Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Apple’s Second Generation IPad To Sport Two Camera  
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27316 posts, RR: 60
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Apple’s Second Generation iPad To Sport Two Cameras

With Apple’s Facetime strategy very obviously being to put their video calling service on every device they manufacture it is something of a no-brainer that the next generation iPad would at least have a front facing camera.
But AppleInsider have obtained information that claims that a company called OmniVision will supply both front and rear facing cameras for Apple’s new iPad, due in early 2011. OmniVision is also the supplier for Apple’s iPhone 4′s cameras.
Further details seem to indicate that the quality of the cameras will be in line with that currently found in the iPhone 4. So a 5MP camera for stills, and a lower quality VGA camera for Facetime.

http://touchreviews.net/second-generation-ipad-cameras-omnivision/


So an obvious step I wonder how many will upgrade  

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineflyerboy1990 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

I am so impressed with Apple. They really do cater to their customers as the one complaint I have heard most about the iPad is that there is no camera. And now they are planning to put one in the 2nd generation. I messed around with an iPhone 4 and was amazed at how much better it was than my 3rd generation touch. It feels kinda old now but I won't get a new one until it conks out, or I get one as a gift!


Flown in: 712, 722, 73G, 738, 752, DC10, CR2, CR9, A319, A320 Want to fly in: A330, 767, 777, MD80, E170 series
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

I think that the cameras were planned a fair while back, but it wasn't quite ready for rev 1 of the iPad. It might simply been an issue of availability of supply as the iPhone 4 camera is pulling in some very positive reviews.

FaceTime is going to be powerful, and I have a feeling that Lion will lift it even higher when it's released next year.

For me, I'll be ready for the next version of the iPhone when it's released next year and will be looking very hard at the iPad when it's released. I'm waiting for the cameras, the dual core processor that is heading to market and more storage.

And did I mention it drives me nuts not having that 27" iMac?  


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20349 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting OA260 (Thread starter):


Apple’s Second Generation iPad To Sport Two Cameras

Oh, whoopee. How exciting. And what a shock.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
I think that the cameras were planned a fair while back, but it wasn't quite ready for rev 1 of the iPad.

By "not quite ready," I suspect "planned obsolescence." If Apple could implement it in the iPhone 4, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented in the iPad.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):

For me, I'll be ready for the next version of the iPhone when it's released next year

Yeah, they have a lot of issues with the g4 to fix. Not least of which is their choice of carrier.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6937 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

It was always planned that way. Then the third gen will have a USB port, the fourth gen an SD card reader, etc. So fanboys always have to upgrade.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2168 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):


It was always planned that way. Then the third gen will have a USB port, the fourth gen an SD card reader, etc. So fanboys always have to upgrade.

  
I remember reading a while back that the first gen iPad already has some construction features that show the designers have been integrating cameras, but left them out deliberately. But it does work; see reply 1..

It'd be nice if they upgraded the display, though. If you're used to hi-res devices like modern Android phones or the iPhone 4, the iPad's screen really feels kinda grainy. With USB, cameras and a better display, the iPad might actually develop into something I may want to have.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):

Those were my thoughts as well. So very typical.


User currently offlineSirThomas From UK - England, joined Jul 2009, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Ahhh the iPad, I got one myself but flogged it after having it for a month. Too much of an iPod in my opinion...

As for the cameras, they will fit directly into the current iPad's (using the same camera as the MacBooks) as they just slot in... A typical Apple way to make people upgrade  

Tom



Flown On: A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/AT45/734/736/738/744/DH8D/T204/T154/IL62/T134/IL-18/An-24
User currently offlineEaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 5):
I remember reading a while back that the first gen iPad already has some construction features that show the designers have been integrating cameras, but left them out deliberately. But it does work; see reply 1..

I think that the only reason they didn't include a camera in the 1gen was to make sure people had a reason to buy the 2gen. Apple often holds things back for no apperent reason and it would seem that they just like to pace themselves... so that everyone would have a reason to upgrade when the next update comes out.

I don't really understand though what the point of a camera on the back is. Are you going to use your iPad as a camera. Why not just have a 720p or 1080p camera on the front instead of a VGA. Skype now allows 720p calls if people have a good enough camera. And within a couple of months we will see 1080p video conferencing.

Also I don't really understand why Apple bothered to make Facetime. They already had iChat which is installed on millions of computers. Plus Skype is installed on hundreds of millions of computers. Why not just have Facetime interact with iChat and Skype (be able to call them) instead of having it be a completely new system. That way on day one you could have gotten your iPhone 4 out and called all the people who you already had on Skype and adoption of video conferencing on iPhone would have been 10 times faster. Often Apple does stuff that limits the usage of it's devices for no apparent reason and I think it only hurts them. I think that Facetime will be a failure as people have already decided that Skype is the way to have video conferences.

Making Facetime a new entity and not tying it into the huge Skype or iChat network is like if Apple had released the iPhone in 2007 but not as a phone on the regular worldwide "telephone network" but rather on a new "Apple telephone network".


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
If Apple could implement it in the iPhone 4, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented in the iPad.

My thinking was that the iOS wasn't ready and also the supplier is delivering cameras for the iPhone4 - and that has stretched production to the limit.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Not least of which is their choice of carrier.

ATT was prepared to accept Apple's terms - no one else was. GSM was an obvious for the international market. Also important was Apple's approach, like Visual Voicemail.

Remember that before the original iPhone it was the carriers dictating to the phone makers. Apple changed that with the iPhone and it took ATT's investment in the program to make it work. For that they got an exclusive for a while.

Now they loose it.

The question is, how many other smart phones can avoid having carriers dictate what is and what isn't on the phones?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 8):
Also I don't really understand why Apple bothered to make Facetime. They already had iChat which is installed on millions of computers. Plus Skype is installed on hundreds of millions of computers. Why not just have Facetime interact with iChat and Skype (be able to call them) instead of having it be a completely new system.

Both the iChat and Skype protocols are proprietary to their respective manufacturers (Apple in case of iChat).

Apple has created FaceTime as a combination of open standards and is releasing it for general license-free adoption (third-party licenses may still apply, such as for the h.264 codec).

That's a whole different deal on more than just one level.

As for the cameras, I would agree that the tight component supply for the iPhone probably precluded deployment in the iPad which didn't need them for becoming successful on its own strength. I still don't need a camera in mine.

Apple is also taking a margin hit on at least the cheaper iPad models ( meaning lower margins, not negative ones, of course!), so cost would not have been entirely out of consideration as well. But with decreasing cost in the future, that should become less of an issue.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20349 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
For that they got an exclusive for a while.

Now they loose it.

Huh? I have not seen any credible reports that anyone other than ATT is going to have iPhones. I don't care what the WSJ said a month ago. Until I hear it from Verizon and/or Apple, I'm not believing it.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Apple intentionally put software bottlenecks into the iOS for the 3G and 3GS to make them run slower so as to force customers to buy the new phones by making the old phones all but unusable from being so slow.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Huh? I have not seen any credible reports that anyone other than ATT is going to have iPhones. I don't care what the WSJ said a month ago. Until I hear it from Verizon and/or Apple, I'm not believing it.

AT&T is now the only exclusive carrier left for the iPhone (at least in any of the major markets). I think it's safe to say that the days of that exclusivity are numbered as well.

The main reason that it's taken so long is probably because of the unusual technical fragmentation in the US market. But that will probably not remain an absolute barrier for long.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
I also have a sneaking suspicion that Apple intentionally put software bottlenecks into the iOS for the 3G and 3GS to make them run slower so as to force customers to buy the new phones by making the old phones all but unusable from being so slow.

That is extremely unlikely. That is not how it's done.

When you're developing for a pool of devices existing in the field, you will generally optimize functionality and performance for the current model.

As time progresses, the previously current model at some point is superseded by a new one which will have advanced hardware capabilities, notably more memory (RAM) and a faster processor.

At that point the optimization target is now the new model and additional functionality or changes to internal frameworks are no longer held back by the limitations of the old model. Some performance degradation on legacy models becomes acceptable as long as the additional functionality is considered worth it on the new model.

At some point, the older models will be dropped from support of certain features which would become problematic there.

And all that is perfectly normal with progressing development and optimization of OS and applications on a relatively tightly constrained platform as mobile ones still are (available RAM is currently the most precious resource with the i4 having 512MB, the 3GS 256MB and the 3G and 2G 128MB).

Sure, theoretically there could be actual nefarious intent behind it, but that would be completely unnecessary to explain observed events – and it would not be in Apple's interest either.

It would just be idiotic to forever limit software development to the constraints only the older devices had. It's quite similar to the reason you can run XP on certain PCs but not Vista or 7.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Huh? I have not seen any credible reports that anyone other than ATT is going to have iPhones. I don't care what the WSJ said a month ago. Until I hear it from Verizon and/or Apple, I'm not believing it.

I know I carry less "punch" than even a WSJ article from a month ago, but Verizon is getting the iPhone early 2011. I have known this for quite a while.

If you want an additional source to back that up: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/29/verizon_iphone_seidenberg/

Yep. I know. Still not much more punch than a WSJ article from a month ago... but in the tech industry, you don't get anything very difinitive until the official announcement.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20349 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 13):

I know I carry less "punch" than even a WSJ article from a month ago, but Verizon is getting the iPhone early 2011. I have known this for quite a while.

They said that almost a year ago. And then they keep saying it again about every three months. Everyone's been saying that over and over and over again. 1q2011? Well, it's 4q2010 and no announcement. Getting a bit late for that deadline, isn't it?

What is your source? Are you in on the deal and thus, violating company protocol for your employer? Or do you just "know people" like the WSJ has for the last year?

Like I said: I will believe it when Verizon and/or Apple says it. And not an instant before.

And the next instant, I will be ordering one.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
What is your source? Are you in on the deal and thus, violating company protocol for your employer? Or do you just "know people" like the WSJ has for the last year?

Nope, no violation of any NDAs here.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
1q2011? Well, it's 4q2010 and no announcement. Getting a bit late for that deadline, isn't it?

Apple tends to hold big old media events and announce the product to be on sale either starting the same day or a few weeks out. An announcement now about an early February release would be well ahead of time for Apple.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Like I said: I will believe it when Verizon and/or Apple says it

Probably a good idea.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
It was always planned that way. Then the third gen will have a USB port, the fourth gen an SD card reader, etc. So fanboys always have to upgrade.
Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 6):
Those were my thoughts as well. So very typical.

Yes it is typical of every manufacturing company. Its managing the "life cycle" of a product. Its basic product management 101.

Do you really thing Apple starts work on the next version of products as soon a one is released? No they have long terms plans for every product

In cars its similar:

2010 Model: Radio CD Player
2011 Mode : Radio CD and Aux input
2012 Model: Radio CD and Aux input with ipod controls



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 15):
An announcement now about an early February release would be well ahead of time for Apple.

iPhones need an FCC certification which is at least semi-public, and a new CDMA implementation would probably need a re-certification at least.

That has been the reason why the original iPhone had been pre-announced and I would expect a CDMA version to be handled similarly.

It would make a lot more sense if they announced early next year that the iPhone 5 would either be GSM+UMTS+CDMA or that there would be alternate versions. Wedging a CDMA(-enabled) model into the lineup out of turn would cause all sorts of problems and could be highly distracting.

Not something Jobs is likely to do.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
Not something Jobs is likely to do.

But I believe that Jobs will have had the engineering work on CDMA carried out in the background for quite a while. Remember they did concurrent work for an Intel version of OS X for a while before working out the agreement with Intel.

If he has been maintaining background engineering then I would anticipate very little additional effort in making the switch.

And, when you look at that market it is worth the effort.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
But I believe that Jobs will have had the engineering work on CDMA carried out in the background for quite a while. Remember they did concurrent work for an Intel version of OS X for a while before working out the agreement with Intel.

Sure, but that was a completely different situation.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
If he has been maintaining background engineering then I would anticipate very little additional effort in making the switch.

Sure, but in this case there will not be an actual switch.

CDMA in Verizon's implementation is a dead-end legacy protocol which would come with substantial complications and costs for Apple with no benefit other than reaching another part of the unusually fragmented US mobile market.

Either they would have to create a multi-standard iPhone which would burden it with substantial additional licensing and manufacturing costs, increased technical complexity and a severely narrowed choice of chip sets for all their much larger markets, or they would have to introduce incompatible CDMA-only iPhones which would fragment Apple's own lineup and cause other problems.

I'm pretty sure Jobs would much prefer to see CDMA go the way of the Dodo without Apple having to touch it on its way out.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
And, when you look at that market it is worth the effort.

Is it? Compared with the global GSM+UMTS market it is still relatively small. And the problems in addressing it would be substantial.

I'm not that sure they'll do it – they might, but then again they might not.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Happened To These Two Users? posted Mon Feb 24 2003 03:05:47 by David B.
How Best To Spend Two Weeks Down Under? posted Sun Aug 11 2002 19:04:00 by Mcdougald
Fastest Way To Travel Between Two Antipodes? posted Sat Aug 15 2009 04:09:09 by Birdwatching
Going To Alaska In Two Weeks - Any Suggestion? posted Sun May 24 2009 20:44:43 by Pyrex
So What Do You Do To Make A Buck Or Two Aside? posted Mon Mar 16 2009 09:57:28 by INNflight
QE2 New Owners Plan To Cut Ship In Two posted Mon Jan 12 2009 12:52:10 by MadameConcorde
First Two Indian Nationals Ever To Sign W/ MLB posted Thu Nov 27 2008 13:15:32 by QXatFAT
MLB: Down To The Last Two Weeks posted Sun Sep 16 2007 03:56:17 by Falcon84
My Two Sons Love To Play Football posted Tue May 1 2007 20:11:04 by Cedars747
Did My Second Step To Be LH Pilot! posted Sun Apr 15 2007 18:12:08 by LHStarAlliance