/article-new/2011/06/iphone_camera_icon1.jpg?lossy)
Forbes notes that Apple's longtime camera sensor supplier for its iOS devices, OmniVision Technologies, today offered remarkably weak guidance for the current quarter, suggesting that Apple may indeed have shifted camera orders for the iPhone 5 to Sony.
For FY [Q2], the company sees revenue of $255 million to $275 million, and non-GAAP profits of 52-64 cents a share, well short of the Street consensus at $306.4 million and 82 cents.
The company gave no explanation in the release for the weak forecast; I would note that there has recently been speculation that the company may have lost some of its Apple business to Sony.
Reports dating back over a year have been going back and forth over whether OmniVision or Sony would be the camera supplier for the iPhone 5. As of early June, reports claimed that both companies would be supplying 8-megapixel camera sensors for the iPhone 5, but with OmniVision shouldering 90% of the load. But just a month later, an analyst claimed that production difficulties at OmniVision had resulted in the camera sensors destined for the iPhone 5 failing to meet Apple's required yield rate. As a result, Apple was said to be planning to shift to Sony for the bulk of its iPhone 5 camera sensor orders.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Steve Jobs loves competition and he has taken shots at Sony in the past in comparing the iPhone to the Nintendo re: game content. He is not about to hand his competitor a lucrative contract to make Sony parts for an Apple product. This is just insane speculation and Jobs knows that companies like Sony are waiting to eat his lunch.
I don't think Jobs would go with Sony when they are trying to come up with their own products to compete with Apple.
One word: Samsung
Steve Jobs loves competition and he has taken shots at Sony in the past in comparing the iPhone to the Nintendo re: game content. He is not about to hand his competitor a lucrative contract to make Sony parts for an Apple product. This is just insane speculation and Jobs knows that companies like Sony are waiting to eat his lunch.
I don't think Jobs would go with Sony when they are trying to come up with their own products to compete with Apple.
just because steve jobs may have taken some shots at the gaming division doesn't mean that they won't make some deals with sony's camera division. a business does what it needs to do.
-- The megapixel count could be higher if they don't want to look inferior in spec comparisons to other phones, (yes, I know megapixels don't matter at all and its all about the sensor and pixel size, but to the average consumer they kind of do matter...)
-- The "green-blob" problem under fluorescent/halogen light
-- The thickness of the sensor itself prohibits making a skinnier phone
-- It is a part that is expected to receive an upgrade each year to something better
how often do ANY of you print 8x10s? Rarely? I thought so. Now how often do any of you print anything LARGER than 8x10? Almost nevet? Good. Now that you absolutely dont need 8x10s all that much and definitely not anything bigger than tha especially from a PHONE camera, all of you will be happy to know that a 6mp camera will print an 8x10 JUST FINE at approximately 240dpi, which, past 240dpi, the human eye begins to have trouble seeing differences (at 300dpi and up, its nearly impossible to tell).
So while so many of you are crying for higher resolution, none of you (or us) seriously need it. We'd be doing JUST FINE with a 2-4mp camera sensor as even 2mp will print a 4x6 fairly well (3 is perfect for 4x6).
I say; bring down the resolution to 3 megapixels. Enlarge the sensor @ 3mp to today's standard size (physically) and that will eliminate all heat/noise issues and we can all enjoy DECENT quality photographs, thus eliminating the need to have a secondary camera.
How many people here need an i5 processor, or even an i3? Few? I thought so. Now how many people here would need an i7? Almost no-one. Good.
All well and nice, except higher megapixel cameras do not necessarily have better quality. Often it is the opposite. In your example though, i7 is a better CPU than i5, which is better than i3.Fast processors are not required for most people. They just suck up loads of electricity and spit out heat.
this whole megapixel-count race is idiotic. the higher the pixel count, the more noise the sensor produces in images. what the hell is the point of throwing more megapixels into a sensor when most people never need anything more than 8mp, and thats being VERY generous too;
how often do ANY of you print 8x10s? Rarely? I thought so. Now how often do any of you print anything LARGER than 8x10? Almost nevet? Good. Now that you absolutely dont need 8x10s all that much and definitely not anything bigger than tha especially from a PHONE camera, all of you will be happy to know that a 6mp camera will print an 8x10 JUST FINE at approximately 240dpi, which, past 240dpi, the human eye begins to have trouble seeing differences (at 300dpi and up, its nearly impossible to tell).
So while so many of you are crying for higher resolution, none of you (or us) seriously need it. We'd be doing JUST FINE with a 2-4mp camera sensor as even 2mp will print a 4x6 fairly well (3 is perfect for 4x6).
I say; bring down the resolution to 3 megapixels. Enlarge the sensor @ 3mp to today's standard size (physically) and that will eliminate all heat/noise issues and we can all enjoy DECENT quality photographs, thus eliminating the need to have a secondary camera.
How many people here need an i5 processor, or even an i3? Few? I thought so. Now how many people here would need an i7? Almost no-one. Good.
Fast processors are not required for most people. They just suck up loads of electricity and spit out heat.