|
|
Posted by FatKat on 06/09/06 20:55
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1149878363.565910.319810@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Obviously wrong because your market-speak is equally descriptive
> > > > of CD/MP3 players - it's not an all-in-one solution because you
> > > > need to buy the accessories to keep your iPod working - a skin, a
> > > > screen-cover, a recharger.
> > >
> > > You don't need any of those. The iPod recharges from the USB port
> > > on the computer,
> >
> > Which doesn't explain what happens when the battery's life is over.
> > My CD player is 4 years old and still works fine.
>
> You sound as if you believe that the iPod is the only device with a
> built-in rechargeable battery.
And you sound like you haven't read my prior posts. I wasn't talking
about all other devices - merely one that offers nearly commensurate
performance at a fraction of the price. That there are similar
products that offer similar performance at similar costdoesn't negate
the claim that iPod is still a vastly over-hyped product.
> When the battery's life is over, you take the iPod to an authorized repair place and
> have the battery replaced.
Has anybody any experience with the ease and cost of replacing iPod
batteries? In any event, when my CD player's battery's dies, I go to
the closet and replace the battery myself.
>
> How much does your CD player weigh?
Honestly, I don't know. Since I don't work for NASA, I don't have to
budget every kilo. Mostly, I use my player while I jog - since it's a
fitness-related activity, it seems ironic to quibble over ounces - and
if it should slip from my hand, I don't have to worry too much about
the possible damage.
> How many tracks can you get on a CD?
Is there a limit to tracks on an MP3-CD? I have two discs, each
containing well over 100 discs - it's my interest in music and not the
disc that becomes the limiting factor. Each disc holds somewhere in
the range of 7-11 hours of sound.
> There are tradeoffs.
Yeah, you pay more and you get an iPod in exchange.
And that's that.
>
> > > and the other two are not needed at all to keep the iPod working.
> >
> > They're just needed for that minority of iPod owners who actually
> > take their iPods out of the house, or out of the box for that matter.
>
> They are not needed for any iPod owner. *Not any!*
Sure, as long as you don't mind your iPod resembling a Lincoln-Wheat
penny, scratches and all, within a few weeks, you don't need any of
that stuff. In a similar vein, you don't need an ipod to listen to
hours of music. I'm still not sure what you need an iPod for, or what
it's worth, even less so once you underook its defense.
>
> > > Not that I know of, but a disk with iTunes is in the package for
> > > every iPod.
> >
> > Which doesn't address the fact that it's another piece of the
> > so-called all-in-one package only neccessary for those who insist on
> > listening to an iPod.
>
> All-in-one; it comes in the same box--and in the case of the Macintosh,
> it comes with the computer.
Unlike a CD player which is an all-in one device even though it comes
with..basically nothing, but does the same job. Okay, maybe you need
some headphones, and a couple of CD's..
>
> > > > With an MP3-CD player, all you need is your computer's file
> > > > manager.
> > >
> > > In other words, it won't work without a file manager.
> >
> > Without a working file manager on your computer, standard to any
> > windows or MAC OS, the inability to play music files is the least of
> > your worries - I can live without iTunes.
>
> The point is that if you're going to download data (music, or any other
> kind) from a computer to a storage device, you're going to need software
> on the computer to do it. Whether it's part of the operating system, or
> an application is not important.
I already have and need the file manager as part of my OS. iTunes is
entirely extraneous.
>
> > > None of those are needed. The iPod, just as it ships, works just
> > > fine. The operative word in your paragraph is "enhance."
> >
> > Which is to say that the skin and screen won't be scratched to hell -
> > enhanced must mean "roughly maintains the same physical condition and
> > function for at least 6 months after purchase" - the condition that
> > my CD player came with out of the box.
>
> Ooh, the case got a scratch--horrifying. That really adversely affects
> the functionality of the device.
iPod owes its success to a look - ofcourse function would also matter,
but you've again ducked on the issue of iPod having a unique or at
least worthwhile function compared to MP3-CD's. There's still battery
durability and replacement, and the reliability of internal mechanisms
after dropping.
> You want me to believe that in four
> years, your CD player doesn't have a single scratch on it?
My CD player cost $20.
>
> > > > The point is that while you can't get iPod features elsewhere,
> > > > you CAN get practically the commensurate experience at a fraction
> > > > of the cost.
> > >
> > > And that's the reason that iPod has a 70%+ market share, right?
> >
> > Gullible consumers - worked for Milli Vanilli, must do Apple a world
> > of good as well.
>
> Yeah, everyone is wrong but you.
So I guess if every iPod owner jumped off a cliff or downloaded the new
Britney Spears' album, I'd have to also?
> There were MP3 players on the market
> for years before the iPod came on the scene. And the iPod was more
> expensive than they were. And the iPod worked only with the Macintosh.
> Yet, in a few years, the iPod became the player of choice not only for
> Macintosh owners, but also for Windows owners. And you say it's because
> they're gullible?
Thanks, you said that way better than I had. yes, Michelle, they
swallow just about anything.
>
> > > > Sure, must be my fault - always blame the customer. When
> > > > somebody has demonstrated that your product is uneccessary,
> > > > unlreliable and overpriced, and has shown you where you can the
> > > > same thing for less, it's obviously his fault.
> > >
> > > All MP3 players, portable CD players, portable cassette decks, etc.
> > > are unnecessary.
> >
> > In terms of playing Mp3 or other music files?
>
> It terms of life.
WTF?
>
> > > You have not shown that the iPod is either unreliable nor
> > > overpriced.
> >
> > Nor have you shown any advantage over other similar forms of hardware
> > costing a fraction of the price.
>
> Any advantage is directly related to the wants and needs of the person
> making the comparison.
....which can easily be served by a CD player.
>
> By the way, what kind of "similar forms of hardware" can one purchase
> for $69 (US)?
Why would I want another form of hardware, let alone one costing about
twice a decent MP3/CD palyer?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|