or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple rivals DVD with new iTunes Extras for movies and albums
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rivals DVD with new iTunes Extras for movies and albums - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

wheres the beatles ???

They somewhere getting older and forgotten.
post #82 of 111
Want to buy my Steam account?

Log in and download at least fifteen games, all paid for and they can all be yours if the price is right.

What was that about resale of digital media?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

With digital media, you can't even give something away. You can't pawn it, you can't ebay it, you can't rummage it. You can't even borrow a book/CD/movie to or from a friend. Want to sell an old game console and bundle all of the games you bought to sweeten the deal? When digital media takes over, you won't be able to. Want to hand it down to a younger sibling or nephew? You won't even be able to do that. All of these limitations, coupled with the lower quality and equal pricing means digital media is only a win for the studios and the companies pedaling their content, like Apple.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #83 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Movies only in some countries. DVD importing should be added anyway. People shouldn't have to break the law to watch content they already own.

Yeah good luck with that!
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Your kind of deluding yourself here a bit. Hulu is not free in the exact same way as the alternative you are presenting in your argument.

To watch Hulu you have to pay (in my case), about $50 a month for the Internet connection and you have to sit though the ads.

Dude, it's free. The networks aren't getting a cut of my monthly internet bill in exchange for me watching their content online. Everyone has the internet anyway, so you're not paying $50/mo exclusively to watch videos online. And in many cases, people have free access to internet through their school, office, or the public library if needbe. It's free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

It's almost the exact same situation as broadcast TV or cable TV. You say that you can switch away from the ads when they come on and "not watch them," but the same argument was made in 1960 for broadcast Television. It still remains *possible* in both cases to leave the room and not watch the ads, but the reality is that you watch the ads. If you personally don't then fine, you are a demanding OCD type after my own heart, but most people will watch the ads.

In fact, the only real, significant difference between a Hulu situation and broadcast TV is the "breadth" as it were, of the distribution. Broadcast TV (now all but gone), "leaked" and was available to people who didn't pay for it by virtue of having rabbit ears on top of their set. There is a progression from broadcast TV, through cable and satellite, and then specialty channels subscription cable and private satellites, and finally to Hulu, where the media company is trying to close down access. To narrow that pipe and to make the user on the end of it pay more.

To get Hulu for instance, you have to first move to the United States. That may be a side issue to you, but it's relevant in terms of that narrow distribution pipe model. Most of the world can't get Hulu, and if and when they do get such services, they will be different, but similar narrow distribution pipes to other markets if the media companies get their way. The end user also loses out in that with broadcast TV and with cable and satellite, the user can save a copy of what they are watching. With Internet distribution you can't save it, and if you could, you won't be able to remove the ads either.

Things like Hulu are a win-win for the media companies, not the end user. Freedom is restricted, distribution is restricted and ownership is restricted. It's touted as "free" when in fact it is not and also comes with all these restrictions.

I know you probably think I'm making a big deal of it, but it's important. The proverbial wool is being pulled over your eyes and it's important to speak up about what they are doing. You don't really think that NBC or any of the big media companies is going to be doing stuff like this because they love the end user and just want to make them happy with free TV do you?

These companies operate out of self interest and self interest alone and their "customer" is not you, it's the advertiser. Apple at least is a consumer company that has the end user's interests at heart.

I get the impression you think that I think Hulu is the wave of the future; I don't. I understand it only exists in it's current form because it's an additional form of revenue after the actual broadcast where the cost of advertising and number of viewers compensates the network for the cost of their programming. If Broadcast disappeared tomorrow, we'd all have to pay per view with Hulu content in addition to being forced to sit through advertising, just like broadcast is today. My point was the free (again, free in the sense that you don't have to pay to view content) business model of Hulu, Youtube etc is not a sustainable one.
post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

More like when are they gonna rival DVDs in resolution?

Uh, DVD is SD 640x480 same as itunes SD movies/ TV. What are you talking about? If you're comparing bitrate, you're splitting hairs. Apple HD downloads look great and fussing about Bluray isn't worth it for most viewers. Eventually we'll get 1080 but wen it does we'll still be buying 16:9 SD material because it's cheaper and a better purchase or rental price for something we're only going to watch a couple of times.

Most people simply won't notice a difference between 720 and 1080 on a screen less than 50". One of the biggest stumbling blocks HD has faced is that SD is really good enough for 99% of the home viewing audience. They simply don't care enough about the quality gains to buy a new player, replace all of their SD movies. It's like telling everyone the have to carry around uncompressed aiff files of their favorite bands and fill their ipods to the max with 10 albums. They won't notice the difference and therefore downgrade to gain other advantages.

I''m not saying Optical Disks are dead, so please don't comment me on that issue, but optical disks have crossed the point where they will now "soon" be phased out. Even if you want to purchase movies from a brick and mortar store you'll be buying the movie on a flash disk (as a data file) of some sort in the not so distant future. Sony is making moves in that direction a well since there are devices other than disk players that we want our media on. BluRay will never be an option on the iphone or ipod or PSP or any portable device for that matter.

Home media is moving to the computer for many many reasons, convenience is the probably number one.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #86 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post

In a survey last winter related to the Apple TV I suggest Apple to make an iDVD to make digital menu available for the Apple TV.

Having our own film done by our camera and create menu like a DVD but exportable to the Apple TV or iTunes, the same way that iTunes extra work.

I think this is the way iDVD will evolved and this will be unique in the market.

That would be the last straw me not having a means to store my files. great idea to sell a few more mobile.me but terrible for most users.

I cant think of anything worse
post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by LE Studios View Post

Yeah good luck with that!

Why laugh? we have itunes plus now?

BTW it is not illegal to RIP movies. the law state that it is Illegal to make the software to RIP a movie and to distribute the movies once they are transcoded, but it is not illegal to own the software or RIP the movies for your personal use. This is a common misunderstanding.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Uh, DVD is SD 640x480 same as itunes SD movies/ TV. What are you talking about? If you're comparing bitrate, you're splitting hairs.

LOL! Bitrate is the most important factor in determining digital video quality; resolution means next to nothing without it. Apple's SD content looks like mush compared to DVD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

One of the biggest stumbling blocks HD has faced is that SD is really good enough for 99% of the home viewing audience. They simply don't care enough about the quality gains to buy a new player, replace all of their SD movies

A device like the Apple TV faces those same challenges, only a Blu-Ray player will still play all of your DVDs and actually make them look better in the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

I''m not saying Optical Disks are dead, so please don't comment me on that issue, but optical disks have crossed the point where they will now "soon" be phased out. Even if you want to purchase movies from a brick and mortar store you'll be buying the movie on a flash disk (as a data file) of some sort in the not so distant future. Sony is making moves in that direction a well since there are devices other than disk players that we want our media on. BluRay will never be an option on the iphone or ipod or PSP or any portable device for that matter.

Nonsense. Digital movie distribution is such a mess right now that optical discs aren't going anywhere for at least a decade. Apple only has 63 movies available for purchase in HD on iTunes. Sixty. Three. And watching them on your television requires that you spend at least $229 on an Apple TV — absurd when you can get a full-fledged Blu-Ray player that doubles as a VUDU box (whose HD content is far superior) for under $300.
post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

LOL! Bitrate is the most important factor in determining digital video quality; resolution means next to nothing without it. Apple's SD content looks like mush compared to DVD.

I understand some of what you area saying, but the point is consumers don't. Hell i don't care much either most of what I purchase is still SD because I don't care what South Park or Mad Men looks like in HD and it's not wort my trouble. I guess it all depends on how important TV and entertainment are to you.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

I understand some of what you area saying, but the point is consumers don't. Hell i don't care much either most of what I purchase is still SD because I don't care what South Park or Mad Men looks like in HD and it's not wort my trouble. I guess it all depends on how important TV and entertainment are to you.

I realize quality means nothing to a lot of people; after all, Apple does have some movie sales (although not a figure worthy of their mention). But I would imagine that, for those people who have dropped a grand or two on a well-sized flatscreen television, they'd feel better about their purchase if the content they were filling it with didn't look like garbage. Blu-Ray sales are up 93% from a year ago, and accounts for — on average — about 12% of each week's disc sales revenue. Considering Apple hasn't touched the Apple TV in what's going on two years (and won't break out movie sales figures), I'm guessing their movie sales and rental business isn't doing so hot. My point being, the numbers show that more people care about quality than you believe. Consumers aren't passing up blu-ray players in favor of low-quality streaming boxes like the Apple TV; in fact the sales figures show people still prefer quality if the instant gratification of streaming means lower quality for the same price.
post #91 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

I realize quality means nothing to a lot of people; after all, Apple does have some movie sales (although not a figure worthy of their mention). But I would imagine that, for those people who have dropped a grand or two on a well-sized flatscreen television, they'd feel better about their purchase if the content they were filling it with didn't look like garbage. Blu-Ray sales are up 93% from a year ago, and accounts for — on average — about 12% of each week's disc sales revenue. Considering Apple hasn't touched the Apple TV in what's going on two years (and won't break out movie sales figures), I'm guessing their movie sales and rental business isn't doing so hot. My point being, the numbers show that more people care about quality than you believe. Consumers aren't passing up blu-ray players in favor of low-quality streaming boxes like the Apple TV; in fact the sales figures show people still prefer quality if the instant gratification of streaming means lower quality for the same price.

Of course they care about quality. What the purpose in paying all that money for a new HD TV anyway? Apple has let this all slip away- Blu-ray is up and up this year. This is same old tired excuse Apple fanatics give when pressed on this issue of quality. Also an episode of South Park is like the simplest line form where its not gonna matter anyway.
Do these people on here really think the public prefers AppleTV over Blu-ray? Are they that delusional? New models of Blu-ray are wireless and have streaming rentals as well. AppleTV must hanging by its toes for survival compared to Blu-ray and the public penetration.
post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post

Conclusion.....

I did'nt see any difference in the quality of the image on both way.
It takes 1 minute to the Blu-Ray to start begining when I put the disc in the disc reader.
It takes also 1 minute for the Apple TV to start to listen the film

Conclusion......

You need new glasses, or a new tv
post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

LOL! Bitrate is the most important factor in determining digital video quality

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.
post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Why laugh? we have itunes plus now?

BTW it is not illegal to RIP movies. the law state that it is Illegal to make the software to RIP a movie and to distribute the movies once they are transcoded, but it is not illegal to own the software or RIP the movies for your personal use. This is a common misunderstanding.

it absolutely is illegal to rip movies. DVDs and Blu Ray have built in DRM, circumventing this to make a copy is a violation of the DMCA, thus is illegal. Audio CDs don't have DRM, thus it is not illegal to RIP those.
post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

First, just to get the terminology correct, AAC, MP3, h.264 and MPEG-2 aren't encoders, they are more like codec standards. An encoder is a particular implementation of said standard. There are many different encoders for each of those standards.

There may have been a major difference in codec quality in the past, or maybe the difference is mostly in very bitrate starved cases, but hydrogen audio's tests don't show a huge difference between AAC and MP3 at commonly used music bitrates.

h.264 is generally better as a delivery codec, but Apple uses a far lower bitrate too, 1.5Mbps whereas a typical DVD might be 5-6Mbps or up to 10 in certain shots. But Apple's encoding isn't too bad for what it is.
post #96 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Conclusion......

You need new glasses, or a new tv

Did you compare the same way I do.

In dark zone or white zone something I see artefacts on the HD film from Apple TV but I see the same thing on the Blu-Ray version as well but not at the same place.

Stop to said I need glasses or a new TV, it was a new TV and I make the test, do you make it?


Remember that, HD content on iTunes on the computer is not the same than the one on Apple TV, on Apple TV it's much better
post #97 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanto View Post

Originally Posted by gigi
In a survey last winter related to the Apple TV I suggest Apple to make an iDVD to make digital menu available for the Apple TV.

Having our own film done by our camera and create menu like a DVD but exportable to the Apple TV or iTunes, the same way that iTunes extra work.

I think this is the way iDVD will evolved and this will be unique in the market.


""""That would be the last straw me not having a means to store my files. great idea to sell a few more mobile.me but terrible for most users.

I cant think of anything worse

Why???? Did iDVD was terrible for most user? absolutely not! it's the same thing than iDVD but without the DVD support that's it. nothing different
post #98 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

Yes don't look at bitrate on its own. Comparing HD content - Blu-ray vs. iTunes, Blu-ray H.264 is 1080p with 48 Mbps max bit rate, iTunes H.264 is 720p with 5 Mbps max bit rate. Clearly Blu-ray will give you a much better picture for the same or lower cost. Looking at the prices on Amazon, many of the movies are cheaper than iTunes and there is a larger selection.
post #99 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post

Remember that, HD content on iTunes on the computer is not the same than the one on Apple TV, on Apple TV it's much better

What do you mean here?
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

No it's not. Bitrate on it's own actually doesn't tell you much at all.

for audio, AAC is a far better encoder than MP3
for video, H.264 is a far better encoder than MPEG-2

Like BluRay, iTunes uses H.264 while DVDs use MPEG-2. Apple doesn't have to have the same bitrate for SD content that DVDs have to get comparable quality.

The question is how close does the bitrate have to be to offer comparable quality to DVD - they clearly don't have to be the same.

I guess I should have been less vague; bitrate is the most important factor in quality assuming codecs are the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post

Did you compare the same way I do.

In dark zone or white zone something I see artefacts on the HD film from Apple TV but I see the same thing on the Blu-Ray version as well but not at the same place.

Whu? There is no artifacting on the Batman Begins Blu-Ray (I believe that was the movie you said you used for comparison earlier). I'm sure there's plenty of it on the 5mbps max data-rate iTunes copy though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post

Remember that, HD content on iTunes on the computer is not the same than the one on Apple TV, on Apple TV it's much better

Again, whu? The copy on your Apple TV is identical to the copy on your computer.
post #101 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

I guess I should have been less vague; bitrate is the most important factor in quality assuming codecs are the same.


Whu? There is no artifacting on the Batman Begins Blu-Ray (I believe that was the movie you said you used for comparison earlier). I'm sure there's plenty of it on the 5mbps max data-rate iTunes copy though.


Again, whu? The copy on your Apple TV is identical to the copy on your computer.

whu??? no way, the HD movie in iTunes is about 1,5 GB and the HD movie in the Apple TV is about 4 GB. Is that the same thing??

By the way there is a new section of HD movie that it seams to be the same version than on the Apple TV but it's a limited selection. you have more HD content on the Apple TV


Yes there is artefact in the dark zone in the Blu-Ray, take a closer look please
post #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

My understanding of it is that you can only "share" amongst computers in your home who use the same iTunes account. So if your spouse and kids have their own, you still can't share amongst eachother.

Ok, lets say that Bob, Sue, Mat, and Dan all live in the same house and all have iTunes accounts based on their names and all have their own computers and ithings. Sue being the mom purchases the bulk of content and has authorized Bob, Mat and Dan's computers. She purchase one copy of Iron Man. That one copy can be played on all 4 of the computers and all of their ithings.

You see a single computer can be authorized to play anyone's content.

Now lets say that Sue had a friend Betty who was having a party and wanted to watch Iron Man on here big screen TV (attached to an AppleTV). Sue can send the file, burn the file whatever and when at Betty's house can authorize her system to play it. Presto, Betty can play the movie on her computer and any iDevices she connects to her computer as long as Sue leaves her computer authorized.

I hope this helps. The beauty if iTunes Movies is when I purchase 1 copy, I can watch it, my dad can watch it, my brother can watch it and my friend can watch it all without trying to swap around a single disk that Will eventually get lost or destroyed.

Digital has HUGE benefits over physical media.
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by puggsly View Post

Digital has HUGE benefits over physical media.

You seem to be confused, or missing some words out of the little speech.

Blu-ray and DVD are digital
post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by puggsly View Post

Ok, lets say that Bob, Sue, Mat, and Dan all live in the same house and all have iTunes accounts based on their names and all have their own computers and ithings. Sue being the mom purchases the bulk of content and has authorized Bob, Mat and Dan's computers. She purchase one copy of Iron Man. That one copy can be played on all 4 of the computers and all of their ithings.

You see a single computer can be authorized to play anyone's content.

Now lets say that Sue had a friend Betty who was having a party and wanted to watch Iron Man on here big screen TV (attached to an AppleTV). Sue can send the file, burn the file whatever and when at Betty's house can authorize her system to play it. Presto, Betty can play the movie on her computer and any iDevices she connects to her computer as long as Sue leaves her computer authorized.

I hope this helps. The beauty if iTunes Movies is when I purchase 1 copy, I can watch it, my dad can watch it, my brother can watch it and my friend can watch it all without trying to swap around a single disk that Will eventually get lost or destroyed.

I don't know if the benefits are so one sided.

What happens when the system hard drive dies? You know that most people don't back up, right? And that Apple generally doesn't permit people to redownload their purchases? You lose one disc, you lose one movie. Or you lose your hard drive, you lose almost all your movies. People should be backing up, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't, and there isn't any excuse, but it happens. To me, getting people to put more eggs in one basket without making sure they have a working backup system doesn't seem like a good idea.

For me, losing or damaging media isn't inevitable or that common. Messing around with authorizations is pretty irritating. If you forget to deauthorize something, you deauthorize everything and then reauthorize everything. With a disc, it just plays. I don't know if iTunes easily allows just playing from any source device (say, direct from a borrowed USB stick) without messing with preferences and then changing it back if you want iTunes to manage the library, it usually tries to transfer the file, and you need to wait for it to complete the transfer before playing.
post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by puggsly View Post

Ok, lets say that Bob, Sue, Mat, and Dan all live in the same house and all have iTunes accounts based on their names and all have their own computers and ithings. Sue being the mom purchases the bulk of content and has authorized Bob, Mat and Dan's computers. She purchase one copy of Iron Man. That one copy can be played on all 4 of the computers and all of their ithings.

You see a single computer can be authorized to play anyone's content.

Now lets say that Sue had a friend Betty who was having a party and wanted to watch Iron Man on here big screen TV (attached to an AppleTV). Sue can send the file, burn the file whatever and when at Betty's house can authorize her system to play it. Presto, Betty can play the movie on her computer and any iDevices she connects to her computer as long as Sue leaves her computer authorized.

I hope this helps. The beauty if iTunes Movies is when I purchase 1 copy, I can watch it, my dad can watch it, my brother can watch it and my friend can watch it all without trying to swap around a single disk that Will eventually get lost or destroyed.

Digital has HUGE benefits over physical media.

In our house, if 4 people wanted to watch a movie we would all watch it on our HDTV, not each separately on their own computers. The beauty of a disc is that it is there, no need to mess with file transfers connecting/disconnecting hard drives. And the best benefit of a disc is picture quality, 48 Mbps Blu-ray, 5 Mbps iTunes, no contest.
post #106 of 111
With HD movies (and movies in general) I think we're going to need a file format more advanced than MPEG-4. It has to be better quality and take up less hard drive space.
post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

OK, it's great an convenient that you can share everything and download everything on up to 5 computers, but what if you're not married with kids? What if you break up with someone? How in the heck are you going to split up your iTunes collection between you two? If you're not an IT person then you probably will not. and you'll loose a ton of stuff.

Just de-authorise their computer (you can do that within account settings). You'll only loose what they have bought themselves
post #108 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

BTW it is not illegal to RIP movies. the law state that it is Illegal to make the software to RIP a movie

No it is not illegal to make software that RIPs DVDs.
Quote:
and to distribute the movies once they are transcoded,

Correct.
Quote:
but it is not illegal to own the software

Correct.
Quote:
or RIP the movies for your personal use

Thisi s wrong.
In order to do RIP a movie, one must break the CSS encryption used on DVDs and breaking that encryption is illegal under the DMCA.
post #109 of 111
it is illegal to rip most DVDs

Quote:
In the case where media are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it illegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping
post #110 of 111
Does anyone really care about format? In the end all anyone wants is to be able to play watch content they purchase when they want.
I don't want a 300 plus DVD or Blue Ray disk collection
I don't want a multi Terabyte drive with all my movies either.
I don't want to pay for 500 channels so i can watch the 5 or 6 programs I like
I like the idea of netflix streaming except for the quality.
I want to watch what I want when i want.
I don't know what the future will be but I doubt it will be an attic full of DVD's or DRM material you can only play on one set.
post #111 of 111
I have owned a Sony NW-HD5 for the past year, and have been spoiled by the sound quality it produces. However, I couldn't pass up picking up this new Ipod (as I've been an avid dissenter of "IPod Culture" for the better part of 3 years) because of the many features taht were added, battery life in particular. The ability to play movies, games, and such are very nice as well, and the 80 gig hard drive and 349 price make it a steal.

With the good comes the bad as well. The sound quality from the Ipod does not compare to the Sony, in terms of overall clarity. The bass often time blends into the music failing to define itself as the beat. I've listened to the same songs on both the Sony and the Ipod through the new Bose Quiet Comfort 3 headphones and there really is no comparison in terms of sound quality. However, the Ipod is just infinitely more convenient, which is why I like it. The ability to make playlists on the go, Itunes over sonicstage, and the many many available accessories for the product give it an edge over all other mp3 players on the market.

Please do yourself a favor if you buy this Ipod or any Ipod, go out and buy some real headphones. As much as Apple has done a tremedous job marketing their product the quality of their headphones is absolutely atrocious. For a 350 piece of equipment do yourself, and everyone around you (since they can probably hear your music leaking through the stock headphones) a favor and buy sony's $30 sound isolating ear buds, the clarity you will get out of the hi's and lo's of your ipod will increase tenfold.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple rivals DVD with new iTunes Extras for movies and albums