Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Tips for Buying an MP3 Player
An Anonymous Reader writes "In another extension of Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure' campaign, the company has launched a web page with six tips to help consumers purchase the 'correct' MP3 Player for them. Among the insights of the article hard drive-based players suck and a stopwatch is a useful feature to have on your player. Unsurprisingly, the iPod meets none of Microsoft's criteria. A humorous commentary is available, of course." From the article: "6. Don't get locked into one online store. Have you ever been on the hunt for a particular song? Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for."
They didn't say microdrive players suck, but the page IS about flash players. About the display thing, I wholeheartedly agree, I think people assume any ipod is "teh coolness", but I'd rather buy a flash player with a display and fm tuner for the same price as an ipod shuffle, I think apple manages to confuse a decent amount of people, and the apple fanatics, well, they'll buy anything apple.
I know about Linux PDAs and such but is there a Linux-based mp3 player. It seems like a great idea since you wouldn't have to pay fees on the OS. Plus Linux is pretty customizable. Open the player up so people can write plugins and new features. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
few with fm radio
how come mp3 players with fm radio are so hard to find?
doesn't it occur to manufacturers/ consumers how much functionality is added with so little effort by adding fm radio?
i have an iriver IFP-180T solely on the basis of it having an fm radio
how much does the fm radio circuitry add to the cost of an mp3 player? 50 cents?
will someone please enlighten me then how come fm radio is so hard to find in mp3 players?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Neuros is a brick when compared to the iPod, and that's the only reason it never sold that well. Had it had its current feature list and been the same size as an iPod it would have done much better, even with its limited marketing budget.
Sure, the iPod's looks carry it a ways, but it's the size of the thing, and its smootheness (which makes for better pocket-ability than any of its last gen competition) that have made it so popular. Most consumers care far more about how big a DAP is than about its format support or even battery life...
Unsurprisingly, the iPod meets none of Microsoft's criteria.
Is that so? Up until recently, I seem to recall every iPod sold having a display.
So i can figure out how long the fucker takes to crash. No wait. :-)
Approximate figures based on CD-quality WMA (64 Kbps)
From the article:
"*Approximate figures based on CD-quality WMA (64 Kbps)"
Am I the only one who don't think 64kbps WMA is "CD quality", or is it because the quality of todays recordings on CDs are quite a lot worse than they used to be, of could I just be insane?
Make me doubt one fact, and I'll start doubting all facts...
Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for.
Rare jazz performance? Sure, I often want stuff like that, but why would I buy it off of an online digital music store? Nearly every store supplies its songs in a mediocre 128kbps-ish format, generally sub-par to the equivalent LAME encoded 128kbps VBR MP3. Why would I want jazz, with all its high-hats and dynamic range, in an uber-low quality format? Britney Spears' new single, sure.. but jazz??
And don't say AllOfMp3.com (who have changed CC processor to someone else)..
I like the CARS take on it:
CARS is good stuff!
"what is it about fm radio that doesn't appeal to you?"
I think the reason we don't want or care about FM radio can be summed up in two words:
Clear. Channel.
Albuquerque PC
Be sure to get that FM receiver option so you can listen to higher-quality music when you get tired of your 64 Kbps WMA collection.
As if any of Microsoft's time estimates have been correct.
Case in point: try copying a file to another place on any Windows PC.
Perhaps people that think that Microsoft makes good products? Managers, business people, the common housewife. Yeah, they all don't have a clue because they don't know that Microsoft is "teh suck". There is a world beyond slashdot, and in that world Microsoft is a household name and a respected company. Those people, the ones that are not on slashdot, outnumber us. They are the market, we are not.
When I met my girlfriend I showed her my iBook (amongst other things, but we're talking technology here), and she likes it. What did she have? A spyware infested Fujitsu Siemens with Windows XP. She wasn't very happy with her machine, even though it had cost over 2000€. I asked her: "Why didn't you buy a Mac?". The reply was simple: "I didn't know that they existed. All adverts here are for Windows machines, so I thought it was the right thing to do". That's how it is: Microsoft is well known, Apple less well known. On the MP3-player market that is less true, but Microsoft just wants to use it's brand name in its own advantage...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio?
Funnily, this is the kind of music that you're most likely to find available as unrestricted mp3s, which will obviously work in any music player you like.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
i run and listen to mp3s, then at some point i get bored with my choices, and yearn for something random and fresh: voila, radio, different channels, different tastes
You obviously live in a place where the the FM stations are not unholy portals of heart-wrenchingly bad music. This is a fairly rare and precious thing. In my town the only stations worth listening to are low-power (including the pirate station I used to DJ for), and the reception in my neighborhood is too crapy for a portable player. I listen in the car, but then of course I don't need a portable player at all.
All but one of the other stations are owned by Clear Channel and suck in a utterly uniform manner.
isn't that incredibly asocial and self-important and stuffy?: "i know all there is to know about my musical tastes and my tastes will never change on a moments notice and yearn to hear something new and fresh"
This statement makes the assumption that people that don't listen to the radio don't have other means of hearing new music.
Radio is *not* the only way to hear no things, and is my experience, the *worst* way to hear anything new and fresh.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod?
Because we read it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these?
You mean, how many people would choose a 1024/512 megabytes players over 256/128 megabytes players? Count me in. And as for the price difference - it will be eaten up quite soon by the non-rechargeable batteries.
You know, in a way I tend to agree with MS here, in the sense that I always thought moving parts are a bad thing for mobile entertainment devices. Idealy, if it is possible, I'd like my MP3 player to be fully solid state tech. Less power consumption, more rugged, and perhaps higher data density.
Of course, when the price factors in he equation, HD starts to look much more attractive...
Sigged!
Except, of course, for all of the ones that don't and haven't. Because the average consumer (as opposed to the average Slashdotter) doesn't care if their music is OGG, MP3, WMA, CD, or cassette. They want to be able to access it and listen to it when they want. All the other questions pale in significance by comparison.
Basic conclusion? Determine your size needs. This is based on A. How long do you listen it in one go. B. What is your tolerance for repeats. C. How often do you chance your songs. If you use it 4 hours per day, can't stand to hear the same song more then once in a week and never replace your songlist you are going to need more space then someone who likes to listen to the same album over and over again. HD's also can be damaged more easily by extreme rough use. Not by carrying them with you in your pocket while running but if you throw your stuff around the hd might not survive. For most people there will be no problems.
So don't be tempted by "extras". Extras are easy. Making a damned good solid mp3 player is not.
As for the whole wma nonsense. My hearing is pretty bad but on the whole
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/4d12acb0722715b19 eb0a3491221d3ab/index.html Mirrordot mirror of the /.ed page
Microsoft says 64kb/s WMA is CD quality.
What does that makes 128kb/s? Or 192kb/s? Sooperdooperaudiophonicbeyondcompare quality?
The only thing that is CD quality is...a CD. And while 128kb/s AAC is fine (and somewhat better than MP3 and WMA), it isn't even close to CD quality.
64kb/s? That isn't even FM radio quality. I'm not talking Clear Channel 99.something playing the top five hits over and over FM. I'm talking real FM quality (i.e. WGMS in Washington DC, or hundreds of PBS/NPR stations across the U.S.). Heck, I've not heard a WMA that I would compare to CD, and I'm not talking expensive stereos; I'm talking about listening on a stock car stereos.
I realize this is a silly rant, and there are people who listen who really can't tell the difference. But lets stop pretending on audio quality. It reminds of the 60's when every amplifier manufacturer was claming the most ridiculous power outputs until the government stepped in and made them stop.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I assume what everyone is talking about when they dismiss radio as being teh suck is commerical radio. Personally, I stopped listening to commercial FM long before it became the province of Clear Channel and friends.
What is readily available on FM that is not commerical includes the following:
If you're interested in music only, you may want to start with something like this station if you don't have something similar in your own backyard. Most likely more interesting than what you're listening to at the moment.
Then, of course, if you're not the musical type and have a preference for animated conversations in which people share their opinions with others who have identical opinions, there's always AM radio.
Yeah, I can't for the life of me figure out why they're not playing any new oldies...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Call me stupid, but I thought that the store using closed & DRMed formats were the ones doing the locking in, not the player that didn't support the locked format.
After all, had they used a open format, I would be able use it on any fscking device wouldn't I?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So you can enjoy the Blue Screen of Death!
The Shuffle is perfect and because it plays in random mode it is great that no song will be repeated too quickly.
This is the part I don't get about the iPod Shuffle. Didn't just about every MP3 player do shuffle mode both before and since?
I'm not saying it's bad, but I just don't get it as a selling point. It's like marketing the new BMW - Stearing Wheel. "It has a steering wheel so you can make turns!" um... ok. good. Anything else worth mentioning?
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether people should be buying the shuffle. I just think that if they're buying it _because_ of shuffle mode, maybe they should be made aware that there are a few other players out there that may meet their needs.
TW
I don't know.... I can see the validity to the argument that the Shuffle lowers the bar for "Apple quality" - since it's just a "me too" flash player for people who only shop for "cheap".
On the other hand, it went along with the Mac Mini, which is another experiment by Apple to cater to the lower end of the market - and most people consider the Mac Mini a stunning success.
I'd never buy a Shuffle, but by the same token, I'd also never buy an iPod Mini. They seem like "all style, no substance" to me. You pay close to the price of a player that can store 4x as much music or more, and you get the exact same thing except in a little bit smaller, colored casing? But nonetheless, it was a huge success.
Sometimes, you can't just go by the "feature set for the $" to determine what will be a "hit". It may determine what the "technophiles" among us buy, but the general public has other motivations. I've talked to a number of iPod Mini customers, and generally - they don't do lots of MP3 downloading. They jusy buy a few things here and there off iTunes and rip the CDs they already own - so 5GB is plenty of space for 'em.
The iPod supports a number of popular formats, including MP3 and WAV, but not WMA (they would have had to pay licensing fees to Microsoft). Just because Apple did not support Microsoft's format, many people are insisting that its vendor lock-in. There is nothing preventing another music download service to open up tomorrow and offer MP3's or AAC's for sale (some already do), that will be compatible with the iPod.
Then is the question of motives. It has been shown that Apple makes nearly no profit off the iTMS anyway, as its probably true that the entire effort was aimed at selling more iPods. What reason do they have to lock-in users anyway? It would actually be to Apple's benefit if other music services aimed to sell music for the iPod.
The whole idea of Apple trying to force iPod users to use the iTMS is totally untrue. Why, then, would they even allow iPod users to rip from CD's or import audio files that they already had?