Slip on the beer goggles, folks, because things between Apple and RealNetworks are starting to get ugly. We won't delve into the whole backstory here, because you've no doubt heard it a kajillion times before, but the short version is that RealNetworks wanted to license Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management architecture so it could sell iPod-compatible songs, Apple refused, and eventually back in July RealNetworks released Harmony, software that more or less brute-forces Real's songs onto the iPod without Apple's permission. Apple decried Real's move as "the tactics... of a hacker," vowed legal consequences, and warned its customers that Harmony would probably "cease to work with current and future iPods."

And then absolutely nothing happened for four months.

Personally, from the company's subsequent silence on the matter, we'd assumed that while Apple more or less had to complain in public, it was secretly okay with the whole arrangement, since, if anything, Harmony might have sold a few more iPods. And it's been four months, you know? There have been plenty of iPod firmware updates in that time (well, okay, one or two, anyway), and none of them has broken Harmony... until now. Faithful viewer Best Friend Brad forwarded us a CNET article which reports that Apple has "quietly updated its iPod software so that songs purchased from RealNetworks' online music store will no longer play" on certain iPods, specifically the iPod photo. In response, Real vowed that it would rejigger Harmony to work once again "on different portable audio devices... including the iPod photo." And so the endless chase begins.

So why did Apple hold off until now to start breaking Harmony? Well, for one thing, apparently it didn't; the article isn't totally clear on this matter, but it sounds to us like either the iPod photo has never worked with Harmony, or Apple's last downloadable iPod firmware update nuked Harmony on the iPod photo (and possibly other models); in any case, that means it took the world at least two weeks (and as long as seven) to notice, which doesn't exactly indicate that legions of iPod users have embraced Harmony.

Either way, though, there was clearly a distinct lag between Harmony's release and Apple's intentional crippling of the technology-- so why the delay? Well, we figure Apple was going to let things slide, but eventually it gave into that most noble of business motives: spite. Consider, if you will, that back on November 9th we mentioned that while Steve Jobs had indeed beaten out Rob Glaser to be named Billboard's "Visionary of the Year," the winner of the "Digital Music Innovation of the Year" title was none other than-- that's right-- Harmony. And we didn't mention it at the time because we didn't even notice until a slew of faithful viewers pointed it out to us, but Billboard also called RealNetworks's Harmony'd-up Rhapsody the "Best Downloadable or Subscription Music Service," ahead of the other finalists: Musicmatch, Napster, and... the iTunes Music Store. That's two none-too-subtle "messages" to Apple (e.g. "open up the iPod, already") in one awards ceremony, taking the form of two stinging slaps in the face.

Six days later, Apple released iPod Updater 2004-11-15-- the company's most recent firmware update, and presumably the one that broke Harmony on some iPods. Suppose that timing is just coincidence? No, we don't, either. So for those of you who had been using Harmony to play Rhapsody-purchased songs on your iPods (all two of you), don't blame Apple for crippling it; blame Billboard for waving a red handkerchief in front of a raging bull.

Let's be clear about something, here: while we have a personal stake in the Emmys (though, for some reason, we've never been nominated) and the Oscars always make our hearts go pitter-pat, we here at the AtAT compound have about as much interest in the Grammy Awards as we do in, say, eating road tar with a spoon. It's not that we don't like music, mind you; in fact, we love music. But the music we love is unlikely ever to be honored by the Grammys, as it's generally been made either by establishment-bucking independent artists or people long dead (or, indeed, long-dead establishment-bucking independent artists, who really don't stand a chance). There are exceptions, of course; Anya tacitly approves Dan Zanes's House Party having been nominated for Best Musical Album for Children. But other than the kiddie stuff, musically speaking, we're about as far removed from Grammyville as one can get without sending one's ears to Neptune.

We're also appalled by the sheer unapologetic excess of any awards ceremony with 107 awards categories. Seriously, come on. How long do these things run, anyway? Do vibrant young stars drop dead of old age as the ceremony wears on?

Well, okay, we admit it: having 107 categories is so absurd that it's actually the only marginally cool thing about the whole Grammy routine-- but is it any wonder that voting members of the Recording Academy need a little help listening to all the nominated recordings? Luckily, it's the iTunes Music Store to the rescue! According to a MacMinute article pointed out by faithful viewer frozen tundra, the Grammy organizers are reportedly cooking up some scheme by which instead of visiting a chapter office in person to listen to all the tracks, members can just connect to the iTMS, enter some sort of identifying code or something, and listen to nominated songs for free. Sure beats a trip across town-- unless you're still on a dialup connection, in which case downloading all those songs would probably be only marginally better than a root canal done with a staple remover and a corkscrew dipped in rock salt.

Oh, but wait-- apparently even the wired voters are going to have to make that crosstown trip after all, because the Academy "will initially test the scheme with one as yet unchosen award category, likely a major one such as 'New Artist,' 'Album of the Year,' 'Record of the Year' or 'Song of the Year.'" (What, no "Best Polka Album"? We were holding out for "Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical," ourselves.) When you think about it, it's a little odd that the Academy would test the free-through-iTunes system with a major category, since the odds are pretty good that its members have already heard any songs nominated for, say, "Record of the Year." Wouldn't they need more help rounding up the songs for "Best Compilation Soundtrack Album For a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media"?

Then again, judging by some of the Grammy winners in the past, the Academy makes a lot of questionable decisions. Starland Vocal Band, Best New Artist of 1976? Yeee-ikes. But at least it picked iTunes as its partner in this strategy, so maybe this heralds a new Age of Decent Judgment. We're not counting on it, though.

Apple's said to be putting the finishing touches on a lower-capacity, flash-based iPod to appeal to customers with not much money and not much music, but what about those customers with more money than God and a CD collection with its own noticeable gravitational pull? Because while we were surprised by the number of letters we got from viewers upset with Apple for putting 60 GB drives only in the iPod photo (because they needed all that space for music, didn't mess with digital photography, and didn't want to pay $100 extra for a color screen and photo features they'd never use), we're flat-out flabbergasted by how many people have since been asking when Apple's going to get around to releasing an 80 GB iPod, or even a 100 GB one, because 60 GB just won't cut it.

Now, we're certainly not going to claim that it's impossible to have 80 GB of music, or even 80 GB of legal music; even at 128 kbps, that's what, roughly 2,000 albums? That's a lot, sure, but it's totally within the realm of possibility for a music lover. (Heck, if you collect David Bowie discs, you're practically halfway there.) And a serious music lover willing to shell out crazy ducats for a ridiculously roomy iPod is probably far more likely not to be encoding his or her music at anything as low as 128 kbps anyway. For total quality freaks, an 80 GB iPod could probably store something like 400 albums in pristine Apple Lossless format. Suddenly the whole prospect starts to sound a little more reasonable, right?

Note that we said a little more reasonable; there's still something just a wee bit sick about an iPod packing as much storage as the top-of-the-line Power Mac from just three years back-- or, for that matter, today's entry-level Power Mac G5. But there's no doubt it'll happen eventually, although we've got some bad news for the impatient pocket audiophiles out there: it's going to be a while. Faithful viewer mrmgraphics sent us an article from The Mac Observer reporting that Toshiba, Apple's current iPod drive supplier of choice, has formally announced an iPod-friendly 1.8-inch drive with an 80 GB maximum capacity. Unfortunately, it won't hit mass production until "July of next year," so for at least the next six months, you're just going to have to struggle on with the measly 60 GB you've got now. We know, we know, life's a grind. Deal with it.

So, 80 GB next summer, most likely. We've actually heard from people claiming to own dedicated iTunes servers with half a terabyte of music just looking for an iPod burly enough to handle it. Sorry, folks, but the best you're going to do in the short term to take that collection with you is to strap an Xserve on your back and plug it into a Really Long Extension Cord™. But check back in a year or six, mmmkay?