Sidebar Sidebar
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?

spillproof said:
What is so special about a camera on an iPod? I don't know, maybe its just me.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be anything special about a camera on a nano or a classic. It would just be a gimmick.

On the touch, the camera can be used in conjunction with several apps that are only currently available for iPhone users. Also, there are a bunch of cool camera effect Apps like ToyCamera, OldCamera, CameraBag, Pano, etc.
 
puffnstuff said:
I believe the iPods are going to get a camera. I don't know about 3.2 mps though.


The iPod lineup is dying and need to reinvent itself. Either come up with a gimick or watch it die like the discman.

I think eventually we will see only the iPod Touch in various sizes and features like what Archos is doing.
Click to expand...

It's too bad some feel they need a gimmick. I just want to listen to lots of great music!!!!!
 
Tallest Skil said:
Not. How expensive is it? Probably incredibly right now. Besides, NAND isn't the point of the classic, otherwise Apple would have done that from the start.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaa??? Apple surely would not have gone with NAND 8 years ago when they released the first iPod!

The point of the Classic (or rather non-Nano) is to hold a lot more storage...Apple has been doing it via HDD since Day 1. It's time Apple got off it's lazy bum and started following in the footsteps of the iPhone and iTouch that have been out for years in NAND format...not to mention the Nano.

Sure, it WILL COST more to get a Classic in NAND format...but so what? People like me are probably willing to pay for it (these days) for a nice 128GB chunk of NAND storage. Apple could easily stuff 4 32GB chips in the case of the Classic...or 2 if they wanted to make it more compact.

It's almost 2010...wake up Apple...we want our Classics in NAND format. I've never heard a single person over the past 2 years yell "I prefer HDD over NAND on my Classic"...and we've all been hearing cries of "please, Apple, make the Classic in NAND format...I'll pay the extra money for it".

If last years' technology of the iTouch is 32GB, it's very likely it will get a bump this year to 64GB for the likely price of $399 or less (they typically try to reduce the price). So why not surpise the world and switch the Classic to 128GB NAND...theoretically the Classic 64GB NAND would be cheaper than the iTouch because of the lack of features...so let's peg it at $329...now double the NAND up to 128GB and sell it for $399.

We're all just guessing on exact pricing but I don't think a 128GB NAND Classic is far fetched at all...it's not like Apple ran the numbers and realized the street price would have to be $500 for it to turn a profit.
 
A crap camera would more or less proved that iPod nowadays are really "Made in China" (like others crappy phones).

When talking about iPod Classic, well it's all about storage. The new Zune HD,though it's called HD ,the baseline model can only hold 10 hours of HD movies!!!! And because of it's "tiny size", you can't imagine a huge "bump" in battery life when talking about HD movie.

However as the iPod Classic have a regular iPod size, new technology will grant him the ability to take off both storage(with a CF card inside may be, lmao), and a huge battery pack(don't forget the standard battery of the Classic is 550mah, just like the iPod 5th )

But a crap camera????!!!!!!!:eek:

Welcome to China, my friends, 欢迎来到中国～！！！！！
 
I don't understand why they would put NAND in a classic. Here is my prediction for everything.

iPod Shuffle™- Who really cares?
iPod Nano™- 16 ,32 ($149, $199)
iPod Classic™-200 or 250 gig <- [can't really choose between them] for $249 (they need to improve it a lot to get people to buy it)
iPod Touch™- 16, 32, 64 ($229, $299, $399)

And they will not make them any more expensive with the camera. Apple has NEVER done that with an iPod and it cost them almost nothing per camera and I assume that Apple is thinking the more iPod's they sell because of the camera will offset the cost of the camera.

P.S. If you don't need the camera then don't use it. Simple as that.

That's just my 2¢
 
philoscoffee said:
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! ;))
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
 
bbydon said:
Except for the people who like having entire libraries with them
Click to expand...


Especially if they like to keep their music in lossless formats too. I can never understand the people that want things phased out simply because they have no need for them.
 
buxtone17 said:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
A lot of the people here at MacRumors think that 300K pixels is all that anyone needs....
Click to expand...

(A megapixel is a million pixels...)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

That's why I said that the 3.2 Mpixel sensor is 10 times bigger than a lot of MacRumours members think is necessary. They're quite happy with 0.3 Mpixel.


M87 said:
Especially if they like to keep their music in lossless formats too. I can never understand the people that want things phased out simply because they have no need for them.
Click to expand...

I take it that you're no longer in junior high school? ;)
 
irritating

Oh Yay ......:cool:

I spent all this money on what I thought to be the top of the line phone

and now every stupid little spoiled brat teeny bopper will have the same technology :cool:

I cant wait for YouTube to crash when all these idiots start to upload there BS :cool:

as if it wasnt slow enough

why do i feel like I should stop buying apple crap for about 10 years?
 
RMo said:
Do you like fingerprint streaks on your screens, or is there something bad about oleophobic coatings that I don't know?
Click to expand...

The nanoparticles that are likely used to create this coating and also adhere it to the glass. I don't want to be pressing my hands against nano-sized particles due to the risk factor to one's health.

Frankly, I don't believe there has been enough research into the effects on human health and the environment due to nanoparticles. Corporations simply took the technology and ran, without doing the adequate due diligence (par for the course).

example reference links:

You can google your own information but the point is the same. The material is a big question mark in terms of being a potential health hazard and I would happily put up with fingerprints on the my screen rather than possible health issues at a later time.
 
belltree said:
The nanoparticles that are likely used to create this coating and also adhere it to the glass. I don't want to be pressing my hands against nano-sized particles due to the risk factor to one's health.

Frankly, I don't believe there has been enough research into the effects on human health and the environment due to nanoparticles. Corporations simply took the technology and ran, without doing the adequate due diligence (par for the course).

example reference links:

You can google your own information but the point is the same. The material is a big question mark in terms of being a potential health hazard and I would happily put up with fingerprints on the my screen rather than possible health issues at a later time.
Click to expand...

Yup, I also have a link for you guys.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman
 
Mr. Gates said:
No, I just don't see any merit in the pseudo-science you are so passionate about ......

By the way ....... we are all out to get you .....

BEWARE OF THE PARTICLES !!!!!
Click to expand...


I'm not passionate about it whatsoever but merely stray on the side of cautioun with regard to new technology that involves particles thinner than your hair. Adding to this is the fact that the long term potential health risks have not been adequately researched. How is this pseudo-science in any way?

I'm sure if this was 60 years ago you'd be saying the same about cigarette smoke while sucking back a pack of Marlboro's. OOoooh, the tobacco companies are out to get you!

This is simply a matter of big companies putting new technology, and the financial benefits that can be reaped from it, ahead of the well-being of the customers/environment. Surely you must realize there are many precedents for this type of behavior. If you don't well......rock on!
 
Abstract said:
Remember when all we wanted was larger storage capacity? Those were the days, weren't they?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. Exactly what I was thinking too. Anyone remember 256mb rio's?

Really, camera's in every one? Ugh! If people are really that concerned with taking pictures, get a freaking camera. These cameras suck. All they are good for is taking pictures of car accidents, tags on furniture, groceries, etc. Not, family portraits, kids playing sports, etc. Get a real camera. I see and hear so many people thinking these cameras replace a real camera.
 
Mr. Gates said:
Oh Yay ......:cool:

I spent all this money on what I thought to be the top of the line phone

and now every stupid little spoiled brat teeny bopper will have the same technology :cool:

I cant wait for YouTube to crash when all these idiots start to upload there BS :cool:

as if it wasnt slow enough

why do i feel like I should stop buying apple crap for about 10 years?
Click to expand...

They should have never subsidized the phone in the first place. I totatlly agree with you.

Apple is getting more and more watered down as the days pass. It is sickening.

I wish mac/ipods/iphones, esp. iphones were just not the hip thing anymore so all of the teeny boppers would go by some nokia bull crap.

Now the iphone is some kind of status symbol. A joke really.
 
I just got my first iPhone (a 3GS that my girlfriend gave to me as a birthday present a little less than two weeks ago) and I have been really pleased (and surprised) at how good the camera is.
 
belltree said:
I'm not passionate about it whatsoever but merely stray on the side of cautioun with regard to new technology that involves particles thinner than your hair. Adding to this is the fact that the long term potential health risks have not been adequately researched. How is this pseudo-science in any way?

I'm sure if this was 60 years ago you'd be saying the same about cigarette smoke while sucking back a pack of Marlboro's. OOoooh, the tobacco companies are out to get you!

This is simply a matter of big companies putting new technology, and the financial benefits that can be reaped from it, ahead of the well-being of the customers/environment. Surely you must realize there are many precedents for this type of behavior. If you don't well......rock on!
Click to expand...

Well , Let me know what you find. Dust and all....

poindexter.gif
 
Im tired of hearing all the tools saying the ipod classic is dying because its not gimmicky like the touch. The touch is for a smaller market who wants an iphone like device with little to moderate storage of music. Personally I find it annoying to have to pull out an ipod touch to change or search for songs due to you actually have to be looking at the device. I like the physical controls 100 fold better. Plus simply fast forwarding, moving forward or backward in songs, or simply pausing shouldnt repeat the same process as previously stated with the touch.

Id love to see a ssd as an option in the ipod classic line. sure I'd expect it to cost a little more but I'm more than willing to pay a little premium for storage that would last much longer than a hdd. I don't really care if they added a camera but if they did I'd like to have it and may use it from time to time. certainly not a turn off or a reason to buy for me at all.

Also it would be absolutely stupid for apple to get rid of a device with that much storage capability. Some people actually have quite a large collection of music, or like to keep high quality such as 320kbps (i have my music set for 192 because I think its the best combo for size and sound quality) and like to carry it around. Sure I dont listen to every song often but I would find it annoying to be "oh well I only wanted to listen to those songs but now I want to listen to these....but im away from my computer.....this sucks." I need more then 8gbs in the nano and more then the 32gb offered in the touch.

The fact also remains with more storage the more you could fill it up without the hard drive bogging down. you may not need 120+gb but you would be stupid to be "well I could get 8gb for such and such amount, or 120+gb for about the same price.....ok ill spend the same for 8gb"
 
Mr. Gates said:
Well , Let me know what you find. Dust and all....
Click to expand...

Please keep your taunts to yourself. I simply feel this is a legitimate concern for the health and well being of people and am stating it in this forum. There no need for your jabs. If you want to cover year ears and laugh, go right ahead. This is not a jab at Apple whatsoever but simply a statement of my concern which you seem to feel the need to ridicule. Good show chap.
 
I really don't want them to put a camera in the classic. I actually don't want them to change the physical appearance / features at all. Only capacity.

The iPod was made as a Multimedia device, and was simple, with no extra features to get in the way of music listening and video watching.
Adding a camera would add complexity to the amazingly simple device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back