For Asher

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I got my daugter a ipod shuffle and i paid nothing for it. the co i work for gives us rewards and that was an item i could select. she loves it and i still dont understand what it does.

She can download porn onto it...




















No, not really. That's a different player.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Asher
It costs more money to design a product with a removable battery. I guess they did the math and not enough people were ordering the additional batteries to make it economical. And given how much money Creative is using, they're trying to reduce costs.

Weren't you blasting Apple for having a non-removable battery in the iPod when Creative had a removable one?


Oh, and Verto, 99% of people DON'T pay a huge premium for a designer brand on a pair of jeans. The most I've ever paid for jeans is probably $30, and most people I know could say the same.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Weren't you blasting Apple for having a non-removable battery in the iPod when Creative had a removable one?

Absolutely, but Apple is making billions off the iPod while Creative is losing money.

It makes sense for Creative to stop that practice to save money on it, while Apple has no excuse.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
It makes sense for Creative to stop that practice to save money on it, while Apple has no excuse.

Extra profit is always a sufficient excuse. If Mac has calculated that they'd make more profits without a removable battery than with one, then they have done the economical decision just as well. iPods aren't exactly a public service, where the customers are entitled to anything.

[Asher]

I think when you're making billions on the product you can take a slight hit to make a better product. You may make even more money because of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is capitalism. It's about profits. If you can make more by having an inferior option, and it won't cost you in market share, then by all means, go for it. Who cares about making a "better profit" just for the satisfaction you get from doing so?

[Asher]

Maybe it is costing them marketshare -- especially when they had iPods with crappy, <8 hour battery life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I seriously doubt it. I don't think their core market really gives a hoot about whether you can replace the battery.

They probably compared the costs of having a replaceable battery and any potential sales they may lose (they are a large business after all). The one that led to more money won out.

[Nostromo]

Speaking of design, wtf was Creative thinking in making their new Vision:M have a non-removable battery?

From what I heard, in order to keep the player sleek and sexy. Making the battery user-removable makes the unit a bit thicker and that's a big no no.

[Nostromo]

Most people don't buy a premium on clothing because of the brand, but because they look good and fit well... Good-looking clothing doesn't come cheap. For example, I paid most of my Jeans somewhere between 80$ and 120$ CDN (yes, that CDN, not USD). I never find good-looking jeans under those prices.

But that Apple iPod case is just plain silly...

[DRoseDARs]

I'm looking at the PC Magazine review on pg.30. Measures 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.7 and 5.7 ounces making it slightly bigger and heavier already than the 30Gb iPod. Plays .mp3, .wma, protected .wma, .wav (Weird. Who the hell uses .wav anymore?), .jpeg, mpeg-2, mpeg-4, .avi (DivX and XviD), motion jpeg (erm, ok. I thought .jpeg was a static picture format), .wmv, and TivoToGo format. Does NOT play OGG or lossless, but Audible.com support coming in quarter 2 this year. Did very well with the audio tests and visual tests. The claimed battery life is 14 hours with only 128Kbps music, the tests got 12 hours 45 minutes continuous play of a mix of 218-320Kbps songs. Playing just video yielded 4 hours 20 minutes the iPod only got 2 hours 30 minutes on the same test. The testors also noted the absence of a removable battery unlike the Vision:M's predecessor the Zen Vision.