Would you NOT buy an iPod because of what they stand for?

[tman1]

I have no idea what they "stand for" (if other than trying to make as much money as possible like any other company), but I want the best sound quality and a good interface, so I've never owned an ipod.

 

[Arainach]

I don't care what it stands for, I care what it IS. And at the moment it's the only 160GB player available at any price, the best price/capacity value on the market, the best battery life on the market, and an amazing sound quality. And that's why I own one.

 

[shigzeo]

after using my ipod touch at work today to review for an upcoming table tennis tourney whilst listening to atb through an lod or without... i cannot say that i could not be sold on it. i will be getting a nano fatty for my gf and myself for the 'road' (very small) use in the near future.

i was an ipod hater (md only) for so long but now, have calmed down (well, went through, everything dap but ipod) faze but... i calmed down and am using an ipod and love it. i came from d2 and meizu m6 both great for somethings but overall a very dissatisfactory experience.

i find as just for straight sound preference, the meizu was my fav if not for this hiss, followed by the ipod and then finally the d2. yeah, so even it can fit certain people's tastes - if that taste does not include too much fancy stuff -

 

[ashxcore]

I started off as an iPod lover when I got my 4G 40-gigger back in 2004, but my experience with it went from good to terrible. After having owned one, I was disinclined to buy another iPod. In the process of researching to find a replacement DAP, I began to see some glaring flaws of it that I didn't really notice when I owned one. It was my first DAP, so I cut it A LOT of slack.

I found a device that would be perfect for me--the Creative Zen Vision:M. However, at the time, it maxed out at 30GB. My music collection was just over 40GB and I really wanted to have everything. In the time it took me to wait for Creative to release a 60GB version, I ended up getting a PMP instead of a DAP--its cousin, the Vision:W.

I love it. The SQ is wonderful (compared to my unmodded 4G iPod) and I love having a custom EQ. Apple still hasn't released anything to compete with it.

I quickly began to hate the iPod. I still wouldn't buy one. To me, it stands for consumer ignorance and corporate loyalty. It especially doesn't help that Apple locks down its costumers and has this pompous aura. Who--that is not an iSheep--would buy an iPod knowing that there are better, cheaper (for the latter, this was before the introduction of the Classics) devices?

It is disgusting to me that after so many years of near-monopoly on the DAP market, Apple still has not decided to cater to the needs of the read consumer. Rockbox was to me the iPod's only saving grace and now, with the 6G, there seems to be no hope for it. Why should I have to use an alternative firmware that reduces battery life and disallows the use of video playback just to compare to the features of some other DAPs (namely iRivers, Creatives, and Cowons, but even Sandisk)?

Since the introduction of the 6G iPods, the DAP sector of Apple has become less odious to me. Why? Well, the battery life and storage (of the 160GB Classic) are unparalleled. And on top of that, there's gapless (I know this was added with the 5.5G). However, on that last note, it's pretty pathetic that the gapless playback is contingent on iTunes and is not native. Another plus is its bookmarking features and playlists.

As aforementioned, I got a ZVW. It's amazing, but too big for me to comfortably use for a DAP. Of course I'm still using it for video, but the need for something smaller sent me out on the hunt again. I lusted for the Classic when it came out, but was sad to see it plagued with some of the same old problems as the previous generations and Rockbox-free. Now I'm going to get a Zune 80.

Yeah, I admit, when I see people with those hideous tale-tale white earbuds, I do scoff.

I realize that iPods may suit some people's needs, but for the majority of its market dominance, I can't see it attributed to its own merits.

If Apple were to integrate these very simple functions, I'd jump the bandwagon myself:

- custom EQ (integral...and just downright silly to not include)
- microphone
- FM radio
- A FXXXING POWER BUTTON!! (really now...is it the Stone Age?!?)
- broader codec support (the biggest deterrent for me)
- a stripped-down version of iTunes (there's no need for that singular program to be so damn laggy and bloated and cause all those processes to run)

 

[zip22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashxcore /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, on that last note, it's pretty pathetic that the gapless playback is contingent on iTunes and is not native.

the formats are not natively gapless, so some software intervention is necessary.

how often do you use the mic or the radio? i can see why some may want these features, but they are of no importance to me. what formats would you like to see supported? WMA? if format support deterred you from the ipod, you should look at something other than the zune. its format support is close to identical (WMA and WMV being the only additions).

if creative or microsoft were to add these features, then the ipod would be knocked down a few slots on my list
-gapless
-lossless (microsoft is bringing it - finally, it was downright silly to not include it - creative has no excuse)
-UMS hard drive ability

its interesting that you are getting a zune when it only has 1 of the things on your wish list (FM)

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I.e. Would you NOT buy an iPod simply because it stands for mass produced eye candy?

Your question is flawed, the iPod is not mass produced eye candy. Even if you don't like it, you should concede its a functional device for a lot of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernado /img/forum/go_quote.gif Definitely not for me. I'm far too locked into a folder browsing structure to relinquish control to something that thinks it knows how to organise my life better than I do (even if its right)

I use both filetree, mediamonkey and iTunes together. They work well together. I bend them all to my will.

 

[Tipped_Pro95]

As for "mass produced eye candy," it's not like microsoft windows where they cornered the market with shady practices.
IMO Ipods are easy as hell to use.

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tipped_Pro95 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for "mass produced eye candy," it's not like microsoft windows where they cornered the market with shady practices. IMO Ipods are easy as hell to use.

I think you'll find most big companies, Apple included, aren't immune to the lure of the dollar.

 

[Tipped_Pro95]

Sparky191:

You'll think I .....huh? Your sentence is lacking a verb somewhere.

 

[_j_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narrator, Fight Club I flipped through catalogs and wondered: What kind of dining set defines me as a person?

 

[ashxcore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zip22 /img/forum/go_quote.gif the formats are not natively gapless, so some software intervention is necessary. how often do you use the mic or the radio? i can see why some may want these features, but they are of no importance to me. what formats would you like to see supported? WMA? if format support deterred you from the ipod, you should look at something other than the zune. its format support is close to identical (WMA and WMV being the only additions). if creative or microsoft were to add these features, then the ipod would be knocked down a few slots on my list -gapless -lossless (microsoft is bringing it - finally, it was downright silly to not include it - creative has no excuse) -UMS hard drive ability its interesting that you are getting a zune when it only has 1 of the things on your wish list (FM)

Oh, it's the Apple-sypathetic from DAPreview. XD

Didn't the Karma play files gaplessly without software intervention? And some iRivers?

We talked of this there, I do think. I mentioned how vital XviD and DivX are.

Well WMV and WMA are important to me. It's just silliness for Apple not to support it (unprotected WMA, especially). The Zune and new Zen support [unprotected] AAC.

Yeah, those factors you mentioned would really be nice.

I'm getting the Zune because it's not the iPod. There's nothing aside from the two of those that fulfill my desire for capacity. I'm still using my ZVW for video, which is why I'm not making a fuss about the anemic codec support from the Zune as well.

 

[zip22]

itunes will convert wma automatically, but there is a difference. aac is a standard developed by a number of companies (not including apple). wma is microsoft's own format. if by 'silliness' you mean not supporting (and paying for) a rival's format that is uneeded since they already use aac, then yes it is silly.

we did discuss gapless earlier and i am still not clear exactly how the karma managed. hydrogenaudio's wiki seems to suggest it only worked with mp3s (and only with proper tags - since mp3 isn't natively gapless?).

 

[ashxcore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zip22 /img/forum/go_quote.gif itunes will convert wma automatically, but there is a difference. aac is a standard developed by a number of companies (not including apple). wma is microsoft's own format. if by 'silliness' you mean not supporting (and paying for) a rival's format that is uneeded since they already use aac, then yes it is silly. we did discuss gapless earlier and i am still not clear exactly how the karma managed. hydrogenaudio's wiki seems to suggest it only worked with mp3s (and only with proper tags - since mp3 isn't natively gapless?).

But more products than the Zune support WMA. You rarely see a DAP that just plays back MP3, it's normally WMA too. This has been going on for years, yet Apple repeatedly decides not to include it in its roster of supported formats. It reminds me of some silly game of spite.

You can say that you don't use those auxiliary functions, but it is not up to the company to decide for you if you want to use them. If all your competitors are integrating them, why not give the people what they are clamoring for (or appear to be demanding)?

Why would someone on Head-Fi talk about transcoding lossy files? Tut tut...

 

[RubenNYC]

The Karma supported perfect gaplessness with FLAC and Ogg Vorbis with no extra magic.

With MP3s, the Karma natively honored LAMEs track length information to achieve gaplessness. If you used RMM to transfer tracks, RMM was responsible for populating the Karma's database wth all tag information, including track length. If you used RMML, the Karma itself was responsible for populating its own database with tag info.

For non LAME MP3s, it checked the final frame of the track looking for a sudden drop in volume down to zero and compensated accordingly.

Now, in all honesty, the Karma didn't get mp3 gapless down quite right, even with LAME. Very close but no cigar. For this reason, I always used Ogg Vorbis for anything that had to be gapless.

The vibez handles LAME MP3 gaplessness perfectly as long as you use ID3v2 tags only.

To sum up: No, computer side software magic is not required to acheive mp3 gaplessness.

 

[zip22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashxcore /img/forum/go_quote.gif why not give the people what they are clamoring for (or appear to be demanding)?

indeed, look at how fast the ipod is loosing market share...

RubenNYC, thanks for the description. if i'm not mistaken flas and ogg support gapless, so that makes sense.

it sounds to me like software magic on some end is required for formats like mp3 (lame-tags, RMM, or doing it the imperfect way by looking for drops in the file.