iPod Is putting cameras into iPods a good idea?

[Jon-Luke]

There have been numerous rumors recently about Apple putting cameras into ipods. This article by Wired ( http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/cameras-in-ipods-game-over/ ) states that if they do so they could well make a massive dent into the consumer camera market.

Apple does not have any digital cameras in their current lineups of gadgets - could this be their way in, especially if you consider the software support they already have in place for digital stills and video (ie. iPhoto, Apeture, Final Cut etc..)

Essentially in the future could we be looking at all in one devices that are a phone, a camera, a mp3 player, a movie player and a digital video camera (the iPhone 3GS is essentially all these things but technology can only advance - so is there a possibility of 10MB digital cameras becoming redundant as well as HD Handycams)?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Personally, I wouldn't be particularly crazy on the idea. For my part, I don't want an all-singing-and-dancing MP3 player, just one that can play my music library very well when I wish to listen to music (which is often).

Cheers

 

[futureswitcher]

Personally, I wouldn't be particularly crazy on the idea. For my part, I don't want an all-singing-and-dancing MP3 player, just one that can play my music library very well when I wish to listen to music (which is often).

Cheers

I agree 100% in the case of the iPod nano. The nano is meant to be a simple(r) mp3 player, and is really not needed.

The iPod touch is a completely different story, however. This device is obviously for people who want extra. Personally, I think it would be pretty awesome, because my cell phone doesn't have a camera (ancient, i know) and i'd love to be able to take a quick pic of something funny i see or etc. However, I'll probably have a new phone anyway by the time my first gen iPod touch kicks the bucket.

 

[Jon-Luke]

I agree 100% in the case of the iPod nano. The nano is meant to be a simple(r) mp3 player, and is really not needed.

The iPod touch is a completely different story, however. This device is obviously for people who want extra. Personally, I think it would be pretty awesome, because my cell phone doesn't have a camera (ancient, i know) and i'd love to be able to take a quick pic of something funny i see or etc. However, I'll probably have a new phone anyway by the time my first gen iPod touch kicks the bucket.

So following that thinking should the video and photo playback function be removed form the Nano?

 

[sbking]

it's a great idea, as long as the iPod doesn't get fatter and other features don't disappear or suffer.

 

[geoffreak]

Apple appears to like the Nano line, so I think it may see a camera upgrade, but an iPod Touch with camera is long overdue.

 

[seven7seven]

A camera on the Nano kind of seems stupid.
On the iPod Touch though I like the idea.
I wish it would actually be a good camera that was better than my phone.

 

[futureswitcher]

So following that thinking should the video and photo playback function be removed form the Nano?

a valid point. However photo/video playback and photo/video creation are two completely different things. The nano is meant to be a player and the touch is meant to be a more interactive device, so it would make more sense to put the camera on the touch and not the nano.

 

[jb60606]

I had similar worries just prior to the release of the iPhone 'S'. Blackberry and other competitors were equipping their new phones with higher MP cameras, and had a feeling that Apple was going to try and "one-up" them in that arena.

I think Apple has too much respect for photography to try and pass an A/V/cellular device off as a replacement for a camera.

I'm not saying that I think they're going to stop at 3MP, but onboard camera availability/quality will never be a a focal point for them. I think they only see an onboard camera as a value-add, convenience & perq.