802.11n, space for camera hidden in Apple's new iPod touch

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by qmt49 View Post


    And you can bet they're going to charge to enable 802.11n.



    Yes, in the past, Apple did the same with the Airport Extreme and some iMacs to enable 802.11n, but it was only $9.95, wasn't it?
  • Reply 22 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think stills grabbed from the nano's VGA camera will be at least as good as most photos sent to Facebook. The only show stopper about the video quality for the average person might be the rolling shutter wobble. I'm not saying the camera is great, but it's still workable.



    There was a report less than a month ago that the iPhone was the most popular camera phone on Flickr, with the other 4 cameras being bonafide cameras.
    That means the photo quality of the top five are at least 2Mpx, but with so many other phones out there that isn?t conclusive and this is Flickr, not Facebook. Do you have any stats for the most common resolution used on Facebook?
  • Reply 23 of 84
    what no space for the GPS chip?



    ch2
  • Reply 24 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That means the photo quality of the top five are at least 2Mpx, but with so many other phones out there that isn’t conclusive and this is Flickr, not Facebook. Do you have any stats for the most common resolution used on Facebook?



    I should have prefaced it with "among the photos I've seen". Flickr is a different animal that I can tell, seems to be a lot more people conscious about the quality of photography.
  • Reply 25 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Year2009 View Post


    Yes, in the past, Apple did the same with the Airport Extreme and some iMacs to enable 802.11n, but it was only $9.95, wasn't it?



    It was $1.99.
  • Reply 26 of 84
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    And when it can finally do 720p video and take 3Mpx images the tech for larger devices will be so far ahead that we?ll hear complaining about that quality.



    Even when you can get a 10 megapixel shot out of an iPod touch, they will look like crap because megapixels have very little to do with image quality.
  • Reply 27 of 84
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Make it thicker- very simple. So do we all really want this mediocre gaming device that SJ is trying to spin on us? The PSP runs rings around it. I mean- it's OK but seriously?



    It would have to be about 5 times thicker before you can get a decent picture, and probably 20 times thicker to get a good picture out of it.



    Do you think people carry around DSLRs for their health? They carry them around because physics demands a large CCD (like 1 inch by 1 inch found in SLRs) to capture enough light to get a good picture.
  • Reply 28 of 84
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Is the re any reason the Touch needs to be paper thin? Added thickness with more and better functionality is more desired IMO. Make it thicker and give it a great camera. All this fearfulness about cutting into the iPhone is really absurd.



    Well the AppleTv has a USB port where I've yet to hear Apple explain what's it's for. It's not mentioned in the manual.



    If only Apple had some market researchers who could tell them the truth like you have just done.



    Or... maybe Apple knows its market better than you do?
  • Reply 29 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I should have prefaced it with "among the photos I've seen". Flickr is a different animal that I can tell, seems to be a lot more people conscious about the quality of photography.



    I?ve checked for stats and have come up short. I?ll inquire with Facebook?s admins and maybe they?ll have some information for me.
  • Reply 30 of 84
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I?ve checked for stats and have come up short. I?ll inquire with Facebook?s admins and maybe they?ll have some information for me.



    I wonder if JeffDM has a facebook account though... I mean, most pictures on FB look like they were taken with decent 5+ MP cameras, mostly of course ultracompacts but still the image quality is far from VGA crap. Or maybe Jeff has never seen what a still from a VGA video looks like?
  • Reply 31 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    I wonder if JeffDM has a facebook account though... I mean, most pictures on FB look like they were taken with decent 5+ MP cameras, mostly of course ultracompacts but still the image quality is far from VGA crap. Or maybe Jeff has never seen what a still from a VGA video looks like?



    My friends on Facebook have mostly used good cameras. My older pics are Canon TX-1 that is 7Mpx that does 720p video. Not a great camera, it’s awkward to hold, but it’s compact enough that it fits in a pocket so I’ll actually take it with me for travel. I climbed (read:walked up) Mt. Kilimanjaro not too long ago with my Canon TX-1 and a borrowed Red One. I barely used the Red despite its clear image superiority. Convenience is important.
  • Reply 32 of 84
    Argue it to death, the fact is macroeconomic factors contributed to Apple's decisions about the latest iPod Touch.



    It's obvious in the spaces left for features, that if the economy improves, so will new features be added.



    Apple is thinking about it's developers, and keeping the adoption rate to the App Store high.



    Software is as important as hardware.





    What use is a do it all device if there are only a few thousand who can afford it and no software for it?



    Just look how long it took for the PS3 to take off, the high price kept a lot of people off of it.





    Anyone want a iPhone without the phone is welcome to get a iPhone and cancel the contract.





    A 12 megapixel Kodak camera with zoom can be had for a little over $100.



    A crappie 3 mega pixel camera would just really be a waste of money.



    Apple made the right decision in my opinion.
  • Reply 33 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    I wonder if JeffDM has a facebook account though... I mean, most pictures on FB look like they were taken with decent 5+ MP cameras, mostly of course ultracompacts but still the image quality is far from VGA crap. Or maybe Jeff has never seen what a still from a VGA video looks like?



    Have you seen the nano's video? Don't judge it just from the numbers.



    FB doesn't display images at any higher resolution than VGA, there's a quick diminishing return on throwing MPs at the problem, you can upload any size you want, but it gets scaled down to roughly VGA anyways.



    Maybe the people I know are an oddity, but a lot of people upload using their mobile upload service, and those aren't very good at all.
  • Reply 34 of 84
    Or, it is just possible that Apple is saving a wee bit of thunder for the weeks following the launch of the upcoming Zune HD.... Doing so would reduce the media buzz following the launch.
  • Reply 35 of 84
    If the iPhone OS needs 128 MB of RAM as another poster above has stated, then why do I get these figures from the System Info in AppBox Pro on my 2G touch with OS 3.1?:



    Free: 11.99 MB

    Wired: 29.37 MB

    Active: 19.11 MB

    Inactive: 10.23 MB



    That doesn't add up to anywhere near 128 MB.
  • Reply 36 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post


    If the iPhone OS needs 128 MB of RAM as another poster above has stated, then why do I get these figures from the System Info in AppBox Pro on my 2G touch with OS 3.1?:



    Free: 11.99 MB

    Wired: 29.37 MB

    Active: 19.11 MB

    Inactive: 10.23 MB



    That doesn't add up to anywhere near 128 MB.



    There is RAM for the System and RAM for the apps, you are only looking at one. Have you tried running the iPod while using Safari? Do you ever leave Safari and have the pages reload when you go back into it? This doesn’t happen on the 3GS with 256MB RAM unless you have a lot of tabs open with large pages loaded. Apple did an amazing job of reducing the amount of RAM the OS needs to run, but there are apps that could really benefit for the additional RAM that is now included. I’d wager that there is enough to warrant official background apps now.
  • Reply 37 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Not only that but the Tablet is supposed to run a full fledged OS not some mobile iPhone version.



    Many signs point to iPhone OS.
  • Reply 38 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There is RAM for the System and RAM for the apps, you are only looking at one.



    So this is reporting the RAM for the apps?



    Thanks for the quick answer by the way.



    Greg
  • Reply 39 of 84
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Hi, let me introduce to Apple as you two have obviously not met. They are a company obsessed with thinness



    Hmm. I guess that would explain Steve's physical appearance at the event. Bad joke. I'm sorry.
  • Reply 40 of 84
    Yes, bad joke, but apparently the kind I tell myself according to people around me.



Sign In or Register to comment.