Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam

[mp3forever]

ITunes Sucks! $0.99 is way too much for some bits that DRM controls. Just buy the CD and Rip it to Mp3 or download for free, if you can find it, and save some money. Besides who wants to be stuck with some crappy music interface like iTunes when there are better alternatives. I prefer eJukebox since it works on top of winamp but there are tons of other apps that blow the iTunes interface way...and best of all they do not insist on swindling you out of $0.99 a song!

 

[paavo]

I'm on computer number 4 on my DRM, but I only have one computer, it's way easier to reach the limit of 5 than people think. I built a new rig, so this became number 2. I had a mobo go bad, so I got a new one, this became number 3. I got a nice large SATA HD to replace my IDE one and did a fesh OS install, this became computer number 4. Remember, a new mobo or HD counts as a new computer, so it's very easy to reach the limit of 5, I should be there at the end of the year when I build a new SLI rig. I love my ipod, but the limit of 5 is BS for people that have hardware problems or rebuild there rig every year and a half like I do.

:tongue:

Oh, boo hoo, cry me a river!

If you bought a Mac it would definitely last longer (each of mine have lasted 6+ years/each, thank you very much), but then again it isn't BIY, which is what you DOS fanbois love to do, since you have nothing better to do?

And why does anyone in their right mind EVER buy large amounts of online DRM'ed music anyway? Oh that's right, you need to fuss with you're DOS box 247!

Online DRM'ed music sux dude, or haven't you heard? Limited copies and low bitrates does not sound like a winning strategy to me? Ever listen to low bitrate music on a high end stereo? It sux dude!

But then again you are a savvy hackerz dude, aren't you? I thought you guyz had hacked Fairplay, thus lifting the 5 copy limit? I suggest you ask your hacker dudez how to do it, I'm sure they will help, seeing as they also have nothing better to do?

:tongue:

Calm the F down dude. I rebuilt my rig often because it's mostly used for gaming, which is why I don't have an Mac. I do no hacking, no interest, I haven't bought very much music from itunes, maybe 30 songs. All digital music sucks as far as sound quality, it doesn't matter what the bit rate, even cd's sound worse than good old LP's. Don't bother responding Mac fan boy, I'm done with this forum, BTW, does your overpriced, slow Mac match your curtains ?

 

[hashv2f16]

This is the best iPod bashing I've seen in like ever. Keep up the good fight against Apple and their great plot of world domination.

 

[mp3forever]

Apple should get sued for creating a monopoly on digital music. By charging $0.99 for each song and making sure the song can only be played on their hardware and not the competitions they get people locked in. This means that when the next generation non Apple devices with OLED screens come out people will not buy it because it is incompatible with Apple's DRM and all the music they payed for would be worthless. To top it off, Apple locks people into the super lame iTunes software by making the music incompatible with other apps.

Not that this is unexpected as Apple has a history off getting people locked in. Just like they did by making people buy computer hardware from them instead of making their OS open to other hardware. Considering how many people waste their money on iTunes; the amount of free advertising Apple has gotten from the mass media is sickening.

 

[mitch074]

I'm the somewhat confused owner of an Ipod mini 4G. I also own an iRiver iFP190TC.

I bought the iFP. The Ipod was a gift.

First thing I did on the iFP190 was flash the firmware to support UMS - worked not too badly, but I often had to re-upload some songs.
First thing I did on the Ipod was reformat and regenerate the file system using GtkPod (yeah, I'm a Linux user).

Both only play MP3. I rip my CDs using Lame VBR in high quality: it sounds much better than 'regular' mp3. The thing I regret most is the lack of Vorbis support (now Vorbis... THAT is HQ sound!). The law allows me to make a backup copy of any IP I purchased a licence for, so I'll do just that. There's no difference between what I do and what I used to do when I was younger, recording vinyls to tape to listen to in my walkman...

As you can see, no DRMs for me.

 

[SuperFly03]

Thats not a monopoly... thats brilliant marketing. Apple engineered its first ipods w/o this fair play (if im not mistaken) and got ppl hooked. Then they said hey, lets make some more money, and launched itunes. Hate them all you want, I do, but you can't say they suck because they made a monpoly.

Apple has plenty of competition, ppl are just ignorant and lazy, and choose to go to itunes instead of somewhere else.

 

[petur]

Personally, I think the best reason to avoid the iPod and most other players out there is the inability to play back albums without inserting pops or gaps between songs. Whether it's a live album, Pink Floyd or POE, if a song segues to the next song on the album, I expect my DAP to do the same.

So far, very few do that, though I think some rockbox firmwares implement that feature.

I will completely agree with you on this.... ipod and virtually all other MP3 players ive used do this unfortunately

it's a problem that when a CD is written, they can say, hey.. no gap between the songs

when you rip them to file.. the tracks are still considered individual files. the player has no way of knowing if it's all meant to be one album or not

I think they should just add the option to the firmware to allow for didfferent gap sizes

I'm sorry, but it is very much possible to playback music without gaps. And RockBox (of course) does it. As I have quite a bit of live recordings, I wouldn't want it otherwise.

 

[Thrudheim]

I'm on computer number 4 on my DRM, but I only have one computer, it's way easier to reach the limit of 5 than people think. I built a new rig, so this became number 2. I had a mobo go bad, so I got a new one, this became number 3. I got a nice large SATA HD to replace my IDE one and did a fesh OS install, this became computer number 4. Remember, a new mobo or HD counts as a new computer, so it's very easy to reach the limit of 5, I should be there at the end of the year when I build a new SLI rig. I love my ipod, but the limit of 5 is BS for people that have hardware problems or rebuild there rig every year and a half like I do.

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. When you hit five computers, you can go to the iTunes music store and click on "Account." You will be given an option to deauthorize all computers. Then, just reauthorize the ones you are actually using. Five computers is not a "lifetime" limit but a limit on the number of current machines authorized.

Also, you can simply go to iTunes and choose the "deauthorize computer" option before you do your upgrade to stop your count from growing.

 

[queuetrip]

has any one noticed that ipod supports aac?, and no other mp3 player does!!!.

AAC sounds alot better that crappy mp3. AAC encodes using a far better formula for changing audio into bits!.

AAC does not stand for Apple Audio Codec.

Anyone encoding CD's using MP3 is wasting time.

If all you do is listen to illegal music downloads (mp3 @128) you are slowly dying from the lack of soul in the music. (and hence slowly sinking into a living hell...)

AAC @ 320Kbs nets you 95% of the soul in music (256 variable 90%). (mp3 is the devils codec...
thats why AAC was created- to fend off the dark forces of brain sucking souless music... (ha..ha..ha..?)
Lossless encoding encoding is the way to go....
but because the ipod shuffle sounds better, and has less space than the 60GB Ipod, I have to put up with slightly soul-less music.
(but the better bass is makes up for it.)

seriously, apple is popular because it was NOT design for GEEK people.

But for the popular crowd (the one that every geek/nerd/dork secretly wants to be in)

 

[SuperFly03]

has any one noticed that ipod supports aac?, and no other mp3 player does!!!.

Damn AAC codec. I had a really bad experiance with that, fucking sony. And I mean it, I hate them. Anyone remember the Network Walkman back in the hay day that used the memory stick? God that was freaking pathetic. You had to send it in to get it permanently altered to work with windows 2000 instead of win 98/ME. Bastards.

But for the popular crowd (the one that every geek/nerd/dork secretly wants to be in)

I call bullshit, If I were in the popular crowd I would ask you to beat me senseless. Buncha ignorant mindless drones lol.

 

[M_S]

Join CD Tracks—Converts all selected contiguous tracks into one track file. This is especially useful to eliminate pauses between live concert tracks and classical music that contains interludes.



It is a sad day when the mis-informed of the world spend their time posting ridiculous statements about which they have no knowledge and spreading
M_S

Yes it is M_S. Yes it is.

Playing music without "gaps", would that not be "gapless"? To say otherwise is asinine.

M_S

What part of the Ipod does not play gaplessly don't you understand? Converting 4 songs into a single track is not gapless playback. EVERY player out there can play a single track without a gap in the middle. Hell, a cheapo CD player that plays MP3s can do that.

Gapless implies that I have Darkside of the Moon and it can play the 5 seperate files that make up the 2nd half of the album without a gap between tracks 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and tracks 4 and 5.

iPod cannot do that. Therefore it doesn't support gapless playback. To argue otherwise shows a complete ignorance of the subject.

Wow, the glass is really "half full" for you. "Gapless" does imply that you can play the 5 separate tracks that make up the 2nd half of "Dark Side of the Moon"(<sp> corrected), but I think you need a definition of "gapless".

MW defines a "gap" as ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", therefore gap"less" would be without ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", follow me? Good. What part of joined tracks (which you helpfully provided the link to) would not be "gapless"? It seems to be less the implication of the term as your misguided inferral of it.

"Hell, every cheapo CD player that supports MP3's" cannot do that</sarcasm>. Not without iTunes joining the tracks first (again, as you kindly pointed out).

So, to counter, the iPod does do that (with the help of iTunes, as I stated in my original post)!

"To argue otherwise shows a complete ignorance of the term "gap".


M_S

 

[nilepez]

Thats not a monopoly... thats brilliant marketing. Apple engineered its first ipods w/o this fair play (if im not mistaken) and got ppl hooked. Then they said hey, lets make some more money, and launched itunes. Hate them all you want, I do, but you can't say they suck because they made a monpoly.

Apple has plenty of competition, ppl are just ignorant and lazy, and choose to go to itunes instead of somewhere else.

Fairplay was introduced when the iTunes Music Store opened. That was in April of 2003.

The iPod sales didn't really take off until there was support for the PC (because most people do not own a mac).

The first version of the iTunes to support windows was October of 2003. So for the vast majority of owners fairplay was always there. And for EVERY owner that uses Itunes Music Store, fairplay has always been there.

 

[nilepez]

has any one noticed that ipod supports aac?, and no other mp3 player does!!!.

There's no point in supporting the format if you can't use apples DRM. I agree that AAC/M4A is a better audio format than MP3, but so is ogg vorbis, and it's a free codec. What's more, at low bit rates, it's far better than every other format I've listened to, including AAC.

Everyone knows that if apple let other companies use Fairplay, they'd all support AAC.

 

[nilepez]

Wow, the glass is really "half full" for you. "Gapless" does imply that you can play the 5 separate tracks that make up the 2nd half of "Dark Side of the Moon"(<sp> corrected), but I think you need a definition of "gapless".

MW defines a "gap" as ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", therefore gap"less" would be without ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", follow me? Good. What part of joined tracks (which you helpfully provided the link to) would not be "gapless"? It seems to be less the implication of the term as your misguided inferral of it.

"Hell, every cheapo CD player that supports MP3's" cannot do that</sarcasm>. Not without iTunes joining the tracks first (again, as you kindly pointed out).

So, to counter, the iPod does do that (with the help of iTunes, as I stated in my original post)!

"To argue otherwise shows a complete ignorance of the term "gap".


M_S

Go to ipod lounge and ask if the iPod supports gapless playback. Every knowledgable owner will tell you, "No."

If you have a 2 hour concert and want gapless playback on the iPod, you'd have to make it one track (and I've heard, but have not confirmed, that the player cannot play a file that large without gaps).

If I then want to skip to song 13, I can't. Why can't I? Because it's one track. Why did you make it one track? Because the iPod doesn't support gapless playback.

I want the ability to listen to the concert without gaps. I also want the ability to skip to any particular song.....just like a CD.

Your iPod can't do it.

 

[Narg]

Personally the way I see it the iPod has one glaring problem. Buy and iPod and you are supporting "The Man". Plus it also has a few other problems not mentioned in the article.

Why is the iPod so popular? Advertising is why, that is all. Nothing else. No other reason. How did little 'ol Apple afford so much advertising? They didn't. It was paid for by the record companies who support the iPod draconian DRM methods. DRM so strong that you are locked into your iPod for life once you dive in. Though methods can be taken to help that, they are not so easy that the average user is aware of how to do that. So, the strangle hold on the purchasing public is tightened ever so tighter. As is the noose around their wallet as they belt out hard earned cash for songs that play absolutly nowhere else other than the precious iPod.

To make matters worse, the iPod in terms of what it ment to provide doesn't do a very good job. Play music. Seriously, the fidelity on any given iPod is aweful. Nano is even worse. A purchase of any other MP3 players will show a world of difference in quality, both in workmanship and in fidelity. iRiver prides itself on makeing good music. Creative has decades of experience in music reproduction. This is a new venture for Apple, and they don't do it very well. Of course the average listener may not care or even notice the difference, but if your music matters why go second rate? Music is the reason you buy such a device isn't it? So consider a device that has the main purpose as it's real MAIN purpose. Originally Rio had the best sounds on the market. It's to bad the originator of the MP3 player died a pre-mature death. Most don't even remember is was Rio who stood up against "The Man" when the RIAA sued them for making such a device. They were the beginning of what now the iPod dominates with lack luster sound production and poor construction.

Only thing going for the iPod is it's ease of use. But, this is Apple, and that point they usually get and get right. The latest models from competitors are getting as easy if not easier so that is becoming a moot point.

But, all in all there are many much better units available today. I urge anyone looking at a portable music device to steer clear of the infamous iPod and all it's consumer unfriendly ways.

 

[Narg]

b) no en queue during a shuffle don't know what I'm talking about check out winamp

it'd be helpful if you defined it. I use winamp, and I haven't a clue what you're talking about.


Nilepez, you really need to learn Winamp. It's got one thing the Karma has and that is crossfading. That is a method of mixing one song into the next like you hear on the radio. That way there is no "silence" between your mix.

2) the scroll wheel is way faster than any button interfact

I prefer the Karma's interface, and I think i can scroll through a list of music faster than on an iPod, but I don't get into interface wars. I like windows others like Macs....in the end, if the Mac had all the software/games and the iPod did gapless while the Karma did not, I'd have an iPod.


The Karma DOES do gapless, and cross fading. You were sold out and missed the boat on this one.

1) tremendous space
2) reasonable battery life
3) on the fly playlists
4) en queue during shuffle (I miss this soooo much)
5) native operating system support(so I can use on linux, windows, or mac even) and I can do diagnostics
6) gapless playback
7) fast navigation
8) some standard freaking connectors so I don't have to worry about losing a piece of wire

Sounds like a rio karma (except for the HD space...only 20gb) and possibly en queue

20gig is a lot still today. Unless you are a type A personallity that will load 90% of the player with stuff you never listen to just to say "it's in there".

Once I find a player that has the gapless music and crossfading, I'll replace my Karma. Until then I still own the best player yet made IMHO.

 

[M_S]

Wow, the glass is really "half full" for you. "Gapless" does imply that you can play the 5 separate tracks that make up the 2nd half of "Dark Side of the Moon"(<sp> corrected), but I think you need a definition of "gapless".

MW defines a "gap" as ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", therefore gap"less" would be without ": a separation in space or : a break in continuity", follow me? Good. What part of joined tracks (which you helpfully provided the link to) would not be "gapless"? It seems to be less the implication of the term as your misguided inferral of it.

"Hell, every cheapo CD player that supports MP3's" cannot do that</sarcasm>. Not without iTunes joining the tracks first (again, as you kindly pointed out).

So, to counter, the iPod does do that (with the help of iTunes, as I stated in my original post)!

"To argue otherwise shows a complete ignorance of the term "gap".


M_S

Go to ipod lounge and ask if the iPod supports gapless playback. Every knowledgable owner will tell you, "No."

If you have a 2 hour concert and want gapless playback on the iPod, you'd have to make it one track (and I've heard, but have not confirmed, that the player cannot play a file that large without gaps).

If I then want to skip to song 13, I can't. Why can't I? Because it's one track. Why did you make it one track? Because the iPod doesn't support gapless playback.

I want the ability to listen to the concert without gaps. I also want the ability to skip to any particular song.....just like a CD.

Your iPod can't do it.

Now I have to go to the site that misinformed you and get their collective opinion of the term "gap"? Are you just making this up as you go along? I thought so.

You are really wishy-washy, you despise the fact that you can't listen to "Dark Side" w/o gaps (unless you join tracks, i.e."gapless") then you say "I then want to skip to song 13". I never made comment that you would be able to "skip to song 13" using gapless playback and neither does Apple. Make up your mind, which is it? If it's both then rip the songs accordingly (i.e. joined and separate tracks). If not, then don't confuse the rest of the the post reading public with your inane definitions.

Don't confuse the meaning of words, or "disable" functions, of products because they don't fit your self-prescibed (and incorrect) definition of "which side of the fence am I sitting on today" terminology.

I wholeheartedly agree that once said tracks in iTunes and the iPod are joined (i.e. "gapless") that they are one track and cannot be played separately, but to say they are not "gapless" and inform others that this is a truth is misleading and, as I said before, asinine.

M_S

 

[nilepez]

b) no en queue during a shuffle don't know what I'm talking about check out winamp

it'd be helpful if you defined it. I use winamp, and I haven't a clue what you're talking about.


Nilepez, you really need to learn Winamp. It's got one thing the Karma has and that is crossfading. That is a method of mixing one song into the next like you hear on the radio. That way there is no "silence" between your mix.


What's your point? I never use crossfading on the Karma.

I prefer the Karma's interface, and I think i can scroll through a list of music faster than on an iPod, but I don't get into interface wars. I like windows others like Macs....in the end, if the Mac had all the software/games and the iPod did gapless while the Karma did not, I'd have an iPod.

The Karma DOES do gapless, and cross fading. You were sold out and missed the boat on this one.


I didn't say it didn't....read it again. I said IF.....

Sorry, but you're arguing with the wrong person. I own a karma and like it.

 

[nilepez]

Now I have to go to the site that misinformed you and get their collective opinion of the term "gap"? Are you just making this up as you go along? I thought so.

You are really wishy-washy, you despise the fact that you can't listen to "Dark Side" w/o gaps (unless you join tracks, i.e."gapless") then you say "I then want to skip to song 13". I never made comment that you would be able to "skip to song 13" using gapless playback and neither does Apple. Make up your mind, which is it? If it's both then rip the songs accordingly (i.e. joined and separate tracks). If not, then don't confuse the rest of the the post reading public with your inane definitions.

Don't confuse the meaning of words, or "disable" functions, of products because they don't fit your self-prescibed (and incorrect) definition of "which side of the fence am I sitting on today" terminology.

I wholeheartedly agree that once said tracks in iTunes and the iPod are joined (i.e. "gapless") that they are one track and cannot be played separately, but to say they are not "gapless" and inform others that this is a truth is misleading and, as I said before, asinine.

M_S

Are you this dense in real life? Gapless playback means playing 2 seperate tracks back without a gap. That's what the feature is.

Once you join 5 tracks together into a single track, IT IS A SINGLE TRACK. Of course it can play it back without a gap.

Hey, i just realized, my Karma is compatible with iTunes. All I have to do is transcode the songs to some other format :roll:

FYI, iPodlounge is probably the biggest and most informed crowd of iPod users on the web. I didn't learn that ipods don't do gapless there, but I do go there to see if the feature has been added.

 

[M_S]

Now I have to go to the site that misinformed you and get their collective opinion of the term "gap"? Are you just making this up as you go along? I thought so.

You are really wishy-washy, you despise the fact that you can't listen to "Dark Side" w/o gaps (unless you join tracks, i.e."gapless") then you say "I then want to skip to song 13". I never made comment that you would be able to "skip to song 13" using gapless playback and neither does Apple. Make up your mind, which is it? If it's both then rip the songs accordingly (i.e. joined and separate tracks). If not, then don't confuse the rest of the the post reading public with your inane definitions.

Don't confuse the meaning of words, or "disable" functions, of products because they don't fit your self-prescibed (and incorrect) definition of "which side of the fence am I sitting on today" terminology.

I wholeheartedly agree that once said tracks in iTunes and the iPod are joined (i.e. "gapless") that they are one track and cannot be played separately, but to say they are not "gapless" and inform others that this is a truth is misleading and, as I said before, asinine.

M_S

Are you this dense in real life? Gapless playback means playing 2 seperate tracks back without a gap. That's what the feature is.

Once you join 5 tracks together into a single track, IT IS A SINGLE TRACK. Of course it can play it back without a gap.

And FYI, iPodlounge is probably the biggest and most informed crowd of iPod users on the web. Perhaps you should spend some time there and learn about the iPod before you write about it.

Now I need a post to explain "density" to you? This is getting out of hand. Let's end this before I have to spoon feed you your entire childhood education in an attempt to get you to understand words in the way they were meant and not the way you think they should mean.

I see others here countering your posts and calling you on things that you mis-state. Maybe you know what you are talking about, maybe you don't, but you certainly cannot form a sentence that clearly points out to to others what those thoughts are.

As I said before, you do a disservice to others by posting tripe that is either erroneous or misleading in it's sentence structure. Please stop before someone really gets hurt.

M_S