For two years – ever since the first rumors of the widescreen iPod – I’ve bided my time. I put off buying a Video iPod because somewhere in the not-so-distant future, a hard-drive based widescreen iPod beckoned me to hold off just a little bit longer. Once the iPhone arrived, I knew that my wait was about to come to an end. And with Wednesday’s announcement growing ever closer, surely my dream was about to be fulfilled. After all, it made perfect sense to come out with a multi-touch iPod to finally arrive with enough space to finally hold a collection of movies.

Alas, not much makes sense about the new line of iPods that Apple released this morning. Sure, every feature that I was hoping for was introduced, but in 3 different products! Apparently, the search for a unified theory of iPod was too much for the brilliant minds at Apple. 

Instead we are treated to a hideously expensive (but WiFi capable) multi-touch version in the iPod Touch which for $400 gets you a whopping 16GB of storage! Too much money? Well, you can get the paltry 8GB version for $300. What a bargain, right?

Oh, but wait. The new iPod Nano now serves up video too. (I’ll get to this “beauty” later) Sure, the Nano doesn’t offer the sweet loveliness of multi-touch, or WiFi, but you can cram the same amount of video and music in its 8GB flash drive for $100 cheaper.

The iPod Classic is a slightly redesigned version of the beauty we all know and love. Upgrades to the Classic are pretty good. Gone is the scratch-happy outer shell, replaced by the chic and durable brushed aluminium available in silver or drop-dead-sexy black. The best news of the day is that the Classic comes in two beefy varieties: 80GB (remember when that was the “HUGE” size?) and 160GB. Now THAT’s what I’m talking about. The price is definitely right, with the 80GB going for $250 and the $160 going for $350 (ok, $350 is a touch on the high side, but we are talking 5x the storage of my iPod Photo) Sadly, the classic lacks the WiFi capabilities and wide screen of the Touch.

Now on to the ugly stepsister of the iPod clan. Remember when the Nano was the cutest little iPod you ever did see? When it reminded you of a stick of gum and not a coaster? When you just couldn’t BELIEVE that they could make an iPod that did THAT much look THAT small? Those days are long gone. Touch gives you the big screen that video needs. Classic gives you the same old screen that you’ve grown used to. Nano… well… Nano is like the snake that swallowed the rabbit. In order to accommodate the full-sized Classic screen, Nano had to expand its waistline… big time. The thing is two-thirds the height of Classic, and just as wide. Why, Apple, why?!? Steve Jobs, you had the best streak in the business going and now THIS? I just don’t see the necessity of screwing up the Nano when you have three (including iPhone) other products that play video. It’s not like Nano owners were fretting over filling a bunch of excess drive space. Most can’t fit their entire music collections on the darned things anyway.

So I’m disappointed. After a string of successes that endeared fans and critics alike, Apple has finally stepped into a steaming pile of their own creation. For the first time you are going to hear die-hard Apple loyalists complain that the company has destroyed a perfectly good product in the Nano. And how many more times must we look forward to a major Apple announcement, only to have our hopes of a widescreen iPod (not phone) that actually has a hard drive capable of storing a collection of movies?

So, this holiday season I will finally succumb to temptation and ask Santa for a 160GB Classic. And just my luck, the unified theory of iPod greatness (the 160GB iPod Touch complete with price reduction) will be announced 2 days after the return policy expires.