It'll be interesting to see the iPod numbers from Q1 2010 but Apple probably lost some sales due to the lack of a camera with the latest iPod Touch. Why it is that big of a deal I'm not sure? If it packed a 5 mega pixel camera with sould serious digital zoom and auto correct along with a flash then that might replace some consumer cameras.
I'd say Apple should update the camera in January as spring is a bit far away.
the fact that they are saying spring and that is the time for the rumored tablet, I can't help but think that any cameras being considered right not will be for that device. As a user facing webcam to ichat with the tablet, where you wouldn't need the sharpness of a high grade still shot.
After all, it seems like the decision to not put a camera in the touch was not technical but economic. They wanted to position the touch as a game device, not a "iphone but with VOIP not a 'real' phone" and used the camera (a typical feature of cell phones these days) as another item to encourage folks to get an iphone rather than a touch and kept their dumb phone, etc
video and radio in the nano was to keep them viable in the age of the zune etc
No, it isn't. There is no interpolation in optical zoom.
...
If you don't understand that, I'll make it simple: a digitally zoomed picture will be blurrier at the same resolution than the same shot made with optical zoom.
I never suggested there wasn't any difference in quality.
Ah the boards are less cacophonous already. No Tekslug!
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
It'll be interesting to see the iPod numbers from Q1 2010 but Apple probably lost some sales due to the lack of a camera with the latest iPod Touch. Why it is that big of a deal I'm not sure? If it packed a 5 mega pixel camera with sould serious digital zoom and auto correct along with a flash then that might replace some consumer cameras.
I'd say Apple should update the camera in January as spring is a bit far away.
As the less-trollish of us here have stated, a mid-cycle update doesn?t seem unlikely. It?s obvious that the camera was intended but something held it back. Hopefully they?ll be able to use a better camera than the Nano got. Directly competing with Flip HD is out of the question with the current thickness, but perhaps competing a little better than the Nano does would be enough.
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
I'm with you on this one, Teckstud.
There's absolutely no reason there shouldn't have been a camera on the iPod Touch and the "Gaming Device" BS was just a coverup for their own failure... or greed... you decide.
The fact is that the Nano got one and their beloved the iPhone got one (true video support anyway) so either it's a mfg error or an insulting up-sell to spite those who aren't stupid enough to buy more than they need or settle for the inferior 90%-profit-margin model.
I hope it isn't the latter, but if a Touch update comes and goes without a camera, we will all know which it is.
There's absolutely no reason there shouldn't have been a camera on the iPod Touch […] The fact is that the Nano got one and their beloved the iPhone got one (true video support anyway) so either it's a mfg error or an insulting up-sell
Both of those are reasons. One is a technical the other is business related. I can understand not respecting the latter but it doesn’t mean it isn’t a reason.
Both of those are reasons. One is a technical the other is business related. I can understand not respecting the latter but it doesn?t mean it isn?t a reason.
Come now Soli, let's not pick apart a stupid non-existent contradiction.
It's obvious from the context and tone that I meant there was no "acceptable" reason. My reasons for saying so are:
The iPod's technology is so similar to the iPhone, it has been capable of donning a camera since it's launch. -OR- The upsell is insulting and therefore not a good reason to have omitted the camera.
It's obvious from the context and tone that I meant there was no "acceptable" reason. My reasons for saying so are:
The iPod's technology is so similar to the iPhone, it has been capable of donning a camera since it's launch. -OR- The upsell is insulting and therefore not a good reason to have omitted the camera.
I?ll give you that. It is a pet peeve of mine but I know I your posts well enough to have known better. I assure you there are many others that can?t see reasons they find unacceptable as actual reasons.
The reason to save a buck is pretty weak, even for Apple. I can?t imagine that the cost of the camera is much and if they had been able to secure enough of the component and had completed the assembly process and OS integration it would seem foolish to pull. This leads me to think it was purely technical.
The Nano and Touch are both iPods but they have very different OSes. It?s possible that they two teams that worked on each device were unsuccessful with the Touch but successful with the Nano. If they do offer a new Touch mid-cycle I think we can deduce that this was likely the case.
Case in point of something that may seem simple may not be is the last launch of the MBP. Apple only shipped a 1.5Gbps SATA connector despite 3Gbps being the standard for several years. They later updated it with a driver update but there are still many 3rd-party drives that don?t work right with these new MBPs. This is a SATA connector for the one component in a machine that doesn?t need to have Apple?s name on it and that is agnostic to the manufacturer. If that can happen then I think Apple getting a new component working in a device running iPhone OS is not out of the question.
The reason to save a buck is pretty weak, even for Apple. I can?t imagine that the cost of the camera is much and if they had been able to secure enough of the component and had completed the assembly process and OS integration it would seem foolish to pull. This leads me to think it was purely technical.
There's no way it was to save a buck (or, cent).
Apple tends to have their products fairly linear, and so to have a feature on a cheaper product is out of line with their model.
I never said he directly said that if you reread my post.
Also you left this out (clever ommission I'd say):
How is that a "clever omission"? That's not a direct quote from Jobs. And as JLL pointed out, it amounts to the same thing as what I did quote him as saying.
Comments
It'll be interesting to see the iPod numbers from Q1 2010 but Apple probably lost some sales due to the lack of a camera with the latest iPod Touch. Why it is that big of a deal I'm not sure? If it packed a 5 mega pixel camera with sould serious digital zoom and auto correct along with a flash then that might replace some consumer cameras.
I'd say Apple should update the camera in January as spring is a bit far away.
the fact that they are saying spring and that is the time for the rumored tablet, I can't help but think that any cameras being considered right not will be for that device. As a user facing webcam to ichat with the tablet, where you wouldn't need the sharpness of a high grade still shot.
After all, it seems like the decision to not put a camera in the touch was not technical but economic. They wanted to position the touch as a game device, not a "iphone but with VOIP not a 'real' phone" and used the camera (a typical feature of cell phones these days) as another item to encourage folks to get an iphone rather than a touch and kept their dumb phone, etc
video and radio in the nano was to keep them viable in the age of the zune etc
I never said he directly said that if you reread my post.
Also you left this out (clever ommission I'd say):
Clever ommission?
It's the same as: "We started to market it that way"
Is there a way to put teckstud on ignore? I come here for info and conversation...not MS talking points memos.
yes, go to "user CP" and add him to the ignore list.
Made my life way better.
Is there a way to put teckstud on ignore? I come here for info and conversation...not MS talking points memos.
MS talking point memos? What's that?
yes, go to "user CP" and add him to the ignore list.
Made my life way better.
Ah! Thanks. Done! I should have figured that out myself so apologies there.
and you realize that is exactly how an optical zoom also works, right?
LOLZ, yeah.
yes, go to "user CP" and add him to the ignore list.
Made my life way better.
Ah the boards are less cacophonous already. No Tekslug!
No, it isn't. There is no interpolation in optical zoom.
...
If you don't understand that, I'll make it simple: a digitally zoomed picture will be blurrier at the same resolution than the same shot made with optical zoom.
I never suggested there wasn't any difference in quality.
Ah the boards are less cacophonous already. No Tekslug!
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
Apple would get bad publicity if it released new iPods soon after releasing the high capacity ones recently.
It'll be interesting to see the iPod numbers from Q1 2010 but Apple probably lost some sales due to the lack of a camera with the latest iPod Touch. Why it is that big of a deal I'm not sure? If it packed a 5 mega pixel camera with sould serious digital zoom and auto correct along with a flash then that might replace some consumer cameras.
I'd say Apple should update the camera in January as spring is a bit far away.
As the less-trollish of us here have stated, a mid-cycle update doesn?t seem unlikely. It?s obvious that the camera was intended but something held it back. Hopefully they?ll be able to use a better camera than the Nano got. Directly competing with Flip HD is out of the question with the current thickness, but perhaps competing a little better than the Nano does would be enough.
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
God forbid anybody be discordant from the cultists. I'm glad the cultists are banding together so there can be a serious, unbiased discussion on topics here.
I'm with you on this one, Teckstud.
There's absolutely no reason there shouldn't have been a camera on the iPod Touch and the "Gaming Device" BS was just a coverup for their own failure... or greed... you decide.
The fact is that the Nano got one and their beloved the iPhone got one (true video support anyway) so either it's a mfg error or an insulting up-sell to spite those who aren't stupid enough to buy more than they need or settle for the inferior 90%-profit-margin model.
I hope it isn't the latter, but if a Touch update comes and goes without a camera, we will all know which it is.
-Clive
There's absolutely no reason there shouldn't have been a camera on the iPod Touch […] The fact is that the Nano got one and their beloved the iPhone got one (true video support anyway) so either it's a mfg error or an insulting up-sell
Both of those are reasons. One is a technical the other is business related. I can understand not respecting the latter but it doesn’t mean it isn’t a reason.
Both of those are reasons. One is a technical the other is business related. I can understand not respecting the latter but it doesn?t mean it isn?t a reason.
Come now Soli, let's not pick apart a stupid non-existent contradiction.
It's obvious from the context and tone that I meant there was no "acceptable" reason. My reasons for saying so are:
The iPod's technology is so similar to the iPhone, it has been capable of donning a camera since it's launch. -OR- The upsell is insulting and therefore not a good reason to have omitted the camera.
-Clive
It's obvious from the context and tone that I meant there was no "acceptable" reason. My reasons for saying so are:
The iPod's technology is so similar to the iPhone, it has been capable of donning a camera since it's launch. -OR- The upsell is insulting and therefore not a good reason to have omitted the camera.
I?ll give you that. It is a pet peeve of mine but I know I your posts well enough to have known better. I assure you there are many others that can?t see reasons they find unacceptable as actual reasons.
The reason to save a buck is pretty weak, even for Apple. I can?t imagine that the cost of the camera is much and if they had been able to secure enough of the component and had completed the assembly process and OS integration it would seem foolish to pull. This leads me to think it was purely technical.
The Nano and Touch are both iPods but they have very different OSes. It?s possible that they two teams that worked on each device were unsuccessful with the Touch but successful with the Nano. If they do offer a new Touch mid-cycle I think we can deduce that this was likely the case.
Case in point of something that may seem simple may not be is the last launch of the MBP. Apple only shipped a 1.5Gbps SATA connector despite 3Gbps being the standard for several years. They later updated it with a driver update but there are still many 3rd-party drives that don?t work right with these new MBPs. This is a SATA connector for the one component in a machine that doesn?t need to have Apple?s name on it and that is agnostic to the manufacturer. If that can happen then I think Apple getting a new component working in a device running iPhone OS is not out of the question.
The reason to save a buck is pretty weak, even for Apple. I can?t imagine that the cost of the camera is much and if they had been able to secure enough of the component and had completed the assembly process and OS integration it would seem foolish to pull. This leads me to think it was purely technical.
There's no way it was to save a buck (or, cent).
Apple tends to have their products fairly linear, and so to have a feature on a cheaper product is out of line with their model.
I never said he directly said that if you reread my post.
Also you left this out (clever ommission I'd say):
How is that a "clever omission"? That's not a direct quote from Jobs. And as JLL pointed out, it amounts to the same thing as what I did quote him as saying.
Unbreaking it, and making iChat into a real Telephone platform, would seem trivial and obvious move.