Why No Fries with the iPod touch?
After nine months of anticipation, Apple finally released an iPod based on the iPhone form factor and interface. But for reasons unknown, Apple chose to leave off one or two essential applications, and according to the latest rumor, has neutered others.
You get the feeling that if Apple bought McDonald’s they would cut the fries from the combo meals. I hope you didn’t want fries with your new iPod touch!
The iPod touch is a lovely device, and I have to out myself as being wrong. I was among those who said Apple wouldn’t release a device like it within 12 months of the iPhone.
Hindsight is a great thing, and now I can see why Apple might have done so. Certainly there’s a big market for it, but the two devices could cannibalize each other. Which, at the end of the day, matters not to Apple, as they still get a sale. And Steve said as much in a recent interview with USA Today.
However, in markets still waiting for the iPhone—such as Europe and Asia—it will be interesting to see how the iPod touch sells. Personally, I’m having a dilemma over whether to get an iPod touch or wait for the iPhone. And a young woman I spoke to at an electronics retailer said she’d be waiting.
Actually, the more more I find out about the touch, the more I lose interest in it.
I saw one reader comment on a web forum last week that the iPod touch is a PDA. I suspect, though, he’s in for a big disappointment. Apple isn’t pushing it that way, so it’s hard to know if it really is. In fact, Apple’s demo video didn’t even mention iCal or Address Book, two key apps on a PDA. And rumors have it there’ll be no ability to input calendar entries—which is upsetting a lot of people who pre-ordered specifically expecting that feature.
But the big thing missing—the fries if you will—is email. Its absence is the deciding factor in my not buying an iPod touch.
For a device that has internet access, the lack of an email client leaves one speechless. So what if you can do it online through Safari? An offline reader is essential in a portable, internet-connected device. Plus, using a browser, you have to manually check your email. Also, if you have multiple email accounts, using a browser really starts getting cumbersome.
In my part of the world, wireless hotspots are rare, so I wouldn’t be able to use the browser or email much anyway. But if hotspots were available, then I’d be eternally frustrated at having an internet device without email.
Say that again a couple of times: “an internet device without email.” Have you ever heard of anything stupider? A car without seats? A combo meal without fries? A computer without a mouse? A house without a bathroom? An internet device without email?
Possibly, someone will port the iPhone’s email client to the iPod touch, and hopefully that will force Apple to include it.
Unfortunately, this adds to the dilemma. Do I wait for the touch to get an email client? Or just get an iPod classic? And do I then forget about the iPhone?
But if the rumor of the inability to input to the calendar and address book proves true, the decision is easy. No touch. Without those PDA abilities, the difference between a touch and an iPod classic narrows too much to justify the touch.
The interesting thing is, the lack of PDA type functions, such as calendar entry and email, stops me buying an iPod touch in preference to an iPod classic. But the absence of those from the touch wouldn’t influence my decision to buy an iPhone.
I’d buy an iPhone because it’s a phone with iPod features. But I would have bought a touch if it was an iPod with email and PDA features.
With the touch having no compelling features, and already owning an iPod, albeit sans video, I expect I’ll just buy nothing.
Steve was happy to appease the angry mob over the price cut; hopefully he’ll appease the rowdy rabble over the lack of email and calendar entry.
Come on, Steve, mate, give us the fries with that iPod touch.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
So why have Safari and YouTube on the touch?? -Chris
I don’t see myself, ever, checking the web or YouTubin’ while I am out on my daily jog. So, why have Apple included those and not eMail or the full iCal?
This unexplained reasons have me going nuts. I was about to walk out to the local Apple Store boutique then this cloud floated over my head (thanks, Chris). Reader “T” provided the closest answer but it is not convincing me at this point.
Yes.
I would from a business perspective if Apple were terrified of cannibalising iPhone sales at this juncture. Firstly because its iPhone profits will be considerably greater with that chunk-of-service-revenue; secondly because it’s really what the stock price is hinging on at the mo.
*I would from a business perspective understand.
Further comparing the two products at the Ó website, I have noticed one other great difference between them - Widgets!
Widgets is the application framework to allow interested developers (an invitation, more like) to write small, but functional, programs. This is the Dashboard/Konfabulator/Y! Widgets-equivalent for those unaware of late.
So, without this Widgets on the iTouch, how will developers port their iPhone AJAX apps to the iTouch? Is this also an intentional differentiating feature? Likely, but why?
Ben thinks it’s the possible “cannibalization” theory but Steve himself confessed with his USA Today interview that “If anybody is going to cannibalize us, I want it to be us. I don’t want it to be a competitor.”
Price difference alone + the likely scenario of a multi-year service contract is enough to differentiate the two products. Having email, iCal, and Widgets on the iTouch will not keep people from tossing their current obsoleted smartphones and buy an iPhone, instead.
If customers vie for an iTouch (like myself) and want to keep their generic phones, that is fine too. Without the phone module, Apple is passing on the BOM savings (~$100) directly to you. Their margin is still identical - iTouch or iPhone.
So, cannibalization theory is not it for me. Thanks though, Ben.
Oh, never mind… :D
Widgets is the application framework to allow interested developers (an invitation, more like) to write small, but functional, programs.
Err. No it isn’t? What?
“If anybody is going to cannibalize us, I want it to be us. I don’t want it to be a competitor.”
Yes but they want it to be in the right direction. That is, the iPhone is to replace (cannibalise) the iPod, which makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is for Apple’s flagship to be replaced by just another iPod.
I must say the idea that Apple is terrified of cannibalising iPhone the most compelling and believable explanation yet and I don’t find your counter-arguments convincing.
No it isn’t? -Ben
So, why is the “Widgets” feature missing on the iTouch? Got any good words to say? The iTouch IS an internet communications device, isn’t it?
I understand that Safari is AJAX-capable and that is the official Apple solution at the moment BUT when the iPhone SDK will be released (soon?) it will be within this framework much like the other “Widgets” on the iPhone. I stand corrected on that part. Thank you, Ben.
I must say the idea that Apple is terrified of cannibalising iPhone the most compelling and believable explanation yet and I don’t find your counter-arguments convincing. -Ben
If “cannibalizing” the iPhone is Apple’s biggest fear, why introduce the iTouch at all? And at only $100 difference? If the price difference was greater then the possibilities of that is much greater. People are cheap. Just look at the P2P vs. 99¢ proposition.
It’s because Apple realize not everyone will opt for an iPhone. Millions will be just as happy with their ordinary smartphones/feature phones. Apple must’ve figured-out that offering an iPod with neutered iPhone capabilities, they will still gain from those sales.
Sales to people who were not considering iPhones anyway aren’t considered “cannibalization”. This is additional revenue otherwise lost to “competitors”. This is what Steve had in mind.
Chris has a good point. I might cancel my order for the ipod touch and play the waiting game.
what is all the fuss about, after all it’s an iPod, not a PDA, not the iPhone, no nothing, it’s just a pimped out iPod and like all pimped out products, it has one or two pretty useless features like wi fi, it’s first and foremost a media player, connectivity comes second.
No, actually. I’m complaining about a lack of email client in an internet connected device.
Ah, that’s a good point. But from my perspective, the iPod as a media player, I want the wifi mainly for syncing only (which it, astonishingly, doesn’t do!) and see the internet access as more or less a bell/whistle.
But you’re right that, if they’re going to go there, they should go all the way, which seems to pretty much beyond the grasp of these technology companies. It can be quite frustrating.
As for my perfect iPod, I’d be content to settle for two of the three, preferably the first two.
First off, Chris, great piece of writing here. I also don’t quite get it. The one thing is, though, is that it doesn’t really matter. Once you have the iPod touch and you hack into it (which is very easy), you will, I assume, be able to install the Mail app and be done with it.
Addressing those who don’t think its useful I disagree. The iPhone at home with my wifi connection has practically become the first thing I look at for email. Its in my pocket when I’m at home, and I can just do a quick check without going to my computer. Also, if one of my kids wants some company while falling asleep (sometimes happens with our 3 year old) I can sit on the couch in his room and go through some email while he nods off.
But aside from whether it is useful or not it is just plain odd that Apple didn’t include it. I’m not sure if it was because of fear of canabilizing iPhone sales, or just not wanting to make the iPod touch anthing more than an entertainment device….but then why is Safari on there?!
All in all I think this line of iPod is full of compromises. You have the kick-ass interface of the iPod touch without the kick-ass storage of the classic without the kick-ass internet apps of the iPhone.
On Macitt.com I think Beeblebrox said it best:
“The iPod Touch’s screen and interface +
The iPod Classic’s capacity +
The iPod Nano’s price =
The perfect iPod.”
The problem with cannibalisation is because the iPod touch is neutered to avoid cannabalizing the iPhone, what happens is the iPod classic then cannabalizes the iPod touch.
I’d happily buy a classic and an iPhone. But never a classic and a touch, nor a touch and an iPhone.
If it had all the features I want, I’d buy it and neither the classic nor iPhone.
So Apple have really created a problem.
The touch is a fish out of water, it’s neither here nor there. It’s got a serious identity crisis.
It seems to have a limited market. If anything, it’s for folks who want a big screen nano.
But Apple being Apple, and iPods being iPods, they will still sell enough to justify its existence.
so in the end, what should Apple do?
Kill the classic, kill the touch, and release the iPod beeb - although maybe a pricepoint between the classic and touch if we want Apple to stay in business.
PS plus with email and calendar/address book data entry
The applications that are missing from the ipod touch (weather, stocks, email, etc) can just be developed as web apps (if they haven’t already!). Web apps for the ipod are very easy to write, which is why there are already a bunch available, and new ones are being created every day. Here are a couple sites I found after 10 seconds of searching:
http://www.rev2.org/2007/07/02/top-25-web-apps-for-the-iphone/
http://ipodapplicationlist.com/
To quote cleverdevil.com:
“... “can web apps for the iPhone [and ipod touch] be cooler than native apps…?” to which I think the answer will be a resounding “you bet!” The iPhone [and ipod touch] comes with a version of Safari which supports HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, which is what has been used to create such outstanding tools as Google Maps, Basecamp, Delicious, and Flickr.”“
So the fact that the ipod touch is missing some native internet apps is rather meaningless. It’s the apps you want to run without available web access that will require more creative solutions (or an open SDK by Apple).