How iPods Took Over the World

An anonymous reader writes "The Observer has a piece today about the iPod's ascension to dominance of the mp3 player market. The author argues that it's largely the result of clever business tactics and the iTunes music store." From the article: "The second thing about the iPod: it puts you, not them, in control. Basically, the record labels are devotees of the Henry Ford business model: 'You can have any music you want so long as it's what I want to give you.' But using the cyberspace jukebox, you're no longer at their mercy. You don't have to pay for the four filler tracks on every album. You don't have to buy albums at all. You can put country next to classical, punk next to jazz, Barry Manilow next to Placido Domingo (wait, that's a joke)."

Comments

I was obvious that the last bit was a joke...

[Osrin]

... nobody in their right mind would listen to Placido Domingo.

Re:I was obvious that the last bit was a joke...

[BarryNorton]

nobody [with an iPod] would listen to Placido Domingo

NP: Domingo in Pappano's 'Tristan und Isolde'... on a Sony mp3 player

Re:I was obvious that the last bit was a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, freak.

Re:I was obvious that the last bit was a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assburger...

Lame

[Jazzer_Techie]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Re:Lame

[harlows_monkeys]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

But at least the iPod won't decide that you are an imperfect biological infestation and try to wipe you out.

Re:Lame

[Eccles]

You have to admit Nomad was right about women, though.

-1, TOS reference

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

[gearhead geek]teh oh noes, I thought about cool old chevys before I thought about TOS reference[/gearhead geek]

Re:Lame

[ProphetNine]

He was right, you know. He just left out "over-priced". But I guess that goes without saying -- it is an Apple product....

iPod's marketing is so clever,

[yagu]

The iPod's marketing is so clever, they've managed to bamboozle the author of the article evidenced by sentence one, paragraph four:

And that's the second thing about the iPod: it puts you, not them, in control.

It may have given "you" the perception you're in control, but you're not, you have been betrayed by every corner of the commercial industry. The only unique factor about Apple and the iPod is they've made the betrayal seem warm and fuzzy.

Fair use is almost gone. You want to play iPod music anywhere but on your computer (or four others, God Bless you Apple) or your iPod? Forget it.

Oh wait, you can spin the track out to a CD, then rip (a wink and a nod) an mp3 or other sans DRM that will play on your other mp3 players. Maybe.

Of course, that's assuming some other mechanism isn't in the pipeline to circumvent that.

Oh, and the music you're writing to a CD to rip back to mp3s?

• it started out inferior in quality... with compression.
• it will lose quality as it gets passed up the chain and back down -- you will have to make some "quality" decisions about what level mp3 you need to retain even the quality left in the track.
• Oh yeah, you're going to have to re-enter the track, album, and artist info, that gets lost in the process.

It's been a string of betrayals by the music industry... which holds out as bait the enticement some startup band could make it big like Metallica, Jewel, etc., if they only toe the RIAA and Music industry line. Apple and iPod are just one piece in the betrayal tapestry.

(I've mentioned this before -- it bears repeating: one of the most egregious betrayals by the music industry is the CDDB. Almost since the creation of CDs digital media was capable of encoding all album meta-data, e.g., liner notes, lyrics, credits, and track, title, artist. But they never provided this! A clever and enterprising public domain database stepped up to this, at least to create a database of album and track info. Who populated it? Not the record industry. We did! And we still get nothing in return.)

Apple can't skate on their complicity just because they made something warm and fuzzy, something easy to use, something dominant... in some ways that makes them more evil. Trust us, you'll like this -- the first one's free.

I'm holding out hope I can continue to find unadulterated CDs, unencumbered (and high quality) mp3s and players that will play them all interchangeably and headache free. So far I find enough Indy available and talent that, for me, the mainstream entertainment pap is irrelevant.

Oh and, by the way, I'm more than willing to purchase/pay fair prices for music.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[oberondarksoul]

Because, of course, you can only put songs from the iTunes Music Store on an iPod, right? Even though the iPod was released before the iTMS... iTunes defaults to ripping tracks as un-DRMed AACs which you can play anywhere you can play an AAC. Or you can rip to MP3 or WAV or AIFF. And you can import all those into iTunes without any DRM going on them either. If you don't want to buy from the iTunes Music Store, guess what? You don't have to!

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Doppler00]

I'm suprised this was marked as a troll. Guess the apple fans don't like insightful opinions. The point about the CDDB database is relevent. It seems that all to often companies don't really understand what the consumer wants. Often times, the quality of community created software is vastly superior to anything a company would come out with due to their marketing restrictions.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Golias]

I'm surprised it was marked as insightful. He didn't share any "insights" that have not been brought up on every single Slashdot discussion of the iPod ever. If anything, it should probably be marked "Redundant."

But yeah, it shouldn't have been marked as a "Troll" either. The population of slashdot has changed to the point that there are a lot of people with mod points who don't actually seem to know what a troll is anymore. C'est La Vie.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[SensitiveMale]

It may have given "you" the perception you're in control, but you're not, you have been betrayed by every corner of the commercial industry. The only unique factor about Apple and the iPod is they've made the betrayal seem warm and fuzzy.

You are confusing the iTunes Music Store with the iPod.

I have purchased 6 iPods and currently use 2 (sold the others). I haven't purchased a single track from the iTunes music store yet my iPods are full of music I have legally purchased.

I am fully in control of that music, as mentioned in the article. The iPod works perfectly with plain 'ole mp3 files.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[sulli]

Really, the whole site should be marked Redundant.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[TheRaven64]

iTunes defaults to ripping tracks as un-DRMed AACs which you can play anywhere you can play an AAC

A clarification: iTunes will only rip to DRM-free formats. It will play some DRM'd formats (m4p, audible), but it will not create them. This is unlike WMP, which will take an un-DRM'd source format (CDDA) and add DRM to it when you rip it (although I believe this 'feature' can be turned off).

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[rimskij]

You're lying:

http://www.redchairsoftware.com/anapod/
http://www.yamipod.com/.

Nuff said.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[mrraven]

Yep 14,822 songs on my computer organized by itunes and playable on my ipod, not one of which was purchased from the itunes music store, not one of which has a trace of DRM. Would we all use ogg in an ideal world? Perhaps, but this will do because in practice I can have ALL my music without DRM anyway way I want to "acquire" it, and including in the apple's lossless compression format which sounds EXACTLY the same as a cd. In theory it sucks, in practice not too bad. That's why I've drunk the Apple cool-aid even as a lefty crunchy co-opy kind of guy who supports OSS in theory. Much as I'd like a perfect free software world I dread the thought of configuring ALSA or what ever the latest flaky GNU/OSS OS audio subsystem is at the moment. Hint sound has NEVER worked properly for me installing Ubuntu on two different p.c.s. Linux/BSD is a GREAT server and as a home entertainment OS? Not so much...

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[ralph alpha]

No, the audience of Slashdot users doesn't have to buy music from iTMS. Normal people don't have to, either, but it sure is significantly harder. We can get our music elsewhere, and we can deal with the relative technical challenge of encoding it the way we want. It's harder for them.

Even though people don't have to do something, if it becomes ubiquitous enough, it's almost as if they have to. It's a lot more difficult to go against the grain, especially when they make going with the grain as easy as they do.

Here's a great example: you don't have to eat ultra-processed, low-quality foods manufactured and distributed by gigantic megacorporations. The majority of people do, however. The same goes for anything else so widespread. The thing is, if there's a problem with something, "you don't have to eat it" or "you don't have to use it" isn't a solution. It's actually unfortunate, because people like us (the ones who actually notice the problems and get heated about them) tend to go off in our own directions, mostly ignoring what's wrong... when we could be attempting to fix this stuff.

So what if automobiles pollute the air and have a hand in destroying the ozone layer? You don't have to drive a car!

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[oberondarksoul]

In your examples, the heavily processed food and cars are already dominant. It's hard to avoid them because they're so ubiquitous. However, a standard audio CD is the current dominant method for obtaining music - so surely by your examples people wouldn't buy from the iTMS because it's hard to go against the grain?

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it I can't play my vinyl discs on my washing machine?

I've been ripped off!

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[cubicledrone]

So let's get this straight:

1. You can play the music on five computers
2. And an iPod
3. And make an audio CD

What's left? A lounge band with carpet on the piano?

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[tkdog]

You know, I'm tired of this. One goes to the itunes store and buys a music file with a known quality (they even let you sample it), known limitations, etc. If you don't like those limitations then don't pay them and they won't let you download the file. Do they market their product, yep sure. But complaining that their marketing "tricked you" is just admitting to being stupid. The terms of sale are very clear. Do they give you an unprotected digital copy of the original master? Nope, but neither do they claim to do so. They claim to be an easy way to get a "legal" copy of popular music of a "reasonable" quality with a, fairly lenient, policy of what you can do with it once you've downloaded it. What you and your fellow critics don't seem to like is that they are being successful doing this. That's fine, you can complain all you want. The fact of the matter is, that the business model is working for them. It has the opportunity to change some aspects of the music industry, perhaps evening creating a market for other than just the big names and big labels. Time will see.... But, stop claiming that they are tricking people. You just look like an idiot.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Kadin2048]

This is silly. Look, the average user may be dumb, but they're not so dumb they can't figure out how to rip a CD in iTunes. Especially when the alternative is paying a dollar a track from the iTMS, pretty much anyone can figure out how to put their CD in the drive, and press the rip button when it comes up in iTunes.

The people who can't be bothered to figure that out are probably so rich that they don't really care where the music comes from anyway, and aren't bothered by the fact that they'll have to repurchase it if they wanted to switch MP3 player brands.

Regular people rip their CDs. That was the original motto on iTunes, long before the iTMS: "Rip, Mix, Burn."

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[yagu]

..., One goes to the itunes store and buys a music file with a known quality...,

People don't know about quality, they assume it's good, as in, just like CDs. It's not their fault, noone really tells them differently. Yes, there's a lot of techno-mumbo-babble, but it is beyond the average consumers understanding. The surprise is when they create a CD, and rip, and start hearing funny noises. I'm not saying Apple lies about that, but the landscape for consumers has changed, and they're not being given the full story in easy-to-understand terms.

..., But complaining that their marketing "tricked you" ...,

Please don't do that. Don't put words in my mouth. Neither the word "tricked", nor any conjugation of it appears on my comment (I "searched" it to be sure, you can check up on that). I don't think Apple has tricked anyone. My point was, and still is, Apple is part of a larger consortium that has betrayed the consumers.

Instead of expanding and turning digital music and its related entertainment media into its potential, Apple, and others spent their time and energy tightening the digital screws. Apple has done the best job of making their suite of stuff easy and painless to use, but it's only as long as you behave and stay within the domain they've carefully cordoned off for their market. Betrayal is different than trickery.

..., perhaps evening creating a market for other than just the big names and big labels...,

Perhaps. You have any examples? It's not like there hasn't been sufficient time for evidence of this.

..., But, stop claiming that they are tricking people...,

As I pointed out, I didn't and wasn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Hold on...

Just a second...

Any moment now...

..., You just look like an idiot. ...

Ahhh, the obligatory ad hominem to supply the exclamation point to a post well crafted. Well done!

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[weg]

Of course, that's assuming some other mechanism isn't in the pipeline to circumvent that.

Yeah.. Sony is negotiating with Roxio to automatically add a RootKit to all audio CDs burned with Toast ;-)

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[node 3]

The iPod's marketing is so clever, they've managed to bamboozle the author of the article evidenced by sentence one, paragraph four:

Then why the fuck are you ranting about the iTunes Music Store?

Of course, that's assuming some other mechanism isn't in the pipeline to circumvent [burning to CD and ripping].

This is a virtual impossibility. They cannot enforce a system where you can't rip a standard CD without extreme effort, such as making a law that even *this* Congress won't pass.

And if it ever *did* happen, you'd still have be able to do it with your existing hardware and software long before it became impossible, which brings us to:

Oh, and the music you're writing to a CD to rip back to mp3s?

it started out inferior in quality... with compression.

Inferior to what? I knew when I bought it what format it was in. It's inferior to CD, superior to tape. If I really need a song in full CD quality, I won't buy a tape, or from iTunes, I'll buy a CD. As of yet, I haven't had a need to.

it will lose quality as it gets passed up the chain and back down -- you will have to make some "quality" decisions about what level mp3 you need to retain even the quality left in the track.

Or rip to lossless if you *really* care about the minimal amount of quality loss you'd get in most cases with AAC or MP3.

Oh yeah, you're going to have to re-enter the track, album, and artist info, that gets lost in the process.

No, it doesn't. When your burn a CD, iTunes remembers the track info for that CD, even if it's a mixed CD.

The burn-rip scenario you bring up is an emergency escape protocol to engage in *only* if for some reason you need to escape from iTunes DRM. Presumably, you're comfortable with the current terms if you've already bought more than a couple of songs, so this really only comes into play if Apple alters the terms of FairPlay in an unacceptable way, or you've decided to go into full-(hippie||libertarian)-mode with Linux or BSD.

In other words, *WORST CASE*, you have to burn and re-rip and decide whether to go lossless or take some most likely imperceptible quality loss, so no matter how much fear-mongering your wish to inject into the discussion, Apple has placed a bottom-limit on the "evil" you can attribute to their DRM. As an iTunes Music Store customer, I fully understand the possibility, but not the probability, what I may have to go through to 'liberate' my music, but as it stands, my music is freely usable enough as it is.

one of the most egregious betrayals by the music industry is the CDDB

Which has *what* to do with Apple? In fact, Apple corrects this so-called "betrayal" by using the CDDB to put your track names into your ripped music since the record labels have only exceptionally rarely put them on their CDs (which Apple does not create or sell, and thus has no responsibility for). Apple has gone even further, and done what the music industry has failed to do with CDs, and put the track information into the music that they actually *do* sell on the iTunes Music Store.

The music industry is pretty bad, and Apple has had to make some compromises in order to play with them (as we all must do when we deal with them, generally via buying CDs or listening to the radio), but Apple has actually done the commendable thing and given us a truly fair deal--a deal that has, built in, an emergency escape option. Do you expect the music industry would have done that on their own? Apple's not perfect, but all-in-all, they're pretty damn good.

I'm holding out hope I can continue to find unadulterated CDs, unencumbered (and high quality) mp3s and players that will play them all interchangeably and headache free.

Unadulterated CDs work just fine with iPods and iTunes. In fact, even adulterated ones (which have nothing whatsoever to do with Apple, iTunes (player or store) or the iPod) work just fine in iTunes on the Mac.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[stephentyrone]

My point was, and still is, Apple is part of a larger consortium that has betrayed the consumers.

If people didn't want the product, then they wouldn't buy it. Last I checked, iTMS was doing brisk business, ergo the consumers want the product, and Apple is giving it to them. Can you explain to me where "betrayal" figures in to that? You may not like DRM; I don't like DRM. You may not like 160kbit AAC; I don't especially care for it either, but I find it listenable. But Apple failing to satisfy your personal version of "what the market should look like" hardly constitutes "betrayal of the consumers".

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

The people who can't be bothered to figure that out are probably so rich that they don't really care where the music comes from anyway...

or they just have live bands playing at thier house and in their limo all the time.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[node 3]

I'm suprised this was marked as a troll.

Because his post is that of an anti-DRM troll. DRM is only tangentially relevant to the topic at hand, yet he used it as an excuse to go on an ideological rant.

No one *wants* DRM, but most everyone will accept it under reasonable terms. Apple's terms are more than reasonable. Posting such an unreasonable rant about reasonable DRM is not insightful--at least, yagu's rant isn't. His post is inflammatory, and really qualifies as a troll or flamebait, even though I'm sure he truly believes in what he posted.

Guess the apple fans don't like insightful opinions.

What was insightful about his post? Nothing in it was relevant to the topic of the iPod. Most of it was ideological vitriol. And the only reasonable part, which you point out below, was aimed at a company that did the *exact opposite* of the "CDDB betrayal" he complains about!

How is that not a troll, or at the very least flamebait?

Insightful? Are you mad?

The point about the CDDB database is relevent. It seems that all to often companies don't really understand what the consumer wants. Often times, the quality of community created software is vastly superior to anything a company would come out with due to their marketing restrictions.

Yes, all too often companies *don't* listen to their customers. The whole point of this slashdot story is that Apple does, and created a product that gives the customer what they really and truly want in the iPod.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[shellbeach]

Really, the whole site should be marked Redundant.

I'll second that! Oh, wait ...

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[ClamIAm]

I agree that the Ipod takes control away from you, but for a slightly different reason, and that is the fact that it is completely proprietary. Apple releases no source code, no public APIs, and no documentation whatsoever so that you can tinker with it. When you copy songs to it from Itunes, your filenames are mangled and put into random folders for absolutely no reason at all, other than inconveniencing people who want to use the device in ways big daddy apple doesn't want you to.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

check in cvs, it should be fixed now

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[yabos]

No, don't reply with facts because his whole argument is now false! :)

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[RedSteve]

As others have noted, I thin you've mistaken the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. The iPod emphatically does not require any kind of DRM on the music files loaded onto its hard drive. As for the music files sold on ITMS sucking away every last right you have to music...

Fair use is almost gone. You want to play iPod music anywhere but on your computer (or four others, God Bless you Apple) or your iPod? Forget it.

Oh wait, you can spin the track out to a CD, then rip (a wink and a nod) an mp3 or other sans DRM that will play on your other mp3 players. Maybe.

Of course, that's assuming some other mechanism isn't in the pipeline to circumvent that.

Oh, and the music you're writing to a CD to rip back to mp3s?

it started out inferior in quality... with compression.
it will lose quality as it gets passed up the chain and back down -- you will have to make some "quality" decisions about what level mp3 you need to retain even the quality left in the track.
Oh yeah, you're going to have to re-enter the track, album, and artist info, that gets lost in the process.

You seem to imply that your right to fair use includes making as many perfect copies as you want. Has that ever been the case? IANAL, but as I understand it, fair use was intended to allow end users a means to convey the meaning and context of a piece and -- in the case of software -- preserve a duplicate copy for archival purposes.

As this applies to music, for ages we've been compiling mix tapes and making outright copies of CDs, tapes, and records to audio tape. The record companies grumbled about this, of course, but didn't do much with it because -- besides being near impossible to track in the person-to-person distribution model of taping, those copies were of obviously inferior quality from the first generation on.

With those old-school uses in mind, how is Apple's DRM radically different from what you could practically do before? Can you...

• Make a copy for archival purposes? Yes*
• Compile a mixed set of music (at potentially lesser audio quality) for free distribution to your friends? Yes
• Listen to the original composition as you purchased it on multiple devices? Yes**

I fail to see how fair use is on the way out the door based on Apple's current implementation of FairPlay.

Of course, what you fail to note is that the iPod doesn't require you to use iTunes. You are free to rip lossless files from your own CDs and distribute them any way you want. Your iPod will not refuse those files, and it will gladly play them alongside that copy of Sweet Caroline you just couldn't resist buying from ITMS when you first got into iTunes.

*I can save all the AAC files to any backup media that I want and file them away in cold storage; if my hard drive ever dies, I can retrieve the backup, copy them to the new drive, and be back in business.

**Sure, after I make ten copies of the exact same playlist I have to switch a song or two around or delete the list and recreate it, but for all intents and purposes this is still easier than 1987 when I either had to copy the same 17 songs over and over again to get first-generation 'quality' for each mix tape I was making, or settle on making all second-generation copies...

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[yagu]

Hmmm, something I don't do often, I'm agreeing completely with all of your points.

I "launched" a bit and was probably primed... I'm soooo tired of DRM in almost any form and from any vendor. I don't think Apple is perfect.

And, as many posters pointed out, my rant appeared to mix iTunes and iPod. That was intentional. It is the culture and behavior Apple cultivates -- most iPod owners I know go the route of iTunes, and I find for most the distinction truly is blurred.

I failed to make my case on one point about DRM and mp3 compatibility. You are correct, mp3s play fine on iPods... it is the iTunes (again, based on my experience this is where most iPod owners go for their music) incompatibility the other way that frustrates.

I'll back off Apple, they aren't RIAA, and much of what and how they've done was dictated by RIAA.

Thanks for a well stated and reasoned reply.

Regards.

yagu...

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Durf]

Of course, that's assuming some other mechanism isn't in the pipeline to circumvent that.

Poster 1: "They're probably plotting something! Maybe! You never know!"

Posters 2 through 10: "Wow, how insightful!"

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Korin43]

Last time I checked WMP has the DRM ripping turned off by default (of course, last time I checked was around a year ago).

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[timboc007]

Well, I, for one, welcome our clickable overlords...

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[evilneko]

Sure they do. A troll is whoever holds an opinion that they find offensive.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[iwsnet]

They should have wrote that the iPod puts Steve Jobs in control. Now he can dictate his own ideas and terms to the music industry and there's not a lot they can do about it. He will also get his say in the TV and movie business as well.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[arminw]

......most iPod owners I know go the route of iTunes.....

Have you asked these ipod owners what percentage of the music on their ipods is from itunes as compared to other sources? Most ipods actually have only a very small percentage of their library purchased from the ITMS. I like having my entire 500+ CD collection in my pocket. There are many music lover, who have bought CDs and even vinyl LP years ago and ripped these into their ipods in the last few years, so they can enjoy their music anywhere. Free legal music from the internet is another good source of music for ipods.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

I have purchased 6 iPods and currently use 2 (sold the others)...

I am fully in control of that music, as mentioned in the article.

If you've purchased 6 iPods in the less-than-five-year history of the iPod, then you are hopelessly under control by Apple's marketing and RDF.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[node 3]

You seem to be under more than a few misconceptions.

First off, they are spelled/capitalized 'iPod' and 'iTunes'.

The iPod is a FireWire/USB hard drive and the files on it are fully accessible. This has allowed people to trivially write software to fully access and manipulate all of the data on the iPod, including copying songs off of it, and transferring songs to it (for third-party music jukeboxes and Linux compatibility (and Windows compatibility prior to Apple officially supporting Windows with the iPod).

If, for some reason, this is not open enough for you, you can install Linux on it.

As for the filename obfuscation, this is done because the songs are in a database. There are technical advantages to this. Two of which are:

1. Speed
2. To avoid filesystem/filename incompatibilities

Both of these have affected music players that have come before and come after the iPod. The iPod gives you *lots* of control over your music. In fact, much more control than your average person has ever had before. Apple is notoriously good at this sort of thing. In fact, they are far better at it than pretty much anyone else, including you. That's why they've made choices which superficially remove control from the user--a choice you clearly would not have made. These choices have made the iPod superior to your Ipod.

If Apple had been intent on denying you access to the songs on your iPod, they could have done so. That they haven't done so take a lot of the wind out of the sails of your argument.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

WMP 11 beta, DRM off by default too.

Gotta love the FUD.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it makes you feel smart to use latin words, but not every insult is an ad hominem logical fallacy. His arguements weren't based on the idea that you looked like an idiot. That was merely a tangental, albeit true, observation.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[ClamIAm]

First off, they are spelled/capitalized 'iPod' and 'iTunes'.

PROTIP: perpetuating idiotic marketspeak doesn't make you appear smart.

Anyway, let's look at what seems to be your main point: Apple knows better than me how I want to organize my music, and they could have done worse, so let's just get on our knees at the altar of Jobs. Um, sorry, but you're basically proving my case for me.

File naming and organizing is not something that needs to be delegated to some program that is less powerful than the file browser and file utilities I already have. This is a problem that's been solved for years. You either know this already and don't want to admit it, or simply have your head up your ass.

Sure, you might claim that Itunes makes things easier for people, but when it comes down to it and something goes wrong, being coddled by a nanny program works against you. People will have no idea what happened. If, however, they had learned some basic computer skills, they would be able to troubleshoot and figure out the problem.

Of course, the obvious rebuttal to this is "well, since we can make it easy, we should". This is not valid. The easy solution to a problem is not always a good one. If I spill a drink on the floor, an "easy" solution would be to pay someone to demolish my house and rebuild it. Is this a good solution?

Then we get to the "Apple could have done worse" aspect. This is pure bullshit. It's like saying Al Capone was a great guy because he could have done worse.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[node 3]

PROTIP: perpetuating idiotic marketspeak doesn't make you appear smart.

No, but not calling products by their actual names does tend to make you appear ignorant. Deliberately getting the names wrong (as you are doing) is irrational.

Anyway, let's look at what seems to be your main point: Apple knows better than me how I want to organize my music

No, Apple knows better than you how to organize the files on the iPod. You are free to organize your music however you want.

You have absolutely no understanding of good product design. Your average person doesn't want to deal with the actual song files. Why should they? Their computer is really good at organizing such things. By "your average person", I don't mean (as you probably narrated in your mind), "your average idiot". Even your highly above average person doesn't want to, nor should they have to, organize the actual song files. The song files are not what they are concerned with, the music is. With iTunes and the iPod, Apple has put the music and the listening experience to the forefront, and attempted to keep the behind-the-scenes details from getting in the way.

I wonder if you know why, exactly, you want to control the song files? Do you really care? What's more important to you, a superb listening experience, or absolute control over the filesystem? Is it rational to keep absolute control over the files when it detracts from the listening experience? These questions are for you to answer to yourself, you don't need to respond to them.

If I spill a drink on the floor, an "easy" solution would be to pay someone to demolish my house and rebuild it.

That's retarded. having your house demolished and rebuilt is not easier than cleaning up a spill.

Then we get to the "Apple could have done worse" aspect. This is pure bullshit.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said, "Apple could have done worse". I said that if Apple were intent on stopping you from accessing the files on your iPod, they could have done so directly.

The beauty of apps like iTunes and iPhoto is that they put the media (songs and photos) into the forefront, and hide all the impertinent details, but unlike you might expect from proprietary companies, they don't lock you out of your files. If ever you want to get your songs out of iTunes, or your photos out of iPhoto, you can do so very easily.

I was a bit leery at first when entrusting my data to iTunes and iPhoto. I used to meticulously organize my files, with a standard directory structure and file naming scheme. When I was satisfied that I could get my data back out of those apps, I gave them a try, and now I'd have it no other way. I'm not longer concerned about the actual data files, except to be certain that I can access them directly if I need to. That you are trying to spin this as a bad thing is absurd.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Tim Browse]

Well, the standard music interface for my Windows Media Centre PC, for a start. I don't think that can play DRM'd music from iTMS. Unless you can now play iTMS music via some iTunes codec that works with any ACM compatible media player under Windows? Or one of those small linux appliance networked media player things, etc.

(Before you point out WMA's DRM, I don't like that, either).

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Xenna]

No one *wants* DRM, but most everyone will accept it under reasonable terms. Apple's terms are more than reasonable.

What's reasonable about the fact that I can't play ITMS purchased songs on my 4 wonderful whole house music-players because of licensing issues? ( http://slimdevices.com/ )

Perhaps it would be acceptable if these tracks were sold at bargain prices, but they're not. I get to pay dearly for lossy compressed copies of the original that I can't play on my iRiver & Squeezebox players.

That is completely unreasonable in my book.

Good thing there are alternatives. Why anyone would want to shop at ITMS is beyond me.

And, yes: People *are* unreasonably modding Apple-critical comments down.

X.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[rjstanford]

Compile a mixed set of music (at potentially lesser audio quality) for free distribution to your friends?

I see this a lot. Actually, something to keep in mind is that the mixed set of music will be of exactly the same quality as your version. Its only if your friends want to rip it into their computer that the quality will decrease. Which it would have done anyway. Unless they choose a lossless format which will, even in this case, perfectly preserve the same quality.

So even here, the DRMd files aren't causing any degredation, per se. You do lose the ability for them to have files of the same size as yours that are of identical quality, but I don't believe that that's actually granted anywhere as part of fair use, as your original point also maintained.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, based on some co-worker's experiences, you have the option of buying any number of other MP3 players like the iRiver and Squeezebox, and buying your music from any number of other places in DRM format that may or may not play on your particular model of player, and may or may not disappear if you decide that $X/month is too much for you to play given the number of new songs you're liking each month.

The iPod advantage was the seamless experience from buying to listening.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[node 3]

What's reasonable about the fact that I can't play ITMS purchased songs on my 4 wonderful whole house music-players because of licensing issues?

What's unreasonable about that? Those are the terms, and you know them ahead of time. You're not talking about reasonable, you're talking about requirements. iTunes Music Store songs don't meet your requirements, but that's not unreasonable of them.

Perhaps it would be acceptable if these tracks were sold at bargain prices, but they're not. I get to pay dearly for lossy compressed copies of the original that I can't play on my iRiver & Squeezebox players.

You chose to buy iRiver and Squeezebox devices. That was a choice which prevents you from using songs off of the iTMS. Had you done it the other way around, you'd have made a choice which prevents some of your songs from playing on your devices. Either way it's a choice, and either way all parties are being reasonable.

That is completely unreasonable in my book.

I'm sure you mean "unacceptable", not "unreasonable". There are many things I find unacceptable, which I still would admit are reasonable.

Good thing there are alternatives.

I find it unacceptable to buy songs from a WMA source because a) it won't play on my computer of choice and b) it won't play on my portable device of choice. I don't, however, find it unreasonable, just unacceptable.

Why anyone would want to shop at ITMS is beyond me.

Is that true? Can you really not understand why people will buy songs through iTunes? It seems your only complaint about the iTunes music store is the DRM. Perhaps, as I stated already, most people don't find the DRM unreasonable.

If you really can't understand why people buy songs through iTunes, yet the fact is that buying songs through iTunes is as popular as it is, then the lack of understanding lies with *you*, and *you* should try to understand it before you can make any beneficial criticism, for how can your opinion be useful on a topic you don't understand? This is true *even if the action you are criticizing is irrational*.

You have every right to have an uninformed opinion, and in fact, have every right to express it. But please don't think that doing so is a good thing.

And, yes: People *are* unreasonably modding Apple-critical comments down.

And people *are* unreasonably modding Apple-critical comments up. But that's neither here nor there. We are talking about one specific comment, a comment that was off-topic, acerbic, ideologically extreme, and in most cases false, misleading, or even completely backwards.

Most people like Apple, like the iPod and like iTunes. If someone is going to come in an start attacking those three things as an anti-DRM fanatic, they are going to find their message is not received very well. If, on the other hand, they just point out that they don't like DRM on principle (even reasonable DRM--yes, they will have to acknowledge that some DRM *is* reasonable, since many people have found it reasonable), or that they don't buy from iTunes since they can't use it on their player, etc, they will be better received and probably modded up. But it you come frothing at the mouth about a product that just about everyone loves, you're going to be received as a nutter.

The choice is yours.

Re:iPod's marketing is so clever,

[ClamIAm]

No, Apple knows better than you how to organize the files on the iPod. You are free to organize your music however you want.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I want file management to be simple and uniform across all the devices I use. This way, I don't have to rely on some bullshit application or wait for someone to reverse-engineer the damn thing just so I can read the data off of it. Sure, claim that they just mangle the filenames. There's a name for this already, it's called vendor lock-in.

It's really cute, though. Your claims about how Apple's just so clever for taking all the thought out of computing for the "average person", so let's just do it their way. Never mind the fact that this is the same argument used by companies like MS and IBM when they try to lock people into their "solutions".

But the bigger idiocy you spout is the fact that I shouldn't be able to do things the way I want to, just because you like Apple's way of doing things. The greatest asset of general-purpose computing hardware is that you can make it do whatever you want it to. Why should I give this up to some corporation? Because dumbass fanboys on slashdot think so? Please.

Putting the customer in control

[ceoyoyo]

What a concept! Maybe it will catch on and become the business strategy of the new millenium! No, wait, we've already decided to go with something else. It already has a cool TLA and everything.

I think he's wrong

[ArcherB]

The iPod is popular because it looks cute and has an eye-catching marketing campaign of silouetted beautiful people dancing.

Nothing more.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

Keep saying that. You might be able to make it true some day.

Re:I think he's wrong

[ArcherB]

Well, what does the Apple player do that my Lyra or iRiver MP3 players do not... other than come bundled with a nifty iTunes store that is pretty much the same thing I get from MusicMatch JukeBox?

Granted, I do get to spend twice as much money for an iPod that I do for my Lyra, but that's hardly reason to buy one.

The iPod is a lot like a Gucci purse. Any old K-Mart purse will carry stuff just as well, but it is not nearly as trendy.

(not that I carry a purse, but you get the idea)

Re:I think he's wrong

[jcnnghm]

I'm not quite sure why this is flamebait. The iPod has surpassed other MP3 players largely because Apple has been able to position it well, turning it into a status symbol.

It is a quality product, but look at Bose speakers. Marketing goes a long way.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

"What does the Apple player do that my Lyra or iRiver MP3 players do not"

Have a decent user interface. That may not be important to you, but it is important to a couple of people. Those people bought iPods.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because iTunes is soooo intuative. Retard.

Re:I think he's wrong

[ArcherB]

Have a decent user interface. That may not be important to you, but it is important to a couple of people. Those people bought iPods.

Oh no, a good interfaces is extremely important to me.
A good buddy of mine has an iPod, I have a Lyra. The interface is not that much different between the two. Well, there is one difference. I can use my Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod.

Unless you are talking about the user interface on the CPU. On my Linux box, the Amarok interface blows away anything offered by Apple for Linux. On WinXP, MusicMatch Jukebox is much easier to use than the iTunes interfaces. Of course, I purchased Jukebox, but still saved over $100 over the cost I would have paid for the iPod.

So, again, can you give me a feature that the iPods offer that my Lyra does not?

Re:I think he's wrong

[green1]

finally, someone else with a lyra. I was starting to think I was the only one... I've never understood the apple appologists and their blind love of the iPod, my lyra does more, cost less, is easier to use... what's not to like?

Re:I think he's wrong

[fafaforza]

> Those people bought iPods.

I'm not so sure that those people even gave other products a passing glance, much less enough to make an informed choice. Their only concern during purchase is the color.

To say that everything out there pales in comparison to the iPod isn't very fair. The iPod has some usability shortcomings just as other players. I've owned the great 5GB Rio Carbon, and got a color iPod solely for the space. And I do miss the ability to bookmark a 5 hour mp3, start to play music in shuffle mode, then switch back to the bookmark, all without taking my Rio out of my pocket.

What's with the iPod only bookmarking "podcasts" and audiobooks, and not any old mp3 file?

What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?

So I don't think other players are getting their fair share of attention or respect. Maybe it's too much work to compare the available units to make a truly independant decision.

Re:I think he's wrong

[TinyManCan]

I've mounted up every one of my iPods (I've had 6) as a disk drive. First with FireWire and now with USB.

You can configure the amount of space set aside for this disk function.

Re:I think he's wrong

[eldepeche]

Also, Amarok blows, so GP is full of shit.

Re:I think he's wrong

[ArcherB]

Also, Amarok blows,

Well, you could transfer files using "cp *.mp3 /media/usbdrive" ir a gui equivelant. I don't think this is possible with an iPod.

Still, Amarok is blows away the iTunes interface for Linux.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

"Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod"

I don't understand. I plug in the iPod, it's recognized as a USB mass storage device. Windows and Mac. No drivers necessary. Your objection doesn't exist.

Then again, you totally blasted your UI cred by saying MUSIC MATCH FREAKIN' JUKEBOX is superior to iTunes.

Hey, what works for you, works for you, and that's great. Good! I'm glad you've found a device that suits your needs. It does not suit mine.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

"What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?"

Huh? Load a play list (or an artist or a genre or an album). Set to shuffle. It works just fine.

Does the iPod have UI shortcomings? Absolutely. It's not psychic. I would like to be able to browse artists by alphabetical range...that'd be faster.

But after staring at iRiver and Creative devices trying to figure out which button does what...meh.

Whatever works for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking that people who don't share your values have inferior values.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

Why on EARTH should I copy music, file by file, to my portable player? Do you address individual sectors on your hard drive manually when you want to save a document?

I've never understood why this copying-MP3's-using-a-dumb-file-browser was so important.

Re:I think he's wrong

[drsquare]

How many people actually try out the user interfaces of various competing mp3 players before buying one? Maybe one in a million.

Everyone else buys them because they're fashionable and popular. No-one actually looks at the features, they just think 'mp3 player = ipod' and so they buy an ipod. Nothing more to it.

Re:I think he's wrong

[JonathanBoyd]

If you want to bookmark mp3s, go into iTunes, select one or more tracks, get info, go to options tab and check the 'Remember playback position' box. You can now bookmark the track(s).

Hope that helps.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Kaki Nix Sain]

"What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?"

Huh? Load a play list (or an artist or a genre or an album). Set to shuffle. It works just fine.

I'm just guessing, but I think the grand-parent meant that when song n ends, song n+1 will be from a different genre, artist, whatever. If one does your shuffle in a playlist idea, then it is possible to get two songs from the same genre, artist, whatever in a row. I'm guessing this because they said "shuffle based on", not "shuffle within".

Re:I think he's wrong

[CronoCloud]

True, the iPod is a mass storage device, but it won't play music files unless it's database has been updated/properly written with the information to play them. Which requires iTunes. (or GTKpod on Linux) That's the point they are trying to make.

With a Lyra, or say a Sony PSP it's just drag and drop the albums/files to the correct folder and you're good to go, no special software needed.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Moofie]

Hmm. I guess you could do that, if you wanted to manage your music collection by hand. That seems like a really bad way to spend an afternoon to me...

Re:I think he's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reasons why direct file access for the MP3 files is important are 1) for backup/restore purposes, in case your hard drive is hosed and you want to recover from the iPod, and 2) to share music with all your friends.

Apple had to forbid this in order to placate RIAA when they were negotiating for rights to sell music on ITMS, but there are numerous utilities, even free ones, that let you easily bypass this iTunes restriction.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yet another person who can't see the difference between "features" and "usability", between "specs" and "user experience".

Most people realize that there are other MP3 players out there that may have more features or better specs than the iPod. But they still buy iPods because (either through personal experience or reputation) they expect the iPod to provide a better user experience. In other words, they expect to be HAPPIER with their purchase.

People who don't "get" Apple, and companies that are doing a piss poor job of trying to compete with Apple, consistently fail to grasp this issue and dismiss it as nothing more than the results of clever marketing and gullible consumers. Perhaps it's time for you to consider that maybe there's something there after all that you are failing to grasp.

The Apple experience is complete. From the commercials to the packaging to the design, quality, look, and feel of the product, to the user interface's ease of use, responsiveness, efficiency, and reliability. Competing products fail in one or all of these areas to satisfy the consumer the way Apple does. So much so, that raw specs become a secondary issue.

I'd like iTunes and the iPod to do a better job with cross-fading and provide gapless track playback, but these shortcomings don't even begin to erode at my overall satisfaction with their product, especially considering my many years of frustration with everything associated with PCs and Windows.

Re:I think he's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"my lyra does more"

Shortsighted and narrow-minded "spec" comparisons, as usual. You can brag all you want about your Camaro's greater horsepower and lower purchase price, but I'll stick with my Acura's better quality, reliability, and refinement, and it's resale value in a few years will back it up.

"cost less"

Cheapskates get what they pay for. Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

"is easier to use"

Now that's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:I think he's wrong

[2nd Post!]

Huh? You didn't know you could copy files off the iPod?

It's a Firewire/USB mass storage device.
cp "\volumes\My iPod\iPod Control" ~\Desktop

Re:I think he's wrong

[Confuzzled]

What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?

First go to Settings > Shuffle: Songs. Then choose your genre, artist, playlist, etc. It will now only shuffle that specific criteria. Your Welcome.

-c

Re:I think he's wrong

[Jay Random the Other]

With a Lyra, or say a Sony PSP it's just drag and drop the albums/files to the correct folder and you're good to go, no special software needed.

With an iPod, you plug it in and iTunes syncs it, no drag and drop needed. If I wanted to worry about finding the correct folder for everything and doing it file by file, I wouldn't even have a computer; I'd still be happy to keep my data on index cards and my music on shelves.

Re:I think he's wrong

[JasonTik]

If by bookmarking of podcasts, you are referring to the fact that when you leave one, and return to it, you are in the same place, this is possible on any music or video file. If you right click on it in iTunes and go to Options, you can check the Remember playback position box. Unfortunately, this cant be done in mass, but you can always do it to a few of the files you care about it most on.

Re:I think he's wrong

[2nd Post!]

Your "nothing more" bit is the flamebait modifier.

There were at least five things that made the iPod stand out above the other MP3 players in 2001; it wasn't until 2004 that Creative Labs caught up.

1) Size/Density: In 2001 the iPod was 5gb in the size of a deck of cards. The 6gb Nomad Jukebox was the size of a Mac mini and the 256mb Rio PMP was the size of a Zippo. The similar 1.8" HDD Zen Touch wasn't released until 2004.
2) Upload speed: In 2001 the iPod used Firewire to upload songs at 12mb/s, compared to the 1mb/s of the USB Nomad Jukebox. You could fill an iPod in 7 minutes, while it would take over 80 minutes for the Nomad.
3) Usability: In 2001 the iPod had 4 buttons and a scrollwheel to access the songs, playlist, volume, and position. The Nomad Jukebox had 11 buttons to do the same; one could be used in one hand, the other could not.
4) iTunes: In 2001 you only had to plug in the iPod for it to charge, upload, and synchronize. The Rio and Creatives of that age required you to create playlists, drag files, and use special functions in software. iTunes was literally plug, wait, unplug, and play.
5) Mass Storage: This gave the iPod immense geek cred. Your iPod was a vanilla Firewire/USB mass storage device. I installed OS X on mine.

It took competitors three years to catch up; in the mean time Apple had released the iPod mini, which Creative countered with the Zen Micro 9 months later and the Zen Touch was the first Zen to use a 1.8" HDD also in 2004. All the while Apple released smaller and lighter iPods, cheaper and higher density iPods, and Windows compatibility to boot.

Is it any surprise they succeeded when everyone else was giving them the keys to the kingdom?

Is it me or...

[TheKidWho]

Is slashdot becoming Digg + 2 hours.

Re:Is it me or...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to remark that Digg has really, really stupid comments, but then I realized that people like you bring them here, too.

Re:Is it me or...

[gcauthon]

Slashdot will occasionally get out a story before anyone else. link

Only one REAL reason

[TheAxeMaster]

Marketing. People rarely buy a player based on the music store, and itunes isn't the first music store in the world to offer single track purchases. Once they opened it up to the windows market and ran enough commercials to make it the stylish thing to have, people bought it. Most people weren't really aware of mp3 players because they never saw commercials for it, apple was the first to do it successfully because they're one of the few that have the capital to execute it properly.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[agent dero]

You just don't get it, Apple has succeeded because they have what those enterprise software salesdroids call a "solution."

The iPod was popular on it's own at first because it was _simple_ and easy to use, their initial apps for it IMHO sucked miserably. But the iPod integrated with your already existing music library, and syncing everything up was very, very easy.

Now add a couple years, you can choose from a couple different models, all using the same easy to use interface, it still interfaces nicely with iTunes, which runs on Mac/Windows which can rip and organize all your CDs, and sync with your iPod, and hot dog! Now you can buy music straight from withini the same application that you already keep all your music in to begin with!


Don't fool yourself, marketing was a vital role, but don't underscore the brillant move by apple to bring all these music services into iTunes+iPod, because without the whole package you just have something that's smaller than the Nomad Jukebox, lame. ;)

Re:Only one REAL reason

[NineNine]

Two words: Lock in.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the thing you need to wrap your thick, wool-stuff head around is this: Being "locked in" to something that does everything you want it to do exactly how you want it to do it isn't a bad thing.

The iPod plus iTunes doesn't do what you want it to do? Great; don't buy one.

But the thing to note here is that Apple did a remarkable job, over a span of several years, of figuring out what the vast majority of people who want a portable music player want it to do, and making products (iTunes, the iPod, the music store) that do those things very well.

"You're all idiots because you don't want exactly what I want" is a pretty dumb position to adopt, I think. Especially when there appear to be so many of THEM and so few of YOU.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[jacksonj04]

Is this like using Linux locks me out of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash etc. without pissing around with WINE?

If it just works, and just works well, people don't care if they can only use Apple.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[marc_gerges]

Being locked in is still bad - even if you really like the food at your prison.

The day Apple decides to change their business model, or to tweak what they allow you to do is the day you'll notice.

I own an iPod nano, which stayed virgin for about half an hour after buying it - it never had a single song uploaded and played with Apple's software. I run rockbox on it and have freedom to use it as I see fit.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[TinyManCan]

Blah, Lock-In is something that people are used to by now.

Besides, they are not locked-in to a single product, they have a range of sizes and colors to pick from, and they are constantly being upgraded. What more could you average clueless consumer want?

If the day comes and Apple magically switches off all the iPods in the world, about 85% of the people would download the little iPodDRMScrubber app or whatever. The other 15% don't care, as they will just re-purchase their music again, just like Records, Tapes, CDs and now digital music. This isn't the first time entire music libraries were made obsolete.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[NDPTAL85]

Your freedom isn't that valuable though. Its just an MP3 Player, not a tool to overthrow governments. Most people don't care that iTunes music is DRM'd because it has no practical affect on their lives. Why so much indignation from Slashdot geeks then?

Re:Only one REAL reason

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Its just an MP3 Player, not a tool to overthrow governments.

WHAT?!? Fucking salesmen...

Re:Only one REAL reason

[Ohreally_factor]

The docking RPG launcher is sold separately.

Re:Only one REAL reason

[jmorris42]

> Most people don't care that iTunes music is DRM'd because it has no practical affect on their lives.

You misspoke. You should have added "yet" to the end. That is the problem, we tech types see the problem looming and wisely avoid it, the masses don't and will be shocked but totally screwed in the years ahead when the stinger buried in the DRM with a nice face Apple is selling finally gets em. DRM music is leased not sold. Worse it is leased under terms which aren't fully spelled out and are going to change at random in the future.

Linux Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

with what software can the iPod be used under Linux? My Windows is more or less unusable and I'm thinking of getting rid of it soon in favour of Linux. My iPod is one of the things holding me back.. I remember some years ago there was an attempt at using it under Linux but somehow didn't follow the development.

Any recommendations of software to manage my library (Most of it in non-DRMed AAC from my classical CDs).

Thanks in advance for any hints

Re:Linux Software

[TheKidWho]

Wow if you weren't an AC I would call you out for karma whoring.

Re:Linux Software

[Poppler]

I'd recommend amaroK if you use KDE, or Rhythmbox or gnupod if you use gnome. Banshee also handles ipods pretty well.

Re:Linux Software

[Drinking Bleach]

First off, get rid of the DRM with your AAC files: http://www.hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/
It'll help a _lot_, because you'd also be able to play the files without iTunes

Secondly, what software? I don't have enough fingers to count. GNUpod, amaroK, JuK, Rythmbox, GTKPod, etc

Re:Linux Software

[jone1941]

Banshee - It uses mono so you might have some other philosophical issues to contend with, but it is generally a pretty good iTunes replacement if you don't have any iTMS purchases.

Re:Linux Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for your info.
I also just found gtkpod. I will try them out.

Re:Linux Software

[Anonymous Coward]

i found that gtkpod + easytag provided a much better combination. easy way to sort/track and transfer your music. I tried amarok, and it's media player capabilities were severely lacking.

and if you're really into your music, try installing rockbox on your iPod. i'm not sure if it supports AAC, but many other formats (and gapless playback) have been made available.

-Z

p.s. I have nothing to do with any of this software, I just use it happily.

Re:Linux Software

[Poppler]

gtkpod is a good choice. That's actually what I was thinking of when I typed gnupod, I believe gnupod is a command line utility.

Good luck making the switch to Linux :)

Re:Linux Software

[Poppler]

My brain must not be working properly today, I meant "gtkpod" not "gnupod".
I agree that gtkpod is a nice app. Personally I like using amaroK to manage my music library, it does everything I need. Of coarse that's just a matter of preference.

Re:Linux Software

[Dragoonmac]

Rhythmbox, It comes with Ubuntu, and it is great. It's like a simpler iTunes. If you use KDE amaroK is OK, juK is more to my tastes though.

Re:Linux Software

[a55clown]

you could also try out ephpod.

Re:Linux Software

[green1]

and herein lies one of the many problems of the iPod. software? why do you need specific software for an MP3 player? I hook mine up to any computer via usb, and it appears as another hard drive, I drag music on to it and can play it immediately, no drivers, no special software, works on mac, and linux, and windows, and any other OS that supports USB mass storage. no computer? that's fine, you can plug the player in to your stereo and hit record. want other options? sure, you can tote your music around on compact flash cards and load it that way if you want.

so just what makes the iPod's proprietary software better than not needing any at all?

and don't even get me started on the horrid user interface that is the hardware side of the ipod (just what is it that tells you that the ring on the front even IS a scroll wheel, or that that section in the middle is a button, never mind what the button does...) my mp3 player has a really novel concept... labelling, the buttons actually say what they do right on them!

Apple wasn't even first. mp3 players existed for a long time before the iPod. and I have an mp3 player that plays full motion video before the iPod even figured out how to display still images.

cheapest? hardly.

The only thing that I've seen that the iPod does better than every other player out there is marketting, Apple managed to make iPod synonymous with mp3 player, and for that I'll give them credit. but being the most used, does not make them the best (internet explorer anyone?) for anyone looking for an mp3 player, take a look around, you can do much better than an iPod.

Re:Linux Software

[JeffElkins]

"I hook mine up to any computer via usb, and it appears as another hard drive" iPods can operate this way also via rockbox: http://www.rockbox.org/ Not quite ready for prime-time, but getting there...

Re:Linux Software

[andreyw]

The iPod already does that, out of the box. You can even get at all the music (its inside a "hidden" folder), although its placed in a way convenient to the firmware and not the user (but who cares,... just drag and drop... thats what ID3 tags are for).

Re:Linux Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I use gtkpod. It's great. I recently discovered YamiPod, which is also really nice. :)

Re:Linux Software

[Anonymous Coward]

When you "import" tracks to your ipod using itunes, it puts all the track information into a single file, which the player then uses to allow you to navigate around the contents of the ipod quickly without having to read all the files to find what they are (slow, sucks battery).

It sucks that they don't give you a generic mass-storage option, but the "import" style of doing things does make some engineering/player-usability (but not PC-usability) sense.

Re:Linux Software

[JWallyR]

I hate to sound like a pedant, but from what you said, you would probably do well to just bit the bullet and get a Mac.

About the only reason of which I am aware to not use a Mac is if you have software which requires you to use a Windows PC. I don't personally know of any non-game software which would prevent you from switching to Macs, but I hear that it exists.
But if you're considering Linux, then that argument against Macs is gone. From a usability standpoint, Macs have a huge advantage (you may not care, if you're a computer guru; my guess would be that you aren't, since you're asking about switching to Linux vs. just digging up the information and researching software yourself); from a software support standpoint, Macs are likely to have an advantage as well, with the exception of certain company-sponsored Linux flavors and programs. But if you don't need those already, you won't need them after you drop your Windows box, right?

Now, I'm probably horribly biased, since I've been a Mac user for a long time now, but I really have just never felt the need to get a Windows box. About everything I ever want to do, I can do on my iMac G5. The only big exception for me are certain games, but being a World of Warcraft addict means that I don't have a lot of time to spend thinking about games I don't have! :p

Seriously, get a Mac. I think you'll be happy with it!

Re:Linux Software

[centuren]

I'm also a happy mac user, but you did leave out a very valid reason to not get a mac: already owning a fast PC. If you've got a good computer that windows is killing, linux is a great choice that doesn't involve putting up hundreds of dollars.

Re:Linux Software

[CheeseEatingBulldog]

I use GTKPOD which not only uploads to my iPod but also can rip music from your iPod (or someone else's). iTunes tends to wipe iPods it doesn't recognise, GTKPOD just works. I have never used iTunes or any apple site or product except the purchase of my pod. Runs great, and none of the iTunes ball and chain around my ankle.

Re:Linux Software

[SuperFunFunFun]

But if you're considering Linux, then that argument against Macs is gone.
There is that little freedom thing that RMS keeps carping about... and then there's also hardware lock in... and that pesky little trecherous computing thing of which the Mac is the first standard bearer.

Re:Linux Software

[outZider]

I agree on amaroK. I use iTunes a lot, but using amaroK on my linux box is a whole new experience. Really really neat -- and definitely go for the bleeding edge version.

No, that's the iTMS.

[Pius II.]

You are talking about the iTunes Music Store, not the iPod. My iPod Music is all MP3s. If I want to, I can just copy them to every other player. I won't, since I happen to like my iPod (and, accordingly, do not have another player).
I do not even care that there's this store, where admittedly you can buy music that's not easily reproducible. The store has nothing to do with the iPod; it was made after I bought my iPod, and hasn't influenced my decision to buy one (I think the US store had already been established at that time, though).

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[BorgDrone]

I do not even care that there's this store, where admittedly you can buy music that's not easily reproducible

I like the iTMS, I don't buy music there, but I like the way it looks and works. It's a great way to get new music, you can browse, listen to previews and when you found something you like, hit your favorite P2P network to get a DRM free copy.

Now only if they would get rid of the DRM, I would actually buy stuff there too. Right now, it's too risky. Who can guarantee me that in 10 years I can still play the music I buy now ?

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about the iTunes Music Store, not the iPod. My iPod Music is all MP3s. If I want to, I can just copy them to every other player. I won't, since I happen to like my iPod (and, accordingly, do not have another player).

Right. The iPod is pretty good. But it's not simply because (as the article says) "it puts you in control". Any MP3 player gives you this freedom to copy and play individual tracks.

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[R3d M3rcury]

"Who can guarantee me that in 10 years I can still play the music I buy now ?"

Burn it to a CD--a smart move, generally, as hard drives have been known to crash from time to time.

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[foniksonik]

Hmmm there's no guarantee now and there won't be one in 10 years... so what are you waiting for? It's like looking at a good company's stock price and wondering if it's the right time to buy in... 2 years later and the stock that was at $13.56 is now floating around $63.56.... 2 years wasted on the sidelines. YMMV

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[eldepeche]

You know, burned CDs only last a maximum of about 10 years before they start getting errors. They're nothing like pressed CDs.

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[NMerriam]

Hmmm there's no guarantee now and there won't be one in 10 years... so what are you waiting for? It's like looking at a good company's stock price and wondering if it's the right time to buy in... 2 years later and the stock that was at $13.56 is now floating around $63.56.... 2 years wasted on the sidelines. YMMV

Um, I think you missed the point that both Audio CDs and plain old MP3 files will be playable in ten years, so why buy something from the iTunes music store that doesn't have the same guarantee? It's not like the only choices are ITMS or sitting on the sidelines with no music.

It's more like debating whether to cash out one stock in order to buy another -- not a matter of whether the new one will go up, but whether it will go up more than the old one (and by a large enough margin to make the switch worthwhile).

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[jdbartlett]

I too usually use iTMS as a 'discovery' tool for new music and podacsts, then turn to other legal sources like eMusic and for music - because though I dislike DRM, respecting copyright is still important to me.

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[acroyear]

so eventually, with hard drive prices cheap, get a 400gig external and preserve the raw cdr (or wav) files on that drive.

though yeah, hard drives can crash in 10 years...

its a never-ending spiral of dependencies on SOME technology that isn't supposed to break but does. best just get on with it.

Re:No, that's the iTMS.

[orgchartleafnode]

It's a great way to get new music, you can browse, listen to previews and when you found something you like, hit your favorite P2P network to get a DRM free copy.

Now only if they would get rid of the DRM, I would actually buy stuff there too.

You mean the way you are buying your music on P2P networks now? Right.

The thing about Apple's fairplay DRM is that it balances the interests of multiple parties well. If you have purchased a CD then rip it into and un-DRM'ed MP3 or AAC and let your conscience be your guide. If you want to purchase on-line from then use iTMS and live with DRM'ed files that you can load onto up to five computers and as many iPods as you have. And, as noted elsewhere you can burn them to CD and re-rip them if you feel the need to be DRM free. But most honest people who purchase their songs to support the artitsts (and not a few record executives) don't feel the need or find it too time consuming.

Fairplay helps honest people stay honest and as a result helped to coax the music industry into the modern on-line world. When combined with the great user experience of the iTMS you end up selling a LOT more music on-line than anyone else.

More to it

[Golias]

The iPod was already taking over the market before iTMS came along. It certainly helped them ramp up sales over the last few years, but the real reason the iPod became so popular was because of the one thing that Apple is known for getting right most of the time: Interface simplicity.

Remember what most MP3 players looked like before the iPod? I'm not just talking about the general ugliness of some of them, but the way the interface was designed specifically to appeal to people who LOVE high-tech gagetry, and think the Windows file manager is downright spiffy.

No non-geek had any clue at all how to operate them, or even what they were for. They just barely knew that "EM PEE THREE" had something to do with music, because their nephew set them up with Napster back around 1999 so they could steal music online and listen to it at the office.

Then the iPod comes out. It's not an "MP3 Player", it's a music player. It has simple and obvious controls. It's easy to figure out how to get songs into it, and easy to figure out how to play them when they are there.

What iTMS is doing is ensuring that the iPod *keeps* it's lead in the market. It's also creating a new revenue source for Apple. (They started it off as a possible loss-leader to sell iPods, but it's turning a profit these days, and with the addition of video downloads, I'm betting it will become an even bigger revenue generator for them. There's no way in hell I'm going to pay two bucks for a low-res TV show episode, but it appears that some people are happy to do so. Go figure.)

Re:More to it

[anagama]

Remember what most MP3 players looked like before the iPod? I'm not just talking about the general ugliness of some of them, but the way the interface was designed specifically to appeal to people who LOVE high-tech gagetry, and think the Windows file manager is downright spiffy.

My first music player was a Creative Nomad II MG. Even after owning it for a year, I couldn't skip songs or navigate the content without grabbing it and looking at it. The dreadful UI had buttons lined up vertically on both sides of the device -- worse than the navigation issues, it was stupidly easy to accidentally delete songs. Within two years it was just a dust collector. The device itself was $250 and an extra memory card about $100. By the same token, the first time I picked up an iPod in a store, it was obious with less than 60 seconds of button pressing how the thing worked. With a little familiarity, it's a snap to operate without looking (nice feature when driving).

About a year ago, I saw some refurb 3g 15gb ipods on sale someplace for $190, I bought one. It wasn't because of commercials (I don't watch TV). It wasn't because of iTunes (although admitedly, I have fallen prey to the ITMS crack -- but I recovered after an emusic intervention). I just wanted to put my CDs on a useable device and the iPod fit the bill.

Re:More to it

[ben there...]

Remember what most MP3 players looked like before the iPod? I'm not just talking about the general ugliness of some of them, but the way the interface was designed specifically to appeal to people who LOVE high-tech gagetry, and think the Windows file manager is downright spiffy.

I remember what they looked like. I had one. The Rio 600. There wasn't anything wrong with the interface, other than it was fairly basic. Oh, well, that and it only held about 15 songs.

Re:More to it

[gad_zuki!]

I think the interface argument is a bit overdone. Previous to the ipod I owned an archos mp3 player which had all the basic controls on there. I later owned a Neuros which had a very mature and feature rich firmware with a simple interface. My ipod on the hand annoys me as the back button doesnt take me back to the previous menu it goes back to the beginning of the track. The older ipods had the track control buttons on top of the wheel which made perfect sense, but I'm afraid upset the industrial design people at apple, thus the mixing of menu and track control we have now. Its fine once you get used to it, but he idea of a good interface is that you shouldnt have to spend too much time getting used to it.

As far as interface selling a product goes, well, look at most of the mass marketed consumer elelectronics from the past couple of decades. You'll find a mess of interfaces. The VCR always blink 12:00 doesnt it?

Apple had always provided upper crust items and the ipod is no different. Its still pricey for an mp3 player and only the latest cost cuts makes it competitive iwth other players. Its a premium product and one which was marketing savvy enough to introduce people to the wacky world of portable music. Its a brand they trust and along with itunes allowed a lot of hesitant people to dive into the portable music world. It was "cool" enough to get the early student adopters and these people later taught their parents how to use portable music and portable players.

I think its disingeous to discount the affect of apple's marketing and brand in regards to the ipods success. Its may not be the only factor but may be the biggest.

Re:More to it

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple's brand identity and marketing is so bulletproof, why do they only have 4% of the personal computer market?

Could it possibly be that a lot of people like iPods better than the other options out there?

Re:More to it

[Tim Browse]

I had a Rio 300, but it was stolen from the office where I work by dodgy cleaners.

Sometimes I wish I knew exactly who stole it, so I could write them a thank-you letter. It would probably include the words "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!", too.

I still feel the iPod's success can be attributed in large part to the fact that, to paraphrase jwz, it's the only mp3 player with a UI that doesn't irritate the living fuck out of me.

Re:More to it

[esper]

Even after owning it for a year, I couldn't skip songs or navigate the content without grabbing it and looking at it.

Granted, I can skip songs on my iPod without looking, but, even after owning it for a year, I can't navigate the content without looking at it, thanks to their godawful "it looks just like a 4-way directional pad, but it functions absolutely nothing like one" control scheme.

Listening to music in the car and want to switch to a different playlist? Good luck watching the road while you do it - dragging your thumb an eigth of the way around the pad will sometimes move you down one spot, sometimes three. There's no way to know unless you're either looking at it or have it set to make obnoxious "beep - beep - beep"s every time it moves by an item. Even when I am looking at it, I overshoot more often than not and then have to sit there playing hopscotch with it as the cursor jumps back and forth over the option I want, without ever actually stopping on it.

But, hey, that's the perfect interface, because just pressing once on the bottom of the pad to move down one item is too complicated or something, I guess. It's much more intuitive for "down" to mean "toggle between play and pause". Just like, when they show a little arrow pointing right to indicate there's a submenu, it's more intuitive to press the button in the center than to press the right edge of the pad (you know, in the direction the arrow is pointing).

Sorry, everyone, but I really don't see what's supposed to be so wonderful about the iPod interface.

(Nothing actually specific to your post, anagama, yours was just the first one I saw referencing specific defects in other mp3 players' interfaces, so it seemed the most natural place to put my rant about the iPod interface in an attempt to offset all the posts raving about how absolutely wonderful it is.)

Re:More to it

[anagama]

You're absolutely right about the "navigate" term -- I meant "skip" but as I already used that word, "navigate" would naturally take a different meaning. To be clear, changing playlists on the ipod is hopelessly dangerous while driving -- skipping songs is really easy. After I wrote the post I was a bit embarrassed because it sounds so "fanboy". Any device with relatively large skip forward/back buttons will be easy to use in the car. I just happened across an ipod at a good price so I got it. All that said, I can't say often enough how awful the Creative Nomad MG II's interface was. It was practically unusable and forever soured me on Creative Crap (tm). Did I mention it was the worst UI I've ever experienced? I have $350 worth of bitterness to get out over that magnesium turd.

Simple

[Winckle]

It's the most user-friendly mp3 player with the best interface, and excellent software syncing. Oh to all you non-conformists herescreaming that it was "T3H MARKETING!!!", Apple used to use exactly the same kinds of adverts for the macintosh, that doesn't exactly have a huge market share.

Re:Simple

[Handover Phist]

I dont know, I found freeipodguide.com pretty easily, but freemac.com is one of those stupid search pages covered in pay-per-click junk. Probably kills Windows computers too. Nope, Macs definitely didn't get the kind of media coverage ands hype the iPod did. Not only that but there's little in the way of a price barrier with the iPod compared to the Mac. Call me a non-conformist. The marketing hype sold the iPod by making it "cool".

Re:Simple

[Jeremi]

Call me a non-conformist.

Okay, you're a non-conformist. And the problem with you non-comformists is, most of you are only doing it because you think not conforming will make you "cool".

;^)

Re:Simple

[Have Blue]

Actually, no they didn't. Apple's Macintosh ads have always been horrible (remember The Power To Be Your Best?) and accomplished little more than preaching to the choir and giving existing evangelists questionable ammunition. The recent ones with the "Mac dude" and the "PC guy" are doing nothing but inflaming platform wars. The iPod ads with the dancing silhouettes are another thing entirely, and very successful by any measure.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPod ads with the dancing silhouettes are another thing entirely, and very successful by any measure.

Am I the only one who thinks the last good iPod "silhouette" ad was the one featuring U2? Since then, they seem lame and redundant. Are they effective anymore?

I don't like Ipods

[rlp]

I'm starting to feel like the only person on earth who doesn't like Ipods. I admit they are well designed, they have a great user interface. They're very functional. From my point of view there's just one thing wrong with them. The built-in rechargable power supply. I use my MP3 player in a lot of outdoor activities. I prefer a device that I can either replace the battery or take one or more spares with me. You can't do that with an Ipod. Instead, I have a small Sandisk MP3 player which takes on AAA battery. When travelling I can get replacement batteries anywhere. When hiking or biking I can take a spare rechargable AAA. When camping, I can bring several. The design and UI are nowhere near as nice, but that's trumped (at least for me) by the portability.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[The One and Only]

You can buy external AAA battery packs for your iPod.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Kandenshi]

That was definitely one of my considerations when I went shopping for a music player too. Got me an iRiver, and I'm quite pleased with the large number of hours of play I can get out of a single AA battery. I may be killing the environment slowly, but it's a damned sight easier to throw a couple AAs in a pocket of my backpack and know that I have enough hours of music now to last me a couple weeks.
Plus alot of it's other widgets(radio, recording stuff, shiny clip thing for my belt loops/whathaveyou) are also nice. iPods are cool sure, but I'm more than happy with my iRiver. Hurray for boxing day sales!

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only think of one thing? It's not like it has every feature ever. There are formats it doesn't support. It's relatively expensive. It could be more wireless-happy. And so on.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Potor]

i'm much happier having 60 gig of music with me.

and when necessary, i can always take my generic mp3 player with me, and run it off AAAs. i don't see this as a good argument for not liking ipods.

you know, the right tool for the right purpose.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Kandenshi]

Why buy something else in addition when you can have it incorporated from the start by the manufacturer?

Haven't checked into this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but external sounds like it's going to take up a fair bit more space, weight(you're still carrying around the rechargeable battery, right?) and make it uglier.

Thought the advantage of mp3 players is how small and attractive looking they are?

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Golias]

That's not a reason to dislike iPods. It's just a reason why they are probably not right for you.

The iPod is designed for urbanites. The battery is perfectly adequate for people who don't go more than a few hours away from an outlet most of the time. I have my iPod running in my car (off the car charger) when I drive in to work in the morning, listen to it on headphones in the office, take it jogging with me over lunch, and back in the car in the evening. If I go for a bike ride or a walk that evening, I can take it along then. It's even nice for domestic air travel, and awesome to have with you for a day of downhill skiing.

Even when traveling by hitch-hiking or on a bicycle, you plug in your charger in the restaurant where you eat lunch (every restaurant has a few outlets in the dining area so they can run vacuum cleaners and stuff), and you're good to go until dinner. No problem.

That said, unless you attach an external battery pack, it's unsuitable for camping out in the wilderness.

Then again, when *I* go out into the wilderness, I'm trying to get away from all that shit, and the only piece of electronics I want with me is *maybe* a GPS. Kind of hard to hear the call of the eagle, or the wind rushing through the pines, if it's drowned out by your "slow jams."

Still, it sounds like the iPod is the wrong player for your lifestyle. You do, however, realize that the way you live is rather atypical, right?

Re:I don't like Ipods

[mobby_6kl]

i'm much happier having 60 gig of music with me.
and when necessary, i can always take my generic mp3 player with me, and run it off AAAs. i don't see this as a good argument for not liking ipods.

And I can just take an extra battery for my Zen. And keep my 60 gigs.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[oliderid]

Well I have only reason against Ipod so far. The price: Around 50% more for a Ipod versus a similar device. Sure they have a nice design...But I don't care :-).

So I bought a MP3 player from another vendor with AAA rechargeable batteries.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[hab136]

Thought the advantage of mp3 players is how small and attractive looking they are? An external battery pack would make it slightly heavier and larger - about the size of a AAA battery bigger and about the weight of a AAA battery heavier, yes.

Probably still smaller than a portable CD player.

I had a portable CD player, which I replaced with an iPod. Not because it was smaller/lighter/prettier, but to be able to carry around ALL my music, and not have to decide before every trip which CDs I was going to take with me. It was annoying to be thinking about a song on my daily commute, go to play it, and realize I didn't have that particular CD with me.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[morcheeba]

You do, however, realize that the way you live is rather atypical, right?

If only I had a get-out-of-jail-for-free card for every time I've heard that...

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would EVER want a player where you have to change the battery, though? I'd much rather have to replace my iPod ever eighteen months when the battery stops holding a charge long enough to make it through a typical four-hour work day. And you have to replace it conviently after the warrant expires! And for an added bonus, the extended warranty costs as much as the battery does to replace!

Replacable batteries, who in their right mind would ever want those? After all, MP3 players are supposed to be disposable.

At least within the Jobs reality distortion field. I suppose that dissipates after you leave the city.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Yaztromo]

That said, unless you attach an external battery pack, it's unsuitable for camping out in the wilderness.

That may not be completely true. You can in fact buy portable, foldable solar panels for recharging portable devices like the iPod, which are suitable for backpacking -- you can drape the foldable panels down the back of your pack, plug everything in, and let your iPod charge.

However, having just returned from a several day hike along the Juan de Fuca trail, I agree with you -- leave everything but the emergency electronics at home, and just enjoy nature. My iPod stayed home.

Yaz.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[mlewan]

Just buy two iPods. It's the same idea as two battery packs. But slightly more expensive.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[DNS-and-BIND]

Urbanites...lifestyle? Jeez, did you actually believe the marketing gimmicks? Amazing how shallow people can be.

It's a fricking MP3 player, not a lifestyle. I had a personal music device 20 years ago, it was called a Sony Walkman, and it wasn't "designed for urbanites", whatever the fuck that means.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[vmardian]

The batteries are $15 - $25 depending on capacity. It's not the easiest thing to replace, but since you're reading Slashdot (news for nerds) I'm sure you could handle it.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Valacosa]

"...I'm quite pleased with the large number of hours of play I can get out of a single AA battery. I may be killing the environment slowly, but it's a damned sight easier to throw a couple AAs in a pocket of my backpack and know that I have enough hours of music now to last me a couple weeks. "

Why not go for rechargables? Larger initial investment, lower cost in the long term, more envirnomentally sound.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[syousef]

Listen to yourself. You've been brainwashed. "It works for me and for most people so if it's not right for you, well tough"??? You do realise that people hike and camp with mp3 players and music all the time don't you? You've well and truely fallen into the trap of being a self-centered ego-maniac. His needs aren't important because they don't also happen to be your needs? Ever heard of live and let live? What the? Ever heard that diversity is a good thing to be encouraged not stamped out with a commercial cookie cutter? Obviously what ever time you've spent in the wilderness hasn't helped you think and reason beyond your own selfish needs. Amazing that you can open your eyes and ears to nature, pay attention, and still walk away with so little learnt.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought a Sony Walkman instead of one of the many more affordable and often superior products of the time, and you're bitching at iPod fans.

I rike you. You make me raff.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[The Cydonian]

A friend says his 2 gig iPod Nano gives 2-3 hours-ish on full recharge. My 256MB aigo player used to give me at least six-seven hours after I fully recharged the replaceable AAA cell.

Über-cool UI and form factor apart, I'd have to concur with the grandparent; because of battery lifespans, iPods give you much less value than you think.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[foo12]

Something is wrong with your friend's Nano or they have crazy usage patterns. I can easily get 15 hours out of my 5th gen iPod.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[The One and Only]

Yeah, but given all the other advantages you've already conceded, an iPod plus battery pack might still be better than the alternative.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[DNS-and-BIND]

Actually it was given to me by my mother as a birthday present. She didn't have a lot of money at the time, and it was a really nice surprise. The dang thing lasted for 10 years before I finally lost it in a move.

I was bitching at the utter vapidity of people who believe that they're making a "lifestyle choice" when they buy a damn music player. It's just marketing, and people actually buy into it and repeat the ad copy with a straight face.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[SuperFunFunFun]

The iPod is designed for urbanites.
With batteries avaialbe at every gas station and corner convenience store, how would accepting batteries not be an improvement?

The battery is perfectly adequate for people who don't go more than a few hours away from an outlet most of the time.
Zelots crack me up - you just attacked a poster because he pointed out a real deficiency in my precious video Ipod. One that really, really, really sucks. One day that deficiency will force me to buy another iPod, or at least something like it, because the battery will eventually fail to hold a charge.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Mike McCune]

My wife has a video Ipod. It looks great and is easy to use. I use an MP3 player mostly for audio books. The Ipod works with Audible (www.audible.com) and MP3 but not services that use secure WMA. When the local Library started offering free audio books in secure WMA format (www.overdrive.com/audiobooks), an Ipod was out of the question. I picked up a Sandisk player for $60 and use it exclusively for audio books.

The Sandisk player isn't as sleek and easy to use as the Ipod but it does play all online audio book formats. I just wish Apple, Microsoft, Real and others would quit their format wars and support each others formats or, better yet, agree on a single format.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Anonymous Coward]

The post used "urbanites" as "people who live in an urban area (and therefore have constant access to electricity)." As opposed to people who enjoy hiking and may not be able to charge their iPods for long periods of time. This was perfectly normal terminology, no lifestyle choice was being implied, why should youh ave such a bug up your ass about it?

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Golias]

I must have missed the part in my post where I "attacked" anybody.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Golias]

Listen to yourself. You've been brainwashed. "It works for me and for most people so if it's not right for you, well tough"???

Actually, what I said was more like, "it works for me and a lot of other people, but if it's not for you then buy something else. No skin off my nose."

Are you so eager to argue with zealotry that you see it everywhere, even when it's not present?

Re:I don't like Ipods

[Golias]

Oh, by the way, your video iPod's battery is probably not that hard to replace. I've done iPod battery replacements before, and it's relatively straightforward:

1. Pop the case open with a plastic pry-bar (usually included with the replacement battery)

2. Carefully unplug the hard drive (it's attached with a ribbon cable), and set it aside.

3. Unplug the old battery and remove it.

4. Put in the new battery and plug it in.

5. Put the HD back, and plug it in.

6. Snap the case closed.

Not really such a bad operation to have to perform every two years or so. For most people, a $30 battery every couple years is a lot cheaper than a pair of $5 AAA disposables each day that you want to use it.

Re:I don't like Ipods

[syousef]

The guy made a complaint and you shouted him down and told him his needs were unusual (and therefore implied they were irrelevant or at least unimportant). I didn't need to look for anything that wasn't present.

I can not hear you!

[Anonymous Coward]

I lost my hearing because I use crappy "iBuds", and listned to my music way too loud!

Not the rise of the iPod.

[AhtirTano]

This has nothing to do with the rise of the iPod. The ability to get single songs rather than the whole album is why downloading music (legally or illegally) got popular. We have been putting any two songs we want side-by-side since the earliest days of cassette tapes. The only way the iPod factors into this is the convenience of transfering our custom playlists onto a play-back machine. In the old days, I spent hours swapping tapes to record in the order I wanted; and I spent way too much money on blank tapes.

I love my iPod. Especially because of the sheer volume of sound files it holds, and the way its integration with iTunes* allows me to manage my songs simply. But I've been arranging songs for my personal use (without buying the entire album) for more than 15 years.

*The application, not the store. I don't like using the iTunes store, because the interface is horrible for browsing. I only use it for podcasts and the occasional audiobook.

Re:Not the rise of the iPod.

[An Onerous Coward]

Most people just listen to "shuffle", so I think your evaluation overrates the importance of the "Y follows X" factor. In fact, I would say that most of the other things in your "I like iPods" spiel were bigger factors: Huge volumes of music (without lugging huge boxes of CDs), portability, simpler song management, and instant gratification thanks to BitTorrent^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H iTMS.

New Kids on the block next to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Spicegirls?

I have a great idea

[ClosedSource]

"You don't have to pay for the four filler tracks on every album."

Wow, I just had a great idea. Record companies could have sold a smaller record with just one song on it and sold it for less money. Wait. Since there are two sides of a record, they could put another song on the other side. They could have called these records something like a SINGLE. They could have had some of the advantages of the iPod years ago.

Re:I have a great idea

[Jeremi]

Wow, I just had a great idea. Record companies could have sold a smaller record with just one song on it and sold it for less money.

Too bad they never thought up the "sell it for less money" part....

Re:I have a great idea

[moranar]

What if those songs aren't quite the ones you want to listen to? Sometimes, you know, the single is not the best song for someone. And, as the other poster said, they're more expensive per track than the ITMS (aren't they? 6 bucks for a couple original songs and four remixes... I'll have to pass).

Re:I have a great idea

[slashdotmsiriv]

I think they did. Years ago, I don't remember ever bying a single that was as expensive as the album. Usually it was 40-60% of the album's price.

Re:I have a great idea

[42Penguins]

Sounds good, but...

What's this "record" thing? The only thing I can think of is a two-sided DVD. Is it like that?

I kid, I kid...

Re:I have a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

single + case = 6 oz

400-500 songs = ~170 lbs

you = 0wned

Re:I have a great idea

[klang]

"You don't have to pay for the four filler tracks on every album."

The reason we have to pay for four filler track on every album is; the Single does not exist anymore .. there is nowhere to put the tracks that are not good enough for the Album. Now, with iTunes, it'll be even harder to push theese track down the consumers throat

Re:I have a great idea

[Jeremi]

I think they did. Years ago, I don't remember ever bying a single that was as expensive as the album. Usually it was 40-60% of the album's price

Per song it was more expensive -- you get one tenth the number of songs for half the price.

(Compare with iTunes, where you can buy a "single" for 99 cents -- one tenth the number of songs for one tenth of the price)

Doesn't that make Digg redundant?

[ichigo 2.0]

If I can get all the same news that Digg has and more from Slashdot, then why should I even care about Digg?

Re:Doesn't that make Digg redundant?

[deadkevin]

I must really be out of it.
How does this get an insightful?
Because of the dig at digg (pun intended)?
I'd expect an offtopic.

Kevin

4 filler tracks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try 10. I had almost completely stopped buying albums two years before Napster came around because I was sick of having to fork over $20+ CDN for a CD that only had 2 or 3 good tracks.

Not only marketing

[vijayiyer]

Already, the slashdot posts are rolling in - "People only buy iPods due to marekting" Perhaps the lack of insight evidenced by these comments is why other player manufacturers are unable to compete. The iPod is successful partly due to marketing, but also because it Just Works for the average user. People don't care about Ogg Vorbis. People don't care about DRM if they don't notice it (and if you use an iPod along with iTunes and regular CDs, you realistically don't unless you're trying to give songs to your friends). Couple that with solid industrial design (and industrial design addresses not just looks, but human factors/ergonomics), and you have a winner. For some reason, all other players fail on one count or another. A successful company understands its customer - and Apple recognizes that its customer is not a typical Slashdotter. They instead choose to target the other 99.9% of the market.

Re:Not only marketing

[joe 155]

People don't care about Ogg Vorbis. People don't care about DRM if they don't notice it...

But maybe they should... I've recently learned the error of my ways; too late for my several thousand mp3's though. Always buy music with an eye on the future... I wish I had my music in a high quality ogg file, or even better, flac.

Another good point missed...

[zappepcs]

The article AND the iPeople have missed it. As mentioned, iPod and ITMS, are simply relaxed control, but control just the same. The truth of the matter is that iPods and ITMS are simply the best alternative (more or less) for the great unwashed masses that just want music they like, when they like, how they like. To most people, a little control is a good thing, and Apple has kept up their closed/controlled business model from the beginning. This works for many people. Most folk don't want to have to install the software to make their microwave work, they just want to push buttons, and likewise, they want their music to be that simple too, as simple as turning on the radio, or as close as they can get to that.

That is why Apple's iPod is so successful, because of all the sheeple, and Apple's willingness to pander to that principle.

16 year olds know how to rip CDs to MP3 players, and it doesn't bother them doing it. They don't mind grabbing a couple of MP3s from online, or a friend... its easy for them, they think of it as normal, so the iBusiness_model will soon also be outdated. The next 'killer apps' will be those that allow this new group of technically savvy people to use their information and media however they feel like using it, without the chains or training wheels of current DRM technology.

*ANY* intelligent business group already knows this.... the rest of them will just keep lawyers busy trying to stop it.

Re:Another good point missed...

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

"Great unwashed masses"? "sheeple"? Somebody with points mod this arrogant poster down.

Re:Another good point missed...

[oberondarksoul]

This works for many people. Most folk don't want to have to install the software to make their microwave work, they just want to push buttons, and likewise, they want their music to be that simple too, as simple as turning on the radio, or as close as they can get to that.

That is why Apple's iPod is so successful, because of all the sheeple, and Apple's willingness to pander to that principle.

I don't think I understand. You say that people like having nice, easy to use music players, and then this makes them sheep? That doesn't seem to follow. I'd say people like having nice, easy to use music players, because being able to use your music player is an integral part of it. It's hardly following the crowd to say "Hang on a minute, this actually works well."

Re:Another good point missed...

[cubicledrone]

so the iBusiness_model will soon also be outdated.

Meanwhile Apple has sold an iBillion songs. 99c a song was genius. iTunes is genius. The iPod is genius. Apple will continue to pwn music for eons. Deal with it.

Re:Another good point missed...

[kimvette]

Better yet, spend your mod points modding some great post up, and ignore this one. Don't throw mod points away modding down.

Disagree with a poster? Think their opinion is off? Just pass it by. I'd love to see a thread that is readable with the threshold set to 4 or 5.

Re:Another good point missed...

[RedSteve]

Most folk don't want to have to install the software to make their microwave work, they just want to push buttons, and likewise, they want their music to be that simple too, as simple as turning on the radio, or as close as they can get to that.

I completley agree with you. We should all have degrees in electrical engineering and have to break out the soldering irons and manually calibrate our microwaves each time we want a bag of popcorn!

Isn't that essentially your gripe? That people want a system that will work as they think it should without having an advanced programming degree? Or even a basic one?

Apple is appealing to the masses, that's for sure -- by doing what software companies are supposed to do: solve a technical problem so that the task becomes easy for the end user to accomplish.

Re:Another good point missed...

[2nd Post!]

16 year olds know how to rip CDs to MP3 players, and it doesn't bother them doing it. They don't mind grabbing a couple of MP3s from online, or a friend... its easy for them, they think of it as normal, so the iBusiness_model will soon also be outdated. The next 'killer apps' will be those that allow this new group of technically savvy people to use their information and media however they feel like using it, without the chains or training wheels of current DRM technology.

Dude, it's called an iPod.
Rip all your CDs into iTunes. 30GB later, plug in an iPod. 30 minutes later, eject and unplug. In the interim, create 15 different playlists using the iTunes database; all top rated songs, all unheard songs, all most played songs, all country songs, etc.

Then hit play and go.

Criticism of your post: You seem to be ignorant of the fact that iTunes cannot rip DRM encumbered music from CDs, is capable of organizing DRM free MP3s received from the internet, and that the iPod can play DRM free MP3, AAC, WAV, AIF, and ALE songs.

DRM is not the reason the iPod is successful. The iPod is the reason why the iPod is successful.

Re:Another good point missed...

[GaryPatterson]

As soon as insults are used to win an argument, it's lost beyond retrieval.

"Sheeple" makes your point invalid, your opinion null and void. I stopped reading at that point, and started looking for a post with something to say.

Re:Another good point missed...

[zappepcs]

And I'll get modded down for this, but you ARE one of the iSheeple. Listen iFanboy, just because you haven't hit the iDRM walls yet doesn't mean they aren't there. ITMS charges 3/4 of the price you'd pay for a CD, but you get no physical copy, no artwork, nothing but a second rate digital copy of the song you'd get if you bought the CD. You think that being able to play it on iStuff is great... try playing it on something that isn't iStuff. You border on moronic when you argue with me by proving my point. No, its not just you, its all the other iSheeple that said I don't know what I'm talking about, but that was my point, people will accept what is tolerable if it doesn't cause them inconvenience, despite the fact that it is exactly what they don't need. They ARE sheeple. Read the terms of service for ITMS a bit more carefully before you tell me how great it is. Ferchrissake, you iFanboys act like Apple invented music. Hint: They didn't, and all they are doing is ripping you off, no matter how much money and inconvenience you think you are saving. You have not, and do not, look at what you are actually getting, simply because you are one of the iSheeple willing to sacrifice quality and principles for convenience. Believe me when I tell you this, I'm not even being harsh to you. You accept stupidity because it works for you, but I'm not buying it, so you tell me I'm not intelligent... wow, I can't wait till you try to register your fourth Apple computer with ITMS. No matter how many computers I use, the CDs will always play.. at least for now. Sony's debacle will help insure that this will continue to be the case, but in the case of iStuff, you are stuck with their DRM... and I will laugh when you can't play any of the music you 'bought' from ITMS.

I don't think that people should have EE degrees, but if you are going to drive a car, don't you need a license? If you are going to get involved in technologically involved things, shouldn't you know something about it? If you are going to be a housebuilder, shouldn't you know something about the tools used? Just because people can afford a nail gun doesn't make them builders. Just because people can afford computers doesn't make them able to use them. No, not everything should have mystical qualities to it, and playing music shouldn't be difficult, but that is why we have radio stations. People that can't operate a video recorder deserve to have to organize their lives around the TV shows that they like to watch. What I'm saying is simple, if you want to do something with computers, learn how, its not your god given right to be able to work with computers. If you can't figure it out, buy the DRM'd iStuff and quit worrying because Apple will always take care of you, honest, I promise they will... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I think the term is Caveat emptor... its not like its a new thing, but you bought into it hook line and sinker, just because you didn't see the DRM walls, or worse, didn't care about them. That doesn't give you the right to call me ignorant, or even pretend that I am. You bought into the DRM world, and feel all happy about it because its easy for you... who is the ignorant one? You'll probably be one of the people that 'rent' food in the future... yep, that grocery plan where you pay in advance of anything you eat, because you can order any kind of food you want, whenever you want, depsite the fact that you don't actually get any food except when you are eating... the grocery store will own you, or a good portion of your check, just because they know you will eat there... since you've already signed up to the iFoodStore.

iSheeple... wake up ... "Buying" music from ITMS is not buying, its renting a license to listen... your ears are for sale, and you've sold them. In 100 years, my progeny will still have my CDs (or backups), yours will have no music from your collection... you are not 'buying' anything, you are renting a license to listen.

Re:Another good point missed...

[Splunge]

It's amazing how individualistic everyone shows they are by using the term "sheeple".

Re:Another good point missed...

[Jay Random the Other]

16 year olds know how to rip CDs to MP3 players, and it doesn't bother them doing it. They don't mind grabbing a couple of MP3s from online, or a friend... its easy for them, they think of it as normal, so the iBusiness_model will soon also be outdated. This 39-year-old has been doing all that since 1998. I bought an iPod because it's the most convenient portable player for all the music I've ripped. It's easy, I think of it as normal, and it perfectly vindicates the 'iBusiness_model' that you despise so much. 'Sheeple,' quotha? Ah, isn't the Internet wonderful! It gives misanthropic misfits like you the ability to personally insult thousands of people without ever getting close enough to risk having your lights punched out, a thing that would probably have happened to you regularly in the bad old days of F2F interaction.

Re:Another good point missed...

[RedSteve]

So essentially you're saying that people should be smart enough to fully understand their electronic hardware, but shouldn't have to read through their contracts with a service to provider to understand the rights they do and don't have?

My initial hunch was right; you have no actual interaction with people in your real life, do you?

Yes, the term is caveat emptor; unfortunately, I don't think you fully realize what it means. It doesn't mean -- as you seem to imply -- "buyer, this is a guaranteed SCAM!" it only means "let the buyer beware." In other words, it's an exhortation -- not a demand -- for the buyer to know what he is buying beforehand and to understand what the implications of that purchase are.

I know perfectly well what the limitations of music bought through the ITMS are, and I know the terms of the terms of service. And yet I still use them. Why? Because it's a fucking 2 minute and 45 second song that I want to buy now without being encumbered with the other 13 tracks of pablum and $15 that it would cost me to buy the physical medium. If the rest of the album is something that worthwhile, or I just can't live without that 4-inch-square piece of flimsy paper with a second-rate print job, I still have the option to go buy the shrinkwrapped, overpriced goodness at my nearest big-box purveyor of extended warranties.

In the meantime, I can still back up my original files to any medium I choose and re-copy them to my machine for as long as I want. i can also burn an unencumbered CD that I understand is not as good as an original I might buy in the store that will play in all the players your virgin CD will play in for the next hundred years -- or until the compact disc ceases to be a viable medium. (After all, despite your hyperbolic claims, how many phonographs from 1906 do you still see laying around and operable?)

At any rate, I know the limitations of the ITMS and I accept them in exchange for the convenience and cost savings I get for only having to buy the music I want. If I ever find something out there that's worth buying, I still have the option to go out and purchase the unencumbered CD.

Would I prefer it if all the music publishers offered their music online in hihg-quality, non-DRM'd formats? Sure. That'd be great. I'd absolutely replace my current collection with those. Just let me know when you expect that to happen, and I'll be sure to have a couple of parkas delivered to Hell at that time.

But you still never addressed my main point -- which actually had nothing to do with DRM: the purpose of any well-written software and competently manufactured hardware is to make the user's job easier and to act as you might expect it to. Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes (separate from your conspiratorial ravings about the Music Store aspects) is that the duo do exactly that. They make it completely painless to rip music (to unecnumbered files, by default even!), organize the music, create playlists, export them to the player, etc. Sure, it would be easy to write esoteric interface software for a music player that required plenty of quality time with the manual and online newsgroups to fully appreciate the power, but why? To satisfy the übergeek in you and make it easier for you to ridicule the lusers who can't understand the product?

At least I've learned one thing about you: you don't really have to worry about having to preserve your music for your progeny....

Re:Another good point missed...

[Ohreally_factor]

Thank you! I always metamoderate down mods, unless they're to a goatse link. Down moderation is overused/abused. Down mods are the weapon of the inarticulate.

Re:Another good point missed...

[Ohreally_factor]

FLASH FORWARD 10 YEARS

We are in Zappepcs' lawyer's office for the reading of his will. He tragically died when a plane hijacked by proprietary DRM terrorists crashed directly on him. (He didn't die from the impact; instead he was incinerated when the gallons of jet fuel that soaked into his porous wood-like body ignited.)

Lawyer (reading the will): . . . and to my only and beloved son, Zappepcs Jr., I bequeath my entire collection of Brittany Spears CDs, providing he keeps them in the family and doesn't sell them on Googlebay, and that he continues to honor the family name of Zappepcs by fighting the good fight against DRM, now and always.

Zappepcs Jr: Good thing Dad died before these Brittany Spears CDs decomposed and were unplayable! Now let's get out of here. I have to report to work for my 2:30 shearing!

Re:Another good point missed...

[Ohreally_factor]

Spoken like a man with a nipple ring and nobody to pull on it.

At least there are two sides to Apples bargain....

[dpbsmith]

I think what the iPod and ITMS show is not the virtues of putting the customer in control, but the virtues of at least letting the customer share some of the benefits opened up by electronic distribution.

The reason the music companies are seen as greedy is that they want 100% of the benefits to accrue to them. No, it's worse than that: they want to take away things that the customer used to enjoy... the ability to make low-fi cassette copies for friends, for example. The music companies hope they can use DRM lockdowns to deliver less music for more money than they did previously.

Apple does not "put the customer in control." But Apple does not insist on keeping total control to itself.

DRM may be a Faustian bargain, but at least the devil, Apple, promises something valuable, and delivers on what it promises.

PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[Anonymous Coward]

I have both an IPOD, then a PSP, which I bought from a user fed up with both.

I don't even touch the IPOD anymore, the PSP gets all the action... because it has wireless and that big beautiful screen, and a coolness factor. Even though it doesn't have a harddrive, it has the network, which is a bigger harddrive.

Everyone who comes over plays with the PSP. Nobody cares about the IPOD anymore. Even though I have it full of 20gbs worth of music. Playing LocoRoco demo on the PSP is so much more fun...

The main problem with the PSP is SONY, which have a psycho anal retentive grip on the platform. If they would open it up, put an HD in it, upgrade the wifi from b to g or even better, nothing else could touch it. They could even dump the space taken by the UMD and put 6 slots for more Sandisk or Duo mem cards.

IPOD enjoyed a brief window of coolness for a moment, then like all gadgets, was passed by... there's cooler things out there. There was nothing special to me about it, I already had a RioCar. As far as I was concerned, Apple just ripped off the idea from EMPEG, who ripped the idea off from car hobbiests who blazed the trail sticking homebrew boxes in their car to play mp3s.

Apple never innovated anything. They just steal ideas and then mass market them.

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.ht m

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[kiyoshilionz]

iPods are also reaching a saturation point. Everybody I know either has an iPod or something else to listen to MP3's for. And once everybody has one, it loses the "cool" factor.

Actually no, it still has its cool factor but nobody is going to "play" with yours because they already have one. It's now just a "keeping up with the Joneses" type of phenomenon. I don't have one because I hate Apple and don't like getting something jsut because everyone else has it.

PSP is too expensive and too niche-ey to become really mainstream. And the fact that Sony sucks at marketing because they won't share any formats. All the people in the know like slashdoters know that in the long run the DRM stuff and format issues become a pain in the ass.

When are PVP's going to become the thing to have? Archos AV500?

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[SP33doh]

I don't get this whole "cool" factor crap.
I got my iPod because I personally love the iPods and iTunes interface and functionality. it has everything I need and want, and does it smoother than anything else I've seen.
(I know other MP3 players have stuff that iPods don't, but for me personally, an iPod was the best choice) same with all of my friends who have one.
I chose the iPod because it was the best choice FOR ME.

I also hate getting things that are extremely popular. (sometimes I don't want to watch certain anime because of fanboy associations) though, if an anime was really good, if an MP3 player was really good, I'll still watch/get it.
I'm not going to use something that's worse (for me) just because the iPod's popular.

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[kiyoshilionz]

Yeah, see you get some of my point about it being too popular.

Maybe it's because I'm a student and get to see everybody walking around with the white wire hanging out of their pocket. Maybe it's because I see groups of girls sitting around looking at each other's iPods. Maybe it's because I see and hear people gawking over "ZOMG look how thin the new one is!"

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPod is an iPod, everyone knows what it is like.

The PSP has games, certainly people are going to be more interested in games when they're in an interactive environment like visiting a friend.

Yet when they're thinking about something to get for the bus/train, walking the dog, the gym, the office at work, they'll pick the iPod before the PSP. Then after buying the iPod all they've got money for is a Nintendo DS :p

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[chaosflutterby]

So is it your policy to _not_ buy products you see other people enjoying?

Re:PSP even without a harddrive blows away an IPOD

[Moridineas]

Nice job keeping up with what everyone likes so that you can do the opposite! Way to be counter-culture and stick it to the man!

Onward!

I know they're closely intertwined...

[abigsmurf]

but I wish articles would stop making articles about ipods then spending most of the time talking about itunes.

Re:I know they're closely intertwined...

[abigsmurf]

obviously it should've said writers there. Articles rarely write themselves...

It's the software

[gcauthon]

Everybody is just now emulating the iTunes software, but it's a little late. I remember when I first picked up my 32MB Rio, the software was a complete joke. Common sense would tell you that it shouldn't be too difficult to present a list of track to be copied to a USB device. After all the advances in USB, flash drives, hard drives and internet speeds it would appear to be a cinch to simply write software to copy tracks from one place to another. Wrong!

To fill my RIO, I had to create some idiotic "play list" containing a "database" and add tracks one by one. Ok, stupid but not too bad. Now I can see my tracks listed on one screen and my empty playlist on another but there's no way to simply copy from one screen to the other. I have to go to my playlist and locate every track all over again.

Now for the hard part. The dialogue for adding tracks to my database/playlist only shows the name of the song. No artist, no composer, no album name - only the track! I'm a big fan of classical and some of the track names are like "No 2 in a flat" or "allegro". How the f**k am I supposed to know what track I'm looking at?! I had to just start guessing. It literally took hours to fill up my measly 32MB.

When I finally got another player from a different brand (sanyo I think?), I was pissed to find out it included the same stupid software! To add insult to injury, the software started nagging me endlessly to actually PAY for an upgrade. Whoever created this ridiculous software, and you know who you are, please do the world a favor and find another line of work ASAP.

Full albums

[basic0]

There's something to be said of albums that are meant to be taken as one whole work of art. There aren't any really horrible songs or filler, and each song just kinda flows or leads into the next. Some of my favorite examples:

- Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon
- Nirvana's Nevermind
- Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here
- Soundgarden's Superunknown
- Michael Jackson's Thriller (despite that horrible duet with Paul McCartney)

Whenever I hear a song from one of these albums on the radio, I'm always waiting for the following track to start playing at the end. It's so unsettling to hear them out of context. It's like seeing a drawing of Spider-Man floating on a page with no background, rather than in a comic book with a plot and setting. I'm sure every classic rock fan has encountered that one jackass DJ who plays Led Zeppelin's "Heartbreaker" and not "Livin' Lovin' Maid" afterwards.

I don't think the situation will get better for we who enjoy music's artistic merits. Radio and MTV (or MuchMusic) already can't tolerate any songs longer than about 4 minutes. I feel this "iPod effect" will only cause record labels to enourage their artists to record music that is marketable rather than good (more so than they do already).

Re:Full albums

[pintomp3]

it also sucks not to be able to listen to dark side of the moon without gapless (go rockbox!). it's less of an issue to most ppl now. they are buying singles and listen in random/shuffle mode. besides, most albums these days are hits and fillers.

Re:Full albums

[Quantum Fizz]

I feel this "iPod effect" will only cause record labels to enourage their artists to record music that is marketable rather than good (more so than they do already).

I was 100% with you on your whole post, until this last paragraph. And my only comment is to say that already for the past 30+ years the record companies have been choosing marketable music over good music. This is absolutely nothing new, artists (and I mean that in the true sense of the word art) will continue to push the envelope regarding the art of music, and things like concept albums. But the record companies haven't changed at all.

Best example I can give you from back in the day - that horrible three-minute version of The Doors "Light My Fire" where they cut out the great instrumental Manzarek and Krieger jam in the middle. It was all because the record execs didn't believe people would buy an album if the hit song was 7 minutes long. So after the Doors recorded it, the label carefully cut out a 4 minute chunk, for maximal marketing. You can still hear this bastardized version played on the radio on some "Greatest Hits of the 60's, 70's, and 80's" style radio stations. Of course real classic rock stations still play the uncut original.

Re:Full albums

[meringuoid]

it also sucks not to be able to listen to dark side of the moon without gapless

I'd already hit REPLY and begun mentally composing a piece of helpful advice regarding alternative firmware, when I noticed

(go rockbox!)

Yes. Yes indeed.

Re:Full albums

[basic0]

Yeah I've heard the version without the solo and it's pretty bad. Music is an artform like painting or novel writing. Usually if the musicians are talented and artistic, every part of the song is there for a reason. It builds tension, it moves the song into a different direction, whatever. Granted, some of this stuff gets a little self-indulgent (see the last 8 or 9 minutes of King Crimson's "Moonchild").

Credit is due to modern day artists like Tool, who will allow profanity edits, but not "radio friendly" edits. If their new single is 7 and a half minutes long, you're going to hear all 7 and a half minutes on the radio. This happens to make Tool completely unmarketable were it not for their cult following. The record execs know the hardcore fans will buy the album, and their numbers are large enough to make it worth the label's while.

If I were to speculate though, I'd bet that a higher percentage of people who bought "Vicarious" from an online music store also bought the rest of the album in comparison with those who bought a Britney Spears or Kanye West single.

Were I to be more on-point, I'd cite my 1991 CD single of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Sprit" as evidence that at one point, record labels did realize that they could make money selling people *just* the popular single. Although, it seemed to become damn near impossible to find singles in record stores by the latter half of the 90s.

Re:Full albums

[klmth]

Your post has a good point, but the truth is that this has very little to do with iPods. In fact, iPods can indeed play an album at a time without messing up the track order while still shuffling between albums.

Your point about marketable music is true, but it has applied to radio airplay for the last 30 years.

iTMS? Are you sure?

[radarsat1]

I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority, but I've actually NEVER heard anyone say "I bought my iPod so I can finally buy music from iTunes!!"

People buy the iPod because it's attractive, has a large harddrive (one of the first players to use a harddrive, I think), and has a great interface (circular touchpad) for browsing the contents. And, no doubt, because the marketing has been successful in making it the first thing that comes to mind when people think about MP3 players. Frankly, there may be other players on the market that do as good a job or better, but when it comes down to it the iPod is just a good little piece of hardware that does what it does very well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it's popular.

Personally I haven't bought one because I want something that can record a line-in signal. And because I have, like, no money at all right now. I might eventually get an iRiver or something that can record CD-quality music.

However, I'm almost sure that iTunes is never the reason why people by the iPod..
Of course, I could be wrong.

iPod success summed in one word

[1336.5]

Practical.

Overcomplicate the obvious

[PeeAitchPee]

C'mon . . . lots of folks have an iPod and have never purchased a single song from the iTunes store. The reason iPod was so successful was that it was the first portable music player with mainstream appeal which let folks play non-DRM'd music on it. If we would have been forced to re-encode our stuff (a la Sony) people would have never touched it, and Apple knew this. (Sony probably knew that too, but their label / content arm wouldn't stand for DRM-free players) The other part of mainstream appeal is the iTunes software -- highly intuitive for non-geeks, extremely fast, no forced advertising / spyware, etc. It just works the way it's supposed to.

Re:Overcomplicate the obvious

[Browncoat]

I've had my iPod for about 7 or 8 months now. I have a 30gb video iPod and I've bought maybe...4 songs off of iTMS? Maybe 4? These are 4 songs out of the 15,000 I have on my computer, all from before iTMS. I don't consider it a great evil to have bought from iTMS, though admittedly, my favorite method of procuring music is to look at the other users sharing on my network (at college) and using myTunes to get their music. I certainly didn't buy the iPod thinking that iTMS or even iTunes itself was such an advantage. I, like others have mentioned, bought it because it was a good piece of technology that did its job well.

The appeal of iTunes is pretty simple. It's clean and simple to use. It's great technology but it presents itself as being very simple and utilitarian. It hides its complexity by making itself simple, and other programs tend to brag about how awesomely complex their software is, and that confuses the average joe and jane.

Re:Overcomplicate the obvious

[evilviper]

The reason iPod was so successful was that it was the first portable music player with mainstream appeal which let folks play non-DRM'd music on it.

Rio is going to send hired goons to your house for saying that...

"mainstream appeal" is the ONLY THING the iPod had over the rest. Throw lots of money at introducing people to something most didn't know existed, and you've got a market.

Rockbox makes the iPod more usable

[Drinking Bleach]

Perhaps it's for the tech-oriented, but I don't like the iTunesDB crap that iPods love so much. I don't want extra software to copy music onto my iPod. Installed Rockbox for iPod, haven't looked at the official firmware since. Spent a few hours re-encoding CDs into Ogg Vorbis, but the quality improvement over MP3s is worth it. At a friends' house and I want to copy songs to/from the iPod? Simple, plug it in, and use the local operating system file management tools to copy songs.

Exactly.

[sulli]

The iPod is a great deal. The iTunes Music Store is a terrible deal. The original poster doesn't seem to get that at all, nor do most of the press.

Re:Exactly.

[Ucklak]

The iTunes Music Store is a terrible deal

How is it a terrible deal?

Beign able to download tracks you want and keep for as long as you want for under a buck seems like a good deal to me.

None of the other stores has the quality nor the quantity of commercial mainstream content for that price or longetivity.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

re: your sig, how arapahoe (what I say anyway) for this discussion. So if some d00d downloads 20,000 tracks and movies from some P2P network he can claim "just doing *research*.

Hmm, I wonder how hard it is to JOIN the RIAA? Then maybe you COULD go a-downloading, and they wouldn't care! Say you are looking for e-vile pirates and stuff!

Re:Exactly.

[patio11]

The iPod is a great deal. The iTunes Music Store is a terrible deal.

Can someone explain this to me? Compared to legal alternatives, the iPod is at best a wash on features (other than tight integration with iTMS) and is priced much, much more expensive (you pay a significant Apple fanboy premium versus competing players). Compared to legal alternatives for aquiring tracks from name artists, iTMS has practically trademarked the terms "cheap" and "easy". I wanted to get the Hammertime song (don't ask). iTMS = fifteen seconds and $.99 later its mine.

I got sucked into the iPod/iTMS cult because I was an iTMS user who needed a portable MP3 player, not an iPod user who needed a download service.

Re:Exactly.

[vux984]

Compared to legal alternatives, the iPod

er... legal alternatives to the ipod? There are illegal portable deviceS ??

is at best a wash on features (other than tight integration with iTMS) and is priced much, much more expensive (you pay a significant Apple fanboy premium versus competing players).

A wash on features on its own yes, you would be correct. But that's like comparing a small 30 piece lego car set with a car I carved out of wood myself.

The big feature, at this point, of the ipod (and the lego set) is that it lives in a world designed to connect to it.

The lego set can interact with any other lego set to build almost anything you can imagine.

Likewise the ipod features tight integration with iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, 200 different types of case, and another few supermarket aisles worth of "accessories". Buy an ipod, and you can hook it up to your camera, buy 15 different vanity cases, and find stereos, alarm clocks, remotes, car chargers, car stereos, etc all marketed around their ability to connect to the ipod.

I bought an ipod because the "expanded universe" of things I could do with it gave it extra value over its competition. From the tight integration with iTunes (the application, not the online store) to the many accessories.

Re:Exactly.

[sulli]

Why the iPod is great: Much better UI than any other player. Simple integration with iTunes which manages your MP3s (or other formats) with east.

Why iTunes Music Store sucks: DRM'd tracks. No freedom. I refuse to buy from it. (I rip my CDs or buy legal MP3s.) But I love my iPod (first generation, spinning wheel) and will get more iPods as needed.

Re:Exactly.

[WuphonsReach]

Compared to legal alternatives, the iPod is at best a wash on features (other than tight integration with iTMS) and is priced much, much more expensive (you pay a significant Apple fanboy premium versus competing players).

I dunno. Even though I don't personally own one, I think they're the first who have a good form factor (small, thin, and *flat*) across their models. Combine that with the widely-reported easy-to-use UI. I also find their product line-up easy to remember and very straightforward. And the people that I know who own iPods are generally enthusiastic about theirs (or at least, they don't seem to have reservations about recommending them).

I've considered buying one for a few years now, but since I don't commute/travel on a regular basis, I don't have a need for one. (I listen to my music at home via speakers hooked up to my laptop or via a CD/MP3 player in the car. And I have a CD/MP3 player for those infrequent trips.)

Re:Exactly.

[2nd Post!]

How is it that the iPod is "much more expensive" than the competitors?

The Creative Zen Vision:M 30gb is $299 on Amazon.
The Creative Zen Vision 30gb is $399 on Amazon.
The Cowon iAudio X5 30gb is $265 on Amazon (on sale, normally $299).
The Apple iPod 30gb is $270 on Amazon (on sale, normally $299).

All here.

We've also been hearing how Apple's pricing has been driving competitors out of business, from Rio and then iRiver, and how Creative is losing money every quarter as their stock builds and price drops have forced them to lose money on every Zen sold.

Its the right kind of business model.

[LordZardoz]

Apple made the iPod, and set up a business plan wherein people wanted to buy an iPod. They were not trying to sell any specific sort of music. The iTunes store is designed to work well with the iPod, but you really dont need to use iTunes to use an iPod. The only thing Apple wanted to do was get people to use iPods.

Unlike Sony, Apple is not burdened by a publishing arm that wants to sell or promote specific artists. And as the submitter mentioned, they are not trying to sell filler tracks. Apple even took the critical step of making sure that people who want to have an iPod do not need to use a Mac. They are not selling iPods, they are selling a better way to listen to the music that the potential customer already owns.

The business model is like selling transporter devices to people who normally use Cars or Airplanes. People dont want to own Cars or Airplanes, they just want to get to a specific destination. And consumers are usually smart enough to recognize when a better way of doing things show up.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Its the right kind of business model.

[Geminii]

If only Apple would invent a transporter. It would Just Work, but if you tried to copy yourself you'd end up feeling fuzzy.

People buy iPods because...

[Poromenos1]

I am thinking about buying an iPod because of the following reasons:

1) Great interface: I hate my MuVo with its previous-next buttons, it takes me an hour to find the song I want, with the wheel I don't even need to categories the MP3s into folders any more.
2) Ubiquity: Since everyone and their dog has an iPod, people are making stuff run on it. What other portable player runs wikipedia and linux?
3) Video: It plays video, which is great when you want something more than listening to music, so you can maybe watch an episode of a show or a movie.

The battery issues are holding me back (3 hours of battery when playing video :( ) and the fact that the next generation of iPod might be around the corner, and better.

Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

The iPod is successful partly due to marketing, but also because it Just Works for the average user.

No, it just works better than anything else that's easily available. It does not take too much probing to find annoying flaws in IPod and ITunes that are solved in programs like Amarok.

People don't care about Ogg Vorbis. People don't care about DRM if they don't notice it (and if you use an iPod along with iTunes and regular CDs, you realistically don't unless you're trying to give songs to your friends).

Hmmm, what could be more natural than plugging your IPod into someone else's computer? Remember tape swapping? IPod brings a nasty surprise by erasing all of it's contents when you try to SHARE. Getting your music back is a painful operation, not simply a button press. This punishment of sharing, evil on it's own, will also punish people who lose their music due to other failures.

There are many other annoyances which users of ITunes do notice. The most significant is not being able to sort by Artist and Album. Others are less important but almost as annoying as a whole.

For some reason, all other players fail on one count or another.

The main reason other players fail is Microsoft. WMP is a well documented dissaster of DRM and poor quality software. Even when other players include their own interface, they all want in on the Works for Sure, Napster/Purge M$ DRM service d'jour. Absent M$ and DRM crap, these players work well enough, especially if the user only bothers with CDs as you suggested.

Someone just starting out would do well to use free software for their entertainment.

• Rip with Konqueror's audiocd: function. With too lame, ogg is a concern only for those who care about freedom and saving 10-20% of storage space. Correct lables, flac, ogg and mp3 encoding has never been easier. ABCDE provides more robust ripping from the command line if you want that.
• Record analog with Krec, Krecord, Audacity or Gramofile. Use Rockbox for your iPod or iRiver portable device.
• Get your new music off the web. The Internet Archive has more than 30,000 concerts by artists that want you to share. Most players have built in stream sources.
• Play and organize your music with Amarok. It's all the goodness of iTunes with none of the annoyances.

The main obstacle to free software adoption for music is FUD and a false sense of dependence on M$ formats for "work". The free software user is less likely to have pirated crap because no one needs that crap anymore.

Come on...

[minitual]

It wasn't genius marking, clever business tactics, or the iTunes Music Store. It was simply the fact that Apple released a superior product than all the other crap that was being put at that time. It looked cool, worked well, and wasn't so expensive you would have to mortgage your house for it. That's it...that simple.

Re:Come on...

[AlgorithMan]

hey, apple fan-zombie, iPods (especially the first generation) are technically pathetic and far over-priced. there were better players for years when apple came up with the iPod and they were all cheaper at the same time...

if you want to participate in this discussion, please don't just quote the apple-lovers magazine...

Re:Come on...

[NDPTAL85]

If the parent was wrong, you'd have a point. Unfortunately for you, the market has spoken and declared the iPod superior to all others.

Nice try, play again soon!

Re:Come on...

[2nd Post!]

Name a "far better player" than an iPod in 2001, when it was released. From my memory they were all lower capacity flash players, larger, heavier, and harder to use laptop HDD based MP3 players, they all had slower USB1 or serial port implementations, and they all had multiple button UIs that made them really hard to use.

Feel free to compare to all the failures that had existed up to the 2001 iPod. Creative had a 6GB $500 11 button over one pound USB1 MP3 player in the year 2000. Today Apple has a Mac mini that is about the same size, same price, and probably more portable :)

The author is wrong

[osho_gg]

There were online music shops where you can download each track individually before iPod. And, there were players who could play those tracks.

It is primarily due to ipod's (and itune's) highly intuitive and easy-to-use interface that made it a real winner. It made it possible for anyone who would otherwise be afraid to touch a new high-tech gizmo, instantly comfortable with ipod. And Apple's marketing of ipod is another factor contributing to ipod's success. The initial buzz that was created with white earbuds was something many marketing teams dream about launching their products.

Of course, being able to buy a track at a time is a great thing and definitely helped ipod gain market-share. But, Apple didn't invent it. It was there before ipod.

Osho

Re:iTMS? Are you sure?

[Have Blue]

It's also not true that an iPod is required to use the ITMS. iTunes itself will play back music bought from the store.

The iPod wasn't the first HD player, but it was at the time one of the smallest and the only one that didn't take hours to fill thanks to its (at the time, unique) Firewire connection.

Re:iTMS? Are you sure?

[spyinnzus]

Strangely enough, the Sony Mini-Disc player that came out in 99-2000 is one of the best cheap recording devices with a 1/8" line-in. Since it's dead technology still religously supported by Sony, you can get the player and discs pretty cheap for it.

iPod shmyPod

[St Swithins]

When I go jogging, I carry around one of these puppies with me. Whenever I need a break, I just stop to change needles, give it a crank and I'm off. A whole block can listen to whatever I'm listening to and it's a great conversational piece as well. And go ahead - mod this flamebait.

Re:iPod shmyPod

[mlewan]

I'm not going to mod you flamebait, but I'm very tempted to call the police, if you are the guy playing loud music outside my window.

How?! iTunes is hard to use

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife was just sitting here complaining to me that she can't figure out how to get her music onto our iPod Shuffle. iTunes is horribly "un-user-friendly". For that reason alone, I'll never buy another iPod again until they make it easier to use. I already have my music organized by FOLDER, so why the hell can't I browse it by folder? I don't want to have to search for my music!!!

Still wouldn't buy one

[Rik Sweeney]

• Reason 1: No gapless playback

Re:Still wouldn't buy one

[x102output]

yeap. It's called Rockbox. It supports LAME GAPLESS headers and will even do crossfades if you want. oh yeah, and FLAC, OGG, the whole shibang...on your ipod

Accessories...

[Animaether]

One more thing that helped make it popular - accessories; there aren't just a lot of them because the iPod is popular, it's because the iPod has a fairly fixed form factor, a single connector type that allows you access to the thing, feedback from it, and of course the audio itself, and fairly simple-to-follow licensing setups from Apple.

Compare that to just about every other music player out there. With audio you're probably all set - it's going to be either a 3.5mm or a 2.5mm plug - but for everything else, you'll need special connector X. Plus you'll run into all the different form factor and design issues. The other players are just not as interesting for accessory makers beyond the ugly generic stuff.
In turn, users who want a player with accessories A, B and C will quickly notice that for the iPod, they will 'just work', and look good with the iPod as well.

It's likely not to be the main deciding factor to get an iPod, but it's factor that shouldn't be underestimated either.

How it took over?

[suv4x4]

Simplicity, hype, marketing.

There are far better mp3 players out there, but they are harder to use, or their knobs are too small, or they have too many functions, or they are not well advertised...

What you gotta understand, and since we're kinda "geeks" here, I guess you already do, is that iPod is far from the best mp3 player out there, let alone with best value/price ratio (mentioning value/price ratio and Apple in one sentence makes me laugh).

Case in point, my shitty mp3 player:

$880 mp3/wma player with FM radio. It's smaller than iPod shuffle, but has a screen with song selections, doubles as a mass storate USB stick (1GB), it has rubber grip & it doesn't scratch at all, even if I put it in my pocket with my keys. Oh and it uses one AAA battery, so you never have to charge it, since you charge the other batteries while you're out listening to the player (and they are so tiny, you can carry 2-3 as a backup in your pocket for more than 16h total play time).

The brand? Canyon or something. Popularity: none. The manual is written in poorly written English, never seen ads or posters for it.

But iPod sucks compared to this thing.

Re:How it took over?

[suv4x4]

Damn ... I mean $80 not $880 :D

Re:How it took over?

[EMB Numbers]

I call bullshit. iPods are ubiquitous and people still can't be bothered to check out the facts. If your MP3 play takes a single AAA battery, it is already bigger than an iPod shuffle which is approximately the size and weight of a small pack of Wrigley's gum or any other USB memory stick.

$880 is more than the cost of ANY iPod.

All iPods also work as removable storage devices. Plug into USB and copy files from your hard disk. For iPods with screens, copy pictures from your hard disk and carry them around/view them on your iPod.

And yes, all iPods play MP3 files and several other non-DRM formats. If you don't use the iTunes store, you need never see DRM on your iPod.

Re:How it took over?

[suv4x4]

If your MP3 play takes a single AAA battery, it is already bigger than an iPod shuffle which is approximately the size and weight of a small pack of Wrigley's gum or any other USB memory stick.

It's thicker, and round (to fit AAA), but smaller in height and width that a shuffle. I've compared them actually with an actual Shuffle.

There are smaller sticks than a pack of gum btw, so no idea what was that comparison about (I've seen a pack of gum too...).

$880 is more than the cost of ANY iPod.

Typo.. sorry, it's... $80.

All iPods also work as removable storage devices. Plug into USB and copy files from your hard disk.

With a cable and driver. How convenient.

And yes, all iPods play MP3 files and several other non-DRM formats

But... I never said they don't play MP3 (?)

Re:How it took over?

[EMB Numbers]

No special cable is needed other than the USB cable that comes with it. The Shuffle doesn't even need that. It plugs directly into a USB port.

No special drivers are need for Windows or Mac. The iPod works just like every other removable USB storage device.

Re:How it took over?

[2nd Post!]

There are far better mp3 players out there, but they are harder to use, or their knobs are too small, or they have too many functions, or they are not well advertised...

If they are harder to use or their knobs are too small, they cannot be better. A better player would be easier to use with perfectly sized knobs.

What you gotta understand, and since we're kinda "geeks" here, I guess you already do, is that iPod is far from the best mp3 player out there, let alone with best value/price ratio (mentioning value/price ratio and Apple in one sentence makes me laugh).

In 2001, the iPod was far and above the best mp3 player out there.
By 2004 Creative Labs had caught up; they had released their Zen Micro to compete with the iPod mini, they had a minimal 5 element UI, they had finally adopted fast USB2, and they came in several colors.

What happened in the intervening 3 years?

Apple released a Windows compatible iPod, they had released a Windows compatible iTunes, they had released ever smaller iPods, the even smaller and thinner iPod mini (January of 2004, nine months before the Creative Zen Micro), and they had been continuously bumping the capacity and slowly reducing the price of the iPods.

So it doesn't seem surprising at all that, in the course of three years, that Apple would dominate if they kept releasing better and smaller and cheaper iPods. Fast forward to 2006 and it seems if anyone else wants to topple Apple then it might very well take three full years of concerted effort to topple them.

As per my "facts", you don't have to take my word for it, please look it up. Creative Labs took several years to catch up with 1.8" drives and 1" drives, colors, good UI, and good form factor.

Re:How it took over?

[dwightk]

wow... You paid 200 dollars more than I did for crappy play time (I get 10-12 hours per charge, you have to carry extra batteries and change them out) and crappy capacity (1 GB? I got 60...)

I'm sorry.

Re:How it took over?

[suv4x4]

wow... You paid 200 dollars more than I did for crappy play time (I get 10-12 hours per charge, you have to carry extra batteries and change them out) and crappy capacity (1 GB? I got 60...)

Think about, did I really pay $880 for a 1 GB capacity? I paid $80, it was a typo as I noted *3* times in replies to this post, this is the 4-th time.

Not my fault slashdot doesn't support editing comments.

And whether a GB is a crappy capacity is really objectionable. I probably can't carry all of your pirated MP3 in one GB, but for me having more than 16hr of unique music is sufficient.

Re:How it took over?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not your fault Slashdot doesn't support editing comments, but it is your fault you can't proofread for 10 seconds before mashing the "Submit" button, thus drawing the taunts of the Slashdot crowd for appearing to pay $880 bucks for a generic 1GB mp3 player.

mod parent up!

[commodoresloat]

Better yet, anyone know how to fix this?! Even just on iTunes, not necessarily on the iPod... as a DJ I often record mixes, and the only way I've found to listen to the mix without gaps is to record it as one giant song. That's fine, but if you distribute your mixes on CDs, you want song breaks so people can skip to whatever song they want. I can't figure out a way to do this using MacOS X (I usually record via SoundStudio and then put the mix into iTunes). Anyone know how to remedy this situation?

Re:mod parent up!

[kamochan]

Open iTunes Preferences, select Advanced, from there the Burning tab. Select how many seconds of gap you need (none to 5 seconds seem to be available).

Re:mod parent up!

[commodoresloat]

Believe me, I've definitely done that. Try it with a mixed CD -- not separate songs but songs blended together by the DJ -- yourself and you will see what I mean.

Re:mod parent up!

[truespin]

You'll find this helpful then: Gapless iTunes playback. It takes alittle bit longer when you rip the mixes - but it does the job :)

Also rockbox.org who do the firmware that allows the iriver to do gapless playback have now built gapless firmware for the iPod :) I've not tried it myself yet as my iPod is too old :(
*Finally* someone did it - had hoped Apple would have done something about it though...

what I find amusing

[AlgorithMan]

I think it's amusing that apple takes processors, OSes, audio&video codecs, network protocols and lots of standards (CD, DVD, USB for example) from PCs and then claim the PC aera was over, because the apple aera is here...

if this is the apple aera (haha) then it is still the PC aera, because apples are so much like PCs now... except that they are more expensive, have an extremely closed system and make the user incapacitated... Thats why I'll never buy apple products!

however - the success of iPods (like the current success of apple) is just a matter of "hey, see how cool this looks!" - the first generation of iPods (which was a great success already) was technically pathetic and extremely user-unfriendly (in many ways the newer generations are no better), they just looked cool, thats all they had to offer...

read this:
http://news.zdnet.com/html/z/wb/6035707.html

Re:what I find amusing

[EMB Numbers]

You are delusional.
Apple helped invent and standardize Firewire (IEEE 1394).
Apple was the first computer company to popularize USB, and the first third-party USB devices were for Macs.

Run Linux on your Mac, and you won't even be bothered that only half or Mac OS X is open-source. If you want a fully closed system, buy Windows and run that on your Intel Mac.

Apple hardware is quite competitive with name brand PCs on a price per features basis. Macs are not as configurable, you can't easily build one yourself from spare parts, and there is no sub-$600 Mac available to the general public.

Many people think Macs empower them rather than incapacitate them, and whatever reason you will "never buy Apple products" has more to do with your irrational hysteria than any facts.

Re:what I find amusing

[2nd Post!]

Why do you think the first generation iPods were so bad? They had several features that were not matched by rival players until Creative Labs released their Zen Micro in 2004, three years later.

1) Fast transfer speeds. Firewire allowed, at 12mb/s, one to fill an iPod in 7 minutes, where it would take a similar Creative Nomad 84 minutes for the same amount of music.
2) Ease of use. iTunes allowed a single action to charge, synch, and upload to your iPod. Plug in, and you're done. Hit eject and your iPod is already synchronized, charged, and full of music.
3) Size. With a 1.8" HDD, it was the size of a large flash MP3 player, compared to a Mac mini sized Nomad Jukebox
4) Usability. With only four buttons and a scroll wheel, it could be used with a single hand, and almost immediately, compared to the 11 button UI that was current on the Nomad Jukebox
5) Storage. With a 1.8" HDD, it was marginally bigger than the largest 256mb flash MP3 player, with 20 times the storage. Not only that, it was a Firewire mass storage device.

Go ahead and look it up, Creative didn't release their 1.8" HDD and 1" HDD players until 2004, giving the iPod a three year advantage! Before then Creative was using much larger, heavier, and power consuming 2.5" laptop HDD.

50 cent

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple owes it all to that first gen ipod that 50 cent used in his video. Never underestimate the power of gangster rap! combine sex, power and violence and the ipod and u have a hit!!!!

Am I the only one...

[Hakubi_Washu]

...that doesn't consider the iPod interface "intuitive" (Nevermind the "nipple"-theory)? About half a year ago, I thought about getting an iPod, since my Trekstor iBeat organix only holds a single Gigabyte (Flash though, which I prefer over HD, which was the reason for getting this nice, big, Ogg-compatible player in the first place). So, I went to a store and began fiddling with the different players on display, including an iPod. I should mention that I'm both a capable tech-head (CS student actually writing software and enjoying poking inside the kernel of his Gentoo installs) and comfortable with end-user electronics (Never found a VCR, Mobile or Microwave I couldn't just handle without RTFM, though I usually do when they're my own devices). So, I tried to get the iPod to play a certain song. Just play it, no shuffle, playlist, repeat or whatever. You know what? It took me more than three minutes to figure out how to get that bat-shit-fucking-loco clickwheel to do that (I had ample opportunity to see the whole collection of music on the machine during that time though). IPods look nice, sure, but the interface is massively non-obvious to me...

Re:Am I the only one...

[Browncoat]

Okay, so you start to list your credentials, and you present yourself as fairly competent to handle practically any gadget that meets your hands, but then you find the iPod and blame the device itself for your ineptitude? Arguably, the first few generations of iPods were bulky and not as elegant as the current generation, but if people who lead much simpler lives, and aren't used to high-tech lifestyle as you claim you are accustomed to can handle working an iPod with total ease, aren't you really saying that you aren't proficient at using the iPod, and it's not a problem with the product itself? And because you've worked with whatever other gadgets with comfort and ease, it means you should be able to handle everything that comes your way, and when you can't seem to use a simple iPod interface, you blame the device.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Hakubi_Washu]

what part of "non-obvious to me" was hard to get? I'm fully aware that I might be the problem here (and since it is my own personal problem...) and, through my posting, am looking for other with the same problems... But ponder this: When every other device I ever met apparently followed the same rough rules my mind is wired to "just know", why isn't the iPod? Why is it different than any other product I ever used, making it much harder for me to grasp?

Re:Am I the only one...

[mlewan]

I sure have no problem with the UI, but I nevertheless feel for you. I remember when I first was introduced to a "mouse" about 20 years ago, and I simply couldn't get a hang of it for a week or so. The iPod UI would not be intuitive for a neolithic man, but I think he (and you) could learn it pretty soon and love it.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Hakubi_Washu]

Take a friendly suggestion: work on your social skills, you don't come across too civilized either... :-D

Re:Am I the only one...

[Kredal]

Because it's Apple.

Seriously, don't mod me down, I do have a point to make.

I was raised using devices, electronics, computers even, that followed their own sets of rules. Why is a right arrow "play" and two vertical lines "pause"? Give someone who has never seen a tape player a new fancy DVD player, and they'll be lost. But if you've followed technology for enough time, you learn what arcane symbols mean, and can get around fine. Now, take someone like me or the parent poster, and give us something made by Apple. It doesn't follow most of the conventions we're used to. "wait, the middle button plays the selected track? But I want to push play... it doesn't work, and if I hold it down for too long, it turns the thing off!" We have to relearn how things work, and for someone who has been doing things the same way for too long, that's a hard thing to do.

I had the same problem with the video editor in OSX. I could force it to do most things, but for some "simple" items, like adding text overlays and transitions, I was thinking too hard. I wanted to have to open up several menus, type my text, drag it to a point in the movie, maybe drag a slide bar to show how long to display it, then test it to make sure it looked right. The computer, however, wanted me to think dumb. Type the text, press "ok". That's it. It would be intuitive to a newcomer, but to someone who is used to things being hard, it was hard itself.

Apple follows its own conventions. That's fine, as long as you start with Apple and end with Apple. But when you start with the rest of the world, learning Apple can be like starting all over.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

A full 3 minutes? Wow. A spectacular show of ineptitude my friend! I gave my iPod to a 50 year old friend of mine who managed to have the Beatles going in around 30 seconds, and he's roughly as tech-savvy as a pony .... I think it's time to switch course to Business Management, and stop setting fire to maw's oven ;-)

Re:Am I the only one...

[Jay Random the Other]

Precisely. I recall when a friend of mine tried to configure an old OS X box as an Apache server for the first time. Now, of course Apache is installed with OS X by default, but not enabled out of the box. This guy, familiar with Apache and Linux and all such Good Stuff, futzed around with the Terminal and Startup Items and man pages and other things that would be relevant on a straight *ix system for about 45 minutes, while I kept saying over and over, 'Try the online help.' Finally I shoved him out of his chair, looked at Apple Help, went into System Prefs, and checked a checkbox. One checkbox, and Apache was running smoothly (and has been for four years since). Time elapsed: under 2 minutes.

If you're used to jumping through the hoops set up by people who have no clue how to design a usable UI, then obviously you'll have some re-learning to do when someone gives you a UI designed by someone who actually knows how. Apple is not the only company to commit the horrible, horrible crime of doing things right after geeks have trained themselves to put up with doing them wrong.

Re:Am I the only one...

[ratboy666]

And...

"apropos apache"

should tell you how to do it (give the man page reference, then "man ..."). If it doesn't, the OS X UI is broken.

Ratboy.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Ohreally_factor]

You've made an interesting point.

I'm fairly expert with Final Cut Pro. I've even taught classes. But I've never bothered to learn iMovie, and never really bothered to sit down and learn it. I've played with it for five minutes at a time, twice.

When my roommate came to me as the resident video expert, wanting to learn iMovie, I had to go out and buy her a book. (She had already exhausted the help system and was obviously more expert in iMovie than I was.)

I don't look down on iMovie in the least. I think it's a cool application that does what it's supposed to extremely well: let non-professionals easily work with video and create fairly polished videos and home movies. I prefer the extremely powerful professional solution, but I don't bag on iMovie. It would have been preposterous to teach my roomie FCP for what she wanted to accomplish in iMovie. Way overkill.

Unfortunately, Apple Bashing is so fashionable, that those who are electronic gadget "experts" feel the need to look down on the simpler solutions for ordinary people. After all, they're the experts, so their choice must be right.

I don't like em either; I disagree about the UI

[Ombwah]

Nah, I don't like Ipods either. They have fewer features than contemporary devices (archos, nomad) had kess storage space and have the whole Itunes DRM dependancy issue that has been discussed to death here already. My real bitch with the thing is more with the community that bought them, with superior devices already on the market, it took a swoosh (Nike styly) and flashy aesthetic (not good UI, btw) to sell the pretty plastic players. That little touch discy on the front of your underfeatured (but overpriced) fisher-price mpeg player is about as unintuitive and nuanced a control set that I have found in a handheld. Sure, those that have taken the time and practice to figure the ways might be able to work it, but, an at-a-glance pick-up user will not be able to effecively navigate a (/laugh) "Full-featured" I-pod without making many accidental playlist or song or volume changes. An unavoidable learning curve with such a mulit-purpose contextual control. After that you'll still have to buy the most recent and expensive version (still with the unintutitive, unlabled, touch-disc UI) to be able to see the 'trickled-out-to-market' tech that was available from other players over 5 years ago (video). I'm bothered that it takes a flashy package and logo to popularize what was an already available technology, and furhter that the company that popularized it would cripple the feature sets and usability of their device in the process and yet still get praise. (p.s. I too will buy music if it is both good and available, but the Itunes store has failed me on my last two music searches, though the tracks were pretty popular at the time that they were released (less than 10 years ago) thank god for Torrents or I would have no music.)

Re:I don't like em either; I disagree about the UI

[Anonymous Coward]

admit it. you're just a recently laid off Creative engineer who is pissed that your anime influenced color schemes didn't take over the world.

did I misunderstand you

[AlgorithMan]

hmmm on second thought your comment could be meant cynically... you can't be serious about the price thing...

apple fan mod's this discussion?

[AlgorithMan]

whenever I mention that the first iPod generation is technically a bad thing (batteries, low transfer rates) and is user-unfriendly (I don't say iTunes wasn't intuitive, I just say it's not nice of apple to force people into using it) I get score 0 (troll)... why is that? even wikipedia knows this!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Common_criticism s

so just because you like apple, dear moderator, doesn't mean my anti-apple comments were wrong. you like apple, I don't... a friend of mine likes microsoft, I don't... I like Linux, he doesn't... to me apple is a worse company than microsoft (because of an even more closed business model)
may their products be good or bad, I won't buy them as long as apple works like the church in the medieval times...

Re:apple fan mod's this discussion?

[2nd Post!]

Except you also fail to mention the corresponding STRENGTHS of the first generation:
1) Fast transfer speeds. Firewire allowed, at 12mb/s, one to fill an iPod in 7 minutes, where it would take a similar Creative Nomad 84 minutes for the same amount of music.
2) Ease of use. iTunes allowed a single action to charge, synch, and upload to your iPod. Plug in, and you're done. Hit eject and your iPod is already synchronized, charged, and full of music.

If you AREN'T just trolling, why do you not recognize the iPod's strengths? On top of those first two, it had three others that creamed the current 2001 MP3 market:
1) Size. With a 1.8" HDD, it was the size of a large flash MP3 player, compared to a Mac mini sized Nomad Jukebox
2) Usability. With only four buttons and a scroll wheel, it could be used with a single hand, and almost immediately, compared to the 11 button UI that was current on the Nomad Jukebox
3) Storage. With a 1.8" HDD, it was marginally bigger than the largest 256mb flash MP3 player, with 20 times the storage.

All those things combined wiped the floor of the then current Creative Nomad Jukebox, the Rio PMP, or the Samsungs.

O Rly?

[cubicledrone]

it's largely the result of clever business tactics and the iTunes music store.

In other news, the Earth was discovered to be spherical in shape earlier today, and the sky is a sparkling shade of blue. Here's Bob with the weather.

iTunes

[NDPTAL85]

Yes yes you can drag and drop songs onto any generic MP3 Player using USB Mass Storage. But thats a crude way of doing things. The iTunes software provides a more more elegant way with sets of playlists, party shuffles....etc. Of course you don't need all that stuff but the reason the iPod is so popular is because it goes the extra mile in being useful to people. If you don't get it, then you'll never get it. Much like the folks over at www.anythingbutipod.com

The same arguments could be used on why to use Mac OS X/Windows over Linux. You can do the same things on both types of OS's, but some Linux geeks don't understand the need for a GUI when all they need is the command line. The GUI may be easier to use, but you retain your "freedom" with Linux. Eh freedom is an overused word. I want to be free politically. I don't want to be free commercially if that means I have to put up with crude interfaces. Lock me up, lock me in, show me where the ease of use begins!

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Tidal Flame]

No, it just works better than anything else that's easily available. It does not take too much probing to find annoying flaws in IPod and ITunes that are solved in programs like Amarok.

Amarok needs a hell of a lot of work. The only thing I managed to get it to do was freeze. When I tried to add the ~1000 songs I have on my computer, it quickly ate up all my memory and then stopped doing much of anything, slowing the rest of the system down to the point that I had to do a hard reboot.

Hmmm, what could be more natural than plugging your IPod into someone else's computer? Remember tape swapping? IPod brings a nasty surprise by erasing all of it's contents when you try to SHARE. Getting your music back is a painful operation, not simply a button press. This punishment of sharing, evil on it's own, will also punish people who lose their music due to other failures.

There are a number of ways around this. You're right, it's annoying for the average user, but not so annoying that it offsets all the benefits of iPod + iTunes.

There are many other annoyances which users of ITunes do notice. The most significant is not being able to sort by Artist and Album. Others are less important but almost as annoying as a whole.

I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?

The main reason other players fail is Microsoft. WMP is a well documented dissaster of DRM and poor quality software. Even when other players include their own interface, they all want in on the Works for Sure, Napster/Purge M$ DRM service d'jour. Absent M$ and DRM crap, these players work well enough, especially if the user only bothers with CDs as you suggested.

Even so, every other player on the market lacks something compared to the iPod, be it style, features, capacity, ease of use, etc. The iPod is quite well rounded. By the way, it's "du jour."

* Rip with Konqueror's audiocd: function. With too lame, ogg is a concern only for those who care about freedom and saving 10-20% of storage space. Correct lables, flac, ogg and mp3 encoding has never been easier. ABCDE provides more robust ripping from the command line if you want that.
* Record analog with Krec, Krecord, Audacity or Gramofile. Use Rockbox for your iPod or iRiver portable device.
* Get your new music off the web. The Internet Archive [archive.org] has more than 30,000 concerts by artists that want you to share. Most players have built in stream sources.
* Play and organize your music with Amarok. It's all the goodness of iTunes with none of the annoyances.


Yeah, or they could use one program to do all of that and not waste time mucking about with the command line, updating dependencies (depending on what distro you're using) and generally jumping through a number of annoying hoops just to perform one simple task. This is one of the main reasons that Linux as a whole has very little share of the desktop market - lack of integration. Everything in Linux relies on something else, and while that's more efficient for servers, it's just a huge pain in the ass for home users.

The main obstacle to free software adoption for music is FUD and a false sense of dependence on M$ formats for "work". The free software user is less likely to have pirated crap because no one needs that crap anymore.

No, the main obstacle is that all of the free software you've listed is about a billion times less convenient than iTunes or even Windows Media Player, especially to anyone without extensive knowledge of computers.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[HAKdragon]

There are many other annoyances which users of ITunes do notice. The most significant is not being able to sort by Artist and Album. Others are less important but almost as annoying as a whole.

You mean like by clicking Artist or Album? Doing so will change what's sorted and if it's sorted in ascending or descending order

Take over the world?

[Trogre]

When did that happen?

Perhaps it did and I just didn't notice, but they're not an option for me for 4 reasons in order of importance:

1. No Ogg Vorbis
2. DRM
3. No FM Radio
4. I'm heterosexual :)

Okay so option 4 may be a little unfair, but there are much better options for playing music than what Jobs is peddling.

Re:Take over the world?

[klang]

..most people don't care about Ogg Vorbis. ..eventhough Apple have sold a lot of songs, most people don't care about DRM. ..what is FM Radio in this day and age? I remember it from my teenage years when they didn't play the same 15 songs for weeks. 15 songs in your pocket? Does that make sense? Keep your radio, please! ..if there was a corrolation between sexuality and iPod purcases, 75% of the population would be gay.

Re:Take over the world?

[aristotle-dude]

1. No Ogg Vorbis
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
2. DRM
The average male does not know what that is let alone care about it.
3. No FM Radio
The average male listens to radio on his stereo at home or in his car.
4. I'm heterosexual :)
See responses for the other questions. Most men who feel the need to point out that they are heterosexual in topics that have no relation to sexuality are usually gay.

You can't transfer music from one iPod to another.

[sharpestmarble]

From TFA: >That said, don't go thinking you don't have work to do, Apple. ... It's ridiculously hard to transfer a track downloaded for one iPod to another.

And you're not going to be able to. The RIAA will plant their feet even more strongly against that than they did for variable pricing. Being able to transfer songs from one iPod directly to another is one of the ways piracy could happen.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[ksheff]

Hmmm, what could be more natural than plugging your IPod into someone else's computer?

if someone wants to share a song with me, they can either email it to me, or send me a CD-R. I never touch anyone's computer unless they want me to fix it and even then, I keep it away from my computers, players, etc.

Re:iTMS? Are you sure?

[ksheff]

and Sony is still improving it. The new discs can hold a 1GB

Sick of Itunes only working with Ipods

[thegiorgio]

I have a PocketPC pda, a mp3 phone and a mp3 player, none of which can synchronize with itunes on my imac !!! I *must* buy a more expensive and with less features ipod if I want to sync my itunes music collection on the go....

Makes me want to switch to linux again :(

He lies!

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does the database still not contain LaVern Baker's 'Saved'?

It does!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewAlbum?playlistId=50268895&s=143441&i=50268933

Simpler is better.. amazing!!

[Savage-Rabbit]

I'm not quite sure why this is flamebait. The iPod has surpassed other MP3 players largely because Apple has been able to position it well, turning it into a status symbol.

I don't think it is a status symbol. I see everybody from snooty rich people and yuppies right down to scruffy students and blue collar workers (who are not known for having money to spare) using iPods so it's hardly a status symbol. I think the iPod has become more of a cultural phenominon... of sorts... Its sucess is due to clever marketing, the realization by Apple that music downloads are not a threat they are an opportunity to snatch market share from old and established media giants (i.e. a clever and modern business model) and lastly the iPod is also sucessful due to its simplicity of design, ease of use and lack of confusing features. I find the last part is very interesting and often overlooked. The iPods success is not solely due to ITMS and marketing as is often claimed although they do play a part. Most people I know fill their iPods either with pirated music or more usually by ripping their own legitimately purchased CD collection via iTunes. ITMS isn't even available where I live and yet everybody has an iPod and the fact that people here who don't use ITMS are not purchasign alternative players just goes to prove that ITMS isn't the iPod's only appeal. Another thing is that the iPod has outcompeted music players that are loaded with features and in some cases have more storage capacity and it is not alone in achieving this it has also happened in other markets. Several telecoms have for example had unexpected success selling pretty basic GSM phones that in some cases don't even have a color LCD and they are out-selling models loaded with features and fitted with high res LCD displays and this despite a marginal or even non existent price difference. A good example is Vodafone Simply. Personally I would like a little more from my phone than just GSM telephone functionality, I want e-mail, an organizer and a qwerty keyboard but other than that I could live without a color LCD and the ability to run games and stream TV onto my stamp sized mobile phone monitor.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Yaztromo]

There are many other annoyances which users of ITunes do notice. The most significant is not being able to sort by Artist and Album. Others are less important but almost as annoying as a whole.

Uh, try clicking on the "Artist" column heading (or "Album" if you prefer).

You have actually used iTunes, right?

Yaz.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

Uh, try clicking on the "Artist" column heading (or "Album" if you prefer). You have actually used iTunes, right?

No I have not used iTunes. My information comes from an annoyed user who wanted to collapse the tree. Other users have told me about other problems.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Have Blue]

I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?

I think he wants to have the music sorted by artist name and then within each artist block the songs are also sorted alphabetically by album name. While it's true that iTunes can't do this, I can't imagine it's a feature there's tremendous demand for.

Wow so impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

You can put country next to classical, punk next to jazz, Barry Manilow next to Placido Domingo

Wow - big deal - I do that on my Sony Walkman

loooosers

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Yaztromo]

No I have not used iTunes. My information comes from an annoyed user who wanted to collapse the tree. Other users have told me about other problems.

So, in which case, is it not possible that these nebulous "other problems" are not due to iTunes itself, but due to a fault with the user?

If such is the case, you should state that before you start claiming iTunes faults as facts. So far as you're aware, iTunes could be faultless, and you've just been hearing the complaints of clueless users who don't know the simplest of GUI control basics, or how to use the built-in Help subsystem.

Yaz.

flame, flame, flame, flame, flame...

[Kenshin]

I may have had a couple of drinks, but honestly, I hope you die in a flaming plane crash (the plane landing ON you, while standing on the ground) for using the word "sheeple" to describe iPod users.

It's so TIRED, and trite. Full of misplaced bitterness.

I've had an iPod for 3 years. That was BEFORE the gigantic marketing blitz, or the iTMS store lauched. It's sill working wonderfully well, and if I had to buy another DAP, i'd buy another iPod. Why? Because it works. It works well. Simplicity. Not because of fucking silhouettes dancing on coloured backgrounds on TV.

But no... flame people for buying iPods. For buying GSM phones. For buying PlayStations. For buying import cars. Flame, flame flame...

(F/OSS nerds are "sheeple" too, if you stop and think about it.)

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

Amarok needs a hell of a lot of work. The only thing I managed to get it to do was freeze.

That's strange, the version available in Debian Etch has worked well for half a year or so.

I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?

Users I've talked to complain that it's clumsy. For instance, you can't collapse the tree, there's no file system view, etc.

Yeah, or they could use one program to do all of that and not waste time mucking about with the command line, updating dependencies (depending on what distro you're using) and generally jumping through a number of annoying hoops just to perform one simple task.

I named my favorite programs for each task, you don't have to use all of them. Still, all of them come with most distributions, such as the excellent Mepis, which runs from CD and can walk you through a GUI install in 20 minutes or so. The braver could take the hour or two to install Debian proper and get those things they like best. Dependency resolution is only difficult when you use non free or legally suppressed software like DeCSS to watch DVDs.

No, the main obstacle is that all of the free software you've listed is about a billion times less convenient than iTunes or even Windows Media Player, especially to anyone without extensive knowledge of computers.

I'll bet there are more Amarok users than there are WMP users. WMP has that bad a reputation, and that's one of the big reasons Apple has thrived.

Still, you are right the lack of major computer vendor advocacy of free software and massive FUD makes it too much trouble for all but the most motivated of users. That's what makes iTunes the best easy choice. They just don't know what they are missing. We will see what kind of a deal they have actually gotten when the RIAA decides it's time to resell everything again and DRM takes it's bite. If the Purge deal is not a good enough demonstration of their intentions, I'm not sure what is.

Absolutely ways around that...

[interactive_civilian]

Tidal Flame said:

There are a number of ways around this. You're right, it's annoying for the average user, but not so annoying that it offsets all the benefits of iPod + iTunes.

I agree 100%. There are (for Windows) ways around it (for Mac), and I personnally don't think they are that annoying at all. (Disclaimer: I have really only used Senuti on a Mac)

Just copy those to your iPod and feel free to share Music with your friends if you are so inclined. Actually, I found a better piece of Windows freeware (well, maybe better...I have never used vPod), but VersionTracker is being slow for me at the moment, so I can't find it.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

So far as you're aware, iTunes could be faultless, and you've just been hearing the complaints of clueless users who don't know the simplest of GUI control basics, or how to use the built-in Help subsystem.

No, I can tell when my physics and engineering graduate student peers are being morons, but thanks for asking. In any case, software for playing music should not require manual reading, it should just work. Amarok does, out of the box.

why the iPod won.

[deviator]

It's easy. (The whole experience is easy.) It just works.

(You'd think there'd be some real competition - but there really won't be until someone else can control the entire end-to-end experience. Microsoft is the only company with enough pull to do this--but they won't be able to get the experience as smoothed out as Apple. So the iPod will continue to dominate.)

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[porcupine8]

I think he wants to have the music sorted by artist name and then within each artist block the songs are also sorted alphabetically by album name.

I don't know how it works on an iPod (never had one), but in iTunes when I sort by artist, it automatically uses the album as the next level of sorting. Below that, though, they appear to be sorted by track on the album rather than alphabetically by title, if that's what you mean. But once you've got them sorted by artist + album, you've narrowed it down enough that it shouldn't be too hard to find the song you want. And unless you have the track list of the album memorized and know exactly where your song sits alphabetically, it's no easier or harder if they're sorted by track vs ABCs.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Yaztromo]

No, I can tell when my physics and engineering graduate student peers are being morons, but thanks for asking.

Care to know where I am right now? I'm sitting in an office at a major University acting as a consultant to both graduate and undergraduate students who are in the faculties of computer science and software engineering, and I get a steady stream of such dumb questions. And these are from people in programs who should know better (and I'm sorry to have to say this, but I dated a physics grad student for a time, and I have to say that outside the arena of partical physics and math where she was an absolute wizard, she wasn't exactly the brightest bunny in the bunch). Hell, just today I taught a S.Eng student about tab completion in Linux bash shell!

Sorry, but software doesn't read minds. And while I'm a huge proponent of HCI, in the end it is impossible to create a single buttons that says "Do what I want", and expect it to do anything and everything you want to do. At some point, there has to be a certain amount of user education and experimentation. iTunes encourages experimentation by its design, but there are people out there who don't even think to try. It doesn't help for the completely clueless that iTunes can be deciptively simple at times -- I've had more than one actual iTunes user ask me about sorting their Library by artist or album who expected they would have to go through three menus and seven preference panels to set this up, when all you have to do is click on the heading you want to sort by.

Amarok does, out of the box.

I've tried both, and sorry, you're simply wrong. You're making a judgement value on a piece of software you've admittedly never used, based on you having spoke with clueless people who don't even know that you can sort a list by the criteria you want in only a single mouse click. That just doesn't fly around here.

Yaz.

... yeah but...

[idiotdevel]

... do they run Linux?
hehe, oh wait... they do (ipodlinux.org)

Harder is better?

[TimmyDee]

I think you're confusing "full-featured" with "better".

Sure, the iPod is not as full-featured as some other players, but I think the fact that they're harder to use automatically removes them from the "better" category. Ease of use is a feature, too, even for geeks like us.

This was modded "Interesting"?

[jamrock]

"There are far better mp3 players out there, but they are harder to use"

Then they aren't better. The vast majority of people could care less that Linux is "better", that Brand X mp.3 player is "better". If it's not easier to use, then it's not worth the time to fuck around with it. Most people actually have something better to do with their time than to mess around with something that's supposed to be technologically superior in order to make it work. Folks who have actual lives with kids and bills and to whom every second of time is precious could care less that some format or OS or machine is "better" than the popular alternative. They only care that it works well enough that it doesn't unduly stress them out at work or take unreasonable amounts of time from them. If it doesn't then it's more than worth it. Slashdot readers live in a different world than the vast majority of people, those who could give a shit that the GPL exists, or that Ogg Vorbis kicks the crap out of mp.3, or that "better" players than iPod are available. They have more important things to worry about. I'm a Mac user and iPod owner, but my family, and the time spent with them, are far more important to me than any computer platform or mp3 player or file format any day.

Way to go, twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did your offtopic "M$" FUD fall flat, but you also managed to make yourself look stupid by trying to spread FUD about iTunes and the iPod itself.

Maybe you should tell the Amarok developers to use your new motto: "All of the goodness of iTunes with none of the annoyances". They'll have to wait until it works though, of course.

I love "evangelizing" like this. Who cares about facts, right?

iTunes and the iPod

[netDopey]

Well I for one am not about to spend $10,000 to fill up my iPod with iTunes, I'm happy to transfer my CD collection of stuff I already own.

I bought iPod because I used iTMS

[patio11]

OK, somewhat atypical use case here: I spent approximately $16 on music in my life until the age of 23. I used to sing but listening to music was never a very big thing for me. Then I got to college and got infected with the Napster bug, and frequently play music in the background while working on projects to have something to hum along to. When I got my first job I wanted to legalize my status. Enter iTunes. $20 later I had Patio's Programming Playlist 100% legal. Yay, cheap at the price and met my requirements ("plays on my one computer without requiring any work"). I kept buying about one song a week from iTunes, generally on impulse (e.g. my little brother said "can't touch this" and I wanted to hear that MC Hammer song again for giggles -- and for a price thats less than a soda in a vending machine thats an itch I can scratch). Doing the math, that would put my first year of iTMS usage at roughly quadruple my lifetime music expenditure.

Then one day I went to the doctor and was told something which involved the words "valve", "blockage", and "serious". I joined a gym the next day and resolved to go three days a week. My gym plays Brittney Spears' Greatist Hits all day, every day. I was ready to murder the receptionist and if someone tried to stop me then whoops I'd do it again. I couldn't quit the gym, so I decided to buy an MP3 player to drown out that toxic Toxic. And at this point I already had $60 sunk in my music collection on iTMS. So I just ordered an iPod.

Re:I bought iPod because I used iTMS

[radarsat1]

Cool story, I enjoyed reading that. :)

Easy answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple: Apple spent more on advertising and included television and non-technical publications in their campaign.

iTMS helped boost sales but the iPod was a hit in the player market for 2.5 years before iTMS was introduced.

IPOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone mention the STUPID fact that your regular mp3s need to be imported thru there software and warped into....!??!?!?

  what the f&ck hidden files randomly names folders of 5 or 6 mp3 each

UM FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS ALL OTHER MP3 PLAYERS I HAD I JUST COPIED MY ALBUM FOLDER TO THE DIRVE! and 2X as external hard drives!!! Talk about taking my rights away!

ANY why do I need to install itunes and quicktime just to move my music over??????

And what the F&*k imput a serial number just so I can get my own mp3s to the stupid gift I just got! And that is if you can read the stupid thing..

P.S. Apple just marry SONY already.. At least then you could just f&*k each other instead of me!

I mean I knew they (ipods) were stupid but come on how can all of you be so .........?????? INTO THEM?

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

You're making a judgement value on a piece of software you've admittedly never used, based on you having spoke with clueless people

Fuck you for calling my friends clueless. You really have no idea and the fact that they are annoyed is all that really matters.

The judgement I'm making is between a piece of free software that works as well and does more than a non free one that costs lots of money and significantly restricts the rights and ability of the end user. iTunes, for what it costs, should be held to a much higher standard of performance.

Re:Horray for Rio!

[Zaphod2016]

I bought a Rio back in the day (best price on the market) and it lasted me a few years (and I treat my portible stuff cruely).

I've always wondered why the Rio had such a low market share. Like parent said...Rio makes (made?) a good product...really!

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Yaztromo]

The judgement I'm making is between a piece of free software that works as well and does more than a non free one that costs lots of money and significantly restricts the rights and ability of the end user. iTunes, for what it costs, should be held to a much higher standard of performance.

iTunes is free. You can go and download it now from http://www.apple.com/itunes, without spending a single penny to Apple. iTunes works with MP3s, protected and unprotected AAC audio, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless, and Audible Audiobook audio formats (and several video formats as well). Only one of which has the option of having DRM applied to it. Don't like DRM? Neither do I! iTunes doesn't force any DRM upon you -- if you don't want to own Protected AACs, don't buy them. Get your music from the same unprotected sources you're getting them for Amarok.

You continue to make claims that Amarok "does more" that a piece of software you've never used, which you judge purely from hearing about it from people who can't even figure out how to use a single mouse click to sort music.

You, sir, are an idiot. I personally don't care one whit if you prefer Amarok over iTunes -- that's fine with me. But don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you haven't even used one of the two software packages in question.

Shall we tally your current score? You have claimed that:

1. iTunes can't sort by artist or album title (FALSE)
2. iTunes "costs a lot of money" (FALSE)
3. iTunes "significantly restricts the rights and ability of the end user" (FALSE)
4. You've never used iTunes (TRUE)

Well, you got one point, but it too just makes you look like an idiot who is spouting FUD. Care to continue along this vein?

Yaz.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[GaryPatterson]

Hmmm, what could be more natural than plugging your IPod into someone else's computer? Remember tape swapping? IPod brings a nasty surprise by erasing all of it's contents when you try to SHARE. Getting your music back is a painful operation, not simply a button press. This punishment of sharing, evil on it's own, will also punish people who lose their music due to other failures.

In a world where musicians want money for their music, how would you have music sharing work?

I don't see that people have any inherent right to make unlimited copies of music and distribute them. To me, *sharing* is something I do with stuff *I* make. I can't share someone else's work - that's not fair to the original source.

Why the iPod won?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the first, and still is the only, device that doesn't massively suck aesthetically.

Also, a mainstream digital music player market was not possible until storage got fairly high (multi-gigabyte). It just wasn't worth the hassle before that.

I've owned several different devices, and they were either physically too big or had too small of storage until recently. I had older players but in retrospect, they weren't worth the money.

As for Creative, their players might have more features, more storage, and cost less, but they are still too big (for me, some don't mind the full-size iPod, but I'd never buy anything that big) and more importantly, they have an ugly "Star Trek gadget" look. If you want to compete for the mainstream market, you can't design your device to visually appeal only to a niche tech audience.

Of course marketing is important, but for it to work, you have to have a product that your audience wants to buy. Even if Creative dumped a ton of money into advertising, they would not do any better.

I just bought a new player recently, and I knew all about the latest Creative players, and the latest iRiver players, but the iPod nano was the one that best implemented the features I wanted. Very small, decent storage, and doesn't look like some social reject teenager designed the exterior.

I'm definitely a counter-culture snob, and I dislike being an ipod owner (I even insist on using alternate, black-coated headphones) but they really are making the only decent product in this market right now.

No wireless...

[onosendai]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

Oh, wait ..

You're both idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

...just like the losers at Microsoft, Creative, and RIAA.

You focus only on price and specs without giving so much as a nod to ergonomic design, intuitive and efficient interface, and yes, style.

I owned three MP3 players before the iPod came out. It instantly solved my biggest complaints about the others - their crappy design and poor ease of use. It also convinced me to finally dump my Windows PC and accept that Apple computers are worth paying a small premium for.

To this day, these other losers have shown they're not even capable of mimicking Apple, let alone surpassing their designs, and THAT'S why they still dominate the market. Apple's brilliant marketing is merely icing on the cake.

Top Prize for Stupidest Post Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

In reponse to your comments:

1) Usability of the device as a portable USB drive is a feature, NOT an interface issue.

2) It just so happens that iPods CAN be used as portable USB drives.

3) This has to be the first time I hear anyone claim that any Linux product offers superior interface or ease of use than Windows, let alone Apple, which is synonymous with brilliant design and ease of use. Linux fans can harp about security, open source, and standards compliance all they want, but the platform's notoriously poor ease of use and inconsistent interfaces are legendary, and the principal reason why Linux has barely made a dent in the desktop market.

4) MusicMatch Jukebox is and has always been notorious for its poor reliability and performance. It is one of the chief reasons I hated MP3 players before buying my first iPod. The moment Apple released iTunes for Windows and demonstrated they could write better and more reliable Windows software than any of the seasoned experts in the Windows world, that was all it took to begin the mass exodus to Apple's iPod. iTunes HUMILIATED every Windows based software product of its kind, particularly when it came to its flawless and effortless synchronization with the iPod. No more crashes. No more lost songs. No more sync failures. No more troubleshooting of the hardware/software communications configuration.

5) You, like all the losers in the Microsoft/Creative/iRiver camp, insist on looking for "features" and "specs" that you can match or beat against the iPod. You keep refusing to look at what everyone is clamoring about - the user interface and the overall user experience. Believe it or not, there's such a huge chasm separating the two platforms in this area, that most people will gladly pay twice as much for an iPod with half the storage space and extra features as a competing product from Creative or iRiver. Oh, and before buying my first iPod, I almost bought an iRiver player. That is, until I saw one in person and it felt like some crude toy that might fall apart in a few hours. Five minutes hands on with that iRiver was all it took to write it off as a candidate.

Less rants, more facts. Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

yagu (yayagu@gmail.com) said:

And, as many posters pointed out, my rant appeared to mix iTunes and iPod. That was intentional. It is the culture and behavior Apple cultivates -- most iPod owners I know go the route of iTunes, and I find for most the distinction truly is blurred.

Culture? Did you mean, advertising? I hate to burst your liberal bubble here, but advertising is how companies get their products to be known by consumers. Not all humans have telepathic powers to magically determine what products exist.

I'd love to see you try to make an MP3 player with the same features, capacity, and ease-of-use of the iPod, at a competitive price, and without massive amounts of advertising and business deals with recording companies.

Feel free to join the REAL WORLD, yagu.

How the iPod took over the world

[ripragged]

Oh for crying out loud. Can we please quit belaboring this one. It is easier to use an iPod than any other mp3 player. iPods work better than any other mp3 player. iPods are cool. All other players are "not an iPod." Steve Jobs gets it. Always has. SJ will reassume his rightful place as "king of geekdom" soon.

How iPods took over the world?

[hyperpixel]

Let's see. Perhaps due to a bunch of people who can't control their urge to immortalize or trendify (yes, I made that one up all by myself) certain technology devices. Especially when there is so much hype over the reasoning behind it - ESPECIALLY when it has to do with music.

Let's face it - there is nothing really all that special about a device you can listen to music on. People are just pawns. Welcome to the world.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Tidal Flame]

I named my favorite programs for each task, you don't have to use all of them. Still, all of them come with most distributions, such as the excellent Mepis [mepis.org], which runs from CD and can walk you through a GUI install in 20 minutes or so. The braver could take the hour or two to install Debian proper and get those things they like best. Dependency resolution is only difficult when you use non free or legally suppressed software like DeCSS to watch DVDs. Those tools are fairly common, but it doesn't mean that organizing your music won't take a lot of work. Take Fedora, for example - none of the bundled software can play MP3s, and as a result any music software (ie Amarok) which relies on bundled libraries won't be able to play MP3s without bothersome updates. Not to mention package conflicts... those are a huge headache. Obviously it depends on the distribution, but often it's going to be more trouble than it's worth to the user. Anyway, even if you don't have to install those tools, you've still got to use several seperate apps to do something that really should be one single task. One app to rip, one app to organize/play, one app to burn... it's annoying. iTunes can do all of those things by itself, and I think the vast majority of computer users, tech saavy or not, will put up with iTunes' shortcomings in exchange for the convenience it offers over the methods you've listed. I agree with you that the lack of endorsement by any major hardware vendors is a big problem. But it's not the only one...

iPod world domination?

[TheNucleon]

Well, I for one (say it with me)

welcome our new, intuitive, portable music playing overlords.

Where were you, folks? Come on, this one cries out for the joke...

I think there's a typo

[pooly7]

At first I read :

But using the cyberspace junkbox,

Let's Not Forget Sharepod

[QAPete]

SharePod does a nice job of improving portability of your music from iPod to a PC and off to any other device:

http://www.sturm.net.nz/website.php?Section=iPod+P rograms&Page=SharePod

Other than the silly 'you can't replace the battery' issue (really, Apple, let's get with the 21st century here) and the lack of wifi, iPods are wonderful little devices that sync effortlessly and quickly and have an excellent software and hardware interface (the click wheel is clearly one of the best interfaces out there). You have choices ranging from the tiny little Shuffle through the 60 gb video iPod. Battery life has improved significantly from the first-generation units (14 hours for a nano, 20 hours for the 60 gb iPod). There are also hundreds of add-on products designed for them, including some very decent dockable sound systems and FM modulators, which just add to the appeal. Finally, the sheer 'coolness' of the simple physical design remains untouched.

Add to this the slick marketing and the ease of use of the iTunes store, and you have quite the phenomenon. Let's not blame Apple for DRM, btw. The push for DRM is a much more universal problem, and has more to do with the RIAA grasping at straws to prevent us from doing what we did 25 years ago without anyone imposing on us (taping our vinyl albums for use in our tape players) because they don't know how to deal with today's technology.

I look forward to seeing the next generation or two of iPods. Perhaps they'll gain the ability to function as FM receivers and directly record. Maybe we'll get the ability to pop in memory chips. Replaceable batteries, wifi (the iPod as the media center for your entire home... wow!). Whatever they come up with, I'm going to bet that Apple continues to redefine 'cool'.

Re:Let's Not Forget Sharepod

[klang]

replacable batteries ... most people don't need this. But you CAN buy replacement batteries.
wifi/bluetooth ... no need yet .. most people don't even know what it is let alone configure it
FM ... buy an add-on if you need a radio.
record ... again, buy an add-on.
SD reader ... again and angain, buy an add-on
ogg,flac ... mp3,aac or wav is fine thank you very much..

What I am trying to say is, that I do not expect any of theese things to be part of the iPod for the simple reason, that most people don't need them and that the ones that do, will buy an add-on.

One thing is for sure though; the next generation of iPods will make the current generation look like something from the stoneage.

How iPods Took Over the World ?

[smoker2]

What's an iPod ?

Whose world did it take over ?

I have yet to see one in actual usage, despite the barrage of advertisements and /. hype.

Troll me if you like, but this is rubbish, designed for people who've owned a pc for less than 3 years, and have no idea of recent history.

Ipods are nice...

[jonr]

...if you don't share it between your PC and Mac.

Journalism for people who hate critical thinking

[timalewis]

A handful of phrases from the article give this away:

"...Rolling Stones [...] have a new album out.."
"... today's bands are crap."
"... plug iPod into a couple of speakers."
"... four filler tracks on every album"

All the article really points out is that Apple (in the form of iPods and particularly iTMS) are particularly adept at selling music to those people who don't like music very much. This is a standard way of doing business, the best way to make money is by tapping into the huge market of people who don't really give a shit for your product. We have films for people who hate films, food for those who don't enjoy eating, and books aimed at the wilfully illiterate.

There is nothing wrong with this in itself; we all have our little areas of snobbery. The point at which it really begins to grate is when a journalist - who clearly has little interest in either music or technology - is given a voice to discuss his views on the current state of the intersection of those topics. Why should anyone care? He clearly doesn't - he has owned an iPod for nearly five months and has no insight into why the interface is popular or what its shortcomings are. Furthermore he completely misses the point that iTMS is as hamstrung by the slow moving record companies as his local HMV. That's why he can't get his LaVern Baker track.

People buy iPods...

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of consumers buy iPods because they're cool and everyone else has one.

There are three huge annoyances with my iPod Nano.
I have music on my desktop at Home, I have music on my laptop, I have music on my computer at work, and the iPod can only be synced to one of these computers at a time. Whenever I plug the iPod into one of the other two devices to charge it, iTunes pops up and cheerfully offers to delete all my music for me.

Despite being handled with kid gloves, my Nano is scratched all to hell (there were no cases available when the thing was released, and for a few weeks afterwards).

The Piss poor battery life on the thing means I need to charge it every two days, which is way too goddamn often.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Ohreally_factor]

Twitter, you're losing it man. You lost the argument, because you didn't have the facts to back up your ideology. If you can't be a gentleman and admit defeat, then don't compound your problem by lashing out. If you stop digging your own hole you'll stop sinking.

It's obvious that you feel very deeply about Free and Open software. But you're actually hurting your cause more than you are helping it. Think about it. You're damaging the cause of F/OSS, because you're coming off as a real jerk. A big jerk who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Next time, try arguing with the facts, not your feelings. What works for Stephen Colbert doesn't work for you.

He's melting

[Ohreally_factor]

Step back, dude. You don't want to get any twitter on your shoes.

its simple...

[ThePopeLayton]

All Your IPod Are Belong To Us!

iPod acccessories market the key to sucess

[aristotle-dude]

The key to the iPods success is that it was not released with every feature under the sun but rather Apple encouraged third-parties to provide additional functionality and add-ons. Companies like VW and numerous other car companies now provide integration with the iPod. The Nike deal is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

No doubt that celebrity endorsements, cross platform compatiblity and advertising played a role but the main thrust of success was the add-on market.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[penguinstorm]

Browse by artist.

Sort by album name.

Bow to my greatness as one views the list you are describing.

Why I think iTMS Store blows

[jmorris42]

> Being able to download tracks you want and keep for as long as you want for under a buck seems like a good deal to me.

You obviously don't think long term. I do. I have old LPs, I have twenty year old CDs and all of it is still accessable and I expect it to still be accessable in some form after I am dead and gone. I have serious doubts whether anything from iTMS will survive anywhere like that long.

But most of all I object to iTMS and the other online music stores for more basic reasons. I object to paying high prices for low quality. If I am going to buy music I expect CD quality (after all, the CD is based on thirty year old tech) as a minimum standard, no online store (excepting allofmp3.com of course) offers a lossless format. All online music unnaturally ties the music and the player/PC such that replacing the player depends on the original store still being in business and not having changed the terms of the original deal. This in an industry where the longevity of .com businesses are almost as short as the hardware replacement cycle. Ok, Apple has been 'dying' longer than Slashdot, Netcraft or the 'BSD is dying' troll have been around, but the cold reality is they aren't likely to still be in business in another twenty years. (Or at least in their present form, once His Steveness moves on or retires M&A activity is in their future.)

As for the iPod itself, I'm as unmoved as I am with all of Apple's products. Yes they are pretty, exhibit fairly good design, are reasonably easy to use and solidly midrange in features. Balanced by being overpriced and having a cult instead of normal customers.

Every time I have been tempted to purchase an Apple branded product the factor that changes my mind is not wanting to be associated with the the Cult of Mac. When most people see an Apple they tend to assume the owner is one or more of a) yuppie scum, b) smelly hippie, c) gay and almost certainly d) an Apple zealot.

With the iPod now being sold at WalMart, the iPod is going mainstream and starting to lose that taint. Which is why I'd bet the whole fad is about to end, you can't be an elitist snob about a product WalMart is selling and elitism seems to be a large part of what Apple is selling. It would be like BMW starting to sell to the masses, wouldn't matter if they were still the same quality cars, the status symbol value of owning a 'beemer' would be gone.

Re:Why I think iTMS Store blows

[sh00z]

[gp]> Being able to download tracks you want and keep for as long as you want for under a buck seems like a good deal to me.

You obviously don't think long term. I do. I have old LPs, I have twenty year old CDs and all of it is still accessable and I expect it to still be accessable in some form after I am dead and gone. I have serious doubts whether anything from iTMS will survive anywhere like that long.

The music you download from iTMS will survive as long as the rest of your record collection, as long as you maintain it with an equivalent level of care and maintenance (regular back-ups, temperature- and humidity-controlled storage). If you've got LP's, you know the drill. Just extend the paradigm.

But most of all I object to iTMS and the other online music stores for more basic reasons. I object to paying high prices for low quality.

I call BS on this one. If you actually own LP's, you are likely to remember that the cost of a 45 rpm single in 1979 was about $1. For that price, you got two songs, in pretty lousy quality. That 1979 dollar would cost you $2.77 today, so 99 cents for a single song is actually 38% CHEAPER than the vinyl equivalent. And, I would argue, of at least the same sound quality.

If I am going to buy music I expect CD quality (after all, the CD is based on thirty year old tech) as a minimum standard

If you are unwilling to compromise on the "quality" of the medium, then you get exactly what is being sold on compact disc. Which validates the point of TFA.

When most people see an Apple they tend to assume the owner is one or more of a) yuppie scum, b) smelly hippie, c) gay and almost certainly d) an Apple zealot.

Don't flatter yourself. Just because that's your opinion, don't think that you represent "most people." When most people see an Apple, they tend to assume that the owner is interested in accomplishing the task they have at hand, minimizing interference by the computing hardware and software (including spyware, virii, etc.). I, as an Apple customer, have been willing to pay a *slight* premium (you need to check out the market before you throw around the "overpriced" claim) for the computer to get out of my way, and I appreciate every penny that apple has thrown into R&D to make that possible.

Sitting here with moderator points this morning, I was really torn. I could have just pulled the "Flamebait" dropdown, but I'm hoping that you'll take these comments to heart.

Give proper credit Guardian != Observer

[Herschel Cohen]

Tried scanning the comments, but I failed to find that anyone noticed the error. With seven pages of comments, I may have easily missed it, hence, I apologize if that is the case.

This article appeared in the Guardian not the Observer.

Re:Give proper credit Guardian != Observer

[macjim]

Sorry old chap, but your error. The Observer is the older sister to the Guardian these days, and both share Guardian Unlimited as a website. The main difference apart from the masthead is that the Observer, as always, comes out on Sunday. Which is when and where this article came out, according to the page the link brought up. Haven't bought the Observer for a while: the colour suppy was compelling in the '60s, but there's so much else to read these days. Like this trivia...

Re:Give proper credit Guardian != Observer

[Herschel Cohen]

Thanks for the information. I think I saw the observer in graduate school and I was stunned with the depth they reported on foreign topics that were completely absent from American (a.k.a. U.S.) publications. However, when I sought the Observer out on the web within the last year or so, they struck me as a Murdock like publication making a vain attempt to retain some of their former class. The Guardian just seems to be a different entity entirely, hence, I would have never guessed they were related.

Again my thanks. I was in London recently and I introduced my wife to the Guardian. She is talking about picking up a copy in the States, since it covers topics ignored here even by the highly over rated New York Times.

Re:Give proper credit Guardian != Observer

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your response, hope you and your wife succeed in getting the Guardian and find it enjoyable. It's a paper I've taken for years, starting because I was living in England at the time and it had pretty good Scottish coverage, as well of course as wider international news! It's been pretty good on the internet for a long time, giving better access to archives and things than many papers the last time I tried. With so many time wasting things available on the internet I've stopped buying it so regularly, and because of their sheer bulk skip the saturday edition and the Observer on sunday. The Observer has claims to be Britain's oldest paper, if I recall correctly, and certainly was one of the two heavyweights on sunday, along with the Sunday Times. The latter fell into Rupert Murdoch's hands, and the two are still competing. The Guardian and Observer have some links, and from memory are both run by a trust or something, but can't spot any info on that right now. They still seem to run pretty independently. As for the US press, they've been described as uninterested in much outside their country, but from looking at the odd thing in the LA Times online they may have improved.

posted a/c because my login's begun acting up,
all the best,
macjim

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

iTunes is free. You can go and download it now from http://www.apple.com/itunes [apple.com], without spending a single penny to Apple.

It's costless if you happen to already have an expensive OS and an expensive portable music player. It's never been free software, which is why it's annoying the people who use it.

[your friends are stupid] ... You, sir, are an idiot. ... an idiot who is spouting FUD. Care to continue along this vein?

No, I think I've wasted enough time talking to you. My consolation is that you have wasted far more.

They got the whole system right, not just one part

[puck13]

David Pogue said it best in a NYTimes article (free, no reg required for Pogue's articles) about a(nother, ho hum) Samsung MP3 player.

He points out that Apple didn't get just one thing right, they got a bunch of things right AND made them work well together.

== Quote:
The iPod's competitors have wasted years of opportunity by assuming that they can beat the iPod on features and price alone. They're wrong.

In fact, at least six factors make the iPod such a hit:
cool-looking hardware;
a fun-to-use, variable-speed scroll wheel;
an ultrasimple software menu;
effortless song synchronization with Mac or Windows;
seamless, rock-solid integration with an online music store (iTunes);
and a universe of accessories.

Mess up any aspect of the formula, and your iPod killer is doomed to market-share crumbs.
== Endquote.

I'd argue that they also got the ITMS business model right, in addition to the superb integration of the above six.

You'll note there's no mention of marketing anywhere there.

steve jobs one really amazing talent...

[doom]

Meanwhile, back at the article, we have a prime example of Steve Job's one truly amazing talent at work:

This leads to the third, most important and least obvious of the iPod's trumps: the power of 'pull'. Most companies distribute their product by 'push'. They estimate demand, build according to the estimate and then sell ('push') what they have built. This is essentially business as central planning, and it works little better at company than at country level - hence the need for advertising and promotional price-cuts to reconcile sales with estimates [...] When, as with iTunes, the product is 'pulled' by the customer, on the other hand, the engines required for 'push' are redundant. It's like using gravity instead of fighting against it.

This man actually thinks that the iPod was put over without marketing. I don't know about you, but I can't ride the bus without seeing silouettes of cool kids cavorting about with white wires drooping from the electrodes in their control centers.

Steve Jobs is by no means an idiot about product design -- myself, I usually can't stand his crap, but I can see why other people might like it -- but this is his real talent at work: the reality warp field. Apple is never percieved as Just Another Company. Closed architectures, hardware lock-in, yet another proprietary fork of the BSD code base, and now "DRM" weirdness... oh shut up you whiners, what are you complaining about?

No One Has Stated the Real Truth

[zo219]

I am a sixty-year old woman, I own a black iPod Video, it is loaded with cartoons for my grandkids and thirty years of rock for me
... and ... (hmm, maybe this isn't the best place to post this) ... I have neither seen nor held anything so Lickable in my life.

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[rjstanford]

Grandparent said, I must be misunderstanding you... it is possible and very easy to sort by Artist or Album. What do you mean?

Parent replied, Users I've talked to complain that it's clumsy. For instance, you can't collapse the tree, there's no file system view, etc.

Hmm. Sort by artist. How would I do that in a standard, non-clumsy way? Let's try clicking on the column heading for "Artist." Yup, sorts fine. Same for Album.

Collapsing the tree? Well, the same functionality exists in a more flexible format (think of it as a multidimensional tree) with the iTunes browser. You have a list of genres, artists, and albums. Select one or more of any of those categories (or "All"). The results are immediately filtered. Or ignore the browser, which is what most people do, and simply use the realtime Search box to get to whatever you were looking for without "browsing" to find it. But hey, both approaches work, and they're both available.

As for the filesystem view -- er, what? If you want to use the filesystem to organize your music you can (although you're stuck with a single-dimensional view), just use the filesystem browser of your choice to do it. iTunes will happily integrate with it to play songs when you "run" them. But I fail to see the need, quite frankly. Still, its in there.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, I just used my last modpoint further up in the thread. Well said, showing facts instead of FUD. I don't care much about this particular debate, but FACTS should always rule supreme!

BULLSHIT: iPod is very price competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Comment #15426251:

The Creative Zen Vision:M 30gb is $299 on Amazon.
The Creative Zen Vision 30gb is $399 on Amazon.
The Cowon iAudio X5 30gb is $265 on Amazon (on sale, normally $299).
The Apple iPod 30gb is $270 on Amazon (on sale, normally $299).

Re:Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone just starting out would do well to use free software for their entertainment.

ROTFL!! What is this, some kind of astroturfing campaign? What, "command line ripping"?? "Amarok" instead of iTunes? ROFLMAO!!! And I suppose you want me to turn in my iPod and Powerbook as well, right?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

OMFG, "all the goodness of iTunes without the annoyances"!!! Bwahahahahahah!!!! OMFG!! Are you serious? You've never even used iTunes, where do you get off telling people "Amarok" is better? What the hell?

Take your astroturfing elsewhere. You're amusing, but some of us want to have a good discussion on Slashdot without the background noise. OK? Thanks.

collapsible tree wanted

[twitter]

I think he wants to have the music sorted by artist name and then within each artist block the songs are also sorted alphabetically by album name. While it's true that iTunes can't do this, I can't imagine it's a feature there's tremendous demand for.

The person who complained wanted the list to be a collapsible tree. He hated having to scroll through everything and liked how Amarok did things.

Re:collapsible tree wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, fuck it. I'm switching operating systems just for that.

Thank you for the great advice.

Ipod Annoyances. WMP Dissaster. Free Utopia.

[twitter]

The iPod is successful partly due to marketing, but also because it Just Works for the average user.

No, it just works better than anything else that's easily available. It does not take too much probing to find annoying flaws in IPod and ITunes that are solved in programs like Amarok.

People don't care about Ogg Vorbis. People don't care about DRM if they don't notice it (and if you use an iPod along with iTunes and regular CDs, you realistically don't unless you're trying to give songs to your friends).

Hmmm, what could be more natural than plugging your IPod into someone else's computer? Remember tape swapping? IPod brings a nasty surprise by erasing all of it's contents when you try to SHARE. Getting your music back is a painful operation, not simply a button press. This punishment of sharing, evil on it's own, will also punish people who lose their music due to other failures.

There are many other annoyances which users of ITunes do notice. The most significant is not being able to sort by Artist and Album in a collapsible tree. Anyone with more than a few dozen albums will have lots of scrolling to do. Others are less important but almost as annoying as a whole.

For some reason, all other players fail on one count or another.

The main reason other players fail is Microsoft. WMP is a well documented dissaster of DRM and poor quality software. Even when other players include their own interface, they all want in on the Works for Sure, Napster/Purge M$ DRM service d'jour. Absent M$ and DRM crap, these players work well enough, especially if the user only bothers with CDs as you suggested.

Someone just starting out would do well to use free software for their entertainment. Rip with Konqueror's audiocd: function. With too lame, ogg is a concern only for those who care about freedom and saving 10-20% of storage space. Correct lables, flac, ogg and mp3 encoding has never been easier. ABCDE provides more robust ripping from the command line if you want that. Record analog with Krec, Krecord, Audacity or Gramofile. Use Rockbox for your iPod or iRiver portable device. Get your new music off the web. The Internet Archive [archive.org] has more than 30,000 concerts by artists that want you to share. Most players have built in stream sources. Play and organize your music with Amarok. It's all the goodness of iTunes with none of the annoyances.

The main obstacle to free software adoption for music is FUD and a false sense of dependence on M$ formats for "work". The free software user is less likely to have pirated crap because no one needs that crap anymore.

MODERATORS: Please note

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter seems to have a problem with the way his iTunes/Apple/iPod/"M$" flame was moderated and he's posted the exact same thing again.