What I was trying to say is, that if the iPhone camera doesn't fit into an iPod touch then perhaps it could be an entirely new camera.
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.
iPhone 4's 5MP Camera Won't Fit in Current iPod Touch Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What I was trying to say is, that if the iPhone camera doesn't fit into an iPod touch then perhaps it could be an entirely new camera.
That's what I'm thinking as well. They want to push FaceTime, so they'll either opt to leave out the rear camera to keep it incredibly slim, or find a lower quality (and presumably smaller) camera for the back and making it a tad bit thicker. Maybe 3.2 MP.
Why don't they stop playing games and just use ONE CASE for BOTH? Save money on manufacturing by combining operations and give the same features. In fact, an iPhone that isn't activated should be an iPod Touch and vice versa. Then you never have to choose later. The problem is that Steve's obsession with "thin" will not allow him to choose power over thin. Witness the waste of time known as the Macbook Air. A netbook would have been a much better direction. Nope, make it thinner, not smaller. Witness the new Mac Mini...thinner and still powered by mobile parts (and they call it a "desktop" ???). The one machine that was designed for power hasn't been updated in over a year and is now hopelessly underpowered and insanely overpriced. I think the reason the Mac Vs. PC ads ended is that Steve has conceded the home computing market to the PC. Now all you see is iPad and iPhone ads. The Mac is nowhere to be found.
Think Thin
Based on Apple's history, their mantra appears to be: thinner, thinner, thinner so if they follow this, the iPod touch won't get the iPhone 4 camera.
I personally think that's a lost opportunity if they go down that route, but there actually might be a way around this problem:
Update the iPod touch with a few of the iPhone 4 technologies, like A4 processor, FaceTime and the Gyroscope for instance but then create a whole new device, let's call it the iPod touch pro, make it look like an iPhone 4 in everything but the phone and charge a premium for it.
That would be one way to get the best of both worlds: a thin, or thinner iPod touch, a thin iPhone 4 (compared to the iPhone 3GS) and a brand new iPod touch pro which would be the same thickness as the iPhone 4.
Since this would technically be a new product, they wouldn't be seen to have thickened up the iPod touch.
If I'm right, look for it in the "one more thing" part of the September event
Based on Apple's history, their mantra appears to be: thinner, thinner, thinner so if they follow this, the iPod touch won't get the iPhone 4 camera.
I personally think that's a lost opportunity if they go down that route, but there actually might be a way around this problem:
Update the iPod touch with a few of the iPhone 4 technologies, like A4 processor, FaceTime and the Gyroscope for instance but then create a whole new device, let's call it the iPod touch pro, make it look like an iPhone 4 in everything but the phone and charge a premium for it.
That would be one way to get the best of both worlds: a thin, or thinner iPod touch, a thin iPhone 4 (compared to the iPhone 3GS) and a brand new iPod touch pro which would be the same thickness as the iPhone 4.
Since this would technically be a new product, they wouldn't be seen to have thickened up the iPod touch.
If I'm right, look for it in the "one more thing" part of the September event
My bet is that the next gen will be diverged like the iPhone is now. Like the 3GS stayed for the low end the current 3rd gen Touch stays for the low end. I expect for the high end you get a iPhone 4 inspired iPod touch 4. Now the Question is if they pull an iPad like divide $100 dollars more for a rear facing camera. I think they will like for the iPad have a cost more feature like 3G data is for the iPad. Now the question is how much more for a rear facing HD camera. This will compete with filp cams and other low end HD video cameras.
Uh... the GSM radios take up space and cost money. Why should someone who wants to carry only an iPod need to lug around a thicker than necessary device?
I think that's precisely what will happen. This article is kind of ridiculous. It's time to change the form factor of the device, and they will do it so they can put both cameras in.
They'd lose money doing that because less people would buy it. I wouldn't want to carry around an iPhone-size device that I'm using as an iPod. That just doesn't make sense.
iPod Touch won't look like an iPhone, it'll look like an iPod
Since the iPod Touch was introduced, it fell aesthetically between the iPod Classic and the iPhone, but never quite chose sides.
Before that, all iPods looked like different sized twins of each other and I think the next generation will finally have the iPod Touch fit in with the family.
Lately, Apple has been distancing each line from each other. iPod, iPhone, iPad. All individual lines. The iPod Touch is an iPod, not an iPhone.
I'm anticipating the iPod Touch to be built in a unibody form factor, looking similar to the iPad with the black volume keys and orientation lock. The nano will follow this look with a flat face and curved back.
The classic will probably be discontinued if the iPod Touch can get 128GB and finally drop "Touch" from its name and become simply iPod, the flagship model in the line. Maybe people will finally stop calling it the "iTouch" ...ugh.
Since the iPod Touch was introduced, it fell aesthetically between the iPod Classic and the iPhone, but never quite chose sides.
Before that, all iPods looked like different sized twins of each other and I think the next generation will finally have the iPod Touch fit in with the family.
Lately, Apple has been distancing each line from each other. iPod, iPhone, iPad. All individual lines. The iPod Touch is an iPod, not an iPhone.
I'm anticipating the iPod Touch to be built in a unibody form factor, looking similar to the iPad with the black volume keys and orientation lock. The nano will follow this look with a flat face and curved back.
The classic will probably be discontinued if the iPod Touch can get 128GB and finally drop "Touch" from its name and become simply iPod, the flagship model in the line. Maybe people will finally stop calling it the "iTouch" ...ugh.
The reason I say that the new Ipod will be more like the phone without the phone:
1) Job's comment that the company expects to ship tens of millions of "FaceTime devices"
2) I'm sure Job's wants to transform the way we communicate with each other like how we listen to music. The only way to do this is to litter the market with "FaceTime devices" and turn "FaceTime" into a regular part of our vocabulary.
3) Most importantly, because I want it to be so.
1) Job's comment that the company expects to ship tens of millions of "FaceTime devices"
2) I'm sure Job's wants to transform the way we communicate with each other like how we listen to music. The only way to do this is to litter the market with "FaceTime devices" and turn "FaceTime" into a regular part of our vocabulary.
3) Most importantly, because I want it to be so.
At Apple's margins, that iPod Touch would be priced at $600 to $700 (USD), same as an iPhone. No one would buy them at that price.
Plus they're manufacturing iPhone 4's as fast as they can already, so adding demand isn't going to make them any cheaper.
Apple isn't going to price an iPod Touch cheaper without doing something to cut their costs, it sells really well priced at $200 to $300, so they're going to have to leave something major out. And just leaving out the cellular radio chips is probably not enough, especially if they are replaced by more or larger flash chips.
I agree. The biggest cost they could cut would be the high end design of the case. If you've seen this thing up close, "similar to a Leica camera" is a very apt statement. It's flawless. Flawless comes at a price. A single piece, unibody case in aluminum would help cut down the costs.
I'm also going to speculate that there won't be a back camera, but there will definitely be a front facing one to add to the FaceTime population in order to boost this as a standard.
I can't ever imagine myself making a FaceTime call.
I'd get much more use from a quality camera/video camera on the back.
I'd get much more use from a quality camera/video camera on the back.
Out of curiosity, how much thicker would the iPod Touch need to be?
According to the article, at the edges are 6mm, while the camera is 6.5mm. Does the iPod only need to be half a millimeter thicker? Or will the internal components cause problems? I'm guessing the two cameras couldn't be put back to back, but what about having the front facing camera in the center and the rear facing on the left?
According to the article, at the edges are 6mm, while the camera is 6.5mm. Does the iPod only need to be half a millimeter thicker? Or will the internal components cause problems? I'm guessing the two cameras couldn't be put back to back, but what about having the front facing camera in the center and the rear facing on the left?
what's the point of this article? we already know that camera isn't fit into present touch model. without thinking, of course, new iphone 4 camera also won't be fit into it unless you are stupid. next ipod touch design will be changed like iphone 4 according to trend. iphone design first, then ipod touch follows. so new ipod touch will be similar with iphone 4 design. it's logic. then new camera will be fit.
Geeze, you guys make it sound like there's this HUGE difference in size and there just isn't. We're talking about centimeters here. And SIZE if the very reason the camera won't fit. So you ask why should it be thicker than needed? To fit the freaking camera and GPS system and any other future goodies (gyros, whatever)! And if you cannot see the value in having the extra goodies like cameras, GPS, etc. then you don't DESERVE to have such a device (a GSM radio could be designed to be a plug-in part that could be added later or removed if not going to be used). In any case, be happy with your iPod Nano and leave the real tech toys to those of us that actually want them.
But that is nowhere *NEAR* what they cost to manufacture (iPhone 4 costs $187 to manufacture) so a "loss" isn't quite what it seems in the first place. Loss of excess profits on the "phone" side would be a more apt description, but that's not really true either since once activated as a phone, the subsidy kick-back from AT&T or whomever could kick in to compensate Apple just as if it were a phone so they wouldn't lose anything there either. Seriously, cell phone radios do not cost much to make or AT&T wouldn't be giving them out for FREE (or $10-15) with no-contract pre-paid accounts (which they do every day). Most of those higher "costs" for a non-contract phone are just excuses for pure profit for Apple.
$187 to manufacture the iPhone 4 tells me EVERYTHING (as in your argument holds no water what-so-ever) and it says that it would be cheaper to combine operations and make ONE unit of the same size and feature count (which also reduces software overhead since they no longer have to account for different hardware configurations). The 8GB iPod Touch cost $150 to make in '07 so don't tell me people wont' buy an iPod Touch with all the hardware features (extra cameras, GPS, etc.) for an extra $38 because that would be absurd. The 5MB camera feature alone would be worth more than that to the average consumer and a lot of application software does not function on the Touch purely for lack of some of these hardware features (e.g .GPS).
Apple also regularly DOES include some features (e.g. 802.11N or Bluetooth) in the iPod Touch and then doesn't activate them or uses them at a slower setting (802.11G mode when it can clearly do N internally). That has nothing to do with cost, but to do with Apple trying to get you to buy an iPhone or newer iPod Touch in the future to get more features even if you don't need the high cost phone/data plan (e.g. I use a prepaid voice phone because 1000 minutes a year is more than enough for my use and costs me less than $10 a month with rollover!)
What would it have cost Apple to make an iPad that had a plugin 3G module so you don't have to buy a whole new iPad to add a simple feature later? It would have also cut their manufacturing costs once again since any factory could easily produce the same product (particularly if it's just a plugin "sim-like" card). It's $129 at RETAIL in difference so that means it's probably less than $50 on the manufacturing side (since Apple doesn't like anything that isn't at least 50% profit).
Similarly, I'm saying an iPod Touch with the same hardware minus the radio as a plugin module would save them tooling costs, make the factories more flexible and give the user more options for the future (to make it into a full blown iPhone, just plug in the 3G card). The costs to Apple are nearly negligible on the manufacturing side (again, the iPhone 4 is dirt cheap to manufacture), give added incentive to buy the hardware (get an iPod Touch now, make it an iPhone at your convenience later) and application software is brought into much better harmony. So it's 0.5 mm or so thicker? And that's an issue for you guys? LOL. Deal with it. Heck, I'd gladly take a LARGER screen model. It would still EASILY fit in my pocket and I could have true 720p and more room for my hands (which are not tiny).
It would be sweet to see Apple target Nintendo and Microsoft with motion censored gaming ( with a front facing camera )
Here you go. Mac Rumors has been missing a lot of stories over the past week. Here's a freebie to help you guys out:
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/07/08/iphone-4-catches-fire/
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/07/08/iphone-4-catches-fire/
That's not a bug, that's a feature. Remember when games consoles came with rumble packs so you could feel the vibrations of the game? Well this is the new fire pack, so you can feel every explosion onscreen
You don't understand.
The reason why so many people are stressing thickness, is because they are thinking of what Apple will do. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind sacrificing thickness for a new feature, but Apple does not like thick and they will not make the device thicker, unless it's absolutely necessary or disguisable.
At the bolded section: Likewise, Apple isn't going to make a "plug-in" iPod. This isn't a tinker-toy or a computer. It's a portable music player.
Yes they are pure profit, but like it or not, the iPhone costs $599/$699. This is not uncommon in the cell industry. The Nexus One costs $529. The Palm Pre costs $549. The Samsung Vibrant costs $449.
Using your figures, that would make the iPod touch $188 to manufacture. Starting at $199, do you think Apple is going to sell an iPod and make only $11 per sale? Think again.
For the WiFi setting, power consumption is a factor in Apple's decisions to enable/disable N. Bluetooth was enabled in a software update. You're technically right, though. Apple has artificially crippled the original iPhone (MMS) and the iPhone 3G (home screen backgrounds).
Stop thinking of "plug-in" devices. When has Apple ever released anything like that? When has any tech company released anything like that? Batteries and SD cards are one thing, but you're suggesting that they should sell 3G as a "plug-in"? Especially coming from a company that won't let users replace a battery!
Again, the iPad and iPhone/touch are not computers, they're not designed to be customizable.
See above for my thoughts on your additional "plug-in" comments.
At the bolded section: Apple would LOVE to sell you an iPhone after you've already purchased an iPod touch. They don't want you to be able to "transform" your touch.
At the underlined section: Again, it doesn't matter how much it costs to make. The fact is, it's an expensive device.
