What is it about the iPod ??
Posted by: David Stewart on 27 December 2003
Help me out here - someone! I'm struggling very hard to see just what it is about the Apple iPod that -
1. Justifies its awesome price-tag.
2. Causes it to walk off store shelves in such alarming numbers.
3. Threatens to make it the 'must-have' lifestyle accessory of the year.
Unless I'm missing something absolutely crucial here, this thing is an MP3 player, allbeit one with an enormous storage capacity, but anyway, who on earth needs to carry around with them over 300 hours of non-stop music?
Granted it does support the "CD quality" AAC file format, but as this is available only to the tiny percentage of potential users who have Apple Mac computers and not to the vast majority with Windows, this feature hardly seems to fit into the
'Major Life Enhancing Benefit' category.
Add to that it needs firewire or USB 2.0 (which not every PC has!) to feed its all consuming hunger and its tough to see just what all the fuss is about.
To pay nearly £300 pounds for this 'box of tricks', strikes me as faintly ridiculous, given in 6 months or so there'll be something bigger, better and far, far cheaper to do the same job. Anyway you can buy MP3 players now, with 12 hour music storage capacity for less than £50 and surely that's enough to meet most peoples needs.
The cynic in me fears this is just another example of marketing hype over-riding consumer common sense, or is it perhaps the last death rattle of a computer company trying desperately to stay in business? Hopefully somebody out there can answer the riddle
David
[This message was edited by David Stewart on SATURDAY 27 December 2003 at 10:39.]
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by David Stewart
quote:
having to encode all your CDs to MP3s is a boring and time-consuming business...
Too right! but I suspect a lot of people buy these gizmos without even considering such factors!
Even downloading 300+ hours of MP3s from Napster or wherever, would take a lot of time & commitment!
David
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by garyi
David, you answered you own question in your thread starter.
It has awsome capacity, its gorgeous and it supports many different formats, including straight AIFF format.
Yes ACC is mainly apple, but you are not forced to use this format, infact its not even set as default.
Also the fact that most PCs use legacy hardware from three years ago is hardly an argument aginst getting a devise which relies on modern technology.
Come on mate get with the winning team.
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by David Stewart
Hi Gary, I thought you'd pick up on this one!
I struggle to see what the iPod hype's about, that's all. It seems for most people it has precious little to offer, over and above an ordinary MP3 player at a fraction of it's cost.
If you're a mac owner and can take advantage of the improvement offered by the better audio performance of the ACC file format and the iTunes thingy then all so well and good, but it doesn't change the basic fact that most people use Windoze PCs, so can't benefit from either.
Hope you're having a good xmas anyway!
David
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by Mike Sae
David you will like this:
Parodied ipod adsThe number you "get" is directly proportional to how big of a nerd you are.
I get about 80% of them.
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by ErikL
I agree that, as little more than a portable storage device, the iPod is way too expensive. Some of that will change next month when Apple introduces a $99 model.
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by Steve Hall
Is it the prospect of having to spend £99 to have a new battery installed 18 months after buying it?
Posted on: 27 December 2003 by Peter Litwack
Hey - We got one of these for my 14 YO step-son for Christmas (he's not Jewish!) and he absolutely loves it! The interface with OSX "Panther" is brilliant, the construction is as good as it gets, the sound is very good, and the controls are intuitive, like all Apple's stuff. It's expensive, like all Apple's stuff, but well worth the money to see the smile on his face! BTW, if any of you Apple users out there haven't yet upgraded the OS to Panther do so immediately! It's an awesome OS - the best I've ever used!
Posted on: 28 December 2003 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by David Stewart:
Granted it does support the "CD quality" AAC file format
I guarantee you'd find the current AAC formats to be significantly inferior to a proper MP3 (i.e., EAC > LAME). The problem with AAC right now is its youth- there are no good, tested and tweaked codecs (Nero might be the closest).
Read this if sound quality matters.
Posted on: 28 December 2003 by matthewr
Ludwig,
The post you link to is a bit odd as it keeps going on about what "audiophiles" do but then says that basically says that MP3 (via LAME/EAC at a nominal rate of about 192k) is indistinguishable from CD. As much as I try to avoid them I happen to know a few "audiophiles" and one of the few things that they do agree on in their endless, tiresome arguments is that MP3 sounds horrible compared to CD or uncompressed rips. Which makes me wonder about the rest of the guys advice.
FWIW I tried EAC/LAME but found the software horribly clunky and couldn't detect any difference compared to my existing WMA rips. So I stuck with Windows Media Player & WMA which works well for me in the context of a laptop and portable player.
Although, for the record, I didn't do ABXs and I am not an "audiophile".
Matthew
Posted on: 28 December 2003 by ErikL
Matthew,
The audiophile comments are definitely silly. I shrug those off since they target a wider audience whose reference is sound from a mass-market CDP. To them, the sound probably
is indistinguishable.
You're the first person out of a dozen I've known to try EAC/LAME and not find it superior to their previous setup and format. Of course none compared it to WMA. Maybe the boys down the street have a solid stand-up triple with WMA.
Ludwig, Clinton Portis and Ogg Vorbis fan
Posted on: 29 December 2003 by domfjbrown
NO matter whenever I hear MP3 - whether EAC'd or otherwise, I can't get around the drumkit sounding like a splashy TDK-D that's mistracking...
In fact, for some reason I've become MORE sensitive to this recently; I can clearly hear MD's "digititis" now, and the antishock on my Panasonic CD walkman is audible to me as well (kind of almost like modulation noise).
In a noisy train this isn't so noticeable, but walking down the street, in bed or in a quiet room, the nasties that data reduction bring are fairly intolerable to me.
Mind you, I'd rather have mild modulation noise to either no music at all, or m usi cththahat dddoes t t his when I'm walking around!
Any HDD-based portable is off my list; too fragile by far no matter how well built.
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by Minky
I just penned rather a long dissertation on why I think the iPod is the absolute bollocks but I got half way through re-reading it before pressing "Post Now" and got a throbbing ache behind my right eye, so I deleted it in favour of the following statement :
I like music very, very much. My iPod allows me to have loads of lovely music wherever I go at a level of quality (with EAC/LAME @ 192kbps VBR) sufficient to make me want to sing out loud (god forbid).
I spend most of my weekends either working on my Victorian Villa or in the gardens that surround it. During this time my iPod never leaves my side. New CD's that would have languished inside get played straight away. If I feel like it I can listen to the same album three times in a row - an act that would be severely frowned upon if I attempted it on the big rig.
Not to mention trips and holidays.
Different strokes. If you can't see a reason for it or don't like the way it sounds, don't buy one. I love mine. Hopefully when it dies there will be a higher capacity solid-state model to replace it with, but until then I’ll enjoy it as it is.
Sorry, more than I wanted to say. Bit of an ache developing ..
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by Rockingdoc
I'm thinking about getting one to replace my Sony MP3 player 'cos I'm bored with having to record each day's albums onto the memory sticks. However, the Sony best quality MP3-like thingy is only just tolerable quality and if the Ipod offers ANY improvement in quality with decent storage I will buy. But, I'm still unclear from the above threads whether the higher resolutions are available from a PC, 'cos I'm certainly not buying an Apple computer too. Can anyone advise please?
(p.s. the Sony runs ATRAC3 at 132Kbs)
[This message was edited by Rockingdoc on TUESDAY 30 December 2003 at 09:12.]
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by garyi
Prtesumably if what apple says is true then itunes should be identical on windows to the apple version.
As such you have the option of importing music in AIFF format (highest quality uncompressed) plus MP3 and AAC also these formats can be adjusted to suit needs, ie. the rate of compression.
Suffice to say if you get the bigger pod you could still import a heck of a lot of music with no compression, although this will wear it out quicker as it stores around 40megs into a cache, which probably wouldn't cover one song in uncompressed format.
I burnt a few disks for the car and on the system they sound OK, not great like but certainly listenable
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by Rockingdoc
Sorry, I was not clear. I don't download music from the net, only record my own CDs onto the memory via a PC.
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by garyi
In itunes it won't matter where the source material is coming from, you are given the choice of how it is converted into your itunes library, you don't need to convert at all, but the choice is there.
Posted on: 30 December 2003 by Bruce Woodhouse
Can you plug an iPOD into a car radio somehow? Now that would be useful as I have no real need for lots of music ina 'walkman', but the entire CD collection in my car would be nice (where absolute quality was not the issue either).
I guess that in-car MP3 players exist but I've never really thought of this before. Just ordered a new car too-perhaps I can get one fitted by the dealer.
Thinking aloud now!
Bruce
[This message was edited by Bruce Woodhouse on TUESDAY 30 December 2003 at 15:05.]
Posted on: 31 December 2003 by David Stewart
Bruce,
You can get a device called an iTrip, which is a tiny FM transmitter which connects to the iPod. You then tune your card-radio (or any other FM receiver) to it and 'job-done'
The downside is that 'Nanny Government' says these are illegal in the UK because only they are allowed to license radio transmitters and NO, you can't have one
My guess is the power/range is probably so limited there's little chance of your being caught with it. Anyway it seems plenty of people are prepared to take a chance, judging by the number that change hands on eBay for £30-40.
David
Posted on: 01 January 2004 by Tim Danaher
And don't forget "Home On iPod" (slated to appear in the next iteration of Panther).
This will enable users to transfer their Home directories between different machines. Not just documents: all your e-mail, browser bookmarks, program preferences etc., will be automatically updated and synched. That, and the release of the cheaper 4GB model, would finally persuade me to buy one (I really couldn't give a toss about music on the move).
Cheers,
Tim
_____________________________
Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...
Posted on: 01 January 2004 by garyi
The brothers page is a load of bollocks, apparantly this guy has bees in his bonnet about everything.
What I don't understand is this implication that things last for ever and ever, apple now offer a replacement battery with fitting for around 60 quid, I fail to see how people could argue with that.
Posted on: 01 January 2004 by David Stewart
60 quid for a replacement battery - what's it made of solid gold - sounds like a sweet little earner for Apple to me
There's a company called MD Battery that do a direct replacement for the iPod M8541 battery ("as supplied to Apple from Danionics") for only £44.65 full retail (inc VAT).
David
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by ErikL
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by garyi
It does look sweet but I well pissed off with apple for starting to charge for iphoto, apparently they have a new version out which actually moves reasonably quickl, but you have to pay
More and more like Microsoft everyday.
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
It does look sweet but I well pissed off with apple for starting to charge for iphoto, apparently they have a new version out which actually moves reasonably quickl, but you have to pay
More and more like Microsoft everyday.
I think Apple are really shooting themselves in the foot if they don't keep at least iPhoto and iTunes as free downloads. The small amount of income generated from ilife will be swamped by the pissed of Mac users who don't upgrade to a new Mac.
Of course, if they announce free downloads after people have paid for ilife, then they will get pissed off too!
iTunes is why the music store is sucessful, and it's sucessful because it's free. I think iDVD and iMovie shouls also be free - these apps sell Mac hardware after all. And the 'integration' is part of the Mac appeal.
Regards
Stephen
PS Can you copy direct to an iPod via iTunes and miss out the HD?
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by garyi
Stephen, I don't believe you can copy music direct to the ipod as it needs the itune software to sort it out for playback.
I am really pissed at apple for doing this.
My basic premise is this. A few months back I purchased OSX, on it was iphoto.
As far as I am concerned £100 for an OS upgrade is a lot of money, but almost worth it considering all the other stuff.
What apple are saying is, yes you have paid us £100 for the software upgrade, but some of the software on there you will have to pay for again.
Its bang out of order.
I stuck something of the same on the apple site, don't suppose it will stay too long.
