I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.
After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.
The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.
Great opening statement on an Apple forum.
You seem like a real positive and upbeat person.
On topic, I think it's probably a good thing Apple isn't shipping a camera on the touch if it wasn't ready but it is a disappointment to touch users I'm sure. Hopefully if the touch goes HD so will the next iphone. The Flips are really great for casual stuff, but they don't do anything an IPT/ Ipone couldn't do better. GPS would be great even if it's just for geo-tagging.
Yes! And it is reasonable to assume that a proposed iPod Touch camera would exceed the capabilities of an iPhone 3GS camera. Apple does this periodically-- like the larger capacity flash drive on the Touch.
Sooner or later, I suspect that Apple will offer a hi-res still/video camera with flash and physical focus lens on some device in its mobile platform. Because Apple can be more flexible (take more risks) with the touch than the phone, it makes sense to debut it on the the touch or a new tablet device.
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
Most expensive does not always equal the highest margins. Whether we like it or not - and speaking for myself as someone who is torn, since I like it as a shareholder, but do not as a consumer - margins do matter. Because market valuations do matter.
At this point, I am quite OK with a few months of wait-and-see.
Point taken. Apple may make as much or more on a nano sale than they do on some touch sales.
I've had my credit card ready to buy a 3rd gen touch for months. I was planning to get the 64GB model because it's big enough to hold all my rock music and still have room for apps, podcasts and photos.
When I saw how little had changed for the 3rd generation I decided to save money and get a refurbished 2nd generation touch instead. Since none of the older ones is big enough to hold more than a fraction of my music I decided to save even more and just get an 8GB unit.
I saved so much yesterday that I'm already half way to a top-of-the-line 4th generation touch next year. By then Apple may have a 128GB model that will be able to hold all my classical, jazz and world music and entire iPhoto library in addition to everything the 64GB model would. So from that perspective I'm glad Apple didn't do much with the touch yesterday because I'm going to be able to afford what I really want much sooner.
I have yet to find out who makes the camera found in the 3GS or the new Nano(understandably). The teardowns reveal all the markings and manufactures found on the major chips on the logic board but nothing is ever mentioned of the camera modules. Are there no markings or are they hidden behind a lens mount? It seems to me accurate speculation about future hardware, cabability and size constraints would get a boost if we knew the camera vendor that supplies Apple.
Could someone please research this; I don't have time.
I'd agree with those that say they'd be happy to exchange a couple of extra mm for a kick ass camera on the next Touch. My 2ndG Touch can be uncomfortable or hard to hold onto without a case; almost too thin. The chrome doesn't help.
I had waited a really long time to get my first Touch and now no camera\ I decided to buy a refurbished 2nd gen 8gig model for $149 from the Apple store and will pass that on to someone once the truly new Touch comes out.
Sounds like a great idea. Think I might do the same.
The iPod touch is competitively priced (ie, with view on any potential competitors), the iPhone is priced according its position as essentially a phone without close competitors. Plus, with most consumers never seeing the full price (and thus having no means of seeing whether their monthly payments are there to pay for that data access or paying down the loan they got from their provider), few people make this comparison.
I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.
After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.
The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.
"But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude."
This comment show you are not a pathetic fanboy, but are the exact opposite, which is just as bad (only on the other end) Though additionally it show you to be a bit of an ah0le as well.
I agree with those suspecting that the new batch of thinner cameras weren't up to par. Assuming the same pixel density, to get a higher resolution camera you need a bigger sensor, which generally speaking means to maintain image quality you need to put the lens farther from the sensor to focus properly and minimize distortion, vignetting, etc. So you need a bigger camera module. Some manufacturer probably promised Apple to deliver a thinner module than the iPhone has to fit in the touch. They may even have delivered some initial, low-volume prototypes that were fine. But when they ramped up to full production, maybe they couldn't maintain the level of quality necessary.
But if you look at the profiles of the iPhone vs the touch, it may be possible to get a good camera in the touch without increasing its thickness. The iPhone maintains its maximum thickness nearly to the edge of the case before tapering off. The touch begins the taper much sooner, so if they were trying to put the camera near the edge, like on the iPhone, they actually have much less thickness to work with. So they could either relocate the camera away from the edge or change the taper of the case. That still may not be thick enough, but it would give them another millimeter or two to work with.
Is this third person suggesting cameras could be coming on the high-end models, which aren't due to ship for 1-3 weeks (in contrast to the seemingly unchanged 8GB model, which is already available because all they did was knock off $30), and Apple simply didn't advertise the cameras?
The online store currently says shipping in 1-3 days, not weeks, so no. On the other hand, odds are good that someone will do a tear-down over the weekend, so at least that question will be answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
In contrast to a Named and very Known party, Mr Jobs, stating that...
Because Mr. Jobs has never made deliberately misleading statements to the press before.
Probably because the iPhone is thicker. Maybe the 3GS camera wouldn't fit into the thinner case, so they were going with different cameras that didn't perform to Apple expectations.
I think you're absolutely right but the thickest thing I've come across in recent weeks is not the iPhone casing but the unsubstantiated rumour-mongering that passes itself off as legitimate discussion on this website.
Am I the only one to think that Appleinsider has blown the cover on itself? It should rename itself Appleoutsider because it's patently obvious that my next door neighbour's cat is as 'inside' Apple as some people who've been writing up the cameratouch fiasco .. and the poor moggy is 15 years old, is blind and deaf and lives about seven thousand miles from Steve and co. Just about as close to the story as some of the stupid guff that's been written up here recently.
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.
This report squares with a thought I expressed yesterday on the Touch announcement thread. Given continuing declines in the price of solid state memory modules, a 64GB iPod Touch without HD video at $399 seems overpriced in today's marketplace.
Well, I must agree with everyone who is saying that a Camera and Mic on the Touch would jeopardize iPhone sales. However, this is Apple we are talking about here. When has Apple ever NOT been expected to take a risk and do something crazy? Well, call me crazy, but I feel that Apple is well aware that the Touch w/ Cam, and Mic would effect the iPhone. I think that Apple knows that the Touch is going to need to receive a camera sooner or later, with sooner being more likely. Apple, who knows that they will have to add a camera and mic soon, probably has a break through feature that the iPhone will receive in reply to the Touch's new camera. What is this new feature? Who knows, but there are many possibilities.
In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.
Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.
I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.
Except, you must live in la-la land if you think you can get it for $300-$400 less.
Just because you want something at a price you're willing to pay does not mean it will be available. Get used to it.
Well, I must agree with everyone who is saying that a Camera and Mic on the Touch would jeopardize iPhone sales. However, this is Apple we are talking about here. When has Apple ever NOT been expected to take a risk and do something crazy? Well, call me crazy, but I feel that Apple is well aware that the Touch w/ Cam, and Mic would effect the iPhone. I think that Apple knows that the Touch is going to need to receive a camera sooner or later, with sooner being more likely. Apple, who knows that they will have to add a camera and mic soon, probably has a break through feature that the iPhone will receive in reply to the Touch's new camera. What is this new feature? Who knows, but there are many possibilities.
In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.
Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.
COMMENTS?
But I still wouldn't buy an iPhone. As long as monthly subscriptions are required I will not buy an iPhone. The monthly subscriptions are way to expensive and have been for years. And I mean from the very beginning, cell phone rates have been way to expensive. The lack of a camera or even GPS will not get me to buy an iPhone with subscriptions.
Teckstud, you forget that without AT&T you will only be able to make VoIP calls where you have WiFi access. There's not enough of them around to make VoIP an reasonable alternative to a cell phone system.
Comments
I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.
After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.
The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.
Great opening statement on an Apple forum.
You seem like a real positive and upbeat person.
On topic, I think it's probably a good thing Apple isn't shipping a camera on the touch if it wasn't ready but it is a disappointment to touch users I'm sure. Hopefully if the touch goes HD so will the next iphone. The Flips are really great for casual stuff, but they don't do anything an IPT/ Ipone couldn't do better. GPS would be great even if it's just for geo-tagging.
Yes! And it is reasonable to assume that a proposed iPod Touch camera would exceed the capabilities of an iPhone 3GS camera. Apple does this periodically-- like the larger capacity flash drive on the Touch.
Sooner or later, I suspect that Apple will offer a hi-res still/video camera with flash and physical focus lens on some device in its mobile platform. Because Apple can be more flexible (take more risks) with the touch than the phone, it makes sense to debut it on the the touch or a new tablet device.
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
Most expensive does not always equal the highest margins. Whether we like it or not - and speaking for myself as someone who is torn, since I like it as a shareholder, but do not as a consumer - margins do matter. Because market valuations do matter.
At this point, I am quite OK with a few months of wait-and-see.
Point taken. Apple may make as much or more on a nano sale than they do on some touch sales.
I've had my credit card ready to buy a 3rd gen touch for months. I was planning to get the 64GB model because it's big enough to hold all my rock music and still have room for apps, podcasts and photos.
When I saw how little had changed for the 3rd generation I decided to save money and get a refurbished 2nd generation touch instead. Since none of the older ones is big enough to hold more than a fraction of my music I decided to save even more and just get an 8GB unit.
I saved so much yesterday that I'm already half way to a top-of-the-line 4th generation touch next year. By then Apple may have a 128GB model that will be able to hold all my classical, jazz and world music and entire iPhoto library in addition to everything the 64GB model would. So from that perspective I'm glad Apple didn't do much with the touch yesterday because I'm going to be able to afford what I really want much sooner.
Could someone please research this; I don't have time.
I'd agree with those that say they'd be happy to exchange a couple of extra mm for a kick ass camera on the next Touch. My 2ndG Touch can be uncomfortable or hard to hold onto without a case; almost too thin. The chrome doesn't help.
I had waited a really long time to get my first Touch and now no camera
Sounds like a great idea. Think I might do the same.
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
Fully agree, and there is no need for rumors, here are the prices from Apple's own online store in Italy:
iPod touch 32 GB: 279 Euro
iPhone 32 GB: 699 Euro
http://store.apple.com/it/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUxNQ
http://store.apple.com/it/browse/hom...mco=OTM4MTE1MQ
The iPod touch is competitively priced (ie, with view on any potential competitors), the iPhone is priced according its position as essentially a phone without close competitors. Plus, with most consumers never seeing the full price (and thus having no means of seeing whether their monthly payments are there to pay for that data access or paying down the loan they got from their provider), few people make this comparison.
I'm not a pathetic Apple fanboy like most of you here, but I'd have to say, Apple has made the right decision here.
After adding a camera to the iPod touch, what should be the next thing they add? GPS? They've already added Bluetooth and a Microphone. Suddenly there isn't all that much separating the iPod Touch from the iPhone. They are wise to keep these two devices apart.
The only problem is that Apple is not allowing people to buy the iPhone outright, rather couples it with restrictive plans on a single network in most countries. But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude.
"But that's typical Apple - anti-consumer with a "do what you're told" attitude."
This comment show you are not a pathetic fanboy, but are the exact opposite, which is just as bad (only on the other end) Though additionally it show you to be a bit of an ah0le as well.
But if you look at the profiles of the iPhone vs the touch, it may be possible to get a good camera in the touch without increasing its thickness. The iPhone maintains its maximum thickness nearly to the edge of the case before tapering off. The touch begins the taper much sooner, so if they were trying to put the camera near the edge, like on the iPhone, they actually have much less thickness to work with. So they could either relocate the camera away from the edge or change the taper of the case. That still may not be thick enough, but it would give them another millimeter or two to work with.
Is this third person suggesting cameras could be coming on the high-end models, which aren't due to ship for 1-3 weeks (in contrast to the seemingly unchanged 8GB model, which is already available because all they did was knock off $30), and Apple simply didn't advertise the cameras?
The online store currently says shipping in 1-3 days, not weeks, so no. On the other hand, odds are good that someone will do a tear-down over the weekend, so at least that question will be answered.
In contrast to a Named and very Known party, Mr Jobs, stating that...
Because Mr. Jobs has never made deliberately misleading statements to the press before.
Thanks.
Probably because the iPhone is thicker. Maybe the 3GS camera wouldn't fit into the thinner case, so they were going with different cameras that didn't perform to Apple expectations.
I think you're absolutely right but the thickest thing I've come across in recent weeks is not the iPhone casing but the unsubstantiated rumour-mongering that passes itself off as legitimate discussion on this website.
Am I the only one to think that Appleinsider has blown the cover on itself? It should rename itself Appleoutsider because it's patently obvious that my next door neighbour's cat is as 'inside' Apple as some people who've been writing up the cameratouch fiasco .. and the poor moggy is 15 years old, is blind and deaf and lives about seven thousand miles from Steve and co. Just about as close to the story as some of the stupid guff that's been written up here recently.
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
People basically want everything that the iPhone has except for the 3G apparatus and be able to pay $300 less. How does that make sense?
I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.
if the touch wasn't to have a camera it wouldn't have the cover over spot on the back
screwed the pooch and i'm pissed
SJ usually gives us value, this touch wasn't worth me waiting 6 months IMO
JUST CRAP
Help me out here. A 32GB Touch costs $300. The 32GB iPhone (rumored at least) $600.
$700 actually. ATT pays between $200-400 of the cost for you, depending on your contract status
In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.
Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.
COMMENTS?
I would be happy to pay for a phoneless iPhone. Or better yet an iPhone as AT&T go-phone with a data plan. I'm not going to pay for voice when I rarely use it.
Except, you must live in la-la land if you think you can get it for $300-$400 less.
Just because you want something at a price you're willing to pay does not mean it will be available. Get used to it.
COMMENTS?
Yeah.
PRICE?
Well, I must agree with everyone who is saying that a Camera and Mic on the Touch would jeopardize iPhone sales. However, this is Apple we are talking about here. When has Apple ever NOT been expected to take a risk and do something crazy? Well, call me crazy, but I feel that Apple is well aware that the Touch w/ Cam, and Mic would effect the iPhone. I think that Apple knows that the Touch is going to need to receive a camera sooner or later, with sooner being more likely. Apple, who knows that they will have to add a camera and mic soon, probably has a break through feature that the iPhone will receive in reply to the Touch's new camera. What is this new feature? Who knows, but there are many possibilities.
In my honest opinion, Apple should have an Event involving all the devices that run the iPhone software. At the event they would add Camera, Video Camera, GPS, and many other things to the iPod Touch. But all of this would be no competition to the iPhones KILLER new feature that is so revolutionary, that NO device on the market could even come close to the iPhone.
Am I dreaming? I honestly don't think so. I do see this happening. But the only step needed, is figuring out what this killer feature for the iPhone is.
COMMENTS?
But I still wouldn't buy an iPhone. As long as monthly subscriptions are required I will not buy an iPhone. The monthly subscriptions are way to expensive and have been for years. And I mean from the very beginning, cell phone rates have been way to expensive. The lack of a camera or even GPS will not get me to buy an iPhone with subscriptions.
Teckstud, you forget that without AT&T you will only be able to make VoIP calls where you have WiFi access. There's not enough of them around to make VoIP an reasonable alternative to a cell phone system.