iPods have an iTunesDB binary database file that provides an index for fast file lookup as well as additional metadata. It is essential for any kind of meaningful operation, as iPods fail to find the files themselves (likely for performance reasons, not to mention needlessly draining battery life and shortening lifetime by wasting too many accesses, particularly on hard drive-based ones). iPods are also unable to generate this database on bootup or on-the-fly; it has to be done at sync time, thus making iTunes the primary application to create it. That, and iTunes’s own database having a similar format, make the likely explanation for the naming.

The format has been reverse-engineered years ago, not too long after the initial release of the iPod in November 2001, then with the primary objective of using the then-Mac-only iPods on Windows. (Half a year later, Apple shipped an “iPod for Windows” with MusicMatch Jukebox; soon after, iPods were “universal” in that they could be formatted for either platform; in late 2003, iPods finally shipped with the then-new iTunes for Windows.)

I believe Apple had a stance (implicitly?) of “use whatever you like, but we won’t support it”, which is only fair. They already have the revenues from your iPod purchase, and contrary to popular belief, they make next to nothing off the iTunes Store; indeed, it is and always has been primarily a product to drive revenues for other products (namely, iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs and arguably even Macs, in the sense that the iTunes Store experience is supposed to be reminiscent of that of the Mac OS UI in general). In other words, just like they let you toy around with the Apple TV, and to a point even with the iPhone, they do the same with regard to software that fills up the iPod. And, for that matter, software that runs on the iPod through means of alternative firmwares, be it Linux or Rockbox. Again, there is no conceivable reason why Apple wouldn’t have this stance: they have nothing to lose, and potentially a number of additional customers (who wouldn’t have accepted using iTunes, but still want an iPod over an alternative) to gain, negligible though their number may be.

But now, heise reports that the new generation of iPods introduced on the 5th expects a checksum for the database, and will refuse to read it (thus, again, providing no music, photos, videos, etc. whatsoever) if incorrect or – as is the case with current non-iTunes iPod clients – missing.

Why?

Well, heise’s report implies that it’s clear Apple was deliberately trying to lock out third parties. As far as I’m concerned, that part is still speculation, and will continue to be until we have official confirmation. Effectively, they’re locked out, but this doesn’t mean that was Apple’s intent.

However, I cannot think of any other reason myself either, and will therefore have to conclude for the moment that this marks yet another bafflingly silly move on Apple’s part. Much like, say, allowing you to edit contacts on your iPod touch, but not calendar events – even though you can on the iPhone, which ships a slightly older version of otherwise the exact same operating system.

People will eventually figure out how to copy the iPhone’s calendar application over to the iPod touch to work around that. And they’ll probably also reverse-engineer the checksum algorithm and reproduce it in their own apps, such as EphPod, ml_iPod in Winamp, gtkpod, Hipo, and so on. Moreover, both of those are unlikely to take more than a few weeks; months at most.

That’s not the point, though. Apple made a design decision here that they failed to explain, leading people to conclude something even less explicable, and coming across as draconian, arrogant and ignorant to a simple principle: that any single piece of software can never be for everyone. Nor should it try to be: as 37signals puts it, make your software opinionated. Normally, Apple understands that concept very well. Most of their apps include deliberate feature omissions for the sake of focusing on what they’re particularly good at. Then, why can’t they leave room for an iPod client that is good at different things than iTunes is, whether it’s being a lot more lightweight, or supporting abilities such as on-the-fly transcoding to lower bitrates on devices other than the shuffle, and with settings other than AAC at 128 kbit/s?

They can. They do it all the time on the Mac platform. And they ought to do it here as well.