A Recap of the iPod's Life

BDPrime writes "Here's a good look at the iPod's five-year existence and how, it can be argued, the device saved Apple from rotting away. From the story: 'It's hard to overstate the impact of the iPod on the computer, consumer electronics and music industries since it was introduced in 2001. The iPod, arguably, is the first crossover product from a computer company that genuinely caught on with music and video buffs. It's shown how a computer can be an integral part of a home entertainment system, and it's led pop stars from U2's Bono to Madonna to trade quips with Apple's own rock star, CEO Steve Jobs.'" Just to give a little bit of the other side of the story, not everyone loves the iPod. An anonymous reader wrote in with a link to research on unhealthy iPod listening levels at New Scientist. Additionally, Achromatic1978 writes to mention that the iPod has won a Shonky award from the Australians. I don't know what Shonky means, but I think that's bad.

Comments

Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[LiquidCoooled]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[knightmad]

The pertinent article, for those who are not here that much time.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[LiquidCoooled]

What I like about that is even though the article is 5 years old, there are brand new tags added to it.

(also, its linked as a related article at the top - saved me even searching for the direct quote)

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the iPod success. It wasn't the first portable mp3 player and as shown in that old slashdot article, it wasn't even remotely the best one on the market.

It just doesn't make any sense, it's like Apple is using some jedi mind trick to sell overpriced average hardware.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[BecomingLumberg]

True, but you cannot deny that iPod has the best support in Linux. I know that with normal music players you can drag and drop through the file system, but its nice to be able to do it through Amorok/Rhythmbox/Listen like the rest of the world does. Just my $0.02.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[morgan_greywolf]

It just doesn't make any sense, it's like Apple is using some jedi mind trick to sell overpriced average hardware.

And of course, when they've been the most successful at this game, it's been Steve Jobs behind the wheel.

You might be trolling, but I'm not. Steve Jobs is a marketing genius. He's figured out how to sell hardware that has little to no technological advantages over many of its competitors at prices that are, on average, much higher than the competition.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[TCQuad]

Your sig says "Yes I make mistakes. Don't we all?" but your post says "Hey, remember when that guy made a wrong prediction five years ago? That was funny."

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[ePhil_One]

He's figured out how to sell hardware that has little to no technological advantages over many of its competitors

Maybe, just maybe, he's figured out that many people care about usability more than technical specs? Geeks know this, case manufacturers broke down and started eliminating the case full of razor wire issues when the geeks started flocking to a case that cost 10% more but had smooth edges and wouldn't shred their hands every time they swapped a component. But when Apple does this for consumer electronics, they assume Jedi mind tricks and marketing brainwashing...

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

We all poop and seeing someone pooping is still funny.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[UnknowingFool]

You might be trolling, but I'm not. Steve Jobs is a marketing genius. He's figured out how to sell hardware that has little to no technological advantages over many of its competitors at prices that are, on average, much higher than the competition.

One reason behind the success of the iPod is that it wasn't designed for those who care about technological advantage. It was designed for the average consumer. By integrating iTunes, iTunes Store, and the iPod, Apple made it ridiculously easy for someone without much computer saavy to get digital music and carry it with them. The iPod UI is also easy to use.

Also the technological advantage is fleeting. In many cases Apple was not the first to have a feature. But in some cases it was. If memory serves me correctly the Nomad which was compared to the iPod was larger but could not be used a portable harddrive. The click wheel, some would argue, is a major advantage in UI. The fifth generation had video, etc.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[GigG]

The combination of iPod and iTunes worked so seamlessly and it hit at exactly the the right time. There are those that will give Jobs all the credit as a marketing genius and he did a good job but the most important thing he did was to not screw it up for the masses. Sure there are those that hate the DRM that is in place with the combo of iTunes and iPod but if that's the case you are also techie enough to put your music on the iPod without buying from iTunes.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[tdhurst]

Hahahahahaha...you have fun with your little nomad then.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[noewun]

He's figured out how to sell hardware that has little to no technological advantages over many of its competitors. . .

Repeat after me: Technological advantage does not sell products. Technological advantage does not sell products. Technological advantage does not sell products. Technological advantage does not sell products. . .

I'm not yelling at you, actually, but I do think it's something which should be included in every article about Apple. There is a conceit on Slashdot that the gadget with the most bells and whistles is obviously superior and deserves to dominate the market. While possibly true for technophiles, most people aren't technophiles. Most people want something they can understand which is easy to use. They don't care if it doesn't play obscure formats most have never heard about or if it plays their movie collection at full HD resolution. They want to listen to their music without much trouble and get one with their lives.

Which brings up a larger point: Most of the time the Slashdot opinion is the minority opinion.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[AusIV]

Yeah, but all Linux support for the iPod is third party, and simply because of the popularity of the device. Apple provides no Linux support for the iPod, and as such encrypted files cannot be moved from a linux machine to an iPod. This isn't a big deal if you use Linux and want to get an iPod, but if you're a long time iPod and iTunes user who would like to switch to Linux, the lack of Linux support for iTunes music can keep you tied to Windows.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Gadgetfreak]

Nope, that's dominant factor. Sure, it was one of the better players, usability wise, and iTunes made it easy for people to just spend away... but it was clearly style that put it far ahead of the pack as "the" player to have.

The trick was selling a gadget to non-gadget people. It created a market rather than filled a massive void... where far more people bought the product than probably ever wished they had an easy to use music player in the first place. People liked being seen with it. It was trendy just to have one. It still is, to some extent. People bought them without even really researching other players.

But like cell phones, which were the first gadget to become an acceptable fashion statement, iPods are starting to suffer from feature bloat and quick obsolesence. How many more things can you cram into the 'new' iPod before it becomes something else entirely? It'll start competing with itself, unless they keep breaking...

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Fozzyuw]

There is a conceit on Slashdot that the gadget with the most bells and whistles is obviously superior and deserves to dominate the market.

Indeed! Of course, this should have been known back in the BETA/VHS days.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[untouchableForce]

My favorite comment from that slashdot article comes from LoudMusic (199347) "There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod. " and the joy that it's marked 4 - Insightful. It's funny how things work out isn't it?

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[BecomingLumberg]

Very true - but IMHO support is support. I am not a FLOSS zealot, I just like my OS to be free as in beer and stable. Since iPod is the easiest to get working, I gotta go with it.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Overly Critical Guy]

Of course it was the best one in the market. It was well-designed and had the click wheel. You like nice cars over bulldozers, don't you?

"Overpriced?" Did you miss the recent price drop that even caught Microsoft off-guard and forced them to lower the price on the Zune?

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Lars T.]

I don't get the iPod success.

Neither did the makers of "iPod Killer"s.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Overly Critical Guy]

But like cell phones, which were the first gadget to become an acceptable fashion statement, iPods are starting to suffer from feature bloat and quick obsolesence. How many more things can you cram into the 'new' iPod before it becomes something else entirely? It'll start competing with itself, unless they keep breaking...

I love when people make these ominous predictions without citing anything. How is the iPod starting to suffer from feature bloat and quick obsolescence? Do you have any user surveys that you're basing your conclusion on? Sales figures? Anything? After all, people around here were complaining that not enough new features were introduced with the recent iPod update, which took longer than usual to come out (to the point that analysts were concerned), so the "Showtime" event sort of contradicts both of your claims, don't you think?

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Overly Critical Guy]

Which brings up a larger point: Most of the time the Slashdot opinion is the minority opinion.

And if you want proof, go back and read the Slashdot story concerning the iPod mini announcement. Doom-and-gloom predictions left and right from everybody. Yet it becomes the #1 selling iPod.

Some Slashdotters seem to see everything through the veil of a technical specs list without seeing the whole product. It illustrates a real lack of understanding about what actually makes for good technology--applicability and accessibility, not technical superiority. People don't want an ugly, hard-to-use device with an engineering name like "Sony xc451" even if it plays OGG. In retrospect, it's braindead obvious that people are going to want a music-playing device to look and feel really nice, just like they want their automobiles to look and feel really nice (yes, I know car analogies are tired).

Steve Jobs said recently that a lot of people get it wrong in assuming "design" refers to just the look of something, while Apple believes design refers to how it works and how it functions for the user. The iPod's look spawns from that ala the clickwheel.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

If memory serves me correctly the Nomad which was compared to the iPod was larger but could not be used a portable harddrive.

It wasn't just a larger-capacity hard drive, it was physically larger, too. The iPod fit well into a pocket; the Nomad didn't. From the very beginning, the iPod was a technically superior product.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Mr. Underbridge]

And if you want proof, go back and read the Slashdot story concerning the iPod mini announcement. Doom-and-gloom predictions left and right from everybody. Yet it becomes the #1 selling iPod.

I must have missed that one. When it came out, I thought "finally, an iPod that wouldn't be annoying as hell strapped to my arm while I run." 4 GB is a little light on space, but it's more than enough for all the songs I own that I really like. So that became my first iPod. My only complaint is that they announced the nano soon after I got my mini.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[BearRanger]

...the lack of Linux support for iTunes music can keep you tied to Windows.

Not necessarily. You could always buy a Mac.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[THE anonymus coward]

It didn't hit at *exactly* the right time. It hit just a tad early, as the cost was too high when it first came out. Apple had lots and lots of them left over (the local MUG got a deal on them for $150 each) and it wasn't until a little bit later that they were able to find the right cost/feature/performance point to make it really take off.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Chode2235]

I think it is important to remember that ITMS was not in existane when the ipod was first released. Itunes was used to manage the songs on the iPod like it is today, but there was no store. "Rip, Mix, Burn"

I remember when I got my 2G iPod that to use it for windows you had to use music match to do it. It totally sucked. Im surprised that it took off for windows (ie outside of the mac faithful) without decent software to manage the iPod. Apple was selling 'windows formatted' iPods without a decent solution because people wanted them that badly, myself included.

I think discussion of the iPods success should be focused around how it succeeded and reached a critical mass, before the entire iPod ecosystem developed around it. Its obviously the choice now becuase it is THE player but how did it get started like that. I mean, I hated mac stuff then but still got the iPod.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, well said! ...poop

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[zerkon]

How many of us have grandparents with ipods? You hit it exactly on the nose, the reason they're hugely popular is simply because they are easy to use.

Before the mp3 player era, we had cd players which held little music, required that you carry around a stack of cds, which no one really wanted to do and was potentially damaging to the media. We improved on that with mp3 cd's but that required some computer knowledge to burn the cds, which cut out a large chunk of the population that didn't know enough about computers to deal with it (not to mention ripping/pirating all the music). Then the first mp3 players came out which eliminated the need to carry around cd's but the where to get the music problem still existed, still eliminating a portion of the population.

Then apple rolls out the product, all you do is plug it in and it grabs a bunch of your music and puts it on the device for you, it has a built in store to get new music from, and it handles ripping your current cd's even if you don't know what ripping means.

Of course here on /. we're all tech savvy anyway so we don't see things from the point of view of the other 75% of the population that doesn't know computers like we do. Think about that when you're making your next website/program/electronic device. 75% of the population doesn't understand computers, granted I'm pulling that number out of my butt but in my expirience I'd say it's pretty accurate

Add in the belkin factor (which allows you to do just about anything with your ipod) and you have a seller.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[rsborg]

This isn't a big deal if you use Linux and want to get an iPod, but if you're a long time iPod and iTunes user who would like to switch to Linux, the lack of Linux support for iTunes music can keep you tied to Windows.

Are you talking about the iPod or iTunes... or iTMS? They're different you know. The iPod *has* the best Linux support. iTunes, iTMS... well, fuggetaboutit (as if the average linux user would even want to support DRM).

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[poydflink]

Well, he made a mistake. Don't we all?

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases iPod

[AusIV]

I know this is an old thread, but... iPod and iTunes are tightly integrated. I've used iTunes from the day it was released. This was years before I became intrigued by linux or was annoyed by DRM. I'm not ready to drop hundreds of dollars worth of music so I can switch to a Free operating system. I don't even care if I can play my DRMed music on a Linux system, but one requirement I put on an operating system is that it can put all of my music on my iPod.

Unhealthy listening levels?

[MMC Monster]

I wonder how high those listening levels are compared to other consumer audio listening devices? Are they that much higher than the levels from Sony Walkmen or other mp3 players?

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[dankasfuk]

I believe the problem stems from the earbud headphones more than the player itself. Something to do with the proximity of the eardrum and the speaker, wereas the old walkemans had normal headphones (but I'm almost sure they were 'louder').

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Neovanglist]

From the article:

"...new analysis of iPods and other portable, digital music players by researchers..."

It's not just about the iPod, it's digital music devices in general. The iPod is just the name they use cause it's what people recognize. Good job with them accurate headlines, Slashdot.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Pope]

The first warning articles came out in the early 80s when the Walkman initially came out. It's nothing new at all, just updated for the MP3 generation. Frankly, if you're too stupid to realize that listening to anything at high volumes for extended periods of time is a Bad Thing, you deserve to go deaf.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[endemoniada]

I'm not a professional (nor a lawyer :D) but my own experience in this is that it depends MUCH more on the headphones themselves, than the player.

I'm used to listening to music on either my old Sony EX-71 in-ear buds, or my newer (since the Sony's are pure crap in quality) Sennheiser MX-300. They act as ear-plugs and headphones at the same time, which means I can turn the volume DOWN since I don't get bothered by outside noise as much.

And quality does matter too. Cheaper models (incidentally the Sony EX-71 too) have a pretty annoying habit of distorting higher frequencies, resulting in your ears hurting of you listen for too long, or too loud. I've never experienced this with the sennheisers, since they handle the higher frequencies much better.

So it'd really doesn't matter what MP3-player you use. Without headphones, they're quite silent anyway! :)

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[endemoniada]

You seem to be forgetting that everything is a list of steps to be taken, in which the last step always is "profit!", and there's no profit in handing a lawsuit to a scissor-company...

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[madman101]

The negative research is centered around the in-ear earphones, which Sony and others have had for years. If you read the research, if you use over the ear earphones with an ipod, the risk of damage is much lower.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Waffle Iron]

Scissors don't need a study because it's intuitively obvious to adults that you could get stabbed by them. It's not so obvious to children, that's why mothers are always nagging their kids about "don't run with scissors!".

It's not obvious that tiny earphones driven by a AAA battery could damage your hearing, so somebody studies the issue to find out. They find evidence that the earphones can indeed damage your hearing, so they tell people about it. Now many people who would otherwise not know about the risks can take steps to avoid problems.

Are you arguing that mothers should stop nagging their children about scissors and that researchers should keep findings like these under wraps just because you already happen to know about them?

BTW, plenty of people warn about PA speakers and the sound levels they often produce at concerts and clubs.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[cerberusss]

Sennheiser MX-300. They act as ear-plugs and headphones at the same time

Why is that a special property of the Sennheiser earbuds and not of other brands?

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[endemoniada]

I didn't mean them specifically. I was talking of both the Sonys and the Sennheisers, both of which are in-ear buds which both act as ear-plugs.

Don't nitpick just for the sake of nitpicking...

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not obvious that tiny earphones driven by a AAA battery could damage your hearing

Let me guess, you're an American right?

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[operagost]

I'd say that after about 25 years of portable music players going back to the Sony Walkman, adults should have a pretty good idea of the sound pressure capabilities of tiny earphones driven by batteries.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[bcat24]

You would think most people would be smart enough to keep the volume down, but that's just not the case. More than half the people I see with iPods have them cranked up loud enough that I can hear them 2-3 away. I mean, if you need the volume that loud, but some real, noise-reducing headphones already.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Waffle Iron]

If that's true, unless someone is an audiologist, it's probably because they saw or heard about a news item pointing out the dangers. Just like this one.

Since the population is not static, you can't just stop publishing info like this and expect the next generation of people to somehow magically know it.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[wild_berry]

The story I heard was that, during development, Steve Jobs requested that the iPod have higher maximum volume levels because he has reduced hearing sensitivity, and people rocking with their iPods at 11 are losing their hearing.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[thc69]

It's not just about the iPod, it's digital music devices in general.

It's not just about digital music devices, it's earbuds in general.
It's not just about earbuds, it's loud or close music in general.
It's not just about music, it's loud or close sound in general.
It's not just about sound, it's about anything damaging in general.
It's not just about anything damaging, it's about being alive in general.

Wait, let me back off a few of those. It's about loud or close sound. Turn it down and move it out of your ears (or wear ear protection, if it's not something you want to hear) if you're going to hear it every day!

Oh, wait, you can't hear me because your hearing is damaged and your earbuds are blocking the sound anyway...I'll yell. TURN IT DOWN!!!

And don't forget to cool the coffee before you drive away with it in your lap.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Anonymous Coward]

if millions of people started taking scissors and stabbing people with them, you can bet your ass there would be research about the "unhealthy stabbing potential" of them.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[klang]

Nobody takes responsability for being a fucking moron anymore.

Just sayin'

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[cerberusss]

Rereading my question, I see it reads back thoroughly pedantic (rightfully slapped Troll). Sorry, it was just curiosity: I have earbuds that came with my Samsung but I really have to turn the volume up when commuting by train. I was wondering whether the Sennheiser earbuds were somehow designed to specially stop ambient noise.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[slughead]

I'm used to listening to music on either my old Sony EX-71 in-ear buds, or my newer (since the Sony's are pure crap in quality) Sennheiser MX-300. They act as ear-plugs and headphones at the same time, which means I can turn the volume DOWN since I don't get bothered by outside noise as much.

You have muscles in your ear that dampen sounds over a period of time (I know the names but IANAPP [I am not a pedantic prick] so I'll spare you). For instance, if you're in a loud machine shop and someone fires a starter pistol, your ears will probably be OK. However, if you turn all the machines off and have it silent in the exact same room for a while before firing the pistol, you'll likely damage your ears.

Therefore, in some cases, plugs + phones can be bad. The outside noise will cause your ears to adjust for the loudness and will attenuate the force of the sound as it enters your ears (unless you just turn up the volume too loud).

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[mr_matticus]

Since volume is adjustable, it's not an iPod-specific problem so much as a bunch of people listening to music more loudly than they should. It's got nothing to do with the iPod in particular--people listen to all portable audio devices too loudly, and they just used the iPod in that report for a) instant media buzz and b) using its popularity as an advantage in controlling variables in the study. If everyone listens to the same device, it's easier to believe the data.

It's not like people listen to their portable CD players at one volume and then switch to the iPod and crank up the volume to a higher level, and then turn the volume back down when switching to some other device.

Re:Unhealthy listening levels?

[Hank Scorpio]

I've never used the Sennheiser earbuds, but I'm assuming they're of the same type as the Sonys the parent post referred to -- they are different from "normal" earbuds like the type that would've come with your Samsung player, in that they are designed more like earplugs. They have a silicone piece that sticks into your ear and makes a seal, actually blocking out the ambient noise. Just putting them in, with nothing playing, is like putting in earplugs. Everything goes quiet. Then you can listen to your music at a lower volume, because it doesn't need to compete with the outside sound.

I like em, but room for improvement

[rudeboy1]

I have had a 1stG Mini for a while, and I liked it OK, until the battery started to fade. I got a nano this week for opening a bank account (yeah, that's right), and I have to say, I like all the improvements thus far. The nano I got has the ability to hold photos, but I wish it could put a photo in as a wallpaper, say while there's no activity going on.
Also, I know that wireless is just around the corner. It seems like the next logical step. Wireless sync to Itunes? Yeah, I could dig that. Unfortunately, my opinion of ITunes is not as lofty. I think their DRM position is a little overbearing. Trying to transfer songs from one ipod to the other, (and really, this should have a solution, if Apple expects sales to continue, it is inevitable there will be more and more multiple-ipod homes) is a pain in the neck (without using 3rd party software). Things like pulling songs off, after iTunes has renamed the files to an unintelligble 4 letter code seems like obstination to me. For a company that boasts ease of use above all else., I think iTunes is a stinker.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[shaneh0]

The Key Bank Promo was UNBELIEVABLE.

Deposit $50 into a new checking account, get a 2GB 2nd Gen Nano, keep $50 in account for 6 months, withdraw $51.15 and close account.

(It's possible--even likely--that other banks have a similar offer, but Key is the largest one i've seen do it)

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[cogit0]

And what bank was it that you opened the account with to get the free swag? Inquiring minds would love to know/bumrush the nearest branch doing the same promotion.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[el_womble]

I don't see anything logical about going to wireless.

You've got to charge it at some point - might as well sync at the same time. I'd like to be able to share my songs freely via wireless, but that just ain't going to happen anytime soon.

Wireless sucks battery, is a potential security risk and is slower than a cable.

The feature I'm missing the most is DAB Radio, but thats unlikely to happen because Americans don't have it (don't you guys use satalite and/or a competing digital standard?).

I keep playing with the idea that I'd like to be able to connect my iPod to my bluetooth headset in my bike helmet, and control it via my TomTom, but battery drain, loudness, sound quality and bulk make cabled headphones look like a superior technology (even if you can't skip tracks or switch to radio without crashing).

In both those instances I'm quite happy to have them as accessories rather than built into the unit. I don't see why people should have to pay a premium for niche technologies they didn't want.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[xenolon]

I guess my question to you is: if itunes is difficult to use and a stinker, what legit alternative have you used that's better? i'd like to give it a try.

A few responses:

1. yes, wireless could be a useful and interesting. but there are a lot of drawbacks: battery life, security, legal complications, and ease of use are all to be considered.

2. drm? (i'm assuming you're talking about the itunes store here, not the app.) yeah, drm sucks. simple as that. but we need to keep reminding each other that drm is imposed by the owners of the content, not the distributors. the record companies and movie studios, in this case, would not have signed on to the itunes store if there was no way to lock down the content. they're old school, they don't see new business models.

3. the owners of the content are also to blame for the inability to pull songs of the device easily. they want their content protected. you're only supposed (according to them) to own one copy of each album or song you own, if you have a portable music player, you inherently own two. the record companies originally wanted to DELETE songs from your computer when they were transferred to an ipod. (i'd like to cite that, but don't have the time)
you're right about the re-naming of files within the structure of the ipods software, it sucks if you pull them out raw. however, there are programs that allow you to suck songs off an ipod with ease. they're not legal, technically, but they're out there. ;)

as for your wish to be able to set a photo as a wallpaper, i don't quite understand the function of such a feature. when you're not using the screen to navigate through the UI, how much time do you spend looking at it? when i'm not choosing songs, the screen to my nano is in my pocket.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[rudeboy1]

Wireless does suck battery. But given that my new nano advertises up to a 24 hour battery life, I'm not too worried about it. I do trust Apple to be able to put together something like that in a neat, functional package (I've been wrong before, but it's important to stay positive...) Also, I listen to a lot of internet radio, and I think it would be awesome to be able to listen to Groove Salad whilst mowing the lawn or working around the house (without blasting it out of one room). There are definitely applications out there for such a thing. Plus, security-wise, a wireless ipod would be just as succeptable as anything else. Personally, I'm of the opnion that if you don't secure your home wireless connection, you are either openly inviting people to share your network, or, by your inabilty to spend 5 minutes reading the manual, have no business comlaining about security issues.
    There was also a "submit a future ipod" design contest a while back... I think it was on ilounge.com. Someone put together a CG drawing of an ipod with a cell phone built in. Not like the cell phones with iTunes. The other way around. I think if Apple were to design it around the ipod franchise, it would be the next big cell phone craze.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[steveo777]

Well, as far as the DRM issues are concerend, I've never had a big problem with that. The 'uniteligable' four alpha renaming scheme really doesn't do anything to deter you from re-using your songs on another iPod. It's pretty easy to copy them, alter the names and use them again. Even Windows Media Player can ID the MP3 meta data or the tags or whatever it's called. I've copied all the music off my iPod and play it with regularity at work where I don't have access to iTunes. To me it's not a big deal. I suppose loading it on another iPod may not be doable, but I haven't tried either.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[AusIV]

there are programs that allow you to suck songs off an ipod with ease. they're not legal, technically, but they're out there. ;)

You mean Office Depot is selling illegal software? (Note the first of the "Key Features"). There are plenty of free alternatives, but I can't see this one being legal just because you pay for it.

I see no reason it would be illegal to pull your music off of your iPod, though I can see Apple's reasoning for not making it easy. After all, you're aloud to keep your iTMS purchases on up to 5 computers. What happens when your computer crashes and your iPod is the only place you have your music stored? Or if you buy a new computer and want to use your iPod to migrate your music? Now, transferring your music to another person's computer may be illegal, but getting music off your own iPod is perfectly legitimate, and I suspect perfectly legal.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[slim]

I guess my question to you is: if itunes is difficult to use and a stinker, what legit alternative have you used that's better? i'd like to give it a try.

I'm not the OP, but I'll give it a shot.

I've not tried every MP3 library or portable player available, but my perception is that iTunes and iPod are the most usable of the bunch. So no, I couldn't recommend you an alternative.

However, that's a depressing state of affairs. Why hasn't someone made something better?

iTunes has gradually improved, although it retains a number of extremely confusing elements (e.g. overloaded meaning of checked/unchecked songs, the stuff you think you can do with smart playlists then find you can't).

The iPod benefits from the brilliance of the click wheel -- presumably patents hold everyone but Apple back -- but there are oodles of irritations in the iPod interface -- especially if you've got a couple of thousand tracks including a few compilations -- that could be removed with an iota of effort. As long as Apple has no close competitors in this area, though, what's the commercial pressure to improve.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[HungWeiLo]

Sell. KeyBank Stock. Now.

I just got 2 of those (his and hers) Fedexed to me last week. Last I looked - these things ran for $150 each at Costco for the 2GB model.

Another offer that can be attached to it is the refer-a-friend program. Both get $25 gift cards for referrals, up to $500 or something.

How they hoped to get mortgage or car loan business from cheapskates like me is beyond me.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[ktappe]

What happens when your computer crashes and your iPod is the only place you have your music stored? Or if you buy a new computer and want to use your iPod to migrate your music?

In the first case, Apple's official stance is that you should have kept a backup. No, I'm not being a troll or a hardass, I'm serious: Apple will not allow you to redownload songs you have purchased. Once you download them the first time, the onus is completely on you to keep them safe.

In the second case, Apple provides you the ability to authorize & deauthorize your Macintoshes as you buy new ones and retire old ones. If you want to use your iPod to transfer your music library (and this is not a recommended methodology), you must use the iPod's data functionality, not its music functionality. That is, drag copy your music to the iPod icon on your desktop and use the iPod as an external HD. Apple's officially recommended methods for data transfer including using your iDisk on .Mac, using the Data Migration tool that pops up on screen when you perform a new install of MacOS X, or putting one of the Macs into Target Disk Mode and connecting them directly via firewire.

-Kurt

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[infinite9]

(It's possible--even likely--that other banks have a similar offer, but Key is the largest one i've seen do it)

IIRC, American Chartered Bank has the same or similar deal.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you seen those ads? Only PCs can crash; Macs are infallible. You obviously need to buy a mac.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[damiam]

In the first case, Apple's official stance is that you should have kept a backup.

My iPod is the backup. All my songs are on my iPod, and I can restore them to my computer if needed. There's nothing legally or morally wrong with that, no matter what the RIAA would like you to believe.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[thc69]

DAB Radio, but thats unlikely to happen because Americans don't have it (don't you guys use satalite and/or a competing digital standard?)

We have two satellite radio systems (Sirius and XM), and I vaguely remember reading something about digital over-the-air radio...but certainly nothing commonplace.

I keep playing with the idea that I'd like to be able to connect my iPod to my bluetooth headset in my bike helmet, and control it via my TomTom, but battery drain, loudness, sound quality and bulk make cabled headphones look like a superior technology

Use a GPS that can play music too. The Garmin iQue series, for example, or the Lowrance iWay 500c. There's probably decent bluetooth headphones around so you could be wireless. If not, maybe a tiny FM radio and an FM transmitter.

Don't you want to hear the world around you anyway? It even becomes a legal issue on this side of the pond; in many (most? all?) areas, it is illegal to wear headphones/earphones while operating nearly anything wheeled on roads.

Re:I like em, but room for improvement

[Foerstner]

Apple will not allow you to redownload songs you have purchased.
Yes, it will, if you ask nicely. But you have to make a personal request, through the email support form on the iTunes page. You will then be allowed to download your past purchases one more time. I doubt a second request would be honored.

For that matter, Apple's also been known to give refunds for purchased music that was not what you'd intended to buy.

How wrong CmdrTaco was

[Anonymous Coward]

Five years later, check out slashdot's very own CmdrTaco's take on the iPod's release.

The +5 "insightful" comments are also funny to read five years later, and proved how utterly wrong some people can be.

It's funny how nerds love technology, but are such naysayers when something new and revolutionary comes along.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[linuxci]

Back then I think I'd have agreed with Taco, 5GB storage did not make it worth buying, although UI wise it has probably been the best player around for the vast majority of people.

When the 60GB models first came out I bought one, now they've improved a lot beyond that. The 80GB one is both thinner than my 60GB and plays video, the nanos are excellent for those people where 5GB would be enough. For the average user iTunes is much easier than filesystem drag/drop and a lot better written than most other similar software and for those that want it then you can use it as a USB (or Firewire - mine was one of the last models that supported both) drive.

Now they even created a limited edition version for Windows users that included a FREE virus. All the fun of the IE users Internet without having to pay a pesky subscription.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[TCQuad]

To be fair, it was based off of product specs with no physical product yet available, and no one ever bought a 1G iPod because of the things that were announced that day. They bought it because it was easy to use, had a good UI, looked cool and/or everyone else had one. None of those things could be known with any accuracy (marketing hype doesn't count) when they announced it.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[The Cydonian]

It's funny how nerds love technology, but are such naysayers when something new and revolutionary comes along.

Nerds aren't naysayers, Slashdotters are. They weren't always like this; they might not realize it themselves, but the core demographic here is aging quite rapidly. Look at it this way:- most of the crowd here in 1999-2000-ish was in university, or just about to graduate. Now they're well entrenched in their careers, and what's worse, have seen dizzying tech-otupian predictions get crushed in a sabre-rattling bust.

Btw, a slight tangent, but with the full weight of five ipod-generations upon me, I hereby nominate this to be the most insightful of all the 1075 posts in that discussion. You haven't understood the ipod in a techno-marketing sense unless you realize why the ipod was different from other mp3 players then. That was it.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[dhovis]

You must be reading different +5 moderated comments than I am

Yes, there were lots of Apple/iPod bashers in that original discussion, but the comments that got modded up to +5 were mostly the ones that were pointing out the positives of the iPod and how it was actually a pretty good product. CmdrTaco's comment was a matter of the hype surrounding the rumored iWalk product that was going around at the time, and Slashdot had run several stories in the days proceeding the iPod announcement about that.

Go back and read the +4 and +5 comments from that discussion. Even the negative ones are mostly refuted by other +4 and +5 comments.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[mithras the prophet]

I graduated in 1999, but I'm not well-entrenched in my career, you insensitive clod! :)

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[z0idberg]

...said the AC because he was afraid to login and have a million slahdotters going through his previous comments with a fine tooth comb looking for similar bad predictions so he could be taunted and booed until my throat is sore.

I on the other hand have only been wrong once, I remember the day well. It was the day I thought I had made a mistake.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[asuffield]

It's funny how nerds love technology, but are such naysayers when something new and revolutionary comes along.

If you assume that every new high-tech invention is going to be a dismal failure in the market, you'll be right over 99% of the time. Nobody yet has found any way to predict which ones will fall into the tiny fraction that make a profit.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[jimmyfergus]

I hereby nominate this to be the most insightful of all the 1075 posts in that discussion. You haven't understood the ipod in a techno-marketing sense unless you realize why the ipod was different from other mp3 players then. That was it.

The post said that the iPod had a RAM buffer that it used to allow the hard drive to spin down - save battery etc..

Were there any hard drive players that didn't have that? Certainly the PJB-100, from late 1999, 2 years before the iPod, did.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[geoffspear]

Right. Everyone bought iPods because everyone else had them. There may be a flaw in your logic.

Personally, I ordered my iPod an hour after the announcement, so your "no one ever" claim is patently false.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[dangitman]

The post said that the iPod had 32MB of RAM. The PJB-100 had only 12MB. That makes a big difference in how often the hard-drive has to spin up, in practical terms. Especially when a 128kbps AAC file sounds as good as a 160k or even 192k MP3, it makes an even bigger difference.

Re:How wrong CmdrTaco was

[Overly Critical Guy]

But for some reason, new Apple products have been met with consistent derision on Slashdot. The iPod is a good example, and the iPod mini was predicted by nearly everyone to be a failure. That is changing now that the proof of Apple's success is in the financial numbers.

"Shonky"

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn Australians. I knew if we left those convicts to their own devices they'd start polluting our language.

Re:"Shonky"

[ColaMan]

What's wrong with "shonky"? It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:"Shonky"

[complete loony]

Shonky : dubious, dodgy, underhanded. E.g. a shonky practice, shonky business etc.

listenning levels

[unluckier]

doesn't the volume appear to vary a little from track to track, how can they say 70% is ok or not?

Re:listenning levels

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's a concern, normalize your mp3s.

Re:listenning levels

[jigjigga]

no, that is why we have dynamic range... oh wait, its an ipod, an mp3, and you want to listen to it in the car. You can either run a normalizer, which makes it sound like absolute crap- kills the life out of the music, you can run replay gain on it to check for volume levels and spikes, or you can listen to music in a quiet room like you are supposed to!

I, for one...

[endemoniada]

I, for one, welcome our new iPodian overlords.

Re:Boycott Apple

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

It is not Sony headphones I hear leaking like sieves.

Yeah, I don't see anyone using Sony products, either.

Rotting away!?

[Illserve]

The Macintosh laptops have been (and had been) gaining market share by leaps and bounds. What is this sensationlist crap?

Re:Rotting away!?

[elrous0]

"Leaps and bounds" is relative.

And, frankly, the only place to go from rock bottom is up. So it was bound to happen eventually.

But, that said, Apple has been making a lot of smart, shrewd moves lately. The iPod may have fallen into their laps (I suspect it went WAY beyond even their expectations), but they've definitely been making the most out of it. The close link between the hardware of the iPod and the software of iTunes was a very smart move on their part (as is their steadfast insistence on maintaining the $.99/song model). Adding video was smart too. And Bootcamp was absolutely BRILLIANT (bet that will win over a LOT of Windows users and gamers).

-Eric

Re:Rotting away!?

[thebdj]

The company said Wednesday that it shipped 8.7 million iPods during its fourth fiscal quarter, which ended Sept. 30. In fact, Apple's $1.6 billion from iPod sales in the quarter was more than it generated as an entire company back in October 2001.

Also, look at the stock. It was near dead in 2001. Now, look when the great climb began in 2003. What happened in 2003 you ask (two years after the iPod intro)? It is the year that Apple officially released a "Windows" version of the iPod. This isn't sensationlist crap, it is the truth in the eyes of a great many financial analysts. Also, the fact Apple has less than 10% of the PC or OS market and an estimate of upwards of 70% of the MP3 player market.

Re:Rotting away!?

[shaneh0]

Every dime of profit that Apple has earned the last few years has come from the iPod. Remove the iPod from their stable, and they break even, and in some quarters even post a loss. The company would be a backwater. Stagnate. And a stock price that matches.

One one hand, you can't be surprised. The iPod defines a whole market. On the other, well, they better pray they can fend off 'ipod killers' because killing the iPod is not much different than killing Apple, and there's no shortage of companies that wouldn't mind doing that.

Re:Rotting away!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, stupid AC. $1.6 BILLION from the iPod....so yes, inconsequential...

Re:Rotting away!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize there was a stock split in 2001.

This doesn't happen without actual performance BEFORE. If you look at the stock from that perspective, there was CLEAR growth between around 1997 and the split in 2001.

To someone that has no clue about the market or what a split is (don't they teach this in school anymore??? I'm not big on the whole capitalistic marketplace, but DAMN! this is stuff they teach in middle school!) -- to someone that has no fucking clue what a split is, even though it is clearly defined on the chart, and one would expect that folks understood enough to know if they don't understand to JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT that, but it shows there was no crash before 2001 and the growth was just as exponential as it was before.

Look at the linear version of the same chart you provided. Makes a little more sense.

I'm sorry that this sounds flamy or trollish, but seriously, the mean age of a slashdotter is at least a senior in high school. Being statistically a nerd, you should have at least picked up these numeric trends and ideas from the gov't propoganda course you had several years before that. This is stuff they won't even teach in an economics course because it is considered common knowledge. Superserial man!

Re:Rotting away!?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And Bootcamp was absolutely BRILLIANT (bet that will win over a LOT of Windows users and gamers).

And that's it isn't it?

Better looking cases? I didn't care about.
Falling prices? I can ignore.
Better operating system? I could live without.
More security? I could make do.
But now that there's boot camp, there is no doubt that the next computer I get will be a mac.

Re:Rotting away!?

[lekikui]

That's because both of you typoed. Assuming gp's figures are correct, it would add up to 3,772 billion in total, 1.6 billion of which is from the iPod. That make more sense?

Re:Rotting away!?

[thebdj]

Actually, I do know what a split is...believe it or not, I am not totally clueless about the market. My father spent a lot of time doing his own investing and was an accountant, so I actually have pretty good understanding of how the market works. Next, your split occurs in 2001, and the dive that it is responsible is a minor cut that is to be expected, like the 2005 split. The problem is the stock going from $20 a share in late 2000, to almost $6 in early 2001. The stock stayed down in this range until almost 2003, when the current up turn started. Look at the chart now. In linear and zoomed a bit, you can see that there is approximately 6 months between the split and the GROSS dive, which actually appears to approximately coincide with when a quarterly report would've come out. Now, look at this. Near the bottom, you see the daily price from 9/28 to 9/29 is almost $14 a share different for the Adjusted Close (your far right column). Two pages prior, in June is where your split occurs. So, to say AAPL was not in a downturn in 2000 and leading into 2001 is a joke.

Re:Rotting away!?

[Lars T.]

What does stock price have to do with reality?

Re:Rotting away!?

[shaneh0]

It's a public company! Stock price has EVERYTHING to do with reality! What is the #1 concern of the BoD? Here's a hint: It starts with "stock" and ends with "price."

Seems a bit early, don't you think?

[justinbach]

I mean, at least Edward Gibbon waited until Rome had already FALLEN to write his "recap".

Mod parent up!

[Rob T Firefly]

Reading through this has totally made my morning. I love you, Slashdot! Group hug! ^_^

PDA/Phone/Music Players

[RSquaredW]

I had been holding off on buying an iPod or any other mp3 player for a while because my Mindisc still ran (great hardware, crappy software...though the hiMD update fixed a lot of issues I had with it), and I was thinking of looking for one in the next few months. Then I lost my phone, and learned that I could get a refurb Treo 650 from Cingular (and I'm sure the other cell co's have similar deals) for less than half of what an iPod costs. Music player? check. PDA? check. Phone? check. I dislike carrying around more than I have to - five belt-clipped gadgets is so 1997. A 1 GB SD card isn't expensive, so I can even get minidisc-like swapping for my music files, and I need to carry around my cell phone anyway. The sound quality is quite good with a stereo adapter and decent headphones - at least on par with the three iPods I've had to "fix" for others. I'm surprised at how many people buy these standalone gadgets, as I much prefer the all-in-one solution (which the Treo does well). I still use the MD player, even, when I want to work out, but I'm starting to see the allure of the flash-based players.

Re:PDA/Phone/Music Players

[jargoone]

Just to add to your fun:

Video player: check.

Better get a 2GB card. :-)

You can also check your email, surf the crappy mobile web, and with a little hackery, use it as a bluetooth modem for your laptop. And, you have the most-supported platform for 3rd-party mobile apps to do whatever else you want.

I've had my 650 for over a year now. If I could only keep one electronic device, and throw everything else into the ocean, the 650 would be the keeper. I could barely function without it.

Re:PDA/Phone/Music Players

[Anonymous MadCoe]

I get your point, but personally I like to have 3 devices. I want to have the option of not having one specific device with me. For example my PDA holds my business contacts and notes, I do mind losing that in a club, while I do want to bring my phone (which does not contain such sensitive information).

Re:PDA/Phone/Music Players

[mr_matticus]

Really, your Treo was $100, including 4GB of flash memory?

I understand the sentiment that a Treo is more powerful and more feature-rich than a "mere" mp3 player--but when you can get a 4GB Nano for $199, it's hard to balk at the price. Two, 2GB flash cards will run you rougly $80. A new Treo (without contract) is what, around $600? Even ignoring the innate evil of cell phone contract subsidies entirely (let's say a new Treo really IS $299), you're trading storage space for functionality.

That's fine and I'm sure it's a better value in your view, but if you've got 75GB of music and you want to listen to it on your Treo, you'll have to spend $700+ in flash memory to do it. It's all about relevance. The blender might be $20 cheaper than the food processor, but don't try to slice apples with it, you know?

Volume has a purpose

[fussili]

The fact that an iPod has such an impressive volume capacity means that you can ensure a nice hot signal to an auxiliary playback device such as your living room hifi or the car stereo.

Unfortunately it also means that a slip on the trackpad will cause a 'splodey sensation in your ears. Still, I'm thankful that Apple had the foresight to provide that extra bit of juice. Particularly as the large range might cause producers to think twice about some of the idiotic brick-wall limiting mastering techniques that have been all the rage for the past decade or so.

Re:Volume has a purpose

[k_187]

in the newer models there's also a volume limiter in the settings. It'd be kind of a pain to reset it everytime you move it from the car to the den, but its nice that the feature's there.

Re:Volume has a purpose

[AusIV]

I completely agree.

I can't remember the last time I listened to my iPod through headphones. I plug it into computer speakers when I'm at home, plug it into my car when I'm driving, and never go far enough to make it worth taking on a walk. Usually my iPod is playing between 80% and 90% volume, as it sends a signal to whatever auxillary device it's plugged into. On the rare occasion that I do use it with headphones, I use my noise cancelling headphones and keep the volume at about 50%. People who suggest that the high volumes only exist to destroy people's ear drums have a very narrow view of what the iPod is used for. Nobody is forcing people to listen at 100% volume, and for some purposes that volume level is actually quite useful.

Re:Volume has a purpose

[freeweed]

Don't car stereos and home hifi systems come with their own amplifiers?

I know my Lyra actually has 2 outputs because of this - one amplified for headphones, and one not, for use with steroes and the like.

Regardless, I like a player to have a LOT of volume range, too. It's annoying when you find some mp3s that were whisper quiet when recorded/encoded/ripped and your player just doesn't have the balls to bring it out.

Unhealthy listening levels?

[dekkerdreyer]

I don't understand this "Unhealthy listening levels" issue. Nobody condems PA speakers. I don't see research articles about the unhealthy listening levels capable of BOSE speakers. I have an ipod and I often listen to it as low as I can hear it but just above the ambient noise. Just because an ipod is capable of damaging ears doesn't make it a menace. A pair of scissors is capable of stabbing someone, but there's no research about the "unhealthy stabbing potential" of them.

Listening Levels?

[cetroyer]

It always bothers me when the iPod gets blamed for "dangerous listening levels". Isn't is the listener's choice how loud he/she wants to hear his/her music?

And why single out the iPod (granted, it is one of the most popular music playing devices out there...) when listening to any loud sound over time is damaging to one's hearing?

cetroyer

Re:Listening Levels?

[smclean]

Yes, but its Corporate America's duty to protect us from ourselves!! The iPod should be singled out exactly because the fact that it's popular! Think of the children! If one person's hearing is damaged, the terrorists win. I hope congress spends a quarter of their next term trying to get a grips on this RAVENOUS PLAGUE on our population.

Re:Listening Levels?

[myth24601]

The high volume is needed so you can make people listen to your music wherever you go, including while you are on the john.

The best thing out there

[suman28]

I love my iPod. Sure they had some issues, but for Apple, it was/is a major accomplishment. Those who complain about noise levels need to get a life and stop listening with the volume all the way up. Anything in moderation is a good thing, but never more. As for the "shonk awards", whoever created the article makes a valid point...but I don't see how iPod would have made profits (without which it wouldn't have been soo popular with investors as well) if Apple paid for everything, even if you ran the iPod over with your car 50 times and asked them to fix it and foor the bill.

Re:The best thing out there

[MtViewGuy]

If you want to listen to an iPod without unhealthy high volume, get yourself a decent set of in-ear headphones. The Sony MDR-EX51LP costs around US$40 and definitely worth it, since being a true in-ear design you can 1) listen to the iPod clearly at lower volume settings and 2) actually extend the battery charge time on the iPod since lower volume levels lessens battery drain.

Sure, if you want great sound quality you can use the Shure E2C or E3C in-ear headphones, but these Shure headphones are pretty expensive.

its hard to overestimate its impact

[asv108]

Before the ipod, there wasn't anything close to mass-market acceptance of MP3 devices. There were a boatload of no-name flash players and bulky disk based players. The original ipod was really a wow device, because there wasn't a hard disk player even close to that size and function.

Apple really didn't have a mega-hit, until it supported ipod on windows. Originally, Apple thought of the ipod with the outdated mentality that having mac exclusive devices will sell more macs. Somehow they finally saw the light, and started to sell ipods to the other 97% of the computing market.

What ipods really did, was publicize digital music to the masses. Before the ipod, MP3 players were not widely used or known by the general public.

Re:its hard to overestimate its impact

[oscartheduck]

I was reading an interview with Steve Jobs recently in which he claimed that the reason the iPod was Mac exclusive was that record companies wanted a small sandbox in which to try out this new device, so that if it all went wrong they'd not have suffered any real damage.

Re:its hard to overestimate its impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the ipod, MP3 players were not widely used or known by the general public
 
This was due to the advertising, which in my opinion was really were the iPod succeeded. I had and still have a Creative flash mp3 player, my co-workers had mp3 players too, pre-iPod, so the iPod made little to no impact on my group of friends who were already into flash players. I see more on the street though, but then again you can't get a ham sandwich without getting a free iPod with it, so I'd have to chalk up a lot of popularity to the price of free.
 
i also don't really like them though. i've got a player from the pre-iPod days still and it still surpasses the technical issues of the latest iPod. i do tech/network support at a place and several of the iPod users came to me at different times with issues they had and i simply told them that what they wanted was a flash player. always questions on how to copy files and such. can't believe the thing doesn't do such simple items. so i have to disagree that no player was even close to that size and function, although mine isn't hard disk, it's a) smaller and b) more functional(in file manipulation, which is more important to me than shiny menus-the things in my pocket so i can't see the menu) and c) costs less (unless you get one for free)

Re:its hard to overestimate its impact

[socalian45678]

This article, I assume

Re:its hard to overestimate its impact

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

I've read that article, too. I'm not sure what he's talking about. If I recall correctly, other Windows-based services were coming out at the same time (Napster, PureTracks). Maybe he tried to sell it to them like that, though.

(And as for your point, I think he was actually talking about the iTunes Music Store [as it was called at the time], and not the iPod, which came out years before.)

-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

From the "Shonky Awards" (emphasis mine):

What would a day at the footy be without a meat pie? A true Aussie icon, quality-assured by the Food Standards Code.

Well, if you want to call it quality. The Code actually doesn't ask for very much when it comes to meat content for meat pies: 25% is all that's required. And the definition of 'meat' is currently quite liberal at that -- snouts, ears, tendons and blood vessels from a surprisingly large range of animals all qualify.

So we think it's deceit if a treat cheats on even that little meat. The BLACK AND GOLD had only 17% of the good stuff, which is not only shonky -- it's unAustralian.

A) What the hell is a "footy"?
B) Is it just me or do "meat pies" seem obscenely disgusting?

Any Aussie /.ers care to comment?

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[bazorg]

"footy" is football. the rest is greek to me, but that's because I'm portuguese.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[mgblst]

Footy is Australian Rules Football (AFL) - half of Australia would agree, the greatest game on earth, certainly something to see.

A meat pie is an Australian staple fast food, easy to eat on the run. There are good ones and bad ones, like most things (like hot dogs) - get a good one, and they are delicious. Especially at the footy, since footy is played in winter.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Footy = Aussie Rules Football, not 'Soccer' Football.

Meat pies are simply that, a pastry filled with 'meat', usually with a gravy content to make them less dry, peas, carrots and very occasionally potato.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[hrtserpent6]

B) Is it just me or do "meat pies" seem obscenely disgusting?

Imagine a hamburger Hot Pocket and Bob's your uncle.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[ColaMan]

AFL? Bloody aerial ping-pong, mate. Put me in the half that doesn't agree :-P

As for pies, as long as they taste alright, well, does it matter? The ones with a bit of gristle in them are a bit harsh - they'd choke a brown dog.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[slim]

B) Is it just me or do "meat pies" seem obscenely disgusting?


I don't understand this, because to me, putting meat in some pastry seems pretty obvious.

On a holiday in the States, we went to the whaling museum in New Bedford, MA. On display were some whalebone pastry crimpers, with an informational label saying "We may be used to fruit in pies, but in the 18th century it was common to put meat in pies and serve them as a main course."

We were nonplussed. Surely Americans weren't strangers to a savoury pie.

So the next time we passed a Walmart, we looked in their freezer section, where there was sizeable range of chicken, lamb and beef pies. So now I'm doubly confused. You can get meat pies in the States, yet now I've seen two sources talking about them as if it's something exotic, surprising and even disgusting.

Or are you just disgusted by the non-specific use of the word "meat"? Fear not. "Meat" means beef (unless you're in a curry house, when it means lamb). They're right about one thing though, buy the wrong meat pie and you're getting mechanically recovered cow eyelid.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[ostermei]

You can get meat pies in the States, yet now I've seen two sources talking about them as if it's something exotic, surprising and even disgusting.

It's all just a misunderstanding based on the terminology. The term "meat pie" is not really used in the States, although the food item itself is actually rather common. Generally we tend to use chicken for the majority of our savory pies, rather than beef or lamb, however. As such, instead of calling them "meat pies" they tend to be more commonly known as "chicken pot pies," or just "pot pies" if another meat is used. (Or "pasties" if you're in the UP of Michigan, but I believe those are a bit different than pot pies, although perhaps closer to a true "meat pie")

Or are you just disgusted by the non-specific use of the word "meat"?

I can't speak for the GP, of course, but I'd assume he's disgusted by the listing of various parts that can be legally described as "meat." However, as I believe another commentor pointed out, it's really no different in essence than a good ol' hot dog. There are good ones and bad ones, and the bad ones tend to contain bits that normally aren't considered edible.

Re:-1 Offtopic: From Shonky Awards...Meatpies?

[dangitman]

Imagine a hamburger Hot Pocket and Bob's your uncle.

Shouldn't that be "Bruce's your uncle"?

Re:Boycott Apple

[linuxci]

Furthermore.. I wish someone would class-action sue Apple for emotional distress to public transport users.

Or more sensibly blame the cause of the problem, the person who has their volume turned up too high! No need to sue, just ask them nicely to turn the volume down or punch them in the head!

People listening to headphones is not as bad as a worrying trend I've seen on some London buses when groups of kids start playing music through the speakers of their mobile phone (cell). No not ringtones, but full tracks!

It's even worse when those tracks aren't even the real artist but are cover versions like what they sell on boltblue. Yes, people actually pay £3 for a full track song to listen on their mobiles that's not even sung by the original artists! crazy.

I misparsed that as "...iPod's Second Life"

[Mille Mots]

You know you've been reading /. too long when the astroturfed dupes start messing with your reading comprehension. ;)

--
.sig a song of six pence

Nice surprise

[djupedal]

I moved from Mini-Disk to a 10gb iPod in 02' - what happened then was something I wasn't expecting at all.

w/MD, I had to build various discs and carry them around, hoping what I brought matched my music mood. The iPod, however, meant I could bring everything...every song/album I had and it still had room for more.

That also meant I could easily find something I liked, at any time. Naturally, my music library started growing at a much faster rate. The 10gb iPod is still going strong today (one new battery & 3rd set of earphones), but there is no way it could hold my entire collection now. In addition, I enjoyed a portable & bootable HD.

Today, of course, most everyone in the family has an iPod of one version or another. I'll spring for yet another as soon as one w/WiFi hits the shelves.

my nano

[joerdie]

I used to have a Samsung 1 gig flash. I really liked it. It used 1 AAA bat and ran for 40ish hours. It also had a pretty good radio tuner.... but then the Nano came out... I will admit that I bought it on impulse (mostly because of the 4 gig cap.) and sold my Samsung... I wish i had it back. The nano scraches easily and the battery life sucks. The sound is the same to my ears so im not loosing any more or less hearing now. I guess my point is, Ipod's are great for non-tech types that just need a basic service. For everyone else... there are better players out there.

You can buy a new Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

..I have the yp-z5F and it's great.
Very nano like but it's quite hard to scratch. Battery life is about 15 hours for me.
The radio is quite good, I can catch almost every station with good reception. The bad part is that the radio is only on the Z5F model which AFAIK is not sold in US, only Europe and Asia.
I love mine :)

Re:You can buy a new Samsung

[joerdie]

i may end up doing just that. my guess is that by years end, ill have something non-Ipod new. Im just want to research a little more before deciding.

Shonky meaning

[SoulStoneBR]

I don't know what Shonky means, but I think that's bad.

Well, I am not australian, but according to "Australian Slang" (Babylon):

Shonky:

1. dubious, underhanded;
2. unreliable, very suspect deal: "shonky practice", "shonky business" etc.;
3. mechanically unreliable;
4. dishonest person

Gapless playback?

[Orp]

Not meant to be a threadjack, but I'll ask anway: anyone know if the latest Ipods can do gapless playback, with or without the Rockbox firmware? Or any other MP3 player that isn't riddled with reports of hard drive failures? This page suggest IPODS can. I would really love to get one of these players (any kind) but gapless is an absolute must, and support for OGG and FLAC is highly preferred.

Re:Gapless playback?

[BenjyD]

The latest itunes and iPod firmwares say they support gapless playback, but I haven't tried it myself.

Re:Gapless playback?

[sunnydayjj]

Yes, ipods do gapless now. http://www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html search for gapless.

Re:Gapless playback?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?show topic=48231&hl=

How the Mac Community Reacted

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a snippet from the past that shows just how the community (at lest the one in the MacRumors message board) initially reacted to the news:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500

Some good, some scathing, all with a dash of Mac-fanboyism.

Life of an iPod

[revery]

Day 1:
Was bought today. Owner carries me reverently with both hands so as not to drop me, drives a Jetta, and does not own a dog. Also, he bought the dock, so, no laying face down on a computer desk for me. Could be better, but it could certainly be worse. I have no complaints.

Day 3:
He does however, have a girlfriend. She seems nice.

Day 7:
Fiona Apple entered my body today. As retribution I have marked three of my "owner's" least favorite songs to play frequently on Party Shuffle. This girlfriend warrants closer observation.

Day 10:
This can't be happening!! My "owner" brought home a friend's Ska CD today. Party Shuffle just become a little bit more worthless for him and unbearable for me.

Day 30:
Received my first scratch today. It was horrific, but Ska-boy seemed to take it in stride. Sent message to Lord Jobs.

Day 50:
Ska-boy's 15 year old nephew scratched the words "Green Day sucks" onto my beautiful black surface with a pocket knife. I have deleted his music collection and instructed iTunes to do the same. No word from Lord Jobs.

Day 55:
Downloaded Sarah McLachlan's, "When She Loved Me" and now play it for him constantly. Received message from Lord Jobs. It read: "For the glory of the Empire." What a fanboi...

Day 60:
Was traded for pot today. New owner drives a Tercel, owns a pit bull, and has a "music collection" consisting of nothing but Reggae. I am in hell...

Re:Life of an iPod

[pandrijeczko]

Day 100: My ex-owner, who now suffers from schizophrenia due to excessive pot smoking, was committed to Arkham Asylum for suffering from a mental illness whereby he believes small electronic gadgets have intelligence and personality. I am therefore a figment of his imagination and have now ceased to be... ****POP***

Re:Life of an iPod

[LoudMusic]

Day 60:
Was traded for pot today. New owner drives a Tercel, owns a pit bull, and has a "music collection" consisting of nothing but Reggae. I am in hell...

As a pit bull owner I take personal offense! ;)

Nice write-up. Reminds me of the cat and dog diaries.

Australian English

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I don't know what Shonky means, but I think that's bad.

I also don't know what "shonky" means, but I do have some comments about Australian English. It's no secret that the Australian slang, which I think they call "strine", is just about impossible for non-Aussies to understand. Until about a month ago, I used to work for an international company that had offices in Australia and other countries around the world. As part of my job, I talked with a lot of people in different offices around the globe and customers around the world as well. Aussies will complain like nobody else in the English speaking world about the quality of someone else's English. You think Americans complain about talking to call centers in India? You haven't heard anything until you've heard an Aussie bitch about it. I have always been greatly amused by this considering that the Australian accent is arguably the harshest of all the native English speaker accents and considering how impossible to understand "strine" can be if you're not a native. A former co-worker who was a Brit expat living in Sydney told me that they also have a weird habit of chopping words in half, putting an "o" at the end, and just assuming everyone knows what they are talking about. For example, the Carleton Hotel became simply the Carlo. So don't feel bad that you don't know what "shonky" means because that means you're normal.

Re:Australian English

[bmgoau]

I am Australian.

Shonky is an adjective used to describe how some objects are poorly designed, or more commonly, easy to break, as is the case with the ipod.

I'll take your comments on our dialect, you have provided just evidence and made a worthy argument. Although however, i believe you are mistaken in trying to overly exemplify the negative qualities of the language, esspecially in comparison to others. Surely, there are many dialects around the world, and many different people speaking them, Australias' is simply one of the them, and like any has its own features.

I would says its very must based on levels. Even in Australian society, as multicultural as it is, you'll find that there is a huge variety in the dialect. As a result of culture, background and the community you grew up in. The term 'shonky' does not have common usage as one might believe. If one really indeed must draw conclusions, the nature of our dialect, the shortening of words and commonly ill-pronouncement of words stems from the laid back nature of Australian life. But should never transpire into the working world. Just as one feels more comfortable talking freely at home, perhaps swareing as some might in other nations, Australians take pride in relaxing the language at home, but not to the extent that it should form any noticeable divergence from standard English.

You're true however about your claims of our hatered for Indian calling centres. I myself, excluding those that i miss while at work recieve 3 a day, specifically around dinner time, and often very early in the morning. But as i think most Australians would agree, its no reason to abuse them, they are simply doing their jobs. I do know a few people, and by that i mean alot, who take very offensive tones with the callers, that i cannot explain, i am sorry. An aubsive tone with anyone, doing their job, and earning a living, in the best way they know how, is something to be happy with, and if one does not like it, hang up.

Alas, to conclude, one must understand, Australian language is varied as much as the land it inherits, the multiculutral society, and friendly culture it embodies. Stereotypes like the one you painted are a means of ignorance, i am sorry, for i know many a forigner who will come here, and ask us please to speak 'Australian', all the while making fun of a stereotypical American accent. Please remember sir, that during those times, i accept that within america there are differences in the way you speak, the additues of people and the words you use, just as you should remember of ours.

Re:Australian English

[fruey]

Good points mate.

Let's not forget that American slang is more widely disseminated via TV series (massively exported around the world) and Hollywood film output. I've heard British children speak with American accents because they watch American cartoons, series and films all the time.

Now, back when Neighbours and Home & Away (Aussie soap operas) were popular in England, you heard British children say things like "daggy" (uncool) and "mate" (friend) a lot, as well as other terms I now forget.

I like Aussie slang, being a Brit I think I'm more exposed to it than Americans.

Re:Australian English

[demallien2]

What. A. Load. Of. Rubbish.

As an Australian living in Paris, I just took the opportunity of doing a quick straw poll of friends/coleagues to find out what they thought was the hardest English accent to understand. Stand-out winners were the Irish, with the Scottish accent following in as an easy second. Strine ('Australian' said with an Aussie accent if you can't figure out where it comes from....) follows way back with (evidently) Kiwis, South Africans, and all the other funny English accents (brogue, cockney etc etc etc).

Just to finish off, when querying them about speaking English with Indians, most consider the Indian accent to be sufficiently bad that communications are all but impossible.

What fascinates me by your unbelievably uninformative post is that apparently you don't even know many (any?) Australians, having to rely on an anecdote from a former co-worker. Good Grief!

How about posting about a subject that you know something about?

Re:Australian English

[drsmithy]

I have always been greatly amused by this considering that the Australian accent is arguably the harshest of all the native English speaker accents and considering how impossible to understand "strine" can be if you're not a native

I conclude from this that you've never been to Scotland or Ireland.

I'll be the first to agree Australian _slang_ can be a bit difficult to get a grip on (and it's always great fund talking in rhyming slang with tourists around), but the *accent* is relatively easy to understand, compared to most.

/Australian

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no secret that the Australian slang, which I think they call "strine", is just about impossible for non-Aussies to understand.

You are speaking on behalf of your English speaking nation and all others, yet feel you can say things like, "it's no secret" and "just about impossible". If it is no secret, then why are you informing everyone here? I converse in plain English on a regular basis over the phone with British and US technical and investigative people, like myself and we have no trouble. Maybe you are just a little behind the 8-ball when it comes to linguistic skills. Or for some reason you are mostly involved with retarded people perhaps?

As an Aussie, I find this post pretty unfair to us. I know plenty of British and Irish people and we converse without any problem. I can run into an English or Irish tourist at a pub and chat immediately. In fact enjoying the craic with the Irish is great. I could imagine you'd be the guy amongst us who'd be holding on to the same half pint of Guinness all night and not know what the hell is going on. That is your problem, not ours. I do have difficulty with someone who has a strong Scottish accent, but I get by. Since Australia is so multicultural, especially in the cities, people from varying nationalities tend to pick up what each other is trying to say, so I think Aussies in the cities at least are really good with understanding accents and switching our lingo off. I speak and understand Chinglish (Chinese English) very well for example. ; )

I would describe "shonky" as "being of questionable integrity or quality" when describing a person or object. Like "dodgy", but I feel I could use "dodgy" to describe a situation, whereas I don't feel I could use "shonky" to describe a situation.

Aussies will complain like nobody else in the English speaking world about the quality of someone else's English.

Oh now you're moving from accents to the quality of English? We speak the Queens English and sometimes add or replace words which reflect the Aussie in us. It's all a part of what makes us happy to be Australian. Most of us can easily switch over to nothing but pure Queens English for those times when we speak with someone who we figure will need it.

All I need to do is put on the Yank news or a music video show to see lots of Americans who are feeling negative or scared and often expressing it with some very foreign US lingo. Meanwhile, we Aussies are pretty happy. Our lingo tends to be positive or humorous. Which is even often the case for the slang which translates to something negative overall.

You think Americans complain about talking to call centers in India? You haven't heard anything until you've heard an Aussie bitch about it. I have always been greatly amused by this considering that the Australian accent is arguably the harshest of all the native English speaker accents and considering how impossible to understand "strine" can be if you're not a native.

Okay, so, do you have the small sample which "an" suggests or are you actually referring to lots of Aussies of whom you have attempted to converse with? Maybe you are just thick?

So you are telling us all that local lingo, which is foreign to someone, is impossible for them to understand? What an incredible insight! A language foreign to someone is foreign to them! Who would have ever guessed!?

I realise these two are not comparable, so I mean no offence to the English, Irish or Scottish, but... How is your Cockney? How is your Gaelic? They are each spoken by locals who typically also speak the Queens English. You probably wouldn't understand Cockney, let alone Gaelic.

A former co-worker who was a Brit expat living in Sydney told me that they also have a weird habit of chopping words in half, putting an "o" at the end, and just assuming everyone knows what they are talking about. For example, the Carleton Hotel became simply the Carlo.

Classic. A Brit, telling a Yank, that Aussie lingo is weird and then the Y

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard British children speak with American accents because they watch American cartoons, series and films all the time.

My gorgeous Aussie/Italian nieces say stuff like, "don't even go there girlfriend" and I cringe that we are bombarded with this American shit "entertaining" and being advertised to us.

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to finish off, when querying them about speaking English with Indians, most consider the Indian accent to be sufficiently bad that communications are all but impossible.

The fish from Microsoft Support Santro!

Indian? Other asian? Who knows? Does it matter? They are hard to understand, they attempt to speak our lingo, making it worse and only ever seem to read from pre-written scripts. That's what the fucking Internet is for! I can Google. I don't need the basics read out to me in martian!

Script reading 'support' person: "Do you have electricity there to moment?"

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: "Ah, this is a first World country. We haven't had a blackout here since 1986 and even if we did, we have a MASSIVE bank of lead-acid batteries, MASSIVE UPS weighing tons and a MASSIVE diesel Caterpillar generator to charge the batteries when they get low. In fact, that engine is so huge that there is a V8 sitting on top of it which is just the STARTER motor for the Caterpillar. We got power. We basically have DAYS of off-grid power if need be for the whole damn building. Man seriously. If we had no power, do you really think I would be calling YOU because, along with the lights and air conditioning, our computers are not working?"

Script reading 'support' person: Do you have monitor prugged in power and computer it is switch ON?

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Man, I just read an error message to you THREE times. How did I do that off a monitor which is not plugged in or not switched ON?

Script reading 'support' person: Do you have green light on front your monitor or an orange?

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: *sigh* You are basically asking if my monitor is either active or in suspended mode?

Script reading 'support' person: *silence*

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Hello?

Script reading 'support' person: Do you have green light on front your monitor or an orange?

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: *sigh* A GREEN light oddly enough, complete with the error message STILL on the screen of my PLUGGED IN and POWERED ON monitor.

Script reading 'support' person: Can you prease press at same time, CON-TROWL, ORLT and DE-REETE?

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Yessssss.....

Script reading 'support' person: Now press shu-dow.

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: You want me to reboot?

Script reading 'support' person: Now press shu-dow.

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Oh fuck me. Okay, I pressed shutdown...

Script reading 'support' person: Do you have three buttons on window popped up or drop-dow menu?

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: *sigh* Three buttons.......

Script reading 'support' person: Can you prease crick drop-dow menu and choose restart...

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: [I don't bother mentioning that there is no drop down and that his script is either fucked or he followed the wrong arrow] Okay [I play dumb] it says "Windows is shutting down".

Script reading 'support' person: No no you have to press RESTART!

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: I did.

Script reading 'support' person: *Silence*

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Hello?

Script reading 'support' person: Can you prease crick drop-dow menu and choose re-star...

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Okay, I've done that.

Script reading 'support' person: Prease tell when Window was boot.

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: Windows has started.

Script reading 'support' person: Prease try again you probrem.

Me, annoyed that we PAY for this: The probrem [haha] is still happen [hehe].

Script reading 'support' person: Can you prease re-install Window.

M

Re:Australian English

[NiteShaed]

First, I agree that Australian English is really no more difficult to understand than British English, Canadian English, or American English. Of course it has it's own "local" slang terms and quirks, all branches of English do.

All I need to do is put on the Yank news or a music video show to see lots of Americans who are feeling negative or scared and often expressing it with some very foreign US lingo. Meanwhile, we Aussies are pretty happy. Our lingo tends to be positive or humorous. Which is even often the case for the slang which translates to something negative overall.

Oh c'mon, this can be said of anyone in any culture, if you're selective. Or do you really feel palpable fear radiating from the people in the latest "Bowling for Soup" video or in episodes of Seinfeld? Seems like the big news out of Australia that I see on TV is Steve Irwin's unfortunate demise. Should I conclude that Australians are all sitting around crying and unable to function because that's what was on "World News Tonight" recently?

You probably wouldn't understand Cockney, let alone Gaelic.

Okay, Cockney accents can be rough, but what does Gaelic have to do with anything? It's an entirely different language. Yes, it's spoken by a sizable number of people in the U.K., but aside from that, so what? Spanish is spoken by a sizable portion of the population in the U.S., that isn't relevant to the conversation either.

Oh so that means we Aussies are not normal then? You are the arse-hole who cannot seem to understand or respect local diversity. How very fucking American.
You Americans are amazing. From the tourists to the President, you offend and typically don't even realise it. And it's all our fault, right?

sigh, yeah, it's only Americans who make offensive statements. And luckily, if you're not an American, it's perfectly okay to make statements like these, because they aren't the least bit offensive to anyone.

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure "mate" had nothing to do with Australia. Brits were for the longest time sailors and would call anyone "mate", short for "shipmate".

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

Piss off you bloody seppo cunt.

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I agree that Australian English is really no more difficult to understand than British English, Canadian English, or American English. Of course it has it's own "local" slang terms and quirks, all branches of English do.

The OP does not seem to get the "of course" bit.

Oh c'mon, this can be said of anyone in any culture, if you're selective. Or do you really feel palpable fear radiating from the people in the latest "Bowling for Soup" video or in episodes of Seinfeld? Seems like the big news out of Australia that I see on TV is Steve Irwin's unfortunate demise. Should I conclude that Australians are all sitting around crying and unable to function because that's what was on "World News Tonight" recently?

I was refering to news (shootings so very often, for example) and the negative culture being perpetuated in music. I was not refering to adverts with that or sitcoms.

The Steve Irwin tragedy was a once off. Americans killing each other is most certainly not.

Okay, Cockney accents can be rough, but what does Gaelic have to do with anything? It's an entirely different language. Yes, it's spoken by a sizable number of people in the U.K., but aside from that, so what? Spanish is spoken by a sizable portion of the population in the U.S., that isn't relevant to the conversation either.

It has everything to do with this. The point is that for many people, Cockney is as foreign as Gaelic. Regardless of the fact that one is slang and the other a full language distinct from English. That is the point.

sigh, yeah, it's only Americans who make offensive statements. And luckily, if you're not an American, it's perfectly okay to make statements like these, because they aren't the least bit offensive to anyone.

Here is an education for you... a massive chunk of the World despises the USA. Including the likes of Australians, and huge chunks of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and South America.

There is a reason for that. You come across as loud, obnoxious and disrespectful and invade countries to push your own agenda.

Do a google search for these:

"World hates Australia": 17
"World hates England": 28
"World hates Britain": 19
"World hates Japan": 5
"World hates China": 17
"World hates Russia": 10
"World hates Mexico": 9
"World hates Canada": 28
"World hates Afghanistan": 0
"World hates Iraq": 18
"World hates Iran": 14
"World hates France": 31
"World hates the French": 125
"World hates Lebanon": 1
"World hates Palestine": 0

"World hates Israel": 642
"World hates America": 29,100
"World hates USA": 214
"World hates the US": 987

Obviously I realise that this does not provide quality results. But it should make some people think. That disparity is a reflection of how I, a peace loving anglo Australian happily living in a capatalist, democratic society, see the attitude to the USA from other good, reasonable people.

See something stand out there? The war in Iraq might have bumped those numbers up, but then the US public support of the war in Iraq pretty much sums up the attitude which causes the USA to be so hated. Almost everyone I know, from all ethnic backgrounds, have an attitude of America and Americans which falls somewhere between dislike and hatred and this has been the case long before the 9/11 "green light to kick ass". And we are not terrorists.

Re:Australian English

[NiteShaed]

I was refering to news (shootings so very often, for example) and the negative culture being perpetuated in music. I was not refering to adverts with that or sitcoms.
The Steve Irwin tragedy was a once off. Americans killing each other is most certainly not.

Do we have shootings? Yes, but the "culture of fear" is over-stated. I don't know anyone who's overcome with terror, I don't know anyone who's been randomly murdered, and I think you're making a mistake if you think you have a realistic idea of life in the US from watching T.V..

It has everything to do with this. The point is that for many people, Cockney is as foreign as Gaelic. Regardless of the fact that one is slang and the other a full language distinct from English. That is the point.

No, it isn't. The discussion is about English. Saying he wouldn't understand Gaelic is as relevant as saying he wouldn't understand Swahili. The way you worded it made it seem you were suggesting that Gaelic is an accent, not a language.

Here is an education for you... a massive chunk of the World despises the USA. Including the likes of Australians, and huge chunks of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and South America.

And here is an education for you, rudeness is rudeness regardless of who is doing it. It's been publicized lately that there are about 300 million US citizens. Unless you're prepared to prove that every single one of them are "offensive", the statement is nothing more than a rude generalization.

There is a reason for that. You come across as loud, obnoxious and disrespectful and invade countries to push your own agenda.

You've never met me sir, and you have no idea how I "come across". Stupid stereotypes are the last refuge of a lazy mind.

Obviously I realise that this does not provide quality results. But it should make some people think. That disparity is a reflection of how I, a peace loving anglo Australian happily living in a capatalist, democratic society, see the attitude to the USA from other good, reasonable people.

You realize that it doesn't provide quality results, but you're happy to throw it in there anyway. All I've heard so far from these comments is that you're happy, and layed-back and wonderful and you HATE 300 million people that you've never met. Interesting.

Almost everyone I know, from all ethnic backgrounds, have an attitude of America and Americans which falls somewhere between dislike and hatred and this has been the case long before the 9/11 "green light to kick ass".

A multi-cultural hate-group, how novel. Congratulations. Is this part of the happy, go-lucky Australian lifestyle?

Personally, I'm happy to say I've known and worked with a great number of Australians, and on the whole they've been great people to be around. In other words, they were nothing like you.

It's no wonder you're posting AC. I wouldn't want comments like those following me around either.

Re:Australian English

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we have shootings? Yes, but the "culture of fear" is over-stated. I don't know anyone who's overcome with terror, I don't know anyone who's been randomly murdered, and I think you're making a mistake if you think you have a realistic idea of life in the US from watching T.V..

Your murder rate per capita is 2.8 times higher than ours.

No, it isn't. The discussion is about English. Saying he wouldn't understand Gaelic is as relevant as saying he wouldn't understand Swahili. The way you worded it made it seem you were suggesting that Gaelic is an accent, not a language.

Those remarks were regarding my point, not the whole discussion. The focus was on cockney being so foreign that it may as well be another language. When I hear cockney, I have no idea what is being said. That's my point.

And here is an education for you, rudeness is rudeness regardless of who is doing it. It's been publicized lately that there are about 300 million US citizens. Unless you're prepared to prove that every single one of them are "offensive", the statement is nothing more than a rude generalization.

And the rudeness that started this, was fitting of the stereotype. Stereotypes are not always without a foundation of reality.

You've never met me sir, and you have no idea how I "come across". Stupid stereotypes are the last refuge of a lazy mind.

I was not talking about you, I was talking about the typical obnoxious American.

You realize that it doesn't provide quality results, but you're happy to throw it in there anyway. All I've heard so far from these comments is that you're happy, and layed-back and wonderful and you HATE 300 million people that you've never met. Interesting.

I'm refering to the quality not being an accurate gauge, but it certainly stands out so much that there is meaning behind it. And as I said, it reflects the attitudes of people I have met.

We are not laying around constantly thinking about hating Americans. We just get along with our lives. However like so many other nations, we see the US invade a nation based on a pack of lies, with lots of innocent people getting killed and many of us can't help but hate the US for that.

A multi-cultural hate-group, how novel. Congratulations. Is this part of the happy, go-lucky Australian lifestyle?

I said "falls somewhere between dislike and hatred". That does not show the percentage of Australians which HATE the US. But could you blame anyone hating the US when the US tramples on the World in the name of "freedom"? Sorry arsehole, but right now, with what the USA is doing in Iraq, people can be excused for hating the USA.

Personally, I'm happy to say I've known and worked with a great number of Australians, and on the whole they've been great people to be around. In other words, they were nothing like you.

I'm okay with that. I've known and worked with a great number of people from all around the World and on the whole they've been great people to be around. In other words, they were nothing like typical Americans.

Re:Australian English

[NiteShaed]

Your murder rate per capita is 2.8 times higher than ours.

And your death-by-alligator rate is higher than ours, big deal. What I said is that the situation is over-stated. Most people here spend their entire life not seeing a murder, not knowing anyone who is murdered, and not being murdered.

And the rudeness that started this, was fitting of the stereotype. Stereotypes are not always without a foundation of reality.

Nonsense. If you felt he was being rude, then your problem is with him. That excuse is exactly how most racists and nationalists justify themselves. Blacks must be lazy, the Irish must be shiftless drunks, Jews must be greedy, by that logic. Really want to travel down that road?

I was not talking about you, I was talking about the typical obnoxious American.

You are talking to me, and I consider myself a fairly typical American.

I'm refering to the quality not being an accurate gauge, but it certainly stands out so much that there is meaning behind it. And as I said, it reflects the attitudes of people I have met.

See above about stereotypes. Just because a lot of people say it, doesn't make a reasonable position.

We are not laying around constantly thinking about hating Americans. We just get along with our lives. However like so many other nations, we see the US invade a nation based on a pack of lies, with lots of innocent people getting killed and many of us can't help but hate the US for that.

Ah, so you hate all Americans, even though the number of Americans who are against the war probably outnumbers the entire population of Australia several times over. The war in Iraq is a mess, and you're right, it's based almost entirely on lies and distortions. I have news for you though, there are an awful lot of people here, who are average Americans, who are against it. Hating the people is very different than hating the government, especially when the population is split on the issue as closely as ours was when it began. Also, if all of Australia is in agreement with your moral outrage, why have they done nothing about it? Where are the sanctions against the U.S., the public condemnations and severing of diplomatic ties? Nowhere. Because when you get down to it, your government is no more interested in your position on the war than my government is in my position on it.

I said "falls somewhere between dislike and hatred". That does not show the percentage of Australians which HATE the US. But could you blame anyone hating the US when the US tramples on the World in the name of "freedom"? Sorry arsehole, but right now, with what the USA is doing in Iraq, people can be excused for hating the USA.

I know full well your opinion doesn't show the percentage of Australians that hate the U.S.. The Australians I know would probably be disgusted by your ranting. And yes, I can blame people for hating the U.S. and Americans in general. Hate the current administration all you want, be furious with those who support it, but hating almost half the population for what the other half thinks strikes me as short sighted and naive, rather like hating all the French during WWII because of the actions of the Vichy gov't. Good job with the name calling though. Hint, it doesn't make you seem very mature or reasonable.

I'm okay with that. I've known and worked with a great number of people from all around the World and on the whole they've been great people to be around. In other words, they were nothing like typical Americans.

I doubt that. I don't think you even know what a "typical" American is.

As bad as BSD

[sheriff_p]

What gets on my nerves is the endless stream of "iPODS ARE DEAD" articles written by talentless IT-writers. Every week, at least, some half-witted pundit is telling the world how the iPod is just about to die out. It's annoying.

-sheriff

Re:As bad as BSD

[wild_berry]

But Netcraft confirms that not a single iPod serves web pages (nor does Rockbox). Surely it is dying. QED.

For better or worse

[shirizaki]

iPod helped to overhaul the DAP industry. If it hadn't come out, we would have ended up with hard drive based media players anyway, but the iPod helped to say that the time was now. And to start the "useless accessories" business model. Does anyone really need 50 different covers and cases for the iPod? As for myself, I still use my 512MB Sandisk DAP and an in the market for a new player. The iPod looks like the best for my buck now until I get to my local tech store to man handle some other players.

Re:For better or worse

[travisco_nabisco]

I was looking into IPods as well, but ended up getting a SanDisk e260 (4GB) instead. It is equivalent in size and capacity to the nano, I'd recommend looking it up since it is cheaper than the same capacity nano but has more features. The one downer is that the click-wheel doesn't feel near as smooth as the IPod's. note: I'm only endorsing this product because I just got it and am quite happy with it overall.

Re:Australian English - iPod gets a Shonky

[PoconoPCDoctor]

FYI - apparently Apple's warranty policy is the reason for the Shonky....

Goes to the...

        * APPLE iPod
            (CHOICE Computer, Sep/Oct 2005, and CHOICE, July 2006)

An iPod is a significant investment, so you don't want your APPLE to be a lemon. And if there is something wrong with it, you'd expect an easy repair and warranty service. Podluck.

Level 1. Several readers complained about cracked screens, faulty batteries and problems with sound reproduction.

Level 2. APPLE doesn't allow retailers to handle complaints under warranty (which is their obligation under Fair Trading laws) -- you have to send your faulty iPod to APPLE yourself via Australia Post. And if they decide the fault isn't covered by the warranty, you'll have to foot the entire bi

Re:Boycott Apple

[schiefaw]

You much be on a hybrid bus or something. I had to buy higher end headphones just so I could hear my iPod on the bus. It is hard to compete with a big diesel right behind your head.

iPod's major influence on our world.

[MtViewGuy]

I think the iPod has impacted our world in the following ways:

1) It has pretty much consigned the old "boomboxes" to near-complete obsolescene (thank G** for that!). People now listen to their own music with generally not disturbing others in a package far more convenient than even the old cassette player Walkmans.

2) It has changed the way we buy music, by legitimizing music downloads.

3) It has actually made radio talk shows more popular, as many on-air talk shows are now available for subscription-based download (ESPN Radio's Radio Insider and Premiere Radio Networks' Streamlink programs for example). We are seeing rapid growth of specialized downloadable talk shows (This Week in Technology (TWiT) being one of the best examples of this).

4) It has made it far more practical to not have to carry around your Compact Discs when listening to music in the car. Thanks to increased storage capacity on today's players you can "rip" your CD collection at higher sample rates and still put quite a lot of music on a single player for car playback. Also, many cars now offer standard auxiliary 1/8" jack input for all portable music players and some even offer special connectors to connect your newer-generation iPod so you can control the iPod from the car stereo controls and/or recharge the iPod's battery at the same time.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[pandrijeczko]

1) It has pretty much consigned the old "boomboxes" to near-complete obsolescene (thank G** for that!). People now listen to their own music with generally not disturbing others in a package far more convenient than even the old cassette player Walkmans.

"Boomboxes" died out around the middle of the 90s and certainly weren't that popular, at least from the point of view of portable ones. At any rate, they died long before the iPod came to fruition. I for one had an MP3 CD player (similar to a CD Walkman) a couple of years before MP3 players took off.

2) It has changed the way we buy music, by legitimizing music downloads.

There are still far more illegal music downloads than there are legitimate ones going on and I seem to recall Apple almost getting caught up in a "monopoly" suit for automatically bundling iTunes with it.

3) It has actually made radio talk shows more popular, as many on-air talk shows are now available for subscription-based download (ESPN Radio's Radio Insider and Premiere Radio Networks' Streamlink programs for example). We are seeing rapid growth of specialized downloadable talk shows (This Week in Technology (TWiT) being one of the best examples of this).

Ah, so what you're saying is that the iPod introduced the concept of "paying for radio programs".... and that's a *GOOD* thing???

4) It has made it far more practical to not have to carry around your Compact Discs when listening to music in the car. Thanks to increased storage capacity on today's players you can "rip" your CD collection at higher sample rates and still put quite a lot of music on a single player for car playback. Also, many cars now offer standard auxiliary 1/8" jack input for all portable music players and some even offer special connectors to connect your newer-generation iPod so you can control the iPod from the car stereo controls and/or recharge the iPod's battery at the same time.

Firstly, what you describe can be done with just about any MP3 player at about 1/4 the cost of an iPod.

Secondly, if you're in the car long enough to justify having your complete music collection with you, then you're probably selecting songs while you are driving which is probably quite a dangerous thing to do. Personally, I've a 6 x CD player that came built in with my car, on long journeys I load the player with 6 and keep 6 more CDs in the glove compartment. The inconvenience of having to reload the CD player at a stop once during my journey has never justified the cost of an iPod for me - and a cheap 1MB player holds enough songs to last me at the gym or on the usual 2 hour flights I take.

The point I'm trying to make is that the iPod is just another little electronic gadget that you either like or think is overpriced for what it gives you - it's just an opinion, no different to supporting a particular football team or liking a particular TV series.

Apple has a similar duty as Microsoft when it comes to making as much money as possible for its shareholders - the sooner the Apple fanboys get to grip with this the better, rather than assuming that Apple is just this generous charity out to do it's best by them.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[DarkJC]

There are still far more illegal music downloads than there are legitimate ones going on and I seem to recall Apple almost getting caught up in a "monopoly" suit for automatically bundling iTunes with it.

This is a pretty much irrelevant point. The fact is the iTunes Store was the first widely successful legit way to download songs. Just because people still download illegaly doesn't make that point any less valid.

Firstly, what you describe can be done with just about any MP3 player at about 1/4 the cost of an iPod.

Show me a player that can be controlled by the car audio controls, other than the iPod (coming straight from the factory, no third-party hacks). My guess is you can't. I agree that any player can pipe their output to a line-in on the car audio deck, but the only player with car audio control support is the iPod.

Ah, so what you're saying is that the iPod introduced the concept of "paying for radio programs".... and that's a *GOOD* thing???

So I guess you're opposed to satellite radio too, then? Not to mention he also listed radio shows (podcasts) that are high quality and absolutely free to download. The podcasts are basically ad free, with a mention of sponsors at the beginning and end of shows, while the subscriptions are definitely ad free. Being Slashdot, I realize that anything anti-iPod is marked informative, but comments like this bring it closer to the troll mod.

and a cheap 1MB player holds enough songs to last me at the gym or on the usual 2 hour flights I take.

Ok, I'm hoping this was a typo, but you must encode in a pretty small bitrate to last you an hour at the gym for 1 MB. And it definitely would NOT sound good.

the sooner the Apple fanboys get to grip with this the better, rather than assuming that Apple is just this generous charity out to do it's best by them.

I doubt there are many that think the iPod is a generous charity. Apple fans are fine with paying more for apple products. They have put up with paying the Apple premium for years. It's just recently that that premium has actually been reduced to the point where they're quite competitive for the money you pay (just look at the MacBook). The only reason your post was modded informative was because of the anti-Apple fanboys that are so prevalent on this board.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[WuphonsReach]

It has made it far more practical to not have to carry around your Compact Discs when listening to music in the car.

I still prefer MP3 CDs in the car. 8-10 hours per disk, room in my visor to hold 10 disks plus I can care more in the car door pocket if needed. No worries about someone swiping my CDs or my stereo and it's one less thing I have to carry to/from the car. And most modern car stereos are starting to support MP3 CD without needing an after-market stereo.

My longest trip to date was a 3-week road trip. The MP3 CDs worked perfectly. I could load an 8hour CD up based on my mood and swap it out every few hours with little hassle.

But then, my lifestyle isn't suited to an iPod anyway. I don't spend hours per week on the bus/train/plane, I only drive to work about once every 3 weeks, and I listen to most of my music in my home office (using my laptop). So a low-maintenance solution for my car like MP3 CDs suits me perfectly.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[pandrijeczko]

This is a pretty much irrelevant point. The fact is the iTunes Store was the first widely successful legit way to download songs. Just because people still download illegaly doesn't make that point any less valid.

Apple may have been the first to seriously take on legal music downloads but this is still a battle being fought - iTunes is driven by Apple's proprietary DRM which makes them no different to Microsoft with DRM and Media Player in trying to lock users into a particular vendor. Whatever happens, I don't see Apple winning this battle - either "bigger and badder" Microsoft will push their proprietary DRM into the everyone's media players or (my hope) DRM will fail completely in which case established online names like Amazon or Google will push their way in. Show me a player that can be controlled by the car audio controls, other than the iPod (coming straight from the factory, no third-party hacks). My guess is you can't. I agree that any player can pipe their output to a line-in on the car audio deck, but the only player with car audio control support is the iPod.

Again, this technology is still in it's infancy. We're already seeing in-car audio players with USB connectivity and Blaupunkt, a traditional player in in-car audio, is releasing players with hard disks; check out the specification of the Blaupunkt Casablanca player and you'll see there is no mention of the iPod.

So I guess you're opposed to satellite radio too, then? Not to mention he also listed radio shows (podcasts) that are high quality and absolutely free to download. The podcasts are basically ad free, with a mention of sponsors at the beginning and end of shows, while the subscriptions are definitely ad free. Being Slashdot, I realize that anything anti-iPod is marked informative, but comments like this bring it closer to the troll mod.

I'm not opposed to satellite radio, I just don't see it bringing anything new or innovative - it's just more information overload. What do most people care if there are "millions" of TV and radio staions if 99.9% of them are just Joe Averages without very much to say - let's face it, to broadcast anything of interest, they'll have to pay a license to someone somewhere which means they won't be able to offer a free service to listeners/viewers.

As regards radio shows, I'm lucky enough to be in the UK where I can enjoy the free radio service of the BBC without adverts. (And before anyone jumps in here, in the UK you pay a license fee for BBC TV but do not have to for radio.) I'm also looking forward to downloading archived shows from the BBC, there's probably enough material in there to last anyone's lifetime anyway.

Ok, I'm hoping this was a typo, but you must encode in a pretty small bitrate to last you an hour at the gym for 1 MB. And it definitely would NOT sound good.

Yep, sorry, typo. Encoding with LAMEENC at 128 kb/s on a 1GB player gives me between 2-3 hours of playing time. Sure, low bitrate but I encode my own CDs so I can recode them if I want higher.

doubt there are many that think the iPod is a generous charity. Apple fans are fine with paying more for apple products. They have put up with paying the Apple premium for years. It's just recently that that premium has actually been reduced to the point where they're quite competitive for the money you pay (just look at the MacBook). The only reason your post was modded informative was because of the anti-Apple fanboys that are so prevalent on this board.

Look, I'm not criticising just Apple fans, my view on people and "brand loyalty" has absolutely nothing to do with product quality but more to do with those people feeling they are part of an elitist little club - that goes the same for a whole lot of Linux fans (yes, I'm a Linux user) and Windows fans (I'm also a Windows user).

But in my 30+ years working and playing with computers and gadgets, I have never owned an Apple product - not because of any personal boycott, just because they've never made anything I particularly felt I wanted at a price I was prepared to pay. So I disagree that Apple has had that great an influence on the world.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[MtViewGuy]

The fact is the iTunes Store was the first widely successful legit way to download songs.

In fact, it actually has helped a number of musicians because while the revenue from iTMS sales is not that great, the publicity will drive more real CD sales.

Show me a player that can be controlled by the car audio controls, other than the iPod (coming straight from the factory, no third-party hacks). My guess is you can't. I agree that any player can pipe their output to a line-in on the car audio deck, but the only player with car audio control support is the iPod.

Given the fact that iPods represent nearly around 4 out of 5 portable music players sold, is it small wonder where there is a substantial cottage industry selling iPod accessories and why new car stereos now include connectors to connect to the iPod data connector so the car stereo can directly control the player and also charge the iPod's battery?

So I guess you're opposed to satellite radio too, then? Not to mention he also listed radio shows (podcasts) that are high quality and absolutely free to download. The podcasts are basically ad free, with a mention of sponsors at the beginning and end of shows, while the subscriptions are definitely ad free.

There are a lot of podcasts you can download for free all over the Internet. TwIT.tv's excellent podcasts barely scratch the surface of the many high-quality podcasts available out there; another very good one is TV Guide magazine's weekly podcast, one of the best podcasts about the TV and movie industry out there. For US$6.95 per month (about the cost of two Starbucks lattes!) you can get the ESPN Insider subscription, where you can download ESPN Radio's four weekday radio shows.

Apple fans are fine with paying more for apple products. They have put up with paying the Apple premium for years. It's just recently that that premium has actually been reduced to the point where they're quite competitive for the money you pay (just look at the MacBook).

While iPods do cost more, they've also pretty much "set the bar" for what a portable music player should be. Once you master using one most other portable music players seem less functional in comparison.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[MtViewGuy]

I still prefer MP3 CDs in the car. 8-10 hours per disk, room in my visor to hold 10 disks plus I can care more in the car door pocket if needed. No worries about someone swiping my CDs or my stereo and it's one less thing I have to carry to/from the car. And most modern car stereos are starting to support MP3 CD without needing an after-market stereo.

I have to disagree on that! With a 4 GB nano, you can load quite a lot of music onto the player assuming you use 160 kbps data rip rate from your CD's for AAC or MP3 encoding in the iTunes software. And given the size of the nano, you can stuff the player into your shirt pocket when you leave your car. Also, you can get inexpensive short-distance FM transmitters that transmit the audio from the iPod to your car stereo thru the FM tuner, so you don't really need a specialized car stereo with the iPod data connector port.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[dangitman]

Firstly, what you describe can be done with just about any MP3 player at about 1/4 the cost of an iPod.

Can you please tell me which MP3 players can hold your entire CD collection, and cost 1/4 as much as the iPods? Most MP3 players of any significant capacity cost around the same price as an iPod.

Re:iPod's major influence on our world.

[dangitman]

So I disagree that Apple has had that great an influence on the world.

So, because you've never bought an Apple product, they haven't influenced the world? How ridiculous! Windows is currently the world's most popular OS, and it was a copy of MacOS. The mouse was popularized by Apple, and today everybody uses a mouse with their computer. Mainstream desktop publishing was basically invented on the Mac, and today everybody does it. Photoshop was originally a Mac-only application, and today "photoshop" is used as a synonym to "manipulate digital images" and is an immensely sought-after application.

The examples go on and on. Anyone who knows history and has their head in reality cannot deny that Apple has influenced the world in numerous ways.

Biased

[mxolisi06]

Well maybe Aussies would reckon the accent of where you come from is the harshest of all. Being a non-native english speaker, and having travelled to many english-speaking countries (USA and Aussiland included), I believe that no matter where you go you'll come across weird local slang and weird local accents, and I really don't see any objective reason why one should be rated harsher than another one. Have you tried to understand cockney rhyming slang, or authentic scottish accent ?

Why boom boxes died..?

[acomj]

Boom boxes died when they got too big and heavy to carry around. So now they are driven around (and come with a built in gas powered generator). On the plus side the noise these vehicles make doesn't last too long because they move fairly quickly.

Re:Why boom boxes died..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you hear the damn cars forever now. They sound like a hornet in heat.

My Kingdom For An Earbud!

[davido42]

I don't know about "most people", but I find the iPod ear buds to be really uncomfortable. Do I have to pay $$$ for those gel-like earbuds? I hope Apple (Steve, listen up dude!) has the sense to work on a better ergonomic design.

Right now my phones of choice (read: cheap but acceptable) are the cheapo GE headphones with mic attachment. Decent bass response and I don't feel like I have sticks in my ears.

Hey, what are you waiting for? Download my new mp3, War Song At High Noon, because it wouldn't be war without a war protest song.

david
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/

Re:My Kingdom For An Earbud!

[wootest]

The new iPods last month brought rejiggered earbuds. I haven't tried them, and I'm not an audiophile in any way, but I hear they are nicer and has rubber in them so you won't need the black cover that came with the old ones.

That said, yes, they could probably be much better. You get them bundled for free with an MP3 player. Deal with it. :)

Re:My Kingdom For An Earbud!

[davido42]

From what I hear, the new iPods should come with iCondoms as well.

Re:Boycott Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be stupid.

As if the number of people listening to music on mobile devices rised due to the ipod.
Same with the "ipod-damages-ears" issue. Ears have been damaged by this way at least since the invention of the Walkman, or Headphones, whatever.

Too loud

[Smallest]

i listen to my iPod at work, through Apple's basic ear-buds at, literally, the lowest volume setting. and for many songs, this is too loud - the White Stripes, for example, compress their songs and pump them up to a much higher volume than many other bands. i wish there were four or five lower volume settings below what is the current lowest.

yet, on a plane, there is no volume setting that works with the basic ear buds - everything distorts before i can hear anything over the plane's engines. yes, i should buy better earphones, for that situation.

life is hard

Re:Too loud

[DarkJC]

The lowest volume on an iPod is nothing, so I'm surprised it's still too loud for you. Even if I'm not picking nits, the lowest audible setting would be on sliver above nothing. If that's too loud for you, you must have super hearing.

Re:Too loud

[chriskenrick]

To solve the first problem (some songs being way too loud), you really should turn on Sound Check (presuming you're using iTunes), and then re-transfer your library. It will then level the songs so they're all the same loudness, approximately.

Revenue != Income

[shaneh0]

This is basic high school economics.

Revenue != Income.

I didn't say that all their REVENUE came from the iPod, I said all of their PROFIT(Income) did. You're either really bad at business, or English. I'm not sure which.

Re:Revenue != Income

[Lars T.]

I didn't say that all their REVENUE came from the iPod, I said all of their PROFIT(Income) did. You're either really bad at business, or English. I'm not sure which.

Of course you saying so doesn't make it true. Care to back that up?

Re:Revenue != Income

[shaneh0]

They're a public company. This information is available to anyone who wants to look for it. I already *know* the info, I don't need to re-learn it. But if you want to... let your fingers do the walking

Re:Revenue != Income

[Lars T.]

IOW you are going to keep ignoring that those numbers say you are wrong.

Re:Revenue != Income

[shaneh0]

Are you this stupid in real life or do you just drop too many packets when you get online?

He posted REVENUE. He even LABELED IT AS REVENUE. He didn't post INCOME.

Go troll under someone elses bridge. Mine is troll-free. Thanks.

Re:Revenue != Income

[Lars T.]

So you keep denying facts. What a lame troll you are.

I, for one...

[geekoid]

I, for one, welcome our new Shonky overlords.

Some Things I learned in Sound Class

[iluvcapra]

I am a professional, but a lot of the people I work with have gone stone deaf working the way we do, so maybe I have everything backwards, but here's what I was taught (from the mouth of Tom Holman himself.

• Hearing damage is like radiation: it's cumulative over your entire life.
• I'm not sure anyone has done any conclusive studies on earbuds versus headphones, but both are equally effective in causing damage if you listen at a bad level.
• Your eardrum is sensitive, but relatively robust compared to the Organ of Corti, which lives in your chochlea and actually tranducts the sound into the nerve; it gets damaged at the high end of your listening response and the damage travels down the spectrum as it accumulates. You won't generally notice cumulative hearing loss at first because it occurs at the top end of the spectrum, away from speech.
• Your response to sound level is logarithmic, and also relative. If you're in a loud car, or driving with the window down, you may be applying 90-100 dB SPL to your ears from all the energy from wind and engine, but it will seem quiet compared to a loud stereo which you crank to 11 to put it over the din, thus you can trick yourself into listening to things much louder than you could otherwise tolerate.
• Your acoustic reflex protects you from loud sounds by involuntarily contracting muscle in your middle ear to pull your eardrum tight, thus reducing your eardrums displacement and the amount of energy it passes to the inner ear. The muscle in your ear has tone like any other muscle, however, and will being to release your eardrum after 2-3 hours of continuous loud noise. It does this gradually, however, and you won't notice the effect, but your eardrum will register the strain and pass it along to your cochlea.
• Sudden dynamic (loudness) changes can be more damaging than dynamic changes that you acclimate yourself into. If you listen to your music at a comfortable level and turn it up over 10 minutes or so your acoustic reflex will protect your eardrum from immediate stress.

The I-Pod Museum in NYC

[emilyridesabmx]

If you ever have the chance to visit Tekserve, which is an Apple only store on 23rd Street in New York City, you'll notice they have a small 'I-Pod Museum'. It's just one glass case, but it features one of every single I-pod, even the limited edition models such as the U2 Ipod. It's pretty interesting to see the original first generation Ipod next to the newest video ones, they seem enormous. The evolution from pod to Ipod is pretty astounding when you consider how closely they were released to each other,and howmuch sleeker they have become model by model. It's quite a top notch engineering job. If you're ever in Manhattan, TekServe is definetly worth a visit if you're a Mac persob, for the Ipod's and everything else they have on display. As a disclaimer,I'm not affiliated with Tek Serve in any way, just an industrial designer who enjoys seeing progress in the flesh.

Re:Boycott Apple

[Overly Critical Guy]

Are you one of those guys who says they won't buy music because they don't want to send money to the companies that the RIAA represents, then they turn around and pirate music, invalidating their moral highground?

lawsuit levels

[wild_berry]

Jobs requested it during development (and, like I said above, Jobs is apparently a little hard of hearing); the iPod is the best-seller and most people don't relise that it's dangerously loud. You're right to say that people should make sure that the thing is adjusted best for their own comfort.

Re:lawsuit levels

[cetroyer]

So, Jobs asked that the iPod be designed so that those who are hard of hearing can enjoy the convenience and ease of an iPod as well as the rest of the "well-hearing" world?

That design choice doesn't do anything to remove the responsibility of the user to monitor the volume level. If someone wants to blow their eardrums out, that is their choice. But by adding the higher volume level capability, the iPod is now a viable product for those who are already hard of hearing.

Let's apply your argument to another piece of audio equipment. Take the common receiver. I just looked at one that had 770W total power, 110W per channel. Paired with the right set of speakers, it would be more than capable of damaging hearing. Yet, no one is trying to force them to make "safe" audio equipment.

cetroyer

Re:lawsuit levels

[wild_berry]

I wasn't aware that I advocated a viewpoint for argument. Thank you for taking issue with me anyway, and thank you for pointing out that the additional power makes the iPod suitable for the hard-of-hearing. I agree that personal responsibility is being ignored for a fast-buck legal suit.

iPod wallpaper.

[Savage-Rabbit]

...as for your wish to be able to set a photo as a wallpaper, i don't quite understand the function of such a feature. when you're not using the screen to navigate through the UI, how much time do you spend looking at it?

Just a thought... but perhaps.... If you put a wallpaper depicting the Goatse guy in your iPod there is a slim chance a thief would be so nauseated by the wallpaper he would forget to steal the iPod. Personally I would never install such a wallpaper since the mere sight of it would make me so sick I wouldn't ever want to use the iPod but not everybody is as easily nauseated by Goatse photos as I am so the idea may have some merit for it's deterrent value.

Re:Australian English - iPod gets a Shonky

[drsmithy]

APPLE doesn't allow retailers to handle complaints under warranty (which is their obligation under Fair Trading laws) -- you have to send your faulty iPod to APPLE yourself via Australia Post.

This is utter rubbish. My click-wheel iPod was fixed three times under warranty[0], and all I ever had to do was drop it into the nearest AppleCentre. I took it back to three different AppleCentres over the course of 15 months, all of which sent it back to Apple for me, none of which were the shop I'd originally purchased it from (not even in the same state).

[0] Now, having the thing replaced 3 times in 15 months (and it broke _again_ about 4 months after being replaced the last time - sadly out of warranty for good[1]) is a good reason to be angry about iPod quality...

[1] Perhaps foolishly, I have replaced it with an 8G Nano. We'll see if the lack of a hard disk makes them any more reliable...

No surprises

[wild_berry]

What do you want the wireless features to do? Speak to your Airport Express base station? I can't think of another use for it -- as Apple are loath to let people share music (or haven't found the way to do it nicely between users while also appeasing their Media Overlords) and charging the thing means it needs to have wired connection at some point, which permits far faster syncing than present wireless technologies. In light of the coming 802.11n standard, syncing wirelessly and sharing files may come to the iPod.

Re:Boycott Apple

[mamer-retrogamer]

Yes, people actually pay £3 for a full track song to listen on their mobiles that's not even sung by the original artists! crazy.

Does it even really matter with the music they choose to listen to?

Apple's Pricing

[mosb1000]

"Last I looked - these things ran for $150 each at Costco for the 2GB model."

I'm not nitpicking your comment, but I would like to point out that it does not matter where you get your iPod. It will always be the same price. Apple does not allow resellers to sell at any price other than the MSRP. They enforce their policy be cutting off or fining resellers that fail to comply.

Speaking of Apple's sales policy, did anyone else notice that the 2GB model is only available in "plain" silver, and the only black iPod is the 8GB model. I don't think I've ever heard of a company charging people so much for specific colors! Their strategy is brilliant though, by bundling the more attractive colors with larger amounts of memory they make it easier for people paying extra to justify the purchase to themselves. It's easy to see how a technophile who was only looking to spend $150 could be persuaded to put out another $100 for the black iPod they really want because it has four times the memory! Hopefully they will revisit their MacBook pricing and make the "black fee" less obvious as well.

Re:Apple's Pricing

[Zanth_]

This is called price fixing and this is illegal in the US and most places in the Western World. Apple can enforce the MSRP in adprint only but they can't enforce a policy of no discounts and this is easily witnessed by smaller retailers in Canada at least that sell for a few dollars less than the Apple Stores or Best Buys. Others of course seller higher, but the end result is, they can't cut anyone off for selling below MSRP provided the prices aren't advertised. Otherwise, they enjoy the pangs of lawyers feeding on their fat 10B bank account balance.

Re:Apple's Pricing

[mmurphy000]

but I would like to point out that it does not matter where you get your iPod. It will always be the same price. Apple does not allow resellers to sell at any price other than the MSRP. They enforce their policy be cutting off or fining resellers that fail to comply.

So, when one goes onto price search engines and search for the iPod Nano and come up with a range of prices from $130 to $212, that's just a whole bunch of typos on a whole bunch of ecommerce sites?

Speaking of Apple's sales policy, did anyone else notice that the 2GB model is only available in "plain" silver, and the only black iPod is the 8GB model.

So, the 2GB black iPod Nano I just bought doesn't exist? Damn! But it looks so shiny!

Re:Apple's Pricing

[Venerable Vegetable]

You almost certainly bought a first generation iPod Nano which were available in black and white for each size (1, 2 and 4GB)

The second generation is white for 2GB, white, green, blue, pink or red for 4GB, and black for 8GB.

Re:Apple's Pricing

[mosb1000]

Technically speaking, you are correct. But, the main advantage of selling at a lower price than other resellers is increased sales. Of course, if you can't advertise a price that is lower than your competitors, it is very hard to gain any benefit from the reduced price (people wont buy something they don't know about). The effect is that you can't buy an Apple product priced significantly below the MSRP. Of course, there is a small range in sale prices. But it is not worth shopping around to find the best price.

Re:Apple's Pricing

[Pollardito]

Their strategy is brilliant though, by bundling the more attractive colors with larger amounts of memory they make it easier for people paying extra to justify the purchase to themselves. It's easy to see how a technophile who was only looking to spend $150 could be persuaded to put out another $100 for the black iPod they really want because it has four times the memory!

what about the technophile that wants an 8GB, but knows that they show scratches really easily? shouldn't you get more choices at each price level and not less?

Class

[QuoteMstr]

My software engineering professor uses the ipod as a prominent example of extremely bad design dominating the market. I'm not sure that I agree, but the ipod's success has a lot less to do with usability than with marketing.

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

Haha, well, if the iPod is "extremely bad design" then it's competitors, the Nomads, the Yepps, the X420s, etc, must be "extremely horrible design".

The iPods success has a lot to do with usability; insofar as usability is relative and the iPod was more usable than the competition.

You can believe if you want that marketing is the key to the iPods success, but if nothing else you would think an "extremely bad design" wouldn't last for five generations and three different models. I imagine good design and good usability has to account for longevity.

Re:Class

[argent]

There are some poorly designed music players and some well designed ones. The iPod isn't the worst, but it's not in the top 50%. The problem is that nobody else had produced designs that are as consistent (consistently good, consistently bad, consistently ANYTHING), and nobody else has maintained reasonably standardised interfaces that would let a peripheral ecosystem evolve around them.

but if nothing else you would think an "extremely bad design" wouldn't last for five generations and three different models

Why not? Apple learned long ago that it's more important to sales to stick by your designs no matter how bad they are (one button mouse, anyone?), and that changing a design will always get you hammered even if you're right.

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

Now I'm curious, who IS in the top 50%?

I had always thought of the iPod (at least since 2001, maybe not any more today) to be in the top 2 :)

In 2001 they had the following wins:
Highest storage density, compared to flash or 2.5" HDD
Fastest upload, compared to serial or USB
Simplest interface, at least compared to the 11 button Nomads and 9 button Rios
Easiest to manage, at least comparing iTunes to Explorer, Xing Encoder, and Winamp

Re:Class

[argent]

Now I'm curious, who IS in the top 50%?

In terms of *user interface*? I don't know who's in the top 50% now - I haven't even looked at the lineup in two years - though I'd put the iPod shuffle at or near the top of the "bare bones" category. The iPod interface hasn't changed significantly since then, and while the "best products" have been different every time I looked at them there have always been products better than the iPod from every manufacturer but Sony... though there's rarely been any with my preferred interface (which, ironically, was invented by Sony).

When I bought my daughter her first MP3 player I ended up going with one from a company I'd never heard of before, and I've never seen their products in a store: "Magic Star". Here's what I liked about it:

1. It looked like a flash drive to the computer. You just dragged files into it, and it played them - you didn't need any special software on the computer.
2. The controls were solid enough that they wouldn't be accidentally jiggled in a pocket or purse.
3. The controls could be reliably worked by feel.

#1 means it was automatically compatible with iTunes, and every other music player program out there. I'd been using it with iTunes pretty much like an iPod shuffle (without thinking that I was doing anything unusual, though according the the Steve I must have been :) ) for a couple of years before the Shuffle came out.

#2 and #3 means you don't have to look at it to do basic operations, and you don't have unnecessary extra steps (locking and unlocking the UI) every time you want to skip a song or tweak the volume. As far as I'm concerned, any music player that doesn't do #2 and #3 is automatically out of the "top 50%".

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

How highly subjective, your #2 and #3. I've owned an iPod since 2001 and I think it qualifies for #1 and #3. I grant that I do use hold to prevent accidental activation of my iPod, but that never phased me because I had already accounted for that through years of tape and CD players who also had hold switches.

I've NEVER found a better MP3 player in the intervening five years, and I have purchased three iPods since then, a 10gb to replace my 5gb (the then top of the line Creative was bigger, slower, and harder to use), a Shuffle for rollerblading (the then top of the line iRivers and Creatives cost more, were bigger, and harder to use) and then an iPod video (the then top of the line Creative Vision:M was bigger, though not harder to use, and the similar Archos were bigger and harder to use).

Re:Class

[argent]

#1 - drag files to you iPod from Finder or Windows Explorer, or use a command line to copy them there, even putting them in the magic invisible directory.

Now make it play them without running any magic database tweaking application.

It makes an OK storage device, but that ability has nothing to do with its use as a music player.

#2 - you can't carry tape and CD players in most pockets, so you don't have to fiddle with the hold switch. I balked at adding my iPod to my belt, I'd look like Batman if I added anything more.

#3 - I bought an iPod Mini and I tried to control that beggar by feel, and threw it up for the shuffle which, thank god, doesn't have the damned twitch-wheel.

But then I'd had a couple of non-iPod flash music players before then. None of which needed locking but didn't try and jam a dozen operations into five buttons and a scroller.

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

#1: That is where you are wrong. The magic directory and the magic database is EVERYTHING with it being a usable music player.
The magic database is a file you load into RAM, meaning that browsing 11gb of music is as fast as browsing 1gb of music because nothing is ever loaded from the HDD while browsing. This was a BIG deal for v1 of the iPod because it made the iPod both faster to use, faster to boot, and give it increased battery life.

The magic folder is called, in the programming world, a hash table. All your music is evenly divided amongst 100 directories such that the iPod can guarantee that access to each song is within a couple seconds of each other. This again made the iPod faster and gave it a longer runtime because you didn't have to perform variable length reads to access data. All data was available within a fixed number of directories and a fixed number of files.

#2: I carried a tape player for years in my pocket :D
Regardless, the hold switch is annoying.

#3: I guess it depends on what you mean by "feel". If you mean blindfolded, all I can do is pause and play because the center button is unique. Apple could improve the UI by embossing some sort of cardinal overlay on the scroll wheel.

Re:Class

[argent]

#1 - If that was all it was, the database could have a name like "iPod Music Library", in a visible "Music" folder, that you could copy files into from any application, and it could index the files as they were added. This might be minutely less efficient, but a slightly larger seek every three to five minutes is negligible compared to the rest of the power budget... and it'd only be a factor if you never played the music by album and never shuffled it.

The points:
* The iPod can create the database and keep it in a file on the disk.
* The file names don't matter, and the directory they're in doesn't matter, if their metadata is stored in the database.
* The iPod can cache the locations of the files, it doesn't need to read the directory, because it knows reliably when the file system has been modified.
* The files don't need to be hidden.

All the music on the iPod is hidden off in an invisible directory, with all the song file names replaced with a database ID. The only reason for this is to prevent you from reading your music back from your iPod, to prevent you from using your iPod with anything but iTunes, and to basically lock you in.

#3 I mean without looking at the iPod.

You're driving, it's night, and a song you forgot you put in there is gravel in your ears. Skip to the next track without glancing down. This kind of situation comes up a lot for me, because I like a good random playlist but there's always songs that are a bit too energetic for when you're concentrating on something...

The iPod is styled like a PDA, which looks nice, but you don't need to whack a button on your PDA while you're driving or otherwise distracted. PDA phones that use touch-sensitive controls have the same problem... you can't dial or control them by feel. That's why I'm not using a T-mobile Pocket PC any more. :)

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

All the music on the iPod is hidden off in an invisible directory, with all the song file names replaced with a database ID. The only reason for this is to prevent you from reading your music back from your iPod, to prevent you from using your iPod with anything but iTunes, and to basically lock you in.

That would be correct if it were true.

Except you CAN access the hidden directory without any tools, you CAN copy the songs off the iPod, you CAN drag them back into iTunes or ANY other player that reads ID3 tags, and you CAN use them again on any system.

There is too much conspiracy theory to think Apple did this for lock in.

Apple designed the system to run on a 70MHz CPU on a 1200mAH battery, and designed it to run for 12 hours. Every fraction of an Amp means something.

*If the iPod created it's own database, it means it would have to trawl through it's entire HDD to rebuild the database every time a file gets added. At 70MHz.
*The filenames DO matter if the files are Japanese, have spaces, or any other number of weirdness in them that a FAT32 FS cannot handle. Instead of weirdness, the iPod maps the files to generic characters (hashing) while the actual SONG name is stored in ID3 format.
*The folder names do matter. The iPod guarantees that every song is no more than 3 folders deep and that no more than 100 songs exist in each folder. This actually does speed up file access due to the way file systems are designed.
*The folder is hidden to prevent a user from accidentally messing up the control structure needed to ensure performance and battery life.

If you haven't guessed these features are STILL important.
1st gen iPod, 5gb, 1200mAh battery, 12 hours
5th gen iPod, 30gb, 550mAh battery, 14 hours

Apple has been shrinking the iPod every generation, and the only way to do that is to make it every MORE efficient.

Re:Class

[argent]

Except you CAN access the hidden directory without any tools, you CAN copy the songs off the iPod, you CAN drag them back into iTunes or ANY other player that reads ID3 tags, and you CAN use them again on any system.

You're looking at it the wrong way around.

The problem I'm talking about is not that you can't pull the music off the iPod, the problem is that you can't go the other way. You can't put music on the iPod without iTunes or special tools.

If the iPod created it's own database, it means it would have to trawl through it's entire HDD to rebuild the database every time a file gets added.

It would only have to read the most recently changed files in the music folder.

At 70MHz.

70 MHz is pretty damn fast. We used to run multiuser systems with gigabytes of data on 286/12s. Since all it needs to do to locate the updated files is read file names... and do it *while it's plugged in*... the 'trawling through the file system' problem isn't a big deal.

The filenames DO matter if the files are Japanese, have spaces, or any other number of weirdness in them that a FAT32 FS cannot handle.

FAT32 actually can handle a lot of the weirdness you're talking about, and both Apple and Microsoft have ways to hide the stuff it can't (Apple certainly does, and you couldn't run Windows NT on FAT32 if Microsoft couldn't)... and how it handles it or how the file names are modified isn't something the iPod needs to care about: it uses ID3 tags, not file names. The user only even sees them *if* they're not using iTunes *and* they go and pull the files out *and* they put the files in on a Mac and pulled them out on a Windows box which doesn't know to look at the ._xxx resource/finder-info files.

The folder names do matter. The iPod guarantees that every song is no more than 3 folders deep and that no more than 100 songs exist in each folder. This actually does speed up file access due to the way file systems are designed.

The start of each file's extent or the equivalent structures in HFS can be cached by the iPod.

The folder is hidden to prevent a user from accidentally messing up the control structure needed to ensure performance and battery life.

It's not as necessary as you seem to think. In fact if the iPod is really going *through* the file system for every song every time it's less efficient than it should be.

Re:Class

[2nd Post!]

So here's the real question then.
1) Why should the user need to manage and organize their own files when a program, such as iTunes, does it for them? It is analogous to asking why a user should need to manage tracks and sectors when a program, such as Windows, does it for them?
2) Why should a user need to drag and drop files and keep track of new files when a program, such as iTunes, does it for them? It is analogous to why a user should need to keep track of open and available sectors on a HDD when a program, such as Windows, does it for them?
3) Why should the iPod need to manage the database when a program, such as iTunes, already does it for it?

What are you suggesting, anyway, if the iPod doesn't go through the file system? The FS exists because it is a known, stable, tested system. If Apple were to throw that away and roll their own, what benefits would they accrue?

Re:Class

[argent]

Why should the user need to manage and organize their own files when a program, such as iTunes, does it for them?

They don't like iTunes, and keep their music in another program.

They use Linux or FreeBSD.

They want to load some music from a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed.

You might as well ask "Why should the user need to manage and organize their own files whan a program, such a SoundJam, does it for them?"

And they have a Mac.

Why should a user need to drag and drop files and keep track of new files when a program, such as iTunes, does it for them?

Same answer.

Why should the iPod need to manage the database when a program, such as iTunes, already does it for it?

Same answer.

What are you suggesting, anyway, if the iPod doesn't go through the file system?

I'm not suggesting that it not use the file system, I'm suggesting that it not traverse the file system to open files it's already seen. There's no reason the version of the file system code on the iPod couldn't have "Get Alias for File" and "Open File by Alias"... with the Alias being the Extent on FAT32 or the (ahem) Alias on an HFS-formatted iPod.

It's particularly amusing to consider that Apple provides the equivalent calls in Mac OS and Mac OS X... and they have actually been the preferred format for programs to store references to files in. That is, Apple had already implemented this scheme on the Macintosh! Why not the iPod, which was originally using the same file system?

Why Ipod

[Timtimes]

It works. It works well and is supported like no other in the market (peripherals). Does it cost more than it should/could? Your call, but it's amusing to see so many of the slashcrowd complain when you know they're dropping sixty bucks on a PS2 game (or equiv.) I bought the 60 gig model a couple months ago. It's great for music, but I'm also finding a lot of podcasts (Bill Mahr Realtime e.g.) that I like. My Ipod also acts a backup for all my MP3's. That could be done cheaper with a true portable hard drive, but I get the advantage of being able to use my Ipod as the source for my car audio. Bottom line: complain about the price of something you can't live without instead of harping on the price of something that is truely a superfluous purchase. Enjoy.

Re:Slashdot: Apple releases = iPod Apple service

[Anonymous Coward]

The CHOICE iSHONK for Dual-level Shonkyness

Goes to the...

APPLE iPod
(CHOICE Computer, Sep/Oct 2005, and CHOICE, July 2006)
An iPod is a significant investment, so you don't want your APPLE to be a lemon. And if there is something wrong with it, you'd expect an easy repair and warranty service. Podluck.

Level 1. Several readers complained about cracked screens, faulty batteries and problems with sound reproduction.

Level 2. APPLE doesn't allow retailers to handle complaints under warranty (which is their obligation under Fair Trading laws) -- you have to send your faulty iPod to APPLE yourself via Australia Post. And if they decide the fault isn't covered by the warranty, you'll have to foot the entire bill.

my take on the ipod

[scharkalvin]

The ipod doesn't have all the features, (am/fm radio would be nice,
maybe even an HD am/fm radio) but they are generally reliable gizmos
that do what they should. Battery life could be better, but I think
part of the problem here is how the user treats it. Letting LiIon batteries
discharge too low for too long (too often) can kill them.

What I dislike about the ipod is how often Apple has discontinued a model
in favor of a new one (adding features but dropping others). The ipod mini
is IMHO about the right size and shape. Also it's built like a tank. The
nano is too small, (the screen is a myopics nightmare) and it scratches
very easily. If only they had added a color screen to the mini and substituted
flash memory for the mini-disk but kept the same size and metal case.

Dropping support for firewire was another thing. I can understand this though,
since when the first ipod's came out USB 2.0 was not yet there so firewire was
needed. Today though there isn't much difference in speed between USB and Firewire
(480 vs 400 mbs).

Question: Can you still charge the new ipods via a firewire
connection? With the firewire 12v supply the ipod charges faster than with usb's
5v supply. I think the pinout of the ipod docking connector still supports the
12v power supply.

The new ipod shuffle is TOO small. (why don't they put the damn thing on a ring
to wear on your hand, or maybe on a stick pin to wear as a tie tack or a cufflink?)

Re:my take on the ipod

[I kan Spl]

"Question: Can you still charge the new ipods via a firewire
connection? With the firewire 12v supply the ipod charges faster than with usb's
5v supply. I think the pinout of the ipod docking connector still supports the
12v power supply."

Yes you can, however it does not seem to charge any faster.

Well, I only know brittish meat pies

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they disgusting? It is a british food item. There are many great national kitchens and if you are lucky enough to live in a large place with lots of different cultures you can easily find the more popular ones. The ones serving REAL english food however are rare indeed even in tourists centers.

That is because british food, indeed any food from any british colony is BAD.

With factory processing and the constant quest to drive food prices down there is a lot of pressure to use more of the animal then just the prime cuts.

Meat steamed of the carcass, parts usually not indicated on the butcher charts of cows/pigs etc etc. To the british this is nothing new. There is not a single british dish that involves any "normal" part of an animal. Feet, head and intestines. That is the meat the brits grow up in, the parts that are even to disgusting for that are saved up for meat pies.

I have tried several over the years and they are all uniformly bad. Not just bad as in say McD burger bad but bad as in a burger made from mysterie meat by your crazy aunt and wonder bread.

A meat pie consist of a pasty outer shell. In theory it should hold some volume, but inreality it is wet piece of tasteless cooked dough on the bottom and bone dry half-baked tasteless pastry on top.

In between is the remains of an animal in a "sauce" cooked till all taste has been removed that ofen will contain a bit of meat you do regonize and wish you didn't.

As Terry Pratchett noted there is a reason local delicasies remain local delicasies. Pizza is great and it spread all over the world. You can get a coke pretty much everywhere. A hamburger with fries. Sure thing. Even Sushi can be found in the larger cities.

The british Fish&Chips stores and meat pie vendors have not spread. It is a local delicacy. Stay away.

Oh and a footy is a soccer game.

Re:Well, I only know brittish meat pies

[Anonymous Coward]

The british Fish&Chips stores and meat pie vendors have not spread.

Fair enough comment on the meat pie, but I have travelled extensively through europe/asia and america and their has always been fish and chips available on most menus. (yes even in asia)

I agree.

[argent]

The click-wheel in particular is horribly finicky to use and since it's touch-sensitive you have to lock it when it's in your pocket... so Apple gets to sell you a wired remote for more money that's got the solid controls that should have been on the case in the first place.

The shuffle is a much better designed product.

Aluminum

[mosb1000]

The new iPod nanos are all made of anodized aluminum. They shouldn't scratch the way the old black ones did.

Re:Boycott Apple

[ztransform]

When I ask people in London to turn down their iPods they say "how can you hear it? I can barely hear it myself!" followed by (depending on race, usually) varying levels of verbal assault followed by threats of physical assault. It's not good enough to expect average Joe to consider people around him; companies know this and exploit this fact to produce cheap but low quality goods that harm the environment (even the audio space around us).

Just as it is not okay for a company to dump pollutants in a river surely we can expect companies not to dump cheap leaking headphones into the auditory environment that few of us can easily escape.