The “Good Enough” Test: Flip vs. Apple iPod Nano
by Peter Kafka
Posted on September 14, 2009 at 3:00 AM PT
When Apple added a video camera to the iPhone last summer, the digerati declared that Flip, Cisco’s cheap digital video camera line, was dead. When Apple added a video camera to its cheap and tiny iPod nano last week, the digerati heaped dirt on the camcorder’s grave.
You know what? I think the conventional wisdom is right on this one. Take a look at this clever test from NewTeeVee, which compares the nano’s new camera with a Flip Ultra SD.
The good folks at NewTeeVee declare that the Flip’s camera offers a “MUCH better picture,” and since they did the work here I won’t argue with them.
But I don’t think the gap between the two cameras is big enough to help Flip. If you’re really serious about video quality, you’re probably not carrying a Flip to begin with. And given the choice between a video camera that takes a decent picture and one that also lets you listen to music, watch movies and play games…well, that’s a tough sell, even if you’ve got Cisco’s (CSCO) marketing dollars backing you up.
In other words, Apple (AAPL) has passed my “good enough” test. The nano doesn’t do the job as well as a single-use device, but it’s adequate for my needs. The only question for me is whether I spring for a nano now, or hold off in the hopes that the iPod touch line gets a camera sooner than later.
Comments
They’ve torn down the new iPod touch and found not only the space for a camera inside (boosting credibility of rumors that a flawed camera bound for the iPod Touch was pulled at the last minute), but that the new Touch also has hardware for 802.11n. The Nano is great, but it’s only a matter of time before the iPod Touch makes it irrelevant for video and stills (which the Nano can’t do.)
Posted by Eric Welch at September 14th, 2009 at 9:07 amBecause this is Apple we’re talking about, we’ll probably never know whether the (apparent) deletion of a camera in the touch was a technical or a marketing decision, or maybe some of both. Personally I won’t be interested in these micro-cams until they can do 720p video. Any less seems like a step backwards.
Posted by Mitch Stone at September 14th, 2009 at 10:18 amThis is treadmill marketing. I prefer the theory that they put the camera in the Nano because at the lower prices everyone would have zoomed past it to the Touch otherwise.
Microsoft does this with the dozen versions of Windows, forcing users to choose between version that are optimized for games vs business use and causing families who can afford it to buy two computers when one would probably do.
All these small cameras are for Ad Hoc viding anyway, and as you say, the poorer one is also “good enough”.
On the other hand I won’t be buying yet another Nano just because it has a camera, where I would have spent the extra for a Touch that had one (and presumably a better one). So Apple swings and misses yet again where I am concerned.
Question is will Cisco continue to improve the Flip taking it into higher realms of quality that the pinhole lens of the iPods can’t “touch”?
I would bet so.
Posted by Mac Beach at September 14th, 2009 at 10:51 amThe Nano looks like a very poor substitute for the Flip for anyone interested in capturing video. The Nano capture is less sharp and has muddier colors and excessive purple fringing that makes the Flip look like an HD camera by comparison. Anyone interested in capturing video that looks somewhat true to life should stick to the Flip even if they also own one of the new Nanos.
Posted by Ralph cohen at September 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm> The Nano is great, but it’s
> only a matter of time before
> the iPod Touch makes it
> irrelevant for video and
> stills (which the Nano can’t
> do.)
If you wait for tech, though, you wait forever. There may never be an iPod touch with the nano-style camera because it wouldn’t be able to run all the still photography -related apps in the App Store, and none of the barcode-reading type apps. It would add a 3rd camera to iPhone OS when it may be ideal to move all the devices to the 3GS-style camera instead. The “technical problems” rumored to be attached to the iPod touch with camera may just be that they decided they wanted at least a 3GS-spec camera and there isn’t one that fits yet.
The 2010 iPhone may be thinner and require a newer, thinner, 3GS-style camera, and then they may put that into iPod touch in September 2010.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at September 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm