[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You do?

Sure you do. Previous shuffles plugged into any stereo and worked. The new shuffle requires a special adapter. Apart from paying more for the shuffle customers also get to pay extra for the adapter. And that sucks. Plain and simple.

[Wiskedjak]

And, here I thought this was a joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBwM2U77F2c

[Tiresias]

I agree with the OP. Hideous, and that's just for starters. I hate buttons dangling off the earphones and bouncing around when I run and come on, really: who wants a female Stephen Hawking announcing their playlists?

[Hg2491]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, here I thought this was a joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBwM2U77F2c

I'm sure going to get an iPod Flea

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This would be like Microsoft randomly deciding to start requiring a TPM chip in a machine in order to install Windows on it. They'd be alienating an enormous chunk of their market by forcing everyone to buy a new computer (or a USB drive with TPM, or whatever - you get the point). This level of hardware DRM is entirely unnecessary. They could have made a smaller shuffle and still put buttons on it. I don't believe for a minute that this would have been physically impossible.

As others have said, Apple has gotten an overinflated ego over their successes in recent years, and are now showing their true colors - which amounts to a burning desire to be as monopolistic as possible with their chosen market.

Gosh, what's next? MS taking a "snapshot" of your hardware and phoning home with information of your computer, marrying it with the Windows Serial Number so that nobody else can use it?

Cuz that'll just kill Windows.

[Particle_Man]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly. I've purchased 2 third party video cables (for less than $10 each) that Apple subsequently rendered useless to protect their $50 video cable.

I'm increasingly getting to the point where I won't be giving anymore of my money to Apple. I've already decided that my next laptop won't be from Apple.

I've gone through the same thing with the video cables. I gave up ever seeing my touch output to my Bravia.

I've been considering a netbook with Ubuntu but to be honest I still like the Mac OS too much to switch.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

Gosh, what's next? MS taking a "snapshot" of your hardware and phoning home with information of your computer, marrying it with the Windows Serial Number so that nobody else can use it?

Cuz that'll just kill Windows.

I have much less of a problem with a company knowing that I have an Asus motherboard than my personal information.

It has always annoyed the bejeebus out of me that OS X requires you to input full personal information - name, address, email, and phone number - just to finish installing the OS. This should be optional. At least with Microsoft, you can bypass anything like that and just install the OS.

There's precious little a company can do when they know what computer hardware you own, whereas plenty can be done when they have your full name and contact information.

Not to mention that it just takes a simple phone call to get more activations on your retail (or MSDNAA) Windows serial number. So, no. Windows product activation isn't remotely the same as requiring the purchase of some kind of authentication in order to install the product, or requiring a special mouse to use Windows...the bottom line is that the new shuffle mandates the purchase of an accessory (which, given Apple's history, will be at least $30) just to use something as basic as a a pair of headphones. Do you really think it's excusable to have to do that when, say, you own a $300 pair of Shure earbuds or something?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Particle_Man 

I've gone through the same thing with the video cables. I gave up ever seeing my touch output to my Bravia.

I've been considering a netbook with Ubuntu but to be honest I still like the Mac OS too much to switch.

Hackintosh it. It's extremely easy these days, since the CD images come with all the patched kexts and stuff preinstalled for you.

Or so they say. *cough*

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It has always annoyed the bejeebus out of me that OS X requires you to input full personal information - name, address, email, and phone number - just to finish installing the OS. This should be optional. At least with Microsoft, you can bypass anything like that and just install the OS.

You've never figured out how to get by this? Really?

...the bottom line is that the new shuffle mandates the purchase of an accessory (which, given Apple's history, will be at least $30) just to use something as basic as a a pair of headphones. Do you really think it's excusable to have to do that when, say, you own a $300 pair of Shure earbuds or something?

If you own a $300 pair of earbuds, I have no sympathy for you having to plunk down $30 for an adapter. (And we don't even know what the price will actually be.)

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I have much less of a problem with a company knowing that I have an Asus motherboard than my personal information.

It has always annoyed the bejeebus out of me that OS X requires you to input full personal information - name, address, email, and phone number - just to finish installing the OS. This should be optional. At least with Microsoft, you can bypass anything like that and just install the OS.

There's precious little a company can do when they know what computer hardware you own, whereas plenty can be done when they have your full name and contact information.

Not to mention that it just takes a simple phone call to get more activations on your retail (or MSDNAA) Windows serial number. So, no. Windows product activation isn't remotely the same as requiring the purchase of some kind of authentication in order to install the product, or requiring a special mouse to use Windows...the bottom line is that the new shuffle mandates the purchase of an accessory (which, given Apple's history, will be at least $30) just to use something as basic as a a pair of headphones. Do you really think it's excusable to have to do that when, say, you own a $300 pair of Shure earbuds or something?

My God, what do you REALLY think Apple is going to do with your personal information?

Give me a friggin' break.

And as others have stated, you can Cmd-Q out of that screen.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

You've never figured out how to get by this? Really?

Why should you *have* to figure it out? Why does Apple want all that personal information so badly that they hide the ability to bypass it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

My God, what do you REALLY think Apple is going to do with your personal information?

What do you think Microsoft would do with all that personal information? Apple would likely do *exactly* the same thing.

[Simon]

I agree with the above posters. There is no reason Apple should try to force people to hand out their personal information. If they want my information for data mining either ask for my permission or pay me. Trying to coerce me into it is certainly not going to work. That's MS bully tactics. Certainly not something you'd expect from the company "for the rest of us".

Personally, I just disconnect from all networks when I personalize my copy. The data transfer will then time out and later I just remove the alias that triggers the resend.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

My God, what do you REALLY think Apple is going to do with your personal information?

Give me a friggin' break.

And as others have stated, you can Cmd-Q out of that screen.

In that case, you should never, ever, ever complain when anyone - evil Microsoft included - asks for your personal information.

The bottom line is that I shouldn't be obligated to give my personal information to a company if I don't want to, when such information is not necessary (e.g. obviously I need to give information to a bank or a credit card company).

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why should you *have* to figure it out? Why does Apple want all that personal information so badly that they hide the ability to bypass it?

This. At least Microsoft provides a "Skip" button in their installation UI. How effing hard would it be for Apple to do the same?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What do you think Microsoft would do with all that personal information? Apple would likely do *exactly* the same thing.

This.

I know that it's difficult for Apple fanboys to understand this, but Apple is not a saintly corporation who magically doesn't act like every other corporation on the planet. They are a business. Their first priority is, like any other publicly-traded company, their stockholders - not their customers. I shouldn't feel obligated (e.g. no easy way out) to divulge personally identifying information to a mothertrucking computer retailer. Period.

Starman was making a snide remark about Microsoft using your hardware to activate your serial number. In his own words, "give me a friggin' break. What do you really think [Microsoft] is going to do with [that] information?"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Starman was making a snide remark about Microsoft using your hardware to activate your serial number. In his own words, "give me a friggin' break. What do you really think [Microsoft] is going to do with [that] information?"

Make life for you as a PAYING CUSTOMER as annoying as technologically possible.

You're absolutely correct on not wanting/needing to divulge personal information to a computer manufacturer. Privacy protection is an important and BIG subject, and it's utterly useless if people freely disclose information that is nobody else's business (hello, facebook!).

The point about the serialization of Windows is a different one, though, since all that does is seriously hamper your options even as a *legal* user and create serious annoyances should you ever exercise your right to switch machines or bits of hardware.

It's far easier to just pirate a copy of Windows, for example than to use the existing LEGAL copy for both booting and virtualization on one and the same machine. And no, virtualization is NOT prohibited by the EULA, since the EULA can't legally prohibit anything in Europe (you can't impose a contract AFTER the sale has already taken place).

[Thorzdad]

I have a question about the sys reqs for the new Shuffle...
The Apple site states that the new Shuffle requires OSX 10.4.11 and iTunes 8. Has anyone attempted to sync the Shuffle with lesser systems? Are these requirements due solely to VoiceOver?
The debate about the controls aside, this could make a nice gift for someone, but I know their Mac isn't up to those requirements.

[Eug]

So, who here has one of these things?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I have a question about the sys reqs for the new Shuffle...
The Apple site states that the new Shuffle requires OSX 10.4.11 and iTunes 8. Has anyone attempted to sync the Shuffle with lesser systems? Are these requirements due solely to VoiceOver?
The debate about the controls aside, this could make a nice gift for someone, but I know their Mac isn't up to those requirements.

I'm fairly sure the iTunes 8 requirement has to do with the VoiceOver stuff.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I'm fairly sure the iTunes 8 requirement has to do with the VoiceOver stuff.

So...any idea if there's any way to get it to sync with, say, iTunes 7, if someone had no intention of using VoiceOver?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

So...any idea if there's any way to get it to sync with, say, iTunes 7, if someone had no intention of using VoiceOver?

Not sure. I've no experience with trying to subvert iTunes version requirements.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Make life for you as a PAYING CUSTOMER as annoying as technologically possible.

You're absolutely correct on not wanting/needing to divulge personal information to a computer manufacturer. Privacy protection is an important and BIG subject, and it's utterly useless if people freely disclose information that is nobody else's business (hello, facebook!).

The point about the serialization of Windows is a different one, though, since all that does is seriously hamper your options even as a *legal* user and create serious annoyances should you ever exercise your right to switch machines or bits of hardware.

It's far easier to just pirate a copy of Windows, for example than to use the existing LEGAL copy for both booting and virtualization on one and the same machine. And no, virtualization is NOT prohibited by the EULA, since the EULA can't legally prohibit anything in Europe (you can't impose a contract AFTER the sale has already taken place).

The thing is, the wide majority of Windows users have OEM-licensed copies of XP or Vista, which come with a specific computer. Unless you swap out the motherboard, you're not going to have activation issues with Windows (if it's even a copy that requires activation - may OEM license come with Windows preactivated, so the hardware is irrelevant).

In the event that, for some reason, you can't activate Windows, you can easily get additional activations by calling Microsoft. They don't really drag their heels on it.

Most normal consumers are just going to buy a new machine when their old one is too outdated. Those who are bigger into geeking out on hardware (like myself) generally have gotten access to some version of Windows that is volume licensed or otherwise doesn't require activation (like most Dell Windows installation CDs). In fact, the copy of Vista Ultimate I bought from my university has thus far only required activation once - since then, I've installed it on other machines/VMs without it requiring activation.

I think that the product activation issues you read about online have been blown out of proportion by quite a bit. In all my work doing tech support, I've never come across an activation issue.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

In the event that, for some reason, you can't activate Windows, you can easily get additional activations by calling Microsoft. They don't really drag their heels on it.

I've done that. Took over twenty minutes and multiple takes at entering and writing down endless sequences of numbers/letters, for exactly ONE SINGLE POINT: "How many computers are you installing this license on? Press '1' for 'one computer', press '2' for 'two or more computers'." If I press 1, it either gives me an activation code or passes me on to an operator who goes through THE SAME WHOLE SCHMU with the exact same question, where I say "one computer", and get another activation code, which I then enter on my machine.

What gets me is the insult of assuming I'm incredibly stupid, and wasting so much of my (and my clients') time on this utterly superfluous CRAP.

[Maflynn]

Wow this thread really has some legs, though I'm not sure how more you can really discuss the button-less iPod shuffle.

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

In that case, you should never, ever, ever complain when anyone - evil Microsoft included - asks for your personal information.

The bottom line is that I shouldn't be obligated to give my personal information to a company if I don't want to, when such information is not necessary (e.g. obviously I need to give information to a bank or a credit card company).



This. At least Microsoft provides a "Skip" button in their installation UI. How effing hard would it be for Apple to do the same?



This.

I know that it's difficult for Apple fanboys to understand this, but Apple is not a saintly corporation who magically doesn't act like every other corporation on the planet. They are a business. Their first priority is, like any other publicly-traded company, their stockholders - not their customers. I shouldn't feel obligated (e.g. no easy way out) to divulge personally identifying information to a mothertrucking computer retailer. Period.

Starman was making a snide remark about Microsoft using your hardware to activate your serial number. In his own words, "give me a friggin' break. What do you really think [Microsoft] is going to do with [that] information?"

Well, it's been roughly 10 years since Apple started asking for personal information.

What have they done with it since then?

Anything objectionable?

Anything immoral?

Have they called you at 3am?

Please tell us WTF you're so worried about.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

Well, it's been roughly 10 years since Apple started asking for personal information.

What have they done with it since then?

Anything objectionable?

Anything immoral?

Have they called you at 3am?

Please tell us WTF you're so worried about.

Why are you so upset by this? Why are you trolling me? Why are you NEVER capable of responding to someone else's post without being aggressive, rude, or sarcastic? Are you unable to accept the concept that someone might not always think just like you or want the same things you want?

Do you not have a problem ever giving personal information when completely unnecessary? Don't I have a right to decide whether or not I want a corporation to know my full name, mailing address, business type, phone number, and email address?

There is no reason for Apple to demand that information without a very clear and easy way to bypass it. Hitting Cmd+Q doesn't cut it - there's no button that explicitly shows that I may skip that step of the installation process. There is no "X" at the top left corner of the window. To any normal consumer, it appears that you have no choice but to fill out the form. When installing OS X on multiple machines, this is annoying, tedious, and entirely unnecessary.

Just like Microsoft isn't doing anything nefarious with knowledge of the kind of hardware your computer has, Apple probably (maybe? I don't really trust them.) isn't doing anything nefarious with my personal information. However, that doesn't mean it's not a very relevant privacy issue. People were up in arms over the Google web history feature, and that doesn't even personally identify you!

Would you like it if every major application (Adobe Software, Microsoft Software, even freeware like Firefox and Adium) demanded your personal information before completing the installation?

[starman]

I'm trolling? I'm asking you a direct question which you cannot answer.

I don't mind that Apple has my info. Why? Because that's how they know I'm a repeat customer. That's how I got special treatment from them when one of my Powerbooks died a few years ago.

My God, shif, stop with the conspiracy theories. Nobody's trolling you.

[shifuimam]

(On second thought, I'm going to be the grown-up here and avoid the bait dangling in front of me, tantalizing me with its delicious drama-ness.)

In other news, I'm glad to have learned how to bypass that obnoxious and utterly ridiculous personal information screen when installing OS X. Thanks, guys!

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You're a little old to be acting like this.

I did answer your question - the answer is that it doesn't matter whether or not Apple is going to "do anything" with my personal information; divulging that information should not be compulsory - e.g. it should clearly be an option that may be bypassed without happening to know a shortcut key.

If you'd like, I can troll your thread about the Kindle on the iPhone, but since I'm not a raging insane bitch who holds grudges for years, I'm going to refrain.

So disagreeing with you is now considered "trolling"?

[shifuimam]

You know what I mean. In fact, we've discussed this before.

It is possible to disagree with someone without coming across like an arrogant and rude know-it-all. Things like "Please tell us WTF you're worried about" come across as aggressive, particularly when the person disagreeing with you (me, in this unfortunate case) has already explained why they disagree with your opinion (this specific case being that I simply want a very clear way to opt-out of providing my personal information to Apple, because it's essentially my right to decide who gets my personal information).

[starman]

You make yourself sound like the victim...ON AN INTERNET FORUM.

[ThinkInsane]

This conversation needs to be concluded via any form of communication that is not publicly viewable on these forums, please and thank you.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

I'm trolling? I'm asking you a direct question which you cannot answer.

I don't mind that Apple has my info. Why? Because that's how they know I'm a repeat customer. That's how I got special treatment from them when one of my Powerbooks died a few years ago.

My God, shif, stop with the conspiracy theories. Nobody's trolling you.

The concept of informational privacy is one that is obviously not important to you, but it is a fairly serious concern in much of the world and to anybody who wants as much control over who knows what about them as possible.

Apple has no business knowing who I am, where I live, what my phone number and e-mail address are, and how I make my living, UNLESS I EXPLICITLY CHOOSE TO TELL THEM SO.

It should be opt-in, and not even giving a visible means of opting OUT is in fact pretty nefarious, REGARDLESS of how "trustworthy" this company appears to be.

The fact is, there is personal information about me stored on yet another corporate machine where infrastructure, access, security policy, and possible breaches thereof, are COMPLETELY out of my control and completely beyond my means of even verifying.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The concept of informational privacy is one that is obviously not important to you, but it is a fairly serious concern in much of the world and to anybody who wants as much control over who knows what about them as possible.

Apple has no business knowing who I am, where I live, what my phone number and e-mail address are, and how I make my living, UNLESS I EXPLICITLY CHOOSE TO TELL THEM SO.

It should be opt-in, and not even giving a visible means of opting OUT is in fact pretty nefarious, REGARDLESS of how "trustworthy" this company appears to be.

The fact is, there is personal information about me stored on yet another corporate machine where infrastructure, access, security policy, and possible breaches thereof, are COMPLETELY out of my control and completely beyond my means of even verifying.

You're taking two completely different topics and mashing them together.

Privacy is important to me, but I CHOOSE who to give the information to. I CHOOSE to give it to Apple. Why? So they know that I'm a repeat customer. In 21 years of owning Apple products, they haven't done a single thing to break that trust. Again, nobody has shown that Apple misuses that information and I fail to see why anyone is concerned about Apple SPECIFICALLY. I don't give my information out to everyone else, just a few companies.

And it is opt-in. Cmd-Q. Done.

[brassplayersrock²]

this thread is about the new shuffle??

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

And it is opt-in. Cmd-Q. Done.

There is absolutely no indication of this to the user. I realize that Cmd+Q will allow someone to bypass the give-us-your-personal-info-now-plz window, but there's no apparent way to a user to skip it. There's no "skip" or "register later" or "cancel" or "next". For all intents and purposes, to the everyday Mac user (or newly switched Mac user reinstalling OS X for the first time), the personal information page appears compulsory.

It's like saying "you opted in for this spam list by not clicking the little bitty opt-out box at the bottom of the screen that's impossible to see unless you search for it, since the text is the same color as the background". Get the picture? It's underhanded and slimy to do something like gather fully identifying personal information from a user without providing any clear method of opting out. What amounts to a hidden or secret backdoor out is not an adequate answer.

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

this thread is about the new shuffle??

Some time in the distant past, yes.

[starman]

So much for Apple's DRM getting "out of hand"

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03...m-ipod-shuffle

UPDATE 2: BoingBoing Gadgets is now reporting that Apple has said that "there is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with "Made for iPod" official certification." If that's right, then I was wrong about the DMCA angle on this story, misled by the term "authentication chip" used in the original iLounge report, as well as Apple's previous "authentication chips" in various iPod dock products.

UPDATE 3: Both Monster Cable and V-Moda are also confirming that there is no authentication requirement for headphones for the new Shuffle. So it looks like there's no DMCA threat here, after all, unlike with jailbreaking your iPhone or talking about syncing your iPod with software other than iTunes.

[shifuimam]

I'd say Apple's DRM got out of hand as soon as they released iPods that require an authentication chip for video output, thereby rendering any expensive iPod equipment already owned as completely useless with the new hardware.

There was zero reason for Apple to do that, except as a well-played business move to ensure continued profits from existing hardware.

In the case of the shuffle, the fact remains that a chip is necessary to create third-party products with controls on them. It may not be protected by the DMCA, but it's an extra part and an extra level of complexity that really just isn't necessary.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

And it is opt-in. Cmd-Q. Done.

That's not "opt-in". That's not even "opt-out".

That's "Well, you know you *can* get around this if you know exactly what you're doing".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

So much for Apple's DRM getting "out of hand"

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03...m-ipod-shuffle

UPDATE 2: BoingBoing Gadgets is now reporting that Apple has said that "there is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with "Made for iPod" official certification." If that's right, then I was wrong about the DMCA angle on this story, misled by the term "authentication chip" used in the original iLounge report, as well as Apple's previous "authentication chips" in various iPod dock products.

UPDATE 3: Both Monster Cable and V-Moda are also confirming that there is no authentication requirement for headphones for the new Shuffle. So it looks like there's no DMCA threat here, after all, unlike with jailbreaking your iPhone or talking about syncing your iPod with software other than iTunes.

Hey, I posted about just that on Monday last week (you must have missed it):

http://forums.macnn.com/103/ipod-iph...3/#post3816208

[Spheric Harlot]

Also:

Originally Posted by starman 

You're taking two completely different topics and mashing them together.

I'm not doing this at all.

Shifuimam did that.

I'm merely responding to what you wrote in reply, which was just flat-out wrong.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

In the case of the shuffle, the fact remains that a chip is necessary to create third-party products with controls on them. It may not be protected by the DMCA, but it's an extra part and an extra level of complexity that really just isn't necessary.

It isn't? There's binary encoding for the headset controller so you need some kind of logic. IOW there will be a chip as 'extra level of complexity'.

IMHO the problem is the controls on the headset, not the chip. Once you settle for those controls you need to add the extra logiv via a chip. Regardless of DMCA, Made for iPod, etc. I still don't understand why Apple felt they needed to shave the extra 1/32" for the controls off the device. Would it otherwise have really been too big? Sounds more like another case of Apple's over the top anorexic design to me.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

In the case of the shuffle, the fact remains that a chip is necessary to create third-party products with controls on them. It may not be protected by the DMCA, but it's an extra part and an extra level of complexity that really just isn't necessary.

I wouldn't categorize this example as apple's DRM gone crazy, I think its a mistake that they now have a proprietary chip in their airbuds, regardless if they are providing that chip to others, its not a good sign and it is making it more difficult for other vendors to produce competing products.

[shifuimam]

Indeed. And, by doing something like this, they're hurting smaller brands that don't want to pay the royalty for the "made for ipod" so-called certification.

I just think that this is another bulletpoint on the list of evidence that Apple is getting too big for its pants, so to speak.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Indeed. And, by doing something like this, they're hurting smaller brands that don't want to pay the royalty for the "made for ipod" so-called certification.

I just think that this is another bulletpoint on the list of evidence that Apple is getting too big for its pants, so to speak.

I wouldn't go that far, Apple has always seem to have an air of arrogance, at times it really got them in trouble with not properly gauging the computer industry. Given the competition, especially in the phone market, they've been acting with a fairly strong consumer focus.

In the iPod/iTunes sector, they've seemed to strike a good balance, dropping DRM, and keeping the made for ipod royalties fairly low.

That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes and from a design perspective (no buttons on the shuffle) to the use of a proprietary chip, apple has made some moves that are not consumer friendly nor friendly to companies that produce accessories

A company that has and continues to be to big for its britches is Microsoft and behind them and coming up quick is google. Both of them act in ways that restrict competition and/or protect consumers rights.

I don't believe you can use the proprietary chip in the shuffle's airbuds to make an accusation that apple is getting too big for its britches, especially when they already stated that said chip will be available to other companies.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also:


I'm not doing this at all.

Shifuimam did that.

I'm merely responding to what you wrote in reply, which was just flat-out wrong.

In your OPINION.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

I don't believe you can use the proprietary chip in the shuffle's airbuds to make an accusation that apple is getting too big for its britches, especially when they already stated that said chip will be available to other companies.

Where did they state that? If they did, then all this grandstanding against Apple seems to be ridiculous at best.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

So...any idea if there's any way to get it to sync with, say, iTunes 7, if someone had no intention of using VoiceOver?

Apple has a pretty solid history of not supporting older Mac OS's in the latest versions of iPods and iTunes, while Windows XP SP3 is all that's required on the Windows side. What does it say about Mac OS when only the latest can support the latest iPod while a 10 year old Windows OS can do the same?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

My God, shif, stop with the conspiracy theories. Nobody's trolling you.

So, you have no problems giving your personal information to a company like Microsoft?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you have no problems giving your personal information to a company like Microsoft?

I don't give it to MS. I give it to Apple because I've been a repeat customer for 21 years. I don't trust MS. I also don't feel that MS needs my info. I feel Apple does so they can track my purchases since I'm buying HARDWARE from them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't trust MS. I also don't feel that MS needs my info.

Soooo ... you have conspiracy theories about MS?