My post on Twitter just before I went to bed at 03:25:

The fact is the “iPod Classic” is still technically the best iPod, but it has the outdated interface. The “Touch” is a glorified Nano.

Just finished watching the live text and photo feeds from Tom Krazit on News.com, Ars Technica and MacDailyNews of Wednesday's Apple music player product launch.

From the features I typed up in my last post that I did and didn't want to see, it was really a mixed bag. It's great that Apple released the iPod Touch with the same interface and features as the iPhone; including the WiFi connectivity of which Singapore has a bountiful public supply; but my worst fear that they decided to use flash memory came to pass!

As they did with iLife 2008 by bundling the older version of iMovie because they knew the newer version wasn't that crash hot (you can hear my rant on Rubenerd Show 225), Apple have kept the iPod Classic line going with hard disks despite the launch of a newer flash-based iPod Touch. I can't help but wonder if the iPod Classic is really just to give the excuse that they're still providing decent storage without actually having to provide it at the high end.

Despite the attractive WiFi functionality in the new iPod Touch which as I said above would work fantastically in Singapore, I think I'll have to side with Frank Nora and keep my iPod Video and Nokia e61i for the time being.

I can't help but see though, the price for the 16GB iPod Touch is the same as the 8GB iPhone. It makes you wonder if they're really just using the Touch as a stepping stone to convince people to move over to their phone, and with it their data plans with their approved carriers that they receive commissions from. Why buy just an iPod when the iPhone is the same price?

Okay, okay it's almost 03:00 here in Asia, I'm off to bed.