iPods and Such

[Nubclear]

Recommend me a portable music player :) It, of course, does not need to be an iPod.

[BeBro]

And Such :b:

[Adagio]

Anything but ipod :b:

I like my Zen Touch, but it's a bit out of date (2½ years old)

[DRoseDARs]

'Bout the same age as my Zen Micro. If I still had my other, more-paying job I'd've bought a newer player by now, but my micro still suits me just fine. Hell, my old RCA Lyra still works great and it's around 5 years old. :b:

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What are the specs on the "and Such" ?

[Drake Tungsten]

You'd have to be moron to not to get an iPod these days. Its complete dominance assures that it has more accessories than any other MP3 player and that its the MP3 player used in innovative new schemes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html) to integrate personal audio/video into everyday goods and services. Refusing to buy an iPod now is like refusing to use Windows...

[Nubclear]

Its complete dominance assures that it has more accessories than any other MP3 player

Since all I particularly want it to do is play music, I don't see that accessories are important. :)

[Drake Tungsten]

The iPod plays music just as well as any other MP3 player and gives you the option of buying accessories down the road, even if you don't think you'll want any at the moment. Buying another MP3 player limits your options for no discernible gain.

[Drogue]

Except cost. iPods, due to their fashionable status, cost more than similarly speced MP3 players. Moreover, they don't play WMAs or oggs. There are a few reasons to get a different player over an iPod. For the price of a 1GB iPod Shuffle, I can get a 2GB player that plays WMAs and oggs and has a small screen showing track listings. For the price of a 2GB iPod Nano I can get a similar (but less pretty) 8GB player, saving me £60 over the 8GB iPod Nano.

That's enough reason for me not to get one.

[Zoid]

And you don´t have to bother with crap applications like iTunes and having your mp3s locked to the iPod. And then there´s the battery issue and the lack of radio and microphone...

[Saras]

I use my Ericsson K800i with 1 GB card as an MP3 player.

[Zoid]

Same here, except mine is a W800i :)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Zoid
and having your mp3s locked to the iPod.

Could you explain a little more about this?

[Zoid]

If you buy music through iTunes they´re in the aac format that only plays on iPod. And while it plays mp3 just as well, it doesn´t support either .wma or .ogg (which really isn´t a problem, but still... ;-) )

[Tattila the Hun]

I have a cheap SD-card based player. Marvelous little device, 15€ or so. I could also use my phone to play music.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Zoid
having your mp3s locked to the iPod.

Huh? :confused:

Since when?

[Zoid]

Bad phrasing. See post #14

[Adagio]

Why would anyone buy an ipood? Not only are they more expensive, but the battery doesn't last as long as similar mp3 players... not to mention the problem some people have with the music formats

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Zoid
If you buy music through iTunes they´re in the aac format that only plays on iPod.

To be more precise, music you buy on iTunes are in a DRM-ed version of AAC. DRM is a problem with most online music stores. There are ways to circumvent the DRM in order to play your songs on other players. There's software available on the net. Or you can burn the music on a CD and then rip them in any format you choose.

The solution is not to buy music on online stores. Buy CD's instead and rip them in the format and at the quality you want.

And while it plays mp3 just as well, it doesn´t support either .wma or .ogg (which really isn´t a problem, but still... ;-) )

You can install an alternative firmware on you iPod that lets you play different formats.

[Oerdin]

Toshiba's Gigabeat player seems very nice.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Gigabeat_MEG_F20S_20GB_Silver/4852-6490_7-31304554.html

The iRiver Clix is also nice though it's a flash player so it only has 2 GB. http://reviews.cnet.com/iRiver_Clix_2GB/4505-6490_7-31861628.html?tag=coco

If they came out with an 8 or 10 GB clix then I would buy it. My dream MP3 player is a mobile phone that has a big enough screen to watch movies, has a 3MB+ camera, can surf the internet, has GPS, and has at least 8GB of flash memory.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Adagio
Anything but ipod :b:

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDMX4-6144-Sansa-Player-Expansion/dp/B000ETTFRG/sr=1-4/qid=1167928763/ref=sr_1_4/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=audio-videosa_e200_Series_MP3_Players.aspx

http://www.amazon.com/iRiver-CXW-2G-Digital-Music-Player/dp/B000FGEC94/sr=8-1/qid=1167928640/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

http://www.amazon.com/Archos-Ultra-Slim-Portable-Recorder-500860/dp/B000HAVWQE/sr=8-2/qid=1167928672/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

http://www.amazon.com/COBY-MP-C951-Player-Color-Display/dp/B000ENSUYQ/sr=1-9/qid=1167928717/ref=sr_1_9/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=audio-video

[Nostromo]

Well, it seems the anti-iPod brownshirts are on patrol today.

I have an iPod Mini and I am a satisfied customer. At the time, it was the cheaper than its main competitor (the Creative Zen Micro) and it had better battery life. I don't really care about Ogg or WMA.

[Nostromo]

Toshiba's Gigabeat player seems very nice.


Based on the review, it doesn't look so hot

The good: Bright and gorgeous 2.2-inch color LCD screen; direct-to-player CD ripping with included docking cradle; compatible with subscription services such as Napster To Go; eye-catching and customizable wallpaper and screen themes; available in a variety of capacities; programmable hot key.

The bad: Cradle requires separate AC connection; counterintuitive controls and confusing menus; multiple software applications needed, including the frustrating bundled Gigabeat Room software; no belt clip or in-line remote-control pad included; no FM tuner; no voice or line-in recording; no USB 2.0 support for Windows Media Player 10.0 or Napster.

The bottom line: Toshiba adds some useful technology and features not found on the iPod, but too many unnecessary limitations, sloppy software, and counterintuitive ergonomics add up to a wasted opportunity.

[Oerdin]

If you don't care about WMA or OGG files then you don't care about 2/3-3/4 of the music files out there. The very fact that Ipods can't play those files makes the Ipod completely inferior to other players.

In any event in another generation MP3 players will merge completely with mobile phones and we'll all be carrying one device. Apple, Creative, Microsoft, and all will either start selling wireless phones which can play music or they'll be forced out of the portable music player business.

[Nostromo]

And you don´t have to bother with crap applications like iTunes

iTunes is OK. It does its job adequately.

And then there´s the battery issue

What battery issue? The fact that you can't remove them? More and more players are like that. You can always have someone change it for you for a small fee.

Or are you refering to the so-called fact that iPod batteries don't last as long as other players. Sometimes its true, sometimes its not. At the time, My Mini's battery was better than its main competitor, the Zen Micro.

and the lack of radio and microphone...

Who cares? Anyway, you can add one, if you want.

[Nostromo]

If you don't care about WMA or OGG files then you don't care about 2/3-3/4 of the music files out there. The very fact that Ipods can't play those files makes the Ipod completely inferior to other players.

I think you're wildy exagerating. 9/10 of the files out there are in MP3.

If you're refering to online music stores. The dominant one is iTunes music store and its all in AAC. I don't know about the other ones. But I don't care about online music stores. Not right now. Most of them sell files compressed in a lossy format. :q: I buy CD's and I rip them in FLAC (for my Squeezebox) and in AAC (for my iPod).

Are OGG files that prevalent?

[Oerdin]

WMA loseless is just about some of the best sound quality out there and there is crap loads of WMA loseless files on any P2P or torrent.

[Lorizael]

Oh no! People promoting competition and choice in a consumer market! Crush them, nostromo! Crush them just like Apple has crushed innovation and freedom in the mp3 player market.

[Nostromo]

WMA lossless on a MP3 player is over the top, IMO.

[Nostromo]

Oh no! People promoting competition and choice in a consumer market! Crush them, nostromo!

I'm all for promoting competition and choice in a consumer market. I just don't like it when people use falsehoods, half-truths and propaganda to promote their product of choice. I'm just trying to put the facts straight, that's all. There are plenty of great products out there.

Crush them just like Apple has crushed innovation and freedom in the mp3 player market.

:lol:

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by nostromo
I'm all for promoting competition and choice in a consumer market. I just don't like it when people use falsehoods, half-truths and propaganda to promote their product of choice. I'm just trying to put the facts straight, that's all. There are plenty of great products out there.

A perfectly reasonable proposition. So do you also correct Apple users who make false claims about other Ipo... err... mp3 players?

[Nostromo]

Sometimes, yes. I don't plan to make a career out of it, though. They're just ****ing MP3 players, after all. But I intervened because I felt this thread was one-sided.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by nostromo



What battery issue? The fact that you can't remove them? More and more players are like that. You can always have someone change it for you for a small fee.

No, I´m talking about the fact that once the battery doesn´t hold charge anymore (which will happen sooner or later) you have to send in the whole iPod to Apple to have them replace your battery for you. User friendly my ass... :q:

[Nostromo]

No, I´m talking about the fact that once the battery doesn´t hold charge anymore (which will happen sooner or later) you have to send in the whole iPod to Apple to have them replace your battery for you. User friendly my ass...

No you don't. I just had mine replaced by someone. He charged 10$ + the price of the battery. It took about ten minutes.

I admit it would be better if the battery was user-replaceable, but its not a huge deal. Its just 10 bucks. And, like I said, other MP3 players are like that. IIRC, the battery on a Zune isn't easily replacable either.

[aneeshm]

I've heard that Cowon's players have the ability to play FLAC and ogg files (and a crapload of other formats), along with the standard mp3s. I have no idea how they are otherwise, however.

They run for a decent amount of time on AA batteries, IIRC.

[Oerdin]

If the user opens up their Ipod then does it void the warrenty? I believe so.

[Nostromo]

Normally, your battery dies after the warranty expires. I bought my iPod 2 years ago.

[LordShiva]

Really, all MP3 players are essentially the same, except that:

1. iPods don't let you drag and drop files in Explorer, and force you to use iTunes, which sucks (you can get around this with the iPod plugin for Winamp). This is a deal-breaker for me.
2. iPods are sort of synonymous with the category and are much more heavily marketed, and therefore command a price premium. You don't get anything for the extra money you're paying except the iPod name, and I can live without it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You'd have to be moron to not to get an iPod these days. Its complete dominance assures that it has more accessories than any other MP3 player and that its the MP3 player used in innovative new schemes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html) to integrate personal audio/video into everyday goods and services. Refusing to buy an iPod now is like refusing to use Windows...

If you're actually going to go that route, the Zune has a bunch of accessories too since MS paid a lot of money to have them made. Not that I'd particularly recommend the Zune to Tass, either.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Where's Asher for the requisite Ipod thrashing?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by nostromo
What battery issue? The fact that you can't remove them? More and more players are like that. You can always have someone change it for you for a small fee.

Yeah, perhaps we can blame Apple for the nasty trend this may start. How is that a good thing for the consumer? Do you want to pay a "small fee" to RCA, Sony, or Phillips every time the non-removable batteries in your TV remote run dry? How about paying a "small fee" to Detroit or Tokyo every time you need a new non-removable car battery? You gonna do without you car for a few weeks while it's ferried across the Pacific and back? No? Then why would anyone want to pay a "small fee" to replace the batteries to something that fits in their pocket? While my Micro doesn't use standard batteries either like the iPod, it was no bother to order a second removable, rechargeable lithium ion battery from Creative to complement the one the player came with. In the time I've had this player, only recently has one of the batteries started to become less capable of holding a charge and that's only because I've used it more than the other battery. The only fee I paid was buying the battery and paying s&h, but I also bought some other stuff to go with my Micro too as part of the same shipment.

And I definitely don't want to hear the cop out that, "Oh, well by the time the non-removable battery becomes to lame to carry a charge, it'll be time to buy a new player anyway." That is a terrible symptom of this our throwaway society, that we've become so used to the notion that most products should only last as long as a season or two. My RCA Lyra has lasted far longer than I expected it to (and a HELL of a lot longer than either my first mp3 player the Rio300 or the Iomega HipZip; 6 months each and zero support! Do you believe that sh*t?! :q: ) and although it isn't as high quality as my Micro, I'm more impressed with it because of its durability. It runs off a single AAA battery (standard or rechargeable) too.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oerdin
WMA loseless is just about some of the best sound quality out there and there is crap loads of WMA loseless files on any P2P or torrent.

What kind of idiot listens to lossless files on an MP3 player?

[Nostromo]

Yeah, perhaps we can blame Apple for the nasty trend this may start. How is that a good thing for the consumer? Do you want to pay a "small fee" to RCA, Sony, or Phillips every time the non-removable batteries in your TV remote run dry? How about paying a "small fee" to Detroit or Tokyo every time you need a new non-removable car battery? You gonna do without you car for a few weeks while it's ferried across the Pacific and back? No? Then why would anyone want to pay a "small fee" to replace the batteries to something that fits in their pocket? While my Micro doesn't use standard batteries either like the iPod, it was no bother to order a second removable, rechargeable lithium ion battery from Creative to complement the one the player came with. In the time I've had this player, only recently has one of the batteries started to become less capable of holding a charge and that's only because I've used it more than the other battery. The only fee I paid was buying the battery and paying s&h, but I also bought some other stuff to go with my Micro too as part of the same shipment.

It sucks, I agree. But its not an as huge a deal as people say it is, IMO. I paid about 10$ + battery price, no shipping. I just went in a store near and they replaced it. It took 10 minutes and my Mini is now as good as new.

And I definitely don't want to hear the cop out that, "Oh, well by the time the non-removable battery becomes to lame to carry a charge, it'll be time to buy a new player anyway."

Someone actually said that? Man, some people have money to burn.

[DRoseDARs]

Oh, and just for fun:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5525
Apple Sued for iPod Monopoly, Defective iBooks
Marcus Yam (Blog) - January 2, 2007 3:39 AM

The hip computer maker battles with another headache

Shortly following news of Apple’s stock options backdating scandal (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5509), the Associated Press is reporting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_hi_te/apple_lawsuits) that the company is now facing several lawsuits, including one alleging that Apple is monopolizing the digital music market.

The lawsuit is over Apple’s proprietary iPod and iTunes software, which is generally incompatible with non-Apple products. Media purchased on iTunes is supposed to be playable only on iPod hardware, and songs purchased on other DRM systems are not easily playable on iPods.

Apple motioned for the courts to dismiss the case, originally filed July 21, but the courts denied the motion on Dec. 20. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensation.

Apple is also facing a lawsuit, filed on Nov. 7, over the supposed high failure rate of the logic board in the iBook G4. Another lawsuit filed by PhatRat Technology accuses Apple of patent infringement for its iPod-Nike product.

While the iPod reigns supreme in the music player market (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5493), Apple’s success has not come without a price. Last year, Creative Labs sued Apple over patent infringement (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2361) of the iPod interface, which eventually lead to a countersuit (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2767). The companies eventually settled on having Apple pay Creative $100 million (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3905) for use of the patented technology.

The popularity of the iPod has drawn attention from hackers discontent with the proprietary nature of the device. Jon Lech Johansen, who cracked DVD encryption, has undone Apple’s protection scheme (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4673) and plans to license his work to companies interested in opening up interoperability between iPod/iTunes and non-Apple devices.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by nostromo
Someone actually said that? Man, some people have money to burn.

Makes you sick, doesn't it. Someone should tell Apple to stop pumping out new models that don't really add anything on the whole every few months...

[Nostromo]

Creative are the worst. They have about 10 different models.

[Adrian Hon]

Originally posted by LordShiva
1. iPods don't let you drag and drop files in Explorer, and force you to use iTunes, which sucks (you can get around this with the iPod plugin for Winamp). This is a deal-breaker for me.

True, but not something that bothers most people.

2. iPods are sort of synonymous with the category and are much more heavily marketed, and therefore command a price premium. You don't get anything for the extra money you're paying except the iPod name, and I can live without it.

I'm not really convinced that iPods are that much more expensive than other similar mp3 players. Speaking for myself, I find that the superior interface and ease of use is worth any potential markup. Of course, YMMV. Most mp3 players are pretty decent these days.

[Zoid]

iPod sure has a lot of "workarounds" to make it work like other mp3 players. That kinda goes against the whole "user friendly" attitude that Apple is all about. It´s the same with Apple computers. They´re really for people who don´t know and don´t care how it works. Which is good in a way, but less good in other ways...

[Zopperoni]

Originally posted by Tacc
Recommend me a portable music player :) It, of course, does not need to be an iPod.
Just go to the audio store and try a few of them. Listen to the music output, play around with the controls, and choose the one you're happy with.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Verto


What kind of idiot listens to lossless files on an MP3 player?

I tend to burn all of my CDs (I have around 450) in WMA loseless then trnafer the songs from my PC to my Creative Zen Touch up to the 40GB size limit. The truth is the Zen will indeed render excellent sound quality, provably superior to the Ipod, and with a good set of head phones (like I have) the files sound great. The loseless files aren't really that much larger either so "only" carry around 40GBs at a time isn't a problem.

I don't want to deal with other file formats so I just synch the Zen with the PC and never have to worry about formating anything ever again.

[Nostromo]

nm

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I tend to burn all of my CDs (I have around 450) in WMA loseless then trnafer the songs from my PC to my Creative Zen Touch up to the 40GB size limit. The truth is the Zen will indeed render excellent sound quality, provably superior to the Ipod, and with a good set of head phones (like I have) the files sound great. The loseless files aren't really that much larger either so "only" carry around 40GBs at a time isn't a problem.

I don't want to deal with other file formats so I just synch the Zen with the PC and never have to worry about formating anything ever again.

Yes, only the best sound quality when you don your headphones and listen to your music on [insert loud, public area]

[Verto]

The lawsuit is over Apple’s proprietary iPod and iTunes software, which is generally incompatible with non-Apple products. Media purchased on iTunes is supposed to be playable only on iPod hardware, and songs purchased on other DRM systems are not easily playable on iPods.

Why is Apple getting sued for doing exactly what the Zune does?

DRM is a bunch of bullshit, but a necessary evil [in the minds of the music companies] that Apple, Microsoft, etc have to implement in order to be able to build their online stores. If you don't like it, buy a CD, or rip the purchased songs (thus removing the DRM).

I have an iPod Nano, and have no problems with it. It gets blamed for all kinds of problems - namely, DRM - that are not exclusive to it. There are plenty of MP3 players out there to choose from, and I doubt it makes that much of a difference, since by now most of them have managed to imitate the iPod enough to make them able to stomach ;) just kidding.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Zoid
iPod sure has a lot of "workarounds" to make it work like other mp3 players. That kinda goes against the whole "user friendly" attitude that Apple is all about. It´s the same with Apple computers. They´re really for people who don´t know and don´t care how it works. Which is good in a way, but less good in other ways...

:zzz:

[Zoid]

Bite me! :p

[DaShi]

Who buys music from iTunes?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
The lawsuit is over Apple’s proprietary iPod and iTunes software, which is generally incompatible with non-Apple products. Media purchased on iTunes is supposed to be playable only on iPod hardware, and songs purchased on other DRM systems are not easily playable on iPods.

Why is Apple getting sued for doing exactly what the Zune does?

Why was Microsoft sued for doing exactly other operating systems were? (bundling software)

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Verto

Yes, only the best sound quality when you don your headphones and listen to your music on [insert loud, public area]

I think you missed the main point being that ALL of my music files (other then a few odd ones I've downloaded but never bought the CD for) are currently in WMA Loseless. I don't want to bother with other file formats so I retain the one which I already have. Plus this means that when I listen to music at home on my very nice stereo system I get the best quality possible.

Now the claim originally made was that no one should care about playing WMA or OGG files because they were compressed to much and that their sound quality was low. No you are whining that the extra sound quality doesn't matter! :lol:

WMA Loseless recordings are on just about every torrent or P2P network. In fact WMA and OGG files make up the bulk of the music availible on the internet so it is a huge failing that Ipods won't play those formats. Even if you convert a WMA or OGG file into something else you lose sound quality and introduce noise. It's much better to have a machine which plays the most common formats as just about EVERY MP3 play not made by Apple can do.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
DRM is a bunch of bullshit, but a necessary evil [in the minds of the music companies] that Apple, Microsoft, etc have to implement in order to be able to build their online stores. If you don't like it, buy a CD, or rip the purchased songs (thus removing the DRM).

Apple's DRM doesn't exist to satiate the music companies, it exists to prevent interoperability.

[Kuciwalker]

The suit against Apple is long overdue, IMO. It's been clear for a long time that the refusal to license Fairplay is anticompetitive.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by DaShi
Who buys music from iTunes?

Basically, just the uneducated people who don't know better.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Apple's DRM doesn't exist to satiate the music companies, it exists to prevent interoperability.

It's a little of both I think. It was started to keep Ipod users locked into Ipods and not buying MP3 players from other manufacturers but Apple's used it as a major selling point to get music companies to license their work on I-tunes.

[Kuciwalker]

Apple had to have a DRM scheme, but they could make additional money licensing it to other companies. They don't because they make even more money by locking people into the iPod hardware.

[Kuciwalker]

In fact, in this case Apple is a much worse position than MS was re: antitrust, since you could always install another browser on Windows but you cannot use different DRM.

[Oerdin]

Believe it or not that was the major reason I refused to buy an Ipod. Asher was right about that one.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why was Microsoft sued for doing exactly other operating systems were? (bundling software)

Equally puzzling, yes.

[Adrian Hon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Now the claim originally made was that no one should care about playing WMA or OGG files because they were compressed to much and that their sound quality was low. No you are whining that the extra sound quality doesn't matter! :lol:

I am very skeptical that the general public, using mp3 players like the iPod or Zune with standard headphones, could tell the difference between 192kpbs VBR mp3s and lossless formats - especially when they're out running or on a train listening to pop songs. In fact, I suspect that many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 128kpbs AAC and lossless.

Now, if you listen to a lot of classical music with good headphones in a quiet environment, and you have a good ear for music, you might be able to tell the difference - but then again, you're in a real minority.

Ultimately, for most people, the extra sound quality doesn't matter - and so why should the fact that an mp3 player can or cannot play WMA or OGG matter? Personally, even though I use an iPod, I don't like proprietary formats and I prefer to keep everything in high-bitrate mp3s in case I ever need to switch players. There might be some minor advantages that WMA or OGG have over mp3s, I wouldn't know and almost certainly couldn't tell - but I do know that mp3s are the most widely 'accepted' format.

[Provost Harrison]

I, too, avoided the iPod for the reasons cited above. I've always been deterred from Apple as they have always seemed a triumph of style over substance, and at a premium too!

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I think you missed the main point being that ALL of my music files (other then a few odd ones I've downloaded but never bought the CD for) are currently in WMA Loseless. I don't want to bother with other file formats so I retain the one which I already have. Plus this means that when I listen to music at home on my very nice stereo system I get the best quality possible.

Now the claim originally made was that no one should care about playing WMA or OGG files because they were compressed to much and that their sound quality was low. No you are whining that the extra sound quality doesn't matter! :lol:

WMA Loseless recordings are on just about every torrent or P2P network. In fact WMA and OGG files make up the bulk of the music availible on the internet so it is a huge failing that Ipods won't play those formats. Even if you convert a WMA or OGG file into something else you lose sound quality and introduce noise. It's much better to have a machine which plays the most common formats as just about EVERY MP3 play not made by Apple can do.

It is nice for you to have your music in Lossless for your home system, but having that format supported on an MP3 player isn't a priority for most consumers, I reckon. Of course it makes sense for you, since you have a good sound system at home, and get off on pretending you can hear all the nuances in the music. But for most people listening to their music on their computer, or on their MP3 player, 128 or 160 or whatever is all they want.

About your claims regarding WMA/OGG dominance, I dunno, I don't feel like checking torrent sites out. I doubt, however, that Apple Lossless is nowhere to be found.

[Kuciwalker]

I just think the /OGG part of that is odd. I've never actually seen an ogg music file.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Apple had to have a DRM scheme, but they could make additional money licensing it to other companies. They don't because they make even more money by locking people into the iPod hardware.

I see nothing wrong with what they do. It is just a continuation of their computer model. It is how things 'just work'.

If you don't like the iPod, buy another MP3 player. If you don't want to be locked in to DRM, don't buy from the iTunes Store.

[Provost Harrison]

Same here, despite the fact I never stop hearing about them...

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Adrian Hon

Ultimately, for most people, the extra sound quality doesn't matter - and so why should the fact that an mp3 player can or cannot play WMA or OGG matter?

For most people the extra sound quality won't matter but it is audible even with the stock headphones if you pay attention. There's less noise. In any event the original claim was that Apple's format was superior to WMA or OGG (which it most certainly is not) and that was what I was slapping down.

The main reason you want to own a portable audio device which will play WMA and OGG files is the same reason why you want to own a PC instead of an old style Mac. Namely that most of the good programs (in this case files) are in WMA or OGG, that a HUGE percentage of the music files online are in WMA or OGG, and everyone with a PC already owns Windows Media Player which automatically burns things in WMA format. That Windows is every where means that WMA is going to continue to be the dominate format in the digital audio world.

You want a player that can play the dominate format. Also if you ever transfer your music on to your home computer or burn a CD then the extra sound quality will come in handy.

[Oerdin]

This is a side note but since we started talking about sound quality it's worth noting that most new cars come with an audio in line so you can play your portable music device while driving. The extra sound qualty will surely be noticed there. If you want to play your music at home on a good pair of speakers then you'll also notice it there.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Oerdin

[QUOTE]I think you missed the main point being that ALL of my music files (other then a few odd ones I've downloaded but never bought the CD for) are currently in WMA Loseless. I don't want to bother with other file formats so I retain the one which I already have. Plus this means that when I listen to music at home on my very nice stereo system I get the best quality possible.

I have two music folders, one for my stereo system (most of it in FLAC) and the other one for my iPod (in AAC). Since my iPod has 4GB, saving space is an issue. That said, I understand your point: you don't want the hassle and saving space is not an issue.

BTW, I doubt that you could tell apart 192 Kbps tracks from lossless ones, even with high-end headphones like Sennheiser 650's. Not in a blind test.

Now the claim originally made was that no one should care about playing WMA or OGG files because they were compressed to much and that their sound quality was low. No you are whining that the extra sound quality doesn't matter! :lol:

I didn't say that. I said that most of tracks sold in online music stores are compressed. There are exceptions, of course, like Beatport.

WMA Loseless recordings are on just about every torrent or P2P network. In fact WMA and OGG files make up the bulk of the music availible on the internet so it is a huge failing that Ipods won't play those formats. Even if you convert a WMA or OGG file into something else you lose sound quality and introduce noise. It's much better to have a machine which plays the most common formats as just about EVERY MP3 play not made by Apple can do.

The last time I checked, MP3 was dominating P2P. But I don't go there frequently: I try not too steal too much music ;)

BTW, if you convert from one lossless format to another (like FLAC to WMA lossless), there is no loss in sound quality.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Verto

If you don't like the iPod, buy another MP3 player. If you don't want to be locked in to DRM, don't buy from the iTunes Store.

That's exactly what everyone was saying when the Apple fans stormed the thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
I see nothing wrong with what they do.

You see nothing wrong with leveraging a monopoly in one sector to gain/keep a monopoly in another? You see nothing wrong with vertical integration to lock in customers? Because both of those are bad for the marketplace.

It is just a continuation of their computer model. It is how things 'just work'.

It would still 'just work' even if they licensed the Fairplay DRM to other companies so they could make players that play music from iTunes.

[Adrian Hon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

For most people the extra sound quality won't matter but it is audible even with the stock headphones if you pay attention. There's less noise.

I don't buy this, unless you mean 'it is audible to myself, a person with a golden ear'.

The main reason you want to own a portable audio device which will play WMA and OGG files is the same reason why you want to own a PC instead of an old style Mac. Namely that most of the good programs (in this case files) are in WMA or OGG, that a HUGE percentage of the music files online are in WMA or OGG

Again, not convinced, based on what I've seen on file sharing networks. Most stuff is simply in mp3, with WMA and AAC about equally represented. Unsurprisingly, a large number of people use iTunes... But this argument will just go on unless someone can find some reliable stats.

That Windows is every where means that WMA is going to continue to be the dominate format in the digital audio world.

This is ignoring the facts on the grounds, where Apple dominates the portable music business and the online music sales business. You might prefer that it were different, but it's not. On the contrary, if you ever want to own an iPod - and the vast majority of people do, for whatever reason - then it's in your interests not to use WMA.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Toshiba's Gigabeat player seems very nice.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Gigabeat_MEG_F20S_20GB_Silver/4852-6490_7-31304554.html



From the review of the Gigabeat:

"There's a reason why the Apple iPod is not only the world's best-selling digital music player but also a bona fide cultural phenomenon: it works. But the reason the iPod will remain king of the MP3 player hill is the overall lackluster competition."

That was true last year, and still is true this year. The reason ipods dominate the market is because they're extremely well designed and other manufacturers still haven't figure out how to get the job done.

[Oerdin]

Adrian, the fact your missing is that most digital music isn't played on a portable music player. Most of the digital music is downloaded and played on computers or burned onto CDs. Windows dominates the PC and so Microsofts WMA format is indeed WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more common then any other format.

I will once again point out that you don't need anything better then average hearing to tell the difference. All you need is a good stereo in your car or a good home stereo system. Please stop using this red herring.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Tingkai


From the review of the Gigabeat:

"There's a reason why the Apple iPod is not only the world's best-selling digital music player but also a bona fide cultural phenomenon: it works. But the reason the iPod will remain king of the MP3 player hill is the overall lackluster competition."

That was true last year, and still is true this year. The reason ipods dominate the market is because they're extremely well designed and other manufacturers still haven't figure out how to get the job done.

It's funny that they wrote that then gave the latest Ipod and the lastest Gigabeat equal ratings. C/NET even gave them both editor's choice awards. Still, it makes sense since C/NET is all about hyping the newest gadget. In June they were writing about how the Toshiba buried the Ipod and in September they flip-flopped. That's just the way C/NET does business.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Gigabeat_S_MES30VL_30GB_blue/4505-6499_7-31679957.html?tag=pdtl-list

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_iPod_fifth_generation_update_80GB_black/4505-6490_7-32069546.html?tag=pdtl-list

Lastly notice the user ratings for those two devices. The Toshiba gets a user rating of 8.8 while the Apple gets pummeled with just 6.5.

[Tingkai]

The first link you posted was for a different model, so Toshiba seems to be making better stuff these days, but only a 12-hour battery life for audio? The technology is out there to do better.

As for user's comments on cnet, I gave up on those after seeing what happened when the the latest ipod was announced. The next day people were rating them (good and bad), even though there was no way anyone could have had one.

[Kuciwalker]

Why do I need 12 hours? The only appliance I need long battery life on is a cell phone.

[Nostromo]

The longer the battery life, the less you have to recharge it and the longer it'll last in the long run.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It's funny that they wrote that then gave the latest Ipod and the lastest Gigabeat equal ratings. C/NET even gave them both editor's choice awards. Still, it makes sense since C/NET is all about hyping the newest gadget. In June they were writing about how the Toshiba buried the Ipod and in September they flip-flopped. That's just the way C/NET does business.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Gigabeat_S_MES30VL_30GB_blue/4505-6499_7-31679957.html?tag=pdtl-list

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_iPod_fifth_generation_update_80GB_black/4505-6490_7-32069546.html?tag=pdtl-list

Lastly notice the user ratings for those two devices. The Toshiba gets a user rating of 8.8 while the Apple gets pummeled with just 6.5.

CNET hates Apple. FACT :)

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You see nothing wrong with leveraging a monopoly in one sector to gain/keep a monopoly in another? You see nothing wrong with vertical integration to lock in customers? Because both of those are bad for the marketplace.

It is just a continuation of their computer model. It is how things 'just work'.

It would still 'just work' even if they licensed the Fairplay DRM to other companies so they could make players that play music from iTunes.

Apple created the iTunes Store to sell iPods. Why should they let everyone else benefit from their hard work? :)

[Nubclear]

please just give me links

[Verto]

Originally posted by Tacc
please just give me links

QUIET, YOU! :mad:

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Tacc
please just give me links

Originally posted by LordShiva

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDMX4-6144-Sansa-Player-Expansion/dp/B000ETTFRG/sr=1-4/qid=1167928763/ref=sr_1_4/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=audio-videosa_e200_Series_MP3_Players.aspx

http://www.amazon.com/iRiver-CXW-2G-Digital-Music-Player/dp/B000FGEC94/sr=8-1/qid=1167928640/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

http://www.amazon.com/Archos-Ultra-Slim-Portable-Recorder-500860/dp/B000HAVWQE/sr=8-2/qid=1167928672/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

http://www.amazon.com/COBY-MP-C951-Player-Color-Display/dp/B000ENSUYQ/sr=1-9/qid=1167928717/ref=sr_1_9/104-8525167-1713524?ie=UTF8&s=audio-video

[Nubclear]

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDMX4...P3_Players.aspx (http://apolyton.net/forums/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=22196)

This link doesn't work.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
Apple created the iTunes Store to sell iPods. Why should they let everyone else benefit from their hard work? :)

Do you understand what I'm saying? What they ought to license (in order to avoid an antitrust suit) is the algorithm that they implement on iPods to let it play files encrypted with Fairplay DRM. That would allow other mp3 players to, for a fee paid to Apple, implement Fairplay compatibility on their own players and thus prevent Apple from getting sued for anticompetitive practices.

For good measure, they also should license the algorithm used to encrypt the music (thus allowing other stores to sell music that will work on iPods*), but that's not a big issue since iTunes is a loss leader and thus hard to compete with.

*no mp3 doesn't work because you pretty much need DRM to get a license from the music publishers

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Do you understand what I'm saying? What they ought to license (in order to avoid an antitrust suit) is the algorithm that they implement on iPods to let it play files encrypted with Fairplay DRM. That would allow other mp3 players to, for a fee paid to Apple, implement Fairplay compatibility on their own players and thus prevent Apple from getting sued for anticompetitive practices.

For good measure, they also should license the algorithm used to encrypt the music (thus allowing other stores to sell music that will work on iPods*), but that's not a big issue since iTunes is a loss leader and thus hard to compete with.

*no mp3 doesn't work because you pretty much need DRM to get a license from the music publishers

I think they make more money selling an iPod, than from a license fee. :)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
I think they make more money selling an iPod, than from a license fee. :)

That's rather the entire point.

[Verto]

So I don't understand why you brought it up?

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by Dashi
Who buys music from iTunes?


People that don't want to spend 3 € for a single "hit" on a CD with 2 horrible remixes (0.99 € on iTunes) or 17€ for a brand new album (9.99 € on iTunes again)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
So I don't understand why you brought it up?

Because it's anticompetitive. They are deliberating breaking interoperability, in fact they would change thd DRM scheme if anyone else implemented it (in fact they have done so before), lessening the value of their product, in order to prevent competition. They can do so because they have a monopoly. It's pretty clearly an antitrust issue.

[Adrian Hon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Adrian, the fact your missing is that most digital music isn't played on a portable music player. Most of the digital music is downloaded and played on computers or burned onto CDs. Windows dominates the PC and so Microsofts WMA format is indeed WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more common then any other format.

I will once again point out that you don't need anything better then average hearing to tell the difference. All you need is a good stereo in your car or a good home stereo system. Please stop using this red herring.

I have yet to see any evidence for either of these claims, other than your assertions. Incidentally, just because Windows is common doesn't mean that WMA is common - in case you forgot, iTunes works for Windows.

Some comparisons of the different formats and quality ratings:

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm
http://pcworld.about.com/news/Oct022001id64123.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Audio_quality

Most comparisons tend to be at 128kbit CBR as well - differences between formats will be even smaller at 192kbit and/or using VBR.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Zoid
No, I´m talking about the fact that once the battery doesn´t hold charge anymore (which will happen sooner or later) you have to send in the whole iPod to Apple to have them replace your battery for you. User friendly my ass... :q:

This took three days, and I live in Sweden. Apple pays for the shipping. You won't get your old iPod back but rather they'll send you a brand new one once they get your faulty ipod.
This was also free as my warantee was still active.

[Zoid]

Good for you :b:

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because it's anticompetitive. They are deliberating breaking interoperability, in fact they would change thd DRM scheme if anyone else implemented it (in fact they have done so before), lessening the value of their product, in order to prevent competition. They can do so because they have a monopoly. It's pretty clearly an antitrust issue.

Yeah, I hate the fact that McDonalds won't sell Burger King food. They don't do that because they have a monopoly on the food they serve in their restaurants!

The idea that any digital music player must be able to play every single music format is ridiculous. You might as well complain that the music players don't play cassette tapes.

[Nubclear]

Its more like McDonalds not letting you bite into the burger without purchasing their McTeeth.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The idea that any digital music player must be able to play every single music format is ridiculous. You might as well complain that the music players don't play cassette tapes.

The point is though, they are artificially constructed barriers for the purpose of extracting money from people, not different formats.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Verto
I think they make more money selling an iPod, than from a license fee. :)
That's the whole point, it's abuse of market power. Kuci is exactly right, a firm is not allowed to use it's dominance of one market to gain market share in another. It's exactly what Microsoft did. They bundled IE with Windows in order to gain control over the internet applications market through their dominance over the OS market. They went further and had issues with applications and Java allowing them to be used on other OSs. Using your dominantion of one market to dominate another is anticompetitive practice and is illegal. The fact they make more money from it is the whole point.

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yeah, I hate the fact that McDonalds won't sell Burger King food. They don't do that because they have a monopoly on the food they serve in their restaurants!
That's a false analogy. At McDs and BK the food is the good. They're not using their dominance in one market to make you purchase their good in another. That is illegal, as it's anticompetitive.

Originally posted by Verto
The idea that any digital music player must be able to play every single music format is ridiculous. You might as well complain that the music players don't play cassette tapes.
That's not what we're saying. We're saying any music format should be open as an option to developers to be able to make MP3 players that play it. So Creative, say, wouldn't *have* to play AAC format, but they would be able to make a player that did play it. Apple would lose their ability to make it that no-one else could make a player that plays it. They're using their dominance in iTunes, a loss leading project I might add (which is also illegal anticompetitive behaviour), in order to help it dominate the MP3 player market.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Who cares.

The iPod is the only player worth its price, even if it is a bit higher (and not by much).

With other players you are locked in to dead end products with mediocre interfaces and horrible, horrible syncing software. I used to be anti-ipod too, so I've used the alternatives and I know from experience that they all suck. Then one day I pulled the wool from over my eyes and made one of the best purchases I've made in a long time.

The iPod + iTunes is the only package where someone sat down and actually used their brain to create a decent product. Anything else is just a waste of money. You'd be just as well to stick a pair of headphones into a flash card, because thats essentially what you're getting with the alternatives.

[Lorizael]

Wow, Apple even has born agains.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I'd happily buy a non-ipod player again if there was one that wasn't a pile of **** and came with good software.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Drogue

That's not what we're saying. We're saying any music format should be open as an option to developers to be able to make MP3 players that play it. So Creative, say, wouldn't *have* to play AAC format, but they would be able to make a player that did play it. Apple would lose their ability to make it that no-one else could make a player that plays it. They're using their dominance in iTunes, a loss leading project I might add (which is also illegal anticompetitive behaviour), in order to help it dominate the MP3 player market.


I just wanted to point out that Tingkai is who you should have been quoting, not I. ;)

Anyway, this is exactly what the Zune is doing with their Marketplace or whatever it is called. It is what MS is doing with their Xbox Live - I can download movies, but they will only work on my Xbox 360.


Besides which, how many online music stores even support the Mac OS?

Zune Marketplace requires Windows, and won't play purchased songs from other stores - even ones that Microsoft worked with before (PlaysForSure or whatever)

Walmart Music tells me my OS is incompatible.

Napster is also incompatible.

MusicMatch, same.

Creative players doesn't show support for OS X, although third-party freeware apps seem to get around this.

The day Apple works with these sum*****es... :doitnow!: :doitnow!:

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yeah, I hate the fact that McDonalds won't sell Burger King food. They don't do that because they have a monopoly on the food they serve in their restaurants!

The idea that any digital music player must be able to play every single music format is ridiculous. You might as well complain that the music players don't play cassette tapes.

You are an idiot. I don't give a damn what the iPod plays or iTunes sells. What is important is that Apple has a product - the Fairplay DRM algorithm - that they refuse to license to anyone else because by doing so they lock in their own customers. If they licensed it - that is, if they let other people pay Apple for the right to use the encryption scheme too - then other people would be able to sell music that runs on iPods, with no effort from Apple. And other people would be able to make mp3 players that play music bought from iTunes.

If the iPod and iTunes were owned by different companies (and therefore were each designed to be the best quality, rather than to lock people in to each), then iTunes would LOVE to let other players use its music, as that would increase sales. And the iPod company would probably either implement PlaysForSure (which the majority of other music stores use, IIRC) or sell the other stores the ability to sell music for the iPod (since more choice in stores increases the value of the iPod).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
With other players you are locked in

:lol:

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
Anyway, this is exactly what the Zune is doing with their Marketplace or whatever it is called. It is what MS is doing with their Xbox Live - I can download movies, but they will only work on my Xbox 360.

MS doesn't have a monopoly to leverage in this case.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


MS doesn't have a monopoly to leverage in this case.

Neither does Apple, given the number of choices there are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
Neither does Apple, given the number of choices there are.

Standard Oil had a monopoly even when they weren't the only supplier. Microsoft has a monopoly despite Mac and Linux. The iPod has a monopoly despite a dozen competitors with a tiny fraction of the marketshare.

Your argument would not hold up in court, and that's the only metric that matters.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Standard Oil had a monopoly even when they weren't the only supplier. Microsoft has a monopoly despite Mac and Linux. The iPod has a monopoly despite a dozen competitors with a tiny fraction of the marketshare.

Your argument would not hold up in court, and that's the only metric that matters.

Rather to be right in reality, than right in court, since I'm not the one being sued :)

[Kuciwalker]

The court is the reality. Monopoly is a term defined by statute. You can go masturbate in la la land if you want though.

edit: hmm, maybe it's not explicity defined by statute, just by the courts... ;)