Apple unveils new 16GB iPod touch model without iSight, priced at $229

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,183member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


     


    Do music players need cameras? 



    If you think the iPod Touch is just a 'music player,' I guess you haven't seen - let alone used -- one in a while.

  • Reply 42 of 66
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member


    This was a quietly brilliant move. Apple is saying, "Hey Samsung, see what we did here? We're about to stomp all over your ass."

  • Reply 43 of 66
    woochiferwoochifer Posts: 379member


    This is a supply chain move.  Once the iPhone 4 goes out of production, the 4th gen iPod touch would be an orphan that shares fewer and fewer common parts with other iOS devices. 


     


    Right now, the iPhone 4 and 4th gen iPod touch are the only models left that use the A4 processor -- a SoC that Samsung manufactures.  The iPhone 4 only has a few months of life left, and the entry level iPod touch model probably doesn't generate enough volume to carry that chip line by itself. 


     


    I suspect that it's a similar story with the CMOS image sensor used on the 4th gen iPod touch.  That camera is crap, and my understanding is that its resolution is less than 1 MP.  Apple caught some flak when they included the lower spec cameras with the iPod touch, rather than the better regarded cameras that came with the iPhone 4. The 4th gen iPod touch is the only device that Apple makes with that particular image sensor, and that's a supply chain issue considering how much commonality Apple maintains between its iOS devices.  And since even low end feature phones now use higher resolution image sensors, it might have been a case of availability and/or price for the 4th gen iPod touch. 


     


    They obviously cannot carry over that bad a camera to a new model, going with the 5 MP image sensor might have also presented a cost issue, and it does not make much sense to include a lower resolution camera that only the entry level iPod touch would use.  Of course, it could also simply be a carrot and stick to get shoppers to move up to the $300 32 GB model.


     


    Omitting the rear-facing camera from the low end iPod touch is somewhat of a risky move, because nearly everyone I know that uses an iPod touch does use the rear-facing camera, even if the 4th gen models take horrific looking pictures.  But, I also suspect that Apple took a look at the usage patterns, and found the iPod touch is used a lot more for just media play and games. 


     


    This new model brings the entry level iPod touch more in line with the rest of the iOS lineup -- A5 chip, 1.2 MP front camera, Lightning connector, Siri and other iOS 6 features disabled on the previous model, etc.  This is a move they Apple had to make just to simplify the supply chain and extend the model's shelf life. 

     

  • Reply 44 of 66
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mstone wrote: »
    Skype, FaceTime, both use the same camera. I prefer Skype because it is so cross platform and also because I'm always communicating internationally where iDevices are less common and Skype is ubiquitous. I'm just wondering if teens are placing video calls more than adults, using any of the available apps.
    Skype is also good for voice calls. For kids whose parents haven't invested in a cell phone family plan for their kids, Skype would be easy to set up for instant wifi calls and texts to other cellular capable phones.

    Which makes me wonder if this Touch is intended to entirely replace the Touch line? As more and more people can afford and need cell phones, and Skype provides a good phone alternative to a carrier plan, then the Touch becomes directly competitive to the iPhone. So why not encourage people to buy the iPhone, even if they don't activate the cell service, if they want those features? Why give them away on the Touch?

    I just can't help shake the feeling as Apple is rumored to be developing a low cost iPhone, why anyone would chose to buy a Touch in the future, except to specifically avoid incurring cell phone contract costs. But as all the carriers now have pre-paid plans and moving to no-contract purchase plans, the line is getting blurred. So why not encourage people to buy a more expensive iPhone (even if its the low cost model), and if they really just want an iPod, then give them something cheaper with fewer feature typically not found on an iPod anyway?
  • Reply 45 of 66
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,019member
    Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...

    100 Million sold doesn't have a great impact?
  • Reply 46 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Given this is a somewhat unusual out-of-cycle update, I think it might have something to do with either freeing up production capacity for parts that only the old model used, or just closing out some parts that nothing else uses anymore.
  • Reply 47 of 66
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    bdkennedy1 wrote: »
    This was a quietly brilliant move. Apple is saying, "Hey Samsung, see what we did here? We're about to stomp all over your ass."

    ...I don't follow...
  • Reply 48 of 66
    simtubsimtub Posts: 277member
    This new 16gb iPod would suit where iOS devices are used in certain industries. One example are those restaurant businesses that implement iOS devices for order taking. They don't need a rear camera (this even helps eliminate privacy concerns) or lots of storage memory. They are cheaper too so are more affordable for bulk purchase. Other industries may include medical applications or other areas where having a back face camera on a device may deem too sensitive. Just a wild guess...
  • Reply 49 of 66
    curtis hannahcurtis hannah Posts: 1,798member
    Well I guess this is there way to get rid of old, but I would not go without camera, I was thinking of the 32gb model now I don't want it at all!
  • Reply 50 of 66


    iPod Touches and iPad minis are used a lot as promotional products. Having these two at $100 apart fits them into a pricing lineup going forward. Also, Apple is moving toward all iDevices using the Lightning connector... this is another step in that direction. 


     


    I don't see Apple coming out with a low-cost phone per sec, but they may do something with the iPhone 4 to change out the connector to the lightning and base the design along the line of this iPod Touch. 

  • Reply 51 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Well I guess this is there way to get rid of old, but I would not go without camera, I was thinking of the 32gb model now I don't want it at all!

    I don't understand. The 32GB model still has a camera, so nothing changed in the device that you said you wanted.
  • Reply 52 of 66
    nickbnickb Posts: 1member
    I believe this is targeted at Businesses (including Apple retail in store use) and Education mostly.

    They are probably only offering it to the public as a tertiary target.
  • Reply 53 of 66
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member


    I just don't get it.  There's a million and one studies done (figuratively) showing the iOS camera is outpacing the stand-alone P&S cameras as the most used.  http://www.flickr.com/cameras


    Well, of course that was more the iPhone than iPod touch, but still.


     


    Isn't the prime demo that uses these kids?  

    "69 percent of iPod touch users are between 13-24 years of age"


    http://www.macnews.com/content/study-looks-demographics-iphone-ipod-touch-users


     


    Why would you NOT want a camera on it?  Even if you're concern about price, is lack of camera really the best trade-off?


     


    This move is very much the opposite of what I'd expect for the iPod Touch roadmap.  If anything I expected the iPod Touch to gain LTE and a earphone in the future.  In that way you could use the google voice app (or Apple could modify the Facetime app to more like Skype) and you'd have a device that is basically a phone just without Telephony.  So IMO, this is a really odd choice for Apple.


     


    The only thing promicing about this device is the fact that they choose the black face and silver back.  Hopefully this color option will make it's way to the rest of the iOS line this fall.

  • Reply 54 of 66
    okeribokokeribok Posts: 6member
    Awful! I hate it! Bigger screen and faster processor but no camera? Now what do I give my 4 year old to take pictures with? a $300 device? I don't think so. Just how much does that camera save apple? surely less than $10. How can they keep pushing out updates that are worse than the previous generation?
    /rant
  • Reply 55 of 66
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,814member
    okeribok wrote: »
    Awful! I hate it! Bigger screen and faster processor but no camera? Now what do I give my 4 year old to take pictures with? a $300 device? I don't think so. Just how much does that camera save apple? surely less than $10. How can they keep pushing out updates that are worse than the previous generation?
    /rant

    What kind of pics does your 4yo take? You can get the child a cheapie camera.
  • Reply 56 of 66
    quest01quest01 Posts: 69member
    I think without the camera and strap loop, the price should have been $199, either that or just lower the price of the original camera version to $229.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    bclapperbclapper Posts: 237member
    With the timing, I wonder if this is possibly an iOS 7 compatibility issue with the 4th Gen iPod Touch.
    Or, as others have pointed out elsewhere, this frees up a production line for something else
  • Reply 58 of 66
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member


    The fuss about the lack of the camera doesn't make much sense.  First of all, they're doing it to this one model, not to to a whole line.  Second, aside from the kids' market, it's an IOS device for people who already have a phone, and the phone takes pictures.   My LG dumb phone takes much better pictures than my 4th gen iPodTouch so I rarely use the camera on it.


     


    Why should every device I have do everything?  Everything else has a front facing camera.  It's in such an odd niche anyway (can do nearly everything an iPhone can except has no phone and is wifi only).   With the iPad Mini refurbs going for $279 and found at least somewhere for $300 new these days, they have to do something to sell this "less than a mini" and it better be less than $269.  Don't forget, the numbers of the iPod touch sales don't reflect the fact that the mini has become a much better choice for many in that price range.   I don't think the mot recent iPodTouch has had such encouraging sales in the past year.  Never see them in use.


     


    I think it's not a dumb thing at all.

  • Reply 59 of 66
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    okeribok wrote: »
    Awful! I hate it! Bigger screen and faster processor but no camera? Now what do I give my 4 year old to take pictures with? a $300 device? I don't think so. Just how much does that camera save apple? surely less than $10. How can they keep pushing out updates that are worse than the previous generation?
    /rant
    I gave my 3 year old a $300 device. A pink iPod 5th gen with a thick pink pig cover. She pretty much only uses it to take pictures and does great with it- hasn't dropped it since she got it on Christmas. I love being able to see what she sees through Photostream. It's hilarious. Just grab one on Craigslist for cheap- got mine for $220 brand new- and take a deep breath. If you can't afford a $300 device to take pics (or don't want to)- as others suggest- get a $30 generic from Walmart.


    What I do find funny about this is all the defenders of apple when the 32gb model was released- and I mentioned they should have a 16gb model for less. And yet those fanboys would scream and argue that "Apple could never have a 16gb version because it would be filled up so fast it would cause dissatisfied customers". Yet now they have a 16gb version and all I hear are crickets about storage capacity.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,814member
    andysol wrote: »
    I gave my 3 year old a $300 device. A pink iPod 5th gen with a thick pink pig cover. She pretty much only uses it to take pictures and does great with it- hasn't dropped it since she got it on Christmas. I love being able to see what she sees through Photostream. It's hilarious. Just grab one on Craigslist for cheap- got mine for $220 brand new- and take a deep breath. If you can't afford a $300 device to take pics (or don't want to)- as others suggest- get a $30 generic from Walmart.


    What I do find funny about this is all the defenders of apple when the 32gb model was released- and I mentioned they should have a 16gb model for less. And yet those fanboys would scream and argue that "Apple could never have a 16gb version because it would be filled up so fast it would cause dissatisfied customers". Yet now they have a 16gb version and all I hear are crickets about storage capacity.

    I don't remember reading about that. Apple still has 8 and 16 GB iPhones.
Sign In or Register to comment.