lindrone
King Canaling
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Posts
- 3,887
- Likes
- 27
Okay.. so the thread starter is back making a comment, after about what seems like 10,000 pages of arguing back and forth.
I think we have to recognize a very important thing here, yes, iPod does have a shorter battery runtime than other portable players, but the shorter battery runtime is made in trade-off for another positive aspect that many people has not mentioned here. For me, it's a very important trade-off as well.
If you look at the size specification for the Rio Karma, on the surface it's about the same size as the iPod, but in reality the Karma is much, much thicker than the iPod:
iPod 15GB/20GB:
4.1 by 2.4 by 0.62 inches => 6.1 cubic inch
iPod 40GB:
4.1 by 2.4 by 0.73 inches => 7.18 cubic inch
Rio Karma:
2.7” X 3.0” X 1.1” => 8.91 cubic inch
The Karma is almost 3 cubic inches larger than the 15/20GB iPod, and it is almost 2 cubic inches larger than the 20GB iPod. This extra space is no doubt either cheaper components, or larger battery, since the hard drive used in both are the same physical size. Given Karma's solid build, I would not say it's cheaper components that takes up more space, but the battery that's taking up more space. Larger battery equals longer lifetime.
Now, what does that mean for me personally? I tried out a Karma, try putting it into my pants pocket and walking around with it. It makes a very visible bulge that's just outright uncomfortable, and countless "or are you just happy to see me" jokes are surely to follow.
The iPod, with its long and thin form factor, fits into my pants pocket just fine. It protrudes no more than say, a cellphone in your pocket, and most of the time, it's hardly noticeable at all. It just looks like I have a wire going to my pocket from my head (in combination with the E5c, I think people think I'm deaf and is using some super-high-tech hearing technology).
Sure, I could get various cases, belt clips.. so on.. so forth.. but nothing beats being able to just throw a player into your pocket and go.
That extra sense of portability and versatility is what Apple traded the battery life for. For most lifestyles, that trade-off makes sense. Your average people wont' be listening to 8 hours of work a day. They don't have 8 hour commutes, and they don't have 8 hours of solitude at work per day to listen to their music. I have meetings scheduled throughout the day, talking and communicating with co-workers that regularly disturbs any possiblity of prolonged listening sessions... not to mention one that matches/exceeds my working hours.
Meanwhile we can all bash Apple for not offering up more battery life, there's a clear reason why they made that choice. Yet I think we have failed to cover the positive trade-off that Apple has made. We're a nation obssessed with specs and numbers, why else do people pay for the latest Pentium 4 Extreme CPU's that demands a 300% premium over the next tier product which is only 5% slower in real world performance?
As far as battery cover/easily removable battery is concerned. If you looked at the instructions on how to replace iPod's battery, you can see the battery is rather located in a slightly awkward way, that requires moving the mainboard out of the way for a bit. I think they were having a hard time fitting the battery into such a confined space to begin with. They did a very good job at rearranging the physical location of the battery to make sure they can get a slim form factor.
A removable battery will mean more contacts, different arrangments, and thickness has to be added to the casing to make it possible. Which would again, increase the overall size of the iPod. This is one trade-off I'm not so happy with, but they still didn't make replacement impossible... just not as straight-forward as it should've been.
Comparison to other consumer devices.. my Nokia cellphone has a removable shell for customizing to your color and what nots... it basically removes the entire casing of the phone and exposes what's underneath. Not much different than pulling apart iPod's casing.. really.
iPod's casing is much tighter than the Nokia phone, of course. However, I also have to pull apart my Nokia phone every 2 weeks or so to clean off the dust that has somehow made its way inside the casing. iPod doesn't have that problem.
I think we have to recognize a very important thing here, yes, iPod does have a shorter battery runtime than other portable players, but the shorter battery runtime is made in trade-off for another positive aspect that many people has not mentioned here. For me, it's a very important trade-off as well.
If you look at the size specification for the Rio Karma, on the surface it's about the same size as the iPod, but in reality the Karma is much, much thicker than the iPod:
iPod 15GB/20GB:
4.1 by 2.4 by 0.62 inches => 6.1 cubic inch
iPod 40GB:
4.1 by 2.4 by 0.73 inches => 7.18 cubic inch
Rio Karma:
2.7” X 3.0” X 1.1” => 8.91 cubic inch
The Karma is almost 3 cubic inches larger than the 15/20GB iPod, and it is almost 2 cubic inches larger than the 20GB iPod. This extra space is no doubt either cheaper components, or larger battery, since the hard drive used in both are the same physical size. Given Karma's solid build, I would not say it's cheaper components that takes up more space, but the battery that's taking up more space. Larger battery equals longer lifetime.
Now, what does that mean for me personally? I tried out a Karma, try putting it into my pants pocket and walking around with it. It makes a very visible bulge that's just outright uncomfortable, and countless "or are you just happy to see me" jokes are surely to follow.
The iPod, with its long and thin form factor, fits into my pants pocket just fine. It protrudes no more than say, a cellphone in your pocket, and most of the time, it's hardly noticeable at all. It just looks like I have a wire going to my pocket from my head (in combination with the E5c, I think people think I'm deaf and is using some super-high-tech hearing technology).
Sure, I could get various cases, belt clips.. so on.. so forth.. but nothing beats being able to just throw a player into your pocket and go.
That extra sense of portability and versatility is what Apple traded the battery life for. For most lifestyles, that trade-off makes sense. Your average people wont' be listening to 8 hours of work a day. They don't have 8 hour commutes, and they don't have 8 hours of solitude at work per day to listen to their music. I have meetings scheduled throughout the day, talking and communicating with co-workers that regularly disturbs any possiblity of prolonged listening sessions... not to mention one that matches/exceeds my working hours.
Meanwhile we can all bash Apple for not offering up more battery life, there's a clear reason why they made that choice. Yet I think we have failed to cover the positive trade-off that Apple has made. We're a nation obssessed with specs and numbers, why else do people pay for the latest Pentium 4 Extreme CPU's that demands a 300% premium over the next tier product which is only 5% slower in real world performance?
As far as battery cover/easily removable battery is concerned. If you looked at the instructions on how to replace iPod's battery, you can see the battery is rather located in a slightly awkward way, that requires moving the mainboard out of the way for a bit. I think they were having a hard time fitting the battery into such a confined space to begin with. They did a very good job at rearranging the physical location of the battery to make sure they can get a slim form factor.
A removable battery will mean more contacts, different arrangments, and thickness has to be added to the casing to make it possible. Which would again, increase the overall size of the iPod. This is one trade-off I'm not so happy with, but they still didn't make replacement impossible... just not as straight-forward as it should've been.
Comparison to other consumer devices.. my Nokia cellphone has a removable shell for customizing to your color and what nots... it basically removes the entire casing of the phone and exposes what's underneath. Not much different than pulling apart iPod's casing.. really.
iPod's casing is much tighter than the Nokia phone, of course. However, I also have to pull apart my Nokia phone every 2 weeks or so to clean off the dust that has somehow made its way inside the casing. iPod doesn't have that problem.
