I think from Apple's perspective having the Nano with a video camera could be a stand alone device. Meaning lots of people might buy it to use only as a video camera. In which case Apple is happy to sell you a Touch and a Nano. They control enough of the market to create these artificial segmentations. I'm sure they have market research on it.
I can't imagine Apple is so dumb as to think that the current situation is a desirable one, or that a wholly artificial segmentation like that would fly with customers.
No-one with a Touch is going to get a Nano for the camera. They'll just keep using their crappy phone or get a Flip.
Not having the video camera in the Touch is a huge missed opportunity, whose net result is lower hardware sales, period.
This does not seem obvious to me. The Flip Ultra (4GB) is $149, the Ultra HD (8GB) is $199. Compare the iPod Nano at $149 (8GB) and $179 (16GB). The Flip may be a better camera, but the Nano is clearly competitive, even ignoring it's other features.
whose net result is lower hardware sales
The Nano is the top selling iPod model. They released a new model with at least one significant new feature that wholly replaces another product category in the same price range.
How do you conclude that will result in lower sales?
I feel that there's a big market for Nano with a camera that iPod Touch with a camera couldn't really serve.
I know many people who don't want to buy a mobile phone with unnecessary features. It's not just cost awareness. They want simple things. And the music player & Camera combo is a simple. They couldn't care less about apps and web browsing functionality in their music player. They will care about those in 2014, but not today and new Nano is targeting that crowd.
Bingo. Nano competes with standard devices but isn't expandable through the AppStore. Touch gives you internet, AppStore but is hardware limited (no radio, camera, mic). Have to buy the iPhone + contract to get both.
I was dreaming of a touch with a speaker + mic so I could use Skype + MiFi.
Possible; My take is that this is what happens when products are developed without strong leadership.
The Nano team internalized, and asked themselves "What have customers been asking for", and added a radio and camera.
The Radio seems to have come out of nowhere- So far as I know, the iPhone/touch don't have them.
The iPhone/iPod touch team, on the other hand, continued to not add the Camera, since it's a differentiating feature, as you suggested.
"The Radio seems to have come out of nowhere--So far as I know, the iPhone/touch don't have them"
No, but the Zune player has long had FM radio, so best to dominate the Microsoft competitor in all dimensions.
BTW, FM is very convenient if you have a dedicated old computer streaming internet radio and connect it to a small-commercial-type FM transmitter; you can then get FM reception of internet radio over all of even a large property, automatically in time-sync, using existing audio equipment and "portable radios" including the new Nano. (This is legal in the US, but not in all countries.)
The Radio seems to have come out of nowhere- So far as I know, the iPhone/touch don't have them.
Actually, they might. The iPod Touch 2G, at least, contains a chip that has the potential to handle both Bluetooth and FM radio reception. At the time the 2G Touch was released, the chip's Bluetooth and FM capabilities weren't enabled. But according to the following article, the 3.0 software upgrade started using the chip for Bluetooth: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iPod-Touch-Bluetooth,news-3642.h...
It's possible that the chip's FM capabilities will be enabled on a future software update.
> The Radio seems to have come out of nowhere- So far as I know, the iPhone/touch don't have them.
Not necessarily. It was a much-demanded feature for the iPod for a while, though there isn't much customer pressure nowadays. On the other hand, both my Sansa Fuze and my Nokia 5310 have FM tuners in them... Maybe they felt 'peer' pressure to include an FM tuner since there are a lot of other devices out there that do.
Exactly my point- It's like they went to the box of "What have people been asking for", rather than working on a unified strategy through all of the iPod devices.
The "Good, Better, Best" strategy is massively broken here..
Do I want HD space? Class.
Do I want Video? iPhone or Nano
Do I want Photos? iPhone
Do I want cheap? Shuffle
Do I want Apps, but cheap? iPod Touch
We're stuck with a features grid, not a clear progression.
Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for an electron microscope or portable DNA sequencer in the next iPhone upgrade... There are limitations to technology. Apple just hires top-end engineers and designers and forces them to work together to meet tight requirements, but they still need to be based in reality.
