Agreed, Apple is perfectly entitled not allow non-iPod devices to ID themselves as iPods. Why did Palm ever think they'd get away with this?

And, more to the point, why do most of the posters in this thread think that Apple is the new MS? Seriously, I'd like to hear the strongest arguments out there. Nothing in this thread so far makes any kind of rational case.

J

Good point, this has been going on for a while. For what is essentially the same discussion, take a look at this from 1987: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac/browse_thread/thread/33d60f18748a1a81/fd97b00ea88f94b7?lnk=st&q=mac+ram+cost+upgrades+apple+expensive#fd97b00ea88f94b7 From the post: "If you don't mind doing things on the cheap and being self-sufficient, then you can save some money over the Apple upgrade. But. If you rely on your machine. If you can't afford your machine to be down for a couple of days (to a couple of months, perhaps, as different companies finger point at each other). If you can't or won't track down flakey RAm chips. If your machine is an integral part of your business. Why take chances?" Don't get me wrong, I think Apple should reconsider their policy. It just has a history is all.