Originally Posted by walshbj
It seems weird that the nano has had a camera all this time and the touch still does not.
I think the Nano only got a camera last year, and its not a good camera. It competes with a simple non-HD version of Flip in the most rudimentary way. The real killer for Flip is that its likely good enough while also being an iPod, which Flip doesnt do.
The Touch not having a camera was a little surprising last year, but its not uncommon for a component to have supply issues. Maybe it was an artificial business reason, but we had reports of certain elements for the camera already being in short supply before the Touch was announced so its possible it was a supply issue combined with a need to make sure the iPhone had supply first.
Originally Posted by whoami
Apple has so many sleeper hits it's crazy... think they'll build FaceTime into iTunes soon?
That doesnt sound like a bad idea. Not into iTunes, but using your account as your unique ID for the FaceTime gateway server.
Originally Posted by macadam212
iPod shuffle will get a camera, can't see it happening for the iPod Touch.
FaceTime Shuffle is Apples version of Chat Roulette?
Originally Posted by iGuessSo
The unsubsidized iPhone is ridiculously overpriced. Yes all those features would raise the price, but to $600? Puhlease.
Its really not. If carriers are willing to pay for the privilege to subsidize the iPhone and users are willing to pay for the device and other vendors have to sell a lesser product at the same produce because they cant compete with Apples economy of scale and ecosystem, thats not Apples fault. Thats business; the competition needs to learn to engineer, produce, market and manage themselves better.
Originally Posted by ruel24
I agree... Make it an iPhone without the phone part. Wouldn't that just be simpler? I know it would make everyone that buys them happy.
That is the iPod Touch. There are no cellular radios. You can use VoIP right now.
If you mean an iPod Touch that has GSM/UMTS radios for data, then that is the iPhone, except you are required by most carriers (maybe all) to get a voice plan. If AT&T offered it a plan like the Data Connect cards I might go for that, though have been $60/month for 5GB and I pay $69 for Unlimited data, so it might not be in my best interest.
Originally Posted by fabsgwu
It would be awesome to see future MacBooks integrate an A4 processor and iOS side-by-side with OSX. The benefit would be an instant-on browsing/App experience for when full OSX is overkill. This could mean ridiculous battery life and further integration with iPhone/iPod.
Have you seen iPhone/Touch apps running on an iPad? They are awful. I deleted mine off my iPad right away. I would rather use Safari than the app. For a desktop its even worse, and dont even get me started on an iPhone app on the AppleTV.
Plus, there is already an emulator for testing an app on a Mac before you test it on an iDevice. You wouldnt need an A4 to make this happen.
Since the Touch is likely getting Facetime, it's only a matter of time before we see iOS features spread across Apple's products. And contrary to some worries, I think it could actually help strengthen Mac/OSX with greater innovation spreading to that platform from the touch/mobile device space.
Note that Apple made FaceTime open immediately. I dont think well see iOS features on Mac OS X since iOS was designed for a smaller output and a completely unique input. Well see the efficient code of iOS on Mac OS X, like they did for QuickTime X, but that is all backend stuff, the front end will be dramatically different per my example.
I cant wait to see how FaceTime works. I think there has to be a gateway server involved. So far it looks like it requires a single call to register the device in some way, but I cant see Apple requiring it to be used only via a phone (plus its easily subverted) when so many different devices are internet capable. There has to be more to this story. I would expect 10.7 would get FaceTime built into iChat, but apps like Adium can add the protocol, too.