Topic: iPod 4G Release: Where's the OGG? (Read 3291 times)

elpaolo · « **on:** July 19, 2004, 09:25:50 am »

Another iPod release, another cute device w/out OGG support. Really, how can Jobs tout Apple as being so much more the "friendly," cutting-edge brand than Microsoft when they repeatedly refuse to give consumers the options they demand? OGG is a serious codec, not a flash in the pan, right? It deserves more attention than this, especially since adding support for it won't concede anything to the WMA army.

Where do people stand on portables? Do I need to accept this just isn't going to happen, or will waiting it out see results?

My other gripe w/ hard drive players at-large - consumers deserve removable batteries. The technology is there. It's been done before. Apple's setup is clear, and resentful - drop $300+ now and in two years drop another $100 for a battery or another $300 for a new one altogether. Walkmen's were never so money hungry or high-maintanence. Not CD players eithers. Or Mini-Disc. I'll pay more up front for the bleeding-edgeness of it all, but I expect more options that won't void my warranty. Sell replacement batteries for $30-$45 and I'll condsider joining this little subculture.

While your at it, Jobs, how about FM radio support, too. iRiver can do it - can't you?

Jobs talks a big talk, flaunts his new releases like no other, gets up on stage and really waves it all around. He has to. I can handle that. But looks aren't everything. "Sleek" and "hip" can't replace simple functionality and breadth of options. Marketing ploys attract the average user, the easily-convinced and relatively uninformed. There is, however, an army of readers that actually read spec sheets, compare features and wait out the race for the absolute best.

For now, I'll keep my money (and continue burning CDs for car rides) until Apple gets a clue.

JimH · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2004, 09:36:04 am »

Here's a news.com article on the new iPods:

http://news.com.com/Apple+hatches+fourth-generation+iPod/2100-1041_3-5274032.html?tag=nefd.top

kiwi · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2004, 09:46:04 am »

Sure they are a bit expensive, but I've found mine to be worth every cent I paid for it. (I have the original 5G 1st G unit.) I don't care about ogg support, if it ever supports it, great, I'll make an Ogg copy of my APEs and put them on it... if I thought that I could hear the difference from the iPod outputs... through head phones, while I'm working out... or in my car.

And I wish mine would have battery problems so that I could justify getting a new G4 one. {Since I know that if I get one before this one dies, it will die sortly there after.}

Edit: Da mn, forgot to add that this device can play lossless files. Sure they aren't APE, but something's better than nothing. Now, if only it had a digital output.

oh well.
kiwi

bobrock · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2004, 01:19:35 pm »

Still NO crossfading support.

SUCH a SHAME !!!!!!!!!!!!

Shame on you Apple !!!!!!!!!!

elpaolo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2004, 01:25:19 pm »

Still, the engraving could be cool...

Rob L · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2004, 02:27:56 pm »

Just don't buy an iPod then - there are plenty of alternatives out there...

Still can't see why people do anyway.

maxl311 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 20, 2004, 01:55:20 am »

Starflyer, don't mean to be overly contradictory here, but I think your comments about Ogg support are missing the point about the iPod. The iPod is a mass-market device; the "average user" you refer to is the iPod's market; audiophiles are a niche market at best.

And no matter what Ogg's technical and political merits (and there are many), there is no denying that Ogg at best serves a niche market with a relatively small number of users compared to MP3, WMA, or even AAC. Why should Apple spend QA and Development resources implementing, testing, and supporting a format that opens only a small niche market to them? What's the upside of spending their money this way? I'm sure they are doing just basic cost-benefit analysis here, and all they see is that the costs outweigh the potential benefits. They made the call that their target market does not care about this feature, and if they are wrong, then they will pay the price in the marketplace. From the results that the iPod has gotten in the marketplace, it doesn't appear that a signifcant number of people actually care that the iPod does not support Ogg. And in fact, one might argue that other companies that do support Ogg have wasted their development money since the market hasn't rewarded this support by making the devices wildly successful.

Plus, Apple designers and developers seem to be holding pretty fast to the "keep it simple" method of design; adding support for more formats makes things more complicated for them in a lot of different ways. The iPod is justifiably popular because it was designed for people to actually use, rather than for people to have to figure out. A key part of this design formula is to keep things as simple as they need to be, and no simpler. Ogg support does not make the device any simpler or easier to use.

Keeping the iPod as simple as it needs to be satisfies the vast majority of potential buyers, and combines with the stunningly superb user interaction and visual design of the hardware and software to make the iPod an intensely desired product for the masses of people who don't give a hoot about what format a file is in as long as it plays and sounds good enough on their device, and they can easily find it and play it on the device. (And the people who absolutely do not care about the political and technical wars over audio file formats vastly outnumber those of us who do care.)

paulr · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2004, 02:11:27 am »

Wow! How ironic... I never thought I would actually read a sentence like this:

Quote

Why should Apple spend QA and Development resources implementing, testing, and supporting a format that opens only a small niche market to them?

Perhaps because for the last 20+ years, Apple's entire business model was to fill a niche market?

Anyway, instead of waiting for the iPod to support a format, why not buy a player from a company that meets your needs? It sounds like iRiver is pretty close. I do think the lack of a replaceable battery is a very legitimate complaint though - seems like a money grab to me.

For my own tastes, I am always disinclined to buy anything that is currently trendy or "hot".

maxl311 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2004, 03:13:38 am »

I totally agree that if you need or want Ogg, then buy a player other than the iPod. I just thought it rather odd to hear complaints that the iPod doesn't support the format, given that the iPod is clearly not paying a significant price in the marketplace for not supporting Ogg.

I agree that it's ironic that Apple finally owns a market (digital audio players) after serving a niche market (premium personal computers) for so many years. Funny thing is that this whole discussion reminds me of my Mac-head friends complaining years ago that their Windows/DOS computers at school or work wouldn't natively support Mac HFS-format diskettes, but that their Macs would natively support FAT-formatted diskettes.

elpaolo · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2004, 10:05:09 am »

What it all comes down to is that I want the features of the iRiver models in an iPod casing...plus the removable battery (I can't remember if iRiver had that option...I thought one of Creative's models had that...).

So it's somewhat marginal "beef" to have with Apple, but nonetheless, they really DO cater to fringe, niche markets (both in terms of technology and buying power). I think "audiophiles" fall right into this category. Look at Moby, one of iTunes'/iPod's biggest advocates. He's definately the audiophile type.

Slashdot people have been discussing for a while now that the 4G version can handle the OGG processing. So why not? I'm sure OGG usage could eclipse other features on the device (ie calendar, games, etc).

Good discusssion here...thanks for all the opinions.

kiwi · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2004, 12:29:27 pm »

While it isn't the best option, there are now external battery packs for the iPods.

kiwi

hit_ny · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2004, 12:49:15 pm »

iRiver gets my vote for offering the best in terms of upgradeable firmware. I had a Rio Volt and last i checked they were still offering firmware for it (latest was less than a yr ago) for a product thats already 3 yrs old now.

i was reading the slashdot thread on the new iPod and noted that Apple in terms of upgradeable firmware is no where close. Its possible to have most of the features people have been asking for, ported to earlier iPod models but they keep those features for the latest models only.

elpaolo · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2004, 02:51:11 pm »

Yea, but an external battery pack for when the embedded one dies is just more bulk.

If these digital portables are going to be just that - portable - they need to be designed with that as one of the top three priorities. I'm sure it is, actually. But look at phones these days. Battery dies, buy a replacement. Snap-out, snap-in. Easy. Why should these devices be any different.

Stop me if I'm wrong. Stop me if I'm wrong!

paulr · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:09:20 pm »

I think the non-replaceable battery was a business decision. In the history of rechargeable devices (cordless phones, walkman radios, portable CD players, cell phones, etc.) there have been very few devices with non replaceable batteries... Actually, I can't think of a single one, except the digital music players. It makes absolutely no sense, unless it was a business decision to force people to upgrade to newer devices when batteries died.

KingSparta · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:16:47 pm »

Quote from: Rob L on July 19, 2004, 02:27:56 pm

Just don't buy an iPod then - there are plenty of alternatives out there...

Still can't see why people do anyway.

because Ipod has 80% market share

and is well suported by apple and the rest of the market.

Unlike My Blue Yugo

bjsolem · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:33:02 pm »

Quote from: starflyer on July 21, 2004, 02:51:11 pm

But look at phones these days. Battery dies, buy a replacement. Snap-out, snap-in. Easy. Why should these devices be any different.

Stop me if I'm wrong. Stop me if I'm wrong!

You're not wrong.

The difference: Cell providers LOSE money on the phone and MAKE money on the service. If you use one phone for 5 years they are very excited.

Apple etc. MAKES money on the player (a ton of it) and BREAKS EVEN, or close to it, on Itunes. If you buy a new device once every year they are very excited.

KingSparta · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:51:42 pm »

but the phones accualy have a very high sugested retail price so providers can discount them, and still keep a high price in there contracts so when you cancel they can charge you.

Phones don't cost $350.00 to make.

TAFKAFEX · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2004, 03:59:57 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on July 21, 2004, 03:16:47 pm

because Ipod has 80% market share

and is well suported by apple and the rest of the market.

Unlike My Blue Yugo

So this was your Yugo with an apple on top?

KingSparta · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:03:15 pm »

No, JimH had Matt drive a Blue YoGo To My House Back In 2002 On His Summer Vacation

A Picture Of It May Be In The Forum In The Forum Archive

GHammer · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:12:20 pm »

Quote from: bjsolem on July 21, 2004, 03:33:02 pm

Quote from: starflyer on July 21, 2004, 02:51:11 pm
But look at phones these days. Battery dies, buy a replacement. Snap-out, snap-in. Easy. Why should these devices be any different.

Stop me if I'm wrong. Stop me if I'm wrong!

You're not wrong.

The difference: Cell providers LOSE money on the phone and MAKE money on the service. If you use one phone for 5 years they are very excited.

Apple etc. MAKES money on the player (a ton of it) and BREAKS EVEN, or close to it, on Itunes. If you buy a new device once every year they are very excited.

How an arrogant company like Apple got to be the darling of the tech world is beyond me.

But, to my point. Phones aren't free everywhere. Here, in the largest mobile phone market in the world, you pay for your phone and pay for your service.

Batteries have a lifetime. For a company that is held to be an example of excellence in engineering to design a product with a permanent battery has to be a money driven choice. Looks like everyone paid US$100 too much until the other day.

Funny what some competition does, eh?

elpaolo · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2004, 04:31:26 pm »

Interesting points about business decisions.

Prices will continue to come down, I'm guessing. Technology does that over time. Perhaps, then, Apple can add these other features (the battery particularly) and not increase the pricing schemes too drastically.

I've had the same portable CD player for ages. I'm used to that...to longevity. And in my mind, that's standard issue for portable anything. I'm not going to fork over money year after year just so I can have it not plugged into a wall....the way it's SUPPOSED to be used. If that's the way it has to be, that's fine. I'm just voicing my discontent...cause I'd certainly like to be able to justify the purchase.

Rob L · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2004, 06:32:01 pm »

It's not 80%, unless you're quoting a US figure...

but the point is that they didn't always have 80%, so that can't be the reason why people *started* buying them!

KingSparta · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2004, 06:56:12 pm »

Quote

It's not 80%, unless you're quoting a US figure...

I read a US artical a few days ago, thats what they said 80%

maxl311 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:41:49 am »

The iPod's battery design is an interesting product marketing issue. The non-removable battery of the iPod is, to my mind, the most egregious design flaw in what is otherwise a superbly designed device. Who knows why they did it? To force people to upgrade every couple of years? Because it would have ruined the sleek outline of the outer shell?

No matter what, there is no denying that it is a design flaw that has the effect that you either have to buy an extended warranty to cover yourself in case the battery needs to be replaced, pay to replace a battery that dies, or purchase a new device if the battery dies.

The funny thing is, though, that Apple does not seem to be paying the price in the marketplace for having done what they did with the battery -- they still own at least 50% market share of the portable digital audio market (and that's just based on sales -- I suspect that if someone studied which players actually get used regularly, the iPod would prove to be even more popular). So ... I can only conclude that the iPod's vast superiority to other players in other design and usability areas must so outweigh the battery issue that people are willing to take the chance on the battery. In other words, the lack of a user replaceable battery , though an important issue, is not a deal breaker or deal maker for most people.

elpaolo · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2004, 10:21:08 am »

Nice point. The iPod is just too darn sexy for people to know better. And now, with attention ever-growing, it's too hip, as well.

It's like people going to see Catwoman this weekend. They know it's not up to snuff, but what average, mortal man can resist Halle Barry in black leather?

Tough call, but I know I'm stronger than that.

Thanks for all the posts, people.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: iPod 4G Release: Where's the OGG? (Read 3291 times)

TAFKAFEX