No rear-facing camera on new iPod

Discuss

31 Responses to “No rear-facing camera on new iPod”

  1. nixiebunny says:

    Who are these people who take more photos of themselves than other stuff? I find that one photo a year of my ugly mug is more than enough. 

    • penguinchris says:

      I know you’re just snarking, but I’ve seen instagram accounts with dozens or hundreds of pictures, 90%+ of them close-up self-portraits. Bizarre and even a little frightening, but they tend to be accounts owned by attractive-but-insecure teens and college-aged folks (of both genders, though mainly female as you’d expect), not old men :) 

      A female friend of mine told me recently that cell phone self-portraits tend to be the most flattering for her (in her opinion anyway) – it’s the classic MySpace profile photo effect, as you tend to hold the phone above you which is rarely the case in other types of pictures.

      Now that I think of it, I’d almost guarantee there are instagram accounts consisting of 90% self-portraits of ugly old guys. 

      This got me worried so I checked; of the 262 pictures in my instagram account since it was released for Android about a year ago there are six or seven pictures of myself. Oh well.

  2. Elliottw256 says:

    Who said it was because we’re taking more pictures of ourselves? Oh, Rob, got anything to back up your theory. Perhaps it was Apple just saying, you don’t need the rear facing camera, get over it. Rob, got any data to back up your theory. I think mine sounds more plausible.

    • EH says:

      Hey, it might be nice if they did this across the whole product line. That way whenever I go to a concert, the people taking pictures and video of the band would have to point their screens at the stage instead of at the people behind them.

    • mccrum says:

      If your screen points in the same direction as the camera you have two options:

      1 – Have yourself in every photo,2 – Not see what you’re taking a photo of.Apple seems to be saying you don’t *get* the rear facing camera, but your theory  seems to have as much data as Rob’s, so do you have anything to back up your theory?

      • rrh says:

        In order to back up a theory, first you need a theory.

        Question: Why would Apple remove the rear-facing camera and not the front-facing camera?

        Theory A: People must have been using the front-facing camera more.

        Theory B: You don’t need the rear-facing camera. Deal with it.

        Unless you try to answer an unanswered question, there’s no theory to back up.

    • rrh says:

      Man, you’re pretty good at this. I was *this* close to responding to you seriously.

  3. Squood says:

    I think it has more to do with letting your subject take a picture of itself. Presumably, inanimate objects can frame pictures better than iPod Touch users.

  4. A front camera but not a rear camera tells me they wanted to keep FaceTime compatibility.

  5. Looking forward to the low-cost-iPhone-whine-ageddon…

  6. jbond says:

    And it’s a shame that the iPod Touch 3rd gen is now obsolete and unsupported by IOS6. This modern world, eh? 2.5 years to obsolete and unsupported.

    Now where’s my 1TB iPod Classic, Apple?

    • chgoliz says:

      We still have one in this household, and use it regularly.

      They don’t all have to do exactly the same things to be useful.

    • evann says:

      The iPod Touch 3rd gen came out in September 2009, more than three and a half years ago. Not 2.5 as you say.

    • Bruce Alan Horn says:

      I still have my 2nd gen Touch and keep it permanently connected to my stereo at home to use just as a jukebox and for internet radio stations since our terrestrial radio reception is really bad.

      • jbond says:

        Heh. One of the more useful things my 3rd Gen Touch can do is to remote control Winamp… ;) The problem is the battery is now on it’s last legs so that only works when it’s tethered to a power supply.

        So it’s a good thing the old company paid for it.

        • Bruce Alan Horn says:

          I just happened to have an extra USB wall-wart lying around and since all my 30 pin cables are now otherwise useless, I just leave it connected to AC permanently.

    • If you’re concerned about iOS support for devices lapsing after 3 years,  you can just buy an Android device with a 3 year old operating system

  7. Christopher says:

    As much as I laugh at the idea that this is because we mostly take pictures of ourselves…

    I think the real reason for this is that the people who design computers often design for their own convenience and have little or no concern about what the end user’s wants and needs are.

  8. GawainLavers says:

    There’s a 21st Century datapoint for you: people take more photos of themselves than anything else!

    I was initially horrified, but then I read the post more carefully and realized you’re talking about an iPod.  They still make those!?  I think you mean “a ‘stuck in the Naughties’ datapoint”.

  9. evann says:

    The front camera is for video chatting, and the lanyard was a weird feature that appeared for a single generation. It’s weird that they got rid of the rear camera, but it’s probably more a cost-cutting ploy and to differentiate the iPod Touch from the iPhone.

  10. Bruce Alan Horn says:

    When I got my new iPod I thought I would not ever want to use the lanyard but found after a few days that the back is so slippery and the iPod is so thin that I had a hard time holding onto it for long periods of time without it so I switched to using it and it feels much more secure. I put a second screen protector on the back of the iPod and it is now less slippery but I am still find I need the extra security of the lanyard. Kind of annoying because having the lanyard post popped out means the iPod won’t lie completely flat on a table and tilts back and forth when I press on it when it is lying down.

  11. Bruce Alan Horn says:

    When I got my new iPod I thought I would not ever want to use the lanyard but found after a few days that the back is so slippery and the iPod is so thin that I had a hard time holding onto it for long periods of time without it so I switched to using it and it feels much more secure.

    I put a second screen protector on the back of the iPod and it is now less slippery but I am still find I need the extra security of the lanyard.

    Kind of annoying because having the lanyard post popped out means the iPod won’t lie completely flat on a table and tilts back and forth when I press on it when it is lying down.

  12. SamSam says:

    At first I was pleased, because I figured we’d get less of this and this.

    Then I realized that the world was going to be taken over by idiots taking photos with their ipods backward, unable to frame the shot, then flipping it over, looking at it, and taking a second (and third and fourth and fifth) shot.

    Life in the future is going to suck.

  13. timquinn says:

    It is a Touch. It is for playing games. The front facing camera is there so game makers can use it in their game design. You want a front facing camera buy the premium version.

  14. snickerdoodles says:

    This is the entry level model. To make it $70 cheaper you have to take some things away. Sounds like a reasonable decision as the rear facing optics are a lot more expensive than the puny front facing camera.

    • Jens Alfke says:

      Exactly — the iPod Touch 4 isn’t new at all. All that’s new here is a cheaper configuration with half the storage and no back-facing camera, for $70 less.

      The front camera is useful for videoconferencing (FaceTime) and multiplayer games, not just for selfies.

  15. jerwin says:

    Pity. I was considering buying one  to act as a light meter. Probably a lot less useful with a sensor that cant be aimed.

  16. EctoBotanist says:

    Oh, wait.  It’s just the 16 gig model.  The 32 and 64 still have it.  I was worried there for a sec (as I hope to update my device some time this year).

  17. pjcamp says:

    All that and only $229? Thanks but no thanks.

Leave a Reply