Nano vs. Touch

[palz]

For no (little) reason what so ever, I bought an iPod nano 5G, blue. I already have an 8GB iPod touch that is really good (minus the fact that it was screwed new features and internals :p). I feel kind of guilty buying this nano because I just don't use it as much as I should.
was it a huge mistake (and waste of 139€)?? I only rarely use it for camcording.

[puma1552]

No, they should be complimentary. Two different devices for two different purposes.

If your sole purpose was to play music, then yeah, I guess maybe it was wasteful. Personally I sold my touch because I don't care for touchscreens and ONLY use my iPods for music.

Love my 5th gen nanos--all three of em ;)

[student_trap]

No, they should be complimentary. Two different devices for two different purposes.

If your sole purpose was to play music, then yeah, I guess maybe it was wasteful. Personally I sold my touch because I don't care for touchscreens and ONLY use my iPods for music.

Love my 5th gen nanos--all three of em ;)

different colours I hope? ;)

[palz]

I also have my entire media collection on my nano, and only my top 50 on my touch.

[palz]

different colours I hope? ;)

Second that ;p

[dXTC]

As puma1552 said, the two serve different purposes for different user archetypes. My wife has a 32 Gb touch, which she uses mostly for apps and games (80%), watching movies on long trips (15%) and the occasional song (less than 5%).

In contrast, I use my nano mainly for music (90%), and for occasional videos (less than 10%). I'm much more of a music lover than she, so the nano fits me great. Given the choice of a touch or a classic, I'd probably get the classic, so I could have more feature-length movies available.

The only iPhone OS-based device I have any interest in is the iPad 3G for Web surfing, and for me, I'd rather use that money toward a refurb MacBook.