January 6th, 2004

Filed under:
Technology
13 Comments »

More on Apple and the iPod mini

I suspect that Paul Wells has never used an iPod before. Today, after some quick math, he asks (in his weird pseudo-blog) “Why on earth would you buy an iPod Mini?” Here’s how I answered:

Clearly, if cost were the only factor, one would never buy anything from Apple. This includes MP3 players–there are plenty of models with similar storage as the big iPod that cost less. However, there are plenty of sound reasons to buy from Apple: reliability, robustness and coolness, to name three.

I should mention that I’m not an Apple snob–I’ve been a lifetime Windows user. However, I’ve got an iPod. Why? Because, simply put, it’s one of the coolest, most gracefully-designed pieces of consumer electronics around. It’s extraordinarily simple and intuitive to use, and blows every other MP3 player I’ve ever seen or used out of the water.

I did recently break down and buy an Apple laptop. Why? Because all of my smartest, geeky friends have Macs. These aren’t urban hipsters–they’re hard core programmers with plenty of initials after their names. They think thoroughly and objectively about any technology decision they make. It’s clear to me that Apples have something going for them that Windows-based PCs don’t.

Hopefully I’ve illustrated why one might buy an iPod mini. Here are a couple more practical reasons: it’s about half the weight and two thirds the total volume. Here’s another reason: the iPod is a portable music player, not just a hard drive. While I do have a 20 GB iPod, it’s not like I really need that much storage on-the-go. 4 GB would do fine. That is, if I set my iPod mini with its 1000-odd songs to random, I’m going to have to jog a long way before I hear the same song twice.

Comments: 13 Responses so far

Rog
January 9th, 2004
3:41 am

As someone who has had more than his fair share of regrettable debates with Mac-centric friends and evangelists let me just say: Hey, if you like your consumer product, that’s cool.

Defending that opinion on your website? That automatically puts you in Apple snob territory. The cliche of past Windows users is an even bigger trend for that now, sorry but it sounds like a “switched” ad.

I just don’t get the religion of Apple, I never have since way back in the pre-Mac days and I don’t get the iPod religion either.

I think of the iPod as a quirky audio player. It doesn’t support MP3 and for a portable hard drive type device it has really odd restrictions. The battery woes that some have experienced are the type of thing that makes me allergic to a product.

Yes I’ve used one up close and personal. No I don’t own one, but when someone doesn’t like a particular product I don’t see how they should be expected to own one before saying why they don’t want one.

I’d MUCH rather have a comparitive product from iRiver. From what I’ve seen, the interface, quality (audio output as well as hardware) and support are much better. That’s just my opinion. They also look cooler, because for me the iPod whitewashed look is trend-ugly, not uber-cool.

As for smartest hard core users? That’s another debate entirely but I’d say it’s a matter of opinion and how you define smart or hard core. My experience with geeks has mostly been in the videogame industry and frankly it’s only the graphic artists that touch the Macs there. Yes, there’s a fascination with *nix geeks with OSX but for myself at least, that’s quickly fading and I’m just as happy with a vanilla BSD or Linux box (a helluva lot cheaper). I make exceptions with the laptops, they’re well built and do the job well with a good price point.

But all that’s just what-side-of-the-fence rhetoric. The iPod mini looks to me like a good line and much more the kind of audio player I would buy– except for the lack of MP3 or OGG support, which once again makes it useless for me. Solid product, not the best, but plenty will argue so, that’s what Apple lives off of.

[Reply]

Darren
January 9th, 2004
8:53 am

Thanks for all that. All good points–based on opinion–except for one. The iPod does support MP3. I ought to know, I’ve got 3300 of them on mine.

Speaking generally, I talked like you a couple years ago. I was generally anti-Apple, thinking they were only for poncy graphic designers. But, the constant advocacy of (as I mentioned) many of my smartest friends (most of them programmers) changed my mind.

[Reply]

Paul Wells
January 9th, 2004
1:13 pm

Wrong. I’ve had my iPod for a year and a half and have never owned anything but Apple products. That doesn’t mean I think the sun shines out Steve Jobs’ ass. He is, after all, the father of Liza, Apple III, Newton and assorted other dogs. Like this one. cheers pw

[Reply]

Rog
January 9th, 2004
6:07 pm

Okay, to clarify. Mistaken about playing MP3s? The iPod that I’ve used belongs to a friend, I was told that it converts MP3s on transfer. Either I’m mistaken, or it converts them which is a quality loss, okay technically that’s support but ugh. If I’m mistaken then I’ll gladly accept that.

Second, no I don’t think that every person who owns Apple products is part of the Apple religion. Nor do I think Macs are only for “poncy graphics designers”. I highly respect the work that people do on their computers regardless of the manufacturer.

My distinction though, is that once I hear words like “advocacy” and “I talked like you”. Oh boy, that DOES sound like a religion to me. Sorry if I offend, but it does and any talk about good product and whatnot starts going through a filter.

[Reply]

Darren
January 9th, 2004
6:21 pm

They’re definitely MP3s on the device. I know because I’ve dumped MP3s onto the iPod, looked at them through a file browser, and they’ve got the same extension. I suppose there could be some conversion going on that’s not explicit, but that hasn’t been my experience.

If your top concern is quality, you shouldn’t be listening to MP3s in the first place. I prefer the convenience of MP3s to other less-popular, often larger formats.

Actually, the terms “advocacy” and “I talked like you” sound more political than religious. People advocate products all the time…geeks, especially. I do this at least once a week on my site, and more often in person. There’s nothing wrong with that–it’s generally because of good design.

What one should always do with any product is educate yourself, evaluate it and arrive at the best decision, without prejudice. In truth, I bought the iPod despite my prejudice, and it convinced me otherwise. Regardless of the name on the back, it is a remarkable piece of technology. When I bought it in October, 2002, there wasn’t another device that came close to it in terms of reliable, interface, size, etc.

[Reply]

Rog
January 9th, 2004
9:44 pm

Well fair enough, I stand corrected and it does make a difference on my opinion.

As I said, the iPod Mini looks more attractive to me (though we’ll see on price point for street value when I purchase).

As for MP3 and quality, that’s all dependant on bitrate. Yes, there is better quality at the same bitrates with other formats, but most of my music I long ago encoded, I don’t want it further degraded. More recent encodings, I have in OGG. It does affect my purchase decision, because quite frankly I don’t wish to re-encode my 500+ CDs.

[Reply]

Paul Wells
January 10th, 2004
7:43 am

I also love the term “weird pseudo-blog.” I think you’re right. I think it’s important to enforce rigorous standards of conformity in blogging. I think everyone’s blog should look the same and behave the same.
If we work hard, we can stamp out quirkiness and any hint of difference in blogging. Certainly I could give you the names of a half-dozen bloggers who are as intent as you seem to be on policing, outing and shaming any — shudder! — “weird” blogs.

[Reply]

Darren
January 10th, 2004
11:57 am

Why did I call it a ‘weird pseudo-blog’?

* You don’t offer a place for comments. You do provide an email address. I sent you two queries on separate issues, and didn’t receive a reply. Why include an address at all, then? I should point out that you had the luxury of commenting on my entry on my site…why not provide that luxury to others?

[Edited at 11:52am to add the following]
In fact, you could have probably avoided my ‘psuedo-blog’ comment altogether, had you replied to my email query which read “I’m curious as to why you don’t–like most other bloggers–enable comments on this site? You appear to be interested in two-way communication (you provide your email address after each item), but aren’t willing to make it public? I’d recommend having a link somewhere explaining why you don’t offer commenting. Thanks.” That was a legitimate, genuine question. I’m sorry if you misinterpreted it.

* There are no permalinks to each entry.
* There’s no RSS feed.

These are standard features of most blogs. Hence, it’s legitimate of me to call it a ‘pseudo-blog’.

* It’s branded as part of the Maclean’s site. This is just weird, not pseudo-bloggish. Why, if you want to offer your independent views, do it on your MacLean’s site? Am I to believe that MacLean’s thinks the iPod mini sucks, too?

All of this smacks of a corporate PR move that hasn’t quite worked out. That is, the MacLean’s folks didn’t quite get it. If they wanted to achieve a certain level of online, 21st century cred, they should have done their research better. If you just wanted a more informal environment for your writing, perhaps you shouldn’t be using the MacLean’s brand.

I should know about this, because I made some similar mistakes while setting up my former employers’ (now one of my clients) blogs at http://capescience.blogspot.com. My employers explicited instructed me not to include comments on this site…maybe that’s been the case for you as well?

[Reply]

Jim Elve
January 10th, 2004
1:07 pm

Stop! Stop! You’re both right! Now, I want you boys to shake hands and make up. I see that Paul’s travelling to Van, so maybe you two can actually hug.

I can agree with much of what Darren says. Most of what we consider high-quality, fully functional blogs do have features that the Maclean’s blog lacks: comments, RSS, permalinks.

I can also agree with what Paul says when he defends individuality and “quirkiness”. It would, indedd, be a dull old blogosphere if every blog looked the same.

With reference to the lack of comments, there are some high powered bloggers who don’t have this feature enabled. The biggest guy out there, InstaPundit (http://www.instapundit.com - 80,000 vistors/day), doesn’t have comments. I don’t see RSS on his site, either. Colby Cosh (www.colbycosh.com) is another who has no comments and his permalinks are self-defined as semi-permanent.

I think that the lack of permalinks is a bigger issue than the others, though. If I link to something, I’d like to think that there’s a good chance that the content I’ve linked to will be at that URL next week or next year.

Commenting is a great feature but I suspect the corporate wonks are afraid of some sh*t-fer-brains getting in there and saying libellous things. The BBC site manages to allow commenting and I think Maclean’s could do so, too.

RSS? Most Blogger/Blogspot blogs don’t have it.

In the end, I think it boils down to writing. That’s really what blogging’s all about. Paul’s a professional writer with great skills and sources. Jean Chretien’s never called *me* on the phone. I took Paul’s web writing style to task a couple of months ago but, lately, I like what he’s done. I even posted some kudos a few weeks ago:
http://www.blogscanada.ca/blog/PermaLink.aspx/05fcabc6-8155-477d-afdd-d4c9ca05735f

My pet peeves with the Maclean’s site: animated ads and pop-ups. I’ve been a Maclean’s print subscriber for about 30 years. I really wish they’d cookie me and stop with the heavy-handed solicitation.

[Reply]

Jim Elve
January 10th, 2004
1:39 pm

I just took a fresh look at Paul’s blog and see that there are now permalinks. My apologies for my previous criticism on that score. BTW, an anonymous commenter on my post (mentioned above) said that the Maclean’s blog is well-disguised MT. Looks to be the case.

[Reply]

zero
January 10th, 2004
2:09 pm

if it makes the hardcore anti-apple left feel better, HP will now be slapping their name on apple’s product.

From the San Jose Mercury News:
|||||||
Posted on Thu, Jan. 08, 2004

HP to sell version of Apple iPod
DEAL IS PART OF HEWLETT-PACKARD’S PUSH INTO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
By Dean Takahashi
Mercury News

Hewlett-Packard has joined the pack of computer makers diving into the consumer electronics market, announcing today it would license a branded version of Apple’s popular iPod music player as well as sell television sets and big-screen projectors.

“We think Apple did a great job,” said Chris Morgan, HP’s vice president of worldwide marketing, in an interview. “We think that is a huge opportunity to expand what they did into the mass market. HP can reach 110,000 retail outlets, so we can address a large part of the market that Apple can’t.”

(SNIP)
|||||||||||||||

piggy-backing much?

[Reply]

Darren
January 10th, 2004
2:23 pm

Thanks for this. Indeed, I didn’t spot the permalinks either at first.

I appreciate that the greater a person’s celebrity, the less likely they are to have comments. I don’t quite know why this is, but that seems to be a trend. At the same time, it’s peculiar that Mr. Wells includes his email address at the bottom of each entry. This would seem to run counter to the celebrity-blog-as-one-way-communication model.

[Reply]

Steve
February 17th, 2004
10:43 pm

The mini iPod battery is not replaceable. How important is this in considering whether to buy it? By the way, it also supports Audible (audible.com) books.

[Reply]

Add a comment