Secret 4G iPod Features?

[bryantm3]

you can sync your ipod remotely.
just plug the iPod into the airport express and it charges it, and syncs your ipod with itunes.
duh.

 

[FLAvikingKing]

Refurbs

I agree with the people saying it wont affect whether I buy one or not. I might get one once they come out as refurbs. How long does it normally take for new models to start being refurbished?

 

[sirjimithy]

I agree with the people saying it wont affect whether I buy one or not. I might get one once they come out as refurbs. How long does it normally take for new models to start being refurbished?

Well, about as soon as people start returning them. Give it a few more weeks, there will be some refurbs on the online store. Check the retail stores too. They sell refurbished pods.

 

[macsrus]

This is the one thing that annoys the heck out of me ever since the first iPod. That the thing doesn't have an ON/OFF switch.
Ahmed (owner of a 1st Gen iPod)

to you and the 100 people who responded to your post...

If you want to turn it off just throw it real hard at a wall....

 

[macsrus]

it doubles as a ray-gun.

And sex toy

 

[titaniumducky]

you can sync your ipod remotely.
just plug the iPod into the airport express and it charges it, and syncs your ipod with itunes.
duh.

That would be awesome!

 

[itgoesforfun]

It couldn't be

I heard this from someone completely unreliable regarding Macs, except that they new about the first ipod quite a while before it was announced along with ipod mini and the 4g release date.

"It's highly integrated with the new iMac and practically is the new iMac"

What the hell does this mean? I have no idea but I decided to post this as someone may know.

 

[Kingsnapped]

I heard this from someone completely unreliable regarding Macs, except that they new about the first ipod quite a while before it was announced along with ipod mini and the 4g release date.

"It's highly integrated with the new iMac and practically is the new iMac"

What the hell does this mean? I have no idea but I decided to post this as someone may know.

First thought: Integrated iPod dock, iPod acts as some kind of storage.. then I realized that people buying the iMac would either have to buy an iPod, or the iPod would come with it. Either you would have 2 iPods, or be out $400.

Apple wouldn't even consider something that stupid
...I hope.

 

[sinisterdesign]

I heard this from someone completely unreliable regarding Macs, except that they new about the first ipod quite a while before it was announced along with ipod mini and the 4g release date.

"It's highly integrated with the new iMac and practically is the new iMac"

What the hell does this mean? I have no idea but I decided to post this as someone may know.

sounds kind of like 'home-on-ipod' to me...just w/o a large LCD. and a mouse.
and keyboard. oh, and speakers.

or color screen.

wait, actually it doesn't sound anything like that description. nevermind.

 

[osprey76]

sounds kind of like 'home-on-ipod' to me...just w/o a large LCD. and a mouse.
and keyboard. oh, and speakers.

or color screen.

wait, actually it doesn't sound anything like that description. nevermind.

Toss in a mouse and keyboard and it sounds like the original Mac to me.

 

[peharri]

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.

It's highly unlikely to be evil, and it's Apple's actions that are clearly hostile, not Real. Real has said "We want to sell a product. It turns out you know information that, so far, you're keeping secret, that we need to know in order to sell our product. However, other than being in competition with you, our product has nothing to do with you. We're not selling anything you own. We need that information, can you give it to us?

And Apple are saying "No, because we hate our customers"

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.

Have you considered the fact that Real's actions have nothing whatsoever to do with this? That once Apple has sold an iPod, it no longer has any moral right to determine what end users can do with it?

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.

You are, indeed, perfectly capable of selectng your own vocabulary, and I'm perfectly capable of pointing out that your choice of words is inherently offensive and a monsterous insult, cheapening one of the worst crimes that can be committed by comparing it to reverse engineering. It's even worse that you're using it because, as you clearly and repeatedly demonstrate, you have no argument. Morality is not on your side. In no other sphere is the act of competing with another company without purloining anything of their's considered wrong. In order to make it sound wrong you select the most negative words you can find and roundly abuse them.

You cannot find a good reason why Real Networks should not know how an iPod works, so you call it rape in the hope that on hearing the term, ears and reason will close off and few will ask why shouldn't Real know?

It's intellectually dishonest. It's hurtful to those who have suffered. It's poor form. When you use such gutter tactics, expect to be called out on them.

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.

No, we're not. I've already made it clear repeatedly that there's no apparent way of seeing it as unethical.

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.

Nobody's forcing Apple to do anything, so saying they're "obligated to cannibalize their own iTMS sales" is a nonsense. Real ended up finding out how the iPod worked without Apple's help. Apple didn't play ball. I don't think Apple should have acted that way, but, whatever, I'm not obligating them to do anything, I'm merely criticising them for not doing it.

The second part of that comment is a stream of meaningless insults, I'll not bother commenting further.

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.

They didn't seek permission, they seeked information. You're accusing me of sugarcoating this? Since the beginning, you and other Apple-apologists have done all they can to lie about this. You've accused Real of stealing things that are unstealable. You've compared Real's seeking of information to an outrageous crime of violence. Of course, anything I'm doing to point out the sheer aburdity of your allegations and your abuses of language will appear "sugar coating", as you've been "feceas coating" this from the start.

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.

No, you're prejudiced because you're prejudiced. You come out from the get-go with charged language to describe perfectly ordinary business conduct.

Anyway, what you continually fail to acknowlege is that Real operates a music download company that competes with Apple.

I've said this several times. You're the one that's opposed to competition.

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.

This is not relevent. Real is not distributing any copyrighted or patented content belonging to Apple.

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

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

Moving the goalposts when using an analogy doesn't help. All you do is make a nonsense of the analogy. Nothing here belongs to Apple that's relevent to the discussion. The iPod is owned by me. The music files are owned by Real. If Apple hasn't "sold me the condo", eg we're talking about something not relevent here, then the issue of what I do in "my" condo becomes meaningless.

In practice, what's happened here is Apple has sold me something and is now saying that because they designed it, Real doesn't have the right to sell me something too. If we're talking about condo analogies, the iPod is the thing Apple sold me. The only IP in the iPod that belongs to Apple constitutes a set of patents and copyrights, which are not relevent here because Real isn't violating either. At no other time has Apple sold me something that fits your analogy.