But since the lights went out I’ve never been the same

[venta]

Yesterday I had one of those moments where I realise I have a very specific opinion on something - but no real justification for it, and no clear idea where I got it from.

So, you, my dear self-selecting sample of guinea pigs, have the opportunity to prove me right. Or wrong. But I'm not going to tell you which is which. I'd hate to bias my otherwise-scientific survey.

I'm asking here about portable mp3 players (or mp3-a-likes). If you use your computer to play mp3s at you at home, or have some form of mp3 monster in the car, that's not what I meant.

[Poll #442057]

Comments

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

iPod is nothing special without iTunes. The whole point is to be able to say to your 40 Gb collection "make me a playlist with these artists, this long, which I have personally rated between 3 and 5 stars, in this genre, with stuff that I have not listened to for 2 weeks".

Does the Creative software do that?

For me iTunes is a tool that reminds me of all of the great music I have. If I only ever see 10% of my music collection, then I will only ever put that 10% on my mp3 player. The iTunes functionality is a convenience that I am willing to pay for, it's what made the deal for me at the time.

iTunes is not nearly so good as an mp3 player for your computer though - far too much overhead. But at the same time, it does pick playlists nicely.

Downsides of the iPod are lack of direct drag-and-drop functionality and the lock-in to either WinXP/2000 or MacOS. I hear the iRiver can be mounted by Linux and files transferred directly, which is a big plus.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

The whole point is to be able to say to your 40 Gb collection "make me a playlist with these artists, this long, which I have personally rated between 3 and 5 stars, in this genre, with stuff that I have not listened to for 2 weeks".

That may currently be a killer app, but won't be for long. It wouldn't take much of a change to Winamp to make it quite easy to create the playlist you wanted - basically you'd have to be able to put a playlist into the "media library" view so that you can sort it by rating, chop out those below 3 stars, sort it by genre and chop out all the ones you don't want etc. Other media players will be copycatting iTunes soon enough.

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

Other media players will be copycatting iTunes soon enough.

Just like other HD mp3 players are copycatting the ipod? There have been plenty of so-called "iPod killers", none of which have come close to this functionality, and have been royally spanked by the iPod in the ring.

People keep comparing the iPod to A.N.Other mp3 player when it isn't. Apple's stated aim for iLife is to make it as indespensible to home life as MS Office is to work (!), and to this aim they've done what they do best - provide a software/hardware package that "just works" and provides useful, lifestyle oriented functionality.

Given the choice between investing 180 quid on Apple's product with this guaranteed functionality, and chosing A.N.Other product that costs the same, has the same capacity but forces you to wait on a 3rd party software provider for the same functionality (not guaranteed) and that requires more user intervention, seems like a no-brainer. And that's why the iPod hasn't been killed yet.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Just like other HD mp3 players are copycatting the ipod?

Well, not really. It copycatted them first.

so-called "iPod killers"

iPod killing is a duff concept, though. I don't believe for an instant that the reason iPod sells so well is because of iTunes playlist composition. I think it's because it's pretty, it's superbly well-marketed, and it has pretty decent controls on the gadget itself. If a single competitor wants to beat Apple's sales any time soon then this is what it has to compete with - producing a better integrated music sales/player/kitchen sink experience will do it no good whatsoever.

Apple's stated aim for iLife is to make it as indespensible to home life as MS Office is to work (!)

(!) indeed. I believe I have MS Office installed on this machine. Can't remember the last time I used it.

they've done what they do best

Agreed. But despite this being what they do best, Apple only have two products with significant share of their markets, and that's iTunes Store and iPod players. The most-used music player software is not iTunes, it's WMP. iMac and iBook have tiny market share, despite being designed by people just as good as the people designing iTunes and iPods. The reason for that is that other people steal Apple's good ideas, reject their prejudices, do the same things cheaper with less good integration, and end up selling more copies. Expect the same again, because Apple are good at high-profile innovation but bad at product development.

[wimble.livejournal.com]

You forgot to list market recognition in your list of the iPod's advantages (unless you meant to include it under the cover of marketing).

From my POV, it's this that is the clincher, since my preferred choice, for a very long time was the Creative Zen (greater capacity, or lower price). But nobody would ever know the name of it: it'd always be compared to an iPod (even the concept of an "iPod killer" admits this!)

[leathellin.livejournal.com]

Does the Creative software do that?

Yes. And doesn't rip to AAC by default :-)

I did look at it properly eventually and got round to putting real music and playlists on my toy :-)

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

To qualify my statement: I would not have bought the iPod for that much money if there hadn't been the software to back it up. If the Creative does a similar thing then that's just dandy.

doesn't rip to AAC by default

Yes, that just blows. But then I use audiograbber and encode to mp3 in a batch using LAME, overnight, and then tag using Eags On.

iTunes is good for managing music only!