Posted on 09/24/2004 8:19:59 PM PDT by SamAdams76
iPods are nice, and they are indeed great looking units, but it always amuses me to see press stories like this that act as if it's somehow the only thing out there that can do all these wondrous things, when in reality it's just one of many nice MP3 players.
I almost bought one a couple weeks ago myself. I listen to tons of audiobooks through Audible.com and was ready to upgrade my player to something more spacious and featured. The choice boiled down to iPod and Aireo from SoniqCast. The Aireo won out on price and features. It's WiFi-ready and uses my existing WiFi network to connect to Audible.com and download books directly. And it also has an FM transmitter built in, so I can conveniently play my books in any vehicle with a radio.
MM
Or you could send it into Apple to replace the battery, for a fee of course.
http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/service/battery.html
You simply change it with a new, and better battery. It's pretty simple to do.
What is not brought up a whole lot in conversation regarding the "iPod vs Everyone else" debate is the dual core RISC processor used in the iPod. The dual core processor is used such that energy conservation, LCD screen management, memory management, user interface buttons and hard drive management are all done one of the core processors. The second processor is DEDICATED to playing music from RAM (20 minutes of RAM is filled from the hard drive, which conserves energy, and also reduces latency inherent in hard drives). What does this mean? Simply stated; the iPod SOUNDS much better than the competition.
I would encourage you to take a MP3 of a song you know (ie. YOUR MP3, not one provided for you) and listen to it on your iRiver, Nomad, Dell with YOUR headphones. Then listen to the same tune on the iPod. The difference is very dramatic. You are paying for a music device, and the iPod excells at playing music.
The interface, scroll wheel, display, navigation and looks are not enough to justify the cost of the iPod. People are buying the iPod because the SOUND is amazing. Small, convenience and ease of use are nice; but it's the sound that matters.
I've used both and I must say that I like the crisp, cleaner interface of iTunes much better. I do concede that MusicMatch has a better music store. The music store on iTunes is too cluttered and too hard to navigate. The celebrity iMixes are annoying too. Who are these celebrities trying to impress with these I'm-too-cool-for-school playlists? Besides, who gives a rip what Sting or David Byrne of the Talking Heads listens to?
Got my entire 200CD collection in my ipod. Best thing ever invented for travelers. Of course, you haven't lived till you have a MAC G5 to hook it up to. Just had to throw that in there. Good natured flaming may now commence.
Well in your case, I suspect you would rend your garments, pull out your hair, and then curl into the fetal position and suck your thumb.
But here's what I would do. I'd go to this website, purchase a $30-40 replacement kit, and with the small screwdriver (supplies with the kit), I'd pop in a new battery. I figure it would take me about 5 to 10 minutes.
About as long as it would take to replace the battery in your wristwatch. It ain't rocket science folks.
Microsoft is currently setting up an online music store that they'll license to anybody to rebrand. However, there's no money to be made selling online music. the record companies take $.60-.70 a song, bandwidth, administration, etc quickly chew up the rest. Apple uses iTMS to sell iPods (which in turn sell iMacs and iBooks). Earlier this year, Real temporarily cut their prices and had to restate their projected quarterly loss. Walmart sells (WMA) songs for $.88 yet only sells 10% what Apple does.
I believe you meant to say that Apple added the USB2 port to the iPod in order to access the Windows market.
The original iPod had a Firewire connection only, then Apple added USB2 for Windows users in a later iPod model.
I was referring to using musicmatch jukebox to manage your tracks on the computer. I never went to their store actually. Then again, maybe apple has a better iTunes version than the one I got? I was using musicmatch before I got the iPod, and when I loaded iTunes to manage the iPod I thought it sucked wind compared to musicmatch.
If I may, there is a really critical piece of the puzzle you are very likely not aware of. The iPod is unique in that it uses a dual RISC core processor. Source
What does this mean? Frankly, it means that while one of the processors is handling general housekeeping (hard drive, memory and power management, LCD and scrollwheel updating, refreshing memory, shuffling songs, ect) the other core is DEDICATED to playing the music.
The net result is clarity of music that the competition simply cannot match. The single processor units are forced to play music, manage power, monitor the control switches, update the LCD, spin up the hard drive, transfer data to RAM, apply any accoustical effects, all while playing your music. What happens is that system interrupts are causing processor 'drop outs' while you listen. The music will sound flawed, harsh or simply 'weird'.
Make a MP3 at home. Listen to it on your computer, with your headphones; then listen to it on a Nomad, or IRiver, Creative, Dell or other MP3 player. Then listen to it on an iPod. The difference will amaze you.
Face it, no one is going to shell out $300-500 for a plastic shell with a slick interface, if there weren't something 'big' going on. The interface is slick, the package is cool, but the sound is amazing.
Sorry about my last reply. I tried to be witty but after reading it again, I feel I came across as mean-spirited. Hope you didn't take offense!
I think Apple (the more I think about it) should have stayed with IEEE-1394 connections only for the iPod, given that many higher-end computers already sport this port (used primarily for connections to a digital camcorder) and you can get IEEE-1394 port cards for really cheap.
Certainly I don't intend to play them anymore! It's amazing that just 10 years ago, the CD was considered the cutting edge of high tech. Now the CD feels as clunky as an 8-track tape. Which leads me to believe that they might be valuable as collector items someday. I'd hold on to them if I were you.
So far as I know, it is perfectly legal to trade your CDs with others. You can even sell them if you want. Of course, the RIAA will argue otherwise! But they've already lost a bunch of court cases relating to used CDs being sold. If you can sell your old Chevy to somebody, then you ought to be able to sell your REO Speedwagon CDs!
With the iTrip converter you can play it on any radio. I love making playlists. I have slow songs, fast songs, country, hard rock, etc.
I sometimes play the games when I am sitting in a Dr.'s office. What a great gift my husband gave to me!
Interesting. Seems like a potential loophole through the free downloading controversy. I mean, I also have over 1000 CD's. I burned most of them to MP3. I can now trade the CD's legally and burn another 1000.
Do you think keeping the old 1000 cd's on MP3 would be illegal (or unethical) because I traded away the physical CD?
After Apple added the USB ports and released iTunes for Windows, the iPod became a smash hit.
Now Apple is selling a million iPods a month.
It cost Apple virtually nothing to add the USB2 port, and the device keeps getting smaller. So I think Apple made the right move in adding USB2.
I have a poker list, songs I like to listen to when playing poker (blues/blues oriented rock).
I have and love the 40GB version of the iRiver player shown above. Unless something has changed recently (which I doubt, as the latest firmware release was a dud), the iRiver hard drive players also don't play protected files.
OTOH, the software interface is quite easy. It works like a generic USB hard drive; I just plug it in and drag my music to the drive through Windows Explorer.
I don't claim to be a lawyer but so there is somebody here on FR that understands this law better than I. It is all so confusing!
What I suspect is that a very discerning ear (probably like yours) can pick up a difference, but the average listener cannot. So in the end, if I'm right, the iPod's popularity is indeed largely due to its cool case and interface, plus of course the fact that it's the "in" player to have. Also note that the quality is not what so many of these articles talk about, and thus not really what I was talking about. They rave about the fact that you can carry X,000 songs in your pocket, etc. etc. etc. In that regard, iPod surely isn't unique at all.
As for my personal needs in my recent purchase, I'll also point out that the quality of some many most audiobooks sucks no matter what you play them through. :-) And since I was buying a player almost exclusively for audiobooks, quality wasn't nearly the factor it would've been.
Bottom line: I'm NOT knocking iPod. I DO think it's a great player and undoubtedly a trendsetting piece of gear. I just think it's amusing to see the treatment it gets from the press.
MM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.