As if battery life wasn't enough of a problem already... now comes BlueTooth.

Bluetooth is not standard on desktops. Also transfer rates for bluetooth suck ass. UWB you heathens! That said, First post.

I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

Trojan: turn it off if you don't like it ffs.

My guess is, the only thing BT is going to do for the iPod is make the headphones wireless. Possibly, make it also a bluetooth cellphone, headset also, which would mean attaching a microphone and speaker, phone style to the upper and lower portions of the iPod. There, thats your iPhone - not a cellphone persay (did I spell that right?) but a BLUETOOTH accessory for your BT equipped cellphone :) There, Im a genius. Now, where is the peanut butter!?

This is good news in my book - if ipods get proper A2DP and AVCRP profile support it can only be a good thing for the wireless music revolution... and advances in battery tech. However, if apple tweak the profiles and make them non standard... I'll be very cross. I may even cry a bit.

Wait a sec, I go to a university that happens to have what seems like an iPod ratio of 1 for every 1.5 people. Does bluetooth have enough bandwidth to allow like 60 people in a lecturehall to listen to their stuff without interference?

WHAT? The end of seeing those white cords everywhere? How will civilization survive?

...and bluetooth ain't so fast if we're talking data transfer.

I would be surprised if this had anything to with file transfer. The battery couldn't handle powering a hard drive not only spinning but also writing 60gigs of data. You would have to recharge the battery a bunch of times. Not to mention at a rate of 3Mbps it would take over one hundred times longer to transfer data this way compared to a USB 2.0 connection. Unless you were just transferring a single low quality picture it would be way faster to just plug the ipod in. Also McQueen makes an interesting point. I'm not sure the specs of Bluetooth but the range is only a few feet and since the data stream is obviously modulated I doubt interference would be an issue. Anyone know enough about Bluetooth to explain this one?

Most bluetooth (BT) radios have a range of up to 10m. Beefier ones can go to 100m. These are, of course, maximum ranges that drop when you put things between sender and reciever. With better range comes better battery killing so any BT ipod (sucking batteries dry since it was born) will have a short range - 10m tops. Like others have said - BT is too slow for file transfer ATM. That will change in time. So my guess is BT support will be for sending the audio output to any compatible device e.g. your PC / media center, portable speakers, headphones, car stereo etc. all compatible devices worth their salt will have a means for controling playback so you can leave whatever's sending the audio to them safely tucked away. This tech is pretty new so there's not a huge amount of said compatible devices around yet. They are coming, and, as much as it pains me to say this, Apple would give it a major kick start in to the mainstream by adding BT to ipods.

Bluetooth should be added to the iPhone when it arrives. Not really looking for wireless file transfers but for headphones it will be cool

I bet I can stab myself 650+ times in the eye with a fork before 20 GB is transfered over BT. Power will suffer huge! and BT stereo still doesn't sound that good.

your comment has not gone un-noticed, SuppleMonkey. A plethora, you know a virtual cornicopia if you will. for those off you in the south, more like a whole mess-of-sumthin...