iPod Dissection and Review

Mister Man writes "I saw over at AnandTech that there is finally a decent iPod review out there. Not only does the review include screen shots galore, they also have some pretty cool pictures of what is inside that pretty little box. Also discussed is information on how to connect an iPod to a Windows based PC. Check out the article for the real deal. Sadly, it doesn't seem like there is Linux based software yet."

Comments

linux and the iPod

[sboss]

I run linux and just got an iPod ofr christmas. I was ready to hack at it to get it to work. The biggest problem is that the HFS+ drivers is "read-only" only. Until we can progress the drivers to be able to "read-write", we are stuck. There is some good Windows software. Ephpod (free software) with MacDrive/MacOpener (commerical) combo works great.

Scott

Re:HFS+

[Howie]

they don't see becoming mainstream any time soon.


I think it's safe to say HFS is more 'mainstream' than ReiserFS!

Re:HFS+

[Mister Snee]

That's true, but ReiserFS has the obscure hackish charm to it, whereas HFS+ is just another boring, corporate-designed filesystem with a standard implementation platform. ;) I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be wasting my time for kicks than using it intelligently on a project that bored me. Which might explain why I haven't found a new job yet...

Re:Doh! I knew I should have been doing this...

[Pope]

I had to get into completing my ID tags a *long* time ago, because the MacOS only supports 31 character filenames (X will do 255, but this was 1998-ish), so a filename like "various_artists_pulp_fiction_soundtrack_02_dick_d ale_miserlou.mp3" would come out like "various_artists_pulp_ficti.mp3" and that doesn't really tell me a whole lot, does it? :)

I push for folks using the ID3 tags for this reason, and for a more important, non-platform related one: if the tags are complete, there are tools that will rename the file to whatever the hell YOU want.
Don't like album_artists_song_track? How about album_track_song? or year_song_artists_album_track? or any combo of the above? If the tag's there, and more importantly COMPLETE and CORRECT goddamit, you have the option. With no tags, I'm gonna go fill them in anyways, so why not just put them there when ripping? There are a zillion programs that will cddb or freedb lookup for ya.

Heck, even if all your songs are album_artist_track_song or whatever, there should be tools available that will translate those into meaningful tags. Just don't ask me about em cuz I don't know. :)

Audio quality?

[mccalli]

It is my impression that reviews of MP3 players, the iPod included, have typically talked about it as if it were purely some sort of mini-computer. Features alone get discussed, and that Anandtech review is no exception.

However, this is an audio device. Why so few reviews discussing its audio quality? How does it stack up to, say, a decent quality mini-disc player? Not in terms of tech features, but just quality of sound?

My own opinion? I love the look of it, and most particularly the size of it. I'm one of those who will need to wait for XPlay, but that looks to be coming along nicely. My only quibble is that I'll still need to get an FM radio - it would have been great had an FM radio been included. People still need to find out about new or different music as well as listen purely to their own collection.

However, once XPlay is publicly working with playlists and deletes, an iPod is likely to be in my pocket before the week is out...

Cheers,
Ian

Windows iPod? I think not.

[Chief_Wahoo]

The authors of this article seem to think Apple is hard at work on the Windows version of the iPod (or at least should be). While I don't doubt that a PC market for the iPod exists, I am skeptical that Apple will enter it. I'm assuming, btw, that by "Windows version," the authors mean a different hardware configuration, rather than a firmware upgrade.

A couple of reasons...

-Apple's marketing strategy revolves around the idea of the "digital hub." The iPod (and iTunes) are a major component of this strategy. Note that these commodities are exclusive to Apple. By producing a Windows version of the iPod, both Apple and Windows users would be able to experience the same great music experience. Apple wants to distinguish itself from the rest of the PC market, not cater to it. Making the iPod Mac-exclusive serves as an incentive for users to go Mac.

-Practically speaking, in terms of both production and support, Apple would be inviting trouble on itself by producing a PC version. Though Apple has tinkered with PC products before, everyone would agree it is not their forte.

-Why produce an entirely new version of the iPod when Windows users, granted with an extra cash outlay, already will be able to use the original? Simply because Firewire isn't standard on PCs yet? Please.

Re:Windows iPod? I think not.

[sql*kitten]

Apple wants to distinguish itself from the rest of the PC market, not cater to it. Making the iPod Mac-exclusive serves as an incentive for users to go Mac.

Variations on this theme have been Apple's strategy for the last decade, and it hasn't served them well. They often launch an innovative product well ahead of there being a real market for it, are too snooty to cater to the PC-owning proletariat, and sell a few to the Mac die-hards (who've bought into the Apple marketing line that only dullards use PCs).

Companies cater to early adopters only to get feedback to ready a push into the mass market. No-one makes money directly from early adopters. New product development is expensive. The best you can hope for is that they are influential enough to act as walking ads for your product, but don't count on it.

Six months later, there are similar products from other manufacturers, targeting mass consumers, almost as good for half the price. Apple could never win anything when competition boiled down to price. By now, all the people who thought, isn't it cool, shame it only works with a Mac, are ready to buy, and they do so in large volumes.

Copying MP3's from iPod

[pemerson]

According to the article:

One feature that will not be added is the ability to copy files from the iPod. Apple designed the iPod as a one-way device when it comes to music, meaning that it was only designed to accept MP3 files but not to send them back to a computer. Apple's iTunes software does not allow the user to copy MP3 files from the iPod to a Macintosh, and in a similar manner Mediafour's XPlay software will not allow the user to copy MP3 files from the iPod to any PC. Copying MP3 files off the device is not a difficult feature to implement, but Mediafour decided to respect Apple's wishes with the iPod and maintain the copy protection feature.

But, according to http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/10/29.4.sh tml:

In other words, by turning off the automatic sync functions and saying "no" when asked if you would like your iPod library erased, you can simply drag and drop your iPod music files from iTunes to another Mac.

So why has Mediafour "decided to respect Apple's wishes" when Apple's own software allows the copying of MP3's to different Macs?

Gaack! Hideous Mac Garamond Font Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't that hideous, "is it bold, or is it not," hard to read, "it was futuristic when Logan's Run came out, but now it's just as sad as Michael York's career," just die a death without Apple having to use it freaking everywhere?

When I see a something printed in Garamond, it screams, "technophobe".

Give me Arial, or give me death. Or maybe Palatino, that's nice than Times New Roman.

Re:iPod, iPod, iPod....

[hoggy]

I'm a little fascinated by Slashdot's ongoing fixation on this device. [...] My only theory as to why is because it may not be Linux-y, but it's still a fascinating device.

Err... I think that pretty much covers it.

Since when did Slashdot become "News for Linux Weenies"? I thought this was a tech-head site. The iPod is most definitely a very cool toy from a techy perspective, which means it falls within the remit of this site.

In general you may have noticed that Apple are appearing increasingly frequently on Slashdot, which I guess means that they are doing things that are increasingly interesting to tech-heads, which I think is a good thing for Apple.

There were the same people harping on about the new iMac posting, saying what does it have to do with Slashdot. But any story that can generate a 1000 comments is clearly of interest to Slashdotters.

I use Linux too, but hey, take off the blinkers.

"fatal flaw in the iPod design"? Please.

[fhwang]

This review is nice and informative, but I can't help but scoff at the sentence (on the first page) pointing out the "fatal flaw in the iPod design": It only works for MacOS.

"Fatal flaw in the iPod design"? Give me a fucking break. "Pain in the ass for Linux and Windows users", sure. But to imply that it's a design flaw would be to say that somehow Mac exclusivity was not in the designer's plans. I think it's fairly bloody obvious why Apple would design a cool peripheral that could only be used with its own OS. It's not by accident, or by poor design. It's 100% intentional.

That's like saying "Puccini's Turandot is a great opera; its fatal flaw is that it's not in English".

Re:Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are looking at it the wrong way -- the iPod isn't about selling iPods, it's about selling Macintoshes.

Put it another way. Only (say) 10% of the computer buying public would consider buying a Mac. The iPod is something cool enough to get them in a retail store or at apple.com, which is a fat chance for Apple to sell them a computer.

Or, if someone has decided to open their creditcard and buy a Mac, the iPod is a perfect impuse item to increase the profit margin of the entire sale. Candy at the checkout counter.

Eventually a similar product will ship from some no-name company, and Apple will never be able to beat them on margins. They gave up on that battle in the PC market in the mid 1980s, and I woudn't expect them to start in Walkman market.