you have to have something to offer in the ipad 3. hi-res cam next time my friend. baby steps, baby steps. thats the apple way.
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.
Why I am glad apple used low res cameras in the 2.
- Thread starter richard371
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please read my post before bashing it I said "(not including overall R&D, Marketing etc, talkin parts here)."
Most companies don't expect 30% margins after everything you listed. If going from a $5 camera sensor to an $11 sensor would make the iPad unprofitable they wouldn't even be making the thing at all.
EDIT: Those prices (5-11 dollars) are examples not exact prices of the modules. I know somebody will pick this out.
Apple could have at least tried to come up with something creative for the reason behind using a VGA camera. Maybe say that due to potential bandwidth issues with Face Time, sending a compressed VGA video would be more smooth than sending a HD video that could hog the bandwidth & end up choppy.
I know that's not the case, but at least lie to us to make sure that people don't start coming up with wild ideas like "Apple intentionally left out the good cameras to prevent us from looking like dumbasses trying to take pictures with our iPads!"
I know that's not the case, but at least lie to us to make sure that people don't start coming up with wild ideas like "Apple intentionally left out the good cameras to prevent us from looking like dumbasses trying to take pictures with our iPads!"
EXACTLY. It'd be nice if they had better cams, they probably could, but they didn't because it's cheaper and adds a nice slide to next years show. They always think down the line like that. Nobody is disagreeing with that. We're saying it's completely illogical to say it's BETTER that they use worse cameras then they could have afforded to.
Haha yeah I hope the thread's a satire of some of the more ridiculous things we see around here.
The hilarious thing in this thread is the suggestion that the iPhone 4 camera is much better than the iPad camera. Sure, it's better, but let's be realistic here. No camera that's the size of a pencil eraser is ever going to produce particularly good photos. It's a simple matter of physics. The much vaunted photons that Jobs is always on about. Know why DSLRs take better pictures than iPad? The lens is bigger than everything inside the iPad except for the battery, that's why. The sensor is gargantuan compared to the minuscule sliver inside the iPad/iPhone. Even the cheapest dedicated point and shoot is going to produce better exposures and more detailed images than the iPad or iPhone. This argument basically boils down to which micro camera sucks less.
The thread can be merely a joke, but I can understand why Apple used this type of cameras in the new iPad2. The purpose of those is to be utilised for video chatting. Therefore, the cameras shoot low quality videos that are perfectly suitable to be transmitted during your Skype/FaceTime calls.
If those cameras were of an extremely high quality and were able to shoot video/pictures at high resolutions, it would affect video chatting and it wouldn't be such a smooth experience as it is now. But I agree it would have been a nice feature to have better cameras if implemented correctly.
And indeed, Surf Monkey, it is all about the question which camera sucks less.
All of those micro cameras are pretty terrible.
If those cameras were of an extremely high quality and were able to shoot video/pictures at high resolutions, it would affect video chatting and it wouldn't be such a smooth experience as it is now. But I agree it would have been a nice feature to have better cameras if implemented correctly.
And indeed, Surf Monkey, it is all about the question which camera sucks less.
All of those micro cameras are pretty terrible.Man, some of you guys have no sense of netiquette at all. I know exactly what the OP meant and would not stoop to calling his comment ridiculous, dumb and a joke. Lighten up a bit.
Sure, Apple will eventually upgrade the cameras in the iPad but there really is no reason to do it right now especially when it could affect the price. For video conferencing, the cameras are just fine which is what Apple has designed them for. I was video chatting with family and friends over the weekend and it was great fun. I tried taking pictures and they came out OK but it was awkward and something I wouldn't do every day. My point and shoot and iPhone camera are much better suited for that task.
Sure, Apple will eventually upgrade the cameras in the iPad but there really is no reason to do it right now especially when it could affect the price. For video conferencing, the cameras are just fine which is what Apple has designed them for. I was video chatting with family and friends over the weekend and it was great fun. I tried taking pictures and they came out OK but it was awkward and something I wouldn't do every day. My point and shoot and iPhone camera are much better suited for that task.
Just change this to say "I'm an apple fanboy and apologist, I like getting inferior hardware because apple tells me I do, I simple cannot think for myself" and it will be a MUCH more accurate post for you to make.
Barely thinner, but the iPad camera is in the curve, so it has much less room to maneuver in there. And by maneuver, I mean it doesn't have the camera space needed for iPhone 4's focal length and tap to focus, because it is a very shallow space to work with, just like on the iPod Touch.
So, retina display in iPad 3 for $499 and they'll still need to tout a higher res camera to meet these product design conspiracy theories? Please.
And to answer your question, I get my information from common sense. Where do you get yours?
Huh? look at a 320x320px image on an iP4 and 3G
Marginally, yes. The bottom line remains the same: if photo quality is your primary concern, no iDevice is going to satisfy you. ALL the iDevice cameras suck compared to dedicated point and shoots and DSLRs.
Apple absolutley sells the hardware at a profit, even if AT&T or Verizon is the vendor. I can buy an unsubsidized iPhone right now if I want. It has remained the same price: generation to generation. The price point has remained and the hardware as become substantially better.
I think the iPad pricepoints will stay where they're at for a while. They make plenty on them already. They're by no means hurting. I don't see them raising the price anytime soon.
For my part I'm really happy they made it 1.3 pounds instead of 1.1 pounds. As it is I'm tempted to use it as a frisbee.
The OP is exactly the person that makes the rest of the Apple community look like lemmings all the time. They defend Apple's decisions so blindly that they fail to consider that the next gen will probably fix the issue.
Last Gen: "The iPad doesnt need a camera. Video chatting is too awkward for a tablet"
Current Gen: "The iPad is great for video chatting. But I'm glad they made it low res cuz its too stupid for pictures
Next Gen: "The iPad is so awesome for photos cuz the big screen lets you totally see details you cant see on a tiny phone"
This is the hypocrisy of super fans. If a spec is better than the competition (graphics, processor, battery) they shove it in their faces. But if its worse (camera, ram) they pretend its unimportant... until next gen when it's better than the competition and then they shove it in their faces.
I was gonna let this thread go since it feels like the OP either just wanted to start an argument or didn't mean his idea the way he wrote it. but it's kinda gratifying to see three of my comments quoted and having each of them agreed with. That just brightened my day. (^_^)
aww and you edited it down to one quote. ah, no matter I saw it!
There are many failings of Moore's Law in trying to determine if the price of the iPad will go up or not. Here's just a few:
1. Apple introduces new products at a rate of almost twice as fast as the period for ML.
2. ML does not account for social costs of products, including raw material sourcing, labor and manufacturing costs, and supply chain issues, and etc.
3. ML does not always accurately account for the premiums associated with minimization of product dimensions. We can surely get 5 TBs of storage space or more (or more than) half as cheap as we could two years ago. We cannot, however, follow that same template to minimize the size enough to put it into an iphone.
I never suggested that Apple doesn't profit on the hardware, just that it is not the goal of selling the widget itself. And in fact, different estimates abound, but the iPhone 4 costs about $188 in materials. That is not counting in any of the other costs associated with manufacturing, employing, distributing, legal costs, or R&D costs. So when you get your iPhone from verizon for $200, you are getting a product that is being supplemented in order to generate a profit. It's not a hard concept.
As someone who works with company costs all the time, I can tell you they are much more than you think.
However, that doesn't mean Apple doesn't make a profit. As a capitalist, I am GLAD they make a profit and wish them well. The last thing in the world I want it to have Apple state-run or heavily restricted by government mandate. However, if you think they are making huge margins on iphone hardware, then you are supporting an argument that is unsupportable by the facts.
That is absolutely absurd!!!
Why have 3meg or 5 meg when Apple can add this with iPad3 or iPad4--so people will buy iPad3/iPad4...Hello, don't be so naive!