That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
A prejudice would be a preference of one option over another option. That's not the case. WMA is a NON-option for mac users, AND it doesn't work in iTunes, which is simply the best app out there for managing music. The only people who say it isn't usually don't know how to use it.
I really think we ought to be more nervous. Competition? That's not what Microsoft does. Competition is a gentlemanly game between two or more parties that play by the rules. Microsoft steps on things until they are squished in between its toes. Sometimes it loses, sometimes it doesn't. Ask Nintendo or Sony about that. They have so much cash they could give these things away for free for years. For free. Would they? I don't know.
Predictably, stock lost a few bucks. I bet and hope it will hit the 40s tomorrow/next week.
Actually, Sony's Playstation II crushed the XBox in world wide sales, and in fact Xbox only barely surpassed the Gamecube. So Sony and Nintendo just show that you can compete with Microsoft.
Now the next generation may not be the same, but since neither Sony or Nintendo has released their machines yet, it's a little early to tell. MS has quite a large history of market failures--the just have the Windows and Office monopolies to keep them going.
These pre-announcement are more meant to freeze the market than anything else.
people buy the entire package, there are some high end computer geekoids out there that can build their own computer and know all the nuances of all chips and why ddr ram works better. BUT in the consumer masses it's TOTAL ease of use that has made apple so successful. take my nephews mp3 player by whoever. when he got it he had his music in mp3 then he had to load them, then he wanted to organize and burn a cd. just like many of us..... guess what his system of clicks, upload, download, export playlist and burn was sooooo complex that when i showed him itunes he said time and time again it can't be that simple so i showed him....he now owns an ipod with itunes. people dont want mulitple player formats nothing is perfect but close to perfect and simple simple simple, i could explain and have my mom of 80 use an ipod and itunes.....and when she asks about virus sickness i can say no problem. people want it to work and work in a simple fashion that's why SJ is sooooo neurotic about the user interface and simplicity. ok so why if i have an ipod and itunes do a negative shift to MS gizmo, why keep both.....there isn't a reason for me to switch even at half the price. so even if they gave me one free in a box of cereal and charged $.50 per song, still why switch and get enslaved to MS . i'm comfortable with the technolgy and i don't have to re learn another mess of intructions. oh yea can we have a pool as to how soon after they sell that a virus infects them. i say a negative week. meaning a week before they are officially sold the first of many virus's will be announced. any takers???8) 8)
I think if there's one company for whom the pre-announcement no longer holds sway it's the Big Redmond Machine. Even non-techies are starting to wonder "What happened to that Longhorn-Vista they were supposed to release... when did that come out?"
The iPod has become the Microsoft Office of DAPs - sure you could build a better mouse trap, but once everyone's used to the original, who'll switch without a serious impetus? Nothing presented here impressed any of my workgroup - and they'll get excited about *anything*.
Apple is one of the few companies that doesn't need competition to stay innovative.
Totally disagree with that.
Before I killed it using electricity accidently (sigh) I had an iRiver H120 20GB player which was years ahead of the ipod in terms of featureset, if not cuteness and sheer loveliness. (It stlll had a rocking interface though)
Years ago when it was released (think 2001, what ipod was out then?) it was a spare USB2 external hard drive for me, could play loads of formats, had builtin tuner, optical in and out, built-in mic, PC and Mac compatibility and so on...
It was an ipod killer IMHO.
Apple won the war though clearly, and eventually released a player as good as it no doubt.
NOW, I listen to my music using my Windows Mobile 5 PDA with built-in bluetooth via Motorola Bluetooth headphones. I'd love an ipod now, but going back to wires, or having to buy some add-on dongle doesn't float with me.
If iPods don't "need competition to stay innovative" where's my Bluetooth iPod?
In a report last month, Reuters cited sources in saying Microsoft was laying the groundwork to compete against Apple's iPod digital music players and iTunes service with "an entertainment device that plays videos and music." [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Basically, MS is saying with not so many words:
We gave up, Apple. But surrender the fact that we are M$
I don't pay attention to the codec bakeoffs but your post is the first time I've heard anyone say WMA is better than AAC, particularly at bitrates that matter.
No it doesn't. I've 5000+ AAC files and I don't have an iPod.
Apple came out with variable AAc for our own use. They don't encode with it themselves. Just like they have higher bitrates they don't use, and lossless.
There have been tests done over time. It's not my opinion. I don't think either one is the mare's hair.
When I said Apple's AAC, I meant with Fairplay, of course.
Um, I think it is. As you have pointed out in other threads, most people can't hear the difference so the overall experience of the system is more important.
I'm refering to the fact that both are, in their way, closed systems, but that Apple's doesn't allow the possibility of competition.
I'm not refering to what we think of the quality of one vs the other.
I don't think everyone's prejudice is in the way. I offered fairly solid reasons why I thought Apple would maintain the lead. Could Microsoft overcome them? Sure, but I don't see anything in their past that convinces me they will.
And in the end it's not AAC vs. Windows Media codecs. It's Apple's approach to DRM vs. Microsoft's approach to DRM that will spell the format victor. So far, Windows Media DRM has been too difficult and restrictive to gain over Apple.
I'm looking at your descriptions. It seems that you have a strong feeling that isn't just related to the product.
A prejudice would be a preference of one option over another option. That's not the case. WMA is a NON-option for mac users, AND it doesn't work in iTunes, which is simply the best app out there for managing music. The only people who say it isn't usually don't know how to use it.
But, this is Apple's fault. Is it not? Apple could license it. MS has said that they are willing. So, Apple is limiting our choices, whatever you may think of them.
Also, I was referring to the descriptions of "disgusting", and "Yuck".
Precisely. It's a combination of FUD and overpromise+underdeliver. They've been doing this for about two decades now, but millions of people continue to fall for it.
Precisely. It's a combination of FUD and overpromise+underdeliver. They've been doing this for about two decades now, but millions of people continue to fall for it.
That's what happends when one has so much market power. Customers feel obligated to wait. And MS knows it. They have destroyed promising products that way.
2. No Hard drive, 3. Windows, 4. no content provider with a good UI aka iTunes, 5. and you can't possibly enjoy music with Motorola bluetooth headphones
1. If it works beautifully for me, how can it be a "sad config"?
2. Nano has no HD. I have 4GB memory in the PDA, similar to the Nano, but obviously more flexible.
3. I like Windows Mobile. I like XP too, and I like OS X. I'd like to seea new Newton, but I believe Mobile5.0 is a good OS.
4. Trust me, I don't care.
5. I do. Why do you say I couldn't? I have used MDR-71's with the device as well, but the BT headphones give me more freedom.
I'm not anti-iPod, I may even get a 2nd hand 2Gb Nano for the gymnext month, but won't buy a "proper" full iPod until they innovate a little more and catch up with the AVCRP and A2DP market.
I'm not anti-iPod, I may even get a 2nd hand 2Gb Nano for the gymnext month, but won't buy a "proper" full iPod until they innovate a little more and catch up with the AVCRP and A2DP market.
Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3? I've quite a few at that rate.
* And/or the thing gets bulkier and heavier for battery and antenna
* You probably have to pay something for the communications service involved (rather than just using your home ISP)
* You can't browse and sort results, with album art, columns of details, etc., on a tiny screen as well as you can on a computer's large screen
* You can't enter artist/title names to shop for on a handheld device as easily as you can with a real keyboard
* You can't manage and edit and organize your collection as well on a handheld device as you can with a mouse--unless you have a stylus adding bulk and ready to be lost (but no matter how bulky, the screen will still be smaller than iTunes on a computer)
* Your new music is now arriving in two places (assuming you still buy CDs or use download services)--rather than the simplicity of always sending new music directly to your computer which is your master library
* What about burning CDs?
* More complexity is not always a good addition to your music experience
* Would the quality be reduced, or would the arrival of the file just be slow?
* Is having to worry about finding a signal and signal strength and interruptions a good thing for shopping?
* You still have to plug in to charge anyway, which takes longer than synching your latest downloads
* Can't you wait until you get home? Is this really a "problem" consumers want solved?
* It still won't have Apple ease-of-use (or style or mindshare)
* Nearly every time poor Microsoft gets press exposure for it, the iPod and iTunes will be mentioned too--free mindshare for the competitor, and often in the tone of Microsoft copying Apple and playing catch-up (not the best kind or PR in the Vista vs. Leopard age)
* It will either be designed separately from the software and service (which puts it at a disadvantage compared to the well-integrated iPod + iTunes) or else it will be competing with services from Microsoft's allies
* The hardware will be competing with Microsoft's allies regardless.
* If you have to have DRM, I'd rather mine didn't come from Microsoft.
* It probably won't run on Mac, yet Microsoft will talk about "choice."
Otherwise, it sounds great
Even if Apple came out with such a service/device, many of the same problems would still apply.
But we don't know what will really be released: something else--like streaming satellite radio--I can see having its place. Still too bulky for me, but a streaming digital music subscription would have its uses. Maybe Microsoft is creating Sirius or FM with more choice? (Or with less?)
I like playing devil advocate so i will reply to each point.
1. How would you know what the battery life would be like?. Just because apple battery life sucks doesn't mean microsoft can't have a longer lasting battery. Apple battery is certainly not the most advanced nor does it give the same amount of hrs per use. I will presume you are basing your assumptions on the ipod battery life and assuming that wireless downloads will reduce that battery life (if it is the same as the ipod's to begin with.. of course if it's a lot better than the ipod battery, then your point is irrelevant)
2. Why would it get bulkier?. The motorola razr is thinner than an ipod and it has an antennae, plays music, is a phone, has contact list, etc. I presume that microsoft player will not be a phone so at least they can save space by not having to worry about including electronics for that. In fact, microsoft and anyone for that matter can make a player that is thinner than nano and still have an antennae. The end of the year is a long time in electronics. Things get shrinked every month. I dare you to be able to accurately predict the size of any electronic device 6 months from now.
3. Yes and no. You can wirelessly move music to your player using your own isp. There are tons of free wi-fi spots. I know, i use them often. I have a wireless laptop. When my company gived me a wireless laptop, the first thing that DID NOT come to mind was the fact that i would have to pay to use someone else ISP instead of my own. Strangely enough, i was right. I have never had to pay to use some communications services. I either use my own or use free wi-fi.
4. So what?. The fact is, you will be able to browse music. A 12.1 inch ibook screen is not as big as a 21 inch widescreen dell flatscreen but that didn't stop anyone from buying a ibook when it came out. The question is not whether the icons is as large as it is on a regular computer screen (duh, it will not be) but whether it will be usable enough for users to tolerate and enjoy. If users are willing to watch video on a tiny ipod screen, i gurantee they are willing to browse on that same tiny screen.
5. Entering is not as easy as keyboard. Again, so what?. People text all the time. In fact, that is the most popular thing right now. My younger cousins, neices and nephews are all into texting.. try telling them it's not as convenient as typing on a keyboard. I presume microsoft values the younger demographic 18-34 more than the "old fogies, i think the brick is still a cool cellphone" generation.
6 & 7. Stop comparing this device to a computer screen. You are really dating yourself here. How old are you, 100?.
8. Burning CD's. I presume the same way you can use your own home wireless setup to get music to this player will be the same way you can download the music to your computer to burn it and also why would you want to burn it?. Since i bought an ipod, i haven't burnt a CD. Sure, i could burn CD's to play in my home system i guess, but i think a majority of people will use this device and also i am sure pheripherals will appear.. examples, home entertainment systems that will allow you to plug in your microsoft player directly.. or systems that will allow you to wireless stream your music to your home entertainment system. CD burning is so yesterday. I'll bet you still play with your 8-track. Microsoft is not stupid. I don't like them (i really hate bill gates) but that is not a stupid company. There are many, many competitors that can testify to how ruthless and smart microsoft is. I gurantee there is a reason microsoft is previewing this thing. This is to line up all the major players to make accessories for this thing. Imagine never having to burn a CD again, ever. I'm sure apple is thinking of this too so don't dismiss this out of hand.
9,10,11,12. Just because you can download wirelessly does not imply more complexity. You have to download anyway, so that is something users are expecting. As to cannot wait to get home.. hmmm.. no. Why should i have to?. What's this, the 1960's?. If that is a valid question, then why cell phones?. Can't wait to get home to talk?. As to charging, ever heard of car chargers?. Yeah, i bet you have. How else do you think cell phones get charged when you are on the go. I must really question your age. I cannot even believe you asked that question. You must be 120 years old, grandpa. As to apple ease of use of mindshare.. the ipod is not perfect. There is a lot of room for improvement. Believe me, i know. If something better than the ipod came along, i'd dump my ipod in a heartbeat. This is not a mature market, there is still lots of innovation and if one thing we know, it's that microsoft is good at letting others be first to market and then stealing their market share by coming out with something better. They have lots of money. If's it's possible to make something better, they will find a way even if it cost a trillion bucks. To destroy microsoft, some company will have to reduce their marketshare in office and operating systems. Those two are their cash cows, those two applications allows microsoft to basically lose money in their other business indefinetly. Which company you know can suffer loss after loss for years and beyond infinity without going under?. Since no company has been able to challenge microsoft in the operating sytem market and office application suites, they are free to spend as much as they want anywhere else. When microsoft first came out with their palm immitation device, people laughed.. i bet palm is not laughing now. When microsoft came out with their mobile device software, the sambian alliance laughed, bet they are not laughing now. Apple better worry. There is no company on earth that has laughed at microsoft and lived to tell about it. I gurantee, if microsoft can deliver even half what they are promising, the ipod share will reduce dramatically. Apple had better decide to fight to the death on this one. The ipod loyalty is not as deep as apple believes.. people are waiting on better things. Apple better be the one prepared to give them the better things or else we could see history repeating itself... microsoft eating apple lunch.
I'm exhausted.. I'll let you be the one to figure out where else you went wrong.
If they also included an "Add to Wishlist" feature rather than just "Buy Now", that would be even better.
You can drag songs from the iTMS into a playlist to make a wishlist. What would be really cool is if they created a wishlist that your friends/family could see and they could ust the "Gift" feature to send you what you wanted.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
A prejudice would be a preference of one option over another option. That's not the case. WMA is a NON-option for mac users, AND it doesn't work in iTunes, which is simply the best app out there for managing music. The only people who say it isn't usually don't know how to use it.
Originally posted by Aquatic
I really think we ought to be more nervous. Competition? That's not what Microsoft does. Competition is a gentlemanly game between two or more parties that play by the rules. Microsoft steps on things until they are squished in between its toes. Sometimes it loses, sometimes it doesn't. Ask Nintendo or Sony about that. They have so much cash they could give these things away for free for years. For free. Would they? I don't know.
Predictably, stock lost a few bucks. I bet and hope it will hit the 40s tomorrow/next week.
Actually, Sony's Playstation II crushed the XBox in world wide sales, and in fact Xbox only barely surpassed the Gamecube. So Sony and Nintendo just show that you can compete with Microsoft.
Now the next generation may not be the same, but since neither Sony or Nintendo has released their machines yet, it's a little early to tell. MS has quite a large history of market failures--the just have the Windows and Office monopolies to keep them going.
These pre-announcement are more meant to freeze the market than anything else.
The iPod has become the Microsoft Office of DAPs - sure you could build a better mouse trap, but once everyone's used to the original, who'll switch without a serious impetus? Nothing presented here impressed any of my workgroup - and they'll get excited about *anything*.
Originally posted by ashnazg
Apple is one of the few companies that doesn't need competition to stay innovative.
Totally disagree with that.
Before I killed it using electricity accidently (sigh) I had an iRiver H120 20GB player which was years ahead of the ipod in terms of featureset, if not cuteness and sheer loveliness. (It stlll had a rocking interface though)
Years ago when it was released (think 2001, what ipod was out then?) it was a spare USB2 external hard drive for me, could play loads of formats, had builtin tuner, optical in and out, built-in mic, PC and Mac compatibility and so on...
It was an ipod killer IMHO.
Apple won the war though clearly, and eventually released a player as good as it no doubt.
NOW, I listen to my music using my Windows Mobile 5 PDA with built-in bluetooth via Motorola Bluetooth headphones. I'd love an ipod now, but going back to wires, or having to buy some add-on dongle doesn't float with me.
If iPods don't "need competition to stay innovative" where's my Bluetooth iPod?
Originally posted by AppleInsider
...
In a report last month, Reuters cited sources in saying Microsoft was laying the groundwork to compete against Apple's iPod digital music players and iTunes service with "an entertainment device that plays videos and music."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Basically, MS is saying with not so many words:
We gave up, Apple. But surrender the fact that we are M$
(billions in cash, you know what i mean)
Originally posted by JLL
The sold 50+ million iPods without these features.
Isn't the simplicity what the iPod is all about? Look at Creative, they always talk about features, features and features, but they don't sell.
Good point. The rate the iPod is gonna be sold is still amazing.
I'd never ever imagined such a huge success of the iPod
in the first place. Because i thought, the average MP3
customer would scream for features features features.
The entire iPod history proved me wrong. Good.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Apple has used VBR AAC back as far as iTunes 5.
I don't pay attention to the codec bakeoffs but your post is the first time I've heard anyone say WMA is better than AAC, particularly at bitrates that matter.
No it doesn't. I've 5000+ AAC files and I don't have an iPod.
Apple came out with variable AAc for our own use. They don't encode with it themselves. Just like they have higher bitrates they don't use, and lossless.
There have been tests done over time. It's not my opinion. I don't think either one is the mare's hair.
When I said Apple's AAC, I meant with Fairplay, of course.
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Um, I think it is. As you have pointed out in other threads, most people can't hear the difference so the overall experience of the system is more important.
I'm refering to the fact that both are, in their way, closed systems, but that Apple's doesn't allow the possibility of competition.
I'm not refering to what we think of the quality of one vs the other.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I don't think everyone's prejudice is in the way. I offered fairly solid reasons why I thought Apple would maintain the lead. Could Microsoft overcome them? Sure, but I don't see anything in their past that convinces me they will.
And in the end it's not AAC vs. Windows Media codecs. It's Apple's approach to DRM vs. Microsoft's approach to DRM that will spell the format victor. So far, Windows Media DRM has been too difficult and restrictive to gain over Apple.
I'm looking at your descriptions. It seems that you have a strong feeling that isn't just related to the product.
We all have prejudices.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
A prejudice would be a preference of one option over another option. That's not the case. WMA is a NON-option for mac users, AND it doesn't work in iTunes, which is simply the best app out there for managing music. The only people who say it isn't usually don't know how to use it.
But, this is Apple's fault. Is it not? Apple could license it. MS has said that they are willing. So, Apple is limiting our choices, whatever you may think of them.
Also, I was referring to the descriptions of "disgusting", and "Yuck".
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
These pre-announcement are more meant to freeze the market than anything else.
MS is expert at that. They built their company on it.
Originally posted by Chucker
Precisely. It's a combination of FUD and overpromise+underdeliver. They've been doing this for about two decades now, but millions of people continue to fall for it.
That's what happends when one has so much market power. Customers feel obligated to wait. And MS knows it. They have destroyed promising products that way.
Originally posted by bcharna
1. Thats a pretty sad config.
2. No Hard drive, 3. Windows, 4. no content provider with a good UI aka iTunes, 5. and you can't possibly enjoy music with Motorola bluetooth headphones
1. If it works beautifully for me, how can it be a "sad config"?
2. Nano has no HD. I have 4GB memory in the PDA, similar to the Nano, but obviously more flexible.
3. I like Windows Mobile. I like XP too, and I like OS X. I'd like to seea new Newton, but I believe Mobile5.0 is a good OS.
4. Trust me, I don't care.
5. I do. Why do you say I couldn't? I have used MDR-71's with the device as well, but the BT headphones give me more freedom.
I'm not anti-iPod, I may even get a 2nd hand 2Gb Nano for the gymnext month, but won't buy a "proper" full iPod until they innovate a little more and catch up with the AVCRP and A2DP market.
Originally posted by belfast-biker
I'm not anti-iPod, I may even get a 2nd hand 2Gb Nano for the gymnext month, but won't buy a "proper" full iPod until they innovate a little more and catch up with the AVCRP and A2DP market.
Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3? I've quite a few at that rate.
Originally posted by nagromme
Buying music right to your player? Sounds GREAT!
Except...
* There goes your battery life
* And/or the thing gets bulkier and heavier for battery and antenna
* You probably have to pay something for the communications service involved (rather than just using your home ISP)
* You can't browse and sort results, with album art, columns of details, etc., on a tiny screen as well as you can on a computer's large screen
* You can't enter artist/title names to shop for on a handheld device as easily as you can with a real keyboard
* You can't manage and edit and organize your collection as well on a handheld device as you can with a mouse--unless you have a stylus adding bulk and ready to be lost (but no matter how bulky, the screen will still be smaller than iTunes on a computer)
* Your new music is now arriving in two places (assuming you still buy CDs or use download services)--rather than the simplicity of always sending new music directly to your computer which is your master library
* What about burning CDs?
* More complexity is not always a good addition to your music experience
* Would the quality be reduced, or would the arrival of the file just be slow?
* Is having to worry about finding a signal and signal strength and interruptions a good thing for shopping?
* You still have to plug in to charge anyway, which takes longer than synching your latest downloads
* Can't you wait until you get home? Is this really a "problem" consumers want solved?
* It still won't have Apple ease-of-use (or style or mindshare)
* Nearly every time poor Microsoft gets press exposure for it, the iPod and iTunes will be mentioned too--free mindshare for the competitor, and often in the tone of Microsoft copying Apple and playing catch-up (not the best kind or PR in the Vista vs. Leopard age)
* It will either be designed separately from the software and service (which puts it at a disadvantage compared to the well-integrated iPod + iTunes) or else it will be competing with services from Microsoft's allies
* The hardware will be competing with Microsoft's allies regardless.
* If you have to have DRM, I'd rather mine didn't come from Microsoft.
* It probably won't run on Mac, yet Microsoft will talk about "choice."
Otherwise, it sounds great
Even if Apple came out with such a service/device, many of the same problems would still apply.
But we don't know what will really be released: something else--like streaming satellite radio--I can see having its place. Still too bulky for me, but a streaming digital music subscription would have its uses. Maybe Microsoft is creating Sirius or FM with more choice? (Or with less?)
I like playing devil advocate so i will reply to each point.
1. How would you know what the battery life would be like?. Just because apple battery life sucks doesn't mean microsoft can't have a longer lasting battery. Apple battery is certainly not the most advanced nor does it give the same amount of hrs per use. I will presume you are basing your assumptions on the ipod battery life and assuming that wireless downloads will reduce that battery life (if it is the same as the ipod's to begin with.. of course if it's a lot better than the ipod battery, then your point is irrelevant)
2. Why would it get bulkier?. The motorola razr is thinner than an ipod and it has an antennae, plays music, is a phone, has contact list, etc. I presume that microsoft player will not be a phone so at least they can save space by not having to worry about including electronics for that. In fact, microsoft and anyone for that matter can make a player that is thinner than nano and still have an antennae. The end of the year is a long time in electronics. Things get shrinked every month. I dare you to be able to accurately predict the size of any electronic device 6 months from now.
3. Yes and no. You can wirelessly move music to your player using your own isp. There are tons of free wi-fi spots. I know, i use them often. I have a wireless laptop. When my company gived me a wireless laptop, the first thing that DID NOT come to mind was the fact that i would have to pay to use someone else ISP instead of my own. Strangely enough, i was right. I have never had to pay to use some communications services. I either use my own or use free wi-fi.
4. So what?. The fact is, you will be able to browse music. A 12.1 inch ibook screen is not as big as a 21 inch widescreen dell flatscreen but that didn't stop anyone from buying a ibook when it came out. The question is not whether the icons is as large as it is on a regular computer screen (duh, it will not be) but whether it will be usable enough for users to tolerate and enjoy. If users are willing to watch video on a tiny ipod screen, i gurantee they are willing to browse on that same tiny screen.
5. Entering is not as easy as keyboard. Again, so what?. People text all the time. In fact, that is the most popular thing right now. My younger cousins, neices and nephews are all into texting.. try telling them it's not as convenient as typing on a keyboard. I presume microsoft values the younger demographic 18-34 more than the "old fogies, i think the brick is still a cool cellphone" generation.
6 & 7. Stop comparing this device to a computer screen. You are really dating yourself here. How old are you, 100?.
8. Burning CD's. I presume the same way you can use your own home wireless setup to get music to this player will be the same way you can download the music to your computer to burn it and also why would you want to burn it?. Since i bought an ipod, i haven't burnt a CD. Sure, i could burn CD's to play in my home system i guess, but i think a majority of people will use this device and also i am sure pheripherals will appear.. examples, home entertainment systems that will allow you to plug in your microsoft player directly.. or systems that will allow you to wireless stream your music to your home entertainment system. CD burning is so yesterday. I'll bet you still play with your 8-track. Microsoft is not stupid. I don't like them (i really hate bill gates) but that is not a stupid company. There are many, many competitors that can testify to how ruthless and smart microsoft is. I gurantee there is a reason microsoft is previewing this thing. This is to line up all the major players to make accessories for this thing. Imagine never having to burn a CD again, ever. I'm sure apple is thinking of this too so don't dismiss this out of hand.
9,10,11,12. Just because you can download wirelessly does not imply more complexity. You have to download anyway, so that is something users are expecting. As to cannot wait to get home.. hmmm.. no. Why should i have to?. What's this, the 1960's?. If that is a valid question, then why cell phones?. Can't wait to get home to talk?. As to charging, ever heard of car chargers?. Yeah, i bet you have. How else do you think cell phones get charged when you are on the go. I must really question your age. I cannot even believe you asked that question. You must be 120 years old, grandpa. As to apple ease of use of mindshare.. the ipod is not perfect. There is a lot of room for improvement. Believe me, i know. If something better than the ipod came along, i'd dump my ipod in a heartbeat. This is not a mature market, there is still lots of innovation and if one thing we know, it's that microsoft is good at letting others be first to market and then stealing their market share by coming out with something better. They have lots of money. If's it's possible to make something better, they will find a way even if it cost a trillion bucks. To destroy microsoft, some company will have to reduce their marketshare in office and operating systems. Those two are their cash cows, those two applications allows microsoft to basically lose money in their other business indefinetly. Which company you know can suffer loss after loss for years and beyond infinity without going under?. Since no company has been able to challenge microsoft in the operating sytem market and office application suites, they are free to spend as much as they want anywhere else. When microsoft first came out with their palm immitation device, people laughed.. i bet palm is not laughing now. When microsoft came out with their mobile device software, the sambian alliance laughed, bet they are not laughing now. Apple better worry. There is no company on earth that has laughed at microsoft and lived to tell about it. I gurantee, if microsoft can deliver even half what they are promising, the ipod share will reduce dramatically. Apple had better decide to fight to the death on this one. The ipod loyalty is not as deep as apple believes.. people are waiting on better things. Apple better be the one prepared to give them the better things or else we could see history repeating itself... microsoft eating apple lunch.
I'm exhausted.. I'll let you be the one to figure out where else you went wrong.
Originally posted by TrevorD
If they also included an "Add to Wishlist" feature rather than just "Buy Now", that would be even better.
You can drag songs from the iTMS into a playlist to make a wishlist. What would be really cool is if they created a wishlist that your friends/family could see and they could ust the "Gift" feature to send you what you wanted.