Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by shecky, Aug 25, 2003.
cute? yes. iPod killer? no.
well the search tool on this forum needs work then, cuz i looked and didn't see anything.
delete at will, arn.
I agree, people constantly say "you should have searched", even though the searching process can be painfully frustrating and nearly impossible to find the thing you are looking for. I've always found that it is more helpful to post what you need to and if someone would like to respond, they can, and if not, they can just move on without being an *insert colorful description of the posterior here* by posting just to say "do a search". Anyway, it's an interesting device, but I agree, it's not nearly in the same league as the iPod.
How do we know its not in the same league as the iPod? For a start is has better specs in every area that counts. Ok it has a smaller screen but it has three hours better battery life (a fair trade off for some). Its design is quite good by the looks of it. And no price is mentioned. Therefore I ask the question again as to why this device is somehow inferior to the iPod?
We've heard this all before....
Archos Jukebox AV... next iPod Killer
Rio (blabla bla).... next iPod Killer
Windows XP.... next apple killer
We're all still here...
By the way... this thing doesn't work with AAC files... so no, it's not better than the ipod.
How about it plays MP3 and WM9 files only. DRM will make sure that people being able to listen to their music on multiple devices is squashed from the start. It will probably only work with windows machines, no easy way for purchase music.
This is done in the typical peecee fashion.
Yeah and? iPod doesn't work with Windows Media Audio either.
How about the fact that I can't connect my iPod to my mums iMac because I've registered it with my PC Laptop? To pretend that the iPod doesn't have any kind of music copy protection built in is disengenuous.
what generation? i think this has more to do with the formatting of the ipod HD than any kind of "music copy protection" you are talking about...
To the best of my knowledge I can't get my iPod to sync with an Apple computer because its formatted to work on Windows PCs. This is not an issue for me, but could be for some. And whilst it may not be copy protection as such it has this affect for some users, such as myself.
My previous comments were merely aimed at trying to argue that claiming this new Toshiba product isn't in the same league as the iPod is false. This does not mean I believe the Gigabeat is better, or even as good, just that it is a viable alternative to the iPod. Such a claim I don't believe can be disputed, especially as I don't think any of us has used the new Gigabeat either.
I don't see *any* reason why you'd want to listen to WMP format on an iPod or any player. It's a crappy format with terrible DRM. As far as the design, I like the iPod much better than the Toshiba, which is not the most fluid design. Then there is the slow USB 1.1/2.0 only connection. Add this to the fact that it gets *lower* battery life when playing WMP, there isn't much I see that is near to being better than an iPod. As far as you not being able to use your iPod with an iMac, what format is the HD? I've never heard of a problem with anyone using their iPod with either their Macs or their PCs. It's compatible with both platforms.
to be honest, the toshiba machine looks pretty darn nice. i think it's well designed. if there's any concern, i'd be worried about the integration with a PC. that's one thing apple does have to its advantage - it knows how to connect an ipod to a mac because it controls both.
as you found out, there might be some issues with ipod operating with a pc... but i didn't want to give the impression that i'm dismissing anything not ipod. ipod is good, but it's not perfect.
It doesn't have the iPod's.....flare. It looks bland and electrical.
Who's side are you on anyway? This is an apple site not a crappy toshiba mp3 player site.
hey, I like the iPod as much as the next guy and don't actually like this toshiba player, but your argument's kind of weak.
This IS a site for mac enthusiasts, but it is not a site where you can only say good things about every single mac product or DIE YOU FILTHY *^&*^*%$!
No, it's a site where people can EXCHANGE information that pertains to the mac community and technophiles in general. If someone finds the toshiba player better, he should feel welcome--to discuss it with those who agree AND disagree. Those who don't agree should be equally willing to discuss.
This isn't a question of "sides." This is a question of technology, its advancement, and where the Mac community stands in that respect.
We aren't lemmings, after all.
FYI, the last generation player by Toshiba cost (at it's original price without discount) around $350. So not too cheap. Incidentally, the last model had 5gb and had 18 hours play-time.
One thing I haven't been able to find out is if the Toshiba device can handle AIFF. That's sort of important for a few Mac users out there. It handles WAV though.
like the guy wrote before me, this site is not about taking sides. it's ok for you to have your own prejudice about ipod and other mp3 players, but that doesn't mean someone else could not like ipod and other non-apple players.
i think the toshiba one looks nice. i wouldn't mind playing with it a bit before passing my judgement. at least it's designed well, compared to archos and others which are pretty ugly and don't make me want to even deal with them enough to pass judgement on them.
I've sworn to never be without my iPod. But WMA playback is enticing to me. I think WMP9 is great quality and I prefer MP3 to AAC due to portability.
Apple hasn't done enough to proliferate AAC playback IMO. WMA and MP3 are both appearing in most new consumer devices.
I like the industrial design of the Toshiba.
DRM doesn't bother me so much. The biggest drawback is limiting downloads to 128k, but Apple does that too. As long as I can burn, and play on all of "my" devices, DRM is a non-issue for me. Apple has lax DRM, but what can I do with all these AACs besides play them on my iPod? I have to burn them to CD and rerip from a 128k master to get them into consumer devices. That's pretty good DRM.
I'm not going to just ditch my iPod, it's too good. But if AAC doesn't start to proliferate anything is possible.
I don't have a player yet, but the Toshiba device, discounting the Windows format, looks as good as the iPod.
I don't feel a need to use AAC or WM9 files and I've encoded everything as 256Kbps mp3 files. Hopefully, the iTunes Music Store will start to encode the music at better-sounding rates.
If anyone thinks that free thought shouldn't be allowed here, they'd better think again.
I'm all for free thought, myself. My opinions were purely on the fact that the specs don't look any better for the Toshiba than the iPod. The only big thing it has going for it is battery life, which is said to be significantly lower once you use WMF and all. I agree that there should be plenty of support for whatever you wish to talk about. I for one love the fact that the Dell I am using for folding has just finished 7 WUs in less than one week. Even if I prefer Macs and this is a Mac oriented site, I gladly point the fact out that the 2.8 GHz Dell we have is one hell of a folding monster. If the Toshiba proves to be a great audio player then great, finally there is another product out there that is capable. I just don't see anything about it that makes it stand out above the iPod.
MS has spent a lot of money on WMA, especially the latest offering. The RIAA loves the current offering with the DRM. As with most electronics, the RIAA and MPAA both have a lot of influence in what can or cannot be sold. They are willing to take someone to court to get them to stop selling an item that they feel will hurt them. This scares electronic makers and they are more apt to offer something that pleases the RIAA and/or MPAA. Just wait until MS really rolls out DRM and they consumers get to attempt to use it. Imagine buying a song and you can only play it on one device and they get to pay for each additional device. DRM will be the death of WMA, as consumers have great power and they will fight it with their pockets. If Apple gets iTunes music store to other countries as well as to the Windows platform, you might just see AAC being adopted. Also, AAC is licensed, as is WMA. If you want to see AAC products, companies need to know there is a market there, that's where you, the consumer comes in. Write a letter to the companies that make a product that you would like to see it in.
I don't think the battery life being totally drained when decoding WM9 is actual fact yet. I think the guy writing the article is simply presuming that that will be the case, as it well maybe.
That brings me to this question. Does the iPod have to 'decode' AAC, or is it a completely different system to using WM9? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to how exactly these different DRMs and codec work with different hardwares. Anyone know anything on this?
I just did a search and Apple has a good description of AAC here. According to the data, AAC decoding requires less power and less computational cycles to decode than regular mp3 decoding, so perhaps that answers your question a bit on whether or not AAC drains more battery power with the iPod.
It doesn't work with a Mac.
What else do I need to know?