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 Steve Jobs responds!
- Thread starter puffnstuff
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't have the iPod Touch. I was thinking about it. I had hoped they would have flash on it. I was interested in the Touch because I wanted to be able to stream a TV show from one of the networks but heard from a friend that it can't be done because of the iPod Touch doesn't have Flash. I don't know what the iPod Touch allows you to do with YouTube. I recently purchased a $30 cell phone and I can get certain shows in 5 or 6 min sections which is great. So now I'm rethinking about getting the iPod Touch. I'm sure the Touch will gvie me more internet options so I'll have to think about this. The only good thing about my phone is I don't need to hook up to a wireless internet. I'll have to think on this.
OK... so they want to make it as cheap as possible? I'm fine with low end 8gb $200 models, but how about throwing a few new features on the high end $400 model? Aren't those kind of cameras really cheap now anyways?
For those speculating on FM radio updates for the new Touch - the 2G touch had a multi purpose bluetooth chip with a tuner built in. It's anyone's guess whether the FM part is connected correctly to the processor, but my bet is they didn't change chips, as the low end 8GB is a 2G and it's cheaper to buy in bulk.
The way I see it now. Apple has opened the door for microsoft to come in. If Bill Gates was smart he would be creating another Zune HD with a camera and phone capability. It would give apple a nice run for the money. MS could start playing catch up.
My guess is that Jobs regrets that he ever offered an iPod Touch. It's keeping people from buying the iPhone. So now, he's made sure that it's an iPod with a battery that drains quicker, and now with a NOTICEABLE lack of a camera that people clearly wanted. He put the camera on the Nano because a Nano isn't keeping people from buying an iPhone.
In short, Steve Jobs does not listen to customers, and practically brags that he doesn't do market research. And what we got today was the result of that arrogance/ignorance.
In short, Steve Jobs does not listen to customers, and practically brags that he doesn't do market research. And what we got today was the result of that arrogance/ignorance.
Yeah that,s the primary motivating factor for me.. it will be the 2x upgrade like the 3G to 3GS speed difference.
The iPod Touch is for people that don't want to commit to hefty monthly fees for having an iPhone.
My iPod Touch is 9 months old, but I'd run out and get a new one if it had a camera and GPS.
"What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. Because a lot of the games were free on the store."
A game machine. Really? That was the feedback people gave?
If there were a camera on it, taking pictures would be free too. Maybe it should be marketed as a camera machine.
A game machine. Really? That was the feedback people gave?
If there were a camera on it, taking pictures would be free too. Maybe it should be marketed as a camera machine.
Well,if the camera isn't going to happen,I'll just get the 32Gb ipod touch and the 8Gb nano.(I kinda like the nano all of a sudden.)lol
Steve says the iPod touch has no camera because it's a gaming device.
Well, has he forgotten about the DSi which has TWO CAMERAS?
A camera on the touch would be a great thing as a gaming device. Especially if there was either one adjustable one that could face both forward and back, or two separate ones. Either way, DSi, Steve! DSi! Gaming device! Two cameras! For games!
Well, has he forgotten about the DSi which has TWO CAMERAS?
A camera on the touch would be a great thing as a gaming device. Especially if there was either one adjustable one that could face both forward and back, or two separate ones. Either way, DSi, Steve! DSi! Gaming device! Two cameras! For games!
I think it's pretty obvious by now why the new touch doesn't have a camera or flash option...
1) Cost, Apple want to keep it as cheap as possible to produce and for the customers.
2) Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone. An iPhone without the phone just doesn't make business sense.
3) They have a different market segment focus compared to what everyone thought the iPod Touch was. Companies do this all the time... Anyone remember the Palm Laptop? Or Nokia's current market shift?
1) Cost, Apple want to keep it as cheap as possible to produce and for the customers.
2) Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone. An iPhone without the phone just doesn't make business sense.
3) They have a different market segment focus compared to what everyone thought the iPod Touch was. Companies do this all the time... Anyone remember the Palm Laptop? Or Nokia's current market shift?
Everybody knows that the screen on the nano is a lot better for looking at pictures then the screen on the touch.
Pay close attention on the 15th. I've got a strong feeling there will be a web version of the Zune client that will let you use a new Zune HD on your mac via safari. If not on the 15th, then eventually. MS is working hard to give anyone considering a Touch no reason to not consider a Zune HD.BTW, Zune HD is awesome, but doesn't work on Macs
I don't get why everybody is fussing about not getting a camera.
How many of you have a camera in your phone already that can both take pictures and record video (the nano's new camera can only record video and can't take pictures, so it's likely to assume that the touch would have been the same)? My phone, for example, has a 5 mexapixel camera which is far better than the camera in the iphone 3GS and likely better than what the ipod touch would've gotten. Even cheapo cell phone cameras average a 3.2 megapixel camera - still better than the 3GS. So why is everyone complaining? Were you all going to ditch the better camera in your phone to use a crappier one in the touch that might not have been able to even take pictures?
How many of you have a camera in your phone already that can both take pictures and record video (the nano's new camera can only record video and can't take pictures, so it's likely to assume that the touch would have been the same)? My phone, for example, has a 5 mexapixel camera which is far better than the camera in the iphone 3GS and likely better than what the ipod touch would've gotten. Even cheapo cell phone cameras average a 3.2 megapixel camera - still better than the 3GS. So why is everyone complaining? Were you all going to ditch the better camera in your phone to use a crappier one in the touch that might not have been able to even take pictures?
Maybe he didn't know Nintendo released the DSi. According to the keynote, he said "DS" but they showed a DSi. It might be just a common overlooking, but how the hell can you not see 2 cameras on the DSi?
1) Yes, but simple upgrades like an oleophobic screen can't cost more than $.10; I would have much preferred that over voice control. Also, Apple could sell their iPod Touches at a loss and still make gobs of money net profit from the App Store. Also, Zunes have similar pricing and also have innards that have probably roughly equivalent pricing.
2) It does when you factor in all the extra people using the App Store.
3) I don't remember the Palm laptop. It must have been highly successful.
Steve is pretty good at telling people they don't want things that they do, and then introducing them in the product at a later point in time like he just came up with the idea!
"What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. Because a lot of the games were free on the store."
A game machine. Really? That was the feedback people gave?
If there were a camera on it, taking pictures would be free too. Maybe it should be marketed as a camera machine.
He's a liar.
Camera?
I could do without the camera. A built in Mic would be better than the one on the earphone cable. How hard would that have been? Still not buying.
Hey Steve. Not all of us play games. Well, maybe Klondike.
No iPhone either. Reason? ATT sucks.
I could do without the camera. A built in Mic would be better than the one on the earphone cable. How hard would that have been? Still not buying.
Hey Steve. Not all of us play games. Well, maybe Klondike.
No iPhone either. Reason? ATT sucks.
I'd like a camera. But I would definitely _not_ like a rubbish camera. The video camera on the Nano is good enough for a bit of fun, but not a replacement for a proper video camera (it may be a replacement for the Flip camera; I'd want to hear from someone who owns both). On the iPod Touch, I would want something that is good enough to replace a cheap ($100) camera, or I don't want it at all. And that is hard to make in the available space.
So something like 6 Megapixels with a decent sensor size (not the 10 MP rubbish that the camera marketing people throw at us, producing nothing but noise) and a decent autofocus, and I don't know if zoom and flash would be possible at all in the size. But I don't want to have an iPod with a rubbish camera and then have a "real" camera as well.
Typical Apple Style of Marketing
I just realized most of you don't even notice Apple's marketing strategy all this time.
Remember the lack of firewire in the unibody 13" MacBooks? Well it soon appeared in the MacBook Pros, etc.
Notice how they are just beginning to put FM tuners on the iPods with the introduction of the new Nano? Heck, they could easily have done this before and made FM a staple on their iPod lines. But no, they chose to delay it until now so they can highlight it on their new products. I see a small advantage on this though, their FM tuner for instance, doesn't just come with normal features, it has abilities that other portable tuners can't: pausing, rewinding and forwarding (found in the new Nanos.).
This could only mean two things: either they added that feature to please us for waiting this long for FM capabilitty, or the long wait actualy gave them time to develop it. I go with the first assumption. There's also the possibility of Apple concentrating on other developments (tablet anyone?) and chose to slow advancement on their iPod line, instead giving it features they already have developed a long time ago waiting to be implemented.
Apple likes to cripple their products so they can add features in future releases.
They might be risking potential buyers at present but these same disappointed buyers will likely shell out their dough when the product gets updated. It's an ongoing cycle. Apple won't give you everything in one shot...they like to tease and it's working to their advantage. Heck, even I am tempted to get an iPod Nano for the FM tuner alone (I already have an iPhone).
In addition:
Just examine other companies who release products with features packed to the brim: the time they upgrade these products, they barely have anything new to them and they seem to be not as exciting as the first go...we have already been spoiled and we demand more.
I just realized most of you don't even notice Apple's marketing strategy all this time.
Remember the lack of firewire in the unibody 13" MacBooks? Well it soon appeared in the MacBook Pros, etc.
Notice how they are just beginning to put FM tuners on the iPods with the introduction of the new Nano? Heck, they could easily have done this before and made FM a staple on their iPod lines. But no, they chose to delay it until now so they can highlight it on their new products. I see a small advantage on this though, their FM tuner for instance, doesn't just come with normal features, it has abilities that other portable tuners can't: pausing, rewinding and forwarding (found in the new Nanos.).
This could only mean two things: either they added that feature to please us for waiting this long for FM capabilitty, or the long wait actualy gave them time to develop it. I go with the first assumption. There's also the possibility of Apple concentrating on other developments (tablet anyone?) and chose to slow advancement on their iPod line, instead giving it features they already have developed a long time ago waiting to be implemented.
Apple likes to cripple their products so they can add features in future releases.
They might be risking potential buyers at present but these same disappointed buyers will likely shell out their dough when the product gets updated. It's an ongoing cycle. Apple won't give you everything in one shot...they like to tease and it's working to their advantage. Heck, even I am tempted to get an iPod Nano for the FM tuner alone (I already have an iPhone).
In addition:
Just examine other companies who release products with features packed to the brim: the time they upgrade these products, they barely have anything new to them and they seem to be not as exciting as the first go...we have already been spoiled and we demand more.
No, they aren't going to give you everything in one shot. But they actually didn't give the Touch much of anything in this shot. I think there has to be truth about late production problems with the Touch. After all, the leaks about the camera in the Nano turned out to be correct.
I am not dismissing the possibility that Apple might have been having problems with the potential Touch cameras. This is a totally different aspect altogether and I agree that it is a possibility.