Why the iPad doesn’t have a camera: Apple doesn’t want you to look fat
4:05 pm, January 27th, 2010, John Brownlee
Although John Gruber over at Daring Fireball predicted it a couple weeks ago, I think most of us were shocked when it turned out that Apple’s newly announced iPad tablet didn’t have a forward mounted camera.
After all, why not? With an entry-level price and a $29.95 unlimited 3G coverage plan, the iPad seems like it would afford a perfect solution for mobile video calling. Hell, even if it didn’t have those things, surely it would be just as good as, say, a MacBook in letting people play around in Photo Booth. Right?
No. I think Apple knew what they were doing here. Unless it’s mounted in the iPad keyboard dock accessory, the iPad is going to be predominantly used in a below eye-level position. What that means is that a forward fronted web cam would need to point upwards at a slant to capture a human face.
So what, our lithe and muscular long-necked readers ask? Two words: double chin. Or three words, if you prefer: double triple chins.
I honestly believe right now that this is the number one reason the iPad isn’t a video conferencing device, like many of us suspected: the camera has to point upwards to capture a face, and that is one of the last flattering photography angles around… at least as far as capturing a human face is concerned.
There’s a reason all those single overweight girls you know on Facebook do the “over-the-head” digicam profile shot: a photograph of a subject becomes less flattering the father you move the camera southwards from eye-level.
Your face looks thinnest (and therefore, by Western beauty standards, most attractive) when the shot it taken from a viewpoint pointing down at your face from above.
In other words: if the iPad had a front-mounted camera, most of the time, you’d look fatter than you are.
This might seem like an unimportant consideration, but no other tech company on the market cares as much about what its customers look like when they use their products than Apple.
Apple products aren’t mere gadgets. They’re lifestyle facilitators and fashion accessories.
In my opinion, the iPad doesn’t have a front-mounted web cam for one and one reason only. It’s not a technical challenge. It’s not because Apple doesn’t want to cannibalize sales. It all comes down to one reason and one reason only…
Apple just doesn’t want us to look fat.
Posted by John Brownlee in News, Opinions, Top stories, iPad | Comment on this article
If you enjoyed this article:
Subscribe via RSS or email, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter
You’re suggesting those girls are overweight, right? Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
solar, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I’m not suggesting they are overweight at all. I’m suggesting they know that if they took the picture south of their chin, they are astute enough to recognize that the resulting picture would be less flattering.
John Brownlee, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
This the most absurd “thing” I’ve read in a long time. You should have taken your time to meditate about the iPad instead of trying to be the first writing about it.
Felipe, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Well, that’s called a theory, isn’t it? And IMHO, a valid one
But will we ever know the truth?
Bill
Bill, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Why not have a camera in the back? The Augmented Reality (AR) possibilities with the iPad would have been amazing… too bad.
Jay Sebastian, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
this is the only downer for me – it would be great to use it on ichat or gtalk video
i’m still buying it, thought!
pedro homero, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
i dunno im kinda sad that its not more osx y
but i guess it is a new way of computing so ill have to try it.
the lack of a cam is disapointing,
i was looking forward to ichating with my wife over 3g.
i think they under did it but with the pricing who can complain.
i imagine the next models will be better.
overall the lack of a cam sucks but oh well.
i just cant make up my mind if i want yet another data plan.
bubbakush, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Come on guys! The real reason is so that when the 2G version comes out in 2011 it’ll have an added camera as a fancy new feature.
Not complaining mind you.
I want one NOW! but there doesn’t appear to be any idea when its shipping in the UK …
Martyn Hutchby, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Simple, they don’t want to cannibalize its other products, namely the iPhone and Macbook. If you could get a tablet with a cam, they wouldn’t sell the iPhone or Macbook to you.
Eric, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
So this is the direction Cult of Mac is going? Ridiculous articles that are neither thought provoking or have even the slightest bit of cleverness to them?
I wouldn’t mind if the pieces were nothing but fluff, if (being the operative word) they were at least funny and well written.
This has neither. You just lost a loyal reader. I have better things to do with my time than read this crap. This is really a third rate place for intellectual depravity. It also doesn’t provide on iota of original news that can’t be gotten from other, more credible sources.
So long…
WS, on January 27th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Hmmm… Somebody sounds like an overweight single female.
Gw, on January 27th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I’m sure some 3rd party developer will make a wired camera that connects to it via the dock connector port. No whoop.
Steve G, on January 27th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I wonder if the landscape/portrait dichotomy affected the decision to not include front camera. I am actually surprised that the portrait orientation is kind of “default”. I expected the landscape to be default, with the home button/dock connector at the bottom and a front-facing camera at the top. That would make way more sense when used with the keyboard dock accessory, or even with the plain dock (photo frame mode). I just don’t understand the decision to go “all portrait”. The only important use – reading books – does not involve dock connector / camera, whereas other uses would benefit from the dock connector places at the longer side.
sy, on January 27th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I agree, but why the hell not include a camera on the back? The tiny iPod Nano’s have them, so why cant they fit one into a tablet?
Andrew Macdonald, on January 27th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I have to say I think the theory and rationale are right on target. I am a photographer, and I noticed this myself trying to take a cell phone shot of myself to see which new glasses looked the best. It was horrid. Looked like I had a thought and it got stuck in my neck. Not cool, and very un-Apple.
Good call dude. Forget the people that don’t get that Apple is very astute about these things. Rock on, knuckle draggers.
(and a little meat on the bones never hurt anybody. Better than dating your hand, nerd boiz)
=|>
surferboi, on January 27th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I think you are dead on. I was disappointed in the fact there was no camera, but my wife instantly pointed out the exact same thing. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.
Now why don’t they just put in a cool algorithm to un-distort the angle so I can video conference on the thing?
surferdwa, on January 27th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
this is hands down one of the stupidest things i have ever read.
winston smith, on January 27th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
John,
I hope this article was written tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, it’s one of your more ridiculous ideas. The reason is not technical. When the 2nd Gen iPad is released 18 months from now, everyone who bought 1st Gen will feel like it’s useless and purchase a new one. It’s called perceived obsolescence and Apple Inc. is the ultimate master in executing it.
CPDubbleU (twitter), on January 27th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I actually agree more with this not having a camera than the iPod touch or even new iPods not having a camera.
Nathan, on January 27th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
These girls are some of the most obese monsters on earth, if i were you id be very offended by the chubbiness of those dikes. Its not alright to put such inappropriate pics on the website. You guys are some concrete morons. Too bad those double chin cuties didnt use iphone cam in the dark to take those pics…
QueerThoughts, on January 27th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Would not be an issue if you had it on a table with the cover that unfolds into a holder (e.g. what you’d do in a hotel room).
To not include something so helpful to “help” feel better about ourselves is crazy.
More plausible is problems of bandwidth for AT&T 3g network, technical issues on how processor intensive it is, etc.
Recall, they planned and the killed camera on ipod touch recently (there is even a blank space in the teardowns inside where it was meant to go).
J, on January 28th, 2010 at 3:21 am
I can’t imagine it being processor-related. iPod Nano can handle it. Heck iPhone can handle 10fps video. And 3GS can do 30fps.
I don’t think Apple is intentionally leaving something out intentionally, simply to add it later as a feature. That is not very Apple.
Maybe they were trying to decide between a front-facing cam for iChat/Photo Booth or a rear-facing for Augmented-Reality.
Maybe they just don’t want us to constantly take bad pictures of ourselves and decide it’s iPad’s fault.
In any case – I’m trying to find a way to justify the purchase of this thing. I have an iMac, MacBook Pro, iPhone and iPod Touch. Any ideas?
Conrad, on January 28th, 2010 at 3:37 am
Yup… redundancy and the inability to edit posts leads to what you just read. Wow.
Conrad, on January 28th, 2010 at 3:38 am
There simply is no camera with the form factor or the quality available at the right price. The camera on the iPod is adequate, but it would look decidedly iffy on the iPad.
It will come as soon as Apple is satisfied on all three points.
Charel, on January 28th, 2010 at 3:57 am
Saying that the “technical challenges” of a camera preclude its inclusion or that it would be too expensive is just nuts. Cameras are cheap and small even handling resolutions above 1024 x 768… which is why they are standard features even in $300 netbooks.
John Brownlee, on January 28th, 2010 at 4:02 am
@Charel
They don’t have to use a iPod or iPhone camera for the the iPad. They could simply use one of those webcams from the MacBook line.
accolon, on January 28th, 2010 at 6:19 am
I agree the lack of video-conferencing camera (like the basic webcams in the iMacs) was a miss. Maybe if we shout loud enough toward Apple, hopefully it gets incorporated into the 2nd generation iPad.
Brentoni, on January 28th, 2010 at 7:16 am
What a piece of crap! It seems Apple has now started to be as any other bloated company around. They have really gone insane by releasing such useless thingie. iPhone was (soooo last season already) something to be proud of but what the heck is this? I think they have just taken too many happy pills and lost their connection with the reality and public expectations (at least mine).
Jaska, on January 28th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Is it just me, or are you needlessly giving Apple credit? Companies don’t leave out features because they think it is “what’s best for us.” It’s either not technically or financially worth the trouble right now given the product’s price point. Uploading live video and downloading another’s stream is pretty network and processor intensive stuff for what is essentially a netbook. But they’ll want you to believe that it’s still worth your money. You would be a good PR rep though.
Mike Leezy, on January 28th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
The ipad doesn’t need a camera because the iphone has one.
Someone will create an app that allows you to use your iphone as a webcam and there is a microphone in the ipad (I think). Video chat sorted.
Apple didn’t put a camera in, possibly because of the viewing angle thing, but also because they want you to have a use for all their products. They don’t want you to buy one uber gadget when you can buy 3 or 4 that can be made to work together in interesting ways. It’s called capitalism.
They don’t want you to make phone calls with the ipad or use it for creating CGI for Avatar or taking photographs or as a mobile workstation. They want you to read books on it, which is not that pleasant on an iphone, watch movies, play nintendo ds types of games, use apps that would benefit from a bigger screen, etc… , and maybe write a few longer emails or update your blog every now and again.
They probably don’t want Dan Brown typing his next novel on one (they want you to buy a MacBook to), so we should count ourselves lucky that they’ve opened it up to keyboards, because that means it can be used to type longer documents, which makes it a genuine alternative to a laptop, for those of us who still like having a desktop, which unless you are a high end user or serious gamer ,is not something you need, given the power of laptops these days.
So, in the end, after alot of thought, I think I will get an ipad, primarily because it will have more battery life than most laptops – iphone battery chargers will probably work with it as well. This will enable me to do everything I ever need to do away from my desk, in combination with my iphone, for longer than a laptop would allow me, plus a few other things that my laptop doesn’t do or doesn’t do as elegantly.
Jake, on February 15th, 2010 at 12:46 am
lol, ima wait till 2012 to get one then buy like 15 and experimentally hack all of them, cause you know, it is the end of the worl
Blake, on March 11th, 2010 at 5:05 pm