S O S ))))

[N. Abstentia]

a 512K ipod??? strange...

Yep.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1099392727069

[noddin0ff]

You beat me to it. I was walking around today thinking about this whole iPod thing and it hit me...iPod = Bose!

Think about it...

1) Both are sold mainly because of the 'look cool' factor.
2) Both have more market share despite superior products that sell for less being readily available.
3) Sales driven my marketing instead of performance.
4) Closed systems..if it breaks, throw it away.
5) Rely on marketing.
6) Does not work with competitors products.
7) Lots of marketing.
8) Serious music listeners avoid them.
9) Did I mention marketing?

Now you're talking complaints you can back up...or at least aren't completely factually wrong. Except for #8 and some of #3 (a lot of iPod owners are repeat buyers). I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs. That way people can easily fact check before they post completely wrong and often idiotic mis-information
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

[paul_pci]

Yep.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1099392727069

512 MB; Take a moment out from hating Apple and learn to read.

[N. Abstentia]

512 MB; Take a moment out from hating Apple and learn to read.

Megabytes, kilobytes..whatever. Anyone with with sense knew what I meant. You gotta quit hanging around with Hershon. Next thing we know you'll be on your soapbox trying to talk us all into buying Tube iPods. Talk about a hot pocket!

[N. Abstentia]

I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs.

Pretty bad when an iPod can produce a full 20-20k frequency response when a $1500 Bose speaker can't even come close

[HAVIC]

I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs. That way people can easily fact check before they post completely wrong and often idiotic mis-information
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

Well we all know that 95% of the population does not look at specs or even understand them. You could talk to a die hard BOSE fan about specs and they will ignore you. It is about Marketing and Brand Label, not SPECS. Apple spends more money marketing the Ipod than any other MP3 Player. Sounds familiar???

Therefore IPOD = BOSE.

[teledynepost]

I just don't like the fact that Apple forces you to use iTunes. No thanks.

I've never heard of AIFF, and I don't have a Mac so AAC is out also.

That leaves WAV and MP3. I don't have any MP3's. WMA sounds much better so I support that format. Putting WAV's on a iPod defeats the purpose, no? Besides, how many WAV files can you put on a 512k iPod? Part of 1 CD's worth?

Forced propreitary software.
Propreitary battery.
No WMA support.
No iPod for me!

WMA better than MP3? Seriously, WHAT?

[teledynepost]

All right well iPod is not for me but seriously I don't see anything that is much better. I would not get one because
1) I will not run iTunes on my PC, I do not like how it works, how buggy it is, and how it takes up resources.
2) It is not sturdy. I do not like to pay $300 for something that is not built to last more than 3 years.

iPod's, they look nice, there's nothing wrong with that, but they are still not designed to the full potential of the medium. I don't know if my needs are so much different from anybody else, but there aren't any players at this time that are worth spending a large chunk of money.
I don't need a 'digital media player'. I want a 'digital audio player', however all these newer models seem to be pushing video and all these colour screens, etc. I do not need a colour screen to navigate a directory of audio files! I do not care to watch videos on a 2" screen!

Criteria for a perfect digital audio player that I would buy:

-Uses removable flash cards: Looks like they have 8GB now. I think it will keep going up. No moving parts. Can always get more.

-Standard battery: Single AAA, or AA (you can buy rechargable). None of this "send it back when the battery stops recharging" for a $99 fee and a refurbished unit. Or this one: "don't open up your player and replace the battery yourself because it will void your warranty".

-Non-colour screen: Saves battery power- not needed if you only need audio.

-Drag and drop: Is Apple the only manufacturer who gets away with requiring software to transfer files, or have other companies done this? I wouldn't think it a good business strategy when competing against iPods. Anyway; don't force me to do something that is not necessitated by the technology just so you can increase revenue in your ****-hole online store of compressed music files for .99cents a piece.

-Physically moving wheel: I would prefer a smoothly rotating wheel for navigation rather than the touch pad. I have used iPod's with cold fingers and gotten no response. Just a preference though I guess. Well I prefer this over the 'stick' control or seperate buttons.

-FLAC support: Decodes easier, takes less resources, lossless, open source. Not quite as high compression as Apple Lossless but close.

-Sturdy please. Good shock absorption, something that small should be able to be pretty sturdy.

[teledynepost]

Oh, and Apple format audio files can be played in Windows. Just download Winamp.

Ah and iPod marketing, something I forgot. Well at least they LOOK nice and set a precedent (unlike Bose has ever), but it's obvious that's all anyone cares about. Everyone wants everyone else to SEE what a cool toy they have. Bright white earphones. You can listen to your ****ty music WHEREVER YOU GO and pretend you are pretty cool ALL THE TIME. Yes so cool that you HOLD IT IN YOUR HAND when you walk OR RUN. Don't want to hold it but still want everyone to see so they also go out and buy one and increase Apple's revenue? WEAR IT ON YOUR ARM. That way if you bump into something when working out at the gym it will crack the screen. NEVER keep it in your pocket or in your backpack. ALWAYS keep the same bright white headphones that sound terrible and if you replace them MAKE SURE THEY ARE STILL WHITE ONES. Besides, you can spend this much money on looking trendy and all the accessories that go with it you can certainly afford to be ripped of, so, SURE let everyone who also wants one see that you have one so they can steal it. Super.

I'm not criticizing the iPod here, but, hell, people are stupid aren't they?

[jrhymeammo]

Let me just say IPod sucks. I have a Nano that holds 450 songs at 320. It is good for walking around the town. Also, I dont see the point of spending $150 on earpieces for music that has NO dynamics. I tried it on my home gear and never plugged it back in. Battery doesnt last close to claimed 14 hours. I think what they do is turn it on at the lowerst possible volume on fixed tracks.

Also, stop downloading music illegally. I hope all of you swine get arrested. I may sound harsh but I really feel this way. Peace

[N. Abstentia]

WMA better than MP3? Seriously, WHAT?

Yep. No matter what Apple says in their magazine ads, a 128k WMA file sounds like a 192k MP3. WMA...better sound, smaller file. No brainer.

[paul_pci]

All right well iPod is not for me but seriously I don't see anything that is much better. I would not get one because
1) I will not run iTunes on my PC, I do not like how it works, how buggy it is, and how it takes up resources.
2) It is not sturdy. I do not like to pay $300 for something that is not built to last more than 3 years.

Actually it's Windows that is buggy. I've been running iTunes on my Apple even before it was iTunes, yes, Apple coopted an existing program whose name escapes me to build iTunes, and I've NEVER ever experienced even so much as a hiccup with iTunes. It does what it says it does, nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, I've had my iPod for about 3 years now, no problem, except battery life is always disappointing, but that can be equally said about cell phones, digital cameras, laptops, they all exaggerate battery life.

[N. Abstentia]

Actually it's Windows that is buggy. .

Sounds more like Apple just did a poor job of porting it to Windows. I know when I installed it (had to because I needed Quicktime..thanks a lot for the forced apps, Apple) it ran painfully slow compared to similar Windows apps.

[paul_pci]

Sounds more like Apple just did a poor job of porting it to Windows. I know when I installed it (had to because I needed Quicktime..thanks a lot for the forced apps, Apple) it ran painfully slow compared to similar Windows apps.

Of course, that remains to be seen, but in general, I have nothing but trouble with windows regardless of the app in question and nothing but smooth sailing on the Mac. Every time my father asks me to fix something on his Windows machine, it's like a Kafkaesque nightmare. Sure, maybe Apple made it buggy for Windows, a littlle middle finger to them, but I doubt it. History shows that Windows is one bug after another and Apple is more money but assured productivity.

[N. Abstentia]

Apple is more money but assured productivity.

...that would explain why they own 3% of the market I guess.

Heck I work in IT and own a comptuer repair business and I have to drive 2 hours to the nearest CompUSA just to look at a Mac

[HAVIC]

History shows that Windows is one bug after another and Apple is more money but assured productivity.

Actually Windows XP is not that buggy. It crashes more due to Spyware/Adware/Viruses than anything else. I am in IT and have no issues with windows xp. Most computers I repair are crashing because of the above issues.

As Apple becomes more popular Apple will become a victim of these things as well. In the last month there were over 3 security bulletins pertaining to OS X 10.4.3 I believe because of exploits people found in the OS. The reason apple has been safe for a while was because they were not mainstream, but are becoming so.

All programming is done by humans and security holes will exist. Hackers tend to only attack what is popular and wide spread, ie. Windows. If MAC os did not have problems we would not have a mac department in my office.

I am by no means a MS lover. It is what I grew up on since I was 7. I like the ability to build my own systems from varied distibutors and repair my own machine if it has hardware problems. I don't like being forced into it. I don't like the way MS pushed some of their products into the world. I think their networking software is horrible, If they stuck with the desktop it would be a much better product today.

One last MAC gripe. I guess I don't have a gripe with MAC but the hardcore MAC users. They tend to be a self rightous group who think MAC is flawless. MAC has problems like every OS out their. MAC has not better at graphics processing and sound editing since since the early PC days around windows 3.1 and Win95. I can prove this because when MAC switched to intel process the speed of the mac increased 2.5x. So processing on the PC was faster.

I will analyze all products out there by any company and determine which is the best for my needs. I am not Brand Loyal, like I have to buy a Sony TV, I am product loyal, all companies make good and bad products, no one is perfect.

Greg

[N. Abstentia]

Yep, Mac is hardly virus/spyware proof. It's just that since they only have 3% of the market you don't hear as much about it.