Well, given that the current iPod is 4.1″x2.4″, if they shave 1″ off the height, and keep the screen size the same, they’ll have to shrink the Click Wheel and possibly end up with something like this. Given the dimensions, I wouldn’t be surprised if the final form factor is closer to a square (the face of a Cube). 

Just a heads up, that GPG encryption framework for your mail has gone Universal (as of March). Sorry for the delay, but if anyone out there still hasn’t, now’s a good time to upgrade your GPG and encrypt your mail.
MacUpdate - GPG framework 1.4.7
MacUpdate - GPG Preferences 1.2.2

So I was reading a little about “Digital music singles flex muscles, kick sand on antiquated album” and how the record companies are pushing Apple for variable pricing on individual track pricing, and something occurred to me.

On the face of it, what the record companies are reportedly asking for makes sense: let the newest, topical singles sell for more than 99¢, and drop the price of older, back catalogue material. In practice, however, this implies two things that are simply not true: that value of music decreases with time (or value is somehow tied to temporal relevance), and that one song (for any reason) is more valuable than another.

As for relevance, sure the latest Pop Idol single will be far less desirable in 2 years time, when there are new contestants on the tv (the shelf-life of reality television programs is malignantly short), but Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” just keeps on selling, no matter what decade it is.

Of course, there are situations where you could make an argument (”John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ is worth more than a Britney Spears B-side”, thesis anyone?) but of course for as many people say “yes” there will be those that say “no”. This is art, after all. At the end of the day, the value of any music is entirely subjective.

That subjectivity is what makes fixed pricing such a strong model. People don’t only buy songs they love, you buy a bunch; you love some, you hate others. The aggregate value means you’re underpaying for your favorites, and slightly overpaying for those you enjoy less. But at 99¢ a pop, who can argue?

Introducing flexible pricing would not only mean that the labels would again be artificially fixing value (”This is a $2 song, it’s SOOOOoooo awesome!!”) but that consumers would be given false expectations (”This was a $2 song, why does it suck so bad?!”). Not only that, but there’s the big bad internet out there. If prices went up, consumers would just flock to free. The really patient ones might just hang out and wait until the price came down (who am I kidding?)

The true fair pricing model for art would be something like getting the track for free, and then once you’ve decided how much pleasure you’ve derived from it, paying what you think is fair at a later date. But we all know how that works out, don’t we?

Microsoft Patents Adware Delivery Based on Your Hard Drive Contents:

“The adware framework would leave almost no data untouched in its quest to sell you stuff. It would inspect “user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, computer status messages (e.g., a low memory status or low printer ink),” and more. How could we have been so blind as to not see the marketing value in computer status messages?”

The reason Microsoft is falling behind in relevance is because they’re focusing their resources on developing ways to figure out what you want, then trying to sell it to you. Apple focuses on building amazing shit that makes you lust after it, then they tell you where you can pick one up.