Flash......... No, not that type of Flash !

[Piggie]

Although all we have seen recently and talked about re Camera's on the next iPad model.

And though a reasonable percentage of people here have voiced strong opinions that the iPad should not have a rear facing camera fitted.

If we do assume for the time being the next iPad will have a rear facing camera.

Surely it will have a good quality strong flash unit fitted won't it?

They would not release the device with no Flash for taking photo's in anything other than good strong lighting conditions would they?

Ideally one of those dual units to product a lovely strong flash, after all, the iPad has got a nice couple of large meaty batteries to handle using a strong flash unit.

Your thoughts?

 

[MacDawg]

The 3GS didn't have one

Could be an iPad 3 item
Something to keep everyone griping about "I'm not buying till they have a flash", "I can't believe they didn't add a flash"

 

[sapporobaby]

The 3GS didn't have one

Could be an iPad 3 item
Something to keep everyone griping about "I'm not buying till they have a flash", "I can't believe they didn't add a flash"

Exacty..... iPhone 1, iPhone 2, iPhone 3.....

Yawn.....

 

[emw]

MacDawg's avatar notwithstanding, I would imagine if they release a camera-equipped iPad it will have a flash.

Especially since the iPhone 4 has one, I'd hope they wouldn't take a step backward with any camera placed on the iPad.

 

[MacDawg]

MacDawg's avatar notwithstanding, I would imagine if they release a camera-equipped iPad it will have a flash.

Especially since the iPhone 4 has one, I'd hope they wouldn't take a step backward with any camera placed on the iPad.

Of course they could skip the back camera (and flash) altogether on the iPad 2 and make all of it an iPad 3 carrot on a stick and just go with a front facing camera.

 

[sapporobaby]

Of course they could skip the back camera (and flash) altogether on the iPad 2 and make all of it an iPad 3 carrot on a stick and just go with a front facing camera.

Like the way Nokia teased everyone with Xenon flash on the N82 then didn't put a Xenon flash on a camera for 3 or 4 years. I don't think the iPad will have a flash simply because it is something else added to the equation that could fail, could disappoint (people are screaming at Nokia for the LED flashes instead of the Xenon), the battery drain is a concern. Videoing with the iPhone and LED is a battery killer. If one thing is true. Apple is fanatical about battery life. Anything introduced into the iPhone/iPad/iPod has to have a very limited effect on battery life. Can't see them adding a flash.

 

[neil1980]

I cant really see the appeal of rear camera for an iPad... surely its too big to use comfortably to take pictures even if its just for the odd pic or two.

Can see the appeal for front facing for facetime maybe.

 

[Piggie]

Just my thoughts, and of course, I could easily be as wrong as anyone else here.

1: Galaxy tab, probably the most respected and well known to the public alternative at this moment in time, has two camera's

2: By next April we will probably have the Blackberry Playbook, and the Motorola and/or other HoneyComb tablets, also probably with dual Cameras.

3: For Apple to look like they are still the dominant company, and showing others how to make the best devices, it would look rather silly for Apple not to match others with a rear Camera.

4: If they do fit a rear camera, they will have the absolute pee pee taken out of them as a company for not fitting a flash, which everyone will point out, even mobiles have has fitted as standard for years and years now.

For these reasons, I'd guess that then will have a rear camera and they will have flash. Anything else I feel will open them up to much ridicule in the media.

 

[MacDawg]

I think it has value for business
I know our company would like to see it

But does it have enough value in Apple's eyes (i.e. battery, form factor, etc.)
They may very well see it as a "nice to have" but not essential to the iPad

 

[sapporobaby]

I cant really see the appeal of rear camera for an iPad... surely its too big to use comfortably to take pictures even if its just for the odd pic or two.

Can see the appeal for front facing for facetime maybe.

Good points Neil1980. One very important thing to consider regarding FaceTime. It will never fly if only limited to wifi. Apple has to realise that some people live in countries where there are really competent operators who encouage data usage at very fair prices. Not everyone is shackled to AT&T.

I think it has value for business
I know our company would like to see it

But does it have enough value in Apple's eyes (i.e. battery, form factor, etc.)
They may very well see it as a "nice to have" but not essential to the iPad

Tim Cook gave a great answer about Apple and ideas. He stated that Apple gets 1000 great ideas a day but Apple has to pick and choose which ones to act upon. While a rear mounted camera might be good to most competitors, for Apples iPad focus, it might prove to be a distraction. If Apple can't marry iOS and the hardware in a perfect union, the hardware gets divorced from the equation (sorry for the marriage metaphors).

 

[Piggie]

Tim Cook gave a great answer about Apple and ideas. He stated that Apple gets 1000 great ideas a day but Apple has to pick and choose which ones to act upon. While a rear mounted camera might be good to most competitors, for Apples iPad focus, it might prove to be a distraction. If Apple can't marry iOS and the hardware in a perfect union, the hardware gets divorced from the equation (sorry for the marriage metaphors).

Not forgetting Apple do live in the same world as everyone else, and will have to keep up with the competition. they have to run a business and deliver to customers.

They will have to do things even they don't want to, even though some many not like to admit it. They cannot be left behind.

 

[blackNBUK]

Just my thoughts, and of course, I could easily be as wrong as anyone else here.

1: Galaxy tab, probably the most respected and well known to the public alternative at this moment in time, has two camera's

2: By next April we will probably have the Blackberry Playbook, and the Motorola and/or other HoneyComb tablets, also probably with dual Cameras.

3: For Apple to look like they are still the dominant company, and showing others how to make the best devices, it would look rather silly for Apple not to match others with a rear Camera.

4: If they do fit a rear camera, they will have the absolute pee pee taken out of them as a company for not fitting a flash, which everyone will point out, even mobiles have has fitted as standard for years and years now.

For these reasons, I'd guess that then will have a rear camera and they will have flash. Anything else I feel will open them up to much ridicule in the media.

I don't see a lot of evidence that Apple's product development works like this. Rather it looks to me that Apple makes decisions based on what is best for the particular device and their intended uses if it. If you look at the evolution of the iPod and the competitors it's seen off over the years, the competitors have most of the time had more features than the iPod. Things like support for lots of file formats, FM radios and video memo recording have all been pushed and the iPod has still rolled over everything. My conclusion is that the features the competitors added really weren't very important to people.

My bet is that Apple are largely ignoring what the iPad's competitors are doing and instead concentrating on what would improve the iPad. If Apple thinks that a rear-facing camera with flash will be a useful feature for users then it'll get added, if they don't it won't. Maybe they'll lose some sales to people who just look at the number of checkboxes that are ticked. However I think that most consumers are smarter than that and look at the product as a whole.

 

[Piggie]

I don't see a lot of evidence that Apple's product development works like this. Rather it looks to me that Apple makes decisions based on what is best for the particular device and their intended uses if it. If you look at the evolution of the iPod and the competitors it's seen off over the years, the competitors have most of the time had more features than the iPod. Things like support for lots of file formats, FM radios and video memo recording have all been pushed and the iPod has still rolled over everything. My conclusion is that the features the competitors added really weren't very important to people.

My bet is that Apple are largely ignoring what the iPad's competitors are doing and instead concentrating on what would improve the iPad. If Apple thinks that a rear-facing camera with flash will be a useful feature for users then it'll get added, if they don't it won't. Maybe they'll lose some sales to people who just look at the number of checkboxes that are ticked. However I think that most consumers are smarter than that and look at the product as a whole.

I know that is an ideal viewpoint and one that people who look up to Apple to lead the path that should be taken might feel is true.

I must admit I'm not fully convinced by this theory as we don't live in a land of make believe.

I'm sure Apple do want to offer things only when they are solid and reliable.

I also am not daft enough to believe Apple don't have to move forward due to what others are doing, and if no other smart phones were around the iPhone would not be as advanced as it is now.

They may decide to lag a little and not fit things that are tried and untested, but also they don't want to be a laughing stock either.

They are going to get swamped by Android phones, and I'm guessing they would like not to get swamped by Android tablets in the next couple of years which will happen unless they are careful.

 

[MacDawg]

OP, you do not need to look any further than the lack of Blu-ray to see that Apple does not follow the course of product development you are suggesting, but if you need further data, you can add the lack of Flash on the iPhone and iPad.

 

[Dr McKay]

I don't think we'll see a rear facing camera on the iPad, it just doesn't seem suited for taking pictures. But definitely a front facing camera.

 

[Piggie]

OP, you do not need to look any further than the lack of Blu-ray to see that Apple does not follow the course of product development you are suggesting, but if you need further data, you can add the lack of Flash on the iPhone and iPad.

Yes, but the lack of BluRay is money/business related issue as they want to make money from customers from iTunes downloads as opposed to fitting a drive and you buying a physical disc from someone else.

I don't think holding back a camera would make them any money unlike the BluRay.

If for example, not giving you a camera would force to to buy some other device from them, then they might, but I can't see that.

There would be no corporate/financial benefit for Apple to hold back a Camera.

Not that I can see anyway.

Other than, perhaps hold it back for iPad3, but I still think they could be criticized a lot by the press if they did.

 

[MacDawg]

Yes, but the lack of BluRay is money/business related issue as they want to make money from customers from iTunes downloads as opposed to fitting a drive and you buying a physical disc from someone else.

I don't think holding back a camera would make them any money unlike the BluRay.

If for example, not giving you a camera would force to to buy some other device from them, then they might, but I can't see that.

There would be no corporate/financial benefit for Apple to hold back a Camera.

Not that I can see anyway.

Other than, perhaps hold it back for iPad3, but I still think they could be criticized a lot by the press if they did.

I don't think the Blu-ray issue is that simple
I believe it involves a number of factors that Apple is unwilling to compromise regardless of the outcry

Criticism from the press, blogs, forums, et. al. is something Apple is used to
And it typically doesn't drive their product development either

The iPad having iOS instead of OSX
The iTunes closed ecosystem
The antennae issues
The App Store's rules
The list is endless

 

[Piggie]

Anyway............

We are somewhat veering off my question into general Apple arguments which often happens in various threads

If I may drag it back to my question.

IF....... and only IF..... Apple do fit a rear facing camera, do you think they will fit a Flash unit as well?

 

[blackNBUK]

Yes, but the lack of BluRay is money/business related issue as they want to make money from customers from iTunes downloads as opposed to fitting a drive and you buying a physical disc from someone else.

I don't think holding back a camera would make them any money unlike the BluRay.

If for example, not giving you a camera would force to to buy some other device from them, then they might, but I can't see that.

There would be no corporate/financial benefit for Apple to hold back a Camera.

Not that I can see anyway.

Other than, perhaps hold it back for iPad3, but I still think they could be criticized a lot by the press if they did.

Adding a camera to the iPad would definitely cost Apple money in terms of the physical hardware and the development of the software. This would obviously be offset to some extent by the extra sales that a camera equipped iPad would generate. The critical question to determine whether a camera would be a financial benefit or not is whether these extra sales are enough to offset the cost of putting the camera in. If Apple don't think the extra sales will be enough then they'd be better off investing resources elsewhere.

The same applies at a smaller scale with a camera flash. If Apple thinks that a high quality camera will drive sales then they'll probably also include a flash. If Apple see the rear-facing camera as simply part of the FaceTime system then they'll not bother with a flash and probably use the iPod Touch camera.

 

[Piggie]

As we have had a few more possible sightings and even video's of what may be cases for the iPad2 I thought I'd give this question a bump up again.

From all the case designs so far, there does not seem to be any area for a flash, which would mean the iPad would be almost unusable indoors to use it's rear camera for a photo, unless you are in strong lighting.

I of course understand that with a high quality proper camera, normally a DSLR with a larger internal sensor you can get away with indoor shots in less than perfect lighting conditions and not have too much noise in the photo.

This leaves me with the following possible guesses:

1: The case designs are fake and there will be another hole for the Flash unit

2: The flash unit is actually on a different part of the rear of the case, perhaps as part of the large rear cut-out where the new speaker? hole is?

3: Apple are going to deliberately hold of a flash unit for iPad3 to make the rear camera usable for indoor photo's.

4: The rear camera actually won't be able to take photo's and will only be able to shoot video for facetime.

The odd thing, if the scenario happens of static photo's are allowed is that it would seem to be exactly the opposite of the typical scenario where an iPad would be.
The iPad, in general, would be more and indoors device than say an iPhone.
Hence if anything, you would want a flash more on an indoor device than a smaller more mobile device that's lightly to be out and about when you are on the move.

I know some people do use their iPad out and about, I'm just talking generally.

So, does anyone else have any more thoughts about this and my possible 1 - 4 points above?

 

[Dr McKay]

If they held back those features they might be sorely lacking behind from their competitors, the iPad 2 is Apples chance to let competitors know they are still the Daddy in the Tablet market.

 

[panzer06]

Excellent post! Apple really isn't concerned with the competition if they believe their offering provides a superior user experience.

Cheers,

I don't see a lot of evidence that Apple's product development works like this. Rather it looks to me that Apple makes decisions based on what is best for the particular device and their intended uses if it. If you look at the evolution of the iPod and the competitors it's seen off over the years, the competitors have most of the time had more features than the iPod. Things like support for lots of file formats, FM radios and video memo recording have all been pushed and the iPod has still rolled over everything. My conclusion is that the features the competitors added really weren't very important to people.

My bet is that Apple are largely ignoring what the iPad's competitors are doing and instead concentrating on what would improve the iPad. If Apple thinks that a rear-facing camera with flash will be a useful feature for users then it'll get added, if they don't it won't. Maybe they'll lose some sales to people who just look at the number of checkboxes that are ticked. However I think that most consumers are smarter than that and look at the product as a whole.

 

[Piggie]

Excellent post! Apple really isn't concerned with the competition if they believe their offering provides a superior user experience.

Cheers,

Whilst this may be true in some areas.

I cannot see not having a Flash so you can take good photo's indoors, or not allowing the camera to take stills, only video would provide a superior user experience.
Either would offer an inferior user experience.

I must admit, I'm still puzzled by the lack of a obvious area for a flash on the back of the iPad2

 

[saberahul]

IPT4 doesn't have flash so I highly doubt that iPad will have it. Honestly though, I don't see myself or anyone in their right mind snapping pictures with an iPad. I can understand facetime but that too will look somewhat awkward.

 

[Nishi100]

It's something for iPad 3, and by that time the iPhone 6 would have a Xenon flash. And by iPad 4, the iPhone 7 would have an Xenon flash and a LED (for video recording), whilst the iPad would only have an Xenon flash.