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

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.

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.

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).

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: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).

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: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: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?