AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod touch with camera remains in Apple's pipeline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPod touch with camera remains in Apple's pipeline - Page 2

post #41 of 80
9/10/09 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.

After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.

The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.

TomTom's GPS car dock is going to have GPS and will work with the ipod touch when it's released next month.

There was a report a month ago that most flickr updates were from iphones. only reason for no camera on the Touch was cost
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 80
9/10/09 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.

After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.

The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.

Great opening statement on an Apple forum.
You seem like a real positive and upbeat person.

On topic, I think it's probably a good thing Apple isn't shipping a camera on the touch if it wasn't ready but it is a disappointment to touch users I'm sure. Hopefully if the touch goes HD so will the next iphone. The Flips are really great for casual stuff, but they don't do anything an IPT/ Ipone couldn't do better. GPS would be great even if it's just for geo-tagging.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #43 of 80
9/10/09 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yes! And it is reasonable to assume that a proposed iPod Touch camera would exceed the capabilities of an iPhone 3GS camera. Apple does this periodically-- like the larger capacity flash drive on the Touch.

Sooner or later, I suspect that Apple will offer a hi-res still/video camera with flash and physical focus lens on some device in its mobile platform. Because Apple can be more flexible (take more risks) with the touch than the phone, it makes sense to debut it on the the touch or a new tablet device.

Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.

People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 80
9/10/09 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Most expensive does not always equal the highest margins. Whether we like it or not - and speaking for myself as someone who is torn, since I like it as a shareholder, but do not as a consumer - margins do matter. Because market valuations do matter.

At this point, I am quite OK with a few months of wait-and-see.

Point taken. Apple may make as much or more on a nano sale than they do on some touch sales.

I've had my credit card ready to buy a 3rd gen touch for months. I was planning to get the 64GB model because it's big enough to hold all my rock music and still have room for apps, podcasts and photos.

When I saw how little had changed for the 3rd generation I decided to save money and get a refurbished 2nd generation touch instead. Since none of the older ones is big enough to hold more than a fraction of my music I decided to save even more and just get an 8GB unit.

I saved so much yesterday that I'm already half way to a top-of-the-line 4th generation touch next year. By then Apple may have a 128GB model that will be able to hold all my classical, jazz and world music and entire iPhoto library in addition to everything the 64GB model would. So from that perspective I'm glad Apple didn't do much with the touch yesterday because I'm going to be able to afford what I really want much sooner.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 80
9/10/09 at 1:38pm
I have yet to find out who makes the camera found in the 3GS or the new Nano(understandably). The teardowns reveal all the markings and manufactures found on the major chips on the logic board but nothing is ever mentioned of the camera modules. Are there no markings or are they hidden behind a lens mount? It seems to me accurate speculation about future hardware, cabability and size constraints would get a boost if we knew the camera vendor that supplies Apple.

Could someone please research this; I don't have time.


I'd agree with those that say they'd be happy to exchange a couple of extra mm for a kick ass camera on the next Touch. My 2ndG Touch can be uncomfortable or hard to hold onto without a case; almost too thin. The chrome doesn't help.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 80
9/10/09 at 2:01pm
god forbid they would make it thicker. Cause 2mm, that's alot of pocket space. There needs to be a sarcasm font.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #47 of 80
9/10/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by polvadis View Post

I had waited a really long time to get my first Touch and now no camera\ I decided to buy a refurbished 2nd gen 8gig model for $149 from the Apple store and will pass that on to someone once the truly new Touch comes out.

Sounds like a great idea. Think I might do the same.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 80
9/10/09 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.

People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?

Fully agree, and there is no need for rumors, here are the prices from Apple's own online store in Italy:
iPod touch 32 GB: 279 Euro
iPhone 32 GB: 699 Euro
http://store.apple.com/it/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUxNQ
http://store.apple.com/it/browse/hom...mco=OTM4MTE1MQ

The iPod touch is competitively priced (ie, with view on any potential competitors), the iPhone is priced according its position as essentially a phone without close competitors. Plus, with most consumers never seeing the full price (and thus having no means of seeing whether their monthly payments are there to pay for that data access or paying down the loan they got from their provider), few people make this comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 80
9/10/09 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.

After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.

The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.

"But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude."
This comment show you are not a pathetic fanboy, but are the exact opposite, which is just as bad (only on the other end) Though additionally it show you to be a bit of an ah0le as well.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 80
9/10/09 at 3:12pm
I agree with those suspecting that the new batch of thinner cameras weren't up to par. Assuming the same pixel density, to get a higher resolution camera you need a bigger sensor, which generally speaking means to maintain image quality you need to put the lens farther from the sensor to focus properly and minimize distortion, vignetting, etc. So you need a bigger camera module. Some manufacturer probably promised Apple to deliver a thinner module than the iPhone has to fit in the touch. They may even have delivered some initial, low-volume prototypes that were fine. But when they ramped up to full production, maybe they couldn't maintain the level of quality necessary.

But if you look at the profiles of the iPhone vs the touch, it may be possible to get a good camera in the touch without increasing its thickness. The iPhone maintains its maximum thickness nearly to the edge of the case before tapering off. The touch begins the taper much sooner, so if they were trying to put the camera near the edge, like on the iPhone, they actually have much less thickness to work with. So they could either relocate the camera away from the edge or change the taper of the case. That still may not be thick enough, but it would give them another millimeter or two to work with.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 80
9/10/09 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Is this third person suggesting cameras could be coming on the high-end models, which aren't due to ship for 1-3 weeks (in contrast to the seemingly unchanged 8GB model, which is already available because all they did was knock off $30), and Apple simply didn't advertise the cameras?

The online store currently says shipping in 1-3 days, not weeks, so no. On the other hand, odds are good that someone will do a tear-down over the weekend, so at least that question will be answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna

In contrast to a Named and very Known party, Mr Jobs, stating that...

Because Mr. Jobs has never made deliberately misleading statements to the press before.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 80
9/10/09 at 3:21pm
Very interesting insight there Kasper.

Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 80
9/10/09 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Probably because the iPhone is thicker. Maybe the 3GS camera wouldn't fit into the thinner case, so they were going with different cameras that didn't perform to Apple expectations.

I think you're absolutely right but the thickest thing I've come across in recent weeks is not the iPhone casing but the unsubstantiated rumour-mongering that passes itself off as legitimate discussion on this website.

Am I the only one to think that Appleinsider has blown the cover on itself? It should rename itself Appleoutsider because it's patently obvious that my next door neighbour's cat is as 'inside' Apple as some people who've been writing up the cameratouch fiasco .. and the poor moggy is 15 years old, is blind and deaf and lives about seven thousand miles from Steve and co. Just about as close to the story as some of the stupid guff that's been written up here recently.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 80
9/10/09 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.

People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?

I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 80
9/10/09 at 6:05pm
SJ had a major mess up not seen in a while
if the touch wasn't to have a camera it wouldn't have the cover over spot on the back
screwed the pooch and i'm pissed
SJ usually gives us value, this touch wasn't worth me waiting 6 months IMO
JUST CRAP
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #56 of 80
9/10/09 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.

$700 actually. ATT pays between $200-400 of the cost for you, depending on your contract status
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 80
9/10/09 at 7:21pm
This report squares with a thought I expressed yesterday on the Touch announcement thread. Given continuing declines in the price of solid state memory modules, a 64GB iPod Touch without HD video at $399 seems overpriced in today's marketplace.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #58 of 80
9/10/09 at 7:23pm
Well, I must agree with everyone who is saying that a Camera and Mic on the Touch would jeopardize iPhone sales. However, this is Apple we are talking about here. When has Apple ever NOT been expected to take a risk and do something crazy? Well, call me crazy, but I feel that Apple is well aware that the Touch w/ Cam, and Mic would effect the iPhone. I think that Apple knows that the Touch is going to need to receive a camera sooner or later, with sooner being more likely. Apple, who knows that they will have to add a camera and mic soon, probably has a break through feature that the iPhone will receive in reply to the Touch's new camera. What is this new feature? Who knows, but there are many possibilities.

In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.

Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.

COMMENTS?
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/TheTechFantic
Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheTechFanatic
Reply
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/TheTechFantic
Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheTechFanatic
Reply
post #59 of 80
9/10/09 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.

Except, you must live in la-la land if you think you can get it for $300-$400 less.

Just because you want something at a price you're willing to pay does not mean it will be available. Get used to it.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 80
9/10/09 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTechFanatic View Post


COMMENTS?

Yeah.

PRICE?
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 80
9/10/09 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTechFanatic View Post

Well, I must agree with everyone who is saying that a Camera and Mic on the Touch would jeopardize iPhone sales. However, this is Apple we are talking about here. When has Apple ever NOT been expected to take a risk and do something crazy? Well, call me crazy, but I feel that Apple is well aware that the Touch w/ Cam, and Mic would effect the iPhone. I think that Apple knows that the Touch is going to need to receive a camera sooner or later, with sooner being more likely. Apple, who knows that they will have to add a camera and mic soon, probably has a break through feature that the iPhone will receive in reply to the Touch's new camera. What is this new feature? Who knows, but there are many possibilities.

In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.

Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.

COMMENTS?

But I still wouldn't buy an iPhone. As long as monthly subscriptions are required I will not buy an iPhone. The monthly subscriptions are way to expensive and have been for years. And I mean from the very beginning, cell phone rates have been way to expensive. The lack of a camera or even GPS will not get me to buy an iPhone with subscriptions.

Teckstud, you forget that without AT&T you will only be able to make VoIP calls where you have WiFi access. There's not enough of them around to make VoIP an reasonable alternative to a cell phone system.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #62 of 80
9/10/09 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

FROM NY TIMES: Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.

"Originally, we werent exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine, he said. We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is its the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and thats the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We dont need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it."

I also asked him why the Nano can record video, but can't snap still photos. That reason, he said, is technical: the sensors you need to record video are extremely thin these daysthin enough to fit into the wafer-thin Nano. But the ones with enough resolution for stills, especially with autofocus (like the sensor in the iPhone), are much too thick to cram into a player thats only 0.2 inches thick.

A couple of years ago, pre-Kindle, Mr. Jobs expressed his doubts that e-readers were ready for prime time. So today, I asked if his opinions have changed.

"Im sure there will always be dedicated devices, and they may have a few advantages in doing just one thing," he said. "But I think the general-purpose devices will win the day. Because I think people just probably arent willing to pay for a dedicated device."


I read David Pogue's article on his Steve Jobs interview (quoted in part above). I dont understand any of it except the Kindle answer. As for the Touch, okay they wanted a $199 iPod touch - I understand that, but why not have a $199 Touch without a cam and a $399 or even $450 version with a cam for photos & video? His answer makes no sense to me. They have a $99 iPhone 3G and a more expensive 3GS with more options, do the same for the dang Touch. Give buyers an option. This is a huge fail to me, because I think a lot of current Touch owners wouldve upgraded for the cam, but now theyll all just keep their current Touch in hopes of a cam being added next year. They will get new buyers, but not many if any current upgrades. To me, someone at APPL screwed up big time, and they are trying to save face.

As for the Nano, I understand the fascination with 'thin' but wouldnt it make more sense to make it 0.5 inches thick or something and add a real cam and sell a lot more, than only sell what they will now? I think whatever sales they get, could be at least 10-15% more with a real cam. Now, if adding a cam would make it 1" or something than I cancel everything I just typed 'cuz 1" would be too thick.

I look forward to seeing the "tablet" next February. Stay healthy Steve!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 80
9/10/09 at 11:00pm
Well, I doubt I'm the only person who's seriously considering not buying the new iPod Touch. I was so ready to buy it this week because of the 64 gig capacity and as soon as I realized it had no camera, I was gutted and now having had time to consider purchasing it, I've decided Apple is getting no money from me this year, screw it. I'll keep removing songs off my nearly full 32 gig because of this. Honestly, a nano that can video record plus have FM reception yet none of these features for the Touch? That to me makes no sense whatsoever. I do of course understand that technical issues may have prevented this upgrade to the touch. However, I don't need Apple to tell me the iPod Touch is more of a games device, I will decide what I want it to be to me and the more features it has, then the more it can be to more people. They better upgrade the touch to camera functionality very soon, otherwise they've lost my purchase, so disappointed.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 80
9/10/09 at 11:02pm
As I noted in my analysis of the event, I saw the expected camera add to the iPod Touch as part of a logical, continued move towards platform symmetry between iPhone and iPod Touch.

The more Apple can get developers to focus on building apps to the combined 50M unit installed base (versus fragmenting it), the stronger it's ecosystem is. Having camera/video cam synchronicity between the devices means developers building more apps that showcase those capabilities.

In this regard, and a couple of others, the event felt like it was a bit askew with the kind of arm waving filler (by Schiller) that one sees when part of the expected presentation had to be torn out due to last minute changes.

Here's the analysis if interested:

Analysis of Apple's "It's Only Rock and Roll" iPod event
http://bit.ly/jkUrb

Here's hoping that camera/video cam comes sooner than later to iPod Touch.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 80
9/10/09 at 11:24pm
A top model iPod Touch (3GS version) with camera and a low end without would make sense.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 80
9/11/09 at 3:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Except, you must live in la-la land if you think you can get it for $300-$400 less.

Just because you want something at a price you're willing to pay does not mean it will be available. Get used to it.

isupply estimated that the cost of manufacture of an 8gb Touch in 2007 was $155.04

Memory prices have fallen since. The cost of the camera module in the iPhone is about $9.50

You and Apple are the ones in La-La land.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 80
9/11/09 at 3:57am
"iPod touch with camera remains in Apple's pipeline"

erm, of course it does otherwise your rumours were all LIES !!!!! and you were wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 80
9/11/09 at 6:06am
Apple will not release an updated iPod Touch before the Holidays. Otherwise, you are going to have a whole bunch of whining people complaining that Apple updated it too soon making their iPod Touch obsolete. They'll want a credit or something from Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

This update could arrive unexpectedly at existing price points on the 32GB and 64GB models, according to a third person claiming to have been briefed on the matter.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 80
9/11/09 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

isupply estimated that the cost of manufacture of an 8gb Touch in 2007 was $155.04

Memory prices have fallen since. The cost of the camera module in the iPhone is about $9.50

You and Apple are the ones in La-La land.

It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.

Please take the trouble to inform yourself.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 80
9/11/09 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.

Please take the trouble to inform yourself.

Apple have amongst the highest profit margins in the consumer tech sector. They could more than easily afford to pop a $10 camera module into the Touch and charge an extra $20 for the privilege. They could even do it for cost - shock gasp!

I am not interested in your economic jargon terms, they have no bearing on whether or not it is reasonable or not for people to want a camera in the Touch. Need I remind you they are selling the Apple TV, at or below cost, so their profit margins are not always sacrosanct and immutable. And as for my informing myself - what did you think was the retail price of the iPhone again?
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 80
9/11/09 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I still say AT&T nixed it and that its been manufactured.
Putting a mic in the Touch competes directly with their iPhone profits. A skype iPod Touch that acts as a phone would dent AT&T's sales...

I agree that a skype iPod Touch is compelling but why is it not already a factor? The existing G2 iPod Touch has microphone input with Apple's high end earbuds ($80). I'd be satisfied with telephone access limited by wifi availability but I think that is the big factor that keeps it from competing with the iPhone. Students on campuses with ubiquitous wifi should be able to use skype and the G2 iPod touch to enable telephony already but even then there are some integration issues that make it less appealing.

In other words I would agree but I don't expect many others to follow suit.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 80
9/11/09 at 2:40pm
ifixit.com confirmed this afternoon in a teardown that there is an empty space in the iPod Touch 3rd generation for a camera the size of the one in the new Nano.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 80
9/11/09 at 9:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by commun5 View Post

ifixit.com confirmed this afternoon in a teardown that there is an empty space in the iPod Touch 3rd generation for a camera the size of the one in the new Nano.

I saw that too. Makes me wonder if one of two things happened. 1) Apple was planning on using the same camera in the Touch as they did in the Nano. Then when Steve came back he exploded, asking how anyone could be so dumb as to put in a standard def, VGA quality, video only camera in the Touch. So, no camera. Or 2) The Nano camera supplier promised a higher quality camera with the same footprint and failed to deliver. (iFixIt also found that the Touch and the Nano uses the same WiFi chip.)
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #74 of 80
9/12/09 at 3:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

(iFixIt also found that the Touch and the Nano uses the same WiFi chip.)

I didn't know the nano had WiFi - cool!






Reply
Reply
post #75 of 80
9/12/09 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Need I remind you they are selling the Apple TV, at or be......

Can you provide a cite for this claim?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 80
9/12/09 at 7:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I am not interested in your economic jargon terms.....

Being uninformed should never stand in the way making a vehement argument!
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 80
9/13/09 at 3:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Being uninformed should never stand in the way making a vehement argument!

At least you got something right.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 80
9/13/09 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Can you provide a cite for this claim?

http://www.dvhardware.net/article19634.html
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 80
9/13/09 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

http://www.dvhardware.net/article19634.html

The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 80
9/14/09 at 1:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.

You are correct, I was wrong. My memory for 2 year old minutia is not what it used to be. You are focusing on the details and missing the broader picture and reasoning that example was a part of. The fact that Apple is willing to accept a lower than normal profit margin still holds and is relevant, even if my recollection of the exact extent of the profit discrepancy was inaccurate.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod touch with camera remains in Apple's pipeline