They aren't going to be 'upping' prices, just upping profit margins. The manufacturing costs will go down over time so adding a camera and more memory will cost less later for Apple, but they will be making more money at the same price points.
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.
iPad SDK Support for Front Facing Camera, Camera Flash, Zoom and Video Conferencing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They aren't going to be 'upping' prices, just upping profit margins. The manufacturing costs will go down over time so adding a camera and more memory will cost less later for Apple, but they will be making more money at the same price points.
Get Over the Nose thing!!
People keep saying this (granted this is a funnier way of saying it), but I put a mirror in my lap to see if in fact you would be looking up my nose. Guess What, MY HEAD TIPS, you look down and the relationship between the flat surface and your face stays the same. You don't look up someone's nose.
Ok, that's my rant.
People keep saying this (granted this is a funnier way of saying it), but I put a mirror in my lap to see if in fact you would be looking up my nose. Guess What, MY HEAD TIPS, you look down and the relationship between the flat surface and your face stays the same. You don't look up someone's nose.
Ok, that's my rant.
Jobs must hate these SDK's. They have to be released for the developers but all the rumour sites are snooping around them looking for secrets.
With all due respect, I agree with the strategy that Apple purposefully holds off on "key" features to fuel the product refresh cycle, however, a real keyboard on the iPhone would be completely against their investment $$ in capacitive touch technology.
A price increase for a camera would be very minimal at best considering the sheer amount they would purchase. It's not like they would be putting the top of line in it anyways.
That's certainly a reasonable-sounding explanation. I'm continually amazed at people who think the omission of a camera is a cynical ploy by Apple to get people to buy the same thing three times-- that isn't how the computer industry works, and that isn't how Apple works. As a 20+ year veteran of the computer industry, I can tell you that time to market is everything. You need to build market share, you need to scale up a complmentary infrastructure of third-party developers-- the sooner you get the first product out into the market, the sooner all the truly important stuff starts to happen. Holding up release 1 in order to get in a few more cool features or waiting for component supplies to ramp up is just plain dumb.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Why does everyone assume this is for the second generation? They added it between the last sdk and this one, so I'm thinking it is relevant now. I wouldn't be surprised to see a camera in the first ipad.
That said, a camera would make exactly zero difference to me. I think I've used my imac's iSight for video chat about twice, and that was just for the novelty of it.
Why does everyone assume this is for the second generation? They added it between the last sdk and this one, so I'm thinking it is relevant now. I wouldn't be surprised to see a camera in the first ipad.
That said, a camera would make exactly zero difference to me. I think I've used my imac's iSight for video chat about twice, and that was just for the novelty of it.
They have it in the SDK my guess is that because there will be an external accessory like an ipod connector with a camera on it which i do admit is a good part in apple saves alot more money for just making an external hardware Add-On.
never use it
How many people actually use iSight? I've used mine a couple times for profile pictures, but the quality is terrible and no one ever good looks on a webcam.
I don't really see the point. I certainly wouldn't pay extra for it and I would actually prefer an iPad without it.
How many people actually use iSight? I've used mine a couple times for profile pictures, but the quality is terrible and no one ever good looks on a webcam.
I don't really see the point. I certainly wouldn't pay extra for it and I would actually prefer an iPad without it.
I have to admit that despite rarely using videoconferencing it is a feature I'd like to see on a device like the iPad.
In fact, videoconferencing is a technology that is right up Apple's alley. It's a feature that is ubiquitous on laptops and desktops and yet there's a substantial barrier to its widespread use. Apple's greatest successes have come from bridging these gaps with a combination of hardware and software.
Like others have stated, it may very well be that this is being held in reserve for the iPhone rather than the iPad. My suspicion, should this be the case, is that this is a strategic decision rather than a technical one.
An iPad with a front facing camera and an unlimited $29.99 may very well impact on 4th gen iPhone's. I can't say how significant this might be or how practical it may prove to use an iPad as a poor man's mobile videophone, but one might imagine some users realizing that they don't need expensive voice plans under 2 year contracts in order to satisfy all their mobile computing and telephony needs in one device. This scenario is not beneficial to either Apple or AT&T.
This is all speculation, but in light of this rationale it may make better sense for Apple to hold off on introducing a video enabled iPad until 4th gen iPhone sales have peaked, should the next iPhone have this feature.
In fact, videoconferencing is a technology that is right up Apple's alley. It's a feature that is ubiquitous on laptops and desktops and yet there's a substantial barrier to its widespread use. Apple's greatest successes have come from bridging these gaps with a combination of hardware and software.
Like others have stated, it may very well be that this is being held in reserve for the iPhone rather than the iPad. My suspicion, should this be the case, is that this is a strategic decision rather than a technical one.
An iPad with a front facing camera and an unlimited $29.99 may very well impact on 4th gen iPhone's. I can't say how significant this might be or how practical it may prove to use an iPad as a poor man's mobile videophone, but one might imagine some users realizing that they don't need expensive voice plans under 2 year contracts in order to satisfy all their mobile computing and telephony needs in one device. This scenario is not beneficial to either Apple or AT&T.
This is all speculation, but in light of this rationale it may make better sense for Apple to hold off on introducing a video enabled iPad until 4th gen iPhone sales have peaked, should the next iPhone have this feature.
Yeah that makes perfect sense
And why would you need wireless or 3G when it also has "a physical networking accessory called the iPhone that anyone remotely interested already has". I guess it doesn't really need a screen either, or any storage, or anything else that the iPhone has. So all you need is the empty retail iPad box and you're good to go according to your logic.Not being able to see up my nose is a deal breaker for me. No Nose = No Buy
(I would never have thought this...great idea!)
It all depends on how many of your friends have it.
Videocalls are obviously the future and the more of your friends that have video ipads, the more sense it will make.
The problem with web cams is they have never been that portable, but now all that is changing
My sis has just moved away and its great to chat, but also get a guided tour of the house etc with a wireless laptop. The iPad is going to make it even more mobile.
Say you go to a free concert in the park - you could stream it live to your friends.
Or you could set it on the floor next your young ones and let the gramps across the globe come face to face with the new family.
A proper portable video conferencing machine is going to open up so many new possibilities....
I wonder if one of the things Apple COO Tim Cook said today could be linked to the lack of camera on the iPad. Apparently he said Apple have been saying no to good ideas that distract focus from the great ideas they say yes to. It could well be that the implementation of a camera at this point is a good idea and not a great idea from their point of view and they are simply looking to improve upon its integration.
That would be the ideal solution
video conferencing needs forward facing
augmented reality needs a rear camera
Wouldn't like to bet against either as being "the future"
In fact - what a brilliant idea
The student could video the lecture and take notes at the same time.
Right, it'll just be a bunch of people with double chins because they're looking down. Still ridiculous.
Except the iPad doesn't have a standard USB port... Maybe they release a camera that plugs into the dock connector at the bottom, but that would get messy.
They should have just put in the $9 part (camera).
