Filed under: iPod nano, iPod touch
NY Times asks, Steve answers: Why no camera on the iPod touch and no stills on the nano?
Well, looks like we weren't the only ones wondering about the two big questions of the day -- the New York Times sat down briefly with Steve Jobs post-event this morning and found out the whys and wherefores on the following:- Why doesn't the iPod nano take still pictures? Jobs says that the tiny teensy CMOS sensor in the nano isn't up to the quality standards needed for stills; it's too thin. "The sensors for doing a still camera... they are just way too thick to ever fit inside the Nano."
- What about a camera for the iPod touch? The product path for the touch, apparently, is that it's a great gaming device and it's the lowest investment option for getting access to the App Store; given that, the push was to get it down to a price point everyone could afford instead of adding new features like a camera. "So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don't need to add new stuff - we need to get the price down where everyone can afford it." Not to say it won't ever happen.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Justin said 7:09PM on 9-09-2009
The pathetic 'update' to the iTouch today comes as a disappointment to many. Not only were there a great many waiting for this refresh to buy into the Apple brand, but many current iTouch owners including myself were waiting to upgrade. That's a large loss of business to Apple just because they want to be 'affordable.' Wrong time to cut the price in exchange for quality, Apple.
Reply
Michael Rose said 7:11PM on 9-09-2009
Well, consider that the two higher-capacity models are now a good deal faster -- possibly as fast as the iPhone 3GS.
Aside from the camera, what did you expect or want to see?
Kevin Crossman said 7:23PM on 9-09-2009
>Aside from the camera, what did you expect or want to see?
Well, a 16GB model with the same processor as the 32 and 64 GB models at $199 - not last year's model with only 8 GB and just $30 less.
alahmnat said 7:27PM on 9-09-2009
@Michael Camera and GPS were on my wishlist... camera was almost a given (but obviously not... grr), while GPS support was sort of a pie-in-the-sky, wouldn't-it-be-nice-to-have-without-paying-AT&T-for-the-privilege sort of thing (especially since there are iPhone turn-by-turn apps that load maps onto the device instead of pulling them down over a data connection).
Considering that my digital camera is on its last leg, I'm considerably disappointed by the camera-less upgrades today, especially when a capacity bump with camera and a retention of the $229 price point for 16, 32, and 64 gig models would have put a new Touch in my hands the second I could afford to purchase one, since I've busted the headphone jack on my 1st Gen. Now I'm eyeing the 16GB 2nd Gen hardware since it's $100 cheaper, and thinking I can live without OpenGL|ES 2.0 for another year...
Honestly, a $30 price drop isn't nearly as big of a bump down as the $99 iPhone 3G was... I guess mentally ticking the price closer to $100 than $200 using the magic of perception may boost sales a little bit, but seriously... camera!
bob said 7:46PM on 9-09-2009
thats just retarded, instead of making this everything for everyone they have consentrated on the quality, It has the most powerful mobile platform inside it from the 3gs, dont cry cause they couldnt fit / afford a camera in it, if ya want a camera get an iphone, if you have a different phone, chances are it has a camera in it. it makes me laugh, so tell me, all these people waiting for this update, are they going to go and buy a zune? or creative? for more money, less performance, no apps crap os etc??? no
Justin said 7:14PM on 9-09-2009
To be honest my iTouch has had hardly any performance issues so far and I'm a rather heavy user if I do say so myself. I could care less about the chip upgrades and I'm usually obsessed about that sort of thing. What I wanted was a camera and a mic mainly. There are apps out there that take advantage of both, for one. The addition of an FM radio to the nano but not the Touch was an additional slap in the face to Touch users and prospective buyers. I honestly think Apple made a mistake this time. Also confused on the unexplained cut of the 16g model. It's a great mid ground for people who need space but not an obscene amount of it.
Reply
WalrusCP said 7:30PM on 9-09-2009
The removal of the 16GB model surprised me as well.
Steffo said 7:31PM on 9-09-2009
The removal of the 16Gb isn't really much of a mystery.
As with the iPhone update a while back, Apple have kept a single example of the previous generation at a lower price in order to grab the $200 market.
Then you've got the sped up Touch GS (basically), where they've decided to chuck in a bunch more flash memory. Their margins are good enough that the newer chips and the much bigger storage is easily doable in $300.
The important thing for Apple, though, is that they've got a cheaper model to compete, a faster model to grab the high end sales, and not too much obvious variation between the two. Too many differences and you've needlessly split the market and give too many options (and I for one despise both Subway and Starbucks for this prime reason).
KAD said 7:17PM on 9-09-2009
Good gosh people it's not an iTouch!!!!
Reply
Darren said 8:10PM on 9-09-2009
(/ Shhh. That's how we spot the people who don't know what they're talking about. Don't let them in on the secret. /)
Mike said 9:40PM on 9-09-2009
Most people know this KAD -- itouch just saves time without having to type the "pod" part (which virtually everyone on the planet who hasn't been living under a rock knows).
KAD said 10:07PM on 9-09-2009
Mike, I was just fed up because so many people call it "itouch" in everyday conversation. Makes me cringe
Bloobie said 11:51PM on 9-09-2009
Isn't the iTouch made by Mac? *double cringe*
Lawrence said 7:23PM on 9-09-2009
Ok, what the ****??? I'm am pissed! No camera on the ipod touch! No 16gb touch? Nano gets a video camera but no camera? Classic gets a capacity update? PATHETIC. Apple, shove it. What were you thinking? Just because of the 'no camera on the touch' issue, I'm not buying another one! I waited TWO YEARS for a touch with a camera, the 64gbs is even a disappointment, if they can fit 128gb in a macbook air, they can do it with the touch, screw apple.
Reply
Steffo said 7:40PM on 9-09-2009
Yeah, they could get 128GB into the Touch, but would you be willing to pay the sticker price? The MBA is a premium 13" laptop, and the difference between the kinetic drive and the SSD is $300...
I guess they could have charged $500 for a 128GB Touch, but would you have bought it?
As to dropping the 16GB model, what would the price point have been? $250? Would it be running 3GS speed chips, or would it be the current 16GB at a price drop?
It needlessly confuses Apple's pricing structure.
Chris Rawson said 7:23PM on 9-09-2009
"We don't need to add new stuff - we need to get the price down where everyone can afford it."
Nice (try at a) save, Steve. Considering the stories floating around about problems getting the cameras ready on time for the iPod Touch, the "let's make it cheaper" approach doesn't quite fly. They could at least have put a camera in the 64 GB model if they wanted to differentiate on price. Apple already has huge margins on these devices.
Reply
Steffo said 7:49PM on 9-09-2009
What makes you think that they would use anything but the camera from the iPhone in the Touch?
Equally, if they're not using the iPhone camera, then any camera related troubles they could, well, use the iPhone's camera...
As you said, they're stories. There's no substantiated evidence behind any of it. We had pictures of the Nano's camera before the release, but the only thing I saw of a Touch with a camera was photoshopped...
Jon said 7:24PM on 9-09-2009
Anyone who says "iTouch" has no right to be commenting on any technology products. It is called an iPod Touch.
Reply
Galley said 7:56PM on 9-09-2009
Actually, it's iPod touch (lowercase). ;-)
Tom said 9:00PM on 9-09-2009
As long as Apple doesn't pay for every time you call the product by its right name, you can call it whatever the fuck you wanna call it. You don't work for Apple and they do not own you, and you have the right to call a product YOU PAID FOR by any damn name you see fit. And if someone wants to nickname the iPod Touch "iTouch" they have every right to. It's not like any of those words really mean anything anyway-- the name iPod Touch doesn't make any more sense than iTouch. It's just a nickname.