This just ain't Apples week.

[markw]

First, that battery thing comes to light. Now this...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...&cvqh=itn_ipod

Actually, This was the main reason I went with a Sandisk player. I don't like being "coerced" into using only one supplier.

[paul_pci]

First, that battery thing comes to light. Now this...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...&cvqh=itn_ipod

Actually, This was the main reason I went with a Sandisk player. I don't like being "coerced" into using only one supplier.

Your reason is pretty lame considering we're "coerced' into using one supplier for many of life's resources, services, and products. Like Microsoft hasn't asserted a long time monopoly over IE or their media files. Sychronization of sofware and hadware is not coercion. There is no proprietary monopoly here. I can take music from any commerical service, legal or not, and import files into iTunes and go from there. This is a non problem. The French should probably focus their efforts on eating less cheese and smoking less.

[N. Abstentia]

The more I find out about iPods the more I'm glad I got a Sansa too!

[markw]

Your reason is pretty lame considering we're "coerced' into using one supplier for many of life's resources, services, and products. Like Microsoft hasn't asserted a long time monopoly over IE or their media files. Sychronization of sofware and hadware is not coercion. There is no proprietary monopoly here. I can take music from any commerical service, legal or not, and import files into iTunes and go from there. This is a non problem. The French should probably focus their efforts on eating less cheese and smoking less.

Keeping a business system in step with many, many software problems is not the same as buying music. While the big, bad MS sticks in my craw, I'll admit that, on the whole, it has been a stablizing force in the computer industry. It provides and maintains a *stable* platform from which many applications are launched.

Now, do I need that for my music? No.

How would you like being told you can only by books from Barnes and Noble? I don't think so.

Would you stand for it if they told you can only buy hardware from Best Buy? I doubt it.

So, I don't see why you're so complacent about being forced, not coerced, into buying all your on line music from Itunes.

I'll keep my Sandisk which can be loaded from virtually anything, except Itunes of course. I like my freedom of choice. Just download, click and drag. Now, for those that can't or don't want do that, well, then perhaps the simplistic Itunes interface should be an option. but to force it on everyone? I don't think so.

I suppose you'll now want to say that this Ipod Hi Fi is the next best thing in the audio world too?

[Mike Anderson]

Is the article really accurate? I haven't had any problem putting other music on my iPod.

As I understood it, the main objection people have is that music from the iTunes Store cannot be played on other devices -- not that the iPod can't play music from other sources.

So don't buy music from the iTunes Store. Even better, don't upgrade to iTunes 6, and just use jhymn to unlock your music.

[paul_pci]

Mark, I think maybe you're misinformed about iTunes, although my clarification will do llittle to win you over. The music store within iTunes is merely one, and not the only one, means of purchasing digital music online. For instance, a friend and I had a subscription to emusic.com and I downloaded a few cds and imported them into iTunes and then to my iPod. Therefore your analogies really don't hold up, especially the Barnes and Noble one. Apple in no way claims or configures that the consumer can only buy music from the iTunes music store or that music acquired elsewhere won't work on iTunes/iPod. That's just not true. For me personally, most of the music I have on my iPod comes from my CD collection and some music downloaded from various sources which will remain unnamed. I've never bought a song from the music store, but I have plenty of music acquired from non iTunes sources. Your BB analogy might be more fitting, but I just don't see the problem. iTunes is free. Yes, you must have it to transfer music to the iPod, but really, where is the harm. Again sychronization is not coercion. Apple is not making you buy anything, nor are they preventing you from acquiring music from any other source. Again, I think you're misinformed here. There's nothing that you can do with your Sandisk that iTunes cannot accomodate to any user. I have great control and customization with iTunes and thus my iPod.

Lastly, I don't think the iPod or any related accoutrement is the latest great thing in hi-fi. Give me some credit; I'm not that delusional.

[markw]

Mark, I think maybe you're misinformed about iTunes, although my clarification will do llittle to win you over. The music store within iTunes is merely one, and not the only one, means of purchasing digital music online. For instance, a friend and I had a subscription to emusic.com and I downloaded a few cds and imported them into iTunes and then to my iPod. Therefore your analogies really don't hold up, especially the Barnes and Noble one. Apple in no way claims or configures that the consumer can only buy music from the iTunes music store or that music acquired elsewhere won't work on iTunes/iPod. That's just not true. For me personally, most of the music I have on my iPod comes from my CD collection and some music downloaded from various sources which will remain unnamed. I've never bought a song from the music store, but I have plenty of music acquired from non iTunes sources. Your BB analogy might be more fitting, but I just don't see the problem. iTunes is free. Yes, you must have it to transfer music to the iPod, but really, where is the harm. Again sychronization is not coercion. Apple is not making you buy anything, nor are they preventing you from acquiring music from any other source. Again, I think you're misinformed here. There's nothing that you can do with your Sandisk that iTunes cannot accomodate to any user. I have great control and customization with iTunes and thus my iPod.

Lastly, I don't think the iPod or any related accoutrement is the latest great thing in hi-fi. Give me some credit; I'm not that delusional.

I realize now that you can load anything into an ipod. From what my second cousin says, the itunes interface "sweeps" your 'puter for all music, brings it into it's own file and then loads it into your ipod. This does lend itself to tha fact that music from any source can be input to an ipod.

My next questions would be:

1) Can anyone download music from Itunes onto their own computer without an Itunes interface?

2) Can it be done in WMA format?

3) Can it then loaded into a device other than an Ipod?

[Groundbeef]

To answer your question.

1. You can only d/l music from Itunes if you have Itunes installed on your computer.
2. Music will only be d/l in apple format, not WMA.
3. I don't think that you can put that music onto another MP3 player w/out converting it to wma or mp3. format. Although I am open for correction on that point.

There are 3rd party work around software solutions for pulling music off your Ipod w/out Itunes. This is so you can d/l your own music onto another computer YOU own

[paul_pci]

First two brief clarifications: iTunes is a software staging ground that has the Apple Music Store integrated into it. Secondly, as a staging ground, the music files exist independently of iTunes and thus you can do anything you want with them, including having drunken conversations if you so choose.

1.) Apple offers access through their website to the Music Store. As I have iTunes, when I clicked on that link, it opened my program, so for now I can't testify what happens with that link on computers w/o iTunes installed. It may prompt you to download iTunes, don't know.

2.) Apple is not a format; mp3 is a format, WMA is a format, etc. My understanding is that music via the Music Store is in mp3 and however convoluted it might be, iTunes does support various formats including WMA and mp3 files should be able to be converted to that format.

3.) Again, the music files have an independent existence to iTunes (it's just a program for organizing and ripping/burning). Therefore, if you have files mp3 or otherwise that you have organized and collected/downloaded using iTunes and another player supports that format, then yes, of course you can put those files onto that player. It's just a matter of locating those files in their respective folders. Again, I think you are misinformed because there's nothing arbitrarily restricted by iTunes. What I love about the interface with iPod is that I can first organize my exact playlists in iTunes and do a quick transfer to the iPod and it's a mirror image on the player. I know exactly where all the music is and how the playlists are organized.

[Mike Anderson]

2.) Apple is not a format; mp3 is a format, WMA is a format, etc. My understanding is that music via the Music Store is in mp3 and however convoluted it might be, iTunes does support various formats including WMA and mp3 files should be able to be converted to that format.

My understanding is that the music you download from the iTunes Music Store is not mp3, it's another format altogether.

My only gripe with the iTunes music player software is that it doesn't play FLAC. However, it's free, and if you don't like it you can download something identical like Winamp.

As others are pointing out, some people here are confused about the difference between the iTunes music player software and the iTunes Music Store.

There is a legitimate gripe about music from the iTunes Music Store having DRM, and therefore being unable to play on alternate systems. One response is that you can always buy your music elsewhere if you don't like this arrangement.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who purchased large amounts of music from the iTunes Music Store who didn't understand how their use of it was limited. Thinking it was no different than having music from a CD or non-DRM mp3s, they went on to purchase other music-playing gear, and now they can't play their iTunes Store-supplied music on it.

Apple is partly to blame for this because they do not make it bloody clear to the average person how the music is limited in that fashion.

[anamorphic96]

That article is dead wrong in that you can only use iPods with the iTunes music store. I have roughly 500 songs downloaded from emusic.com as well as Limewire and some other services. All someone has to do is convert them to MP3 if they are not already this way. Or if they want. Convert them to AAC. The only slight drawback is the iPod does not support WMA.

Apples biggest and #1 problem is the battery life issues.

[emorphien]

Apples biggest and #1 problem is the battery life issues.

I don't much care for a managed interface, which is a problem for others I know and it's why they use third party software to transfer files to their player.

Other than that, it's a basic player for a big player price. Up until recently it didn't offer the features it should have (still misses some) and doesn't match others in sound quality.

I'm glad I bought my iRiver nearly 2.5 years ago. So far I've no need to upgrade from it. If it died on me, I'm not sure what I'd buy now.

[paul_pci]

My understanding is that the music you download from the iTunes Music Store is not mp3, it's another format altogether.

My only gripe with the iTunes music player software is that it doesn't play FLAC. However, it's free, and if you don't like it you can download something identical like Winamp.

As others are pointing out, some people here are confused about the difference between the iTunes music player software and the iTunes Music Store.

There is a legitimate gripe about music from the iTunes Music Store having DRM, and therefore being unable to play on alternate systems. One response is that you can always buy your music elsewhere if you don't like this arrangement.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who purchased large amounts of music from the iTunes Music Store who didn't understand how their use of it was limited. Thinking it was no different than having music from a CD or non-DRM mp3s, they went on to purchase other music-playing gear, and now they can't play their iTunes Store-supplied music on it.

Apple is partly to blame for this because they do not make it bloody clear to the average person how the music is limited in that fashion.

The gripe here about downloading music from the music store may be correct, as I have yet to do so, and it makes sense from an industry point of view: how else could Apple convince the greedy, short sighted recording industry to let them sell mounds of digital music online, but to restrict the use and duplicating of it? But, at the end of the day, Apple's Music store is not the only game in town, nor is it the only source for music, digitally or otherwise. I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.

[anamorphic96]

I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.

You nailed it Paul.

My only gripe with the iPod is the battery life. But there are now sites offering replacements at fair prices.

[paul_pci]

yeah, I'm not to keen on my iPod's battery life, but I haven't yet been in a situation where I was using it for so long that it would run out before I could charge it, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the poor battery life.

I took another look at Apple's website and they claim that the Music Store files are AAC files. But, again, it wouldn't surprise me if purchased music would not be transferable to anything other than an iPod, although I would think one could burn it to a CD and go from there.

[anamorphic96]

This place looks respectable for replacements.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Pa...wer%20Adapters

[emorphien]

I thinik people like to hate ITunes/iPod simply because they're popular (it's popular to hate something that's popular) and not because there's a legitimate grievence there.

I agree, I've noticed that too. I don't hate the iPod or iTunes, there are some things about each that I don't like and the iPod certainly wouldn't be my choice of portable music player, but you have to respect its success and the appeals it does have.

The thing I do hate (moreso than the hating on iPod/iTunes) is the blind/blatant fanboyism with no basis that is so prevalent in support of the iPod. If anything that hurts it and makes it harder for any skeptic to take seriously.

It is what it is, it's a slick looking, easy to use player that's accessible to everyone. It's gone from sounding pretty crappy in early gens to sounding ok. It's got battery issues, they don't seem to hold up that well (but perhaps some people expect too much of it), and until recently it was priced awfully high for the features it had. Now it offers some pretty neat features that while not new, haven't been presented as neatly as they are in the current iPods.

I've never thought so much of the iPod as the innovator, but the refiner. It takes a lot of existing ideas and one-ups them. Even the early iPods weren't the first MP3 players, although some find them to be quite revolutionary. They aren't, they were evolutionary. The only thing they didn't improve (grumble grumble) is the sound quality. I'm still not quite fond of that

[topspeed]

Even the early iPods weren't the first MP3 players, although some find them to be quite revolutionary. They aren't, they were evolutionary.

I think a very convincing argument could be made to the contrary. Apple may not have been first, but they are indisputably the single most important catalyst in popularizing MP3 players and bringing the format to the forefront of the public consciousness. I have a Shuffle and to be honest, have been astounded by the battery life. Maybe it's because it doesn't have to power a color screen, play videos, or whatever else it is people do with these things, but my battery lasts extraordinarily long. I'll also add I've crushed it with weights and dropped it countless times and despite it's fragile feel, it still works flawlessly.

The only thing they didn't improve (grumble grumble) is the sound quality. I'm still not quite fond of that

Rip your music lossless. If you can hear the difference between the source cd and the iPod (or any other player) at lossless, you either have killer headphones and/or far better hearing than I.

[emorphien]

I think a very convincing argument could be made to the contrary. Apple may not have been first, but they are indisputably the single most important catalyst in popularizing MP3 players and bringing the format to the forefront of the public consciousness. I have a Shuffle and to be honest, have been astounded by the battery life. Maybe it's because it doesn't have to power a color screen, play videos, or whatever else it is people do with these things, but my battery lasts extraordinarily long. I'll also add I've crushed it with weights and dropped it countless times and despite it's fragile feel, it still works flawlessly.

I don't think battery life has been as big of a problem lately as it was earlier on. It still seems they don't live up to spec all the time, but they do much better than before.

As far as innovator vs improver, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Apple has been first at some things but mostly first at widespread marketable success. Technology wise it's usually me-too with a dash of "i did better."

Rip your music lossless. If you can hear the difference between the source cd and the iPod (or any other player) at lossless, you either have killer headphones and/or far better hearing than I.

I use MP3s ripped at highest settings with LAME for my portable listening to balance storage and sound quality. I'll leave best sound quality anchored at home from traditional tangible formats. I've never been that enthralled by MP3 playback from iPods however the newer ones are improved.

[teledynepost]

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

[anamorphic96]

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

Yes it can. Where did you here that ? Do a google search.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Pa...wer%20Adapters

[teledynepost]

What? Do you have to dis-assemble it? I thought it was built in.

[anamorphic96]

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

[teledynepost]

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was aware you could send it to Apple for 100 bucks. Absurd.

[nightflier]

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format. No matter how you slice it, 12 ACC files downloaded & written to a CD (without artwork) will not sound like the store-bought disk. Who decided this lower-quality format should cost $1? Why not 25 cents or 10 cents, especially for those older re-re-re-re-released tunes?

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them). That may be so, but in the end we're all paying more for something that is of lower quality and that we probably already own in another format. To top it off, the industry is trying its darndest to prevent me from transfering store-bought disks and tracks to my computer.

If you ask me, they are trying to kill the format altogether so that I won't have any other choice than to buy online. It's about quantity over quality (gee haven't we heard that before?). If it wasn't for open-source and open standards (we can thank the cheese-eating French and beer-drinking Germans for a lot of this), we would already be subscribing to a pre-established repetitive favorite 50 tunes for which we would be paying $30 a month for.

The iPod and iTunes are cute and cuddly, to be sure, but there is a bigger picture here.