Slashdot Mirror
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.
1. 6 hours is not enough battery, ok fine.
2. Jogging with an iPod could be bad, ok fine.
3. iPod is expensive, duh.
4. Voice recording is an add-on. Find a better one.
5. Since when is the online store a part of having a portable mp3 player? Alsoi, "Microsoft's secure WMA files" made me laugh.
All-in-all, seems like weak reasoning. Yes, its expensive, but I think its high quality.
It's not like there's anything better. What, should we buy a Nomad or one of those Napster branded ones? Forget it. The iPod might not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything else on the market. I'd get an iPod, if only I had any money......
Neuros is great.
Huge discount right now: $229 for the unit with swappable 128meg CF and 20gig HD backpacks.
Works with Linux
Plays Ogg vorbis
Plays mp3
Plays wma
Records to mp3
Records to wav
Built in FM transmitter so no line-out to tape dongle to hear the thing in your car
This thing is great. It's cheap now because they will be introducing a newer version soon.
www.neurosaudio.com
Not only does the battery only last about 6 hours, but at least on mine, it doesn't give you much warning before it dies.
There is a charge indicator which displays a full charge right up until death. After that, you have to charge it, watch it reboot, reset the date/time if you aren't tired of doing that, then repopulate the playlist. PITA.
Other irritations: The front and (especially) the back of the iPod get scratched. The touch sensitive pad seems too sensitive. The "Brick" game is buggy.
Don't get me wrong, I like my iPod, but contrary to the hype it is by no means a perfect player.
It's more than mp3 with variable bit rate. It supports more than 2 channels (mp3 is limited to stero). It also has tested as better sounding at lower bitrates, and supports bitrate peeling, which allows you to reshape a file on the fly for differing circumstances.
He calls WMA "Microsoft's secure format" hyping that its secure (so as not to scare you from an otherwise notoriously insecure Operating Environment. What he ignores is that WMA = DRM just like AAC. Online DRMd music is NOT MP3, and none of these devices play Oggs, which is a technically supieror format.
This was written for Joe Sixpack, who doesn't want the burden of actually having to understand 'all that technical stuff'.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I have a series one iPod and I get around 10 hours battery life if I leave it on repeat album and random play. This mode loads an album at a time into cache (if it will fit) so that HDD access is minimized. Not only that but for the adventurous geek there is an aftermarket battery pack with an ~15% higher rating than the stock unit available here, it appears they have even added one for the series 3 ipod's.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Jogging can damage it? Then I should be more careful, as not only do I run with it (though mostly to classes), I regularly play squash or work out while jammin' to "War and Peace" from audible.com. Not to mention the many times I've dropped it (note: get a carrying case!).
It should not be difficult, however, to refute their claim. Considering the accelerations present when jogging with it, compared to the internal velocities of the hard drive, it really seems inconsequential. Though don't take my word for it.
That wasn't the point. This is not a review. It is a state-of-the-market analysis, using the iPod as a comparison point.
The iPod is the best all-round mp3 player today. Many would say it is perfect. CNET doesn't agree: they point out the areas where it could be improved (and list alternatives if that specific feature is important to you). The point is to show what mp3 players in general need to work on. The iPod is just an example.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
The reviews says "Since each MP3 CD holds about 10 hours of music, you could carry 20 CD-Rs in a CD wallet and have about the same amount of music that fits on the 15GB iPod. Best of all, you can pick up a decent one (the iRiver ChromeX) for less than $60" Well you can as well carry a backup with a cheap laptop and use it to play 40GB songs. The cheap laptop can be bought from ebay for around $300 and that beats the iPods cost of per GB of songs. Crappy comparison, just for sake of putting down a product that public loves and buys.
I have one of the first generation iPods. One of the first things I did with my new player was slam it in the car door. HARD!! It didn't seem to mind a bit.
I read a few months ago about a fellow who slammed his iPod in the hood of the car--kept opening and shutting the hood on the sturdy little iPod with no damage at least to the iPod.
As long as Mom and Dad keep makin' IdJits glad that Apple is makin' iPods ;)
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
This article seems like little more than a ploy meant to increase CNet readership, not unlike the grumpy columns that John Dvorak spouted years ago on the pages of MacUser. But at least Dvorak usually took a position and stuck to it for the duration of his column, unlike this CNet author who can't make up his mind.
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.
battery life: If, after listening to your iPod for 6+ hours straight, you cannot stand to be without your music for a short while, I think you should be concerned about your own life, and not your battery life.
price: Price is always an issue, but you get what you pay for. If you have modest needs and not much money, go elsewhere. But if you want a good value, the iPod's not a bad bet.
jogging: I suppose this could be a problem, but that's true for any disk-based player. Apple's current TV ads show dancers boogying like crazy while holding an iPod in hand or clipped to a belt, and I don't recall that the iPod comes with any particular warnings about motion.
recording: Possible with iPod (plus add-on), but quality probably not great. However, if you want great quality, you probably want to record raw data and not compress it until after production. And you want a decent mic, and mixing, and and and... I don't think there are any tiny, battery powered, highly portable devices that would do the job. Get a PowerBook, a good mic, and an amp instead.
iTunes Music Store only: Fair enough, but you've got to pick your poison. You can be tied to Apple and AAC, which at least has reasonable DRM and improved sound quality, or you can be tied to Microsoft and WMA, which has no quality improvement over mp3 and shitty track record for any sort of reasonableness.
still hands down the best-designed MP3 player in the world: In other words, the author already knows all of the above, and is just looking to raise people's hackles for a cheap spike in readership and maybe a mention on Slashdot. I guess he knows what he's doing, but I think it points to a lack of integrity.
It should be Blatantly Obvious To The Most Casual Observer that the iPod is not the perfect player for all consumers, just as a BMW 325i is not the perfect car for all drivers. But it's a pretty nice player, and it offers a lot of features that others do not.
(fyi, I love my DAT decks)
the LONE manufacturer of DAT assemblies have stopped production and the last "new" DAT deck made is almost 3 years old.
so yes, musicians and other people in the industry are looking for a replacement for the DAT
the history of the world
It's come to my attention that a lot of people scream "bad headphones/speakers = less quality" which is true, yes, but Ogg and AAC sound much better for the *same* *file* *size* which would, of course, enhance your listening pleasure or whatever you want to call it.
And as far as people stuck on Ogg and complaining that the iPod doesn't have Ogg support, well, I suggest installing iTunes, ripping some Ogg and AAC in the same bitrate, and listen to them back to back. You'll see that there is no difference.
Ogg triumphs for lower bitrates, and I support it for that, but as of this moment when you hit 128Kbps it just doesnt really matter if you use AAC or Ogg.
My 2c.
Insert clever one liner here.
I have an Archos Multimedia with a 20gig 2.5" laptop drive in it (Hitachi). I've always treated it super-sensitively, especially when it's spinning (and doubly so when it's spinning up or down). Are the 1.8" drives in the newer iPods any better? I know those IBM CF microdrives are much stronger.
Can these drives really handle jogging? Anyone have URLs with real-world tests?
I would love to be able to not worry about it, but just assumed it came with the teritory of hard-drive based mp3 players.
--Darren
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.
But what about the millions of amateur musicians out there? I would LOVE to have a device that I can take to an informal gig or jam session and make a decent-sounding recording, and then transfer it to my computer later. Right now I use a Sony Minidisc recorder, but you're limited to just a couple hours per disc if you want any sort of quality, and then you have to do an analog transfer of the audio to your computer later! Almost defeats the purpose of recording it digitally in the first place.
I was really hoping that the new iPods would record 44 KHz 16-bit audio from any line in, but alas, it looks like it's just voice quality. Quite a bummer. I'm definitely looking into some of those other devices.
Major shortcomings??
1. The battery is a major shortcoming? The thing plays for hours and hours. It's not a shortcoming, just because the newly released Dell player does 20 hours.
2. The moving parts (hard drive) are a major shortcoming? I've jogged with my iPod hundreds of times. You set a playlist for the duration of your jog, press play the iPod fills up the memory cache with tunes, you jog. I maybe get one or two skips. Hard drive still not dead in my unit.
Indeed, not only "some experts", but even Apple says jogging with the iPod is okay, according to their official iPod FAQ:
Question 9: Can I use iPod while running, or doing other activities? Will my music skip?
Answer: iPod was designed for people with an active lifestyle. It is compact and lightweight enough to take with you wherever you go. It was designed to fit comfortably in the palm of your hand or to be slipped into a pocket or purse for easy transport. iPod offers up to 20 minutes of skip protection - twice that of other hard drive-based MP3 players on the market - so you can enjoy outdoor athletic activities without missing a beat.
3. The iPod is expensive. It is pretty expensive, but it's also very high quality. I've dropped the thing on hard ground a few times now, and it still works like a champ. It is well-designed, and it integrates with iTunes seamlessly.
The author suggests MP3 CD players as an alternative, but doesn't this violate his point #2? Yes. It does, you think jogging with an iPod is bad, but jogging with a cheaply manufactured MP3 CD player is better? These units probably have some skip protection, and probably almost no shock absorbtion (walking, driving).
4. You want to make high quality recordings. This is true, rumors are Apple is working on this, who knows.
5. You want a choice in online music stores. Well, I do have a choice in online music stores. I download AACs from iTunes Music Store, and I download MP3s from emusic.com and import them into iTunes.
I heard people bitch for years about how horrible and flakey MusicMatch and others were. Why would I want to go use them? iTunes Music Store is superb, and far exceeds the other choices out there.
Sure the iPod doesn't support "secure" (read: DRM-laden) WMA files, but I don't want to buy those, because they strip me of choice. I want unladen MP3s and perhaps minimally-DRM'd AAC files that are flexible, not draconian "secured" WMA files (which I HAVE experienced, thank you).
This article is just full of bullshit, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was shadow authored by John Dvorak or some MS PR drone*, with the stereotypical bone to pick with Apple.
* Note: I am not a Linux zealot.
Are there actually any tools out there that can take advantage of bitrate peeling? I know that Vorbis can toeoretically support it, but has it ever actually been implemented?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
This article was fairly interesting to me because as it turns out, I am looking for an MP3/any format player. I noted the points that they listed.
However, I also have to say that the article is flawed in that they dont really propose an alternative that's good for every point that they say the iPod is lacking. Example, iPod VS Dell. Dell is has longer battery life, I get that. But it doesnt help for point 2 which is that it's not shock resistant because it has a hard drive. Same with price, iPod is more expensive than cheap-ass D/mp3 player combo. Duh. Does the battery of the combo last 15 hours, can you jog with it, can you stick it in your shirt pocket, can you connect to it via software like iTunes? Maybe yes to some...
In conclusion, I am glad that I read the article because I find each point interesting on an individual basis and I will have to consider everything when I finally make my decision. So far, I find that the iPod is pretty well rounded even if for every single aspect, there might be a better product for that aspect.
Some of the iRiver players support OGG Vorbis. iRiver is trying ahrd to get support on most of their players -- since most have upgradable flash memory.
Check out this link for more info.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
OK, now I agree that this isn't really applicable to most (any?) Slashdot readers, but there are people out there who may have an interest in some of these features who don't know that there are other things besides the iPod which do them better (or at all). When those people think "I want an MP3 player," what do you think they're gonna do? If they can afford it, they're probably going to get the small flashy one they see lots of people carrying around (the iPod, in case it wasn't obvious). Or they may ask someone else who knows more about it than they do for advice, and if that person doesn't know that the iPod doesn't do what they want, they may suggest that.
Just my 2.
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
I almost didn't read this article when I saw it, but I was so glad I did. The article revealed that there were two devices that had stereo audio input and supported digital recording. I have been dreaming for this for more than a year. This is an extremely useful and powerful development that Apple really should not underestimate in their micro-managed effort to have the most elegant mp3 player design. It seems that there is a strong, ignornant force at Apple that does not understand the value of analog audio inputs. Repeatedly, Apple has removed analog inputs from both their desktop and laptop computers. Thankfully, the current machines have them -- but only from massive consumer requests (including a letter from myself). I already own the original revision iPod and I would jump in my car tomorrow and drive to an Apple store and buy a new one if it simply had a high-quality audio input.
I suppose most forget that cnet is a paul allen company:
. ht m
http://www.fool.com/specials/1999/sp990617allen
"Allen has also pumped money into plenty of Internet content and commerce providers. Vulcan owns stakes in Priceline.com (Nasdaq: PCLN), Beyond.com (Nasdaq: BYND), Egghead.com (Nasdaq: EGGS), Value America (Nasdaq: VUSA), CNet (Nasdaq: CNET), "
Five reasons why I stopped reading CNet.
Don't get me wrong, CNet is still my favorite PC cheerleader on the web. So, before you send me rants for putting down CNet, read my list, and realize that I used to love CNet a lot (OK, I lied).
1. Page download times are longer than my homepage. True, my homepage is about 600 bytes of html with pink type over a turquoise background saying, "look, Mom, I'm on the internet," but it loads two to three times as fast as any CNet page.
2. Cannot surf CNet while taking a shower. Although I cannot prove this, I believe that reading CNet articles while taking a shower can hurt your browser, and even your whole computer. Experts say this is impossible, but listen to me instead. If you want to read while in the shower, a plastic laminated copy of your local paper would be a far better choice.
3. CNet is expensive. I spend over $40 a month on my internet connection, and I wonder why. I could go see five movies, drink over ten lattes, or hang out at the cigar store reading foreign magazines until they chase me out of there - for less money than it takes to connect me to CNet.
4. I want porn from CNet. I heard there's lots of porn on the internet, but none of it is available on CNet. Clearly CNet is not your best choice for porn. There are millions of other sites that are only too happy to exchange porn for your credit card numbers.
5. I want choice in my computer industry news sources. When I read CNet, by defiinition, I am not reading hundreds of other high quality news sources. But I want those news sources. The only way I can do this, I found, is to stop reading CNet, and go to one of the other sites. What a shame!
Of course, if you don't care about load times, aren't fond of showering, have $40/month to blow, don't like porn, and don't want to read something else at the same time, CNet is the way to go. While not ideal for most humans, it's hands down the best Dell-sponsored shill you can read.