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.
iPod Touch, Nano, and Classic to Receive 3.2-Megapixel Cameras at September Media Event?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what I have now, iPhone and Classic.. but if there was a Nano that could hold my entire library I would have that instead of the Classic. I have been trying to use my iPhone (with the help of things like Simplify Media) to pretend I have my whole library on my iPhone and eliminate the need for two devices but not being able to run apps in the background like the iPod app is a tough hurdle to get over (I could jailbreak, I'm aware).
Tallest Skil said:
Now if I could just fast-forward to a single 128GB NAND chip and put that in my iPhone this would all be settled for me...
I think that once the iPod Touch with 128GB is available and can be priced under $300 (maybe $400) it won't be a reasonable replacement for someone who wants just a music player. Who knows, by the time this stuff actually happens we might not even have the current models we have now.. for all we know the Nano might just be the iPod and be the only music-player-focused model available.
Then it needs addressing in future iPhones.
The average, normal human isn't going to want to carry an iPhone and an iPod touch. The iPhone is trying to be the ultimate convergence device. To expect your consumer base to buy an almost identical device just for their music is stupid.
I'm hoping the classic gets an update this year. It needs it because it looks shabby in comparison but I hope it stays on sale until the iPod touch and iPhone can offer similar capacity.
Only 3.2 megapixel?
It would be a pity if the new camera on the new iPod touch is only 3.2 megapixels, rather than the 5 megapixel model from the new iPhone 3GS. Whilst this would be fine for video and 'augmented reality' apps, the picture quality really isn't that great for photos (and yes, I know it's primarily supposed to be a music player!
)
It would be a pity if the new camera on the new iPod touch is only 3.2 megapixels, rather than the 5 megapixel model from the new iPhone 3GS. Whilst this would be fine for video and 'augmented reality' apps, the picture quality really isn't that great for photos (and yes, I know it's primarily supposed to be a music player!
)
Good point. But I'm sure there will be no models without cameras. It would be too high a manufacturing cost.
That was I was arguing for around the time the first iPhone was announced. I still think that if Apple took advantage of its closed system to offer a camera-less iPhone, it could do well enough to be worth the slightly increased cost. If all they did was remove the camera/app and place a solid backing on - leave it to the customer to know not to buy apps that rely on the camera - I'm sure the flexibility would pay for itself. It wouldn't be a money-maker, but it would do well enough.
Heck, I think they could charge a $10-15 premium not to include the camera and people would pay it.
Back on topic, I think the same thing could be an option for the touch. Make a camera-free version a BTO option and people would buy it...
I can't see a camera of any size being practical in the nano or classic, it just doesn't make sense to me to add camera capability to a device that can only be operated by a clickwheel... on the other hand, I think it would make an excellent addition to the iPod touch since a lot more options (editing, more accurate focusing, posting online, etc.) would open up as a result of its having a touchscreen and wifi capability. granted, I'd still have my 12.1MP Canon for actual photography, but being able to have my iPod touch on hand to snap a few decent-quality, on-the-go photos from time to time would definitely be nice... I'll wait until the announcement on the 9th before making my mind up, though.
(OT aside- am I alone in wanting to pull my hair out as a result of seeing people call the iPod touch an "iTouch"?)
(OT aside- am I alone in wanting to pull my hair out as a result of seeing people call the iPod touch an "iTouch"?)
My guess (or hope) is that the 9/9 touch will finish the migration to "iPhone without a Phone".
That would mean GPS and a better speaker and built-in mic.
If so, then many, if not most, will consider voice-control an acceptable (or superior) alternative to the old click-wheel.
I've been using voice control for both the phone and ipod on my iPhone and have really found it to be terrific.
imo
I have an iPhone 3G 16GB model, which I almost never ever use for music. I use my (2g) 8GB iPod Nano just about every day for at least an hour and a half to listen to music.
..and there are still a handful of us who feel its way past due for a 240GB classic. Many love huge music collections to take on the road, work, as DJs, studios and so on. We have massive collections of music on our HDs and want not have to edit or smart list.
The drives have been out for awhile so let us have one please.
And I certainly don't need a camera on a classic.
The drives have been out for awhile so let us have one please.
And I certainly don't need a camera on a classic.
I'm with you there, although, for some reason, I don't expect to see GPS on the touch.
As we all know, as soon as someone mentions the iPod touch getting a camera and a built in mic (and whatever else that makes it more like the iPhone), 37 people instantly post "It's not an iPhone! Apple doesn't want to make the touch almost exactly like the iPhone because that will kill their iPhone sales!"
To those screamers, think about this:
How many time have you seen someone post that they want an iPhone, but don't want to pay for the ridiculous contract or deal with AT&T? I know I've seen that comment at least several hundred times over the past year. And I'm one of those people as well. In fact, I probably would get an iPhone if I didn't know that AT&T service is absolutely horrendous where I live. So bad, that a friend of mine couldn't get service with her iPhone on the INTERSTATE.
Anyways... There's a huge market for an iPod touch with a camera, a built-in mic and GPS: the millions of people who want an iPhone but don't want to sign up for a two-year contract to get crap service.
And I really don't think a maximized touch will do much to hurt iPhone sales. The iPhone is still one of the coolest gadgets in the world. And there are still a ton of people with a ton of money who want to look cool. And there would still be two HUGE differences between a maximized touch and the iPhone:
1. The iPhone is, um, you know, a phone.
2. The iPhone is 3G enabled, which trumps the touch's WiFi.
Amen man. Screw cameras, I want my huge hard drive. Although it is nice to know that Apple isn't killing off the classic just yet. Dear Apple, please wise up and put the 250GB HDD in the new classic and make us happy, thanx
Its a smaller audience but still large enough to support one HD classic at 24 or 320 GB. I know one outfit customizes them for 240 but not the classic but rather the 5th generation one.
There IS a market. Like 65" flat screens. They sell. Not as much as 32, 40 or even 509, but give us an option.
I think most classic users don't care about cameras but storage. They need to increase it rather than decrease like they did last time. We are a difference audience than the touch users.
The iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera.
A lot of the people here at MacRumors think that 300K pixels is all that anyone needs....
The phones have a GPS chip and they already do Geo-Tag the photos - Just FYI...
Yeah that was a typo sorry, I meant into the iPods that are getting cameras (if they are).
The iPhone 3GS has only got a 3 megapixel camera.
few years ago i read something that said that most megapixel ratings are essentially lies just like the sizes of the old CRT monitors or hard drive sizes today. i forgot the tricks the camera companies used to avoid getting sued, but the article mentioned that if you find a good camera with a good lens you'll do better than buying a camera with a high MP but crappy lens.
It's not that they're lies (well maybe there are) but it's just that a 12MP camera with a terrible lens (and general optics) might be bested by a 3MP camera with a great lens.
An iPod nano with the ability to take video not just stills would be a huge hit. The kids would be all over it as well as parents of young children. It would also help if there were a means of automatically uploading to Youtube via WiFi, and of trimming the video. But perhaps that is why the new QuickTime player has trimming capabilities built in.