Sure, you can. That doesn't count. I'm talking about the average user. Even when you do it, I seriously doubt that IE doesn't find a way to horn its way in. MS used to try to force IE as the default browser on the Mac!

Hmm...perhaps we aren't on the same page. I wasn't talking about syncing calender and the like (though that might be nice, and I thought was already possible.) I just don't like proprietary media formats. I don't mind people protecting their stuff, but I'd like to be able to run a protected .wma on an iPod and a .m4p on a Creative Zen. All the other functionalities are frivolous to me, I just want the music.

Hmm, the above seems similar to what we've heard from PC owners:
"I'd like to be able to run OS X and its apps on my PC. ... I just want the software."

And it's irrelevant how easy or hard it might be to make some software work on some different hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do it, that's their right.

And I can. And my mother can. And if my grandma had a computer I am sure she could too.

All browsers want to be the default. It's funny that you say you seriously doubt that IE doesn't find a way to horn its way in, when one has to open Safari to choose another default browser, unless they are using, what 10.2? So, to make Firefox,Opera, etc one has to have Safari installed and open it to make something else the default.

I was working on a Windows machine yesterday and all I had to do was check the "Make this default" Firefox opened, and check the "Don't ask me again" when IE opened to stop it from forcing itself as the default browser. The only way it will go back is by user choice, or by some spyware infestation.

I never said it wasn't, I said I'd like to be able to do it, that's all.

But, for the record, making an .m4p work on a Creative Zen, and making a protected .wma work on an iPod, is not nearly as hard as, say, making Final Cut Studio, iLife '06, iCal, Mail, Safari, etc etc etc, work on a PC. Nor is it as hard as making, say, Adobe Premier, Far Cry, 3D Studio Max or AutoCad run on a Macintosh.

Yes, my argument may sound similar, but the devil is in the details. I'm only a novice programmer, but I'm pretty sure the work involved in decoding an audio file is considerably less than a 2gb program (which might have to decode many many different kinds of files, audio and otherwise.)

Comparing an OS and all of it's programs to a single audio encoder/decoder is kind of silly. And while I respect Apple's right to want to control their work (even though I'd like them to cut it out), that doesn't mean that if they decided to make it available it would be hard.

It would be too good to be true if finally the actors in this sorry play ended all the DRM-, rootkit and closed file-format sillyness and instead just sold what everybody wants: plain music in open, documented formats all devices can just play without any fussing around.

And Apple is in a very good position to start doing that, especially since Steve is now in a position where he could start freeing content from Pixar and Disney of digital restrictions as soon as he feels like it.

Uh not really. How about Ephpod?

So who here bought an iPod because you needed to use the iTMS and iTunes

I think most people buy an iPod because the want a good portable music player (if not the best) and hey its cool unlike any other moblie mp3 player

I live in South Africa we dont have a iTMS, I use iTunes because I like iTunes. and I had my windows box running iTunes way back when. then I got my PowerBook its 1.33Ghz so its not too recent as you can imagine and only after all that I got my iPod

I feel that Apple should keep with the iTMS and the iPod and iTunes
if 3rd party apps start popping up that can access iTMS and the iPod Apple cant be held resonsible for piracy then its not their code running the 3rd party apps

Also I dont see why any company should give away their advantage

Read the article I linked in the first post. It mentions that Apple threatened Real Audio with lawsuits so they pulled out ipod support.

That is because IE is intergrated into the OS as part of the GUI, which apple is kind of doing with safari. You do not have to use IE, in fact there was a lawsuit against MS for this a while ago, like back in the mid 90s maybe. Companies like netscape and other internet browser developers sued them for trying to corner their market. I bet with more and more releases of OS X, you will see a similiar thing with safari, it will probably be intergrated into the OS as IE is in WinXP.

Under internet options in control panels in windows you can set your default browser. It is that simple.

Never heard of this, but to me it seems like its a third party app and not offically supported by apple or anyone else. Which means that any kind of iPod update could make that third party app that worked previously, now incompatable. Not to mention that application is for windows users, and thats all. There are also other hack like programs out for the iPod and you can even load linux on it and get your normal color ipod to play avi files.

Apple did not threaten any lawsuits. Here's an extract from Apple's press release at that time:
And in fact it wasn't too long before an iPod update came along that broke Real's "hack". As far as I know, that is the extent of Apple's reaction. No lawsuits threatened or otherwise.

And it seems that Real is currently claiming compatibility with the iPod - they haven't "pulled out support" - see: http://service.real.com/musicstore/s...tion=iPodandRP

I have read articles that say otherwise. It is all propaganda and I will for that reason withdrawl my remark from earlier. Apple could have threatened them with lawsuits and real audio could've stolen the technology using hacker tactics, whatever. I read things that stated different facts about the situation. Honestly, at this point, I could care less what is true and what is not. Simply, because I will never know.

I think real audio sucks and they have been using proprietary closed market tactics since they have been around. They are just calling the kettle black on this one. I am by no means defending Apple or anyone else for that matter, I just find this whole lawsuit interesting.

Well, the reason I posted was to point out that the articles that you have read were wrong. The existence or non-existence of lawsuits (or threats thereof) is not a matter for speculation - it is in the public record.