New Ipod line. Which one are you?

[lasher511]

So the new ipods are here which one if any do you want.

I think personally i like the Ipod touch not only because of the easy to use interface but also because it has real WiFi and not the crap half assed "WiFi" that we saw with the Zune.

Also am i the only one who thinks the new ipod nano is slightly ugly? Maybe its just because its a different shape to what we are used to seeing in the ipods. I do however like the larger screen on them.

[ft3ssgeek]

Personally, I will never prostitute my values by buying an Apple product...(Then again, I suppose that everytime I purchase a license for Windows I not only prostitute my values, but sell my soul at the same time...)
Ah well, my boycott of Apple will continue!

[lasher511]

Lol is there any particular reason you don't like apple?

[Sturm]

I don't like apple because their products all seem to be targeted to the weird hip college generation. Its really annoying how people swear by their ipod when there are lots of music players with higher quality sound and more features. Apple makes their money off perceived innovation, the "coolness" factor, rather than actually making something I would want to use. I personally think that brilliant execution is a lot more important than brilliant or creative ideas.

[Hamrick]

when there are lots of music players with higher quality sound and more features

Can you post some links to those lots of music players that are so much better? :)So the new ipods are here which one if any do you want.
I want the ipod touch, but it's not practical yet. For less than a 16gb ipod touch, i could get a 160gb ipod video... I'll wait for the next generation that can hold more and costs less. ;)

[Sturm]

>Can you post some links to those lots of music players that are so much better?

Sorry it was a comparison in a pcworld article. (really don't know why I still have a pcworld subscription...) I know that sounds convenient... sorry.

[jbennet]

Can you post some links to those lots of music players that are so much better? :)

Its fact that the iTunes formats are inferior in sound quality to WMA. The upside is that they are much much smaller though and is superior to MP3 http://www2.jeffcroft.com/blog/2004/jan/12/wma-vs-aac-the-truth/


A great number of the e-mails I received proclaimed that WMA is bad because it's a for-pay licensed property that nobody else can touch. It's owned by the evil Microsoft monopoly and is therefore inherently inferior to the "free and open" AAC format, or even MP3. This couldn't be more wrong. AAC is neither open nor free. You can't go changing the spec, and you can't legally distribute encoders or decoders without paying a licensing fee. In fact, the fees are right there up on the Web. It may seem "free and open" because there are free software packages out there that can encode and decode AAC, but that simply means that the creators of those software programs absorb that cost in the hopes of making it up somewhere else. There are free WMA encoders and decoders as well, after all, and nobody thinks it's a "free and open" standard. For comparison's sake, the licensing costs for WMA are here.

Many readers mistakenly held the impression that the songs bought through the iTunes Music Store were simply AAC files, and were therefore "standardized." Of course, this is not true – iTunes can rip your own CDs to either MP3 or AAC, but those iTunes Music Store songs are AAC songs with Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM added on. That's my main beef with the iTunes/iPod combo: If I buy songs with iTunes, I can only play them on an iPod. It's an anti-competitive lock-in, the kind of thing Microsoft haters are so quick to criticize Gates and his minions for.

Thats why I hate apple. If MS locked consumers in like that theyd be up for anti-trust again!

also Ipods are ridiculusly expensive too

[Hamrick]

Its fact that the iTunes formats are inferior in sound quality to WMA.

I'm not an audiophile, so I can't tell a difference. :DThats why I hate apple. If MS locked consumers in like that theyd be up for anti-trust again!
Microsoft really isn't any better, but I guess if you don't have a majority of the market share, you can't be called for anti-trust...also Ipods are ridiculusly expensive too
That's my beef with apple.

[Lardmeister]

Apple is king! I could not live without my IPod!

[John A]

>Its fact that the iTunes formats are inferior in sound quality to WMA.
You just shot yourself in the foot. From the very article you quoted:
In terms of functionality, there is very little difference. Some audiophiles will tell you one format sounds better than the other, but for most people, the difference is indiscernible.

>The upside is that they are much much smaller though
My guess is that you're sampling WMA and AAC at different bitrates. If you compare WMA sound sampled at 128 kbps to AAC sampled at 64 kbps, it isn't a fair comparison. If you sample MP3, AAC and WMA all at 128 kbps, they all contain roughly the same amount of data. The quality of what you hear is what you compare, not the file size.

[lasher511]

I don't actually think there are any other MP3 players out there that have proper Wifi or you can view youtube videos on. Itunes actually supports WMA format.

[jasimp]

the price of Ipods are so high because everyone things they are cool and they are in in high demand at the time. just buy a cheaper one that works as good as the Ipod.

[lasher511]

Lol nothing will work as good as the ipod because every time someone even starts to get all the features of the ipod apple comes out with a new line with new features.

[jasimp]

I have expandable memory on mine and apple does not have that, yet.

[John A]

>Itunes actually supports WMA format.
Not quite. iTunes for Windows converts them to AAC, it refuses play them. iTunes for Mac simply cannot work with WMA files.

[christina>you]

I like the new design... the screen is much larger and 65% brighter. Plus, it plays videos.

[lasher511]

>Itunes actually supports WMA format. Not quite. iTunes for Windows converts them to AAC, it refuses play them. iTunes for Mac simply cannot work with WMA files.

I have never had any problems with playing WMA in itunes or on my ipod. They are only ever converted in order to be played on the ipod itself however the files on your computer stay WMA format. This is the case with most of the high end mp3 players that actually use a program to sync. It just makes the device itself more efficient.

[John A]

>I have never had any problems with playing WMA in itunes or on my ipod.
Technically, you've never even played a WMA file on iTunes (and certainly not on your iPod).

>They are only ever converted in order to be played on the ipod itself
And how do you know that?

>the files on your computer stay WMA format.
That's because iTunes doesn't delete the original WMA files. When you add a song to iTunes, it simply makes an AAC copy of the song, and stores it in its own iTunes library folder. Every time you play the song in iTunes, it plays this internal copy.

>This is the case with most of the high end mp3 players that actually
>use a program to sync. It just makes the device itself more efficient.
Cite some examples please. This sounds like utter bullcrap.

[lasher511]

>I have never had any problems with playing WMA in itunes or on my ipod. Technically, you've never even played a WMA file on iTunes (and certainly not on your iPod).

>They are only ever converted in order to be played on the ipod itself And how do you know that?

>the files on your computer stay WMA format. That's because iTunes doesn't delete the original WMA files. When you add a song to iTunes, it simply makes an AAC copy of the song, and stores it in its own iTunes library folder. Every time you play the song in iTunes, it plays this internal copy.

>This is the case with most of the high end mp3 players that actually >use a program to sync. It just makes the device itself more efficient. Cite some examples please. This sounds like utter bullcrap.

I am using a mac right now and i have more then several WMA files in my itunes library that have not been converted to AAC. They have only been converted to this on my ipod. If it was to store an internal copy and play that then the space being used up by the file should technically double when it is added to my itunes library. This is not the case.

The Zune. When songs are copied onto your Zune then the format of all the songs gets changed to WMA. This is to allow players such as the ipod and zune to play the songs more efficiently.

[jbennet]

>This is the case with most of the high end mp3 players that actually >use a program to sync. It just makes the device itself more efficient. Cite some examples please. This sounds like utter bullcrap.

yeah, thats crap. sonys MP3s for example, use a POS software called SonicStage and it is slowwwwwww