Since Apple announced Windows compatibility for the iPod shortly after it was originally released, there has been much speculation about whether Windows users would see the beauty of the iPod interface, and switch to the Mac in hopes of finding the same ease of use for their computer.

Indeed, such a thing is difficult to measure. Without polling a huge number of actual iPod and Windows users, it's difficult to draw conclusions. There is anecdotal evidence visible on the net of Windows users swayed by their iPods to switch to the Mac, and there is circumstantial statistical evidence as well (Mac sales are up), but no proof.

Microsoft CEO Dr. Giveitupforme looks on as Will Poole demonstrates a Microsoft branded iPod wannabe.

However, perhaps the words of Microsoft executive Will Poole are proof enough.

Poole reportedly included the halo effect of the iPod on Windows users as being among the top three impediments to growth of Windows OS sales. (The other two were open source software and resistance to upgrading.)

Maybe the halo effect is real. Maybe its not. But if it has Microsoft is running, you have to wonder.  

OK, the story went like this:

1. October 23, 2001: Apple came out with the iPod, and all stood in awe and amazement.

2. January 8, 2004: hp announced they were going to sell iPods too, and all said, "wha?"

3. August 24, 2004: hp finally got around to actually selling iPods, and all said, "again, wha?"

4. For the following year, hp's iPods were always older than Apple's, they had a non-cool logo on the back, and they sold for the same price or higher.

5. July 29, 2005: hp says they aren't going to sell iPods any more, and all said "whew!"

Frankly I'm surprised it took this long for them to bail out. Is it just me, or is it weird that hp put their "invent" logo on the back of a product that they had absolutely no part in developing?

From the start, the hp iPod was just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'd like to say "at least there will be the fire sales" on hp-branded iPods, but the fact is that since hp pretty much just sold obsolete iPods anyway, their "liquidation" prices will probably already be at the discount rate that everyone else is selling last year's iPods for.  

In an earlier post, I remarked that many iPod owners love their iPods "with the kind of love that is usually reserved for spouses, chocolate, and classic cars." If you think that's extreme, take a look at Regina Lynn's "Sex Drive" column over at Wired. Regina describes her reaction as she turned in her dead iPod ("Pigwidgeon") for recycling in exchange for a new one:

I suspected I would feel a twinge as I handed over my first iPod. Instead, I cried.

She goes on to contemplate the reasoning behind the real affection that some humans have for electronic devices. An interesting read.

Though I really really like my iPod from an "its an extension of the right side of my brain" sort of way, I must admit that the only electronic devices that have ever elicited strong emotions in me have been Windows PCs. And the emotions in those cases were more of the "shoot it, throw it through a window, and drive over it with a tank" sort of emotions.

(Warning: Though this edition of the Regina's column is not graphic, it is adult material, as its title suggests.)  

Canada's high court today refused to hear a case which could have the potential to reinstate the Copyright Board of Canada's iPod tax, or as FreeiPodGuy calls it, the "guilty until proven innocent" tax.

The tax, which applies to sales of blank media that can be used to copy music illegally (like CDs and cassettes), had been ruled by the Copyright Board to apply to hard-drive based music players such as the iPod as well. That decision was overturned by an Appeals Court last year; by not hearing this case, the Supreme Court let the lower court have the last word.

The law assumes that all purchasers of media will use it to copy music illegally, and adds an extra tax to its cost at the time of sale. It then redistributes those revenues to copyright owners, regardless of whether anything illegal happens or not.

And in case you were wondering, no, I have no opinion on this whatsoever.  

Here you go: The Logitech Wireless Headphones for iPod.

These Bluetooth headphones have a little thingy that plugs into your iPod, which you can then tuck away in a pocket or backpack or whatever. The headphones feature their own iPod controls on one side, and I like the shape. Pretty much every time I've dropped my iPod or ruined a set of headphones, it was because my cord got caught on something (usually on the bus, come to think of it).

Look like this is the lwast post o thw day. FreeiPodCat is sitting on my kwyyrboard, which meansssiiits bedtime.

 

Under the banner "A Video iPod? Don't Count on It", BusinessWeek comments today that iPod fans shouldn't hold their breath for "a video iPod", citing various comments that Steve Jobs has made on the topic. (Yes, the same Steve Jobs who said they wouldn't be making a flash memory based iPod. Yes, the same flash memory based iPod that I'm giving away right now.)

Instead, says the author, "While some expect the company to unveil a revolutionary new kind of iPod, designed specifically for playing video, chances are the company will simply fold some video capabilities into all future iPods." OK, now I'm confused. A minute ago I was reading a headline that said "don't count on it", and now you're saying that video capabilities will be in "all future iPods". Was the headline just a complete lie meant to go against the current tide of rumor in order to attract attention?  

I have to tell you, after posts with the headlines "Your iPod Will Make you DEAF!" and "Your iPod Will Make You HALLUCINATE!" I resisted the temptation to make a post entitled "Your iPod Will Make You DEAD!"

The truth is, Christopher Rose deserves more respect than that. Rose, aged 15, died from stab wounds allegedly inflicted by Darren Samuel, 16, when Rose refused to give up his iPod. So, what can we learn from this? From McGruff The Crime Dog:

• Give the robber want they want.
  
• Be observant. Take notes on the robber. Look at facial features or any distinguishing facial features, what is they are wearing, how they speak. Get a good description to tell the police.
  
• Stick to well lighted, well traveled streets.
  
• Know your route; know where you are and where you are going.
  
• Hold your personal items close to your body or concealed in a pocket.
  
• Don't flash large amounts of cash, or expensive items. This includes the white earbuds, people.
  
• If you feel threatened try to go to a place with a lot of people.
  

 

That's right, Harley-Davidson has announced it's 2006 line o' hogs, and if you're a cruiser of the 2-wheeled variety, you can now take your iPod with you.

Harley-Davidson's Advanced Audio System, developed in partnership with Harman/Kardon, allows you to jack in your iPod (or probably anything else that will spit out audio through a headphone-type jack).

Like a true nature's child, We were born, born to be wild...  

Just when you thought the iPod couldn't get any more evil, here comes Dr. Victor Aziz from Whitchurch Hospital in Cardiff claiming "Using your iPod a lot could make you hallucinate".

According to Macworld UK, Aziz claims that listening to your iPod for long periods can cause musical hallucinations in which a song plays over and over in your head until you find it impossible for you to sleep or think properly.

Of course, this could never happen if you listen to your music with a Walkman CD player, a Onkyo cassette player, or an Edison Cylinder Phonograph. Or maybe it could. But those things don't make headlines.  

OK, that might be a tad alarmist. The article that Newsday documents problems caused by too-loud personal music players. (It's not quite fair to single out the iPod, but let's face it, the iPod is where its at, Daddy-O.)

The long and short of it is this: iPods played at maximum volume using earbuds are not safe, especially for extended periods of time. (Looks like there's more than one way that iPod earbuds are dangerous!)

This is part of the reason that I use outisde-the-ear headphones. The extra 10 or so decibels caused by earbuds can be a real ear-splitter, even when the iPod isn't at maximum volume.

Shortly after iPod came out, they were temporarily banned in Europe, until Apple modified them so that they wouldn't play over 100 decibels. Frankly, I think they should all be modified as such, OR they should have some way of detecting what kind of speakers/headphones are attached, and automatically adjust the volume accordingly.  

We're all dreamers, right? Heck--that's what FreeiPodGuy is all about.

As wonderful as the iPod is, even FreeiPodGuy has wished from time to time for a feature that hasn't (yet) been included. I'm generally content with my iPod, but Jason's article yesterday over at O'Grady's Powerpage reminded me of a few items I'd love to see Apple include.

O'Grady pretty much goes off the deep end, with his 1,900 word diatribe on what the iPod doesn't have. Nonetheless, he does point out a few features I'd like to see too:

• Customizable "Now Playing" Screen
  
• Full-screen artwork
  
• Cross-fading between songs
  
• Smarter playlists (i.e. remembering where you left off the last time you listened to a playlist
  
• Album covers and photos in non-color versions
  

What do you want to see in your iPod?  

It's no secret that Apple has a reputation for being liberal. I don't know whether this is justified or not. I've never done the research. However, it seems clear to me that large companies with a broad customer base would want to avoid appearing political.

Apple's iTunes Music Store has a "free download" feature in which songs (usually 2) are made available for free on a rotating basis. Generally the free songs may be downloaded for a very limited time--almost always a week--and thereafter anyone wanting them has to pay $0.99 (in the US version of the store).

Just about every song I've seen for free has followed this pattern, with only occasional minor deviations. One song however, has not followed this pattern. Since January 25--a full six months now, Apple has offered Bright Eyes' "When The President Talks To God" as a free download.

By offering it for free, they are encouraging more people to download it. Why is this weird? Because this particular song is just about as liberal as they get. Here are a sample of the lyrics:

When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
...
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
...
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
...
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bulls**t
When the president talks to God?


So, the song Apple offers for free--for six months--is one that pretty much accuses George W. Bush of being a rapist, a murderer, a fraud, a racist, a religious bigot, and a megalomaniac (and that's just what I got from the 4 verses I quoted; there's more to it than that).

To make matters worse, the song uses profanity. And it's musically derivative (an obvious Dylan ripoff). Plus, it's just bad. Listen for yourself. Search the web. There are basically just two kinds of comments on this song: people who love it based on content, and people who hate it based on musical quality.

This is so bizarre that I have to wonder whether this is simply a technological mistake on Apple's part.