I agree it's stupid to give any money to Apple, but just because you were stupid enough to buy a song on iTunes, it DOES NOT mean you should have to pay a few hundred more on an iPod or iPhone.
What if you did own an iPod, but 18 months later the battery died? Refusing to give apple more money you just left your iTunes songs sitting idle on your computer. Now, Palm releases a fancy new phone, and low and behold, it also has the ability to sync with your songs. That sounds like a win win to the consumer.
BUT WAIT!!! Apple, not content to stick with the 99cents per song and $300+ they already got from you for a defective iPod, they disable synching to your brand new phone with a software fix, simply because they think they can! What right does Apple have to do that? Why should you be forced to buy another piece of hardware with a defective battery when you already own hardware that can synch with your music?
For one, I'm hoping this action results in Apple losing their USB license (they violated the terms of the USB licensing contract when they restricted iTunes via the USB identifier, something expressly prohibited). Of course, no legal body will investigate Apple for anti-trust (Google, Microsoft, etc.. are just bigger fish), but they should.