• 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 $199 for an 8GB model with a camera like the one in the nano. Now, the iPod touch is noticeably thinner than iPhone 3GS, so that better still/video/autofocus camera part might not fit inside, but the one in the nano certainly would. So, yes, we’re calling “bullshit” on Steve Jobs’ cost excuse. Maybe he feels the nano’s camera isn’t good enough for the touch — that we could see as a valid reason — but he didn’t give that as the reason (of course, he can’t come out and say that in public). If that’s not the case, then the real issue here seems to be the issue of extreme cannibalization. The day iPod touch gets its camera is likely the day Apple discontinues the iPod nano.
MacDailyNews Note: Immediately following Apple’s announcements today we began getting a bunch of emails all of which can be paraphrased: “I wanted to buy my [son, daughter, wife, husband] an iPod with a camera that could access the App Store. Now what am I supposed to do, buy an iPod nano for the camera and an iPod touch for the App Store?” To which we replied: “Surely Apple wouldn’t mind.” These prospective buyers would not even be considering an iPod nano if the iPod touch had a camera.
• Jobs on his health: “I feel great. I probably need to gain about 30 pounds, but I feel really good. I’m eating like crazy. A lot of ice cream.”
Full interview here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Spark” for the heads up.]
Apple really needs to pull their head out of their ass. The lack of new features on the Touch is an insult, Apple shouldn’t be going down this road.
If i wanted stagnant products from a greedy arrogant company I’d be a M$ fan. Please wake up Apple.
However the cannibalization would work — either touch to nano or touch to iPhone — I agree the exclusion had to be a business decision not based on price. If nothing else, they could have included it in the 32 & 64 GB models. Those are now being differentiated with faster processors and there’s enough margin to include a camera as an extra selling point.
Like others have pointed out, the real challenge is the consumer who wants an iPhone but not sure they want to deal with AT&T;and a data plan — would an iPod touch + simple phone do? Probably. If it had a camera, GPS, compass, etc. — definitely.
I had hoped for an Ipod Touch with 64GB, still/video camera, mic and GPS.
So no iPod Touch for me.
“A greater question for Apple at the moment is … what is the health of the consumer, who is really their core customer, in the fourth quarter?” said Daniel Ernst at Hudson Square Research. “We have unemployment nearing 10 percent and Apple’s still growing better than the rest of tech, but it’s still an issue.”
Apple’s priority short term has to be therefore to get prices down while it increases features and storage.
Apple does not compromise on quality and when it delivers it delivers only the best. The touch is evolving and is the cream of the iPod crop, it has to be state of the art – not state of the fart. There’s more to a camera than $5 and a cheap lens. If and when Apple implements one in the touch it will be exceptional and significantly more developed than what can be accomplished now without getting in the way of the stated goal: “getting price down to $199 and increasing storage”
This new refreshed product line, these new price points coupled with a refreshed complete unibody MacBook Pro Line and international iPhone marketing expansion, supplemented with Snow Leopard, iTunes 9, iphone 3.1 software, iLife ’09 and iWorks’09, will keep Apple in good shape during the recession and ready to breakout massively after it.
or more like the ipod nano? or the just the ipod in general. if something is considered a “hobby,” they clearly wouldn’t be expecting to sell record amounts. come on
The only thing you ever sold was lemonade when you were a kid.
This does suck……. I had promised the girls new iTouches with cameras. ;( I guess dad should wait to confirm that it actually exists. I really don’t see why they didn’t put a camera on both the iTouch and the nano. Unless there is a supply issue……… I could see it being a problem since they are having a hard time keeping up with the iPhone demand. I guess that is a bad problem to have……
The more I consider the lack of camera in iPod touch, the more I believe the iPhone cannibalization theory is the correct answer.
The profit margin on the 8GB iPod touch at the new price has to be the lowest of all the iPod models and configs, although selling apps after the unit’s sale makes up for it. The highest profit margin of all the iPods models and configs is probably the iPod classic; I knew it would keep in rolling, because it sells well enough and it is cheap to build, plus no new engineering costs – just keep making it and upping the storage until it no longer sells in sufficient numbers. Buy that time, flash storage capacity and cost will have caught up.
Back to the touch… compared to the iPod touch, the iPhone has huge profit per unit, plus the profit from app sales. Apple would much rather sell and iPhone than an iPod touch. An iPod touch with the same video capability would be a significant threat. An iPod nano with a cheaper camera is not a threat to the iPhone.
ok the nano camera may be video only and non auto focus but i would love for the cool effects it has when taking video. DO you think the iPhone can do that with a software update i wanna make cool looking stupid videos too no 4 real i really do.
And I thought I would already know what to buy my 9 year old son for Christmas: an iPod touch with a camera of the same quality as in the iPhone. I guess I got to look for something else now. – But I am not blaming Apple or Steve for it. I think this would have cannibalized some of the iPhone sales. I suppose the iPod touch will eventually have a camera built-in, once the iPhone has another feature or two to show off that won’t be available in the iPod touch.
In this case, Apple could be a little more like Micro$oft. Why not put a Camera in a highend touch???f If Apple could be just a little more flexible, they would appeal to a much larger segment of the market.
Apple has a really bad case of telling their customers what they want, that’s really unfortunate given the unyielding loyalty so many of their customers exhibit.
Was hoping for a camera in the Touch. Was ready to upgrade.
Not buying another nano… not using the one I have now.
Not buying an iPhone. VirginMobile works great for my needs and saves me tons of $.
Will keep my first generation Touch until there is an HD camera available in a new Touch.
Touch and nano can’t cannibalize each other much, even if the touch had a camera. The nano is your “first iPod” and sells and would continue to sell well to the youngest customers. Also, many choose the nano because of the size.
Rather, a touch with a camera would cannibalize iPhone sales.
It looks to me that the new iPT is the same form factor and circuitry as the old one, just a speed boost and more memory, ne? So they didn’t have the resources to spend to re-engineer the layout to make room for a phone.
Also, since the iPT is shallower than the iPhone, there may be a problem with having enough depth to allow for a focussing mechanism.
The real reason there is no camera in the new iPod touch:
The camera guy was out sick last week.
Steve isn’t fat enough? Okay! Let’s pull down the Apple’s share!! Wouaf!
…And about iPods and having cameras… Of course, Apple is not willing to stop the Nanos right now. Within 2 years, it’ll probably be a must leave, but not just right nowadays. Plus, christmas period is good for light music+video capturing…
I am pretty sure SJ vetoed the cam from ipod touch not for any other reason but to ensure top of line user experience. Whenever apple adds a cam to ipod touch it is going for full resolution full function camera which can compete with the best in its class. For all we know it might add another line of products for apple fans.
Cheers
OMG, MDN criticising SJ, I don’t believe my eyes
I would be getting one soon if it had a camera; As it is now, I will just wait. I certainly will not buy a Nano for its camera.
Priced too high with a better camera than $9.95? That is BS! Leave the 16 gig model in the line up, add a decent camera and it should still be less than $299.
They made a mistake! Period!
The Marketing Logic is taking control of Apple! It used to be the best product that they could make; now it is the dollar by crippling one model. Apple and Steve need to beware of their past speeches about putting the marketing man and his philosophy in control.
Since I already have the 2g Touch, I will wait until they release a camera :/ I see why they didn’t put the crappy nano cam into the touch, and ofcourse it would kill 3GS sales if they put the nice camera into the touch, but that would be AT&T;’s loss and I think we are more likely to see it next year due to the simple
fact that the iPhone won’t be tied to AT&T;. – and AT&T;for me is simply not an option 🙁 Grrrr….
Clearly, some of you people should also be posting on the Canon, Olympus, Nikon, etc. forums to ask for internet browsing, media display, and games on their cameras if taking pictures is that important to you. That’s what it will take to have a decent camera. Putting one in the touch (a decent camera, that is) would have to double its thickness, at least. The camera on the iPhone is upgraded, but still sucks – without a flash it’s almost useless at least 50% of the time for most users.
For my part, if the picture isn’t worth keeping, it’s not worth taking. If the camera can’t take pictures worth keeping, its not worth having.
Hmmm… Suddenly I need to go post on some camera forums. I would have much more use for a good camera with iPod touch or iPhone capabilities than a touch with a crappy camera. And I don’t see Steve Jobs going seriously into the photography business anytime soon.
Maybe the one device to rule them all has to come from the camera industry. I’ll wager that we’ll see cameras with internet access and music/video playing before we see the touch or iPhone with a real camera. Heck, TV’s are coming out with more functionality in that regard than the Apple TV can give them.
Apple will add the iPhone 3Gs camera to the iPod Touch when dipping sales demand it, and not a minute sooner. Same thing with GPS and a compass.
I call it the Bubka plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Bubka
Sit down, shut up, buckle up, and get ready for Steve Jobs 3.0
nomoremsbs:
and not a minute too soon