A report in the Chinese Commercial Times indicates that 4GB and 6GB iPod Shuffles will be announced later this year. (That's shuffles, not minis.)

FreeiPodGuy doubts it though. Asian sources are notoriously inaccurate. More importantly, what would this mean for the entire iPod line? Currently, the larger iPod mini comes in 4GB and 6GB versions. This would be the first time that two substantially different iPod products have the same capacities; historically, an iPod's capacity has been basically proportional to its price.

If iPod shuffles actually become available in 4GB and 6GB models, expect a shakeup in the mini line as well, with either a color screen, or larger capacities.

In fact, if this happens, it will probably be concurrent with a complete lineup change, which means I'd put it after Christmas.  

Toshiba announced today they are working on development of a new technology that they predict will allow them to produce 1.8-inch hard drives (the same profile in today's iPods) with capacities 10 times the size of current hard drives.

Today's 1.8-inch drives are available in capacities up to 80 GB; the 60 GB version is the largest now found in iPods. (It holds about 15,000 songs.)

Does this mean you'll be able to fit 150,000 songs in your pocket in the near future?

Don't count on it.

The new Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) drives are expected to cost the same per GB as current drives, which means a top-of-the-line iPod would range in price from $6,000 to $8,000 if it used maximum capacity PMR drives.

Also, there's the issue of the size of iPod owner's music collections. iPod capacities are probably now approaching the number of songs that most people own (or are interested in owning). 150,000 songs is over the top for almost anybody.

But maybe not for the 14 people on the planet who would pay $6,000 for an iPod.  

If you're following this blog and have paid attention to other tech news, you're probably wondering why I haven't yet commented on Apple's iPod patent fiasco. The reason: it isn't news. I have purposely waited until some sense began to manifest itself before even bringing it up, rather than add to the doomsayers' cacophony.

The bottom line is this: Apple applied for a patent which relates to the iPod's user interface. A few months earlier, Microsoft had filed for (and later obtained) a patent which the US Patent & Trademark Office determined was similar enough to preclude approval of Apple's application. The resulting headlines over the last several days have declared that Apple will now have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft on each iPod sold, isn't this beautifully ironic, blah blah blah. Indeed, the 800-lb gorilla even released a pompously terse statement saying that they have a long-standing policy of licensing their patents to others.

Except Microsoft isn't going to get any of Apple's iPod revenue. Here's why: (1) The iPod was already on the market for a good while before Microsoft filed their application, and this will have a bearing on the outcome of all this. (2) Apple may file an application which is varied enough from their first application to receive the patent, yet still protect their invention. (3) The fat lady has not yet sung. There are opportunities to appeal, of which Apple will avail itself.  

FreeiPodGuy normally finds things like stocks and stock analyst predictions to be very dry, boring, and uninteresting to most people, so I generally don't bother with them. (News of a new iPod model is interesting, but not because of its impact on stock portfolios.)

However, this is an exception. Friday, tech stocks took a bit of a tumble. The rumor mill seems to have bouyed Apple against the hit however, as fickle traders considered rumors that a new Google feature will somehow result in higher iTunes sales. (The exact nature of the feature could only be speculated upon.) After several days of hovering near $44, Apple was boosted through Friday and Monday to a high of $48.33.

As always, the good sense of the masses have prevailed however. As of this writing, AAPL is back to $46.53.

But what of the rumor? I predict it won't happen, because there's no reason for it to happen. If you don't have an iPod, Google search results pointing to song purchasing links are irrelevant to you. If you do have an iPod, then you already also have iTunes, whose song searching capabilities are probably better than anything that Google can come up with. Apple's involvement with Google, if it happens, would probably be limited to little more than a fancy ad on search results pages, because its value would be in drawing in new listeners to the iPod/iTunes fold, not in enhancing value for current users.  

Michael Singer adds fuel to the video iPod fire in his Apple Blog at cNet News. Microsoft said they expect a video iPod before the end of the year, and that Apple can expect Microsoft to follow suit (since "following" is what they do best). iSuppli analyst Chris Crotty said it best: "Apple has a tendency to do the thing that they say they won't do and then do it better than anyone else."