[kman42]

Not sure why they got replacement parts already, but the pics look pretty real.

AppleInsider | iPad photos show slot for forward-facing video camera

I think this poster has it right: "I have this gut feeling that Apple is going to have an iPhone OS event in March.
They had one in March of both 2008 and 2009. It doesn't make sense to launch a new product in 3.2 and not 4.0. With Apple now allowing VOIP over 3G I can see their 'one more thing' being multitasking and iChat with video camera on the iPad and next gen iPhone. Multitasking will probably only work on the next gen iPhone with a custom built chip.

I dunno... you can call me an optimist... but if they really wanted to push alot of people over the edge to purchase one of these bad boys... thats what I would do."

They weren't going to release any details with the iPad announcement that would blow the surprises coming in the next iPhone revision.

[Wiskedjak]

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about a camera. I'm on the fence about purchasing an iPad, but the presence of a camera isn't going to affect that decision.

[Spheric Harlot]

Forward-facing cam = skype and chat cam.

Big.

[Big Mac]

Would have to be WIFI only, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Why?

[Simon]

There's rumors that $130 for GSM+GPS is too high (the actual cost is like $10-$20). But add in a camera for Skype+iChat and it becomes more reasonable. Maybe there's just "one more thing" Steve didn't mention yet...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Why?

Because of the reputed sorry state of the AT&T cell network.

[Simon]

Hasn't it been established that AT&T is now ok with Skype over 3G but it's actually Apple now who's blocking it?

[Phileas]

Considering that Apple is allowing all sorts of streaming video apps that would be surprising.

[Simon]

Well we know for a fact that the no-VOIP-over-3G clause was part of Apple's terms. They claim to have lifted that part now, but Skype for one hasn't updated their app yet.

Skype: Dude, where's my 3G VoIP?

[Eug]

No such terms for Canadian iPhones AFAIK.

Anyways, this is yet another example of Apple cripping version 1 units to milk the unsuspecting version 1 guinea pigs. Here's hoping for version 2 or 3.

[The Final Dakar]

Not exactly a surprise. The latest iPod Touch revision had a hole for camera in its hardware, too.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because of the reputed sorry state of the AT&T cell network.

Oh - you were talking about the U.S. market, not about the iPad's capabilities.

[turtle777]

Supposedly, one of the iPads that Steve showed during the keynote had a camera.

Macnews.de reports that on 9:22 of the keynote, you can see the following pic:



Below Steve's chin, there seems to be a camera.

In Steve Jobs’ iPad steckt bereits eine iSight � macnews.de

-t

[analogue SPRINKLES]

OMG, that's AWESOME! Now I can do those Skype Video calls I and my friends all hate and never use as a result!

All they have to do now is add a camera on the back for taking pictures and an OLED screen and it is perfect!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

No such terms for Canadian iPhones AFAIK.

Skype does not work over 3G for voice on any iPhone in the world including Canada. In fact Canada got the app 6 months later than everyone else because of some stupid trademark fuss.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Now I can do those Skype Video calls I and my friends all hate and never use as a result!

Really? We use it all the time. We're currently working with a firm in Saskatchewan, saves us tons on phone calls.

[mduell]

It's such an obvious feature to have it's surprising it's not official. I guess now they can sell more v2.

[Spheric Harlot]

Did anyone catch the fact that this thing hasn't actually shipped yet?

[imitchellg5]

Yes, I have. Could it be a feature of the 3G models? Because paying $130 for a $20 3G chip is sort of, well, silly.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yes, I have. Could it be a feature of the 3G models? Because paying $130 for a $20 3G chip is sort of, well, silly.

My guess is: this feature wasn't ready to be disclosed due to software issues.
OS 3.2 seems to be a preliminary step until 4.0 is ready and presentable.

Apple didn't want to disclose 4.0 yet, so some 4.0 only features were left out.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

^ yes, that seems likely.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

My guess is: this feature wasn't ready to be disclosed due to software issues.
OS 3.2 seems to be a preliminary step until 4.0 is ready and presentable.

Apple didn't want to disclose 4.0 yet, so some 4.0 only features were left out.

-t

I think that as well but if they ship it with 3.2 or 3.3 and 2 months later launch iPhone 4.0 OS won't they have to charge the customer for the software update like with the iPod?

Also why get all the bad press now about no camera and no multitasking only to change it in 2 months and hope word gets out or that they are fixing mistakes?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I think that as well but if they ship it with 3.2 or 3.3 and 2 months later launch iPhone 4.0 OS won't they have to charge the customer for the software update like with the iPod?

That depends on what accounting they followed when they booked the initial sales.

The rules have changed last year, so there might be a way to record the sales upfront and still allow free updates.

-t

[dedalus]

I don’t think this is an OS or pricing issue. Apple are eventually going to release an iPad with a camera, it’s either going to be a 2G or 3G iPad, depending on the economic situation at the time and whether they can cut enough of a profit on the damned thing to make it worth their while at that point in time. Either way, the consumer market is ours. All this accountancy talk is beside the point. We’ve won. The loser companies will scramble for the leftovers, but, I really think they’ve had it.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yes, I have. Could it be a feature of the 3G models? Because paying $130 for a $20 3G chip is sort of, well, silly.

Brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

[gooser]

one other possibility. the ipad was designed and planned to include a camera and for whatever reason they decided to drop it and it will never be back.

[Eug]

There is no way that version 1 will have a camera, even if the slot is there.

It reminds me of the Cube. It has a slot for a fan, but comes with no fan. However, I suspect that if the Cube hadn't been killed early on in its life, it would have had to have gotten faster CPUs, and therefore would have likely gotten a fan later. The added bonus of having a fan bracket already there is that the case doesn't need a major revision if they do decide to put it there.

Similarly, if there is enough call for a camera, then the iPad will get a camera. In fact, it would be foolish to design the iPad without some consideration of a possible camera down the line IMO. Remember also that the 3G iPad isn't going to be limited to one network, either. Most of the hooplah is around the US's AT&T that Americans complain about, but apparently there will be some other countries offering 3G iPad support early on as well, and the number of carriers supporting the iPad will only increase with time.

P.S. I also happen to hate Skype, but sometimes I'm forced to use it because friends of mine overseas love it. Skype wouldn't be so common if people didn't actually use it.

[Phileas]

You hate Skype? Why?

[Eug]

Because you have to install software, register an account, sit in front of the computer, and then make sure the person is sitting there next to the computer with Skype loaded and set to receive calls. Plus the quality sometimes is lacking. And then once you make that one Skype call, they expect you to have Skype active all the time, or else try to make you be near that computer or whatever when they want to call. The same annoyances would be on an iPad too, since that's not something I'd carry around with me.

I'd rather just pay the (reduced rate) long distance fees and call their mobile.

Then again, I'm not the type to call overseas 5X a week for 30 minutes each call.

[slugslugslug]

You don’t have to sit in front of your computer if you get a Wi-Fi Skype phone, or a USB/LAN Skype adapter with a landline phone, or the Skype app for iPhone (or Android, if they’ve got one…)

But all the figuring out when people are going to be logged in to Skype, that’s still annoying.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

You don’t have to sit in front of your computer if you get a Wi-Fi Skype phone, or a USB/LAN Skype adapter with a landline phone, or the Skype app for iPhone (or Android, if they’ve got one…)

None of them have Skype phones. They all use their computers.

[Oisín]

^ That’s not Skype’s fault.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Because you have to install software, register an account, sit in front of the computer, and then make sure the person is sitting there next to the computer with Skype loaded and set to receive calls.

Unlike with regular phones, where you just have to register (actually, buy) an account, be by the phone, and make sure the person you’re calling is by his or her phone on as well, set to receive calls.

There’s very little difference, really, apart from the rather insignificant step of having to install an app on to your computer (not exactly something you’d never do otherwise). Once Skype works for calls over 3G, too, there’ll be even less difference. Except for the price, of course.

Skype wouldn't be so common if people didn't actually use it.

Well, no. Nothing would be popular if people didn’t use it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Excuse oisin; i hear they don't have cellphones in Denmark yet...

[The Final Dakar]

Skype is way less inconvenient than my telegraph.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Excuse oisin; i hear they don't have cellphones in Denmark yet...

It applies just as much to cell phones. You can’t call someone who doesn’t have a SIM card/number, has his phone off, or isn’t by his phone.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Because you have to install software, register an account, sit in front of the computer, and then make sure the person is sitting there next to the computer with Skype loaded and set to receive calls.
Then again, I'm not the type to call overseas 5X a week for 30 minutes each call.

So you're complaining about a FREE service like your free yahoo mail then right? Why don't you just use your normal phone then?

You are either not using skype right or you don't want to spend a dime on it.
For a whooping $2.95/month you can call any cellphone or landline unlimited in USA/Canada which you can call from your iPhone over Wifi. They don't need Skype. Most of the world for $12/month. I just use prepaid and it costs about .02 a min. It even shows me normal name and phone number when I call people. Within a few weeks skype will allow calls over 3G data.

A skype to skype call sounds 10x better to me than a 3G phone call. Both of us are 3000 miles away, on our iphones with the headphones and it costs nothing.

Even calling landlines with skype from mexico to canada sounds as good or better than a normal 3G to 3G call.

Nobody hates skype.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It applies just as much to cell phones. You can’t call someone who doesn’t have a SIM card/number, has his phone off, or isn’t by his phone.

While this is true, the point of a cellphone is that you are as "by your phone" as you ever want to be.

In other words, if a person actually wants to be reachable, he *will* be reachable via cellphone (unless he's on AT&T in NYC). That's the best you'll ever be able to do.

[dedalus]

Since this thread now appears to be about telephony, allow me to chirp in with my tuppence on the subject.

About three years ago, my ISP provided me with an audio mailbox service. They gave me this number, and if people called it, the messages were e‑mailed to me as .wav files. They don’t do this any more. I miss that.

As far as the iPad is concerned, once I buy one, I will probably have it on for ten hours a day and be expecting to use it as my primary communication device.

I am really not comfortable depending upon Skype, a company that is partly owned by eBay (whom I do not trust, at all), on this level. I would be happy to pay Apple the current price of a MobileMe subscription to take care of the technicalities, rather than having to resort to a third party solution.

All that said, I would be exceedingly surprised if this hadn’t been thought out already. To my mind, there is no chance of a video conferencing capable iPad being released without a first party app and network solution being in place.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

I am really not comfortable depending upon Skype, a company that is partly owned by eBay (whom I do not trust, at all), on this level.

You're totally right. Best you spend that $3 monthly on someone else "More trustworthy" and 10x the cost.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

So you're complaining about a FREE service like your free yahoo mail then right? Why don't you just use your normal phone then?

That's exactly what I do.

[Phileas]

Skype allows me to do tons of stuff I've come to rely on. I spend 90% of my workday in close proximity to my laptop, so when Skype rings, I hear it.

* I like to see who's logged in. Unlike with a phone, I know who is available to talk at any time.
* Putting together a quick conference takes seconds. And it's free.
* Voice quality is far superior to a phone call.
* If I switch my laptop off, or I am away from it, Skype forwards the call to my cellphone.
* If I don't answer my cellphone, it goes to voicemail.
* Unlimited calling throughout North America for about $4.00 a month. I saves our business hundreds of dollars each month.
* A iPhone app that actually works.
* Video calls. We have a Mac Mini hooked up to a 48" TV at work. Yesterday we had a three hour conversation with our partners in
Saskatchewan. People came in and out of the meeting, sat down and contributed. We saved thousands in plane fares.
* Screen sharing. I can actually show the other side what is on my screen.
* File sharing.
* Skype in. We can have a local call in number in NYC, in London, pretty much anywhere we choose, allowing customers to call us
and only pay for a local call.

But yeah, phones are superior. Sigh.

[Eug]

Skype isn't allowed on our organization's work computers, and 99.9% of the people we deal with outside our organization do not have Skype installed either.

ie. Unless you're talking strictly about Skype from a personal iPhone or personal cell phone to an external land line or external cell phone, Skype is basically useless to us. As popular as Skype is for end users, its penetration into the corporate and professional market seems quite low.

P.S. We have professional H.263 based videoconferencing equipment in our department and throughout the organization. These systems are standardized, and are compatible with other brands of video conferencing equipment used in other large organizations. Alternatively, audio conferencing can simply be done via phone, but we also have dedicated audio conferencing microphone systems for this if desired, and don't use laptop mics. The dial-in numbers are either local, or else toll-free numbers.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

ie. Unless you're talking strictly about Skype from a personal iPhone or personal cell phone to an external land line or external cell phone, Skype is basically useless to us. As popular as Skype is for end users, its penetration into the corporate and professional market seems quite low.

You drop that "useless" bomb so easily. I know so many small business' that save hundreds of bucks a month using skype for both skype to skype and landlines.

Skype isn't made to replace every phone and giant business expensive and complicated system.

I also went from spending lots for random calls to the US clients to a total of $3 month max.

Wait, why the Hell are we even talking about the value of skype? If I pay you $3 for a month subscription can arguing over cheap minor details end in this thread?

[Eug]

Like I said, Skype is frowned upon in many enterprise environments. That means no Skype on any work machines. They've often got their own VoIP based cheap high volume long distance anyway though. In some environments, even WiFi is an issue for some stuff, as they simply block that stuff on the network. For example, LogMeIn is completely useless in my environment, since it's specifically blocked, as are many other sites. To access these sites/servers, the only option left over is to use your own cell phone over 3G.

BTW, we've got dedicated bandwidth for video conferencing that doesn't use the internet. Completely separate network, which means there is no issue with internet related congestion. However, that's only in specific rooms, and only to specific sites in the province.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, we've got dedicated bandwidth for video conferencing that doesn't use the internet. Completely separate network, which means there is no issue with internet related congestion. However, that's only in specific rooms, and only to specific sites in the province.

Wow that sounds much better than skype. Does it cost $3 a month and work on my iPad?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Wow that sounds much better than skype. Does it cost $3 a month and work on my iPad?

Oh, how fun, a Canadian cat fight

Seriously, I don't understand the issue.

Eug's comment that Skype is banned from big corporation is right - Corporate America (and Canada) don't use Skype due security concerns.

aS and Phileas contend that Skype is useful for small and medium business - which is also true.

You are just talking about different users and uses, and therefore, don't need to agree on a common outcome.
But, of course, cat fights are cool, therefore, I think you should continue with it

-t

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Eug's comment that Skype is banned from big corporation is right - Corporate America (and Canada) don't use Skype due security concerns.
-t

Cool. Who ever said iPad and Skype is the main purchasing decision for corporate America? These are the same people using IE6. I hope apple specifically ignores this market as they are slow to upgrade and spend money.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

aS and Phileas contend that Skype is useful for small and medium business - which is also true.

Yes it is. But again either has much to do with the iPad overall.

The point is that this is totally ridiculous to argue over prices and dedicated conference rooms when the topic is the iPad's non-camera. When did Apple mention once that the iPad is in response to get skype video calling in peoples bags?

It it going to sell like bananas without the camera as most actual consumers (Not geeks) don't care. Which is exactly the market Apple is looking to sell to.

[dedalus]

You really don’t think Granny would like to videophone her grandchildren?

[Spheric Harlot]

True. The importance of video Chat appears to escape the Canadian.