Secret 4G iPod Features?

[peharri]

I'm not sure whether you're geniunely upset or are trolling, but why in the hell would anyone get upset about Apple blocking out someone like Real?

iTMS already has arguably the best catalog and ease-of-use of the competitors. Why in the world would people care to jump through the dumbest hoops to get content from Real, of all companies? Besides the legal argument of hijacking content, I would be scared to go near "Harmony" based on experiences with the crap they already offer.

This is akin to whining when you already have something like nice steak or halibut before you and manage to get upset with the restaurant because they don't offer White Castle sliders on the menu.

It makes little sense to care about that kind of choice.

I think that's a bizarre comparison. You have certain expectations at restaurants, it's always a temporary experience, and your choices are limited on a technical basis - it's not like the restaurant's making some special effort to prevent you from eating White Castle burgers, they just don't offer them. When Apple refused to help Real, I had little issue with that - I thought it was an unwise move, but it was up to Apple. But now that Real's done the work, Apple is apparently consdering making a special effort, spend money, etc, on legal and technical solutions, to prevent you from having that choice.

Imagine instead buying a TV and finding the only channel it receives is one owned by the TV manufacturer. Imagine that some TV channel finds a way to bypass this, and the TV manufacturer then goes out of its way to try to prevent this from working on the TV you spent that money on. Imagine too, when you complain, some ---- telling you "You're trolling right? Why would anyone want a channel other than NBC? You'd actually want to watch Fox? That'd be like going to Denny's and demanding they sell you a Big Mac."

No, I don't want to watch Fox. But I don't particularly like hardware companies making the choices for me, especially making those decisions after I've bought my supposedly standalone product from them. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to bash Real like this, Real isn't publishing the format and thus undermining the system (though if Apple decides to sue, if I were Real I'd publish the algorithms publically and in the court record the first chance I had), they're just publishing their music in a way compatable with the iPod.

As someone who owns an iPod, I'd like to make the choice of where I get my (legal) music from, rather than have a company whose business relationship with me was terminated the moment they shipped the iPod and charged my credit card (as it should be) make that decision for me. I own my iPod, Apple doesn't any more. If they want to continue doing business with me, they have to act honourably and ethically. Otherwise they're little different from their rivals in Redmond, who are one of the groups I switched to Apple to avoid.

 

[zpapasmurf]

^^^^

Im gonna have to go ahead and agree with him on that one

 

[deepkid]

As someone who owns an iPod, I'd like to make the choice of where I get my (legal) music from, rather than have a company whose business relationship with me was terminated the moment they shipped the iPod and charged my credit card (as it should be) make that decision for me. I own my iPod, Apple doesn't any more. If they want to continue doing business with me, they have to act honourably and ethically. Otherwise they're little different from their rivals in Redmond, who are one of the groups I switched to Apple to avoid.

What's being overlooked is that when it comes to licensing, it's up to the owner of the content to determine how it will be exploited. This means that Apple makes the decisions about who/if/when to partner with someone else regarding the type of music downloads that are made available on the iPod, not Real. As a user, you do agree to whatever terms Apple sets for the iPod and iTMS. (You do have the "choice" of not agreeing or using either.)

Of course we don't want Apple to be Napoleonic about it, but I think it's too early in the game to say that they're being unreasonable.

But getting to the point, what Real is doing is technological rape.

"You won't give it to me? Then I'll take it." This is not ethical and the offense starts here.

Think of it this way... if you asked me for a spare key to my condo and I said no and then you proceeded to make a skeleton key to get around my lock and then offered it to anyone else who wanted to gain entry, you'd be in hot water and breaking the law. What has to be determined in the Apple/Real scenario is how this is interpreted with regard to digital content and rights.

I think that Apple will strategically work with others (remember HP, Motorola, Duke?) and I prefer that they do it cautiously in order to maintain an enjoyable user experience.

 

[peharri]

As for Real, I don't think it's polite to break in when you were told you can't come in. Apple has every right to protect their hardware and software. This allows them to provide the easy of use for their customers that they are so proud of.

Apple isn't protecting their hardware and software. They're preventing usage of my hardware and software. If this was about Real breaking into an Apple facility or hacking into their website, that would be one thing. But actually it's about Real finding a way to, if I chose to, allow me to put Real's music on my iPod quickly, easily, and in a way that doesn't cause problems for the artists they've signed up. You know, on the iPod I bought from Apple. The one that ceased to be Apple's the moment they sold it to me, the moment it arrived at my door after they'd successfully charged my credit card.

Apple, at this point, is not in the equation. It's my iPod, and Real's files. But Apple is deciding that they have the right to intervene anyway. Maybe under some legal loophole they do (though as Real has pointed out, the DMCA specifically allows for the use of reverse engineering to achieve interoperability, so the law appears to me to be unambiguous), but they certainly don't have a moral right to do so. It's NOT their equipment. Their rights to "ownership" stop at being able to make and sell the things.

Imaging if people started buying fewer ipods because they had a hard time with the 'bootleg' Real files and confusing sync software and Apple couldn't do anything for them when they called customer service. (I doubt you'll be able to simply put these files into iTunes and sync to an iPod - if you are already in iTunes, why would you wanna go to Real to buy songs only to import them back to iTunes?)

First of all, lose the prejudicial language. These are not "bootleg" Real files. These are legitimate Real files that buyers are licensed to use. At worst you could say they're "unofficially compatable" or some such language.

If people have problems with Real files, they're likely to blame Real, not Apple, unless, of course, Apple deliberately and obviously does something to prevent them from playing. If Apple releases a firmware update and all the Real files stop playing, then, yeah, I can see people blaming Apple. And chances are, that blame will be correctly placed, and any future sales lost will be entirely Apple's fault, because Apple doesn't have to do that. In the unlikely case that Apple releases a firmware update that harms the ability to play Real files and it's entirely unintentional, Apple would, in my view, still deserve part of the blame for their unwillingness to be remotely cooperative for an obviously good-faith request in the first place.

But the more likely case is that, if it fails accidentally, some files will work and some will not, and people are going to badmouth Real if that happens. Of the handful that wouldn't, those are people who specifically want a player that plays Real's files. Apple certainly will not lose sales because people who wanted a player right from the get-go that plays Real's files decide not to buy an iPod because it does a crappy job.

Additionally, the iPod already has to deal with a multitude of third party products. Apple even sells some of them. How many MP3 rippers are there out there? Has Apple ever proposed the thing be locked down to only play iTunes rips, or be compatable with purely Apple headphones?

Finally, it all strikes me as somewhat irrelevent. Apple's potential for losing sales over something it should have no control over is really not dealt with by pretending it has the god-given right to control everything about already-sold iPods. Perhaps if Apple's genuinely concerned about compatability and some (somewhat unlikely) damage to its reputation, it should do one of the following things:

1. Advise users to avoid Real music.
2. Cooperate with Real and provide a mechanism that both Real and Apple are happy with to load music onto iPods in an uncopybackable way.

You can probably think of other solutions that do not involve legal action and/or moronic firmware updates.

Apple has a great product, that keeps getting better and Real wants to piggyback on Apple's success. That's foul play in my book.

Again, prejudicial language. Belkin's making a small fortune from iPod peripherals too. Is this "foul play" too? What's the difference? That Apple likes one and doesn't like the other? Is that enough to make it foul play? Is my mechanic engaging in "foul play" when he piggybacks on Ford's success? What about software developers? Everything they do can be described as "piggybacking" on the success of some platform developer too. Are they engaging in "foul play"?

Quit it with the prejudicial language. The business practice of providing support and services to buyers of a third party product is well established and there's nothing "foul" about it. This is precisely what Real is doing, and for some reason Apple doesn't like it.

What about Apple preventing a competing business from legitimately selling products to Apple's customers, in an area where they're not even in real competition (the iTMS supposedly isn't an Apple profit center, it exists more to sell iPods rather than vice versa, Apple and Real are largely in competition on the QuickTime vs RealVideo area)?

Microsoft is a monopoly because it made it hard for people in browser and media player markets (or what's left of them) to compete. IPods and iTunes aren't stopping Real or Sony or others from releasing their products and having them be viable options (since they are not tied to a specific operating system like Windows). The fact that so far no one has come close to the iPod isn't Apple's fault. It just shows that when you think different, good things happen.

Real isn't a hardware developer. In any case, you haven't really given a good reason why Apple should be resorting to legal and technical threats to prevent support from a third party like this. Indeed, my reading of this is that Apple's intents are precisely the same as Microsoft's - it recognizes it has a large market share at the moment, and intends to manipulate that into a de-facto monopoly, at least in the short term. Sell a supposedly "open" music player (as it was originally marketed), but require everyone who uses it who wants to use online music systems be limited to Apple's music store.

Which, I guess, suits Apple, because it's going to be hard for iPod users to upgrade to anything other than an iPod if their music came from the iTMS. Thus, a large market share can do little but grow. Urgh. Thankfully I see little chance of them succeeding.

What I want to see is Apple competing on the basis of producing great hardware and software, as they did with iPod, as they're doing with OS X. I don't want to see them become the next Microsoft.

 

[Raiden]

Whoever said it was just time magazine getting back at newsweek for the ipod cover story might be right.

I think it needs an FM tuner. It would make sense, as they could market the ipod just like they did the whole BMW/ipod thing. Turn the ipod on, throw it into the glove box, and BAM, you got your entire music library streamed via FM onto your radio, controled with the radio knobs and whatnot.

Every car in the last 20 years has a radio, so everyone would be able to use it. So...the ipod works on all computers, all cars...if they threw in the airport express stuff yall were talking about...itd work on all stereos too...

 

[peharri]

What's being overlooked is that when it comes to licensing, it's up to the owner of the content to determine how it will be exploited. This means that Apple makes the decisions about who/if/when to partner with someone else regarding the type of music downloads that are made available on the iPod, not Real. As a user, you do agree to whatever terms Apple sets for the iPod and iTMS. (You do have the "choice" of not agreeing or using either.)

This isn't about the iTMS (indeed, the whole point is that the iTMS isn't involved at all), it's about a hardware object called an iPod. Now, I know there's software on an iPod, but there's nothing being done by Real at the moment that breaks the rights we'd traditionally associate with copyright holders of software. Specifically, Real isn't going in and copying the firmware. handing over copies to anyone else, or anything like that. They've just made their files interoperable so that they'd play on an iPod.

But getting to the point, what Real is doing is technological rape.

Rape is an evil and violent crime, and is generally considered one of the worst sub-murder crimes in existance. It usually causes decades of psychological harm to the victim. I have friends who have suffered it. I would appreciate you not cheapening the term to make ideological points. If you mean "without consent", say "without consent" and we'll address that, but leave this word at the gate, please.

"You won't give it to me? Then I'll take it." This is not ethical and the offense starts here.

Nothing's being "taken". Real asked that Apple cooperate with them so they could easily make their music playable on the iPod. Apple refused. So Real did the work themselves. To suggest this is an issue of taking without consent is to assume there was anything for Apple to not consent to.

Real's engineers didn't enter Apple's HQ and force Apple workers at gunpoint to hand over the specs. They asked for information and didn't get it so worked it out themselves. You know, this is perfectly normal and happens all the time. Like the guy I just responded to, you seem to be a believer that wrapping something in prejudicial language will be enough to make something seem wrong. But it isn't. People do this kind of working things out all the time. You might want to look at all the "iPod tips and tricks" websites out there for some examples.

Think of it this way... if you asked me for a spare key to my condo and I said no and then you proceeded to make a skeleton key to get around my lock and then offered it to anyone else who wanted to gain entry, you'd be in hot water and breaking the law. What has to be determined in the Apple/Real scenario is how this is interpreted with regard to digital content and rights.

Except it's not Apple's condo, it's MY condo, and I WANT the ability to give Real the key. Apple merely builds the condos.

I think that Apple will strategically work with others (remember HP, Motorola, Duke?) and I prefer that they do it cautiously in order to maintain an enjoyable user experience.

There's working with people and then there's working against them. If Apple had just ignored Real, it would have been one thing. They're making legal and technical threats now, in your hypothetical condo example the builder of the condo is telling the world that if my friend is allowed into my condo, by me, at my request, then he's going to change the locks and get a restraining order.

Is that right? How does that maintain my enjoyable user experience? Even if it helped, would it actually be legitimate in the first place?

Wouldn't it be better for Apple to focus on what it does best - making great hardware and software, rather than focussing their energies on trying to prevent users from doing perfectly legitimate things?

 

[colmaclean]

For a remote control, you could get a secondhand Sony Ericsson bluetooth mobile phone (if you don't have one already) and the excellent Salling Clicker to control your iTunes.

Obviously Bluetooth doesn't have the same range as Wifi, but this solution is available now...

 

[Tulse]

Apple isn't protecting their hardware and software. They're preventing usage of my hardware and software.

...which you agreed to use according to Apple's license, and which is legallyl protected by the DMCA (among other laws).

If this was about Real breaking into an Apple facility or hacking into their website, that would be one thing.

Intellectual property is just as "real" as physical property. I find it very weird that folks who are part of the Internet era don't understand that bits are just as much a product as atoms.

But actually it's about Real finding a way to, if I chose to, allow me to put Real's music on my iPod quickly, easily,

...although by (likely) violating Apple's legal rights...

and in a way that doesn't cause problems for the artists they've signed up.

I wouldn't be sure about that -- I don't know what the terms of Real's (or other other music services) DRM are, but they are likely more restrictive than Apple's. I don't know if transcoding in this way preserves those more restrictive rights -- if not, then the change is not what the artist (or label) agreed to.

You know, on the iPod I bought from Apple. The one that ceased to be Apple's the moment they sold it to me, the moment it arrived at my door after they'd successfully charged my credit card.

That's a nice notion, but you and Real both still have legal restrictions on what you can do with the iPod, based on Apple's license and various intellectual property and copyright-related laws. You may not like that situation, and you may think that Apple is being high-handed or acting against the best interest of the company or its customers, but I think it is undeniable that Apple has a plausible legal case against Real.

 

[manu chao]

What's being overlooked is that when it comes to licensing, it's up to the owner of the content to determine how it will be exploited. This means that Apple makes the decisions about who/if/when to partner with someone else regarding the type of music downloads that are made available on the iPod, not Real. As a user, you do agree to whatever terms Apple sets for the iPod and iTMS. (You do have the "choice" of not agreeing or using either.)

You do agree to the licensing terms when you buy a song on the iTMS, but I would be very surprised if you would have to agree to any sort of licensing terms telling you what kind of music you can listen to on an iPod when you buy one.

To start with the basics:
- AAC is an open standard, everybody is allowed to use it.
- I guess everybody is allowed to modify the AAC file format in a way to add a DRM mechanism to it (Apple did it, and the Dolby Labs did not complain).
- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).
- Apple is certainly not required to provide support for all file formats (e.g. WMF), but having a wide a choice certainly makes the iPod more appealling.
- You can right now play Fairplay-AACs on as many iPods as you like, in other words the owner of the iPod does not have to be owner of the songs. You can place any Fairplay-AAC on any iPod and it works.

So, why should Real not be allowed to place their own version of DRMed AACs on the iPod (violation of DRM patents notwithstanding)?

They just added a quirk to their DRMed AACs, so that they can be played on iPods as well, and not just with the RealPlayer, by allowing the song to be played even if no DRM control mechanism (as there is in the RealPlayer) is present, as it is the case on the iPod.

Apple could easily break this via technological means, but this would be akin to blocking all MP3s which have been created on a Windows maschine. They could do this, no legal barriers to that but I guess everybody would consider such a thing unfair and unneccessary.

 

[iMeowbot]

Why would Apple hide features in their iPods or make them only accessible through a firmware upgrade?

Except for bug fixes, all the iPod substantial updates have been in support of new or revised products: DRM for iTMS, menu items for reading flash media and recording, new codec for AirTunes compatibility.

How many people that have an iPod on the windows side will actually upgrade the firmware?

All the ones who want to use whatever new or revised products come along. These new features almost certainly depend on an as-yet-unreleased product or service, otherwise there would be no need to hold back.

And besides, why didn't they make these "secrets" available upon release?

It sure seems to have made a lot of otherwise happy owners of older iPod models say "hey, maybe I should upgrade this time," hasn't it?

I'd say this writer has too big of an imagination and too much time on his hands.

I'll wait and see if new features materialize before rushing out to the store

 

[The Cheat]

I think it needs an FM tuner. It would make sense, as they could market the ipod just like they did the whole BMW/ipod thing. Turn the ipod on, throw it into the glove box, and BAM, you got your entire music library streamed via FM onto your radio, controled with the radio knobs and whatnot.

Huh? First of all there is a difference between having an FM tuner which allows you to listen to the radio, and having an FM transmitter that can play songs through your car's radio. Second, how is your iPod controlled by the radio's knobs? Turning the tuner knob on your car can't control what song your iPod is playing. Third, devides that allow you to transmit from your iPod (or portable cd players, etc.) to your radio have existed for years via 3rd party add-ons.

 

[silvergunuk]

How about this

http://www.blueserker.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=185

 

[rand()]

So...

After a full page of Real vs. Apple IP debate, I return to the "Theory of New Features" with some all-new (I think) totally bogus (I know) theories!

1.) You asked for it, you got it! The new 4G iPod is also a MULTI BUTTON WIRELESS MOUSE! AHH HA HA HA HA HA!!! How does it track motion with no laser or ball you ask? It merely calculates it's position relative to the Jobs' Reality Distortion Field!

Okay, so that was total crap.

2.) When you and three friends hook up your new 4G iPods to a G5 iMac playing the new Doom3, the iPods act as status-display device and a quick weapon-select controller. Now no one need know you don't have any rockets left or are about to be fragged! Info on a private screen, and a quick switch to the Dual (Core) Laser Canons! Soon to be compatible with Everybody's favorite game!

Real crap, and not as funny, either.

3.) Combined with Xgrid technology, the new iPod, when docked, provides the Mac with 3 (Count them, 3!) extra 500MHz G3 processors, greatly enhancing the Folding@Home experience!

Still not as funny, but I worked in the obligatory Folding reference.

4.) And Finally, when attatched to a microphone, the iPod acts as a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR!!! Also, iPod Update 3.0.2 will provide Macintosh users with the Klingon Language Extension! Apple is proud to welcome our new multi-lingual overlords! FINALLY, a REASON for the language packs to be installed by default! Ka'Plah!

Totall off the deep end,
rand()

 

[joeboy_45101]

On the 4G screen, what is the first new thing you see?

Answer: The "Music" menu.

Music is a "media type".

It is absolutely obvious to me that Apple will be adding new "media types" to the iPod.

Imagine the menu:

Music
Photos
Movies

Of course Photos and Movies would require a dock or cable with video & sound outputs.

Does anyone here have a "pinout" of the 4G connector?

Does anybody know if the PortalPlayer processor in the 4G iPod can handle H.264/AVC, this might point to the ability to store and play movies from your iPod. But this brings up the point of input and output of any kind of movie or photo, maybe a special dock? Being realistic, I don't think many people would get excited about this. Only a few are disappointed with the lack of Video and Photography features, most people don't care about that and won't care about that. The iPod is not an all-in-one device, those things are too complicated, have horrible image and video resolution, and are rather unneccessary. Do you really think that Steve Jobs, master of the simplistic philosophy, is going to clutter the iPod with a bunch of no-good, complicated features.

 

[iMeowbot]

Huh? First of all there is a difference between having an FM tuner which allows you to listen to the radio, and having an FM transmitter that can play songs through your car's radio. Second, how is your iPod controlled by the radio's knobs? Turning the tuner knob on your car can't control what song your iPod is playing.

The upcoming Alpine module, the BMW kit, the ice->link and AUX-POD all allow this functionality (including control from the radio) using a wired interface. there's no reason that link couldn't be established using a dock dongle and a transceiver on the back of the head unit, using some kind of wireless networking rather than broadcast-type FM.

The only real question would be, why would anyone really want this? It still requires the car stereo to be modified, takes away the charging capability, introduces all the interference problems that come with radio transmission, and costs more.

 

[fBaran]

From MacWorld.com

"Rather, you must reset the iPod and then flip it into Diagnostic Mode (press Select and Menu for about six seconds to reset and, when you see the Apple logo, press Select and Previous to enter Diagnostic Mode)."

If someone ahs already posted this, sorry- I don't read all 100 hundred pages before a post 8).

 

[nsb3000]

Have you ever used RealPlayer? The main draw to the iPod is that it's easy to use, if you start having third party plugins, and backwards engineered hacks there is no way that Apple can ensure you will have a good user experience.

Have you ever used real player? It is a fine, fully cocoa Mac OS X app that is easy to use. "Ensure a good user experience" should never come at the price of user choice. Apple needs to open up the ipod to third parties so that they are not forced to reverse engineer it…that would be the right step towards a good user experience.

 

[iMeowbot]

http://www.blueserker.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=185

Looks fake. The ad carries the "Over a million sold." tagline from the 3G campaign, and it's closing in on four million now. The wheel position is still the lower 3G style too.

 

[gropo]

Looks fake.

And then consider that the "cut loose..." line isn't even REMOTELY typeset in Myriad demi....
And that Placing the line in the direct center of the negative space is something that Chiat/Day would NEVER do.

 

[silvergunuk]

Yeah I thought so too. The David Hasselhoff line on the right made me wonder

 

[guifa]

And then consider that the "cut loose..." line isn't even REMOTELY typeset in Myriad demi....
And that Placing the line in the direct center of the negative space is something that Chiat/Day would NEVER do.

And the whole blurred finger where the wire would be. The edges are very sharp except right around the finger. The website's "the image was IM'ed to a family member of someone working in an Asian PR firm ... another thing that Japan only gets" line is super suspect. If it's a Japanese/Asian only product ... why is the advertisement in English? Apple has been very big on translating things to Japanese (even some developers tools documents are available in it).

 

[svenas1]

"Ensure a good user experience" should never come at the price of user choice.

I believe the opposite is true. Good user experience will invariably come at the expense of some user choice. That is what consistency is about, what human interface guidelines are about. The contrary approach will inevitably lead to a linux-like situation. So Apple indeed has to balance useability against choice and options.

 

[mnoya]

what it could be...

I was just looking into this. I beleive that Steve J has it correct in that most people do not want to look at a small screen to view their movies. When was the last time you went anywhere and there were not any RCA jacks to hook into? I would argue that the greater hard disk size and "untold new secrets" might include the ability to purchase movies through the store and view them on your computer or transfer them to your iPod. So if you are traveling you could keep what? 5k songs and 3 or 4 movies? you get to your hotel, friends or grandmas, jack in and you are watching your movie. In my opinion that is what a digital 'hub' is meant to do. The 3g ipod does not like the Apple video out cable for my powerbook, my 4g is being replaced do to blemishes and should be here within the day.

thoughts?

Mark

But this brings up the point of input and output of any kind of movie or photo, maybe a special dock? Being realistic, I don't think many people would get excited about this. Only a few are disappointed with the lack of Video and Photography features, most people don't care about that and won't care about that. The iPod is not an all-in-one device, those things are too complicated, have horrible image and video resolution, and are rather unneccessary. Do you really think that Steve Jobs, master of the simplistic philosophy, is going to clutter the iPod with a bunch of no-good, complicated features.

 

[iomar]

Well, I should have gone to an Apple Store and purchased my new iPod. I ordered it from a online catalog and it has been over a weekend and I am still in the back order. I don't know when I am going to get it.. I can't wait. I am already thinking of so many uses I can get out it. It is great!

 

[deepkid]

This isn't about the iTMS (indeed, the whole point is that the iTMS isn't involved at all), it's about a hardware object called an iPod. Now, I know there's software on an iPod, but there's nothing being done by Real at the moment that breaks the rights we'd traditionally associate with copyright holders of software. Specifically, Real isn't going in and copying the firmware. handing over copies to anyone else, or anything like that. They've just made their files interoperable so that they'd play on an iPod.

Well, at this point we don't know for absolute certainty how Real makes Harmony work. We do know that through their acknowledgement, that they are trying to get around Apple's refusal in order to force their music download content onto the iPod. It's a hostile and likely illegal action.

Have you considered the possibility that in order to get the paranoid major labels to even go along with this music download venture, Apple may have made committments to adhere to strict iTMS->iPod rules? We aren't privy to the discussions nor the contracts, so it is likely that Apple has to take action in order to honor the agreements with the labels.

Rape is an evil and violent crime, and is generally considered one of the worst sub-murder crimes in existance. It usually causes decades of psychological harm to the victim. I have friends who have suffered it. I would appreciate you not cheapening the term to make ideological points. If you mean "without consent", say "without consent" and we'll address that, but leave this word at the gate, please.

No offense, but I'm perfectly capable of selecting my own vocabularly and I don't think my choice of description is cheap at all -- it's entirely relevant to Real's actions. They plan to force their music downloads onto the iPod without permission. That's the bottom line. My preference to call it technological rape wasn't personal, so please don't turn it into a dramatic affair.

Also, there's a difference between the iPod owner buying songs from Real and ripping them back to their own iPod. Nothing stops ya. However, we're talking about what's considered unethical behavior on the part of Real towards Apple. Apple is not obligated to cannibalize their own iTMS sales just because Real asked them to. It's just silly for a company like Real to leech off of the "customer choice" mantra when their track record is just the opposite.

As a shareholder, I think it's silly to consider Real because they bring nothing to the table. It would be a win for Real and likely a lose for Apple considering the horrible user experience Real has provided. I'm not in favor of it.

Nothing's being "taken". Real asked that Apple cooperate with them so they could easily make their music playable on the iPod. Apple refused. So Real did the work themselves. To suggest this is an issue of taking without consent is to assume there was anything for Apple to not consent to.

You are sugarcoating this and making excuses for Real. The mere fact that they seeked permission in the first place should make it plain enough that what they're doing now is unethical. See it for what it is.

Real's engineers didn't enter Apple's HQ and force Apple workers at gunpoint to hand over the specs. They asked for information and didn't get it so worked it out themselves. You know, this is perfectly normal and happens all the time. Like the guy I just responded to, you seem to be a believer that wrapping something in prejudicial language will be enough to make something seem wrong. But it isn't. People do this kind of working things out all the time. You might want to look at all the "iPod tips and tricks" websites out there for some examples.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that's prejudiced? Hah, let me check with thesaurus.com on that one... wasn't aware that they were synonymous. Anyway, what you continually fail to acknowlege is that Real operates a music download company that competes with Apple. Both of these companies have an obligation to their shareholders and to the record labels. Apple has the right to protect its intellectual property. Real does not have the right to jeopardize Apple's intellectual property. Again, we shall see how this shakes out in the near future, possibly in court.

Except it's not Apple's condo, it's MY condo, and I WANT the ability to give Real the key. Apple merely builds the condos.

Bzzt. Wrong. You need to read and comprehend the user agreements.

There's working with people and then there's working against them. If Apple had just ignored Real, it would have been one thing. They're making legal and technical threats now, in your hypothetical condo example the builder of the condo is telling the world that if my friend is allowed into my condo, by me, at my request, then he's going to change the locks and get a restraining order.

Apple's intellectual property is the condo in my example. Real does not have any say so in it. It's simple, really.

At any rate, we really are off topic so to oblige, I'll toss in a comment about the 4G iPod to make it somewhat relevant...

It would be nice to be able to store small video files on it and have them easily played back through a dock or some other device to a television/vcr/tivo/etc or projector. I can think of many uses for that, but wonder if current HD sizes would suffice for the serious collector. This would likely be a feature of an entirely different digital hub device and perhaps not the iPod.

Have a great weekend.