MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

nano will die if new ipod touch will get camera? where is this non-sense coming from? there is still price difference. so nano will still sell well no matter what. unbelievable!

Sep 09, 09 - 08:52 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Careful Steve! Don't jump into the Ballmer diet without proper training and possible assistance from Oprah.

So, are they gonna release today's video or what?

Sep 09, 09 - 09:07 pm Comment from: Ottawa Mark

I thought Steve was a vegan!? Perhaps frozen soy? Or has he changed his diet?

Sep 09, 09 - 09:11 pm Comment from: qka

Sorry Sj, but I for one was hoping for a camera in the touch. AT&T;isn't an option here, so I'm not getting an iPhone anytime soon.

with a nano on me than an ipod touch.

the nano just turned into a bitchin james bond spy tool tho.

Have a hamburger, Steve, but don't have a cow over it.
It's not like you'll get cancer or anything, right?

Sep 09, 09 - 09:25 pm Comment from: LordRobin

Um, MDN? Am I supposed to be upset that the iPod touch didn't get a video-only camera, with no autofocus? I'm sorry, but if that camera had been put in the touch, everyone would be bitching.

I mean, c'mon -- admit the obvious: everyone was hoping that the iPod touch would get the same camera as the iPhone. And adding that camera to the touch would definately have blown up the price.

Comparing the sh*tty iPod nano camera to the iPhone camera everyone was expecting? I'm calling "bullshit" on you, MDN.

------RM

The main issue I see with a camera in the touch is that it won't be good enough, and everyone will bitch about it. In the nano, it's hard to complain that it's a lame camera - it's just a silly widget that makes it seem cooler, while not really adding all that much for device usefulness. Similarly, the Flip is a lame device. My sister has one - yeah, it takes video (low-res). But if the video isn't worth keeping, it's hardly worth watching. And taking.

In reality, an iPod Touch with a camera would be the true iPhone killer.

Jobs remarking on Kindle: "You notice Amazon never says how much they sell; usually if they sell a lot of something, you want to tell everybody."

Errr...like Apple TV?

Horrendous take by MDN. The iPod touch won't cannibalize nano sales no matter what features it has, just as the classic never cannibalized mini/nano sales when there was no touch. It's all about the size MDN.

Sep 09, 09 - 09:47 pm Comment from: disposableidentity

"video-only, non-still camera without autofocus capabilities"

Maybe that's the answer. The Nano is a fun little unit with a not-so-hot camera. The "YouTube-grade" camera is a huge bonus in a Nano, but would feel a little chintzy in a Touch.

Sep 09, 09 - 09:48 pm Comment from: silverhawk

I want the iPhone camera in a iPod touch. That's the only way I will upgrade. Steve, are you listening? Get better please.

@MDN Do you really it only cost 5 bucks to put a camera? You probably dreaming!!!1 maybe it it only cost 5 bucks for the camera, but what about the engineering process and designing of the product? Do you think engineers and designers don't get pay?

I agree with Rob. The MDN take, for once, is foundless.

If the touch had a camera, nano buyers would still buy the nano for its lower cost, smaller size and simplicity.

Why would it cannibalize the Nano? I'm thinking it would hurt the iPhone sales more. The differentiation at that point would only be the phone. AT&T;probably put their two cents in on that decision. Plus Apple gets a good cut of the monthly fee so they're looking out for themselves.

I'm making a guess -- the real reason no camera in the touch yet -- is that when/if they release an iTablet the touch will get a refresh at the same time and may have a camera at that time.

But whatever. Doesn't matter. The nano is cool, the touch is cool.

Differentiation.

@bildad --

I agree. Astute point. Gotta keep a different focus on each product.

Sep 09, 09 - 10:11 pm Comment from: shen

"Maybe that's the answer. The Nano is a fun little unit with a not-so-hot camera. The "YouTube-grade" camera is a huge bonus in a Nano, but would feel a little chintzy in a Touch."

....and we have a winner!

Sep 09, 09 - 10:12 pm Comment from: ericdano

$5 says someone opens up a iTouch, and finds that there is indeed connectors to put a camera, and it becomes a hacking thing for people.

Sep 09, 09 - 10:12 pm Comment from: Altivec Guru

Try eating some meat. Sushi. Fast food. Can't gain weight from a bowl of sprouts...

Sep 09, 09 - 10:26 pm Comment from: Prophet

How about Krispy Kremes? It's worked for others...

Sep 09, 09 - 10:32 pm Comment from: auramac

The Touch with good video would be an iPhone killer. The Nano is a separate category. This is an opportunity for the horrendous Zunes of the world to add video to compete against the Touch. I could do without FM radio on any of these products. Who listens to the radio when you have iTunes, your own music, podcasts, etc.

Most of all, I could care less against games. If the Touch is a gaming device, then I'm not among the target audience. The Touch should be a "netbook." With decent video.

It gives them something to market next year's model with. Who would buy a nano this year if it didn't have the radio and camera? There'd be nothing new. The design and form factor are perfect, all they _could_ do is add a major new feature. I was a bit surprised they finally added a radio. Jobs is right that they don't need a camera to sell a truck load of touches. Maybe next year they will juice the numbers by adding something like that. A shame if you really wanted it now, but hey.

Apple really needs to pull their head out of their ass. The lack of new features on the Touch is an insult, Apple shouldn't be going down this road.

If i wanted stagnant products from a greedy arrogant company I'd be a M$ fan. Please wake up Apple.

Sep 09, 09 - 10:47 pm Comment from: TigerCliff

However the cannibalization would work -- either touch to nano or touch to iPhone -- I agree the exclusion had to be a business decision not based on price. If nothing else, they could have included it in the 32 & 64 GB models. Those are now being differentiated with faster processors and there's enough margin to include a camera as an extra selling point.

Like others have pointed out, the real challenge is the consumer who wants an iPhone but not sure they want to deal with AT&T;and a data plan -- would an iPod touch + simple phone do? Probably. If it had a camera, GPS, compass, etc. -- definitely.

Sep 09, 09 - 10:48 pm Comment from: Macrelated

I had hoped for an Ipod Touch with 64GB, still/video camera, mic and GPS.

So no iPod Touch for me.

Sep 09, 09 - 10:51 pm Comment from: breeze

"A greater question for Apple at the moment is ... what is the health of the consumer, who is really their core customer, in the fourth quarter?" said Daniel Ernst at Hudson Square Research. "We have unemployment nearing 10 percent and Apple's still growing better than the rest of tech, but it's still an issue."

Apple's priority short term has to be therefore to get prices down while it increases features and storage.

Apple does not compromise on quality and when it delivers it delivers only the best. The touch is evolving and is the cream of the iPod crop, it has to be state of the art - not state of the fart. There's more to a camera than $5 and a cheap lens. If and when Apple implements one in the touch it will be exceptional and significantly more developed than what can be accomplished now without getting in the way of the stated goal: "getting price down to $199 and increasing storage"

Sep 09, 09 - 11:09 pm Comment from: breeze

This new refreshed product line, these new price points coupled with a refreshed complete unibody MacBook Pro Line and international iPhone marketing expansion, supplemented with Snow Leopard, iTunes 9, iphone 3.1 software, iLife '09 and iWorks'09, will keep Apple in good shape during the recession and ready to breakout massively after it.

or more like the ipod nano? or the just the ipod in general. if something is considered a "hobby," they clearly wouldn't be expecting to sell record amounts. come on




The only thing you ever sold was lemonade when you were a kid.

Sep 09, 09 - 11:35 pm Comment from: MacTony

This does suck....... I had promised the girls new iTouches with cameras. ;( I guess dad should wait to confirm that it actually exists. I really don't see why they didn't put a camera on both the iTouch and the nano. Unless there is a supply issue......... I could see it being a problem since they are having a hard time keeping up with the iPhone demand. I guess that is a bad problem to have......

Sep 09, 09 - 11:51 pm Comment from: ken1w

The more I consider the lack of camera in iPod touch, the more I believe the iPhone cannibalization theory is the correct answer.

The profit margin on the 8GB iPod touch at the new price has to be the lowest of all the iPod models and configs, although selling apps after the unit's sale makes up for it. The highest profit margin of all the iPods models and configs is probably the iPod classic; I knew it would keep in rolling, because it sells well enough and it is cheap to build, plus no new engineering costs - just keep making it and upping the storage until it no longer sells in sufficient numbers. Buy that time, flash storage capacity and cost will have caught up.

Back to the touch... compared to the iPod touch, the iPhone has huge profit per unit, plus the profit from app sales. Apple would much rather sell and iPhone than an iPod touch. An iPod touch with the same video capability would be a significant threat. An iPod nano with a cheaper camera is not a threat to the iPhone.

ok the nano camera may be video only and non auto focus but i would love for the cool effects it has when taking video. DO you think the iPhone can do that with a software update i wanna make cool looking stupid videos too no 4 real i really do.

And I thought I would already know what to buy my 9 year old son for Christmas: an iPod touch with a camera of the same quality as in the iPhone. I guess I got to look for something else now. - But I am not blaming Apple or Steve for it. I think this would have cannibalized some of the iPhone sales. I suppose the iPod touch will eventually have a camera built-in, once the iPhone has another feature or two to show off that won't be available in the iPod touch.

Sep 10, 09 - 12:55 am Comment from: chaz

In this case, Apple could be a little more like Micro$oft. Why not put a Camera in a highend touch???f If Apple could be just a little more flexible, they would appeal to a much larger segment of the market.

Apple has a really bad case of telling their customers what they want, that's really unfortunate given the unyielding loyalty so many of their customers exhibit.

Was hoping for a camera in the Touch. Was ready to upgrade.

Not buying another nano... not using the one I have now.
Not buying an iPhone. VirginMobile works great for my needs and saves me tons of $.

Will keep my first generation Touch until there is an HD camera available in a new Touch.

Sep 10, 09 - 01:43 am Comment from: Yours Smugly

Touch and nano can't cannibalize each other much, even if the touch had a camera. The nano is your "first iPod" and sells and would continue to sell well to the youngest customers. Also, many choose the nano because of the size.

Rather, a touch with a camera would cannibalize iPhone sales.

It looks to me that the new iPT is the same form factor and circuitry as the old one, just a speed boost and more memory, ne? So they didn't have the resources to spend to re-engineer the layout to make room for a phone.

Also, since the iPT is shallower than the iPhone, there may be a problem with having enough depth to allow for a focussing mechanism.

The real reason there is no camera in the new iPod touch:

The camera guy was out sick last week.

Sep 10, 09 - 02:40 am Comment from: almux

Steve isn't fat enough? Okay! Let's pull down the Apple's share!! Wouaf!
...And about iPods and having cameras... Of course, Apple is not willing to stop the Nanos right now. Within 2 years, it'll probably be a must leave, but not just right nowadays. Plus, christmas period is good for light music+video capturing...

I am pretty sure SJ vetoed the cam from ipod touch not for any other reason but to ensure top of line user experience. Whenever apple adds a cam to ipod touch it is going for full resolution full function camera which can compete with the best in its class. For all we know it might add another line of products for apple fans.

Cheers

OMG, MDN criticising SJ, I don't believe my eyes

Sep 10, 09 - 04:52 am Comment from: Occasional Poster

I would be getting one soon if it had a camera; As it is now, I will just wait. I certainly will not buy a Nano for its camera.

Priced too high with a better camera than $9.95? That is BS! Leave the 16 gig model in the line up, add a decent camera and it should still be less than $299.

They made a mistake! Period!

Sep 10, 09 - 04:55 am Comment from: Occasional Poster

The Marketing Logic is taking control of Apple! It used to be the best product that they could make; now it is the dollar by crippling one model. Apple and Steve need to beware of their past speeches about putting the marketing man and his philosophy in control.

Since I already have the 2g Touch, I will wait until they release a camera :/ I see why they didn't put the crappy nano cam into the touch, and ofcourse it would kill 3GS sales if they put the nice camera into the touch, but that would be AT&T;'s loss and I think we are more likely to see it next year due to the simple
fact that the iPhone won't be tied to AT&T;. - and AT&T;for me is simply not an option :( Grrrr....

Clearly, some of you people should also be posting on the Canon, Olympus, Nikon, etc. forums to ask for internet browsing, media display, and games on their cameras if taking pictures is that important to you. That's what it will take to have a decent camera. Putting one in the touch (a decent camera, that is) would have to double its thickness, at least. The camera on the iPhone is upgraded, but still sucks - without a flash it's almost useless at least 50% of the time for most users.

For my part, if the picture isn't worth keeping, it's not worth taking. If the camera can't take pictures worth keeping, its not worth having.

Hmmm... Suddenly I need to go post on some camera forums. I would have much more use for a good camera with iPod touch or iPhone capabilities than a touch with a crappy camera. And I don't see Steve Jobs going seriously into the photography business anytime soon.

Maybe the one device to rule them all has to come from the camera industry. I'll wager that we'll see cameras with internet access and music/video playing before we see the touch or iPhone with a real camera. Heck, TV's are coming out with more functionality in that regard than the Apple TV can give them.

Sep 10, 09 - 06:55 am Comment from: Daner

Apple will add the iPhone 3Gs camera to the iPod Touch when dipping sales demand it, and not a minute sooner. Same thing with GPS and a compass.

I call it the Bubka plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Bubka

Sit down, shut up, buckle up, and get ready for Steve Jobs 3.0

Sep 10, 09 - 07:08 am Comment from: breeze

nomoremsbs:

and not a minute too soon

The iPod touch probably has the lowest margin of Apple products (excepting maybe the AppleTV), Apple gets $400-450 from carriers for the iPhone 3G, but the touch is only $199. The difference in components between the two is way less than $100.