iPod shuffle is now only $49

[aryayush]

Could some moderator please change the poll to include the five colours – Gray, Blue, Green, Purple and Red?

I submitted it by mistake before I'd typed in all the options.

Thanks in advance!

 

[kalpik]

Done

 

[kumarmohit]

Hey congrats Kalpik, good to c u in green.

Anyway back to the topic.

Guyz you would have to accept one thing. There is no perfect PMP (even cellphone) in the market. The reason - simple, the moment they take out the perfect gadget they would not be able to sell other stuff.

Take my iPod for example, Apple could have easily ported something like VLC to make it possible to play any possible format (or most of them). No, they do not do it, reason is simple. no one would bother about their codec, resulting in declining sales of QTPro. The thing is it is all a chain af marketing and we are burning our time defending those moves by companies which 1 lousy and 2 plain uncompetetive.

 

[preshit.net]

Debates aside, syncing the iPod is as simple as plugging it in, and waiting. It syncs almost instantaneously.
I'm not sure how this is considered harder than copy-pasting tracks ?
Ofcourse, having a copy-paste interface would be great, but syncing is really easy for those lazy asses who just want to enjoy their music.

 

[aryayush]

Why do you guys keep saying that? Why would having a copy-paste interface be great?

 

[sakumar79]

Not owning an iPod, so asking out of curiosity,
1. If you have a 2 GB collection of songs, and you try to sync a 1GB Shuffle, what is synced? Do you not have to choose the files?
2. If your friend brings his iPod over, is syncing automatic or can you cancel it?

Arun

 

[napster007]

although I personally think iTunes kicks WMP in the rear end, still, for this debate

although i'm not aware of the full features of the itunes... the interface of WMP is far better than itunes.


[qoute]At least in the US, Apple has an online store.[/quote]

wake up!! this is india

What if the iPod gets a new feature, but WMP can't support it

Why the hell do you guys think that the whole world owns the ipod!!!

due to MS lagging in development (and vice versa)

really man!!! well atleast MS can copy files b/w drives.... i mean what kinda development is that? right?

What if there's a bug in WMP

really man!!! ur best defence is "what if"?? i may ask the same question WHAT IF ITUNES HAS A BUG????????????????????????

Keeping a one application philosophy clearly works best here.

That is if the whole world had on the ipod!!

Now you might say India doesn't have an iTunes store. So what? The iPod has already proven to be working with iTunes.

The store and the ipod working on itunes have nothing to do with each other.the fact that the store is not in india is just a feature which is faded.

 

[gxsaurav]

The iPod caught on because:
(a) It has always had an edge in having the largest storage capacity;
(b) The whole iTunes + iPod combination works like a charm;
(c) It is brain dead simple to use;
(d) The user interface is the best in class;
(e) It has all the important features that actually matter and they all work, for a change;
(f) Excellent battery life;
(g) It's sexy and cool; and
(h) Excellent marketing.

a) No, Creative Zen etc always had more storage then iPods.

b) Ever tried WMP11 with any mp3 player out there? It works no matter which mp3 player u got be it the cheap chienese ones, Creative Zen Stone or Even Nokia 5700/SE K850i. The combination of any such mp3 player with WMP11 works like a charm. Just connect the mp3 player, start WMP, go to sync tab & drag & drop whatever u want to sync. If u r connected to net then WMP11 will download hardware information automatically & sync/convert songs as required. It's just a matter of drag & drop in WMP11

C) So is WMP11 + Any mp3 player or Winamp + any mp3 player

d) Subjective, I find iTunes's UI quite wrong & bad.

5) Tell me a feature in WMP11 which doesn't work

6) Battery life & Sexy & cool....yup.

7) That's the only thing Apple does.

You just plug it in, hit Autofill and then hit Play.

Same happens with K850i/Nokia 5700/ Zen Stone/ Sandisk Sansa/...etc etc

Geeks aside, most people prefer to be taught to use one way. They have no preffered way of doing things. So once you show them how easy it is to import music into iTunes, rip CDs, burn them, sync your iPod, it all becomes really simple

Isn't that easily possible in WMP11 too

 

[napster007]

^+1

 

[aryayush]

Not owning an iPod, so asking out of curiosity,
1. If you have a 2 GB collection of songs, and you try to sync a 1GB Shuffle, what is synced? Do you not have to choose the files?

When you plug in a shuffle (but not the other iPods), a new button appears in iTunes labeled 'Autofill'. Just hit it and it randomly fills your shuffle up to the maximum capacity from your iTunes library.

This is optional, of course. You can also choose to go the drag and drop way.

2. If your friend brings his iPod over, is syncing automatic or can you cancel it?

The syncing happens automatically only if you configure it that way. So, if you own an iPod, you can have it configured to sync automatically whenever you connect it. But when a friend comes over and plugs in his iPod, you'll have to sync manually.

In any case, the process of syncing can be interrupted anytime you want.

 

[ring_wraith]

Ok, after a lot of intraspection, I am actually convinced that you are indeed right aayush.

I have to hand it to you, it really does not make sense to have a screen on a player the size of the shuffle, and creative is stupid for having done so. On the surface, the shuffle looks easy to use, friendly and warm, while the stone looks like just that, a glorified stone. The shuffle's clip is another genius idea, i won't even bother arguing there. Also, the one thing that really would sell the shuffle for me would be durability. I know i can toss it around, have it fall down a few times, put it in my pocket with my pins (No i don't really carry pins around) and still have not a scratch on it. I have to admit, if I had to buy a secondary MP3 player, it would be the shuffle.

But I stand by what I said about iTunes. It is too airtight for it's own good. Also, I don't agree with you on the iPod interface. It's not simple, it's simplistic. There aren't enough features to cramp up the UI. The Nokia 1100's interface is dead simple, but only because it doesn't do much.

But one thing has always pissed me off about iPods. The sound quality is nowhere close to the best. To be completely honest, the only reason I chose my Creative Zen over the nano is because the SQ is significantly better. Otherwise, i would have bought the nano in a heart beat.

 

[Head Banger]

if the sq is same old $hit,then this is not my cup of tea.Screw coolness factor and interface.Zen and most cellphones deliver awesome sonic experience.

 

[ring_wraith]

^^ my point exactly.

 

[goobimama]

Why the hell do you guys think that the whole world owns the ipod!!!

Aside for the market share, I'm not really talking about the whole world owning an iPod. I'm talking about all those who own iPods. So if Apple wants to implement a feature into their iPods, WMP will not support it. So Apple makes their own software.

really man!!! well atleast MS can copy files b/w drives.... i mean what kinda development is that? right?

Not really sure what you mean by copy files between drives, cause macs can do that. And note that I mentioned Vice versa. Say there's an awesome feature in WMP that has also been implemented in the Zune. iPod users would want that as well but since Apple has lagged in development, the users are left in the lurch leaving a bitter after taste. So Apple makes their own software.

really man!!! ur best defence is "what if"?? i may ask the same question WHAT IF ITUNES HAS A BUG????????????????????????

What if iTunes has a bug that doesn't go well with the iPod? Apple will quickly fix it of course cause they are obliged to. MS on the other hand is no in any way obliged to fix a bug. So Apple makes their own software.

That is if the whole world had on the ipod!!

Please don't play stupid. I meant one application for the iPod. I didn't mean every music player user out there should use iTunes for their players (and it's not possible in any case).

 

[gxsaurav]

So if Apple wants to implement a feature into their iPods, WMP will not support it. So Apple makes their own software.

I hope u know that u can even use WMP11 to sync non-DRM mp3 & mp4 with iPod with some additional plugins available.

MS on the other hand is no in any way obliged to fix a bug.

Lolz...I hope u know MS has the best after market supprt,

 

[napster007]

Please don't play stupid.

you make me laugh

I meant one application for the iPod. I didn't mean every music player user out there should use iTunes for their players

well if that happened .......it would suck so bad

 

[aryayush]

Ok, after a lot of intraspection, I am actually convinced that you are indeed right aayush.

I have to hand it to you, it really does not make sense to have a screen on a player the size of the shuffle, and creative is stupid for having done so. On the surface, the shuffle looks easy to use, friendly and warm, while the stone looks like just that, a glorified stone. The shuffle's clip is another genius idea, i won't even bother arguing there. Also, the one thing that really would sell the shuffle for me would be durability. I know i can toss it around, have it fall down a few times, put it in my pocket with my pins (No i don't really carry pins around) and still have not a scratch on it. I have to admit, if I had to buy a secondary MP3 player, it would be the shuffle.

Thanks for acknowledging that! It's good to know that there are some people around here who actually read what others are posting, understand English and, when they change their minds about something, are willing to acknowledge it publicly. The other ongoing conversation between goobimama and those two dullards really makes one want to tear one's hair off. This response offers some respite.

But I stand by what I said about iTunes. It is too airtight for it's own good.

It is. There is no doubt about that. The point is that some people find that to be a positive quality, while others don't, much in the same vein as I love the integration between Mac OS X and Macs and you or someone else might say it is too restrictive and monopolistic. Opinions are bound to differ. What matters is that you should be able to find a common ground even while you hold conflicting opinions.

Also, I don't agree with you on the iPod interface. It's not simple, it's simplistic. There aren't enough features to cramp up the UI. The Nokia 1100's interface is dead simple, but only because it doesn't do much.

But if you want your phone to be just that, a phone, it is perfect, isn't it? I mean, as close to perfection as Nokia can get anyway.

Similarly, the iPod is meant to play your media and it does that well. I, for one, am not a big fan of Apple's decision to include all those other calendars and notes and what not on the device. It has a simple interface and it allows you to play your media without any hassles. Best of all, it has the clickwheel and, in case of the iPod touch, the multi-touch screen. IMHO, iPods have the best user interface among personal media players.

In fact, all Apple products have the best user interfaces compared to their peers.

But one thing has always pissed me off about iPods. The sound quality is nowhere close to the best. To be completely honest, the only reason I chose my Creative Zen over the nano is because the SQ is significantly better. Otherwise, i would have bought the nano in a heart beat.

I won't comment on that because:
(1) I don't and have never owned an iPod;
(2) I cannot discern between good and bad audio quality unless there's a major difference and I'm sure that, even if the iPod has poorer audio quality, it's not that major; and
(3) Most iPod owners and reviewers I know have always been very appreciative of the sound quality, but it is a subjective issue, so there's no point banking on other people's opinions.

 

[krazzy]

I don't like the fact that Apple restricts their iPod users to use iTunes only. Other manufacturers give the option of using their own software (which they provide with the player on a CD unlike Apple which forces people to download it from their site), use some other software like WMP or Winamp or use Windows Explorer. And I don't agree with goobi that choices would confuse a noob. Anybody who can use a pc will be able to use the windows explorer. In that case filling up the player would be just as easy as filling up your pen drive, which IMO easier than downloading an app from the net, starting it, update your library in it and then syncing your player with it.

Also for Windows users iTunes is only used for their iPods. I'm sure no Windows user uses iTunes to play their music. So you end up having two players, one for playing music and one for your iPod. So the iTunes just sits there using space until you connect your iPod to it. Plus using iTunes on Windows isn't very nice too as it takes ages to start and close. This isn't the situation on Macs and I agree that using the iTunes+iPod combo would work marvellously on Macs.

Aayush said something about Apple marketing. Well to be honest I haven't seen a single ad for Apple products all my life. And thats all 21 years of it.

About the user friendliness, I agree with ring_wraith. Apple have stripped iPod of so many important features (which are standard among its competitors) that what is left can be managed with ones eyes closed. I don't think it is right in calling an interface with so little features user friendly. If Apple had put all the features that its competitors have and still managed to make the player user friendly, then I'd respected them. If you pick up a Creative Zen, you'll see that its interface is well designed and easy to use but the player still has all the features. Now thats what I like.

One weird thing is Apple puts all stupid things like calendar and notes on the iPod (which actually deviates from their ideology of staying focused on the prime function i.e. playing music) but they ignore music related features like FM radio, manual equalisers, etc. Strange.

 

[aryayush]

Other manufacturers give the option of using their own software (which they provide with the player on a CD unlike Apple which forces people to download it from their site)

Keeps the packaging trim and is more environment friendly. In this day and age of cheap and all pervasive high speed broadband access, that's hardly an issue. If anything, it's better.

Anybody who can use a pc will be able to use the windows explorer. In that case filling up the player would be just as easy as filling up your pen drive, which IMO easier than downloading an app from the net, starting it, update your library in it and then syncing your player with it.

Yes, but using the Windows Explorer is absolutely the worst way to manage your music. Suppose you have five thousand songs in your library and you copy them all onto your music player. It takes several hours and it's done. Great. No iTunes required, simply copy-paste. You're very happy.

One month from now, you want to update your music player but you realise that you've deleted several songs from your player that you want again and you've added or deleted several songs from your computer too and basically, you want your music player to have all the same songs as your computer.

What do you do now, dude? Sort out all the different songs and copy them over and delete all the ones that you've deleted from your computer? It can take ages and can be very frustrating, specially given the fact that since you don't use any media management application, your collection is probably full of songs named "Track 01" and "Track 02", etc. and don't have the proper ID3 tags.

Or you'll just have to empty the whole player and copy the whole collection again, which again takes several hours. And what if those songs are spread all over the drive?

You see what I'm getting at? You see how a mediator like iTunes helps?

Now you will say that Apple should make it optional, like all the other also rans in the media player market. No, they shouldn't. I don't know how many great quotes I've read which all basically say that people don't really know what's best for them. When given a choice between the better and the easy, most people would choose the easy and in this case, the explorer method looks easy on the surface, so most people would choose that and keep suffering every time they want to change the songs on the device. They would never bother with ID3 tagging unless you force them to use an application that makes ID3 tagging easy and obvious. For example, all my songs have artwork associated with them, only because iTunes has Cover Flow. Why would I bother with it if I didn't have any incentive to?

Another example would by how your parents force you to do so many things in your life that you don't want to but are for your own benefit.

iTunes is what makes the whole iPod universe tick. The fact that it is all organised and controlled by one company, a company that excels at designing usable user interfaces, is what makes it the best in the industry.

I'm sure no Windows user uses iTunes to play their music.

LOL! Are you sure you don't want to take that back? You actually think that no one uses iTunes to play music? LOL! Any proofs to back that ludicrous statement?

Aayush said something about Apple marketing. Well to be honest I haven't seen a single ad for Apple products all my life. And thats all 21 years of it.

I was talking about their marketing in general, i.e. the countries that they do advertise in, not specifically about India. It was one of the reasons for why the iPod is successful globally.

One weird thing is Apple puts all stupid things like calendar and notes on the iPod (which actually deviates from their ideology of staying focused on the prime function i.e. playing music) but they ignore music related features like FM radio, manual equalisers, etc. Strange.

I agree. I don't care about radios and eqalisers, but I would rather not have he calendars and notes on an iPod, the iPod touch being the only exception.


Let me know if the iTunes explanation made some sense to you.

 

[gxsaurav]

Suppose you have five thousand songs in your library and you copy them all onto your music player. It takes several hours and it's done. Great. No iTunes required, simply copy-paste. You're very happy.

One month from now, you want to update your music player but you realise that you've deleted several songs from your player that you want again and you've added or deleted several songs from your computer too and basically, you want your music player to have all the same songs as your computer.

What do you do now, dude? Sort out all the different songs and copy them over and delete all the ones that you've deleted from your computer? It can take ages and can be very frustrating, specially given the fact that since you don't use any media management application, your collection is probably full of songs named "Track 01" and "Track 02", etc. and don't have the proper ID3 tags.

Or you'll just have to empty the whole player and copy the whole collection again, which again takes several hours. And what if those songs are spread all over the drive?

You see what I'm getting at? You see how a mediator like iTunes helps?

Winamp, WMP11, J River media center, Amarok all do it too. iTunes isn't the only one which can do this.

For example, all my songs have artwork associated with them, only because iTunes has Cover Flow. Why would I bother with it if I didn't have any incentive to?

WMP11 has no cover flow, still all my songs are 100% tagged. What's your point here, can only iTunes tag properly ???/