BusinessWeek is lukewarm on iPod Touch

BusinessWeek's Cliff Edwards recently reviewed the iPod Touch. While he gave it four-and-a-half out of five stars, he also made the same mistake that's plaguing many technophiles with regard to this device: Forgetting it's an iPod.

It's an easy mistake to make. The iPod Touch is handicapped by its resemblance to the iPhone and the fact that it was released during the iPhone media blitz. As a result, people expect it to operate just like its twin. When it doesn't, they're disappointed. For example, Mr. Edwards writes:

"The Touch...lacks the iPhone's e-mail application, as well as its microphone, camera, and Bluetooth connection...widgets for gathering stock quotes, weather forecasts, and other information."

That's not an oversight, it's an example of Apple keeping the iPod true to its primary function as a digital music player. It's tempting – but unfair – to compare the iPod Touch to the iPhone. When the iPod Touch is compared point-by-point to its older siblings, it's clear what an advancement it is. Imagine the iPod Touch in a world without iPhones. People would be tripping over themselves to buy one.

"But the iPod Touch has Safari and YouTube," you say. I'd argue that Safari was only added as a concession to public Wi-Fi hotspots that require a login, and YouTube followed as a "Why not?" feature.

Later in the article, Mr. Edwards laments the Touch's lack of a "...slower cellular data connection" as a fall back for data transfer, as well as the fact that it can't download videos from the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store. The latter isn't unique to the iPod Touch, and the former goes back to my original point: It's an iPod, not a phone.

Finally, he says that the Touch "...will appeal to a smaller audience than the Classic or Nano because of its limitations and inflated price tag."

That's true, the nano has typically been the best-selling model. While the Touch is the priciest iPod, it's hardly limited.