{"id":303,"date":"2007-10-22T09:56:27","date_gmt":"2007-10-22T14:56:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mikew.ca\/wp\/?p=303"},"modified":"2025-01-13T22:41:12","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T22:41:12","slug":"the-ipod-touch-is-not-an-ipod","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mikew.ca\/blog\/?p=303","title":{"rendered":"The iPod Touch is not an iPod."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I keep reading<\/a> posts where I’m told that it’s ok for the iPod Touch to be missing many of the applications from the iPhone, because it really is just<\/em> a digital music player.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To my mind, the thing that clearly puts the lie to that theory is the inclusion of the Safari web browser. As a music player, they could have included (with the built-in wifi) just the dedicated iTunes Store client, which would have brought them up to par with the Zune. Once they stepped over the line and included a full desktop grade<\/em> web browsing client, they have clearly made something else. In fact, The iPod Touch is the first, true portable computer of the next generation<\/strong>. *<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m not exaggerating here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple has done what they almost always do: Looked at a hard problem, and found a thoughtful, elegant, effective<\/em> solution. In this case, it was turning the wild west that is current web design into something that works<\/em> on a small, keyboardless, information appliance. For the first time ever, I’m not tempted to look for my laptop to follow a link I heard on the radio — the iPod works just as well, and I’ve got it in my pocket.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In truth, I almost never plug headphones into my iPod. I’ll admit to watching dl.tv<\/a> on it while waiting to pick up a pizza, but in general I just use it as a conduit to the web.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, it’s in that context, that I find it so painful that they didn’t include many of the absolutely obvious<\/em> apps from the iPhone:<\/p>\n\n\n\n