I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.
iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $799
iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899
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 Touch 4G - 0.7 megapixel camera??
- Thread starter pizz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.
iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $799
iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899
I'm amazed just how much people are whining about this. It's got a great video camera and the still-photo thing was just tossed in as a little bonus, hardly the emphasis by any means.
All Apple really wanted to give it was a video camera, like a souped-up Nano. But if it hadn't included still photo capability, people would be whining just as much about that. Regardless, they've still practically doubled the Touch's capabilities with this update, so you should be grateful. And if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Just get an iPhone or something.
All Apple really wanted to give it was a video camera, like a souped-up Nano. But if it hadn't included still photo capability, people would be whining just as much about that. Regardless, they've still practically doubled the Touch's capabilities with this update, so you should be grateful. And if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Just get an iPhone or something.
In order to play devil's advocate:
Evidently, Apple is transition the consumer to the digital/cloud/touch era. In this era, we no longer print photos, we store them and manipulate them with fingertips. In lieu of that I prefer thinner and video-oriented.
Evidently, Apple is transition the consumer to the digital/cloud/touch era. In this era, we no longer print photos, we store them and manipulate them with fingertips. In lieu of that I prefer thinner and video-oriented.
While I agree with you on the other hand if you need professional printing quality you will always use a DSLR or similar camera with a photo printer. The touch is mostly for entertaining purposes like gaming,music etc not photo taking and for an app like the barcode scanner this camera is more than enough
This 1000x.
This is clearly a cost reduction move. You don't take a ~ $600 phone and sell it for ~$200 by simply removing the phone bits.
You cost reduce anywhere you can to try to get down to that price point. Get rid of the IPS screen, use a cheap simple vid camera instead of a really good still + vid cameara, reduce battery size a bit.
I will start complaining about Apple after Dell, takes the phone out of the Streak and starts selling it for ~$200 (IOW never).
Do a search on Google - "iPhone 4 without contract". You can supposedly buy the iPhone 4 for $599 and $699 without a contract at a physical AT&T store (not online). So, yes - quit whining.
Most proberly downgraded... Apple don't stretch things, although they dont normally put a camera of less than a megapixel in anything.
First of all, it's not a real camera. It's a video camera that takes stills. Much thinner component.
Secondly, Apple aren't worried about cannibalising the iPhone. That isn't why they didn't put in a 5MP camera lens. As has been pointed out, it's for aesthetics and cost. It has nothing to do with the iPhone, unless you honestly think that they would make an iPhone without the phone part as their iPod.
The camera isn't going to be great, but it's better than nothing. The video will be pretty good. The screen will be fine.
Secondly, Apple aren't worried about cannibalising the iPhone. That isn't why they didn't put in a 5MP camera lens. As has been pointed out, it's for aesthetics and cost. It has nothing to do with the iPhone, unless you honestly think that they would make an iPhone without the phone part as their iPod.
The camera isn't going to be great, but it's better than nothing. The video will be pretty good. The screen will be fine.
Engadget pic of a pic:
Doesn't look horrible.
Hahaha!
But yea... In case you were serious, that in no way helps anyone determine end resolution quality...
I think what we'd (or at least I'd) like to know is if Apple is limiting/cropping images to .7MP or if that's really the max the sensor can capture.
If it's just being cropped then I'm sure/hope we'll see some apps for jailbroken phones that allow full resolution images.
...if AT&T is the only USA carrier, why would that do you any good to have an iPhone with out a contract?
Now if you could use the 3G iPad data plan, that may be a decent deal but the network probably sees the unit as an actual iPhone vise an iPad due to the sim card...
Exactly.
I'll be getting one regardless. But there may very well be some good camera unlocks out there.
If someone were hell bent on getting an iPod touch with exactly the same specs as an iPhone 4 (minus the phone), they could get a contract-free iPhone and just use it as a touch.
can someone please answer me this..
Is the video quality worse than iPhone 4 or is it just the still image quality that's worse? 720 is 720 is 720, right? or wrong?
Is the video quality worse than iPhone 4 or is it just the still image quality that's worse? 720 is 720 is 720, right? or wrong?
The iPhone's 5MP cam costs Apple $9.75 and they pay $1.00 for the front VGA cam. So the touch's rear cam is somewhere between $1.00 and $9.75. The cost difference is quite minor.
I'm dying to know the same thing. I don't think we'll really know until the iPod touch is out. I think the big difference in the optics is that the iPod touch has a fixed focus lens, while iPhone 4 has autofocus lens. I don't know how much that matters for video. According to Apple website, iPhone 4 has tap-to-focus for video, while the touch will not have it.
...the iPod Touch is already a good chunk of change, I couldn't imagine using an iPhone 4 just as a "Touch"...
Nor could I. But if one had the money, and wanted that, that would be a reason to buy an unsubsidized, contract-free iPhone 4 for top dollar.
Based on guesswork that Apple has laughed off.
Apple has to cost reduce to sell a touch $400 less than an iPhone. It will be a few dollars here, there and everywhere.
A dollar here and a dollar there doesn't add up to $400. The only reason Apple charges so much for unsubsidized phones is because they can get away with it.
More than you think. Naturally it isn't the whole story. Apples gross margin is 36%. Some product will have fatter margins (iPhone) and some the will have to accept slimmer margins( Touch).
But on a slimmer margin product like the Touch, saving $10 dollars on a camera is a huge savings. Another $10 on not having an IPS screen, another $2 on a weaker battery. It all ads up. Apple has a minimum margin which they will accept from a product. These cuts help them make that mark.
So it is a combination of lower margin, removing all Cell phone parts, and cost reductions on all other parts that gets them to a target that lets this device even exist.
Touch is very successful, do you notice that none of Apples competitors seems to be stripping the cell parts out of their cells and offering a competing device? Likely because the margins are very tight.
Originally Posted by ntrigue
I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.
iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $699
iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899
Adjusted for imbecile that is still wrong.