Why the iPod sucks

I hate the iPod, everyone who knows me well knows I hate the iPod, not everyone knows my reasoning, it follows.

Longevity problems, dare I mention the battery issues that have plagued the iPod, batteries in a device with this kind of price should not fail or lose a significant amount of charge for years - months and weeks is simply not acceptable, what's more if (or when) the battery fails this actually requires Apple to sort it because the batteries aren't removable, a critical flaw in the design. Apple don't cover this in their warrantee, so that's hundreds of pounds down the drain.

Update - Apple now do cover this in their warrentee, but once it has expired you still have to pay through the roof for a repair.

Poor sound quality. I don't know what Apple can get away with among it's Mac OS users but Windows users are used to far better sound quality. Virtually every portable media player (even bargain basement players) I've listened to has exceeded the iPod in sound quality, this is one area where Apple need to do a lot of work to catch up, I'm not saying they'll ever be able to match what Creative have with their Zen players, but for a several hundred pound device not to compete with a £60 device in this department certainly raises a few eyebrows.

Poor control system - yes I'll admit the wheel looks like a good idea, and it's easy to control if you've got it out in front of you, but what about in your pocket? Where these players are suppose to be? It's virtually impossible to control, another gimmick feature out of Apple.

Poor compatibility - this is probably the iPod's worst defeat. Zero support for Windows Media Audio, the best lossy codec there is today and no support for Ogg Vorbis, an open source ultra-high quality codec that enjoys mass support from Linux fans (and myself) and then it lacks support for lossless formats like, WMA-lossless and Monkey's audio both very popular among audiophiles. Apple are bent on using the fringe format AAC, with their own copy protection bolted on the side for the iPod, a format that has almost zero support, a format that requires lots of unstable plug-ins on other players to actually work.

No support for Windows Media Player - the most popular media player in the market by far. Over 70 devices support the latest version of Windows Media Player (version 10) these you simply plug them in and WMP will auto-sync, transfer media the lot - all automatically if you want, you don't need to install any software you just plug them in - simple, how things should be. Not the iPod. Apple want you to install their own software called "iTunes" which like a lot of Apple software, is slow, it's buggy it's glitchy it just isn't very well thought out. It places icons on your desktop, start menu and quick launch all without asking, it installs several other applications that you never asked to be install and secretly boots them with Windows. Forcing users to install your own software and having the software do things behind your back is not on at all, you could quite easily compare that to the behaviour of a virus.

No support for 3rd party music stores. Thinking about using your iPod with many of the other music stores, Napster, MSN Music and the many others? Think again Apple force you to use their own music store linked via the before mentioned virus known as iTunes. The music you download from this store has extremely restrictive rights, you will only ever be able to play the AAC files you download on your iPod and on your computer, thinking about transferring some songs to your new player at some point in the future? Dream on, you'll have to buy it all again, and most likely from another store anyway. Apple are deliberately trying to trap users into their own media empire, a very shady business activity indeed, but then for a company that's been declining for over a decade what can you expect? I only hope people wake up and realise this before they have several hundred (or thousand) pounds worth of music that suddenly becomes totally worthless when Apple find themselves being squashed out of the market, by all their competitors that do offer choice.

iPod symbolizes lack of choice. In this day and age this is unacceptable. If you go for any Windows Media Player there are over 100 of them ranging for double digit costs and up, you can use them with virtually any online stores (except iTunes - cheer!) you'll have the choice over which licenses to go for, which prices you like and other packages that are suitable for your needs. Something that iPod users will critically lack, and something they will in the end suffer for. With Windows Media players you can just plug it in to your PC and let it fly, no installing complicated software that does things behind your back.

The choice is clear - don't go for an iPod. It's an evil hugely over-priced, parasitic device with virus like software that attempts to trap you and limit your options.


Other corrections, or out-of-date arguments:

1980s style LCD - not even colour? Come on this is the 21st century, for that kind of price it should have double the resolution and at least 16bit colour.

Update - I wrote this before the iPod photo actually came out, back in the Spring, so yes the iPod photo does have a colour display, although it is still tiny in comparison to other devices. Again this is evidence of how Apple's lack of desire to licence the technology out and desire to keep a stranglehold of the entire arena is causing them to be left behind just like with the Mac. The Creative Zen Portable Media Center, for example costs only £30 more then the iPod (or £30 less then the iPod photo!), but also can play video, 85 hours worth, you don't have to install any software, you just have to plug it in!

No charging over USB, that's right you can't even charge the iPod over the USB cable. Sorry but that is totally not on, most of the competitor products do that at a far lower price point, very few mainstream computers have firewire ports, adding the ability to charge over USB would of cost just pennies, yet Apple cut corners yet again.

Update - the newer iPods do seem to charge over USB.

Reply to some of the comments:

From Dru "So stop your bitching and don't buy an iPod. Buy one from the multitude of competitors that consitiute the 8% of the HD based MP3 players that aren't Apple."

Actually this is incorrect, the iPod market share has been hovering around the 30% mark for some time now.

Tired wrote: "AAC, like MP3, is open source, and hopefully more hardware manufactures will see that. WMA is NOT!"

AAC is not open source at all, it's an open standard, may be you're getting the terms confused. It's developed by Dolby, you have to license it, work around patents, just like Windows Media Audio.

Tired also wrote: "Notice in the first line the word "proprietary"? Do you understand the implications of that? Probably not."

Yes, AAC is also proprietary, it's owned by Dolby, and you have to licence it, you can get licensing information from Via Licensing.

I wrote: "A lot Microsoft's source code is available to it's customers." in response to what tired wrote "...And don't even begin to champion MS as an advocate of Open Source."

I think now over 60% of Microsoft's code is available to it's major customers. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's the truth. I think you're getting far too confused between having source code that you share and the GNU Public Licence. Either way your argument is flawed because AAC isn't some GNU product, it's owned, it's patented just like Windows Media.

Hey I'm tired too wrote: "It's odd that people think Apple is apparently restricting customer choise by supporting mp3 and aac and yet it's Microsoft that forces EVERYONE, including retailers, to use wma. Are we really willing to hand all the keys to MS again?! I hope the answer is NO!"

Sorry, but Microsoft doesn't force anyone to use Windows Media, how could they? There are basically two main formats, AAC (with Apple's fairplay bolted on) and Windows Media Audio. Windows Media Audio is available to anyone should they wish to use it. Apple's fairplay technology is not something Apple wish to licence because they want to keep iPod users stuck on iTunes. Apple could licence it if they wanted but they don't want to, who's really being restrictive? Why do they fear iPod users using other online stores?

Ian writes "Oh did i mention MS was trying to sue Linux for infringing supposed patents." and "and remember apple invented it first."

This is incorrect. I think you're getting confused between Microsoft and SCO. SCO claim to own parts of Unix that Linux apparently is using. Also I believe Creative were the first out with an "MP3 jukebox" as it was called back then.

From Sebhelyesfarku "iPod can't play mp3 tracks gaplessly."

Yes, that's one thing I forgot. Thanks for pointing that out.

Bias Alert spent a lot of time simply repeating the same URL over and over, pointing to Stereophile "The iPod is normally beneath their radar, but it ended up in their labs and was tested for audio quality with uncompressed sources, namely AIFF and WAV files, to see if it could deal with uncompromised audio signals with good accuracy."

OK fair enough, so what other players did they test? Seriously guys... Hook your iPod up to your hi-fi and then compare it to a Zen. Don't just take 1 persons opinion, go try it for yourselves.

208 comments

Comment from: bryan [Visitor] · http://www.arguewithsigns.net
No support for Windows Media Player - the most popular media player in the market by far

WMP is not "most popular," but most forced down people's throats by MS's monopolistic stranglehold on the OS.

The music you download from this store has extremely restrictive rights, you will only ever be able to play the AAC files you download on your iPod and on your computer, thinking about transferring some songs to your new player at some point in the future? Dream on, you'll have to buy it all again, and most likely from another store anyway.

Not true. You can convert AACs to MP3 for burning onto your own CDs. I've done so several times. I have a whole CD made up of just songs that I've purchased from iTunes. I've also transfered songs to other players. Where do you get this information?

You ignore the fact that iTunes' "restrictive" licensing was something that Apple had to agree to to get the big 5 Recording outfits to agree to putting their music on iTunes. Do you even recall what the downloadable "legal" music arena was like two years ago? I think not.
22nd November 2004 @ 18:21
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
Microsoft has a stranglehold on the OS market? What's stopping you from installing another x86 OS on your machine? The only stranglehold is the one Apple has on hardware, hence the reason Apple products are behind the times and more expensive then other products.

Transfering to CD is dependant on the licence. The licence then certainly does not permit you to transfer it to other devices or copy it freely, so you are in effect breaking the licence. Due to the Red Book format there is no way to enforce this end of the agreement, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You are correct in saying that iTunes of course had to agree with what the record companies wanted, however other stores manage to have much more flexible licenses.
22nd November 2004 @ 18:34
Comment from: Jeanne D'Arc [Visitor]
I heard there was someone somewhere who thought the iPod sucks.

Nice to know we found you.
22nd November 2004 @ 18:45
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
A rabid diatribe with too many errors to take seriously. For example: You can replace the iPod battery yourself and there are many places that sell batteries. The Dell DJ has the same design of internal battery - why not bash Dell? There is a color screened ipod, the iPod photo. But why add color when its not needed for most applications? The quality of ipod music is dependent on the encoding but various HiFi journals (e.g. Stereophile) have consistently rated iPod sound quality as the best of the available players. Charging over USB2 is supposedly available for later models (I haven't tried it because Firewire is faster). The controls are so good that other companies are mimicking them. Indeed, ease of use is one of the biggest selling points compared with ridiculously complex and unintuitive designs on other mp3 players. Maybe you don't like it, but millions do. Finally, the incompatibility with WMA files is purely a marketing choice. Since the iTunes Music Store is the most popular source of on-line music (70% marketshare), what's the problem? Apple doesn't hide this fact. There are lots of WMA music sources - they're just not very good compared to the iTMS. The restrictions on tracks bought at the iTMS are actually lower than others not more restrictuve. You are confusing compatibility with DRM.

I just realised, I'm probably wasting my time as this reply wll be deleted. Your article is simply a rapid anti-advert for iPods. Go buy a Dell Dj or one of the Muvo's. They're OK and cheaper than an iPod. But they are also inferior in design. Check today's copy of USA Today.......
22nd November 2004 @ 19:06
Comment from: Bob Simpson [Visitor]
Considering the very young age of this blog, and considering how this post follows the FUD party line, it would not surprise me at all if this were a blog created to bash the iPod. Maybe someone from Real, maybe someone from Microsoft, but it's almost definitely a bogus blog designed to try and topple the iPod using nothing but inaccuracies.
22nd November 2004 @ 19:09
Comment from: SuperMatt [Visitor]
First, your inaccuracies:

1. The iPod DOES allow charging over USB.

2. You can get an iPod with a color screen if you want.

Wow. Why is it that WMA is somehow better than AAC? Also, which players support Ogg Vorbis? The only one I know of that does warns people that listening to the Ogg files will severely hamper battery life. And, BTW, Ogg files aren't a dealbreaker for 99% of the population, as most people haven't even heard of them.

Have you compared other MP3 players' batteries to the iPod? They are all the same type of battery. They all have about the same life span, and suffer from the same problems. I left my iPod out in the car in the middle of winter for a week, and the battery hasn't been the same since. This would have happened with anything sporting a Lithium ion battery, such as laptop computers.

I realize the format war is troublesome. However, DRM'd WMA or Fairplay-AAC are your choices in this arena. One locks you into not only Windows Media Player, but a Windows computer. The other locks you into the iPod, but gives you choice of Macintosh or Windows computers. In addition, many of Apple's competitors have more restrictive DRM, and some have different DRM on different songs, as well as different prices on different songs. As far as iTunes "hijacking" your system, are you going to claim that Windows Media Player 10 DOESN'T put icons on your desktop? It sure as heck does!

Finally, I believe you are wrong about the flexible licensing of music from other sites. Would you please give at least 2 examples of other stores with "more flexible" licensing than the iTunes music store?
22nd November 2004 @ 19:20
Comment from: Dru [Visitor]
So stop your bitching and don't buy an iPod. Buy one from the multitude of competitors that consitiute the 8% of the HD based MP3 players that aren't Apple. And find out for yourself why over 2 million people purchased an iPod in just the past 90 days and why Apple continues hold it's incredible marketshare lead.

This is the essence of a free-market economy. Don't like it, don't buy it.
22nd November 2004 @ 19:26
Comment from: Catherine [Member] · http://www.catmoo.co.uk/
Apple suck...thats all i have to say
22nd November 2004 @ 19:29
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
Fuck you and fuck your bullshit blog and your bullshit opinion. You can take Microsoft and that shitfold of a pc world and you can go to hell with them you lose class, clueless, dumb fuck peasant. Apple owns the technology world...OWNS it. iPod RULES...you can wipe your ass with WMA and any other shit junk from Microshit..so, you, Bill gates, Real, and all your other whiny mutha fuckers can go and fuck yourselves. Only the clueless buy your junk, and yes, unfortunately they are lots more of them around. So enjoy!
22nd November 2004 @ 20:17
Comment from: Smithy [Visitor]
Based on the "facts" in this blog entry...what year was it written? The facts WERE true, but are not today. Not anymore. It feel like I'm reading an old news article.
And is he trying to tell us that WMA restrictions are less restrictive than FairPlay?
Maybe this guy isn't just out of date, but simply uninformed.
22nd November 2004 @ 20:23
Comment from: Badpop [Visitor]
Toilet training issues!

I got to the fourth paragraph, and I was then completely convinced.

Anyway, everyone is permitted to have their owns tastes. But, the FACT that you got nearly everything wrong in your description of the iPod leads me to conclude that you actually HATE, HATE, HATE - a different product! ;-)
22nd November 2004 @ 20:55
Comment from: Clue Giver [Visitor]
This is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!!

That was the best laugh I've had in a month!

Wonderful sense of humor, the almost perfect antithesis of the iPod truth.
22nd November 2004 @ 20:58
Comment from: david [Visitor]
I'm guessing your have the Dell Junk Box and the iPod confused.
22nd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: shaitan [Visitor]
What else can you say about someone, who feels that a quote about killing virtual bugs, is significant enough to post on his sidebar.
22nd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: LandLord [Visitor]
Paul, your infantile diatribe truly highlights your lack of education. I pity you.
22nd November 2004 @ 21:34
Comment from: Mr. Fish [Visitor]
It's this kind of stuff that makes one think about making public displays of foolishness a criminal offence.
22nd November 2004 @ 21:49
Comment from: eponymous coward [Visitor]
Ah, yes, the "APPLE SUXX0RS!!111" troll post that's filled with factual inaccuracies. Hey, it works for John Dvorak when he doesn't have a good idea for a column...
22nd November 2004 @ 22:19
Comment from: egarc [Visitor]
Anyone else notice the crossposting between Paul and Catherine? Their blogs look EXACTLY alike. Considering their bogus complaints, no WMA, OSX crashing, etc. I don't give them much credibility.

They're just pissed that Apple's stock has skyrocketed. I won't give Catherine the benefit of posting her useless blog on this useless blog. Goodbye forever...
22nd November 2004 @ 22:30
Comment from: Bill Palmer [Visitor]
Factual error after factual error after ignortant ignorant asinine factual error. I've tried, but I can't find a true or accurate statement within the entire pitiful excuse for an article.

Are you actually that far out of touch with reality, or do you just like to make this shit up?
22nd November 2004 @ 22:35
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
I don't know why Macsurfer links to this crap. You'd think some effort would be made to check the facts. He clearly has never used an iPod. I suppose he's trolling for flames? Well for what it's worth he's got them.

As for those who are flaming back, don't waste your time. Anyone who thinks that WMA = choice is deluded, or really doesn't get that "choice" basically means Windows only. AAC, like MP3, is open source, and hopefully more hardware manufactures will see that. WMA is NOT! I wish you all luck, but I'm tired of trying to enlighten these dorks.
22nd November 2004 @ 23:37
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
"AAC, like MP3, is open source"

Now who's deluded? I'll write out a critque to all your responses later, I'm still laughing over all your mistakes.

Mostly it seems to be a case of anti-Microsoftness, pro-Apple blindness and non-understand-able ranting, or just plane mis-information. So it shouldn't take too long.
22nd November 2004 @ 23:49
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
No dude, really you are deluded and you just proved it.

Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
23rd November 2004 @ 00:08
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
...and your statement:

"Mostly it seems to be a case of anti-Microsoftness, pro-Apple blindness and non-understand-able ranting, or just plane mis-information. So it shoudln't take too long."

is completely ass-backwards.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:10
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
or is that bass-ackwards. But like I said I'm tired of trying to convince dorks like you to open your eyes.

A little knowledge never hurts. On the other hand I suppose ignorance is bliss...
23rd November 2004 @ 00:15
Comment from: chapstick [Visitor]
Wow, never in my life have I seen so many iPod fanboys...

I had an iPod and got rid of it for one reason, iTunes. iTunes sucks. It's buggy, slow and very lacking compared to other services. I'll take MusicMatch, Audiogalaxy, Napster, or MSN Audio over iTunes any day.

Better yet, I'll take any mp3 player that works with any of the services listed above and is not locked down to iTunes.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:21
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
Sorry buddy, AAC isn't open source. FAAC is "open" but it's still a proprietary codec, like MP3 and WMA. Apple's bolt on DRM technology isn't open, and they don't even licence it, the reason the iPod is doomed.

Do you even know what open source means? A lot Microsoft's source code is available to it's customers.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:22
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
Now educate yourself on WMA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMA

Notice in the first line the word "proprietary"? Do you understand the implications of that? Probably not.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:25
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
...And don't even begin to champion MS as an advocate of Open Source. You know not what you say!
23rd November 2004 @ 00:26
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
Oh... and iTunes/iPod will work with the above listed services.

Shit I'm tired of this.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:28
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
ROFL! You can't even read now!

AAC is proprietary, it's owned, you have to licence it, it's no different then WMA, only WMA sounds a lot better and has a single DRM system, not Apple's bolt-on which won't work with non-Apple devices.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:29
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
Once your done ROLFing, check out the link titled "AAC open source"
23rd November 2004 @ 00:32
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
LMAO!!!

Wow a simple iPod review an an Apple blog post has stirred up all these Apple fan-boys into high gear...

Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with my 40GB Creative Zen MP3 player, thank you very much.

Oh, and I've tested the iPod out before. To be frank, I'm not impressed with it's audio quality...
23rd November 2004 @ 00:32
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
And that iPod is the slimmer, thinner, third generation one I believe....
23rd November 2004 @ 00:35
Comment from: chapstick [Visitor]
Quote from tired:

"Oh... and iTunes/iPod will work with the above listed services."

A few years ago they didn't, and that's when I switched. I might go back to the iPod except their too expensive compared to other mp3 players.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:38
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
"Once your done ROLFing, check out the link titled "AAC open source""

Yes as I already mentioned, FAAC, which still obviously has to work around the AAC patents. Do try and pay attention.

You can only get the iPod to work with other services using illegal hacks, which Apple is stamping out very quickly, and taking Real to court over. And forcing users to upgrade to newer versions of iTunes that include "new features" to disable 3rd party applications that do things Apple don't want them to do.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:40
Comment from: stumpy [Visitor]
Reply To: Wester
Another Windows Toady joins the fray...buy what you want. Don't be an ass wipe. The blog has alot of inaccuracies. People have pointed them out. Alot of Window Users buy iPods. How do you know who is replying. Why are you here. You're not even interested in the iPod. What a dick hole.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:53
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.geocities.com/wester547
stumpy wrote:
"Another Windows Toady joins the fray...buy what you want. Don't be an ass wipe. The blog has alot of inaccuracies. People have pointed them out. Alot of Window Users buy iPods. How do you know who is replying. Why are you here. You're not even interested in the iPod. What a dick hole"

I didn't say I wasn't interested in the iPod, I just said I wasn't impressed by it. God, what a fucking cunt.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:57
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
"You can only get the iPod to work with other services using illegal hacks"

I don't know what you are talking about and clearly neither do you. The iPod and iTunes plays any mp3 from any source just fine. No hacks needed.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:59
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
Face it... you wrote an article that was full of BS. Now you have a bunch of iPod users trying to set you straight. I don't know where this thing about the sound quality sucking came from either. That really is BS. Perhaps you are confused about bitrates?

Anyway I'm done here. I like my iPod. I think it rocks in every way it needs to, and so far no other hardware manufacturer can come close. So call me a iPod fan boy if that's what I am. Proud to be one!

Good luck!
23rd November 2004 @ 01:14
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
"I don't know what you are talking about and clearly neither do you. The iPod and iTunes plays any mp3 from any source just fine. No hacks needed."

No stores sell in MP3, they all sell in WMA (apart from iTunes obviously, which sell in Fairplay crippled AAC). Apple like to force it's customers into things. WMA is available to all operating systems, if Apple want to add WMA support so it works with everything else, Microsoft would licence it to Apple in a heartbeat - the truth is Apple want to restrict you into their own stuff.

The iPod has weak sound quality compared to other players, this has nothing to do with bitrates, it's to do with the hardware itself, seriously, hook an iPod up to your hi-fi then do the same with your Zen or other.

Tired - knock of the posting so many replies, you only need one reply, and knock of the childish and insulting language or your posts will simply be removed.
23rd November 2004 @ 01:29
Comment from: hey I'm tired too! [Visitor]
It's odd that people think Apple is apparently restricting customer choise by supporting mp3 and aac and yet it's Microsoft that forces EVERYONE, including retailers, to use wma. Are we really willing to hand all the keys to MS again?! I hope the answer is NO!
23rd November 2004 @ 01:36
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
Microsoft forces retailers to use WMA? How do they do that? Retailers are perfectly free to use any format they like.

Record companies will obviously only allow their content to be sold with Digital Rights Management. Such as DRM protected WMA, or AAC (with Fairplay).

If Apple would be willing to licence their DRM Fairplay technology, retailers could sell in AAC+Fairplay, Apple will not licence their DRM technology, so that's your loss.

Still retailers can sell in any format they like, as long as it has a DRM technology to keep the record companies happy.

It's funny that it's Apple who seem to be doing all the "evil" that people mistakenly think Microsoft does.
23rd November 2004 @ 01:40
Comment from: Insight [Visitor]
Why would someone so in love with Wintel and so hateful of Apple put forth this disinformation?

Could he have shorted Apple stock, and lost tons of money with the recent jump up in Apple's stock price?

Is he out thousands of dollars because he believed in the Microsoft monopoly?

Or is he really clueless enough to believe his own BS?
23rd November 2004 @ 02:04
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
The iPod was chosen Stereophile 2003 Product of the Year because an iPod can play back uncompressed AIF and WAV files. Paul, you can try deleting this post, but I will just post it again.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/1203poty/index6.html
23rd November 2004 @ 02:07
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
Bias Alert your post was deleted for calling all of the posters here "wankers".
23rd November 2004 @ 02:12
Comment from: Zoso [Visitor]
Wow Paul, that was quick!! You quickly deleted my post on abandoning Microsoft for Apple once and for all. Did I offend you? or are you afraid of the truth? Hey, I once thought M$ was OK too, and to be honest, a lot of their problems arise from stuff they don't directly control. Have the decency to re-post my comments on the iPod, I'm sure those MacAddicts will get a kick out of it.
23rd November 2004 @ 02:36
Comment from: admin [Member]
Guys...

Posts that feature insulting language either to posters or bloggers will not be tolerated. Zoso, calling posters here "morons" is not allowed, end of story.

Please less of the hot-headed largely useless rants and more of the effective critique.
23rd November 2004 @ 02:47
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: I didn't say I wasn't interested in the iPod, I just said I wasn't impressed by it.
-----------------------
Yes, and you know wayy more than the editors at Stereophile Magazine, too.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/1203poty/index6.html

23rd November 2004 @ 03:01
Comment from: Zoso [Visitor]
You are absolutely correct, I withdraw my rude comments toward Paul. He, as well as everybody else has a right to their opinion. I seem to be having better results with the iPod than Paul does, my Zen was ok, but I have to admit that I prefer the iTunes/iPod combination over any other I have tried (several). I never had the issues paul describes on my P4 Asus running Xp and beg to differ on many of his points. Maybe its the hardware he is using? Anyhow, since my migration to the Mac (iMac G5), I have NO complaints YET. Who knows, maybe my ecstasy on this side will last forever? I know, I know, wishful thinking. Again, sorry Paul, I let other iPod lovers get the best of me.
23rd November 2004 @ 03:01
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Cathy posted:
Apple suck...thats all i have to say
------------------------------------
Oh, and I also suppose your essay critiquing a particular computer manufacturer for its poor UI naming conventions will get you an 'A' for effort, if not for grammar?

ROFLMAO
23rd November 2004 @ 03:04
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Zoso write: He, as well as everybody else has a right to their opinion.
-----------------------------------
Yes, well, there are opinions, and there are informed opinions. That's why I posted the item about the iPod being chosen as Stereophile Product of the Year 2003, which should answer the nonsense being spewed in this forum about its audio quality. Unless we have a blogger or poster here who is a better qualified audio authority, it does seem pointless to debate what has already been settled by Stereophile, eh?
23rd November 2004 @ 03:14
Comment from: ian [Visitor]
Paul seems to have an IQ of room temperature.

he associates Microsoft and Open Source together.
That's the first damn time i've heard them go together.

Mac OS X on UNIX,i can understand.
AAC, i can understand.

WMA is superior? MS and Open Source?
Oh did i mention MS was trying to sue Linux for infringing supposed patents.

Dude. go take out the trash.

and remember apple invented it first.
23rd November 2004 @ 03:42
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Paul sez: The iPod sucks
Stereophile Magazine: The iPod rocks

They named it 2003 Product of the Year

http://www.stereophile.com/features/1203poty/index6.html

Who are we going to believe?

Paul, or Stereophile Magazine?

ROFLMAO
23rd November 2004 @ 03:44
Comment from: truth [Visitor]
m$ better than apple?? and i suppose you believe the war on terror is actually doing any good??!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA!!!!! ms whores are soo funny....just like bush, full of crap!!!!!!
23rd November 2004 @ 03:47
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
Bias Alert posted:
"Yes, and you know wayy more than the editors at Stereophile Magazine, too.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/1203poty/index6.html"

Dude loose the "I know it all attitude", it doesn't work.
23rd November 2004 @ 03:56
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
truth wrote: and i suppose you believe the war on terror is actually doing any good??!!
-------------
Well, for one thing, it's creating employment for air marshals. Gotta find jobs for those blokes who've been displaced by outsourcing to India or China, you know. Otherwise, how will they be able to afford to buy shiny new iPods this Christmas?
23rd November 2004 @ 03:58
Comment from: SuperMatt [Visitor]
"WMA is available to all operating systems, if Apple want to add WMA support so it works with everything else, Microsoft would licence it to Apple in a heartbeat - the truth is Apple want to restrict you into their own stuff."

Actually, Microsoft produces Windows Media Player for the Mac. However, it will not play any of the DRM songs sold on services such as Napster. It also won't work with DRM video such as the NFL's online offerings. That means that Mac users cannot use Napster or, in fact, any other legal online music service other than iTunes due to this. Apple is not stopping Microsoft from doing this; they simply don't see the market for it, I'd imagine. So, even if Apple added DRM-WMA to the iPod, people with Macs would still be out of luck. I'd rather that my computer be supported than my MP3 player, considering the relative costs of each.
23rd November 2004 @ 03:59
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: Dude loose the "I know it all attitude", it doesn't work.
--------------------
Did you mean "lose"? I certainly don't know it all; heck, I don't even own an iPod. That's why I chose to cite an external, authoritative source: Stereophile Magazine. It's called research. Try it sometime, you might learn something.
23rd November 2004 @ 04:00
Comment from: SuperMatt [Visitor]
Paul,
In a previous post, I asked you to point out 2 services that offer more flexible licensing of music than Apple; I'm still waiting. Also, why won't you acknowledge your obvious inaccuracies concerning USB charging and a color screen?

Matthew
23rd November 2004 @ 04:02
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
SuperMatt asked: why won't you acknowledge your obvious inaccuracies concerning USB charging and a color screen
---------
People who post blogs like this are NOT interested in the truth. They want to whine and complain, and when they are then shown up by others to be ignorant and/or misinformed, they protest that they deserve respect. Respect is earned -- either show that you know what you're talking about, or accept correction from those who do. Anyone who is too thin skinned to take fact-based rebuttals or admit their errors deserves to be heaped with scorn and contempt if they do the same to others based on their ignorance and arrogance.
23rd November 2004 @ 04:10
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
Wow-

Just...wow.

You are *such* an idiot. I don't even like Apple, but I know that you're an idiot. What MS software is Open Source?

Sheesh...
23rd November 2004 @ 04:35
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
Bias Alert...

"Did you mean "lose"? I certainly don't know it all; heck, I don't even own an iPod. That's why I chose to cite an external, authoritative source: Stereophile Magazine. It's called research. Try it sometime, you might learn something."

I mean get rid of the attitude. You do act like you know everything and that I don't. But you're blantly wrong.

*Claps* Yeah everyone researchs now and then, I'm happy you finally learned how to do so, bravo.
23rd November 2004 @ 04:57
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: But you're blantly wrong
---------------
Um, did you mean "blatantly"? Hmm?

As for attitude: this is the Internet. Rule#1 -- if you spout attitude, you will get it back, in spades. When you said the iPod doesn't impress you, did you expect a source like Stereophile Magazine to show how ignorant you are? That's why I used sarcasm. When on the Internet, if you can't back up your high-and-mighty opinions with facts, expect to be flamed.
23rd November 2004 @ 05:16
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: Yeah everyone researchs now and then, I'm happy you finally learned how to do so, bravo.
----------------------------
Yeah. I've been researching since the 1980's, so I guess I learned how to spell and use the word "blatantly" and not try to pass my inappropriate word usage as a typo. So clever of you to have a "sense of vocabulary" indeed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 05:30
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: Oh, and I've tested the iPod out before. To be frank, I'm not impressed with it's audio quality...
-----------------------
Your last sentence above should read, in part: "I'm not impressed with its audio quality..."

"it's" is a contraction for "it is"

I guess that's another reason why you're not an editor for Stereophile Magazine.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 05:36
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: Oh, and I've tested the iPod out before. To be frank, I'm not impressed with it's audio quality...
-----------------------------------
I've tested Wester's vocabulary and word usage. To be frank, I'm not that impressed with its quality, either.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 05:41
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester wrote: Dude loose the "I know it all attitude", it doesn't work.
----------------------------------
What does? Your ignorance?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 05:44
Comment from: Give Your Blog A Name ... [Visitor]
Since this blog is written by Paul, who named his blog "Paul's Blog" "because it is impossible to ever think of a good blog name", we should be hard pressed to think this Paul has any creativity or just simply, an original thought.

That simply enough explains his hate for Apple, which is generally considered by many more mature computer and consumer electronics experts, and even Bill Gates himself, to be one of the most innovative and creative companies around. Even outside of technology, just look at how Best Buy and other retailers are falling over themselves to copy Apple's retail store concept.

This hate of course, could also be because Apple didn't sell an "Apple PC" and "Apple MP3 player" "because it's impossible to ever think of a good product name."

And Matthew, Paul is not interested in rational dialogue, or correcting errors. So don't get your hopes up waiting for a response. Leave him alone so he can wallow in his own ignorance and arrogance.
23rd November 2004 @ 06:08
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
"Leave him alone so he can wallow in his own ignorance and arrogance."
----------------------------------
No. This is the Internet, where social Darwinism rules. People like Paul and Cathy shall not be left alone, they will be flailed by critics until they have learnt their lessons, or until they turn off further comment posting.

:-)
23rd November 2004 @ 06:14
Comment from: Ransom Arceihn [Visitor] · http://www.the-avatar.com
While I approve of Apple more than I approve of Microsoft, I do not approve of Wester. Wester is not very good, says I. He has essentially no real experience with Macs and has based his opinion on Paul's, who is really a maddened Russian doughnut professor who shoots lasers out of his eyes and keeps skeletons in his closet.

In absolute seriousness, however: I do not agree with Paul's anti-Apple crusade, nor do I agree with anti-Paul crusades. Why all the hate? ;_;
23rd November 2004 @ 06:15
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Why all the hate?
-----------------
Because Love does not usually make for compelling headlines, unless you are a certain drug-addled celebrity. :-)
23rd November 2004 @ 06:18
Comment from: Ransom Arceihn [Visitor] · http://www.the-avatar.com
Oh and, incidentally, Bias Alert is the best person to comment here. Your anti-Wester comments are truly hilarious and are appreciated by Ransom, keep it up.
23rd November 2004 @ 06:27
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
"keep it up"
------------
Can't. Being an annoying prick takes too much energy. Besides, I did keep it up this morning, and the wife came 5 times, by her own estimate. :-)
23rd November 2004 @ 06:37
Comment from: Ransom Arceihn [Visitor] · http://www.the-avatar.com
You cannot leave. Twizzle won't let you. This is Dave. Ransom's gone. Dave makes us scared. *quack*
23rd November 2004 @ 06:48
Comment from: Sebhelyesfarku [Visitor]
You forgot that the p.o.s. iPod can't play mp3 tracks gaplessly.
23rd November 2004 @ 07:02
Comment from: Seijuurou [Visitor]
You all forget that this is a blog, not a prestigious magazine. Paul doesn't get money from Apple for praising their products, only magazines do. Regardless, if you don't like what his opinion then just stfu and move on, there's more than one opnion in the world and neither is right.
23rd November 2004 @ 07:03
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
"there's more than one opnion in the world and neither is right."
----------------
Did you really mean, there's more than one opinion in the world, and none of them is right? Let's look at your logic at its simplest level:
A: There is no such thing as truth.
B: Statement A is True.
A refutes B. This is not a paradox, it is a logical contradiction, pure and simple. Therefore, I conclude that you are illogical. Which is an imprecise way of saying that your opinion doesn't make any sense at all. Is that simple enough for you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 07:10
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
You forgot that the p.o.s. iPod
-------------------------------
Wow. I didn't know someone was using an iPod as a Point of Sale terminal! How do you enter the item price? By shitting on the person who wrote the above statement?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 07:13
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
"Paul doesn't get money from Apple for praising their products, only magazines do"
-------------
Stereophile is a very high-end audio magazine. The iPod is normally beneath their radar, but it ended up in their labs and was tested for audio quality with uncompressed sources, namely AIFF and WAV files, to see if it could deal with uncompromised audio signals with good accuracy. Do you suppose that the magazine would compromise its editorial integrity by selecting a product that will not stand up to scrutiny by other audiophile rags? It's called the "scientific method" and it relies on confirmation from multiple sources using repeatable tests. What did Stereophile complain about? That the iPod had no S/PDIF output. That should give you a clue about its audio quality. Heck, I do not even own an iPod. If people are unwilling to let the lab tests speak for themselves, then we cannot have a fruitful discussion about signal quality. Blog opinions without test results that can be independently verified are worth jack shit.
23rd November 2004 @ 07:35
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
"there's more than one opnion in the world and neither is right."
-----------------------------
If you'd bothered to leave out the 'p' in 'opnion' you'd have a real gem of a post. Unfortunately, even such mundane brilliance is apparently beyond your ken, and your 'logic' that implies there is no such thing as truth speaks volumes about your mental ability. I abhor relativists, especially dumb ones who can't muster a logical idea. At least Paul has the conviction of his ignorance and some command of logic, however flawed.
23rd November 2004 @ 08:01
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
admin wrote: Please less of the hot-headed largely useless rants and more of the effective critique.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, well, I shall attempt to provide a critique not only of the sloppy thinking much in evidence in the blog post and subsequent commentary, I shall also pillory anyone who tries to pass off their abysmal language skills as mere typos. This blog and many others like it are rife with ignorance, arrogance, misinformation, and outright lies, and they add to the pollution of the blogosphere. Think of me as part of the Blog Quality Control Police -- if your blog sucks because you've exposed your stupidity for all to see, maybe you can at least improve your vocabulary and word usage by reading my posts. And for boors who tell me to STFU, I say, grow a brain before you post non sequiturs like "there's more than one opnion and neither is right"; learn to think logically and to write clearly, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get some respect.
23rd November 2004 @ 10:58
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
What the hell are you on about Bias Alert? I'm not ignorant nor arrogant. Your insane ranting doesn't end, does it?
23rd November 2004 @ 15:32
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Wester fumed: What the hell are you on about Bias Alert? I'm not ignorant nor arrogant. Your insane ranting doesn't end, does it?
------------------------
Look at the name: Bias Alert. You have been outed as biased -- and ignorant. Biased because you own a competing product (I don't even own an iPod). Ignorant because your opinion (and Paul's) of the iPod's audio quality are contradicted by a review in a highly-respected audiophile source: Stereophile. This is what ranting is about, and if you still don't get it, nothing more really needs to be said. On the Internet, if your biases and ignorance are clearly showing, and then you try to pass off your opinion as valid or true, expect to be flailed for it. It hurts to be outed as biased, ignorant, and a mangler of English, but if you put out poorly-written, half-cocked opinions, expect to take your lumps. Can't stand the heat? Then get out of the kitchen. I can slice you up nicely without using even one word of profanity, but it would be a waste of keystrokes.
23rd November 2004 @ 17:10
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Below is a snippet from a particular Stereophile review, which should give some indication of why Paul's and Wester's low opinions of the iPod's audio fidelity are misinformed, to say the least:

http://www.stereophile.com//digitalsourcereviews/934/index2.html

"The iPod offers such an embarrassment of choices regarding file storage and playback that I had to begin by discarding quite a few of them as irrelevant to a discussion of its fidelity. That's not to say that 96kbps MP3 and AAC, for example, aren't useful space-saving options; simply that they represent sonic compromises most readers of this magazine wouldn't tolerate even while jogging. For the purposes of the following comparisons, I ran the line-out from the docking cradle (thus bypassing the iPod's volume control) to a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista 300 integrated amplifier, which drove a pair of Amphion Xenon floorstanding loudspeakers. I used Shunyata Research Lyra speaker cables and a Kimber Kable stereo mini-to-RCA interconnect."

I can't afford most audiophile equipment, and in normal use, an iPod (or indeed any portable music player) would not be deemed audiophile quality, but clearly the reviewer from Stereophile thinks otherwise. I could in theory afford an iPod, but my personal music collection is mostly classical, jazz, and baroque, so to experience the maximum sonic quality that the iPod can theoretically deliver, I'd also have to purchase very high-end earphones from, say, Etymotics or Shure, which would cost far more than the iPod itself. Given my budget, that is just not going to happen -- at least not if I want to stay married, anyway. Besides, lovemaking is much better than listening to music, although you can do both at the same time, just not with headphones.

:-)
23rd November 2004 @ 17:34
Comment from: SuperMatt [Visitor]
I read in your blog:

"WMA is available to all operating systems, if Apple want to add WMA support so it works with everything else, Microsoft would licence it to Apple in a heartbeat - the truth is Apple want to restrict you into their own stuff."

Below is a link to site where somebody tried to get Microsoft to license Windows Media Player 10 to them. Lo and behold, they refused. Your argument has officially been refuted.

http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=143

Yours,
Matthew
23rd November 2004 @ 18:58
Comment from: rack [Visitor]
Bias Alert:

I'm on your side completely, but I think people here are having trouble understanding you. I'll go ahead and translate/summarize your last several thousand posts:

"Hello. I'm Bias Alert. I don't even own an iPod yet I feel I need to push the opinions and views of one sole online review (StereoPhile) onto everyone else. Me being the sheep that I am, and having no opinion for myself, I heavily rely on other people/reviewers to set my opinions for me. I may not have any experience with an iPod but I did read the StereoPhile review 31 times, so I feel like I'm one with the iPod. Here, let me post the link again:

http://www.stereophile.com//digitalsourcereviews/934/index2.html

And just incase you missed it:
http://www.stereophile.com//digitalsourcereviews/934/index2.html

Did I mention that the StereoPhile review of the iPod was great? They loved the iPod. I love the iPod. I don't own an iPod. You should love the iPod.

Finally, my main goal in life is to become a 7th grade English teacher. I enjoy grading and correcting other peoples' grammar and spelling. Because I'm insecure with who I am, I need to make myself look better by putting other people down. The easiest way to do this is to shoot people down based on their grammar/spelling skills. Also, my wife came several times. God I'm so cool.

BWHAHAHAHWHWWHAHAHWHFHVN!"

There we go. Now people should have an easier time understanding you.

Love ya!
23rd November 2004 @ 19:09
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Matthew bravely offered: "Your argument has officially been refuted"
------------------
Matthew, since when have actual facts gotten in the way of thought processes such as Paul's (or Cathy's)? These unfortunate people understand only one thing, and believe me, it's not rational argument. That much is clear from their blogs.
23rd November 2004 @ 19:14
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
rack wrote: "Because I'm insecure with who I am, I need to make myself look better by putting other people down. The easiest way to do this is to shoot people down based on their grammar/spelling skills. Also, my wife came several times. God I'm so cool."
----------------------------
I'm not insecure, and I'm not cool. I'm a formerly obnoxious wanker who often likes to play the part of annoying prick because it reminds me of my misspent youth, hence my chosen online persona of language schoolmarm. If other people have a narrow vocabulary, poor writing skills, and limited reading comprehension, that's really their problem, not mine. Anyone can put out a blog and anyone can comment on it, but as the old saying goes, it is better to keep silent and be thought stupid, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
23rd November 2004 @ 19:22
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
rack also wrote: I'll go ahead and translate/summarize your last several thousand posts
-------------------------------------
Several thousand? Don't bother. Since you can't even count, why should we give any credence to your attempted translation?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Me, being the supercilious jerk that I truly am ;-)

Hey rack, I'm just having a bit of nasty fun at other people's expense, okay? You have a nice day.
23rd November 2004 @ 19:27
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
Why I Don't Own an iPod
---------------------
My wife is a medal-winning concert pianist and accompanist. We have a Yamaha grand piano in our living room, maintained by a professional tuner. I prefer to listen to my wife's piano playing, just as I prefer making love to her over wanking, any day. So I couldn't care less about Stereophile's opinions, let alone anyone else's, and least of all the ignorant, minsinformed opinions expressed in an unimaginatively-named "Paul's Blog". I just like to have fun at other people's expense. I've had my Internet jollies, it's now time for me to sod off and get back to enjoying my wife's very real charms. Don't hate me because I'm such an annoying prick. Hate me because I have such a wonderful life. I bid you, my fellow wankers, adieu.

Oh, as for the iPod? I don't own one. My wife does.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 19:55
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member] · http://www.dasmirnov.net/
"Below is a link to site where somebody tried to get Microsoft to license Windows Media Player 10 to them. Lo and behold, they refused. Your argument has officially been refuted."

Read carefully, they have the licence, Microsoft refused to licence "parts" of it. And considering the only way the Lindows crowd even exists is by ripping off the Windows name they're hardly in a position to speak.

Microsoft have spoken publically, saying they would licence WM tech to Apple in a "heartbeat".

Apple refuse to licence their technology to anyone, period. So why is it Microsoft being "evil"?
23rd November 2004 @ 19:56
Comment from: rack [Visitor]
Bias wrote:

"Hey rack, I'm just having a bit of nasty fun at other people's expense, okay?"

It's cool. I like to do the same thing.

Anyways, I'm going back to my Windows XP machine, listen to some music through Windows Media Player, surf the Internet using Internet Explorer, and maybe play some Microsoft Mech Warrior, or MS Motocross Madness, or MS Flight Simulator.

*watches all the MAC users cringe*

Love ya!
23rd November 2004 @ 19:57
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
rack wrote: "I'm going back to my Windows XP machine, listen to some music through Windows Media Player, surf the Internet using Internet Explorer"
-----------
Make sure you don't catch CoolWebSearch, okay? AdAware SE and Spybot 1.3 won't clean off that crap, and I've lost count of how many times I've had to go into other people's Registries to get rid of rogue keys and overzealous browser helpers. That is, unless you enjoy pr0n pop-ups. Makes cleaning the screen and keyboard a bit iffy. ;-)

A-wankin' we will go, a-wankin' we will go, hi ho the merry-o...
23rd November 2004 @ 20:37
Bias Alert babbeled:
"Look at the name: Bias Alert. You have been outed as biased -- and ignorant. Biased because you own a competing product (I don't even own an iPod). Ignorant because your opinion (and Paul's) of the iPod's audio quality are contradicted by a review in a highly-respected audiophile source: Stereophile. This is what ranting is about, and if you still don't get it, nothing more really needs to be said. On the Internet, if your biases and ignorance are clearly showing, and then you try to pass off your opinion as valid or true, expect to be flailed for it. It hurts to be outed as biased, ignorant, and a mangler of English, but if you put out poorly-written, half-cocked opinions, expect to take your lumps. Can't stand the heat? Then get out of the kitchen. I can slice you up nicely without using even one word of profanity, but it would be a waste of keystrokes."
You're the bias alert... everything you fucking say is biased. Please, loose the "I know it all and I've done it all" attitude, it really doesn't work. And get a life. I just said I wasn't impressed with the iPod, I wasn't flaming it or rating it horribly.

Learn some respect and learn some courtesy.

This is a blog. A blog is where people rant on about their opinions on stuff and the like, so you can't go bashing someone about their opinion on something you and a pitiful band of other Apple Fan-boys praise, as well as some high standard review site.

Please stop acting like you're God and leave, or say something optimistic here.

And for the last time, I'm not ignorant.

Oh, and you are quite the cunt and prick... very agitating, everyone has a right to be "HATE" you then, BUDDY.

We don't care about how "great" or "awe-inspiring" your life is, just spew your reeking crap elsewhere.
23rd November 2004 @ 20:58
Comment from: Badpop [Visitor]
Bias Alert, Keep slicin', I'm having a hell of a good time. Nothing more satisfying thAn seeing 'igmoramiouses' sprewing their version of 'logic' and thEn watching it get shredded before all. BTW, why is 'moron' NOT tolerated, while the language that 'Wester's uses, is. And again, it's okay to PREFER another product, really it is. But, is it so repugnant to tell the facts THEN state why YOU 'prefer' something else. Ahh, apparently it is here.
23rd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: Zoso [Visitor]
You guys are just too much, quite entertaining for a blog. Keep it up Bias Alert and the "gang" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAMORONISPAUL OOPSIDAISY! Fair is fair Wester.
24th November 2004 @ 00:33
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
Yeah "the gang" are a bunch of assholes.
24th November 2004 @ 00:59
Comment from: Seijuurou [Visitor]
Bias alert, you said absolutely nothing about anything other than Internet Explorer. No doubt, IE is an utter piece of shit. But you see the great thing about Windows has something called versability which allows you to to do something such as, hell, I don't know, download a different browser such as Firefox or even Opera if you really wanted to.

I mean seriously, what is there on the mac that isn't on the PC? For that matter, what's on the mac that isn't run on the PC faster?
24th November 2004 @ 07:41
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
Say what you will about Microsoft being Monopolistic, You have to figure that there's probably a reason why their products are so popular. I mean they didnt get all the money to buy other companies from some type of money tree.
26th November 2004 @ 00:26
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
"Considering the very young age of this blog, and considering how this post follows the FUD party line, it would not surprise me at all if this were a blog created to bash the iPod. Maybe someone from Real, maybe someone from Microsoft, but it's almost definitely a bogus blog designed to try and topple the iPod using nothing but inaccuracies. "

Aaah mac users and their conspiracy theories. If you had taken a second to look about you would notice that this is pretty much the only Anti-Mac post on this blog.
26th November 2004 @ 01:10
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com

Fuck you and fuck your bullshit blog and your bullshit opinion. You can take Microsoft and that shitfold of a pc world and you can go to hell with them you lose class, clueless, dumb fuck peasant. Apple owns the technology world...OWNS it. iPod RULES...you can wipe your ass with WMA and any other shit junk from Microshit..so, you, Bill gates, Real, and all your other whiny mutha fuckers can go and fuck yourselves. Only the clueless buy your junk, and yes, unfortunately they are lots more of them around. So enjoy!


Ah, the miracle of free-speech.
26th November 2004 @ 01:12
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
This is the essence of a free-market economy. Don't like it, don't buy it.

So, really what you're saying is that
MICROSOFT HAS A MONOPOLY BECAUSE THEY'VE EARNED IT!
26th November 2004 @ 01:14
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
BTW, why is 'moron' NOT tolerated, while the language that 'Wester's uses, is.

Moron is derogatory towards people with mental liabilities.

(congratulations mac users if you can understand that)
26th November 2004 @ 01:15
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
Bias Alert, do you happen to work for Fox News?

You're about as fair and balanced as they are.
26th November 2004 @ 01:18
Comment from: Simon [Visitor] · http://www.oblivionportal.com
Bias Alert says
"Me, being the supercilious jerk that I truly am ;-)"

At last!
A kernel of truth in your mad rantings!
26th November 2004 @ 01:22
Comment from: Ransom Arceihn [Visitor] · http://www.the-avatar.com
I find it amazing how many people call Wester ignorant and arrogant, but Wester keeps judging himself and refuses to accept other people don't love him as much as he loves himself. Wester, if everyone thinks you're ignorant and arrogant, just because you adamantly refuse to accept it does not change the fact that everyone disagrees with you.

And Simon, Paul is being no less biased against Apple than Bias Alert is on the opposite side. There is no-one on the middle ground here, you're all being total shits and I hate you all.
26th November 2004 @ 03:53
Comment from: Wester [Visitor] · http://www.halflifeportal.com/
I don't love myself... what the hell are you on about? I'm not proud of a thing I do.
26th November 2004 @ 15:59
Comment from: Charles [Visitor] · http://www.charlesarthur.com/blog
Ahem. What a mess - the blog post (needs clearer updating) and the comments.

Sound quality: feel this has been done.
Control when it's in your pocket: you get a remote, in case you'd not been talking to anyone with an iPod lately.
WMA: hmm, why hasn't Microsoft released WMP10 for OSX? They've done WMP9. Microsoft could release WMP10 for OSX - do they need Apple's say-so for it? I'd like to at least try out Napster, but can't on an OSX machine.
Arguably, iTunes w/Fairplay has a larger potential platform that Windows Media Audio DRM files as iTunes can get to that OSX niche. Not big, but very noisy. (You may have noticed.)
"Apple should make the iPod play WMA" - well, no, they don't *have* to do anything. You might not like it, and if they only had 2% of the online market, it would be their own dumb choice. As they have about 70% of the legal download market anywhere there is a decent legal download market, they really don't feel obliged to cater for the WMA niche. (That's right, niche. Think about it.)

Finally, not your blog question, but a comment question: I mean seriously, what is there on the mac that isn't on the PC? For that matter, what's on the mac that isn't run on the PC faster?
Answer: a good security model that underpins how the OS works.
Also, Unix twiddles for manipulating genomes.. BLAST.. cheap supercomputing..
But Windows does have a lot of software that isn't available on Macs.
Viruses, Worms. Spyware. Adware.
Damn, I'm jealous. Not.
29th November 2004 @ 23:04
Comment from: eskimofever [Visitor]
what is so bad about mac? and i thought i was cynical. at least i don't tear topics to shreds. have you ever considered seeing a psychiartrist? is that how you spell the word? mac has better graphics than pc, and that is something that makes it better. (i do aknowledge that you said ipods have cruddy screens) everything has goods and bads. i see nothing wrong with macintosh sound quality, having both a mac and pc. the pc keeps crashing, loads programs slowly, and sometimes doesn't even start up programs. some good things about pcs are that they're cheap and can run games like red alert smoothly. you must find something negative in other mp3 players, and something good in ipods. quit complaining.
1st December 2004 @ 09:01
Comment from: JR [Visitor]
If you're going to lie then don't lie that much.

Most "MP3" players only play MP3 or WAV files
Apple allows you to play 5 different file formats (MP3, AAC,
AIFF[uncompressed], Lossless, and WAV)

A full access wired remote comes with the iPod allowing you to control it without touching the player.

Windows media player is not the most popular music player on the market. It may be the top VIDEO player, but not for music. iTunes makes it so easy to update all of your songs without even a click of the mouse. Apple was the first to do this.

"With Windows Media players you can just plug it in to your PC and let it fly, no installing complicated software that does things behind your back."
What is that supposed to mean? iTunes has to be one of the simplest this to install ever. And is currently being preinstalled on every HP computer being shipped.

I don't use windows anymore and i'll never go back but I know iTunes for OS X is one of the greatest things ever. You can bash apple and macs and whatever else you want to. But... My system has never crashed. My OS kernel isn't 13 years old(NT). And I'm not buying a operating system from somebody that once said "The reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines." Bill Gates
1st January 2005 @ 23:17
Comment from: apt [Visitor]
"AAC is not open source at all, it's an open standard,"

Well neither is the mp3 format, you have to license that from the frauenhofer institute, so this point is moot in my opinion.
8th January 2005 @ 12:58
Comment from: Chinatown [Visitor]
What is an Ipod?
13th January 2005 @ 07:01