How can they provide wi-fi apps like Browser and iTunes store access, but not mail?

That is such an obvious exclusion that you can't help but think the worst about Apple for it.

Smooth one, Steve.

First of all - cheers to macnn for an article free of annoying grammar and spelling mistakes!!

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse Apple of crippling the iPod touch as some kind of trick to protect iPhone sales. It's just a logical decision. Apple has the dilema of providing customers with two products that are increasingly converging while staying true to their product matrix - making sure the iPod touch remains an iPod. So of course it won't have features that the iPhone (or most other smartphones) has - news flash - it's not a smartphone.

It doesn't help Apple's case that the two devices share the same design platform. But I suppose it's a good thing that they do such a good job of raising the bar, people forget where the old bar used to be.

Because that's what Apple does. Its business model is defined by making specifically tailored products for specific markets. They hope they get more people up-ticking their products. So if you want an iPod touch, but also want mail, or a camera, or Google Maps, they hope you're desire for that one extra item is enough to push you to the high-end model.

They do it with all their lines. If you want a MacBook, but want a 15" screen, they hope you're desire for the screen size will offset you lack of desire to fork over another $1000 and buy the bigger model (since Apple is like the only laptop manufacturer that doesn't make an affordable large-screen laptop).

Or if the iMac is the perfect beast for you, but you want a replacable graphics card, here's the MacPro and another $1500 to the rescue!

Your examples testudo don't work. The Macbook Pro is an upgrade to the Macbook. The iPhone is NOT an upgrade to the iPod Touch. The iPhone requires a service plan which disqualifies it as an upgrade path using your logic.

Tey really are artificially limiting the iPod Touch and it should have those other internet things on it that are missing. It is not going to cannabalize too many iPhones due to the need to buy a service plan with the iPhone.

I would hardly call Walt Mossberg's review "mixed!" That's a gross distortion of what he actually said, which was this:

Apple's new iPod touch "is a great media player, and the iPod remains the best end-to-end portable solution for playing and purchasing music and video..."

If you insist on stoning Apple, MacNN, you could at least have the guts to admit it.

Simple idea:

1. The iPod of any stripe is a media player, not a communications device.

2. The iPhone is a communications device that also plays media.

Once you admit to that, then both lines can evolve accordingly. Make a choice based upon what you need.

I would agree that the iPhone needs to be open to other contracts or availble to be a communications device sans the phone part, but that still doen't mean Apple should confuse the two separate functions.

Maybe when the telecom industry gets sorted out more and all of the infrastructure has somehow been paid off, there will truly be only one device that does it all and does it inexpensively, but it is the industry and not the consumer that is keeping things up in the air and causing such wierd hybridized devices and service contracts that we see now.

I'm sure Jobs would rather just have one line of iPods and let us pay for all the services and media on it, but the industry is not so simple.

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse Apple of crippling the iPod touch as some kind of trick to protect iPhone sales. It's just a logical decision. Apple has the dilema of providing customers with two products that are increasingly converging while staying true to their product matrix - making sure the iPod touch remains an iPod. So of course it won't have features that the iPhone (or most other smartphones) has - news flash - it's not a smartphone.

I don't buy it. What's this magical delineation between smartphone and music device? I mean, they added a browser. Once you've done that, its a communications device. So then saying "Oh, its not really a communications device, its just for browsing", then why have a keyboard. Or why have the ability to edit contacts? Why NOT Google Maps? What is so special about the iPhone and its 'communication' needs that makes Maps an obvious inclusion, but the iPod not?

I'm not buying it (literally).

If you provide web services like browsing and iTunes store purchase access, there is NO legitimate excuse for excluding a mail service too.

I can accept removing Mail as a differentiator between the touch and the iPhone. That's a pretty significant jump in functionality from previous iPods. But iPods have had contacts and calendars for years. Now they've made a minor improvement to that existing functionality by allowing you to add/edit contacts. But to then not allow add/edit of events in the calendar? Arbitrary, confusing, inconsistent, and just plain stupid.

There's no reason for any artificial differentiation like adding/removing software components. The differences are already significant enough IMO. What does a $399 iphone have? Camera, phone, bluetooth and sms. What does a $399 iPod Touch have? Twice the capacity.

Personally, the music capabilities of my iPhone are probably what I use the least. I've even used that stupid Weather widget more (the music player does beat out the calculator though). And even though EDGE is kind of crappy, if I don't have that, then I don't use most of those features.

I really doubt putting the email widget or anything else in is going to confuse people are undercut phone sales. Apple should reconsider.