I recently bought a Sony CD walkman with MP3 capability. It’s pretty nice, it only needs one battery yet it produces excellent volume and it still doesn’t drain the battery. The menus are easy to navagate, I never needed to consult the manual to see how it worked. It’s nice being able to fit about 14 CDs worth of music on a single CD that costs about $0.10.
I think if Apple made one of these they would sell like hotcakes, you could have the iPod interface with the versitility and affordability of a MP3 CD walkman.
An MP3 CD holds 700 MB, right? That’s little more than the 500 MB iPod shuffle holds, yet the shuffle is the size of a pack of gum and weighs no more than a car key. A portable CD player, on the other hand, doesn’t fit in small pockets and you wouldn’t want to go running with one. I really can’t think of a single advantage of the CD player but price. It certainly wouldn’t give you an iPod experience.
I don’t understand. You only have to use your computer once, and then you have your whole CD collection on your iPod. After that, your computer doesn’t have to be at hand for anything.
I don’t understand. You only have to use your computer once, and then you have your whole CD collection on your iPod. After that, your computer doesn’t have to be at hand for anything.
Well, you could buy a new CD, borrow a friend’s CD, or find a CD that wasn’t ripped when you aren’t in a position to rip and transfer the CD either away from your computer or short on that kind of time.
iPods cost over $300 except for the shuffle which is around $100 (but without a visual interface) but at the size of the shuffle you are limited, but you can gain more storage on a walkman simply by getting a new CD.
I have a hard enough time keeping track of the CD’s I own, that came in jewel cases with liner notes and track listings, much less the (relatively few) mixes I’ve made, much less having to either burn or rewrite a CD-R(W) for a new set of music. I mean, what about music downloaded from P2P or the iTMS? Those have to be transferred, too… they can just be put on an iPod, but they have to be burned before they can be used with a Walkman.
And I’m almost always in front of my computer, so it’s not like I have a reason that I *need* to listen to a CD on the go.
Your solution is cheaper at first, but in the long run, with media costs, it’ll cost more than an iPod (though that run is more of a marathon...).
I have a hard enough time keeping track of the CD’s I own, that came in jewel cases with liner notes and track listings, much less the (relatively few) mixes I’ve made, much less having to either burn or rewrite a CD-R(W) for a new set of music. I mean, what about music downloaded from P2P or the iTMS? Those have to be transferred, too… they can just be put on an iPod, but they have to be burned before they can be used with a Walkman.
And I’m almost always in front of my computer, so it’s not like I have a reason that I *need* to listen to a CD on the go.
Your solution is cheaper at first, but in the long run, with media costs, it’ll cost more than an iPod (though that run is more of a marathon...).
You can buy a spindle of 50 700MB CDRs for <$10. That’s 35GB, a 20GB iPod is $299, so $90 for the player and $10 for a spindle is $100, using CDs is over three times cheaper. The most expensive part would be the batteries, but then again you can use rechargables and still spend far less than you would on an iPod. The real disadvantage would be the bulk, but when you don’t have an extra $200 to spend on miniturization it’s a good investment.
I agree with Rafe and Arden. The other problem is that CD players are one thing Sony is still very popular for. Apple would be trying to break into an established and fading commodity market with low margins no growth room. I don’t think it would be a very good business decision, and in the end it would only wind up tarnishing the valuable iPod brand.
You can buy a spindle of 50 700MB CDRs for <$10. That’s 35GB, a 20GB iPod is $299, so $90 for the player and $10 for a spindle is $100, using CDs is over three times cheaper.
Your math is funny.
And again, there are fundamental problems with your set-up. Great, you can put your 35GB collection on disc for just $10. But you can’t seriously suggest taking it all with you. A Discman is even less mobile when accompanied with a 50-disc sleevebook.
When you decide to listen to a given song, what do you have to do? First, find the disc. If they’re archival MP3 CD’s, you’d better have good organization. Perhaps your collection is alphabetical by artist. What if you only remember the song’s name? But even remembering everything, you still have to flip through the book to get to the CD. You slip it out of its sleeve and put it in the Discman, after taking the previous CD out of the player and replacing it in its own sleeve. Now, do you remember the track number? No? Then you must skip to each track in turn and read its name on the display, or listen to the first couple seconds of it. After perhaps forty pushes of the >| button, you are gratified with your song.
With an HDD MP3 player, it’s much faster to get to songs because there are none of those seams in the experience. Your entire collection is there, ready, in a slight pack. Just spin the wheel and you’ll find what you’re looking for.
The difference between a Discman and an iPod is the same as the difference between taking a set of encyclopedias with you and taking a laptop with an eCyclopedia when you want to look something up on the go. I’m sure the encyclopedias are cheaper, but good luck managing them efficiently.
The difference between a Discman and an iPod is the same as the difference between taking a set of encyclopedias with you and taking a laptop with an eCyclopedia when you want to look something up on the go. I’m sure the encyclopedias are cheaper, but good luck managing them efficiently.
Yeah, but when you don’t have >$1000 to spend on a laptop all the features in the world won’t make an eCylopedia practical.
The difference between a Discman and an iPod is the same as the difference between taking a set of encyclopedias with you and taking a laptop with an eCyclopedia when you want to look something up on the go. I’m sure the encyclopedias are cheaper, but good luck managing them efficiently.
Yeah, but when you don’t have >$1000 to spend on a laptop all the features in the world won’t make an eCylopedia practical.
So you’re calling carrying around 400 pounds of books practical?
I know CD’s weigh much less than that, but they’re about as manageable.
The difference between a Discman and an iPod is the same as the difference between taking a set of encyclopedias with you and taking a laptop with an eCyclopedia when you want to look something up on the go. I’m sure the encyclopedias are cheaper, but good luck managing them efficiently.
Yeah, but when you don’t have >$1000 to spend on a laptop all the features in the world won’t make an eCylopedia practical.
Actually, you can get a laptop capable of running a cd encyclopedia for aroud $700.
The difference between a Discman and an iPod is the same as the difference between taking a set of encyclopedias with you and taking a laptop with an eCyclopedia when you want to look something up on the go. I’m sure the encyclopedias are cheaper, but good luck managing them efficiently.
Yeah, but when you don’t have >$1000 to spend on a laptop all the features in the world won’t make an eCylopedia practical.
So you’re calling carrying around 400 pounds of books practical?
I know CD’s weigh much less than that, but they’re about as manageable.
You can go to a library and xerox the pages you need for pennies, vs. spending hundreds on a computer to use the ecyclopedia. 400 pounds of books is practical if you don’t have the money for a computer.
Back to the argument:
Say you have $100 to spend on a music player, a good CD Player with MP3 capability is at most $70, leaving you $30 left for CDs and batteries, a spindle of CDs is usually no more than $10, which leaves you $20 for batteries and you could either get a LOT of disposables or a rechargable batter kit with that, so you have a capacity of several gigabytes just by exchanging media. Now lets look at an MP3: You won’t be ably to buy the standard iPod or iPod mini because they are much more than $100, so you are left with the iPod shuffle, which is $99 for 1GB, with no display whatsoever.
If you have $100 budget, you can get a Walkman and CDRWs and have a capicity limited only by your media, or a flash player limited to 1GB, those are the options.
If you have $100 budget, you can get a Walkman and CDRWs and have a capicity limited only by your media, or a flash player limited to 1GB, those are the options.
So what you’re saying is… you can have something the size of a packet of chewing gum, or something the size of a backpack. I know which I’d go for.
Not only would the CD collection be the size of a backpack, or at least a large booklet of CD’s, each CD would be carved in stone as to what songs are on it. And I know of no CD or MP3 CD players that can read ID3 tags (though they may exist), so you wouldn’t know what was on a CD anyway unless you write it down, which you’d have to do for the Shuffle as well. So either way, you don’t know what songs you have in your playlist unless you have a really good memory or a hardcopy list. And if you want a particular song, well, you’re SOL either way, too.
Ahayes, if you really think a CD-R solution is the best solution, for $100 or whatever budget, then more power to you. But I think most people would disagree with you here (and have...) and go for a more efficient, elegant, compact, and potentially more premium solution. I know I’d much prefer to get a Shuffle, which can be overwritten infinitely (theoretically, at least) than CD-R’s which are burned forever, or CD-RW’s which cost much more, limiting their total capacity.
Besides, for $100, do you really need more than a gigabyte of music? Unless you’re trekking across the Sahara Desert, that should supply enough tunes to keep you satisfied, even with repetitions.
Sure, you have a capacity limited only by your media. I’ve already demonstrated some problems with that setup, however. The experience is not great.
The problem with your argument is that you’re assuming a hard and fast $100 budget. I wouldn’t spend that little. But if you absolutely must, there’s a near-mint-condition original 5GB iPod on eBay; the bidding is at $66 and ends in seven hours. If you can get that for $100 or less, it will beat the bile out of a Discman.
First of all, Apple will come out with yet another CD walkman just for fun. They already made CD players...10 years ago. My friend Dan C,B, showed me the one he recovered from near destruction. It’s still worth a pretty penny.
Second of all, let me plaigarize an article I read and couldn’t Google right now. The thing about the iPod is it the discs or media are invisible to us. Your iPod is the media---you don’t need to worry about discs. This is a revolution because Atrac -> Tape -> CD -> DVD Audio are all just changes from one physical media to another. NOW, Apple has made the iPod into what you think of when you want to hear your music.
It’s weird going from one shiny disc after another to a reliance on a central hub and many players. I have two iTunes machines and many places I send my music to, including an AirPort Express hooked up to the Den’s stereo which also reaches to the backyard deck and my two iPods (including the Shuffle we’ve been discussing which btw costs much more after accessories---$30 each for a dock and armband is robbery but I bought it anyway). Remember the days when you had to handle each CD and opening them up was a neat experience? They’re gone. And so is your back ache.
What’s better? There are tons of reasons not to buy an iPod and go completely digital. I don’t like being locked down to a computer which is still unfriendly interface wise, nor do I appreciate the restrictions. Why do I have to do so many steps to get things done?
We’re in a transition right now where we will get closer to seamless, simple interactions in the digital world that will enhance the real world. Music is good for us and digital music will eventually, say 20 years from now, be the first technology besides porn that is mature enough to be of any real reliable use. Thoughts?
