IMHO Why the new touch doesn't have a Camera

MacU

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 9, 2009
28
0
Because Apple thinks that the Touch will compete with the iPhone. It's a stupid move and I hope I'm wrong since I know several people that are waiting to buy the touch with a camera primarily for gifts and for their kids.

Apple probably thinks that people will drop their phone service for the touch since it will be able to do everything but contact the outside world.:confused:
 

crackbookpro

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2009
1,097
0
Om nom nom nom
Because Apple thinks that the Touch will compete with the iPhone. It's a stupid move and I hope I'm wrong since I know several people that are waiting to buy the touch with a camera primarily for gifts and for their kids.

Apple probably thinks that people will drop their phone service for the touch since it will be able to do everything but contact the outside world.:confused:
...here is my inkling - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=786519
 

agkm800

macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2009
672
4
Apple (a.k.a. Steve Jobs) wanted to put a camera in the 3G Touch, made a prototype, and ordered parts. But, they simply had a glitch and could not produce 3G Touch with camera on time.

Apple just screwed it up this time. That's it folks. This should be a major embarrassment on Apple's part, but many people who think Apple purposely left the camera out are unwittingly saving Apple's face(or ass).
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,837
5,883
New Hampshire, USA
Apple (a.k.a. Steve Jobs) wanted to put a camera in the 3G Touch, made a prototype, and ordered parts. But, they simply had a glitch and could not produce 3G Touch with camera on time.

Apple just screwed it up this time. That's it folks. This should be a major embarrassment on Apple's part, but many people who think Apple purposely left the camera out are unwittingly saving Apple's face(or ass).
Steve Jobs came back and eliminated the camera from the design.
 

SnowLeopard2008

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2008
6,772
8
Silicon Valley
Apple (a.k.a. Steve Jobs) wanted to put a camera in the 3G Touch, made a prototype, and ordered parts. But, they simply had a glitch and could not produce 3G Touch with camera on time.

Apple just screwed it up this time. That's it folks. This should be a major embarrassment on Apple's part, but many people who think Apple purposely left the camera out are unwittingly saving Apple's face(or ass).
That isn't 100% confirmed. Just like the rumor claiming iPod touchs with cameras in the first place.

It makes no sense to add a camera. I barely use mine on my phone. I would appreciate a 2x faster processor and better graphics chip. All my apps load about 2x faster than my friend's 2G iPod touch.
 

crackbookpro

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2009
1,097
0
Om nom nom nom
That isn't 100% confirmed. Just like the rumor claiming iPod touchs with cameras in the first place.

It makes no sense to add a camera. I barely use mine on my phone. I would appreciate a 2x faster processor and better graphics chip. All my apps load about 2x faster than my friend's 2G iPod touch.
Just to let you know - Touch sales have been doing well for quite some time now. From a company standpoint, they do not need to add a big feature (camera or video) right now, sales remain steady & are doing well...

It makes a ton of sense to have a camera on an iPod Touch. Just look at the new Nano, and the new Nano commercials from Apple. The Nano has a video camera w/mic & a FM radio. What is your explanation for the Nano?

Plus, the real benefit would be the app store. They would have a serious amount of coin coming to them if the Touch has a camera/video/mic. Also, You Tube & sites like Flickr/FaceBook would experience even more traffic of pics/vids coming to them as well...

There is a market opportunity to be had...
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,525
8,141
Colorado
While I think the camera is a nice addition, I think it wasn't added because of Steve Jobs. I think he views the iPod touch as a gaming system and therefore doesn't need the camera.
 

crackbookpro

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2009
1,097
0
Om nom nom nom
While I think the camera is a nice addition, I think it wasn't added because of Steve Jobs. I think he views the iPod touch as a gaming system and therefore doesn't need the camera.
Except for the fact, that a camera could potentially help it be an even better gaming system!!!

You know about the Nintendo DSi having a camera - http://www.nintendodsi.com/

I think Steve opted to not have it, so people would be more inclined to buy the Nano this year(and into the Holiday season where there is plenty of buyer's urge). The fact that the Nano has video, and the Touch does not - leaves me to argue this was a business decision to increase sales for the iPod Nano. Nano sales were hurting & Touch sales remained steady - so they made a marketing ploy to get the Nano back on track. Plus, you could label the Nano to be close to market saturation, so adding a big new feature would be perfect at this time. But, you release it to the Touch at the same time, and you just lost a buyers(Nano buyers) - they will go straight for the Touch.

It is all about 'timing'...
 

Tigger11

macrumors 6502
Jul 2, 2009
450
208
Rocket City, USA
That isn't 100% confirmed. Just like the rumor claiming iPod touchs with cameras in the first place.
We have a video of a prototype Ipod Touch with a camera, including pictures of the motherboard. The 3G Ipod Touch comes out and its motherboard is layed out the same except there is a space where the camera module is supposed to be, and you still think there is a chance the original video isnt of a prototype? Really????
-Tig
 

Black Belt

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2007
700
354
California
Steve Jobs was just blowing smoke up your ass as usual. There was the same BS when the original touch didn't have Apps (Oh this is a phone, not a PDA :rolleyes:) Apple shovels more BS than anyone.

There was a design problem - problem made them spontaneously combust or something so they pulled it at the last possible moment. Everyone with NDA's signed so they could manufacture cases with camera holes were left hanging. No they didn't pull those specs out of their ass, they got them from Apple. Get a clue.

I sure am not buying one without a camera. I am already disappointed by the pathetic 64g memory. I am not going to get screwed when they pop the camera model and leave everyone who bought one without a camera in the giant pile of Apple obsolesence.
 

101X

macrumors member
Aug 3, 2009
54
0
I think the camera was halted because of manufacturing issues. they might do another ipod touch refresh at the October Mac event if they have an event anyway.
 

AppleTecFan

macrumors 6502
Jul 7, 2009
411
3
N/A
I read on cnet that steve jobs wanted to make the ipod touch go after the video game market and he they had to keep it as cheap as it can
 

MythicFrost

macrumors 68040
Mar 11, 2009
3,929
38
Australia
I think iTouch with Camera (and hope) may come before christmas... that's my guess.
I'm not getting the touch until it has a camera.. ever... I may end up having to get an iPhone :(
 

NeGRit0

macrumors 6502a
Apr 19, 2008
940
181
Las Vegas, Nv
Steve Jobs was just blowing smoke up your ass as usual. There was the same BS when the original touch didn't have Apps (Oh this is a phone, not a PDA :rolleyes:) Apple shovels more BS than anyone.

There was a design problem - problem made them spontaneously combust or something so they pulled it at the last possible moment. Everyone with NDA's signed so they could manufacture cases with camera holes were left hanging. No they didn't pull those specs out of their ass, they got them from Apple. Get a clue.

I sure am not buying one without a camera. I am already disappointed by the pathetic 64g memory. I am not going to get screwed when they pop the camera model and leave everyone who bought one without a camera in the giant pile of Apple obsolesence.


I concur. After reading about five of these threads on various forums ive come to believe yours is the most plausible.
 

gloss

macrumors 601
May 9, 2006
4,811
0
around/about
Steve Jobs was just blowing smoke up your ass as usual. There was the same BS when the original touch didn't have Apps (Oh this is a phone, not a PDA :rolleyes:) Apple shovels more BS than anyone.

There was a design problem - problem made them spontaneously combust or something so they pulled it at the last possible moment. Everyone with NDA's signed so they could manufacture cases with camera holes were left hanging. No they didn't pull those specs out of their ass, they got them from Apple. Get a clue.

I sure am not buying one without a camera. I am already disappointed by the pathetic 64g memory. I am not going to get screwed when they pop the camera model and leave everyone who bought one without a camera in the giant pile of Apple obsolesence.
You're mostly right but...64GB of flash memory is considered pathetic? You do realize that 128GB flash drives (i.e., just the memory and a USB controller) run for $360 right now?
 

star-fish

macrumors regular
Aug 24, 2009
171
0
Except for the fact, that a camera could potentially help it be an even better gaming system!!!

You know about the Nintendo DSi having a camera - http://www.nintendodsi.com/

I think Steve opted to not have it, so people would be more inclined to buy the Nano this year(and into the Holiday season where there is plenty of buyer's urge). The fact that the Nano has video, and the Touch does not - leaves me to argue this was a business decision to increase sales for the iPod Nano. Nano sales were hurting & Touch sales remained steady - so they made a marketing ploy to get the Nano back on track. Plus, you could label the Nano to be close to market saturation, so adding a big new feature would be perfect at this time. But, you release it to the Touch at the same time, and you just lost a buyers(Nano buyers) - they will go straight for the Touch.

It is all about 'timing'...
No, if you're selling products, you want people to buy your most expensive product (particularly one that continues to generate as much additional money after selling it as possible, like with the Touch's applications).

Boosting Nano sales is kind of pointless, since it has two marketing angles: for kids/people who will never spend much and for those who want something small to work out with. It doesn't matter if nano sales aren't doing that well - it's more of a low-end Touch alternative than Apple's flagship mp3 player. It's only there to fill up the range a bit and scrape any potential market. It's not a market leader and never will be.
 

crackbookpro

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2009
1,097
0
Om nom nom nom
No, if you're selling products, you want people to buy your most expensive product (particularly one that continues to generate as much additional money after selling it as possible, like with the Touch's applications).
True, for the most part (but, not always)...

Star-Fish, I thought you were on to something until your last couple of comments...

Boosting Nano sales is kind of pointless, since it has two marketing angles: for kids/people who will never spend much and for those who want something small to work out with.
What... :eek:

It doesn't matter if nano sales aren't doing that well - it's more of a low-end Touch alternative than Apple's flagship mp3 player. It's only there to fill up the range a bit and scrape any potential market. It's not a market leader and never will be.
:eek: ...I think you need to open the ears & eyes a little more.