Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 22, 2005.
Category: Apple Hardware
Link: CHEAPER IPOD?
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
For Kathy's sake, I hope her daughter doesn't have any AAC-format music!
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.
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.
No, save your money until you can afford an iPod. You get what you pay for.
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.
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.
Not exactly. He's discounting the Shuffles since they don't have a screen. (New) iPods with screens start at $199.
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!
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...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My iPod Mini stays alive and scratchless.
OMG, MAWM, I G0T EN IPOD!!!!!1oneoneoneoneone TIHS RAWKS!!!!!!111!!!!
Yeah, okay, I'm done. And so, apparently, is this article.
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
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.
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!).
This article made me furious so I decided to write the following email to the author: