or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's future iPods rumored to get cameras like iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's future iPods rumored to get cameras like iPhone

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Apple may be planning to add camera functionality to a couple of its next-generation iPod models, according to a new report, which also claims that upcoming iPhones will retain the handsets' existing form factor.

Citing tips passed on from one of its sources, Hardmac, the English-language version of France's MacBidouille, says that when Apple refreshes its iPod touch and iPod nano players later this September, both will feature a camera like the iPhone.

Despite some inaccuracies in Hardmac's earlier batch of rumors, adding a camera to the iPod touch may be a logical step for Apple, in that it would nearly double the market for camera-related applications on the App Store set to explode following the release of next-generation iPhones, which will include video recording capabilities as one of their biggest features.

The assertion that the more affordable and compact iPod nanos will also gain camera functionality is a bit more dubious but shouldn't be ruled out entirely. Although there's no developer platform surrounding the nano to help leverage such a feature, the players do include a built-in photo viewer.

Adding a camera to the nano may be a simple but material enough measure that could help drive upgrade cycles on the part of consumers, some of which may be turned on to the novelty of having rudimentary point-and-shoot capabilities built into a device they carry regularly, doing away for the need to tote a separate device more frequently.



Separately, the report cites the same sources as saying that this year's iPhones will feature "exactly the same shape and size than the current iPhone 3G, despite fakes and rumors circulating." This prediction is fairly consistent with one waged by a self-alleged insider in China, who outlined several specifications rumored for the new handsets in an overseas forum post first discovered by AppleInsider earlier this week.
post #2 of 49
One word for this:

Nifty.
post #3 of 49
Another word:

Rumor.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 49
Not bloody likely.....I say perhaps on the Ipod Touch...
post #5 of 49
… isn't the shiny back coming back on iPods this year?
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

One word for this:

Nifty.

I believe you mean "snappier." No pun intended.
post #7 of 49
It's rarely a good idea to make an unequivocal "never", so I think "very unlikely" is a good start on the nano.

I doubt that the camera would be behind the screen. Nanos are so thin they can't put a headphone jack on the top edge. There doesn't seem to be any other good place to put it, anywhere on the top edge would probably mean pushing the screen down. That's no good. Below the screen isn't so great either. If they do manage to squeeze in a camera, that would probably mean it's using an OLED screen, but that seems like a stretch in itself.
post #8 of 49
The iPod Touch sells more than the iPhone. It makes little sense to deliver an iPod Touch sans camera when iLife has had iPhoto forever.

The cameras should geotag and leverage video recording features as well. The iPod is no longer just a music player it's a multimedia and communications device.

I'll be waiting and in September I'll order 4 of these if they have the features I want.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

isn't the shiny back coming back on iPods this year?

The shiny back has never left. It only disappears once in a while and only on the nanos.

I think most people have been wondering all this time why the camera was left off of the iPod touch, so it makes sense to put one in there. I don't see them putting one in the nano unless the nano gets a new form factor that allows it to use the iPhone OS though.

There's no super good reason that it would fail or anything, but it doesn't give the device much of an advantage without the software support that the other models enjoy.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #10 of 49
It makes a lot of sense on a Touch, especially if a future iphone differentiates itself further with video capabilities. Having a camera added to a nano though might add bulk, which is sort of the point of a nano. What Apple really needs to do is have a camera on at least one of their devices that can outright replace a point and shoot camera; until then iPhone cameras (and hypothetical nano and touch cameras) exist as little more than glorified toys.
post #11 of 49
I'd expect Apple to be trying to move all their iPods (bar the shuffle) to the iPhone OS platform, over the next couple of years anyway. A camera on the existing nano doesn't appear to make much sense to me - most people have a phone with a camera of similar quality, so why use their iPods? A camera on the iPod Touch would make sense, it could well happen when a front-facing camera is added to the iPhone, which would differentiate between them.
post #12 of 49
This is a big thing if Apple develops a little common sense with respect to camera design. That is operation of a camera would be vastly improved with a mechanical shutter switch.

It is certainly a good idea if Apple can improve the camera technology over the current iPhone tech. However the big problem is that many buy a Touch to avoid iPhone's camera. Sad as it may be, camera aren't allowed every where and Touch solved that problem handily. Thus a camera could be seen as a negative for many.

Frankly I kinda wish Apple would punt with the cell phone tech and implement a bigger sensor. That is up the quality to a point and shoot sensor and optics system. It would go a long way on a Touch type device.


Dave
post #13 of 49
I don't really see a need to create artificial differentiation between the iPod Touch and the iPhone.

The differentiation is already there. One makes phones calls through a cell carrier the other does not.

As much as I like the iPhone i'm not breaking my Sprint contract to get one. Even a cheapo phone comes with a camera so it's about time to add a camera to a device that Apple's asking 200+ dollars for.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 49
Since analysts and bloggers are reportedly weighing in with predictions of WWDC or Post-WWDC introductions of new iPhone models, I'm going to go ahead and round out the field by predicting that new iPhone models will appear *before* WWDC.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #15 of 49
I know that there is the NightCamera app that helps, but without a flash indoor images, especially in the evening, are nearly impossible to get of any quality. So Apple could add as many megapixels they want, but no flash still means blurry images.

27" iMac 2.93GHz | 17" MacBook Pro 2.8GHz | Mac Mini Server 2.5Ghz
16GB iPhone 4S | 16GB iPad (1st gen) | AppleTV
www.heavyimages.com

Reply

27" iMac 2.93GHz | 17" MacBook Pro 2.8GHz | Mac Mini Server 2.5Ghz
16GB iPhone 4S | 16GB iPad (1st gen) | AppleTV
www.heavyimages.com

Reply
post #16 of 49
My prediction will come true if this happens. I bought my iPod Touch last fall suspecting that this would most logically be the next step for Sept09. Of course at the time told no way and I was accused of complaining. It will really be amazing if it can shoot video as well and has the high resolution camera as the iPhone- perfect.
And all of it without AT&T.
post #17 of 49
will a new touch come in june?? my foriegn exchange student and my little girl want to buy a touch "soon" one leaves for japan june 21
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple may be planning to add camera functionality to a couple of its next-generation iPod models

I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.
post #19 of 49
Quote:
upcoming iPhones will retain the handsets' existing form factor.

this year's iPhones will feature "exactly the same shape and size than the current iPhone 3G, despite fakes and rumors circulating."

Further evidence is new case styles showing up in Apple stores this close to a product update.
post #20 of 49
I can think of a lot of things I'd rather see changed about the iPod Touch than adding a camera. Like better battery life. (My 2G dies in about an hour of watching video. Pathetic.) Most people who have an iPod Touch probably already have a camera phone.
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post

It makes a lot of sense on a Touch, especially if a future iphone differentiates itself further with video capabilities. .

They don't have to differentiate. You need phone and 3G data capabilities, you get the iPhone. wifi good enuf? get the touch.
It makes no sense to me that they would put a camera on the touch and not enable video.
Again, the touch surprised even Apple with its success. It's no longer the red-haired stepchild.
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.

I definitely agree.
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

will a new touch come in june?? my foriegn exchange student and my little girl want to buy a touch "soon" one leaves for japan june 21

New iPods are typically released in September. That is when the original iPod Touch came out (although it was announced at the same time as the phone).
post #24 of 49
we are wimps for rumors
come on that's reaching
charlie could be the "pre" developers dogs name
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Separately, the report cites the same sources as saying that this year's iPhones will feature "exactly the same shape and size than the current iPhone 3G, despite fakes and rumors circulating."

Is the same "plastic" outer shell that features possible "stress" cracks going to be the same as well?

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

Not bloody likely.....I say perhaps on the Ipod Touch...

The touch makes sense.
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Is the same "plastic" outer shell that features possible "stress" cracks going to be the same as well?

You know if you have one of the phones with stress cracks you can just walk into any Apple store, make an appointment with a genius and have it replaced for free right?
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I don't really see a need to create artificial differentiation between the iPod Touch and the iPhone.

The differentiation is already there. One makes phones calls through a cell carrier the other does not.

I wouldn't exactly call it artificial. The first Touch did nit have a speaker while the next generation did. Despite the inclusion it was still not as good as the original iPhone's speaker. They could have simply used a cheaper speaker but it looks note likely that the issue is based on the device's thinness. This thin obsession will keep the iPhone's camera behind in quality over other smartphones. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's a trade off that may or may bot appeal to the customer.

Of course, the next argument is that Apple doesn't have to make their devices so thin. While true, it is what they do and to expect anything different is irrational.
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 #29 of 49
I see no reason to give something that's supposed to be dedicated to playing music, the ability to take photos. I mean, its a cool feature, but I think it's something that would be better off on the ipod touch. I've never heard anyone say they want the ipod touch strictly for music, know what I mean? It's the opposite for the regular ipod which people think of when looking for something for music only.

Could be wrong though. If it didn't raise the price substantially, I'm sure people would make use of it.
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I wouldn't exactly call it artificial. The first Touch did nit have a speaker while the next generation did. Despite the inclusion it was still not as good as the original iPhone's speaker. They could have simply used a cheaper speaker but it looks note likely that the issue is based on the device's thinness. This thin obsession will keep the iPhone's camera behind in quality over other smartphones. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's a trade off that may or may bot appeal to the customer.

Of course, the next argument is that Apple doesn't have to make their devices so thin. While true, it is what they do and to expect anything different is irrational.

It was never meant to be. Did it ever occur to you that the iPhone needs a better speaker because it is a phone?
post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

It was never meant to be. Did it ever occur to you that the iPhone needs a better speaker because it is a phone?

Did it ever occur to you to read AND comprehend the post you are quoting before submitting your 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
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 #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft View Post

One word for this:
Nifty.

Yup, me must agree. I think a camera on the Nano could make sense, if only from a 'need to upgrade' perspective. It would be a fun thing aimed at the target Nano consumer group. But I somehow doubt it will happen. If Apple brings out an iPhone 'light' in some form or other, it will have a camera, and ditto the Touch. A phone without a camera today would be lame.
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Did it ever occur to you to read AND comprehend the post you are quoting before submitting your reply?

Always- especially when they're well written AND not constantly reinterpreted by the author himself to deflect valid criticism.
post #34 of 49
My preference for the iTouch would be for CCD camera with fill LED flash which does not use much power. However, the game changer would be speaker and microphone like the iPhone. Dirt cheap to implement. It would allow VoIP calls over WiFi. Start a whole new upgrade cycle. I could use such a phone at home, work and some of the public places with free WiFi.

However, even I realize it is not going to happen. Apple got the market segmented and is in tight with ATT. It would be too consumer friendly!
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by heavydevelopment View Post

I know that there is the NightCamera app that helps, but without a flash indoor images, especially in the evening, are nearly impossible to get of any quality. So Apple could add as many megapixels they want, but no flash still means blurry images.

You don't even need to appeal to the lack of a flash to make the point that adding more megapixels won't prevent blurry images. With those tiny optics that are in cell phones, CCDs of even modest density already outperform the optical resolution. In other words, putting sensors with more megapixels into most cell phones is only going to result in getting more "blurry" pixels. This is true in plain daylight, flash or no flash, and perfectly still camera and subject.

If you want quality photos, you need a good sized lens and a respectable focal distance, preferably with nothing in between. In other words... get a camera, not a camera phone.

Number of pixels does not necessarily equate to quality. It's amazing how many people don't get this.

Thompson
post #36 of 49
A nano with video recording could take the market from the Flip.
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

i'd rather have gps in the touch before a camera. Most people with a touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.

+1!!!!
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post

A nano with video recording could take the market from the Flip.

Maybe it could. That said, I really haven't figured out what the market is for the Flip-like devices when a point and shoot camera of the same price can record good video too, and you'd get optical zoom.
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

I'd rather have GPS in the Touch before a camera. Most people with a Touch are probably already toting a phone with camera.

What's wrong with both?

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The iPod Touch sells more than the iPhone. It makes little sense to deliver an iPod Touch sans camera when iLife has had iPhoto forever.

The cameras should geotag and leverage video recording features as well. The iPod is no longer just a music player it's a multimedia and communications device.

I'll be waiting and in September I'll order 4 of these if they have the features I want.

i second that vote for geotagging (GPS too?).

and yeah, i use my iPT for more than music too. i actually use the apps more than listen to music, spent more too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's future iPods rumored to get cameras like iPhone