Apple's future iPods rumored to get cameras like iPhone

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    oldcodger73oldcodger73 Posts: 707member
    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.
  • Reply 22 of 48
    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).
  • Reply 23 of 48
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    we are wimps for rumors

    come on that's reaching

    charlie could be the "pre" developers dogs name

  • Reply 24 of 48
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    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?
  • Reply 25 of 48
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DimMok View Post


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



    The touch makes sense.
  • Reply 26 of 48
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    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?
  • Reply 27 of 48
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 48
    istinkistink Posts: 250member
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 48
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    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?
  • Reply 30 of 48
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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?
  • Reply 31 of 48
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 48
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    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.
  • Reply 33 of 48
    ajitmdajitmd Posts: 365member
    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!
  • Reply 34 of 48
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    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
  • Reply 35 of 48
    A nano with video recording could take the market from the Flip.
  • Reply 36 of 48
    gsteenogsteeno Posts: 52member
    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!!!!
  • Reply 37 of 48
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 38 of 48
    p lp l Posts: 64member
    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?
  • Reply 39 of 48
    capiendocapiendo Posts: 22member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 48
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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.



    It may work by combing the convenience of combining one's iPod with a "good enough" camera.
Sign In or Register to comment.