[rab777hp]

the only problem is the small hole where there's space for a camera...

[WilfredLaurier]

Does the 3rd gen iPod Touch include a oleophobic screen coating like the iPhone 3G S. It doesn't seem like a very expensive or flashy feature, but is very useful to have.

[cv]

macwmaurice, on 17 September 2009 - 06:32 AM, said:

@cv: Well, you never know. Did you expect a few years ago that you would get a camera as good as the iPhone's in such a small package? It isn't there for the Touch now, but why not next year?

Yes, yes, it's possible that next year's iPod touch will have a camera as good as last year's iPhone. The point is that you simply won't have the exact same performance due to physical limitations (i.e., no parity between the current iPhone and the current iPod touch).

As I have written several times elsewhere in this forum, I believe that Apple yanked the camera pretty much at the last moment due to some sort of QC issue since A.) the space is there on board, B.) there were a slew of leaked photos of third-party cases with a hole for the alleged camera, C.) the iPod touch (Late 2009) mysteriously shipped with version 3.1.1 of the software (leading me to guess that the camera apps and other code were ripped out at the last moment), and D.) the video camera had no problems being included in the nano.

Trust me, I wish it had shipped with a camera, but it shouldn't ship with a defective part.

[mooncaine]

Via my employer, I've got a "video iPod" from, oh, 2006 (maybe '05?), and more recently an 8GB iPod touch (last year's model, the "2G" referred to in this article).

While I enjoyed checking my email and browsing the web for a while, the iPod touch is not my favorite, for 3 reasons:

• I can't adjust it "by feel". With the older iPod, I could skip back/forth between songs, and pause and play, without having to look at it. I could do it in the dark, or while walking/biking, for example. iPod touch requires me to look at it. I didn't realize that'd be a big deal, but I find I just don't want to use iPod touch as a music player, because I can't do basic music player functions by, well, touch. Requires my eyes, too. Maybe its earbuds had a control pod on them, but iPod earbuds don't fit me, so they're still in the box. I use some nice Sony in-ear phones instead, for better sound, better fit, and versatility.
  
• Battery life is so much longer on my older, pre-touchscreen iPod. If I could navigate the iPod touch "by touch", I could save some battery life, no doubt.
  
• I can't use the iPod touch as a disk drive. That's very handy, and I have used my older iPod to store and carry files often over the years.

Having used and enjoyed both, I still think that I'd buy a non-Apple MP3 player rather than an iPod. In fact, I have one that I use for voice recording now & then (a Creative Zen), but what both the Zen and iPods lack is something I really, really miss from my old, fabulous i-bead MP3 player: no need for software installed on a computer, just to add/remove songs, or charge the player. I like a player that shows up on my Mac, or even a PC, as a storage device, so that I move files on/off without relying on yet another program that must be installed and even updated.

[Terrin]

You are assuming Apple can't redesign the case and make it thicker like the iPhone. It could do so easily, and I doubt to many iPod Touch users would complain. I for one think that is why Apple scrapped it's rumored plans for a camera. It decided it wasn't worth doing if it doesn't put the same camera in it that the iPhone has in it.

Historically, Apple has given more significant updates to it's higher end products after the Holidays. That is when people are shopping for themselves and willing to spend more money. So, it gives the Nano more substantial updates before the Holidays, and the Touches more significant ones after the Holidays. It doesn't always work that way, but it often does.

cv, on 17 September 2009 - 05:26 AM, said:

@macwmaurice:

Forget it then. The iPod touch will never have a camera as good as the iPhone due to size limitations. The iPod touch is considerably thinner than the iPhone so it will never be able to accept higher quality camera modules. Lens, autofocus mechanisms, sensors, etc. take up room. With more room you have more opportunities to put in higher-quality but bulkier parts. You can't suspend the laws of physics.

I wanted an iPod touch with a camera too, but I'll accept a unit with a camera that's a step below that of the iPhone. It's just reality.

[quayzar]

jord81, on 17 September 2009 - 05:52 AM, said:

I'm confused. Does the new 8GB model NOT have voice control or a faster processor? The author makes it sound like only the 32GB and 64GB models have it. Personally, I NEED voice control because it is illegal where I live to handle hand-held devices while driving.

The 8GB model is the same model as before. They just dropped the price of the old model. If you buy the 8GB today you are buying the same 8GB as last years at a lower price with a software update. Mind you if you need the new version of Open GL or Voice Control you are not going to get it with the 8GB.

[mr4js]

The best Touch vs Zune HD review I have read.

http://www.appleinsi...he_zune_hd.html

[Chris Breen]

mr4js, on 17 September 2009 - 07:18 PM, said:

The best Touch vs Zune HD review I have read.

http://www.appleinsi...he_zune_hd.html

That doesn't appear to be a review but rather the opinion of someone who hasn't used a Zune HD.

If you're interested in the view of someone who's actually used one, check out Andy Ihnatko's review from the Chicago Sun Times.

[bigpics]

cv, on 17 September 2009 - 02:15 PM, said:

macwmaurice, on 17 September 2009 - 06:32 AM, said:

@cv: Well, you never know. Did you expect a few years ago that you would get a camera as good as the iPhone's in such a small package? It isn't there for the Touch now, but why not next year?

Yes, yes, it's possible that next year's iPod touch will have a camera as good as last year's iPhone. The point is that you simply won't have the exact same performance due to physical limitations (i.e., no parity between the current iPhone and the current iPod touch).

As I have written several times elsewhere in this forum, I believe that Apple yanked the camera pretty much at the last moment due to some sort of QC issue since A.) the space is there on board, B.) there were a slew of leaked photos of third-party cases with a hole for the alleged camera, C.) the iPod touch (Late 2009) mysteriously shipped with version 3.1.1 of the software (leading me to guess that the camera apps and other code were ripped out at the last moment), and D.) the video camera had no problems being included in the nano.

Trust me, I wish it had shipped with a camera, but it shouldn't ship with a defective part.

I have a new notion about this, which I hope Apple is already hard at work on:

Certainly Apple plans to grow its iDevice family, e.g., by adding the mythical iPad. (I also hear new plastic notebooks in maybe the $899 range are in the works). That being so, review a little history:

• iPod
  The iPod targeted the growing mp3 player market and conquered it.
  
• iTunes
  iTunes and the iTunes store targeted music management software and music marketing and attracted many with its free podcasting features. And became the world's largest music retailer. When it added TV and movie marketing (after saying "no one would ever watch video on such a small screen), that's also done very well, and of course the content can also be watched on monitors and TV's. Then (after saying apps would have to run in the browser) it upgraded the mobile OS, added the App Store and created a monster hit out of thin air, practically overnight.
  
• iPhone
  The iPhone targeted the smart phone (plus iPod) markets and has sold an amazing number while redefining the whole concept of such a device and garnering huge "mind share." (Blackberry remains the viable exponent of another model for such devices and won't go away anytime soon. Kind of left-brain v right-brain thing.)
  
• Apple TV
  ATV targeted the living room set-top box market. Steve's "hobby" device remains just that for now. But I don't think Apple's done here. Anyway, the single non-monster hit here, but there's still time in this market which no one has dominated yet.
  
• iPod Nano
  The Nano is being targeted directly at the Flip Mino vidcam market: Get a music/video iPod with a vidcam all in a package less than half the size and for no more $$. Should sell a gazillion and steal sales from the target.
  
• iPod Touch
  The Touch probably wouldn't be what it is if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone. Basically it is a subset of the iPhone's features, and the wild success of the phone and App Store made everything about the features it does have into a compelling extension of the iPod.

And it is now being targeted at the hand-held game market, where it's going to do well.

So that's Apple's way: identify market opportunities as they're emerging and then cover them with secret Apple sauce. And it's worked spectacularly (including in the premium notebook market).

So what market is ripe and ready for the next extension of the Apple ecosystem? The low and convenience end of the point and shoot camera market is sitting right there - just waiting to become part of the whole device convergence trend.

And the device to target it could be the iPod Touch II (other names: the iPod Camera, iPod Touch C, etc.).
A second version of the iPod Touch the same depth as the iPhone optimized for photography and video - with maybe a 5MP sensor, flash and even an optical zoom, with output to TV's and monitors. Making it the depth of the iPhone (or whatever depth is required to shoe horn in a better cam without driving Steve Jobs and John Ivie bonkers) with no phone electronics leaves enough room to do all of that and add GPS for geotagging of pictures and maybe more memory. Apps could let you create multi-media slide shows exportable back to a PC, or overlay music or any AAC file onto video, etc., to name a few unique possibilities.

Of course it would have all the capabilities of any iPod Touch (gaming, internet, etc). And bingo, there you have a new market that could add another 10 million units to iDevice sales while beginning to make Canon, Nikon, Casio, et al. look over their shoulders.

(Note: having a better cam than the iPhone - if it did - could create a demand among the gadget crazed meaning that many families or individuals might buy both. Apple addicts already do that a lot.)

And there, ladies and gents, could be next September's new $399 iPod top of the line model - with lower prices on tweaked existing 64 and 32 GB models, which could stay on a depth diet and probably get next year's state of the art nano-sized cams.

Damn, I'd like to be right on this one!

This post has been edited by bigpics: 17 September 2009 - 09:00 PM

[Hayamiya]

The ipod touch apparently has a chip that supports 11n WiFi, so perhaps it is safe to conclude that a future OS update will turn it on. The same chip apparently supports FM as well. A camera would be nice. Here in Japan they have capable cameras in thinner enclosures that the ipod touch, so space is not a problem.

Next year could see a camera, microphone, GPS, 11n WiFi & FM all in the ipod touch. That is the ipod touch I want.

[SilentRunning]

Everyone has overlooked the most important improvement to the new iTouch; it has the same oleophobic coating to the touchscreen as the iPhone 3GS.

[Chris Breen]

SilentRunning, on 18 September 2009 - 04:36 AM, said:

Everyone has overlooked the most important improvement to the new iTouch; it has the same oleophobic coating to the touchscreen as the iPhone 3GS.

Can you cite a source for that information? I've just checked the iPod touch's specs and there's no mention of that coating, yet it is mentioned for the iPhone 3GS. You'd think Apple would want to talk about it if true.

[Wiggin]

cv, on 17 September 2009 - 05:26 AM, said:

@macwmaurice:

Forget it then. The iPod touch will never have a camera as good as the iPhone due to size limitations. The iPod touch is considerably thinner than the iPhone so it will never be able to accept higher quality camera modules. Lens, autofocus mechanisms, sensors, etc. take up room. With more room you have more opportunities to put in higher-quality but bulkier parts. You can't suspend the laws of physics.

I wanted an iPod touch with a camera too, but I'll accept a unit with a camera that's a step below that of the iPhone. It's just reality.

I agree. And think putting a nano type of camera in the touch, like some suggest, would be more of an insult than a feature! Even if they could technically shrink the lens and sensor assembly, quality could suffer. You can only make the pixels in the sensor so small before you run into diminising returns due to noise, dynamic range, and diffraction problems. That's the reason the nano's camera is only 640x480.

Of course, they could always just make the touch a couple millimeters thicker! Would anyone really care (or even notice)? Apple's obsession with thiness has bit them in the arse this time. Then they could also use the extra space for larger capacity battery, the compass, and GPS receiver!

[Wiggin]

Hayamiya, on 18 September 2009 - 01:53 AM, said:

Here in Japan they have capable cameras in thinner enclosures that the ipod touch, so space is not a problem.

Not that I'm saying you are wrong stating space wasn't an issue, but unless you can look at the innards of both devices it's hard to make the statment. The touch has a very large screen that you have to work around. And I'm betting the camera you are referecing has a bezel around the lens allowing it to protude from the case a bit.

Can you provide a model number for a camera that's thinner than the touch? Again, not challenging your assertation, but just curious to see the design of such a camera.