Page 3 of 5

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:41 am
by Chris Corbyn
I use gtkPod to put music on there.

The reason you use a program to do it... iPod's use a database to handle the file orgainisation.

When you have a tonne of songs on your iPod that probably is nice performance increase when searching for tunes etc... ? :)

I do think it's more of a cool factor though... those little white nano's are pweety cool :D Yeah, I'm the daddy :P

Some other nice features...

A few <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> games :P
Artwork display
Photo viewer
Organiser (whoopy doo :P)
(I like this one) -- They release software updates for the iPod itself that go on via USB so it'll no doubt get more features/slicker GUI over time :D

EDIT | Wow... 6 (oh... 7 now) smilies in one post :P

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:17 pm
by Roja
Burrito wrote:yes I did see the "trial" version and its features, I'm just trying to be jackassish here.

but regardless of that, it still doesnt' answer my question, what is it about iPods that is so appealing?
Well, the best response to sarcasm is cold hard facts.

You can in fact install music directly onto an iPod without iTunes. You can use it as a usb drive, you can use third party programs, or you can just break down and use the *gasp* free iTunes to move music onto it.

Now, if you actually want the interface on the iPod to organize the music, then yes, you will need to use a program that uses the correct interface to update the db on the iPod. Again, that could be a third-party program, or iTunes.

In almost every case, you aren't in fact required to pay. Not for the transfer software, nor for the music. I've put gigs of mp3's (legally ripped!) onto an iPod. Its simple, and didn't cost a penny for either.

The appeal is having a portable music player that doesn't skip much, that holds a substantial collection of music. While looking very cool. It happens to have a good interface, a great software package, and an amazing sound quality. But those are just benefits that put it above the competition. The core "why is it appealing" is that it does its job *very* well, and is stylish to boot. Its basically the same reasons OSX sells like mad.

Of course, I should note that I don't own one yet. I simply have no time where I am away from a computer or my beloved mp3-cd car stereo where I would get sufficient value out of an iPod to make me want one. The video iPod is *very* tempting however..

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:12 pm
by jayshields
i can never see myself wanting some sort of portable video device. lets face it, in order for it to be worth watching, the screen has to be pretty big, so big infact, that it wont fit in your pocket anymore, and it wont actually be that portable. if it cant fit in your pocket, itll have to go in a backpack or something, where space is aplenty, so you may aswell just buy a portable dvd player instead, save money, and have hot swapped storage :)

look at the mobile phones coming out soon with TV tuners on them, seriously, how can you watch a tv programme on a 3.5" screen or w/e.

i think the same with the colour screen mp3 players, whats the point?!?! i mean, it only has a colour screen to view photos (and album art), and to transfer the photos to it, you need a computer, so why not just view them on there? if you wanna show your friends them, put them on your phone, email, burn to disc, w/e.

keeping to being a moaning tw*t (...:)) i dont like the features on mobile phones anymore either, i would easily trade in my colour screen photo taking/viewing, video recording/viewing nokia 6230i for a phone with no color screen, no camera, no photo/video viewing capabilities, aslong as its battery lasted a week and it was small enough for me to fit three of them in my pocket.

one thing i wouldnt mind, however, is a phone which integrated an mp3 player properly. i mean, before camera phones, i would say hardly anyone carried a digital camera and there mobile in their pocket at the same time, and though, bugger, im gunna look stupid with all this in my pocket, i wish there was such thing as a camera phone. these days, in my pocket i have my mp3 player and my phone, surely a music phone is a better idea than a camera phone? phone companies should focus on them more :)

massive stupid pointless rant over :)

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:19 pm
by onion2k
I've got a 2Gb Nano I use at the gym and out walking. It's a top little gadget. iTunes however is a bloated sack of ****.

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:38 pm
by Roja
jayshields wrote:i can never see myself wanting some sort of portable video device. lets face it, in order for it to be worth watching, the screen has to be pretty big
I held out a simple standard: As soon as it can do the same resolution as my TV, its good enough. Since NTSC TV is roughly 480x440, and the iPod resolution is 220x176, we are realistically close (just about 1/2 way there).

The PSP resolution is 480x272, which is remarkably close to TV resolution. I've used the PSP, and it is absolutely worth watching. On a plane, its *perfect* for watching movies.
jayshields wrote: look at the mobile phones coming out soon with TV tuners on them, seriously, how can you watch a tv programme on a 3.5" screen or w/e.
Seriously, take a PSP on a plane with you, and you won't ask this so seriously anymore. Its very easy to say that until you've used one, and suddenly, you realize - size doesn't always matter.
jayshields wrote:i think the same with the colour screen mp3 players, whats the point?!?! i mean, it only has a colour screen to view photos (and album art), and to transfer the photos to it, you need a computer, so why not just view them on there? if you wanna show your friends them, put them on your phone, email, burn to disc, w/e.
Again, you are ignoring the key market: Places where emailing them *isnt* easy. At school, and you wanna show your buddies the latest penny arcade? Perfect. Emailing would be burdensome, and burning would be a joke.

Your needs arent the needs of every market - thats why they've sold so well!
jayshields wrote:one thing i wouldnt mind, however, is a phone which integrated an mp3 player properly. i mean, before camera phones, i would say hardly anyone carried a digital camera and there mobile in their pocket at the same time, and though, bugger, im gunna look stupid with all this in my pocket, i wish there was such thing as a camera phone. these days, in my pocket i have my mp3 player and my phone, surely a music phone is a better idea than a camera phone? phone companies should focus on them more :)
There are "some", but keep in mind that they compete with a high-profit item for cell companies: Ringtones and downloadable music. The cell companies want a (*big*) slice of the music download business, and so far, they've been shut out. Don't expect that to change soon.

Video iPods werent just a good idea - they were *inevitable*. As soon as you put music in someone's pocket, they'll consider video. The only difference is that your lifestyle and your needs right now don't meet their target market. Its the same reason I don't own an iPod or music player - I just dont have a need for it. I *always* have either a computer or my beloved mp3-cd player (in my car) nearby. However, for travel, the iPod video starts to change the equation quite a bit for me..

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:56 pm
by Chris Corbyn
jayshields wrote:one thing i wouldnt mind, however, is a phone which integrated an mp3 player properly. i mean, before camera phones, i would say hardly anyone carried a digital camera and there mobile in their pocket at the same time, and though, bugger, im gunna look stupid with all this in my pocket, i wish there was such thing as a camera phone. these days, in my pocket i have my mp3 player and my phone, surely a music phone is a better idea than a camera phone? phone companies should focus on them more :)
I have a 3G Motorola Phone that's almost as big as the first nokias an looks a bit pants but that has a transflash port for adding (at present) up to 256MB of storage and it play videos/MP3s too ;) I think most new mobile phones have MP3 players built in now :D

EDIT | If you've never seen a transflash card they are scarily small... it's about the size of my smallest finger nail :?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:07 pm
by jayshields
when i said phones should implement mp3 players properly, i mean hard drive storage baby! :P

flash memory isn't good enough for a "proper" mp3 player in my book, ok the 4gb flash mem in the ipod nano is pretty darn good, but ive not seen 4gb+ flash memory before. Put a 5gb+ hard drive in a mobile and your laughing, i reckon the first company to do that will sell alot of mobiles! it's just a shame that if you drop a hard drive based mp3 player (referring to mine...) they usually are broken beyond repair straight away, given that it's a pretty hard impact; so a phone would do the same. i am gunna contradict myself and say flash memory is better for mp3 players... aslong as it's 5gb+ :P

the new sony 20gb players (is it NW-5 or something?) have that g sensor technology to remove the hard drive reader thing when it's about to hit the floor when dropped, that doesnt actually work by the way, lol. my mate dropped his and it instantly died.

i got a 5gb hard drive in my zen micro, and ive seen one in real life; they're 1 inch by 1 inch; surely they can be put into mobile phones, not forgetting the 1" 5GB hard drive came into mass production atleast 2 years ago, something better will be out by now.

imho an mp3 that cant hold my entire music collection isnt big enough for me. i am creeping up to 5gb's worth now, but i got about half a gig of stuff i could do with deleting, not to mention a load of poorly compressed stuff (and MP3's) which could all be re-encoded to 128kbs (or smaller...) WMA.

edit: in reply to (ah bugger, in edit post mode i cant see thread history...) sorry i forgot who posted it already.. lol. anyway, i have seen a game played on the PSP, and yeah, the screen looks really sharp, but it's too big, it wouldn't fit in my pocket, and UMD will never take off. I haven't seen a UMD drive for a computer yet (correct me if im wrong...), so burning your own movies/TV to watch on the PSP isnt possible as far as im aware, meaning shelling out for each movie in a shop, that you might even already own on DVD!

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:46 pm
by Roja
jayshields wrote:anyway, i have seen a game played on the PSP, and yeah, the screen looks really sharp, but it's too big, it wouldn't fit in my pocket
Tight leather pants don't count. Get a good pair of loose-fit jeans, and it fits just fine. Glad you found a portable screen you can deal with watching. :)
jayshields wrote:, and UMD will never take off. I haven't seen a UMD drive for a computer yet (correct me if im wrong...), so burning your own movies/TV to watch on the PSP isnt possible as far as im aware, meaning shelling out for each movie in a shop, that you might even already own on DVD!
"UMD Emulator mimicks the activity of a UMD drive to load an ISO of that UMD game from your memory stick".

You can already download iso's of UMD's, get a memory stick, load up UMD emulator, and you are all set. Not to mention, you've been able to transfer movie files from your computer since the PSP was released. Day one it came with the software that let you do so.

Not to mention, virtually every Sony produced DVD now ships with a UMD included as well.

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:59 pm
by Chris Corbyn
It won't be long beofre UMD drives for PCs appear ;)

Sony have probably done UMD a massive favour using that media in the PSP. There will soon be a demand for the ability to burn UMD on your home PC...

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:04 am
by jayshields
surely they only used UMD to stop piracy because UMD drives aren't out for PC yet, if they are going to start manufacturing them then sony should have gone for mini-DVD's.

i doubt sony will go bananas with the UMD anyway as soon enough they are going to be literally throwing money at the Blue-Ray discs nearer the time when the PS3 is out.

The UMD emulator thing sounds pretty good, memory sticks are too expensive though :(

btw, d11wtq, do you support manchester united:?::evil:

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:27 am
by Grim...
Roja wrote:(legally ripped!)
There's no such thing. What you're trying to say is 'Not blatently stolen'.
d11wtq wrote:I have a 3G Motorola Phone that's almost as big as the first nokias an looks a bit pants but that has a transflash port for adding (at present) up to 256MB of storage and it play videos/MP3s too ;) I think most new mobile phones have MP3 players built in now
Yeah, I've got a (also quite big) Song Ericsson P910i with 1GB of memory for my mp3's.

I still have to carry a proper Digicam around because, let's face it, phone cams are crap.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:03 am
by jayshields
being fair, phone cameras arent too bad now, mine is 1.3mp and seems ok, my mates got one of those w800i's with a 2mp camera, that looks nice.

i only ever use digital cameras on holiday and 2mp isnt really good enough, especially when you can get decent branded 5mp cameras for about £150.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:43 am
by Chris Corbyn
Grim... wrote:
Roja wrote:(legally ripped!)
There's no such thing. What you're trying to say is 'Not blatently stolen'.
So far as I'm aware you have every right to convert your own purchased audio CDs to MP3 format for use by yourself... I mean you own it.. you can do what you like with it.
jayshields wrote:btw, d11wtq, do you support manchester united:?
Not a big football fan, I only watch International stuff like the world cup. I'm not from Manchester anyway, I'm actually from Middlesbrough - I just moved here for a better job.

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:11 am
by jayshields
cool, just wondering coz im a die hard leeds united fan :)

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:13 am
by Grim...
Transferring music from one medium to another is classed as copyright infringement (as is lending it to your mates, or playing it in your car with the windows open).

It's <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>, <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> stupid.