iPhone Photo Video » ipod touch

iPod Touch with Sprint MiFi: Only a camera is missing!

Veit — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:18:40 +0000

We’ve written extensively about the Verizon MiFi and how, if only the iPod Touch had a camera, we would switch from the iPhone to an iPod Touch with Skype to have a de-facto iPhone on the Verizon network.

Meanwhile, the MiFi has also become available on the Sprint network and The Unofficial Apple Weblog has a good review of the MiFi for Sprint. So Sprint might be another alternative if you want to switch away from AT&T.

Now if only Apple would finally put a camera into the iPod Touch…

New Apple Equation: Microphone + WiFi = iPhone Killer

Veit — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:28:47 +0000

Yesterday, Steve Jobs re-introduced the new Apple handheld equation:

Microphone + WiFi = iPhone Killer

With a microphone and WiFi, you have access to Google Voice in a browser, thus a potential phone. Add to that a Verizon MiFi and you have a de-facto cell phone.

That, and not Steve Jobs’ bogus answer to David Pogue on how Apple did not understand how to market an iPod Touch, is the reason we did not see a camera and video in the iPod Touch. And why the Nano does not include WiFi.

That is also why we we will not see an iPod camera, as Joe thinks we will. And why the iPad could have both WiFi and a microphone – it’s not a hand-held (or at least what a consumer understands a handheld to be).

Expect future Apple handhelds to follow this formula – Apple needs to protect its iPhone franchise

The one and only thing I will watch out for during the Apple event

Veit — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:40:12 +0000

With less than 24 hours to go until the Apple Music event, there’s only one thing that I will watch out for on the live-blogs from the event tomorrow:

Will the new iPod Touch have a built-in microphone?

Here’s why the microphone is so crucial: Without a built-in microphone, there will be no video. Also, there will be severe limitations in making/receiving calls over VOIP or through Google Voice (if it gets re-written to be browser-based, as Google stated). But even more importantly, no microphone will basically set the course for keeping the iPod Touch de-featured in order to protect the iPhone brand.

A built-in microphone, on the other hand, not only would enable video, but set the stage to seriously use the iPod Touch as a VOIP phone, in conjunction with a device like the Verizon MiFi. And Apple would show the world that is is not sweating the fact that the iPod Touch could make it very easy for iPhone users like me to switch from the iPhone/AT&T combo to iTouch/Verizon or iTouch/Sprint.

We will know soon. I cannot wait…

p.s.
If Steve Jobs is tomorrow’s presenter, we will hear about the new tablet computer, a.k.a. the iPad. If it’s Phil Schiller, there might be one more thing, but not an iPad.
OK. Enough speculation…

How will Apple de-feature the 3rd gen iPod Touch?

Veit — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:12:17 +0000

With more and more rumors about the upcoming 3rd gen iPod Touch popping up as we get closer to the yet-to-be-announced iPod/Music event that Apple traditionally holds in September, there is still one question that I keep pondering:

Will Apple de-feature the 3rd gen iPod Touch to protect the iPhone?

We’ve seen numerous spy shots allegedly depicting the back of the 3rd gen iPod Touch. Regardless whether the camera sits in the middle (as depicted in the most recent shots) or to the left as in the iPhone, I firmly believe that there will be a camera in the iPod Touch.

However, that does not tell us what camera is in the iPod Touch, whether it is the same hardware as in the iPhone and, more importantly, whether video will be included. While I do believe that Apple would want to control cost by sharing the same camera hardware between the iPhone and the iPod Touch (remember, the cost for the camera increased by 30% in the iPhone 3GS), the software could very well differ.

Why would Apple want to de-feature the 3rd gen iPod Touch?

When Apple released the 2nd gen iPod Touch, Apple differentiated it from the iPhone 3G by not including a phone, GPS or a camera. Similarly, when Apple released the iPhone 3GS, it did not include video in the OSX 3.0 update delivered to iPhone 3G owners, even although its camera would have been able to capture video as well. So there is a track record of Apple not back-porting all functionality to older versions of the same product or of Apple not including every feature in the iPod Touch.

Given that Apple rests on the “tripod” of Mac, iPhone and iTunes (no, not iPod), Apple must be worried about protecting the now very well established iPhone brand. In fact, if the iPod Touch will be released with the same photo/video capability as the iPhone 3GS, I will not be the only one seriously tempted to ditch my iPhone for the 3rd gen iPod Touch. The economics would support this (see here on the Verizon MiFi, esp. if Apple were to also announce a tablet); so would the opportunity of getting away from AT&T which is now seen mainly as a burden to Apple. Also high-profile “technorati” defections away from the iPhone have an impact on the iPhone brand (quickly: which technorati has openly defected from the iPod Touch? I don’t know a single one).

Apple knows this. They know releasing a full-featured iPod Touch will cannibalize some of their iPhone sales. As someone with quite some experience in brand management, I would advise Apple to protect the iPhone brand at all cost. Even if it means to (continue to) de-feature the iPod Touch. Given the current trouble Apple is in with regards to the AppStore, they might just play this one safe. And take away some functionality from the iPod Touch to keep the iPhone franchise strong.

Personally, I hope they will release a full-featured iPod Touch. But would I bet on it? No!

WWDC: Where’s the 3rd generation iPod Touch?

Veit — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:33:26 +0000

Related posts:How will Apple de-feature the 3rd gen iPod Touch? iPod Touch with Sprint MiFi: Only a camera is missing! Apple to re-define digital camera/video market with 5MP iPod Touch Camera? (Part 1 of 2) Related posts:

WWDC: What should photographers expect from iPhone 3.0 ?

Veit — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:59:33 +0000

With only a few more days until the “Phil-note” at WWDC’09, our excitement is slowly starting to rise, so let me quickly summarizes what us photographers can or should expect from the show.

It’s wildly rumored (to me, it’s a certainty) that Apple will announce a new iPhone. Rumors point to an upgrade of the current 2 megapixel phone, with the new iPhone coming with a 3.2 megapixel camera. Not only that, but Gizmodo points to test shots that showcase significant image quality improvements in iPhone 3.0’s firmware. That would be as important as more mega-pixels — as DSLR photographers, we know how much firmware upgrades can improve image quality and camera performance.

Additional rumors from AppleInsider point to autofocus capabilities in the next iPhone. Although I cannot assess the credibility of these rumors, I would think that auto-focus is especially needed, if the next iPhone supports shooting videos (also wildly rumored and part of the iPhone 3.0 beta SDK – Update from the Editor: TidBITS published a blog entry (AT&T Plans for Mobile Data Onslaught) where they attribute expected data growth to the higher-megapixel camera plus video uploads). Thus, my expectations are up that autofocus support will be included. No hints yet on whether there will be multiple autofocus points, how to pick these (maybe just touch the screen where you want to focus on?) and how to turn autofocus off…

The various beta versions of the iPhone 3.0 SDK all highlighted some improvements in the camera app (display of a thumbnail of the last image that you took) as well as the iPhone photo album (copy/delete multiple images at the same time, sharing via email). Given that the iPhone beta is feature-complete, I don’t expect any unannounced surprises. So far, I’m underwhelmed by the improvements to the software, but thankfully there are third party apps. We also expect to see timely updates for some of our favorite iPhone apps (Pro Camera, Photogene or Tiffen’s Photo Fx) once iPhone 3.0 is out.

The rumor mill has been pretty quiet about a new iPod Touch 3.0, but my expectations are high. I hope that the next Touch will finally include a camera (not sure about that, since the Touch is so much slimmer than the iPhone. Can Apple easily fit the camera hardware into the iPod Touch form factor?) If so, the camera should be the same as the iPhone’s. If my fellow iPhonePhotoShow.com blogger Joe is right about a new “iCamera” (IMO, a very long shot), I would expect even better camera firmware (anti-shake similar to Pro Camera), in-iCamera editing and advanced photo album functionality. And should Apple announce an “iPad” (a tablet-style computer, basically an iPhone Touch in a much larger form factor – again, a long shot IMO, but very likely at a later time), it should at least contain the iPhone 3.0 camera, firmware and apps and hopefully even more.

Personally, I really look forward to the keynote next week. Only then will we know. But at this time, I’m confident that I will be excited after the “Phil-note”. And I might even have to plan on standing in line for half a day at an Apple store soon…

Apple to re-define digital camera/video market with 5MP iPod Touch Camera? (Part 1 of 2)

Joe — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:32:08 +0000

Seth Weintraub, in his recent blog posting at ComputerWorld, speculates that a) Apple intends to put 3 megapixel imagers in its next-generation iPhone and b) may be planning a re-entry into the digital camera space by creating a 5 megapixel iPod Touch-based camera. According to Weintraub, and the manufacturer’s specifications for the imaging chips, the 5MP camera could create not only 5MP still images, but also HD video at 720p (60fps) or 1080p (30fps).

Weintraub cites a couple of things (job postings, part specs, etc.) which seem to support his hypotheses, but obviously only time will tell.

Since I don’t think it’s controversial that iPhone owners will want future versions of the platform to have better and more powerful imaging capabilities (3MP would seem to be the lowest threshold that would be competitive), the more interesting questions are:

a) will people want an iPod Touch that is first and foremost a camera?

b) would it be profitable for Apple to sell a hybrid digital still/video camera a la the Flip HD (which has sold more than 2 million units since its intro in 2007, and is made by Pure Digital, the company that Cisco bought in March for $590 million in stock), of which the company’s CEO said “We became a profitable business from the day we launched Flip”?

First, let’s look at the question of whether people would want an Apple 5MP camera (assuming Weintraub’s speculations are correct) that is essentially an iPod Touch with a lens? Well, this is just based on my own opinion, empirical data, and no end-user surveys or mass feedback: yes.

Why do I say ‘yes’? Because, while it wouldn’t compete with standalone digicams based either on quality (size of imager, quality of image processing), price (a 5MP iPod Touch would have to be at least $250 and would most likely be $300 or more vs. $100 for a 8MP camera) or brand equity in the digital photography space (Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Casio, Olympus, anyone?), it would bring to the market a digital still and video camera that also has mature, highly functional WiFi connectivity built-in, a larger display for viewing photos and controls than is available from Digital Still Cameras, and an ecosystem of directly relevant image editing apps and services which no still camera can access in anything approaching the same breadth. It’s not clear whether this iPod Touch camera would take external memory cards and if so, which ones – that would be a key question that I, as a consumer would ask and want to feel comfortable with.

In short, a consumer who bought an iPod Touch video and still camera would be buying a device that has internet connectivity, music playback capabilities (assuming Apple wouldn’t gut the iPod part of the iPod Touch camera), media handling, and computing and Internet browsing. True the consumer would be paying perhaps 3x the price of a class-leading Sony or Canon digicam which themselves had as much as 2.5x the megapixel count -and though we know that megapixels doth not make the camera great, many consumers still ask first ‘how many megapixels does it have?’- but would be getting a more robust imaging device that is actually a full-blown computing platform that takes pictures. And, remember, that you could geo-tag your images, send them to friends with annotations, and integrate them directly into other areas of your online life directly from the camera platform itself (as Weintraub points out in his blog entry).

As to whether it would be profitable for Apple to sell such a device, I will address this question in the second part of this article, coming soon.