Did Steve Jobs spin the NY Times?
Jobs. Photo: Apple Inc.
When David Pogue, the New York Times' chief technology columnist, sat down with Steve Jobs after his "It's only rock and roll" keynote Wednesday, Pogue's first question was the one, as he put it, the "blogosphere’s been buzzing about": Why did Apple (AAPL) put a video camera on the iPod nano but not — as widely expected — on the iPod touch?
Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, his marketing vice president, had said earlier on stage: that Apple was pitching the iPod touch as a game machine — the "funnest iPod ever." Adding a camera would have made that game machine less affordable.
In Jobs' words:
“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. 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.” (link)
But according to AppleInsider's Kasper Jade, citing unnamed sources familiar with Apple's decision making process, that's simple not true. "While AppleInsider appreciates the company co-founder's play at damage control," writes Jade, "it's a tough sell."
"Like the nano," writes Jade, "people familiar with the matter maintain that initial plans for the new iPod touch called for a camera akin to the iPhone's. Manufacturing tooling was prepped and specifications issued some time ago."
Jade notes that an extensive analysis of the cost of adding a camera to the touch would have been done months — if not years — in advance and submitted for approval to roughly two dozen members of Apple's top brass.
"According to those familiar with situation," Jade reports, "management gave the green light to equip the latest-gen touches with cams last year. But problems, as AppleInsider reported earlier in the week, began to crop up with the third party camera sensors Apple took receipt of earlier this year.
"After several passes through quality assurance were met with less than stellar results in the time leading up to Wednesday's event, an executive decision was made a month ago to pull the cameras from the touches altogether, others familiar with the situation say." (link)
In other words, it was a bad part, not cost or marketing considerations, that kept the camera off the iPod touches introduced this week.
According to Jade, Apple is still committed to equipping the funnest iPod with a camera, and new devices with the added capability could arrive unexpectedly at any time.
David Pogue and Walther Mossberg suckle from the teat of Apple and will believe anything Jobs says with no research or checking of sources.. I would guess at least a 100% markup on all apple products, there is absolutely no way it was a cost decision.. And Jobs is such a Narcissist, he would rather lie about parts problems he has no control over than admit the mighty Apple might have trouble with 3rd party vendors.
In the "considered" opinion of reporters, (especially financial ones), Apple, or the current Apple product, is dead or in the process of dying at least twice a day for many, many years. This will, in my "considered" opinion,(hmmm), continue for many, many years.
The iPhone can have expensive parts because the sales price is heavily subsidized by the carrier. Just ask yourselves why the Nano has no photo capability. Yes, that component's image is only 640X480, insufficient for a photo camera.
In line with their philosophy, Apple will make their product decisions and announcements when they see fit. Just be thankful that Steve Jobs is not a politician.
CNN might have a true story here. Unusual…
I guess is because the price of ipod touch(if added camera) will almost the same as iphone. We will consider in buyinng an ipod touch as the function almost the same. The other reason is to increase sales for ipod nano, make it more powerful for mp4 players. =)
If you believe or quote anything from CNN you have to buy the drinks. They are most often wrong rather than right in what they state. CNN is the "scoop" and "poop" news source, IMO.
LLC
Apple has, as does most vendors, is a good demographic database that tells them, for example, who downloads what application to what device(s). The other thing Apple has, but most vendors don't have, are product lins to experiment with. To me, the mystery is why a VIDEO camera on a nano …
Both could be true. If the camera they found was not up to par; its likely that cameras from other suppliers that would work were more expensive.
Cheap camera part doesn't work properly = can't do the camera without sacrificing the price.
"Jasper Jade" or Steve Jobs, who knows better what is going on at Apple?
Apple does not have any requirement to reveal their internal decision making in terms of products or the state or potential of future features. The NYT asked a question and presented Apple's answer. That does not mean that NYT accepted it as fact – just reporting the response is not being spun.
It's possible that while not revealing all the sorted details Jobs response is essentially true. Apple may have approved the concept of adding a camera to the device, and maybe they did issue specification – which would mean they set the technical requirements of what the device should be. But it could also be that given the state of sensors and the requirement the that Touch b extremely thin that no video and still camera was viable for the device at a cost Apple could accept.
Now the iPod has video so clearly there is a video camera that is seemingly small enough. Perhaps the same sensor does not work well for still images. So then Apple would be creating a odd solution for the touch, poor photo with video. That does not seem like Apple's style.
So they punted on the camera and kept the cost low.
I think Apple's just afraid that putting a camera on the iPod touch will cannibalize the iPhone. But I think it's just way dumb for them to put a camera on an iPod touch. Seriously. It's not the best announcement on such an auspicious date. http://www.newsy.com/videos/9_9_09_the_day_that_was. There are better things to do.
But… but… but… Steve Jobs is perfect! He's the god of computer nirvana and perfection! He cannot possibly LIE!
Well, he can and he possibly did.
Wipe those tears, Apple fanboys, and stop worshipping the guy. Stevo just knows how to play the game, and all of you are his pawns.
So its a problem to place a camera in the iTouch…no way, if you can do it with the Nano you can do it with the iTouch, so why not, one is the keep the gap between the iTouch and the iPhone but its like the gillette and wilkinson sword, they alway had the ability to place 5 blades or more in a razor but never did, why?
Because they could fool people into thinkingone blade was good enough till the people thought it was not then they'd do two blades and so on and so on, if they'd moved to their best tech specs from day one they'd not have sold all those millions of razors and would have to spend millions on development when they didnt need to, look at the now with battery pulsed blades and aloe stripes, these could have been developed by the 80's, 90's even but waited till now and the same is for Apple, why push the envelope, then you have to push it every year, you cant have a gap if your constantly spending a lot of your income on R&D, so next year we'l get the camera, or if another company brings out better competition like a brand new Zune then you'll se the camera and GPS and much more arrive as its been held back for that very reason, either trickle effect each year or dump it in all at once to keep your market share/profitability, microsoft is never one to take lightly, even if they hae only 5% of the market, they could spend 10 billion on a project and not miss it, i'd have something in the back room just in case too.
While the iphone encompasses all that is iPod Touch. With the iPhone you need to get some sort of cellular plan, whether it be a regular one or data. As well you are tied into a contract with a provider. So inherently the costs with an iPhone as a single source solution are higher. For those that can afford, by all means only have the iPhone. But not everybody is in that position, so for them an iPod Touch is what fits. As for the camera bit, fess up and say it's coming soon. Say you wanted to make sure it was 100% before launch and that Apple is committed to high quality products.
Okay, so… why again don't they just take the iPhone 3GS, take out the phone parts and sell it as the new iPod Touch? how come they ran into technical and/or quality issues all the while the iPhone apparently seems to work with a camera? I just don't get how that sounds plausible to anyone.
I thought the move was brilliant. Within the next 12 months, I'm replacing my Flip with a nano, my Nintendo DS with a Touch, and my Blackberry with an iPhone. And I'll have my music, photos, and home movies with me all the time. I'm sure many will follow. Brilliant.
I guess PED changed the headline to "Spin" which is definitely the case with Job's explanation.
My take is that SJ is only giving one side of the story. There isn't any thing new with the $199 touch, Apple just took the $229 8GB and knocked $30 off. Same thing with the 8GB iPhone going to $99. The new 32 & 64 GB touches likely use the same hardware as the new iPhone 3GS, capable of video, voice control, voice over, etc…
Apple was focused on getting the iPod cheaper, that's why they dropped the price, and it wasn't planning to add a camera to that model anyway. The upgraded models are at the same price point, albeit with more storage and performance, but not more affordable to the consumer. Jobs dodged that one which is totally to be expected because Apple never talks about future products so it's likely Kasper Jade is correct.
"# Did Steve Jobs lie to the NY Times?at Fortune(Fri 8:47am)"
YOU ARE STILL USING THE "LIE" WORD IN THE YAHOO FINANCE "HEADLINES".
ex ped: I can't get in there and change that one.
This is such a bad headline. Its so desperate and insanely wrong. To imply that some one is lying is not only extremely offensive but is also slander. This is an obvious reach for a head line with no respect given to any thing close to journalism. You lost me as a reader as well. Good luck to you. May be you can work for the Star or some tabloid that enjoys dirt throwing 5 year old articles like this.
But wait there's more…
I suspect apple will introduce a new iPod Touch with a camera, but why not increase the user base by selling the current version for $199.00 US, increase sales at the app store, generate millions from downloaded songs and books, and even get people used to Apple so that they purchase other Apple products (read iPhone).
In the meantime, add other tools to the iPod touch including a GPS and Camera and sell it for $299.00.
Or, just kill the iPod Touch and lower the price for the iPhone.
The phone is a much higher margin product than the ipod touch. You don't want to equip the touch so that it can be more of a cannibal of the phones. VOIP makes this a threat to aapl bottom line.
So leave the camera off the touch. Dedicate the ipod touch to gamers. If you want a cool camera, too, you have to pay the monthly charge and integrate the iphone into your life.
Makes sense to me. It's actually brilliant.
N
The guy has been off for 9 months, maybe it's just a mis-communication. to call it a "lie" is a bit of a stretch.
How is this "news" worth the authors time?
The funny thing is, Apple never said they were adding any cameras to anything, and yet everyone was expecting it. Secrecy gone wild.
I think they are 'secretive' just because people want to know a secret. i.e. It's great, free publicity.
Why don't one of you geniuses develop a camera that plugs into the dock port? You could probably do that easily, but are lying to us and saying you can't… right?
What would you expect him to say?? How about:
"We had a quality problem with a camera part so we won't be adding a camera to the iPod Touch until after Christmas. If you want one with a camera you'll just have to postpone your purchase."
Also, calling it a game machine is just marketing spin to get the attention of gamers.
The iPhone and iPod Touch are whatever the user wants them to be. With 75000 Apps in the App Store you can customize your device to provide whatever functionality you want.
For me, the only value that computer games have is that you can free up storage space by deleting them.
Steve Jobs is well known to say one thing and do another few months down the road.
Lots of example: video iPod, iPhone, just to name a few. So iPod touch as a gaming device? No.
I don't buy it, and the reason for that is in that same interview:
SJ said general purpose devices will prevail over single purpose ones. The touch is more than gaming.
My bet is in few months (or a year at most) you'll see video camera on that device.
Apple just wants to do it right, and maximize its profits in the process. There's nothing else behind it.
I doubt there was a significant technical issue adding a camera to the Touch, unless they used a crapo alternative component compared to that used in the iPhone. The two devices aren't that different otherwise. So nah.
And I doubt it was a significant cost issue either, unless Apple claims adding a camera to the Nano cut into their profit margins for that product line. Nah to that, too.
This is all about the iPhone. Until the 3GS came out, the Touch was arguably a damn good alternative for those who couldn't justify paying large monthly fees to AT&T. Like me. I love my Touch and am so glad I didn't get sucked into paying for an iPhone 3G.
Adding the camera (in addition to the newer GPU and ARM processor found in the 3GS) would have similarly leveled the playing field between the two products, making the Touch once again damn tempting to would-be 3GS customers–or so Apple thinks. Being able to take video, edit it directly on the Touch and post it directly to YouTube is way cool (I have done this on an iPhone 3GS) and it would definitely tempt me to get such a Touch "3GS" 
This is about product differentiation, with making the more profitable iPhone look better (and hopefully better than the iPhone 3G was compared to the Touch 2G). There is no conspiracy.
Yeah it sucks, I would have bought such a Touch. But I am perfectly happy to keep my money—as I still not tempted by an iPhone. I don't need the Phone or the monthly sucking sound out of my wallet, drowning out the pure music I would hear had it been just a Touch.
Expect next year Apple will add a camera to the Touch, but will hold back the latest iPhone feature of 2010 from that Touch refresh, to further maintain differentiation in favor of greater profit for Steve. And oh yeah, makes for an easy if somewhat artificial upgrade cycle for those Touch 2G and 3G owners. Apple likes it when people replace things, as often as possible
To all who is doubting and believing what apple is saying. Let us wait another year or 2. If Itouch will come out with a Camera, then Steve is definitely a LIAR, if not, then the Appleinsider is a LIAR. Remember this guys. No need for arguments. All are rumours and heresay. Both are innocent until proven LIAR.
Camera or not … the new price structure for the TOUCH has made it desirable to me! I am going to get one and can't wait!!!
(not a fan of having the phone part so the TOUCH is a perfect solution!!!)
Lie, lie, lie. Yes, everyone lies. The world is full of lies. Why trust anyone? What the hell is the good of living anyway?
Uh, maybe the cost of getting a part that worked properly was too high at this time.
No, let's just assume everyone and their dog lies.
Steve Jobs, goes the old joke at Apple, is surrounded by a reality distortion field; get too close and you believe what he's saying. Apple has made believers out of millions of customers — and made a lot of investors rich — but Philip Elmer-DeWitt believes that an ounce of skepticism never hurts when writing about the company. He should know. He's been covering Apple – and watching Steve Jobs operate — since 1982.
Have your stories been written at this level of journalism since 1982 as well? It's actually quite disconcerting to realize that you've made a career out of bashing a successful entrepreneur since four years before my birth.
CNN's quality is really lacking these days. I'm getting fed up with headlines clogged by blogstyle "attention-grabbers" like this garbage, "Man murdered by rabid goat with six heads!" style writing, and their insistence that I watch videos instead of skim articles.
Back to Bloomberg for me.
It honestly does not make much sense to blur the line between iPhone and iPod Touch any more than it already is. At this point you have the iPhone with phone capabilities and still/video camera. The Touch gets a larger capacity and thin form factor. They each fill a niche. That is why they both sell well. Granted, the phone aspect makes the biggest difference, but the camera could sway a few people toward the Touch and carrying a separate phone. I have an iPhone 3G S, and therefore do not really need another device. I end up buying a secondary iPod based on what need it fills. I currently have an 80GB 5th gen that I use solely in my car. It only gets removed to sync and update. I may consider replacing this with a new Nano, but then the camera basically goes to waste. So it no longer fits my specific need. The previous gen Nano would now be a better choice (and I am sure I can find a discounted one somewhere…bonus).
FAKE JOURNALIST UNRAVELS APPLE CONSPIRACY AND CAUSES MARKET TO CRASH, ENRAGING INVESTORS
Hey, you're right. That's kind of fun making stuff up. Feels like genuine Enquirere thinking.
Why risk putting out the "latest" version of the iPod or iPhone, until you have to? Meter them out, and maximize profits. If someone came out of nowhere, or a new Zune came out that was better, you have an immediate response, all ready for production. That's smart.
The camera on the iPhone went from ho-hum to WOW! They work from a position of domination over at Apple. They've been on the other side of that equation!
Back when Napster was relaunched, everyone clamored for Apple to match them, and Rhapsody, and offer a "subscription service". OK, they probably PLANNED one, and had a whole system thought up, ready to implement. BUT, you just don't react to hype and dance to other people's tunes. I don't hear much about subscription services anymore, so Apple never had to produce one. They are now one of the biggest sellers of music in the world. If their sales dropped a huge amount because of Napster, you can be sure Apple would have launched a subscription service.
Didn't happen.
Jeez. don't these people know ANYTHING about acting COOL?
Jobs is a master of misinformation, as anyone who's followed Apple for a while knows. While he rarely outright-lies, he's very good at telling what you might generously call half-truths – things which have a kernel of truth, but which are said to cover up the REAL truth.
The classic example was the shift from PowerPC to Intel, which Jobs never outright denied, which he poured scorn on in various ways.
This is another case. I suspect that AI is correct, and there were technical issues which prevented them from putting a camera in. But rather than say that – which would tip the wink that they will put one in in the future – Jobs span the (also true) point that they see the touch as a gaming platform, so a camera is not as essential.
Have people noticed that all new iPods are the same size as last years. I think this was for the accessories manufactures. I would think this was a bad year for them and not having to redesign or only make minor changes was a bone that Apple gave them this year.
PED, the conclusion that Jobs lied is a bit harsh based on the evidence presented.
The essence of the story is that SJ's comments don't jibe with those of a nameless source. That describes thousands of Apple stories in recent years. And all too frequently the unidentified, unimpeachable sources have been wrong.
ex ped: You've persuaded me. I've dialed back the headline.
Q: How can you tell when a salesperson is lying?
A: Their lips are moving!
Steve Jobs is a master salesman. He has often said one thing, only to deliver another at a later date. Video on the iPod is probably the most notable example.
That said, I can also believe that there were technical constraints (the touch is thinner than the iPhone), a different camera module was specced but didn't pass QA, and whatever else they say. I also believe that their may have been changes in marketing focus – the touch as game machine.
Will we ever know what really happened? NO! Does it matter? NO! Will it change sometime in the not too distant future? Probably.
How is it that they can gear-up to sell millions of nanos with a camera, but they can't get a camera to work on the touch? The title and premise of this article makes no sense.
Have you attended the Jimmy Carter School of Fact Checking? When in doubt, make it up?
Who, what, when, where … there are a few more I'm sure you could make up.
Please, have some respect for your readers if you want us back after the weekend.
You don't show the slightest respect for free entrepreneurship or other individuals.Have you ever thought about going to a sect or rebuilding communism?
ex ped: There you go.
I don't quite get this: how is it that Apple can make millions of iphones with perfect cameras but, somehow, the exact same camera can't work or is inferior in the touch? The claim that technical glitches kept a camera out of the touch don't make sense, or need further explanation.
Ok, I am sure you are in your own mind being professional, but, after reading your comments on Apple for several years, (and I have read what other posters have suggested regarding your bias) I must say your choice of headlines in this story seals the deal for me…and I will never click on your stories again…I tried…but you are over the top on this and on Jobs in general…good luck to you…I am sure you will do fine without my reading your hackneyed speculations on Apple…and guess what I will be the better for it as well!
What Apple seems to miss is that the iPod touch is a great small computer for people on the go. PIM plus email plus wifi connectivity make the iPod touch very useful and convenient. Throw in the iPod and it's all I need to carry around. NO phone (who needs it); NO computer bag and assorted stuff to ensure we can charge and connect laptop; practically NO weight to lug around.
For a 2-day trip, it's all I really need.
Gee, you don't think a company as secretive as Apple would plant information, do you? Hmmm….
And funny, they have equipped 30 million iPhones and presumably several million Nanos with cameras, successfully. So engineering would not seem to be a constraint.
Furthermore, was the 64GB iPod touch cooked up in the last few weeks as a replacement for the failed touch with camera? I seriously doubt it, as the engineering challenges posed by doubling the space-hogging NAND would seem to be more than the challenges posed by adding a camera, which, as the 30 million iPhones indicate, they have done successfully.
Apple doesn't blow its wad in a single upgrade cycle. The nano and touch are, in reality, quite different devices, and it may have not made sense to add cameras to both.
I don't buy the supposed inside information any more than I should have bough the iPhone Nano pictures, camera cases, specs, etc. My bet is that this is just another in the line of wrong guesses and diversionary info that is carefully scattered to heighten the drama.
If not for iTunes, I'd get this nice piece of hardware a long time ago. But iTunes is a total dealbreaker. So I'd pass. With camera or without one.