Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam

[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.

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

Nah, I gave you links and you ignore them. I gave you apple centric websites and you claim they're misinformed.

Nobody has countered my statements on gapless, which is what our discussion is about.

 

[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

Nah, I gave you links and you ignore them. I gave you apple centric websites and you claim they're misinformed.

Nobody has countered my statements on gapless, which is what our discussion is about.

I mentioned those links (with clear, correct definitions) in my replies.

I am the one countering your (and many others) statements on "gapless", others have countered your statements on other topics. Do I need to quote them and try to set you straight on that too?

I believe they call this "denial" in the profession.

M_S

 

[zimberto]

Who wrote this crap?

I am neither an iPod owner nor an iPod lover... but there is almost nothing to know about an iPod that you cannot find out before you buy it. If you are a big enough dumbass to throw $250 at something and then end up not liking it because it does what it is supposed to, the you deserve everything you get. Ultimately there is always ebay and the market for iPods is very healthy there. If the author decided to just lose his iPod rather than resell it, then that in itself is sure proof that he is a complete jackass.

I rest my point.

 

[nilepez]

Nah, I gave you links and you ignore them. I gave you apple centric websites and you claim they're misinformed.

Nobody has countered my statements on gapless, which is what our discussion is about.

I mentioned those links (with clear, correct definitions) in my replies.

I am the one countering your (and many others) statements on "gapless", others have countered your statements on other topics. Do I need to quote them and try to set you straight on that too?

I believe they call this "denial" in the profession.

M_S

No you said that joining tracks is gapless. It is not. What's more, it is not a feature of the iPod, it's a feature of iTunes.

With respect to ipodlounge, you said there was no reason to read a site that misinformed me in the first place. Thus you ignored it, even though it is considered the best iPod site on the web.

What others may or may not have said on other topics is not germane to this discussion on gapless.

Your definition of what a gap is was great, but didn't contradict anything I'd said. Any DAP that can't play a single file without inserting silence into the middle is broken. Not being broken != gapless playback.

 

[csaunders4z]

I can only hope you're joking when you cite the lowercase "i" as evidence of Apple scamming its users.

While the iPod – like most of Apple's products – is certainly pricey, you're forgetting the fact that design isn't just skin-deep. The iPod excels in UI, putting every other MP3 player I've used to shame. It's been easier to set up than competing solutions, and has been less prone to failure. Yes, my 3G iPod has proven more durable than my Archos Jukebox or my Creative Zen. I certainly find the interface design more intuitive. I find it better looking, too – though, of course, that's merely my view. It bears its fair share of scratches, true, but even after years of use without a case, it's still quite the looker, in my book.

The fact that it's rechargeable is another boon for me – saving me from having to shell out regularly for batteries, which here in NYC, aren't a cheap item to have to constantly replace. I switched briefly to another company's battery-replaceable portable MP3 player for a product review, and found the incessant need for new batteries a serious drag. (Not to mention its cheap-feeling, lamely futuristic aesthetic, which seems common for most non-iPod designs like the (ahem) "Muvo" – but again, this is entirely subjective.)

Perhaps you're not the sort to shell out $2,000 for a Gucci suit, either. But there's certainly a willing market for that type of item, and decrying a Gucci suit as being an overpriced scam may make sense to you, as well. But don't mistake luxury pricing (even if the Nano is imminently more affordable at $250) for a con. The market has shown that consumers are willing to pay a premium for the perceived "cool factor," a highly developed online marketplace, and (in my experience) a better-designed product.

Additionally, you seem to make some small fallacies in your argument. The "real money" is hardly in iTunes content: Apple barely makes a profit from this portion of its business – a widely-reported fact. They make more music-related income from sales of the iPod. Users aren't forced into iTunes, inasmuch as I can rip my own CDs to my iPod (recall "Rip, Mix, Burn"?) Yes, FairPlay is limited – albeit entirely in response to industry demands. Just wait for your favorite legal music downloading site to do the same, likewise, all your home electronics. Blame lawmakers and the music industry: FairPlay and DRM in general are hardly Apple's doing, and it's misleading and a bit petulant to suggest otherwise. Oh, and the "i" naming convention predated the iPod – and I trust you aren't seriously suggesting that a "cute" product naming convention is both nefarious and somehow price-obfuscating.

You can buy all the batteries and CDs you want, wait for other legal downloading sites to kowtow to the RIAA, and be satisfied with a cheap-feeling iPod knockoff. Consumers seem happy to go the other route, and personally, I'm OK paying $10 instead of $15+ for a lousy CD myself.

 

[M_S]

Nah, I gave you links and you ignore them. I gave you apple centric websites and you claim they're misinformed.

Nobody has countered my statements on gapless, which is what our discussion is about.

I mentioned those links (with clear, correct definitions) in my replies.

I am the one countering your (and many others) statements on "gapless", others have countered your statements on other topics. Do I need to quote them and try to set you straight on that too?

I believe they call this "denial" in the profession.

M_S

No you said that joining tracks is gapless. It is not. What's more, it is not a feature of the iPod, it's a feature of iTunes.

With respect to ipodlounge, you said there was no reason to read a site that misinformed me in the first place. Thus you ignored it, even though it is considered the best iPod site on the web.

What others may or may not have said on other topics is not germane to this discussion on gapless.

Your definition of what a gap is was great, but didn't contradict anything I'd said. Any DAP that can't play a single file without inserting silence into the middle is broken. Not being broken != gapless playback.

Can't you get it through your thick skull that by saying "listening to Dark Side w/o gaps on my iPod is impossible because it does not support "gapless"(under YOUR definition) playback" is misleading?

I said, in my original post, that "gapless" playback, i.e. playing back a group of tracks that seamlessly play w/o interruption (i.e. joined) is a feature of the iTunes AND the iPod? Why yes, I believe I did, and your linked page from Apple confirms this.

It truly is pathetic that you confirm my point with your own post and at the same time deny that any possibility of the feature exists because your narrow minded, FUD supporting, self-serving definition of a word "modifies" what would otherwise be a perfectly correct statement. I am aghast at you propensity to post such misleading garbage because a feature (that YOU provided the link to!) does not fit YOUR definition of the term.

Is it fair that someone with little or no knowledge reads a post that says "no this is not possible", or better that someone read a post stating that they can, but lose the ability to play single tracks unless they rip twice? No, I don't think so. You know what you mean but the vast majority of uninformed readers would not be able to disseminate between the uncoherent crap you type and the truth.

M_S

 

[mpasternak]

I think the authors main problem isnt the ipod itself. but itunes. most of these issues he's got revolve around the DRM and apples methods.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ipod itself. if you have your large collection of mp3s it will play them just as well as any other player. the looks and controls are up to the user to pick which one he likes.

there is absolutely NOTHING, anywhere that says you must use Apples ITMS for it's music. I have a collection of over 2500 songs, not one is from ITMS. i buy the CD's. Rip them at 320kbps and put them into my ipod.

this would be identical to any other player. i chose the ipod because i love the look and the feel and was nicer to me than other devices. DRM isnt an issue

and as stated before this author is a twit to compare an IPOD which can hold 4gb of music to a player that holds 512mb that can ONLY play standard MP3's anyways.

 

[Narg]

this would be identical to any other player. i chose the ipod because i love the look and the feel and was nicer to me than other devices. DRM isnt an issue

and as stated before this author is a twit to compare an IPOD which can hold 4gb of music to a player that holds 512mb that can ONLY play standard MP3's anyways.

Unfortunately you are very wrong. iPod's DRM doesn't start or end a iTunes. Try moving any of the songs off your iPod back to your computer... Unless you use a crack, you can't. DRM lingers even away from iTunes.

Many people have bought an iPod thinking it to be a good source of backup for their music, when in reality the iPod is a one-way device. That's why
"The Man" likes the iPod and pays for a lot of it's advertizing. iPod DRM is by far the strongest and most constricting in the MP3 player market.

 

[bgerber]

Hi all, this is Barry Gerber, the author of the story.

I want to thank you all for your input on the Ipod story here on the forum and in email. First, let me assure you that I did indeed attempt to test Itunes before writing the story. However, thanks to your input, I was able to do further testing and, as a result, to fix some errors in the story. You can find my corrections in the story itself. I have not changed what I wrote. Rather I added corrections in clearly marked paragraphs after the paragraphs with the errors.

Also let me assure you that I'm not out to get Apple, just to put the Ipod revolution into perspective and to get to some key issues where I would have expected Apple, of all companies, to be more on the side of us little guys.

 

[Narg]

Also let me assure you that I'm not out to get Apple, just to put the Ipod revolution into perspective and to get to some key issues where I would have expected Apple, of all companies, to be more on the side of us little guys.

Amen Barry!! Apple really sold out on thier iPod. If any company went to bat for us, it was Rio. To bad their gone now.

 

[nilepez]

Can't you get it through your thick skull that by saying "listening to Dark Side w/o gaps on my iPod is impossible because it does not support
"gapless"(under YOUR definition) playback" is misleading?

It's only misleading to one that thinks that playing a single file is gapless playback. Sorry if you don't understand what gapless playback is.

I said, in my original post, that "gapless" playback, i.e. playing back a group of tracks that seamlessly play w/o interruption (i.e. joined) is a feature of the iTunes AND the iPod? Why yes, I believe I did, and your linked page from Apple confirms this.

That's not a group of tracks, it's a single track. Once you join 2 or more songs into a single file, it is one track. From the iPod's point of view (that is from the firmware that runs your DAP) it is one song/One track. Your ipod will not suddenly say it's playing Money while playing that song and then say show that "Us and Them" is playing when that song is playing, if you've joined the tracks. It can't, because it's a single file, with a single Tag describing that file).

That's not gapless playback. If you went to ipod lounge, a very Apple friend board, you'd know that what I said is accurate.

It truly is pathetic that you confirm my point with your own post and at the same time deny that any possibility of the feature exists because your narrow minded, FUD supporting, self-serving definition of a word "modifies" what would otherwise be a perfectly correct statement.

It's not my definition skippy.

Is it fair that someone with little or no knowledge reads a post that says "no this is not possible", or better that someone read a post stating that they can, but lose the ability to play single tracks unless they rip twice? No, I don't think so. You know what you mean but

I said it does not support gapless playback. It does not. You want to say that playing a single file gaplessly is gapless and it's not. I'm sorry if you didn't understand what gapless means, but that doesn't make my statement inaccurate.

If someone demands gapless playback, the iPod is an unacceptable choice. If they don't, then the fact that it doesn't support it is irrelevant.

the vast majority of uninformed readers would not be able to disseminate between the uncoherent crap you type and the truth.
M_S

I was clear, you're just dense and/or obstinate.

 

[Thrudheim]

I was able to do further testing and, as a result, to fix some errors in the story. You can find my corrections in the story itself. I have not changed what I wrote. Rather I added corrections in clearly marked paragraphs after the paragraphs with the errors.

Glad to see your response. In your corrections section, you note "For example, you are supposed to be able to backup copyrighted material for personal use to any media you want as many times as you want. Illegality comes in when you use those copies for commercial purposes, like selling bootleg CDs. DRM has made that right moot."

I don't like DRM either and certainly object to infringements on fair use, but it is still not accurate to say that Apple's DRM prevents making backup copies. In fact, Apple encourages it! You can make unlimited backup copies of songs purchased from iTMS to *data* CDs or DVDs. Just go to preferences and choose Data CD, rather than music CD, as your burning format. Of course, you can back up to tape or an another hard drive as well.

I am glad you noted that the seven burn limit for a playlist to a music CD is really no limit at all given the easy workarounds. I was not able to duplicate that "Burn playlist to CD" option gets greyed out on my Mac. Maybe that happens on the Windows version only?

 

[M_S]

I was clear, you're just dense and/or obstinate.

Look who's the pot calling the kettle black.

What part of "a file without gaps" either joined from separate files or or a single file to start with, is not "gapless"?

Quit trying to persuede yourself (and, unfortunately, others that you are correct. You have already substatiated my argument with a link to Apple's knowledge base within YOUR OWN POST!

Fine so it becomes a single track (if that's how you want to state it), didn't it start out as multiple tracks? Would those track, if played back normally, not have had gaps? Did an option in Apple's software not eliminate those tracks? You are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

It must be your definition "skippy", you continually fail to post relevant fact to support your claim. All you do is say "go check the boards here, they will agree with me". I think we can all agree that M-W's definition of the word is correct. Saying "but they agree with me", only spreads this gross misinterpretation that you, and others like you, are infesting these boards with.

M_S

p.s. try again if you must "skippy", but this sort of misguided tomfoolery must end.

 

[Cmhone]

It's about time someone told the truth about those iPods. They're overrated pieces of garbage. If you compare the iPods' specs to any other digital audio player at the same price you can see it doesn't measure up. It was especially aggravating to read mags like Computer Shopper who acted like it was the best thing since sliced bread even when describing its many shortcomings relative to other digital players.

 

[filmdirector]

:roll:

Congrautaltions. You've been done by THE BEST in the industry !
Feels good - eh ? The name of the game is control my friends. :!:
Can you say, 'anti choice.'

 

[nilepez]

I was clear, you're just dense and/or obstinate.

Look who's the pot calling the kettle black.

What part of "a file without gaps" either joined from separate files or or a single file to start with, is not "gapless"?

Quit trying to persuede yourself (and, unfortunately, others that you are correct. You have already substatiated my argument with a link to Apple's knowledge base within YOUR OWN POST!

Fine so it becomes a single track (if that's how you want to state it), didn't it start out as multiple tracks? Would those track, if played back normally, not have had gaps? Did an option in Apple's software not eliminate those tracks? You are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

It must be your definition "skippy", you continually fail to post relevant fact to support your claim. All you do is say "go check the boards here, they will agree with me". I think we can all agree that M-W's definition of the word is correct. Saying "but they agree with me", only spreads this gross misinterpretation that you, and others like you, are infesting these boards with.

M_S

p.s. try again if you must "skippy", but this sort of misguided tomfoolery must end.

<yawn>

 

[M_S]

I was clear, you're just dense and/or obstinate.

Look who's the pot calling the kettle black.

What part of "a file without gaps" either joined from separate files or or a single file to start with, is not "gapless"?

Quit trying to persuede yourself (and, unfortunately, others that you are correct. You have already substatiated my argument with a link to Apple's knowledge base within YOUR OWN POST!

Fine so it becomes a single track (if that's how you want to state it), didn't it start out as multiple tracks? Would those track, if played back normally, not have had gaps? Did an option in Apple's software not eliminate those tracks? You are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

It must be your definition "skippy", you continually fail to post relevant fact to support your claim. All you do is say "go check the boards here, they will agree with me". I think we can all agree that M-W's definition of the word is correct. Saying "but they agree with me", only spreads this gross misinterpretation that you, and others like you, are infesting these boards with.

M_S

p.s. try again if you must "skippy", but this sort of misguided tomfoolery must end.

<yawn>

A pathetic attempt at a comeback from a disgruntled loser, yet the only intelligent thing you have said.

M_S

 

[Windaria]

never make the argument that replacable disposable batteries such as AA's or AAA's are more cost effective than rechargable built in ones. it's dumb

how many batteries do you go through with your thing?

at the average price of 8 - 10 bucks for a 4 pack of Triple A's of a decent brand.

1 AAA will give you 20ish hours of playback... sooo you'll be buying a new pack every other week?

I replaced my Third Gen ipod battery for 30 bucks after 2 years

cost effectiveness isnt there. plus Hard Drive based MP3 players require a LOT more juice than your standard battery puts out

It is just dumb to say that AA or AAA batteries, instead of a built-in rechargable battery, is cheaper? How?

They are called RECHARGABLE AA or AAA batteries. I can buy 2600 maH or better rechargable batteries, maybe even 2 or 3 sets of them, and be able to listen to something much longer.

Yes, I won't argue with your statistics, but that is only true if you use disposable AA or AAA batteries, and WHY would anyone do that?

 

[Windaria]

Oh, I see. You don't pay for a battery....What do u do when your cellphone battery goes out? Put 2xAA in it with a hammer? And call Nokia to pay for the 2AA?

At least the cell phone takes user-replacable batteries, so no... when I buy a cell phone I then promptly go onto ebay, purchase a pair of batteries, the desired faceplate, a car charger, and data cable (if needed), and can usually get it all for less than $30, which is less than the cost of 1 battery in the store. I then keep all batteries charged in a cradle at night and take them with me during the day. When one dies while I am out and about, I pop it out, put in one of the spares, and keep going.

Problem is, with a device like the iPod, that has an internal battery only, you simply can't do that. What a joke; what garbage.

 

[Windaria]

Actually they are pretty cheap. 16 dollars (US) for 8 Energizer NiMH at Sam's Club. I consider that to be well worth it. For size and weight of the Li-Ion, yes it is worth it, but the NiMh is still a cheaper option, considering that most wouldn't replace the battery themselves and have to pay 65.95.

If you want some great prices on NMH batteries... here, 10 2700 mAh for $16.95:

http/www.batterybarn.com/pro99.htm

Great site for dirt-cheap batteries, you just have to forgive them for their shabby looks. Their customer service is great though, so what the heck?