Oh, but it IS that kind of portable device! There are literally millions of potential users out in the field who are gushing to have GPS support in a device with a form factor and feature set like this. I work with just such a large user base, and am highly involved in digital mapping, GIS and other location-based services and web browsing that could really make use of a device like this. I tell ya, we're hopping up and down with excitement about the apps we can build for the iPad.
Real industry insiders and pundits explain that camera wasn't keynoted only because Steve wasn't comfortable enough with showing his nasal hair to everybody around the world... While lucky iPad owners will undoubtedly be able to...
As...painfully obvious as this should be, I cannot figure out why folks havent figured out that having a camera in something designed to be used at near-flat angles pointing up at you, both distorting your face and shooting up your nose is exactly the stupid kind of poor UX that you get from armchair designers, blogger pundits and whiney forum commenters that do not actually think about these things
You might want to talk to the 500 Mio Skype users, hich are more than facebook and Twitter COMBINED. Tap into that user base on an iPad and you're good to go. Never mind iChat. When compared to Skype NO.ONE.USES.IT
Most of skype use is voice...overwhelmingly. It is as if people do not think folks research this stuff first
I'm only condescending when people criticize others without thinking through the options themselves.
Could you try, oh God please try, to think through what I'm saying before responding? Perhaps than you'd understand I know exactly where you folks are coming from and what you don't get is that where you really are is not a place of sense but rather a place of no imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Accept that Apple erred? What does that mean? Releasing an iPad without a camera is a mistake even if it sells well? I don't follow your thought process at all.
Well, that much is clear. You don't follow my thought process at all, but you feel free to comment on it and you feel free, even proud, to condescend with regard to it. Talk about a leap, seriously, holy crap.
Are you suggesting that if it sells well, then it must have been flawless? Why can't a product that sells well also be flawed? Apple erred in that they could have sold more with the camera. Apple erred in that they could have generated a great deal more buzz if Jobs had someone appear on screen. Apple erred by not taking the obvious next step and allowing the piece of crap Windows tablets to appear more advanced to the average idiot on the street. Apple erred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Should they not release an iPad until they have whatever technical problems for the camera sorted out?
I would say no, but we don't know why the camera isn't there, do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
A camera is a feature, not an integral part of this device...
Have I said different? I have not. If I thought it was an integral part of the device, why on Earth would I refer to it as a technological work of art? What technological work of art misses an integral part of itself? What I am saying is that a camera would make for a pretty poor third party accessory and that Apple made a mistake by not having it in the iPad. It would have been a better device with a camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Personally, I'd rather have an iPad released now as opposed to 6 months from now or whatever it takes to get camera functionality up to the standards Apple holds themselves to.
This is where you try to sound sensible, but you have no basis for this comment. The software is there, the hardware is there, heck the place within the case is there, we don't know why Apple decided not to. Don't assume high standards when it could be as some suggested that "something extra" for the first update.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
If people want to hold out a for a camera, that's their choice, but that doesn't mean Apple erred by not providing one on their first product...
No, someone holding out for a camera doesn't have any bearing on whether Apple erred by not providing one, but a lot of folks holding out for a camera or opting to buy something else might. I have no doubt the device will be successful. I've got a sense of imagination and the third party capability is bound to do wonders for hospitals, real estate agents, etc. What I'm saying is that the device would have been more successful with a camera and for not taking that extra step, Apple made a mistake. The "wowie, gee whiz" factor matters more than you think, especially with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
PS: A case containing a camera wouldn't have to be bulky at all and many people are going to put this "work of technological art" in a case anyway.
I disagree.
Now, off to lunch. I shall take my leave, excusing myself from this thread and from this argument. Returning to reality where nuance exists and something can be good and flawed, even Apple. Best wishes to all.
rarely to never does Apple do something like that. Especially on a component that could tip the scales to buy for a lot of folks. "and with the built in web cam and our ichat software, you can keep in touch with the family back at home (showing some road warrior dad video chatting with the kiddies)" would be a huge feature.
the inclusion is likely for 3rd party since we know that accessories are part of the OS already. And a company with some savvy could create a dock connecting camera no bigger than that whole Nike+ receiver or the old tunetalk mike and it would sell big.
and then perhaps in Gen2 Apple will add it as a built in.
Jesus. the camera button is for a CAMERA ATTACHED VIA THE CAMERA ACCESSORY.
Why on earth would Apple put a camera in the first revision of their product? They have to leave something "worth" upgrading to for the next generation...
(he says, looking at original iPhone on his desk)...
I'm going to buy this 1st gen device because if offers a lot built in, plus a ton of potential for accessories. A lot of you are going to be wowed when you really see how amazing such a large screen controlling any other hardware device, is.
This accessory talk hasn't fully developed on the iPhone, but there hasn't been much time either. The difference in screen size creates a whole new ballgame.
If you actually knew how `this accessory talk` game worked...you would not be as confident There are reasons why the number of silly dock things are great, but really awesome ones that talk to iPhone software very, very few.
I love the idea of the iPad, but I have to say I probably won't buy one unless it has integrated GPS, an integrated 2+ MP webcam, and the ability to multi-task so I don't need to disconnect my RDP sessions from my servers just to check email. Add those and this will be a truly brilliant device.
So far as I know it does have GPS. There was a debate about that in the first few days after the announcement. As i understood it, it is not the same as the first iphone.
Okay, say they put in the front facing camera. Now you have a camera. Your kid is doing something great. You want to take a picture of it. But your camera only faces the screen... Next thing you know you're taking a picture over your right shoulder trying to see the screen and get the angle right.
After you get done swearing you're wondering why there isn't a camera in the backside to make this a lot easier...
If they add one they have to add both.
They won't be adding both. They'll be adding none.
This is where you try to sound sensible, but you have no basis for this comment. The software is there, the hardware is there, heck the place within the case is there, we don't know why Apple decided not to. Don't assume high standards when it could be as some suggested that "something extra" for the first update.
I never made any assumptions (I mentioned some possibilities) the only assumption being made is being made by you. That assumption is that Apple erred by not including a webcam in the first generation iPad. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here knows why Apple left it out or if Apple will add it back prior to launch. Yet here you are saying erred, erred, erred, and erred.
If we assume that there were absolutely no technical reasons for leaving it out, which it appears you have done and take the most malicious scenario that Apple is purposely saving it to liven up gen 2, would Apple actually have "erred" from their perspective? Their sales for the first generation might be lower, yes, but the resulting sales of the second generation could be higher than if it had been included initially resulting in higher total sales of the first two generations of the device combined (due to early adopters upgrading specifically because of the webcam). If that happened, Apple would not have erred from a business perspective at all.
Had I read this post first, I would not have been as gracious in editing my previous posts for you like you asked since you modified your argument.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that sooner or later, there's going to be a camera in the iPad. Sooner = launch? Later = 2nd version of iPad?
What about iChat and video chatting? Would that automatically be included once the camera has been included, or would they wait again to add in that feature?
It's quite possible that addition of a camera was scrapped due to performance issues or other complications. We take for granted the considerations that must go into a camera such as where to put it, or how to ensure the angle to your face allows people to see you.
What's strange is that the design of the dock port means you have to have the screen 3:4. This makes things very goofy for video chat unless you use an external monitor.
I wouldn't hold my breath for a camera to be in revision 1, though we may see it as an add on & possibly even as a part of the docking keyboard.
Or they decided to keep video chat exclusive to the iPhone 4G.......
You'll notice that no one paid any attention to your very logical observation. This is the same frenzy that went on when everyone thought the current release of the iTouch would have a camera. There will be no camera in the first generation.
Despite reading lots of speculation about the presence or absence of a front-facing camera and video chat capability on the iPads...I still don't really understand what the big deal is either way.
Video chat is one of those things that people only want for the cool factor of having it, not because it has any real use most of the time.
I've fielded dozens of MBPs through my organization, all of them with video chat capability. I've even encouraged it's use. But the fact is that most people don't want to be seen on the screen while talking. It's less convenient than a regular speaker phone, because you have to sit in front of the camera and appear to be paying attention. It's more intrusive. It's bandwidth intensive.
There's a reason why video phones aren't in use in 99% of homes, and it's not technical limitations - it's because people don't want to use them. Putting video chat on the iPad will make just about zero difference in the number of people actually *using* video chat, except to show off to their friends.
Disclaimer: video has it's place: Video teleconferencing, distance learning, virtual visits with people far, far away. But as a commonly used technology or an integral part of most users life...not in the foreseeable future.
I couldn't agree more.
It's good to see someone else saying it because I was beginning to think I was the only one who could care less for a web cam on an iPad. Are people really going to be more comfortable video conferencing from their couch than a desk? If so wouldn't we see at least a bit of that interest from all the notebooks and netbooks with web cams?
This is a feature people want just for the sake of saying it's there more than there being any real use for it.
Even a photo camera on the iPad seems a wacky idea. The iPad is too big and unwieldy to make a good photo camera.
There is so much right, exciting and cool with the iPad. All this longing for a camera seems to be overshadowing everything Apple seems to have gotten right.
NEVER EVER BUT A FIRST GENERATION APPLE PRODUCT EVER.
Unless your a stock holder or an avid kool-aid drinker you're bound to be dissapointed in 6 months - guaranteed. Just look at the iPhone for example. You waited in line for hours , paid $600, then 2.5 months later the price dropped to $400 yet you only received a 100 Apple dollar$ yet not for use in iTunes.
And I got 2.5 months of use out of arguably one of the biggest leaps in technology and usability of the last 100 years for the low low price of approximately $40/month, pro-rated.
Oh no!
And: Oh no x 2! Technology got cheaper!
And Oh no x 3! A tech company actually gave money back to people because they lowered the price on tech hardware!
You waited in line for hours , paid $600, then 2.5 months later the price dropped to $400 yet you only received a 100 Apple dollar$ yet not for use in iTunes.
My line was 15 minutes, and I only got in it when I saw it and thought "what the hell - looks like fun".
I also got 2 free months from AT&T so my rebate was 260.00. I was happy with that, and got to use the hell out of it ahead of the others (and didn't have problems getting my GS callplan-wise unlike G3 adopters).
But right - I waited in line for hours because you said so. Thanks for the reality update and for putting everyone's experience in the same boat.
Video conferencing makes no sense on the iPad. I agree with Daniel's Myth Busting.
Here's a test for you to show what I mean.
Grab a magazine and hold it out in front of you and hold it there for five minutes
Now lower it down to your lap and look down at it for five minutes.
How do your arms and neck feel? I bet they don't feel good do they? Now apply that to the dimensions and weight of the iPad and you'll start to see why this is a dumb idea. Add to that it isn't designed to replace a desktop or laptop and not all units will have 3G therefore conferencing will be limited to WiFi it makes more sense to use a desktop or laptop for conferencing.
Despite reading lots of speculation about the presence or absence of a front-facing camera and video chat capability on the iPads...I still don't really understand what the big deal is either way.
Disclaimer: video has it's place: Video teleconferencing, distance learning, virtual visits with people far, far away. But as a commonly used technology or an integral part of most users life...not in the foreseeable future.
Agreed. A few things going on I don't get:
-Nobody wants to see pictures, much less live video of mac forum dwellers, so why the demand here? Ever seen a line at a computer store, how many times do you think "Wow, if only each and every person here could put video of themselves online!"
-Vain camera whores aren't usually tech savvy or invested enough in pre-release computers to whine about how they're not going to look in a few months. Besides all the pretty and weird looking people are already on TV, what do they need another camera for?
-Can everyone stop looking at themselves for 3 seconds and maybe actually think deeper about technology? Instead of focusing on the super shallow, sugary, lame features? Apple has no technology to help you get laid - give it up.
I think it only makes sense if like an AT&T contract, Apple requires a 2-year gym membership with the camera features.
Ain't that the truth! That's usually the case more times than not. Now it's a waiting game.
I also won't buy a 1st gen device, usually.
Why can't they just put the damn camera in its already available slot!!
This is so greedy from Apple not putting usual functions, then provide a Gen. 2 few months later, which is usually not a 2nd generation, but just a way to fool customers with something that will be advertised as new, except everybody is already doing it (Netbooks with facial cameras).
I won't buy the first generation neither, will wait till they release the 2nd one ... X-Mas maybe ?
Comments
Oh, but it IS that kind of portable device! There are literally millions of potential users out in the field who are gushing to have GPS support in a device with a form factor and feature set like this. I work with just such a large user base, and am highly involved in digital mapping, GIS and other location-based services and web browsing that could really make use of a device like this. I tell ya, we're hopping up and down with excitement about the apps we can build for the iPad.
Cool, I stand corrected. Good luck!
Real industry insiders and pundits explain that camera wasn't keynoted only because Steve wasn't comfortable enough with showing his nasal hair to everybody around the world... While lucky iPad owners will undoubtedly be able to...
As...painfully obvious as this should be, I cannot figure out why folks havent figured out that having a camera in something designed to be used at near-flat angles pointing up at you, both distorting your face and shooting up your nose is exactly the stupid kind of poor UX that you get from armchair designers, blogger pundits and whiney forum commenters that do not actually think about these things
-K
You might want to talk to the 500 Mio Skype users, hich are more than facebook and Twitter COMBINED. Tap into that user base on an iPad and you're good to go. Never mind iChat. When compared to Skype NO.ONE.USES.IT
Most of skype use is voice...overwhelmingly. It is as if people do not think folks research this stuff first
-K
I'm only condescending when people criticize others without thinking through the options themselves.
Could you try, oh God please try, to think through what I'm saying before responding? Perhaps than you'd understand I know exactly where you folks are coming from and what you don't get is that where you really are is not a place of sense but rather a place of no imagination.
Accept that Apple erred? What does that mean? Releasing an iPad without a camera is a mistake even if it sells well? I don't follow your thought process at all.
Well, that much is clear. You don't follow my thought process at all, but you feel free to comment on it and you feel free, even proud, to condescend with regard to it. Talk about a leap, seriously, holy crap.
Are you suggesting that if it sells well, then it must have been flawless? Why can't a product that sells well also be flawed? Apple erred in that they could have sold more with the camera. Apple erred in that they could have generated a great deal more buzz if Jobs had someone appear on screen. Apple erred by not taking the obvious next step and allowing the piece of crap Windows tablets to appear more advanced to the average idiot on the street. Apple erred.
Should they not release an iPad until they have whatever technical problems for the camera sorted out?
I would say no, but we don't know why the camera isn't there, do we?
A camera is a feature, not an integral part of this device...
Have I said different? I have not. If I thought it was an integral part of the device, why on Earth would I refer to it as a technological work of art? What technological work of art misses an integral part of itself? What I am saying is that a camera would make for a pretty poor third party accessory and that Apple made a mistake by not having it in the iPad. It would have been a better device with a camera.
Personally, I'd rather have an iPad released now as opposed to 6 months from now or whatever it takes to get camera functionality up to the standards Apple holds themselves to.
This is where you try to sound sensible, but you have no basis for this comment. The software is there, the hardware is there, heck the place within the case is there, we don't know why Apple decided not to. Don't assume high standards when it could be as some suggested that "something extra" for the first update.
If people want to hold out a for a camera, that's their choice, but that doesn't mean Apple erred by not providing one on their first product...
No, someone holding out for a camera doesn't have any bearing on whether Apple erred by not providing one, but a lot of folks holding out for a camera or opting to buy something else might. I have no doubt the device will be successful. I've got a sense of imagination and the third party capability is bound to do wonders for hospitals, real estate agents, etc. What I'm saying is that the device would have been more successful with a camera and for not taking that extra step, Apple made a mistake. The "wowie, gee whiz" factor matters more than you think, especially with Apple.
PS: A case containing a camera wouldn't have to be bulky at all and many people are going to put this "work of technological art" in a case anyway.
I disagree.
Now, off to lunch. I shall take my leave, excusing myself from this thread and from this argument. Returning to reality where nuance exists and something can be good and flawed, even Apple. Best wishes to all.
rarely to never does Apple do something like that. Especially on a component that could tip the scales to buy for a lot of folks. "and with the built in web cam and our ichat software, you can keep in touch with the family back at home (showing some road warrior dad video chatting with the kiddies)" would be a huge feature.
the inclusion is likely for 3rd party since we know that accessories are part of the OS already. And a company with some savvy could create a dock connecting camera no bigger than that whole Nike+ receiver or the old tunetalk mike and it would sell big.
and then perhaps in Gen2 Apple will add it as a built in.
Jesus. the camera button is for a CAMERA ATTACHED VIA THE CAMERA ACCESSORY.
/me shakes head.
Rob, that's what I'm looking fwd to too. Plus saving paper and the whole not filling the landfill thing!
I'm really excited about getting a 3g as soon as they are available!
I'll probably wait a few days after it's released until things cool down before getting one.
Why on earth would Apple put a camera in the first revision of their product? They have to leave something "worth" upgrading to for the next generation...
(he says, looking at original iPhone on his desk)...
What?
I'm going to buy this 1st gen device because if offers a lot built in, plus a ton of potential for accessories. A lot of you are going to be wowed when you really see how amazing such a large screen controlling any other hardware device, is.
This accessory talk hasn't fully developed on the iPhone, but there hasn't been much time either. The difference in screen size creates a whole new ballgame.
If you actually knew how `this accessory talk` game worked...you would not be as confident
-K
I love the idea of the iPad, but I have to say I probably won't buy one unless it has integrated GPS, an integrated 2+ MP webcam, and the ability to multi-task so I don't need to disconnect my RDP sessions from my servers just to check email. Add those and this will be a truly brilliant device.
So far as I know it does have GPS. There was a debate about that in the first few days after the announcement. As i understood it, it is not the same as the first iphone.
After you get done swearing you're wondering why there isn't a camera in the backside to make this a lot easier...
If they add one they have to add both.
They won't be adding both. They'll be adding none.
This is where you try to sound sensible, but you have no basis for this comment. The software is there, the hardware is there, heck the place within the case is there, we don't know why Apple decided not to. Don't assume high standards when it could be as some suggested that "something extra" for the first update.
I never made any assumptions (I mentioned some possibilities) the only assumption being made is being made by you. That assumption is that Apple erred by not including a webcam in the first generation iPad. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here knows why Apple left it out or if Apple will add it back prior to launch. Yet here you are saying erred, erred, erred, and erred.
If we assume that there were absolutely no technical reasons for leaving it out, which it appears you have done and take the most malicious scenario that Apple is purposely saving it to liven up gen 2, would Apple actually have "erred" from their perspective? Their sales for the first generation might be lower, yes, but the resulting sales of the second generation could be higher than if it had been included initially resulting in higher total sales of the first two generations of the device combined (due to early adopters upgrading specifically because of the webcam). If that happened, Apple would not have erred from a business perspective at all.
Had I read this post first, I would not have been as gracious in editing my previous posts for you like you asked since you modified your argument.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that sooner or later, there's going to be a camera in the iPad. Sooner = launch? Later = 2nd version of iPad?
What about iChat and video chatting? Would that automatically be included once the camera has been included, or would they wait again to add in that feature?
It's quite possible that addition of a camera was scrapped due to performance issues or other complications. We take for granted the considerations that must go into a camera such as where to put it, or how to ensure the angle to your face allows people to see you.
What's strange is that the design of the dock port means you have to have the screen 3:4. This makes things very goofy for video chat unless you use an external monitor.
I wouldn't hold my breath for a camera to be in revision 1, though we may see it as an add on & possibly even as a part of the docking keyboard.
Or they decided to keep video chat exclusive to the iPhone 4G.......
You'll notice that no one paid any attention to your very logical observation. This is the same frenzy that went on when everyone thought the current release of the iTouch would have a camera. There will be no camera in the first generation.
Despite reading lots of speculation about the presence or absence of a front-facing camera and video chat capability on the iPads...I still don't really understand what the big deal is either way.
Video chat is one of those things that people only want for the cool factor of having it, not because it has any real use most of the time.
I've fielded dozens of MBPs through my organization, all of them with video chat capability. I've even encouraged it's use. But the fact is that most people don't want to be seen on the screen while talking. It's less convenient than a regular speaker phone, because you have to sit in front of the camera and appear to be paying attention. It's more intrusive. It's bandwidth intensive.
There's a reason why video phones aren't in use in 99% of homes, and it's not technical limitations - it's because people don't want to use them. Putting video chat on the iPad will make just about zero difference in the number of people actually *using* video chat, except to show off to their friends.
Disclaimer: video has it's place: Video teleconferencing, distance learning, virtual visits with people far, far away. But as a commonly used technology or an integral part of most users life...not in the foreseeable future.
I couldn't agree more.
It's good to see someone else saying it because I was beginning to think I was the only one who could care less for a web cam on an iPad. Are people really going to be more comfortable video conferencing from their couch than a desk? If so wouldn't we see at least a bit of that interest from all the notebooks and netbooks with web cams?
This is a feature people want just for the sake of saying it's there more than there being any real use for it.
Even a photo camera on the iPad seems a wacky idea. The iPad is too big and unwieldy to make a good photo camera.
There is so much right, exciting and cool with the iPad. All this longing for a camera seems to be overshadowing everything Apple seems to have gotten right.
NEVER EVER BUT A FIRST GENERATION APPLE PRODUCT EVER.
Unless your a stock holder or an avid kool-aid drinker you're bound to be dissapointed in 6 months - guaranteed. Just look at the iPhone for example. You waited in line for hours , paid $600, then 2.5 months later the price dropped to $400 yet you only received a 100 Apple dollar$ yet not for use in iTunes.
And I got 2.5 months of use out of arguably one of the biggest leaps in technology and usability of the last 100 years for the low low price of approximately $40/month, pro-rated.
Oh no!
And: Oh no x 2! Technology got cheaper!
And Oh no x 3! A tech company actually gave money back to people because they lowered the price on tech hardware!
What other tech giant has done that? Ever?
You waited in line for hours , paid $600, then 2.5 months later the price dropped to $400 yet you only received a 100 Apple dollar$ yet not for use in iTunes.
My line was 15 minutes, and I only got in it when I saw it and thought "what the hell - looks like fun".
I also got 2 free months from AT&T so my rebate was 260.00. I was happy with that, and got to use the hell out of it ahead of the others (and didn't have problems getting my GS callplan-wise unlike G3 adopters).
But right - I waited in line for hours because you said so. Thanks for the reality update and for putting everyone's experience in the same boat.
Dangle the carrot? Nah- not Apple!
To quote an apropo movie line:
[CENTER]That's what he does! It's *all* he does!!!![/CENTER]
Several years later they often run for public office but that's a story for another time...
Here's a test for you to show what I mean.
- Grab a magazine and hold it out in front of you and hold it there for five minutes
- Now lower it down to your lap and look down at it for five minutes.
How do your arms and neck feel? I bet they don't feel good do they? Now apply that to the dimensions and weight of the iPad and you'll start to see why this is a dumb idea. Add to that it isn't designed to replace a desktop or laptop and not all units will have 3G therefore conferencing will be limited to WiFi it makes more sense to use a desktop or laptop for conferencing.Despite reading lots of speculation about the presence or absence of a front-facing camera and video chat capability on the iPads...I still don't really understand what the big deal is either way.
Disclaimer: video has it's place: Video teleconferencing, distance learning, virtual visits with people far, far away. But as a commonly used technology or an integral part of most users life...not in the foreseeable future.
Agreed. A few things going on I don't get:
-Nobody wants to see pictures, much less live video of mac forum dwellers, so why the demand here? Ever seen a line at a computer store, how many times do you think "Wow, if only each and every person here could put video of themselves online!"
-Vain camera whores aren't usually tech savvy or invested enough in pre-release computers to whine about how they're not going to look in a few months. Besides all the pretty and weird looking people are already on TV, what do they need another camera for?
-Can everyone stop looking at themselves for 3 seconds and maybe actually think deeper about technology? Instead of focusing on the super shallow, sugary, lame features? Apple has no technology to help you get laid - give it up.
I think it only makes sense if like an AT&T contract, Apple requires a 2-year gym membership with the camera features.
Ain't that the truth! That's usually the case more times than not. Now it's a waiting game.
I also won't buy a 1st gen device, usually.
Why can't they just put the damn camera in its already available slot!!
This is so greedy from Apple not putting usual functions, then provide a Gen. 2 few months later, which is usually not a 2nd generation, but just a way to fool customers with something that will be advertised as new, except everybody is already doing it (Netbooks with facial cameras).
I won't buy the first generation neither, will wait till they release the 2nd one ... X-Mas maybe ?