To the OP: I read the thread title and decided your post was barely worth reading. If you don't like it? Return it or don't buy one...simple as that.
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 Man....no camera, missing apps and worst of all....NO SPEAKER!!
- Thread starter redgtxdi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Trust me all ye defenders of the JOBS, if the thing had a speaker and a camera, you'd be defending STILL to those who dissed it. "Hey, it's got everything, what more do you want?? You ingrate!!"
I'll give him this much: he's probably right about this...
Honestly, I wish the iPod touch had a camera. Even though the iPhone's camera isn't very good quality from what I've heard. As for speakers, EDGE, etc., I'd rather have it be really slim. I saw an iPhone for the first time a few days ago and it looked really bulky compared to my iPod touch.
As for the missing apps, just jailbreak it and you'll have all the apps you want. I currently have 28 apps...
As for the missing apps, just jailbreak it and you'll have all the apps you want. I currently have 28 apps...
Please calm down. I'm not whining about anything and have said numerous times how much I love my iphone (which you may have conveniently missed).
The point is, Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc... all offer phones that have basic features and some not so basic that you can't find on the iPhone, for FREE.
God forbid anyone on these forums says ANYTHING negative about Apple eh?
Good for you. Personally, I would like a speaker on an iPod touch. Guess people have different opinions.
No ****. No phone has a decent camera. Please....
You want a camera that fits in with the Apple consumer mentality? www.sigmaphoto.com
Seriously: why? So you could listen to your music through a tiny mono-speaker? The negatives far outweight the positives of that particular feature.
If Apple went around adding features that MIGHT be wanted by SOME users, their products would be similar un-elegant monstrosities their competitors are producing. There is a point when the designers need to say "no, we will not add this feature".
You're joking right? Have you not seen Sony Ericsson's fantastic cameraphones? Or the Nokia N-series phones with a 5 megapixel still/video camera with flash, digital zoom, manual settings and editing?
The iPhone camera is pathetic compared to what's on the market at the moment. Again, for a device that's supposedly '5 years ahead of the competition'.
Why? Because I'm not an audiophile who cares about perfect sound quality. I'm perfectly content with the iPhone speaker when it's sitting on my kitchen counter, while I make dinner, or while I'm doing something else and want some background music. Nothing wrong with that.
The touch is an iPhone without a whole host of features. The speaker was just another thing they got rid of so as not to damage iPhone sales.
These are both spot-on observations.
Anyone who thinks Apple didn't include a camera and/or speakers on the iPod Touch for the consumer's benefit is just out of their minds.
Clearly, it was cost-cutting.
As has been mentioned many times here, they're both features that no one is forcing you to use. But it's a lot easier to include them (both rather basic items, I might add) for those that want them and have the rest ignore them than not have them at all and make it impossible for those that would like them.
I totally understand Apple's stand here, wanting to keep the MSRP low and not eat into iPhone sales, but that's it. Those are the reasons. Not because they're being so nice and sparing you from having to have a camera and speaker in the iPod Touch!
They never advertise the iPhone as a camera-phone. It is something that it has, but they focused the iPhone on other things instead. Those Nokia phones are advertised as being camera-phones, so their cameras are meant to be good. Just because it has something doesn't mean it is going to be the top of the line product. If you bought the iPhone for the camera features, and don't care much about the audio quality (as you have already said you aren't an audiophile), you should have looked into something else. Period.
We have already heard all sides of this story, it is mostly just red and stevearm complaining and everyone else bashing them, can this thead die yet?
We have already heard all sides of this story, it is mostly just red and stevearm complaining and everyone else bashing them, can this thead die yet?
It is the "missing camera" that makes the iPod Touch a possibility for me (and possibly for others). I work at a facility where cell phones with cameras are absolutely forbidden to be brought in, at risk of termination. I can still use the Touch for listening to nice music through reasonable quality headphones or external speakers and for viewing and sharing small videos.
When I really want to go out and take photos or make phone calls, I will use a better camera or a phone that might be better suited for the task.
If a product is not what you want, buy something else or save your money.
To each, his or her own.
Well, I have, and the image-quality on those is nothing to write home about.
We are not event talking about "perfect sound quality". We are talking about speaker with exactly ZERO bass, ZERO stereo-separation (since it's mono).
Why not use the headphones? Seriously? And I'm perfectly content with my small iPod with clean lines. Adding a speaker in there would sacrifice both of those qualities.
Seriously, I can't understand how I have to actually explain to people why built-in speaker is a bad idea. It MIGHT be a good idea, if it didn't present ANY drawbacks at all. But it does. And what would those drawbacks give us? A speaker with 100% abysmal sound-quality. We are talking about something that is half a step above a piezo-beeper.
No, stop this madness. This is the mentality where Apple should add all kinds of crap because "this feature might be nice to have". And that kind of thinking results in devices with built-in labelmaker and a blender. One sign of a good designer is that he can REMOVE features from the device, as opposed to simply piling them on. Removing devices makes the remaining device that much better.
If you want a device where the designers simply kept on piling features on it, go buy an Archos or something.
Uh, no. They got rid of it because iPhone actually has an use for the speaker, whereas iPod does not. They have more than enough differentiation between the two, they do not need to differentiate with removal of non-features.
I really don't know what people are dogging him, granted he is being a little teenager. I have read, and talk to at least a dozen people who said the iPod Touch is a half-a$$ed iphone in many ways and that is a disappointment to them. All them were hoping that the Touch would have bluetooth so if they wanted to, they can go wireless.
Then I'm afraid you need glasses. Even Windows Mobile phones have better cameras (with flash and manual features).
Because I'd rather have my ears open to hearing other sounds around the house? It's more comfortable having background music sat on the counter?
Oh I know the iPhone speaker makes the device butt ugly doesn't it? It's like a huge glowing bulge on the product for all to see!
If that's a drawback for you, that the sound wouldn't be perfect... then don't use it. The people that don't need fantastic sound for certain moments will use it. There, sorted.
I thought the difference between the touch and the iPhone was ONLY in the removal of features and nothing else?
Oh the touch is slimmer and has a crapper battery life, but apart from that the only differences is in how many features are missing compared with the iPhone.
These are both spot-on observations.
Anyone who thinks Apple didn't include a camera and/or speakers on the iPod Touch for the consumer's benefit is just out of their minds.
Clearly, it was cost-cutting.
As has been mentioned many times here, they're both features that no one is forcing you to use. But it's a lot easier to include them (both rather basic items, I might add) for those that want them and have the rest ignore them than not have them at all and make it impossible for those that would like them.
I totally understand Apple's stand here, wanting to keep the MSRP low and not eat into iPhone sales, but that's it. Those are the reasons. Not because they're being so nice and sparing you from having to have a camera and speaker in the iPod Touch!
Perfectly well said, that's exactly right. I can't believe some people actually believe that the 'nice people from Apple' thought they were being generous and sparing us a speaker on the touch!
- Cost cutting, trying to differentiate from their 'more important' product, the iPhone, and as such: no speaker, no camera, no google maps, no email etc etc... even though it's the same body and uses the same technology. Now I don't mind touch's not having email or google maps, but a speaker would be useful.Probably a good thing as it would be a laughing stock, I'm shocked at how awful the camera photos are. They seem like 5 years BACK, not 5 years ahead.
What nokia phone brands itself as a 'cameraphone' exactly? Cameras have become standard in mobile phones, to the point where they don't need advertise themselves as 'cameraphones'. They're now up to 5 megapixel and even optical zooms with proper xenon flashes.
The lack of BT is probably the biggest down of the touch. Any integrated camera is going to suck, so it's of limited use, and the speaker, while clearly useful (more or less depending on who you ask) is a pretty minor inconvenience.
However, the touch does trump the iPhone in two departments: capacity and price (up front price is the same, but the iPhone is going to run you $480 to $1440 over the next two years, depending on how you break it down.
I'm not sure what camera-phones you're looking at but the iPhone photos are decent. There are, I'm sure, better ones, but it comes down to this: a $100 digital camera is going to take better photos that ANY camera-phone on the market. Period. So, if quality is your primary concern, buy a camera. What makes a camera phone useful, imo, is the ability to take a photo and instantly do something with it. Email it. Post it to a blog. Whatever. The iPhone does this fantastically, better than most any other phone I've used and the pricing for the ability to do that is really much better than most other devices (the phone may be more expensive without contract subsidies, but the unlimited data plan is certainly a good deal compared to most other options).
In any case, the more I look at it the more I think the touch is a really cool device which is being artificially hampered by Apple - nothing new here - through removing software and a key hardware feature or two (BT being the primary issue). Hackers took care of the software, and even if Apple never revisited the hardware it's still a pretty cool device.
I'll grant you the camera in the iPhone is crap, but so is the camera in every phone I've seen (including the N95). I don't care if it's got 2 megapixels, 5 megapixels or 50 megapixels: Put that many pixels on a tiny sensor behind a useless piece of glass and the end result is all too predictable. The camera in the iPhone is OK for snapshots and that's all I'd use any camera phone for: When I want to take photographs I'll use my D200!
Capacity and slightly less in price, for shorter battery life.
[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what camera-phones you're looking at but the iPhone photos are decent. There are, I'm sure, better ones, but it comes down to this: a $100 digital camera is going to take better photos that ANY camera-phone on the market. Period. So, if quality is your primary concern, buy a camera. What makes a camera phone useful, imo, is the ability to take a photo and instantly do something with it. Email it. Post it to a blog. Whatever. The iPhone does this fantastically, better than most any other phone I've used and the pricing for the ability to do that is really much better than most other devices (the phone may be more expensive without contract subsidies, but the unlimited data plan is certainly a good deal compared to most other options).
In any case, the more I look at it the more I think the touch is a really cool device which is being artificially hampered by Apple - nothing new here - through removing software and a key hardware feature or two (BT being the primary issue). Hackers took care of the software, and even if Apple never revisited the hardware it's still a pretty cool device.[/QUOTE]
Comparing photos at their maximum res between iPhone and N95 (also bearing in mind how you need to keep pretty much motionless with the iPhone; the N95 having autofocus, lots of manual features, a flash and a video camera. Why couldn't Apple include this? Because they're waiting for iPhone 2 so that all the poor suckers in the world will be wowed by how much better it is and buy that one as well. Hence double the sales for Apple.
iPhone:
N95:
That N95 picture might be bigger but it's absolutely awful quality - there's no detail in it at all. It certainly backs up my earlier post about pixel count being irrelevant!
If that's the "quality" of the N95 then it is useless as a camera IMO and no better than the iPhone.
If that's the "quality" of the N95 then it is useless as a camera IMO and no better than the iPhone.
Oh please. Think before you post, or at least try and be less 'Apple fanboy'.
Here you go then. Better comparison shots...
Nokia N95 (at 50% for easier viewing):
Apple iPhone:
ipod touch is perfect the way it is
the best part about it is the bright beautiful videos and slim design
only thing it needs is higher capacity
the best part about it is the bright beautiful videos and slim design
only thing it needs is higher capacity
That second N95 photo looks MUCH better than the first. You sure they came from the same camera? Same settings?
My Sony Ericcson camera is absolute crap... perhaps it's time for an upgrade.
My Sony Ericcson camera is absolute crap... perhaps it's time for an upgrade.
The 1st N..whatever picture was ugly, it kinda looked like there was a water color filter applied over it, the colors are kinda blotches ;_;