D&M Holdings Inc. announced today that they would be abandoning the mp3 player market, consisting of the Rio brand. Rio MP3 players were pioneers of the market.

Hmmm... I wonder which target is next?  

Forget about poverty. Stop blaming poor eduction. The primary cause of crime is not even a lack of proper nutrition, but rather simple good old-fashioned inbred pinheadedness. It seems to be the primary common trait of criminals.

Macworld UK reports that one social misfit swiped an iPod from a car last weekend, and later took it to his local Mac shop, Nottingham-based KRCS, to buy a cable for it. Just one problem. Adrian Smith, the owner of the iPod, worked at the store and was at the counter when the aforementioned moron came in.

Smith gave the mental defective an excuse for having to examine the iPod closely, and upon confirming that it was in fact his own, had a co-worker keep the ignoramus occupied while he phoned the police. A bobby arrived presently and made the arrest on the spot.

Aw, perhaps I'm being a little to hard on the idiot. Hey stupid--if you're reading this, please accept my apologies.

You dolt of a ninny.  

Semiconductor Insights has awarded iRiver the 2005 INSIGHT Award for Best MP3 Player Technology for their H10 MP3 player, looking over several other iPod knockoffs and the genuine 20GB iPod, iPod mini and iPod shuffle.

FreeiPodGuy speculates that the INSIGHT award doubles as a bong, because these guys are definitely smoking something.  

According to research firm iSuppli, indications are that Apple is about to replace the hard drive in the 4GB iPod mini with flash memory. If true, this can only be good news. Flash memory has several advantages:

* It is slightly lighter.

* It has the potential to be cheaper. (If it is, it will probably not lower the price of the iPod, but rather increase the profit margin.)

* Best of all, it could dramatically improve the longevity of each battery recharge.

Hopefully Apple will resist the temptation to make the iPod mini even smaller than it is now. FreeiPodGuy is about to get his 3rd iPod, and he's getting a little tired of having to buy new accessories just because Apple kept changing the iPod's thickness.

Ironically, the maker of the memory chips that Apple will be putting into these iPods is Samsung, who seems to be hedging their bets. Just last week Samsung announced they would release 6 new mp3 players before the end of the year to compete with the iPod. Even if the iPod kills their mp3 players, Samsung still wins. A smart move on their part.  

Historically, Apple has been pretty aggressive in protecting its trademarks from use by third parties. However, it has not done so consistently.

For example, Apple's latest target, iPod:Essentials, will soon be changing to MP3:Essentials, having been contacted by Apple's legal department.

Now, I acknowledge that Apple has every right to protect their trademarks, and that they should avoid letting others dilute it. However, I find the action interesting for these reasons:

First, iPod:Essentials' use has not diluted the brand; it has enhanced it. The iPod reference in the business name does not imply that they make the iPod itself, but rather that they provide accessories to the iPod. The Apple brand is also so strong that it is unlikely that anyone would be confused by iPod:Essentials' use.

Second, iPod:Essentials has been around for a year and a half. Apple was probably aware of their existence within about 48 hours of their launch. That being the case, why did Apple wait for 18 months to take this action?

Could it be because iPod:Essentials' use of the name "iPod" in their business name and domain name was actually useful to Apple? Apple is in the ideal position with regard to their iPod trademark: they are at the point where "iPod" has become almost synonymous with "mp3 player", but not quite.

The "not quite" is extremely important. Consider the following trademarked names: Yo-Yo. Frisbee. Band-Aid. Aspirin. It is possible that a trademarked name can become so synonymous with the category of product it represents, that it actually loses value. In the case of "aspirin", it has become so diluted that it is no longer protected. Many companies manufacture aspirin products, and call them by that name, legally.

Apple is at just the ideal point in brand recognition, where the word "iPod" is everywhere, but not quite to the point where people confuse it with non-iPod music players. Companies like iPod:Essentials have helped Apple reach that ideal point, but now that the point has been reached, those companies are expendable to Apple.

iPodLounge.com also recently changed their name to iLounge without fanfare, and they spun it as more reflective of their direction, rather than admit infringement. Frankly, I strongly suspect that they received a similar letter from Apple. (I had an idea what "iPodLounge" was before I ever visited the website, just based on the name. "iLounge" means nothing to me.)

Stay tuned. Once Apple gets done hitting the big targets, sites like FreeiPodGuy might be next. If that happens, you can say goodbye to the free iPods. I'll be dipped if I'm going to become FreeDigitalAudioPlayerGuy.  

As has happened from time to time in the past, it looks like a price comparison website may have inadvertently tipped Apple's hand regarding the release of new products, by displaying pages for products that don't exist yet.

Shopping.com now has pages up for a 2GB iPod shuffle and a 4GB iPod shuffle. No other details are available, but this is a likely indication that these larger iPods are on the way.

So how does this stack up against my last blog entry? I'd say this change doesn't necessarily warrant any change in the iPod mini line. While it would be unusual for Apple to have 4GB versions of both an iPod shuffle and mini at the same time, the flexibility and screen on the mini which the shuffle lacks would justify a higher price for some (especially if the mini is upgraded to color at the same time).

This is a more likely pre-Christmas scenario.