Slashdot Mirror
iPod for Windows (again)
beckett writes "Yahoo is reporting that TrentSoft has released EphPod, software that allows Windows users to use all the features of the iPod. I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support." Also note the previous story on the XPlay, a similar software package.
about the lack of Windoze support.
iPod is Apples Killer app....
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
considering the fact that they make a buttload of money on Mouse Hardware, it surprises me trmendously that they haven't jumped the mp3 bandwagon yet...
Then again, the XBox hardware adventure hangover still got them knocked down I guess
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Now, of course, I am not saying that an iPod is going to make the standard typical PC using geek/nerd/gamer/etc want to rush out and buy a Mac, but combine it w/ MacOS X, competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy), and some of the other nice details that come w/ owning a Mac (iMovie, Office on *nix, etc), and some people just might be swayed to buy one.
So, why do you think Apple should cause one of their "hot products" to be supported by default on a competitor's hardware? If a PC user wants to use this hardware, then they can do the extra work required to get it to work w/ their hardware...or they can get a Mac.
IMHO, it is not Apple's problem.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support.
Yeah, that's weird. You'd certainly expect Apple to be eager to give people one less reason to buy their computers and OS.
[/sarcasm]
--saint
I thought Firewire transfered much, much faster than that (like ~30MB/s). If this is slower, is it just because it's such a hassle to deal with the iPod on a PC?
our written thoughts are gifts to our future selves
It comes from fPod, i.e., f'Pod, i.e., what you say when you can't use the f'ing iPod on your Windows box.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
As I said in another comment, they probably don't want to. Apple wants as many people as possible to buy their computers. They have a larger margin on iMacs than on iPods. If you were in their shoes, would you pay programmers to develop windows drivers?
Now, they've apparently supported these developers by giving them access to the iPod's specifications. Why? I know many Windows users who would love to get an iPod; however I don't think many of them would buy an iMac because the iPod only works with iTunes.
If Apple's margins on the iPod are larger than I thought, Apple clearly benefits from this software. Windows people start buying iPods, increasing the sales, and Apple does not have to support them, redirecting them to Mediafour or TrentSoft.
What do you think?
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
a big chunk of apple is owned by our friends at MS
Stupidest post ever.
Okay, not the stupidest but still not even remotely true.
If the answer to both of these is "yes", then I'm off to buy one ...!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Why is it that if Apple releases a product that only works with their systems without a third party application, everyone says "Oh, well of course. They sell Macs, so why shoot themselves in the foot by making it work with PC's running Windows?"
Now let's flip the situation. Someone makes an MP-3 player, printer, external hard drive, whatever, that only runs under Windows. Now everyone cries "Why don't they port it to Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, Joe's OS 0.001?"
I just want to know why it's fine for Apple to only make their hardware work with their OS, but everyone else should port to everything else?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
"EphPod is named after my alma mater, Williams College. Our mascot is the Eph, pronounced EEF, after the school's founder, Ephraim Williams."
~Source
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
I'll tell you where Bill is. Out in the cold. MS doesn't "own a big chunk of Apple". I wish people would quit believing this. MS bought $150 million of NON-VOTING stock 5 years ago. Most if not all of it was sold when Apple's stock price was very high. MS even made a profit out of it. MS has no voice on Apple hardware/software development.
So what if you have to have 3rd party support to use i-Pod on Windows? I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software. Apple's usual course is to just sue people who use their products in ways they don't like.
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
Be thankful you have the money to burn. Why anybody would buy a Mac just so they can use their i-Pod is beyond me. I own a Mac and simply can't afford to buy anything beyond food and rent. So please, quit your complaining about having to get a 3rd party app to run your 1st class hardware and how you no longer need to buy a Mac.
Yes, I'm frustrated ATM. Nothing personal.
... Windows for iPod!
Here is a (probably stupid) thought: if this software somehow damages the iPod (OK, I don't see how that is possible, but in the off chance it screws w/ the iPod's builtin software), is it still covered by Apple's warranty? Do you think it would be a good move for Apple to not cover it? I mean, they don't cover damage of unsupported use of their computers (such as using non-CDs in the optical drive), so should they cover unsupported use of the iPod?
am I making any sense? or is this completely unfeasible?
P.S. the graphics on apple.slashdot.org look uber-sweet. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
hrmmm...I wonder what the discrepancy is...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Q: What do I need to use an iPod with my PC?
:)
A: You need a firewire port on your PC, and some software to allow you to add song files to your iPod.
Since you're reading the EphPod help file, you should know that the best software solution is EphPod plus MacOpener.
They even mention several compatible firewire cards and answer the question as to why you need a powered firewire cable.
www.ephpod.com/faq.html
I'm sure the web site could answer even more questions should you have them.
Apple is far more on the ball than you might think. In fact I think they are being incredibly smart.
Apple has happily released an amazingly good personal mp3 player with official support for Mac only. They knew all along that because this player was so good, SOMEONE would eventually develop PC interface software for it. And when that someone did it, millions of PC users would buy an iPod but since they are not using an officially supported configuration, Apple does not have to provide any support to them but still gets to profit from their purchace of the device.
Pretty good deal, huh? Would any developers like to comment about the percentage of profit lost on a product when someone calls for tech support?
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
you have seen it, right?
I want 2D games back.
I think the ability to transfer GB of music / data files at 50x the speed of the other, larger capacity MP3 players is worth the money - if music is your thing. Until those other players integrate FireWire or USB2.0, they are painfully slow alternatives to the iPod.
-- Those of you who think you know it all are very annoying to those of us who do.
According the Open Group (owner of the UNIX trademark), MacOS X is UNIX and not a Unix-like operating system (like Linux and BSDi). MacOS X follows the Single UNIX® Specification as set by the Open Group allowing Apple and its users to call MacOS X UNIX and not *nix. So feel free to call MacOS X for what it is, pure, certified UNIX -- just a real fruity version of it.
Oh yea, I LOVE my iPod. The best MP3 ever made for the UNIX platform.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ephpod rocks my world.
Have you ever wished Apples design for the OS and the Apps would trickle down to "other" osses?
I have.
Well Ephpod just did it. Its software is beautifull, and simple to use, as is the marvelous iPod.
It installed in 5 minutes, windows2k has build in IEEE 1394 (firewire) support, so plug in your el-cheapo Firewire PCI card, reboot, install Eph and bobsyourunlce.
Some feats on the iPod:
- Best formfactor for HD mp3 players, it actually fits in a breast pocket.
- Stores 10GIG
- Transfers at firewire blazing speed
The only drawback is the godawful high price
I take no care in comments that apple _should_ release for other OSses, their apps, their hardware their choice.
A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses. Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another. In the best interest of Apple buyers, and people sharing data with them, it is _needed_ to buy third party stuff like MacOpener for windows from dataviz.
Now THATS reason number one for oldschool MacFreaks to eventually switch;their customers run windows, and are tired of converting files and disks. This is the stupidist thing from Apple since quicktime.
When are we getting linux mp3 players that are cheap and dont suck?
Gr Richard
Should have been:
The best MP3 player ever made for the UNIX platform
Haven't had my coffee yet...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
e rs/mp3-players company?
;)
Yeah, really...after all, look what happens when Jobs says he has something that will change the world.
I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software.
Good point. My entire desktop is mainly "third party" stuff. Even if Apple included something, I'd probably end up seeking out another company who's sole purpose was to build something better...I never got the point of having one company do everything. Would you rather buy MP3 software from an MP3 software company, or a hardware/software/servers/office/home/lamps/scoot
Yes, I'm frustrated ATM. Nothing personal.
Great, first Sentient ATM now a frustrated one. I'll look forward to oh-so-clever stories of eating cigarettes in the future.
I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.
By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.
Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.
To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
iPod = small, fits-in-pocket.
rivals = big, no-chance-of-fitting-in-pocket.
In other words, if you're looking for a portable music player, the iPod is your choice. If you're looking for a desk-bound one, then the larger capacity is your choice.
Cheers,
Ian
If I am not mistaken, Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, right? Which means that they want to sell their own computers, right? Which means that if other cool products they release work only with their computers by default, then their computers just might look a little more attractive to the potential computer buyer, right?
... all it is doing is costing them sales they would have otherwise had in other market segments.
Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
Apple isn't just shooting themselves in the foot anymore with their proprietary hardware nonsense, they've now moved on to taking a fully loaded automatic and emptying the clip into both of their feet, lathering, rinsing, and repeating the procedure until nothing is left below the knees other than a vaguely red mass of shredded flesh and shattered bone.
Case in point:
I recently purchased a large and very expensive monitor. Apple's marketing of their 22" 1600x1024 monitor was what initially sparked my interest in such a monitor, but having used SGI's 17" 1600x1024 offering, I found the notion of simply having bigger pixels at the same resolution vaguely disatisfying. So I looked around and was delighted to see Apple's 23", 1920x1200 HD capable monitor.
Only to discover that the idiots had decided to use a proprietary, nonstandard interace to their monitor, such that it will only work with an Apple computer (unless you buy an external, likely trouble-prone dongle remeniscent of what SGI's 1600SW required, and which has a reputation for adding noise to the digital (!!) signal because power is transmitted on the same cord). I called the Apple store and was informed that they wouldn't guarantee it would work with a standard DVI interface, and that if it didn't I would be left wearing the $3600 door stop.
I was ready to buy the monitor then and there. Apple lost a $3600 sale as a direct result of their proprietary mindset. And no, there was never a remote chance of my spending another $4k on an Apple G4 system just for the privelege of spending $3.6k on an expensive monitor. Bill Gates is far more likely to learn a modicum of business ethics than I am to spend $8k on Apple equipment when, for $4500, I was able to go out and buy an excellent Samsung 24" LCD monitor that does the same 1920x1200 resolution and will not only work with standard PC DVI interfaces, but will also work with analog cards, and has two video inputs as well (composit and s-video). Had there been no such monitor available I would have opted to wait, knowing that a PC capable device would only have been a question of time. I would not, ever, in a million years, have gone out and spent $6k - $8k for the privelege of having a working 23" LCD with Apple's logo (and ugly frame).
Had Apple's 23" monitor used a standard DVI interace, they would have made an immediate $3600 on a non-apple, PC user (despite the ugly frame). Instead they made $0.
The same is true of the iPod. I'm not about to go out and spend a thousand or more bucks on a platform I have no interest in simply in order to be able to use a several-hundred dollar iPod. So instead of making a few hundred bucks on a non-Apple user, they make $0, yet again.
People will only opt to use Apple computers because they like Apple, or prefer the applications available on Apple, or have a specific reason to use Apple. No one in their right mind would choose a particular platform because this or that peripheral (iPod, big LCD monitor) has been crippled to only to work with that hardware, particularly in an age where you can wait for 6 months (maximum) and have it availabel for whatever platform you prefer.
In other words, Apple's obsolete proprietary mindset isn't making them any more sales, and thus any more money
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That would be because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and Apple only has 5% of the market. Apple can't abuse a monopoly they don't hold.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Okay, Apple builds a cool but expensive MP3 player. They write the software for it to run on the mac, which helps to sell macs. Sounds good so far, right?
Now, they are helping other companies write software so the player runs on other systems. The other companies pick up the marketing costs, support costs, and add a small "windows tax" in the form of the price of the software, which sill helps the mac to look more attractive.
And apple makes more money by selling the iPod to a larger market.
I think this is a brilliant move by Apple. They open up a larger market with little effort, and eliminate the supports costs.
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
PortalPlayer, the chipmaker for the iPods just got fourth round funding of $42 million. Amongst the investors are J.P. Morgan Partners, Investcorp International and Shamrock Capital Advisors. Though the company has no announced customers for it's chips, it's relationship to the iPod has already been documented here on /. . According to representatives from PortalPlayer, this is the last round of financing before IPO (though they have no timetable at this point). Read more at news.com.
Simple business. Apple wants to make this a very sought after product. If they only make it available for their computers then it means people will buy THEIR computers so that they can have an IPOD. It's very simple. Yes, you would think that if they made this one product available to a wider customer base that they would improve their profits, but then you have to remember that they also don't offer their operating system for x86 (and it's also written into the MacOS license agreement that it is illegal to use the operating system on a non-apple branded computer) architecture. If Mac would offer support for the operating system and have an x86 version of the operating system as well as a powerpc version (g3, g4, 680xx) as well as sell both types of hardware I think they could become more dominant in the industry, but they are very tied to their hardware.
The bottom line? Apple doesn't want non-mac support for the IPOD because their profits are so heavily tied to people buying THEIR computers. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the IPOD license agreement it says you can only use it with a computer using the Macintosh Operating System.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
First off.... For the past 10 years or so I've been Windows/Intel-type bound. But now I own the flat-panel iMac and you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers many times over before I'll let you take it away. I love the OS and the machine looks neat to boot.
One thing that I find rather annoying is when people complain that Apple products don't work with their PC's such as there being no Windows iPod software and Apple using non-standard connections for things like their flat screens.
First, the iPod. If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno. But probably not all that well. It costs to support an additional operating system. With the internet being as it is they probably could have released the iPod with no software and software would have arisen to use it on the Mac and the PC. Of course that would've been dumb so why not support your own platform. Let the other guys worry about their platform or let somebody else do it for free. They may lose some money because nobody will buy their non-existent $19.95 program that let's you use the iPod on the PC but Joe Schmoe just made it for them and they're selling $400-$500 iPods like hotcakes.
Now this is a little off-topic but I've seen a few people complain about it in this newspost. People are ill at Apple because the flat screens that Apple sells for it's hardware won't plug into most PC's without a dongle or something. Well so what? My TV doesn't plug into my iMac without a dongle and a little piece of hardware. My old PC monitor won't work with my iMac either unless I put Bob's string of dongles between my iMac and the monitor. My toaster won't plug into my iMac either and probably never will (although I'm sure somebody will do it soon so they can link me to it to irk me!). Apple sells hardware and makes software for Apple computers. It's their deal. That's what they do. If Radio Shack Bob want's to back some special inbetween hardware to let people use apple hardware with pc hardware then let 'em at it. If that programmer wants to create the software interface to use the hardware on the PC then yippee for them. Don't rag on Apple because their toast fits in their toaster and nobody elses without some modifications.
Yeah... it was probably a bad rant. I'm sure I'll be shown the errors of my ways in less than 30 minutes or my money back...
Well, there are plenty of Browsers that run on Windows, yet everyone complains about the integration with the OS... what's the difference?
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
You have been spending too much time on slashdot. The technological competence here is extremely high compared your average computer user. If you require a reminder as to how clueless the average user is with technology, try phoning up the support line for a cellphone service or ISP. Try going through their automated help menus. (press 1 if you have problems with e-mail, press 2 if ...) The questions and answers are so obvious you'd think that a person would have to be incredibly stupid to need to call that line. Then realise that the majority of issues are solved by the responses provided in these menu systems.
Microsoft chooses to use their own product (IE) in its own software. Where's the problem with that?
If I were to implement my Help system as HTML and wanted to use a browser for it, why not require the usage of one that guarantees that your help files are renderred as expected? I know that I, for one, would prefer to avoid the tech support nightmare of supporting every browser on the planet for my help files (just one instance..).
Of course, I actually use business reasoning instead of religion to dictate my decision making.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Before you babble nonsense, why don't you try Quicktime. Download Quicktime 6, click on WGBH Boston's Mango Blue link, and tell me with a straight face that Network TV should not be very afraid. Not to mention QTSS, Broadcaster, VR, etc.
Do you even know the history of Quicktime and how instrumental it was to multimedia?
Lies about crimes
A windows user who doesn't have the fancy "everything works as advertised" iTunes software of course.
But there are a couple of weird cases in MacLand as well. Like the time I couldn't get it to turn on. Easy, press a button. Nope. Had to reset the system (doesn't lose data) by holding the menu and play button down for ~7 seconds.
Needless to say, there are some possible problems, but Apple's support pages cover the hardware issues.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
In other words, if you're looking for a portable music player, the iPod is your choice. If you're looking for a desk-bound one, then the larger capacity is your choice.
If you're looking for a desk-bound one, why not just use the computer? My "desk-bound" MP3 player is called an iBook. It's not really deskbound, I guess.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Ha.
An Eph is the mascot of Williams College. Joe, the author of this software, went there. Still doesn't explain what an Eph is, but this page tries to.
The Single UNIX Specification is supported by the X/Open UNIX brand, which in turn is supported by a verification program. The X/Open brand provides the guarantee that products adhere to the relevant X/Open specification. Systems that provide the Single UNIX Specification interfaces can be X/Open UNIX branded as proof to the marketplace. The Single UNIX Specification is the programmer's reference to the portability environment provided on X/Open UNIX branded systems.
Apple is listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor therefor allowed to use the trademark of UNIX®. Might not be the cold, inhuman UNIX® you are used to but the Open Group allows Apple to call its lickable OS, UNIX® by being a vendor of a Single UNIX® Spec.
This is a really old debate...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
And I say they own zero percent of Apple.
Do you have a source for your assertion?
When you want to plug an iPod into a windows PC, it's not just the iPod that needs support.
Most likely the PC needs a FireWire port. That's gotta be installed in a PCI slot and configured with drivers. Does Apple want to support that? No.
Then there's gotta be software that syncs with the iPod that's gotta work without causing any Windows conflicts. Does Apple want to support those? No.
It's much more of a headache than it's worth.
And obviously you've not done a lot of research
yourself. Microsoft quietly dumped that stock a
while back. Your point's pretty much moot.
Check this out before posting more
stuff on MS owning Apple...
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Oh no next you'll say you wont ever buy it because the remote they've got in the works is only a one button remote.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes it does. The "Transmac" free utility has been out there for the PC for years.
I presume you're talking about this.
If so, first off, it is NOT free-- according to the web site it costs $64 for a single-user license.
Secondly, a "3rd party utility" != "OS support." OS support would be if Microsoft built the ability right into Windows. The Mac can transparently read and write PC-formatted disks. The user doesn't have to download and install anything, or even change a setting to enable it. It's there from the moment you power on the Mac when you take it out of the box.
~Philly
I have an archos. It fits in my jeans pockets nicely (and I wear tight jeans). Smaller would be nicer, but smaller isn't worth the smaller range of features, lower capacity and higher cost of an ipod. But when the ipod gets better, in a year or two, I might be buying... :-)
I had a look at the Ephpod site, it wasn't too clear on this - does it allow your ipod to double as a portable HDD that makes no distinction between mp3 files and others? (ie, no copy-control crap, no dumbing-down of the display to make it "easier" for people who don't understand file systems to arrange their music, etc etc.
My guess is Yes, it does it all fine, but does anyone know?
When will you learn that the "my way or the high way" approach is what causes the most sucess? You think M$ got where they are by making everyone happy? Not at all, they said you will do things our way (licensing, IE, etc etc) or you will do it no way. And people did it M$s way.
The same applies to Apple. If YOU want APPLE's support, you will in turn have to support APPLE and buy APPLE products. Plain and simple. Thers is nothing which says you can't buy a mac and gut it and install all your own hardware and custom processors, but you won't get Apple's support. Why should the iPod be any different?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Because the only product Apple makes for the rest of the world is the iMac and iBook, everything else is for specific users, most of them already mac users. The iPod was created for mac users. All of their products really are made for their users. It's what their users want, not what everyone else wants. Become a mac user and join the ranks of happy users and influence Apple
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno.
Except Apple does write Windows software, for example Quicktime. I bet there are more Quicktime users own Windows PCs than Macs..
cpeterso
I don't know about media players (I'm personaly happy with QT) but I do know that there are many (if not more) usable browsers for the mac.
n iWeb
iCab
Opera
Netscape
IE
OmniWeb
Mozilla
Mi
MacLynx (for you *NIX dudes)
Fizilla
CyberDog
and I'm sure a few more.
As for a non Apple OS. Have you tried LinuxPPC? Or YellowDog? both of those run nicely.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I bought an IBM cardbus 1394 and try to connect either an iPod, a Firewire disk to it, under win2K or XP, the card shows in the network interfaces but not as a media device controller. Can someone tell me what's going on?
Thanks in advance,
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Size for one. The iPod fits in your pocket. I dare you to stick a JukeBox into your pocet.
Firewire, most MP3 players are still limited to USB
If I recall right, iPod has the ability to run small apps. I believe there have already been a few apps (games) developed
The iPod can also be used as an external HD. Meaning you can (and it has been done) BOOT your computer off the iPod.
That it it looks ficken awsome, and you can get them custom engraved.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If they put unsupported drivers out there, can you imagine the uproar over it? You PC people get up in arms cause Apple won't make their file system run on your windows box. A lack of support for an iPod would be a PR disaster.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
On the Mac? You have to ... connect to a network (extra hardware/etc $$$)
Yeah, the short length of Cat-5 cable needed to connect two machines together really breaks the bank these days. And with the Mac, you only need one cable, because Macs can adapt their network connection so you don't need a crossover cable to directly connect two of them together without a hub.
Then again, a FireWire cable is a tad more expensive, but you get four times the speed, and plug-and-play ease of use. And it only takes a moment to reboot one of the machines into target disk mode.
~Philly
Hmmm, you're right. It's a music player that you wear. So sound quality, size and looks certainly wouldn't be an issue.
It's a lifestyle device, so I couldn't see any reason why durability, intuitiveness and ease-of-use would be motivating factors.
You transfer tons of data to it from your computer, so I can't see why anybody would be swayed by the FireWire connection. You're right! iPod is no big deal! Count me in for a Pimptek MTMP3-2001, it's got an extra 10 gigs! More ugly buttons too! I need my MP3 player to hold more than two weeks' worth of music. If the specs are there... if it looks better on paper... it must be!