Remember Apple gets money back from the cell carriers and the iPhone costs $600 on top of that. (integrated in the monthly price naturally)
One can't expect nearly all the features of the iPhone to be in the iPod Touch (minus the phone circuitry) for a price people are willing to pay all cash up front for.
$199 is the magic number, meaning it's the price point most people are willing to pay and Apple makes the most overall profit. Just like 99¢ is a magic number and the reason the price isn't rounded up is because $199 sounds cheaper than $200, all marketing tricks.
Suppose a price of $549 for a 'iPhone stripped of the phone' isn't what people are willing to pay in any volume worth the trouble for Apple which has to think about making the MOST MONEY overall. So it's a combination of the 'most sales' with the 'most margins' to equal the most money.
It's possible the numbers and the experience of previous sales Apple has had led them to believe it wasn't a good decision to try to sell a $549 iPod Touch with GPS, 64GB of storage, 5 megapixel video camera etc. etc.
Geeks want a device that has everything, but they sure not many will pay $549 for it. I'm sure the sales of the $399 devices are not great.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to sync 64GB over BT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo.han
Of course I do,
but A. does anyone change 64GB between syncs or do we just tweak?
and B. I was mainly thinking about calendar and contacts and such.
Right, calendar & contacts are about all BT can do unless you just let it sit there. For me, I might have 100MB of tracks that get shuffled around on every sync. It looks like it would be a 13 minute sync, assuming 1Mbps.
Shows Zune HD with a games menu. Microsoft has also confirmed there will be games. Will there be as many good games as the iPod Touch, will they be better or worse quality? Only time will tell.
The least Apple could have done is brought FM Radio to its entire lineup.
Maybe Apple didn't update the Touch today because they don't have to.
Maybe they are going to wait unti MS releases the Zune and then squish it with "one more thing" like they did with the original Zune when they released the touch.
Agreed, though I'd be o.k. with automatic wireless non-MobileMe syncing.
What is the BT for then? Headset? GPS receiver pairing? Remotely blending smoothies?
I believe the main reason for the add is for wireless BT headsets using the A2DP that was included with v3.0. I personally would use this if the power efficiency and sound quality was better, but it?s not good enough to warrant the expense at this time for me.
PS: Before someone says it, Nike+ apparently uses a variant of 802.11 like WiFi, not BT for receiving from the shoe accelerometer.
Right, calendar & contacts are about all BT can do unless you just let it sit there. For me, I might have 100MB of tracks that get shuffled around on every sync. It looks like it would be a 13 minute sync, assuming 1Mbps.
I believe the main reason for the add is for wireless BT headsets using the A2DP that was included with v3.0. I personally would use this if the power efficiency and sound quality was better, but it?s not good enough to warrant the expense at this time for me.
The only use for Bluetooth does seem to be for A2DP, as well as a wireless device interface for hardware add-ons.
I'm surprised that more people aren't bothered by headphone cords. It does take power, but not too terribly bad, and the sound quality seems to be good enough for outdoor use.
Apple completely dropped the ball on the new ipod touch. Seriously, what a let down. I have been holding out for months waiting for the new camera/mic equipped units that not only were rumored, but were the only logical next step. So what does Apple do? They give the NANO a video camera and do hardly anything for the Touch. What a miserable fail on Apple's part. I hope the stock goes into the ground. They tout the Touch as some great gaming device. Fine. But it could be that one gadget that you need that can take care of all your multi-media & computing needs on the go without the insane data package price and atrocious "service" from AT&T (a company that everyone is beginning to realize sucks to the core, don't get me started on that one...), but no. Now you still have to carry your camera and/or camcorder along with your music/gaming device. They definitely didn't make the Touch a must-have by any means. What a pathetic joke. Apple: this just might be the beginning of the end for you, you sad, sad fools. I hope you sell no more than 27 new units and make a public apology for not delivering what you KNEW the consumers wanted.
Today fell short of expectations on the iPod Touch. In the next few days Apple leadership is going to realize that it dropped a dud. True, we're getting 64GB which is something I looked forward to since i'm out of headroom on my current 32GB. But no camera and still priced at $399? At that price I'll take a 64GB with HD video. Anything less isn't worth it. Great gaming experience? Maybe for obsessives, but I could care less. Instead, let me download and see videos in formats that Apple currently bans.
Today fell short of expectations on the iPod Touch. In the next few days Apple leadership is going to realize that it dropped a dud. True, we're getting 64GB which is something I looked forward to since i'm out of headroom on my current 32GB. But no camera and still priced at $399? At that price I'll take a 64GB with HD video. Anything less isn't worth it. Great gaming experience? Maybe for obsessives, but I could care less. Instead, let me download and see videos in formats that Apple currently bans.
They didn't raise the price, did they? It's double the capacity for the same price and much more powerful chips inside too. I can see a video camera being a reasonable upgrade expectation, but HD seems to be a bit much, even the regular iPhone doesn't have HD video recording.
Remember Apple gets money back from the cell carriers and the iPhone costs $600 on top of that. (integrated in the monthly price naturally)
One can't expect nearly all the features of the iPhone to be in the iPod Touch (minus the phone circuitry) for a price people are willing to pay all cash up front for.
The iPod touch likely has the lowest margin of Apple's products (whereas the iPhone has the highest margin). The 8GB iPhone 3G gets about $400-450 from AT&T, while Apple now sells the 8GB iPod touch for $199. All the iPhone extras, such as the phone circuitry, camera, and GPS, don't add up to even $100 in parts and labor. Apple was aiming for the $199 price point, and likely couldn't reach its acceptable margin if they were to add anything else to it.
(Which of course, leads to the question of how Microsoft is going to sell its 16GB OLED Zune HD for $219? Is it breaking even or losing money on each device sold in order to establish a market presence?)
Some may ask why can't Apple just add the camera to the 32GB and 64GB iPod touch models, which gain some margin by marking up the flash RAM. I think Apple was intending to but couldn't get the quality they wanted due to "technical" problems. (Note the camera on the iPod touch would be either 2MP or 3MP, not VGA like on the nano. And the iPod touch is thinner than the iPhone.) Steve Jobs may have been the one to kill the upgrade when he returned to work.
Then apple would have to license smb from Microsoft as well and unless you have vista sp2 or windows 7 it's going to take a very long time. Hours and hours
I'm sorry, but really, why is everyone in full on geek rage over an unsubstantiated rumor not coming to fruition?
you are so absolutely right - instead of berating Apple for keeping something back for a year why don't we just raise a slight eyebrow at all those who suggested that a camera was in the wings: how many hours before the event was John Gruber describing cameras as "sure thing bets". Hmmm. Thanks to those numpties who've been banging on about this for weeks publishing photos of Touch cases with a hole drilled in them and merrily popping up photos of camera-clad Touch breakdowns.
I've just wasted forty pounds selling off my 2g touch on ebay last week only to find that the new one is, er, a 2g.
May a fly come down and land in the ear of everyone who's lead me up the garden path. And may it stick there for many a year.
I think Apple will be discontinuing the iPod Touch line, and they left out the camera for this reason. The iPod Touch will be reborn as the entry level Apple Tablet device which will include the camera, and a host of other new features. It will be available alongside it's 7" or 9" (or whatever) sibling
Egad, I hope not. I don't want this version to get too much larger, just more capable... like the nano.
Here is come compelling information as to why the Touch didn?t get a camera, but take it with a grain of salt.
Q You put a camcorder on the iPod Nano. Why not on the iPod Touch?
A Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. Because a lot of the games were free on the store. Customers started to tell us, ?You don?t know what you?ve got here ? it?s a great game machine, with the multitouch screen, the accelerometer, and so on.?
We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff ? we need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.
Comments
Remember Apple gets money back from the cell carriers and the iPhone costs $600 on top of that. (integrated in the monthly price naturally)
One can't expect nearly all the features of the iPhone to be in the iPod Touch (minus the phone circuitry) for a price people are willing to pay all cash up front for.
$199 is the magic number, meaning it's the price point most people are willing to pay and Apple makes the most overall profit. Just like 99¢ is a magic number and the reason the price isn't rounded up is because $199 sounds cheaper than $200, all marketing tricks.
Suppose a price of $549 for a 'iPhone stripped of the phone' isn't what people are willing to pay in any volume worth the trouble for Apple which has to think about making the MOST MONEY overall. So it's a combination of the 'most sales' with the 'most margins' to equal the most money.
It's possible the numbers and the experience of previous sales Apple has had led them to believe it wasn't a good decision to try to sell a $549 iPod Touch with GPS, 64GB of storage, 5 megapixel video camera etc. etc.
Geeks want a device that has everything, but they sure not many will pay $549 for it. I'm sure the sales of the $399 devices are not great.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to sync 64GB over BT?
Of course I do,
but A. does anyone change 64GB between syncs or do we just tweak?
and B. I was mainly thinking about calendar and contacts and such.
Right, calendar & contacts are about all BT can do unless you just let it sit there. For me, I might have 100MB of tracks that get shuffled around on every sync. It looks like it would be a 13 minute sync, assuming 1Mbps.
Shows Zune HD with a games menu. Microsoft has also confirmed there will be games. Will there be as many good games as the iPod Touch, will they be better or worse quality? Only time will tell.
The least Apple could have done is brought FM Radio to its entire lineup.
Maybe Apple didn't update the Touch today because they don't have to.
Maybe they are going to wait unti MS releases the Zune and then squish it with "one more thing" like they did with the original Zune when they released the touch.
Would be fun to watch if nothing else
Agreed, though I'd be o.k. with automatic wireless non-MobileMe syncing.
What is the BT for then? Headset? GPS receiver pairing? Remotely blending smoothies?
I believe the main reason for the add is for wireless BT headsets using the A2DP that was included with v3.0. I personally would use this if the power efficiency and sound quality was better, but it?s not good enough to warrant the expense at this time for me.
PS: Before someone says it, Nike+ apparently uses a variant of 802.11 like WiFi, not BT for receiving from the shoe accelerometer.
Right, calendar & contacts are about all BT can do unless you just let it sit there. For me, I might have 100MB of tracks that get shuffled around on every sync. It looks like it would be a 13 minute sync, assuming 1Mbps.
Assuming you can get BT to work reliably.
It still boggles me that I can't sync over WiFi
I believe the main reason for the add is for wireless BT headsets using the A2DP that was included with v3.0. I personally would use this if the power efficiency and sound quality was better, but it?s not good enough to warrant the expense at this time for me.
The only use for Bluetooth does seem to be for A2DP, as well as a wireless device interface for hardware add-ons.
I'm surprised that more people aren't bothered by headphone cords. It does take power, but not too terribly bad, and the sound quality seems to be good enough for outdoor use.
Maybe Apple didn't update the Touch today because they don't have to.
Maybe they are going to wait unti MS releases the Zune and then squish it with "one more thing".
Would be fun to watch if nothing else
That's the spirit!
Microsoft are hilarious with their anti-Mac ads and most recently their "education" of PC sales personnel
(and people in this thread are accusing Apple of treating us like we're stoopid).
I'll pack some sandwiches and bring my folding chair.
It still boggles me that I can't sync over WiFi
Exactly. That's why i asked about bluetooth.
I have a MobileMe account, but the point of that eludes me when all affected devices are in the house.
Besides that, loads of people do not have MobileMe and need to plug into USB each and every time.
Apple completely dropped the ball on the new ipod touch.
No new iPod touch for me. No iPhone either (ridiculous data/phone plan prices)
BOOOORRRRRRIIIINNNGGGG
Today fell short of expectations on the iPod Touch. In the next few days Apple leadership is going to realize that it dropped a dud. True, we're getting 64GB which is something I looked forward to since i'm out of headroom on my current 32GB. But no camera and still priced at $399? At that price I'll take a 64GB with HD video. Anything less isn't worth it. Great gaming experience? Maybe for obsessives, but I could care less. Instead, let me download and see videos in formats that Apple currently bans.
They didn't raise the price, did they? It's double the capacity for the same price and much more powerful chips inside too. I can see a video camera being a reasonable upgrade expectation, but HD seems to be a bit much, even the regular iPhone doesn't have HD video recording.
People
Remember Apple gets money back from the cell carriers and the iPhone costs $600 on top of that. (integrated in the monthly price naturally)
One can't expect nearly all the features of the iPhone to be in the iPod Touch (minus the phone circuitry) for a price people are willing to pay all cash up front for.
The iPod touch likely has the lowest margin of Apple's products (whereas the iPhone has the highest margin). The 8GB iPhone 3G gets about $400-450 from AT&T, while Apple now sells the 8GB iPod touch for $199. All the iPhone extras, such as the phone circuitry, camera, and GPS, don't add up to even $100 in parts and labor. Apple was aiming for the $199 price point, and likely couldn't reach its acceptable margin if they were to add anything else to it.
(Which of course, leads to the question of how Microsoft is going to sell its 16GB OLED Zune HD for $219? Is it breaking even or losing money on each device sold in order to establish a market presence?)
Some may ask why can't Apple just add the camera to the 32GB and 64GB iPod touch models, which gain some margin by marking up the flash RAM. I think Apple was intending to but couldn't get the quality they wanted due to "technical" problems. (Note the camera on the iPod touch would be either 2MP or 3MP, not VGA like on the nano. And the iPod touch is thinner than the iPhone.) Steve Jobs may have been the one to kill the upgrade when he returned to work.
No new iPod touch for me. No iPhone either (ridiculous data/phone plan prices)
BOOOORRRRRRIIIINNNGGGG
The iPhone monthly charges are the same as what verizon charges and less than the blackberry tour
Assuming you can get BT to work reliably.
It still boggles me that I can't sync over WiFi
Then apple would have to license smb from Microsoft as well and unless you have vista sp2 or windows 7 it's going to take a very long time. Hours and hours
I'm sorry, but really, why is everyone in full on geek rage over an unsubstantiated rumor not coming to fruition?
you are so absolutely right - instead of berating Apple for keeping something back for a year why don't we just raise a slight eyebrow at all those who suggested that a camera was in the wings: how many hours before the event was John Gruber describing cameras as "sure thing bets". Hmmm. Thanks to those numpties who've been banging on about this for weeks publishing photos of Touch cases with a hole drilled in them and merrily popping up photos of camera-clad Touch breakdowns.
I've just wasted forty pounds selling off my 2g touch on ebay last week only to find that the new one is, er, a 2g.
May a fly come down and land in the ear of everyone who's lead me up the garden path. And may it stick there for many a year.
Regarding GPS, I'm anxious to see the upcoming TomTom hardware - 'cause if not for navigating in the car, I see no use for GPS on any mobile device.
Clearly you have no interest in golf, hunting, or hiking.
I think Apple will be discontinuing the iPod Touch line, and they left out the camera for this reason. The iPod Touch will be reborn as the entry level Apple Tablet device which will include the camera, and a host of other new features. It will be available alongside it's 7" or 9" (or whatever) sibling
Egad, I hope not. I don't want this version to get too much larger, just more capable... like the nano.