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.
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.
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:
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!
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.
233 comments
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]
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]
Nice to know we found you.
22nd November 2004 @ 18:45
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
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]
22nd November 2004 @ 19:09
Comment from: SuperMatt [Visitor]
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]
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 Woolley [Member]
22nd November 2004 @ 19:29
Comment from: Johnny [Visitor]
22nd November 2004 @ 20:17
Comment from: Smithy [Visitor]
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]
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]
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]
22nd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: shaitan [Visitor]
22nd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: LandLord [Visitor]
22nd November 2004 @ 21:34
Comment from: Mr. Fish [Visitor]
22nd November 2004 @ 21:49
Comment from: eponymous coward [Visitor]
22nd November 2004 @ 22:19
Comment from: egarc [Visitor]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
23rd November 2004 @ 00:08
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
"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]
A little knowledge never hurts. On the other hand I suppose ignorance is bliss...
23rd November 2004 @ 00:15
Comment from: chapstick [Visitor]
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]
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]
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 00:26
Comment from: tired [Visitor]
Shit I'm tired of this.
23rd November 2004 @ 00:28
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member]
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 00:32
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
23rd November 2004 @ 00:35
Comment from: chapstick [Visitor]
"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]
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]
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
"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]
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]
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]
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 01:36
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member]
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]
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]
http://www.stereophile.com/features/1203poty/index6.html
23rd November 2004 @ 02:07
Comment from: Paul Smith [Member]
23rd November 2004 @ 02:12
Comment from: Zoso [Visitor]
23rd November 2004 @ 02:36
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]
-----------------------
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 03:01
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
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]
-----------------------------------
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]
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]
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 03:47
"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]
-------------
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]
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]
--------------------
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]
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]
---------
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]
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
"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]
---------------
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]
----------------------------
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]
-----------------------
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]
-----------------------------------
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]
----------------------------------
What does? Your ignorance?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
23rd November 2004 @ 05:44
Comment from: Give Your Blog A Name ... [Visitor]
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]
----------------------------------
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]
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]
-----------------
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 06:27
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
------------
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]
23rd November 2004 @ 06:48
Comment from: Sebhelyesfarku [Visitor]
23rd November 2004 @ 07:02
Comment from: Seijuurou [Visitor]
23rd November 2004 @ 07:03
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
----------------
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]
-------------------------------
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]
-------------
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]
-----------------------------
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]
-----------------------------------------
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
23rd November 2004 @ 15:32
Comment from: Bias Alert [Visitor]
------------------------
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]
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]
"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]
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, 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]
----------------------------
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]
-------------------------------------
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]
---------------------
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]
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]
"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]
-----------
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
"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]
23rd November 2004 @ 21:29
Comment from: Zoso [Visitor]
24th November 2004 @ 00:33
Comment from: Seijuurou [Visitor]
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
26th November 2004 @ 00:26
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
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
So, really what you're saying is that
MICROSOFT HAS A MONOPOLY BECAUSE THEY'VE EARNED IT!
26th November 2004 @ 01:14
Moron is derogatory towards people with mental liabilities.
(congratulations mac users if you can understand that)
26th November 2004 @ 01:15
You're about as fair and balanced as they are.
26th November 2004 @ 01:18
"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]
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
26th November 2004 @ 15:59
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]
1st December 2004 @ 09:01
Comment from: JR [Visitor]
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]
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: dave [Visitor]
Two words: Rio Karma. IMO one of the better players on the market today with high quality sound, and support for open source Ogg Vorbis and FLAC. BTW, Flac a lossless audio compression codec. For you iPod users that have to keep music in humungous WAV format to get near CD quality (not that you could tell with an iPod of course, I pity you . Oh wait, no I don't.
30th January 2005 @ 14:28
Comment from: Ipod_ fanatic [Visitor]
19th February 2005 @ 12:17
Comment from: minked [Visitor]
Do you actually KNOW what you're talking about?
21st February 2005 @ 02:55
Comment from: Meriza skinny [Visitor]
Because the Ipod is relatively expensive to the earnings I have, I did check-out MP3 players quite a bit before getting one.
Though, the one that I have is probably not the best, but I bought it because of my own reasons - I'm a fan of Sony.
Granted, Apple did an excellent job at marketing iPod. I actually circulated the shopping complex twice to try the iPod at a few retailers...
One thing put me off first and foremost - sound quality. It is really bad than what I've been used to. I really, really (with all sincerity) wanted the iPod to work for me, but just can't!!! he sales guy tried to even 'cover-up' the sound deficiency by letting me try with a far more superior headphone.
So... I bought my Sony Atrac player. Though there are many things to complain about it, but to me, the SOUND QUALITY and SCREEN is much better than the iPod.
5th March 2005 @ 14:54
Comment from: PC Guy [Visitor]
9th March 2005 @ 04:49
Comment from: This topic just won't die. [Visitor]
"UNIX" is about 35 years old.
I'm going to have to second the notion that the Rio Karma is a superior player. It plays MP3, WMA, Vorbis, FLAC, and PCM WAV, instead of the menagerie of worthless proprietary formats that Apple seems bent on marketing. It's also quite a bit easier to get working with my FreeBSD workstation--I just plug the Karma in to my ethernet network, navigate to the web-based management system, and manage my music.
AAC and WMA are both irritating formats. Really, the lack of format support is the only reason why I dislike the iPod. If the iPod had support for FLAC, Vorbis, and gapless playback, I'd seriously consider buying one.
12th March 2005 @ 10:41
Comment from: Person [Visitor]
The facts are too hard to ignore. Apple's battery is terrible, they still haven't posted their signal to noise ratio statistics, their support for codecs is non-existent, the itunes store is far too restrictive (especially considering you pay for the music, sure you could burn a cd with music and rip it, but technically that's breaking the DMCA), and lot's of other players come with built in functionality that the ipod can either only dream of, or requires extra hardware to do. And then there's the price... Personally Apple can take their overpriced crappy hardware and shove it down someone else's throat.
15th March 2005 @ 22:37
Comment from: KRiStIna [Visitor]
20th March 2005 @ 16:02
Comment from: C:\> [Visitor]
Now I’m looking to the Creative Zen Touch. For me, the argument isn't over codecs; 99% of my collection is 192kbps mp3, so the AAC vs. WMP debate is a moot point. The size difference isn’t going to require me to get new pants or lift weights, so that topic is out the window. Really, what it comes down to is quality and value. On value, Creative wins hands down. Apple has this awesome capability of making people buy a bunch of accessories after you get the iPod to make it more “usable”. Sure, they lowered the price $100, but they cut out a fair amount of previously-included accessories. So the $30 price difference actually broadens to $50-75. On quality, I can’t believe Apple makes something that lacks in durability as much as the iPod. I know people who have broken their iPod within hours of getting it (and no, these aren’t the people who throw their iPod in the air while playing it). Personally, my iPod got stuck in an infinite reboot cycle and I had to RMA it within a couple weeks. Also, people love how it looks; personally, I despise how it looks after 1 week of actually using it. It gets so scratched up that even the best cleaners on the market couldn’t make the back of the iPod shiny again; let alone the white surface on the front. Lastly, the iPod’s audio quality is abysmal. I hooked it directly up to my Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 Ultras and even my Dell Axim X50V sounded better than the iPod did. Review after review, I see more and more people bowing down to the superior audio quality of the Creative Zen Touch/Micro.
I really did love my iPod, but now I see there is much better out there. Ignorance was truly bliss.
13th April 2005 @ 23:32
Comment from: null [Visitor]
To make things worse, Apple had to come out with white earbuds and bright colors for the Ipod, making it easy to spot someone with one...and people wonder why they are getting mugged?
11th May 2005 @ 09:26
21st May 2005 @ 23:01
Comment from: BORED [Visitor]
I used to have one, to say the sound quality is average is a compliment. For such an over prised device, the least you could expect is some decent sound - I guess that was too much to ask for.
The iPod is nothing more then a marketting campaign, and don't get me started on itunes.. sure ripping music is simple.. how about organising it?
Since when is a flat file acceptable for 60gb of data?
7th June 2005 @ 07:17
Comment from: Anthony Micallef [Visitor]
Protecting a Company that Wouldnt Give Two Shits about them.... what a bunch of Sad idiots....
29th June 2005 @ 22:42
Comment from: chis [Visitor]
1st July 2005 @ 00:33
Comment from: Catherine Woolley [Member]
1st July 2005 @ 14:09
Comment from: §t3P [Visitor]
Bye :-)
14th July 2005 @ 09:29
Comment from: madt m [Visitor]
16th July 2005 @ 01:02
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
25th July 2005 @ 15:04
Comment from: Libby [Visitor]
5th August 2005 @ 19:26
I also find your sound quality argument funny. its amazing. i plug my iPod headphones into my PowerBook and the quality is SUPERB. every bass note, the trebles and everything comes across brilliantly. whereas I put the same headphones into my big-ass expensive Laptop and urgh, you hear humming and static noises.
yea. of course. Mac users are used to low quality audio ::rolleyes::
wonder why these iPods are the most popular music players in the world? hah. theres a reason. and not 75% of the hard drive music player market bought them for fashion, probably 10% did.
7th August 2005 @ 01:08
Comment from: Scott EXMACUSER [Visitor]
Apple is notorious for choosing design over functionality. If all iPods were $99-$150, then they would be a wonderful deal. But for almost as much as you might pay for a Pocket PC, one wonders why an iPod can't do more? Why can't an iPod play videos? Why can't an iPod support music tracks other than standard MP3 of iTunes format? Why won't they let other music player makers use iTunes w/ their products on the flipside?
Apple is just a weird company. Some things they do wonderfully (the physical/visual design of most products - even if the simple and clean look is getting tiresome - is still better than most PC designs) and a lot of things they just do piss poorly. Apple products are geared towards rich, "design-savvy" individuals who think because they can get their iPod mini (how cute!!!) in 5 different metallic finishes they are better than the person carrying a newer CD player that can play MP3s/WMA files off a CD-R or a person carrying an inexpensive Dell DJ. Plus, most of the people proudly displaying their iPods as I walk through Chicago everyday most liekly don't even own an Apple computer...or know the freakin' difference between an MP3 track or a "CHEAP" 99cent iTunes track! I just don't get Mac users and never will.
Let me just say that Microsoft is NOT perfect and they do a lot of weird stuff too...but they at least give people the option to make products that work around their software/technology, NOT the other way around.
If you want a music player that is more about looks than functionality, buy an iPod. But the day WILL come when people get sick of a look and where do you go from there??? Look at the original iMac and look at the iMac G5...quite a progression to minimalism design! Where do go from the iPod right now? Make it invisible to the naked eye? Retarded.
Oh, and as for "audiophiles" and people obessesed with sound quality, there is a point, like with images, that when you get to a certain level of quality the unaided human ear (or in imagery's case, eye) can no longer tell the difference. And if you play an old Elvis song or even Nirvana in any format, that still won't make the original recording sound any better. People bitching about audio quality should just say: "iPods can play music up to CD quality....around 256kbps...and so can WMA/MP3-based Music Players...now we know we can go higher than that and make our sound files go from MB to 30MB...or even 300MB! a piece...but really, after 256k, the sound thing is a moot issue."
Apple fanatics and dumb consumers need to really expect more out a product instead of being happy with what's handed to them.
The iPod/Music Player situation is much like the one with cellphones in teh USA compared to the ones in Japan...sure, we might not have the same fancy towers and carriers all over, but that doesn't mean as consumers we shouldn't expect super hi-res screens, 2+ mp cameras in all phones, MP3 player support and expanded memory space!
Apple just sucks when it comes to giving consumers what they really want...and if all consumers are really just worried more about the look of a product rather than what it does, help us all.
18th August 2005 @ 06:05
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Chris
22nd September 2005 @ 07:34
Comment from: Prr [Visitor]
26th September 2005 @ 11:32
Comment from: Gazmo [Visitor]
20th November 2005 @ 13:18
Comment from: Chris Tallapallushki [Visitor]
22nd November 2005 @ 23:29
Comment from: Kiff [Visitor]
I don't know how Fraunhofer are as a licensor, nor mow much they charge per device for manufacturers to use their technology, but I DO know that Dolby Labs, the owners of AAC, are particularly nasty about how their codecs are used, and demand appallingly high fees for licensing.
21st January 2006 @ 05:12
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
It's just like Mac versus a PC with Windows. People with Macs say PCs with Windows suck, but last time I checked, PC has much better hardware than Macs and Windows supports a heck load of more hardware than a Mac. So, you just have people try to support what they got and not what's better.
So any person that says iPod is better has lost, that's what Mac wants you to say, that's why they still exist because these fanboys save them. Don't support iPod because you're just making a fool of yourself.
22nd January 2006 @ 03:32
31st January 2006 @ 22:35
IPODS RULE!!!!
2nd February 2006 @ 21:24
Comment from: jazz [Visitor]
Alot of you iPod users dont know what quality audio sounds like, heh.
3rd February 2006 @ 20:00
5th February 2006 @ 23:00
(P.S) The iPod sucks!
5th February 2006 @ 23:05
(P.S) The iPod sucks!
5th February 2006 @ 23:06
Comment from: Tiano [Visitor]
8th February 2006 @ 20:31
Comment from: Bob [Visitor]
9th February 2006 @ 03:42
9th February 2006 @ 18:05
17th February 2006 @ 07:36
Comment from: Ben [Visitor]
That being said, we live in a world where we can hook an apple product up to a pc, and then an entirely new world opens up. Once you hook the iPod up to a pc platform, you have virtually no limit on what you can do with it. I despise iTunes and any other software product designed by apple, which is why I went with Red Chair Software's Anapod Explorer. It completely integrates the iPod into windows explorer and lets you basically use it as you would a thumb drive. You just copy and paste music files either to or from the iPod without any issues. I don't even have iTunes on my computer, yet have more userability than most iPod owners.
Now that apple has released a decent-sized flash-based player, as long as you have a pc and plenty of third-party software products to use, the iPod is by far the best mp3 player available.
iPod Nano 4GB
Winamp Pro 5.13
Anapod Explorer 8.9.5a
450+GB of mp3 files
17th February 2006 @ 11:36
Comment from: Zachary Langstein [Visitor]
ipods are way overated they even say on different websites "Near CD-Quality" whats that? CRAP WMA is much better then AAC. MAc is looking for a way to screw you over by restricting you to their recources. Also do you notice you have to charge the battery every 2 or three hours come on? my digital camera on 2 AA batteries is better then that.
5th March 2006 @ 20:30
Comment from: ipod sucks get samsung yp-mt6z [Visitor]
You can read the features above so I will not reiterate them.
[*]AA (disposeable) battery. Why is that good?
I don't like proprietary batteries. They are expensive, and after few months, they are out of production, non supported as companies come up with newer product models. So you're stuck. Now mp3 players (most of them) have the battery built in. What makes it even worse is that with exception to Creative players, most others are completelye irreplaceable. Ipods too! That is where AA, or AAA batteries come handy. They are found anywhere there is civilization. They are disposeable, cheap!
Of course this little wonder offers 40+ hours of playtime with just one AA battery. Ipods barely offer 10 hours of playtime. So compare that.
[*]The music formats.
Majority of the online music vendors use WMA format. Guess what? Ipods don't play them. Its because they want to force people to buy from itunes store (true for other Apple products, and Microsof is accuesed of monopoly!). With this Samsung player, you are not bound to a specific vendor. Dump your music in it, regardless of the source, it will start playing. Not to mention Samung player also plays more music formats than ipod.
[*]Line input.
Do you have old cassetts? Old records? VHS tapes? Got your favorite songs or any audio on them? Guess what, you can use this player to make mp3s from ANY audio source. Just connect the included cable and press record on the player. You don't need a computer for this. Line input is not available for Ipods even as an expensive add on.
[*]Built in mic.
Need to record your lecture? Capture a moment? Record live concerts or any other events with this feature. Now this is available for ipods. You can get an extra thing to carry for around $40 or more. Then again, Ipods are capable of handling only 1 accessory at a time. You have to remove other add on such as a remote
[*]Control without seeing?
Many people buy Ipods just to show off, "hey, look, I'm controlling an Ipod, look at me! Oopss, I forgot I can't operate it from my pocket! I need to have it in my hands to do everything, except the "hold" switch". Yah. Of course thats true. This Samsung player, you can operate from your pocekt, change volume, skip songs, on, off, pause basically everything. Obviously you'll need to look at the menus if you want to change the settings, but it no way requires you to look at it. You can operate it with your eyes closed. Ipods are incapable of being controlled without looking. There is a remote for ipods (another $40 extra) which has 3/4 buttons such as back, forward, volume up and down only!
[*]Size? Yes it matters.
Please have a look at the images I have added. You can see for yourself how "small" it is. It comfortably fits in your palm. A bit cube shaped so its easier to hold. Just a little bigger than an AA battery. Its just above 2 inches in height, and little more than a half inch depth.
[*]Flash? yes please!
I always prefer flash players to any "hard drive" based players. Sure the space is small, but flash players are more reliable. The reason is, in hard drive players, there are parts moving, spinning and if for any reason they are dropped accidentally, or experiences a big jerk, it is more than likely that the drive data reader (the magnetic head) being displaced. In plain English, your fancy hard drive player won't play anything any more. This is true for Ipods and any other hard drive player as well. Now flash players on the other hand, shake them with all of your might, nothing will happen, and the music will also be skip-free. Basically flash players are generally VERY stable, solid, not allergic to simple or tough shaking, jerk etc. Unless you break them with a hammer, or drive your car over them, flash players are very sturdy, tough guys.
By the way, if you don't believe me, you can try shaking your hard drive player but be WARNED, you might very well damage it parmanently!
[*]Others things about this player.
- Body is made of aluminum (2 sides) and plastic (2 sides) (Its one of the VERY few mp3 players that are extremely well built, built to last! Even some newer models from Samsuing are fully made of cheap plastic, which most other players are made of anyway).
- Portable storage. It comes with both cable and a mini plug so it can be uses as a storage drive. Its plug and play, platform independent. Translation, you can use it at your computer, your friends computer, your secret lovers computer, your boss's (if you're allowed) computer etc. Only few hard drive players are plug and play, but most of the flash players are plug and play.
- FM radio. It wasn't important for me, but its there. Reception is pretty good and again you can directly record from FM radio without any wires to mp3 format. You can even change the region, if you're moving outside the US.
- Advanced SRS, WOW effects, detailed, customizeable equaliser settings, display mode, default volume etc. As it might come as shocking to many, Ipods aren't the only players that "shuffles" music. Its a common feature that many many players have built in. You can set to normal, repeat 1, repeat all, and of course shuffle all songs in this Samsung player.
Final Verdict:
Please don't give in to the "hype" and just buy an ipod. Do compare the features, prices. Ipods are overrated, overpriced and offers very little for the money you pay for it. So if money doesn't matter to you, all you care about is how fashionable, how cool it looks, maybe Ipods are for you but if you are a serious, conscious, educated consumer, this Samsung player is a must buy. This is one purchase you will not regret. I'm actually getting a second one too!
8th March 2006 @ 20:59
Comment from: Paul [Visitor]
Next Samsung cellphone has 4GB hard drive in it, see what I am talking about? And yes, it is driven by Windows Mobile (Nokia does the same based on Symbian), supports MP3, WMA and 3d party codecs and yes it has remove control and no stupid weel. Who the hell decided that this weel is an invention? It is usability nightmare. How do I supposed to rotate it inside my pocket?
I bought iPod to my wife. It's cute you can't argue with that. But other then that there is no other reason to buy it. Its like jewelry for chicks you know. If you have a bit more practical mind you don't buy this shit. Besides, real men don't wear jewelry.
9th March 2006 @ 00:52
EVERYONE GO THERE AND REGISTER
9th March 2006 @ 16:34
Comment from: Laura [Visitor]
While the mac may "look cute" I am glad I never bought one.
16th March 2006 @ 02:10
plus you can ONLY charge it with a USB cable, and a wall outlet will cost like 50 bucks extra.
yes it is true, itunes fucking lag!!!! i have a very fast computer and itune still lags!!
29th March 2006 @ 04:40
Comment from: Don [Visitor]
Also, the dap is sorta overpriced and is the first player people can think of. If this device is a style statement, I'd sure would love see why exclusivity is defenitely not so.
3rd April 2006 @ 18:06
Comment from: scc [Visitor]
I don't think any non-iPod player matches Apple's design in terms of style, but in terms of functionality, iPOD doesn't come close to what its competitors offer.
When the iPOD craze dies down in a few years, Apple will be forced to "open" up its music download service options and supported media types.
Until then though, those white earbuds and chic-savvy iPOD users will be everywhere, walking aimlessly and amazed by the "click wheel".
Pity them, for they know not that they are idiots.
4th April 2006 @ 14:13
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Windows > Mac
Mac OS = Computing for dummies...
28th April 2006 @ 04:05
Comment from: Zimbo 4 real [Visitor]
The only good things about ipods are that u can hold so much musik on them.However the longetivity of the ipod battery sucks.You cant also see your musik if u put t in another computer.Why is apple so into too much copyright??Also the the ipod doesnt support formats and doesnt support media player which is much better than the wack ass itunes.
I own an ipod video and the settings for the video arent that good.I also own a psp and the video settings are far much better.
peace
27th May 2006 @ 10:21
Comment from: anthropisces [Visitor]
18th June 2006 @ 03:09
Comment from: ace [Visitor]
26th June 2006 @ 02:34
Comment from: Ed [Visitor]
£166 + postage for repairs? That's just bullcrap I was just playing the damn thing, and it froze up, giving me a stupid "Sick iPod" icon. No amount of resetting or formatting could make it go away.
I'm going to have a great time taking a hammer to it.
/goes off to buy a Creative Zen
13th July 2006 @ 14:13
Comment from: scottcc@mail.com [Visitor]
18th July 2006 @ 19:53
Comment from: upsidedownfaceboy [Visitor]
28th August 2006 @ 11:27
Comment from: Julian Chow [Visitor]
Now we know that Creative did invent the "click wheel" interface and Apple has admitted to ripping Creative off.
30th August 2006 @ 12:45
Comment from: joseph [Visitor]
31st August 2006 @ 22:42
Comment from: kld [Visitor]
My main complaint is how un-userfriendly it is!
1. The user manual is more like a fold-up paper condom to illustrate the fact that you just got fucked. There is absolutely no documentation for itunes (which you need) or the basic functions of the ipod. If you need support your call is transfered to India where you will speak to Rapsanjanniedada and he will not understand you as you will not understand him.
2. If you buy a digital camera or mobile phone you can plug it in your computer and drag and drop files so why can't you do this with the ipod? To transfer songs or any other files you must use itunes which is so cryptic and un-userfriendly. Any other generic portable music player likley allows drag and drop file transfer and then you are done and listening to music instead of using your credit card to buy it.
3. Ipods are anything BUT quick and easy to use.
4th October 2006 @ 03:00
Comment from: Douglas Gann [Visitor]
Each time, you loose everything. Every playlist you've carefully constructed, all the songs you've collected. This was fine and well when I pods were 5 gigs. Unless you have the 60 free gigs to keep a nice perfect mirror of your ipod, every device failure is a mounting pain in the ass. And given the 5th gen failure rates this is just getting to be to much.
Until I got my Ipod, I used to think Apple products were for people with more money than sense. Now I'm quite sure of this.
5th October 2006 @ 20:24
Comment from: Mongo Johnson [Visitor]
I work with the most hardcore Mac zealot still in existence. And, I have a Darth Vader-like anti-Apple running a PC based MP3.
I rue the day they heard I was poking around into MP3 . . .
I JUST want to ride my bike and run some music and podcasts to kill the long rides(mainly to keep work out of my head.)
I was all set to get a freakin' CD player to ride with. Also, wanted to listen to hockey and found lots of AM radios that sucked . . .
So, I bumble into the idea of MP3 . . . Hmmm.
Yet NO players, but one cheesy one, play AM.
Then, it's on to figuring out formats. Having had the 1.5 generation classic Mac up through a 9600 workstation, I have a soft spot in my heart for 'em--even after OS and hardware changes that FORCED users to upgrade, blah, blah. But, true, and they bash Mr. Gates.
Anyway, the Mac PC wars of the 90s are MOOT. Photoshop works on both yadda-yadda.
Now, though I find a range of non-Mac players with more build in features but lacking a good stable of truly integrated FM transmitters etc. See Podfreg, spiffy.
Reluctantly, I find myself leaning toward the 'Pod. But the whole ITune Microsoft-like thing bugs me. The not easily transfering files or cleaning the box etc. and limited machines bugs me.
The expence of an Ipod comptable FM transmitter, that's spiffy as heck but 30-50% more than one that'd work with any of the PC side.
Initial cost, WOW. A 4 gig nana is 199 and no FM tuner . . .
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y79B2/ref=pd_cp_e_title/104-1022144-6897568?ie=UTF8
But a nice box.
A new Zen V costs $168
http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Portable-Media-Player-Black/dp/B000IBNXX2/sr=1-3/qid=1160454791/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-1022144-6897568?ie=UTF8&s=electronics
Soooo, many ad's preach 'looks cool' or 'you'll be cool' -- yeah, think differently like all the other guys who buy our stuff!
Whoops. Just angry at all the hype. Whew.
Reiews on CNET are decent, Amazon too. Just tired of having to read between the lines on formats, subscription hassles, battery live.
Hmmm, maybe I'll just get a passe one or two gig'er and go ride my bike!
10th October 2006 @ 04:38
Comment from: Mongo Johnson [Visitor]
10th October 2006 @ 04:39
Comment from: Mongo Johnson [Visitor]
10th October 2006 @ 05:07
Comment from: DeathToIPod [Visitor]
There is less distortion than MP3 with twice the bitrate which means more enjoyment in terms of sound quality and battery life. And SonicStage isn't too much trouble to use, either.
29th October 2006 @ 06:39
Comment from: Bob [Visitor]
19th November 2006 @ 19:39
Comment from: wow [Visitor]
what a loser
6th January 2007 @ 19:23
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
I have one for a year, while my girlfriend has a zen....oh Im jealous. They said that Microsoft was misusing their monopoly....maybe, but what Apple is doing now....!?! Its far and far worse.
You HAVE to install iTunes (really louzy software, almost any media player is superior) to even install new firmware for your iPod!
And something else, somewhere in the latest firmware update they REMOVED the alarm function....Why would you remove a function that was actually pretty handy? Stupid.
And now listen this: My pc doenst recognize my iPod anymore for some reason. I go to the Apple shop, and they tell me I get no support because I use Winamp to sync my iPod!
OMG APPLE SUCKS!
Please buy a windows pc, buy a Creative Zen or some other normal mp3-player which is plug-&-play with all formats & software...
29th January 2007 @ 15:07
Comment from: Abdul Malik Mansoor [Visitor]
I dont know about battery life,licensing,supporting multiple formats etc..
All i know is that ipod's music quality is huge dissapointment..
i wonder why ipod gets so much hype..
I heard sony mp3 player...ipod just does'nt come anyway close to it
20th March 2007 @ 12:51
Comment from: Ignacio [Visitor]
8th April 2007 @ 21:31
Comment from: mk [Visitor]
At this point, I’m starting to get the feel that this is a bit of a ‘ride’. Oh, well, already spent 40% more for an ipod than I could have gotten a traditional MP3 Player, why not just see where all this goes. This will CERTAINLY be getting better, right? Well….there is a gentle little surprise in every step. Got another machine? Guess what? You can only use your itunes / ipod from one Machine. I guess that has something to do with the software having so much input for you. After all you don’t really think you can manage your file yourself. Silly human. But, I thought this was good stuff. When does the good come? So far, to listen to music files, we’ve spent more money, more time, more effort, and have become more restricted by the device.
But I’ve seen the marketing gags, and they have implied extreme superiority, and this is good stuff, right? Whatever.
Now, buy some tunes. Oh, you can’t listen to the tune you purchased for your ipod on a CD. You may want to put that in your car, home stereo, or some other place that itunes can’t control. You just paid for and bought the tune, you don’t really think you could own it did you. Silly human, that is why we made the m4p file. What a load of crap. Oh well, it’s already been purchased. Don’t fret over it. Just scratch that off as more money down the tubes, thanks all be to itunes.
Change to another machine, now your really screwed. No wait, everyone in the world is a software guru now day’s, so itunes has made it where you get to exercise those Computer Science Masters geek skills to finally be challenged with figuring out yet another layer of complexity when determining your ipod backup files. That may not be authorized for content you thought you purchased from itunes either, after all you have to let Apple decide what you can do with that file. Don’t perform a sync, or you will loss your content never to be found again.
All of this is really strange to me after using MP3 Players for years, with very simplistic ease. Just move what you want to listen to onto the device, and go. Your device crap out, get another one, put the files on that one. Works every time. Changing machines? Just move the files to the other machine. No need in worrying that your free software will have any grief with the move.
Now, what was supposed to be so grand about ipod? Haha now I remember…it had a cute slim case, and good marketing. That makes it absolutely worth all the trouble and time wasted. Not!
Personally, I will never get rid of my ipod. It will always be more valuable to me crumpled up in a tiny wad of wrinkled metal, and chard plastic, as a trophy, or a solid, sound reminder that you can’t believe everything marketing tries to sell you.
For some reason, I started to believe the hype. Gave it a chance, over, and over, and over. Well…..never again.
30th April 2007 @ 05:23
Comment from: Cowon [Visitor]
Apple likes using DUMBED DOWN TECHNOLOGY. There going down soon as a result!
5th May 2007 @ 03:50
29th May 2007 @ 11:56
Comment from: mrbouboba [Visitor]
3rd August 2007 @ 14:18
Comment from: Yamborghini [Visitor]
4th August 2007 @ 13:19
Comment from: Tara [Visitor]
I can hardly believe you failed to mention the shitty headphones. White, for a start, so everybody knows you have an iPod, which they probably do already because of the difficulty of changing songs whilst it is in your pocket.
iTunes does ask if you want shortcuts on your desktop, start and quicklaunch, its just one of those already ticked boxes on the set-up menu, and you can untick it, Apple are just benefiting off the fact that they know people never read license agreements and terms and conditions.
And since when has an iPod not charged when connected to your computer???
18th August 2007 @ 02:23
5th September 2007 @ 21:23
20th September 2007 @ 12:58
Comment from: yea [Visitor]
2nd November 2007 @ 01:36
Comment from: Apple Is Horrible [Visitor]
5th November 2007 @ 18:32
Comment from: aPPLES [Visitor]
8th December 2007 @ 13:59
Comment from: tom [Visitor]
20th December 2007 @ 01:59
Comment from: thomas [Visitor]
this is the same fuckin ting as fuckin stealing
i HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEE
IPODS THE ARE SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
GOD DAMM FUCKING CCCCCCCCCC RRRRRRR- AAAAAAAAA PPPPPPPPP
31st December 2007 @ 23:09
All I know now is that I am NEVER going to make the mistake of buying a non-USM or non-MSC device. No drivers means no hassle, that's the way things should be. Drag and drop in a file browser - pure and simple. I'm sick of hardware vendors shoving their software down my throat. That's why I've abandoned Windows.
4th January 2008 @ 23:57
Comment from: Akatsuki [Visitor]
5th January 2008 @ 20:44
Comment from: the Truth [Visitor]
You know why you hate the iPod? Because you hate Apple. Because they make a nice shiny product that doesn't break and works how it's advertised and does so in a n00b friendly way while reserving a modest amount of customizability. Because they are popular and you are some nerd that can't rap your head around anything that isn't worthy of the title underdog. I bet you use some obscure Linux distro that runs mostly from the command line and loath every type of music but vague indie bands that no one in their right mind has ever heard of or will ever listen to.
Apple's only big mistake is the one corporate giants are forced into, DRM'ing. The only things that disappointed me about my Nano 2G and my brand new iPod Classic was that I couldn't install a custom firmware and the lack of a built in tweekable equalizer, but considering the sound quality is almost better than my PC's Audigy 2 ZS playing the same music, I'm not too irked.
Another few things, who cares about WMA? It compares equally or sucks *badly* compared to recent revisions of MP3 and the almighty AAC. AAC is not a "fringe format," OGG Vorbis, however, *is.* ACC has a better compression to quality than any of what you have listed, and you even bringing up OGG vorbis easily identifies you as someone who is hell bent on hating anything that isn't obscure. To make matters worse you actualy care about lossless, oh yeah, like anyone wants to fill their portable up with 20+ meg music files, right...
As for the iPod's control system, it's not meant for people with *cerebral palsy.* As you obviously must have if you have any problem with it. You're just infuriated that something so simple could work so damn well and you curse Apple for it, typical Linux user attitude. Sure, the old iPods had some control issues, but show me one full featured player that didn't and I will use a mirror to show you a liar.
Windows Media Player? The most popular player? God, that is the most craptastic thing in your whole bloody rant, it basically negates anything else you said just by showing how full of yourself you are. I'd say it's split between WinAmp and iTunes, in fact, I don't know anyone personally that doesn't use one or the other, despite Win Media Player shipping with every copy of Windows. No one uses it, it's a bloated piece of crap, another failed attempted at MS trying to copy from people that actually know what the heck they are doing.
I'd also like to point out that MS is *not in any way* an advocate of open source, Apple has them beat six ways till sunday in that aspect as well with OS X, even if their players are DRMed to hell and back. But *AT LEAST* Apple wont ban you from their services for modding or hacking their hardware, unlike Microsoft, who will ban you from XBox live for just about any personal change made to their console.
I'm not even going to go over the rest of what is wrong with this weak rant, here is a suggestion, how about you just put a long strike out thru all the text on this page and find something more damning to whine about instead of going on about something you *obviously* don't know jack about.
19th January 2008 @ 08:27
Comment from: John [Visitor]
24th January 2008 @ 16:54
Comment from: anonymous_guy [Visitor]
I got a Master degree in computer science.
I have been a software engineer for 5 years.
I got the first iPod as Xmas gift from my boss on 2005.
I got the 2nd iPod as Xmas gift from my boss on 2007.
I still didn't figure out how to use any of them yet.
I tried really hard on the 2nd time, since I don't want the money just got wasted. Still no luck.
...
31st January 2008 @ 19:09
Comment from: hell_raiser [Visitor]
19th April 2008 @ 23:08
Comment from: daryman [Visitor]
4th May 2008 @ 09:04
Comment from: me [Visitor]
6th June 2008 @ 23:52
Comment from: Borg [Visitor]
14th July 2008 @ 22:12
Comment from: I hate the iPod [Visitor]
However Microsoft's conventions are not much better. Beyond bearable compared to apple, but still abominable
We need an open source mp3 player. Preferably one that supports more than just mp3, and doesn't have this simple shit shoved down our throats.
5th August 2008 @ 03:04
Comment from: xedxer [Visitor]
Want a good-sounding codec? MINIDISC!
Want long battery life? MINIDISC!
Don't want to lose your tunes if the player crashes?
Take out the disc!
You can record with a mike, an analog or digital line in, edit WITHOUT a computer, go as slow as 64 kb/s or as fast as 1.4 Mb/s (HiMD), the discs are cheap, and virtually indestructable.
OK, if it REALLY comes down to audio quality, why are so many "sound experts" jamming stuff into the iPod at bitrates that could destroy a 20 Hz. pure sine wave?
I HAVE tried them all, and have decided to go with what sounds best, whether it is "cool" or "fashionable" or not...I think everyone else should, too! Please your EARS, that IS why you buy a player, isn't it? ISN'T IT? I get a lot of weird stares when jogging because I choose to wear full-sized studio monitor headphones tied to a MD player...but SO WHAT!
IF the alternative is to "fit in" with the crowd, then suffer horrid sound quality...no thanks!
ALL the computer outfits are guilty of proprietary
greed, including Sony...but I bought their product because it does what I want. Opinions are fine, facts are even better, but I've seen a lot more BS than either one in this line of belly-aching.
If you don't like what Apple or MS or anybody else makes...build your own, or figure out how to shrink a reel-to-reel studio recorder to pocket size, bedeck it with rhinestones, run it on penlight cells...and still get the audio quality...GOOD LUCK!
22nd September 2008 @ 23:26
Comment from: iPod homo [Visitor]
21st December 2008 @ 05:54
Comment from: engineer [Visitor]
23rd December 2008 @ 14:20
Comment from: Dougal [Visitor]
[1]Clickwheel is so simple to use
[2]iPod is beautiful by its simplicity
[3]Simple navigation through its menus
[4](Almost) 1 standard of accesories
[5]Syncing with itunes is simple
I have had other portable MP3 players in the past and since i bought my first iPod around 3 years ago i realised why there is such a hype about iPod . Its because it simply is the best . Since i got my first iPod , we now have 4 Apple ipods at home .
19th January 2009 @ 20:09
Comment from: bob [Visitor]
21st January 2009 @ 22:38
Comment from: ole [Visitor]
27th March 2009 @ 20:57
Comment from: Superior Genius [Visitor]
I hate ipod very much. It does not matter to me what the facts are, and what are inaccuracies. I am not satisfied with the ipod because of its compulsion to be used iwth itunes, its useless user interface, and bad sound quality. Not even the price is likeable. What else remains in ipod to like? Zilch, nothing, nada.
22nd June 2009 @ 20:13
Comment from: Karen [Visitor]
12th August 2009 @ 17:04
Comment from: ipod sucks [Visitor]
I have 1000's of music files and have already organised it the way I want them to be played and stored. But Apple thinks they are smart and I am stupid and I will have to obey to their command and iTunes will manage my music files.
That SUCKS. I hope I had never bought this silly toy.
My Nokia phone does a better job.
15th August 2009 @ 19:00
Comment from: Rosie [Visitor]
This is because AAC cuts of the highest and lowest frequencies, to make the file size smaller.
Anyone who appreciates music wants to hear it in the best quality available. So WMA files are larger, but higher quality.
If you listen to simplistic music without depth or dynamics, then AAC is fine for you, but if you like an array of different genres, any of which are in any way complex, then WMA is for you.
29th January 2010 @ 04:41
Comment from: Marjan [Visitor]
1st February 2010 @ 12:02
Comment from: Andrew [Visitor]
Second. the poor sound quality is because of your headphones. idiot. no the ipod
third. why would you control your ipod when its in your pocket. theres no point. and. if you dont want it doing random stuff when its in your pocket... LOCK IT!! thats why its there!
fourth just because other music stores cant import directly doesnt mean you cant take 5 minutes to drag the files over
last, the ipods are priced fine. the 32 gig iphone is gonna be expensive. get a damn job
2nd February 2010 @ 16:10
Comment from: D.I.Y_Death [Visitor]
The buttons are incredibly fragile, within the first month of normal use the hold button had already broken, in -10C weather the ipod tends to get "too cold" and refuses to work until reset and warmed up and lastly adding a moving, spinning hardrive to a "mp3" player is absolutely stupid and I paid for it. The hardrive's moving pieces broke and now I have a $400 paper weight that occasionally displays a red "X".
All in all the new generation ipods seem to be cheaper and less reliable then their somewhat buggy older generations.
If you're in the market for a mp3 player and for some reason need 160 gigs of space and don't intend to move your device I recommend a 160g ipod classic. If you're in the mood for a well constructed, somewhat cheap, plug and play style device I suggest you look into the Zen, Mosaic or a few other of the other products that compete with Apple.
30th March 2010 @ 20:32
Comment from: Michael Yeoman [Visitor]
15th July 2010 @ 05:51
Comment from: Bruce [Visitor]
19th July 2010 @ 13:06
Comment from: Ann [Visitor]
4th January 2011 @ 16:37
Comment from: todd [Visitor]
5th January 2011 @ 01:42
Comment from: yo [Visitor]
my ipone broke and mi mom got me a galaxy phone!
4th February 2011 @ 03:13
Comment from: John [Visitor]
9th February 2011 @ 02:10
Comment from: a dissatisfied Apple customer. [Visitor]
19th March 2011 @ 12:09
Comment from: ipod really does suck [Visitor]
22nd April 2011 @ 04:05
Comment from: Karynne [Visitor]
Now, I'm trying to find something comparable to an ipod, because I'm done with apple.
8th July 2011 @ 15:44
Comment from: non ipod disliker and non user of any of old present and future ones [Visitor]
have a great day everybody
24th October 2011 @ 13:50
Comment from: Him [Visitor]
5th January 2012 @ 05:07
Comment from: T73 [Visitor]
I have to say that really though it isn't just Apple, it's also the whole strange way that media files are managed generally. I just don't see why it suddenly all goes weird just because it is music.
20th January 2012 @ 21:52
Comment from: UwishUwhereMe [Visitor]
3rd May 2012 @ 17:02
21st November 2004 23:18:47, 1647 words, 19926 views 




