iPad photos show slot for forward-facing video camera - Page 2

Dumb sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe they would go through the trouble to fake this. Whats the point? And to fit and cast the iSight module into a fake frame that so happens to look genuine? Sure, it could be faked. But I think its more than likely, not.

OH WELL! Include the camera then...

The sarcasm is very well justified, especially considering that the number of faked photos we see far outnumber the genuine ones. Worth keeping that in mind, don't you think?

If developers feel that way then they should just wait until iPhone OS 4.0 is released. Of course, that puts them behind for converting or getting a base app ready for the device so it seems obvious why devs would rather have a 3.2 now than have to wait until the heals of the device release to get SDK access.



A camera seems inevitable, but I'm not sure how you conclude an SD card is coming. They already offer the ability via the 30-pin connector attachment.

PS: I hope Apple makes those attachments usable with the iPhone and Touch. That could offloading and uploading images much easier.



I don't see them adding feature HW that late in the design. It would surely be atypical if they did. The lack of a absolute date and the two different launch time,along with other hints at the event, all stink of a rushed or last minute change in the project. The apps layer seems well designed but everything else down seems to have a bolted on feel.



That was mentioned on here back in September with the Touch. It certainly makes more sense than them pulling it at the last minute to include in the next generation model.

BTW, nice find with the job posting. What's with the 8 posts since 2003?

YAWN. WHO cares if they're not "authorized"... THEY brought the NEWS!
KUDOS TO THEM!

Agreed, but the number of fake photos that look as genuine, plausible, and convincing as this, are far and few between.

I would. For the same reason I bought them an 8GB iPod Touch while buying the largest for myself.

They simply won't use more than 16GB. Me, I could use 128GB. If streaming from the computer is supported, then even I could get by with 16GB will be adequate for me. I'd still want the larger size though.

Tell me what you would do with 16GB to fill it all up. Then, tell me how you would fill 32GB. Now, tell me what you think people who would get the 16GB would use it for.

I'm sure this violates Mission Repair's confidentiality agreements. They must have done it to get publicity for their company. Apple may not be pleased. Risky stuff.

My guess is that the iPad won't ship with a camera until the iPod touch does. The low price of the wi-fi iPad makes the touch look overpriced compared to what you get. Adding a camera to the iPad but not the touch would make it look even worse. They'd either have to lower the price of the touch, which could potentially hurt iPhone sales if you lower it too much, or add a camera to the touch to increase it's value for the price. I could see them adding a higher resolution iPhone-type camera to the touch around WWDC and a lower res MacBook-style iSight to the iPad for video iChat and such later this year.

Agreed! Those thinking iPad (original) will have a camera come launch in a couple of months will be disappointed.

Gotta have something physical to add in iPad 2.0 aside from adding new buttons via a software OS update!

You guys should use a bit more logic and not go off half-cocked.

Physical evidence that they were thinking of putting a camera in the iPad, in absolutely no way whatsoever adds any credence whatsoever to the idea that Apple is developing an iPad that "recognises the face of the user and reconfigures itself accordingly" (as the NYT article stated).

Every Mac has this same camera, all iPhones have a very similar one facing backwards, and the next iPhone is rumoured to have one of each. Finding a hole in the iPad for the exact same camera is only evidence of them possibly including a camera, period. Even if one was to go off on a flight of fancy supposing what this camera is going to be used for, Occam's Razor would suggest it will be used for the exact same thing the others are all used for.

To say this is "evidence" of one random, crazy, unsupported idea floated by a writer for the new York Times is ludicrous. It's like saying finding unknown scat in the back yard is evidence that a dragon was there.

Anyone who's used iPhoto 09 should know that recognising someones face to the degree of accuracy necessary for such a feat is not actually with us yet, anyway.

I see where you're going with this, but it's definitely speculative.

The Apple job opening was supportive, even if somewhat circumstantial. Something like this would be a bugger for Apple, but I can't imagine that making "mountains" of cameras is that difficult.

I would think this (if you were to include "isight" cameras) would be a pretty big problem if it effected this many products. I know Apple needs "tons" of them, but they are fairly simple devices, potentially used in other manufacturers devices as well, so the problem should manifest with some other manufacturer.

The IPT and Iphone would both probably use the same camera (3mp still/ SD video), but the ipod nano uses a video camera , is it the same part used in laptops and imacs? The ipad would also only need video only since the speculation is that it is front facing camera. I don't know, it seems like they would be different components. Anyone know the details on the cameras? Maybe they are putting too many video/ ichat camera's out there.

That would be "impressive" to see Apple's products drain yet another component from the market. I'm certain the problem would be tended to quickly. Hence the job posting?

I don't know but solid idea.

That would be how ipad can do it better. I couldn't believe how there was no camera after the rumors. Typical Apple , a little change each new device or notebook people want the next best thing each time but the prices in NZ are getting WAY up there considering the exchange rates.
I'd love an IPad but if I bought the first one only to find next year ( long waits as always ) that there was a camera , I like millions of others would be gutted.
I was also surprised that the medical industry or business wasn't at the launch to demo anything for business. At least it can do word processing and spreadsheets.

I think that's the start button. You know how it vertical orients from ANY direction? The iPad is just upside down. Or whatever you would call it when the button is at the top.

I definitely won't be wasting my money on iPad 1.0 without iSight!

I allways felt, that some magic was missing to this highly magical product. Thinking of gesture input without touching the display an facial recognition: if this works as faulty like Faces in iPhoto I could understand Steves anger.

Hey, Joy of Tech: imagine iPad prototype B5784-G and Steve in that sealed room in headquaters and iPad doesn´t recognize his masters face. And even worse: greets with "good to see you auntie isodora!"

I thought this until I viewed the video. That clearly shows that the Home button is at the bottom. It does look like there's something there, but I would have thought that with all those reviewers handling it and examining it one of them would have spotted if there was possible evidence of a camera in the top border.

Has anyone seen a mobile camera that has the quality Apple would demand for products like the iPad?
I believe they pulled the camera from the iPod touch because it was not good enough. Apple will wait until there is a camera that will show pictures and video worthy of HD with a form factor that fits in a small device such as the iPad at the right price. Anything less will result in a stream of disappointed users and pundits spouting their
disdain all over the internet forums.
I suggest you do without until Apple installs one.

Right. And let's not forget that people tend to move to the edge at product announcements, no matter what's announced. Delaying the ubiquitous "one more thing" a month or two could allow people to let the announcement sink in and lean away from buying, only to be pushed back over the edge by an additional big feature to buy on impulse in the end. It follows the form of a textbook five-step sales pitch. Watch any infomercial or listen to the next guy who shows up on your doorstep selling wheelchair basketball coupon books. Apple knows this is generally uncharted territory, which generally means heavy initial reliance on impulse buys. And you can't push someone off the fence if you haven't already put them on it.

Gotta have something tangible to add to iPad 2.0 in order to justify another $100 markup.

I, for one, hope, the additional camera comes at no additional cost. It'd surely wipe the competition away somewhat further.

I did not believe that until now. I could not have believed it. Improvements, maybe, sure, over tiome, why not, but this? This is absolute HORSESHIT. They damned well left the goddamn camera out JUST so they'd have another revenue stream of suckers 6 months down the road. Apple has grown lazy.

And I have no intention of buying this stupid toy until it runs OSX.

My faith in this company is shaken with this device, and the absurd choice of the word "magical" in the ad campaign. Are you fucking kidding me? MAGICAL? Which hippie shroom dropper thought that one up, Steve?

Really.

Magical.

omfg.

He really thinks we're dolts.

And maybe we have been, but I don't plan to be any more.

HAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha....best laugh I had all night.

While I do believe they'll be adding the camera at or near launch, I agree with you in that I'm not dropping a dime on an iPad or promoting it so much as contributing to its search engine stats if i don't see that camera at launch. Planned obsolescence is one thing, but an "If you really love us, you'll buy this thing twice for no reason" mentality is shortsighted, greedy, and disloyal.

I have trouble believing Apple's that kind of company, which is why i fully anticipate a camera at launch, or that these repair parts are BS.

In fact, I'll bet a significant(for me, not for Apple) stock trade on it.

Actually, it goes even further than that. The element zero used in the cameras themselves is in short supply. Commander Shepard and his crew have scanned and probed the entire Omega cluster, and still only found 25,000 units. Bad news.

There's a part of me that does want Apple to really blow everyone away and so I looked at the sales methodology to which you refer. This is what I came up with...

1. Create a pull of interested people

Check

2. Help prospects qualify themselves (how many of us signed up for notifications?)

Check

3. Play the trust game (the proposal)

"When you want the qualified prospects to become clients of yours, realistically what you are offering is expectations" (Apple has given the world perfectly reasonable expectations.)

Check

4. Create a win-win situation (tweaking the proposal)

"This is where you listen to what your prospect is looking for and tweak a proposal that meets ... their needs".

???

5. Close the sale



It's pretty compelling when you lay it out. While I don't expect any changes at launch, it would probably send thier stock through the roof if they added a few "overlooked" features and kept the price the same. Some of the features talked about, "lurking" in the OS make me wishful.

Imagine if one of the new selling points of the next-generation iPhone is a front-facing camera...

If you were Apple, wouldn't you announce a forward facing camera for the iPhone first.
And then announce a change in the specification of the iPad just before launch.

Because I would.

Of course, that would mean including software support for a camera in the iPad.

C.

Instead I believe that Apple left the camera out of the pre-announcement, so the other netbook/tablet makers wouldn't feel that they should include one in a hurry.

So I am all for the theory that the camera will appear from nowhere as a "One more thing" item.

My ,02 cents.
Apple is getting quite a bit of heat about the lack of features. The networks said no to all you can watch subscribe, which would probably be bigger then netflix due to it also having T.V. shows. Apple can release it with camera and video, voice to text, add flash fir the 75%, or convince the networks the price is to high ( while it's free for the most part), or maybe a TV package and movie package. Just throwing it out there.
Godspeed all!!!

You haven't, they're not available for pre-order.

If you are ready to order the device, then it must be suitable for your needs. If the next generation has an additional feature that you needed so badly, then surely this wasn't a deal breaker for you or you wouldn't have 'ordered' the device.

There are plenty of reasons for there not being a front facing camera in Jobs' keynote. Lack of software, the ergonomic issues of holding the 'pad while video conferencing, maybe some sort of real time image stabilisation will need to be developed to stop the person you're talking with getting sea sick from camera shake at your end. There are all sorts of reasons. I still don't see it as a killer feature or a necessary function for this device, given it's stated functions in the first iteration.

If a camera makes an appearance before the pad goes to market - great, if it waits until the next revision, then also fine - if it's not ready for the first revision it will wait until such time as it is, or maybe it's not seen as something that will ever make it to this device.

That is the nature of product evolution - there will always be a 'new version' around the corner, so either wait indefinitely or just buy the thing when it comes out.

it STILL has one. D'oh.

That's just disingenuous. You have to buy a dongle.

Yes, you do. For those people who use this device and need an SD card slot, you can spend $29 and buy a USB and SD card 'dongle'. People that want to print will also have to buy a printer, and those who wish to drive will have to purchase an automobile.

Did I miss something?

Did Apple announce that this device would have a camera? Because people keep talking about this thing which apple forgot to add, implying it was an error or fault of the manufacture/product design.

I believe that maybe in developing a device for a stated purpose and then providing the hardware to achieve that stated purpose isn't an error. Unless I'm missing something?

That some people would like a camera, well, that's understandable. But I for one can't imagine how you could use a camera on this thing when sat in that big easy chair and holding this device in a steady, ergonomic way without the camera pointing up your nose. I also see that messenger still doesn't allow video chat between apple and windows platforms, and iChat use is tiny compared to users of windows live messenger.

So the camera doesn't form part of the stated purpose for this product, the ergonomics don't work and there's currently no software in place to allow cross platform video chat on this device.

So tell me again what's missing?

I can see this being an added feature in the future. I do not see it as a 'missing' feature at launch.

When was the last time many of you actually video conferenced?

PS> While trying to type this response, a damn vodaphone/nokia flash advert completely slowed down my machine and made it nearly impossible to type and submit this post.

Wow, so you already know that only "few people" would like to have an SD-port in their iPad? Let me guess, you also believe that multitasking and a front-facing camera are merely desires of the "few". Come on, I kind of like the iPad, but this is dumb - the device clearly lacks some core functionalities, and it's only fair to point that out. Especially when Apple is trying to pad its pockets by offering functionality that should come standard in such a device at a premium (USB and SD). There's no excuse for this; the presence of those ports in the iPad wouldn't have hurt the design or the ease of use - they probably wouldn't even have driven up the price.

I do it everyday, and so do most of my friends. Ever heard of Skype? Which, by the way, already works on Macs and iPhones and allows "cross-platform video-conferencing", so I'm not sure the software hurdles are as high as you claim.

Their target customer doesn't frequent places like this and doesn't have a clue about any of these rumors. They haven't been pining away for an Apple tablet for years building up a high expectation and laundry list of features it should have only to be disappointed. They will see it at StarBucks and at the airport and other public places. They will see the, no doubt, excellent ads that Apple will run and they will think "Wow, that thing is cool" and buy one.

I contacted the people who stock this replacement part and, it turns out, they have every replacement part for the iPad. I ordered every required part on overnight delivery (downside is all the parts cost me $3,839 rather than the RRP $499). Anyway, everything arrived by lunchtime the next day and I was able to assemble the complete iPad by around 9pm.

I even ordered an iPhone 3GS camera and retrofit it into the iPad. Needless to say, it's awesome.

It's so cool that Apple supplied spare parts to its partners 55 days before the iPad ships. I feel so special having the first real iPad in the world.

Gr@w\\!x

If Jobs really thought a camera was such a big deal, I'm sure it'd have been part of the original announcement. From a marketing perspective, there is no tangible benefit fro
"adding" a camera before you release the product. Clearly, the camera is not going to be in iPad v1.0; it would have been announced alongside all the other features. Jobs spent time showing off ACCESSORIES of all things; do you really think he wanted to provide a "one more thing" two months later without a crowd or mass media hype and coverage?

But like the iPod Touch and now iPad, the presence of a physical hook for a device does NOT mean that it was dropped or pulled for any reason. Let's assume that Apple has is or had already been hard at work on iPad 2.0 even before the announcement of iPad 1.0. These products aren't created overnight; work begins long in advance. And knowing Apple, they don't tend to change the external structure of their devices with every new generation (a la iPhone 3G to 3GS or multiple iterations of the unibody MacBooks). That means that Apple could have had every intention not to place a camera in v1.0 or ANY future iPad for that matter, but rather than re-tool a costly manufacturing process later on to add a camera hook, why not just build it into the bezel NOW, so that if at some point you decide to add a camera in v2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0, you can do so without have to physically modify your machining process. This simply makes logical financial sense and is indicative of the kind of future/forward-thinking that Apple employs.

Seeing as Apple was under no deadline to release a tablet other than the one they created for themselves through leaks and specs released to manufacturing partners, it's obvious that if they had a problem with cameras and felt that it was critical to the end user experience, they could have waited until those challenges were resolved. But they didn't. And so since Ocam's Razor had already been brought up, the conspiracy theory of leaving a feature off a device for the sole purpose of driving adoption of v2.0 is NOT the simplest explanation. iPad v1.0 is going to sell well even without a camera, and the addition of a camera alone is not going to drive 1.0 owners to upgrade. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that v2.0 will have the same screen bezel and Apple simply doesn't want to resubmit new specs to a manufacturing partner (specs that tend to get leaked and interpreted as impending product launch/update by the way) when it comes time for the next product refresh.