typically not as bright and crisp as standard LCDs of the same dimensions -- especially with a smudge-free coating. But we'll reserve final judgment for the next review smackdown. Available next month in 7- (482 x 234), 8- (800 x 600), and 10-inch (1024 x 768) models priced at $120, $170, and $250, respectively.

[Via Engadget Spanish]

[Shinigami @ Apr 2nd 2008 7:58AM]

Thanks, Thomas Ricker, for writing proper prices ($250, not $249.99)!

[NxP3 @ Apr 2nd 2008 8:11AM]

Well it makes pretty good sense to me if it's a digital frame with album function. You can scroll pictures without buttons sticking out. It wouldn't look too much a picture frame with buttons on it. Then again I don't see the need for these, you still have to plug it in.

[Anthony @ Apr 2nd 2008 12:16PM]

I agree- why aren't people making these battery operated? I have a phone that connects to wifi & I turn it on when I need it (all the time, of course). Why keep these things tethered w/ cords? Real photo frames don't need that.

Wait till color e-ink changes this world (or some variant of it): Picture of choice always on, no power use. Then flip to the next or another when you want change. I imagine everything in the home could be like this. We have tons of shots & posters we just can't put up- not enough wall space.

[Scott Culp @ Apr 2nd 2008 8:20AM]

Why can't they integrate touch into the frame if buttons are so bad? All I can imagine is a nice glossy screen covered with fingerprints.

[Scott Culp @ Apr 2nd 2008 8:22AM]

actually, looking at the picture again, the interface seems to be indicating touch on the white outer bezel. Maybe someone finally got it right?

[MattyG @ Apr 2nd 2008 10:02AM]

i'd like to think so, looks like a good use for the image background aka the part of the device which isn't the frame or the image itself

[Button Button @ Apr 2nd 2008 8:56AM]

Isn't a photo frame supposed to ... you know ... just quietly sit there and ... you know ... show photos unattended?

I mean, if i wanted to push buttons I'd .. you know ... use a PC?

Somehow a touchscreen that doesn't get touched a LOT seems like ... you know ... kinda out of touch with reality.

[Pooper @ Apr 2nd 2008 11:34AM]

they look a little more elegant on a shelf or wall than your average PC, and consume a lot less energy.
In reality, I have found the slideshow effect so distracting that I end up playing with the frame for a while and switching it off.
Photo frames are a bit like daytime TV: too eye-catching to simply glance at, but not entertaining enough to sit and watch for very long.

[Dan Davis @ Apr 2nd 2008 9:20AM]

What's really scary is infecting your computer with a virus from one of these things!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/15/insignia-photo-frame-virus-much-nastier-than-originally-thought/

[y3k.nik @ Apr 2nd 2008 9:29AM]

why would anyone want to touch a frame more than once, after you have set it to do what you want it to do?

wouldn't it be a better option to just have a utility on a comp to set the frame up once, and then let it do what it does (show pictures).

If one needs to change how pictures are displayed etc, just hook it up via usb for 2 minutes, and you are all set again.

[Josh L @ Apr 2nd 2008 10:11AM]

I think Steve Jobs has nightmares about buttons.

[Christian @ Apr 2nd 2008 10:19AM]

A touch screen would actually make these things worth what they charge now for a regular digital picture frame. You can buy a 17" LCD monitor for the price of a 7" digital picture frame. I dont' see why they are so expensive.

[jared @ Apr 2nd 2008 11:02AM]

The Kodak one posted last week looks sexier.

[Mark @ Apr 2nd 2008 11:29AM]

I would like to get one to see if I could use it as a touch screen interface for my PC. $250 is a great price for a 10 inch touch screen.

[Paul Moon @ Apr 2nd 2008 1:05PM]

The killer thing about these is that they have Wi-Fi capability. Hopefully that means that they don't require a computer, but rather just a live Internet connection via a wireless access point/router. Ceiva has been waiting to get its ass kicked for years now, with their monopoly (and extraordinary rip-off) on serving photos to frames automatically.

[sunEagle @ Apr 8th 2008 2:14PM]

Everything will be touchscreen in the near future.