Korean Job Discussion Forums

[SuperHero]

actually I'm not a zealot for anything I just despise the mindset of the Mac Evangalist.

if someone wants to use a MAC or an IPOD I could care less as long as they don't turn into bible thumping enthusiasts I have had the experience of meeting.

[OiGirl]

I WANT to want an iPod, because it matches my Mac and I want the brand to succeed.

[laogaiguk]

[jazblanc77]

[cheem]

[rocklee]

Great, this topic is right up my alley.

The iPods survived on marketing, or more accurately, Mr. Jobs's reality distortion field.

People were actually buying into a device that was inferior audio-wise and feature wise for a long time, and they didn't know it.

All the iPods have the same audio processors found in low quality mp3 players. The only reasons why most people don't notice the difference is because :

- all DAPs are equipped with poor earphones (to a lot of people, it didn't matter as long as they could hear something)
- MP3 is an inferior audio standard (think of a pizza made with none of the original ingredients but somehow tastes like one)

Apple took advantage of this and produced the iPod, a DAP that had just enough to play MP3s with no other features except for a few games.

Ballmer once said "The iPod was a device designed for piracy", he wasn't far from the truth. It was said that at least 70% of a typical iPod owner's music collection was not paid for. Jobs was big on patents and he hated people using his so-called ideas, and yet he turned a blind eye to his iPods because he knew he would never get them to be as popular as they would be today. Jobs intention was never to produce a quality product built to last, he wanted a money machine that would make him rich.

He brought out the mini, the photo iPods, and then the video iPods. He was improving on the iPod feature by feature and the public was buying into it, while other companies were producing players with such features from the beginning. Jobs was basically trying to create a PDA, with one delayed feature after another.

The Nano was the most controversial iPod yet. Apple had Samsung agree that they would not sell their tiny HDs to any other companies at the cheap price that Apple was getting. This gave Apple a huge advantage and thus a monopoly.

Companies such as Creative, Rio, Diamond and Sony were the pioneers in portable audio players (DAPs), with Creative and Rio producing some of the most innovative DAPs ever created before MP3s became a phenom.
Apple's intervention forced the demise of great companies such as Diamond and Rio, who were producing far better DAPs but didn't give out the marketing bullcrap that Apple gave.

This was not the first time Apple resorted to cheap punches. All their products are made cheaply in China and they are paying the price for it. Apple is currently under fire for underpaying chinese labourers.

If you compare the iPod with today's DAPs :

- it still doesn't have a built-in FM tuner
- it still doesn't have a built-in microphone
- it still doesn't support line-in recording
- it still doesn't support lyrics
- it doesn't support bluetooth
- the photo iPod doesn't even let you view NEF pictures (high quality digital photos that professionals uses)
- the video iPod doesn't even play divx,avi/mpg/mov/qt videos
- the video iPod doesn't support video-in recording
- the video iPod doesn't support DMB

Apple zealots likes to feed on the "Jack of all trade, master of none". The problem is, the iPod discretely attempts to be the jack of all trade, but is still a master of nothing other than hype. Creative/Cowon/iAudio/Archos/etc all produces better sounding DAPs, better video playback, better features.

Want to hear more?

The reason why iPods could be thinner than the rest is because they use batteries that were smaller and non-interchangeable. This is how they could be so thin but there is indeed a catch, the battery life is the worst on the market.
Remember the time when many of these batteries died? Apple refused to replace these faulty batteries, instead they told consumers to buy another iPod as a solution!

Apple has had nothing but problems from dead batteries to scratched screens.

Just recently, Jobs said that consumers shouldn't really expect their iPods to last a year. They should be buying the latest models every year.

Can you believe the nerve of this idiot?

[jazblanc77]

I've been waiting for a rebuttal to that last post.

I'll return to the silence in the shadows now.

[cheem]

Rebuttal... that last post is a rebuttal of itself.

Though every point could be dismantled and destroyed by anyone with a basic familiarity with technology, rather than get into an annoying tit-for-tat exchange I'll zero in on the most ridiculous: Ballmer's quote and the assertion that iPods promote piracy.

As much as you might despise the iTunes Music Store, you can't deny that it's done more to promote the idea of paid online music than any other online music service. In fact, Apple's influence in this domain is such that Jobs has literally strong-armed the major record labels into accepting his dollar-a-song price-point.

Admittedly, Apple's motives for promoting paid online music aren't altruistic, but can you honestly say Ballmer's comments are steeped in morality? Or could it be that Ballmer has a vested interest in Windows Media DRM; yet another proprietary standard that would lock consumers to the Windows platform?

Moreover, what have Creative, Cowon, Archos or any other companies you champion done to suppress music piracy? Your arguments are contradictory. But that's what happens when you assemble a laundry list of misinformation cherry-picked off the internet: you end up sounding nuttier than the mac-zealots you malign.

[laogaiguk]

[cheem]

[rocklee]

iTunes not only rips from copy-protected audio CDs (CDs that had built-in copy prevention software), it also has spyware!

Put simply, why is it Apple's business to be involved in the music industry? Their iPods do not produce anywhere near CD quality, nor is the audio standard that they promote all that cutting edge in this day and age. Audiophiles are using Super-Audio CDs or DVD-audio, not 128kbps MP3 players worth more than most people's stereo systems.

I am all for MP3 if they help to back up my music collection digitally or give artists their big break on the internet. I'm just not in supportive of a company that originally had no interest in the matter except to feed off the industry so that they can beef up their fake image. The sad thing is, so many other companies are following Apple's lead because its all about money/greed.

[Cigar_Guy]

There's a lot of insanity going on around here, so let's try to take it one bit at a time. Full disclosure: I have an iPod and a Powerbook, though I'm far from a Mac acolyte (in fact, I'm quite irritable right now because my Powerbook has died yet again for no reason and the @*$(*@***! at Yongsan's Apple Repair Store couldn't do anything for me because the powerbook worked fine when I brought it in to him).

Regarding marketing, I don't think it's as simple as saying "Well, they spend a lot on their marketing so they sell a lot of stuff." If that were the case, then their competitors would just start spending more on it and would experience similar increases in sales. The fact that they don't compete as well with the iPod has something to do with the fact that they are, generally speaking, not as good. I can't tell you how many people I know from back home who decided to "not buy the hype" of the iPod and went with something from another manufacturer. Every single one of them (whether they bought from Dell, Sony, Rio or someone else) was disappointed with what they had. Either the software didn't work well or it was too small or just plain broke. Everyone I've known who has owned an iPod has had very few problems with them. Please notice that I did not say "Every single iPod made by Blessed Apple of Jobs (Hallowed is His Name) is perfect." I'm just saying that from my own personal experiences, iPods offer better features to young folk who want something quick, easy, and relatively durable that they can carry around town with them with their music (which are, of course, the primary market for these things).

Which brings me to my second point. As much as some folk here have problems with "fundi Christians" (always nice when that can be brought up in a topic that has nothing to do with such people), some of the most insufferable people I've ever met are self-described "audiophiles"--"Oh, the iPod doesn't support every sound format in the world... Oh, it won't let me transfer my ultra-high-rez professional puictures... Oh, it doesn't have an integral microphone..." This is true--of course, the iPod also lacks a steam iron, which is why I don't use it to iron my shirts. The iPod is designed to hold a huge amount of music for quick and easy playback on the go. Over time they've been able to advance the thing enough so that it can hold photos and videos (which I like having with me, but even without those features it would be a good buy). You can even use the thing to transmit high-quality video onto your TV. Though the battery can be a little erratic (show me a rechargeable device that isn't), I must say I prefer it to using batteries--the last thing I want to hear after buying something like this is that I'm going to be shelling out for batteries every week or so to keep it running. I've yet to see another manufacturer who's been able to cram as many features and capacity into such a small case, and until I see one, I'm not going to take seriously any complaints that "The don't put enough features on it!" Lest you forget, the newest iPods only support USB connections--they scrapped the USB/Firewire to make room for other features.

As for the business end of things, I don't have the slightest idea what deal Apple made with Samsung. I am, however, aware of a little company called Western Digital (perhaps you've heard of it--they were Forbes magazine's "Best Managed Company" of 2005?). If someone else has a solid design for a portable music player, I doubt that they're going to slam their fists on the table and say "Blast! We've been outmaneuvered again by Steve Jobs!" because Samsung won't sell them HDs.

Bottom line: the iPod has the market share it does because it makes a solid product that you don't have to think about very much. It's solidly-made, well-backed by tech support and the like, and has a very easy interface both on itself and on the computer (my extremely techno-phobic mother was amazed at how easy it is to use). I'm unaware of any other company out there that puts out a comparable product (but am more than willing to listen if anyone has a suggestion on where to find one). Until then, I'm sticking with what I have.

P.S. I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the iPod has lower audio quality than a CD--this is the exact opposite of what I've found in my experience.

P.P.S. In case you still suspect my ties to Apple, let me say now that I'm typing this on the PC deskop that I built some months ago--again, due to the fact that my Powerbook has inexpicably died on me.

[laogaiguk]

[AbbeFaria]

[cheem]