iPod Touch, Nano, and Classic to Receive 3.2-Megapixel Cameras at September Media Event?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/27/ipod-touch-nano-and-classic-to-receive-3-2-megapixel-cameras-at-september-media-event/)

DigiTimes reports (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090827PD225.html) that Apple has contracted with OmniVision (http://www.ovt.com/) for 3.2-megapixel camera sensors that will be deployed in revised models of the iPod touch, iPod nano, and iPod classic next month, presumably at Apple's rumored September 9th media event (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/17/apple-media-event-scheduled-for-september-9th-no-tablet-announcement/).OmniVision has secured CMOS image sensor (CIS) orders for upcoming Apple iPods, according to market sources.

OmniVision will be the sole supplier of 3.2-megapixel CIS products for new iPod nano, iPod classic and iPod Touch models which will be launched in September, the sources indicated.A number of indications (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/23/more-purported-next-generation-ipod-touch-and-ipod-nano-cases-surface/) that the iPod touch and iPod nano will receive cameras in the next design refresh have surfaced over the past few months, but today's report appears to be the first to claim that the iPod classic will also see the inclusion of a camera.

Article Link: iPod Touch, Nano, and Classic to Receive 3.2-Megapixel Cameras at September Media Event? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/27/ipod-touch-nano-and-classic-to-receive-3-2-megapixel-cameras-at-september-media-event/)

[Sambo110]

I don't see why they all need cameras, but the iPod Touch does.

[darijoe]

Great! Now all Apple needs to do is put a lens into the Shuffle and they'll have the coolest spy camera out there! :p

[jzuena]

Disappointing if only the camera winds up in the new touch, but I suppose then the rev 2 ones will be available on the refurb page at a discount. If the new one also gets the better CPU and GPS from the iPhone it would be worth it for me to move up from rev 1.

[JonHimself]

I don't see why they all need cameras, but the iPod Touch does.

My best guess is capture the market from Flip and those other pocket-sized video cameras (mind you they're now recoding "HD" but if the increase in YouTube uploads following the 3GS release is any indication, there is a market for people to upload quick videos they've shot. Of course the iPod Touch is better suited for this with the ability to edit and upload on-the-go, maybe they'll release an iMovie for PC that will be available at the launch of the new iPods.

[andrew0122]

The iPod Touch wouldn't be bad with a camera, however it is pointless for the Nano and Classic to include a camera. They really need to add Wifi to the Nano, but no mobile safari. Their really is no need to change the Classic it is perfect as it is. For those who think they need to carry all of the songs they own. The Classic really needs an ability to search for songs. . .

[Abstract]

Remember when all we wanted was larger storage capacity? Those were the days, weren't they?

[JonHimself]

On top of that, toss in a GPS chip into the phones and let people really start to really make use of geotagging... it's still fairly unknown to most consumers (I assume) and unless it's built into the camera you have to rely on separate adapters or the MyFi cards that use Skyhook tech (I think). The iPods (combined with the iPhone) would probably make up the largest amount of GPS-enabled cameras if they did that.

[JonHimself]

For those who think they need to carry all of the songs they own. The Classic really needs an ability to search for songs. . .

Doesn't it already have that? It's not perfect but it's there.

[lunarworks]

I hope,for their sake, that they release models without cameras. There's a whole lot of places where cameras are forbidden, and people like taking their iPods everywhere.

[amac4me]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

[karmachrome]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

I'm surprised the classic survived another year at all.

[bbydon]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

Except for the people who like having entire libraries with them

[GossipGirl]

Short version: I don't think the Classic will get a camera. I think there's a 50/50 chance the iPod nano will get a camera (they should still leave a camera-less option, IMO, but if they implement a camera, I doubt they will, unless the camera is only on the bigger sizes, or something). I think the iPod touch will get a camera.

Why?: I think the only reason Apple is clinging onto the Classic is b/c of its large hard drive size. I don't think there will be a Classic in a year/18 months time. I don't think its built for a camera. When I look at the Classic I think of it as being clunky and old. You can't (or you're not advised) to run with it, its heavy as iPods go, its not small enough to strap on and go for a walk and it doesn't take advantage of Apple's music store or app store. Its all about size, which is why I don't think it needs a camera. The person who buys this iPod wants more-or-less unlimited storage, not a 'gimicky' camera.

The Nano is a hit with people who want to train and work out, and teenager's b/c of its bright colours, and cute form factor. This might benefit from a basic camera, but I don't see why it will need a 3.2MP, not many people will use it, I don't think. And it also limits the user to where they can use the device. For example, some gym bans mobile phone due to camera's, if the iPod nano incorporates a camera, that too will be banned - eating into Apple sale's of a device tailored for that demographic.

The iPod touch is the top of the line all rounder, which is why I can see this having the 3.2 MP camera. The iPod touch should be the iPhone without the phone.

[talkingfuture]

I'll be interested to see how good the pics are from these cameras. Surprised to see the classic mentioned, I thought they might bin it this year.

[Ambrose Chapel]

i would like to get a new nano, and whether or not it has a camera doesn't matter to me at all...i just want 32GB!

if it does has a 3.2mpxl cam though, it'll put my iPhone 3G to shame...

[ericinboston]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

Please state reasons.

I have the 160gig Classic because, well, I listen to music...and I have a few vids that I converted to play on it.

I, like a fair percentage of people on this planet, own more than a thousand cds...they will not fit on a Nano...and I'm not spending extra money for an iTouch so I can hear more tunes.

I have roughly 20,000 songs on my Classic and it's almost full.

Forget the camera on the Classic...what's the point since the Classic is supposed to be a music player...not a wanna-be-iTouch. I would like to see the Classic get updated with flash memory and ship with 128GB...that surely can fit into the $249-$299 price range if Apple gives up a tiny share of it's margin. Even if it was $350 I would buy it instantly. Keep the same boxy design, and just replace the hard drive with some memory chips. Not much R&D there.

The reason people buy the Classics are for the storage...whether it's for lots of music, higher quality music (320k mp3s or lossless), or videos, or some comibination of all. Apple should get on the boat and start updating the Classic the way we are asking...not how they reduced the size from 160GB to 120GB LAST YEAR and made a slightly more rounded shape. Thanks, Apple.

But hey, if Apple wants to release an iTouch with 128GB of flash memory, I'm all ears but sure the price would be ridiculous because I'm paying for all the other non-music stuff like web surfing, apps, camera, etc.

And overall, for the consumers out there that WANT to buy and store lots of movies/music/videos/etc (and that Apple is promoting/advertising that you should)...where's the storage capacity, Apple? It sure ain't the Nano or iTouch as of now.

-Eric

[BJB Productions]

YES! Actually, now that I think of it, on the Classic is a good idea...It will compete with the flip..but it would have to do video..

[Tallest Skil]

I have the 160gig Classic because, well, I listen to music...and I have a few vids that I converted to play on it.

So you'll be able to do that with the 128GB iPod touch.

I, like a fair percentage of people on this planet, own more than a thousand cds...they will not fit on a Nano...and I'm not spending extra money for an iTouch so I can hear more tunes.

It won't be extra money next year; it'll be the only option.

I have roughly 20,000 songs on my Classic and it's almost full.

Huge touch is right around the corner.

Forget the camera on the Classic...

Thumbs up.

I would like to see the Classic get updated with flash memory and ship with 128GB...

Sure, it's called the iPod touch next year.

The reason people buy the Classics are for the storage...whether it's for lots of music, higher quality music (320k mp3s or lossless), or videos, or some comibination of all. Apple should get on the boat and start updating the Classic the way we are asking...not how they reduced the size from 160GB to 120GB LAST YEAR and made a slightly more rounded shape. Thanks, Apple.

It's obvious that they're phasing it out.

But hey, if Apple wants to release an iTouch with 128GB of flash memory, I'm all ears but sure the price would be ridiculous because I'm paying for all the other non-music stuff like web surfing, apps, camera, etc.

No, the price would be "ridiculous" because of NAND flash prices. Think of it it this way: iPhone purchases subsidize the cost of the software development on the iPod touch.

where's the storage capacity, Apple? It sure ain't the Nano or iTouch as of now.

Hence the 64GB iPod touch this year and the 128GB iPod touch next year.

[dave-tx]

Remember when all we wanted was larger storage capacity? Those were the days, weren't they?

Count me as someone who just wants more capacity. There may not be many of us left, though.

[Takeo]

An iPod Touch (not iTouch) will never replace the Classic or Nano because it lacks tactile controls and requires your eyes and both hands to use. The Nano and Classic are music players. The Touch is a small computer. Apples and Oranges. The Nano might replace the Classic if it could be priced right with 128GB of storage. But not until then. Personally, I'd like to see a Classic with MORE than 160GB of storage. It's nice to be able to carry every piece of music you own in your pocket and at a decent sound quality (320 or Lossless). Posts about the Classic being dead or beyond it's time are annoying.

[OllyW]

It's obvious that they're phasing it out.

Great news. You've just saved the classic. ;)

[Tallest Skil]

Great news. You've just saved the classic. ;)

If the touch wasn't destined to be its replacement, the iPod classic would be named the iPod.

[gan6660]

The should make the classic more like the nano and give it a bigger screen and you just turn it side ways to watch a movie. Like everyone has been saying it does need flash memory and it wouldnt be to expensive since apple orders so much of it. If the classic doesnt get flash memory its price needs to be lowered to $199.

[Scarpad]

Please state reasons.

I have the 160gig Classic because, well, I listen to music...and I have a few vids that I converted to play on it.

I, like a fair percentage of people on this planet, own more than a thousand cds...they will not fit on a Nano...and I'm not spending extra money for an iTouch so I can hear more tunes.

I have roughly 20,000 songs on my Classic and it's almost full.

Forget the camera on the Classic...what's the point since the Classic is supposed to be a music player...not a wanna-be-iTouch. I would like to see the Classic get updated with flash memory and ship with 128GB...that surely can fit into the $249-$299 price range if Apple gives up a tiny share of it's margin. Even if it was $350 I would buy it instantly. Keep the same boxy design, and just replace the hard drive with some memory chips. Not much R&D there.

The reason people buy the Classics are for the storage...whether it's for lots of music, higher quality music (320k mp3s or lossless), or videos, or some comibination of all. Apple should get on the boat and start updating the Classic the way we are asking...not how they reduced the size from 160GB to 120GB LAST YEAR and made a slightly more rounded shape. Thanks, Apple.

But hey, if Apple wants to release an iTouch with 128GB of flash memory, I'm all ears but sure the price would be ridiculous because I'm paying for all the other non-music stuff like web surfing, apps, camera, etc.

And overall, for the consumers out there that WANT to buy and store lots of movies/music/videos/etc (and that Apple is promoting/advertising that you should)...where's the storage capacity, Apple? It sure ain't the Nano or iTouch as of now.

-Eric

Apple's maximising profit margings by staying with HD's for larger sizes, and if the max Flash size is going to be 64gb for the Touch why would you think they would give more to the Classic, that's not how apple does things.

[Tallest Skil]

Apple's maximising profit margings by staying with HD's for larger sizes, and if the max Flash size is going to be 64gb for the Touch why would you think they would give more to the Classic, that's not how apple does things.

Besides that, I was under the impression that 64GB NAND chips don't exist yet.

[GossipGirl]

Like I said a few posts back, I don't think the Classic will survive another year.

But I do think there will be a 4th iPod, replacing the Classic. Similar form factor as the current Classic, or maybe just a bigger iPod Nano, but with the flash based memory currently being used by the other iPods.

By this time they will probably have reached that 128GB size.

They will cater for people who want all of their music in one place, letting them go for runs/walks, and control it without having to use a touch screen (in a lot of situations, this is inconvenient).

I believe there will be a large memory sized 'wheel' iPod around for a few good years.

[hexor]

DigiTimes doesn't know what it is talking about, the nano is not going to get a camera and most likely the classic won't either.

[FoxyKaye]

I'm already saving up for what will hopefully be a 64GB iPod Touch to avoid the hassles and cost (and AT&T) that come with the iPhone. For me, a camera on the Touch would be welcome and a great value added item - especially since I'm eying the Touch as a replacement for both an iPod and a Palm Zire, and I purposely get lower-tech phones so I don't have to worry about taking them in my bike bag when I go out riding (and the inevitable exposure to sand, salt, water, and potentially dropping on a gravel path).

I suppose a camera on the Nano and Classic kind of make sense as well, but for the number of years I've had an iPod, I've just wanted it to be an iPod and nothing more. If it doesn't raise the price, though, why not?

[ericinboston]

Count me as someone who just wants more capacity. There may not be many of us left, though.

Me! I enjoy having 20,000 plus songs on my Classic...I enjoy using the ACCESSORIES I HAVE PURCHASED to make my Classic into a jukebox...I enjoy taking the Classic for 5+ hour road trips a few times a year.

Just give us the storage we need, Apple...sheeeeez....Apple advertises to death about watching movies and playing lots of songs...and then over the past 2 years (this year will be year 3) they give us 16GB Nanos and iTouches. Ok, maybe a 32GB iTouch for $400 but that's bells-and-whistles overkill for what Classic owners want/need.

-Eric

[neologasm]

I heard a whisper that the whole ipod range in going touchscreen! - although that was from a sales rep, and they do have a habit of talking out of their rear-facing orifice :D

[ericinboston]

Besides that, I was under the impression that 64GB NAND chips don't exist yet.

So what? Why not fill the Classic (or iTouch since they are the same physical size) with a bunch of 32GB chips instead? How hard is it to fit 4 32GB chips in that unit?

[wwwluckyro]

Hey what about the shuffle? :(

[SwiftLives]

The Classic isn't going away until the iPod Touch capacity catches up with it. And flash memory prices haven't dropped to the point to make that affordable yet.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Classic get a camera, for no other reason than Apple needs a reason to maintain a price point. That being said, it could still drop by $50 if they don't bump the capacity.

Also - there have been rumors of the Nano with a camera (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/05/26/apple_prepping_ipod_nano_with_camera_three_new_iphones_report.html) dating back from May.

Wifi in the Nano and Classic is an intriguing possibility, but unlikely. Wifi just for uploading pictures is probably not worth the additional cost. And neither one is likely to get a mobile web browser or mobile anything without some sort of keyboard.

Based on current rumors, expect to see:
iPod Touch - 16GB, 32GB, 64GB - $199 / $299 / $399
iPod Classic 120GB with camera - $249 (maybe $199?)
iPod Nano - 16GB, 32GB with camera - $149 / $249

They are certainly pushing the Classic outside behind the barn, but I don't think they're going to put it out of its misery just yet.

[JonHimself]

If the touch wasn't destined to be its replacement, the iPod classic would be named the iPod.

If the touch was destined to replace the iPod wouldn't they just name it the iPod? :cool:

I think it just made sense to add Classic as it would have been the only music player in the iPod family without a 'sub-name' or whatever.

iPod Shuffle
iPod Nano
iPod
iPod Touch

I agree that the iPod Classic is on the way out but not until they can price a128gb Nano around the current Classic price point. I think that the Nano is a better replacement for the Classic than the Touch is. The Nano is a music/video player (for now, who knows what'll be added in Sep) and the Classic is a music/video player.. just bigger with more storage. When the Nano can equal the storage at the right price then I would think the Classic is useless. The Touch is a "computer" and one it's applications is music/video playback.

[ericinboston]

Apple's maximising profit margings by staying with HD's for larger sizes, and if the max Flash size is going to be 64gb for the Touch why would you think they would give more to the Classic, that's not how apple does things.

Grrrrr...I don't care about the iTouch...all I want is to play/hold lots and lots of music.

The prob I have with the Classic 160GB is that the performance is terrible...changing songs, using the Search, etc...and not to mention if the Classic hasn't been touched in 15 mins (or whatever) the darn hard drive goes to sleep and I can hear it firing up and clicking when I want to do something. Maybe the 120GB they released last year is better performance...I dunno...I never heard the 120GB was better than the 160GB on performance.

[ericinboston]

I agree that the iPod Classic is on the way out but not until they can price a128gb Nano around the current Classic price point. I think that the Nano is a better replacement for the Classic than the Touch is. The Nano is a music/video player (for now, who knows what'll be added in Sep) and the Classic is a music/video player.. just bigger with more storage. When the Nano can equal the storage at the right price then I would think the Classic is useless. The Touch is a "computer" and one it's applications is music/video playback.

Yup...gimme a Nano with 128GB or more storage and I'd be super happy...performance is just much better than HDD-based iPods...

[belltree]

Please no Oleophobic coating on the new iPod touch.

[Tallest Skil]

So what? Why not fill the Classic (or iTouch since they are the same physical size) with a bunch of 32GB chips instead? How hard is it to fit 4 32GB chips in that unit?

Not. How expensive is it? Probably incredibly right now. Besides, NAND isn't the point of the classic, otherwise Apple would have done that from the start.

Hey what about the shuffle? :(

You really want a camera on there? Nothing will change.

[Truffy]

I'm glad my nano doesn't have a camera, and if this is true I don't think I'll be upgrading. Touch, possibly makes some sense because it has other functions than simply media playing. But the nano (and classic) are media players.

Soon you won't be able to buy toilet paper without an inbuilt camera, and this is not progress. :(

[macintoshtoffy]

If Apple released a 64GB or 128GB iPod Touch, I'd purchase it straight away - couple that with a camera and it would be the ideal portable device. I've got 140GB and I'd only manually load less than 30GB of music I'd listen to at any moment in time.

As for 64GB, Samsung already has that worked out - it was sorted out 2 years ago with 2009 being ready for use in commercial quantities.

[amammad]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

Fingers crossed Apple aren't that stupid.

[badapple18]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

are you kidding me? it's so nice carrying around your entire library with you. i also use mine as an external hard drive for transferring files to and from work. And as an added bonus the Classic does not have an identity crysis like the touch, more than an ipod but less than an iphone. it's very nice to have it just for music or video makes long trips tolerable.

[nomad01]

So you'll be able to do that with the 128GB iPod touch.
<snip>
Huge touch is right around the corner.


And so people with an iPhone have to buy an almost identical iPod Touch to get a good capacity.

Maybe next year when the iPhone's capacity is stepped up but until then, I still want a Classic... I don't think I'm the only one.

Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Tallest Skil]

And so people with an iPhone have to buy an almost identical iPod Touch to get a good capacity.

Maybe next year when the iPhone's capacity is stepped up but until then, I still want a Classic... I don't think I'm the only one.

Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean there isn't one.

No, no! If they kill the classic, it wouldn't be until at LEAST next year. The touch is nowhere near ready to be a replacement for the classic.

The iPhone has one spot for a NAND chip, the iPod touch has two. You'll always be able to get an iPod touch with twice the capacity of an iPhone.

[creon]

So you are telling me that the iPod classic will have a better camera than my iPhone 3gS? Wow.

[AJ1BostonMASS]

If the touch wasn't destined to be its replacement, the iPod classic would be named the iPod.

I disagree.
I think they put the ipod into different catagories thats why different names.

Also
I read you think they will phase out the classic. Again, I disagree one main reason.
Lets say they have a 64GB touch. Large enough for car rides.(personally I believe even the 8gb is fine) I for one do not want to use a touch while driving too much of a pain. I would rather use the wheel which is a lot simpler that using a touch.

[sishaw]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

I think some people need to have more respect for the past. And for people who have REALLY LARGE music collections.

[Kar98]

Besides that, I was under the impression that 64GB NAND chips don't exist yet.

IN the classic words of Peggy Bundy: Well duh, just take more of them! :cool:

[GodWhomIsMike]

I want a 32GB ipod Nano WITHOUT a camera. I want a small durable music player,that can hold a large library of music, is small, and can stand up to the daily abuses of being out in the elements running for hour+ and at the gym dropping it and what not.

Shuffle, Touch, and Classic are all useless to me. I really do not want a camera on my music player. Seriously, what the hell can I use it for? Nano is the perfect ipod right now for athletic and active types.

.

[AJ1BostonMASS]

IN the classic words of Peggy Bundy: Well duh, just take more of them! :cool:

Great qoute! :D

[JonHimself]

And so people with an iPhone have to buy an almost identical iPod Touch to get a good capacity.
Maybe next year when the iPhone's capacity is stepped up but until then, I still want a Classic... I don't think I'm the only one...

That's what I have now, iPhone and Classic.. but if there was a Nano that could hold my entire library I would have that instead of the Classic. I have been trying to use my iPhone (with the help of things like Simplify Media) to pretend I have my whole library on my iPhone and eliminate the need for two devices but not being able to run apps in the background like the iPod app is a tough hurdle to get over (I could jailbreak, I'm aware).

The iPhone has one spot for a NAND chip, the iPod touch has two. You'll always be able to get an iPod touch with twice the capacity of an iPhone.

Now if I could just fast-forward to a single 128GB NAND chip and put that in my iPhone this would all be settled for me...

I think that once the iPod Touch with 128GB is available and can be priced under $300 (maybe $400) it won't be a reasonable replacement for someone who wants just a music player. Who knows, by the time this stuff actually happens we might not even have the current models we have now.. for all we know the Nano might just be the iPod and be the only music-player-focused model available.

[nomad01]

No, no! If they kill the classic, it wouldn't be until at LEAST next year. The touch is nowhere near ready to be a replacement for the classic.

The iPhone has one spot for a NAND chip, the iPod touch has two. You'll always be able to get an iPod touch with twice the capacity of an iPhone.

Then it needs addressing in future iPhones.

The average, normal human isn't going to want to carry an iPhone and an iPod touch. The iPhone is trying to be the ultimate convergence device. To expect your consumer base to buy an almost identical device just for their music is stupid.

I'm hoping the classic gets an update this year. It needs it because it looks shabby in comparison but I hope it stays on sale until the iPod touch and iPhone can offer similar capacity.

[philoscoffee]

It would be a pity if the new camera on the new iPod touch is only 3.2 megapixels, rather than the 5 megapixel model from the new iPhone 3GS. Whilst this would be fine for video and 'augmented reality' apps, the picture quality really isn't that great for photos (and yes, I know it's primarily supposed to be a music player! ;))

[Beric]

I hope,for their sake, that they release models without cameras. There's a whole lot of places where cameras are forbidden, and people like taking their iPods everywhere.

Good point. But I'm sure there will be no models without cameras. It would be too high a manufacturing cost.

[OllyW]

It would be a pity if the new camera on the new iPod touch is only 3.2 megapixels, rather than the 5 megapixel model from the new iPhone 3GS.

The iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera. :confused:

[JonHimself]

[]

[JonHimself]

[QUOTE=nomad01;8362605]...The average, normal human isn't going to want to carry an iPhone and an iPod touch. The iPhone is trying to be the ultimate convergence device. To expect your consumer base to buy an almost identical device just for their music is stupid...QUOTE]

That's why I think the Nano is the more logical replacement for the iPod Classic. If the storage was increased to 128GB I don't see why anyone would buy the iPod Classic over a Nano with similar storage (unless the price was incredibly lower for the Classic)

[Burnsey]

I hate the current nano, the 3g was better. If they put a good camera in that it would be the best ipod ever.

[nbs2]

I hope,for their sake, that they release models without cameras. There's a whole lot of places where cameras are forbidden, and people like taking their iPods everywhere.

That was I was arguing for around the time the first iPhone was announced. I still think that if Apple took advantage of its closed system to offer a camera-less iPhone, it could do well enough to be worth the slightly increased cost. If all they did was remove the camera/app and place a solid backing on - leave it to the customer to know not to buy apps that rely on the camera - I'm sure the flexibility would pay for itself. It wouldn't be a money-maker, but it would do well enough.

Heck, I think they could charge a $10-15 premium not to include the camera and people would pay it.

Back on topic, I think the same thing could be an option for the touch. Make a camera-free version a BTO option and people would buy it...

[jmcguckin]

I can't see a camera of any size being practical in the nano or classic, it just doesn't make sense to me to add camera capability to a device that can only be operated by a clickwheel... on the other hand, I think it would make an excellent addition to the iPod touch since a lot more options (editing, more accurate focusing, posting online, etc.) would open up as a result of its having a touchscreen and wifi capability. granted, I'd still have my 12.1MP Canon for actual photography, but being able to have my iPod touch on hand to snap a few decent-quality, on-the-go photos from time to time would definitely be nice... I'll wait until the announcement on the 9th before making my mind up, though.

(OT aside- am I alone in wanting to pull my hair out as a result of seeing people call the iPod touch an "iTouch"?)

[GQB]

An iPod Touch (not iTouch) will never replace the Classic or Nano because it lacks tactile controls and requires your eyes and both hands to use. The Nano and Classic are music players. The Touch is a small computer. Apples and Oranges. The Nano might replace the Classic if it could be priced right with 128GB of storage. But not until then. Personally, I'd like to see a Classic with MORE than 160GB of storage. It's nice to be able to carry every piece of music you own in your pocket and at a decent sound quality (320 or Lossless). Posts about the Classic being dead or beyond it's time are annoying.

My guess (or hope) is that the 9/9 touch will finish the migration to "iPhone without a Phone".
That would mean GPS and a better speaker and built-in mic.
If so, then many, if not most, will consider voice-control an acceptable (or superior) alternative to the old click-wheel.
I've been using voice control for both the phone and ipod on my iPhone and have really found it to be terrific.

imo

[GodWhomIsMike]

I have an iPhone 3G 16GB model, which I almost never ever use for music. I use my (2g) 8GB iPod Nano just about every day for at least an hour and a half to listen to music.

[nemaslov]

..and there are still a handful of us who feel its way past due for a 240GB classic. Many love huge music collections to take on the road, work, as DJs, studios and so on. We have massive collections of music on our HDs and want not have to edit or smart list.

The drives have been out for awhile so let us have one please.

And I certainly don't need a camera on a classic.

[buxtone17]

My guess (or hope) is that the 9/9 touch will finish the migration to "iPhone without a Phone".
That would mean GPS and a better speaker and built-in mic.

I'm with you there, although, for some reason, I don't expect to see GPS on the touch.

As we all know, as soon as someone mentions the iPod touch getting a camera and a built in mic (and whatever else that makes it more like the iPhone), 37 people instantly post "It's not an iPhone! Apple doesn't want to make the touch almost exactly like the iPhone because that will kill their iPhone sales!"

To those screamers, think about this:

How many time have you seen someone post that they want an iPhone, but don't want to pay for the ridiculous contract or deal with AT&T? I know I've seen that comment at least several hundred times over the past year. And I'm one of those people as well. In fact, I probably would get an iPhone if I didn't know that AT&T service is absolutely horrendous where I live. So bad, that a friend of mine couldn't get service with her iPhone on the INTERSTATE.

Anyways... There's a huge market for an iPod touch with a camera, a built-in mic and GPS: the millions of people who want an iPhone but don't want to sign up for a two-year contract to get crap service.

And I really don't think a maximized touch will do much to hurt iPhone sales. The iPhone is still one of the coolest gadgets in the world. And there are still a ton of people with a ton of money who want to look cool. And there would still be two HUGE differences between a maximized touch and the iPhone:

1. The iPhone is, um, you know, a phone.
2. The iPhone is 3G enabled, which trumps the touch's WiFi.

[atoothelex]

..and there are still a handful of us who feel its way past due for a 240GB classic. Many love huge music collections to take on the road, work, as DJs, studios and so on. We have massive collections of music on our HDs and want not have to edit or smart list.

The drives have been out for awhile so let us have one please.

And I certainly don't need a camera on a classic.

Amen man. Screw cameras, I want my huge hard drive. Although it is nice to know that Apple isn't killing off the classic just yet. Dear Apple, please wise up and put the 250GB HDD in the new classic and make us happy, thanx

[nemaslov]

Like I said a few posts back, I don't think the Classic will survive another year.

But I do think there will be a 4th iPod, replacing the Classic. Similar form factor as the current Classic, or maybe just a bigger iPod Nano, but with the flash based memory currently being used by the other iPods.

By this time they will probably have reached that 128GB size.

They will cater for people who want all of their music in one place, letting them go for runs/walks, and control it without having to use a touch screen (in a lot of situations, this is inconvenient).

I believe there will be a large memory sized 'wheel' iPod around for a few good years.

Its a smaller audience but still large enough to support one HD classic at 24 or 320 GB. I know one outfit customizes them for 240 but not the classic but rather the 5th generation one.

There IS a market. Like 65" flat screens. They sell. Not as much as 32, 40 or even 509, but give us an option.

[Eric S.]

Oh geez. A camera on the Classic? What rot. I don't even want one on the touch.

[nemaslov]

The Classic isn't going away until the iPod Touch capacity catches up with it. And flash memory prices haven't dropped to the point to make that affordable yet.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Classic get a camera, for no other reason than Apple needs a reason to maintain a price point. That being said, it could still drop by $50 if they don't bump the capacity.

Also - there have been rumors of the Nano with a camera (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/05/26/apple_prepping_ipod_nano_with_camera_three_new_iphones_report.html) dating back from May.

Wifi in the Nano and Classic is an intriguing possibility, but unlikely. Wifi just for uploading pictures is probably not worth the additional cost. And neither one is likely to get a mobile web browser or mobile anything without some sort of keyboard.

Based on current rumors, expect to see:
iPod Touch - 16GB, 32GB, 64GB - $199 / $299 / $399
iPod Classic 120GB with camera - $249 (maybe $199?)
iPod Nano - 16GB, 32GB with camera - $149 / $249

They are certainly pushing the Classic outside behind the barn, but I don't think they're going to put it out of its misery just yet.


I think most classic users don't care about cameras but storage. They need to increase it rather than decrease like they did last time. We are a difference audience than the touch users.

[AidenShaw]

The iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera. :confused:

A lot of the people here at MacRumors think that 300K pixels is all that anyone needs....

[Fry-man22]

On top of that, toss in a GPS chip into the phones and let people really start to really make use of geotagging...

The phones have a GPS chip and they already do Geo-Tag the photos - Just FYI...

[JonHimself]

The phones have a GPS chip and they already do Geo-Tag the photos - Just FYI...

Yeah that was a typo sorry, I meant into the iPods that are getting cameras (if they are).

[alent1234]

The iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera. :confused:

few years ago i read something that said that most megapixel ratings are essentially lies just like the sizes of the old CRT monitors or hard drive sizes today. i forgot the tricks the camera companies used to avoid getting sued, but the article mentioned that if you find a good camera with a good lens you'll do better than buying a camera with a high MP but crappy lens.

[JonHimself]

few years ago i read something that said that most megapixel ratings are essentially lies just like the sizes of the old CRT monitors or hard drive sizes today. i forgot the tricks the camera companies used to avoid getting sued, but the article mentioned that if you find a good camera with a good lens you'll do better than buying a camera with a high MP but crappy lens.

It's not that they're lies (well maybe there are) but it's just that a 12MP camera with a terrible lens (and general optics) might be bested by a 3MP camera with a great lens.

[currentinterest]

An iPod nano with the ability to take video not just stills would be a huge hit. The kids would be all over it as well as parents of young children. It would also help if there were a means of automatically uploading to Youtube via WiFi, and of trimming the video. But perhaps that is why the new QuickTime player has trimming capabilities built in.

[OllyW]

few years ago i read something that said that most megapixel ratings are essentially lies just like the sizes of the old CRT monitors or hard drive sizes today. i forgot the tricks the camera companies used to avoid getting sued, but the article mentioned that if you find a good camera with a good lens you'll do better than buying a camera with a high MP but crappy lens.

I'm not complaining that the iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera, just correcting the error of the previous poster who said it had a 5 megapixel camera.

[VenusianSky]

It's not that they're lies (well maybe there are) but it's just that a 12MP camera with a terrible lens (and general optics) might be bested by a 3MP camera with a great lens.

Also, a crappy CCD, like the ones typically in phones, doesn't have the ability to take good images in various lighting conditions, especially low light.

[Andronicus]

More storage Apple! Don't kill the classic!

[MarkCooz]

I don't see why they need a camera for nano or classic... well classic has an exception but woot woot for touch!

hope this will come true!!!
it's time for me to save up again, since my iPod Touch broke on me... :/

[buxtone17]

few years ago i read something that said that most megapixel ratings are essentially lies just like the sizes of the old CRT monitors or hard drive sizes today. i forgot the tricks the camera companies used to avoid getting sued, but the article mentioned that if you find a good camera with a good lens you'll do better than buying a camera with a high MP but crappy lens.

The thing about megapixel ratings is that they're mostly irrelevant. It's all about glass and CCD size.

An 8.2 megapixel dSLR with a pro lens is going to take a much higher quality photo than a 15 megapixel point and shoot.

[buxtone17]

A lot of the people here at MacRumors think that 300K pixels is all that anyone needs....

(A megapixel is a million pixels...)

[safetyobc]

I think adding cameras to iPods is going to be a huge success. My 10 year old daughter has an iPod and loves it. She has a digital camera and takes pics all the time. So adding a camera to the iPod is a no brainer.

I agree with previous posts, if they add video to the Nano, they will sell tons of them!

[BlizzardBomb]

I think the iPod Classic is beyond its time and should be phased out of the iPod lineup.

You may not want one, but some people still do. Hard Drives are still the only cheap way to go above 100 GBs.

[RareEarthMetal]

So will the camera be able to record video?

[zedsdead]

So will the camera be able to record video?

It sounds like it is going to be the same as the 3gs. Why would Apple not enable that? It will have video.

[Cartman356]

this is weird, cameras have no place on the nanos or classics. I own an ipod classic and its awesome, I don't even need that much storage for music. I fill it up with movies and tv shows.

[Virt]

this is weird, cameras have no place on the nanos or classics. I own an ipod classic and its awesome, I don't even need that much storage for music. I fill it up with movies and tv shows.

I totally agree. I already have a digital camera plus the camera on my iphone 3G. I don't need a zillion cameras popping up everywhere on everything. If they were to change the classic in anyway I would suggest maybe some new color choices then a slight price drop. That would be fine.

And regarding the ipod touch getting a gps, I don't think that is really plausible seeing as its used as a means of navigating while on the road or whatever. But, if your on a freeway- there isn't wifi all around to support the gps with an actual map. So, you might have latitude longitude but you wouldn't really know where the hell you are.

[SwiftLives]

this is weird, cameras have no place on the nanos or classics. I own an ipod classic and its awesome, I don't even need that much storage for music. I fill it up with movies and tv shows.

I'm guessing the cameras are going to have more to do with the rumored social networking functionality of iTunes 9 than anything else.

And to maintain Apple's price points with the falling prices of physical hard drives.

Hmmmm - are the Nanos flash-based or hard drive based? I can't seem to remember...

[michael31986]

i would buy a nano if they had a 64 gb or 128, but with 32gb i can't, because i have more than 8,000 songs and its growing by day.

[OllyW]

Hmmmm - are the Nanos flash-based or hard drive based? I can't seem to remember...

The nano is flash based.

[buxtone17]

But, if your on a freeway- there isn't wifi all around to support the gps with an actual map. So, you might have latitude longitude but you wouldn't really know where the hell you are.

That problem is easily solved by an App with built-in maps.

[Bregalad]

I don't believe anything from DigiTimes and cannot believe the Classic will be getting a camera.

While a 64GB device would hold all my music at 256bps it would leave little room for photos, podcasts or apps. So it looks like I may be waiting yet another year before getting a touch.

For those with even larger music collections I really hope the Classic stays in the lineup. It's going to be a long time before the nano reaches 128GB.

[RMo]

Please no Oleophobic coating on the new iPod touch.

Do you like fingerprint streaks on your screens, or is there something bad about oleophobic coatings that I don't know?

[SeattleMoose]

Please leave the Nano alone!!!! I just want to be able to buy one with a bigger capacity and not have to sacrifice or pay more for a lousy 3 MP camera.

Why does EVERYTHING have to be a swiss army knife?:confused:

[buxtone17]

I'm guessing the cameras are going to have more to do with the rumored social networking functionality of iTunes 9 than anything else.

I'm guessing that the cameras are going to have more to do with taking pictures than anything else.

(Sorry, had to say it...)

[buxtone17]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be a swiss army knife?:confused:

At least you can still buy a Swiss Army Knife without a camera :)

[JonHimself]

At least you can still buy a Swiss Army Knife without a camera :)

... it's only a matter of time...

[Surreal]

i wouldnt mind paying a little more for what would essentially be a classic with a 120-250gb hard drive, a camera and a touch screen.

but i want it all. i do, i do.

[spillproof]

What is so special about a camera on an iPod? I don't know, maybe its just me.

Oh, but I do want a 10MP camera on the :apple:TV.

[puffnstuff]

I believe the iPods are going to get a camera. I don't know about 3.2 mps though.


The iPod lineup is dying and need to reinvent itself. Either come up with a gimick or watch it die like the discman.

I think eventually we will see only the iPod Touch in various sizes and features like what Archos is doing.

[buxtone17]

What is so special about a camera on an iPod? I don't know, maybe its just me.

There wouldn't be anything special about a camera on a nano or a classic. It would just be a gimmick.

On the touch, the camera can be used in conjunction with several apps that are only currently available for iPhone users. Also, there are a bunch of cool camera effect Apps like ToyCamera, OldCamera, CameraBag, Pano, etc.

[twoodcc]

yeah, really only the ipod touch needs one, but we'll see what Mr Jobs has to say about it

[nemaslov]

I believe the iPods are going to get a camera. I don't know about 3.2 mps though.


The iPod lineup is dying and need to reinvent itself. Either come up with a gimick or watch it die like the discman.

I think eventually we will see only the iPod Touch in various sizes and features like what Archos is doing.

It's too bad some feel they need a gimmick. I just want to listen to lots of great music!!!!!

[Bjohnson33]

Remember when all we wanted was larger storage capacity? Those were the days, weren't they?

Ha! Very good point!

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple actually discontinues the iPod Classic. If not this year, maybe next.

[ericinboston]

Not. How expensive is it? Probably incredibly right now. Besides, NAND isn't the point of the classic, otherwise Apple would have done that from the start.

Whaaaaa??? Apple surely would not have gone with NAND 8 years ago when they released the first iPod!

The point of the Classic (or rather non-Nano) is to hold a lot more storage...Apple has been doing it via HDD since Day 1. It's time Apple got off it's lazy bum and started following in the footsteps of the iPhone and iTouch that have been out for years in NAND format...not to mention the Nano.

Sure, it WILL COST more to get a Classic in NAND format...but so what? People like me are probably willing to pay for it (these days) for a nice 128GB chunk of NAND storage. Apple could easily stuff 4 32GB chips in the case of the Classic...or 2 if they wanted to make it more compact.

It's almost 2010...wake up Apple...we want our Classics in NAND format. I've never heard a single person over the past 2 years yell "I prefer HDD over NAND on my Classic"...and we've all been hearing cries of "please, Apple, make the Classic in NAND format...I'll pay the extra money for it".

If last years' technology of the iTouch is 32GB, it's very likely it will get a bump this year to 64GB for the likely price of $399 or less (they typically try to reduce the price). So why not surpise the world and switch the Classic to 128GB NAND...theoretically the Classic 64GB NAND would be cheaper than the iTouch because of the lack of features...so let's peg it at $329...now double the NAND up to 128GB and sell it for $399.

We're all just guessing on exact pricing but I don't think a 128GB NAND Classic is far fetched at all...it's not like Apple ran the numbers and realized the street price would have to be $500 for it to turn a profit.

[iphones4evry1]

From a marketing perspective, it gives consumers one more reason to buy an iPod over a generic music player.

[Eric S.]

From a marketing perspective, it gives consumers one more reason to buy an iPod over a generic music player.

How many reasons do you need? I already have enough. ;)

[Merkuryy]

A crap camera would more or less proved that iPod nowadays are really "Made in China" (like others crappy phones).

When talking about iPod Classic, well it's all about storage. The new Zune HD,though it's called HD ,the baseline model can only hold 10 hours of HD movies!!!! And because of it's "tiny size", you can't imagine a huge "bump" in battery life when talking about HD movie.

However as the iPod Classic have a regular iPod size, new technology will grant him the ability to take off both storage(with a CF card inside may be, lmao), and a huge battery pack(don't forget the standard battery of the Classic is 550mah, just like the iPod 5th )

But a crap camera????!!!!!!!:eek:

Welcome to China, my friends, 欢迎来到中国～！！！！！

[Jamo12]

I don't understand why they would put NAND in a classic. Here is my prediction for everything.

iPod Shuffle™- Who really cares?
iPod Nano™- 16 ,32 ($149, $199)
iPod Classic™-200 or 250 gig <- [can't really choose between them] for $249 (they need to improve it a lot to get people to buy it)
iPod Touch™- 16, 32, 64 ($229, $299, $399)

And they will not make them any more expensive with the camera. Apple has NEVER done that with an iPod and it cost them almost nothing per camera and I assume that Apple is thinking the more iPod's they sell because of the camera will offset the cost of the camera.

P.S. If you don't need the camera then don't use it. Simple as that.

That's just my 2¢

[macintoshtoffy]

It would be a pity if the new camera on the new iPod touch is only 3.2 megapixels, rather than the 5 megapixel model from the new iPhone 3GS. Whilst this would be fine for video and 'augmented reality' apps, the picture quality really isn't that great for photos (and yes, I know it's primarily supposed to be a music player! ;))

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[M87]

Except for the people who like having entire libraries with them


Especially if they like to keep their music in lossless formats too. I can never understand the people that want things phased out simply because they have no need for them.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
A lot of the people here at MacRumors think that 300K pixels is all that anyone needs....

(A megapixel is a million pixels...)

Yes, I know.

That's why I said that the 3.2 Mpixel sensor is 10 times bigger than a lot of MacRumours members think is necessary. They're quite happy with 0.3 Mpixel.


Especially if they like to keep their music in lossless formats too. I can never understand the people that want things phased out simply because they have no need for them.

I take it that you're no longer in junior high school? ;)

[Mr. Gates]

Oh Yay ......:cool:

I spent all this money on what I thought to be the top of the line phone

and now every stupid little spoiled brat teeny bopper will have the same technology :cool:

I cant wait for YouTube to crash when all these idiots start to upload there BS :cool:

as if it wasnt slow enough

why do i feel like I should stop buying apple crap for about 10 years?

[belltree]

Do you like fingerprint streaks on your screens, or is there something bad about oleophobic coatings that I don't know?

The nanoparticles that are likely used to create this coating and also adhere it to the glass. I don't want to be pressing my hands against nano-sized particles due to the risk factor to one's health.

Frankly, I don't believe there has been enough research into the effects on human health and the environment due to nanoparticles. Corporations simply took the technology and ran, without doing the adequate due diligence (par for the course).

example reference links:


Nanoparticles In Cosmetics, Personal Care Products May Have Adverse Environmental Effects (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326162747.htm)
Nanoparticles May Pose Threat To Liver Cells, Say Scientists (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060405100447.htm)
Nano Breach: When Particles Are So Small That They Seep Right Through Skin (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930102635.htm)
Nanoparticles Can Damage DNA, Increase Cancer Risk (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417154357.htm)
Researchers Examine The Environmental Effects Of Silver Nanoparticles (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514171756.htm)You can google your own information but the point is the same. The material is a big question mark in terms of being a potential health hazard and I would happily put up with fingerprints on the my screen rather than possible health issues at a later time.

[Mr. Gates]

The nanoparticles that are likely used to create this coating and also adhere it to the glass. I don't want to be pressing my hands against nano-sized particles due to the risk factor to one's health.

Frankly, I don't believe there has been enough research into the effects on human health and the environment due to nanoparticles. Corporations simply took the technology and ran, without doing the adequate due diligence (par for the course).

example reference links:


Nanoparticles In Cosmetics, Personal Care Products May Have Adverse Environmental Effects (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326162747.htm)
Nanoparticles May Pose Threat To Liver Cells, Say Scientists (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060405100447.htm)
Nano Breach: When Particles Are So Small That They Seep Right Through Skin (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930102635.htm)
Nanoparticles Can Damage DNA, Increase Cancer Risk (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417154357.htm)
Researchers Examine The Environmental Effects Of Silver Nanoparticles (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514171756.htm)You can google your own information but the point is the same. The material is a big question mark in terms of being a potential health hazard and I would happily put up with fingerprints on the my screen rather than possible health issues at a later time.

Yup, I also have a link for you guys.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

[belltree]

Yup, I also have a link for you guys.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

So you implicitly trust anything you purchase to be safe and free from any health hazards? Naive+

[Mr. Gates]

So you implicitly trust anything you purchase to be safe and free from any health hazards? Naive+

No, I just don't see any merit in the pseudo-science you are so passionate about ......

By the way ....... we are all out to get you .....

BEWARE OF THE PARTICLES !!!!!
:p:p:p

[belltree]

No, I just don't see any merit in the pseudo-science you are so passionate about ......

By the way ....... we are all out to get you .....

BEWARE OF THE PARTICLES !!!!!



I'm not passionate about it whatsoever but merely stray on the side of cautioun with regard to new technology that involves particles thinner than your hair. Adding to this is the fact that the long term potential health risks have not been adequately researched. How is this pseudo-science in any way?

I'm sure if this was 60 years ago you'd be saying the same about cigarette smoke while sucking back a pack of Marlboro's. OOoooh, the tobacco companies are out to get you!

This is simply a matter of big companies putting new technology, and the financial benefits that can be reaped from it, ahead of the well-being of the customers/environment. Surely you must realize there are many precedents for this type of behavior. If you don't well......rock on!

[shaunymac]

Remember when all we wanted was larger storage capacity? Those were the days, weren't they?

Uh, yeah. Exactly what I was thinking too. Anyone remember 256mb rio's?

Really, camera's in every one? Ugh! If people are really that concerned with taking pictures, get a freaking camera. These cameras suck. All they are good for is taking pictures of car accidents, tags on furniture, groceries, etc. Not, family portraits, kids playing sports, etc. Get a real camera. I see and hear so many people thinking these cameras replace a real camera.

[shaunymac]

Oh Yay ......:cool:

I spent all this money on what I thought to be the top of the line phone

and now every stupid little spoiled brat teeny bopper will have the same technology :cool:

I cant wait for YouTube to crash when all these idiots start to upload there BS :cool:

as if it wasnt slow enough

why do i feel like I should stop buying apple crap for about 10 years?

They should have never subsidized the phone in the first place. I totatlly agree with you.

Apple is getting more and more watered down as the days pass. It is sickening.

I wish mac/ipods/iphones, esp. iphones were just not the hip thing anymore so all of the teeny boppers would go by some nokia bull crap.

Now the iphone is some kind of status symbol. A joke really.

[Cubert]

I just got my first iPhone (a 3GS that my girlfriend gave to me as a birthday present a little less than two weeks ago) and I have been really pleased (and surprised) at how good the camera is.

[Mr. Gates]

I'm not passionate about it whatsoever but merely stray on the side of cautioun with regard to new technology that involves particles thinner than your hair. Adding to this is the fact that the long term potential health risks have not been adequately researched. How is this pseudo-science in any way?

I'm sure if this was 60 years ago you'd be saying the same about cigarette smoke while sucking back a pack of Marlboro's. OOoooh, the tobacco companies are out to get you!

This is simply a matter of big companies putting new technology, and the financial benefits that can be reaped from it, ahead of the well-being of the customers/environment. Surely you must realize there are many precedents for this type of behavior. If you don't well......rock on!

Well , Let me know what you find. Dust and all....

http://inquirer.typepad.com/blinq/images/2007/09/24/poindexter.gif

[Clark Gable]

Im tired of hearing all the tools saying the ipod classic is dying because its not gimmicky like the touch. The touch is for a smaller market who wants an iphone like device with little to moderate storage of music. Personally I find it annoying to have to pull out an ipod touch to change or search for songs due to you actually have to be looking at the device. I like the physical controls 100 fold better. Plus simply fast forwarding, moving forward or backward in songs, or simply pausing shouldnt repeat the same process as previously stated with the touch.

Id love to see a ssd as an option in the ipod classic line. sure I'd expect it to cost a little more but I'm more than willing to pay a little premium for storage that would last much longer than a hdd. I don't really care if they added a camera but if they did I'd like to have it and may use it from time to time. certainly not a turn off or a reason to buy for me at all.

Also it would be absolutely stupid for apple to get rid of a device with that much storage capability. Some people actually have quite a large collection of music, or like to keep high quality such as 320kbps (i have my music set for 192 because I think its the best combo for size and sound quality) and like to carry it around. Sure I dont listen to every song often but I would find it annoying to be "oh well I only wanted to listen to those songs but now I want to listen to these....but im away from my computer.....this sucks." I need more then 8gbs in the nano and more then the 32gb offered in the touch.

The fact also remains with more storage the more you could fill it up without the hard drive bogging down. you may not need 120+gb but you would be stupid to be "well I could get 8gb for such and such amount, or 120+gb for about the same price.....ok ill spend the same for 8gb"

[belltree]

Well , Let me know what you find. Dust and all....



Please keep your taunts to yourself. I simply feel this is a legitimate concern for the health and well being of people and am stating it in this forum. There no need for your jabs. If you want to cover year ears and laugh, go right ahead. This is not a jab at Apple whatsoever but simply a statement of my concern which you seem to feel the need to ridicule. Good show chap.

[tabasco70]

I really don't want them to put a camera in the classic. I actually don't want them to change the physical appearance / features at all. Only capacity.

The iPod was made as a Multimedia device, and was simple, with no extra features to get in the way of music listening and video watching.
Adding a camera would add complexity to the amazingly simple device.

[Alasta]

As someone who is in the market for an iPod Touch I would absolutely love for it to gain a GPS, and I guess a camera could be of some use for impulsive snaps.

The problem is that people tend to forget that for those of us who are unwilling to enter a term contract with a phone provider the unsubsidised price of the iPhone (at least here in New Zealand) is well over double the price of the iPod Touch. How can that difference be justified if there is a minimal difference in functionality between the two devices?

Even as it is I would argue that a cheap phone and an iPod Touch represents much better value than an iPhone. Sure, it's a pain to have two seperate devices and to be limited to WiFi for internet access, but is it really worth paying double the price or entering into a two year service contract for the iPhone?

[MorphingDragon]

If this happens, Apple will be finally be true King of PMP. No price arguments will matter. It has a camera.

[MorphingDragon]

As someone who is in the market for an iPod Touch I would absolutely love for it to gain a GPS, and I guess a camera could be of some use for impulsive snaps.

The problem is that people tend to forget that for those of us who are unwilling to enter a term contract with a phone provider the unsubsidised price of the iPhone (at least here in New Zealand) is well over double the price of the iPod Touch. How can that difference be justified if there is a minimal difference in functionality between the two devices?

Even as it is I would argue that a cheap phone and an iPod Touch represents much better value than an iPhone. Sure, it's a pain to have two seperate devices and to be limited to WiFi for internet access, but is it really worth paying double the price or entering into a two year service contract for the iPhone?

Most of us arent constantly having our brains fried by WiFi signals.

[teme]

I have been hoping for a iPod Classic/iPod Touch hybrid for a few years, even though I know it will never come. iPod Hybrid would be like iPod Touch, except thicker. It would include maybe 1-2 gigs of flash memory for interface elements and buffering, and at minimum a 250GB hard drive for storage.

[iboy38]

I 100% understand that the ipod Touch needs a camera because of the apps, but the ipod nano and ipod classic? That is kinda dumb if you ask me.

[Ericatomars]

I hope the ipod touch does come with a camera~ If true I'm so going to buy one. I don't know why they didn't think of putting a camera on the touch sooner?

I dont see why the other ipods need cameras? I guess it would be cool, maybe... i dunno

Time will tell, and the clock continues to count down to the new ipod/touch updates

[Fry-man22]

...but is it really worth paying double the price or entering into a two year service contract for the iPhone?

For me - Yes it's been worth it to not deal with two devices or Windows mobile. I have yet to miss a call on my iPhone because I was listening to music on my iPod - oh, wait it's because they're together...

Been happily drinking the Kool-aid for three years now - can't wait for the flavor of next year's... :)

[UWSpindoctor]

P.S. If you don't need the camera then don't use it. Simple as that.


It's not as simple as that if you work somewhere that cameras are forbidden.

[MacsBestFriend]

to the person(s) who have been saying that the ipod touch will compete with the flip- you have stated what i tell to everyone who is asking me what is the best digital camera right now. the next ipod touch will KILL the competition. this will be the staple electronic in every teenagers life, as it is right now. the next one will mean HUGE, like- totally unprecedented sales for Apple. i can easily see how people in my school will use the new ipod touch throughout the day:

-playing multiplayer games from the app store on the bus
-shooting a video of their friend banging their head on the table at lunch
-printing articles for school projects from MobSaf in the library (my school just got an open network for students to use home computers)
-taking notes in class
-listening to tunes during a drop (as my high school uses a block schedule)
-start typing a homework report on the bus on the way home

from last spring, watching my friends playing on their ipods and using them as a major social tool, i can only imagine what will come from this refresh. the september update seriously needs longer battery life, though.

<end rant>

[wismann]

Flash chip size:
IIRC the biggest flash chips available are 64Gb (~bit) and not 64GB (~byte). This means you had to stuff 16 of 'em into an iPod touch 128GB, this wont happen. Not this year. Maybe next, but read on.

iPod classic:
Although there *may* be a demand for even bigger classics or classics with huge flash capacities, some thing remain to consider:
The demand for that much capacity may not be very big so it may just not be worth the effort for apple. Apple didn't hear those demands when they reduced the maximum available capacity back then from 160GB to 120GB, so they probably won't now. And they won't just replace the hard drive with flash, the classic would need a complete redesign which would be possible then. But, I'm sceptical for Apple hearing the demand for a Player with physical controls. It had to be cheaper than the touch but it won't be a lot cheaper to build (due to flash prices). Plus, it would admit the touch having some issues. So I'm expecting the classics to fade, if not this year, probably next year. I'm also not expecting (and not liking the idea of) a classic with a camera.

iPod touch and nano capacity upgrade:
Usually Apple kept prices and doubled capacity. I'm not quite sure if this will happen this time. As the biggest available flash chips afaik didn't double in the meantime, they needed a complete redesign of the pcb for stuffing twice as much flash chips in there. So, probably (I hoping I'm wrong) they built up this camera-for-iPods thing to give at least some advantage over last years models. The touch coming out as 'touch S' (with gps, camera ect) would be great, though, even without 64GB. And I do like the idea of having a nano with a camera for video and stills, because even if I had a point-and-shoot camera, I wouldn't carry it along with me most of the time. But, a nano without 32GB this year seems uninteresting to me as I can have a Fuze with 8GB+16GB for a little more than 100€.

[BillyBobBongo]

I 100% understand that the ipod Touch needs a camera because of the apps, but the ipod nano and ipod classic? That is kinda dumb if you ask me.

I agree with you. I can only see the camera going into the iPod Touch.

[j.drake.hoffman]

I'm not passionate about it whatsoever but merely stray on the side of cautioun with regard to new technology that involves particles thinner than your hair.

you do realize almost all particles are smaller than that, right?

not to just jab, jab, jab, but you do sound very paranoid.....

[j.drake.hoffman]

2. The iPhone is 3G enabled, which trumps the touch's WiFi.

I do not believe this to be true.

3G~14.1Mbit/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G#Data_rates
Wifi~22Mbit/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11#802.11g

[tekboi]

honestly, i hope they don't. At least not for the classic and nano. There is plenty of other stuff apple could be announcing @ this event. This is just a waste of time.

[beachy]

I want to buy the new Nano online, I did this last time because my daughter wanted the exclusive red chrome colour with engraving. Delivery was prompt.

Its my son's birthday on Sep 10 and he wants the "new" nano. If it means waiting weeks, then I'll just get him an "old" nano, if there are any left

My question is: how soon after the Sep 9 media event will products become available to buy from the online apple :apple: shop (Australia) ??

thank you

[Grade]

To be honest i'm the owner of Ipod Classic a 1st gen ipod nano and Ipod Touch.

i would say despite the Ipod Touch is nice with nice screen and all that, I feel for me it was bought in for my ego then anything else. I think that Ipod Classic and Nano you have much more control with the lists and music. Of course Ipod Touch has media device then the other ipods but my sole use is to hear music.

It is very nice to see movies, play a few games and all, but musci Ipod Nano and Classic are better then Ipod Touch.

I think that camera in iphone touch will not be big surprise that this event tends to promise, specially if this event marks the return of Steve Jobs presenting these events again.

Don't get me wrong the camera in Ipod Touch has its advantanges, but don't confuse that Ipod Touch will now be photo camera. Like the on the phones are simply for the fun of it and cannot be compared to an SLR. So to me I I want to take picture I use a camera and if I want to hear music i hear it on Ipod Classic or Nano, if I want to see films I would use My Macbook, PC desktop or My TV, If I want to go to the net I use my macbook or PC desktop.

I think we are slowly entering into an era, where people (young people) tend to mix things up with the cell phones and so on. Call me old fashion, but seeing a film on tiny screen like the Iphone or Ipod Touch if have available a large TV screen, monitor of my PC desktop or my macbook (in vacation). If this even it simply an upgrade of Ipods and introduction of of new music, then I will not woe me at all.

What I want is freaking new Apple Cinema Display for desktops, or new tablet, Iphone Nano or Mac pro, macbook pro or Macbook reading from Blue-ray or writting on blue-ray. That would surprise me.