Forget next month. It’s more fun thinking about what digital toys Apple might be making in five years. Of course, Mr. Jobs’s penchant for secrecy means such predictions are often little more than daydreaming. Just do an Internet search for “Apple” and “mockup” to see photos of products invented by Apple fans.

Forrester Research (FORR) is the latest to look into the crystal ball in a new report that imagines the Apple products of 2013. But rather than predict Apple jet packs or other outlandish new directions, the research firm uses the company’s recent history as a guide to forecasting.

Forrester’s conclusion: While much of Apple’s great successes have been mobile products such as the iPod and the iPhone, the company will seek to colonize rooms throughout the home.

Among the new products Forrester predicts Apple will create are wall-mountable digital picture frames with small high-definition screens and speakers that wirelessly play media, including photos, videos and music, stored on a computer elsewhere in the home. Such products already exist, but Apple could put its own twist on them — for example, by adding its design panache and a touch-sensitive screen that lets viewers flip from image to image with a finger swipe, a la the iPhone.

For the bedroom, Forrester envisions an Apple “clock radio” that pipes in music and other media across a home network. Possible, too, is an “AppleSound” universal remote control, also with a touch-sensitive screen, that lets users browse their music collections and change the songs playing through their stereo as they stroll around the house. This latter technology is already available in primitive form through an application called Signal (www.alloysoft.com) that turns the iPod touch and the iPhone into remote controls for Apple’s iTunes program.

Forrester also thinks Apple could extend into the home the technical assistance currently offered by “Genius Bar” personnel in Apple retail stores. Apple in-home installation services will become especially important as its array of products for the home grows. “The complexity level here can be quite daunting if you have five or six of these different devices,” says J.P. Gownder, one of the Forrester analysts who wrote the report.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the company’s product plans.

Apple prognosticating is such a popular pastime, in part, because Mr. Jobs has proved so adept at becoming a power broker in markets a Silicon Valley computer company — once known as Apple Computer — has no right to dominate. The iPod remains the top MP3 player, with more than 70% of the market, and Apple is now the top retailer of music in the nation, ahead of Wal-Mart (WMT) Stores. Less than a year after entering the cellphone business with the iPhone, Apple became the second-largest provider of smart phones in the U.S.

That said, the company had an underwhelming foray into the living room with a television set-top device called Apple TV that plays music, photos and movies downloaded from the Internet and PCs on a home network. In an interview earlier this year after dropping the price on the product by $70 to $229, Mr. Jobs said he was disappointed in its sales.

Despite the hiccups, veteran observers of Apple say Mr. Jobs’s intent is clear. “I see everything Steve is doing as positioning himself to take over completely the living room,” says John Seely Brown, a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California and the former director of Xerox’s PARC, the Palo Alto, Calif., research center that inspired some of the innovations of the original Macintosh.

One long-running prediction, proved wrong again and again: that Apple might make a television set. Forrester throws cold water on the idea. Yet some still believe that Apple will one day get into the business as conventional TV makers start to integrate into their sets the ability to surf the Web. Apple already designs computer displays that are as large as some HDTVs.

Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple with Mr. Jobs, says it would make “a lot of sense” for Apple to do a television set that can also access media stored on the Internet and local PCs. “I only started thinking that way recently,” Mr. Wozniak says. “Apple is obviously in the world of delivering display devices already.”

Mr. Brown thinks Apple could simplify the traditional functions on TV sets, like the bewildering electronic programming guides that list the hundreds of channels available to viewers. “Most people find operating high-quality TV systems incredibly awkward,” he says. “They’re as bad as our computer systems.”

• Send comments to Nick.Wingfield@wsj.com. Walter S. Mossberg will return on June 5.

But in the past few years, Apple has mounted a sneak attack on the Windows world. Its weapon has been the Windows version of iTunes, the free media organizing, recording and playback program that most people think of as just a companion to Apple’s iPod music and video players. I think of iTunes as the most subversive software on the Windows computer, not because it does users any harm or does anything underhanded, but because it is allowing Apple to subvert, from inside, Microsoft’s dominant platform position.

That’s because iTunes is much more than a companion to the iPod, much more than a media playback program and even more than a front door to Apple’s online download service. It’s a sort of miniplatform hiding right within Windows that allows Apple and other companies to connect a host of hardware and software, and to create media-sharing networks without engaging with Windows itself or with Microsoft’s built-in Windows Media Player.

There are way more copies of iTunes installed than were bundled with Apple’s 100 million or so iPods. In fact, at last week’s D: All Things Digital conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs estimated more than 300 million copies of iTunes were installed. Many people download and use iTunes to play music and video, and to purchase media, for use on their computers, even if they don’t own iPods.

And the vast majority of iTunes installations, probably 90% or more, are on Windows computers, not Macs. Ironically, that makes Apple, Microsoft’s ancient rival, one of the biggest software developers for Windows.

Many people don’t realize that every time they install iTunes on a Windows PC, they also are installing Apple networking software called Bonjour, which operates independently from the Microsoft built-in network software controlled from the Windows Control Panel. This Apple network layer isn’t harmful and doesn’t interfere with the Microsoft networking functions. It’s designed to allow iTunes users to share their music.

Out of the box, each copy of iTunes looks for other shared iTunes music libraries on your local network. It doesn’t share your library unless you authorize it to do so. The user merely has to go into iTunes’ Preferences function (under the Edit menu in the Windows version), click on the Sharing tab and select “Share my library on my local network.” You can choose to share your entire library or just selected playlists. You can require people to enter a password to gain access, or not. You can also turn off the function that allows you to see others’ libraries.

If you use Sharing, you’ll see in iTunes’ left-hand panel a list of shared libraries on other iTunes-equipped computers on your local network, whether they reside on Windows or Macintosh computers. Clicking on these libraries allows you to play the songs they contain. It doesn’t allow you to transfer the song files among the computers.

In many homes, offices and college dorms, iTunes users have access to numerous libraries on nearby computers. For instance, as I write this on a Mac laptop in my home office, I am playing a song that resides on a Windows Vista desktop PC in another room. To achieve this feat, I didn’t have to fiddle with the often confusing network settings in the Windows Control Panel or in the Mac’s similar System Preferences program. I just had to use iTunes on both machines and click a couple of buttons.

In effect, each copy of iTunes, with the user’s permission, broadcasts a sort of beacon that signals its presence to other copies of iTunes on a local network, regardless of the operating system underneath. It makes the operating system irrelevant.

This independent iTunes networking capability goes way beyond sharing music among computers. A modified version of this function is what allows Apple’s new Apple TV product to fetch all the music and videos from all the computers in your house and play them back through your TV set — even if all those computers are Windows machines. It could also allow Apple’s forthcoming iPhone to wirelessly stream music and videos from computers on a local network, if Apple chose to build in such a function.

And the use of iTunes as a platform goes even beyond this networking ability. Small companies have released a slew of programs, such as iLike, last.FM, Mog and Nutsie, that read the iTunes library, with your permission. They use this information to determine your musical tastes and suggest new songs to try, to connect people with similar tastes, or to allow you to listen to your songs over the Internet.

Microsoft, its hardware partners and other third-party companies have achieved similar feats with other music programs and with hardware such as Xbox game consoles using similar sharing technologies. But the popularity of iTunes, and Apple’s position as Microsoft’s rival, makes the iTunes platform far more significant — and interesting.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

The issue: Viacom wants to get paid more than Google wants to pay it for all of those fuzzy, two-minute clips from programs like “The Daily Show” that users post to YouTube. The companies tried to negotiate a deal, but the talks failed, so Viacom is suing for $1 billion.

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea how this lawsuit will wind up. I suspect it is mainly a bargaining tactic by Viacom. But I know one thing: This fight isn’t primarily about consumers and their rights, and its outcome won’t necessarily make things better for Internet users.

Consumers won’t be a party to this case any more than they were in the room when the latest major copyright law was passed by Congress. That law, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was enacted at the behest of record labels and movie studios. Their purpose was to stop people from using computers and the Internet to distribute digital copies of material to which they didn’t hold either the copyright or a distribution license.

That idea makes sense. Unlike some Internet zealots, I believe that intellectual property is real and that some form of copyright is appropriate to protect it. I am against the unlicensed copying of DVDs for sale on street corners, or the mass uploading of songs to so-called sharing sites.

The Internet and technology companies managed to insert a clause in the DMCA sparing them from penalties for carrying copyright content on grounds they were just innocent conduits. That will be a big issue in the Viacom case. But consumers got no such get-out-of-jail-free card.

In fact, the DMCA, and other recent laws and regulations passed under pressure from media companies, are pretty hostile when it comes to consumers. They turn essentially innocent actions into unlawful behavior, because they define copyright infringement too broadly. They have given rise to a technology called Digital Rights Management that causes too many hassles for honest people and discriminates against the new digital forms of distribution.

Even Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who created a DRM system for music that actually has worked, recently called for an end to copy protection of legally sold music, mainly because the record labels apply that protection only to online sales, not to physical compact discs.

Most honest people wouldn’t consider it piracy to buy a CD, copy it to a computer and email one of the song files to a spouse or friend. But the record industry, backed by the laws it essentially wrote, does. Most honest people wouldn’t think that uploading to YouTube a two-minute TV clip, which they paid their cable company to receive, is piracy. But Viacom, backed by the laws its industry essentially wrote, is demanding that Google remove all such clips.

To be fair, Viacom, unlike the misguided record labels, isn’t suing the actual consumers who posted these clips. It’s suing Google because it claims Google is making money from them and refusing to pay for that privilege.

Google isn’t blameless here, either. It does make money, at least indirectly, from other companies’ copyright material, for which it didn’t pay, even though it has negotiated some paid deals and says it is willing to negotiate others. And while Google says it diligently removes all copyright clips for which it hasn’t secured paid rights, every YouTube visitor knows that this system is, at best, imperfect.

As a nonlawyer, I think these clips seem like “fair use,” an old copyright concept that seems to have weakened under the advent of the new laws. Under fair use, as most nonlawyers have understood it, you could quote this sentence in another publication without permission, though you’d need the permission of the newspaper to reprint the entire column or a large part of it. A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me.

But why should I have to guess about that? What consumers need is real clarity on the whole issue of what is or isn’t permissible use of the digital content they have legally obtained. And that can come only from Congress. Congress is the real villain here, for having failed to pass a modern copyright law that protects average consumers, not just big content companies.

We need a new digital copyright law that would draw a line between modest sharing of a few songs or video clips and the real piracy of mass distribution. We need a new law that would define fair use for the digital era and lay out clearly the rights of consumers who pay for digital content, as well as the rights and responsibilities of Internet companies.

If you don’t like all of the restrictions on the use of digital content, the solution isn’t to steal the stuff. A better course is to pressure Congress to pass a new copyright law, one that protects the little guy and the Internet itself.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. See video versions of my reviews at wsj.com/mossbergvideo.

This latest iPod was publicly revealed yesterday at a razzle-dazzle marketing event orchestrated by Apple CEO Steve Jobs. But I have been testing a nano for the past few days, and I am smitten. It’s not only beautiful and incredibly thin, but I found it exceeds Apple’s performance claims.

Apple’s iPod nano

In fact, the nano has the best combination of beauty and functionality of any music player I’ve tested — including the iconic original white iPod. And it sounds great. I plan to buy one for myself this weekend, when it is due to reach stores in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Available in classic iPod white, or a lustrous black (my favorite), the nano is not only small, it’s stunningly skinny — about the thickness of five credit cards stacked on top of one another. That means it can be carried easily in even the snuggest of clothing and the smallest of purses, and worn comfortably during exercise. You could even carry it in a wallet, if you were sure you wouldn’t sit on it.

Yet the nano, which starts at $199 in the middle of the iPod range, contains key features previously available only on the largest, costliest iPods. These include a sharp color screen, the ability to display the album covers for the songs it’s playing, and the ability to store a user’s photos and display them in slide shows accompanied by music.

Also, despite its small size, the nano holds plenty of songs and can play them for a long time. The base $199 model has two gigabytes of storage, which Apple says can hold 500 songs. A second model, at $249, has four gigabytes of storage and can hold 1,000 songs, Apple claims. The company says this slip of a player somehow packs in a large enough battery to play continuously for 14 hours.

In my tests, I found that the nano’s battery lasted a bit longer than Apple claims — 14 hours and 18 minutes. And I was easily able to pack around 1,200 songs, plus a couple dozen photos, into the $249 model, because most older pop and rock tunes tend to be shorter than the notional song Apple uses to calculate capacity.

In a second test, I loaded the entire 16-hour unabridged audio version of “The Da Vinci Code” onto my test four-gigabyte nano and still had room left over for 1,128 songs, plus my 24 photos, a couple of podcast episodes and about 50 contacts copied from my computer’s address book. That’s more than enough material for most people, even if it doesn’t compare with the 15,000 songs or up to 25,000 photos that Apple says its $399 full-size iPod can hold.

Apple is also shipping some optional accessories for the nano, including colored rubber covers, called “tubes,” an armband and a desktop dock. But the coolest accessory is a $39 lanyard with earbuds built-in at the neck. I found it to be perfect not only for exercising, but for walking around with the nano.

Overall, in my tests, the iPod nano performed as advertised, or better. I found no significant flaws or downsides. The only quirks are that the headphone jack is on the bottom, because there isn’t room for it on the top; and to make room for the jack, the standard iPod connector port that hooks up to many accessories has been placed off-center. But neither of these oddities matters much. In fact, the bottom-mounted headphone jack makes the optional lanyard earbuds possible, and keeps the screen oriented properly when you’re wearing them.

Despite its small size, the nano sounded as good as any other iPod, and is packed with plenty of audio power. Plugged into my car speakers, it was able to belt out the new Fountains of Wayne rocker, “Maureen,” loudly enough to be heard perfectly, even though I was going 70 mph in a convertible with the top down.

The nano replaces the wildly popular iPod mini, which had been Apple’s smallest full-feature iPod. When the mini came out in February 2004, it seemed incredibly small and sleek compared with the original iPod, which itself seemed amazingly small compared with its competitors.

But the nano is 62% smaller than the iPod mini, is half as thick and weighs less than half as much. Yet it holds as many songs as the base model mini. The four-gigabyte nano costs $50 more than the mini of the same capacity, but it is even more stylish and easier to carry, and it includes a color screen where the mini’s was monochrome. It also displays the album title for every song you play, which the mini omitted.

This combination of small size, good battery life and healthy capacity is made possible by the fact that the nano stores its music and photos on slim, small chips called flash memory modules, instead of the hard disks used by most earlier iPods. Flash memory not only takes up less room than a hard disk does, but it uses less power and isn’t as susceptible to skipping due to motion, or damage from drops.

In fact, during my tests, I dropped the nano several times, deliberately, from a height of about 3 feet, and it didn’t miss a beat. I also wore it around my neck on the lanyard during a couple of hours of pounding treadmill exercise, and it never skipped or froze.

There are dozens of small, flash-based music players, but I haven’t seen any that combine the nano’s size and features. These features include the relatively large, 1.5 inch high-resolution color screen; Apple’s famous iPod navigation wheel; and the standard iPod connector port, which links to numerous iPod accessories. Most flash players have tiny screens that are hard to read, lousy navigation and few or no accessories.

Apple’s low-end iPod, the shuffle, which is even smaller than the nano and remains in the lineup starting at $99, is also a flash player. But it is barely a true iPod, because it lacks a screen, the scroll wheel and the connector.

In my tests, the nano synchronized perfectly with both a Mac and a Windows PC running Apple’s iTunes software, and I was able to easily buy songs from iTunes and play them on the nano.

The company introduced another flash-based player yesterday, but it’s not an iPod. It’s a phone called the ROKR, made by Motorola, that contains iPod-like software, made by Apple, for playing music. The phone, which Apple didn’t design, is chubby and lacks the iPod navigation wheel. And it holds just 100 songs. It’s essentially a huge iPod shuffle with a screen. (I’ll review the ROKR in a later column.)

Surely music-playing phones are a big part of the future of digital music, and Apple will be involved with more of them over time. But the company clearly considers the new iPod nano a much bigger deal for now. In fact, it hopes that the nano’s slender size and ample capacity will blunt the belief that people don’t want to carry a separate phone and music player.

All I can say is: It sure is small and it sure is cool.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com

There’s a reason this was big news in the computer world. For decades, Intel’s chips have been tightly linked to the software of Apple’s archrival, Microsoft, and Apple has touted as superior the IBM PowerPC chips that powered the Mac. Plus, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, probably the most charismatic business leader in America, attracts attention for anything he does, even though his Macintosh has a tiny share of the PC market.

But what does Apple’s move mean for the average consumer, who just wants the best computer for the job?

In the long term, the change will strengthen Apple and the Mac, which is good news for anyone devoted to that platform or considering switching to it. That’s because Intel’s processors and other chips will give Apple more options than IBM’s products could for building Macs that run faster and cooler, and have longer battery life. The first Intel-based Mac is due in spring 2006.

Even consumers who use Microsoft Windows, which runs on the vast majority of computers, will benefit, because the Mac’s impact on the industry is vastly greater than its market share. Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers. Almost everything it does is later copied by the Windows PC makers, so keeping Apple strong and innovating is good for Windows users, too.

In the short run, however, the chip changeover should make little difference to average consumers. For all but the techiest techies, changing the processor in these machines will be a nonevent, sort of like changing the engine in next year’s Lexus cars. As long as the new engine is at least as fast and smooth as its predecessor, few drivers would notice or care.

What makes a Mac a Mac isn’t the processor under the hood. It’s Apple’s elegant operating system, OS X, which won’t see major changes for 18 months, and the company’s stylish hardware designs, which it will continue to produce. When you peer at the screen of the first Intel-based Mac, it will look just like today’s PowerPC Macs, only it should run faster.

Of course, if Apple fails to execute the switch well or the Intel processors don’t meet expectations, the Mac could be in trouble. And users would lose if too many third-party software developers decline to spend the money and time to convert their products so they run on the Intel chips.

Here are answers to a few common questions I’ve received about the switch.

Should people hold off buying a Mac that uses the IBM PowerPC processor, which Apple will soon abandon, and wait for the new Intel Macs?

No. If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice for you last week, it’s still the right choice. Today’s PowerPC Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models this year.

Plus, all new software for the Mac will continue to run on PowerPC models for at least a few more years, the likely life of any Mac you buy now. That’s because Apple has created a tool for software developers that easily creates “universal” programs capable of being run on either the PowerPC or Intel models.

Now that Apple will be using the same processor as Dell, H-P and other competitors, will people be able to run the Mac operating system on these non-Apple machines?

Unless some hacker does a masterful job, the answer is no. Apple intends to keep its operating system and hardware tied tightly together. The new Intel-based versions of the Mac’s OS X operating system will be designed so that they cannot run on non-Apple hardware, and Apple has no plans to license OS X to other PC makers.

Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?

Apple’s official position is that it won’t block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won’t be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That’s because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won’t supply any special software called “drivers” to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.

However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer’s.

Will Mac prices fall due to the switch to Intel?

There’s no way to tell now, but I doubt it. Apple’s lower volumes, higher quality and unusual designs will likely keep it out of the very basement of the market.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com