5 Reasons Not to Buy an iPod

TommyH1000 writes "CNet has posted an article with five reasons not to buy an iPod. " The article really just shows the major shortcomings with the iPod (Battery, Cost, Moving Parts etc) and gives several alternatives. A great summary of the major things going on in the portable MP3 player market.

Comments

They complain it's hard drive based

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, that's the only way to get huge capacities at a somewhat affordable price. If they had gigs of flash media, they'd be too expensive for most people. It's a trade-off, not a defect.

Re:They complain it's hard drive based

[tgibbs]

Yet, that's the only way to get huge capacities at a somewhat affordable price. If they had gigs of flash media, they'd be too expensive for most people. It's a trade-off, not a defect.

Which is essentially what the article says--far from being about iPod "defects," it merely points out there are certain people and uses for which these trade-offs favor another type of player, despite the acknowledged virtues of the iPod.

Re:They complain it's hard drive based

[Graff]

My favorite thing about the whole article is they give 5 reasons that the iPod isn't the best and then each reason shows different music players that could replace the iPod. Notice however that there is no player that will fill all 5 roles by itself, in order to get all these "features" you would need to buy 5 different players.

The fact is that the iPod does a pretty good job at filling all these roles, but it can be beat by a specialized player in a particular function. If you want an overall good player then the iPod is a great choice.

All of the reasons are pretty flimsy or can be overcome easily, such as the battery life/airplane flight reason. 6 hours is plenty for most flights that people take and if you are going on a longer one then you can get a power adapter that works on planes. As for jogging, the iPod has an extremely long buffer so it has little chance of getting hurt by vibration. Price, yeah it's on the expensive side but you have to pay for quality and solid features.

High-quality digital recordings on a MP3 player? You have to be kidding, you will probably use a feature like that maybe once or twice in your life unless you are a professional and then you will probably have dedicated equipment that is way better than any MP3 player.

Choice in online stores? Well given that the iTunes music store has about the same prices as everyone else, and the choice is similar to everyone else, and that it has had 80% of online sales of music, don't you think that just having the iTunes Music Store is enough? I mean what is the point of being able to purchase the same music for the same price at 4 or 5 different stores? Aren't you only going to purchase from 1 anyways?

I also love how they bracket the entire article with "it's still hands down the best-designed MP3 player in the world." Ok so you think it's the best and yet you decided to write an article about how all these other players are better. Talk about hedging your bets, I'm guessing that they got paid for every mention of a MP3 player or music service in the article. They probably just needed a reason to mention as many as possible in order to make the maximum amount of cash.

I disagree with the article

[squarefish]

it seems odd that for each point, they suggest different mp3 players- which all have some of the same faults the ipod was critiziced for previously. I also don't think that the lack of support for windows media files means it won't work at all with other services, I think the services need to give you an oportunity to convert the music to mp3 or some other less controled standard.

the end of the article says it all: Of course, if you don't care about low battery life, aren't fond of jogging, have ample disposable income, don't need to record/encode music portably, and want to purchase music downloads only from the iTunes Music Store, then the iPod is the best the way to go. While not ideal for some niche activities, it's still hands down the best-designed MP3 player in the world.

Most of these objections are invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

... such as the ones about excessive weight for jogging (what kind of wimp can't carry 6 extra ounces?) and hard-drive vulnerability. The author clearly fails to understand how rugged those microdrives actually are. I doubt you could wreck one on purpose with anything short of an attack with a blunt instrument.

However, I'm concerned about the non-replaceable battery point he raises. I've already had to buy a $300 replacement lithium-ion battery for my two-year-old Vaio. Is it actually true that the IPod's battery can't be replaced, even by sending it back to Apple? If so, that's the mother of all deal-breakers for me. Modern technology is great and all that, but batteries still suck hard, and I certainly wouldn't want to give up the ability to replace them as needed.

Confused

[BWJones]

Of course, if you don't care about low battery life, aren't fond of jogging, have ample disposable income, don't need to record/encode music portably, and want to purchase music downloads only from the iTunes Music Store, then the iPod is the best the way to go.

Well, I routinely get 5 to 6 hours on my iPod and that is plenty for me. I have never had to have more battery life even on cross country plane flights or drives. I jog routinely with the iPod and have never had a problem and I tried the other music outlets for downloadable music. The iTMS is simply the best there is so.....What is his point?

And then at the bottom of this rant, the author saysWhile not ideal for some niche activities, it's still hands down the best-designed MP3 player in the world.

What gives? Is this guy totally out to lunch?

Re:Confused

[Chibi]

And then at the bottom of this rant, the author saysWhile not ideal for some niche activities, it's still hands down the best-designed MP3 player in the world.

What gives? Is this guy totally out to lunch?

I get the impression it's an article simply meant to point out some of the flaws of a very good product, especially since the iPod and iTunes have been the centers of some major love-fests, especially in the press. I don't think it hurts to acknowledge that a good product may have some negatives. It's something that future versions of the product could try to improve upon.

If something only has positive attributes, then that make my BS detector go off. Once in a while, you'll find that rare gem which really is all positive. But I think being able to consider a product's drawbacks gives a more accurate impression of it, and can in the long run give a better perception of the product.

Anyway, would you rather see another "me too" article about how great iTunes and iPod are, or a slightly different take on all of the buzz around them (although I'm sure C|NET probably has plenty of "me too" articles, as well)?

Re:Confused

[tuckerclerico]

Some of us travel internationally. My shortest flight in my 150k butt-in-seat miles this year is 11 hours. I guess I'm in the niche.

Then spend a couple bucks and get the damn Belkin battery add-in. You'll get 6 hours plus another 18 hours.

The Belkin add-on is great because (a) it's cheap, (b) it adds *INSANE* amounts of time to the iPod, and (c) is there only when you need it. When you don't want the added weight, you simply unsuck from the back of the iPod and stash it away. Then the iPod is sleek and lovely and thin (because if it wasn't sleek and lovely and thin, these insane "Why I Don't Like the iPod" articles from (airquote) Professional (airquote) reviewers would complain about it being not sleek and not lovely and not thin.

Re:Flamebait?

[Carbonite]

Did you RTFA? It's stated right at the beginning:

Don't get me wrong; it's still our favorite overall MP3 player. Although everyone can think of reasons why they want an iPod, I've decided to use this column to list a few reasons why not to buy one.

Before you send me rants for putting down the iPod, please read the list, realize that we still love the iPod, and take a deep breath.

If CNET ran an article with the title "5 Reasons Not to Buy a Windows XP PC", would that also be flamebait or would you consider it an alternative view? Follow the advice of the article: take a deep breath.

Way to state the obvious

[rritterson]

Okay, except for maybe the battery life point, the other four points are:

2,3,4,5)Because it doesn't do something it's not designed to do.

Btw: If you won't buy an iPod because it's expensive, you obvious aren't in the target market for the device. It's actually reasonably priced in it's segment.

It's like saying 5 reasons not to buy a house:
1)It's expensive
2)You can't take it to the grocery store... etc.

The iPod Is Not Perfect

[Pave Low]

or even close. I bought 15 gig 3rd gen iPod almost on the first day it came out, after hearing all the raves it got before. While I do enjoy it very much, this article does make some good points.

The battery life really is not great, and it continues to suck power even when you don't have it on so you have to recharge the thing constantly. The other issues like weight, and expense are valid too, I also dislike the the touch-sensitive buttons, no manual EQ settings, no line-in.

Apple zealots don't do Apple any favors as they set themselves up so high on the pedestal, that they're bound to get knocked down a peg. The iPod really isn't THAT much better overall nowadays.

Don't get me wrong, I still like the iPod, but it's not so clear-cut nowadays with all the new competitors. Hopefully, Apple will address these issues in the next revision to stay ahead of the pack.

Lack of radio

[Midnight Thunder]

Lack of radio is a small but important one for me. Considering that it costs less than 50 cents for an integrated radio chip, and that the iPods UI is ideal for radio tuning, it is certainly something I would like to see. Sometimes I want to hear the news and other live events.

Apple could open up a bit more in terms of media formats, but then again, so could the online stores. AAC is far more open that WMA is at the moment. Heck AAC, is even part of the MPEG4 standard.

5 real reasons

[banky]

1. Apple hasn't partnered with Cnet to sell their device via click-through, resulting in less revenue for CNet from the apparent #1 player.
2. Were Apple to increase in marketshare as a result of 1)the #1 portable music device and 2)the #1 online music store, we'd have to have people cover it more, potentially resulting in less coverage of Microsoft-based products.
3. Anyone can find something wrong with anything, and I have, and since I work at CNet and you don't, you have to listen to me.
4. Microsoft creates standards, not Apple. If Apple creates standards, or supports ones not approved by billg, we'll be back in the chaos of the 80's and early 90's. I can't go back to installing WinSock! I can't!! Buy WMA devices, please!
5. Ha ha, sucker, thanks for the ad impressions. Coming up next: 5 reasons why you shouldn't use Linux, Mac OS X, and/or Mozilla!

Re:6. No Ogg Vorbis!

[iJed]

As much as it pains me to say it I think WMA would be more useful to the masses that Ogg.

What would also be nice is support for some sort of compressed lossless codec rather than using huge AIFF or WAV files.

Re:6. No Ogg Vorbis!

[wankledot]

The fact that this is mod'd +1 Funny is really sort of telling.

Screaming "Ogg! Ogg!" is almost seen as a joke now. I know I'm laughing at you.

Re:Flamebait?

[jared_hanson]

Don't get me wrong; you are still my favorite overall insightful poster. Although everyone can think of reasons why your posts are good, I've decided to use this comment to list a few reasons why they are not.

1. You are an idiot.

Just because I put the disclaimer up, does not mean that this isn't flamebait. Likewise with the CNet article. They are trying to provoke a reaction, and probably a negative one given how popular the iPod is.

It is one thing to post a review of one of the best products and still point out its flaws. It is another to post an article that is structured in an entirely negative way, despite the fact that they admit it is great. This is simply a case of beating up on the popular guy, just to provoke a reaction (and draw hits to their site so they can sell ads).

"Experts say...but I'm a frigging moron, so I'm.."

[rthille]

Some experts say that it's impossible to damage the drive in this way, but I'm not buying that
Yeah, because he knows way more than any expert. He even figured out that you have to wait until the buffer is completely empty before you refill it.
And I'm sure he pored over the specs for the hard drive and saw that the G's he would put on the iPod while jogging would exceed the specs for the drive.
Basically, despite the line at the end calling the iPod the best designed player (added by an editor perhaps?), it's just an anti-iPod rant.

Re:Here's my low tech solution.

[zwaffle]

I was using the same solution at work (I'm a coder) for almost a year.
Disadvantages: no playlists, so you end up swapping CDRs quite often. It's also a major pain to organize your CDRs: if you've ripped 12 CDs in one CDR it's already hard to list them all on the disk, but if you have to burn hundreds of individual songs (from the ol'napster days) on one CDR, you gotta keep some sort of separate catalog to be able to find what you want to listen.
I eventually got an 40gig IPod and I'm saving at least 30 min a day from not having to manipulate CDRs and I now enjoy my library much more (takes only a few seconds to switch album or playlist and therefore keep me in the zone more easily by selecting the right music to match my mood).

Sedan vs Truck

[QEDog]

As you say, they don't tell you an mp3 player better than the iPod overall. An iPod is like an expesinve european sedan, and the reviewer is comparing it to trucks, motorcycles, SUV's and rollerblades and saying how those are better for some things than the sedan. Of course the truck can carry more weight. Of course the SUV is better in rough terrain. Of course the motorcycle is easier to park. Of course the rollerblades are cheaper. So what? It is totally a meaningless comparison.

iPod is a great product. Period. My friend had one, and he just loved it. I couldn't figure out what was about it, and, having my own MP3 plays, I used to think 'it's about the same, i guess'. Then, I borrow my friends iPod for a few hours. I was convinced, sold my mp3 player, and bought an iPod. Then, a second friend saw me with the iPod, and asked me about it. He borrowed it for 3 hours, and that weekend, he was buying one. Have you ever heard of anything like this with any other consumer electronics? It is a quality product, I haven't been so satisfied with a consumer electronic products in a looong time.

Why people buy an iPod

[Mr_Silver]

Because it looks good. Seriously. Most of the people I know has bought one because it looks good and it feels good. It's got nothing to do with the "Apple" name - at the most they know they make computers, at the least they know they make MP3 players.

The reason other manufacturers of HD based players don't get it is because they think they can compete and win on price and features. Which is true, they can do pretty well - but in their desire to push the price down lower than an iPod they end up using cheaper materials which means that what they end up with:

1. Looks cheap and nasty
2. Feels cheap and nasty

When a HD based MP3 player hits the market which looks and feels good (and i'm sorry to say it but this is butt ugly and this looks only marginally better but still feels cheap and nasty) then they'll be onto a winner. Even if it has the same or less features.

For many people, if you're going to pony up several hunded quid for a HD based MP3 player - it better not look like something made by Fischer Price.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel, Toshiba might come up with the goods (and also Panasonic, but I can't find the product I was thinking of) ...

Re:Five Rebuttals (You'll hafta RTFA)

[tshak]

4. What percentage of the owners of portable MP3 players are DJs that want to record their sets? DAT is lossless and is an industry standard, which makes it considerably better for recording your live sets.


You're ignoring his other points. There's probably a large percentage of users who have vinyl and cassets who would want to make backups of their media. Also, as consumer become more empowered with technology, they generally start do do more things with them. Go beyond the average consumer and you have audio engineers, producers, and DJ's as well. There's multiple markets to target with such a feature - why do you think even low end portable cassette players have audio inputs?

I get his intent, but he's stretching a bit

[HarveyBirdman]

The main problem with the article is that it's the iPod versus the world, and not one particular other device.

Note that each of the 5 has a separate list of alternative players that the iPod beats head to head.

For example, in one point he crows that one alternative has no moving parts and weighs less than the iPod, but in another point, he presents a solution involving an MP3 CD player (moving parts) that is also saddled with a case of CDs (total is far heavier and more unweildy than the iPod).

So it seems if I follow the advice of this article, I need to buy about 3 to 5 different players to beat the functionality of my iPod.

Obligatory car analogy: It's like saying, if you want a sports car, you should not buy Corvette because it's more expensive than a Mustang, might break more easily than a Lexus GS300, hauls less than a Chevy full size pickup, has a smaller fuel tank than a Hummer and is not as "cool" as an Aston Martin.

Re:The Non-replacable battery is a showstopper

[Golias]

As the article points out, these batteries will lose their ability to store a charge in a few years (all rechargable batteries do so), and buying a replacement battery (as one does for one's camcorder or discman every few years) isn't an option.

Instead one has to throw away the ipod and buy a new one...

Holy crap, I thought this was Slashdot! You're afraid that you might someday need to open an old out-of-warranty MP3 player to replace a battery!? What the hell kind of hacker are you, anyway?

Slashdot's stated purpose is "news for nerds." Go read CNN.com or Drudge Report or something if that doesn't apply to you.

Re:Great troll

[pHDNgell]

*None* of the MP3 players he's hawking resolves all 5 points

This is what I was looking for someone to point out. After each point, a player was shown that was better at that point. I didn't see two pictures of the same player. Does this suggest that no player is even good at two of them?

Re:let me spoil the article for you....

[dasmegabyte]

Yeah. I liked this article...it reminded me of one of those Kung Fu movies, where each of the five members of a gang has a speciality area in which they can beat the protagonist. Maybe one is an axe wielder, one is tough as nails, one is very fast, etc. Each one of them has an area of expertise in which they are the master.

Of course, in those films, all the protagonist has to do is step outside of that area of expertise and he easily kicks their asses. Which I think is exactly what the iPod does overall, kicks ass.

• Yes, it could have more battery life but then it would be larger (like the model they show). Since its small size and weight are what make it perfect for sitting in pockets or running with without getting sore hands, that wouldn't be that useful to me.
  
• Yes, it could be solid state -- i did have mine skip at the gym yesterday and have decided from now on I shall have to run a mile in under 6:39 and I'll just run along to Metallica's Blackened -- but then it would also have a TINY capacity, the biggest player they listed was 512 meg and there's no way i could deal with that after overflowing 27.4 gig.
  
• Sure, it could be cheaper...and a total piece of shit like those CDR units they showed (can't run with it, no interface, no battery life, have to carry a supply of discs with you, unwieldy). I traded in a stack of similar devices when I bought my iPod, which was the easiest $538.92 I have ever spent.
  
• Sure, voice recording would be nice, and it's coming...that was the point of adding the dock connector.
  
• And as for "choice in music services"...well, I choose iTunes because AAC ounds so damn good and I have both Macs and PCs. WMA is not an option for me, so I don't have a choice.
  

Aw, brave iPod. How easily you have destroyed the warriors of the C-net. The spirit of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you -- in fact, the complete DISCOGRAPHY of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you.

Zealotry, Ogg, and WMA

[Llywelyn]

The reason why WMA would be more useful is because more people use WMA.

It doesn't matter if, on some ideological (or even technical) level Ogg is "better" (why do I get the image of that guy from SG1? Kom-chy-a!) most people do not use it. Full stop, end of story.

If I produce a word processor and I had a limited number of file formats I could support it would behoove me to select Word over OpenOffice. Why? Because more people use Word than OpenOffice and if I want to appeal to more people that is the way to go.

There is also the point that no one is selling DRM-wrapped Ogg files (not that this is not possible). They /are/, however, selling DRM-wrapped WMA files. Appealing to more customers again.

>Because ogg is patent and royalty free, there's no reason
>for it not to be adopted by everyone and be everywhere.

There /is/ a reason not to support it on an iPod: they already are paying for support of AAC and MP3s and can only fit a limited number of formats in its memory.

AAC is a given, the Apple Music Store distributes in it and its what's used in mpeg4 files.

MP3 is a given.

AIFF/WAV are givens.

I want to see support for (smaller) lossless formats before I see Ogg support.

For me as an end user, I never (directly) see the license fees paid by Apple for mp3 or AAC support (if they even have to pay the latter). iTunes is distributed to me for free and it does not support ripping to ogg and my iPod won't play ogg, why should I bother with it?

-1 wrong.

[morgue-ann]

emusic.com

If it was buy one song at a time, I might go for it, but I pay enough monthly subscriptions between dish, cell, dsl and netflix.

Their webpage hawks the free trial at you like crazy and hides the real price but it starts at $9.99/month for 40 downloads per month.

I'm trying to be satisfied with stuff I found through Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads and avoid supporting the dinosaurs completely. GarageBand looks promising- I can listen to RealAudio songs & "radio" at work, add the ones I like to my playlist & download 'em to my iPod at home.

iHP-120

[Querty]

I just got my iRiver iHP-120 last week, and I'm extremely impressed.

I'm very happy with Ogg Vorbis, and I wanted to buy the first good quality player that supported it. Well, iRiver, I must say you have outdone yourself. The iHP-120 is simply amazing:

• Great sound quality. This player is one of the best sounding out there; very low distortion, flat frequency response, high signal-to-noise ratio and a good amplifier for enough output volume to drive more demanding (large) headphones.
• Ogg Vorbis support
• Optical, and line in and outputs. External Mic in. Built in microphone
• Comes standard with clip-on microphone and Sennheiser earbuds.
• Did I mention Ogg Vorbis support? ;-)
• Great battery life, about 15hrs
• Upgradable firmware
• A standard external USB2.0 20Gb drive, no special software required
• OpenSource (3rd party) Linux version available of the software to create the indexed DB (not required)
• FM radio
• Remote control with backlit LCD display

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Sorry, but the iPod doesn't even come close...