Switched On: The iPod touch and the big picture
By Ross Rubin 
posted September 11th 2009 11:30AM
posted September 11th 2009 11:30AM
Ross Rubin (@rossrubin) contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.
In a New York Times interview of Steve Jobs conducted by Engadget columnist aspirant David Pogue, Apple's CEO suggested that the company did not include a camera on the iPod touch because the company was now marketing the iPod touch as a game machine and that a camera was not germane to such a device. "We don't need to add new stuff," said Jobs.
But why is adding a digital camera any less germane to the portable game device of the iPod touch than it is to adding it to the media player of the iPod nano? Or, if price is an issue, why not exclude it only on the entry-level model? The iPod touch market will soon be large enough to support such diversity. And if the iPod touch is indeed being marketed as a gaming console and a low-cost point of entry to the app store, excluding a camera disrupts the continuity of the touch/iPhone platform, while the iPod imaging message is now more muddled: If you're buying the iPhone 3G, you can capture stills but not video, while the "lower-end" iPod nano offers video capture but not stills, the iPod touch offers neither, and only the iPhone 3GS offers both.
Since the iPod's introduction, a few media players with integrated cameras have entered (and failed) in the marketplace: the Archos camcorder and Olympus m:Robe. While the camcorder-enabled iPod nano will surely sell orders of magnitude more than those products did, the video camera feels no less tacked on. Quite to the contrary when it comes to portable gaming, Nintendo, the longstanding market share leader in handheld games, added a camera to its DSi, and a rear-facing one at that.
To be fair, an iPod nano with embedded camcorder does enable Apple to market a Flip competitor that is significantly smaller than the Flip mino, with a screen size closer to even bulkier competitors such as the Kodak Zi8 -- although it lacks HD video capture. The candybar camcorder market has been small by iPod standards, but it continues to attract more competitors -- Samsung, for example, recently launched the HMX-U10.
The Jobs interview does offer a potential clue to what was perhaps a more pressing concern in integrating a camera into the touch. Explaining why the nano was limited to recording video and not stills, Jobs mentioned that adding both would have made the nano a significantly thicker device; Apple has consistently pointed with pride at the thinness of its mobile and portable devices.
Particularly with the thin Zune HD (and its OLED screen) entering the fray, Apple is likely loathe to bulk up the incredibly slim iPod touch. I suspect that the protests of users will eventually change Apple's mind; even FM radio has made it into the iPod after all this time. But for the next year, at least, iPod touch users may be condemned to carry a separate digital camera and endure burdens such as optical zoom, image stabilization, and vastly better image quality.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
But why is adding a digital camera any less germane to the portable game device of the iPod touch than it is to adding it to the media player of the iPod nano? Or, if price is an issue, why not exclude it only on the entry-level model? The iPod touch market will soon be large enough to support such diversity. And if the iPod touch is indeed being marketed as a gaming console and a low-cost point of entry to the app store, excluding a camera disrupts the continuity of the touch/iPhone platform, while the iPod imaging message is now more muddled: If you're buying the iPhone 3G, you can capture stills but not video, while the "lower-end" iPod nano offers video capture but not stills, the iPod touch offers neither, and only the iPhone 3GS offers both.
Since the iPod's introduction, a few media players with integrated cameras have entered (and failed) in the marketplace: the Archos camcorder and Olympus m:Robe. While the camcorder-enabled iPod nano will surely sell orders of magnitude more than those products did, the video camera feels no less tacked on. Quite to the contrary when it comes to portable gaming, Nintendo, the longstanding market share leader in handheld games, added a camera to its DSi, and a rear-facing one at that.
To be fair, an iPod nano with embedded camcorder does enable Apple to market a Flip competitor that is significantly smaller than the Flip mino, with a screen size closer to even bulkier competitors such as the Kodak Zi8 -- although it lacks HD video capture. The candybar camcorder market has been small by iPod standards, but it continues to attract more competitors -- Samsung, for example, recently launched the HMX-U10.
The Jobs interview does offer a potential clue to what was perhaps a more pressing concern in integrating a camera into the touch. Explaining why the nano was limited to recording video and not stills, Jobs mentioned that adding both would have made the nano a significantly thicker device; Apple has consistently pointed with pride at the thinness of its mobile and portable devices.
Particularly with the thin Zune HD (and its OLED screen) entering the fray, Apple is likely loathe to bulk up the incredibly slim iPod touch. I suspect that the protests of users will eventually change Apple's mind; even FM radio has made it into the iPod after all this time. But for the next year, at least, iPod touch users may be condemned to carry a separate digital camera and endure burdens such as optical zoom, image stabilization, and vastly better image quality.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
Camera is only half the solution. There's been a lot of talk about augmented reality apps being the next big thing. If that's true then the touch would need both a camera and GPS. Problem is to do that the touch would have to get a good deal thicker. I have a 1st gen touch and an iPhone 3GS. As great as the 3GS is, it looks bloated by comparison.
"...was now marketing the iPod touch as a game machine"
So, while i can understand the reason behind the lack of camera or gps or (just name it a useless stuff) but ...
WHERE IS IT THE DAMN PAD AND BUTTONS?.
I own a ipod touch and it is unsuitable for several games because the touch screen while is cool but it is not ideal, neither enough responsible, for several games.
IMHO :The lack of camera is not because ipod is marketed as a gaming console but because they are a bunch of lazy and greedy b*stard.
Ever heard of the DSi, Steve? TWO crappy cameras, and that's a game system (a better one than yours, no less).
Apple should copy Nintendo here and add a front-facing camera. That way you could get fun games that involve facial recognition and motion. It would make a lot more sense than just having a regular camera on the back to take videos for YouTube.
That might annoy iPhone people who want video calling, but so what? It's not like it would be the first time that Apple annoyed some of their fans, it's not like they'd lose any significant sales over the move.
I still don't understand the need for a camera for a PMP. I guess it's that whole convergence ideaology. I prefer my dedicated devices to do their job well. And until Apple cathes up in terms of SQ, any iPod is a no go for me. I enjoy my S9.
That being said, everyone uses their devices differently. So to each their own.
Personally, the lack of a video camera has me holding off on jumping on a new Touch. I have a first gen Touch, which I use for games and movies, a U2 Fifth gen I use for podcasts, and pull out my fourth gen photo U2 for music.
I don't play games too much, and don't feel the need to get to get a DSI or PSP. I have a point and shoot as well as prosumer dslr, so taking photos is not a want. But having a video camera like the 3Gs would be awesome and make me snap up the faster, larger capacity player. Now, with no camera, I will stick with what I have, hoping that either a camera Touch will debut in January, or there will be the Applet (tablet) coming out......
Or take a closer look at that Samsung pocketcam.......the f-stop is my only concern with that one......
thank you steeve jobs for helping me choose the Zii Egg over the ipod touch 2.1G
It sounds like the post answered its own question. It is almost like windows. If you want everything you have to buy the ultimate version everything else is handicapped in some way, shape, or form.
Lets face it, something went wrong, the Apple event didn't match the tagline of "It's only rock and roll, but we like it." We will never know if the Beatles announcement fell through at the last minute or if there should have been a new iPod touch but it had issues and couldn't be announced. I was prepared to purchase a new iPod this week and expected more than a very long commercial of how the iPod touch is a game machine. And then for Apple to throw in a new Nano with "feature creep" at the end was just well, un-Apple. FM? Video only Camera? Pedometer without built-in Nike+ transmitter? Are the product managers at apple on vacation? The entire event seemed to be put together at the last minute with lots of filler. Unfortunately, we will never know the big picture of why the iPod Touch seems to be a device in limbo. I really wish someone in the new media would ask Steve tough questions instead of pandering. My purchase is on hold for now, wonder if Microsoft will port the Zune software to Mac?
its strange none of the tech sites have run a negative article about apple's underwhelming announcements this year from the compass, snow leopard, to this latest ipod event. I know apple butters there bread to some extent (with product reviews etc..), but come on, the last 2 out 3 days apple stock has dropped since this stellar ipod announcements. almost 95% of user blogs on various tech sites are disappointed in the meager offerings. Ipod touch users who upgraded to 3.o just a couple a few months ago & less are slapped in the face when hold outs can now upgrade for $5. cmon writers stir the pot a little show some spine, maybe you won't get invited to the next apple announcement, you can watch the live stream - oops lol. Apple can't even host live video feed of their event, maybe their hardware can't support such tech yet, they'll announce that upgrade in about 5 years. good products but terrible customer skills & too much control issues. like my ipod but i won't be getting an apple next time.
The camera wouldn't be any good sooooo....
It's kind of a trend that apple spreads FUD about things that they are developing but aren't ready to release, and then they release it and it's magically been important all along.
Most likely, they weren't ready in time, and it'll show up eventually. And Jobs will say "oh, this will enable so much more yada yada". And owners of perfectly good first gen devices will go replace them.. heh.
adding a camera to ipod touch could make augmented reality type games possible . A few other applications (like evernote) befefit from cam too.
The real reason they didn't add a camera: They don't wait it to compete with the iPhone any more than it already is. The iPod Touch simply isn't as profitable.
hey why are u guys so concerned about ?? !! just get an iphone and "presto" u got your camera and ipod plus a nice digital compass
serously what is the big deal ??
in some countries , there is a big price difference between ipod and ipod touch.
Or you can easily buy an ipod touch from ebay, but you can't buy iphone because of custom issues.
good point that´s my guess too
read my comment under yours
"But for the next year, at least, iPod touch users may be condemned to carry a separate digital camera and endure burdens such as optical zoom, image stabilization, and vastly better image quality."
I think that sums up the whole argument against the touch having a camera. It would be crappy and fairly useless.
Camera would have been the 'nice to have'.
I would like to have seen a built in real GPS/Compass. THEN I WOULD PAY FOR THE MAPPING SOFTWARE and could dump my GPS device.
I currently watch several movies on the thing while riding the bus so a better smoother method of getting movies/TV program off my computer/PVR to the iPod touch would be great too. Thank goodness for some 3rd party apps.
Flash support while browsing the internet would be nice... but after seeing how poorly it preforms on a hacked one I can happily wait a couple of generations while they improve the processor speed.
The 3rd generation is not much advancement but just a natural progression... I expected leaps as make reach the level of iphone (minus the phone part). Maybe by the 5th generation.
Sounds like Steve's return isn't such a good idea after all. I won't buy another nano for as long as it has that stupid camera. Hey Stevy say "cheese" :)
First Apple had us believe the Nano was targeted to active people, those of use who jog, lift, practice yoga and so on. Now they put a camera on the Nano so it will get banned from most Gyms / locker rooms and just about any place where people want to feel they can relax, exercise and have some privacy, not worrying about some idiot posting a funny video of you in a funny position on YouTube. I hope this Nano is a big failure for Apple, and if I see you with one of this at the gym get ready to be crushed.
12 yo sex ? =O
Loath. You're loath to do something. You loathe, say, plastic flowers.
the itouch is undeniably a great device, but it's like the 72-73 class of Big Three muscle cars-too little too late in a time where fuel economy and environmental designs changed the automotive industry. The iTouch is a gaming device and a small web tablet, but an iPod first. How is this a problem? It wouldn't be-if it were an iPhone. people are moving toward device integration
Why can't game machines have cameras?
I still want to know what happened to the mic and ear piece we were supposed to get. Looks like I'm stuck with my 1g nano for another year.
oh COMEON......
i do love my ipod touch, but what are they thinking...
if they are going to market it for gaming then why didn't they change the battery lift so you would be able to play a game for more than 10 minutes?
fail
whats that airplane game thats shown on the ipod touch?
Well thats the end to augmented reality apps on the iPod Touch....
as if there were any to begin with...
By Inventing a Unique Device and then Restricting its common function that Y Apple is 2nd no. Company and Microsoft is 1st. So many year apple is doing the same I request Steve Job and Apple Marketing Team to do research what the end user what in their product and not what apple want to give user and then C Apple will become Leader in its Fields not only in USA but in whole World.
Marketing.
iPod nano is in brown stage dev. but is still a large enough market to not ignore. Therefore they gave it a function that isn't included in the next step up as a means of differentiating the product line.
iPod touch is in direct competition with iPhone as VOIP industries for mobile units emerge. Separating the product lines through minor functionality keeps the iPhone holding its place as the top of the line iPod unit and doesn't cut into iPhone sales.
What gets me off is that @ is now marketing the LP experience without offering Apple Lossless media. CDs are still the preferred source for full quality music, (since 1982). The iPod classic is still too small to hold a reasonably sized iTunes library in Lossless. @ needs to stop worrying about iPod classic slim design form factors and give us a data vault. At least the iPad will be big enough to hold a larger memory load. This is just music, video is an entirely new bag of nuts.
Apple, please release me from buying hard copies of my music via Amazon and offer something equivalent via iTunes.
Hmmmm. This makes you wanna wait even more for an iPod Touch. I would like one but as long as there are features that are not included in the touch that ARE included elsewhere in the iPod family, I ain't getting it.
I'm hoping for the iPad actually which I expect it will be introduced by the end of the year. In that case, I may not even need the touch. The iPad will serve as a second computer.