iPod vs. Palm

Both are handheld, both can store and play music, hold addresses and photos. So why is the iPod a worldwide, company-saving phenomenon and the Palm handheld a technological has-been?

There are probably dozens of reasons, many having to do with design, marketing, target audience, price points, ease of use, software interface, industry deal-making, perception and Steve Jobs.

It's nice to have the answer to any question boil down to the words "Steve Jobs." Makes my job here easier.

Anyhow, I see the iPod expanding its role from holding and reproducing music, video and photography to encompassing more and more "application"-like work, including the aforementioned address book role. Much as the Palm does, I can see a plug-in keyboard that would enable the iPod user to type documents into the device for later transfer either to a host PC or over a network (wirelessly, of course). Already the iPod can function as a portable hard drive, and to give it full computing function, taking the place of a laptop computer, is the next logical step.

In the end, it could've gone the other way. If the Palm handheld (or PalmPilot, as it used to be -- and still is -- known by many) had been framed as an entertainment device rather than a glorified address book, and if it had the design refinement of the iPod, and had Steve Jobs cajoling the record companies, TV networks and others to port their content over to iTunes, and if something akin to iTunes had been invented for Palm (instead of the poor, tired excuse for an interface that it has now), it would be a whole different ball of wax.

So if only about 60 things had happened differently, the Palm could've become the ubiquitous device that Apple's iPod has been in the past few years.

So all I want is an iPod with Internet access, business applications and a keyboard. What I really want is a high-end Palm (which, for $299 comes with a free wireless keyboard), but an iPod is so much more ... iPoddy.