It's now more of a mini tablet than just simply a music player, so why does Apple keep it in the iPod product line and not the tablet line?
I bought the iPod Touch 2g, which I still use,despite its cracked screen.
I wanted an iPhone without the phone, and use it as a PDA, web browser, and MP3/audiobook player.
It fits in my shirt pocket. If I were to put it in a physical store that I owned, it would go with the other iPods and MP3 players, because that's what most customers would be comparing it to.
It does not have cell capability (and the Skype fake is really clunky). Unlike the iPad, no one made fun of the iPod Touch's name when it came out. Pod does not imply music only. It implies self-contained. It certainly is NOT pad or tablet sized.
IF you want to discuss a name that has outlived its usefulness, try iTunes, where an awful lot of what you do has NOTHING To do with "tunes".
----------
I feel the ipod name sort of hurts it. I never considered it until I saw the latest model in an apple store. I think of it as iphone lite. Its a great product--I just am not sure whom it is aimed at. It seems pricey for a kid device and most phones have the same functionality
It is aimed at people like me who are contract-averse, and like being able to access the iPod Touch to look things up while talking on either a dumb-cell-phone.
My $200 iPod Touch 2g has served me well for 4 1/2 years. I like that it overperforms its name. The first time I used it for remote access to my work PC in a Culver's restaurant with WIFI, I felt like a dime store Lord of the Universe, more or less.
