PDA

View Full Version : CHEAPER IPOD?


MacBytes
Dec 22, 2005, 03:04 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: CHEAPER IPOD? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051222160420)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Nermal
Dec 22, 2005, 03:29 PM
For Kathy's sake, I hope her daughter doesn't have any AAC-format music!

runninmac
Dec 22, 2005, 03:36 PM
You would think with a title like that they would be speculating a cheaper iPod but apparently he just wanted to tell people that there are cheaper MP3 players out there. He just seems to forget the easy-to-use aspect of it.

jholzner
Dec 22, 2005, 03:39 PM
If you can live without the iPod name?? The device is not just any other mp3 player with a popular name! The device is just better engineerd...and what about iTunes? sheesh.

Seasought
Dec 22, 2005, 03:41 PM
One of the hottest selling items this holiday season has been Apple's iPod.

But many stores ran out by early December...And many of us don't have 200 bucks for a music player.

So should you consider a cheaper, off brand player?

No, save your money until you can afford an iPod. You get what you pay for.

yellow
Dec 22, 2005, 03:43 PM
Hmm.. that would be interesting if Apple's iPod became the defacto name for all MP3 players... kinda like how Band-Aid, Kleenex, and Xerox all dominated to the point where their product became the "word" used to generally describe all products of it's ilk.

winmacguy
Dec 22, 2005, 03:46 PM
I didn't know that the Shuffles sold for $200 US ;)

Sunrunner
Dec 22, 2005, 03:55 PM
I didn't know that the Shuffles sold for $200 US ;)


Dude doesnt know what he is talking about. Shuffles are running at like $75.

ebow
Dec 22, 2005, 04:46 PM
I didn't know that the Shuffles sold for $200 USDude doesnt know what he is talking about. Shuffles are running at like $75.

Not exactly. He's discounting the Shuffles since they don't have a screen. (New) iPods with screens start at $199.

For 99 dollars, you can buy an iPod Shuffle...but there is no display screen, which most young people want.

dontmatter
Dec 22, 2005, 05:10 PM
Dude. Capacity? If you want the same player from apple or non apple (as measured by having a screen) you can save 160 bucks, he argues, by ditching the catchy name. Um, yeah, 120 megs=2 gigs, nevermind subjective arguments of style, interface, and apps on the computer. NOT.

tech journalism at it's finest: you can get a cheaper product for.... cheaper!

Decahedron
Dec 22, 2005, 05:26 PM
are you people really this dense? he's not saying that the products arent as good, or even really comparing them to an ipod in terms of quality, hes saying that not everyone needs all the features an ipod has, especially for a preteen, which he mentions twice...

Silencio
Dec 22, 2005, 05:39 PM
"39 dollars, 120 [sic] megs, you get the screen, up to 80 songs maximum."

Anyone who willingly buys an MP3 player with only 128MB of storage for their child for Xmas will get all the wrath they deserve. :)

Eidorian
Dec 22, 2005, 06:33 PM
I get this sometimes at work. Some coworkers will bring up, "Oh I want an iPod" and another retorts "Get a cheap MP3 player, it's the same thing."

The iPod is smooth, fun experience with great integration. I get asked to help people with their Creative and RCA MP3's. They can't synch or even import songs onto them. I help them. (For a fee ;) ) But I STILL tell them to get an iPod.

I didn't really care about managing my music until I got iTunes and my iPod. I've expanded my Library and bought more CD's. I love it. :D

This seems to happen a lot in the Windows/PC world. There are so many cheap possibilities that people take but end up spending more time and money than if they had just gone with a good brand.

2GMario
Dec 22, 2005, 07:11 PM
i agree with the last poster

Its not so much the iPod as it is the whole system

Back in the day of Winamp and the like, organizing music was a pain in the ass. Finding a song was even harder. Now adays, dump everything into iTunes, spend a few hours making sure your tags are clean, if they arent that is, and everything is cool going forward.

The iPod is a bonus. To take the same organization, ease of use of iTunes, with you.

tocoolcjs
Dec 22, 2005, 08:29 PM
I feel so sorry for that kid. She's gonna get a POS player.
Hopefully she returns the thing and ponies up the cash her mom was too cheap to spend to get an ipod.
Hell, if someone gave me a non-ipod player i'd do that, or in a fit of rage, take a hammer to it.

Eidorian
Dec 22, 2005, 08:36 PM
I feel so sorry for that kid. She's gonna get a POS player.
Hopefully she returns the thing and ponies up the cash her mom was too cheap to spend to get an ipod.
Hell, if someone gave me a non-ipod player i'd do that, or in a fit of rage, take a hammer to it.I'd just sell it to someone dumb enough to buy it. Creative's software sucks for their players. My roommate has a Zen Micro. I've used the software. Then again he killed his Micro doing a firmware update. :cool:

My iPod Mini stays alive and scratchless. :D

mkrishnan
Dec 22, 2005, 08:43 PM
OMG, MAWM, I G0T EN IPOD!!!!!1oneoneoneoneone TIHS RAWKS!!!!!!111!!!!

Yeah, okay, I'm done. And so, apparently, is this article. :)

Lacero
Dec 22, 2005, 09:10 PM
For Kathy's sake, I hope her daughter doesn't have any AAC-format music!
Man! Any word on AAC-plus or some other super duper encoding format so we can get our music files down to 64Kb or less? AAC and MP3 are terribly in-efficient codecs. At this rate, I'd just go with Lossless.


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=37117 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

Yvan256
Dec 24, 2005, 08:49 AM
I didn't know that the Shuffles sold for $200 US ;)

He did say "most people want a display", so that makes the 2GB iPod nano the lowest-priced iPod for "most people". And it is $200 US.

Edit: what ebow said.

Yvan256
Dec 24, 2005, 08:55 AM
I didn't really care about managing my music until I got iTunes and my iPod. I've expanded my Library and bought more CD's. I love it. :D

This seems to happen a lot in the Windows/PC world. There are so many cheap possibilities that people take but end up spending more time and money than if they had just gone with a good brand.

Same for me: before iTunes, my "library" was a mess of badly-named files with even more badly-tagged ID3's. It really was a mess.

And it's true about the PC world trend: cheaper is better, even if you must put 40 hours of work before it's "mostly ok".

I, for one, had three different MP3 players before I bought my 10GB iPod (one CD-MP3 and two flash players). Since then, I've bought an iPod shuffle (which my brother bought from me) and a 4GB iPod nano. I can't get away from iTunes, nor would I want to. Remove iTunes from the iPod equation, and you end up with another useless MP3 player (imagine the iPod without smart playlists!).

ChrisFromCanada
Dec 24, 2005, 01:56 PM
This article made me furious so I decided to write the following email to the author:

Hi John,
I recently read your article entitled "CHEAPER IPOD?" and was a little upset when reading it. You have to be very careful when comparing modern technology, because there are many differences that may not seem obvious to you but are important for a consumer to know about. The main point is, the picture you paint of, when you buy an iPod all you are paying for is the name, but frankly that is not the case. When it comes to modern technology the physical size and ease of use are extremely important. Every other Mp3 player you compare in your article is larger then the ipod it is compared to and is much more difficult to use.

Additionally you really make this RCA lyra sound like a really amazing deal, however, not only is it larger and more difficult to use, but the ipod you compare it to (512MB shuffle) has over 4x the capacity. You mislead the readers when you say it can hold 80 songs while the shuffle can hold 120 according to apples site, but really the 120 songs apple advertises are of a much higher audio quality than RCA's 80. In fact if you were to try to fit 80 songs on the RCA they had better all be short and you had better be ready to deal with a very bad sounding file.

And then there is the point of where is this person getting their music from, if it is from a CD then that is fine it will work on all Mp3 players, but if they are legally buying music from by far the most popular online music store, the iTunes Music Store, then their music will only work on the iPod.

My point is this; be careful not to mislead your readers and try not to intentionally damage Apple's market-share without fully knowing and explaining your facts.

Happy Holidays,
- Chris