Quality Huh?
Originally posted by Abstract
Depending on cost, if I could save $120 bucks (and I'm sure I could since Apple's prices are ridiculously high), then I would get this baby. If the price difference only ends up being $50-60, then its the iPod for me. 🙂
Or better yet, I would get the 256MB or 512MB mp3 player that lasts 24 hours on a single AA battery. 😎
But, the iPod offers ease-of-use including an ergonomic design that makes one-handed operations simple, fast file transfer w/ charging while syncing, integration with the best computer jukebox there is, excellent sound quality, a handy remote, etc. It has an insanely large cache to eliminate skips, a very good battery life (I've gotten more than 10 hours out of it, you just have to read the manual) and it looks cool.
Could the remote have an LCD display, yeah and that would be very cool. Could it have a tuner, who cares? The radio blows here, and if I wanted to listen to the radio I would have bought a radio, this is just another bit of circuitry that I'd never bother with.
Plus, does the iRiver have a clock, contacts lists, games, or a calender. Hell, I bought a MP3 player and got a PDA for free.
So argue all you want but IMHO the iPod is the best music player out, its fast, sexy, cheap, useful and reliable. iRiver et. al. can't say that.
Comparing something merely on price is the most simplistic way of thinking about anything, there is always something in that price. Why is Kia's SUV cheaper than a Jeep? You will know when you stuck on the trail.
Why is a Daewoo cheaper than a 240Z? You will know when you choking on its dust.
Why is an iRiver cheaper than an iPod?
Do you really want to find out?