[Sweet Spot]

Man....these arguments happen way too often and are a waste of time to look at. I think we should have a new rule which everyone should adhere to, and if they don't, they get a temporary ban. The rule should be:

If you don't own or haven't used the product you're talking about extensively, then you should make a disclaimer stating so, because anything afterwards is purely heresy or opinion. I speak from experience when I say that doing otherwise will always lead you down a long road to nowhere with a full tank of *flames* to keep you going.

Bah...I probably just typed that for nothing. Oh well, let the sillyness ensue.

 

[GSTom1]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF The battery life is around 8 hours. IMO, battery life is overrated. Unless you're listening for 8 hours straight, it's not really a big deal. When you come home, you plop it in the dock and it's charged the next morning. NOTE: if you really DO need longer battery life, then it's relevant. My point is that for the vast majority of users, having super-long battery life is really not a big deal. (I used to rant about how great my MD player's 70-hour battery life was... until I realized that I never listened for more than 7 or 8 hours at a time )

You'll get 8 hours on the iPod if you use lower quality music files, do not shuffle or even touch the player and just let it sit there playing at low volume. But most of us live in the real world. We take our portables on the go. We want to be able to fiddle with the sound and playback options. We want to use higher quality music files. We want to be able to use all the features of our player. Why include PDA like features and games if your battery can't handle them?

If you put the iPod through a typical day of realistic use, you'll be lucky to get 6 hours of battery life. That simply won't cut it for msot people.

You discount the importance of battery life, but for most people that is a very important consideration. When buying an mp3 player, what features do people usually scrutinize? Sound is probably the most important. After that, it's probably size, battery life and features. I'm not talking about super-long battery life either but something decent in the 10-16 hour range.

If most other mp3 players can achieve that, why can't the iPod?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by GSTom1 You'll get 8 hours on the iPod if you use lower quality music files, do not shuffle or even touch the player and just let it sit there playing at low volume.

What you say is true for all players -- the lower the bitrate, the lower the volume, the less shuffling... the longer the battery life.

But, like austonia, you severely exaggerate the issue. I use 160k AAC -- significantly higher quality than the 128k MP3 used for the "stock" setting, and quite good sounding -- and play at an average volume, not "low." I get around 8 hours of use. Do I sit there constantly skipping songs? No.


Quote:

But most of us live in the real world. We take our portables on the go. We want to be able to fiddle with the sound and playback options. We want to use higher quality music files. We want to be able to use all the features of our player. Why include PDA like features and games if your battery can't handle them?

I use my iPod "in the real world." I skip songs occasionally. I use higher-quality music files. I use the PDA features of it.

But, again, 6 hours, 8 hours -- for most people it's not a big deal.


Quote:

You discount the importance of battery life, but for most people that is a very important consideration.

For YOU it might be a very important consideration. How do you know if it is for "most people?" That's part of the point I am making here -- too many people think that what's important to them must be important for other people.

If you actually see some of the market research that goes on around this issue, people generally say they want long battery life, but when you actually ask them how long they use their portable music player, most people respond with answers like "a couple hours at a time."

The problem is that people in this thread and around the Web rant over and over and over and over and over to anyone who will listen that "8 hours sucks!" People start buying products based on battery life they'll never use or need, at the expense of features they might actually use.

For example, whenever I dock my iPod, my calendars, contacts, news stories... oh, and my music

... are automatically synced. Those are features I actually use on a daily basis, and ones that I suspect a lot of people would use a lot more often than an optical out or the ability to record via a line-in jack. And probably features that would be more useful to the average user than the difference in battery life between 8 hours and 15 hours.

Quote:

I'm not talking about super-long battery life either but something decent in the 10-16 hour range. If most other mp3 players can achieve that, why can't the iPod?

What's so confusing? The battery life of the iPod is shorter than other units because of its size. It's as simple as that. The older iPods had 12-14 hours of battery life. The new ones get around 8. The new ones are smaller because they have a significantly thinner battery. Not a coincidence

The Dell DJ is 3.4 cubic inches larger than the iPod. They use the same type of hard drive, so a significant portion of that larger size is a bigger battery. For me, the size difference is significant enough that I'm willing to sacrifice some battery life... especially because I'm realistic in my usage estimates, and know that I hardly ever need "16 hours" of battery life.

 

[iPodophile]

I'm kind of puzzled about the battery life concerns myself. I frequent quite a few forums where portable MP3 players are discussed, and no where but here are people as concerned about battery life. I don't have access to a charger or power supply all day at work, and the 6 or 7 hours of actual listening time I get is more than enough.

Are the people with these concerns planning on taking these things on week-long camping trips on a regular basis?

 

[SpoonMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by GSTom1 You'll get 8 hours on the iPod if you use lower quality music files, do not shuffle or even touch the player and just let it sit there playing at low volume. But most of us live in the real world. We take our portables on the go. We want to be able to fiddle with the sound and playback options. We want to use higher quality music files. We want to be able to use all the features of our player. Why include PDA like features and games if your battery can't handle them? If you put the iPod through a typical day of realistic use, you'll be lucky to get 6 hours of battery life. That simply won't cut it for msot people. You discount the importance of battery life, but for most people that is a very important consideration. When buying an mp3 player, what features do people usually scrutinize? Sound is probably the most important. After that, it's probably size, battery life and features. I'm not talking about super-long battery life either but something decent in the 10-16 hour range. If most other mp3 players can achieve that, why can't the iPod?

90% of my mp3's are encoded at alt-preset-extreme, and (when I actually use my iPod for long periods of time) always get over 7 hours of battery life...I skip songs if I don't feel like listening to them, I use the PDA features, and I use OTG plyalists.

Much like macDEF said...to me, the auto syncing and other features brought to the table by iTunes is more important, then more battery life I'll never need.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Just chiming in to say that the assumption that 8 hours of battery life is not enough for most people is not necessarily true. For me, 8 hours or even 6 hours is plenty for one charge. I'm not likely to listen to more than 3-4 hours per day. I don't have a HD based player yet (plan to get an iPod soon) and I use an old Sharp MD portable that gets about 8 hours per charge. That lasts me about a week.

So, when you say the iPod's battery life is not enough, that is YOUR OPINION based on YOUR USAGE.

 

[GSTom1]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF What's so confusing? The battery life of the iPod is shorter than other units because of its size. It's as simple as that. The older iPods had 12-14 hours of battery life. The new ones get around 8. The new ones are smaller because they have a significantly thinner battery. Not a coincidence The Dell DJ is 3.4 cubic inches larger than the iPod. They use the same type of hard drive, so a significant portion of that larger size is a bigger battery. For me, the size difference is significant enough that I'm willing to sacrifice some battery life... especially because I'm realistic in my usage estimates, and know that I hardly ever need "16 hours" of battery life.

Unfortuantely, you can't use the iPod's size as an excuse for its low battery life anymore. Why is it that the iRiver iHP can achieve nearly double the battery life of the iPod while their form factors and weights are nearly the same?

iPod
Size: 60mmx16mmx104mm
Weight: 158g
Battery: 8 hours


iHP
Size: 60mmx19mmx105mm
Weight: 160g
Battery: 16 hours



I think Apple just developed the wrong battery for the iPod.

Oh well, I'm sure they'll make improvements for the Gen 4 iPods.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Quote:

iPod Size: 60mmx16mmx104mm Weight: 158g Battery: 8 hours iHP Size: 60mmx19mmx105mm Weight: 160g Battery: 16 hours

You realize this is roughly a difference in volume of 1.21 in^3 which is about the volume of a AA battery? I have some AA's which are 1200 mAh. The battery in the iPod is 630 mAh. In other words, I would imagine the battery life could easily be doubled by increasing the size to that of the iHP

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by GSTom1 Unfortuantely, you can't use the iPod's size as an excuse for its low battery life anymore. Why is it that the iRiver iHP can achieve nearly double the battery life of the iPod while their form factors and weights are nearly the same?

You need to look a bit more critically.

The iHP uses a 20GB hard drive. That drive is thinner than the 40GB hard drive. With that in mind, consider the comparison again:

40GB iPod: 4.1 by 2.4 by 0.73 inches = 7.18 cubic inches
iHP: 4.1 by 2.4 by 0.75 inches = 7.30 cubic inches

The iPod uses a physically larger hard drive in a slightly smaller case. So the battery must be significantly smaller.


Now look at the 20GB iPod, which uses a hard drive that is physically the same size as the one used in the iHP:

20GB iPod: 4.1 by 2.4 by 0.62 inches = 6.10

It's 1.28 cubic inches smaller. That's a significant difference. If the 20GB iPod were the same size as the iHP, it could increase the thickness of the battery ~1/5 of an inch (assuming the battery is nearly the same height and width as the iPod itself). That's enough to make up for the difference in battery life.

Apple chose to go with size over battery life. It's really that simple.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Quote:

40GB iPod: 4.1 by 2.4 by 0.73 inches = 7.18 cubic inches

Your calculations are a bit off. Going by the dimensions GSTom1 quoted, the iPod's volume is 6.0926 in^3 and iHP's volume is 7.305 in^3.

EDIT: But you are still relatively close.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daffy_Duck Your calculations are a bit off. Going by the dimensions GSTom1 quoted, the iPod's volume is 6.0926 in^3 and iHP's volume is 7.305 in^3.

You're right in terms of the iHP. I was using the dimensions presented on the Apple and iRiver websites, in inches, rounded to the nearest hundredth of an inch. But I did the mm -> inches conversion for the iHP *before* calculating volume, which introduced more degrees of conversion error than calculating the volume and then converting to cubic inches

If I do it correctly, the volume of the iHP is 7.30 cubic inches, not 7.38. Edited the original post accordingly.

The volume of the iPod was correct, though, since it's official dimensions are in inches, not mm: 6.10 cubic inches.

 

[Daffy_Duck]

Close enough. At first, I was looking at the volume you stated for the 40GB and comparing it to the dims that Tom posted which apparently is for the 10 & 20 GB versions. That's why I edited my post after I noticed the discrepancy.

 

[PooJou]

You do realise that the extra thickness of the iriver is prolly due more to all the extra stuff shoved into it rather than the battery itself??

You're all assuming that the size dif is JUST due to the battery alone, when you do know you're prolly wrong, unless someone actually opens both up and compares battery size, this argument is just stupid...

I'd say apple just stuffed the battery myself

 

[Redefine]

Quote:

And, in fact, it suffers from significantly limited organizational abilities.

Well you do have some abilities. By organizational abilities I assume you are talking about arranging your files by artist. album. etc.? If that is the case, you certainly can do this using Explorer as well by simply right clicking inside the window.

Quote:

My point is that for the vast majority of users, having super-long battery life is really not a big deal.

Can we say opinion? Unless you know for a fact that the vast majority of users don't need a longer battery life, I wouldn't make such comments.

Quote:

Better form factor and ease of use. Smart Playlists, which no other player has. Better "guts" (the iPod has way more processing power and a much more advanced OS inside). Better possible future expandability. Better add-on potential thanks to the dock connector. Better sound (IMO). FireWire. Better music management (iTunes). More features that most people will actually use.

Just a question. Going off your statements, does this mean you've actually tried the iHP? If not, then ...

Quote:

Did you actually read the thread? At least four people made posts to the effect of:

That's the problem. You assume way too much.

This is a neat place BTW.

 

[GSTom1]

Quote:

Originally posted by PooJou You do realise that the extra thickness of the iriver is prolly due more to all the extra stuff shoved into it rather than the battery itself?? You're all assuming that the size dif is JUST due to the battery alone, when you do know you're prolly wrong, unless someone actually opens both up and compares battery size, this argument is just stupid... I'd say apple just stuffed the battery myself

I was going to say the same thing regarding the size differences...
perhaps the iHP is slightly thicker becuase it has so many features such as the built in radio, recording capabilites and optical lines more. All of these features more make up for such a minute difference in thickness between the two players, especially since th iHP has a 16 hour rated battery.

But there's no sense in getting into further debate. To some people, size is everything, even at the sacrifice of half the battery life.