They were careful to attribute the source of pro-Zune/M$ buzz to several very misleading stories by NPD and Steve Ballmer.
Thank god someone has finally stepped up and debunked Ballmer's overzealous claims regarding the Zune's success!! Someone has GOT to keep the media in line after all.
And applying your same reasoning one could say that OS X hasn't "sold" nearly the numbers it has. However, your original conclusion is unfounded because you haven't demonstrated that most people who buy PCs do not want Windows to be included. I'd say most people do want Windows and it is one of the main reasons they buy their PCs. Similarly, it will be a rare Mac user out there who wanted to buy only the hardware and not get the OS.
By their reasoning, new cutting edge games are also bad for the environment. I have done more hardware upgrades for the sake of gaming than I ever did for an OS.
Nowhere does it say there will be no third party apps available.
You are splitting hairs here. The part of TFA that you quoted confirms the title. He says you will be able to buy additional apps --- from Apple. Yeah, maybe they don't write the apps, but those 3rd parties will not be free to write and sell the apps under their own name. They will have to contract with Apple. That is not the kind of 3rd party app process the topic poster was referring to.
You think that ads targeted toward "Young, hip people" are more effective toward actual young hip people, or older people who are desperately craving to be young and hip?
Most of what I have read recently about the "young, hip" dude in those Apple commercials was that he wasn't appealing to anybody. The ads tend to generate more sympathy and interest in the PC guy and is one of the reasons they are dropping the actor that has played the Mac thus far.
Oh, and btw, that's pretty incredibly condescending you're being toward "older people" there. While I am sure there are some older people desperately craving to be young and hip, I think the truth is most are extremely comfortable with themselves and actually find the young and hip mostly immature and foolish. But perhaps you are right and Apple is targeting that narrow, insecure older set in these ads.
The batteries in ALL models of iPod are replaceable, both by Apple, or via several third parties for as little as $25. Third parties offer do-it-yourself kits, and some will also do the replacement for you. The warranty on the iPod is one year, it DOES cover the batteries, and can be extended to two years for $60.
When people say the batteries are not replaceable, they mean the product is not designed for the end-user to easily change the batteries, particularly without violating the product warranty. Of course the batteries are literally replaceable, but the entire iPod experience is about keeping things bone-dead simple for end users. Having to send or take the iPod to Apple or some authorized 3rd party to have the batteries replaced is a huge annoyance. Compared to a device whose batteries are designed to be conveniently end-user replaceable, the iPod's batteries are "not replaceable."
I think, however, people should not feel too threatened that the iPod may not be completely perfect in all aspects.
I am prepared to wait [for the official release]. I want my experience of Leopard to be without prejudice.
BTW, I installed Windows Vista Beta Preview a couple of weeks ago, just for fun and it confirmed what I had anticipated - I will not be buying an upgrade to Windows Vista, nor will I purchase any machine with it pre-installed.
Interesting that you want to preserve your experience with Leopard until it is released so you can see it first in its final, refined form, but didn't apply that same attitude to Vista. In fact, you've now passed judgement on Vista, regardless of how well (or not) it will be when finally released.
I just want Leopard to be better--much better--than the OS that Steve Jobs and company described this week and, yes, I want Apple to be more honest when it describes the products it and its competitors make.
The main point of the article was he felt Job's FUD machine was particularly over-the-top, not to prescribe specific ways they can improve the actual OS. Based on the moderated up responses here so far, apparently any criticism of Apple at all is too much for their fans to bear.
While we're on the topic of anecdotes (and how those prove beyond a doubt that what you're saying is true in all cases), I'd love to throw mine into the mix.
Whew! Thank you! Apple's sterling reputation is restored!!
I believe that was copyright, not patent, though I could be wrong.
Yeah, you are probably right. But as far as I am concerned, it is the same concept here. Using the courts to protect rather ordinary and obvious aspects of products to artificially reduce competition -- no thanks!
Because with God as their witness, no one else ever thought of a portable, digital music player.
I agree. The same could be said for putting a trashcan icon on a GUI desktop designed to emulate an office work space. Mundane, obvious stuff like this shouldn't be patentable.
The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01.
OK, that line is so tiresome. If you really want to go there, then let's give credit where credit is due. The Bush administration spectacularly failed to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks on 9/11. They have the distinction of allowing the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
Lump that fact together with their response to those events of embroiling us in a war with a country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. You should be able to see why there is a great deal of skepticism in their ability to deal effectively with terrorism.
The biggest thing I have learned from the Bush administration is the appalling numbers of Americans who apparently have little use for our country's founding principles.
It's hard to trust the reviewer when he writes about how disappointed he is, but still gives the product 5/5.
I agree, that is strange. But I suspect most of us are reading only the 5th page of his review, where he talks about how Vista disappoints. There are four other pages there where he discusses things he does like. Still don't see how that equates to 5/5 (maybe should be 4/5 or 3/5).
There's no better way to look clueless than to suggest that people who choose iPod are "swayed by fashion or other irrelevant criteria" and then proceed to list off completely pedestrian features like gapless playback and FM radio.
The majority of DAP users are not computer geeks anymore, they're music fans, and most of them use iPod/iTunes. You may be an audiophile, but you don't understand music or the creative ways people are organizing and listening to their music. Technology enthusiasts simply aren't qualified to offer advice to most music fans.
What's clueless is to confuse "most music fans" with the phrase "music geek", which you essentially have. You are actually describing casual listeners, which you appear to be. No harm in that, but casual listeners are far from those who understand music. In fact, confusing computer and/or technology geekdom with being an audiophile is further evidence that you missed my point.
I will grant you most music fans don't understand the value of something as merely pedestrian as gapless playback. That's because most music fans are geared toward radio and/or making their own mixes. And precious few ever listen to classical music. So, they are typically uninterested in the fact that an artist may have created a song suite which they intended to be played in total. Fair enough. Lot's to be said for being the listener and deciding what you want to listen to. But, it also leads to ignorance and a lack of appreciation for the artist's efforts. And that is evidence that they don't truly understand the music.
Your last sentence says what you were trying to say the first time: that technology enthusiasts don't understand how the average music listener listens to music. On that, I am much more likely to agree. The care and feeding of those masses is better managed by business and marketing types.
The ultimate point here is that, in the larger discussion regarding Rockbox on the iPod, that firmware enables all types of music fans to listen to music in the various ways they like. The iPod (and most other DAPs) does not.
A "wealth of codecs" is only really important when you are pirating your music from fellow people who cannot decide on a single standard and you don't want to have to be bothered to convert your booty before it goes to your player.
This is unbelievably ignorant. A wealth of codecs means that you have a wealth of choices. It means that the vast population of digital music listening people are likely to find their chosen format(s) is supported by this firmware.
For individuals, they most certainly can and do have multiple formats of music in their collection legally. I have some mp3's and a vast amount of ogg vorbis. The mp3's were free downloads. The ogg vorbis are all ripped from my own CD collection. I also have some WAV files, which are my own recordings. And I happen to like the fact that I actually have the choice to try some of the other codecs, particularly the lossless ones, such as FLAC.
The music geek in me thinks that these guys don't understand music. The music geek has a long list of iPod improvements he'd like to see, relating to music organization, selection, and randomization. When he compares his list of improvements to what is offered by Rockbox (and others), he laughs and wonders why these people waste their time.
No, an iPod geek is the one who has a long list of iPod improvements he'd like to see.
A music geek has a long list of music-related features he'd like to have and will not be swayed by fashion or other irrelevant criteria for deciding what DAP he wants. A music geek wants to be in control of his music, not just its organization and classification. A music geek cares about things like gapless playback & parametric equalization. A music geek looks for a way to get features/improvements he wants but are not currently available in currently offered products. Many music geeks have concluded that getting involved with Rockbox, whether by coding, testing, or just contributing to debates about features is a good way to gain those missing things. Experience has shown they are correct. Fools may laugh at this, but music geeks don't care.
I woudl be crippling my iPod by using rockbox. It would take away video from my 5th gen.
Today, yes. But not necessarily true tomorrow. Keep checking back. Support for the iPod is still fairly new and they are adding to the feature list all the time.
So tell me again, as someone who has his CD collection ripped in AAC, an open format that actually isn't half bad, why I, and the vast majority of iPod owners, would want to downgrade their iPod experience?
No, I don't think anybody should bother explaining that to you. Ignorance can be bliss and I see no reason to create a sense of dissatisfaction among the iPod masses. You've already concluded it would be a "downgrade", so you should stay in your happy world.
If, on the other hand, at some point you should find yourself frustrated with the lack of a feature in your chosen DAP, remember this article. Consider it a friendly tip that there are good choices out there that empower you to use your DAP the way YOU want to use it.
I currently use Rockbox on my iRiver and it made what was already an outstanding DAP even better. I was curious enough to do just a little investigating over at www.rockbox.org when I finally was frustrated enough with the lack of gapless playback of my songs. I then found that there were several features Rockbox offered that I would like to have and gave it a go. I've been happy with it for a year now. It bothers me not in the least if Rockbox never gains widespread fame. I only care that there is enough interest in it to keep development going and that appears to be quite true.
BTW, some corrections to a couple of your points. First, Rockbox is not "build it from scratch" software. It can be, if you're interested. But for appliance mode people, you just install the pre-built firmware and you're ready to play.
Second, the UI does not suck. It does pale in comparison to the iPod, but it is quite functional and easy to learn. One nice thing is that it does evolve. If something doesn't make sense, it gets corrected. I consider the small investment in learning the UI basics to be a very cheap price for the additional features I get with Rockbox. A UI that a simpleton could navigate does me no good if I still have a DAP that doesn't work well as a music player.
Anyhow, enjoy your Apple product. I'm enjoying my iRiver and Rockbox.
You're completely missing the point, which is that the C|Net article says "omg if it was a minor announcement why did they hold it in the same place they released the iPod?!?!?!"
Exactly. That was C|NET's point, in defense of media-overhyping (i.e. they blame Apple for holding the announcement there).
Then, we have the OP claiming this is lame because the announcement in 2001 was a tiny one -- the location should not raise expectations to the degree they were raised.
To which I replied that we are now in 2006 and things have changed. In 2001, that location was insignificant and the announcement was tiny. In 2006, the place has history behind it and Apple have become huge in the mp3 world. So, it is not unreasonable to think an announcement at this "hallowed" location could lead to heightened expectations.
Apple did no hyping whatsoever - they sent out invitations to the event to a few relavent people and nothing more. The media took those invitations and plastered them over the internet and made wild declarations of what's the latest gadget that'll be coming out of Cupertino.
Sweet apologia, man! Surely Apple can have a small, public announcement, with Jobs himself doing the honors, without the whole world thinking something significant is about to be said! Stupid world!
Yes, but then when Apple comes out with their own iSuppository, you can damn well bet everyone will think it the best thing yet and an Apple innovation!
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god someone has finally stepped up and debunked Ballmer's overzealous claims regarding the Zune's success!! Someone has GOT to keep the media in line after all.
And applying your same reasoning one could say that OS X hasn't "sold" nearly the numbers it has. However, your original conclusion is unfounded because you haven't demonstrated that most people who buy PCs do not want Windows to be included. I'd say most people do want Windows and it is one of the main reasons they buy their PCs. Similarly, it will be a rare Mac user out there who wanted to buy only the hardware and not get the OS.
Are you implying that you can buy a Mac that is not bundled with an OS? Seriously, I don't know. Is that true?
Regardless, the parent topic demonstrates there is a free market. You can buy a personal computer w/o Windows on it. Mac owners do it all the time.
By their reasoning, new cutting edge games are also bad for the environment. I have done more hardware upgrades for the sake of gaming than I ever did for an OS.
You are splitting hairs here. The part of TFA that you quoted confirms the title. He says you will be able to buy additional apps --- from Apple. Yeah, maybe they don't write the apps, but those 3rd parties will not be free to write and sell the apps under their own name. They will have to contract with Apple. That is not the kind of 3rd party app process the topic poster was referring to.
Most of what I have read recently about the "young, hip" dude in those Apple commercials was that he wasn't appealing to anybody. The ads tend to generate more sympathy and interest in the PC guy and is one of the reasons they are dropping the actor that has played the Mac thus far.
Oh, and btw, that's pretty incredibly condescending you're being toward "older people" there. While I am sure there are some older people desperately craving to be young and hip, I think the truth is most are extremely comfortable with themselves and actually find the young and hip mostly immature and foolish. But perhaps you are right and Apple is targeting that narrow, insecure older set in these ads.
When people say the batteries are not replaceable, they mean the product is not designed for the end-user to easily change the batteries, particularly without violating the product warranty. Of course the batteries are literally replaceable, but the entire iPod experience is about keeping things bone-dead simple for end users. Having to send or take the iPod to Apple or some authorized 3rd party to have the batteries replaced is a huge annoyance. Compared to a device whose batteries are designed to be conveniently end-user replaceable, the iPod's batteries are "not replaceable."
I think, however, people should not feel too threatened that the iPod may not be completely perfect in all aspects.
Interesting that you want to preserve your experience with Leopard until it is released so you can see it first in its final, refined form, but didn't apply that same attitude to Vista. In fact, you've now passed judgement on Vista, regardless of how well (or not) it will be when finally released.
You didn't read the article, did you? He specifically acknowledged (and hoped for the value of) the things promised but not shown.
From TFA:
The main point of the article was he felt Job's FUD machine was particularly over-the-top, not to prescribe specific ways they can improve the actual OS. Based on the moderated up responses here so far, apparently any criticism of Apple at all is too much for their fans to bear.
Whew! Thank you! Apple's sterling reputation is restored!!
Yeah, you are probably right. But as far as I am concerned, it is the same concept here. Using the courts to protect rather ordinary and obvious aspects of products to artificially reduce competition -- no thanks!
I agree. The same could be said for putting a trashcan icon on a GUI desktop designed to emulate an office work space. Mundane, obvious stuff like this shouldn't be patentable.
OK, that line is so tiresome. If you really want to go there, then let's give credit where credit is due. The Bush administration spectacularly failed to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks on 9/11. They have the distinction of allowing the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
Lump that fact together with their response to those events of embroiling us in a war with a country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. You should be able to see why there is a great deal of skepticism in their ability to deal effectively with terrorism.
The biggest thing I have learned from the Bush administration is the appalling numbers of Americans who apparently have little use for our country's founding principles.
I agree, that is strange. But I suspect most of us are reading only the 5th page of his review, where he talks about how Vista disappoints. There are four other pages there where he discusses things he does like. Still don't see how that equates to 5/5 (maybe should be 4/5 or 3/5).
What's clueless is to confuse "most music fans" with the phrase "music geek", which you essentially have. You are actually describing casual listeners, which you appear to be. No harm in that, but casual listeners are far from those who understand music. In fact, confusing computer and/or technology geekdom with being an audiophile is further evidence that you missed my point.
I will grant you most music fans don't understand the value of something as merely pedestrian as gapless playback. That's because most music fans are geared toward radio and/or making their own mixes. And precious few ever listen to classical music. So, they are typically uninterested in the fact that an artist may have created a song suite which they intended to be played in total. Fair enough. Lot's to be said for being the listener and deciding what you want to listen to. But, it also leads to ignorance and a lack of appreciation for the artist's efforts. And that is evidence that they don't truly understand the music.
Your last sentence says what you were trying to say the first time: that technology enthusiasts don't understand how the average music listener listens to music. On that, I am much more likely to agree. The care and feeding of those masses is better managed by business and marketing types.
The ultimate point here is that, in the larger discussion regarding Rockbox on the iPod, that firmware enables all types of music fans to listen to music in the various ways they like. The iPod (and most other DAPs) does not.
This is unbelievably ignorant. A wealth of codecs means that you have a wealth of choices. It means that the vast population of digital music listening people are likely to find their chosen format(s) is supported by this firmware.
For individuals, they most certainly can and do have multiple formats of music in their collection legally. I have some mp3's and a vast amount of ogg vorbis. The mp3's were free downloads. The ogg vorbis are all ripped from my own CD collection. I also have some WAV files, which are my own recordings. And I happen to like the fact that I actually have the choice to try some of the other codecs, particularly the lossless ones, such as FLAC.
Remember, choices are a good thing.
No, an iPod geek is the one who has a long list of iPod improvements he'd like to see.
A music geek has a long list of music-related features he'd like to have and will not be swayed by fashion or other irrelevant criteria for deciding what DAP he wants. A music geek wants to be in control of his music, not just its organization and classification. A music geek cares about things like gapless playback & parametric equalization. A music geek looks for a way to get features/improvements he wants but are not currently available in currently offered products. Many music geeks have concluded that getting involved with Rockbox, whether by coding, testing, or just contributing to debates about features is a good way to gain those missing things. Experience has shown they are correct. Fools may laugh at this, but music geeks don't care.
Today, yes. But not necessarily true tomorrow. Keep checking back. Support for the iPod is still fairly new and they are adding to the feature list all the time.
No, I don't think anybody should bother explaining that to you. Ignorance can be bliss and I see no reason to create a sense of dissatisfaction among the iPod masses. You've already concluded it would be a "downgrade", so you should stay in your happy world.
If, on the other hand, at some point you should find yourself frustrated with the lack of a feature in your chosen DAP, remember this article. Consider it a friendly tip that there are good choices out there that empower you to use your DAP the way YOU want to use it.
I currently use Rockbox on my iRiver and it made what was already an outstanding DAP even better. I was curious enough to do just a little investigating over at www.rockbox.org when I finally was frustrated enough with the lack of gapless playback of my songs. I then found that there were several features Rockbox offered that I would like to have and gave it a go. I've been happy with it for a year now. It bothers me not in the least if Rockbox never gains widespread fame. I only care that there is enough interest in it to keep development going and that appears to be quite true.
BTW, some corrections to a couple of your points. First, Rockbox is not "build it from scratch" software. It can be, if you're interested. But for appliance mode people, you just install the pre-built firmware and you're ready to play.
Second, the UI does not suck. It does pale in comparison to the iPod, but it is quite functional and easy to learn. One nice thing is that it does evolve. If something doesn't make sense, it gets corrected. I consider the small investment in learning the UI basics to be a very cheap price for the additional features I get with Rockbox. A UI that a simpleton could navigate does me no good if I still have a DAP that doesn't work well as a music player.
Anyhow, enjoy your Apple product. I'm enjoying my iRiver and Rockbox.
I'd seriously like to know what freedom and flexibility you feel Ipod Linux provides that Rockbox does not.
Exactly. That was C|NET's point, in defense of media-overhyping (i.e. they blame Apple for holding the announcement there).
Then, we have the OP claiming this is lame because the announcement in 2001 was a tiny one -- the location should not raise expectations to the degree they were raised.
To which I replied that we are now in 2006 and things have changed. In 2001, that location was insignificant and the announcement was tiny. In 2006, the place has history behind it and Apple have become huge in the mp3 world. So, it is not unreasonable to think an announcement at this "hallowed" location could lead to heightened expectations.
Apples and oranges (groan!). 2001/2006 -- very different worlds in mp3-land.
Sweet apologia, man! Surely Apple can have a small, public announcement, with Jobs himself doing the honors, without the whole world thinking something significant is about to be said! Stupid world!
Yes, but then when Apple comes out with their own iSuppository, you can damn well bet everyone will think it the best thing yet and an Apple innovation!