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.
iPad Top spec iPad without the cameras
- Thread starter streza lenys
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As a compromise to OP's proposal I'd like the iPad to simply go back to simple cameras that don't require the godawful bump.
The camera on a iPad has some relevant use-cases (like document scanning), but making the iPad form significantly worse in favour of a "better" one is a real bad sense of priorities from Apple's part. No sane person cares about having a top-spec camera on a damn tablet.
The camera on a iPad has some relevant use-cases (like document scanning), but making the iPad form significantly worse in favour of a "better" one is a real bad sense of priorities from Apple's part. No sane person cares about having a top-spec camera on a damn tablet.
Interesting thread. I've got an iPad Pro and I don't use the camera at all, because quite frankly it's **** and I've got an iPhone and a mirrorless as well. Why would I use an iPad for those tasks? You look like an idiot taking a photo with an iPad at best. It's just the wrong tool for the job. Same with the LIDAR which I used once, to go "ooh ahh" despite having three iPad Pros now with LIDAR.
iPad prices will go up, if Apple has to design, maintain, and manufacture multiple physical components for same iPad model with and with out the camera. Remove the camera, you are altering the production line. It’s much simpler to manufacture and keep the lines running.
As I understand, Apple needs revenue, wage, profit, maneeey.
Your approach is a good one, but then iPad will became cheaper, and someone needs to get rid of the Stash, full of iSight/Apple cameras, + usually when you make something in higher counts, the one piece of that would be cheaper and easier to produce compared to lesser production.
So Apple:
- generate more revenue;
- brings up employment for the people;
- improve their relationships with Top Dogs and manufacturers, so they would likely be 1st on the list to cooperate with
Your approach is a good one, but then iPad will became cheaper, and someone needs to get rid of the Stash, full of iSight/Apple cameras, + usually when you make something in higher counts, the one piece of that would be cheaper and easier to produce compared to lesser production.
So Apple:
- generate more revenue;
- brings up employment for the people;
- improve their relationships with Top Dogs and manufacturers, so they would likely be 1st on the list to cooperate with
I have mixed feelings and can see this point of view. Also don't use the camera much and wouldn't mind more affordable iPads. But with little interest in being glued to an iPhone (or any cell phone), a camera may become more useful and handy to have as needed.
But it's more likely a basic iPad model would be camera-less, rather than a top-spec'ed (Pro) model. Though ultimately not likely at all.
But it's more likely a basic iPad model would be camera-less, rather than a top-spec'ed (Pro) model. Though ultimately not likely at all.
Last edited:
iPad won’t necessarily get cheaper. More production lines, design engineers, testing, extra R&D and no Reusability of camera components from other products like iPhone.
Pretty much. But what most of us end up doing is using the camera to "scan" whatever we want to scan with it, like documents. So a single camera is still useful, it just doesn't have to be as sophisticated as the ones as we get in the iPhone.
Also why I go back to last year's M1 iPad Air suggestion. With the M1 chip and 2nd gen apple pencil, that iPad is more than sufficient for the overwhelming majority of us. The iPad Pro at this point is like the Mac Pro, for the really few out there but while we don't need all the power, some of us still took it hook, line and sinker.
I can understand your point. Why pay for what you don’t use? Kinda like the cellular option. 99% of the time, it’s at home where wifi is more than adequate. And when we are out, we could hotspot to our iPhone.
I felt the same way about the camera. When would I ever use it? Then my kids went away to college and now we FaceTime on the iPad every day, mainly so it doesn’t drain our phone batteries or hold it hostage. With center stage it’s also very convenient to place it and talk while cooking or doing work around the house. Now I’m really glad we have that camera on our iPad.
I appreciate the camera on my mini 6 for scanning meeting agendas and snapping the odd field observation pic here and there, both of which are immediately annotated.
I’d gladly take a lesser camera, or even pay more, for the camera bump to go away.
I’d gladly take a lesser camera, or even pay more, for the camera bump to go away.
It’s a Lidar, mic, flash, verydamwide, and wide.
The verydamwide camera is useful when scanning files and pictures so you don’t need to hold it high.
Thanks for the info…didn’t know. However, still don’t really care as neither of us expects to ever use the camera whatever its features.
I can only imagine a very limited user base that won't ever find a use for the camera. Document scanning is a huge benefit on an iPad. In fact, it's a killer feature over a MacBook. LiDar/AR options as well are becoming more and more prevalent and will be bigger in the future I imagine.
Even if something like that existed, the savings would be so small it wouldn’t be worth it.
The discounts from Bestbuy and Amazon are more substantial than the price difference of removing the camera
Nobody ever asked for cameras on phones, and certainly nobody continues to ask for them to improve beyond the capability of the attached displays. Has Google never advertised anything oddly specific to any of you, the “need“ of which could only have been seen when the camera was not in use (by you)? Custom-sized cushion stuffers when my couch wasn’t ”fluffed”. No lie. Also showing me articles on plant care when I had a dead houseplant and didn’t move it right away because of an injury. The worst was all the medical conditions it advertised to me from having obviously watched me shower and trying to guess what chronic condition the swelling from that injury was a symptom of. I’m almost sure that was why I began getting calls from health insurance agents offering me policies with some sort of loophole around open enrollment and premiums that would never increase BUT HAD EXCLUSIONS RELATED TO THOSE CHRONIC CONDITIONS I DON’T EVEN HAVE. All the comments here from people not using the cameras on their tablets are informing you why the cameras are there and removable batteries are not
Absolutely agree as I believe an awful lot of others would. The camera on my 14 Pro Max is really quite good and excellent for 4K video. I have high-end DSLR & compact camera gear but the phone has the camera that is always with me.
I very, very seldom use my iPad's rear camera (front a bit more, for FaceTime etc.) But, I do like having it there. Sometimes I'll switch to rear camera in video conference to show something, sometimes I'll just use it to scan a QR code or a document.
The reason it wouldn't work to sell without a camera, is simple economics. It would cost Apple money to essentially double their iPad models on inventory (more complexity, more boxes stocked at store, etc etc) - not a lot in the great scheme of things, but a "> $0" cost. In order for the non-camera iPad to sell AT ALL, of course it'd need to sell for less than the one with the camera. So - how much less would Apple be willing to sell it for, and how many additional units would be sold by doing that? Not how many TOTAL units without a camera - how many NEW sales would they get by having a cheaper non-camera version, that they would not have sold anyway (at a higher price) with the camera??
We can only speculate, of course. A price reduction of $100 seems high to me, but let's go with that. And of course you said "Top specced iPad Pro" but let's look at the most BASIC iPad Pro, the 11" with 128GB storage. It's $799 currently, and it'd be $699 without a camera. Would I take that discount? Maybe. But remember, that's not the question. If I wanted an iPad Pro would $699 convince me to buy it, where at $799 (with the cameras!) I would not buy it. The answer for me, is unequivocally no. Discounting it by 12.5% isn't going to be a make-or-break point for me. And I expect that's pretty common.
If you get much beyond the basic, the discount just gets smaller. The $100 discount is fixed, doesn't matter if it's an 11" 128GB or a 12.9" 2TB with Cellular. Still just $100, but instead of saving 12.5% you're now barely saving 4%. Just doesn't make sense.
The reason it wouldn't work to sell without a camera, is simple economics. It would cost Apple money to essentially double their iPad models on inventory (more complexity, more boxes stocked at store, etc etc) - not a lot in the great scheme of things, but a "> $0" cost. In order for the non-camera iPad to sell AT ALL, of course it'd need to sell for less than the one with the camera. So - how much less would Apple be willing to sell it for, and how many additional units would be sold by doing that? Not how many TOTAL units without a camera - how many NEW sales would they get by having a cheaper non-camera version, that they would not have sold anyway (at a higher price) with the camera??
We can only speculate, of course. A price reduction of $100 seems high to me, but let's go with that. And of course you said "Top specced iPad Pro" but let's look at the most BASIC iPad Pro, the 11" with 128GB storage. It's $799 currently, and it'd be $699 without a camera. Would I take that discount? Maybe. But remember, that's not the question. If I wanted an iPad Pro would $699 convince me to buy it, where at $799 (with the cameras!) I would not buy it. The answer for me, is unequivocally no. Discounting it by 12.5% isn't going to be a make-or-break point for me. And I expect that's pretty common.
If you get much beyond the basic, the discount just gets smaller. The $100 discount is fixed, doesn't matter if it's an 11" 128GB or a 12.9" 2TB with Cellular. Still just $100, but instead of saving 12.5% you're now barely saving 4%. Just doesn't make sense.
I could be wrong about the cameras, and it seems like I might be. However, I do remember having camera phones before the iPhone and enjoying the convenience, but don’t remember anybody saying they wished phones had that feature before they did. Surely there were some people, but the rest of us bought them because they were available. Consider that Apple would never have obsoleted the iPod if positively matching the metadata to listeners and migrating them to definitely keeping the telemetry-enabled device nearby during their listening time had not been more valuable.
Like I said, I could be wrong…but if I’m not thank you for clearing up my incredulity at how such a thing so-easily happens. Incidentally, Zebra, Getac, Lenovo, Panasonic, and a couple of others make tablets that run Wimdows or Android with no cameras (and no GPS if that’s your concern and you’re willing to use a LAN connection). I think there are DOD spec Microsoft Surface devices without cameras as well, but they seem more difficult to come by for civilians. No Apple or Google hardware without cameras, so I remain skeptical about who the intended user base are for the cameras on these devices
I recall that the first mobile phones with cameras (2002-3) and their eg 120x120 resolution was gimmicky. However at the time there was an explosion in digital camera popularity and the prices of those devices came down. When phone manufacturers were able to feature megapixel cameras in their phones a few years later, there was consumer interest (this killed the low-end digital camera business).
Document scanning seems to be the typical use case for cameras on tablets, but cameras on phones are very important to some people. They want a quality camera for taking pictures and instantly have access to the computer they use the most (their smartphone) and its app eco-system for distributing their pictures to friends/family/other audience.