Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

iPod Dissection and Review 283

Posted by chrisd from the beauty-inside-and-out dept.
Mister Man writes "I saw over at AnandTech that there is finally a decent iPod review out there. Not only does the review include screen shots galore, they also have some pretty cool pictures of what is inside that pretty little box. Also discussed is information on how to connect an iPod to a Windows based PC. Check out the article for the real deal. Sadly, it doesn't seem like there is Linux based software yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPod Dissection and Review More

iPod Dissection and Review

Comments Filter:

  • linux and the iPod (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sboss ( 13167 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:13AM (#2822756) Homepage
    I run linux and just got an iPod ofr christmas. I was ready to hack at it to get it to work. The biggest problem is that the HFS+ drivers is "read-only" only. Until we can progress the drivers to be able to "read-write", we are stuck. There is some good Windows software. Ephpod (free software) with MacDrive/MacOpener (commerical) combo works great.

    Scott

  • HFS+ (Score:5, Informative)

    by HalfFlat ( 121672 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:13AM (#2822757)
    If I understand it correctly, what is holding iPod on Linux back is the lack of HFS+ support.

    While HFS+ read support seems to be up and working (more or less), HFS+ write support is just not there. It's been on wishlists for years, but so far no luck.

    Can anyone say what the stumbling block is? Is it lack of or misleading documentation? Is it a patent issue?

    Is there code in Darwin that could be legally borrowed and turned into an HFS+ module?

    • Re:HFS+ (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mister Snee ( 549894 )
      As far as Apple goes, they've done a fairly good job of documenting HFS+. The main problem seems to be that despite the information available about it, HFS+ is just not a very fun filesystem to write code for, and at the moment nobody's being offered any money to do it.

      Basically, freelance kernelspace hackers would rather mess with, say, ReiserFS than put a lot of time and effort into a rather obfuscated filesystem which they don't see becoming mainstream any time soon.

      • Re:HFS+ (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Howie ( 4244 )
        they don't see becoming mainstream any time soon.


        I think it's safe to say HFS is more 'mainstream' than ReiserFS!

        • Re:HFS+ (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Mister Snee ( 549894 )
          That's true, but ReiserFS has the obscure hackish charm to it, whereas HFS+ is just another boring, corporate-designed filesystem with a standard implementation platform. ;) I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be wasting my time for kicks than using it intelligently on a project that bored me. Which might explain why I haven't found a new job yet...
        • It's not safe to say that at all actually. Any such claim in either direction is pretty absurd. Both come from niche systems.

          OTOH, ReiserFS at least has the better potential to propagate due to it's more open and less archaic nature.

          If HFS+ was "more mainstream" there would be other operating systems with the capability of dealing with it. (IOW, ipod would not be mac only)

      • Re:HFS+ (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:08AM (#2822951)
        Open Source programmers often have an "I can do this better than you" attitude. (Which isn't surprising; everyone has that attitude). There are 3 BSDs, quite a few window managers, multiple desktop environments, thousands of mp3 players, and everybody and their brother writes (or at least starts to write) a new X11 widget set.

        So it's no wonder someone would rather create a new FS than improve the implementation of an old one. When existing code is improved, it's because the app has a 'cool' factor, or the person recognizes it would be easier to modify than write new.

        HFS+ is fairly well documented (if you poke around on Apple's web site), and the public darwin source includes the hfs fs (read/write obviously) as well as hfschk. Some of the code use NewPointer (#defined to malloc), and other Macisms or NeXTisms though.
    • The other issue is writing to the ipod database. Simply slapping songs on the iPod won't allow them to play. The database has to be populated, On macs this is done by iTunes.

    • Re:HFS+ (Score:2, Informative)

      by fetta ( 141344 )
      If I understand it correctly, what is holding iPod on Linux back is the lack of HFS+ support.

      The article actually makes clear that reading and writing HFS is only part of the problem. The other part is making it work with the music database on the iPod. Otherwise, it's just a (very nice) portable hard drive.



      Take a look at the page [anandtech.com] that describes Mediafour's attempts to support the iPod on Windows.
    • Can't the BSDs legally adopt BSD code, in this case Darwin HFS+ support, into their OSes and therefore read/write to the iPod without any further FS hacking?

      Unlike Linux?

      Anyone running BSD on a PC with firewire and owning an iPod able to attest to this?

    • Re:HFS+ (Score:2, Informative)

      by baboyer ( 109846 )
      Well, I feel particularly qualified to answer this one, being the official maintainer of the linux-hfsplus project. :)

      Honestly, I don't have an iPod, and I started working on HFS+ support for Linux about a year and a half ago, so unless someone feels like giving me an iPod as an incentive, the pace isn't likely to be affected much.

      In theory I could look at the Darwin source, but I wanted to avoid any possible issues just in case some come up later. I've been working entirely from the official Apple documentation (which isn't too bad, but isn't perfect) and from drive images that I've created to try out various things.

      My main stumbling block is strictly a lack of time. I finally found the time to get read support fairly stable (take a look at http://sf.net/projects/linux-hfsplus), but I haven't had time to write enough code to actually handle updating the filesystem properly. It's a mess because it's a very non-UNIX filesystem, and there is a lot of manipulation that has to happen to make it act like ext2 or ufs.

    • Re:HFS+ (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bojolais ( 72005 )
      It's a physiological problem. As soon as the last few developers read to the resource fork portion of the spec, they vomited to the point of dehydration.
  • if you can write to an hfs+ drive you dont need any special software, the iPod keeps it's music in a hidden folder called `music` right on the drive, just drop your mp3s in there and you can play them.

    • um, no (Score:3, Informative)

      by awharnly ( 183017 )
      Just dropping the mp3s onto the iPod hard disk doesn't allow you to play them.

      The iPod keeps track of everything in a song database; you need to figure out how to create and modify this database in order for the iPod to recognize and play songs.
    • I don't believe that that is the case. You may have an MP3 file on the hard drive, but its not in the iPod's database. How do you expect to access it from the interface?

    • How it really works... (Score:2, Informative)

      by SPYvSPY ( 166790 )
      You need to use an application that shows invisible files. In OS X, use TinkerTool. In OS 9, use Greg's Browser or something like that.

      Once you've got invisible files/folders showing, use the following path:

      "iPod_Control/Music"

      Inside this folder are a series of other folders named "F01, F02, F03,...etc."

      Your music files are grouped in there in their original MP3 glory. I don't pretend to have parsed out the rationale/pattern for placement of songs in the "F" series of subdirectories.

      Another way to do it is posted on Macworld.com here. [macworld.com]

      Disclaimer: The above is from memory and hastily prepared. Feel free to correct me, but no need to get pissy!
  • I'm a little fascinated by Slashdot's ongoing fixation on this device. I mean, it is Apple-only at this point (Mediafour [mediafour.com]'s PC-compatability efforts notwithstanding) and no one seems to be talking about Linux interactivity at all, aside from suggestions on how to basically hack into the hard drive. People keep saying it's expensive, that nobody will want it, and yet the local nerds keep bringing it up.

    My only theory as to why is because it may not be Linux-y, but it's still a fascinating device. Aside from the technical challenges involved in accessing it from Linux, it's still a totally unique approach to MP3 players, from the interface to the controls to the expandability to the super-high-speed FireWire. It's Apple, which means it's about as proprietary as they come, but the geeks keep wanting to take it apart and make it work for them.

    And I don't think it's because they want to break the proprietariness. Apple does that for convenience (theirs), not to lock people out, and anyone with a FireWire port on their Linux box and enough software-writing experience can eventually get it to sync with their favorite MP3 player. Microsoft locks down their software and people hack it because they don't like being told "no." Apple does it to sell iMacs, and people hack it because they don't want an iMac.

    But what that means is they do want the iPod. If it weren't so expensive, I don't doubt it'd be Linux-ized already. Hopefully next year it'll be $100 less with a 10GB model replacing it, and we'll see a little more hacking going on.

    But to me, this sounds like a success story for Apple. Yes, we all know its pricey and proprietary, but Slashdotters just can't seem to keep their eyes off of it. And if Apple can draw that much drool from the free software community, I think it's proof positive they know what they're doing.
    • First off Slashdot is not Linuxdot. I think that over the years, there is a fair number of OS's represented here, including (horrors!) Windows. Remember "News for Nerds"? There are other OS nerds too you know!

      Second, what's your point?

    • Re:iPod, iPod, iPod.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:04AM (#2822936) Homepage Journal
      The real reason we all want an iPod is that we want to be able to dance like this dude [apple.com]!

      He must be beating the chicks off with a stick!

      • ok, so i bought one (a review) (Score:4, Informative)

        by AndersBrownworth ( 448236 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @11:54AM (#2823779) Homepage
        i'm an impulse buyer. i have a win2k box but my dad has a cube, so i figured i wouldn't be totaly dead in the water. here are my observations:

        i never cared about id3 tags because i centralize my meta info in a database. after my first import, i had 3 differient spellings and therefore 3 differient artists for the dave matthews band. no delete capability in Xplay. FRICK! nothing a perl script (and my dad's mac) can't fix though.

        other than that, Xplay rocks. i had 1 or 2 stability problems, but it gets the job done. on the face of it, it seems more than just a read / write HFS+ filesystem going on in here. there is a database that gets populated with id3 info. not sure if that's some sort of layer over the filesystem, or if the db just gets populated seperatly.

        i would have liked a more standard filesystem so i could use this thing as a general firewire drive. (as it stands, i can move big files from mac to mac. pointless for me.)

        audio quality rocks. i a/b tested this with winamp (whose quality sucks) and splay (still my favorite). it's up there.

        the earbuds aren't the most comfortable, but it's saveing grace is the volume level. this thing can get LOUD! the other mp3 players never really could cut it for me.

        gets scratched easily, but it smells realy nice. big thing with me. smells like a new hard drive you just opened. and it keeps smelling new car'ish.

        literature says it holds 20 minutes in ram. (anti skip) you pick a set of tunes to play and press play. there is a pause as it spins up it's disk and then play begins. i guess it preloads the files then and spins the drive down. if you skip 4 or 5 songs (20 minutes worth) you have to wait for the drive to spin up again. takes a second or 2. no big deal, i'm just impatient.

        hopefully it's best feature will be that it forces us to get read/write HFS+ going. if so, i'd look into trying to repartition the drive so i could have a 5 meg FAT partition that could hold the windows / linux HFS+ drivers and use this thing as a portable hard drive as well.

    • Re:iPod, iPod, iPod.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hoggy ( 10971 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:35AM (#2823059) Homepage Journal
      I'm a little fascinated by Slashdot's ongoing fixation on this device. [...] My only theory as to why is because it may not be Linux-y, but it's still a fascinating device.

      Err... I think that pretty much covers it.

      Since when did Slashdot become "News for Linux Weenies"? I thought this was a tech-head site. The iPod is most definitely a very cool toy from a techy perspective, which means it falls within the remit of this site.

      In general you may have noticed that Apple are appearing increasingly frequently on Slashdot, which I guess means that they are doing things that are increasingly interesting to tech-heads, which I think is a good thing for Apple.

      There were the same people harping on about the new iMac posting, saying what does it have to do with Slashdot. But any story that can generate a 1000 comments is clearly of interest to Slashdotters.

      I use Linux too, but hey, take off the blinkers.
    • It's because a ton of slashdot readers own Macs, and many of the Linux fans who don't are legitimately interested in learning from Apple about how to be a successful alternative to the Windows PC.

      Think you don't want it? Think again. I LOVE my iPod - I use it every day, in the car, walking to work, even at home when I'm in the living room and don't feel like bringing CDs or my Powerbook to the stereo. The convenience and size and weight make it worth every penny.

  • Doh! I knew I should have been doing this... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:28AM (#2822819) Homepage Journal
    As with all other song information on the iPod, the artist information comes from the MP3's ID3 tags, which it pulls and stores in a database for easy access.

    Am I the only one whose ID3 tag info is sorely lacking across his entire collection? Either I've got a lot of work ahead of me before I'm iPod-ready, or some benevolent /.'er will reply with info about a tool that will automate this process, thus radically simplifying my purchasing rationalization^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H decision.

    ...Anyone?
    • Yeah, this is way offtopic, but here goes:

      I have the iPod, and love it. My only gripe with it is that names/albums are sorted with any existing 'A' or 'The' at the beginning of the string. If I want to play something by The Jam, I intuitively scroll to the Js, not the Ts. At least with iTunes, I can do radical ID tag surgery before I rip the CD...
    • I had to get into completing my ID tags a *long* time ago, because the MacOS only supports 31 character filenames (X will do 255, but this was 1998-ish), so a filename like "various_artists_pulp_fiction_soundtrack_02_dick_d ale_miserlou.mp3" would come out like "various_artists_pulp_ficti.mp3" and that doesn't really tell me a whole lot, does it? :)

      I push for folks using the ID3 tags for this reason, and for a more important, non-platform related one: if the tags are complete, there are tools that will rename the file to whatever the hell YOU want.
      Don't like album_artists_song_track? How about album_track_song? or year_song_artists_album_track? or any combo of the above? If the tag's there, and more importantly COMPLETE and CORRECT goddamit, you have the option. With no tags, I'm gonna go fill them in anyways, so why not just put them there when ripping? There are a zillion programs that will cddb or freedb lookup for ya.

      Heck, even if all your songs are album_artist_track_song or whatever, there should be tools available that will translate those into meaningful tags. Just don't ask me about em cuz I don't know. :)

    • Re:Doh! I knew I should have been doing this... (Score:5, Informative)

      by joshwa ( 24288 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:03AM (#2822930) Homepage Journal
      My current favorite is ID3-TagIT [id3-tagit.de]. It lets you go back and forth from filenames to tags in both directions, supports batch tagging and batch renaming, upper/lower case correction, id3v1<->id3v2, automatic sorting into folders, etc. It's very comprehensive and easy to use.
    • Am I the only one whose ID3 tag info is sorely lacking across his entire collection? Either I've got a lot of work ahead of me before I'm iPod-ready, or some benevolent /.'er will reply with info about a tool that will automate this process...

      You are not alone. Even folks who use an auto-tagger when ripping our CDs have trouble, since the CDDB isn't terribly consistent with artist names, etc..

      The most effective solution for sprucing up MP3 tags is a Mac-only app, MP3 Rage. It will do such nifty things as strip "The " from band names, and create ID3 artist/title/album tags based on file-containing folders and file names (e.g. MP3s/Pop/Cake/Fashion Nugget/01-Frank Sinatra.mp3). You probably have your MP3s organized this way already, so it might take 10 miutes to tag your entire collection.

      I apologize in advance for recommending a commercial, Mac-only product. If you want to write you own app, you should know that the iPod /iTunes best recognize ID3 v2.3.0 tags.
    • > Am I the only one whose ID3 tag info is sorely lacking across his entire collection?

      It may be a bit late now, but I was lucky enough to pick up the habit of filling out the ID3 tags after downloading, but before listening.

      Get in the habit of spending a minute or two filling 'em out when you download or rip an album, and you can save yourself the "oh my God, I have how many to fill out?" frustration a few years down the road.

  • Audio quality? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:51AM (#2822877) Homepage
    It is my impression that reviews of MP3 players, the iPod included, have typically talked about it as if it were purely some sort of mini-computer. Features alone get discussed, and that Anandtech review is no exception.

    However, this is an audio device. Why so few reviews discussing its audio quality? How does it stack up to, say, a decent quality mini-disc player? Not in terms of tech features, but just quality of sound?

    My own opinion? I love the look of it, and most particularly the size of it. I'm one of those who will need to wait for XPlay, but that looks to be coming along nicely. My only quibble is that I'll still need to get an FM radio - it would have been great had an FM radio been included. People still need to find out about new or different music as well as listen purely to their own collection.

    However, once XPlay is publicly working with playlists and deletes, an iPod is likely to be in my pocket before the week is out...

    Cheers,
    Ian

    • Hey, man, don't forget AM radio! I want an mp3 player like the iPod with AM/FM radio to boot. I am a news and talk radio junky, and need my AM radio.

      You know what sucks about AM radio though? I happen to work in a big server room, and all the AM RF interference makes it nearly impossible to listen to AM radio. I am thinking about getting an FM transmitter and locating an AM radio remotely then re-transmitting in on the FM band somewhere. It's either that or record everything and playback later (a real pain).

    • Re:Audio quality? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jordy ( 440 ) <jordanNO@SPAMsnocap.com> on Friday January 11, 2002 @12:59PM (#2824299) Homepage
      The audio quality on the iPod is ok. My biggest gripe is the headphone jack appears underpowered and there appears to be some noise introduced in the signal. Granted, it's nowhere near the noise levels of a laptop, but it's there.

      Now I do have some problems with the quality of iTunes; the peice of software you use to manage the iPod (yes, you can do it directly, but come on, insert cd, hit import, plug in iPod; it can't get any easier.)

      A friend of mine noted that iTunes's MP3 encoder has some problems with introducing artifacts into the audio. I honestly didn't believe him until he took an MP3 he encoded with LAME and directly compared it to one encoded with iTunes and sure enough, at the beginning of the song where there should have been silence was a warping of audio which I now notice during playback.

      iTunes also has the interesting problem (though it's probably more of a CDDB fault) of not supporting UTF-8 in ID3 tags, so foreign CDs are either romanized or are in a character set not understood correctly.

      In my opinion, the iPod is the best portable MP3 player out there for it's size. It doesn't make a good companion while exercising, but for long train rides, it can't be beat.
      • i strongly suspect this is a CDDB issue, not an iTunes issue. i've inserted several import CDs, including one Japanese one (Ghost in the Shell soundtrack), and it all worked fine. kanji and kana show up as expected.

  • XPlay? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Black Perl ( 12686 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:51AM (#2822879)
    Why oh why did they call the Windows software XPlay?

    I guess we'll have to call the Linux X-Windows version "WinPlay".

  • Windows iPod? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chief_Wahoo ( 544296 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:51AM (#2822881)
    The authors of this article seem to think Apple is hard at work on the Windows version of the iPod (or at least should be). While I don't doubt that a PC market for the iPod exists, I am skeptical that Apple will enter it. I'm assuming, btw, that by "Windows version," the authors mean a different hardware configuration, rather than a firmware upgrade.

    A couple of reasons...

    -Apple's marketing strategy revolves around the idea of the "digital hub." The iPod (and iTunes) are a major component of this strategy. Note that these commodities are exclusive to Apple. By producing a Windows version of the iPod, both Apple and Windows users would be able to experience the same great music experience. Apple wants to distinguish itself from the rest of the PC market, not cater to it. Making the iPod Mac-exclusive serves as an incentive for users to go Mac.

    -Practically speaking, in terms of both production and support, Apple would be inviting trouble on itself by producing a PC version. Though Apple has tinkered with PC products before, everyone would agree it is not their forte.

    -Why produce an entirely new version of the iPod when Windows users, granted with an extra cash outlay, already will be able to use the original? Simply because Firewire isn't standard on PCs yet? Please.

  • http://giantlaser.com/~jason/ipod.html (Score:5, Informative)

    by bowa ( 190003 ) <(moc.citenegyxo) (ta) (awob)> on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:04AM (#2822933)
    http://giantlaser.com/~jason/ipod.html [giantlaser.com]

    interesting link ...

    • This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am not a hacker.

      I would *so* buy a used iMac from eBay before I'd go to all that trouble to make a $400 mp3 player work (sort of) on GNU/Linux.

      How many hours will be burned in getting it to work? 5? 10? 50? As long as my time is worth at least $20/hour, I'd just buy a damned computer.

    • Isn't this sort of weird? It's good weird, but weird.

      Apple probably pays 3 or 4 people good money to do this, but they want to reverse engineer it and do it again, re-invent the wheel.

      While it's arguably a waste, it also provides robustness through diversity. If they figure out something Apple hasn't, Apple can quickly adopt it. When Apple does something they cannot, it shows that their understanding and implementation is flawed.

      What would be good is if these people could get hired by, say, Creative, to create an iPod killer.

  • Homer Reference #1242 (Score:3, Funny)

    by horati0 ( 249977 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:05AM (#2822937) Journal

    The first item that jumps into view upon dissecting the iPod is the battery. Made by Sony-Fukushima, the battery is a [...]

    I couldn't help, after reading that, of thinking of the time Homer was looking at a globe and pointed to Uruguay...

    "Heh heh.. You are gay!"

  • Copying MP3's from iPod (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pemerson ( 179241 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:05AM (#2822939)
    According to the article:
    One feature that will not be added is the ability to copy files from the iPod. Apple designed the iPod as a one-way device when it comes to music, meaning that it was only designed to accept MP3 files but not to send them back to a computer. Apple's iTunes software does not allow the user to copy MP3 files from the iPod to a Macintosh, and in a similar manner Mediafour's XPlay software will not allow the user to copy MP3 files from the iPod to any PC. Copying MP3 files off the device is not a difficult feature to implement, but Mediafour decided to respect Apple's wishes with the iPod and maintain the copy protection feature.
    But, according to http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/10/29.4.sh tml [macobserver.com]:
    In other words, by turning off the automatic sync functions and saying "no" when asked if you would like your iPod library erased, you can simply drag and drop your iPod music files from iTunes to another Mac.
    So why has Mediafour "decided to respect Apple's wishes" when Apple's own software allows the copying of MP3's to different Macs?
    • That's why. Avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA and still allow a competitive advantage (moving files).
    • Music is in a hidden folder, so if you access the hidden folder, all is fine. I downloaded freeware called iPod Free File Sync [www.cooc.de] (Mac OS 9 only) that does this. Works like a charm.

  • EphPod (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:22AM (#2823009)
    There is another way to connect the iPod to a Windows machine. Its called EphPod and you can get it from here [williams.edu].

    You need MacDrive or MacOpener to be installed too but if it allows me to copy MP3's from an iPod to the PC (which neither XPlay or iTunes allow you to do) then its going to be a winner.

    ps. Yes I know why they've done it but its something I (and probably others) would find useful whatever your moral standing.

  • iPod won't be anything but mac from apple (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:24AM (#2823019) Journal
    Apple's making alot of money from the iPod, and not just from the device's sales. The iPod is bringing in people to the Apple Store, where many of them end up buying Macs. 40% of the Apple Store's computer buyers don't already own macs.
  • . . . with Apple's products is that they are too trendy and hip.

    I picture my living room with an iMac in it, or at the gym with an iPod and just shake my head. Is that not the most conspicous of consumption or what?

    Driving around a midwest hamlet in my Saab is bad enough; if the locals see me with an alien looking device in hand I might just get run out of town!

  • "fatal flaw in the iPod design"? Please. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fhwang ( 90412 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:36AM (#2823063) Homepage
    This review is nice and informative, but I can't help but scoff at the sentence (on the first page) pointing out the "fatal flaw in the iPod design": It only works for MacOS.

    "Fatal flaw in the iPod design"? Give me a fucking break. "Pain in the ass for Linux and Windows users", sure. But to imply that it's a design flaw would be to say that somehow Mac exclusivity was not in the designer's plans. I think it's fairly bloody obvious why Apple would design a cool peripheral that could only be used with its own OS. It's not by accident, or by poor design. It's 100% intentional.

    That's like saying "Puccini's Turandot is a great opera; its fatal flaw is that it's not in English".

    • Scale (Score:2)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      "Fatal flaw in the iPod design"? Give me a fucking break. "Pain in the ass for Linux and Windows users", sure.
      The success of any product depends on finding a customer base. You have to sell a certain number of units, or the product just won't survive. When Apple chose not to support Windows, they excluded 100 million potential customers in the US alone.

      Put it another way. Apple claims it sold 100,000 iPods in two months. I'm skeptical, but assume that's correct. That means a PC-compatible version could have sold a million. Well probably not -- there's the firewire issue. But imagine the impact of even doubling sales. Economies of scale, leading to lower prices. More credibility for Apple products, leading to more people consider Macs over PCs. Etc.

      What's really interesting is that Apple chose to make the iPod look like an HFS disk. There's no reason they couldn't have used something more standard -- the iPod isn't MacOS-based after all, and the Mac platform isn't that picky. But HFS is "better" than non-Mac file systems. Once again, the techno-cool factor won out over practical considerations.

      • Re:Scale (Score:2)

        by gig ( 78408 )
        > When Apple chose not to support
        > Windows, they excluded 100 million
        > potential customers in the US alone.

        Most Windows computers don't even have FireWire, so they are not a potential market for iPods. I would venture that the potential market for iPods, just based on the requirement "personal computer with FireWire" is 75% Mac, at least. Sony is the biggest vendor of 1394-compatible Windows PC's, and their i.Link doesn't even have power, so it's no good for an iPod (or any of the portable FireWire hard drives, which are all powered by the FireWire port).

        > Apple claims it sold 100,000 iPods
        > in two months. I'm skeptical, but assume
        > that's correct. That means a
        > PC-compatible version could have
        > sold a million

        They couldn't have made a million of them if they wanted to. The iPod uses a very small 1.8" hard drive that is only available in limited quantity. At the iPod launch, Steve Jobs said they expected to sell "as many as we can make". At Macworld SF 2002, Steve Jobs said they sold 125,000 so far and had sold out in many places. In other words, they're already selling as many as they can make.

        What you are missing here is that iPod is not meant to make PC's look bad; it's made to make Mac's look good. After inventing FireWire and then putting it on all of their computers a few years ago, Apple can now turn to their customers and say, "here's why you got rid of your SCSI peripherals," so you can hot-plug a miniature hard drive that is also an MP3 player and the computer itself takes care of powering and charging the device, and the software is all already there and well-tested and newbie-proof and ready to go.

        > What's really interesting is that Apple
        > chose to make the iPod look like an
        > HFS disk

        It doesn't "look like" an HFS+ disk, it IS an HFS+ disk. If it weren't, you couldn't boot your Mac off it. While Mac OS X can boot off UFS, some apps don't support that yet, because UFS has FEWER features than HFS+ (such as Unicode and support for the metadata attached to the billions of files that have been created on the Mac platform over the last 20 years).

        I'm sorry, man, but you are playing the arrogant Windows boob, here. Many of the iPods features are lost on you because you don't think about booting a Microsoft PC from any attached storage. People are putting their whole system, apps, and home folder on the iPod, even with only the 5GB size, and just booting any Mac they happen to be near from the iPod. When the iPod has 40GB or 100GB, it will be an even more popular feature.

        And, aside from that, I would love to hear your argument for a different FS. FAT32 isn't even Microsoft's favorite file system anymore. Should Apple pay MS to use NTFS? Why? Why use UFS on a consumer MP3 player when it is not a mainstream personal computer FS? You are just bigoted against HFS+ because you don't know anything about it and Microsoft has never wanted to support it.

  • My iPod (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamesoutlaw ( 87295 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @09:42AM (#2823084) Homepage
    I've had my iPod since late October and I love it. It has worked flawlessly and live up to all of my expectations. I was afraid of how sturdy it would turn out to be, but I've managed to drop it a few times (once from about chest height) with no ill effects. My Rio 600 was totally destroyed after being dropped from the same height. I only have 2 complaints:

    1. The stainless steel back does scratch easily... mine was scratched after just a couple of days of carrying it in the pockets of my coats and jeans. Still, though, peple see it and say "hey, is that one of those Apple MP3 things?"

    and ...

    2. I don't really like the earbuds. I can't wear them for more than a few minutes without getting sore ears. No big deal, though, I just got some head phones. I've never found any earbuds that I like, however, so I was not expecting to be happy with the ones that come with the iPod.

    It works great in FireWire disk mode as a quick backup disk or as a quick way to transfer large files from one Mac to another. I've read about people who have booted their Macs from an iPod, but Apple does not recommend doing that. I believe that it's because the internal disk was not designed to spin for long peroids of time or to hold up to frequent reading and writing. I don't know for sure, but that's what I am guessing.

    The battery life is stupendous and actually exceeds the 10 hours that Apple lists in the specs. I listen to mine at work all the time and it never drops below about 50% or so.

    Some people have complained about the lack of an on-board equalizer, but you can do that in iTunes and the settings are applied to the MP3 file & the iPod recognizes them when the file is transferred so that's not really a big deal.

    It does get a little warm... when it's been playing for a long period of time. Nothing like the G3/G4 PowerBooks though.

    All in all, it's the best MP3 player I've seen. Sure, it's only a 5 gig hard drive, but the ease of use more than makes up for that minor shortcoming.
    • I definatley agree with you about the sore ears. Almost all of the "bud" style headphones give me sore ears. Some are better than others, but I still prefer the old 1980's style headphones. they mess up your hair sometimes, but since when do geeks care about appearance?

      some of the other newer headphones types work pretty good, though, like the kind that kind of wrap around the back of your ear. Do some of us just have more sensitive ears? Other people I know wear ear buds all the time and don't complain, but my ears hurt and I get a headache.

    • One of my friends installed OS X on his iPod and carries his personal system around with him - he can just boot off it on any of the macs in any of the labs and have his environment almost anywhere on campus - from a pocket sized device. Kind of nice.

  • No iPod for the PC, what a shame... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iJosh ( 119555 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @10:20AM (#2823254)
    I know this is practically flamebait here but, look at it from this perspective. Out of all the MP3 players out there, which platform did they work for first? That's right, you got it, more than likely Windows. So Apple comes out with the iPod and everyone whines and complains that the small shiney new toy doesn't play well with windows. Yeah I'm sure that's Apple Computers number one priority, right along with handing out iMovie, iDVD, iTunes and now iPhoto to windows users too. So you are all whining because Apple is playing favorites for the people who actually BUY their computers?

    Windows users, usually get everything in the computer industry first with the exception Apple stuff, and open source and there are reasons for this. Windows users make up the largest share of the consumer computer industry, so they have all the deals to get everything for windows first becuase that's where the majority of the money will be made for the companies that make that hardware/software/printer/scanner/whatever.

    So you windows users are going to complain when the other team has something that some of you think is better that they aren't being fair? I'm sure some company will make a knock off for you soon enough.

  • The iPod sells iMac's. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Above ( 100351 ) on Friday January 11, 2002 @10:21AM (#2823261)

    I've wanted an iPod since they came out. They are small, work extremely well, and produce good sound. Even with the high price, they are worth while. Of course, the problem is you really need a Mac to make all the bells and whistles work. This isn't a problem for apple though.

    Between the iPod, the ease of creating a home DVD (iMovie, iDVD, + third party high end stuff, if you need it), manipulating pictures (iPhoto) and organizing your music (iTunes) Apple has got it right. I used to be a Mac lover, and now I'm ready to become one all over again. After seeing the new iMac in the store (which will fit on the kitchen desk, something my PC never has done) I'm going in whole hog.

    What does that mean for apple? Well, they will get me for an iMac plus an iPod. Additionally someone (cannon, likely) will get a MinDV and a new still digial camera out of it. The digital hub is here, and is only going to get better.

    The hold up for the Mac has always been other software. For my needs that's all there as well now. There are good ssh clients and terminal emulators. Office works, better than windows in fact. IE is available (yes, for web work you have to have it). Heck, there are even respectable games these days.

    I think Apple is on the comeback, and I think their digital hub is a smash hit idea, both for the home user who "just wants it to work", as well as for the geek who "just wants the mundane to work" so he can get on with the cool stuff.

    • The hold up for the Mac has always been other software. For my needs that's all there as well now. There are good ssh clients and terminal emulators.

      Remember, OS X (which is what you'll be greeted with upon buying your new iMac Desk Lamp) is Unix under the hood, and ships with telnet and ssh out of the box!

      This ain't the Mac OS you remember!

    • > I think their digital hub is a smash hit
      > idea ... for the geek who "just wants the
      > mundane to work" so he can get on with
      > the cool stuff.

      FUCKING AMEN! It doesn't impress me anymore that a guy can install 802.11 drivers or open a box up and put another ATA drive in there. Yawn. Apple does that shit for you, or makes it so easy to do it that you don't notice it (compare hot-plugging an iPod into a FireWire port to installing an additional ATA drive inside a box). I'm more interested in whether the guy wrote a cool game that takes advantage of 802.11, or when someone comes up with a cool new use for FireWire (like a miniscule MP3 player). Time to get out of the boxes, people. Hard disks are not interesting anymore.
  • Okay, here is where I gloat about scooping everyone. When the iPod was first announced, I did my homework [pyxidis.org] and figured it the hard drive used was the Toshiba MK5002MAL, and it turned out to be the HDD1242 which are, in fact, the same drive [sunstarco.com].

    Here is where I get to gloat about being ahead of the curve for once! Yippie!

  • ipod with windows (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PMan88 ( 467902 )
    if apple were to ever make the ipod usable with windows, they would, the support would be built into quicktime. that way, everyone that buys an ipod has quicktime installed, therefore largely increasing the quicktime installed base. of course this would happen with quicktime 6 or so when mpeg4 support gets built in. mpeg4 and ipod would make windows users actually want to use quicktime, especially if they remove the annoying ads

Slashdot Top Deals

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Close