PDA

View Full Version : Apple Changing iPod Battery Technology?


MacRumors
Dec 17, 2003, 12:34 AM
A ComputerWorkd.dk article (Danish) (http://www.computerworld.dk/default.asp?Mode=2&ArticleID=21765) reports that Apple has dropped one of their iPod battery suppliers -- a Danish company called Danionics.

Danionics supplied polymer lithium-ion batteries for the current Apple iPod, but according to Niels Kryger Anderson, Danionics' managing director, Apple has now chosen a prismatic (fluid based) lithium-ion battery for upcoming iPods.

Danionics was not the only supplier of iPod batteries, and in light of the recent iPod battery controversy, they note that Danionics batteries will still perform at 80% of full capacity even after three years of extensive use.

Implications/advantages of changing from polymer to fluid based Lithium ion based batteries is unclear

arn
Dec 17, 2003, 12:35 AM
I'm sorry I can't really offer any insight into the advantages of prismatic (fluid) lithium ion batteries.

Based on my brief research, it seems these are actually considered less flexible and less desirable then the polymer lithium ion batteries.

Also, it's not completely clear if the new batteries will reside in completely new ipods or retrofitted in current ipods.

And if anyone else speaks Danish and might be able to provide any other insight from the original article, it would be appreciated.

Thanks to Rasmus Bruun for providing the initial translation.

arn

anodized
Dec 17, 2003, 12:46 AM
Well I really hope that Apple made a good decision.
We really need thos 'pod battery last longer. 6-8 hours is a complete joke.

Sabenth
Dec 17, 2003, 12:49 AM
i just did a google and well it gets complex to say the least what i see is either apples trying to make the ipod cheaper or there just trying to find new products that work for a shorter period of time so people have to use there battry replacement service i might be way of there by the way

sethypoo
Dec 17, 2003, 01:07 AM
Apple should have a disclaimer on their iPodrocks.com site:

BATTERY LASTS FOR 6 HOURS FIRST YEAR, AND 4.8 HOURS THE NEXT YEAR.

Gymnut
Dec 17, 2003, 01:09 AM
Well hopefully with new batteries the relative size of the iPod wil be unchanged.

SeaFox
Dec 17, 2003, 01:11 AM
I think the advantage of Primatic Cells is that they don't have to be cylindrical. Many of today's Minidisc players use "gum-stick style" rechargeable batteries. The size and shape seems unervingly similar to the latest alkaline batteries.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/images/ST_gadgets_1.jpg

That image is from this Wired Magazine blurb (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/start.html?pg=12) about Duracell's new Prismatic alkaline cells.

Last sentence of the byte: "Look for a flood of MP3 players that slip easily into the back pocket of a pair of hip-huggers."

Now take recent rumors of 2GB MiniPods, or iPod updates in general and put two and two together.

Adopting this new battery technology may allow Apple to fit more battery into the current iPod casing, or they may get more use for the existing space of the old Lithium-Polymer battery (if only we had an electrical engineer or someone who knew more about the two technologies here).

I agree battery life is the #1 problem with the iPod. Video playback and such are just stupid gadgety add-ons, the battery problem effects the player in its current form and is usually the #3 issue competitors (DELL and iRiver) attack with their products (the first two being price and WMA compatability).

theipodgod16
Dec 17, 2003, 01:12 AM
maybe this battery will be used in the replacement plan? (cheaper battery)??

warcraftmaster
Dec 17, 2003, 01:42 AM
products range from long established technologies like Lead Acid Batteries through to the more recent Lithium Ion and Lithium Polymer cells providing high energy density in low profile packages.

sound d*mm good to me:D
:o well good night :o

joed
Dec 17, 2003, 01:45 AM
Or what if this new battery is for replaceable batteries instead on the current non-replaceable (I mean, I can take out the batteries and buy new ones to replace).

And if true, I'm sure this is also to cut the cost.


James

ITR 81
Dec 17, 2003, 02:16 AM
I could've told you 3 months ago Apple would change the current battery for a longer lasting one and this mostly because of all the people that complain about the low battery life.
I still get 8hrs and 10mins on my 3 month old 40GB iPod which I use almost every day.

AndrewMT
Dec 17, 2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by SeaFox
I think the advantage of Primatic Cells is that they don't have to be cylindrical. Many of today's Minidisc players use "gum-stick style" rechargeable batteries. The size and shape seems unervingly similar to the latest alkaline batteries.


That's funny that you mention minidiscs. I have two minidisc players/recorders (one from sharp, one from sony), and they have EXTREMELY good battery life. The rectangular battery is rougly the same volume as one AA battery and allows my minidisc to play for over 12 hours. Now, it seems to me that the iPod (who's hard drive only occasionally spins to load a song into memory) should use less battery than a minidisc which has to continually spin and a laser which has to continually allign itself under a portion of the disc. Am I wrong? Why can't Apple make a portable music player with the same battery life as any minidisc player on the market?

Dahl
Dec 17, 2003, 02:47 AM
Danionics polymer battery can seem like plastic, they will perform very well in a very "slim design", where's new prismatic based design often is thicker.

I know nothing about these batteries, but I'm danish, so I could translate some of this.

I find it a bit odd, if Apple wants a battery type that might take up more space, but who knows. Maybe the new battery will work better and if the rest of the iPod continue to get smaller, the overall case will probably still be small.

btw. The company got a new deal with Samsung for a tablet PC.

Analog Kid
Dec 17, 2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by SeaFox
I think the advantage of Primatic Cells is that they don't have to be cylindrical. Many of today's Minidisc players use "gum-stick style" rechargeable batteries. The size and shape seems unervingly similar to the latest alkaline batteries.

Last sentence of the byte: "Look for a flood of MP3 players that slip easily into the back pocket of a pair of hip-huggers."

Now take recent rumors of 2GB MiniPods, or iPod updates in general and put two and two together.

Adopting this new battery technology may allow Apple to fit more battery into the current iPod casing, or they may get more use for the existing space of the old Lithium-Polymer battery (if only we had an electrical engineer or someone who knew more about the two technologies here).

I agree battery life is the #1 problem with the iPod. Video playback and such are just stupid gadgety add-ons, the battery problem effects the player in its current form and is usually the #3 issue competitors (DELL and iRiver) attack with their products (the first two being price and WMA compatability).

Ok, I'm not an expert by any means, and I can't give a detailed explanation yet, but I know this is off base. Lithium polymer does not need to be a cylindrical cell. The key advantage that I've heard touted is that you can mold it to whatever shape you care to.

I've heard it put so far as to say you can make the housing the battery...

I think the confusion comes from the presumably wrong translation that a prismatic cell has a liquid electrolyte. That's not the case-- those are two separate issues. Prismatic simply means square (think 9V) and cylindrical is round (think AA).

Cylindricals with common chemistries typically have better energy density (power per volume/weight) and are typically cheaper to produce, but some genius eventually figured out that round batteries were being put into square holes and all the volume was wasted anyway.

Wet or dry electrolytes are a separate consideration.

Lithium polymer has been touted as the next bit thing in battery chemistries. They claim several advantages:
You can shape them how you care to more easily
Higher energy density than Lithium Ion
Less dangerous (remember the flaming PBs?)
No leak hazards

It's not clear to me how much of that was hype, and how much was real, but the idea of "plastic batteries" caught a lot of people's imaginations.

There may be other users out there, but the iPod is the first mass production unit I've seen using LiPolymer, and I've been interested to see how they did.

I'll poke around and see if I can put specifics to the claims, but my guess is that Apple has been having reliability problems with a young technology and are making the switch because the lost energy is worth the fewer headaches.

I don't think this is going to help the iPod specs, but it might help the cost and reliability of the device.

Analog Kid
Dec 17, 2003, 03:55 AM
Best I can find so far:
http://www.buchmann.ca/Article6-page1.asp

Again, no real specifics... Maybe someone knows more?

Interesting that I found several sites with identical wording... Wonder if they were written/submitted by the same person or if they were just plagiarized...

Stephanos
Dec 17, 2003, 04:17 AM
AFAIK Lithium Polymer batteries also have the advatage of zero memory effect (i.e. there is no loss of battery life if you start recharging the battery before it's empty). Lithium Ion batteries had a significantly less intense memory effect than older NiMH (Nickel - Metal - Hydride) batteries.

The NiMH batteries in my Sony CD Walkman (same as those in Sony MD players) last for an obscene amount of time, but if I start charging them before they are completely drained I can expect my battery life to drop to near zero in no time.

Additionaly, Li-Polymer batteries have incredibly accurate battery life meters.

And no, the iPod is not the first mass market device with Li-Polymer batts. The Ericsson T38i (I think) was the first one (that old phone that came out about 3-4 years ago with the squat flattened antenna, ridiculously unresponsive interface and the flip that flipped out with a button that *always* went bad after about a month or so causing the flip to be open all the time). Since then a lot of mobile phones use this kind of batteries.

Then again, I'm sure most of you are in the US where as I understand it mobile phones are a bit behind the times... but here in Europe (and most of the rest of the GSM world) Li-Polymer batteries have been the standard for high-end phones for years because of their compact size, lack of memory effect and accurate voltage gauges.

aggemam
Dec 17, 2003, 05:59 AM
I am Danish.

Apple rejects Danionics for newest iPod

"The battery-company Danionics has been laid off by Apple. The American IT-company has rejected the technology from the Funen(1)-based company for the new generation of the super-selling little multi-device iPod.

Apple is still placing their bet on lithium-ion, but another kind of it.

"Apple has chosen a prismactic (fluid-based) type, while ours is polymer", Niels Kryger Andersen (CEO of Danionics) informs.

Large performance in thin form-factor
Polymer kind of like plastic, and according to the CEO, it results in a great performance in a very thin form-factor - whereas the liquid-based typically are a little thicker.

Niels Kryger Andersen may instead please himself with the order from electronics gigant Samsung, which arrived medio November. Danionics will deliver a battery for a special model of a kind of Tablet PC.

Niels Kryger Andersen has not before been willing to tell wheter Apple was one of the customers, because of an agreement with the customer. But Apple ran into trouble because of the durability of the iPod batteries.

"We're not the only ones delivering for the iPod, and we're not knowing of our batteries not lasting", says NKA.

According to him, the Danionics battery will still perform at 80% of the full capacity, even after 3 years of tough use.

The trouble is caused by two young brothers' anti-advertisement campaign for iPod. According to the brothers, the battery died after just 18 months, and a replacement would cost more than a new iPod.

The brothers' accusation has now been spread all other the world via their website www.ipodsdirtysecret.com. This page shows videos of the brothers spraying messages on large outdoor campaigns for iPod.

Bank analytics skeptical

(here, they just discuss the future of Danionics, not Apple).

(1) Funen is a Danish island
(Edit:) Typos and corrections

Sol
Dec 17, 2003, 08:47 AM
Maybe it is time to redesign the iPod with replaceable batteries. Two AA batteries maybe. If battery is the component most likely to fail first then it should be cheaply and easily replacable.

MattMass
Dec 17, 2003, 09:05 AM
Basically, prismatic refers to a shape of cell - it does not mean fluid-based. Lithium-Ion batteries are always liquid based, and are almost always cylinders. One post was very correct about safety; when they fail, they fail catastrophically.

Lithium polymer batteries are never liquid based, and as a direct result, do not fail catastrophically. They are hands-down safer than lithium-ion, and do offer a better energy-density. The added bonus is that they can be a variety of shapes, but I have rarely seen anything other than prismatic (rectangular) cells.

I don't see any reason why Apple would use a Li-Ion cell in the iPod, when a polymer cell will be better in every respect except for price.

mjtomlin
Dec 17, 2003, 11:12 AM
I have a question; Did Apple change the battery since the original iPod? It's funny to hear people complaining about the battery when my iPod, which is now two years old, still gets 9+ hours! There was a point in time when it would die after a couple of hours, but after Apple released that firmware update, the battery went back to it's normal duration. And it's been fine since.

Anyway, it sounds to me like maybe Apple is just not satisfied with this particular manufacturer and decided not to order from them anymore. This makes even more sense after reading about the mentioning of the two morons from New York.

SeaFox
Dec 17, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by AndrewMT
Now, it seems to me that the iPod (who's hard drive only occasionally spins to load a song into memory) should use less battery than a minidisc which has to continually spin and a laser which has to continually allign itself under a portion of the disc. Am I wrong? Why can't Apple make a portable music player with the same battery life as any minidisc player on the market?

I was thinking exactly the same thing last night. The newest minidisc players can get up to 82 hrs playback (LP4 mode) with the gumstick batteries. Can a HD really be that much heavier to spin?

acj
Dec 17, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Stephanos
AFAIK Lithium Polymer batteries also have the advatage of zero memory effect (i.e. there is no loss of battery life if you start recharging the battery before it's empty). Lithium Ion batteries had a significantly less intense memory effect than older NiMH (Nickel - Metal - Hydride) batteries.

The NiMH batteries in my Sony CD Walkman (same as those in Sony MD players) last for an obscene amount of time, but if I start charging them before they are completely drained I can expect my battery life to drop to near zero in no time.



I am quite sure NiMH batteries have almost or completely no memory effect.

Their disadvantage is approximately a 3-5% self discharge per day. If you do the math right they are essentially discharged in a couple months.

Some NiMH batteries have the advantage of extremely quick "chargability," like 15 minutes or even less for smaller cells. Not powered by firewire though...

Wash!!
Dec 17, 2003, 02:49 PM
a fusion reactor or a warp drive anything less is unacceptable :D

But a new battery tech for the ipods it's always a good thing, I personally don't have any complains for my 15gig 3g ipod it rocks!!!

TorbX
Dec 17, 2003, 04:54 PM
Same thing is at http://www.itavisen.no/art/1302553.html

This one is in Norwegian.

neoserver
Dec 17, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Stephanos
AFAIK Lithium Polymer batteries also have the advatage of zero memory effect (i.e. there is no loss of battery life if you start recharging the battery before it's empty). Lithium Ion batteries had a significantly less intense memory effect than older NiMH (Nickel - Metal - Hydride) batteries.


I thought it was the Ni-cad batteries that had the huge memory effect. The NiMH batteries had very little memory effect that i can remember... something sticks in my mind about the ni-cads

acj
Dec 17, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by acj
I am quite sure NiMH batteries have almost or completely no memory effect.

Their disadvantage is approximately a 3-5% self discharge per day. If you do the math right they are essentially discharged in a couple months.

Some NiMH batteries have the advantage of extremely quick "chargability," like 15 minutes or even less for smaller cells. Not powered by firewire though...

Originally posted by neoserver
I thought it was the Ni-cad batteries that had the huge memory effect. The NiMH batteries had very little memory effect that i can remember... something sticks in my mind about the ni-cads

mikedman
Dec 18, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Stephanos


And no, the iPod is not the first mass market device with Li-Polymer batts. The Ericsson T38i (I think) was the first one (that old phone that came out about 3-4 years ago with the squat flattened antenna, ridiculously unresponsive interface and the flip that flipped out with a button that *always* went bad after about a month or so causing the flip to be open all the time). Since then a lot of mobile phones use this kind of batteries.


I believe the original iPaq from then Compaq (Now HP) was one of the first mass market device to use the Li-Polymer battery. It was selected because the battery could conform to the curved back better.

Bemanix88
Feb 10, 2004, 06:27 PM
In response to the people talking about their Sony's lasting very long--Sony players generally use extremely weak amps. 3-5mW per channel is the norm for their MD players. The iPod amp is 30mW per channel, which contributes greatly to the battery drain. Secondly, Sony's usually have a small one-line display, either on the unit or on a remote control. The iPod has a very big LCD, which takes tons of power to run. The third, a hard drive takes much more power than a minidisc to spin. The iPod hard drives spins at several thousand RPM, while a minidisc spins much more slowly (a few hundred RPM, probably)

SeaFox
Feb 11, 2004, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Bemanix88
In response to the people talking about their Sony's lasting very long--Sony players generally use extremely weak amps. 3-5mW per channel is the norm for their MD players. The iPod amp is 30mW per channel, which contributes greatly to the battery drain. Secondly, Sony's usually have a small one-line display, either on the unit or on a remote control. The iPod has a very big LCD, which takes tons of power to run. The third, a hard drive takes much more power than a minidisc to spin. The iPod hard drives spins at several thousand RPM, while a minidisc spins much more slowly (a few hundred RPM, probably)

Are you making excuses or explanations now?

Is there any reason one needs a 30mW amp for earbuds? Also, other manufacturer's minidisc players have better amps and still have battery life several times that of iPods.

The new Hi-MD players due out in April all feature displays of three lines. And as long as you've opened the display issue I'll point out that most Minidisc players have displays on their remotes too, unlike iPods.

MorganX
Feb 11, 2004, 07:33 AM
Apple designed for "style" reasons to forego a stop button. Perhaps the reason Apple's battery's don't last is because when you stop them, you really only pause them. Maybe in this paused off mode keeping the cache full, and maintaining song info and position simply drain the battery.

If I play the iPod for 1-hour, and turn it off (pause it off) and let it sit overnight, it is completely dead in the morning.

However, if I put it in the Dock which turns it truly off (i.e. no song on pause, no song in cache) and then pause it off, I can get up to 2 hours after letting it sit overnight.

There has to be a reason Apple is the only one having battery problems this bad. I believe this is a major cause.

Le Big Mac
Feb 11, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Sol
Maybe it is time to redesign the iPod with replaceable batteries. Two AA batteries maybe. If battery is the component most likely to fail first then it should be cheaply and easily replacable.

Agreed, if they could get those stick batteries to work. Nice to have a little slot that those slide into--keep a couple around for constant play. Allow them to be recharged in the iPod or a separate charger.

Mac Dummy
Feb 11, 2004, 03:53 PM
Hey its great to hear Apple doing something about Ipod battery life.

I do have a question if anyone can answer it. Does charging the battery on a current 3G Ipod before it has gone dead (normal everyday use, not dead forever as in a replacement) can it shorten the life of the battery?
:confused:

Bemanix88
Feb 11, 2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by SeaFox
Are you making excuses or explanations now?

Is there any reason one needs a 30mW amp for earbuds? Also, other manufacturer's minidisc players have better amps and still have battery life several times that of iPods.

The new Hi-MD players due out in April all feature displays of three lines. And as long as you've opened the display issue I'll point out that most Minidisc players have displays on their remotes too, unlike iPods.

The earbuds that come with the iPod (or any other music players for that matter) are very cheap and sound terrible. For anyone wanting better sound out of their investment, upgrading to better headphones is the only option--Bigger headphones require much more powerful amps. In the case of many MD players, you are basically stuck with sub-par earbuds, because the amp is not strong enough to drive larger headphones cleanly and at decent volume.

Also, I really doubt you can find an MD player ANYWHERE that has a 30mW amp. The highest I've ever seen is 8mW on a Sharp model.

Most MD players will either have no display on the main unit and an LCD remote, or they will have an LCD on the main unit and a remote with no display. That said, the high-end MD players with 2 LCD's still don't come near the size of Apple's single LCD.

reorx
Feb 11, 2004, 09:40 PM
I think 6-8hrs continuous use is perfectly reasonable for something as tiny as a 3G iPod... If you want more time, plug it in, as they support just about any external power source known to man!!

I've had my 20GB for a couple weeks and am completely happy with its battery life...

Plus, how many mini-discs would you have tote around for 20GB storage? Also, nicer over-the-ear headphones (like my SR-80s) take a lot more juice than a typical earbud. If you want 10+ hrs of battery life, get a player with no moving parts or that is significantly larger. You have a choice! I think Apple has nailed the market segment perfectly...

Les Kern
Feb 11, 2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Bemanix88
...because the amp is not strong enough to drive larger headphones cleanly and at decent volume.

I have a set of Targus noise-cancelling full-size headphones. The sound can be set to "deafen". I'd imagine a non-powered set would have this trait though. Bottom line: Get the powered phones. Most all ambient sounds are gone; you hear just the music. (The battery lasts just as long as far as I can tell)

SeaFox
Feb 12, 2004, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Bemanix88
The earbuds that come with the iPod (or any other music players for that matter) are very cheap and sound terrible.

I'll agree with that.


In the case of many MD players, you are basically stuck with sub-par earbuds, because the amp is not strong enough to drive larger headphones cleanly and at decent volume.

I use my Sony MDR-V300's with my Sony minidisc player and have no problems with muddy sound and low volume.

Also, I really doubt you can find an MD player ANYWHERE that has a 30mW amp. The highest I've ever seen is 8mW on a Sharp model.

Once again, what pair of earphone are you using that require a 30mW amp? You're just wasting the energy otherwise.

Most MD players will either have no display on the main unit and an LCD remote, or they will have an LCD on the main unit and a remote with no display. That said, the high-end MD players with 2 LCD's still don't come near the size of Apple's single LCD.

Uh, they don't really make many players any more. Most MD units are recorders now. And almost all have displays on unit from what I've seen. That still doesn't change the fact you have to take the iPod out of your bag or pocket to see what song is playing. Whereas you could see and edit the name on an MD remote.

SeaFox
Feb 12, 2004, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by reorx
Plus, how many mini-discs would you have tote around for 20GB storage?

If we're talking Hi-MD, 20 discs.

If you want 10+ hrs of battery life, get a player with no moving parts or that is significantly larger. You have a choice!

I don't see how. My minidisc recorder is smaller than an iPod and gets three times the battery life. :D

jmsait19
Feb 12, 2004, 12:27 PM
I have a sony md player/recorder and though i havent used it in a while because my ipod rocks its face off, i do remember that it couldnt get extremely loud.

i will comment that the power of the ipods amp is helpful when using my itrip, otherwise the gain output would be too low and if i increase my stereo volume too high it would begin to have a lot of extra noise. Although if i push the volume to the max on the ipod it heavily distorts either the itrip or my stereo, havent figured out which one yet. so maybe a less powerful amp would do, but not too much less powerful.

Engagebot
Feb 12, 2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Sol
Maybe it is time to redesign the iPod with replaceable batteries. Two AA batteries maybe. If battery is the component most likely to fail first then it should be cheaply and easily replacable.

2 AA batteries would drastically cut down on the iPods battery life. AAs wouldnt run up a hard drive very long at all. thats why they needed something like a big li or polymer battery in the first place(big, capacity speaking).

Engagebot
Feb 12, 2004, 11:38 PM
I have a pair of MDR-V700DJ studio headphones. they take up to 3,000mW and have 50mm drivers. They're without a doubt the finest sounding things i've ever heard, speakers or headphones.

i have to turn up the iPod over 90% to get a good fat sound with them. Granted, my headphones are kind of an extreme situation, but any kind of full size headphones will swallow the iPods 30mW headphone amp for breakfast. These headphones arent exotic or anything. they sell the same kind of stuff at best buy.

Not everyone uses little crappy earbuds rated for 50mw or whatever they are.

Engagebot
Feb 12, 2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by jmsait19

i will comment that the power of the ipods amp is helpful when using my itrip, otherwise the gain output would be too low and if i increase my stereo volume too high it would begin to have a lot of extra noise. Although if i push the volume to the max on the ipod it heavily distorts either the itrip or my stereo, havent figured out which one yet. so maybe a less powerful amp would do, but not too much less powerful.

if the ipods amp was smaller, you would just have to turn it up more to match the same dB output as what you have now on a bigger amp. it wouldnt be any more or less noise, because they dB output just needs to be right in relation to the iTrip. if the iTrip was at full sounds without distortion at 10mW, a 15mW amp would be turned up almost all the way, while a 30mW amp would be about half or so (all roughly). its still 10mW whether its the top end of a small amp or the middle of a bigger amp. you only hear distortion because the output of your ipod is higher than is needed for the input of the iTrip.

johnnowak
Feb 13, 2004, 01:29 AM
The iPod is praised by audiophiles because of the relatively beefy amp. The iPod drives my AKG 270s great... my Sharp Minidisc barely gets loud enough. The sony's get loud as the sharp, but the quality blows.

Engagebot
Feb 13, 2004, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by johnnowak
The iPod is praised by audiophiles because of the relatively beefy amp. The iPod drives my AKG 270s great... my Sharp Minidisc barely gets loud enough. The sony's get loud as the sharp, but the quality blows.

oh i know the amp is bigger than others, but those guys were complaining because they couldnt understand any situation in the world where somebody might need a 30mW amp. i'm just trying to say other people have different uses/habits with the iPod.

yamabushi
Feb 14, 2004, 11:10 AM
I have a Kenwood minidisc recorder (model DMC-L7R) that sounds great to me even at high volume with my Sony MDR G72 headphones. The battery lasts well over nine hours and is several years old.

mms
Feb 14, 2004, 12:23 PM
I just hope that they solve the problem soon. In my opinion, the ideal soluition would be any type of easily replacable batteries. Apple made a big mistake when they made the battery in the iPod built-in, instead of easily replacable. Being able to take out the battery is better for convenience and would give the iPod a longer life.

I hope they just resolve the issue soon, because that is the only thing that is keeping me from buying one right now. I don't want to have to replace the iPod after only a year and half of use.