or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple unveils new 16GB iPod touch model without iSight, priced at $229
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils new 16GB iPod touch model without iSight, priced at $229

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
Apple on Wednesday added a new iPod touch model to its lineup of iOS devices, with the $229 camera- and wrist-strap-less version being sold as a stripped-down iteration of the company's high-end media player.

iPod touch
Source: Apple


According to the Apple Online Store, currently the only place to find information about the new iPod, Apple's latest device features a 4-inch Retina display, dual-core A5 chip, and Apple EarPods. As predicted by KGI analyst Ming-Chi Kuo in January, the new touch, currently limited to a black-on-silver design, sheds the rear-facing iSight camera and wrist strap to drop the price of entry down to $229.

First spotted by The Verge, the iPod touch adds to the current 32GB and 64GB offerings, and appears to take the place of the now discontinued fourth-generation model line.

Interestingly, the new version retains the front-facing FaceTime camera and boasts the same connectivity options as its more expensive siblings. The only other change is the 16GB model's weight, which drops down to 3.04 ounces due to the camera delete and loss of the wrist strap holding button.

Apple launched the fifth-generation iPod touch in September of 2012 without a 16GB option, just as it did with the third-generation player. All other generations had capacities down to 8GB.
post #2 of 66
and yet the screenshot shows the camera app still ? - way to go on the quality control there Apple....
post #3 of 66
Because it still has a front facing camera for face time etc.
post #4 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Mac Man View Post

and yet the screenshot shows the camera app still ? - way to go on the quality control there Apple....

There is a front facing camera genius. 

 

Boom!  There it is!

I like the element of surprise in this new release.  Keep' em coming Apple. 1smile.gif

post #5 of 66
Are the iPads due to receive the same treatment next?

And they can leave out the FaceTime cameras too if it'll make them even cheaper, I never use them.
post #6 of 66

It's now cheaper than the Classic, I wonder if it will finally be for the chopping block soon.

post #7 of 66
The British version is quite shy, no pic of the device, just a plain brown box 1smile.gif

http://d.pr/i/d8Hs
Edited by bclapper - 5/30/13 at 11:21am

3.4 GHz i7 iMac | 64GB iPhone 5 | 64GB iPad 3 | 16GB iPad mini

Reply

3.4 GHz i7 iMac | 64GB iPhone 5 | 64GB iPad 3 | 16GB iPad mini

Reply
post #8 of 66
Interesting that Apple can do this on iPods but not iPhones. Obviously they need a cheaper iPhone first, but they can differentiate with removing cameras on that as they wish.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #9 of 66
This is an interesting strategy for Apple which not only offers a lower-priced model of a higher-end iPod, by eliminating a feature some people may not need or want, while reducing its storage capacity which is consequently not needed as much, and simultaneously expanding the potential demand iPods as well as for apps and services (FaceTime, iCloud, etc.).

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #10 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Interesting that Apple can do this on iPods but not iPhones. Obviously they need a cheaper iPhone first, but they can differentiate with removing cameras on that as they wish.
 

Removing the camera? hell no.

post #11 of 66
Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!
post #12 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!

 

So Al's (AppleInsider, not Jolson) response would be, "I'm just not wild about Harry..."

post #13 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!

I must have missed the "event" Apple held for this.

Jesus Christ. Would you have rather this story not be reported? It's a new model, which is more newsworthy than most things in the past while. And one which many people might want. Stop with the shitty trolling.
post #14 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post

Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!

That might explain why they didn't make it into an event.

Really, what's with that negativity?
post #15 of 66

Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...

post #16 of 66
Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.
post #17 of 66
I think Apple is testing out a variant to see how adoption goes, before implementing something similar on the iPhone.

I think it's a bad idea, overall. Making it a few bucks cheaper won't make it more appealing, considering that a basic camera is a rather core feature in most handheld devices now.

I call 'fail' on this one.
post #18 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.

Agreed. I couldn't live without my classic.
post #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...

Because the a5 is needed for the new OS?

 

Because it is better to have the same screen and resolution between the iPod and Mac lines?

 

Because the other was outdated?

 

Because they sell 6 million iPod touches per quarter and that's important for iOS as a platform?

 

Because they do what they want to do?

post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Agreed. I couldn't live without my classic.

It's the Engergizer Bunny of iPod models.

It would seem that they'll keep it until the Touch is offered in 128GB. Then it would be "close enough" in size to drop the Classic model. You might see a 256GB model year or two after that.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/30/13 at 5:27am
post #21 of 66
No more wrist strap?
post #22 of 66
The article says no iSight camera but I've always considered that the name of the front-facing camera until FaceTime camera became the norm. Did the rear-facing camera start being called iSight camera?

edit: I see that Apple does list it as iSight for the back camera on the other iPod Touch models.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/30/13 at 5:28am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #23 of 66
Interesting that they left out the loop. But I guess with no rear camera they didn't think it was necessary?
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbean View Post

No more wrist strap?

Nice catch. No camera, LED flash, loop strap or the popup connector to attach it.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I think Apple is testing out a variant to see how adoption goes, before implementing something similar on the iPhone.

I think it's a bad idea, overall. Making it a few bucks cheaper won't make it more appealing, considering that a basic camera is a rather core feature in most handheld devices now.

I call 'fail' on this one.

 

Best see how it sells. Apple knows how well it's $199 model sells, though it is a year old, this is a test of market elasticity for lower end iPods. How many more can you sell at $229. Probably lots more. Plenty of people don't want a camera in a phone, or a device. They have cameras.

 

Do music players need cameras? 

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #26 of 66

Apple obviously wanted to eliminate the 3.5" iPod touch and removing the camera was the only way to meet their price point. I think this means we're going to see the rumoured low-cost iPhone. The upcoming iPhone line-up would be the 4S, 5 and 5S. Only the 4S would have a 3.5" display. If Apple is instead going to introduce a low-cost version of the 5 then it won't want a 3.5" display in its iPod touch line-up either. Note that the old 3.5" iPod touch didn't have a Lightning connector either and Apple probably wants to move to a range of products all with the same connector, which means eliminating the 4S next update too. Why now? Probably because they're ramping down production on the 4 and 4S ahead of the update. It's also likely the iPod touch won't be redesigned this year.

post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...

 

It also means that no one can ever drag out the "Apple wouldn't do this" or "This is un-Apple" trope ever again.  Which is sad because I rely on that one myself.  1frown.gif

 

This move is so completely opposite to everything Apple usually does and the way it usually behaves that it negates all of that.  

post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

Are the iPads due to receive the same treatment next?

And they can leave out the FaceTime cameras too if it'll make them even cheaper, I never use them.

They did. It was called iPad, the original iPad.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #29 of 66
This analyst has excellent connections, he's pretty much the only one I pay attention to on predictions. Scarily accurate, proved once again.

Re: iPod touch, I don't get it. My kids have one each and they use the camera all the time. I could see removing the camera from an iPad but not the Touch. Strange.
post #30 of 66

I'm surprised they didn't remove the front facing camera instead. 

Do most owners use their Touch for a camera or for FaceTime? I would think a camera would be used more on a regular basis.

 

But at least the price is going down. Frankly, I also wonder if it has to do with slowing sales.

I always thought, $299 is a pretty steep price albeit it has 32gb.

post #31 of 66
The purpose of this model is not to sell huge quantities.
The purpose is to have a low enough price that people consider buying it and when they comparison shop they decide to get the more expensive one.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Agreed. I couldn't live without my classic.

I'm with ya. It's nice to be able to take all of your music with you instead of having to change out songs. The capacity can't be beat.
post #33 of 66

I bought my daughter an iPod Touch mostly due to the fact that it had the camera. She got it for Christmas, and probably has close to a thousand pictures on it already, plus she's big into SnapChat with her friends. I can't see the value in removing the good camera on a Touch, but apparently someone else does.

post #34 of 66
Makes no sense to me, unless Apple is about to unveil its own wireless comm network.
post #35 of 66

Hmm, for just $20 more you can get a 32GB with the camera and flash and loop from the refurbished store.

21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
post #36 of 66
Quote:

Originally Posted by satchmo

 

I'm surprised they didn't remove the front facing camera instead. 

Do most owners use their Touch for a camera or for FaceTime? I would think a camera would be used more on a regular basis.

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.  I use the camera a ton, but I've only used facetime a few times.


Edited by Arbiter8 - 5/30/13 at 7:40am
21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
21.5" iMac i7 2012, iPod Touch 5, iPad 2, iPod nano 7, Mac Mini G4 2000
Reply
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbiter8 View Post

I was thinking the same thing.  I use the camera a ton, but I've only used facetime a few times.

Perhaps Apple is aware of some new trend among teens based on their analysis of usage statistics that average adult consumers have no clue about. Is it possible that FaceTime turned out to be more popular with teens than with spouses as Apple originally imagined?

 

It is a little awkward, but not impossible, to take pictures with the front facing camera but you definitely need the front facing camera for FaceTime. Teens are often just posting pictures of themselves for social media and the front facing camera works pretty well for that.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Interesting that Apple can do this on iPods but not iPhones. Obviously they need a cheaper iPhone first, but they can differentiate with removing cameras on that as they wish.

Apple doesn't need a new cheap iPhone. I also don't think they will remove the camera either as the iPhone is also the most popular camera too.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaren View Post

I bought my daughter an iPod Touch mostly due to the fact that it had the camera. She got it for Christmas, and probably has close to a thousand pictures on it already, plus she's big into SnapChat with her friends. I can't see the value in removing the good camera on a Touch, but apparently someone else does.

 

In my opinion it was a terrible move. Apple clearly can meet the lower price point including the camera. LG makes an entire Nexus phone with profits for $300. Apple could surely find a way to make an iPod for $230-250 and still include the camera.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbiter8 View Post

I was thinking the same thing.  I use the camera a ton, but I've only used facetime a few times.

Perhaps Apple is aware of some new trend among teens based on their analysis of usage statistics that average adult consumers have no clue about. Is it possible that FaceTime turned out to be more popular with teens than with spouses as Apple originally imagined?

 

It is a little awkward, but not impossible, to take pictures with the front facing camera but you definitely need the front facing camera for FaceTime. Teens are often just posting pictures of themselves for social media and the front facing camera works pretty well for that.

 

My sons never use Facetime however they do Skype with everyone while using their computers and playing Minecraft. They tend to use Skype more on their iPod Touch as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

My sons never use Facetime however they do Skype with everyone while using their computers and playing Minecraft. They tend to use Skype more on their iPod Touch as well.

Skype, FaceTime, both use the same camera. I prefer Skype because it is so cross platform and also because I'm always communicating internationally where iDevices are less common and Skype is ubiquitous. I'm just wondering if teens are placing video calls more than adults, using any of the available apps. It is sometimes difficult for a parent to know exactly what kind of activity a teen is doing when not under their supervision. If there are no parental controls in place for FaceTime then they may be using it more than you know.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple unveils new 16GB iPod touch model without iSight, priced at $229