Microsoft's Tips for Buying an MP3 Player

An Anonymous Reader writes "In another extension of Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure' campaign, the company has launched a web page with six tips to help consumers purchase the 'correct' MP3 Player for them. Among the insights of the article hard drive-based players suck and a stopwatch is a useful feature to have on your player. Unsurprisingly, the iPod meets none of Microsoft's criteria. A humorous commentary is available, of course." From the article: "6. Don't get locked into one online store. Have you ever been on the hunt for a particular song? Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for."

Well, in all fairness

[skomes (868255)]

They didn't say microdrive players suck, but the page IS about flash players. About the display thing, I wholeheartedly agree, I think people assume any ipod is "teh coolness", but I'd rather buy a flash player with a display and fm tuner for the same price as an ipod shuffle, I think apple manages to confuse a decent amount of people, and the apple fanatics, well, they'll buy anything apple.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that Apple consistently gets right is the usability. I have an MP3 player with display, but it's a pain to use. There are just too many user interface inconsistencies. The thing won't even stop fading each track when you skip through a couple of tracks at a time. I realize that the display won't fix that. Given that I want to listen to music and not stare at it, I have to say that a usable player without display beats a player with a display and horrible interaction design any day. I'd prefer if the Shuffle had a display, but it doesn't need one to come out on top of the competition.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Storlek (860226)]

I have yet to hear my iPod skip at all, ever, and I ride my bike and run with it in my pocket. It gets shaken most of the time it's on.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Slack3r78 (596506)]

I bought a refurbed 3G iPod in early January. In late February, the HD would clunk and the iPod would lock up trying to read certain songs and files. Rather than risk it, as I use my iPod for moving data as well as music, I contacted Apple for an RMA.

I filled out the RMA form on the website, the next day, DHL dropped off a box of my doorstep. I put the iPod in the box, called DHL, and they came back to pick it up about 20 minutes later. I got my iPod back about 3 days later.

There's no need to know the guy at the returns counter, AppleCare is how warranties should be. The only better experience I've had even close was when I RMA'd my Sony Ericsson phone, but I had to actually drive that to the post office myself. :)

Re:Well, in all fairness

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

A bit over a month ago, I got back onto a dirt bike for the first time in years. I wasn't doing anything crazy, just some easy trail riding and off-road sightseeing, mostly in the same general area. I was on my way back from one of these outings, humming down the track I'd been using to get home each day, came around a corner into a narrow section only to find some kind soul had dumped a half-metre high pile of dirt across the path. I didn't have my dirt bike reflexes back by any means, and hit the pile off balance and carrying a fair bit of momentum.

The front suspension bottomed out at the same time as I pitched forward, then those big springs uncompressed and slammed the tank into my groin hard enough to crease the plastic. I'd lost a lot of speed by then and didn't so much crash as roll to a standstill and fall off. It was probably only a few minutes, but it seemed like hours before I could move enough to take a breath and turn the MP3 player off. As a result of this experience I can vouch for two things;

1. the iPod never skipped a note
2. hearing the Foo Fighters' MIA still makes my eyes water.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[kalel666 (587116)]

"then those big springs uncompressed and slammed the tank into my groin hard enough to crease the plastic"

See? There's your problem. You should always use a groin of case hardened steel, instead of cheaping out and going for plastic. Lesson learned.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Spruitje (15331)]

Yes they did. They said the HD-based players skip if you move them around while they're playing.
Anyone know if this is true?

To let an iPod skip is almost impossible.
The iPod stores about 30 minutes of music in ram.
Every 30 minutes it spins its harddrive for about 10 secondes to load another 30 minutes of music into ram.
So, to let an iPod skip is next to impossible.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

I furnished an apartment for less than $100.

That's nothing. I got a pretty nice mountain bike for only [bicyclerevolution.com] $39.99 [shop.com]

Re:Well, in all fairness

[Detritus (11846)]

A good FM radio costs considerably more than $2. It needs a well-designed RF input stage, frequency-synthesized tuning or a very stable VFO, and good IF filters. Most consumer-grade FM radios turn to shit in a hostile RF environment like found in many urban areas.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[iowannaski (766150)]

So, making a player with no screen is doing themselves a disservice, while making a player with a color screen is lunacy.

Monochrome or bust, baby!

Re:Well, in all fairness

[ChuyMatt (318775)]

well, i would just like to say that the shuffle is not for you. For people who don't care about what they are hearing as long is songs that they like and without commercials, then that is for them.

For us, the 40 was the best option. Keep in mind that there are others out there that do not have our wants and lives.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[gb506 (738638)]

Mod this dude up. I'm a bit tired of fiber-deficient /.ers trashing products and services that don't fit their own personal needs. Find another, for Pete's sake! There are over 6 billion people on this rock. You can't build a unique iPod for all of 'em.

Re:Well, in all fairness

[rhombic (140326)]

Adds too much to the cost? The 30GB photo is $350, the 20GB monochrome is $300. Adding the color screen is only a 17% price increase, and you get 50% more storage space to boot.

I have the 30GB photo, and several of my friends have 20GB mono models. I can assure you, the color screen makes navigation much easier, as well as making the calendar and solitare functions actually usable. But I guess to each their own...

Doesn't this sound reminiscant of the days when the first color PDAs and color phones were coming out? Same arguements, will probably end up the same place (other than the very budget end, how many mono PDAs and phones do you see on shelves today?)

Why hasn't apple made a high-end flash player w/ a display & etc? It seems really simple to me. Apple makes a pretty good margin on its harddrive players (at least compared to the shuffle). It's a proven product. Jobs isn't going to risk hurting the hard drive player sales by competing against them with a high-end flash player. So they introduced a flash player into the only market segment (sub-$200) that wasn't populated w/ an existing player. Compared w/ a harddrive player, the shuffle really doesn't work as well with the itunes library model where you sync all of your songs between your PC and your ipod, and build playlists of the tunes you want to hear. It's good marketing, creates and entry level product, and simplifies the product. (obviously, yes, I've drunk the Kool-Aid. And then wondered why I waited so long ;)

RE: Apple's iPod options

[King_TJ (85913)]

I don't know.... I can see the validity to the argument that the Shuffle lowers the bar for "Apple quality" - since it's just a "me too" flash player for people who only shop for "cheap".

On the other hand, it went along with the Mac Mini, which is another experiment by Apple to cater to the lower end of the market - and most people consider the Mac Mini a stunning success.

I'd never buy a Shuffle, but by the same token, I'd also never buy an iPod Mini. They seem like "all style, no substance" to me. You pay close to the price of a player that can store 4x as much music or more, and you get the exact same thing except in a little bit smaller, colored casing? But nonetheless, it was a huge success.

Sometimes, you can't just go by the "feature set for the $" to determine what will be a "hit". It may determine what the "technophiles" among us buy, but the general public has other motivations. I've talked to a number of iPod Mini customers, and generally - they don't do lots of MP3 downloading. They jusy buy a few things here and there off iTunes and rip the CDs they already own - so 5GB is plenty of space for 'em.

Re:Do You Get the Shuffle?

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

The Shuffle is perfect and because it plays in random mode it is great that no song will be repeated too quickly.


This is the part I don't get about the iPod Shuffle. Didn't just about every MP3 player do shuffle mode both before and since?

I'm not saying it's bad, but I just don't get it as a selling point. It's like marketing the new BMW - Stearing Wheel. "It has a steering wheel so you can make turns!" um... ok. good. Anything else worth mentioning?

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether people should be buying the shuffle. I just think that if they're buying it _because_ of shuffle mode, maybe they should be made aware that there are a few other players out there that may meet their needs.

TW

Re:Well, in all fairness

[bdsesq (515351)]

The base Shuffle player holds 512 MB of music in a proprietary format.

Hmm, in all fareness RTFM.
The base Shuffle hold 512MB of
MP3 (8 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, AAC (8 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store, M4A, M4B, M4P), Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4) and WAV
You can see for yourself at http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/specs.html [apple.com]

Re:Well, in all fairness

[vought (160908)]

Let me be the first to think you for dumping lots of "fun" chemicals into the wastestream by using AA batteries to power your portable electronics.

Of course, you refer to using recordable CDs as an "utterly disposable format" so I guess you're one of those folks who thinks that plastic comes from the magic plastic tree and that when you put things into the trash can, they magically "go away".

Unfortunately, in the world I live in, we have landfills, batteries and plastic require raw materials and energy to create and are difficult to actually degrade into their components.

But hey - why consider anything but your own convenience when buying a product?

And for those ready to complain about Apple's "proprietary" battery, I think $100.00 every couple of years for a thin-pack L-Ion battery, proper disposal of said battery, and a product that doesn't eat little toxic sausages constantly is a pretty fair price to pay. YMMV.

That's totally untrue.

[gotr00t (563828)]

The fact is, iTMS and the iPod are seamlessly integrated, but Apple has done nothing to prevent users from getting their music from other sources. (to be fair, they made no effort to encourage users to use other sources either)

The iPod supports a number of popular formats, including MP3 and WAV, but not WMA (they would have had to pay licensing fees to Microsoft). Just because Apple did not support Microsoft's format, many people are insisting that its vendor lock-in. There is nothing preventing another music download service to open up tomorrow and offer MP3's or AAC's for sale (some already do), that will be compatible with the iPod.

Then is the question of motives. It has been shown that Apple makes nearly no profit off the iTMS anyway, as its probably true that the entire effort was aimed at selling more iPods. What reason do they have to lock-in users anyway? It would actually be to Apple's benefit if other music services aimed to sell music for the iPod.

The whole idea of Apple trying to force iPod users to use the iTMS is totally untrue. Why, then, would they even allow iPod users to rip from CD's or import audio files that they already had?

why isn't there a Linux mp3 player?

[Stalyn (662)]

I know about Linux PDAs and such but is there a Linux-based mp3 player. It seems like a great idea since you wouldn't have to pay fees on the OS. Plus Linux is pretty customizable. Open the player up so people can write plugins and new features. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?

Re:why isn't there a Linux mp3 player?

[mboverload (657893)]

The Neuros is open source. Hell, even the electrical diagrams are provided!

one thing that always bothered me

[circletimessquare (444983)]

few with fm radio

how come mp3 players with fm radio are so hard to find?

doesn't it occur to manufacturers/ consumers how much functionality is added with so little effort by adding fm radio?

i have an iriver IFP-180T solely on the basis of it having an fm radio

how much does the fm radio circuitry add to the cost of an mp3 player? 50 cents?

will someone please enlighten me then how come fm radio is so hard to find in mp3 players?

Re:one thing that always bothered me

[OlivierB (709839)]

The whole purpose of having an MP3 player is not to have to listen to the radio...

Re:one thing that always bothered me

[CosmeticLobotamy (155360)]

The circuitry for

a good FM radio

is not quite that cheap.

Slashdot has changed its buffering system, by the way.

They've increased the sentence-per-paragraph allowance to 2.

Just FYI.

thank you for the honesty

[circletimessquare (444983)]

but why?

what is it about fm radio that doesn't appeal to you?

to me it's a free jokebox, it has no downside

in all honesty, respectfully, i can't understand you not being impressed by fm radio

i run and listen to mp3s, then at some point i get bored with my choices, and yearn for something random and fresh: voila, radio, different channels, different tastes

why is it that, if you are correct, people are hellbent on listening to nothing but that from their own collection?

isn't that incredibly asocial and self-important and stuffy?: "i know all there is to know about my musical tastes and my tastes will never change on a moments notice and yearn to hear something new and fresh"

i don't think that my mp3 collection, as large as it is, adequately describes all of my musical interests or whims or desires to find something new and different

are people really that incredibly inward and unexperimentive about their music choices?

i honestly can't believe that

and if you are correct, well then that's sad to me

are people really that cloistered and stuffy?

Re:thank you for the honesty

[mattkinabrewmindspri (538862)]

"what is it about fm radio that doesn't appeal to you?"

I think the reason we don't want or care about FM radio can be summed up in two words:

Clear. Channel.

Re:thank you for the honesty

[value_added (719364)]

I think the reason we don't want or care about FM radio can be summed up in two words: ... Clear. Channel.

I assume what everyone is talking about when they dismiss radio as being teh suck is commerical radio. Personally, I stopped listening to commercial FM long before it became the province of Clear Channel and friends.

What is readily available on FM that is not commerical includes the following:

• NPR News
• NPR Programming
• Jazz
• Classical

If you're interested in music only, you may want to start with something like this station [kcrw.com] if you don't have something similar in your own backyard. Most likely more interesting than what you're listening to at the moment.

Then, of course, if you're not the musical type and have a preference for animated conversations in which people share their opinions with others who have identical opinions, there's always AM radio.

Re:thank you for the honesty

[justforaday (560408)]

Yeah, I can't for the life of me figure out why they're not playing any new oldies...

Re:thank you for the honesty

[dr.badass (25287)]

i run and listen to mp3s, then at some point i get bored with my choices, and yearn for something random and fresh: voila, radio, different channels, different tastes

You obviously live in a place where the the FM stations are not unholy portals of heart-wrenchingly bad music. This is a fairly rare and precious thing. In my town the only stations worth listening to are low-power (including the pirate station I used to DJ for), and the reception in my neighborhood is too crapy for a portable player. I listen in the car, but then of course I don't need a portable player at all.

All but one of the other stations are owned by Clear Channel and suck in a utterly uniform manner.

isn't that incredibly asocial and self-important and stuffy?: "i know all there is to know about my musical tastes and my tastes will never change on a moments notice and yearn to hear something new and fresh"

This statement makes the assumption that people that don't listen to the radio don't have other means of hearing new music.

Radio is *not* the only way to hear no things, and is my experience, the *worst* way to hear anything new and fresh.

Correction.

[DrEldarion (114072)]

Unsurprisingly, the iPod meets none of Microsoft's criteria.

Is that so? Up until recently, I seem to recall every iPod sold having a display.

I want a stopwatch on my ms compatible mp3 player

[DMouse (7320)]

So i can figure out how long the fucker takes to crash. No wait. :-)

Please mod fscking hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Approximate figures based on CD-quality WMA (64 Kbps)

And mod this insane

[trezor (555230)]

• 6. Don't get locked into one online store.

Call me stupid, but I thought that the store using closed & DRMed formats were the ones doing the locking in, not the player that didn't support the locked format.

After all, had they used a open format, I would be able use it on any fscking device wouldn't I?

CD Quality?

[forgoil (104808)]

From the article:

"*Approximate figures based on CD-quality WMA (64 Kbps)"

Am I the only one who don't think 64kbps WMA is "CD quality", or is it because the quality of todays recordings on CDs are quite a lot worse than they used to be, of could I just be insane?

Make me doubt one fact, and I'll start doubting all facts...

Re:CD Quality?

[x136 (513282)]

"*Approximate figures based on CD-quality WMA (64 Kbps)"

Hey, cut them a break. They probably meant that 64KBps WMA approaches old, worn-out cassette tape quality. It's a common typo. I mean, the keys for "CD-quality" and "old cassette tape quality" are right next to each other.

So which store would sell this anyway?

[Peter Cooper (660482)]

Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio? You might have to shop at more than one store before you find the song you're looking for.

Rare jazz performance? Sure, I often want stuff like that, but why would I buy it off of an online digital music store? Nearly every store supplies its songs in a mediocre 128kbps-ish format, generally sub-par to the equivalent LAME encoded 128kbps VBR MP3. Why would I want jazz, with all its high-hats and dynamic range, in an uber-low quality format? Britney Spears' new single, sure.. but jazz??

And don't say AllOfMp3.com (who have changed CC processor to someone else)..

Crazy Apple Rumors Site said it best:

[earthbound kid (859282)]

I like the CARS take on it [crazyapplerumors.com]:

• The company that manufactures your MP3 player should never be named after a fruit. That's just hippie bullshit.
• Under no circumstances should your MP3 player be stylish. You don't want to be taken for a dandy. After all, you never know when you may find yourself incarcerated through an unfortunate series of events that are no fault of your own. And you know what they do to dandies in prison. Yikes.
• When picking an operating system or office suite, it's a great idea to go with the one with the highest market share, because you're guaranteed a quality product that will be around for years to come. But not with flash-based MP3 players. It's a completely different situation. Completely.
• etc.

CARS is good stuff!

Re:Crazy Apple Rumors Site said it best:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

C'mon, you forgot to post the best one:

• Always pick a player that plays music in a format that restricts your rights as much as possible. That says "I'm not a communist." [boingboing.net]

[link in original]

Be sure to get that FM...

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to get that FM receiver option so you can listen to higher-quality music when you get tired of your 64 Kbps WMA collection.

What an odd thing to concentrate on.

[mcc (14761)]

Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio?

Funnily, this is the kind of music that you're most likely to find available as unrestricted mp3s, which will obviously work in any music player you like. [warprecords.com]

HD-based MP3 players

[haggar (72771)]

You know, in a way I tend to agree with MS here, in the sense that I always thought moving parts are a bad thing for mobile entertainment devices. Idealy, if it is possible, I'd like my MP3 player to be fully solid state tech. Less power consumption, more rugged, and perhaps higher data density.

Of course, when the price factors in he equation, HD starts to look much more attractive...

Re:HD-based MP3 players

[nordicfrost (118437)]

Well, I don't know about the ther players but the iPod has an excellent record when it comes to toughness. People may complain about the battery and... ...well all they complain about is the battery, but the harddrive is not failure prone. Folks with iPods have been jogging with them since gen. 1, and I have yet to see someone complain about a HDD failure due to jogging. My active family uses their minis to jog, inside moist jackets, and it still keeps ticking. The iPod is one tough player.

My advice for buying an mp3 player

[SmallFurryCreature (593017)]

First the most important. Set your budget. You know how much money you got. Count it and don't let anyone tell you to spend more then you want to. If the player you want costs more SAVE up for it. Do never buy with store credit. It ain't worth it.

1. HD vs flash vs CD vs Minidisc vs Someweird cd like formats.
   • HD's have the most storage but consume a lot of elec and are more vulnerable. They do not skip. MS most be of its rocker. It is CD's that skip.
   • Flash is robuust and storage is increasing but still tiny compared to HD's. Also cost less elec to run so longer battery life.
   • CD's were a cheap way to get loads of storage before flash sizes increased without the costs of HD. Now all but useless. Big, vulnareble to skipping and limited to something like 640mb.
   • Minidisc. Smaller then CD's but still limited compared to HD. A market segment on its own. I had one before the HD player and it was sweet but the HD is sweeter.
   • Weird formats. Don't bother.

   Basic conclusion? Determine your size needs. This is based on A. How long do you listen it in one go. B. What is your tolerance for repeats. C. How often do you chance your songs. If you use it 4 hours per day, can't stand to hear the same song more then once in a week and never replace your songlist you are going to need more space then someone who likes to listen to the same album over and over again. HD's also can be damaged more easily by extreme rough use. Not by carrying them with you in your pocket while running but if you throw your stuff around the hd might not survive. For most people there will be no problems.

2. Goodies. Ehm yeah right. Goodies are for sucking in the gullible. It is like those stickers "now tastes better" or "free toy inside". You are buying a music player. Concentrate on that. A carrying harness is nice and all but you will most likely put the thing in your pocket. Other stuff like stopwatch is clearly MS being of its rocker. Anyway your mobile phone probably has one and you can always just use something called a watch.

   So don't be tempted by "extras". Extras are easy. Making a damned good solid mp3 player is not.

3. Display. Obvious dig at the iPod shuffle. Also MS not understanding a thing. If you have created your ideal music collection and just want to listen to it on shuffle mode then why do you need a display? Determine your own needs. If you never use the playlist in xmms/winamp to select a song why would you suddenly want to do so on the move? If you do then get a good display AND a mp3 player with a browse system that doesn't drive you up the wall.
4. Radio. Let a professional make your play list. Oh yeah. Big brother knows best and for your extra convenience they will have lots of MS commercials to make sure you make the right decisions. God how can a single company be so out of touch. RADIO SUCKS wich is why we have music players in the first place. It costs next to nothing to add fm capabilty HOWEVER this also means radios are cheap. You can get one for a few bucks or even as a free toy. If you want a radio. Get one. Don't waste money on an mp3 player. Further more if you use your player inside or worse in a train expect incredibly bad reception. It also adds clutter to your player. Again determine your own needs. If you sometimes want to listen to the radio then fine look for it in your player. Just realize this one simple fact. Portable radio's are cheaper, last longer and been around far longer then personal music players. So why do so few people seem to use portable radios on the move? Why do radio's in cars come with personal music players (cassetes)?
5. Pick the right size. I know bill gates never really said that 640k should be enough for anyone but this page is so out of date. If you are buying less then 512mb these days you are getting screwed. Prices have dropped and even 1gb flash players are pretty affordable. 128mb or less is something you should get for free.

   As for the whole wma nonsense. My hearing is pretty bad but on the whole

Mirror of humourous commentary

[Winckle (870180)]

http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/4d12acb0722715b19 eb0a3491221d3ab/index.html [mirrordot.org] Mirrordot mirror of the /.ed page

CD Quality?

[tkrotchko (124118)]

Microsoft says 64kb/s WMA is CD quality.

What does that makes 128kb/s? Or 192kb/s? Sooperdooperaudiophonicbeyondcompare quality?

The only thing that is CD quality is...a CD. And while 128kb/s AAC is fine (and somewhat better than MP3 and WMA), it isn't even close to CD quality.

64kb/s? That isn't even FM radio quality. I'm not talking Clear Channel 99.something playing the top five hits over and over FM. I'm talking real FM quality (i.e. WGMS in Washington DC, or hundreds of PBS/NPR stations across the U.S.). Heck, I've not heard a WMA that I would compare to CD, and I'm not talking expensive stereos; I'm talking about listening on a stock car stereos.

I realize this is a silly rant, and there are people who listen who really can't tell the difference. But lets stop pretending on audio quality. It reminds of the 60's when every amplifier manufacturer was claming the most ridiculous power outputs until the government stepped in and made them stop.

3. You'll want a display.

[teddaman (854135)]

So you can enjoy the Blue Screen of Death!

Re:iPod

[Propagandhi (570791)]

The Neuros is a brick when compared to the iPod, and that's the only reason it never sold that well. Had it had its current feature list and been the same size as an iPod it would have done much better, even with its limited marketing budget.

Sure, the iPod's looks carry it a ways, but it's the size of the thing, and its smootheness (which makes for better pocket-ability than any of its last gen competition) that have made it so popular. Most consumers care far more about how big a DAP is than about its format support or even battery life...

Re:plays for sure

[MatthewNewberg (519685)]

Don't you remeber in 1995 when they ran the song "Start Me Up" into the ground. They have 10 years experience with music, they might be able to do something right by now.

Re:apple.slashdot.org?

[mcc (14761)]

Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod?

Because we read it.

Re:Why?

[Trurl's Machine (651488)]

How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these?

You mean, how many people would choose a 1024/512 megabytes players over 256/128 megabytes players? Count me in. And as for the price difference - it will be eaten up quite soon by the non-rechargeable batteries.

Re:The best player play OGG

[absurdist (758409)]

Yes, of course. And any company that makes one that doesn't play OGG is going to fail miserably in the marketplace.

Except, of course, for all of the ones that don't and haven't. Because the average consumer (as opposed to the average Slashdotter) doesn't care if their music is OGG, MP3, WMA, CD, or cassette. They want to be able to access it and listen to it when they want. All the other questions pale in significance by comparison.