or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › 802.11n, space for camera hidden in Apple's new iPod touch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

802.11n, space for camera hidden in Apple's new iPod touch - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Yes, bad joke, but apparently the kind I tell myself according to people around me.

post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Make it thicker- very simple. So do we all really want this mediocre gaming device that SJ is trying to spin on us? The PSP runs rings around it. I mean- it's OK but seriously?

Just out of curiosity, why do you need a decent camera to use a gaming device?
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

... Who said, You can make some of the people happy all of the time, you call can make all of the people happy some of the time, but you cant make all of the people happy all of the time?

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Abraham Lincoln
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

?? The Touch should get a better camera than iPhone not crap like the toy Nano. Why is Apple downgrading the Touch? Calling it a gaming device, etc. The Touch's camera should get both zoom and flash since it doesn't need battery power for phone calls. It should be a total camera replacement. I would even forgo video in favor of a real decent camera.

How is the Touch going to get a better camera than the iPhone? The iPhone's camera won't even fit inside the iPod Touch. If they're going to include a camera as nice as the IPhone's they're going to have to make it thicker, and that's obviously not going to happen. If anything they'll want to make the iPhone thinner as well in the future when they can fit a reasonably priced high-quality camera inside it. I doubt the Touch will be getting much thicker, if at all, in the future.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

How is the Touch going to get a better camera than the iPhone? The iPhone's camera won't even fit inside the iPod Touch. If they're going to include a camera as nice as the IPhone's they're going to have to make it thicker, and that's obviously not going to happen. If anything they'll want to make the iPhone thinner as well in the future when they can fit a reasonably priced high-quality camera inside it. I doubt the Touch will be getting much thicker, if at all, in the future.

That is his point. Apple shouldn't care about selling aestethically attractive and lightweight devices if it means not having a camera that isn't the best out there. I am guessing this at he wants to see.

post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Have you seen the nano's video? Don't judge it just from the numbers.

FB doesn't display images at any higher resolution than VGA, there's a quick diminishing return on throwing MPs at the problem, you can upload any size you want, but it gets scaled down to roughly VGA anyways.

Maybe the people I know are an oddity, but a lot of people upload using their mobile upload service, and those aren't very good at all.

Yeah I think it's your sample. I've seen thousands of pictures and none of them look like they were taken with a VGA camera (big difference between that and a quality picture scaled down to VGA).
post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Hmm. I guess that would explain Steve's physical appearance at the event. Bad joke. I'm sorry.

Steve can probably *fit* in that space in the iPod touch

YET ANOTHER BAD JOKE

Get well Steve - buy organic cheese and put it on whatever you're eating
post #48 of 85
Bottom line is that the only reason why Apple didn't include a camera is because they don't want the iPod Touch to become more attractive to the average consumer then their iPhone... Apple has almost bet its future with the iPhone.
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Bottom line is that the only reason why Apple didn't include a camera is because they don't want the iPod Touch to become more attractive to the average consumer then their iPhone... Apple has almost bet its future with the iPhone.

So why are there convincing images of a Touch with a camera several months old that match up identically with 3G Touch with a space for a camera? Are you saying that Apple realized after all that R&D was put into it that they shouldn’t add it to the Touch? Do you really think that a weak video camera that can’t do still images is going to hurt iPhone sales, a WiFi chip that will likely be able to do 802.11n in the future, a CPU that is newer and potentially faster, as well as 64GB Flash while the iPhone only has 32GB a smart move if it’s all about the iPhone? Last year, the Touch had headphone controls that I wished I had and the CPU was clocked higher than the iPhone 3G. That doesn’t sound Apple knows what they are doing if it’s all about making the iPhone better in every category.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

As sad as it is guys, you'll have to live with what you've been offered. The real reason it got no camera is the iPhone /sobvious

Of course I'll have to live with it. But Apple will have to live without my money too! And the camera should be equal to that of the iPhone.
post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont think it makes sense for the 8GB Touch to be the same price as the 8GB Nano. That makes no sense from a marketing standpoint. I have no doubt that Apple makes a higher percentage on the 8GB Touch than it does on the 16GB Touch, but that doesnt mean it makes more money per unit.

As for up-selling, I dont see how that is a problem. That is a very old business practice that has served many businesses well. Why Apple shouldnt be allowed to execute this seems silly.

I do think that you might be right about the mid-release bump and upgrade. Though it will depends on current supply and demand.

Bottom line, I'll be waiting for the 16Gb bump with the new innards. Apple did this type of release with the iPhone too - selling the old tech for $99 alongside the 3Gs. Maybe people will jump for that cheap last-year's tech iPhone and iPod Touch but I won't.
post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

Of course I'll have to live with it. But Apple will have to live without my money too! And the camera should be equal to that of the iPhone.

Why is that, because they look similar when you view them from the front or because they both run iPhone OS X.
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you saying that Apple realized after all that R&D was put into it that they shouldnt add it to the Touch?

Yes I am. Will they eventually put one in? Yes they will. But Apple will hold if off until the next major revision of the iPod Touch to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Do you really think that a weak video camera that cant do still images is going to hurt iPhone sales, a WiFi chip that will likely be able to do 802.11n in the future, a CPU that is newer and potentially faster, as well as 64GB Flash while the iPhone only has 32GB a smart move if its all about the iPhone?

There is a reason why the iPod Touch technologically isn't an iPhone minus the phone. Apple wants (on purpose) to separate the iPhone and iPod Touch products.
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Yes I am. Will they eventually put one in? Yes they will. But Apple will hold if off until the next major revision of the iPod Touch to do so.

With the Nano getting a video camera, the Touch having the exact space for the Nanos video camera, and proof that at least one model with said video was made, the most likely scenario is that the rumours were likely true. All this conspiracy crap that ignores the fact that the Touch can never be an iPhone and that the Touch has many features and options that already beat the iPhone is bullocks.

Quote:
There is a reason why the iPod Touch technologically isn't an iPhone minus the phone. Apple wants (on purpose) to separate the iPhone and iPod Touch products.

Really? Apple wants one to be a phone and the other not to be a phone? How about that!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Argue it to death, the fact is macroeconomic factors contributed to Apple's decisions about the latest iPod Touch.

It's obvious in the spaces left for features, that if the economy improves, so will new features be added.

Apple is thinking about it's developers, and keeping the adoption rate to the App Store high.

Software is as important as hardware.


What use is a do it all device if there are only a few thousand who can afford it and no software for it?

Just look how long it took for the PS3 to take off, the high price kept a lot of people off of it.


Anyone want a iPhone without the phone is welcome to get a iPhone and cancel the contract.


A 12 megapixel Kodak camera with zoom can be had for a little over $100.

A crappie 3 mega pixel camera would just really be a waste of money.

Apple made the right decision in my opinion.

Can you buy an iPhone and then upgrade to a different phone and keep the iPhone
post #56 of 85
I think the technical reason is BS. Clearly, the camera works in the Nano, so why wouldn't it work in the Touch? I think the real reason is Apple changed it's mind about offering the cheap camera that is in the Nano in the Touch. It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think it is clear from the pics now that a camera was destined for the iPod Touch but is not there for what ever reason. It is very likely that the reported technical reasons are accurate, as I can't see Apple getting this far and then having a plastic spacer produced so they can scrap the camera idea.

While the camera may have the same dimensions as the Nano, one should not assume that it was exactly the same device. It could have had other features they wanted to explore such as higher res video, high res still pics, or auto focus for that matter. Any of these could have been tripping points for the camera. Frankly we don't even know at this moment if the hardware in the Nano even has a still pic mode. In other words maybe the camera in Nano could do stills but they are so bad Apple didn't want to consider them and are suing the sensor only as a video device. Maybe video only wasn't in the game for the Touch.

The expanded Flash capacity is going to make many people happy and frankly is likely to be a bigger draw than the camera would have been. However one thing that hasn't been investigated or reported yet is the amount of RAM installed? I'm wondering if the high end devices went to 256MB, info here would be appreciated. The more RAM the more flexible and interesting the apps that can be installed.



Dave
post #57 of 85
Appleinsider reported a few days ago that "sources" say Apple would like to introduce the camera as soon as possible. It seems very likely given the space for the camera in the iPod Touch that Apple was intending to introduce one but had technical problems as rumoured and Steve Jobs' explanation of the Touch needing to be cheap is just a smokescreen and delaying tactic. Certainly, besides the space for a camera, the 3rd gen iPod Touch getting iPhone OS 3.1.1 while everything else gets vanilla iPhone OS 3.1 indicates that some last minute revisions were needed. Perhaps the close proximity of the camera/mic and the WiFi/Bluetooth chip caused interference which could be resolved with shielding or different camera/mic choice? The cost of the Nano's camera is only going to be in the single digit dollar cost (the iPhone 3G S's autofocus camera costs $9.95 according to iSuppli) so it's highly doubtful that adding a camera would make the Touch unprofitable at the $299 and $399 price points. The reduced profit margins would probably be made up by the additional sales having the camera will bring.

I think it's likely that the camera will be introduced in a mid-life January refresh of the 3rd gen iPod Touch. I can't see them doing it before the holidays since it would be disruptive to the supply channel at a critical time. But a post-Christmas introduction is definitely possible and would be similar to what was done to the 17" MacBook Pro which was updated but kept non-Unibody when the rest of the Unibodies were released last October, before being replaced with a 17" Unibody just 3 months later in January 2009. If the iTablet is released early next year as predicted, then it'd make sense to give the iPod Touch a mini-refresh whether in features or pricing, perhaps a silent one, at the same time to better realign the product lineup.

Even if it uses the same camera hardware, I'm hoping to differentiate the iPod Touch's camera from the Nano's, the Touch will get photo capability which can probably be helped with software enhancement using the Touch's better processor. The Touch could probably leverage the motion compensation algorithms developed for iMovie.

I'm guessing that the 3rd gen iPod Touch didn't get a digital compass or the oleophobic screen coating? These would both be sensible additions where the coating goes to the quality perception of Apple products, while the digital compass could use wider adoption as a complementary control method with the accelerometer. Beyond the obvious compass direction applications, I would think more advanced algorithms could use the digital compass data to assist the accelerometer is detecting and refining how the device position is changing leading to more accurate controls in things like games (supposedly the Touch's selling point), which can only be a good thing.
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Argue it to death, the fact is macroeconomic factors contributed to Apple's decisions about the latest iPod Touch.

It's obvious in the spaces left for features, that if the economy improves, so will new features be added.

Apple is thinking about it's developers, and keeping the adoption rate to the App Store high.

Software is as important as hardware.


What use is a do it all device if there are only a few thousand who can afford it and no software for it?

Just look how long it took for the PS3 to take off, the high price kept a lot of people off of it.


Anyone want a iPhone without the phone is welcome to get a iPhone and cancel the contract.


A 12 megapixel Kodak camera with zoom can be had for a little over $100.

A crappie 3 mega pixel camera would just really be a waste of money.

Apple made the right decision in my opinion.

Can you buy an iPhone and then right after you buy it upgrade to a different phone and keep the iPhone as an iPod touch?
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I think the technical reason is BS. Clearly, the camera works in the Nano, so why wouldn't it work in the Touch? I think the real reason is Apple changed it's mind about offering the cheap camera that is in the Nano in the Touch. It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.

How can you make such an absolute statement when the internals and the OS of the two devices are completely different?
post #60 of 85
I agree with TBell at the part where he/she says: "It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.. I think that the camera in the nano is not up to snuff for the touch." although it won't be the exact same camera due to dimensions.

I think that Apple knows of technology out there that will allow it to put at least as good a camera in the touch that is in the iPhone and perhaps the camera was not quite ready in time for the September release.
post #61 of 85
I wish apple would make the iPod touch's back out of the same stuff as the first iPhone, cause that didn't get fingerprints and the stainless steel does.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Which cost $10 in late June and now has been discounted @ 50% to $5 less than 2 1/1 months later!
RIP-OFF, APPLE!

Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?

Why the reduction from $10 to $5 for the iPod touch OS upgrade?

Apple didn't need the extra $5 bucks this time because it didn't put a camera in the touch...
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Make it thicker- very simple. So do we all really want this mediocre gaming device that SJ is trying to spin on us? The PSP runs rings around it. I mean- it's OK but seriously?

what, you expect jobs to admit they couldn't quite get the camera in there in time for their release schedule? what makes you think ipod touch users only buy it for games?

psp comparisons are ridiculous, apple sold more ipod touches and iphones in a shorter period than the psp. software wise, the psp is practically dead and always has been besides first party releases. how can you compare a $1-10 game casual multipurpose machine to a $30-40 all-games machine?

for people who are dying for an ipod touch with a camera, i say, what's the point? if you have an ipod touch you have a separate phone, and therefore, you already have a crappy camera to take stupid, useless pictures with. i'd rather not have the extra component cost for some redundant hardware. it actually dissapoints me that apple even plans to add a camera to the touch.

hopefully they use that FM transmitter/receiver soon. i find it interesting that apple seems to be implementing hardware features before their software is ready. it's kind of an interesting thing, and i'm guessing it's much easier to throw in the hardware right away than it is to write the software.
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

Why the reduction from $10 to $5 for the iPod touch OS upgrade?

Apple didn't need the extra $5 bucks this time because it didn't put a camera in the touch...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?

yeah, exactly. especially because the ipod touch firmware has no DRM, you can even download it directly from apple's servers for free if you have the direct download link, if you are too cheap to spend $5-10 on a software update that adds a bunch of features.

i mean sure, old ipods had free software updates, but they usually didn't add any noticeable features. i don't like the practice, but obviously people are willing to pay because it's apparently worth it to them. that's business.
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Yeah I think it's your sample. I've seen thousands of pictures and none of them look like they were taken with a VGA camera (big difference between that and a quality picture scaled down to VGA).

Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?

A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.
post #67 of 85
I'll say thus: apple did well in my book keeping the cost under $200. I'm looking forward to trying to deploy a dozen or so Touch as SIP phones rather than spending the same on Aastra phones. It really opens up some interesting options, especially if we can do Bluetooth headsets.

The game is all about broadest market appeal. If it had been $50 more my concept wouldn't have been viable. SJ's explanation is always half true...
post #68 of 85
What if Apple purchased the wifi N chips now, so they could receive a bulk discount to use them in a future more powerful device such as the "iTablet"? Are the new processors in the iTouch even powerful enough to handle data transmitted at N speeds? It would be interesting to see a newly built iPhone 3GS to see if the chip is now being used there as well. Anyone who bought an iPhone in the last few days interested in making a sacrifice to the "collective" and take their phone apart?* If you do let us know what wifi chip is in it.


*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

That is his point. Apple shouldn't care about selling aestethically attractive and lightweight devices if it means not having a camera that isn't the best out there. I am guessing this at he wants to see.


Great! He wants the 1000X Digital Zoom, Xenon flash which will kill the battery life of the iPhone after 5 minutes of photos/videos.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post

I wish apple would make the iPod touch's back out of the same stuff as the first iPhone, cause that didn't get fingerprints and the stainless steel does.

The plastic back is meant specially for the iPhone because of phone reception issues. The iPod Touch will always have a chrome back.
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Yes I am. Will they eventually put one in? Yes they will. But Apple will hold if off until the next major revision of the iPod Touch to do so.



There is a reason why the iPod Touch technologically isn't an iPhone minus the phone. Apple wants (on purpose) to separate the iPhone and iPod Touch products.

+1, sir! Thank you for the last statement you made! Really had enough of people saying " the iPod Touch is the iPhone without the phone." Wouldn't that make it and 'i'?
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post

Can you buy an iPhone and then right after you buy it upgrade to a different phone and keep the iPhone as an iPod touch?

I believe the SIM can just be put into another phone, but you're still gonna have to pay the monthly contract charge; so why would you do that?
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I think the technical reason is BS. Clearly, the camera works in the Nano, so why wouldn't it work in the Touch? I think the real reason is Apple changed it's mind about offering the cheap camera that is in the Nano in the Touch. It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.

This thread is pretty much an exercise in futility what with teckstud shouting his nonsense from the sidelines, but I'll contribute anyway.

I think it's a clearly a mistake to assume they were going to use the same camera just because the "hole" discovered is the same size.

If those pictures of the iPod touch prototype with the camera were real (which is pretty much all this rumour has to go on), the camera has to be different. The hole for the lens assembly looks much bigger, and the lens itself looked bigger to me than even the one on the current iPhone. It might have been the same part but with a different lens assembly or a completely different part altogether.

Someone already pointed out that no one can remember an Apple product shipping with a "hole" for a part like this that isn't there. Typically, if they are going to make a version with a camera and one without they design two completely different devices, not just leave it out of one model. It's way more likely that this was a simple manufacturing screwup. Some stupid supplier promises the earth and then tells them at the last minute that they can't make the part for whatever reasons and it has to be left out.

You can bet that the company in question wasn't Apple, that there was a penalty involved in their mistake, that Steve is totally pissed about it, and that (if there are any other options), Apple probably won't deal with that company ever again.
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?

A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.

I haven't seen the video that comes from the nano, but I've seen plenty of good quality video where, when you actually freeze a frame, it looks like crap. The human brain combines multiple frames which are individually blurred into each other, into the perception of a sharp, high quality video.

I'm sure we'll be able to see a still soon, and I'm sure I'll be confirmed.
post #75 of 85
Steve presumably decided (correctly) that a 640x480 non-AF camera that can't take stills would be weak sauce for the touch.

Hopefully now Apple is spending some of its billion$ on R&D for a better camera that fits in the space available.
post #76 of 85
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

What if Apple purchased the wifi N chips now, so they could receive a bulk discount to use them in a future more powerful device such as the "iTablet"? Are the new processors in the iTouch even powerful enough to handle data transmitted at N speeds? It would be interesting to see a newly built iPhone 3GS to see if the chip is now being used there as well. Anyone who bought an iPhone in the last few days interested in making a sacrifice to the "collective" and take their phone apart?* If you do let us know what wifi chip is in it.


*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.

they bought the n chips because they are probably cheaper by now since g is on it's way out
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsmoker View Post

Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?

Do we know that Omnivision supplied the camera in the iPhone and/or nano?

I thought Omnivision had this fantastic Trufocus technology that made their cameras so superior and that we were going to see the cameras with that technology in the next iPhone (and presumably the touch).

Can anyone confirm this?
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsmoker View Post

Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?

Maybe.. He's listening to his iPod while texting on his iPhone and surfing the web on his Mac Pro .. He'll reply you shortly..
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Which cost $10 in late June and now has been discounted @ 50% to $5 less than 2 1/1 months later!
RIP-OFF, APPLE!

A whopping $5 rip-off, how dare they. It is almost as bad as reducing the price of the 8 GB iPod touch by dozens of dollars over night.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › 802.11n, space for camera hidden in Apple's new iPod touch