What shempzilla said.

Then there’s the fact that Mac support for other players is weak… Seriously though, 30 GB of storage, photo slide shows, and video for $299 is not bad. The only “more features” the iPod seems to be missing is an FM radio. Big whoop.

As someone who used AOL in the mid 90s, I can tell you that it sucked even then; there’s a good reason why AOL is fading. The iPod, on the other hand, does not suck. About the only advantage I see for other players is the existence of subscription services, though those are not for everyone.

what shemp and nick said plus this…

I’ve seen the slate article, your blog and a couple of other ipod sucks posts in the past couple of days.

The inherent problem with you and your fellow i hate the ipoder’s argument is that you fail to consider who the heck actually buys the ipod.  Sure its got a huge 30 and under market share.  There folks are tech savy and could just as well choose the other options out there.

But the big difference with the ipod is in its over 30 market share.  These folks dont buy a ton of CD’s every year. Their music collection is pretty static.  So the big thing for them is that the player “just works.” That’s been apple’s mantra from the early mac days and that’s why its very unlikely that the ipod will be killed by the competition any time soon.

It’s good to know I’m a cocksucker.

I don’t like the iPoo because it can’t play tracks gaplessly and has a crap preset EQ instead of a real 5 band EQ. Basic music player functions, but obviously the iPoo is fashion item for simpletons, not a serious music player.

Who gives a rat’s tuckus whether or not you like iPods? I don’t like strawberries, but you don’t see me posting a blog about it.

I’ve tried many, and the iPod simply has the best features and feel of any music player out there, combined with great software that integrates beautifully with it. Couple that with a store that not only has a great selection, but that lets me easily list to 30-second clips of everything, there really isn’t a choice. It’s Apple, and I don’t even own a Macintosh. Come the switch to Intel, I’ll probably be in the market for a new computer ... and guess what I’ll be checking out?

A very satisfied customer.

Actually, Sebhelyesfarku, I think the iTunes EQ has about ten bands.  I’m not at home so I can’t check.  But I am fairly certain that you can transfer your custom equalizer settings onto the iPod.

So,if the iPod is designed merely to suck you into an Apple dominated world, how come I have over 70 Gb’s of music and audiobooks, none of which are from iTunes or Audible?

My biggest problem is manging that 70 Gb’s on a mere 30 GB iPod. But this is not at all difficult with iTunes, while with my WMA (Paysforesure!) based Creative player it is a total crapshoot when updating.

“The iPod is an inherently limited player, designed to jack you into Apple’s world and not let you go. The video iPod is no exception. “

I don’t know why people keep saying this.  I am on my second iPod.  My first was a first gen iPod which I used exclusively on Windows ME with a neat little program called XPlay (this was before iTunes for Windows existed).  Now I do use iTunes for the convenience of synching, but I’ve never bought anything from Apple for my iPod and I still have my Windows PC (now on XP).  How, exactly, have I been jacked into Apple’s world?

“Apple seduced its neophytes with a Click Wheel, seductive industrial design, Auto-sync...”

The neophytes only? Doesn’t nearly anybody appreciate a good feature in something they might use every day? And by a *good* feature, I mean a *well executed* feature.

“There are lots of portable players out there with better features, more compatibility, more flexibility and cheaper prices than iPod.”

Really? Why aren’t these fantastic players selling that well? Maybe they aren’t that good. Maybe they aren’t integrated with software as effectively as the iPod . . .

“...locked into Steve Job’s world...”

Do mean the world where software and hardware actually work together?

“...locked into Steve Job’s world...�

And the ONLY alternative is to get locked into Bill Gates world (which includes Rob Glasers town now).

Uh...no thanks.

Any CEO who isn’t trying to lock his customers in will get the boot from shareholders.

And BTW - their lock-in is much easier to get around than the alternatives.

RP

what the hell is wrong with sucking dick?

I think it’s awesome.

There will be always sheeps, customers so “stupid” that they would buy anything. Or else, Bill Gate$ would be broke. AOL was always really lame. The truth is iPod has little in common. Not only it’s the best product. iPod’s legacy, especially in early years, has been boosted by people more knowledgeable and demanding than you. Amiga users, Unix geeks, HiFi liesteners, ...

Neverhteless, iPod is not perfect. Many are concerned with Apple’s recent success and fear that riches would turn it into a Dell or AOL. Unquestionably, Apple’s icon status has suffered lately leading it to compromises (no Firewire in iPods, Intel CPUs etc). But still the AOL comparisons are excessive.

blah-blah-blah, I hate iPods, blah-blah-blah, I hate Apple, blah-blah-blah, I hate Steve Jobs…

Spare me....

“And when the iPod masses wake up from their Apple-induced psychosis, the rest of us will be waiting, with better players, more flexible services and more choices all around.”

Good for you.

Unndunn, as many have already pointed out, your comparison is flawed.  AOL gained much success in the 90’s because the Internet was this Great Unknown, and they heavily advertised the advantages of using AOL (and suckered people in with ever-increasing free hours… how many here still get “1000 Free Hours!” discs in the mail?) while not offering a very good service compared to the competition.  They have been floundering recently because their services are not very good, they charge more than their competitors, and many people are more knowledgable about the Internet than they were in the 90’s.

Apple, on the other hand, have the best online music store in existence, coupled with one of the finest MP3 players ever made, with models suitable for just about everyone.  Their DRM scheme (made necessary by the snake-headed beast that is the RIAA, not by any choice of Apple’s) is much more free than their competitors, and their songs don’t expire.  And even discounting paid downloads, the iPod still works with what, 7 different formats, that do not have any DRM restrictions, including the ubiquitous MP3.  A good majority of iPod users don’t even use the music store, so they are not locked into anything.

The iPod itself is a wonderfully-designed, easy-to-use player.  Sure, it may not have the bells and whistles of other, more complicated players, and it may not play the (proprietary, even for non-DRM) WMA format, but most people don’t seem to care.  The iPod does what they want it to, and it does it well.

Basically, your arguments come down to: a) you’re “locked in” to Apple’s FairPlay DRM if you download from the iTMS (as if you aren’t locked into anything with other stores); b) Apple “seduces” customers with cool features, instead of letting the cool features sell the product… seriously, why would they have cool features if not to “seduce” people to buy it anyway; c) AOL and Apple have both controlled the market at one time or another, so both are destined for a fall, even though AOL didn’t work very well while the iPod + iTMS does; d) there are other players that are smaller, have more features, and are cheaper, though not necessarily all at once.

Honestly, have you ever used an iPod?  They’re wonderful machines, even if you don’t buy from the iTMS.

Seriously, if you want bells and whistles for an iPod, you have the largest accessory support group in existence compared to ANY other MP3 player.

Finally, to me, your “Deep Thought� blog seems to contain remarkably superficial thoughts. Possibly it should be renamed “vain thoughts.�

My my, haven’t we forgotten the purpose of a blog.

Main Entry:  blog
Part of Speech:  noun
Definition:  an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log
Example:  Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author.
Etymology:  shortened form of Weblog
Usage:  blog, blogged, blogging v, blogger n

Dictionary.com, by the way.

This is true, and pretty much the point of this site.  But that doesn’t mean one is free from public scrutiny if one publishes one’s thoughts, especially if those thoughts rub against the grain of majority thinking.

Yes, you’re free to publish your thoughts.  Hutwohl didn’t say that you couldn’t.

But then, since you allow for comments, others are free to tell you what they think of your thoughts.  Superficial, vain, incorrect, foolish, stupid, silly, dumb, dopey, whatever.  And you are free to respond.  That’s called a conversation…

I was referring to the people with the general tone of “You let this guy write for your site?”

There’s a problem with your logic, and that problem is that you presume the existence of other MP3 players that don’t lock you into one particular vendor.  Now, of course, that argument as applied to Apple is false—even though I’ve bought hundreds of songs from iTMS, I have thousands of songs that I have acquired elsewhere.  It’s not as though the iPod doesn’t play garden variety MP3s that you can rip from a CD or acquire from another source.  It’s not the purchase of an iPod that “locks you in” to Apple; it’s the iTMS purchases.  If you buy from other online music stores that stick DRM on the WMA files, you’ve locked yourself into Microsoft.  (Or Real, if you go with Rhapsody) And if you try a subscription service, you’ve locked yourself into that.

Now, it would be wonderful if everyone agreed to a common format for online music or if all formats could play on all players.  But that’s not going to happen yet.  Apple sees an advantage in selling open-format songs protected by their proprietary DRM.  Real sees an advantage in selling open-format songs protected by their proprietary DRM.  Microsoft sees an advantage in selling their proprietary format songs with their proprietary format DRM.  No one (of consequence) has seen any advantage in selling open-format songs with an open-format DRM (that is, one that could be incorporated on MP3 players without license).

Apple and Microsoft both have had a “monopoly” on their computer operating systems for some time, locking people into those standards.  So there’s some evidence for how each respective company treats those who are “locked in” to their system.  You offer a false choice; the alternative to being locked in to Apple is to being locked in to someone else.

The iPod is the best portable music player on the market.  It has the best user interface (that is, the one that makes it easiest and quickest to select the song or playlist that I want; we love the click wheel not because it’s fashionable but because it works better than anything else).  It has the best selection of accessories (try finding an iFi or a SoundDock for anything else).  And Apple has a history of innovating despite having people “locked in” to their hardware.  (Microsoft doesn’t).

It’s an easy choice.

The reason I don’t like the iPod is that it is made by Apple, who don’t provide the customer service I’d expect from a leader at anything.  They won’t provide me a loaner nor recognize my intermintent issues with my PowerBook and it’s been a wild goose chase these last two years getting them far enough to even consider really fixing it.  I don’t need to have to take a course in manipulation to get what’s coming to me as a customer with a full warranty.

/end rant.

As far as this article, sucking dick is fine and Apple needs to offer a pro iPod like AOL should’ve offered a pro AIM/AOL earlier (the broadband one it offers now is OK as far as I’m concerned).  There’s nothing wrong with easy design and Apple is always the one you study in design courses like mine.