Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Was Working on Video Conferencing in iPad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same way I felt when I got the 3G, and the 3GS came out shortly. The could have made the 3G as fast. I switched to Verizon and got the Droid. Never looked back.
Some day I can imagine a solution that uses a fisheye camera lens (able to look at all angles at once basically) plus face-detection software (which already exists) to crop in on your face. It would then be the equivalent of a motorized camera that’s always aimed right—but no moving parts needed. It would also need to be very high-res (so the cropped image is still good) and it would need to have software de-warping so that sidelong angles didn’t make you look too weird. But it sounds doable in the end.
Or, in the meantime, they could just pick one angle, and you have to hold it “that way.” Maybe that’s what they realized in testing was not a good experience.
The backlash, as usual, is largely people fixating on bullet lists and specs, and ignoring what REALLY matters when you use the thing: how well the experience works in person. With the iPad especially, you see a night-and-day difference between reviewers who have used one, and armchair critics who are making bullet lists in their heads.
Plus, tech hobbyists and avid forum-goers are one thing—we love bullet lists (and I too would love a webcam!)—but the buying public is not the same as our world. At all. And I’m sure very few of them are hung up on a webcam enough to boycott over it.
Built-in video chat camera?
If you think about the way many people are going to use the iPad, a built-in front-facing camera would be just plain stupid, unless Apple threw in complimentary nose-hair trimmers in each box!
You'd need to have a camera you can move away from the frame, otherwise people will be staring at you from unflattering angles.
I notice one of the first accessories announced is a camera connection kit. I'll bet that USB webcams mounted on flexible stems will start showing up right and left.
If you think about the way many people are going to use the iPad, a built-in front-facing camera would be just plain stupid, unless Apple threw in complimentary nose-hair trimmers in each box!
You'd need to have a camera you can move away from the frame, otherwise people will be staring at you from unflattering angles.
I notice one of the first accessories announced is a camera connection kit. I'll bet that USB webcams mounted on flexible stems will start showing up right and left.
I'm actually wondering if Apple fealt pressure to rush it to the market. Considering how anal Apple is about security, we knew a lot of details before its intro. Imagine what Apple knew about its less anal major competitors HP and Dell and their slate plans?
Also, I'm wondering if the not-yet-confirmed-to-even-exist Microsoft Courier might have spooked Jobs and company. That last thing they needed was to be working on the tablet everyone was waiting for and to have Redmond not only release a device first, but release an impressive device. And while I believe the so-called Courier can co-exist with the iPad, because the two technically appeal to two different markets, Apple still needed to be first out the door.
The much ridiculed iPad name may also have been a last minute deal as well. (And by "last minute" I mean within the last couple months.) Apple owns the copyrights to iSlate, but is in for a big fight with Fujistu over the iPad name. Unlike Cisco who had an unrelated device called the iPhone, the Fujitsu iPad is a tablet-like computer. Fujistu may be in no mood to settle cheaply. Apple knew the HP Slate would beat them out the gate, so they settled on a name that made me think of feminine products the first time I read it.
But watching the entire presser I felt Apple was showing us a device that was incomplete. By announcing it will ship in 60 days, Apple has no time to tweak it. At least the HP Slate (which I also believe is not 100% complete yet) has a little more time for some modifications.
And since Apple is averse to mid-cycle modification, unlike HP and Dell, they may be putting themselves at a disadvantage. We now know the device will not have a camera. Given the fact Apple is on an annual release calender, the earliest we can expect an iPad with a camera is in March 2011.
I think Apple rushed it. I think they may regret it. Everyone accused HP of releasing a "me too" slate in reponse to Apples iPad. I'm starting to wonder if it was the other way around.
Also, I'm wondering if the not-yet-confirmed-to-even-exist Microsoft Courier might have spooked Jobs and company. That last thing they needed was to be working on the tablet everyone was waiting for and to have Redmond not only release a device first, but release an impressive device. And while I believe the so-called Courier can co-exist with the iPad, because the two technically appeal to two different markets, Apple still needed to be first out the door.
The much ridiculed iPad name may also have been a last minute deal as well. (And by "last minute" I mean within the last couple months.) Apple owns the copyrights to iSlate, but is in for a big fight with Fujistu over the iPad name. Unlike Cisco who had an unrelated device called the iPhone, the Fujitsu iPad is a tablet-like computer. Fujistu may be in no mood to settle cheaply. Apple knew the HP Slate would beat them out the gate, so they settled on a name that made me think of feminine products the first time I read it.
But watching the entire presser I felt Apple was showing us a device that was incomplete. By announcing it will ship in 60 days, Apple has no time to tweak it. At least the HP Slate (which I also believe is not 100% complete yet) has a little more time for some modifications.
And since Apple is averse to mid-cycle modification, unlike HP and Dell, they may be putting themselves at a disadvantage. We now know the device will not have a camera. Given the fact Apple is on an annual release calender, the earliest we can expect an iPad with a camera is in March 2011.
I think Apple rushed it. I think they may regret it. Everyone accused HP of releasing a "me too" slate in reponse to Apples iPad. I'm starting to wonder if it was the other way around.
Putting a 2MP camera in the iPad cost nothing. Placing it in the iPad 2 will increase profits from the fools who buy it twice.
Great sarcasm.
The problem, though, is that Apple is always years late to the table with key features. It'd be one thing if they pulled the plug on multitasking and a camera at the last minute because they weren't ready and they weren't standard features in the marketplace, but that's not the case. Apple has been working on the tablet in one form or another for over a decade. There is no excuse for being so far behind.
Just because Apple makes things pretty doesn't mean they should neglect some of the most basic things. As an owner of an iPhone 3Gs (I should have stuck with my Blackberry until the 3Gs came out), I'm simply being realistic. This is why Apple gets made fun of by non Apple fanboys. Simple as that. It's a shame that Apple can't make beautiful, easy to use devices AND devices that, spec and feature wise, are industry leading. Apple will never be more than a niche company due to this.
A stand.. whats wrong with saying a stand?
stand stand standy stand!
Seriously though, propping it up on a stand is the only way I would skype with anyone on the iPad. Alternatively, it might have been fun to make the person on the other end feel inferior while looking up my nose.
When the announcement came out I felt it was an oversight not to include the camera. After some thought, I realized that I wouldn't use the video camera anyway.. I have one on my macbook pro and imac and I can count the time I actually used them on one hand.
Apple is greedy
google is the new microsoft and Apple is the new google
and thinking about it bringing front facing camera at Version 2 of iPad just pure greedy.
google is the new microsoft and Apple is the new google
and thinking about it bringing front facing camera at Version 2 of iPad just pure greedy.
I find the iPad 1.0 pretty disappoining, and I think the 1.0 is only the beginning of a new platform, and that it was likely launched now as a "landgrab."
Is it possible for outsiders to understand the potential of this new A4 chip? And for that matter, is there any reason why a newer, more powerful chip could not be used in the future? My guess is that eventually, notebook computers will disappear altogether.
Is it possible for outsiders to understand the potential of this new A4 chip? And for that matter, is there any reason why a newer, more powerful chip could not be used in the future? My guess is that eventually, notebook computers will disappear altogether.
Apple is greedy and screwing the apple loyal customers and we are going to buy this iPad in tons, can we hold to our desire to get an iPad?
I'll be waiting. I imagine it'll save a few watts instead of using my MacBook as a companion to my desktop.
QFT.
I still remember the original iSight presentation a few years ago (that was the aluminum cylinder, Firewire, AF iSight).
Steve talked for 2 or 3 slides about proper positioning of the camera, and how everyone else was doing it wrong by putting their webcams on the table and showing you from an unflattering angle. The iSight came with no less than 3 attachments, and you were supposed to position it at approximately eye level. It was easily the best webcam ever made, period. They sell for 3x-4x times their original price now (!!!).
With the tablet there are obvious issues with up-down orientation and view angle. My hypothesis is that Steve did not find the experience up to his standards, and the feature was nixed.
I will be buying the first "stemcam" that will come out.
if camera is no use, why apple is planning or working to bring it in the future version?
Specifically, which tablets have been out “years” ahead of Apple and have video conferencing working well in the tablet format?
I assume they can also match the iPad’s far more important features: speed, thinness, battery life, stylus-free multitouch, tilt control and overall ease of use?
How do we know they are?
We know they tried it. We don’t know they’ve already found a way around the problems.
They're only made fun of by a few geeks; normal people don't do that.
This isn't 1994...they're a long way from being a niche company. They have market dominance in several categories.
--Eric
lol No kidding, eh? The thing that's been around for a million years now on cell phone cameras.
I like how you can do more on the iPod Nano than the iEdsel here in terms of certain basic functions. Just like how iPod was behind on adding an FM tuner.
The sad excuses some Apple loyalist will come up w/ to excuse stupid decisions.
are we not learned from iPod nano? and probably iPod touch is going to have that.
You know my perfectly capable iPhone 3G cannot shoot video, for What?
Usually i do not talk bad about apple since i love their product, lately they are doing lots of thing to just get more money...
^^^ hahaha Uh, nagro dude, Huffington Post's "Worst 9 Things About iPad" is enough to show ya a low-cost netbook could skate circles around your maxiPad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/apple-ipad-review-photos_n_441770.html
~ sigh ~ Microsap joined Macrumors yesterday just to enlighten us with his years of wisdom and intellect. Another awesome opportunity for me to exercise my "ignore" option.
Video Chat on 3G not realistic but with 4G being standard by next year that would look a little more promising.
And if it came with all the features then there would be nothing big for next years release...remember how mad we all were with the 3GS not being a huge release.
not realistic but with 4G being standard by next year that would look a little more promising.And if it came with all the features then there would be nothing big for next years release...remember how mad we all were with the 3GS not being a huge release.