• Jobs remarking on Kindle: “You notice Amazon never says how much they sell; usually if they sell a lot of something, you want to tell everybody.”
MacDailyNews Take: Kindle, Schmindle: Apple’s iPhone and iPod touch rule eBook market
• Jobs explaining why iPod touch didn’t get a camera: “Originally, we weren’t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine. Because a lot of the games were free on the store… We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it’s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that’s the big draw. 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.”
MacDailyNews Take: Uh, yeah, riiight. Apple probably figured – and rightly so – that if they put that $5 camera part in the iPod touch, too, they might not sell many iPod nanos. And, we’re being very generous to ascribe a component cost of $5 for a video-only, non-still camera without autofocus capabilities. The type of camera in the nano probably costs Apple less (for example, the much better camera part in the iPhone 3Gs costs Apple around $9.55) and wouldn’t affect the retail price of an iPod touch much, if at all. Shave a little bit more off iPod touch’s healthy margin and you’re still easily at $199 for an 8GB model with a camera like the one in the nano. Now, the iPod touch is noticeably thinner than iPhone 3GS, so that better still/video/autofocus camera part might not fit inside, but the one in the nano certainly would. So, yes, we’re calling “bullshit” on Steve Jobs’ cost excuse. Maybe he feels the nano’s camera isn’t good enough for the touch — that we could see as a valid reason — but he didn’t give that as the reason (of course, he can’t come out and say that in public). If that’s not the case, then the real issue here seems to be the issue of extreme cannibalization. The day iPod touch gets its camera is likely the day Apple discontinues the iPod nano.
MacDailyNews Note: Immediately following Apple’s announcements today we began getting a bunch of emails all of which can be paraphrased: “I wanted to buy my [son, daughter, wife, husband] an iPod with a camera that could access the App Store. Now what am I supposed to do, buy an iPod nano for the camera and an iPod touch for the App Store?” To which we replied: “Surely Apple wouldn’t mind.” These prospective buyers would not even be considering an iPod nano if the iPod touch had a camera.
• Jobs on his health: “I feel great. I probably need to gain about 30 pounds, but I feel really good. I’m eating like crazy. A lot of ice cream.”
Full interview here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Spark” for the heads up.]
nano will die if new ipod touch will get camera? where is this non-sense coming from? there is still price difference. so nano will still sell well no matter what. unbelievable!
Careful Steve! Don’t jump into the Ballmer diet without proper training and possible assistance from Oprah.
So, are they gonna release today’s video or what?
I thought Steve was a vegan!? Perhaps frozen soy? Or has he changed his diet?
Sorry Sj, but I for one was hoping for a camera in the touch. AT&T;isn’t an option here, so I’m not getting an iPhone anytime soon.
with a nano on me than an ipod touch.
the nano just turned into a bitchin james bond spy tool tho.
Have a hamburger, Steve, but don’t have a cow over it.
It’s not like you’ll get cancer or anything, right?
Um, MDN? Am I supposed to be upset that the iPod touch didn’t get a video-only camera, with no autofocus? I’m sorry, but if that camera had been put in the touch, everyone would be bitching.
I mean, c’mon — admit the obvious: everyone was hoping that the iPod touch would get the same camera as the iPhone. And adding that camera to the touch would definately have blown up the price.
Comparing the sh*tty iPod nano camera to the iPhone camera everyone was expecting? I’m calling “bullshit” on you, MDN.
——RM
The main issue I see with a camera in the touch is that it won’t be good enough, and everyone will bitch about it. In the nano, it’s hard to complain that it’s a lame camera – it’s just a silly widget that makes it seem cooler, while not really adding all that much for device usefulness. Similarly, the Flip is a lame device. My sister has one – yeah, it takes video (low-res). But if the video isn’t worth keeping, it’s hardly worth watching. And taking.
In reality, an iPod Touch with a camera would be the true iPhone killer.
Jobs remarking on Kindle: “You notice Amazon never says how much they sell; usually if they sell a lot of something, you want to tell everybody.”
Errr…like Apple TV?
Horrendous take by MDN. The iPod touch won’t cannibalize nano sales no matter what features it has, just as the classic never cannibalized mini/nano sales when there was no touch. It’s all about the size MDN.
“video-only, non-still camera without autofocus capabilities”
Maybe that’s the answer. The Nano is a fun little unit with a not-so-hot camera. The “YouTube-grade” camera is a huge bonus in a Nano, but would feel a little chintzy in a Touch.
I want the iPhone camera in a iPod touch. That’s the only way I will upgrade. Steve, are you listening? Get better please.
@MDN Do you really it only cost 5 bucks to put a camera? You probably dreaming!!!1 maybe it it only cost 5 bucks for the camera, but what about the engineering process and designing of the product? Do you think engineers and designers don’t get pay?
I agree with Rob. The MDN take, for once, is foundless.
If the touch had a camera, nano buyers would still buy the nano for its lower cost, smaller size and simplicity.
Why would it cannibalize the Nano? I’m thinking it would hurt the iPhone sales more. The differentiation at that point would only be the phone. AT&T;probably put their two cents in on that decision. Plus Apple gets a good cut of the monthly fee so they’re looking out for themselves.
I’m making a guess — the real reason no camera in the touch yet — is that when/if they release an iTablet the touch will get a refresh at the same time and may have a camera at that time.
But whatever. Doesn’t matter. The nano is cool, the touch is cool.
Differentiation.
@bildad —
I agree. Astute point. Gotta keep a different focus on each product.
“Maybe that’s the answer. The Nano is a fun little unit with a not-so-hot camera. The “YouTube-grade” camera is a huge bonus in a Nano, but would feel a little chintzy in a Touch.”
….and we have a winner!
$5 says someone opens up a iTouch, and finds that there is indeed connectors to put a camera, and it becomes a hacking thing for people.
Try eating some meat. Sushi. Fast food. Can’t gain weight from a bowl of sprouts…
How about Krispy Kremes? It’s worked for others…
The Touch with good video would be an iPhone killer. The Nano is a separate category. This is an opportunity for the horrendous Zunes of the world to add video to compete against the Touch. I could do without FM radio on any of these products. Who listens to the radio when you have iTunes, your own music, podcasts, etc.
Most of all, I could care less against games. If the Touch is a gaming device, then I’m not among the target audience. The Touch should be a “netbook.” With decent video.
It gives them something to market next year’s model with. Who would buy a nano this year if it didn’t have the radio and camera? There’d be nothing new. The design and form factor are perfect, all they _could_ do is add a major new feature. I was a bit surprised they finally added a radio. Jobs is right that they don’t need a camera to sell a truck load of touches. Maybe next year they will juice the numbers by adding something like that. A shame if you really wanted it now, but hey.