First it is the outlook. Ugly? It's very personal. When the 3nd generation iPod released, people where talking about the same thing. Indeed on the first sight I saw it on web, I don't like it. (I own the first generation iPod 10GB) But when I saw the real object and putting in my hands, oh, it is good. So you see it's very personal.
Price / Peformance. For me $249 seems to be expensive just for 4GB, $199USD will be excellent. But once again it's not only talking about the capacity, about also the interface design (not talking about outlook), how it seamleely work with iTunes. And indeed right now iPod is more than just a mp3 player. It become a fashion item. The decision of buying is more than the capacity.
Apple Computer selling a $499USD "music player" crazy. On the other hands I see lots of people doesn't need so much space. even 10GB seems too much. The Creative Mp3 player which feataure 1.5GB is already big for many user. (not for me, of course) So 4GB seems to be alright. It didn't attract all the user from high end ipod to the low end one. It's "cheaper" so more people can afford. And when you need more space you can always buy the "high end" ipod. It's up to you.
In fact as Apple is the current leader in these mp3 player and earn so much revenue out of this market, I don't see they are necessary to drop the price so fast, even if they could; $199 would be fine but still lots of people would buy the $249 one. Remember when iPod first release nobody realize it will sell like crazy in today. In reality, it is EXPENSIVE no matter how good the design is. Now it's the first step targeting the low end (price) market. If it isn't don't really well, they can always drop the price, release a 2GB model, they got the move.
Perhaps what so disappointed to all of us is because we heard too much rumor, and we regard rumor as truth.
Choice is only necessary when one is not enough. It may sound great when you have several thosand of choice, but eventually you end up to use one or two.
Is iTunes the best? Maybe. Most of the people complain it's not fast enough and they don't like everything get organize so much. (They like Winamp. True it's very fast when compare current version of iTunes for win, and as i know many people never care about the id3 tag, they all get their own way to organize their mp3)
But it's about get used to.
Actually that actually sound like you never clean up your room and devleop your own way to find your stuff. And suddenly some body (Your mom, maybe) give you a way and get everything organized. You don't believe it's a better way, but it's defintely better once you get clean up.
Even though Apple really switch to X86 hardware, can't it keep it as a close platform? IT's like Xbox is using Pentium 3 and Nvidia graphic chips, using typical PC hardware, but you can't run those games directly on your PC;
So i was thinking even though Apple switch to x86 platform, the os has been ported to x86, but it doesn't necessary mean it will run on other typical "PC". Apple may still develop unique component, either hardware or software side in the "Mac".
And even though they are running with the same processor, Mac OS could run better and faster, just like Linux on PC.
Although this one didn't mention they "copy" Matrix, or they like
Matrix, and the Director deny it has something to related to Matrix,
but the fact is that it feel like Matrix.
Slashdot Mirror
First it is the outlook. Ugly? It's very personal. When the 3nd generation iPod released, people where talking about the same thing. Indeed on the first sight I saw it on web, I don't like it. (I own the first generation iPod 10GB) But when I saw the real object and putting in my hands, oh, it is good. So you see it's very personal.
Price / Peformance. For me $249 seems to be expensive just for 4GB, $199USD will be excellent. But once again it's not only talking about the capacity, about also the interface design (not talking about outlook), how it seamleely work with iTunes. And indeed right now iPod is more than just a mp3 player. It become a fashion item. The decision of buying is more than the capacity.
Apple Computer selling a $499USD "music player" crazy. On the other hands I see lots of people doesn't need so much space. even 10GB seems too much. The Creative Mp3 player which feataure 1.5GB is already big for many user. (not for me, of course) So 4GB seems to be alright. It didn't attract all the user from high end ipod to the low end one. It's "cheaper" so more people can afford. And when you need more space you can always buy the "high end" ipod. It's up to you.
In fact as Apple is the current leader in these mp3 player and earn so much revenue out of this market, I don't see they are necessary to drop the price so fast, even if they could; $199 would be fine but still lots of people would buy the $249 one. Remember when iPod first release nobody realize it will sell like crazy in today. In reality, it is EXPENSIVE no matter how good the design is. Now it's the first step targeting the low end (price) market. If it isn't don't really well, they can always drop the price, release a 2GB model, they got the move.
Perhaps what so disappointed to all of us is because we heard too much rumor, and we regard rumor as truth.
Choice is only necessary when one is not enough. It may sound great when you have several thosand of choice, but eventually you end up to use one or two.
Is iTunes the best? Maybe. Most of the people complain it's not fast enough and they don't like everything get organize so much. (They like Winamp. True it's very fast when compare current version of iTunes for win, and as i know many people never care about the id3 tag, they all get their own way to organize their mp3)
But it's about get used to.
Actually that actually sound like you never clean up your room and devleop your own way to find your stuff. And suddenly some body (Your mom, maybe) give you a way and get everything organized. You don't believe it's a better way, but it's defintely better once you get clean up.
Even though Apple really switch to X86 hardware, can't it keep it as a close platform? IT's like Xbox is using Pentium 3 and Nvidia graphic chips, using typical PC hardware, but you can't run those games directly on your PC; So i was thinking even though Apple switch to x86 platform, the os has been ported to x86, but it doesn't necessary mean it will run on other typical "PC". Apple may still develop unique component, either hardware or software side in the "Mac". And even though they are running with the same processor, Mac OS could run better and faster, just like Linux on PC.
It looks like an Apple has been spited in two parts... a broken glass one
Some people send me this link:
http://geekadv.finacstudio.com/html/2minutes.html
Although this one didn't mention they "copy" Matrix, or they like Matrix, and the Director deny it has something to related to Matrix, but the fact is that it feel like Matrix.