I can't speak to the rest of the tests as I don't have the iPod here, so I can't test one. However, a .1 db rise is inaudible, particularly at those extended frequencies, where little music resides, and at which, our hearing is not the best.
If it is true that the impulse test is correct, that can be more of a problem. It would be very unusual for a device to have that shape impulse test, and it's difficult to understand how such a problem could have made it through initial testing at the manufacturer, much less at the stage of the iPods' design.
It could be that this is a single device flaw, or that of a small part run. We'll have to see if it turns up further.
And yet in this apple-support-forum, there are a lot of people complaining about the problem:
I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.
That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.
I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.
That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.
Nightcrawler
There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.
The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.
The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".
The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
I do know that the current models are highly regarded in Stereophile, as long as you are using Apple Lossless, and I can agree with it.
Using a 3rd gen 15gb - the sound quality of the line-out via the dock is superb. I did some tests where I ripped tracks from CD at various rates, including AIFF, then played back the ripped tracks, comparing them directly, synced in real time, with the CD original. I concluded that with AAC I can't hear any difference above about 160kbps so I rip at 224. For me, lossless would be even more overkill than I already employ.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
Good post. I asked my wife, and she says you can't 'hear' phase, so while you can go digital to get linear phase it is not necessary to 'have' linear phase shift. In other words, your right
Yes to your first sentence and maybe and no to the second.
I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. You can please 95% of listeners and spend substantially less time/money on sound processing. After all, hasn't iTunes served up 1 billion+ songs at 128 kbps? People might be able to tell, but they probably don't care, or they don't wanna pay more for it or sacrifice the disk space.
I'm no audiophile, but I can tell the difference between medium-quality MP3 (128, 192 kbps) and WAV/Lossless. And I do rip my absolute favorite CDs in the latter formats. But for the rest of my 2,000 songs, I'm happy to listen to them at 90-something% quality at 10% HDD space.
"Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. "
I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.
I was going to get a 160 GB Classic but I'm not so sure after reading about these problems with the sluggish interface. That's not cool at all.
I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.
So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.
So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.
Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.
Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.
(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
I don't think even Apple can push prices down that much. The trend seems to be to double capacity every year, so next year you should see a 32GB iTouch, the year after, maybe 64GB.
"Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. "
I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.
These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.
Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.
The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.
Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.
Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.
(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
No it doesn't. Apple can get good prices for the time, but it can't get prices below the profit level the manufacturers need. Lower prices come as they come.
32 Gb and 64 Gb aren't nearly enough for some people, so it wouldn't eliminate the problem.
I was going to get a 160 GB Classic but I'm not so sure after reading about these problems with the sluggish interface. That's not cool at all.
I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.
So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.
So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.
From what I've read, the interface isn't exactly sluggesh. What happens is the if you move through the album art too quickly, some of the covers can come up grey briefly, while the cpu updates, but the search continues at full speed.
Why don't you go to a store and check it out for yourself. this is all very personal. What one person thinks is unacceptable, another may think is fine.
There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.
The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.
The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".
The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Both appear to run on a significantly-refreshed operating environment, the main downside of which is that the new Classic and Nano aren't backwardly compatible with games designed for the 5G iPod.
My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Nightcrawler
Has there ever been a new iPod released where some users haven't complained the sound quality was inferior to the previous model?
These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.
Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.
The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Nightcrawler
It could be, though an equal number didn't hear any difference. That's why I think it could be from a particular run of the chips.
Don't forget that earphones have more phase shift that does even this device.
Phase is also not directly tied to impulse problems, though it can be related.
We also have to understand that if the impulse is less than about 3 milliseconds, we simply can't hear it.
My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?
While I haven't compared weights, it's interesting to note that if one model is slightly smaller, or thinner, psychologically, it will feel heavier, even if they both weigh EXACTLY the same. (Not saying they do!).
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
I'm not saying they were either.
But, for a while, it was the only technology they had to sell. They were likely willing to take the risk that in-warrantee service would be higher than they would have liked, and raised the prices accordingly to cover that.
I agree with you in that they should state this "up front".
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
Do you mean the mini? It's just speculation, but I think that might have had extra shock absorbtion built into the case. The mini wasn't significantly smaller even though it probably could have been made smaller than it was.
Quote:
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
The standard iPod, that might be the case, they've also changed from a small brick to a very svelte device.
Comments
I can't speak to the rest of the tests as I don't have the iPod here, so I can't test one. However, a .1 db rise is inaudible, particularly at those extended frequencies, where little music resides, and at which, our hearing is not the best.
If it is true that the impulse test is correct, that can be more of a problem. It would be very unusual for a device to have that shape impulse test, and it's difficult to understand how such a problem could have made it through initial testing at the manufacturer, much less at the stage of the iPods' design.
It could be that this is a single device flaw, or that of a small part run. We'll have to see if it turns up further.
And yet in this apple-support-forum, there are a lot of people complaining about the problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....26547&tstart=0
I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.
That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.
Nightcrawler
And yet in this apple-support-forum, there are a lot of people complaining about the problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....26547&tstart=0
I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.
That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.
Nightcrawler
There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.
The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.
The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".
The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
I do know that the current models are highly regarded in Stereophile, as long as you are using Apple Lossless, and I can agree with it.
Using a 3rd gen 15gb - the sound quality of the line-out via the dock is superb. I did some tests where I ripped tracks from CD at various rates, including AIFF, then played back the ripped tracks, comparing them directly, synced in real time, with the CD original. I concluded that with AAC I can't hear any difference above about 160kbps so I rip at 224. For me, lossless would be even more overkill than I already employ.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
Good post. I asked my wife, and she says you can't 'hear' phase, so while you can go digital to get linear phase it is not necessary to 'have' linear phase shift. In other words, your right
Yes to your first sentence and maybe and no to the second.
I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. You can please 95% of listeners and spend substantially less time/money on sound processing. After all, hasn't iTunes served up 1 billion+ songs at 128 kbps? People might be able to tell, but they probably don't care, or they don't wanna pay more for it or sacrifice the disk space.
I'm no audiophile, but I can tell the difference between medium-quality MP3 (128, 192 kbps) and WAV/Lossless. And I do rip my absolute favorite CDs in the latter formats. But for the rest of my 2,000 songs, I'm happy to listen to them at 90-something% quality at 10% HDD space.
I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.
Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.
Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.
(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.
So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.
So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.
DIE, hard drive iPods, die!
Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.
Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.
(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
I don't think even Apple can push prices down that much. The trend seems to be to double capacity every year, so next year you should see a 32GB iTouch, the year after, maybe 64GB.
"Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. "
I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.
These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.
Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.
The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.
DIE, hard drive iPods, die!
Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.
Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.
(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
No it doesn't. Apple can get good prices for the time, but it can't get prices below the profit level the manufacturers need. Lower prices come as they come.
32 Gb and 64 Gb aren't nearly enough for some people, so it wouldn't eliminate the problem.
Next year sometime, we'll see 16 and 32 GB iPods.
I was going to get a 160 GB Classic but I'm not so sure after reading about these problems with the sluggish interface. That's not cool at all.
I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.
So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.
So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.
From what I've read, the interface isn't exactly sluggesh. What happens is the if you move through the album art too quickly, some of the covers can come up grey briefly, while the cpu updates, but the search continues at full speed.
Why don't you go to a store and check it out for yourself. this is all very personal. What one person thinks is unacceptable, another may think is fine.
There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.
The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.
The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".
The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.
The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Nightcrawler
Both appear to run on a significantly-refreshed operating environment, the main downside of which is that the new Classic and Nano aren't backwardly compatible with games designed for the 5G iPod.
My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Nightcrawler
Has there ever been a new iPod released where some users haven't complained the sound quality was inferior to the previous model?
I seem to recall this happening before.
These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.
Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.
The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.
It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.
I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.
Nightcrawler
It could be, though an equal number didn't hear any difference. That's why I think it could be from a particular run of the chips.
Don't forget that earphones have more phase shift that does even this device.
Phase is also not directly tied to impulse problems, though it can be related.
We also have to understand that if the impulse is less than about 3 milliseconds, we simply can't hear it.
My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?
While I haven't compared weights, it's interesting to note that if one model is slightly smaller, or thinner, psychologically, it will feel heavier, even if they both weigh EXACTLY the same. (Not saying they do!).
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
I'm not saying they were either.
But, for a while, it was the only technology they had to sell. They were likely willing to take the risk that in-warrantee service would be higher than they would have liked, and raised the prices accordingly to cover that.
I agree with you in that they should state this "up front".
Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.
Do you mean the mini? It's just speculation, but I think that might have had extra shock absorbtion built into the case. The mini wasn't significantly smaller even though it probably could have been made smaller than it was.
In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.
The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
The standard iPod, that might be the case, they've also changed from a small brick to a very svelte device.