I have a 160GB Classic, as I thought I needed it. But with a 32GB iPhone, I end up leaving my iPod at home, even when traveling. I once had a fantasy that I'd sync a ton of video to it, to serve up. That fantasy was never realized, though, because these days it easy to just plug your laptop into a TV. I like having an iPod Touch in the house, however, because when my kid wants to watch videos, I'd rather give her that than my own phone. Besides, some apps like Sonos' controller and Apple's Remote are better suited to a device that lives in the living room. An iPod Touch with a camera makes sense, getting a step closer to the iPhone; it's an equally intuitive device for people who want to keep clear of AT&T.

Put a camera in the Nano, and the opposite occurs: It becomes a mystery object, something unlike all other products in the universe, and not in a good way. It would be something to learn, with even more buried mystery functions than it has right now.

Let's be honest, the Nano is built to play music. Video playback on that tiny screen is a joke, accelerometer or not, and I have never met a soul who actually stores calendars and contacts, or uses any other mini-app or game. Putting still more tech into the Nano is a mistake that companies other than Apple would make—sure, it will be "neat," but it's impractical and a waste of development.

The Classic is a different story, one of diminishing demand. Hard drive players are almost nowhere to be found, and there's discussion of late that the 1.8" hard drive is headed for extinction, because flash memory is finally cheap. I think Apple will still sell a Classic, at least until they can pop out 64GB flash iPod Touches for under $400, but I don't think they'll do anything to modify the current Classic in any meaningful way, and they certainly aren't going to go all the way to 240GB, even though it's possible.

If the Classic is justifiable for music library owners like me, but mostly a non-starter, the Nano's raison d'etre is being a "value" option. It's cheaper than the iPod Touch, which hovers at the $230 only to distance itself from the 16GB Nano, at $200. If Apple dipped that iTouch to $199, they'd sell fewer Nanos than they are selling now.

Screw the camera—what Apple should do is lower the Nano price even more. Samsung and SanDisk sell 8GB players for less than $100 now, and you can even find a few 16GB players in the $130 range. That's $50 to $70 lower than what Apple charges, and nowadays, most of those devices will play anything you buy from iTunes—little or no manipulation required. Meanwhile, almost all PMP development from other companies is geared to building a cheap iTouch replacement, not a Nano clone.

As Apple itself declared during their earnings call, "We expect traditional MP3 players to decline over time as we cannibalize ourselves" with iPhone and iPod Touch. They readily admit that iPod Touches sell like hotcakes while demand for clickwheel iPods has slackened. It's just a puzzle that when these devices should be on life-support, Apple seems to be want to push them further. [iPod/iTunes]

Think about it: Carriers like Sprint, Verizon and AT&T regularly charge between $8 and $10 per month for GPS apps. Gokivo is just a made-for-iPhone version of Verizon's not-so-great VZ Navigator. Why did you expect an updated and hopefully improved version of that would cost less?

TomTom, TeleNav and Navigon are all expected to be launching their own turn-by-turn navi apps for iPhone before the year is out, and it would be a shock to me if they went any less than $10-per-month.

The question is, are they worth it?

Because we're talking turn-by-turn navi apps, the numbers are easy to break down. Not only do we know what carriers charge already, but we know, for instance, that TomTom still lists its PDA software (supports Dell Axim, Sony Clie and Palm Zire, among other extinct devices) for $99.95—without free map updates. At the same time, we know that even the cheapest decent portable navigators, like the Garmin Nuvi 250, cost $128 on sale—also without free map updates.

These apps, by definition, don't come with maps loaded into the phone—they download the most recent ones from a server which the software maker pays for the right to use on an ongoing basis. So add to that the cost of licensing instantly up-to-date (Nokia-owned) Navteq or (TomTom-owned) Tele Atlas map databases, and you see why no navi can just be a $15 one-time app. As Gokivo's creators, Networks In Motion, say on their blog:

It takes a lot of work and money to deliver all these features and functionality that's included in a turn-by-turn navigation app; and unlike product with maps on the device, we are updating maps and search indexes constantly.

This is just one category, but there are many that will need higher pricing or persistent subscription fees to keep them going. This isn't about The Man—Apple or AT&T or "Macho Man" Randy Savage. It's about developers, and it's rough for them when they want to distribute flagship software over a platform that's used to distributing 99-cent iFarts. The transition must come. I hate to say it, but the iTunes App Store needs more advanced software, and if that means higher costs then, for the sake of the iPhone OS's continued growth and viability, I say we get behind it.

This isn't to say Networks In Motion unveiled the pricing strategy in the most graceful way. But what they did to was make the first move. I think everybody in the navigation category was hoping someone else would go first, and Gokivo drew the short straw.

Now come the next questions, like how many devices you can load the software onto. After all, if the download is $100, and you put it on two iPhones, isn't it more like $50 each?

Think about it: Right now a single, lonely model bears the name MacBook. A model that's been around forever, too. On the other hand, there are three sizes of MacBook Pros in six, count 'em, six flavors. Lopsided much? The poor thing gets no promotion, either. It was quietly updated to be as fast as the aluminium MacBook last week, warranting just a one-line mention during the WWDC Philnote. And where's the splash pic for Apple's most affordable Mac on the Mac page?

So, why is Apple basically wasting one of their most powerful brands, their "most popular Mac"?

Because they're about to call something else MacBook.

It's the only logical explanation for the muddled, complicated and totally un-Apple product line. Why all of their core notebooks are now called MacBook Pros. Why MacBook denotes a single notebook, one that perpetually seems like it's on its way out—because it very likely is on its way out.

There are two possibilities that stand out for MacBook: A new, even cheaper notebook, following the hard price cuts across the iMac and MacBook Pro lines. Or at the very least, a completely redesigned MacBook family that looks way different than what Apple is currently calling MacBook Pro, and maybe even the current MacBook. That's the more conservative take.

The other possibility is mostly in fap-fap fantasyland, but we can't rule it out: What if Apple calls that tablet thing MacBook? (Indicating it's at least somewhat different than most people have been imagining.) What better way to use one of their most iconic brands than to signify a complete shift in mainstream computers? Calling the tablet a MacBook would be incredibly ballsy, but an incredibly powerful signal, too.

Either way, we're pretty sure Apple isn't just going to let the MacBook wither and die—something new has to be coming that's gonna be called MacBook, and we'd wager relatively soon, too.

Or maybe Apple's just becoming a little bit more like every other PC maker and doesn't know what the hell they're doing with their brands anymore. But I somehow doubt that.