Most useless article on iPods. Ever.

Discussion in 'iPod' started by the_freddinator, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. the_freddinator macrumors regular

    Aug 13, 2005
    SE PA
    Stupidest iPod article ever.

    It's ridiculous obvious. Anyone could figure this out. Nobody needs kim komando for this kinda thing. CNN- you have upset me.
  2. JDOG_ macrumors 6502a


    Nov 19, 2003
    Yeah good for a technology super-noob, but not much else. It wasn't even comprehensive. Oh well.
  3. clayj macrumors 604


    Jan 14, 2005
    visiting from downstream
    When I was working at Microsoft, I took a support call* once from Kim Komando. She's pretty sharp, but her column is definitely geared towards technophobes and other folks who are simply clueless.

    * Actually, I got an e-mail from Billg's executive assistant ordering me to drop whatever I was doing and call Ms. Komando immediately to help her with a problem she was having. There was some concern that she might slam Microsoft in a column. (Press get LOTS of privileges when it comes to MS tech support.) Needless to say, I resolved the issue.
  4. Lacero macrumors 604


    Jan 20, 2005
    Most readers don't even know what AAC is nor do they care. Even the article was a little too techie.
  5. the_freddinator thread starter macrumors regular

    Aug 13, 2005
    SE PA
    Mm. So the people that know nothing about iTunes or iPods are going to import music in to their computer anyway. It's no secret (to anyone) that mp3s can be played/converted in iTunes. The title was misleading- I thought iTunes had finally gotten protected WMA converters...but lo and behold, the article told me nothing.

    Demographic of this article: Error 404.
  6. steve_hill4 macrumors 68000


    May 15, 2005
    NG9, England
    I get a lot of people saying "but all my music's in WMA" and such. WMA is poor at the 64kbps that other mp3 manufacturers quote storage at. In blind listening tests, WMA at 128kbps comes out as the second worst performer, (only ATRAC3 at 132kbps performs worse). Ogg at 128kbps comes out top, followed closely by 128kbps AAC. Some people seem to accept any quality of audio as acceptable and so go for an mp3 player that stores WMA because it will then hold twice as much. I think it's crazy, and tell them as much.
  7. m-dogg macrumors 65816


    Mar 15, 2004
    I don't know....I don't think it's that bad.

    That article targets people like my older brother. For people like him, I think it would be a helpful article.

    It took me forever to make him understand why digital music and ipods are so awesome. Once I finally got through to him, he bought an ipod less than a week later.
  8. ham_man macrumors 68020


    Jan 21, 2005
    Most people just pop in a CD and hit "import". They probably do not even know that "preferences" exists... :rolleyes:
  9. the_freddinator thread starter macrumors regular

    Aug 13, 2005
    SE PA
    Exactly- and they know how to import audio files on their computer (mp3s) that they pirated, etc. this article does nothing. The only thing that's slightly useful is the program list.
  10. aricher macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2004
    The article isn't very well researched - "For Mac users, EasyWMA for Mac OS will convert unprotected WMA files to MP3s. It works under Mac OS X 10.2 and later, and it's free." EasyWMA is no longer free - it's $10.00 but works very well and is worth the $$ to wma-laden switchers.
  11. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Nov 20, 2002
    I don't know, it might not be THAT bad. Some people could get some understanding out of it. People like my mom and dad who thought you could only put songs that you had purchased at the iTMS on an iPod.

    But if that was her idea, I'm with Lacero - she should have just left all the mp3/aac/wma talk out, and just said, "This is how to put songs on an iPod."
  12. Mechcozmo macrumors 603


    Jul 17, 2004
    Got mine while it was free. Cool. Nice program, but I rarely use it. I hope ffmpegX can play WMAs to convert them...

Share This Page