Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

UPDATE:  You can read my responses to some of your comments, or continue commenting here

Scoble has posted some comments about both iPods/MP3 players and MSN Music vs. iTunes.

His point seems to be that Microsoft and their partners have failed miserably when it comes to marketing the iPod’s competition.

I agree with a lot of what Scoble has said.  Microsoft has made a great platform and several manufacturers have made superior products to Apple's (heck, I own an iRiver and a Rio Carbon).  Unfortunately, most of these manufacturers simply don't have a clue about marketing these devices.  And Microsoft isn't really helping.

Apple has it kind of easy here.  They only have to promote one product.  Microsoft has to promote a platform, more or less.  Even if that platform is "Everything but Apple."  And I don't know how that's going to work.

Right now Microsoft semi-promotes any player that plays WMA files.  But here's the deal:  No one cares about WMA files.  At least not the average consumer.

Another big problem for you guys is branding.  Everyone knows MP3, and everyone knows iPod.  No one knows WMA.  It's not even easy to say like MP3.   And most of the public knows nothing about MP3 files, aside from the idea that they're downloaded from a computer magically onto their iPod. 

Even if you convince the entire geek/enthusiast/"power use" population to use your products because of its technical superiority... that's a very small fraction of the population.  The iPod has broken through to the masses.  It's about time someone else did as well.

So how do they do it?  Here are a few ideas:

1)      Brand your platform.  “WMA player” won’t work.  “Plays For Sure” is crap.  No one even knows what it means.  You need something way better than that.  Don’t make it complicated.  Make it simple.  Find some hugely marketable, one or two syllable, easily memorable brand for certain “approved” device.  Make an easily identifiable logo/emblem/trademark that manufacturers can engrave in their products and market against the iPod.

2)      Educate customers about your features.  And not what formats your player supports.  Market the greater battery life, inclusion of a microphone and FM tuner, auto-sync and auto-playlists, things like that.

3)      Start a revolution.  Take Apple to task for being so damned proprietary and not playing well with others.  Take that brand you came up with in Step 1, and make it a symbol of freedom and choice.  Freedom to buy your music from anywhere and play it anywhere.  Convince your customers that with your product, they can buy music online and truly OWN it.  Tell them that they can click one button and burn their music to a blank CD just like they’d buy from the store.  Make a “switch” style advertisement for your fancy new brand.  Have your personalities tell consumers that with Apple’s iPod, they were forced to buy music from Apple.  Tell them that with , they can buy from countless stores

4)      Push the subscription idea.  Do something with that fancy new Janus DRM technology.  Do something like what Napster has talked about (and maybe implemented?  I’m not sure).  Make a service where for a monthly fee, users can download anything they want from Napster, and play it as long as they pay the fee.  Market this to parents, too.  Tell them, “Worried about your child getting in trouble for downloading illegal music?  Sign up for Napster Premium (or MSN equivalent) and they can download all they want from your service!  Without worrying about breaking the law.”

5)      INNOVATE.

Give us something we don’t get with the current crop of iPods and iPod clones.  A lot of the problem here comes from the music industry.  But hear me out…

-Sharing.  Make a player (or platform of players) that can talk to each other wirelessly, and share music.  Bluetooth could work here.  “That’s piracy!” you’ll undoubtedly say.  I don’t care.  That’s what the people want.  Somehow, the industry is going to eventually have to figure this one out.  Maybe you could work this with the subscription model.  If I have a file that I got from my MSN/Napster subscription on my player, and I want to transfer it to my friend’s player who also has the same subscription… I can.  Maybe that won’t work, but come on people… we NEED some new solutions to this problem. 

-Connectivity.  Make your players all include FM transmitters.  Make a commercial where some attractive teen/college kids are having a party and there’s nothing good on the radio.  One guy comes over and says, “here, just set it to 95.0” and puts his Rio Carbon 2 or whatever on top of the radio, and pushes “play.”  Then have some Outkast music or something come on and all the kids are happy.  “YOUR music, wherever YOU go.”  Have it transmit RBDS data that shows the current artist and track name on the display, if the tuner supports it (most newer cars, etc.).  Why no one has done this is beyond me.  Pressure from Belkin?

-Cables suck.  Has anyone tried integrating a tiny retractable USB cable, or flip-out style USB adapter, on the device itself?  That way I can plug my player directly into my friend’s computer when I’m at his house to play some tunes of mine.  Wireless could work here too.

-Extras.  Make your players support downloadable games (MSN Mobile Games Store?).  Give them the best text-to-speech engine you can find and let them read you your E-mail and RSS feeds.

-For Pete’s Sake… Make a Pocket PC with a god damn hard drive in it.  Give it all the features of your other devices.  Give it the same brand stamp as the players that are “just” players, but also make it your best PocketPC and/or SmartPhone as well.  Let’s get this convergence thing moving along… I’m tired of carrying 2 or 3 devices everywhere.  When the first iPod came out, I thought “Sweet, PDAs with those drives have got to be around the corner.”  Now, years later, there still isn’t one.  Why the hell not?

So what do you think?  How do we displace the iPod?  How DOES one make a better Walkman?  Perhaps by accepting its place as a “better walkman” instead of a “Panasonic portable cassette player?”

Leave me your thoughts.

 


Feedback

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Brandon,

>> Panasonic portable cassette player?”

just bought a wma player (all the labels in the shop say 'mp3 player' :-) as a present...

in the shop, the guy selling these things talked to various customers. i heard him saying 'i wouldn't buy an ipod if i where you' multiple times. said the things break pretty fast.

maybe something to communicate... :-)

WM_CHEERS
thomas woelfer 12/19/2004 5:06 AM | thomas woelfer

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Talk about desperate. If you want to compete with Apple, create superior products. Nothing out there now compares. Only this week I listened to Adam Curry complain about how lame the interface was on the new Rio he bought. Engaget has side-by-side pictures of the iPod mini and the new Rio look alike. One look at the iPod scrowl wheel and the Rio's lame slide bar tells you everything you need to know. The Engaget guy was also complaining about the sucky tech support from the Creative Zen folks. Until you guys create a decent product and a decent customer experience, you're not going to be in the game.

You suggest you should have celebrities complain about being able to buy only from the iTunes store. Where's the problem? It's a great store with a great selection. If you can get everything you need in one place, what's the problem? The whole freedom of choice thing is bogus. Why do I want to shop in six online stores for the same 99 cent music track?

You suggest that having an FM tuner is a big deal. That comment also explains why you are out of the game. FM is old technology. Podcasting is new technology. That's what meets the needs of people not FM radio. We also hear, though it's unconfirmed, that Apple is working with the satellite radio folks. New technology not the tired old technology you are pushing.

In the comment above, the poster mentions a guy trashing the iPod. That happens in retail. The sales guy is a dishonest loser. You make some short term profits by lying to customers, but it's no way to build a business.

Listen, competition is great. The more people out there trying to build a better mousetrap the better. We all benefit. Without competition, you end up with lame products like Internet Explorer. Thank heavens for Firefox...and Apple.





12/19/2004 12:59 PM | John Greenwald

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Start a revolution. Take Apple to task for being so damned proprietary and not playing well with others. Take that brand you came up with in Step 1, and make it a symbol of freedom and choice. Freedom to buy your music from anywhere and play it anywhere."

Freedom of choice? I don't think so. This "freedom of choice" is an illusion. What good is that freedom of choice when it leads to confusion? In the end, you're still tied to one music format (WMA), and you're still tied to Microsoft Windows, both controlled by one company. Not everyone wants to use Windows. If you migrate to Mac OS or Linux and your WMA DRM songs won't play anymore, how is that freedom?

Microsoft is at least as proprietary as Apple, maybe even more so because at least the iPod and iTunes works with both Mac and Windows, and on Linux too with the help of Crossover. Got WMA? You're stuck to one OS provided by one company. There is choice in the market out there. There's nothing stopping people from buying a WMA player and buying WMA songs. Yet they chose iPod and iTunes. 12/19/2004 3:41 PM | Jim

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

I guess I have to ask myself, why would I (or anyone) be motivated to "think creatively" as you say, when guys like Scoble (and yourself) will only take cheap shots at me if/when I succeed? Do you guys have an approved list of companies that are "allowed" to come up with a wildly successful idea, or are you only satisfied if all the competitors in the field offer an equally mediocre product? Would it please you more if Apple had never produced and brought the iPod to market? Do you imagine that your listening pleasure would be better if the iPod did not exist at all, or do you think that mp3 players would be better if the iPod had just not been such a success? 12/19/2004 2:51 PM | brotherStefan

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

I wouldn't say "cheap shots". In fact, when everyone is talking about "how can we beat these guys" it's generally a pretty good thing. 12/19/2004 3:55 PM | Josh Einstein

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

BTW: you do know that you can already do the "one click burn a plain audio CD", on all DRM music you buy from Apple. 12/19/2004 3:55 PM | Bob

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Bob, yes you can do that with most of the music stores. I've just never seen it marketed to its full potential. 12/19/2004 5:10 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

John,

You seem to have some products confused. The Rio doesn't have a slide bar thing... that's the Creative Zen Micro or the iRiver.

The Rio Carbon has a fairly traditional 4-way directional pad.

I've used the Creative touch bar (whatever its called) at the store and it seemed quite effective. The point of those things is to let you vary the speed of the scrolling. However, I don't use my Carbon quite the way I used my iPod. I rarely look through the whole Artist/Album structure for a specific track. I much more often select a playlist or category and just let it go. My (first gen) iPod wasn't very good at that. 12/19/2004 5:14 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"If you want to compete with Apple, create superior products. Nothing out there now compares."

My Rio has nearly three times the battery life of the iPod mini. It's smaller, but holds more music. It has voice recording built-in (no ugly add-ons). It also transfers my music faster, and doesn't require any 3rd party software to do so. And it was the same price (actually $10 cheaper).

I consider that superior.

It also works with WMA, which is a huge plus for me as most of my collection on my computer's hard drive is already in that format.

As for the music stores... I like MSN's far better than iTunes. And if MSN doesn't have something, usually Napster does.

MSN's store doesn't require me to download a program to use it. I can't even *browse* Apple's store without installing their stupid media player. What kind of choice is that?

If I want to listen to music from Apple's store, I HAVE to use Apple's player. With music from the MSN store, I can play it in WMP, WinAmp, MusicMatch, or most any other player on Windows.

I can transfer it to my iRiver or my Carbon, even though they're made by different companies. 12/19/2004 5:22 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"because at least the iPod and iTunes works with both Mac and Windows, and on Linux too with the help of Crossover. Got WMA? You're stuck to one OS provided by one company."

And what do you think the majority of consumers who BUY media players run on their desktop machine, my airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky, little dumpling? To target the largest segment of the desktop market you target Windows users first and foremost - no no, it's not a jab - take off your little Tux hat and shut up for a minute - it's a statement of fact. You obviously don't like 'proprietary', that's OK, but remember, with WMA you're giving the LARGEST number of people choice from the LARGEST number of possible music sources. You see that now? 12/19/2004 4:39 PM | outofcoffee

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

When the David kicks the Goliaths ass I cheer. Go-i-pod. 12/19/2004 5:54 PM | underdogsrule

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Pc people just don't get it.

They seem to think that if they add enough mediocre features instead of a few WELL DONE features that its a better product.


(A few dweebs that frequent slashdot will disagree with me, but i don't care about them. These are the same people that tell me i should build my own media center and place it next to my TV instead of just buying a TiVo) 12/19/2004 5:57 PM | me

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Have your personalities tell consumers that with Apple’s iPod, they were forced to buy music from Apple."
No wonder you guys don't get it. Since when does actively encouraging FUD create a better product? You seem to want everyone else to have one foot nailed to the floor to prove your point - which is what? An irrational fear of anything which works? Apple hatred? I salute your weak attempts to escape self-hatred but its far too cold and unhealthy down there, so pardon me, I won't be joining you. Losers one and all. 12/19/2004 6:19 PM | marko

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

iTunes is a player on windows. Apple is a Windows developer just as Microsoft is a Mac developer. Why are you pissed at a Windows developer's sucess? iTunes and iPod is good for the Windows platform. It has brought choice to the Windows platform. Aren't you guys all about choice? If I use Windows, I can use every MP3 player out there. I can use every online music store out there. I can use all the music playing software that is out there. Isn't that what it's all about? Windows gives me the choice to use anything I want. Right now I want iPod and iTunes. So what? I still use Windows. 12/19/2004 5:31 PM | Al

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Adding features doesn't make a superior device. Sometimes less is more. The iPod feels right in the hand, it's user interface is inspired, the iTunes software does a fantastic job of ripping CDs, burning music, organizing music and downloading the music to the iPod.

No other manufacturer gets it all right. They make them smaller, they make them larger, they give them radio receivers with lame turners, they give them voice recorders. So what?

And what does Microsoft give us? A proprietary codec - that's right, WMA is proprietary. It gives us a scheme that leaves out Linux and Mac users. It gives us software that, compared to iTunes is lame, sad, and embarrassing. In short, it gives us the mediocrity we've come to expect from Microsoft.

Think creatively? Why not think realistically. 12/19/2004 5:32 PM | david

# Vincent Oberle's blog » Microsoft competing with the iPod: Use the phone advantage

Vincent Oberle's blog » Microsoft competing with the iPod: Use the phone advantage 12/19/2004 6:53 PM |

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Two advices for Microsoft:

1) Use the phone advantage. I mean Apple doesn't know yet how to make a phone, Microsoft has learnt how to (see the "Scoble phone"). Beat the iPod by being the first to build a decent phone + music player (phone with enough storage).
http://www.oberle.org/blog/2004/12/20/ms-ipod-use-phone-advantage/

2) Build the devices yourself, kind of like with the Xbox. 12/19/2004 5:58 PM | Vincent Oberle

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

David said "And what does Microsoft give us? A proprietary codec - that's right, WMA is proprietary. "

So? MP3 is proprietary. So is AAC.

In fact, MP3 and AAC are not only proprietary, but they cost a LOT more to license than WMA.

Furthermore, Apple uses a proprietary DRM format that NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO LICENSE, ever since they bought the company that designed it.

Microsoft licenses both the encoding and decoding of their DRM format as part of the Windows Media package.

The only open audio codec that I know of is Ogg Vorbis. 12/19/2004 7:49 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

AI wtote:
"iTunes and iPod is good for the Windows platform".

A note to all mp3 player mfgs. and developers:

If you were really smart and creative, and could see far enough into the future, you would let AAPL win. 12/19/2004 7:00 PM | Zato

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

In what way is the iPod superior to my Carbon? I owned an iPod.

The only advantage I see there is that the iPods include a dock. If my Carbon had a cradle, it'd be the best option by far.

Of course many points will be subjective... but having used both, I decided that the Carbon worked better for me. And so far, it has. 12/19/2004 8:01 PM | Brandon Paddock

# Look AS$ Face

You really are a mor0n arn't you?

You also own an iRiver????! Dude, you own like 6 hundred dollars worth of complete cr@p. (LOL) Why would anyone read your blog at the point that you've made such F*ing st00pid decisions???

I got an idea... why don't you buy a Dell ipod knock off and use WIN84. Write a colomn on how you connect to it with your paralell port. Man yer a genius!

12/19/2004 8:07 PM | Robert Cromwell-Cornbleuth III

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Right now Microsoft semi-promotes any player that plays WMA files.  But here's the deal:  No one cares about WMA files.  At least not the average consumer."

And then you follow with a whole lot of text to speech, RSS and other crap which the average consumer doesn't care about either. Never forget this, 'You, are not the target market.'

One of the reasons the iPod was a break out product was because it did only one thing really well and was picked up and promoted by people who don't know what the heck RSS is. Trying to beat doing one thing really well with doing a lot of things, most of them probably not so well, just won't work.

The advantage here isn't codecs, or RSS, or bluetooth, or built in cables you might snap off and have to replace the entire unit to fix, the advantage is with the value consumer. Windows Media Players will take off because now we're at a point in the market life cycle where only price, not features or gimmicks, matters.

This market is starting to become very dull very quickly with consumers this Christmas not caring where the can get their music from (So long as they can rip from CDs online store revenue will always be piddling), or who makes their player.

This is the last hurrah for Digital Audio Players, they now all provide the same core functionality so it's time for Apple and the industry to sit back and sell to people who are looking for the best bang for their buck.

If Apple are smart, they'll be working on the next big thing and you can be sure that isn't a clip board replacement (TabletPC) or a (Not so) Portable Media Centre. 12/19/2004 8:15 PM | Mark

# Confederacy of Dunces

THE ONLY way that the confederacy of dunces of which you write will be able to compete with Apple, is by stealing their ideas. It's obvious that Napster, Sony, Microsoft and the rest of Windowz industry is relentlessly attempting to clone every aspect of the ipod/itunes experience. I find it odd that you'd actually be proud to support a cabal of unapollegetically uncreative dunces and losers.... (enjoy your carbon ;-) 12/19/2004 7:15 PM | James VanDerBeek

# HAA CHEAP BA$TARD!!!

You write this whole column because you were too damn cheap to cough up an extra 40 bucks for an ipod? 12/19/2004 8:20 PM | Gustav Climpt

# The iPod isn't just a music player anymore

Look at the ecosystem that's developing around the iPod as a platform -- think of all the gazillion third-party accessories that are being brought to market -- just for the iPod. Is there a Bose Sound Dock for the rio Carbon or the Creative Zen? A Burton snowboard jacket? A Hermes or Fendi designer tote?

No? Why not? Because there are iPods, and there are iPod wannabes. And the iPod wannabes just aren't cool, no matter how many geeky features you stuff into them. 12/19/2004 8:20 PM | Bias Alert

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Ipod holds 40gigs of tunes, but you can't play ONE gig of tunes before you need a battery charge LOL LOL LOL LOL!!! 12/19/2004 7:27 PM | paul

# Penis Envy

Hey, did you write this blog entry on a 450 dollar beige Acer piece of crap, or did you build it yourself? Go check out an Apple store some time sucker and see what yer missing, by the way does your Rio Carbon work with your Soundblaster card and your Joystick?

12/19/2004 8:32 PM | Laurence Flintlock

# Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Suck

paul wrote: you can't play ONE gig of tunes before you need a battery charge

Show us the independently confirmed lab results, you moron, and maybe we'll believe you have more than two brain cells. I don't even own a freakin' iPod, but I can tell when a cretin is trying to pretend he has a brain. 12/19/2004 8:53 PM | Bias Alert

# Panic! Panic!

'Have your personalities tell consumers that with Apple’s iPod, they were forced to buy music from Apple.'

Oh? So you're saying I can't go down to the store right now buy a CD, and have it on my iPod in three minutes? People still do that, remember.

'Tell them that with <insert fancy brand name>, they can buy from countless stores <insert logos for MSN, Napster, Real, etc>.'

Um. Perhaps MSN and Napster should start releasing their purchased music in a non-arsehole format.

'Push the subscription idea.  Do something with that fancy new Janus DRM technology.  Do something like what Napster has talked about (and maybe implemented?  I’m not sure).  Make a service where for a monthly fee, users can download anything they want from Napster, and play it as long as they pay the fee.'

Make up your mind. "Oh, you really own it! No you don't -- you're a *subscriber!*'" Riiiiiiight.

'Educate customers about your features.  And not what formats your player supports.  Market the greater battery life, inclusion of a microphone and FM tuner, auto-sync and auto-playlists, things like that.'

Oh, consistency is all I ask. "Market it with choice like omg! Wait, no don't!" 12/19/2004 9:45 PM | Raena Armitage

# Windows Media is for idiots and fascists

Brandon spewed: "Microsoft licenses both the encoding and decoding of their DRM format as part of the Windows Media package."

You know what? Who cares? I don't even use Windows Media on my XP SP2 PC at work or my Win2K3 Enterprise Server at home, and I'm a Microsoft Certified Professional, for crying out loud. Windows Media is the gangster scumbag of the digital media world -- it started out as a mega-lame ripoff of QuickTime in the early '90's, and after Tevanian's testimony about a certain monopolistic company trying to force Apple to "knife the baby" it was clear that Microsoft wanted to own the entire digital media space and control the tollgates through which entertainment is consumed. Sorry, but even I am not enough of a Microsoft apologist to cheer this effort. In fact, if QuickTime effectively dominates the digital media space, I'd be very happy, because it would mean Windows users could get a quality experience instead of the mediocrity that they have to endure in almost everything else, like they do now with all the sucky, lame-ass WMA iPod-wannabes. 12/19/2004 11:54 PM | Bias Alert

# Innovate? What the hell do you mean?

Brandon admitted: heck, I own an iRiver and a Rio Carbon
Then he advises manufacturers of such devices: INNOVATE

There's supreme irony in the fact that he admits to owning two lame-ass iPod wannabes, and then in the same breath he counsels that product innovation would help such lame-ass devices better compete against the market-dominating iPod. This is the typical, massive doublethink one needs to sustain to prefer known inferior products over demonstrably superior ones, and when the market decides (understandably) to go with the superior product, resort to FUD about "proprietary" or "promote choice" -- poor substitutes for real innovation. 12/20/2004 12:22 AM | Bias Alert

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"several manufacturers have made superior products to Apple's"

That's just it: they *haven't.* Every time I hear someone say "The [player x] is so much better than the iPod but it's just being outmarketed," I have to laugh, because it proves that the "feature geeks" just don't get it.

More "features" (especially ones most people won't use regularly, like live recording) don't make a product "superior." What makes a product superior is that it does what it's supposed to do better than the competion. What makes a product superior is that it's easier to use than the competition. The iPod handily beats the competition on these criteria -- and these are the criteria that consumers care about. Until Rio, Creative, etc. come up with something that is at *least* as easy to use and functional on a day to day basis, they'll play catchup. "Marketing" has little to do with it. 12/20/2004 5:27 AM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

P.S. Also forgot to mention the other overhyped feature: battery life. A recent study showed that most people use their portable player for 1-4 hours at a time. VERY few people use them for more than 8 hours, which is the battery life of Apple's shortest-life player (others are 12 and 15). People only "care" about longer battery life when marketing dweebs convince them they should care... then they take the player home, listen for two hours at a time, and wish their player had an interface like the iPod's clickwheel. If extended battery life was really a feature that dictated buying decisions, MiniDisc would have a monopoly on portable music players today. 12/20/2004 5:33 AM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"[My Rio] also transfers my music faster [than an iPod mini]"

I call BS. Sorry, but it just ain't true. I have a Rio Carbon and an iPod mini sitting here on my desk. I just transfered 30 songs onto each, and the Rio was slower. (Which makes sense, since USB2.0 is slower in real-world use than FireWire 400.) 12/20/2004 4:40 AM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

USB 2.0 is faster in real-world use than FireWire 400, especially for transfering small files (like music), as it is a burst-mode protocol. FireWire has a peak throughput of 400mbps, whereas USB 2.0's peak is 480.

Different USB 2.0 devices will have different transfer speeds because of limits in the particular hardware and/or driver. For instance, the Creative Nomad NX is far faster than any other player at transferring files. 12/20/2004 5:46 AM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

I often go days without plugging my Carbon in, sometimes weeks. Same goes for my cell phone (charged once a week typically).

I often had problems with the iPod's battery dying. Especially as it got older and the crappy battery wore out. 12/20/2004 5:47 AM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

As for interfaces, I do think the scroll wheel is excellent. However, I don't find myself missing it on the Carbon. The 4-way D-pad works fine for me.

And speaking of interfaces, the Rio's playlist setup and built-in autoplaylists work brilliantly for me. And sync'ing is far easier with WMP10 than it was using the iPod and iTunes. And far more effective.

Don't knock it til you've tried it. 12/20/2004 4:49 AM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Bias Alert, read my response to your comment here:


http://geekswithblogs.net/bpaddock/archive/2004/12/20/18133.aspx 12/20/2004 4:51 AM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

OK crapple fanboys, let's ask google shall we?

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=ipod+sucks&q2=wma+sucks&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

*dusts hands off*
...And that's the end of that chapter.
;-)

(BTW: for the cost of that 99 cent song on crappy itunes you can get half an album on allofmp3.com) 12/20/2004 9:59 AM | travis

# Battery Life

Brandon whined: I often had problems with the iPod's battery dying. Especially as it got older and the crappy battery wore out.
-------------------------

Oh? You can buy third-party replacement batteries with much greater capacity than the original that shipped in your iPod. But noooo, you just wanted an excuse to diss the iPod so you could feel better about your sucky lame-ass iPod-wannabes. And then you insist on these wannabes being better than an iPod, when the Japanese market and Stereophile Magazine have massively refuted your blog opinion. Whatever. 12/20/2004 12:17 PM | Bias Alert

# OK crapple fanboys, let's ask google shall we?

You're such a moron. I have a programmer friend who can game the Google algorithms to make his personal website the top search result, time and again, and he proved it to me.

So much for your lame-ass proof. Find me a refutation of the Stereophile Magazine lab results that led to the iPod being named their Product of the Year, and explain to me why the iPod significantly outsells all other HD music players in Japan -- where the consumers can pick and choose from the most innovative gizmos we can't even buy in North America. Are you somehow better qualified than the Stereophile editors and discerning Japanese consumers who have much better choices than we do? Well, are you? If you are, then why do you have to resort to the "evidence" of Googlefight? Loser. 12/20/2004 1:24 PM | Bias Alert

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

I don't care about what you claim the Japanese market prefers. In fact, I haven't seen any indication that Apple outsells anyone in Japan... Apple has had a hard enough time distributing iPods in Europe.

Also, are you implying that the Japanese are a more informed market than the US, Canada or Europe? The same Japanese culture that still charges by the hour for dial-up internet access, has comparatively expensive and slow broadband offerings which have only started to take off in the last year, forcing young people to resort to e-mail on their cell phones because Instant Messaging is too expensive?

I hardly think that the high rate of camera phone penetration is really a measure of a market's discerning aptitude.

Every Stereophile article I found about the iPod reported sub-par audio fidelity, and was at least a year old. In fact, I see no mention of any other portable player there at all. They simply say that Apple "invited" them to test the iPod, and they determined it was "okay" at playing back AIFF files.

Now... how many people play back AIFF or WAV files on their iPod? Anyone? 12/20/2004 2:22 PM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"You're such a moron. I have a programmer friend who can game the Google algorithms to make his personal website the top search result, time and again, and he proved it to me. "

First off, I think Travis was being sarcastic. However, his link compared the number of search results for "ipod sucks" and "wma sucks," and the former had far more results. I don't really think you can conclude anything from that, but I understand his sentiment :) 12/20/2004 2:28 PM | Brandon

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"USB 2.0 is faster in real-world use than FireWire 400"

Wrong. In *theory* it's faster, but in real-world use, FW 400 is faster. This has been demonstrated in test after test.



"Every Stereophile article I found about the iPod reported sub-par audio fidelity, and was at least a year old. In fact, I see no mention of any other portable player there at all. They simply say that Apple "invited" them to test the iPod, and they determined it was "okay" at playing back AIFF files."

I've never seen such an article. What I have seen is the complete Stereophile review from late last year proclaiming that the iPod's audio fidelity was comparable to or better than many good CD players. 12/20/2004 1:49 PM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"What I have seen is the complete Stereophile review from late last year proclaiming that the iPod's audio fidelity was comparable to or better than many good CD players. "

And did you notice that they were playing uncompressed AIFF files?

So that would only make sense. Countless tests have shown that among digital audio players, the iPod is mediocre at best, in terms of audio quality. Creative leads the market there. 12/20/2004 2:29 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Wrong. In *theory* it's faster, but in real-world use, FW 400 is faster. This has been demonstrated in test after test. "

Only on Macs, and only because of Apple's poor USB 2.0 implementation (many have suggested that it's intentionally crippled to make FireWire look better).

USB 2.0 on a Windows PC performs better than FireWire 400, although the margin isn't usually huge. It has been shown, however, that Creative, iRiver, and Rio USB 2.0 portable audio players are faster than the iPod for transferring files. 12/20/2004 3:35 PM | Brandon Paddock

# The iPod is NOT just a music player, folks

It's a platform that (ahem) innovative Windows developers are building on.

http://www.migoforipod.com/

The Windows-formatted iPod can now store a person's "roaming" profile from their Windows 2000/XP PC -- which is even more than what MacOS X users have, since they can't yet store their "home" directories on their iPods and boot any MacOS X system with their personalized desktop. 12/20/2004 3:56 PM | Bias Alert

# Audio quality as judged by audio professionals

"among digital audio players, the iPod is mediocre at best, in terms of audio quality. Creative leads the market there."

I'm curious, then -- why don't more professional musicians, audio recording engineers, video, and film people use products from Creative? Are they just suckers for better marketing? 12/20/2004 3:01 PM | Bias Alert

# iPod sales in Japan

"I haven't seen any indication that Apple outsells anyone in Japan"

A bit dated, but still:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/24/bloomberg/sxipod.html 12/20/2004 3:28 PM | Bias Alert

# Cognitive dissonance

Brandon wrote: "And did you notice that they were playing uncompressed AIFF files? So that would only make sense. Countless tests have shown that among digital audio players, the iPod is mediocre at best, in terms of audio quality. Creative leads the market there."

Stereophile tested using an uncompressed audio format, and the iPod acquitted itself nicely -- the charts show the lab results. Now, if people are not happy with the sonic quality of MP3 or AAC, they can try the "Apple Lossless" codec as a compromise between audio quality and storage space for critical listening. 12/20/2004 3:35 PM | Bias ALert

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"I'm curious, then -- why don't more professional musicians, audio recording engineers, video, and film people use products from Creative? Are they just suckers for better marketing? "

Actually, they do. If you didn't know, Creative's professional audio division is called E-mu. They're quite popular amoung audio professionals everywhere.
12/20/2004 4:17 PM | Brandon Paddock

# Audio quality

Bias Alert -

My point was that Creative's audio players are far superior in fidelity to most good CD players. Just because the iPod can play raw PCM data as a good as a CD player means nothing.

Very few, if any users play uncompressed music on their iPods.

I can't speak for the quality of Apple's Lossless codec, however lossless audio compression is nothing new. SHN has been around for ages, though now FLAC and Windows Media Lossless have pretty much replaced it. 12/20/2004 4:19 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Countless tests have shown that among digital audio players, the iPod is mediocre at best, in terms of audio quality. Creative leads the market there."

Sorry, but it just ain't so. The only "tests" that have shown this that I've seen have been "performed" by Creative fans. I own a Zen Touch, an iPod, a Carbon, and several others -- what can I say, I'm a tech geek -- as well as a headphone listening system that costs far more than all of them put together. I've also got trained ears from a lifetime of music. The fact is that Creative's players are roughly comparable to the iPod; neither is clearly better. The only bag on the iPod is that it's got a bass glitch with 32 ohm loads. But that's only with *one* specific load -- and one people serious about sound aren't going to be affected by. Overall the iPod leads the pack, along *with* Creative, in terms of sound quality. To claim otherwise shows an ignorance of what accuracy and good sound really are. (Or perhaps it just shows an inherent bias against the iPod.)


"USB 2.0 on a Windows PC performs better than FireWire 400"

Not on any Windows PC that I've used. Don't make the mistake of thinking anyone educated on the iPod must be a Mac fanboy, so you can just throw things out there and assume they'll stick. I realize that the Mac implementation of USB2.0 is significantly slower than the Windows implementation, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about head-to-head tests of FW400 and USB2.0 on a neutral testing ground. USB2.0 can only "beat" FW400 -- and this is intermittent -- in very short bursts. For things like transferring songs in bulk to a player, FW400 is faster. You're throwing unsupportable statements around.


"It has been shown, however, that Creative, iRiver, and Rio USB 2.0 portable audio players are faster than the iPod for transferring files."

Where? I'm using an iPod and a Rio Carbon with a Dell and the iPod consistently transfers music files faster. Where are these mythical tests? In a Creative PR video?



"Just because the iPod can play raw PCM data as a good as a CD player means nothing."

You're showing that you're really not qualified to be "reviewing" audio device sound qualityå. The fact that the iPod can play AIFF/WAV files better than most CD players means *everything* because it demonstrates the audio potentional of the iPod. It also means that if people have a problem with the way their music sounds on their iPod, they should concentrate on their ripping settings, as that's where the deficiency lies, not with the iPod. In fact, the only way to truly compare the various players' sound quality is using uncompressed audio, as it's the only way to control for all other factors.


"Very few, if any users play uncompressed music on their iPods."

You're again showing your lack of knowledge of the segment of the market that is legitimately concerned with sound quality. (Not the Creative/iRiver/Rio fanboys, who seem to have the position of "anything but iPod," but the people who are serious about getting the best sound quality.) "Very few, if any"? People who are serious about sound frequently use uncompressed -- or, more recently, lossless -- files. And those who don't are consciously trading ultimate sound quality for the purposes of being able to store more music.
12/20/2004 8:06 PM | MD

# Holy utility belt, Batman

Brandon wrote: Very few, if any users play uncompressed music on their iPods

True enough. But none of this can take away from the fact that the iPod has mindshare out of proportion to its actual usefulness. The iPod has reached a certain status as fetish object, cultural artifact even. As far as I'm concerned, MS can have the desktop (and some of the server market), but after reading about its heavy-handed tactics of trying to get Apple to "knife the baby" (QuickTime), I think anything (e.g. the iPod, and iTunes, a QuickTime Trojan Horse on Windows) that will stop MS from achieving market dominance in digital media is IMO a good thing for consumers. When MS protests that iPods limit consumer choice, what they're really saying is that MS doesn't like the choices that consumers are making when they choose the iPod. So funny, because so true. 12/20/2004 8:27 PM | Bias Alert

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Blade Trinity features one of the main characters, a female vampire hunter, using an iPod.

iPods are here to stay, Creative and iRiver, etc, dont seem to understand that the iPod is about the experience from start (getting the music) to finish (listening to it). Rival companies seem to subscribe to the idea of "throw a harddrive into a box and put some cheap ear phones in the case" mentality, assuming their customers are stupid and cant tell the difference.

Well they can. 12/21/2004 5:44 AM | Pete King

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Excuse me, but what's this desperate notion of "OMG!! There's an area MS _doesn't_ have a monopoly in!!! This needs to change, else we'd be faced with actual COMPETITION and CHOICE in the Market!! What will happen if Apple starts selling more computers, too? OMG, WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!"

Actually, the terms "freedom of choice" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence usually also the word "got sued for limiting"... There was a multi-year trial about some company forcing some browser down the OEMs throats, just in case you guys forgot... 12/22/2004 4:14 PM | Arsh Crapfen

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Creative leads in audio quality?
That may be true, however i can't confirm this because my MuVo stops playing mp3s in the middle of the song since the last firmware update. And i only applied the update because the firmware it came with was buggy and crashed playing some mp3s. Strangely, my iPod never gave me these so very Windows-like experiences...
Actually it feels good... A trip down memory lane, i feel reminded of the joyful countless hours trying to figure out that Card X will only run on IRQ Y and that Card Z won't run in MoBo from the same manufacturer due to power consumption issues.. Or the neverending hours re-installing windows cause the registry had somehow been corrupted, what fun i had!.. Oh, glory days! I almost feel homesick, everything works so well with these weird crapples, this just isn't fun anymore!...

The Googlefight-guy was especially funny! Thanks for confirming the "No one cares about WMA files." from the original article for us! ;-) How bout you tried "aac sucks" vs "wma sucks"? Oooh, "wma sucks" wins the googlefight, the humiliation!.... Must be all those crapple-fans and penguins out there! 12/22/2004 4:50 PM | Arsh Crapfen

# re: Arsh Crapfen

"That may be true, however i can't confirm this because my MuVo stops playing mp3s in the middle of the song since the last firmware update. And i only applied the update because the firmware it came with was buggy and crashed playing some mp3s. Strangely, my iPod never gave me these so very Windows-like experiences... "

My iPod crashed several times during its life. In fact, it had a nasty habit of crashing AND corrupting its database, leaving me with no access to my files. My iRiver and Carbon have never experienced such problems.

One time the iPod completely died and would not respond to any commands, it only showed some kind of error icon on the display. The "geniuses" at the Apple Store couldn't figure it out, but eventually I read about how to "hard reset" the device by holding down two of the buttons for 20 seconds or something like that. It was a real pain in the ass, and my iPod was out of commission for at least a week.


As for your rant about old computers (worrying about IRQs when upgrading), I suppose you prefer old Macs that couldn't be upgraded at all?

Or are you upset that Apple's computers these days use 100% PC technology (like IDE, SATA, PCI, AGP, our chipset busses, etc.)?

"registry somehow corrupted"
Perhaps you should have isolated the actual problem... whether you had bad memory, a dying hard disk, or some kind of virus. Or perhaps you caused the problem yourself?

You are aware that Windows keeps backup copies of the registry as well, right?

Windows 2000/XP/2003 should never need to be reinstalled on a properly maintained system. Same goes for OS X and most *nix variants (Linux on a desktop is another story).

The only time I have to reinstall Windows is when I switch version (for example, to test a 64-bit release, or new MCE version). And even in those cases, it takes 15 minutes to reinstall Windows XP. Not exactly the worst of inconveniences.




12/22/2004 6:21 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"You are aware that Windows keeps backup copies of the registry as well, right?"

Yes i do. I am also aware that Windows OVERWRITES the good copy with the bad one BEFORE BOOTING WAS SUCCESSFUL!

This and other completely braindead idiotic architectural decisions ("Hey, that KTMXL32.DLL isn't used anymore... Or maybe it is, i don't know.. Shall i delete it?") that were obviously thought up by complete morons made me despise and loathe Windows in the first place.

Please, do tell me: What exactly is "PC Technology"?

And please correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't Hypertransport a Consortium which counts Apple among others as its member?

Had to install a HP All-in-one the other day... Took 5 Minutes on the Mac and over an hour on Windows XP... Including crashes, about 5 reboots, double installations and progressbars that just went weeeeeerrrryyyyy slllllooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyy..... 12/23/2004 11:29 AM | Arsh Crapfen

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Had to install a HP All-in-one the other day... Took 5 Minutes on the Mac and over an hour on Windows XP... Including crashes, about 5 reboots, double installations and progressbars that just went weeeeeerrrryyyyy slllllooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyy..... "

Virtual PC doesn't count. Neither do broken computers.

My friend has a Mac G4 desktop that has an uptime of over 220 days. But his Ti Book laptop crashes within a couple hours of booting up (both running Panther). So just like with PCs, there are good and bad Macs.

"And please correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't Hypertransport a Consortium which counts Apple among others as its member? "

No. Hypertransport is an AMD technology. 12/23/2004 7:09 PM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Who's talking about Virtual PC? There are ACTUAL PCs out there, just in case you haven't noticed!.. Some of them even work the same printers as Macs do!

"Hypertransport is an AMD technology."

Strange... I could swear it says "Consortium" on hypertransport.org and shows alot of other vendors like Sun, Nvidia, Broadcom. Cisco and even "CPU-enemy" Transmeta on the right!

There is no "PC Technology", face the cold hard fact, little x86 fanboy... It's "Computer Technology" and everyone profits from it, no matter what CPU-Architecture! Just like the "PC-World" got Java from Sun, Dualcore, Copper and SOI from IBM, SMT from Alpha and Firewire/Rendezvous from Apple! 12/24/2004 8:30 AM | Arsh Crapfen

# ...

I've known some Mac "enthusiasts" that have based their entire perceptions of modern Windows systems on how well XP runs on their Mac's Virtual PC. It sounded like you might be one of them.



HyperTransport WAS designed by AMD (with IBM and Nvidia), back when it was called Lightning Data Transport.

In the past, Apple has used almost entirely proprietary technology in their systems. Custom busses, chipsets, peripheral interconnects, memory systems... that sort of thing. That was back when they used pure RISC systems, too.

Now they use the same interconnects, busses, memory interfaces and memory, GPUs, sound cards, keyboards and mice, disk interfaces, and nearly identical motherboards. Even the chips are designed pretty much like their x86 counterparts (apart from the instruction set, of course).



For a while, there have been those who said Apple should move to x86 entirely. In fact, I've been one of them. Apple isn't a hardware company any more. They take generic hardware and brand it just like Dell. They don't even build their own monitors, just the pretty plastic around them.

But unlike Dell, they make the OS, and a large amount of the software it runs. So their real strength is as a software company. And while OS X does have its flaws, I think it could compete very well against Windows over time on the x86 platform. I bet it would do a far better job than Linux has at providing a Windows alternative to those looking.


Oh, and "FireWire from Apple..." Um, no. Firewire is an IEEE spec. Yes, Apple has pretty much taken it over. And they do own the rights to "FireWire 800". But originally, FireWire was designed by the makers of DV equipment, LONG before Apple joined in. I don't know what Rendezvous has to do with hardware, since it's a software communciation protocol (and a pretty cool one at that).


Dual core, copper, SOI, and SMT existed in the PC world before they did on the Mac (Macs don't even have an SMT/Hyperthreading equilivant yet. Not until the Power5-based PowerPC chips come around).

But that's not even the point I was making. A decade ago, if you tried to fix a Mac but all you had were PC parts, you were out of luck. Nowadays, you can replace pretty much everything except the CPU with the PC equilivant and it'll work fine.
12/24/2004 11:26 AM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Yes i do. I am also aware that Windows OVERWRITES the good copy with the bad one BEFORE BOOTING WAS SUCCESSFUL! "


Oh, I missed this gem the first time. Just FYI, that's completely wrong.

Since Windows 98, backup copies of the registry exist for at least the last 5 days. I think on XP it might be even longer. That is, as long as you didn't disable that function.
System Restore points work well, too.

Frankly, I've been in this business for quite some years, and never have I encountered a PC that had suffered from fatal "registry corruption" as you put it... unless of course it had a failing hard disk and was experiencing data corruption everywhere.

12/24/2004 11:32 AM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"This and other completely braindead idiotic architectural decisions ("Hey, that KTMXL32.DLL isn't used anymore... Or maybe it is, i don't know.. Shall i delete it?") that were obviously thought up by complete morons made me despise and loathe Windows in the first place. "


And how is this different than deleting any shared library on the Mac?

Oh wait, the Mac actually WILL let you delete shared libraries that are in use.

Luckily, Windows File Protection won't let you delete anything important. 12/24/2004 11:34 AM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

Correction: the backups were called system.bak and user.bak. the .dat files are the registry itself! 12/25/2004 6:54 AM | Arsh Crapfen

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

You're wrong about the registry. Windows 98 keeps 5 backups (one for each of the past five days) of user.dat and system.dat. The backups are created *after* a successful boot.


As for your rants about Power4 and Alpha... I consider those to be "PC technology," as in... Non-Mac. Originally the Mac's hardware was hardware you wouldn't find anywhere else. Like all of their proprietary connectors, AppleTalk, etc.


As far as I know, shared libraries work pretty much the same way in OS X as they do in regular vanilla FreeBSD.

Everything you rant about regarding DLLs doesn't apply to modern versions of Windows, only the old DOS-based variants. If you want to discuss archaic architectures, I'd be happy to discuss proper memory management in the Mac OS prior to OS X - or rather, the lack thereof.


The naming of a DLL file is entirely up to the creator. Most clearly designate the author, such as "nvdisp.dll", "atixxxx.dll", etc.

Programs are not allowed to manipulate DLL files in System directory. Most programs don't try. If a program tries to do so, Windows File Protection pretends to let it do it, but actually maintains the file in the application's directory, and creates a sort of symbolic link to it so that the program can find it.

"Re-installing Windows is one of the most popular pastimes worldwide, i know people who streamlined the progress cutting it down to half an nour and they do it everytime before visiting a LAN-party, just to have a clean stable system! Because as everyone knows Windows likes to "wear out" and get slower and more instable over time, and that's a fact that nobody can deny"

Is this truly the understanding from within the infamous Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field?

I have several Windows Server 2003 systems powering my clients' networks with uptimes of over a year. They have countless XP Pro workstations that are usually powered off on the weekends, but that haven't had any major changes (and certainly no OS reinstall) in as many as four years. These are computers that are used intensively all day every week day.

If your "friend" failed to keep his computer up-to-date, or permitted malware to be installed on his system, that's a different issue entirely. However, malware and other security issues are a problem for the entire industry, not just one OS.

I would never argue that Windows is flawless. As a matter of fact, I could go on for days about things that I think could be done better. But I feel the same way about most every system I use. And Windows NT and its successors have served me well over a period of many years. And at the time, DOS and then Windows 9x didn't really seem all *that* bad... Because at the time, they weren't.

"I'm talking about the braindead messages you get when uninstalling something, kid! Have you even heard of the great MS-invention called "DLL-counter"? "

First off, show a little respect. You're posting on my site and while we may disagree, I wouldn't presume to address you in such a manner.

If a legacy program gives you one of those "Do you want to remove this shared DLL, that may still be required by another program?" messages, you might as well just say yes. Windows File Protection won't let the uninstaller delete a file if it's actually still needed.

12/25/2004 9:05 PM | Brandon Paddock

# Wow... the true colors are showing

It's really amazing what Brandon can say with a "straight face." (Perhaps behind his computer he's actually laughing at all of us for wasting time reading some of the stuff he posts here.)


"My iPod crashed several times during its life. In fact, it had a nasty habit of crashing AND corrupting its database, leaving me with no access to my files."

I call bullshit. I've heard of plenty of examples of the iPod (and other hard drive players) "crashing," but I've *never* heard of an iPod "corrupting its database." In fact, the *only* possible way this could happen is if the hard drive has problems, which has nothing to do with it being an iPod. I say this is just another made up assertion Brandon is throwing out there.


"As for your rant about old computers (worrying about IRQs when upgrading), I suppose you prefer old Macs that couldn't be upgraded at all?"

Hmmm... red herring?


"Or are you upset that Apple's computers these days use 100% PC technology (like IDE, SATA, PCI, AGP, our chipset busses, etc.)?"

"PC technology"? Once again, you're showing your ignorance. These are computing industry standards, not "PC technology." In fact, Apple is one of the companies that helps determine many such "standards."



"'And please correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't Hypertransport a Consortium which counts Apple among others as its member?'
No. Hypertransport is an AMD technology."

Apple was a charter member of the Hypertransport Consortium. Can anything you say be believed? (I'm not even going to touch the ridiculous statements about the G5 being "pretty much like x86 chips.")



"I've known some Mac 'enthusiasts'' that have based their entire perceptions of modern Windows systems on how well XP runs on their Mac's Virtual PC. It sounded like you might be one of them."

If someone proves you wrong, question their credibility, eh? Some of us, unlike you, are experienced users of multiple platforms. My perception of Windows, MP3 players, etc. are based on using them on a daily basis. Ironically, *your* perceptions of the Mac platform seem to be based entirely on experiences with decade-old Macs.

"For a while, there have been those who said Apple should move to x86 entirely. In fact, I've been one of them. Apple isn't a hardware company any more. They take generic hardware and brand it just like Dell."

Wow, now you're just showing that you're clueless. The "Mac should go x86" crap has been debunked as ridiculous time and time again. Macs are more than just "generic hardware." Geesh.


"Oh, and "FireWire from Apple..." Um, no. Firewire is an IEEE spec. Yes, Apple has pretty much taken it over. And they do own the rights to "FireWire 800". But originally, FireWire was designed by the makers of DV equipment, LONG before Apple joined in."

Dude, you are COMPLETELY clueless. Apple INVENTED FireWire with Sony. INVENTED it. Do some basic third-grade research, please.


"A decade ago, if you tried to fix a Mac but all you had were PC parts, you were out of luck."

And if you tried to fix a Windows PC but all you had were Mac parts, you were out of luck. Some logic. (By the way, "PC" is a generic term for personal computers, including Macs, Linux machines, Sun stations, etc. It shows how Windows-only you are that you use it to mean Windows PC.)


"As for your rants about Power4 and Alpha... I consider those to be 'PC technology,' as in... Non-Mac. Originally the Mac's hardware was hardware you wouldn't find anywhere else."

Um, what the hell do you think the Alpha was? "PC technology?" It was just as proprietary and "hardware you wouldn't find anywhere else" as the Mac's hardware (again, a decade ago).



I could go on. You either have no clue what you're talking about, or you're purposely trying to mislead people reading this discussion. In either case, you're utterly unqualified to even be engaged in this discussion.



"WMA is far from medicore. In fact, it's the best lossy compression codec available in terms of audio quality (except at very low bit rates where OGG edges it out)."

Again, I call bullshit. EVERY independent test I've seen on codecs has WMA nearly the bottom of the available codecs. At the *very* low bitrate level -- WMA's strong point -- WMA gets closer to the top, but it's NEVER the "best." (Even the very weak testing described in the ExtremeTech link you provided shows that WMA is only the best at 64k -- a bitrate no one serious about sound quality uses. Once you get to 128k, the article shows AAC passing WMA up, and at higher bitrates pretty much everything beats WMA.)


"It's also the cheapest to license and the only codec with a proven and mature DRM implementation."

WHAT? I hate to break it to you, but AAC/Fairplay is just as "proven and mature" -- arguably much more so, but it's impossible to logically argue that it's not. Where do you get this stuff?
12/27/2004 6:05 AM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

You argue using nothing but opinion (show me one independent test that shows WMA "nearly the bottom of the available codecs,"? as you say).

The testing employed by Extremetech is quite well documented and very similar to my own. Other tests using a more objective and basic output analysis approach are indeed hard to find, but in every case I've seen show WMA leading the pack.

"Once you get to 128k, the article shows AAC passing WMA up, and at higher bitrates pretty much everything beats WMA"

Did you even look at the article? It shows AAC and WMA tied at 128k.

They choose WMA as their editor's choice because it is always at the top of the pack when compared to other popular codecs, offers excellent VBR support (something iTunes' AAC lacks), and is a far more established standard than AAC.


"WHAT? I hate to break it to you, but AAC/Fairplay is just as "proven and mature" -- arguably much more so, but it's impossible to logically argue that it's not. Where do you get this stuff? "

Is that your entire argument? That because it's not "possible to logically argue" that you can just say so and be right?

Fairplay has been cracked. If it's proven, it's proven broken. And AAC is hardly an established standard. In fact, quite the opposite.

If your definition of "PC" is different from the established standard (a desktop/workstation derived in some way from the original IBM PC), then perhaps that was a poor choice of terms on my part. However, I thought it was quite clear that I was referring to Macs vs. PCs, and the fact that they are a lot more alike than they used to be. Again, I never criticized Apple for this, and yet you rush to their defense for absolutely no reason.

"I call bullshit. I've heard of plenty of examples of the iPod (and other hard drive players) "crashing," but I've *never* heard of an iPod "corrupting its database." In fact, the *only* possible way this could happen is if the hard drive has problems, which has nothing to do with it being an iPod. I say this is just another made up assertion Brandon is throwing out there. "

I don't care if you "call bullshit," whatever that means. That was my experience with my iPod. I still loved it, as there was clearly nothing better at the time (the size and battery life alone were a godsend after using the first HD-based player, the Nomad Jukebox, for so long. Although that did remain in commission for a while simply for its recording capabilities).

As I said before, that was a first-gen iPod, which Apple happily dropped support for when the next-gen came out. So perhaps the newer devices are better. I know my friend with a 3rd gen 20GB version hasn't had any problems lately (although he did lose the database a couple times when he first got it, and had to switch to Mac-formatting it an using Xplay to fix the problem).

"Hmmm... red herring? "

That's a bold statement from someone who has argued for 6 pages about your own hapless tangents. You still never respond to my actual questions about the original post or question.


With that said, you win. You've exhausted my willingness to argue at this level. The iPod is a gift from God, just like you, and no one should bother arguing with you or competing with Apple. In fact every company whose market Apple enters (Creative, Rio) should just lay down and submit to their almighty competitor.

Is that really what you want?

I don't think so. I think you're just another board troll who feeds off of negative energy and hopes to erode the souls of poor naive folk like me who would dare to disagree with you and actually try to substantiate their points.

Well some of us have better things to do. And perhaps you've done me a service, in some sense. Now I'll know to refrain from responding to comments like yours, a lesson it seems everyone in this community seems to learn along the way. "Don't feed the trolls" some say. Perhaps advice that I should have taken and saved myself some of my precious time. 12/27/2004 11:33 AM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"Fairplay has been cracked? WRONG. Dude, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Fairplay had never been cracked. Again, do some third-grade research. Every "crack" for Fairplay has simply been a way to remove the DRM from a file ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE PASSWORD/KEY FOR THAT FILE. That's not "cracking" by any stretch of the imagination. "

You can't even make up your mind about whether fairplay has been cracked. The only definition of "crack" that I know of in relation to DRM is to remove it from a file, rendering the DRM useless. That has happened with FairPlay (through projects like PlayFair and others).

Oh and AAC isn't really VBR. Yes it varies from the specified bitrate slightly (and the consistency bias varies with implementation)... but it's not configurable by the user and is in no way comparable to VBR in other formats.

I just don't have the time to continue such a mind-numbing argument. It's clear that you believe very strongly in your opinion, but I don't understand your need to convince me or anyone else that you're right and we're wrong. 1/10/2005 12:46 AM | Brandon Paddock

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

"You can't even make up your mind about whether fairplay has been cracked. The only definition of 'crack' that I know of in relation to DRM is to remove it from a file, rendering the DRM useless. That has happened with FairPlay (through projects like PlayFair and others)."


"Cracking" DRM means figuring out how to remove it without passwords/authorization/etc. FairPlay uses the legimitate owner's *key* -- without that key, you can't remove the DRM. Saying the FairPlay is "cracking" DRM is like saying that if you give your friend the key to your house and tell him to go hang out there, he's "breaking in."


"Oh and AAC isn't really VBR. Yes it varies from the specified bitrate slightly (and the consistency bias varies with implementation)... but it's not configurable by the user and is in no way comparable to VBR in other formats."

Where are you getting your "facts" from? AAC is VBR. Period. Go look up the AAC specs. True, Apple's implementation isn't as configurable as the VBR used by some other codecs, but that's a heck of a lot different than saying that AAC isn't really VBR.


"I don't understand your need to convince me or anyone else that you're right and we're wrong."

Because in this discussion you've consistently misrepresented the facts and purposely tried to mislead readers.
1/22/2005 4:34 AM | MD

# re: Scoble says "Can't we think creatively?" in competing with the iPod

OK, I'm here by accident, but this sounded interesting.

Hello my name is Matty and I bought an iPod. This is why I bought an iPod , and what you could do to make me buy something esle.

I first downloaded iTunes in August last year, chiefly becuase I was told that you could get Bam Thwock by the Pixies from the music store, which I think had just opened. I really love iTunes, it's the most simplistic program I could imagine, just a great big long list of my songs so I don't have to go wondering through various Artists folders to find something. It doesn't play videos, which I why I stil have to use Media Player. Media Player 10 is an arse to use, especially now that it seems to load the music store automatically, which takes forever and sometimes crashes my machine. I realised that I couldn't play any of my cds I'd copied into Media Player in Itunes, and Itunes said it couldn't convert them, I must have ticked the "protect my music" tickbox I guess. Anyway, I either dug out the originals or burnt new cd's onto a re-writable so I could get everything into iTunes.

The music store itself , well, it's good for browsing, but sometimes I wish it would have more choice. I quite like EMusic actually, as the files I get are mp3, which I know I can play. I've heard lots of people complain about DRM files. Are Apple files DRM? Because i seem to be able to just drag them from itunes into messenger when I want to share a song with someone. Being able to share songs through bluetooth would be damn cool. Yeah I know that artists might have something to say about this, but couldn't it just be allowed to play the songs a couple of times, of for a day or something? Then if someone likes a song they can buy it themselves.

Anyway, because I was using iTunes so much, and the apple ipod ads were cool, I bought myself an ipod. It's lovely to use, and I probably don't use half of the stuff it can do. But it's nice to use, the scroll wheel is just the best thing ever, although maybe some pressure sensitive pads would also be as good. the main thing is that it seems to stop scrolling exactly when I want it to. Scroll click scroll click scroll play.

And wooooo, mac mini, how nice does that look! My lovely little ipod nicely relaxing in it's lovely little dock would look great in front of one of them. Alas, if only I could run visual studio on a mac :-(

Anyway, stop being so evil and nasty and starting thinking better things. The idea of having an fm transmitter built in is very cool, I have one of those itrip things for my ipod and it's cool to use in a car that doesn't have a tape player. The problem with it is the silly amount of files, that end up get playing in a playlist. arse. So yes, stop thinking evil and how can we make another ugly little black box thats difficult to use and means that should my computer die and I have to reinstall will mean I've lost all my music too and probably has a little red light on the front to say that it's on. think good things. Don't worry about the formats, why can't everything be MP3 again? you just know you're in trouble if the format starts with "wm", as it means your computer wil take at least 30 seconds to start playing.it.

The phone idea is good, if apple made a phone as easy to use as an ipod, damn would I buy it. I've heard horror stories about WIndows Smartphones, I tried the orange spv and it was hell on earth.
2/4/2005 12:22 PM | Matty C

# Why Napster will be a fully-integrated flop

Ok, this I just had to post up thou many of ya prolly will disagree it has notta to do with the topic.

Napster today graced the world with a "revolutionary new way to enjoy music" by starting something called the Napster To Go service. As we all know, revolutions often deliver unintended consequences. So let's have a look a