I think that was a fair post, except for the quoted section. This is the thing that I have a sworn duty to debunk. The price of an item does not have ANYTHING to do with its ability to resist scratches. The fact that it's not a $15 disposable toy is absolutely irrelevant to this issue. Costing more does not give it some magical expectation to be scratchproof.
Scratchproof watches start out above $600, while watches themselves can be purchased for as little as $10. Even a relatively expensive, nice, $250 watch scratches, possibly even more easily than a different $100 watch. Money is not a measure of protection. Period.
The crystal used in those watches is made from sapphire (or a synthetic aluminum oxide) and is many tens of times too expensive for a commodity item like the iPod. The shiny, brightly polished surface of the iPod does suffer from scratches. The aesthetic (and functional, because it allows for different color iPods at a lower cost) decision to put a clear layer on the surface that in some respects acts like a magnifying lens has been made. Switching back to acrylic like the 1G and 2G would mean significant increases in cost for the housing components and a substantial loss in the durability of the iPod along with at least a minor increase in thickness and weight.
Every iPod I've seen that's more than a month or two old and used regularly without a case has a layer of scratches on it. Every single one. The nanos reach that stage a little faster (I'm only now starting to see nanos that have this similarly complete "worn in" look...and they've been out now for six weeks). A tougher, thinner, lighter, cheaper iPod is easily worth this trade, especially since the cosmetic condition is EASIER TO FIX than with acrylic.