BusinessWeek is lukewarm on iPod Touch

The problem with the viewpoint presented in this post is that the elegance of the iPhone and the iPod touch, coupled with a real (though pared down) fully functional OS, present the impression that the devices are fully capable multipurpose computers. As such, the choice of software that's installed on them and the limitations of such begin to appear increasingly arbitrary.

Sure, the device's primary function might be to play music, but when it's clear that it *can* run applications like Safari, the end user is going to naturally want to be able to run other typical apps, like a Calendar or whatnot. Imagine if Dell sold a high end gaming PC that would only let you install/play one game, say, Halo. "Yes, but its primary function is to play Halo!" wouldn't sound very convincing.

iPhone and Touch are a lot like those diskettes that had either 700KB or 1.44MB. Both could carry the same data, it's just that small hole at the corner that did the trick... In order to not cannibalize the sales of iPhones, iPod Touches get crippled and seem inferior compared to a product... from the same company!

At the end of the day, all this talk is semantics. It seems irrational to argue that certain features are okay to add, and certain ones are not.

To say Safari is an afterthought added simply to log in to wifi networks is missing the point of what users are actually doing- I think Safari is a big feature for most iPod Touch users. If Apple only wanted to support logging in to wifi, they could've crippled Safari just as they crippled the Calendar app. The whole benefit of running a mobile OS X with a big touch screen is to enable these other functionalities. Had Apple stripped EVERYTHING that was non-iPod, then the iPod Touch would be very lackluster compared to the other iPods. The Classic has a clickwheel and stores more music (AND is cheaper), and the Nano is smaller and much cheaper for an 8GB player.

The only discriminating feature for the Touch is movies, in which case they may as well called it iPod Movie. But the $299 and $399 price points are WAY TOO MUCH for such an iPod.

Sales cannibalization with the iPhone is a legitimate concern for Apple, which is why the Touch ended up as it did. But I think in the long run Apple will find that choice is better, and artificially crippling products is bad. Each product has their pro's and con's. If the iPhone is meant to be, it will succeed even with a great iPod Touch. And if the iPhone is NOT meant to be, then it will fail regardless of how they cripple and hurt iPod Touch sales.

@gotsmart

"They wanted to give people a WiFi iTunes store. So they HAD to put in WiFi and a browser for getting online at most access points."

is that sarcastic? if it's not, it only further supports the statement that the iPod is primarily a media player.

Of course Apple didn't include Mail because they want to sell more phones...boy you geniuses really figured out the big secret. Bet you figured out that the G4 iBook didn't have a particular feature so they could sell more 12" Powerbooks. Better get in touch with Mensa because they need clever people like you.

Those of us who bought the iPhone knew Apple would open the platform. Regardless of the reasons, they did. You'll be able to buy apps for the Touch as well. Apple will probably charge you for the Mail app then, and you guys will predictably complain when they do despite the fact that the Touch with Mail would have cost you more now. if you don't believe me you're both naive and stupid.

Its not the only iPod Apple sells, buy something else if the Touch doesn't give you what you need.

The Weather widget isn't all that accurate so i don't know why you guys are complaining about not having it. Just go to Wunderground.

PS. What's most alarming about the review is that he admitted to downloading the latest Jennifer Lopez single.

The "it's a media player, not an Internet device" argument is complete marketing BS. Hey, guess what? iPods don't have WiFi, web browsers or on-screen keyboards, either. So Apple's picking-and-choosing of technologies that constitute an "iPod" is just silly.

They wanted to give people a WiFi iTunes store. So they HAD to put in WiFi and a browser for getting online at most access points.

If you ask me, the audience for the iPod touch and the iPhone are still distinct enough that one device won't cannibalize sales of the other. There are lots of people who aren't on AT&T, can't get on AT&T or don't want to pay $60/month for access to the Web and their email *everywhere*. There are lots of people for whom email and Web access are a nice bonus on an iPod, but they're not going to buy an iPhone.

If anything, the iPod touch gives Apple an upsell opportunity. "Like the way you can access the Web, maps and email when you're in range of a WiFi connection? Imagine being able to do that *anywhere*!"

I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps Apple and AT&T had a "cripple the iPod touch" agreement for six months in order to boost sales, and in the January/February time frame (coinciding with Macworld and the release of the iPhone/iPod touch SDK) we'll see the platform open up and the full suite of iPhone apps come available for the iPod touch.

YouTube is on there because the iPod is an entertainment device, and not a PDA. Yes, they could have added all the software capabilities without reducing cost, and in all likelihood, they will in upcoming software updates. I'd love to have a camera and a mic thrown in on the device, but it's not really a deal breaker for me.

I'm not an avid fan of Apple's recent decision making, but the arguments in this article are so BusinessWEAK.

Enough with the Apple bias. The article is right on. I would have bought one if it was really an iPhone without the phone as it was pitched.

I bought the iPod Touch because we don't have the iPhone yet in Canada (well some do, but their hacked, and I'm not that kind). When I did, sure I was hoping of third party applications and I'm happy to see that our wish will be granted in Frebruary.

I love my iPod Touch, and I have no intention of buying an iPhone it's to big as far as I'm concerned, I prefer small thin mobile phones, like the Sony Ericssons w880