It just seems odd that for devices with so many features outside of what their names suggest, that they are still thought of as phones and iPods.

Steve Jobs' rationalisation for limiting features on the iPod Touch was that it is an iPod, not an iPhone. But hang on... The iPhone is not just a phone by any stretch of the imagination. I just can't see why anyone would use arguments like that for these devices that have much more than one function.

The fact is that I wouldn't even consider an iPod Touch if it was just an iPod, but the reason it appeals to me is that it has plenty of other features. And is anyone ever going to complain that their device has too many features?

Maybe I'm still tired from a late night and not thinking straight, but I just got rattled this morning by the delusion that either of these devices are made for one primary purpose and that's the main reason people will buy each of them. Everyone will have their own favourite apps - some will find mobile Safari far more useful than the iPod. Some will find Mail.app or viewing their photo library their most used feature.

I think if Steve wants to kid us into believing that Apple is limiting features on products because it doesn't sit within their main focus, then he doesn't think much of us!

I have no idea what you're on about, haha

Are you bringing forward the suggestion that the iPhone is more than a phone, however, blinkered by our blind devotion to Mr. Jobs, we are simply thinking of it as a phone? Not expanding our horizons to see it's potential?

I think everyone can see it's potential, but I just think that at this stage in history, nobody wants 'a phone'.

If we wanted a phone, we wouldn't shell out US$399, we'd buy a cheap Nokia etc. If we wanted an MP3 player, we'd buy a shuffle or at best a nano.

People want a device that does EVERYTHING. Or at least, as much as it possibly can. Granted a very small minority will say, "I don't want this feature" for whatever reason, but they are a very small group of people.

They're just crazy names for these devices - iPod and iPhone. They are iHubs or iGadgets or iOnes. Maybe if they had names that reflected the fact that they are desireable because of their multitude of features, Apple might stop using silly arguments to cripple their use!

[edit: No doubt Apple will eventually say they're not putting some features on the iPhone because it is not an iNewton or iGPS - the next Apple device to surface with a touch screen]

So you're saying the iPhone is crippled?

Not yet (see my edit in above post).

That could be a logical assumption. Up-sell a product with more features while selling a less featured device to drum up desire for the higher end model.

You could say that they do this now with the MacBook and MacBook Pro, or the iPod Classic and iPod Nano

Apple will always have a flag-ship product in it's line up for those that want it. I doubt they would make a PDA and not integrate it into the iPhone, that would make no sense as PDAs these days are phones. A GPS device on it's own is kinda useless too, so putting that in with the iPhone makes more sense and gives the product a time-line so users can upgrade when a new technology becomes available.

It will be much better than say, Nokia, who have 50 different phones in the market each one tweaked every so slightly via software, despite the hardware being able to run certain feature. Apple will always have the iPhone and the iPhone will be the one with everything in it. Then there will be the iPod Touch, and maybe some other device that has no phone in it utilisting the tech Apple has developed with the iPhone for those that don't want or can't justify an iPhone.

Actually in one sense Apple has crippled the iPhone by catagorising it as a phone. They limited it to one carrier in one country (and other's slowly dribbling into the fold as time goes on) giving us the rationalisation that it was all because of a phone feature - visual voicemail. We all know that's not the reason they're sticking to one carrier, but once again it's this delusion that people are going to buy because it's a phone and therefore this 'phone feature' is reason enough to not make it available to the rest of the world, or Americans on other networks.

It would have been an absolute revolution in technology on a massive scale if they'd made it available to everyone and thrown every feature under the sun into it. But as it is, they are doing a half-hearted iPod version, keeping it from the masses by limiting the carrier and countries and probably doing special apps for a PDA version etc.

[edit: sorry I posted this before I read your last post Decryption... Yes I don't think it would make sense to do a PDA version but I've read a few rumours about that and just used it and the GPS thing as an example, not that I think they'd happen or be great ideas - just making the point that they could use some other product category in the same way they've done with the iPod Touch, as a means to sell another limited product when people reeeeeeelly want a device that does it all or as much as it can]

There is a very simple reason they're locking it to a single carrier - money!
They can swing their big iPod dicks around and say "hey remember us and how huge the iPod is? Well we can replicate that with the iPhone! We'll let your telco be the only one in your country to have it - for the low price of 40% of each iPhone customer's bill"

It will be available to everyone slowly. Why this is so, I don't know. But I really doubt Apple want to limit the iPhone in any way. They want to sell hardware, they've said it over and over. There could be a number of reasons why it hasn't reached "world-wide" (western world anyways) penetration. Problems mass producing the item to met demand, gaining regulatory approval in the country, not being able to crack a juicy telco deal, waiting to see how it goes in key markets before experimenting in smaller ones - who knows.

If you think they are going to make a PDA device, and sell it separate to the iPhone and iPod Touch, you're delusional

Back on the iPod Touch, I'm not saying they shouldn't have an iPod Touch with the feature-set it currently has, but don't you think that it would appeal to just a few people if Apple did another version which had all the other iPhone things that don't rely on a phone connection and just charge extra for that one? Give people the choice to have as much as possible in the thing! I guess it wouldn't be so annoying if we didn't all know that these apps are already developed and beckoning to be put into the device - but Apple's stance of "It's an iPod, so it doesn't need Mail or widgets etc etc" drives me nuts.

My point is simply this: Why the heck can't Apple understand that an iPod Touch is not just an iPod and an iPhone is not just a phone!!!!!

(Am I going round in circles? I think I need a coffee. )

And back on the PDA rumours... Here are a few of them:

Up next for Apple: the return of the Newton
The Return of the Newton (Apple PDA)?
Apple's Next Target: PDA's
The Apple Newton? Reports say it’s coming b-a-a-a-a-ck
Apple Newton, take 2?
Apple Gearing Up for a Newton Take 2?
Is Apple planning a new Newton?

Ahh, so there is your point

In this situation, you are correct. I think there is a reason why Apple didn't do this. With mail, it relies on having that persistent internet connection (GPRS/EDGE) so when you get mail, it tells you about it. Where as on the touch, you may never even use it on a net connection. So there's that functional differentiation. Same deal with the widgets. If you're out and about with the iPod Touch, you probably aren't going to be near an internet connection, so the widgets would have static data displaying.

But then again if you follow that logic, why did they put in Safari and YouTube?

It's easy to say they did it simply to upsell to the iPhone, but I would like to think that there's another reason (there probably isn't, and the iPhone is clearly where Apple wants to go).

I don't think the iPhone is hampered in any way though - what are they doing with the iPhone that is limiting it to be just a phone? It has the best music playing capabilities, it has the best web browsing experience and also happens to be a kick-ass phone.

I agree the name "iPhone" doesn't do it justice - it's a whole new device category unto itself. "iMobile" might have been more appropriate (or "Mobile Me"!)

But for the target market Apple is going after (i.e. general consumers) I think it needs to be identified as a phone first, handheld computer second. Jobs did say calls were still the "killer app", and many people don't think they need a PDA.

Since I mainly use my PowerBook for web and e-mail, the iPhone has the potential to be almost a notebook replacement for me.

Incidentally, I always thought the name "iPod" implied more than music. Maybe the iPhone should have been iPod talk.

YES!

The majority of applications and devices with too many features sacrifice simplicity and ease of use.

I would much rather have a limited feature set that is usable than a massively capably application or device that drives me crazy.

True but the iPhone's core feature is a phone and the iPod touch's is an iPod.

Further to my previous post ...

Put another way, the phone market is much bigger than the handheld computer market, hence Apple stands to sell a lot more units by pitching it as a phone. It can infiltrate the mobile phone market, then redefine the mobile phone in its own image, as it did with music players.