Next ipod Touch to get camera??

good idea

Who knows.

I doubt it...

That would be like getting a backlit keyboard on a regular MacBook. It's one of those cool features that everyone would *like* to see, but probably just isn't going to happen.

Also, while it might (might) boost iPod Touch sales, it also might detract from iPhone sales, as a camera would place it one step closer to being the same device, just without the phone.

All I want in the iPod Touch right now is the price drop. But who knows how long that could be...

I'd bet on true GPS before a camera...

but neither seem likely yet.

I think the major improvement will be the price. same with the other ipods. with the iphone at 200 The touch will be reduced to at least 150 bucks and the other ipods will follow...

No 2 year contract? No price drop.

Updated iPod touch:

1 - The 8GB model will stay for the people that do not have a lot of music but want to surf the web.
2 - Since a 64GB model will be too expensive I can see the 16GB/32GB models change to 24GB/48GB.
3 - iTunes remote capability.

I think they'll have to drop the price if they want to sell any.

A camera would be cool, but I would give my left, uh, sock for 3G/Edge.
That would make my life complete, except for not having the ability to fly, or see through walls.

Because I rarely have wifi available where I am.

I'm sick of crappy cameras in otherwise cutting edge devices.

Unless its at least a 6MB camera leave it out, i have a 2MB on my phone and it is crap.

The lens is a LOT more important than the pixels

I think the new iPod Touch should have the volume on the side buttons just like the iPhone.
I don't think a camera is really needed, it is just an iPod.

There's no external volume buttons on the iPod Touch?

Didn't know that...

Yeah, they should definitely add that feature.

I disagree, I like the on-screen touch controls for the iPod Touch. After all, it IS an iPod Touch.

What it really needs is a remote attached to the headphones, like the iPod remote from a couple of years ago.

Meh, I guess I wouldn't really mind. It's no big deal.

I just kind of assumed it had the external volume controls in the first place...

I have to say the best place to get an iPod Touch from now, for a decent price is eBay. I bought mine off there for only £175 for the 8Gb version, which is £25 under the £200 price tag. Mind you the P&P was £10

Don't we all! Having just put in the change to get an iPhone I'm less worried about it right now. My bank account however is a little squeamish thinking I might not resist.

I'm not sure where you get the above idea. The technology is clearly on line. Further there are indications that Apple went to Toshiba for Flash in the iPhone. One could take this to mean that there will be an expansion in the use of Samsung Flash in the other iPods. I expect to wee rather large capacity increases in most of the iPods that Apple currently offers.

Oh let me count the options:
1.
GPS. Makes even more sense than on the iPhone.
2
USB host or USB On the Go. The goal here obviously is to be able to control external devices
3.
Improved BlueTooth support. That is more profiles. This is mostly a software update though. The frustration here is that it appears that Apple specifically is avoiding fuller Bluetooth support. I do wonder why, I want my Bluetooth profiles.
4.
More real world sensors. Lets start with a temperature sensor. But any number of other sensors would come in handy. Obviously we don't want to crowd out other capabilities but do want to render more real world information to supplement the accelerometers and positions sensors.
5.
A bar code scanner! Seriously this would come in handy especially if miniaturized enough. Of course done right a built in camera could offer up this capability instead.
6.
An FM and Weather Radio. Apple should be able to do this for practically free with the right chipset. Again this only for the practicality of having a radio at times when it may be needed.
7.
The option of a bigger screen. The current iPod is just about perfect for a small pocket but is less than ideal for travelling video or multimedia use. This really is just the logical expansion of the iPod family. It also offers up more board space which can lead to more built in storage for a given process generation.

Now I'm not saying that a Camera is a bad idea, I just want to point out that such is not acceptable to many. Some of use are forced to use a Touch simply because cameras are verboten in certain parts of a facility. So the point here is that they need to have a model with and a model without.

Now given that the Touch is a different market than the iPhone I really hope that Apple would implement a Camera on a future Touch the right way. That would mean completely skipping the current generation of cell phone camera optics and sensors and go with something better. Even if that means a slightly thicker Touch. The idea would be to deliver the optical quality one can get out of a good compact Camera.

Well yes and no. I understand the attraction of having a Camera there, I just want to point out that many people go the Touch route simply to avoid having a "Cell Phone" camera. There are many reasons for that too. As suggested above there are places cameras simply aren't accepted. Another issues is that many people have better taste in photography than can be currently offered up on a "Cell Phone' camera.
[
I'm neutral here. The reason is this: I can see Apple going in a number of different directions with new Touch based devices. I can also see a Touch based device that is more correct thought of as being built around a camera rather than having a camera built into it. In other words Apple could change the focus a bit just as they did with the IPhone. IPhone is a cell phone first and an iPod Touch second, there is nothing to keep them from making an iCamera with a secondary focus on iPod.

Well the number one thing is that what ever is delivered in September should not be considered the end of the story. It is just one bump in the development process. In fact I'd be surprised if major changes other than storage capacity come in September. Of course I would love to be proven wrong here and there is a lot of evidence that Apple is moving forward with enhanced technology for the iPod lines.

By technology I'm talking about Apples purchase of PA Semi. The rumour is that this is directly related to future iPod like devices. The question of course becomes is the technology ready to deliver to the end user. One could hope so as an highly integrated SoC for the ipod lines could lead to a lot of room for other hardware in a Touch like device. Just look at the internal photos of the 3G iPhone, there are a lot of chips built in to that little guy. If you can get rid of 50% of them you automatically have more room for Flash.

Finally; I just ordered my new iPhone. That is great in the sense that it is my first and is expected soon. The frustration is that one can expect them to move the Ipod line forward significantly. So a couple of months from now an iPod Touch could look very attractive.



Dave

Can you do audio recording on an iPod Touch? I don't think so. That's the feature I'd add.

I agree! I used to have a Sharp GX20 with A .2MBpx camera n that thing took much better photos than my 2MBpx LG phone. It comes down to lens and often screen. That screen was perfect for watching photos.

No, 3G is a mobile data technology, wireless is really a fixed technology. iPod touch is a mobile device, hence why 3G is probably much better.

Hence why 3G on notebooks is a brilliant addition for being mobile as well as wifi.

If the camera on the iPhone is anything to go by then no thanks, anything under 5MP is pointless now. Everybody who owns an iPod touch will also own a mobile phone too and therefore will have a camera anyway, why have 2?

3G/GPS would be brilliant and I would buy one then as I will not be getting an iPhone but would really like a touch.

Really? What about the 10X12 prints that I make from my old 3.3MP Nikon? In fact, what about the billboard that was made using that very same camera, a few years ago when it was titled "Digital Camera of the Year"?

The depth of your photographic knowledge is obviously shallow.

my cell phone already has a decent camera, so, no thank you.

I have an old Nikon 2.something MP camera myself and lets face it any of these old point and shoot cameras can run circles around any cell phone camera. As others have pointed out there is more to making a good picture than having a high pixel count. Optics is a huge part of the equation as is pixel size and image processing.

To better understand this look up some recent comparisons of Nikons D3 to higher pixel count Cannons. The Nikon can often do better than the high Pixel count cannons.

You don't see many billboards made out of Cell Phone pictures now do you. Besides that billboard doesn't really mean much unless you understand how post processing was done.

Likewise I'm sure. The fact of the matter is that one can not take a cameras pixel count out of context and use it in a reasonable way to compare hardware. At best it is a gross simplification and when used by the marketing departments of the camera manufactures is often an appeal to people who simply don't know better.

Going back to Nikon hardware the D3 is a full frame sensor and in the D300 they have their DX sized sensor. Both around the same pixel count. Do you honestly believe they are the same class camera? The fact is, for the most part, cell phone cameras aren't even in the same league as the low end point and shoot cameras. The sensor size is extremely small due to optical limitations in the stack height that is possible in a cell phone. Extremely small sensors lead to extremely small pixels which leads to a number of other issues. The modern day cellphone camera shouldn't be considered any better than the disposable cameras of the film age. Sure they take pictures, but you have zero flexibility and marginal optics.


Dave

Obviously very shallow, I am sorry I will just go back off to my cave shall I?

As the previous poster alluded to you are comparing a camera with a cameraphone, Not very smart.

When I said 5mp I was of course referring to more but was trying not to say a lot. When a cellphone manufacturer goes to the trouble of including a high megapixel camera (ala Nokia, SonyErricsson) they are also including decent lenses, software and flash etc.. These phones really are a very good replacement for a point and click camera and you really do not need a second "play" camera one you own one of these devices. So my just saying 5mp was really referring to a quality cameraphone.

So I repeat, if it were to be a camera of the iphone kind then no it would be a pointless waste of time.

But you didn't say that, you made a broad statement about megapixels, which was misleading.

pixels doesn't really have anything to do with how good a picture looks... the more pixels
you have means the LARGER you can blow up the picture without degrading it....

camera and integrated GPS are two things id like. especially since location through wi-fi NEVER EVER EVER works coractly for me.

The iPhone barley has a camera.

It's the quality of the glass that makes a camera, not the megapixels in the CCD.

Sanity, at last!

Actually, the sensor size has more impact than pixel quantity, but if one has a POS lens, then one will have crappy images.

Further, to Regan, let's see, if your cell phone won't work, then your wifi iPod probably won't either. You could capture images with either device, providing both had a camera, to be sent LATER when you do have a connection. Therefore, camera in an iPod only offers redundancy, for most folks that have a camera in their cell phone.

As an aside, and probably of very little interest to anyone, I have never used the camera in my cell phone, simply because my photography is more demanding than that provided by a cell phone camera.

I don't see either 3G/EDGE or GPS in the Touch.

First, is the cost of the 3G/EDGE data plan. The point of the iPod Touch is that the total cost of ownership is fairly low. If you'd need a data plan for an iPod Touch, you might as well have the whole iPhone.

Second, GPS doesn't seem to be much use without a data connection. I have read that the iPhone offloads some GPS processing to the cloud, so a connection would be needed if this is true. Even if GPS functions independently, many apps, such as Google Maps, are dependant on networked resources. So, without 3G/EDGE, GPS seems much less useless.

So there is a dependency, and these features will likely remain iPhone-only.

A camera, however, is believable, and I think value-added.

I would suggest that it will be time for the iPod touch to sport an external speaker before anything else!

SNazz123

Very true.