Oh, wait, without noting it, Fortune just changed the headline to “Did Steve Jobs spin the NY Times?” (The original still shows up via Google.)
Lie. Spin. Whatever. Who doesn’t do either to The New York Times? It’s certainly no crime. Let’s be real: The way we read it, the thing is full of lies, half-truths, and spin.
Here’s the story: Jobs told the Times, “Originally, we weren’t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it’s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that’s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don’t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.”
But, Elmer-Dewiit reports, “But according to AppleInsider’s Kasper Jade, citing unnamed sources familiar with Apple’s decision making process, that’s simple not true… It was a bad part, not cost or marketing considerations, that kept the camera off the iPod touches introduced this week.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: To us, it seems obvious that Jobs was spinning and that iPod touch was supposed to get a camera (third-party cases were made for 3rd-gen touches with camera holes in them, for crying out loud), but, hey, it didn’t make the cut. As CEO, Jobs can’t really come out and say: “The cameras didn’t work, but they’re coming” or he’d freeze the important holiday shopping market for iPod touches. Duh.
Where’s the “lie?”
Here are Jobs’ words, broken down into sentences with our parenthetical assessments:
• Originally, we weren’t exactly sure how to market the Touch. (Could be true)
• Was it an iPhone without the phone? (A simple question)
• Was it a pocket computer? (A simple question)
• What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. (True as long as at least 2 or more customers told Apple as much)
• We started to market it that way, and it just took off. (True)
• And now what we really see is it’s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that’s the big draw. (True)
• So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. (Could be true)
• We don’t need to add new stuff. (Opinion of one of the greatest marketers and product developers of all time)
• We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it. (Opinion of one of the greatest marketers and product developers of all time)
So, Jobs simply said what he had to say, but there’s no lie in his words – which is probably why Fortune changed their headline so quickly.
Wait – is the Touch so different from the iPhone that a case maker would need to create different versions of its product? What’s not to say that the pictures of the proposed Touch case (with camera) couldn’t also be for the iPhone (which has a camera)?
I’m confused . .
Talk about the silly season. Who cares ? It’s not like it’s of any material import.
Oh what a lack of news we spin!!!!
And why would the alleged camera parts that were going to be used for the iPod touch be bad? Wouldn’t it have simply used the same camera that works perfectly fine in the iPhone???
Purposely making a false statement is not a lie? Since when?
Whoa MW “hell”
@Mormegil
Some of the cases were in packages labeled as 3rd Gen iPod touches. Also, the camera holes were in the top-middle of the cases and not the top-corner.
I also immediately felt the “So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199.” claim was false, simply because they are offering the last-generation iPod touch 8GB at that price point anyway. They could have put the cameras on the updated 32 and 64GB units without affecting the $199 price point of the 8GB units.
Do the new iPhone touches have built in microphones?
RC have you seen the iPod touch and compared it to the iPhone? Huge difference in thickness and weight. There’s certainly no guarantee that a part that fits in the iPhone would work would fit into the iPod touch.
@Mormegil
Yeah, they are different. The iPod touch has the “sleep” button in a different spot on the top and the headphone jack is at the bottom near the home button, next to the USB port.
And the iPod touch is thinner, .33″ for the touch and .48″ for the iPhone.
Of course it was spin and subterfuge, and of course he gave the interview to Pogue who would dutifully throw him softies and not follow up. And of course someone is in a snit for pointing out the obvious.
“The Press, Watson, is a most valuable institution, if you know how to use it.”
–Sherlock Holmes
So… the iPhone has a camera, the nano has a camera, and somehow this journalist thinks the lack of an Touch camera has something to do with a “bad part”?
Nice work Elmer.
“You LIE!!!….ooops, did I say that out loud? Sorry.”
On the touch page go to Games + Apps, scroll down to Music + Entertainment.
Link: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/games-and-apps/
Notice the Camera Bag description: “SNAP a PICTURE and …”
What?!! The touch can snap pictures? I sense a class action suite coming…
Who cares? This is journalism 101, “create controversy where there is none to generate readership”.
Will all the righteous holier than though “goody two shoes” hypocrites just go masturbate in private ?
It sounded to me like thought process justification for bringing it to market now. Not a lie, just a readjustment.
If it had a non-working part the screams would never stop.
@Vista pracova:
No class action here. If you click on more info in the app store, it explains that it runs on the Touch (editing photos), but that you need the iPhone to take pictures.
There is an easy test for this myth. Just wait for fixit to disamble the first ipod touch 32gb. If there is a free connect for a camera on the mainboard, Apple changed his mind and dropped the camera in the last moment. If there is no connector, this feature was never planned for this generation of iPod touch.
Good, Lord. Jobs wasn’t going to say, “Yeah, we really, really wanted a camera in there but our supplier dicked us over with a bad part.”
“So don’t buy this incarnation of the touch, because a camera is coming everybody! Hold off on buying one, because it’s coming soon!”
Duh.
You want real spin? Watch that video of Balmer from 2007 pissing on the iPhone with his “$500??? Fully subsidized?!?!” B.S. rant. The whole time he probably had a full load in his pants knowing that product was the beginning of the end of Windows Mobile.
Now THAT’S real spin.
Can anyone confirm the 8gb $199 model is really just the 2nd gen version, whereas the 32gb & 64gb models are 3rd gen models with faster processors and such?
I think Apple fully intended to ship a stripped model for $199 all along but were intending to ship the upper two models with cameras but had to back off when the components didn’t work like they wanted. My guess is they didn’t want to overly depress their margins by including the same camera as in the iphone but the cheapo camera bit them in the butt.
You can lash Apple for not adding features or you can credit them for not adding crappy features that don’t work right, I guess. I’ll choose the latter.
Why wold people say he lied? There was a bad part that they could not use. The body and internals were all designed for that part. If they could not use that part a redesign to fit another part and purchase that part would raise the price of the unit. No one knows what goes on behind the closed doors at Apple.
Seesh I could start a blog and cite unnamed sources familiar with Apple’s decision making process.
Bloody hell, you guys make it complicated when it’s simple. There are pros and cons for every decision.
It is true that not having a camera on the iPod Touch will emphasise the gaming platform. It is true that having a delay between cameras on the two products will differentiate them.
It is also true that it would have been better to have had a double whammy on the day, and have had a camera on both. The posters had probably already been printed!
So instead of the 110% knockout, fuck it, go for the 90% knockout. Get the gaming platform. Get the differentiation! Get what is available, while the supplier is dicking over with the faulty fucking part!
It’s not rocket science, so why are you guys always so fucking dumb!?
Dammit! MDN nuked the troll’s post. I had a great reply, too. Screw it – I’m posting it anyway.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Happily watching from a Windows 7 X64 workstation, running Photoshop X64. On a $700 QUAD CORE. Haha.
…All wrapped in a cheap, shitty, tinny case with cheap, shitty, noisy fans, a cheap, shitty, plastic faceplate with cheaper, shittier, plastic buttons and running a shitty plastic-looking OS. Sounds great!
You know… I’ll happily take a Mini instead, keep the desk space, and work next to a nice quiet dual core computer in a nice well-designed case, and running a superior operating system. But, hey – Thanks for posting, troll!
@Snow Leopard and welfaremike
Thanks for the clarification
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
If indeed it was a “bad part” then Apple decided some time ago to forego the camera in this latest iteration of the touch. Why do I think this? Well, unless there is a hole in the back of the Touch case where the camera lens should be then the decision to not do a camera would have to have been made in time to change the back case on the camera. But if it was just a “bad part” it would seem that there would have been time to correct it before production and still get it in the camera. So why would I believe “unnamed sources” over Steve Jobs, particularly without out knowing how accurate they have been in the past.
Great Jobs defense team. But, the fact remains…
Touch has no camera. iPhone has a minimalist camera. Why can’t Touch have at least a minimalist camera?
Truth that hurts is that this is so un-Apple. Steve’s absence anybody?
You gotta understand the way these PC guys think, otherwise your explanation isn’t addressing the points that they care about.
To their mind, they have purchased equivalent or greater computing power than your dandy nancyboy “looks nice” machine. Kind of like painting speed stripes on a Segway.
But people don’t ride Segways, and they don’t drive Ladas. I mean, yeah, you can drive a Lada across America. How many movies have been made about driving across America in a Lada?
It’s about the experience, and the iPhone took the Mac and shoved it into people’s faces. This, fantastic, awesome, fscking phone is a Mac. Now go and bloody buy one!
Someone lied to a newspaper? I’m shocked, simply SHOCKED!
@ TT,
Oh, you little South Carolinian rascals are just so darn cute.
It’s my guess that the company due to supply the iPod touch camera had major QA issues, as was reported in an earlier MDN article, and also from a conversation I had with someone close to the project a month ago.
I believe the company in question was fired and replaced recently by Omnivision. This, from Aug 27:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2009/08/omnivision-wins-next-gen-ipod-orders.html
I believe the only reason why the touch was simply untouch is because of the tablet having a camera. Apple is focusing on games to make a diference that the tablet is a real macbook and not a big iPod touch.
“Oh, you little South Carolinian rascals are just so darn cute.”
*AUTOREPLY*: TowerTone is currently out of the office and will respond upon his return from a hiking trip.
It seems clear to me that this concerns intentional product differentiation. Sure they might have had the idea for a time to add the camera to the Touch, but that would have made the rationale for a nano purchase less compelling. So they rejected that idea, at least for now. Simple.
@TowerTone
Now that’s funny!!!
Cheers!
The Times lies/spins to it’s readers.
In this case, where’s the downside?
Come on!
A lot of concept hardware never sees the light of day. The iPod touch with a camera is just the latest in a very long list.
There is a big difference between the CEO of a company lying about their own products without making false claims (eg. Steve Jobs) and the CEO of a company lying about other companies’ products to try to undercut the competition (eg. Steve Ballmer and his comments about the iPhone being the most expensive phone on the market, among countless of his other blatant lies).
Wow! That’s a sentence that William Faulkner would be proud of!
And you wonder why Apple management (and U.S. Presidents) are hesitant in talking to the press.
If you are looking for a lie, check out what Steve Ballmer said about the iPhone when it first came out.
Jobs returns and finds there are problems with the camera in the iPod touch and says, “Why did we want one in there to begin with?” He tells the staff, “This is really a gaming platform anyway, and we can have a lower price on it. Tell the supplier, they blew it, we are not going to put any effort into design changes for what has turned out primarily to be a gaming platform.” From his point of view, he is probably telling the truth.
I think the people who are upset that there’s no “new” camera touch need a reality check. The rumor sites are, in all honesty, wrong more often than they are right.
I think the reality that people need to face is this: There isn’t camera iPod Touch. The “faulty camera” just isn’t believable, as it doesn’t make sense to use anything other than the camera in the iPhone 3GS. (Common parts = cheaper, and is a much lower-risk “known” quality as far as availability and reliability goes.)
I swear the idea coes along the lines of this:
It’d be neat if Apple did exactly what I want them to do – be it a tablet, a new newton, Blu-ray, Apple TV with a DVR (and/or blu-ray), what have you.
Then you hype it up, generating traffic and getting ad revenue. People get excited and join in on the circle-jerk. Then when it isn’t released, the rumor site proclaims that there’s really a secret problem, just to attempt to keep credibility.
My prediction: There won’t be an Apple tablet for a long, long time, if ever. Larger screens mean exponentially more pixels, which in turn means exponentially more CPU/GPU power to drive them – meaning larger batteries and more weight. By the time you’re done, you have something slightly thinner than a MacBook Air, and nothing to protect the screen from damage. (At least you can close the lid on the MacBook Air)
There are two problems with this story:
1) Someone intimately involved with the issue speaks on record. A blogger cites unnamed sources. The blogger and his unnamed source is treated as more credible.
2) As many people have pointed out, buy a new touch, take it apart, and look for camera connections on the circuit board. It’s not hard to do research in this case. You should also take apart an iPhone to make sure the two devices don’t share a board.
@TowerTone
“You LIE!!!….ooops, did I say that out loud? Sorry.”
Hey, now you can ask people to donate!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
So Jobs did the Times’ work for it. So what?
@ MDN
> third-party cases were made for 3rd-gen touches with camera holes in them, for crying out loud…
There were also cases made for a supposed “iPhone nano” product, and that never materialized either. Apple often leak false information. They sometimes even spread false information internally to find out where leaks are coming from.
Also, it is very possible that this revision of iPod touch was supposed to get a video camera originally, back before Steve Jobs was on medical leave (when he was probably “distracted”). That would be the commonsense decision, since iPod touch is iPhone minus the phone, right? Then, during his recovery from surgery, when he was thinking more clearly, he realized that giving the iPod touch a video/still camera and video editing software (at this time) would significantly cannibalize sales of his company’s (by far) most profitable product, iPhone. Apple probably makes more up front profit from selling one iPhone (including subsidy payment) than five $199 8G iPod touches. So he made the tactical decision to remove the camera this time around.
This malfunctioning parts rumor is also something that indirectly helps Apple, even if the decision to drop the camera (or to not have one there in the first place) was 100% deliberate. They probably wanted the more critical and well-informed in the public and media (such as MDN and its readers) to believe that Apple would certainly have produced an iPod touch with a camera, but they were victims of “bad parts” from their supplier. Even if it makes Apple look bad, that is actually a better story than Apple intentionally reducing the iPod touch’s capability to increase profit from iPhone. But Apple does this type of product differentiation all the time; look at the lack of desktop Mac (with no built-in display) between Mac mini and Mac Pro – they want customers to buy a laptop Mac or an iMac (or move way up to a Mac Pro), where there is more profit.
For the typical customer, it’s just an opportunity for an Apple Store sales pitch… Customer is looking at an iPod touch. Sales person casually informs customer that for the same price as that 8GB iPod touch, they can get a faster 16GB iPhone, and it even has a built-in video camera. Oh, and it will replace your clunky old mobile phone too. Some customer decides to get an iPhone instead, and some will still get the iPod touch. Every customer who opts for the iPhone is a big bonus for Apple.
Therefore, they state publicly that the lack of camera is exactly as planned, and that IS the real TRUTH. However, they plant this rumor, the LIE, and the media report it as the actual TRUTH (Apple is guilty of “spinning”). The public is always ready for another conspiracy theory. Perfect… Apple masterfully manipulates the media as usual.
“Did Steve Jobs lie to the NY Times?”
Probably, and they were ticked……and then they remembered that they love and reward lying.
alright, I’ll throw in my two pesos-
Supply chain. If the China deal is as big as imagined, not to mention the rest of the world, they might have decided to keep production as high as possible for iPhones until it stabilizes, then they can ramp up for the added craziness that will be the iPod Touch/Camera.
Meanwhile, those crumbs they threw in the form of the Nano update are pretty nice.
Keep in mind, I don’t believe they were worrying about someone buying a Touch instead of an iPhone, but that the company is geared towards the Global iPhone Take-over, and they don’t want to take their eye off the puck….
According to people I know at Apple it was not a bad part. The 32 and 64 GB iPods were never designed with a camera. The iPod design team did add a Camera to a copy of the prototype drawings for internal Apple security that they planted for a suspected secrets leaker to kind. They did the same thing with a copy of the iPod Nano but they removed the camera from the Nano and made the screen even a big larger.
The nano camera information didn’t come from with-in Apple it came from a case maker that accidently leaked the information when some posted the wrong on their website.
Everyone Claimed the Case picture had been Shopped because the information from within Apple that would know said that the Nano was too small for a camera. Everyone just assumed the iPod touch would have a camera.
I would guess based on my sources that the 8GB iPod touch will be replaced by a new 16GB iPod touch with the faster CPU and a still and Video Camera will come out in January of 2010 as planned. This Time frame will show Apple how the consumer is spending and how well the iPod nano with a Camera is doing.
I’m wondering if the new liver had some sci-fi movie affect Steve’s ability to contain how big Apple has become.
And… I’m guessing the $199 model was never supposed to have a camera in the first place. The higher end ones are clearly new models with new processors… the 8 GB: old model kept around to hit the price. If so, truly NOT lying. A feature not making the cut in new models because of technical issues… NO business with any sanity would reveal that.
If I’m right, when cameras do come, the $199 model won’t get one. Guessing further: Next year, this year’s $299 model will be the new $199 model and the current $199 will get dropped.
Vista pracova. You are demonstrating your misunderstanding. You certainly can snap a picture – of what is on your screen, with your iPod touch. This is what is being referred to in the iPod touch information – the making of a screen shot using the device to capture what is on your screen. Simple. Straightforward and completely accurate. With the iPod touch you can then save or send that picture wirelessly anywhere.
Cheap shot. Jobs was spinning to the writer, David Pogue, who happens to write for the NY Times. Pogue reported what he was told. I’m sure he knows as well as we that a video camera is probably onits way, once they getit right. However, to use this as an opportunity to trash the NY Times because of their “presumed liberal bias” is just as bad reporting, professionally and ethically, as you are accusing the Times of. Yes, I realize that fans of the NY Post and Fox “News” have their own agendas, but please don’t inflict them on Mac users in an article about Apple products and an interview with CEO Steve Jobs, which I’m sure was quoted quite accurately by Mr. Pogue, on a website called Mac Daily News. If you’re so interested in trashing Obama, “liberals,” and the NY Times, perhaps you should shut down the web site and start a new one dedicated to the wit, wisdom, and sanity of the Far Right, which now includes most of the Republican party. Yes, I’m certain that Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh would’ve interviewed Jobs more to your liking.
Really- this is a good site for Mac and Apple News. Don’t pollute it with crap that is not your expertise and which really does not belong- it’s demeaning, and has already seriously damaged your credibility in my eyes. For all I know, the Zune and Palm Pres are great products- how can I trust people who are so obviously biased when they want to be, whether or not I agree with them?
PS. You are absolutely correct in refuting Fortune’s analysis. The snide comments about the Times are off-topic, unnecessary, and all-too-typical regarding the non-sequitur of political discourse on this website.
@ auramac
> I’m sure he knows as well as we that a video camera is probably onits way, once they getit right.
He knows no such thing. If Steve Jobs himself states that the reason the iPod touch has no camera is because it is being focused on mobile gaming and as an entry into the app store (without an iPhone), I do not think he is going to contradict what he just said and introduce a version with a video camera “once they get it right.”
If there is a version with a high quality video/still camera, it will probably come this time next year. By that time, the competition will have copied the video camera in a smart phone feature, and Apple will introduce the next cool iPhone trick. Then, the iPod touch may get its video camera plus editing software as a “bonus feature,” which is exactly how the camera on the iPod nano was introduced this year.
For da luv of GAWD MDN!!!! He LIEDDDDDDDDDDD!
Gawd damn you guys are really stupid sonsofbs aren’t ya! It’s one thing to be defensive but this is downright psychotic! Stop acting like your part of a friggin cult!
@ For the Misinformed
I´m not in (or from) the USA, I´m not a lawyer, just a keen and often times puzzled observer of everything Mac related and being an Apple client since the IIe.
“You are demonstrating your misunderstanding.”
It is certainly possible.
“You certainly can snap a picture – of what is on your screen, with your iPod touch.”
Yes you can, but neither on the touch nor on the Mac is it called “Snap a Picture” it is called Grab (a picture of) the screen or a “Screen Grab”. I´m sure you would agree that the common understanding of the expression “Snap a Picture” is in the photography realm, I should know as I’m a photographer.
Notice that the utility that is included in Mac OS X since, well, forever, is called “Grab”, not “Snap” look it up in your utilities folder.
“This is what is being referred to in the iPod touch information – the making of a screen shot using the device to capture what is on your screen. “
See remark above about “screen shot” versus “Screen Grab”
“Simple. Straightforward and completely accurate.”
I’m sure that it would be if it were on the iPhone page, as it is on the iPod touch page it is not that simple, straightforward or accurate, in fact I’m confident that over here in Europe it would be considered false advertising and I would not be surprised if over there it is not also false or misleading information. I’m willing to concede that it was an accident (the inclusion of that expression) and would not like to be in the shoes of the person responsible for it at Apple, I´m just puzzled that being Apple a prime target of the frivolous court cases they were not more careful especially with all the talk about the touch camera, with the leaked cases and all.
“With the iPod touch you can then save or send that picture wirelessly anywhere.” True.
Please notice also the conspicuous absence of a 16Gb touch on the lineup, I’m sure a $249 16Gb touch with a camera would be distant enough from the new Nano not to influence it’s sales.
I for one would love to have an iPod touch with a camera and a GPS since an iPhone 3Gs over here in my country costs either 874 or 1005 US Dollars (600 or 690 Euros) and I would gladly pay $400 or $500 for it.
In fact I’m starting to learn Objective C in order to test the possibility of building an app to use a bluetooth GPS with the touch since I´m not a great fan of TomTom and waiting for their carkit may take a long time.
“Stop acting like your part of a friggin cult!”
I will stop when the Republicans stop.
@Sir Gill Bates
You will stop? In other words you admit you are part of one. At least your honest. Now go worship your master!
But of course I admit it. Why wouldn’t I?
As for worshiping my master: I never stop.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />