Apple Launches New 16 GB iPod Touch With No Rear Camera for $229

[Discostu7]

Regardless

Regardless of their decision as to why they did this. It doesn't make me wanna run out the door and go buy one. If they included the rear camera and sold this item for $249 I would be ok with it but releasing this before WWDC makes no sense.

Apple wanted to get their iPod Touch Lineup back down to the $229 price range to make it more affordable to the consumers and the breakdown is losing a rear camera and 8GB of less memory.

 

[cobbyco]

So the back camera costs $71??

Also seems like that lanyard loop is gone .

BTW, I think a typo on the fully equipped version:


iSight is the face camera, not the back camera.

The iSight is the back camera, as opposed to the front 'FaceTime' camera (kinda in the name...)

----------

They left the camera app? must be a mistake...

It has a front camera still. Just look at the picture...

 

[glsillygili]

I probably would by it but no rear camera? Really? That's like a step back. Even though the old iPod touch had a bad camera at least it had one

 

[moderately]

This product is just another example of how Apple is relapsing to its Sculley days during Jobs' ousting — a million products, a million variations on products, just to fill in price points and sell something, just to make money somehow. What happened to believing in the products Apple is making? Jobs would never have allowed this piece of junk in Apple's lineup! It's not amazing! It's not spectacular! It's not magical! It's just a regression to the original iPod touch, which didn't have a camera on the back! Nobody wants an iPod without a camera; it's absolutely useless! People use their iOS devices for the camera more than half the time!

More than just being an embarrassment to Steve Jobs' carefully nurtured product lineup, this product doesn't even make sense financially. It's missing the camera for goodness' sake!! — one of the major selling points for these iPods — it's missing the very nifty loop mechanism (which they could have at least included), and to top it all off, it only offers HALF the space of the 32GB model, but it's not even $100 cheaper!

Tim Cook has been a very sore disappointment. We are definitely in the post-Apple era now. I can't wait to see what will emerge to be the next big thing, because I admit that I'm losing my faith in the company that used to change the world.

HaHaHa. Good one.

 

[lolkthxbai]

Will the iWatch have a camera at all? Taking photos without a "viewfinder" sounds clumsy in the digital era.

I wouldn't expect the "iWatch" to have a camera.

 

[baryon]

Pretty cool! I always thought the new iPod Touch was too expensive, for a little more you can get a full price unlocked iPhone, or an iPad Mini. The silver looks nice for the back, it would be nice if the iPhone adopted a similar look at some point (when they figure out how to get cell signal through the metal back).

 

[thehustleman]

Pretty cool! I always thought the new iPod Touch was too expensive, for a little more you can get a full price unlocked iPhone, or an iPad Mini. The silver looks nice for the back, it would be nice if the iPhone adopted a similar look at some point (when they figure out how to get cell signal through the metal back).

Um, ipad mini is only 16GB for just "a little" more.

None of the iphones are just a little more unless you go on Craigslist.

 

[baryon]

Um, ipad mini is only 16GB for just "a little" more.

None of the iphones are just a little more unless you go on Craigslist.

Yes, not the iPhone 5, but you could get a new or almost new iPhone 4 for pretty much the same price. And it has a good camera, and it's also a phone. I think the iPod Touch has a difficult target audience: those who want iPhones but can't have one for some reason. If you have a smartphone/iPhone, you wouldn't get an iPod Touch, so that leaves… kids and people like me, who just don't want a contract. But for everyone else, the iPad Mini makes a lot more sense

Nonetheless, I've had my 2nd Gen iPod Touch for 5 years and I can't live without it, but I will get an iPhone one day to replace it, and not another iPod Touch.

 

[dEsUrU]

No rear camera on low cost iphone?

for me, this is a signal the low cost iphone will have a front but no rear camera.

 

[Xiroteus]

for me, this is a signal the low cost iphone will have a front but no rear camera.

People would have better luck just buying an older iPhone then if they were going to limit it to that degree which would not surprise me.

 

[celavato]

On a personal level, no stand alone music player is really needed with smartphones.

Don't you ever want to just listen to music without hearing notifications for calendar alerts, telephone calls, text messages, etc.? Yes, iOS now has privacy controls but some people need to receive these alerts — just not in their eardrum. That said, the better iPod for this purpose is the nano. I have the "watch" model. I wish Apple would add WiFi syncing to the nano.

 

[Xiroteus]

Don't you ever want to just listen to music without hearing notifications for calendar alerts, telephone calls, text messages, etc.? Yes, iOS now has privacy controls but some people need to receive these alerts — just not in their eardrum. That said, the better iPod for this purpose is the nano. I have the "watch" model. I wish Apple would add WiFi syncing to the nano.

Never thought too much about that as it has not been an issue yet I can understand how it can be if someone gets a lot of calls, texts etc.. beep, twitter, facebook, text, call etc... that could be annoying. I mostly listen to music on my computer and only at home as I like to hear the world around me when in public, I do have my shuffle for a simple portable player.

Now I understand why some people may want an iPhone plus a stand alone player if they do not wish to be annoyed by all the other beeping it can do.

Maybe wifi on the next update.

 

[thehustleman]

Yes, not the iPhone 5, but you could get a new or almost new iPhone 4 for pretty much the same price. And it has a good camera, and it's also a phone. I think the iPod Touch has a difficult target audience: those who want iPhones but can't have one for some reason. If you have a smartphone/iPhone, you wouldn't get an iPod Touch, so that leaves… kids and people like me, who just don't want a contract. But for everyone else, the iPad Mini makes a lot more sense

Nonetheless, I've had my 2nd Gen iPod Touch for 5 years and I can't live without it, but I will get an iPhone one day to replace it, and not another iPod Touch.

Absolutely wrong.

I could have an iphone, i have a Galaxy s III and they both costed the same and the same per month.

I also have an ipod touch.

Why?

I don't have an iphone because
1. It's too far behind in technology
2. The galaxy s III is a better device
3. Apple has resorted to copying for the iphone


I have a touch because
1. I want to use the ios only apps (mostly games)
2. I like iMessage for some reason
3. I keep my music on it
4. Facetime access


I get the benefits of an iphone without the down side

I have it because

----------

Don't you ever want to just listen to music without hearing notifications for calendar alerts, telephone calls, text messages, etc.? Yes, iOS now has privacy controls but some people need to receive these alerts — just not in their eardrum. That said, the better iPod for this purpose is the nano. I have the "watch" model. I wish Apple would add WiFi syncing to the nano.

Also you can use the storage for music and not have it cut into your phone storage.

 

[Jvanleuvan]

this is designed to compete with devices such as the PS Vita. ($249+)
this is a handheld game machine. it's for teens/tweens who want to play infinity blade and angry birds while skyping their BFFs, and listening to spotify! If you are old enough to get a cell phone, then just get an iPhone, and this would be redundant.

It does significantly more than a PS vita, costs less, and has a nicer build and screen.

AND, they don't need a rear camera! I OWN a 4th gen IPod touch, it has a rear camera, but, at 0.7 MP! its useless! but we LOVE the product, my kids play all their disney games, and can watch videos, there's tons of free entertainment available. But, they don't take photos, never have. This new device replaces that one, so removing the camera isn't really a big thing, and if you think you need it, they will gladly sell you a really nice camera, that can take actually good pictures, for some extra money.

 

[lk400]

for me, this is a signal the low cost iphone will have a front but no rear camera.

I just cant see that happening. Missing features - sure. Lower quality camera - sure. But no rear camera would be DOA.

----------

Don't you ever want to just listen to music without hearing notifications for calendar alerts, telephone calls, text messages, etc.? Yes, iOS now has privacy controls but some people need to receive these alerts — just not in their eardrum. That said, the better iPod for this purpose is the nano. I have the "watch" model. I wish Apple would add WiFi syncing to the nano.

Agree.