[cmascatello]

There is a decent review of the iPod Mini that I stumbled across this AM. Seems that the reviewer likes the size and look of the new models, although he does point out the smaller screen and price issues. On a positive note, the battery appears to exceed the play-time that Apple reports on the spec sheet....

Quote:

Apple is claiming a battery life of eight hours for the Mini. To test this claim, Katie and I ran three battery tests. In one, the results were just shy of Apple's claim, at seven hours and 46 minutes. But in the other two tests, with two different iPods, the Mini lasted nine hours and 15 minutes, and a whopping 10 hours and 40 minutes. That indicates to me that an average Mini would likely exceed Apple's eight-hour claim.

The article might also have the reason behind the reported shipping of very limited quantities for the Mini's release next week:

Quote:

We had to abandon a fourth battery test when one of the iPods froze up, something I've never seen before on any iPod. But Apple says that freeze was a known defect in the preproduction models we were testing, and has been fixed. We never saw a freeze again.

Here is a link to the full article: http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20040211.html

 

[austonia]

good find. I am more convinced I need to replace my Nitrus with a Mini.

 

[TMC]

I think they need to specify what kind and size of files they ran for that battery test and did they even run the same files on all 3 players? I have a feeling he's using pretty small files seeing he crammed in 1200 songs in a 4GB, that's not even 4MB/song. Unless those 1200 songs average 3.5 mins, I think he's got a fair share of <128kbit/s files.

 

[cmascatello]

I got the feeling that he was running 3-3:30 tracks encoded at 128kbps for the testing. That track length would fit with the reference to 60's-era music -- most early rock tracks were in that range so they would play well for radio broadcasts. Also, since it was a test unit (4 units), Apple might have provided access to 128kbps AAC files from iTMS. They seem to be very particular about stressing the 128 when describing capacity and testing.

 

[TMC]

That could be right, but out of those players he tested, I wonder if the variation in battery life has anything to do with the files being played is of different bitrates, or if there is such a huge difference from player to player? It just turns into too much speculation, I wish he had specified the test more.

 

[blessingx]

I think cmascatello is right. Pre-AAC support iPod stats always used 160 kb/s MP3 tracks (which was unusual at the time when everyone measured capacity at 128) for discussions, but since AAC support has started I believe Apple and others use 128 AAC as the base. Plus I believe it's iTunes default setting (in case that wasn't adjusted), not to mention iTMS already mentioned. Who knows, he may have some audiobooks also. That's what throws my averages out or wack (low bitrates/file size and depending on how they're cut - every 3 minutes or 8 hours).

 

[TMC]

But wouldn't that mean there's a battery life fluctuation of about 3 hours from player to player? I certainly would feel ripped off if I got 3 hours less than some other guy that paid the same as me.

 

[cmascatello]

They could have been riding the shuffle, backlight, play controls, etc. on the unit that had the shortest battery life. I can't imagine a 35% variance on the playtimes right out of the box.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by TMC But wouldn't that mean there's a battery life fluctuation of about 3 hours from player to player? I certainly would feel ripped off if I got 3 hours less than some other guy that paid the same as me.

True, I was typing as your response showed up. I agree it really needs to be better documented. Like mentioned you can run low bitrate songs on one and really keep those battery spins down on one player versus another.

... and happy 666 post TMC.

 

[TMC]

Quote:

Originally posted by cmascatello They could have been riding the shuffle, backlight, play controls, etc. on the unit that had the shortest battery life. I can't imagine a 35% variance on the playtimes right out of the box.

I'd expect they would know at least that much that they shouldn't fiddle with the players while doing a battery life test. Ah I feel there's no point to trying to guess how they did it, there are way to many factors. Right now I feel that battery life test really doesn't tell me anything about what to expect. But no matter, there should be other reviews coming soon.

 

[TMC]

Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx ... and happy 666 post TMC.

Thanks, but it's already gone