I was wondering whether Apple's choice not to include a Front-Facing camera in its first Generation ipad was due to the US GPRS network short-falls, particularly the bandwidth limitations of AT&T's network (I hope I worded that correctly- Not a network Tech expert- But you get my point) .. There have been a lot of reports here in Europe of networks in North America not coping with the iphone traffic. Would the demand of video calling on iphones & ipads crash the present network? It would be a shame to have denied European customers such an obvious addition to the ipad because of AT&T's poor network infrastructure. Just putting it out there for discussion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No Camera- AT&T's Fault?
- Thread starter chimpman.monkey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why are people so worked up about not having a camera on the iPad. Every phone in the universe has a camera and so far it hasn't crashed the network. the projected sales of the iPad will certainly not cause the world as we know it end (if they included a camera).
Perhaps apple thought it was not a feature that was worthwhile to implement. Its little brother the ipod touch doesn't have one, so its not that unusual for apple to forgo the camera.
I doubt very much ATT told apple they'd better not put a camera on it because they're network couldn't handle it. If they did, apple would have found a network that could, *cough* verizon *cough*
Perhaps apple thought it was not a feature that was worthwhile to implement. Its little brother the ipod touch doesn't have one, so its not that unusual for apple to forgo the camera.
I doubt very much ATT told apple they'd better not put a camera on it because they're network couldn't handle it. If they did, apple would have found a network that could, *cough* verizon *cough*
I'm not sure what the reason was, but I think Apple would have just made it a wifi only feature if ATT voiced some concerns
The most plausible reason I've heard so far is a supply issue. It might have been that it was decided that holding the tablet while video conferencing wasn't the experience Apple wanted it to be i.e. The image not holding a static position and being jittery.
A shame though, it would have been a nice feature especially for skype users. I've given up on cam support on msn for the mac.
One thing that could have been interesting though, is if iChat was introduced on the iPhone and tablet, might it have actually made iChat a valuable IM client outside of America. In the UK iChat is very much redundant unless you have American friends who use AIM or know another mac user. Everyone else just uses Msn messenger
The most plausible reason I've heard so far is a supply issue. It might have been that it was decided that holding the tablet while video conferencing wasn't the experience Apple wanted it to be i.e. The image not holding a static position and being jittery.
A shame though, it would have been a nice feature especially for skype users. I've given up on cam support on msn for the mac.
One thing that could have been interesting though, is if iChat was introduced on the iPhone and tablet, might it have actually made iChat a valuable IM client outside of America. In the UK iChat is very much redundant unless you have American friends who use AIM or know another mac user. Everyone else just uses Msn messenger
Bandwidth limitations are one possibility.
Another alternative influence that AT&T may have had is that by offering a $29.99 unlimited data plan with no contract to this device would render pointless many people's need for more expensive voice plans. This might especially be true with users who would couple Google Voice and Skype together, presuming that Skype went ahead and created an app with video conferencing.
Possibly the inclusion of the camera was a negotiable item between Apple and AT&T and allowed AT&T to offer the $29.99 data plan. It's speculative, but perhaps with the inclusion of the camera, which may have also decreased Apple's margins, would have come with a higher cost data plan making the overall package less appealing.
Also a factor in this equation might be the effect that a VoIP enabled video conferencing device on iPhone sales.
And perhaps yet another a factor might be the release of an iPhone with the much desired front facing camera specifically for this type of function.
Finally, it may have just been the case that Apple's stringent product pipeline was unable to include the camera at the desired specifications or that acquiring cameras at the correct cost was not possible for the product launch.
Along with others, I'm keeping open the unreasonable and unfounded hope that the iPad will include one when it launches.
Another alternative influence that AT&T may have had is that by offering a $29.99 unlimited data plan with no contract to this device would render pointless many people's need for more expensive voice plans. This might especially be true with users who would couple Google Voice and Skype together, presuming that Skype went ahead and created an app with video conferencing.
Possibly the inclusion of the camera was a negotiable item between Apple and AT&T and allowed AT&T to offer the $29.99 data plan. It's speculative, but perhaps with the inclusion of the camera, which may have also decreased Apple's margins, would have come with a higher cost data plan making the overall package less appealing.
Also a factor in this equation might be the effect that a VoIP enabled video conferencing device on iPhone sales.
And perhaps yet another a factor might be the release of an iPhone with the much desired front facing camera specifically for this type of function.
Finally, it may have just been the case that Apple's stringent product pipeline was unable to include the camera at the desired specifications or that acquiring cameras at the correct cost was not possible for the product launch.
Along with others, I'm keeping open the unreasonable and unfounded hope that the iPad will include one when it launches.
Well why didn't they? Is it really just about marketing the 2nd gen?
Ok- good ponit.
Because a lot of people use VoIP, and few phones have wifi capabilities, combined with a big enough screen. Video conferencing between countries is becoming more and more important- especially for those that are always on the move. A device that is stylish, portable, practical (ie. i don't always want to board the plane with my e-reader, ipod, laptop and phone), and cost effective. (international call plans coupled with EU iPhone tariffs are extremely expensive) would be something Apple could have made a killing with.
too true
The last thing, people my age want are options that we aren't going to use. My friends and I are cool with no camera.
Heck, we have almost every camera already made, anyway.
I really don't want people to see me when I call.
Heck, we have almost every camera already made, anyway.
I really don't want people to see me when I call.
I remember youtube saying that video uploads went up 1400% the first week of 3GS.
My guess is they have a ipad already built with isight ready to make suckers like me buy it. I'll buy it because I use isight everyday. I don't need or want a "camera" for taking pictures, I just want one for video. If it was wifi video only that would be just fine with me.
My guess is they have a ipad already built with isight ready to make suckers like me buy it. I'll buy it because I use isight everyday. I don't need or want a "camera" for taking pictures, I just want one for video. If it was wifi video only that would be just fine with me.
G4R2- Thank You- some great points.
Lamonster- fully agreed- 'camera' in this sense would be front facing. I definately won't be expecting to unpack my Digital SLR from my 'carry-on'. Nor would I want to.
Lamonster- fully agreed- 'camera' in this sense would be front facing. I definately won't be expecting to unpack my Digital SLR from my 'carry-on'. Nor would I want to.
The last thing, people my age want are options that we aren't going to use. My friends and I are cool with no camera.
Heck, we have almost every camera already made, anyway.
I really don't want people to see me when I call.
i think you have a valid point, I seldom use my iSight camera. But there are times where the convenience of having a built in iSight is just worth it
Example, two of my friends have recently had babies. The one doesn't have a webcam, so I had to wait a few weeks until I could see his new pride and joy. His brother has an iSight and it was wonderful to see his new born.
Another friend has just emigrated with her family to NZ, the convenience of having an iSight cam now means that I can see them and not just talk with them.
It's having the knowledge that I have options and flexibility that's important, i'm sure most iMovie users don't edit video every day. Some probably only edit it once a year when they go on holidays (vacation). It's just nice to have the option
The last thing, people my age want are options that we aren't going to use. My friends and I are cool with no camera.
Heck, we have almost every camera already made, anyway.
I really don't want people to see me when I call.
+1
So far as I noted in various threads including this one I fail to see the allure of the camera. Clearly there's a number of people who want it. Are they a vocal minority or majority - I don't know. I'd probably find a rear facing camera useful on rare occasions, and never use a front facing camera.
I also don't see apple making a killing if they did with the whole video conferencing segment. I don't see too many businesses willing to spend the money on a device just to be used for video conferencing. There's little business features to make the iPad a worthwhile expenditure.
There is a reason why you don't see any forward facing cams in the US that work for VOIP and that reason is the US cell companies do not want you to have it, and it's not just At&t its all of them, thats why when you see a phone in Europe come out here it doesn't have one, US cell companys want it that way.
Same reason why the iPT doesn't have a camera yet either, holding onto it for "future" upgrade to ring in a few more bucks..
From what I understand this may be the best reason. My guess is that some prototypes included a camera and an iPad version of iChat, however, it was just not an acceptable user experience for Apple.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
No see that's where you're wrong. Everything that makes us mad about apple is a result of AT&T. I'm serious.
The macbook's absence of Arrandale for example, AT&T forced that upon apple. You'd be surprised at their influence
/sarcasm
If you feel front facing cam and video phone calls are so cool on the iPad. I ask you to do one thing and let me know how you enjoyed it.
Go find a book about 1 to 2lbs. Hold it out in front of your face for 10 to 20 mins and then let me know how your arms feel? My guess is you set it on your lap and then you just give everyone a nice view up your nose. Based on what I've seen, people keep claiming since the iPad is so portable, the "on the go" ability to video call is so needed.
Imo it's a novelty that kids would become bored with shortly and never use again. Video conferencing for corp america is NOT done over a 3g network on the move, it's in board rooms with hard wired internet connections.
Not to mention if this was a feature, within 30 days of it's release their would be some idiot trying to do this walking, trip fall and break his neck/leg/arm in the process then try to sue Apple because "the iPad was blocking my view, i didn't see the step!"
Go find a book about 1 to 2lbs. Hold it out in front of your face for 10 to 20 mins and then let me know how your arms feel? My guess is you set it on your lap and then you just give everyone a nice view up your nose. Based on what I've seen, people keep claiming since the iPad is so portable, the "on the go" ability to video call is so needed.
Imo it's a novelty that kids would become bored with shortly and never use again. Video conferencing for corp america is NOT done over a 3g network on the move, it's in board rooms with hard wired internet connections.
Not to mention if this was a feature, within 30 days of it's release their would be some idiot trying to do this walking, trip fall and break his neck/leg/arm in the process then try to sue Apple because "the iPad was blocking my view, i didn't see the step!"
The easier method for experiencing a front facing camera on a iPad, iPhone or Touch . . . get a small makeup mirror and hold it up in your hand and see how long you can hold a conversation with anyone while keeping your face centered and still in the mirror. Go ahead, we'll all wait . . .
In all the many months I've spent working with corporate IT folks (Gizmo freaks) in Europe, I never once saw someone having a video chat on their cell.
The first day my friends got computers with Webcams, we did webcam chats for a few minutes, but then as the novelty wore off we do that less and less. To me a cam would be nice, but certainly isn't a killer feature. Again, if I need one, I'll buy a 3rd party unit.
Highly doubt AT&T had a say on the iPad. More like Apple nixing it 1st Gen and add it 2nd Gen to drive sales; simple markting guys.
Also remember that report where Apple was buying 3.2MP and 5.0MP cameras? We know where the 3.2MP cameras went, I wonder where the other 5.0MP cameras went.
Also remember that report where Apple was buying 3.2MP and 5.0MP cameras? We know where the 3.2MP cameras went, I wonder where the other 5.0MP cameras went.