Given the obvious overlaps in potential users, why do both the iPod touch and iPad Mini exist when either one can serve almost all the possible use cases of the other.

Two obvious, inter-related reasons:

1. The iPod touch fits in your pocket
2. The iPod touch is the best portable gaming device in history

What better thing is there for you to give a kid than an iPod touch? There's a huge library of games. The size is just small enough that a kid can manage the object all by themselves. It just goes in the pocket.

There's always a compelling case to be made for a non-phone iOS device that's nonetheless ultraportable. The Mini may be price-competitive, but the new iPod touches (iPods touch?) occupy an important sweet spot.

The form factor options matter.

I mentioned to Karl on Twitter that two possible reasons are sharper display (this will likely change in approximately a year) and pocket-ability, the former being less important to the casual eye and the latter having more significance for certain demographics and contexts. School-aged children are currently more likely to carry an iPod touch than an iPhone.

1. Fits in your pocket
This is orthogonal to the school aged children argument. If it's for small children, pocket-ability isn't a real concern since their pockets don't fit the thing anyway. I'd suspect that's why the current model includes a lanyard in the box to attach it to your arm.

There also exist other products like the Samsung Galaxy Note II that are huge in comparison, closer to the size of an iPad Mini and yet still considered "pocketable". Pockets come in all different sizes apparently, but is the iPad Mini too large for the same uses?

2. Best gaming device in history
I think you mean the gameboy. That has had over 7 different form factors since its original introduction, and it's still going strong.

I actually think the iPad 10 inch may disappear before the iPod Touch. I think the iPad mini will quickly outpace the iPad large in sales, however Apple has kind of demonstrated hesitance with getting rid of ANY product (preferring at worst to keep it stagnant like the iPod class and, sigh, the Mac Pro), so maybe they'll keep it around no matter what.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made that misstep furthering their wrongness, but that still doesn't answer why anyone would get or in any way be better served by purchasing an iPod Touch over an iPad Mini.

The wrist strap loop is an indicator of the iPod touch's role in obviating the need for point-and-shoot cameras. I was using pocket-ability as a sort of shorthand for manageability. I just can't see iPhone-less kids going on family vacations or class trips (just a couple use cases) with an iPad mini to take photos. They'd have put a loop on it.

I think the most interesting question and the most informative to this discussion is: what was the mix of iPods sold in the 3 million number? Is the iPod touch selling well enough to justify its existence? And then revisit that question after the iPad mini has been in the market for the duration of the current release cycle.

If that were true, the iPhone would come with one as well. The only things that come with wrist straps are marketed at Japanese school girls, children and the overlap between them.

I'd love if your argument about taking photos were accurate except the many people at concerts, sporting events, and other public places using regular iPads as cameras without any shame, goes counter to this camera argument. If adults have no problem doing it, I can't see why children wouldn't. After all the best camera is the one you have with you.

It's useless to gate your thinking on the sales numbers for the devices since we'll never see them and waiting for data to inform your argument should tell you that there is something lacking in your argument that you don't have confidence in it to stand on its own.

I think both of our arguments are anecdotal and even though people are definitely using iPads in that way that doesn't make it look any less ridiculous. I suppose the iPad mini might look less ridiculous, but the iPod touch and iPhone as camera look the least ridiculous.

It's similarly useless to gate our thinking on what we think people use the devices for and even who these people are. In my experience, a lot of kids use iPods touch. At some future date it may prove that the iPad mini greatly reduces the need for the iPod touch, but that time hasn't yet come. As far as products that can actually be purchased and used, the iPad mini hasn't even shown up to the party.

Yours sure seem to be. I'm asking very specifically, what use case can you or anyone else for that matter provide that the iPod Touch serves but the iPad Mini can not. Neither you or anyone else has provided any of those.

Telling me you prefer a certain form factor doesn't in some way change the question. If I were to simplify the argument as thus:

1. iPod Touch: Anything you can do I can do better. I can do anything better than you.
2. iPad Mini: No, you can't
3. iPod Touch: Yes, I can
4. goto 2:

What can you actually cite to break that stalemate?

My point is that I'm not talking about my form factor preferences; you seem to be.

We'll have to agree to disagree since you simply refuse to answer the question asked regardless of how I restate it to better get you to understand what this discussion is actually about. Telling me [insert group here] use (a), doesn't mean [insert group here] can't use (b).

For example, with an iPhone I can make phone calls, with an iPad (Mini) I can not. For that use case, I obviously MUST get an iPhone. Let me know when you have one of those use cases the justify a _NEED_ for an iPod touch rather than a mere preference in some use cases for some people.

I don't think you've said what the discussion is actually about. You keep implying that it's about suitability but avoid acknowledging that some people want something like an iPhone without a contract. How many people? I suppose Apple knows. Do you?

Scroll up. It's the nature of the discussion. Initial question followed by more specific query as to what exactly this discussion is about. If you're not even going to read what the discussion is about, why bother participating?