Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Product & Design · Product decision · 2012–2014

Samsung put Android in a camera — and the camera couldn't use Android's apps

Samsung's Galaxy Camera ran Android so it could share photos, but the $500 point-and-shoot was discontinued in 2014 after two years of niche sales.

Samsung · 2012-11-08

What happened

In November 2012 Samsung released the Galaxy Camera, a point-and-shoot that ran Android 4.1 — a camera with a phone's operating system, sold at about $500 as a 'connected camera'.

The idea was that Android would let the camera edit and share wirelessly. But the two halves undercut each other: the camera was expensive and heavy next to a phone, its battery life was poor, and the Android apps that made the platform useful — like Instagram — did not even support its optical zoom.

Reviewers praised the concept but flagged high cost, poor battery and weak third-party integration. The Galaxy Camera quickly became a niche gadget rather than a category.

By 2014 Samsung discontinued the original Galaxy Camera. The experiment proved that bolting a phone OS onto a camera did not make it either a phone or a better camera.

Why it happened

  • Samsung priced a niche-connected camera at $500, above the point-and-shoot value it offered, and the Android apps that justified it did not work with the zoom lens
  • The hybrid was caught between two jobs — a camera and a phone — and did neither well, with poor battery and heavy build
  • The Android app ecosystem its whole pitch depended on ignored the hardware, so the Galaxy Camera was discontinued in 2014
What it costNiche sales; discontinued in 2014 after ~2 yearsembarrassing

The lesson

A platform is only worth adopting if its apps work with your product. Samsung's Galaxy Camera ran Android but key apps ignored the zoom lens, and the hybrid was discontinued within two years.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →