The difference is that Alpha is generating the contents of the envelope independently on your decision, while in Newcomb's problem Omega is placing money in the box under the direct (acausal) control of your decision.
I guess you're right - especially considering the level of disagreement in the other comments.
The fact that I can't exactly pin down at what point I disagree with those who say they take the £10 indicates that I don't understand the problem enough (I may not understand enough about Newcomb's problem either).
This is a variant built on Gary Drescher's xor problem for timeless decision theory.
You get an envelope from your good friend Alpha, and are about to open it, when Omega appears in a puff of logic.
Being completely trustworthy as usual (don't you just hate that?), he explains that Alpha flipped a coin (or looked at the parity of a sufficiently high digit of pi), to decide whether to put £1000 000 in your envelope, or put nothing.
He, Omega, knows what Alpha decided, has also predicted your own actions, and you know these facts. He hands you a £10 note and says:
"(I predicted that you will refuse this £10) if and only if (there is £1000 000 in Alpha's envelope)."
What to do?
EDIT: to clarify, Alpha will send you the envelope anyway, and Omega may choose to appear or not appear as he and his logic deem fit. Nor is Omega stating a mathematical theorem: that one can deduce from the first premise the truth of the second. He is using XNOR, but using 'if and only if' seems a more understandable formulation. You get to keep the envelope whatever happens, in case that wasn't clear.