iPod: 5th Generation

[Asher]

Except it's quite a bit wider, is it not? That's why it's thinner.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And not everyone agrees the battery lasts longer than claimed.

Come back if they actually win the suit. I bet they got surprised by 'leakage' (when the battery runs down a little even when off), which affects all mp3 players. I've heard similar complaints about Creative's players.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Come back if they actually win the suit. I bet they got surprised by 'leakage' (when the battery runs down a little even when off), which affects all mp3 players. I've heard similar complaints about Creative's players.

I'll bet the more realistic idea is Apple's battery life claims are after a few recharge cycles, and then it's just running the player in a loop on the same songs til the battery dies.

This is unrealistic because usually the players are started and stopped (which spins up the harddrive more), will switch songs more (which spins the harddrive more), and will touch the controls which will turn on the backlight more (which drains battery life).

[Imran Siddiqui]

And CNet is just easily duped, IYO?

[Asher]

Let's look at this from a lawyer's perspective: why do they say "up to" 20 hours, and not "20 hours", or "at least 20 hours"?

And yes, IMO, Cnet reviewers aren't very technical, nor bright, people. That's why they have the jobs they do.

[Asher]

Reading CNET's review of the iPod Nano 4GB, it doesn't seem to sing the praises of the iPod battery life anyway.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_iPod_Nano_4GB_black/4505-6490_7-31515640.html

The bad: Unspectacular battery life; though durable, device scratches easily, and blemishes show up more drastically on the black version; pricey in terms of gigabytes per dollar; 4GB maximum capacity is not a good fit for many power users; no sought-after extra features such as FM radio; no A/V-out; doesn't work with Camera Connector; USB power adapter ($29) not included.

[Adrian Hon]

Nah, the iPod is still the same width as before.

Various in-depth reviews I've seen of iPods (e.g. iLounge) usually conduct battery tests where they run it without intervention on shuffle. Here's an example of the testing schedule they use:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/final-ipod-mini-battery-tests/

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/comments/apple-4g-ipod-power-users-ipod/

Is it realistic reflection of typical use? No, because like you say, real users will not listen to music for x hours nonstop. Is it the same testing schedule that is used for other mp3 player? I'm pretty damn sure it is. Is it objective? Yes. So if we're going to talk about how unrealistic Apple's battery claims are, how about we look at how realistic other manufacturers' claims are?

[Atahualpa]

Well that's a bit of an unfair conclusion when they don't take into account that it's a flashmemory player.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Asher:



That's because:

Apple rates the iPod Nano for 14 hours, on the lower side for flash-based players

Which has nothing to do to how much the battery lasts compared to what the stated battery life is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's because:

Apple rates the iPod Nano for 14 hours, on the lower side for flash-based players

Which has nothing to do to how much the battery lasts compared to what the stated battery life is.

All of CNET's reviews refer to its "standard drain test" that they use, which they don't actually define. It sounds like a simple loop and see when the device dies...it's easiest for lazy journalists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh huh... so now you are a mindreader... fun, fun. They don't state what the test is, so you just make it up .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Uh huh... so now you are a mindreader... fun, fun. They don't state what the test is, so you just make it up .

It's a fairly safe assumption to make. If it was something complicated and in-depth you'd probably be correct to think they'd make a bigger deal about it, or at least describe it.

[Adrian Hon]

From the CNET review you linked:

Apple rates the iPod Nano for 14 hours (...) CNET Labs was able to get 15 hours, 21 minutes in our standard drain test, an unspectacular but solid number.

Maybe they're not singing its praises, but it did exceed Apple's rated battery life. Plus the editors gave it an Excellent rating.

Anyway, who cares? It's better than the old iPod. It's got a nice screen, the battery life is good enough for the majority of people, and it's smaller. It doesn't have as many features as other mp3 players do - it's still lacking recording or radio capabilities, for example, and lots of people don't buy it for that reason. I just don't understand why people get so worked up about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Asher: And you wonder why people ignore you when Apple or Microsoft is in the discussion (hint: It may be a result of unsupported assertions)?

[Asher]

A standard drain test which allows the player to buffer and doesn't take into account backlight usage or harddrive spinning up/system boots. An unrealistic, stupidly undefined number from an unreliable source.