With Facetime enabled on an Ipod, it would require a mike.
So what this really is is the next ipod. An Ipod phone. It is a communication device that does not need the cell phone company's. It is a short cut around them. It will need Wifi only, and that continues to proliferate.
So I think this will be the next generation communication device. With no cell phone bill, and video to boot.
If they do stick a camera inside I think it would be a backwards facing camera. Otherwise you need two, cause having a camera for facetime only is not a good idea (it will be used once or twice a month at best considering only iphone 4 for now).
Are you kidding me?
The front-facing camera would help people with their Facebook/MySpace/online dating self-portraits and "here's me with my BFF" shots. The front-facing camera would be heavily used. It might not improve the quality of those photos, but at least you don't have to take a shot, flip your camera around to see if you got the composition right three, four, five times in a row.
People are already using their iPhone 4 cameras for this purpose.
If next year's iPad gets a Retina Display and FaceTime, I will so buy one.
Seems improbable to me. Even if they went with 4x the pixel count like they did going from the 3GS to iPhone 4 display, it still won?t be in Retina Display level, but I doubt many will complain about and it will be incredible.
Perhaps more importantly is when will Resolution Independence and IPS displays come to Mac notebooks. IPS has been prohibitively expensive and power hungry, but with iMacs and iPads using them the time is right. And if RI comes to 10.7 then we can start to get higher resolution displays for all machines.
Is there any reason why Apple couldn't introduce Facetime onto the Mac? I believe all Macs now have a built in iSight (except of course the Mini), which I would assume could be used to initiate Facetime calls.
I would have thought it in Apples interest to get Facetime into as many users hands as possible, since it will then be more likely to gain the critical mass needed to make it worth other manufacturers implementing it. I know Apple have made it an open standard, but I assume the likes of say Nokia wouldn't implement it unless it was going into a big enough user base.
With Facetime enabled on an Ipod, it would require a mike.
So what this really is is the next ipod. An Ipod phone. It is a communication device that does not need the cell phone company's. It is a short cut around them. It will need Wifi only, and that continues to proliferate.
So I think this will be the next generation communication device. With no cell phone bill, and video to boot.
Now, would a cloud computer help with all that?
I would LOVE to see this. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile - you are now just ISPs. Good luck charging 20 cents for 140 bytes of bandwidth now.
The front-facing camera would help people with their Facebook/MySpace/online dating self-portraits and "here's me with my BFF" shots. The front-facing camera would be heavily used. It might not improve the quality of those photos, but at least you don't have to take a shot, flip your camera around to see if you got the composition right three, four, five times in a row.
People are already using their iPhone 4 cameras for this purpose.
Camwhoring, it's called. Big in Asia and of course many other places. Not meaning people are using it to sell sexual services per se (though I am sure AssTime will be big and is probably already happening, and one notch below that "sexting" is taken to another level), camwhoring is just a term to mean massively narcissistic taking of a huge amount of pictures of yourself and your bff/ bf.
So yeah, front facing camera = unprecedented camwhoring.
Is there any reason why Apple couldn't introduce Facetime onto the Mac? I believe all Macs now have a built in iSight (except of course the Mini), which I would assume could be used to initiate Facetime calls.
I would have thought it in Apples interest to get Facetime into as many users hands as possible, since it will then be more likely to gain the critical mass needed to make it worth other manufacturers implementing it. I know Apple have made it an open standard, but I assume the likes of say Nokia wouldn't implement it unless it was going into a big enough user base.
I'm sure Apple is working on it as we speak. It might be a 10.7 feature only, to get you to buy 10.7 and also because Apple is evil that way...
I have to admit I'm interested to see what they do with the new Touch. I'm going to be in the market for a new iPod soon, since my first generation Touch is starting to fail me (battery is starting to struggle to hold charge), and having bought an iPad, I was thinking that a Nano would be the device of choice now, but if the Touch comes up with something compelling, that might change.
The camera has me interested. If Apple includes a GPS and keeps the price reasonable, I'll retire my 2-g iPod touch. Otherwise, I'll wait.
Reasonable price, that's the key issue. Personally, I'd love the Facetime iPod - but two cameras, gyroscope, better speaker and microphone, all that will make the iPod significantly more expensive. A large number of iPod users don't care about those features, they just want to play music. Sure, the Nano's great for those folks, but will Apple risk opening an even bigger price gulf between the two? If the iPod Touch is $299+, won't that kill a lot of sales?
Comments
...they're fazing FaceTime on.)
I meant they're fazing FaceTIme IN.
I meant they're fazing FaceTIme IN.
You mean "phasing in" not "fazing in" or "on."
So what this really is is the next ipod. An Ipod phone. It is a communication device that does not need the cell phone company's. It is a short cut around them. It will need Wifi only, and that continues to proliferate.
So I think this will be the next generation communication device. With no cell phone bill, and video to boot.
Now, would a cloud computer help with all that?
It could be a light sensor.
If they do stick a camera inside I think it would be a backwards facing camera. Otherwise you need two, cause having a camera for facetime only is not a good idea (it will be used once or twice a month at best considering only iphone 4 for now).
Are you kidding me?
The front-facing camera would help people with their Facebook/MySpace/online dating self-portraits and "here's me with my BFF" shots. The front-facing camera would be heavily used. It might not improve the quality of those photos, but at least you don't have to take a shot, flip your camera around to see if you got the composition right three, four, five times in a row.
People are already using their iPhone 4 cameras for this purpose.
If next year's iPad gets a Retina Display and FaceTime, I will so buy one.
Seems improbable to me. Even if they went with 4x the pixel count like they did going from the 3GS to iPhone 4 display, it still won?t be in Retina Display level, but I doubt many will complain about and it will be incredible.
Perhaps more importantly is when will Resolution Independence and IPS displays come to Mac notebooks. IPS has been prohibitively expensive and power hungry, but with iMacs and iPads using them the time is right. And if RI comes to 10.7 then we can start to get higher resolution displays for all machines.
I would have thought it in Apples interest to get Facetime into as many users hands as possible, since it will then be more likely to gain the critical mass needed to make it worth other manufacturers implementing it. I know Apple have made it an open standard, but I assume the likes of say Nokia wouldn't implement it unless it was going into a big enough user base.
With Facetime enabled on an Ipod, it would require a mike.
So what this really is is the next ipod. An Ipod phone. It is a communication device that does not need the cell phone company's. It is a short cut around them. It will need Wifi only, and that continues to proliferate.
So I think this will be the next generation communication device. With no cell phone bill, and video to boot.
Now, would a cloud computer help with all that?
I would LOVE to see this. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile - you are now just ISPs. Good luck charging 20 cents for 140 bytes of bandwidth now.
ipod touch face time 4g/7g device
double the memory
add a nano face time phone and my life will be sweet as a ipad and apple pie
go apple
9
go touch
goodbye ATT
Are you kidding me?
The front-facing camera would help people with their Facebook/MySpace/online dating self-portraits and "here's me with my BFF" shots. The front-facing camera would be heavily used. It might not improve the quality of those photos, but at least you don't have to take a shot, flip your camera around to see if you got the composition right three, four, five times in a row.
People are already using their iPhone 4 cameras for this purpose.
Camwhoring, it's called. Big in Asia and of course many other places. Not meaning people are using it to sell sexual services per se (though I am sure AssTime will be big and is probably already happening, and one notch below that "sexting" is taken to another level), camwhoring is just a term to mean massively narcissistic taking of a huge amount of pictures of yourself and your bff/ bf.
So yeah, front facing camera = unprecedented camwhoring.
Is there any reason why Apple couldn't introduce Facetime onto the Mac? I believe all Macs now have a built in iSight (except of course the Mini), which I would assume could be used to initiate Facetime calls.
I would have thought it in Apples interest to get Facetime into as many users hands as possible, since it will then be more likely to gain the critical mass needed to make it worth other manufacturers implementing it. I know Apple have made it an open standard, but I assume the likes of say Nokia wouldn't implement it unless it was going into a big enough user base.
I'm sure Apple is working on it as we speak. It might be a 10.7 feature only, to get you to buy 10.7 and also because Apple is evil that way...
That would make it an iPad Mini
If next year's iPad gets a Retina Display and FaceTime, I will so buy one.
I don't think the hardware can handle it.
The camera has me interested. If Apple includes a GPS and keeps the price reasonable, I'll retire my 2-g iPod touch. Otherwise, I'll wait.
Reasonable price, that's the key issue. Personally, I'd love the Facetime iPod - but two cameras, gyroscope, better speaker and microphone, all that will make the iPod significantly more expensive. A large number of iPod users don't care about those features, they just want to play music. Sure, the Nano's great for those folks, but will Apple risk opening an even bigger price gulf between the two? If the iPod Touch is $299+, won't that kill a lot of sales?