Slashdot Mirror
Apple releases iPod
The BrownFury writes "At an invitation only event Apple has released their new MP3 player called the iPod. iPod is the size of a deck of cards. 2.4" wide by 4" tall by .78" thick 6.5 ounces. 5 GB HDD, 10 hr battery life, charged via FireWire. Works as a firewire drive as well. Works in conjunctions with iTunes 2. Here are Live updates". No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
FireWire (400Mbps) data syncing _and_ recharging at the same time. That's cool.
I wonder if it's hackable for a bigger drive...
Plus, you can use it as a portable disk. No "content protection". Yay!
...until Apple releases their new line of pastel contact lenses:
The iEye! [ducks]I need a fast, really small, 3GB+ hard drive, for software project transfers. This will do nicely, I think. Back in the day (early 90s) I used to use something called a Pocket Rocket, a SCSI HD about the size of a TV remote. When it comes to stuff that, for size reasons, really needs to be sneakernetted, this is the ideal solution. Any songs that I want to listen to can fit in the remaining 2GB with ease...
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Lazy People click here.
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
Less space then the Nomad yes, but also MUCH MUCH SMALLER. You ever try putting a Nomad in your pocket and go for a walk? The Nomad is only good as a psuedo stereo component, or perhaps in your car. Not to mention the horrible battery life!
//lame my ass.
Also, how many HOURS does it take to transfer your 6.4gb MP3 collection onto your Nomad? I know my USB player takes forever to even fill up its 64mb memory. Firewire let's you do it BLAZINGLY FAST.
This is a marvel of engineering, very useful and I give apple much credit for coming out with this device.
Also, did I mention automatic playlist/sing library synching with iTunes2? THIS is what portable music should be.
http://kered.org
Nomad: 5x5x1.5 at 14oz
iPod: 2.4x4x.78 at 6.5oz
I'll give up a gig for size and weight.
Yeah, what about Lame? How else would you encode your mp3's?
Seriously, this device is far from lame in my eyes. 5GB is plenty of storage. I have like 20GB of mp3's anyway, not like they're really going to fit on anything out there. And uh... I never really need more that 5GB at a time, ya know.
The recharging via Firewire is cool too. The size is a plus... the Nomad is too big for me to carry around. And being able to use it as a portable harddrive is cool, too... burning CD's to ferry files back and forth is a pain. I'm gonna buy one if it works with other OS's.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I like it. iTunes, for those that haven't used a Mac, is REALLY slick. It is a great UI and makes things really easy and intuitive. My fiancee recently got an iBook, and she loves how easy it is to rip CDs into her machine and burn CDs. Rather than swapping applications, she does it all within iTunes.
Us geeks, who always acknowledged that Macs had a great UI (but we called them idiot machines) miss out on some of the impressive stuff that Apple does.
The Macintosh way is to organize things by things the users do, not the underlying file system. This is a HUGE paradigm shift from the Unix (everything is a file) paradigm, and from the Microsoft (everything is about something).
On a Windows box, you run a program to rip your CDs into MP3s. If you want to burn a CD, you use a program to convert them to WAVs, then you burn the WAVs to CDs.
On a Mac, you pop an audio CD in to your computer and add the songs to your library. If you burn a CD, you pop a blank in and hit burn CD. Now with iTunes 2, you'll have the option to make MP3 CDs (which previously would be done as burning a data CD).
In UNIX, you focus on the files. In a Mac, you focus on the activity. My fiancee doesn't have to think about file formats, she thinks about music. She barely touches her Windows PC or MIT's UNIX network anymore.
This device extends the Mac functionality. Instead of firing up Creative Lab's software and pick and choose which songs you want on it. Want to listen on the computer? Fire up WinAmp. Want to rip CDs, fire up that application.
With the iPod, it integrates into your system. You plug it in, it keeps your songs available. No need to mess with a clunky interface, the thumb-rolling thingy-ma-bopper looks like a clean way to use the device.
The Nomad Jukebox 20G with the batteries is about a pound. My brother loves his, but it mostly sits in the car now. He used to take it to the gym, but it wastoo big and bulky.
I realize that most Slashdotters are looking at the specs, but realize what this actually does. Its tiny, it'll fit in a jacket pocket (or pant pocket), its convenient.
Take it jogging, to the gym, etc. Sit in the park, walk around.
The Nomad Jukebox is too damned heavy.
This device rocks, I expect them to sell plenty.
I think that they should sell a Windows version of it with a Windows version of iTunes and a Firewire card, but that's just me.
But what does being highly innovative get Apple? Think Newton. It still runs circles around the Palm, but was a commercial failure. It was too innovative.
But, how about if you took the idea of an MP3 player, made it look nice, gave it a Firewire port for fast transfers and easy recharging, and made the whole thing sync seamlessly with iTunes.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I imagine they'll sell quite a few. It's the right feature set at the right time.
Geoff
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
That said, I am both a shareholder and consumer of Apple products. When I read the announcement and specs I went straight to the Apple Store. At $199-$250, I would have bought two, immediately. Instead, at $399, I am buying zero, and expect that many other people will feel the same way.
I am very sad that Apple seems to be repeating the same mistake they made with the Cube - great, nifty product that anyone would love to own, except that it's burdened by an unbelievably poor price/performance ratio.
A laptop hard drive of that size in the quantity Apple buys is about $30 these days. I am more than willing to pay a premium for Apple designed hardware and software. This thing will undoubtedly have a great interface. But that is not worth $200 extra (double the price!).
I know Apple prices it's products to maximize profit. But I wish they'd realize they could make the same amount of money, and have more marketshare, if they'd sell 3 times as many at half the cost instead.
All I can say is, as an Apple "fan", I'm sad.
Apple is a normal company. Why does the public constantly expect them to do the impossible?
I think over history, Apple has shown with some regularity that they can pull "the impossible" out of their hat. Now with Jobs and NeXT genes on board, that sense is even more intense.
Whether Apple's products are brilliant successes or bizarrely interesting failures, nobody can deny that what they're doing as a rule seems more interesting that what Dell/Gateway/Microsoft et al are ever doing. And occasionally (Macintosh, NeXT, Newton, iMac) Apple/NeXT have done things that were completely mind-blowing and heretofore impossible.
I'm speaking as a longtime PC owner and Linux, not a Mac owner (though I do love my Newton)-- I have a healthy respect for the real innovation Apple has brought to the industry (compare to Microsoft's "innovation"...) and I have trouble understanding why Slashot users are such haters when it comes to Apple and Steve Jobs.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Not only is this a lackluster MP3 unit
Considering that it's got far more memory than your average 128MB MP3 portable, and that it's clearly smaller and more portable than a Nomad, I think this is a hasty judgement.
which by virtue of being firewire will be limited to Apple Mac owners
PCs have access to FireWire, as does Linux. The direct connection to iTunes is the only Mac-only feature that I can see; I should hope Apple will be smart enough to enable compatability with PCs, or if not, develop a Windows version of iTunes to do the same job.
but it has virtually no UI wizardry that might define it as an Apple product.
It has a six-line LCD display, backlit, a simple four-button interface, and a circular scroll wheel to navigate your songs (which can organize by CD, artist, or your own custom playlists). You call that "virtually no UI"?
Methinks some people's "first post" ambitions are getting in the way of a decent review of the features.
oh yeah, and did i mention that it doubles as a portable firewire HARD DRIVE?
http://kered.org
(OK, it's a semi-troll - it's just fun to theorize about CmdrTaco / VA Linux / OSDN conspiracies)
Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...
...
...
...
Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port
Raise your hand if you have both
Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device
There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
The Apple product has 83% of the storage space, 20.% of the volume, and transfers files 16500% faster (assuming 2.4 Mb/s USB spec and 50MB/s firewire, im unsure).
Just because Apple didn't choose to significantly increase its volume by adding a 802.11a antenna, just to add a *very* slow transmittal solution (compared to its firewire), means it's "lame?"
I don't have a religious bent for or against Apple; when intelligent people make these kinds of comments, it confuses me.
Apple (AAPL) essentially already violated that. The engineers, at least, seem to think they violated it when they added sound effects, speakers, and microphones.
Therefore, one of the original sound fx was called Sosumi ("so - sue - me")
Your daily dose of apple trivia.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Since when is Apple concerned about market share? They do what capitalism was born to do. Cater to a small market, and do it the right way.
/did/ (and many do/will have OSX within the next year), this piece of gear was BORN for that market. All while keeping Apple gear at the front of the pack in terms of usability, transfer speed, and respectable battery life.
.. you'll understand why having a big market share essentially garauntees tha you you have to give up innovation. Heck, Intel shipped their latest chip with features /disabled/ .. so I, for one, am glad that apple is content to own just a small slice of the pie, because its the most /delicious/ slice.
I don't have an OSX box, and consequently, no firewire and iTunes, but if I
Apple has never been about selling the most number of units. Just look at the market leaders for cars, OSes, books, movies, CDs
And no, I dont own any Apple gear. I wish I could justify it tho; unfortunately, MS keeps underselling quality, thus keeping wk2 on the the corperate desktop, and *nix just happens to serve the 'net industry better than anyone else.
"Old man yells at systemd"
"Unfortunately $400 is about twice as much as I'd want to pay for something the size of a pack of cards."
Damn straight! For four hundred smackaroos, I expect something at least as big and heavy as a brick!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The iPod has 32MB of RAM, which it uses to buffer data from the HD. So it only has to turn on the HD every 20 minutes or so for just a few seconds to refill the RAM cache. The drive spends most of the time off and heads parked.
Saves tons of power, and should make it tough as nails.
So at what point does Apple violate the terms of the agreement with Apple Records for ripping off the name and logo?
1989.
Here's a nice summary of the whole thing. Basically, in 1981 (after years of squabbling) apple computer entered into a written agreement not to compete with apple records in any way. In 1989, Apple records decided that apple's computers had reached the point of qualifying as "musical editing equipment", and sued apple claiming that the agreement had been broached and Apple was infringing on Apple's trademark.
(I for some reason thought for a very long time that this was because 1989 was the year apple started putting built-in sound input ports on all shipping machines, but the apple-history site claims that the first apple machines to ship with onboard sound input-- the IIfx and the IIsi-- didn't come out until the beginning of 1990, so maybe that isn't it. Or maybe Apple Records was, in 1989, reacting to advance news from apple describing the upcoming IIfx and IIsi machines. I don't know.)
Anyway, all of this ended in 1990 when Apple and Apple settled; Apple computer had to something like 26.7 million dollars to Apple records, and in return Apple computer gained the right to do pretty much anything with the name "apple". The iPod would be, i am certain, covered under that 1990 agreement.
(There was, after the 1990 agreement, some rather long drawn out legal proceedings involving who paid for the settlement and legal bills from all this, Apple Computer or their insurance company; i think their insurance company finally won. I can't say i really care either way, though.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Raise your hand if you have iTunes
Bundled for free on every Mac sold in the last 18 months, and installed retroactively on god only knows how many other ones. Easily in the high hundreds of thousands, possibly in the millions.
Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port...
Every iMac, PowerMac, iBook and Powerbook sold in the last two years, plus almost every Sony VAIO and a good chunk of Compaq and HP's product lines. Easily in the millions.
Raise your hand if you have both.
See above.
Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device...
Looking at the sales of (picking three examples) Pilots, Rios and Digital Cameras, I'd say the number of people willing to spend $200-500 on a "cute" electronic device is "lots and lots."
There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.
I guess you don't. This is why Apple is a company with $4 Billion in the bank, and you're trolling on slashdot. Want fries with that?
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
And why does everything have to be wireless? I don't understand this.
1.) plug firewire cable into the back of your computer
2.) bring other end of cable on to desktop
3.) plug in MP3 player when needed
I don't get how this makes life easier. By adding a wireless recieving unit in the thing, it would be bigger, weigh more, and cost more. Probably be more complicated, slower, and use more batteries, too. Or to cut costs you could put an IrDA port in it, although I think less people own an IrDA port for their desktop than firewire, and it would be sitting there transfering data wirelessly so long, you might as well have taken the 4 seconds to plug it in. Why is this a good idea?
I guess i'm just not getting it. Mabey i'm too practical from a monatary standpoint, but i wouldn't spend $400 on a wireless setup for my apartment when i can run $6 worth of cat 5 myself anywhere it wants to go in the apartment. Wireless is for cell phones and possibly for laptops at how much it costs right now, and i can't even afford it at that. Beyond that its just extra gadgets.
~z
sig?