Am I the user who found convincing proof when comparing the photos?
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8469783/
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8469783/
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.
Leaked iPod Touch with Camera Photos Were Real
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, i think they played around with the idea but changed their minds for whatever reason (perhaps due to Nano sales as you suggest or production costs for the touch or just that it was crap and didn't work as well as they'd hoped). Whatever the reason clearly there is space in there if they want to try and put one in next September, but i don't think you'll be seeing one in there between now and then...
Why are we still rehashing this?
It is already crystal clear. Apple planned to add cameras to the Touch and Nano, dropped the Touch one at the last minute due to technical difficulties. All of this has already been reported.
Not because of costs or differentiation. The differentiation is in the phone, not the camera--- Apple is trying to encourage App Store usage on both devices and many apps utilize the camera.
However, as Steve announced (considering how much you love Steve you don't seem to listen to him very much--- he flat out stated 10M in 2008 and that a 3G iPhone was in the works at MWSF 2007 yet people argued about those things endlessly as if they were mysteries) the iPod lineup is now set for the holiday season. The earliest a camera-outfitted Touch would debut is January.
It is already crystal clear. Apple planned to add cameras to the Touch and Nano, dropped the Touch one at the last minute due to technical difficulties. All of this has already been reported.
Not because of costs or differentiation. The differentiation is in the phone, not the camera--- Apple is trying to encourage App Store usage on both devices and many apps utilize the camera.
However, as Steve announced (considering how much you love Steve you don't seem to listen to him very much--- he flat out stated 10M in 2008 and that a 3G iPhone was in the works at MWSF 2007 yet people argued about those things endlessly as if they were mysteries) the iPod lineup is now set for the holiday season. The earliest a camera-outfitted Touch would debut is January.
Bottom line here is if the iPod Touch received a VGA camera the entire intarwebz would be going nuts because it would have been so substandard to the iPhone 3GS with still photos and higher quality (?) video. Why not just wait and do it right? No camera in iPod Touch til quality is on par or greater than iPhone.
It's actually pretty good on Apple's part -- release another product, make a nice amount of money, wait a few months and release the same thing with a camera then they get more money. Then next September, throw in GPS and everyone with a 2G, 3G, 3G w/ camera iPod Touch will upgrade to it.
Apple knows how to milk their customers out of some money. No matter what you say or think about Microsoft or any other software company, they all pale in comparison to Apple ... they COULD have released the best iPod with all the features of the iPhone without the phone, but they're not going to do that because it wouldn't rake in nearly as much cash if they progressively added features from the iPhone. It's perfect business sense, but not really customer friendly (IMHO).
I don't think we'll see many people moving from their 2G iPod Touch to a 3G (or even to a 3G w/ camera). However, if they throw in GPS that would probably get both 2G and 3G to upgrade if they make the case well enough ... which Apple does pretty well.
Apple knows how to milk their customers out of some money. No matter what you say or think about Microsoft or any other software company, they all pale in comparison to Apple ... they COULD have released the best iPod with all the features of the iPhone without the phone, but they're not going to do that because it wouldn't rake in nearly as much cash if they progressively added features from the iPhone. It's perfect business sense, but not really customer friendly (IMHO).
I don't think we'll see many people moving from their 2G iPod Touch to a 3G (or even to a 3G w/ camera). However, if they throw in GPS that would probably get both 2G and 3G to upgrade if they make the case well enough ... which Apple does pretty well.
So once again Apple is full of crap when they say they don't think users want a camera in their iPod touch… next thing we'll know there will be sudden interest just like the matte displays.
The thing is, you don't buy an iPod Touch because it has a camera. It's just a "nice to have" (depending on the person) feature. Matte display is just the opposite, there are people who (justified or not) will not buy a Macbook without them.
The need for a camera can be made up by some other device you already have or could upgrade. The need for a Matte display on a Macbook requires a warranty voiding, often ugly hack unless Apple does it for you.
And let's face it, we have people here with a iPod Touch 2G who are pissed because the new version doesn't have a camera. You're telling me this kind of tech savvy crowd doesn't already have a camera device ?
I have a 4 year old iPod I don't upgrade and my cell phone from 6 years ago has a camera.
If the photos and recent info is accurate- then Apple was planning to add the camera but pulled it at the last minute to to production issues. So imagine how mad they must have been when the camera was the "one more thing" surprise at the end and they couldn't include it in their best selling device!
I would love to hear of the internal fallout that must have accompanied the decision to pull the camera.
I would agree with some of the posts about a mid cycle refresh of the touch that includes the camera. I don't think that Apple will do it too close to the new device b/c it would alienate a lot of the recent purchasers. So maybe after the Christmas shopping season or even in the spring sounds about right for a timeframe.
I wonder if the high-end Touch w/camera was part of the Yellow Submarine Nano for the Beatles catalog that was also cancelled?
I don't care what the reason is for the lack of a camera; bottom line is Jobs is a liar.
Go ahead keep on worshiping him
Why is he a liar ? Seriously, this Jobs bashing is as dumb as the Jobs worshipping.
They made the prototype with the crappy nano camera. Higher ups said "No, that won't fly, let's just cut costs and position it as an inexpensive gaming device instead of a iPhone without a phone" and then Jobs did the interview.
You have as much proof that he is a liar as the worshippers have proof that all he says is true. The reality is, the iPod Touch is an inexpensive gaming device and that is what Apple is touting it as.
I don't know if someone already noticed, but the iPod touch 3G prototype's camera has quite a big lens compared to the iPod nano 5G's camera.
Although the touch 3G's empty space only fits a camera like the one on the 5G nano, I think the touch was getting a better camera than the nano, maybe with photo capabilities.
Although the touch 3G's empty space only fits a camera like the one on the 5G nano, I think the touch was getting a better camera than the nano, maybe with photo capabilities.
The new Nintendo DS just got a camera. Sorry about calling jobs a liar. I just think there is more to this story than meets the eye.
Still love Apple--this just doesn't sit right with me.
Not necessarily. Some people will be really upset if Apple EVER put a cam in the iPod touch, since -- as a few posters have noted-- that would mean they could no longer take their device to the job.
Others, like myself, figure whatever cam is in the iphone or some other cellphone we always take along is good enough, and the appeal of the newer iPod touch without the cam is more storage for apps and movies and better performance of the device.
The average person who buys an iPod touch now is not going to go nuts just because a video cam might get tacked into another rollout fairly soon. If he wanted the cam, he'd get the nano now, or else stand around and wait and moan about no cam in the iPod touch that he refuses to buy now.
Only a complete jerk would want the 'pod with a cam, but go ahead and buy one without the cam, and still expect the one with the cam to come out soon so that severe disappointment followed by rage can set in. I'm not saying the world is without a reasonable inventory of jerks.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to Apple. Customer now, customer a little later, what's the difference. The noise level about what's in or not in a release --- and when-- is perceived inside tech forums as higher than it really is out in the general population. Also, reactions in here are way, way more exaggerated than out in the real world.
Of course there is. They probably planned a camera, made prototypes and everything. But in the end, what did you expect from the CEO of the company ? To say : "Well, we were going to put a camera in, but we didn't because of many possible reasons, so now, you get to believe me when I say it was a cost cutting measure to give you the most inexpensive gaming iPod I could".
That just wouldn't sit right with investors and consumers. Apple is a company after all. So they spin this as if the camera thing was never in the plans and was just a bunch of rumours. That's not lying, that's just marketing in action.
janurary release on the tuesday Steve Jobs would have done the macworld Expo presentation (if there is still a macworld)
Well ifixit's teardown evidently noted that there was no place on the PCB to attach a camera, so I'm disinclined to think this was a "last minute" change by Apple due to incompatibility, since evidently there were working prototypes with the camera roaming around.
So I am inclined to believe that the camera's performance was unsatisfactory (especially if it is only a video camera) and therefore Apple decided much earlier that they would not put a camera in the iPod Touch and ordered PCBs and cases without cameras while they also continued to circulate prototypes to gather additional information.
I don't think we'll need to wait until next September to see a camera (still or video) in an iPod Touch, but I do believe we won't see it in the next 90 days, either.
So I am inclined to believe that the camera's performance was unsatisfactory (especially if it is only a video camera) and therefore Apple decided much earlier that they would not put a camera in the iPod Touch and ordered PCBs and cases without cameras while they also continued to circulate prototypes to gather additional information.
I don't think we'll need to wait until next September to see a camera (still or video) in an iPod Touch, but I do believe we won't see it in the next 90 days, either.