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?
what, you expect jobs to admit they couldn't quite get the camera in there in time for their release schedule? what makes you think ipod touch users only buy it for games?
psp comparisons are ridiculous, apple sold more ipod touches and iphones in a shorter period than the psp. software wise, the psp is practically dead and always has been besides first party releases. how can you compare a $1-10 game casual multipurpose machine to a $30-40 all-games machine?
for people who are dying for an ipod touch with a camera, i say, what's the point? if you have an ipod touch you have a separate phone, and therefore, you already have a crappy camera to take stupid, useless pictures with. i'd rather not have the extra component cost for some redundant hardware. it actually dissapoints me that apple even plans to add a camera to the touch.
hopefully they use that FM transmitter/receiver soon. i find it interesting that apple seems to be implementing hardware features before their software is ready. it's kind of an interesting thing, and i'm guessing it's much easier to throw in the hardware right away than it is to write the software.
Why the reduction from $10 to $5 for the iPod touch OS upgrade?
Apple didn't need the extra $5 bucks this time because it didn't put a camera in the touch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?
yeah, exactly. especially because the ipod touch firmware has no DRM, you can even download it directly from apple's servers for free if you have the direct download link, if you are too cheap to spend $5-10 on a software update that adds a bunch of features.
i mean sure, old ipods had free software updates, but they usually didn't add any noticeable features. i don't like the practice, but obviously people are willing to pay because it's apparently worth it to them. that's business.
Yeah I think it's your sample. I've seen thousands of pictures and none of them look like they were taken with a VGA camera (big difference between that and a quality picture scaled down to VGA).
Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?
A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.
I'll say thus: apple did well in my book keeping the cost under $200. I'm looking forward to trying to deploy a dozen or so Touch as SIP phones rather than spending the same on Aastra phones. It really opens up some interesting options, especially if we can do Bluetooth headsets.
The game is all about broadest market appeal. If it had been $50 more my concept wouldn't have been viable. SJ's explanation is always half true...
What if Apple purchased the wifi N chips now, so they could receive a bulk discount to use them in a future more powerful device such as the "iTablet"? Are the new processors in the iTouch even powerful enough to handle data transmitted at N speeds? It would be interesting to see a newly built iPhone 3GS to see if the chip is now being used there as well. Anyone who bought an iPhone in the last few days interested in making a sacrifice to the "collective" and take their phone apart?* If you do let us know what wifi chip is in it.
*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.
That is his point. Apple shouldn't care about selling aestethically attractive and lightweight devices if it means not having a camera that isn't the best out there. I am guessing this at he wants to see.
Great! He wants the 1000X Digital Zoom, Xenon flash which will kill the battery life of the iPhone after 5 minutes of photos/videos.
I wish apple would make the iPod touch's back out of the same stuff as the first iPhone, cause that didn't get fingerprints and the stainless steel does.
The plastic back is meant specially for the iPhone because of phone reception issues. The iPod Touch will always have a chrome back.
Yes I am. Will they eventually put one in? Yes they will. But Apple will hold if off until the next major revision of the iPod Touch to do so.
There is a reason why the iPod Touch technologically isn't an iPhone minus the phone. Apple wants (on purpose) to separate the iPhone and iPod Touch products.
+1, sir! Thank you for the last statement you made! Really had enough of people saying " the iPod Touch is the iPhone without the phone." Wouldn't that make it and 'i'?
I think the technical reason is BS. Clearly, the camera works in the Nano, so why wouldn't it work in the Touch? I think the real reason is Apple changed it's mind about offering the cheap camera that is in the Nano in the Touch. It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.
This thread is pretty much an exercise in futility what with teckstud shouting his nonsense from the sidelines, but I'll contribute anyway.
I think it's a clearly a mistake to assume they were going to use the same camera just because the "hole" discovered is the same size.
If those pictures of the iPod touch prototype with the camera were real (which is pretty much all this rumour has to go on), the camera has to be different. The hole for the lens assembly looks much bigger, and the lens itself looked bigger to me than even the one on the current iPhone. It might have been the same part but with a different lens assembly or a completely different part altogether.
Someone already pointed out that no one can remember an Apple product shipping with a "hole" for a part like this that isn't there. Typically, if they are going to make a version with a camera and one without they design two completely different devices, not just leave it out of one model. It's way more likely that this was a simple manufacturing screwup. Some stupid supplier promises the earth and then tells them at the last minute that they can't make the part for whatever reasons and it has to be left out.
You can bet that the company in question wasn't Apple, that there was a penalty involved in their mistake, that Steve is totally pissed about it, and that (if there are any other options), Apple probably won't deal with that company ever again.
Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?
A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.
I haven't seen the video that comes from the nano, but I've seen plenty of good quality video where, when you actually freeze a frame, it looks like crap. The human brain combines multiple frames which are individually blurred into each other, into the perception of a sharp, high quality video.
I'm sure we'll be able to see a still soon, and I'm sure I'll be confirmed.
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
What if Apple purchased the wifi N chips now, so they could receive a bulk discount to use them in a future more powerful device such as the "iTablet"? Are the new processors in the iTouch even powerful enough to handle data transmitted at N speeds? It would be interesting to see a newly built iPhone 3GS to see if the chip is now being used there as well. Anyone who bought an iPhone in the last few days interested in making a sacrifice to the "collective" and take their phone apart?* If you do let us know what wifi chip is in it.
*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.
they bought the n chips because they are probably cheaper by now since g is on it's way out
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
Do we know that Omnivision supplied the camera in the iPhone and/or nano?
I thought Omnivision had this fantastic Trufocus technology that made their cameras so superior and that we were going to see the cameras with that technology in the next iPhone (and presumably the touch).
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
Maybe.. He's listening to his iPod while texting on his iPhone and surfing the web on his Mac Pro .. He'll reply you shortly..
Comments
Which cost $10 in late June and now has been discounted @ 50% to $5 less than 2 1/1 months later!
RIP-OFF, APPLE!
Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?
Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?
Why the reduction from $10 to $5 for the iPod touch OS upgrade?
Apple didn't need the extra $5 bucks this time because it didn't put a camera in the touch...
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?
what, you expect jobs to admit they couldn't quite get the camera in there in time for their release schedule? what makes you think ipod touch users only buy it for games?
psp comparisons are ridiculous, apple sold more ipod touches and iphones in a shorter period than the psp. software wise, the psp is practically dead and always has been besides first party releases. how can you compare a $1-10 game casual multipurpose machine to a $30-40 all-games machine?
for people who are dying for an ipod touch with a camera, i say, what's the point? if you have an ipod touch you have a separate phone, and therefore, you already have a crappy camera to take stupid, useless pictures with. i'd rather not have the extra component cost for some redundant hardware. it actually dissapoints me that apple even plans to add a camera to the touch.
hopefully they use that FM transmitter/receiver soon. i find it interesting that apple seems to be implementing hardware features before their software is ready. it's kind of an interesting thing, and i'm guessing it's much easier to throw in the hardware right away than it is to write the software.
Why the reduction from $10 to $5 for the iPod touch OS upgrade?
Apple didn't need the extra $5 bucks this time because it didn't put a camera in the touch...
Gimme a break. What else can you whine about?
yeah, exactly. especially because the ipod touch firmware has no DRM, you can even download it directly from apple's servers for free if you have the direct download link, if you are too cheap to spend $5-10 on a software update that adds a bunch of features.
i mean sure, old ipods had free software updates, but they usually didn't add any noticeable features. i don't like the practice, but obviously people are willing to pay because it's apparently worth it to them. that's business.
Yeah I think it's your sample. I've seen thousands of pictures and none of them look like they were taken with a VGA camera (big difference between that and a quality picture scaled down to VGA).
Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?
A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.
The game is all about broadest market appeal. If it had been $50 more my concept wouldn't have been viable. SJ's explanation is always half true...
*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.
That is his point. Apple shouldn't care about selling aestethically attractive and lightweight devices if it means not having a camera that isn't the best out there. I am guessing this at he wants to see.
Great! He wants the 1000X Digital Zoom, Xenon flash which will kill the battery life of the iPhone after 5 minutes of photos/videos.
I wish apple would make the iPod touch's back out of the same stuff as the first iPhone, cause that didn't get fingerprints and the stainless steel does.
The plastic back is meant specially for the iPhone because of phone reception issues. The iPod Touch will always have a chrome back.
Yes I am. Will they eventually put one in? Yes they will. But Apple will hold if off until the next major revision of the iPod Touch to do so.
There is a reason why the iPod Touch technologically isn't an iPhone minus the phone. Apple wants (on purpose) to separate the iPhone and iPod Touch products.
+1, sir! Thank you for the last statement you made! Really had enough of people saying " the iPod Touch is the iPhone without the phone."
Can you buy an iPhone and then right after you buy it upgrade to a different phone and keep the iPhone as an iPod touch?
I believe the SIM can just be put into another phone, but you're still gonna have to pay the monthly contract charge; so why would you do that?
I think the technical reason is BS. Clearly, the camera works in the Nano, so why wouldn't it work in the Touch? I think the real reason is Apple changed it's mind about offering the cheap camera that is in the Nano in the Touch. It will wait until it can fit the iPhone camera in the Touch. I think that is the right thing to do.
This thread is pretty much an exercise in futility what with teckstud shouting his nonsense from the sidelines, but I'll contribute anyway.
I think it's a clearly a mistake to assume they were going to use the same camera just because the "hole" discovered is the same size.
If those pictures of the iPod touch prototype with the camera were real (which is pretty much all this rumour has to go on), the camera has to be different. The hole for the lens assembly looks much bigger, and the lens itself looked bigger to me than even the one on the current iPhone. It might have been the same part but with a different lens assembly or a completely different part altogether.
Someone already pointed out that no one can remember an Apple product shipping with a "hole" for a part like this that isn't there. Typically, if they are going to make a version with a camera and one without they design two completely different devices, not just leave it out of one model. It's way more likely that this was a simple manufacturing screwup. Some stupid supplier promises the earth and then tells them at the last minute that they can't make the part for whatever reasons and it has to be left out.
You can bet that the company in question wasn't Apple, that there was a penalty involved in their mistake, that Steve is totally pissed about it, and that (if there are any other options), Apple probably won't deal with that company ever again.
Can you answer a simple question? Have you seen any of the video that comes out of the nano?
A still image from the nano would not be among the worst images I've seen. Second, yes, there is a big difference between different kinds of cameras, but then, FB compression seems to clobber pictures too, regardless of the quality of the camera or source image.
I haven't seen the video that comes from the nano, but I've seen plenty of good quality video where, when you actually freeze a frame, it looks like crap. The human brain combines multiple frames which are individually blurred into each other, into the perception of a sharp, high quality video.
I'm sure we'll be able to see a still soon, and I'm sure I'll be confirmed.
Hopefully now Apple is spending some of its billion$ on R&D for a better camera that fits in the space available.
What if Apple purchased the wifi N chips now, so they could receive a bulk discount to use them in a future more powerful device such as the "iTablet"? Are the new processors in the iTouch even powerful enough to handle data transmitted at N speeds? It would be interesting to see a newly built iPhone 3GS to see if the chip is now being used there as well. Anyone who bought an iPhone in the last few days interested in making a sacrifice to the "collective" and take their phone apart?* If you do let us know what wifi chip is in it.
*Disclaimer: This will void your warranty, and no one is going to buy you a new phone. So if you are crazy enough to do this you are on your own.
they bought the n chips because they are probably cheaper by now since g is on it's way out
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
Do we know that Omnivision supplied the camera in the iPhone and/or nano?
I thought Omnivision had this fantastic Trufocus technology that made their cameras so superior and that we were going to see the cameras with that technology in the next iPhone (and presumably the touch).
Can anyone confirm this?
Toshiba and ST Micro offer several complete high resolution wafer modules that would easily fit, Apple made a mistake picking its supplier Omnivision who has been losing tier one customers due to quality issues for years now. Steve, are you listening?
Maybe.. He's listening to his iPod while texting on his iPhone and surfing the web on his Mac Pro .. He'll reply you shortly..
Which cost $10 in late June and now has been discounted @ 50% to $5 less than 2 1/1 months later!
RIP-OFF, APPLE!
A whopping $5 rip-off, how dare they. It is almost as bad as reducing the price of the 8 GB iPod touch by dozens of dollars over night.
Steve presumably decided (correctly) that a 640x480 non-AF camera that can't take stills would be weak sauce for the touch.
Hopefully now Apple is spending some of its billion$ on R&D for a better camera that fits in the space available.
Or make that space one or two millimetres larger.