Originally Posted by Techno-Dann Once again, you are completely correct, Wil.
Well, not really. But mostly.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with your claim that iTunes/iPod is the best media player ever. For Mac, it is. There's simply no competition. However, for PCs, I'd rather run something that speaks a more standard format, like, say *.MP3. For that matter, why do they even call the iPod an MP3 player to begin with? (But, I digress.) If I'm using a PC, running a PC OS, I'd rather use a more standard PC audio format than *.AAC.
I want to be able to use my collection of *.MP3s, so I'm not going to buy an iPod. It's really that simple.
You forgot something: With far more overhead. Aside from that, absolutely. The more I hear about Vista, the less I like it.
Dunno who you've talked to, but iPods can play MP3s fine. You can even set it to the default ripping format in iTunes. They just can't do WMAs, and in any case it'll automatically transcode unprotected WMAs to whatever your ripping choice is.
In any case, AAC is the codec name, not the extension. It uses .M4A, .M4B and .M4P files (for AAC audio, AAC audiobooks/"spoken word content" and protected of either one respectively). Do get your facts straight before hating ;)
So first party apps let you use .MP3 files on an iPod. Third party as well (who ends up as the second party, anyways?), but it's not necessary. The only time you'd need to use a third party app is to transcode open codecs like OGG and FLAC (unless you can be bothered to do the burn-and-rerip method).
In any case, MP3 isn't open, per se, it's just ubiquitous. Almost like windows - it's certainly not open (hacking jokes aside), but almost everyone uses it.
Originally Posted by Etacovda "On Bit-Tech forums, you can voice any opinion."
And yet, in that thread, you were threatened with being banned if you did so. Doesn't sound particularly democratic to me... i know for a fact that i could build a comp faster, better and quieter than the alienware pc - doesnt mean theres not a market for it, but you were specifically told NOT TO SAY THAT in that discussion thread, which suggests 'dont make the people that sent us this stuff mad!'. Thats not a debate, thats a moderated discussion where if you say the wrong thing, you're out.
Wow, way to read what you wanted to read rather than what bigz actually said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigz The next person to troll this thread with "I can build the same system for less" without providing sufficient evidence of it being available for purchase in the UK will have their account suspended for a week. I have no problems with people saying this system is overpriced if they can back up their claims. In simple terms, trolls are not welcome on bit-tech's forums.
Now let us end this little attention-distracting aside, and get back to the matter at hand. Wil is a dirty Apple fanboy, but he makes some worthwhile points, live with it ;)
An Editor of mine always used to say to me: "Wil, your writing is great, but damn... your opinion columns need more bloody opinions, you English *insert torrent of abuse here*."
I was writing this column thinking... "Hmmm, opinions..." ;)
It's probably worth adding in a couple of my own points here in response.
I really do think Apple have the market cornered in MP3 players. I have a mini, my girlfriend has a nano, all my colleagues in the office have either a mini, nano or video. I have seen hundreds of these things, and I have honestly never seen anything better. That is my opinion, but it's also one that's held by a lot of other people.
CES / Engadget: Don't get me wrong, CES was awesome, and in moaning about it, I'm using a little bit of journalistic license. Look at the coverage that we put out: Quad-SLI, DFI and Aopen boards, all kinds of stuff. It was a frickin' amazing show, and I enjoyed every second. The Engadget thing was a little bit controversial, I realise, but it was meant to be. My motto when I'm putting together bit-tech is, why does someone want to read this here? There are bigger sites out there that cover technology and hardware, why read it here? In the case of CES, Engadget covered a lot of the gizmo and gadget stuff, but mostly left the component stuff alone - and componenets are what you guys are interested in, so my angle is, that's something that Engadget isn't doing. In terms of general show coverage, I really didn't see anyone that did it better than those guys and I learnt a lot from watching them work first-hand.
I certainly don't intend to say: people shouldn't bother trying to do their own thing if there's competition out there. As people quite rightly point out, bit wouldn't exist if that was the case. There's a lot to be said for doing what you want to do, and enjoying it: but if you really want to bring success and acclaim to your endeavour, rather than just personal interest, you really have to work out what your differentiator is, and what the point is of your existence. There's plenty of room for people to start up sites in the vein of Engadget, and for people to read them and enjoy them: I'd just suggest that there is less chance of critical and commercial success due to the fact that the standard of editorial coverage there is so high.
In terms of iTunes, I really couldn't give a toss about 20 megs here or 10 megs there for system processes: at the end of the day, I believe it is more powerful than anything else. The deep search facility is fantastic, and its ease of use is emphasissed by the fact that Apple took it and built it right into the OS in Tiger! I think the music store is a great way to find and buy new music, although it's overpriced in the UK. Apple is stoo narrow when it comes to standards, and a lot of what it does is marketing rather than technology: but you have to agree that it's good at doing things in a way which makes them appealing, hence its ability to get TV studios onboard the video store, get iPods everywhere and get digital music to the point where its nigh-on ubiquitous. In terms of the digital media industry, Apple and its products are at the very front right now, driving everyone in the direction we want to go in, for the most part (although I have not the space to get into detailed discussions of the digital media future): I think that's pretty cool.
Intel: I'm not an Intel fanboy. I love AMD's processors, I have one in my rig here. I just really feel, from talking to them, that they lack Intel's capacity for forethought. Intel has stuffed up a lot: but I have to say that since Otellini has taken the reigns, they've stuffed up a lot less. You're right to point out AMD's server move, suggesting that AMD has shown great vision there. You are dead right, and I should have mentioned that. I suppose the point is that AMD's approach is very much: develop one killer product, then try and carve out a niche around it. I just wish AMD would work harder on marketing and on broader initiatives, so that it could get the same kind of traction within the industry that Intel holds. When was the last time you saw an A64 ad on TV? When's the last time you saw an Intel one? I know that I've never even seen an AMD ad on TV.
All in all: happy to see that there's some good discussion going. Discussion contributes to the communal knowledge base, and that's a great thing.
One more thing: constructive comments are one thing. Flaming is another. You'll never, ever be banned from bit-tech for constructive comments, even if they're directed negatively towards something you've read or a product you've seen on the site. At the end of the day, please remember guys: we're putting up stuff so that you can read it and enjoy it, then bring your own opinions to the table. Don't get annoyed because we don't share our opinions, and don't get annoyed if you don't express them in a constructive way.
EDIT: Dirty apple fanboy?? You bugger. I disagree: there's loads of Apple stuff that I think is stupid and rank. I just happen to like my iPod and PowerBook ;)
Originally Posted by mrhaz I really do think Apple have the market cornered in MP3 players. I have a mini, my girlfriend has a nano, all my colleagues in the office have either a mini, nano or video. I have seen hundreds of these things, and I have honestly never seen anything better. That is my opinion, but it's also one that's held by a lot of other people.
This is pretty much the only place I'm going to completely disagree with you, but as it's on a point very close to my heart I'll do it vehemently.
The iPod sucks.
Now I'll qualify, so I don't get banned or anything ;)
There is no argument that Apple brought the MP3 player into the public view more successfully than anyone else could ever have dreamt of. The iPod revolution was indeed groundbreaking, moving from lugging around a CD player and a case-load of CDs to having one little white box housing all or most of your collection.
But things have changed.
Now, players that just play MP3s are a dime a dozen. Hell, they even give them away when you get a bank account. So what's left?
There are three ways you can improve an MP3 player:
1) Aesthetics (the human side - size, looks, etc)
2) Hardware (the computer side - extra things that the player can do)
3) Usability (the human-computer interface - control and software)
Apple have gone with all of 1) and a large chunk of 2), whilst leaving 3) pretty much where it was back in the day. The iPod's UI is still as reasonably intuitive as it ever was (far better than anything else back then, now it has rivals aplenty), and iTunes is still brilliant (hah) as always. At the same time, the aesthetics of the things are undeniable, and even if you happen to hate white things with every fibre of your being you can just get a black one now, the Nanos are so damn cute I want to eat them, and even the bizarrely-shaped 5G Videos you can get used to.
So that leaves us with the features. Apple, in their wisdom, have decided to go one way with features. Give the public loads of things they don't really want, and make them think they want it enough to actually use it. Who really was baying for the ability to play badly-compressed videos on something that really shouldn't be taken out of your pocket for any length of time anywhere you can't use a laptop? How about something useful, like FM Radio without having to buy yet another £30 accessory? How about taking the simply brilliant amplification stage out of the Shuffle, widely regarded to be the best-sounding DAP in the history of Ever, and putting it in any of their players since? How about gapless mp3 playback? It probably doesn't bother as many of you as it should do, but the thought of having to listen to an album with small gaps between the tracks that by rights and by design should flow seamlessly is horrifying to me. How about an equaliser that you can actually customise, rather than picking from a few dozen that some kid with a boombox preselected for the iBud generation? How about being able to drag files straight to the hard drive as it mounts in your filesystem, rather than having to trudge through yet another badly-realised piece of software?
These are things that should be standard on every MP3 player. Not showing your ****ing holiday snaps to your Mum on a 2" screen. Apple, as world leader in personal digital audio, should pick up on some of this stuff and give people the features they want as well as the ones they don't. So yes, I have seen better than an iPod. The Rio (RIP) Karma is the only MP3 player I have ever considered buying, due to the number of features on the above list that it actually fulfills. I've never been unhappy about my purchase, and even now I wouldn't swap it for any of the other players on the market. The new technology that Sigmatel (who own nearly all of Rio's property and have most of their engineers) demonstrated at CES was very interesting, I have hopes for both the players that are based on these chips and for the new Neuros player, which promises to actually include the main features of any decent MP3 player as well as lots of other audiophile-friendly options. The iPod? I'm not holding my breath, unless there's a major turnaround from Cupertino.
i would kill for something in my iAudio M3's box with Creatives UI
i love my iAudio but the UI is not the greatest, once you've gotten used to it it works but i really love the ui on my creative zen brick :p
Talk about making a point there. Quite what we're looking for ;)
Now, the (slightly briefer, as I'm in a midterm exam right now) rebuttal:
Why do you want FM radio on your PAD? Surely the purpose of having thousands of tunes in your pocket is so that you don't have to put up with the DJ's bad choices and advertisements.
Gapless playback... yep. Just yep. They really need that. At least iTunes can crossfade, which is something.
Equalizer - I agree to a point. However it seems to me that if you're really needing an EQ to enjoy your music, you need better headphones. If we want to discuss the damned iBuds, I'm sure we'll be in agreement: I hate those things with a fiery passion, and not because I don't like the idea of having white crap coming out the side of my head. The audio quality is abysmal and the comfort level is nonexistant. I replaced mine immediately with a pair of $15 clip-on things, and while they're not great by any stretch of the imagination, at least they don't fall out of my ears and hurt them when they do manage to stay in.
Video and photo support: definately has minimal uses, and I'd much rather have seen something that equates to longer battery life. The large majority of the time, I'm listening, not watching. It's nice if you've got a long car ride home and aren't the one driving. As for photos - that IS a good idea imo. It's certainly no substitute for a big screen or prints, but putting together a load of thumbnails with almost zero effort that doesn't require you being at a computer of sorts is nice. My use for it has been nigh, but I take comfort in the fact that I can show off my mod if someone is interested.
As for drag and drop - well, as much as I would have liked the idea, I think iTunes (or third-party substitutes) are already a step ahead. Yes, you have to load up another program - if that kills you, you need to move beyond 256MB of ram. Syncronyzing all my portable media files (or just ones I choose) simply by plugging in the device, and keeping them all very well organized on the hard drive is much more convenient. I've done more than enough reorganizing and renaming to drive me to insanity and back, and while iTunes can get a bit tedious, at least moving things around in there changes the tags so I could put 6000 songs in the same folder (oh the horror!) and they'd all go to where they needed to be by importing them. If the solution wasn't so well-rounded and integrated into one software package, I'd totally be with you, but I love being able to drop my iPod into the dock and it takes care of everything for me. While I'm typically against sticking a ton of features into one thing, I love this - Apple makes sure all of the features actually work properly, not like the useless camera on my cell that takes crappy shots at 640x480 and gives me no easy way to take them off the camera.
Now admittedly if I didn't get a 5G I'd probably still be using Winamp/ml_ipod. While that solution is a bit snappier, the free CD burning and ripping support of iTunes is just lovely, and Winamp (last I checked) wouldn't reorder and retag my songs by how I've set them in the library.
I'm NOT saying the iPod is the best thing ever, nor is iTunes - they both have big faults. But - and be honest - are you really going to listen to FM radio when you have thousands of songs *that you like* in your pocket, which you can choose from without commercial interruption? The only time I can honestly think I'd use FM in a PAD would be at the drive-in movies where they do a short-range FM broadcast for the movie audio (as they have four screens, speakers wouldn't work). Video support is just the latest silly idea - if you try and watch over 30min or so, you really can feel yourself losing brain cells from concentrating on a 2" screen with typically-artifacted video. But that's true of all players.
I've seen people get players other than the iPod simply because they're anti-iPod (much like me and Sony), but none of them seem to be especially happy with their player beyond the fact that it's not produced by Apple.
I think the only thing lacking from this column, and this discussion for that matter, is the innovation of bringing products to market. It's especially powerful when Wil brings up the "liberal" idea of choice, which is really a fundamental element of free market.
None of the mp3 players would exist if Sony had not created the walkman portable cassette player. It was truly a monumental and innovative device and launched the idea of portable entertainment beyond just a transister radio.
While Sony absolutely owned the highest quality version of this new device, it was well out of reach of many consumers, price-wise. So you had a slew of immitators that brought similar products at around the same price. Sony (just like apple) had a strong interest in protecting the value of their products. The immitators did not and the main differentiator became price. Suddenly, everyone could afford a portable cassette player. You had a choice of buying Sony for $200 or a pioneer for $50. This forced Sony to consistantly bring new qualities to the product to maintain their high cost and make their product better. In the end, they had to concede and reduce the price of their product to compete.
Without "immitators" Apple's version of choice would be you can choose to spend top dollar for an mp3 player or not. With more players in the market, you can choose a top of the line ipod or something more in line with your budget that is arguably similar in quality.
Originally Posted by mrhaz I certainly don't intend to say: people shouldn't bother trying to do their own thing if there's competition out there. As people quite rightly point out, bit wouldn't exist if that was the case. There's a lot to be said for doing what you want to do, and enjoying it: but if you really want to bring success and acclaim to your endeavour, rather than just personal interest, you really have to work out what your differentiator is, and what the point is of your existence. There's plenty of room for people to start up sites in the vein of Engadget, and for people to read them and enjoy them: I'd just suggest that there is less chance of critical and commercial success due to the fact that the standard of editorial coverage there is so high.
Intel: I'm not an Intel fanboy. I love AMD's processors, I have one in my rig here. I just really feel, from talking to them, that they lack Intel's capacity for forethought. Intel has stuffed up a lot: but I have to say that since Otellini has taken the reigns, they've stuffed up a lot less. You're right to point out AMD's server move, suggesting that AMD has shown great vision there. You are dead right, and I should have mentioned that. I suppose the point is that AMD's approach is very much: develop one killer product, then try and carve out a niche around it. I just wish AMD would work harder on marketing and on broader initiatives, so that it could get the same kind of traction within the industry that Intel holds. When was the last time you saw an A64 ad on TV? When's the last time you saw an Intel one? I know that I've never even seen an AMD ad on TV.
Are you not contradicting yourself.
Based on your original article and your reply, what you have basically implied is that companies should differentiate itself, both on a corporate identity level and on a product level. Than you go on to express how you would prefer to see AMD follow Intel's plan of action. Is that not just suggesting AMD mould and model itself based on Intel - in essence just another Intel replicate.
As some other forum member stated before, Intel has gradually become a platform company, whereas AMD is not. That is why I think AMD does have a clear vision of where it is heading. AMD is a processor manufacture and will continue to do what they do and that is to improve their products, as seen with their latest re-designed architecture. Hence just because they do not want to expand into other areas, does not suggest that it lacks 'forethought'. It is a processor company and building processors is what it does, its vision is how they will continue to improve the performance of their cpu's. What Intel has demonstrated is that they have a good vision of how PC's could be used in the future (media home concept) and in turn how their processors will be used in the future.
In addition that is why it has been stressed that, in terms of vision on a primary scope, AMD have had a clearer vision, as shown with AMD shifting the emphasis on more efficient architecture design and multicores and off of higher clock speeds. Would you not agree that Intel's sudden and recent abandoning of increasing processor clock speeds, not considered as lacking forethought.
The perception of AMD has not only gradually become very positive, but AMD has created a distinguished image for itself - usually associated with high performance, enthusiasts and gaming.
Originally Posted by m0dd Are you not contradicting yourself.
Based on your original article and your reply, what you have basically implied is that companies should differentiate itself, both on a corporate identity level and on a product level. Than you go on to express how you would prefer to see AMD follow Intel's plan of action. Is that not just suggesting AMD mould and model itself based on Intel - in essence just another Intel replicate.
So AMD are copying Intel by innovating, which was Intel's idea? :)
Quote:
I've seen people get players other than the iPod simply because they're anti-iPod (much like me and Sony), but none of them seem to be especially happy with their player beyond the fact that it's not produced by Apple.
Amen to that. I've had 3 Creative players (Zen Jukebox, Micro and a MuVo) that promised to be better than their respective iPods, and just ended being very dissapointing. I wish I had just bought an iPod in the first place and saved time and money. Serves me right for being such an anti-iPod kinda guy in the first place, really :p
Originally Posted by Etacovda "Bit-Tech is like strong liquor: a sophisticated and acquired taste, best enjoyed responsibly by adults, best left alone by those who can't handle the drink."
Are you insinuating that im not an adult, and i cannot 'handle the drink?'. Ive been reading this site for a good 2 years plus. My rants are rarely unresearched or unfounded, and if they're not factually based i say so (ie, reeks of, not 'is').
I apologise if it came across that I was specifically referring to you (I wasn't). I was speaking in general, but re-reading my post I appreciate that was probably not very clear. Just for the record, I appreciate you as one of the most mature, informed and reasonable members on the forum.
My annoyance is that all too often things are being misread or misinterpreted and conclusions jumped to, with Bit-Tech staff or mods subsequently being accused of being biased, partial or unfair. I would like to think that members would give us the benefit of the doubt; that they would re-read carefully, or first confirm whether that was really what was meant, and keep in mind that opinion is neither gospel nor blasphemy. It is really tiring to keep having to defend our objectivity and impartiality every time we say or do something that someone might disagree with. It is really tiring to keep having to manage emotional outbursts, trolling, or condescending insults in response to rational opinion. I suspect bigz's threat to ban people who continued trolling with the same old argument was a reflection of that exhasperation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0dd Based on your original article and your reply, what you have basically implied is that companies should differentiate itself, both on a corporate identity level and on a product level. Than you go on to express how you would prefer to see AMD follow Intel's plan of action. Is that not just suggesting AMD mould and model itself based on Intel - in essence just another Intel replicate.
Mmmm... fair point. However what I think Wil is saying (although I could be wrong) is that AMD should follow Intel's approach; not necessarily follow in their footsteps. Intel looks at where they see the use of technology evolving, then develop the chips to match (thus driving the evolution of that technology in that direction); AMD could also look at the evolution of the application of computer technology and develop chips to match. That doesn't mean they have to focus on home media; they could focus on interactive gaming, productivity technology, you name it. However it is true that AMD's focus on within-CPU technological progress is quite valid in itself. Intel takes the meta-approach; AMD takes the micro-approach. I see the two as complementary.
what was dissapointing about your creatives? im still using my zen xtra, i just dont use it as a portable anymore :p
there are basically 3 reasons i wont buy an ipod
a) no usb mass storage
fine you want you itunes syncing, why cant you have both? dont see any reason itunes cant recognise that an ipod has been connected via usb mass storage and sync
b) no flac/ogg, just sucks.
c) white plastic does not do it for me, brushed metal *** :p
d) apple sucks
I'm NOT saying the iPod is the best thing ever, nor is iTunes - they both have big faults. But - and be honest - are you really going to listen to FM radio when you have thousands of songs *that you like* in your pocket, which you can choose from without commercial interruption? The only time I can honestly think I'd use FM in a PAD would be at the drive-in movies where they do a short-range FM broadcast for the movie audio (as they have four screens, speakers wouldn't work).
So you're saying all radio is pointless then? The whole point behind it is not just so it offers musical streaming to your hifis etc, but for the content beyond music. I'd only get an MP3 player with a radio in it to be honest, because I'd need someone like Chris Moyles to wake me up on the walk to school. I don't own every song in the world that I'd like to, and so being able to not only listen to what I like but also discover new music is excactly the sort of benefit radio holds over simply buying the music; and just to top it off, the BBC radio stations over here are ad-free ;) , which is handy considering I rarely listen to anything else (sorry to upset people, but the Fire just isn't to my taste...).
I actually have a great use for FM radio on my MP3 player. It's called NPR. :D And I wish Apple would go ahead and put one in the iPod already, because I'm not buying one until they do. But I don't like anyone else's player well enough to consider it.
Originally Posted by Hamish what was dissapointing about your creatives? im still using my zen xtra, i just dont use it as a portable anymore :p
The Zen xtra is about as portable as a cheiftan tank and I didn't like the wheel on the side, it felt really awful. The Micro was OK but it's not in the same league as an iPod mini, in terms of ease of use. In fairness I don't think I would use an iPod mini either though, 6Gb is a funny size for me - It's not enough to put all my music on, but it's too much to want to change the music every day - I never got around to it.
I'm currently on a MuVo 256 which is alright, in fairness. It does the job, it's very small, and I love the fact that it takes aaa batteries (The battery life out of one aaa battery ain't bad either). However, the sound quality on it is appalling. I was very impressed the first time I used an iPod - The sound quality on them is amazing compared to all my Creatives.
I think I have staved off buying an iPod for too long. I'm just going to give in :p
Originally Posted by mrhaz I certainly don't intend to say: people shouldn't bother trying to do their own thing if there's competition out there. As people quite rightly point out, bit wouldn't exist if that was the case. There's a lot to be said for doing what you want to do, and enjoying it: but if you really want to bring success and acclaim to your endeavour, rather than just personal interest, you really have to work out what your differentiator is, and what the point is of your existence. There's plenty of room for people to start up sites in the vein of Engadget, and for people to read them and enjoy them: I'd just suggest that there is less chance of critical and commercial success due to the fact that the standard of editorial coverage there is so high.
I couldn't agree more.
I do still feel however that the fact you used CES as your example in the column was a mistake.
The problem with CES is that many of the press people are being shown and told the same things. Giving that their information is the same, it is unsurprising that one sites coverage articles are going to bear a resemblance to another site. Due to this, well to me anyway, the column read that there was no point anyone else covering CES as Engadget already has it covered.
CES is different to normal articles/reviews. Normally sites are sent hardware to review and as such a reviewer can form his/her own opinion on the item in question. This does allow for a site to differentiate it from others with not only their reviewing style (i.e. the benchmarking procedures) but also less obvious things such as the style of writing. It is a situation like this which I feel your argument really applies to.
Originally Posted by Hamish what was dissapointing about your creatives? im still using my zen xtra, i just dont use it as a portable anymore :p
there are basically 3 reasons i wont buy an ipod
a) no usb mass storage
fine you want you itunes syncing, why cant you have both? dont see any reason itunes cant recognise that an ipod has been connected via usb mass storage and sync
b) no flac/ogg, just sucks.
c) white plastic does not do it for me, brushed metal *** :p
d) apple sucks
a. What are you talking about?
The iPod has always been an external mass storage device. First with Firewire, now with USB - you plug your iPod into a computer and you have a "usb mass storage device" - and it syncs -
b. But the iPod does support apple lossless, aac, and protected aac allowing you to purchase legal music over the internet with the least restrictive DRM available
c. so get the black plastic one
d. Aren't you one of those people who was saying that "people only buy iPods because they're 'cool' "
And here you are saying that you wouldn't buy one because you don't like the company that makes them?
Obviously - you are telling us that even if apple made the best portable audio device (and, they do,) you still wouldn't buy one because "apple suck"
And why then, should any of your other opinions matter to us when you are so blatantly biased?
a) i was under the impression you had to use itunes or a 3rd party app to put music onto an ipod?
b) so? i dont want my music in aac i want it in flac, many other players do support this
c) nano is too small (capacity wise) can you get black proper ipods? (not hte u2 one that looks horrific)
d) that was a joke :p hence why i said 3 reasons and put a 4th ;)
ipod is not the best portable audio device imo, might be in yours but not in mine.
Originally Posted by <A88> So you're saying all radio is pointless then? The whole point behind it is not just so it offers musical streaming to your hifis etc, but for the content beyond music. I'd only get an MP3 player with a radio in it to be honest, because I'd need someone like Chris Moyles to wake me up on the walk to school. I don't own every song in the world that I'd like to, and so being able to not only listen to what I like but also discover new music is excactly the sort of benefit radio holds over simply buying the music; and just to top it off, the BBC radio stations over here are ad-free ;) , which is handy considering I rarely listen to anything else (sorry to upset people, but the Fire just isn't to my taste...).
<A88>
Nah, that's just me. I HATE listening to the radio. The quality sucks, the music choice sucks, and it's full of commercials which - you guessed it - suck. Maybe there are better radio station choices where you live, but around me it's rap, fairly old classic rock, or some sort of Christian gospel type thing. None of which I care for. I'd much rather make a playlist of music that I like. I'll occasionally browse the iTMS, but don't often find anything I like and never end up with stuff I'd actually buy (though that's probably more due to my don't-support-the-RIAA stance I have than anything else).
Hamish:
a) What do you think iTunes IS? It's to put music on the iPod. The store wasn't added in until v4 or something. There are other choices available - generally to get music OFF the iPod (so you can steal your friend's collection), but you certainly don't need third party software to put music ON. As for mass-storage - it's been covered already. Also note that Apple RECOMMENDS that you use your iPod as a MSD to transfer between comps (after you make "The Switch", but it works for anything).
b) So do I. But the output quality isn't good enough to tell a difference, and as long as you don't switch players, it's not a problem. Of the dozen or so CDs I own, I have them ripped to flac, but 160VBR mp3 is fine for me, which is what goes on my iPod and in my iTunes library. However, not many players support FLAC, maybe a few more with OGG support, however you'll be hard pressed to find a player that has output quality good enough that 160VBR mp3 (or equivalent) actually sounds noticibly different than a lossless codec.
c) Yes. Only on the 5G models (iPod with video), but I don't imagine too many going out and trying to buy an older model.
d) I was wondering whether that letter/counting was a joke or you were mildly stoned. Thanks for clearing that up ;)
Honestly, if you're going to do biased product-bashing, at least know what you're talking about. Informed arguments at least make you look intelligent, even if people disagree.
This is the problem with this type of thing - there is no "best", it's FAR too subjective. If you do some sort of feature tally and assign everything a point value you can get close, but that's still subjective in the fact that most people don't give half a crap about OGG support, so why should it be worth just as much as an intuitive UI (etc, etc). However as far as centralizing everything and intuitiveness, I think it goes uncontested. Honestly, try it. As far as features, it's missing the (integrated) radio support that some want but otherwise it's a fairly level playing field. In terms of a legal music store, there's absolutely no contest, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is just downright wrong (and that's NOT subjective) - iTMS has the most consumer-friendly DRM with the largest selection.
I love how this went from "be original" to "why iPods (don't) suck" :)
Theres a difference between mass storage and USB Mass Storage
My point is I do not want to have to use any 3rd party app to transfer music onto my mp3 player and least of all itunes, you might like the way itunes works i dont, i use foobar.
As I understand it you dont need itunes/3rd party app to put files on an ipod, so you can use it to transfer stuff between 2 machines without itunes/3rd party app but in order to put music on an ipod so that you can listen to it on the ipod you do need itunes/3rd party app.
I dont like that, at all.
My Creative is like that and apart from the size its the one thing that annoys me, however its not too bad as the software Creative ship with it just adds it as another device in windows explorer, so you can just drag and drop as if it were a USB Mass Storage device.
My iAudio is a proper USB Mass Storage device, it needs no drivers or 3rd party apps, you plug it in and you get a device in explorer just like with a usb thumbstick or similar devices.
That is the way i like it to work.
I can see why the ipod way appeals to your average user who doesnt want to mess around with folder structures, but i already have a folder structure because my music (like all other data on my computer) is organised in a logical folder structure. The way that appeals to the average user is not neccesarily the best way imo.
Can't say i use the radio function on my iAudio much either tbh, maybe once or twice in the whole time i've had it. The reason i went with an iAudio M3 over an iPod were USB Mass Storage, size, weight, battery life, flac support, price and looks.
It beats the ipod on every one of these points, even excluding aesthetics as being a very personal choice those are a lot of places to be beaten.
The iPod has a better interface than the iAudio, thats pretty much the only thing i dont like about it and as i said earlier in this thread if it had the Creative UI it'd be just about damn perfect :D
The iPod is not a good music player, the sound quality is terrible, and iTunes is rubbish, it's far too simple to be called the best media player out there...Creatives software is pretty rubbish, but it's not as if iTunes is much of a step up, and the Creative players sound so much better.
"I think the iPod is just the koolest, kutest widdwe ting awound, i jus wanna hug it! I think I'll paint myself in white plastic to show my love and support."
"I think the iPod stinks like rotten feet. And it gives you stupid-disease, too! Get one and you'll start carrying a man-purse!"
Could we get any FARTHER from the initial point of this discussion??
Originally Posted by julianmartin The iPod is not a good music player, the sound quality is terrible, and iTunes is rubbish, it's far too simple to be called the best media player out there...Creatives software is pretty rubbish, but it's not as if iTunes is much of a step up, and the Creative players sound so much better.
lmao, that's one way to:
- stir things up
- pour petrol onto a burning fire
- turn rape into murder
I am so confused ... I watched the MS keynote ... and saw a lot of long term thinking...
I watched jobs .... and all i could think was .... yeah .... uhhmm PC's have been doing this for a while now ...
OSX ... I use it regularly ... here the basic issue ... its design is very rigid ... there is one way to do things and thats with the mouse ...
For folks who think vista is XP with a better skin ... you obviously havn't used the beta that much ... or have an old beta (the first one wasn't much more that an avalon tesh show
besides we all know that OSX is nothing more than BSD and Xwindows with a better skin
Honestly I will probibly buy a MAC laptop ... it will run perfectly with XP running on it ..
APPLE MAKES AWESOME HARDWARE .... the software is .... well crap
And Itunes the best mediaplayer .... PLEASE ...
Oh and for my last comment ... what does toshiba playrer do better than the ipod ... lets go thru the list
Plays videos on a bigger screen
is the same basic size
longer batterly life
UNIFIED NTERFACE
MEdia Center intergration (i tend to wonder what people will say when Apple makes a media center clone)
and support of mutiple formats
but then again I have an Ipod .... don't much like the interface .. and hate that apple brings out a new one every 3 hours ... but at the time it was the best thing to have ...
Oddly I like apple ... just don't like the fanboys .... seriously ... someone needs to get Jobs spunk of there face and open their eyes
Comments 51 to 75 of 91
i was under the impression there was 3rd party applications/plug ins to do exactly that...
In any case, AAC is the codec name, not the extension. It uses .M4A, .M4B and .M4P files (for AAC audio, AAC audiobooks/"spoken word content" and protected of either one respectively). Do get your facts straight before hating ;)
So first party apps let you use .MP3 files on an iPod. Third party as well (who ends up as the second party, anyways?), but it's not necessary. The only time you'd need to use a third party app is to transcode open codecs like OGG and FLAC (unless you can be bothered to do the burn-and-rerip method).
In any case, MP3 isn't open, per se, it's just ubiquitous. Almost like windows - it's certainly not open (hacking jokes aside), but almost everyone uses it.
Wow, way to read what you wanted to read rather than what bigz actually said.
Now let us end this little attention-distracting aside, and get back to the matter at hand. Wil is a dirty Apple fanboy, but he makes some worthwhile points, live with it ;)
An Editor of mine always used to say to me: "Wil, your writing is great, but damn... your opinion columns need more bloody opinions, you English *insert torrent of abuse here*."
I was writing this column thinking... "Hmmm, opinions..." ;)
It's probably worth adding in a couple of my own points here in response.
I really do think Apple have the market cornered in MP3 players. I have a mini, my girlfriend has a nano, all my colleagues in the office have either a mini, nano or video. I have seen hundreds of these things, and I have honestly never seen anything better. That is my opinion, but it's also one that's held by a lot of other people.
CES / Engadget: Don't get me wrong, CES was awesome, and in moaning about it, I'm using a little bit of journalistic license. Look at the coverage that we put out: Quad-SLI, DFI and Aopen boards, all kinds of stuff. It was a frickin' amazing show, and I enjoyed every second. The Engadget thing was a little bit controversial, I realise, but it was meant to be. My motto when I'm putting together bit-tech is, why does someone want to read this here? There are bigger sites out there that cover technology and hardware, why read it here? In the case of CES, Engadget covered a lot of the gizmo and gadget stuff, but mostly left the component stuff alone - and componenets are what you guys are interested in, so my angle is, that's something that Engadget isn't doing. In terms of general show coverage, I really didn't see anyone that did it better than those guys and I learnt a lot from watching them work first-hand.
I certainly don't intend to say: people shouldn't bother trying to do their own thing if there's competition out there. As people quite rightly point out, bit wouldn't exist if that was the case. There's a lot to be said for doing what you want to do, and enjoying it: but if you really want to bring success and acclaim to your endeavour, rather than just personal interest, you really have to work out what your differentiator is, and what the point is of your existence. There's plenty of room for people to start up sites in the vein of Engadget, and for people to read them and enjoy them: I'd just suggest that there is less chance of critical and commercial success due to the fact that the standard of editorial coverage there is so high.
In terms of iTunes, I really couldn't give a toss about 20 megs here or 10 megs there for system processes: at the end of the day, I believe it is more powerful than anything else. The deep search facility is fantastic, and its ease of use is emphasissed by the fact that Apple took it and built it right into the OS in Tiger! I think the music store is a great way to find and buy new music, although it's overpriced in the UK. Apple is stoo narrow when it comes to standards, and a lot of what it does is marketing rather than technology: but you have to agree that it's good at doing things in a way which makes them appealing, hence its ability to get TV studios onboard the video store, get iPods everywhere and get digital music to the point where its nigh-on ubiquitous. In terms of the digital media industry, Apple and its products are at the very front right now, driving everyone in the direction we want to go in, for the most part (although I have not the space to get into detailed discussions of the digital media future): I think that's pretty cool.
Intel: I'm not an Intel fanboy. I love AMD's processors, I have one in my rig here. I just really feel, from talking to them, that they lack Intel's capacity for forethought. Intel has stuffed up a lot: but I have to say that since Otellini has taken the reigns, they've stuffed up a lot less. You're right to point out AMD's server move, suggesting that AMD has shown great vision there. You are dead right, and I should have mentioned that. I suppose the point is that AMD's approach is very much: develop one killer product, then try and carve out a niche around it. I just wish AMD would work harder on marketing and on broader initiatives, so that it could get the same kind of traction within the industry that Intel holds. When was the last time you saw an A64 ad on TV? When's the last time you saw an Intel one? I know that I've never even seen an AMD ad on TV.
All in all: happy to see that there's some good discussion going. Discussion contributes to the communal knowledge base, and that's a great thing.
One more thing: constructive comments are one thing. Flaming is another. You'll never, ever be banned from bit-tech for constructive comments, even if they're directed negatively towards something you've read or a product you've seen on the site. At the end of the day, please remember guys: we're putting up stuff so that you can read it and enjoy it, then bring your own opinions to the table. Don't get annoyed because we don't share our opinions, and don't get annoyed if you don't express them in a constructive way.
EDIT: Dirty apple fanboy?? You bugger. I disagree: there's loads of Apple stuff that I think is stupid and rank. I just happen to like my iPod and PowerBook ;)
This is pretty much the only place I'm going to completely disagree with you, but as it's on a point very close to my heart I'll do it vehemently.
The iPod sucks.
Now I'll qualify, so I don't get banned or anything ;)
There is no argument that Apple brought the MP3 player into the public view more successfully than anyone else could ever have dreamt of. The iPod revolution was indeed groundbreaking, moving from lugging around a CD player and a case-load of CDs to having one little white box housing all or most of your collection.
But things have changed.
Now, players that just play MP3s are a dime a dozen. Hell, they even give them away when you get a bank account. So what's left?
There are three ways you can improve an MP3 player:
1) Aesthetics (the human side - size, looks, etc)
2) Hardware (the computer side - extra things that the player can do)
3) Usability (the human-computer interface - control and software)
Apple have gone with all of 1) and a large chunk of 2), whilst leaving 3) pretty much where it was back in the day. The iPod's UI is still as reasonably intuitive as it ever was (far better than anything else back then, now it has rivals aplenty), and iTunes is still brilliant (hah) as always. At the same time, the aesthetics of the things are undeniable, and even if you happen to hate white things with every fibre of your being you can just get a black one now, the Nanos are so damn cute I want to eat them, and even the bizarrely-shaped 5G Videos you can get used to.
So that leaves us with the features. Apple, in their wisdom, have decided to go one way with features. Give the public loads of things they don't really want, and make them think they want it enough to actually use it. Who really was baying for the ability to play badly-compressed videos on something that really shouldn't be taken out of your pocket for any length of time anywhere you can't use a laptop? How about something useful, like FM Radio without having to buy yet another £30 accessory? How about taking the simply brilliant amplification stage out of the Shuffle, widely regarded to be the best-sounding DAP in the history of Ever, and putting it in any of their players since? How about gapless mp3 playback? It probably doesn't bother as many of you as it should do, but the thought of having to listen to an album with small gaps between the tracks that by rights and by design should flow seamlessly is horrifying to me. How about an equaliser that you can actually customise, rather than picking from a few dozen that some kid with a boombox preselected for the iBud generation? How about being able to drag files straight to the hard drive as it mounts in your filesystem, rather than having to trudge through yet another badly-realised piece of software?
These are things that should be standard on every MP3 player. Not showing your ****ing holiday snaps to your Mum on a 2" screen. Apple, as world leader in personal digital audio, should pick up on some of this stuff and give people the features they want as well as the ones they don't. So yes, I have seen better than an iPod. The Rio (RIP) Karma is the only MP3 player I have ever considered buying, due to the number of features on the above list that it actually fulfills. I've never been unhappy about my purchase, and even now I wouldn't swap it for any of the other players on the market. The new technology that Sigmatel (who own nearly all of Rio's property and have most of their engineers) demonstrated at CES was very interesting, I have hopes for both the players that are based on these chips and for the new Neuros player, which promises to actually include the main features of any decent MP3 player as well as lots of other audiophile-friendly options. The iPod? I'm not holding my breath, unless there's a major turnaround from Cupertino.
Wow, rant over. :)
i love my iAudio but the UI is not the greatest, once you've gotten used to it it works but i really love the ui on my creative zen brick :p
Now, the (slightly briefer, as I'm in a midterm exam right now) rebuttal:
Why do you want FM radio on your PAD? Surely the purpose of having thousands of tunes in your pocket is so that you don't have to put up with the DJ's bad choices and advertisements.
Gapless playback... yep. Just yep. They really need that. At least iTunes can crossfade, which is something.
Equalizer - I agree to a point. However it seems to me that if you're really needing an EQ to enjoy your music, you need better headphones. If we want to discuss the damned iBuds, I'm sure we'll be in agreement: I hate those things with a fiery passion, and not because I don't like the idea of having white crap coming out the side of my head. The audio quality is abysmal and the comfort level is nonexistant. I replaced mine immediately with a pair of $15 clip-on things, and while they're not great by any stretch of the imagination, at least they don't fall out of my ears and hurt them when they do manage to stay in.
Video and photo support: definately has minimal uses, and I'd much rather have seen something that equates to longer battery life. The large majority of the time, I'm listening, not watching. It's nice if you've got a long car ride home and aren't the one driving. As for photos - that IS a good idea imo. It's certainly no substitute for a big screen or prints, but putting together a load of thumbnails with almost zero effort that doesn't require you being at a computer of sorts is nice. My use for it has been nigh, but I take comfort in the fact that I can show off my mod if someone is interested.
As for drag and drop - well, as much as I would have liked the idea, I think iTunes (or third-party substitutes) are already a step ahead. Yes, you have to load up another program - if that kills you, you need to move beyond 256MB of ram. Syncronyzing all my portable media files (or just ones I choose) simply by plugging in the device, and keeping them all very well organized on the hard drive is much more convenient. I've done more than enough reorganizing and renaming to drive me to insanity and back, and while iTunes can get a bit tedious, at least moving things around in there changes the tags so I could put 6000 songs in the same folder (oh the horror!) and they'd all go to where they needed to be by importing them. If the solution wasn't so well-rounded and integrated into one software package, I'd totally be with you, but I love being able to drop my iPod into the dock and it takes care of everything for me. While I'm typically against sticking a ton of features into one thing, I love this - Apple makes sure all of the features actually work properly, not like the useless camera on my cell that takes crappy shots at 640x480 and gives me no easy way to take them off the camera.
Now admittedly if I didn't get a 5G I'd probably still be using Winamp/ml_ipod. While that solution is a bit snappier, the free CD burning and ripping support of iTunes is just lovely, and Winamp (last I checked) wouldn't reorder and retag my songs by how I've set them in the library.
I'm NOT saying the iPod is the best thing ever, nor is iTunes - they both have big faults. But - and be honest - are you really going to listen to FM radio when you have thousands of songs *that you like* in your pocket, which you can choose from without commercial interruption? The only time I can honestly think I'd use FM in a PAD would be at the drive-in movies where they do a short-range FM broadcast for the movie audio (as they have four screens, speakers wouldn't work). Video support is just the latest silly idea - if you try and watch over 30min or so, you really can feel yourself losing brain cells from concentrating on a 2" screen with typically-artifacted video. But that's true of all players.
I've seen people get players other than the iPod simply because they're anti-iPod (much like me and Sony), but none of them seem to be especially happy with their player beyond the fact that it's not produced by Apple.
So much for shorter... :(
None of the mp3 players would exist if Sony had not created the walkman portable cassette player. It was truly a monumental and innovative device and launched the idea of portable entertainment beyond just a transister radio.
While Sony absolutely owned the highest quality version of this new device, it was well out of reach of many consumers, price-wise. So you had a slew of immitators that brought similar products at around the same price. Sony (just like apple) had a strong interest in protecting the value of their products. The immitators did not and the main differentiator became price. Suddenly, everyone could afford a portable cassette player. You had a choice of buying Sony for $200 or a pioneer for $50. This forced Sony to consistantly bring new qualities to the product to maintain their high cost and make their product better. In the end, they had to concede and reduce the price of their product to compete.
Without "immitators" Apple's version of choice would be you can choose to spend top dollar for an mp3 player or not. With more players in the market, you can choose a top of the line ipod or something more in line with your budget that is arguably similar in quality.
Based on your original article and your reply, what you have basically implied is that companies should differentiate itself, both on a corporate identity level and on a product level. Than you go on to express how you would prefer to see AMD follow Intel's plan of action. Is that not just suggesting AMD mould and model itself based on Intel - in essence just another Intel replicate.
As some other forum member stated before, Intel has gradually become a platform company, whereas AMD is not. That is why I think AMD does have a clear vision of where it is heading. AMD is a processor manufacture and will continue to do what they do and that is to improve their products, as seen with their latest re-designed architecture. Hence just because they do not want to expand into other areas, does not suggest that it lacks 'forethought'. It is a processor company and building processors is what it does, its vision is how they will continue to improve the performance of their cpu's. What Intel has demonstrated is that they have a good vision of how PC's could be used in the future (media home concept) and in turn how their processors will be used in the future.
In addition that is why it has been stressed that, in terms of vision on a primary scope, AMD have had a clearer vision, as shown with AMD shifting the emphasis on more efficient architecture design and multicores and off of higher clock speeds. Would you not agree that Intel's sudden and recent abandoning of increasing processor clock speeds, not considered as lacking forethought.
The perception of AMD has not only gradually become very positive, but AMD has created a distinguished image for itself - usually associated with high performance, enthusiasts and gaming.
Amen to that. I've had 3 Creative players (Zen Jukebox, Micro and a MuVo) that promised to be better than their respective iPods, and just ended being very dissapointing. I wish I had just bought an iPod in the first place and saved time and money. Serves me right for being such an anti-iPod kinda guy in the first place, really :p
My annoyance is that all too often things are being misread or misinterpreted and conclusions jumped to, with Bit-Tech staff or mods subsequently being accused of being biased, partial or unfair. I would like to think that members would give us the benefit of the doubt; that they would re-read carefully, or first confirm whether that was really what was meant, and keep in mind that opinion is neither gospel nor blasphemy. It is really tiring to keep having to defend our objectivity and impartiality every time we say or do something that someone might disagree with. It is really tiring to keep having to manage emotional outbursts, trolling, or condescending insults in response to rational opinion. I suspect bigz's threat to ban people who continued trolling with the same old argument was a reflection of that exhasperation.
Mmmm... fair point. However what I think Wil is saying (although I could be wrong) is that AMD should follow Intel's approach; not necessarily follow in their footsteps. Intel looks at where they see the use of technology evolving, then develop the chips to match (thus driving the evolution of that technology in that direction); AMD could also look at the evolution of the application of computer technology and develop chips to match. That doesn't mean they have to focus on home media; they could focus on interactive gaming, productivity technology, you name it. However it is true that AMD's focus on within-CPU technological progress is quite valid in itself. Intel takes the meta-approach; AMD takes the micro-approach. I see the two as complementary.
there are basically 3 reasons i wont buy an ipod
a) no usb mass storage
fine you want you itunes syncing, why cant you have both? dont see any reason itunes cant recognise that an ipod has been connected via usb mass storage and sync
b) no flac/ogg, just sucks.
c) white plastic does not do it for me, brushed metal *** :p
d) apple sucks
<A88>
I'm currently on a MuVo 256 which is alright, in fairness. It does the job, it's very small, and I love the fact that it takes aaa batteries (The battery life out of one aaa battery ain't bad either). However, the sound quality on it is appalling. I was very impressed the first time I used an iPod - The sound quality on them is amazing compared to all my Creatives.
I think I have staved off buying an iPod for too long. I'm just going to give in :p
I do still feel however that the fact you used CES as your example in the column was a mistake.
The problem with CES is that many of the press people are being shown and told the same things. Giving that their information is the same, it is unsurprising that one sites coverage articles are going to bear a resemblance to another site. Due to this, well to me anyway, the column read that there was no point anyone else covering CES as Engadget already has it covered.
CES is different to normal articles/reviews. Normally sites are sent hardware to review and as such a reviewer can form his/her own opinion on the item in question. This does allow for a site to differentiate it from others with not only their reviewing style (i.e. the benchmarking procedures) but also less obvious things such as the style of writing. It is a situation like this which I feel your argument really applies to.
The iPod has always been an external mass storage device. First with Firewire, now with USB - you plug your iPod into a computer and you have a "usb mass storage device" - and it syncs -
b. But the iPod does support apple lossless, aac, and protected aac allowing you to purchase legal music over the internet with the least restrictive DRM available
c. so get the black plastic one
d. Aren't you one of those people who was saying that "people only buy iPods because they're 'cool' "
And here you are saying that you wouldn't buy one because you don't like the company that makes them?
Obviously - you are telling us that even if apple made the best portable audio device (and, they do,) you still wouldn't buy one because "apple suck"
And why then, should any of your other opinions matter to us when you are so blatantly biased?
-------------------------
Edit - they posted a link to this article on MacDailyNews here:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8242/
b) so? i dont want my music in aac i want it in flac, many other players do support this
c) nano is too small (capacity wise) can you get black proper ipods? (not hte u2 one that looks horrific)
d) that was a joke :p hence why i said 3 reasons and put a 4th ;)
ipod is not the best portable audio device imo, might be in yours but not in mine.
Nah, that's just me. I HATE listening to the radio. The quality sucks, the music choice sucks, and it's full of commercials which - you guessed it - suck. Maybe there are better radio station choices where you live, but around me it's rap, fairly old classic rock, or some sort of Christian gospel type thing. None of which I care for. I'd much rather make a playlist of music that I like. I'll occasionally browse the iTMS, but don't often find anything I like and never end up with stuff I'd actually buy (though that's probably more due to my don't-support-the-RIAA stance I have than anything else).
Hamish:
a) What do you think iTunes IS? It's to put music on the iPod. The store wasn't added in until v4 or something. There are other choices available - generally to get music OFF the iPod (so you can steal your friend's collection), but you certainly don't need third party software to put music ON. As for mass-storage - it's been covered already. Also note that Apple RECOMMENDS that you use your iPod as a MSD to transfer between comps (after you make "The Switch", but it works for anything).
b) So do I. But the output quality isn't good enough to tell a difference, and as long as you don't switch players, it's not a problem. Of the dozen or so CDs I own, I have them ripped to flac, but 160VBR mp3 is fine for me, which is what goes on my iPod and in my iTunes library. However, not many players support FLAC, maybe a few more with OGG support, however you'll be hard pressed to find a player that has output quality good enough that 160VBR mp3 (or equivalent) actually sounds noticibly different than a lossless codec.
c) Yes. Only on the 5G models (iPod with video), but I don't imagine too many going out and trying to buy an older model.
d) I was wondering whether that letter/counting was a joke or you were mildly stoned. Thanks for clearing that up ;)
Honestly, if you're going to do biased product-bashing, at least know what you're talking about. Informed arguments at least make you look intelligent, even if people disagree.
This is the problem with this type of thing - there is no "best", it's FAR too subjective. If you do some sort of feature tally and assign everything a point value you can get close, but that's still subjective in the fact that most people don't give half a crap about OGG support, so why should it be worth just as much as an intuitive UI (etc, etc). However as far as centralizing everything and intuitiveness, I think it goes uncontested. Honestly, try it. As far as features, it's missing the (integrated) radio support that some want but otherwise it's a fairly level playing field. In terms of a legal music store, there's absolutely no contest, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is just downright wrong (and that's NOT subjective) - iTMS has the most consumer-friendly DRM with the largest selection.
I love how this went from "be original" to "why iPods (don't) suck" :)
My point is I do not want to have to use any 3rd party app to transfer music onto my mp3 player and least of all itunes, you might like the way itunes works i dont, i use foobar.
As I understand it you dont need itunes/3rd party app to put files on an ipod, so you can use it to transfer stuff between 2 machines without itunes/3rd party app but in order to put music on an ipod so that you can listen to it on the ipod you do need itunes/3rd party app.
I dont like that, at all.
My Creative is like that and apart from the size its the one thing that annoys me, however its not too bad as the software Creative ship with it just adds it as another device in windows explorer, so you can just drag and drop as if it were a USB Mass Storage device.
My iAudio is a proper USB Mass Storage device, it needs no drivers or 3rd party apps, you plug it in and you get a device in explorer just like with a usb thumbstick or similar devices.
That is the way i like it to work.
I can see why the ipod way appeals to your average user who doesnt want to mess around with folder structures, but i already have a folder structure because my music (like all other data on my computer) is organised in a logical folder structure. The way that appeals to the average user is not neccesarily the best way imo.
Can't say i use the radio function on my iAudio much either tbh, maybe once or twice in the whole time i've had it. The reason i went with an iAudio M3 over an iPod were USB Mass Storage, size, weight, battery life, flac support, price and looks.
It beats the ipod on every one of these points, even excluding aesthetics as being a very personal choice those are a lot of places to be beaten.
The iPod has a better interface than the iAudio, thats pretty much the only thing i dont like about it and as i said earlier in this thread if it had the Creative UI it'd be just about damn perfect :D
"I think the iPod stinks like rotten feet. And it gives you stupid-disease, too! Get one and you'll start carrying a man-purse!"
Could we get any FARTHER from the initial point of this discussion??
:D
/kicks thread BACK ON TOPIC.
- stir things up
- pour petrol onto a burning fire
- turn rape into murder
And that's three ways to put it.
I watched jobs .... and all i could think was .... yeah .... uhhmm PC's have been doing this for a while now ...
OSX ... I use it regularly ... here the basic issue ... its design is very rigid ... there is one way to do things and thats with the mouse ...
For folks who think vista is XP with a better skin ... you obviously havn't used the beta that much ... or have an old beta (the first one wasn't much more that an avalon tesh show
besides we all know that OSX is nothing more than BSD and Xwindows with a better skin
Honestly I will probibly buy a MAC laptop ... it will run perfectly with XP running on it ..
APPLE MAKES AWESOME HARDWARE .... the software is .... well crap
And Itunes the best mediaplayer .... PLEASE ...
Oh and for my last comment ... what does toshiba playrer do better than the ipod ... lets go thru the list
Plays videos on a bigger screen
is the same basic size
longer batterly life
UNIFIED NTERFACE
MEdia Center intergration (i tend to wonder what people will say when Apple makes a media center clone)
and support of mutiple formats
but then again I have an Ipod .... don't much like the interface .. and hate that apple brings out a new one every 3 hours ... but at the time it was the best thing to have ...
Oddly I like apple ... just don't like the fanboys .... seriously ... someone needs to get Jobs spunk of there face and open their eyes