[Alexhifi]

Why do people actually hate something JUST because it is trendy? Is it "trendy" to trash talk popular items? I'm sure there are many popular items you like too.

After PLENTY of research, I choose an iPod and am very happy with it. There are very real advantages to having an item many others have.

-Alex

 

[TooNice]

I do like drag and drop. That said, the player I -was- going to get (Karma) doesn't support it either.
[After one report of unreliability too many, and two failed bids on ebay, I decided to wait and see if there is going to be a successor, or something similar without the reliability issue]

To me though, the whole blog is basically a semi-educated rant against trends. He does provide some level of justifications for his opinions, which makes it a bit more credible than a typical fanboy rant... there are still holes in his arguments.

 

[Cyclone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexhifi Why do people actually hate something JUST because it is trendy? Is it "trendy" to trash talk popular items?

Yup, you pretty much got it.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone Yup, you pretty much got it.

I think there's more to it than that. I'm pretty sure some people hate the owners and marketing of the product (ipod in this case) more than the product itself. I personally have nothing against the ipod, I'd get one if I didn't already have the a dap. I rec. a mini to my niece. But sometimes I hear the owners saying the stupidest things ever (i.e. it's infallible, it's the universal king of daps, other players are considered ugly by all cause I say so, etc). The iriver, creative, rio, etc fanboys act just as dumb, but admittely they're no match for the apple ones when it comes to craziness. Often it's just the crap that comes out of some mouths that increases the animosity towards a product. ("Bose is the greatest mofos! It's the s**t and it owns you all! Woot!!") [begin enter sandman intro]

 

[J3mo]

there's alternative software for ipod
i deleted itunes altogether and am using winamp ipod plugin

http://www.harrison-fisher.co.uk/mli....php?page=home

granted that if yer prob against the ipod / itunes is the fact that you gotta use "proper" id3 tags to find the tunes you store, you'll still not like the ipod plugin. But otherwise, it seems to be able to do all the things itunes can do. except for file conversions.
it didn't present a problem whatsoever so far either (as far as being buggy)

... but if you do, don't blame me =P

*
a mini question of my own: how reliable of a software is itunes for ripping cds into mp3s?

 

[fguihen]

whats annoying about the ipod is the users( not all of us). the ones who walk around with it making sure people see it, and like some people i know, looking down their nose at other players as " that interface is impossible to use" and other stupid comments like "that player is ok but its no ipod". ipod has its flaws,as do all players, but as stated before, because ipod is more in the public eye, theese flaws are made seem a lot bigger. at the end of the day its the most popular music player around now, even taking sony down a peg or two, which is not easily done, so kudos for that. it sounds alright, not fantastic, but to most users it is absolutely fine.its headphones are rubbish and should be replaced as soon as you get one, except by the posers who buy the ipod just so people see the white headphones and know they have an ipod.like other people care.

 

[JWFokker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZackT Yeah there are a few features the iPod could do with but I'd say most poeple wouldn't really care.

Poor reasoning. Most people buy an ipod for looks and name only. They use the stock earbuds that come with it too. Would you prefer that all products were made based upon what most people really care about? In that case, you might as well screw sound quality, the ability to use your DAP as a storage device and all kinds of other features that you, and many other head-fiers want. But since most people don't care about those features, why include them? There's no reason for manufacturers to not include support for alternate audio codecs. It'll only cost them a few kilobytes. But instead companies like Apple and Sony are busy designing proprietary software to prevent copyright violations and crap like that. There's no reason to not include features that even your smaller competitors have.

 

[some1x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWFokker Poor reasoning. Most people buy an ipod for looks and name only. They use the stock earbuds that come with it too.

Can't disagree with that. Why must you rant against the iPod on head-fi of all places? Then again most people who buy any DAP uses the stock earbuds too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWFokker Would you prefer that all products were made based upon what most people really care about? In that case, you might as well screw sound quality,

Most products are based upon what most people really care about; iRiver and Creative are no different. Ipod's sound quality is quite good for a DAP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWFokker the ability to use your DAP as a storage device and all kinds of other features that you, and many other head-fiers want. But since most people don't care about those features, why include them?

iPod does let you use it as a storage device. With all the addons available, arguably you get more features with iPod than with other devices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWFokker There's no reason for manufacturers to not include support for alternate audio codecs.

More codecs couldn't hurt. Frankly, I don't have use for ogg. AAC/MP3 sounds fine if you ripped them directly from CD. ALAC is great for the higher capacity players also.

 

[Seijang]

When I was first looking for mp3 players, I wanted to get an iPod. All the other ones seemed clunky and worthless.

But someone tell me WHY apple forces you to use software to transfer songs? Why can't we just drag and drop?

WHY ARE WE NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE TO DRAG AND DROP? WHY ARE WE NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE TO USE OTHER CODECS OTHER THAN MP3 AND APPLE'S?

Where are the choices? Apple stinks of attempting to force people to use more of their product than need be (ie software) and trying to convert more people into using their products. This is fine. But I hate it when it interferes with great choices and possibilities they could have included into their product.

I wanted an iPod at first, I really did. But Apple had to go and be *****holes about it.

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seijang When I was first looking for mp3 players, I wanted to get an iPod. All the other ones seemed clunky and worthless. But someone tell me WHY apple forces you to use software to transfer songs? Why can't we just drag and drop? WHY ARE WE NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE TO DRAG AND DROP? WHY ARE WE NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE TO USE OTHER CODECS OTHER THAN MP3 AND APPLE'S? Where are the choices? Apple stinks of attempting to force people to use more of their product than need be (ie software) and trying to convert more people into using their products. This is fine. But I hate it when it interferes with great choices and possibilities they could have included into their product. I wanted an iPod at first, I really did. But Apple had to go and be *****holes about it.

No player is perfect. I'm not too fond of ipods myself, because I also need a few features that they don't have. However, iPods have good features that other players don't have too. Just be glad that we as consumers actually have choices =).

 

[DiamondView]

Quote:

Originally Posted by some1x I encode some of my albums as a single track when used on iPod. This takes care of gapless playback.

Here Here. I dunno why people make such a big deal over gapless. Sure you lose your fast indexing convenience - but hey, jumping around to different tracks is hardly a continuous listening experience anyhow...

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamondView Here Here. I dunno why people make such a big deal over gapless. Sure you lose your fast indexing convenience - but hey, jumping around to different tracks is hardly a continuous listening experience anyhow...

If you have a lot of trance-type albums like me that are produced completely gapless (but still with separate tracks on cue), it's necessary for maximum enjoyment. My friend went the MD-player route because of the lack of gapless in the most mp3 players.

 

[DiamondView]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gshan If you have a lot of trance-type albums like me that are produced completely gapless (but still with separate tracks on cue), it's necessary for maximum enjoyment. My friend went the MD-player route because of the lack of gapless in the most mp3 players.

Surely there's some irony in insisting on gapless but then wanting the convenience ("necessary for maximum enjoyment") to not listen to it completely gapless ?

I also listen to a fair number of mixed cd's and find that making single album mp3 files is not that inconvenient. I can always check the cd when I get home if i'm unsure of a track title & fast forward works pretty well for the boring tracks... comprimises make (my) life interesting. For your friend I guess the compromise is carrying a case of MD's.

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamondView Surely there's some irony in insisting on gapless but then wanting the convenience ("necessary for maximum enjoyment") to not listen to it completely gapless ? I also listen to a fair number of mixed cd's and find that making single album mp3 files is not that inconvenient. I can always check the cd when I get home if i'm unsure of a track title & fast forward works pretty well for the boring tracks... comprimises make (my) life interesting. For your friend I guess the compromise is carrying a case of MD's.

Hm, I guess we would then need a HD player that supports .cue files?

 

[ZackT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWFokker Poor reasoning. Most people buy an ipod for looks and name only. They use the stock earbuds that come with it too. Would you prefer that all products were made based upon what most people really care about? In that case, you might as well screw sound quality, the ability to use your DAP as a storage device and all kinds of other features that you, and many other head-fiers want. But since most people don't care about those features, why include them? There's no reason for manufacturers to not include support for alternate audio codecs. It'll only cost them a few kilobytes. But instead companies like Apple and Sony are busy designing proprietary software to prevent copyright violations and crap like that. There's no reason to not include features that even your smaller competitors have.

I agree with you, but the question was "why do people buy iPod's?" like you said - Most people buy on "looks and name" that is why iPod is doing so well. When other players can match the iPods aesthetics and ease of use then perhaps they will do well too? The features you and I want (gapless, audiophile sq etc.) are NOT a concern for 90% of those buying iPods. I'm not saying this is a good thing - but it is a thing.

It's not "what I prefer" but it is the way it is. I appreciate what Apple does well (aesthetics ease-of-use etc.) Those of us who think that gapless, sq and other features are more important (by the way the iPod can def be used as a storage device - what are you on about?) then they will go for other players.