That's nothing new. Except for a few months after an iPod update, there usually were several competitors with cheaper models with more features.
And don't forget SanDisk's annual drop in price for the holidays. They top Amazon's list, along with the iPod, for a solid month each year as cat their prices nearly in half for the holidays.
The included iPod headphones are honestly not that bad, and I doubt that they're as cheap as 50 cents to make. I think Bob 'Dr. Mac' Levitus had a review where he gave Apple headphones some grudging props.
I have a pair of Shure E3Cs, which are very popular among audiophile headphones, and while they whup absolute ass on the iPod 'phones in regards to detail and clarity, the iPod 'phones have better bass and just make you want to 'groove' more somehow.
I'd much rather listen to jazz or classical on the Shures, but for working out, rock, rap, metal, etc I'd go with the stock 'phones. Though perhaps that says more about the Shure's lousy bass performance, and the crappy quality of a lot of popular music recordings. \
I think if you want to hear some truly lousy 'phones, you go with some of the el cheapo 'Sony Extended Bass' numbers or its clones. There is some really muddy, imbalanced sound to be had out there, and of course if you play tracks that are already over-bass'ed, it gets even worse.
My candidate for an Oscar in this area of craptacular-ness has to be a certain kind of home loudspeaker, though... you know, the kind you can get for really cheap, yet have 15" woofers.
.
I haven't listened through them myself. I'm going by the reviews which have all said to throw them away and get good ones.
Two years ago, at the Home Entertainment Show here in NYC, my daughter and I were walking past the Shure booth, where a young lady had their various model phones, and was letting people try them (with throwaway covers!). I asked my daughter if she was interested, and she was. I let her try the different models while I walked to the next booth. When I came back, she said that she liked the same ones you bought, so I bought them for her. In that booth was a guy from a company that made custom earplugs for the phones, so she sat down, and they shot some silicone in her ears, and we bought a set of those, which they mailed to us when they were done (free lifetime replacement).
She likes these a lot, and surprisingly, is very careful with them, though, with the custom plugs, they don't fit into the Shure case.
The refurbs and the new ones are the same price now! How does that make sense?
re: iPod headphones:
The ones that came with my 160GB Classic are a lot better than the ones that came with my second gen Nano. They sound a lot better than any of the other headphones I have actually. Better bass, fuller sound, less noise, etc.
Try them for yourself then. You may be surprised to find that, for rock and pop and the like, they aren't half bad... especially for included 'phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
The ones that came with my 160GB Classic are a lot better than the ones that came with my second gen Nano. They sound a lot better than any of the other headphones I have actually. Better bass, fuller sound, less noise, etc.
My problem with iPod headphones is the design. They aren't comfortable for my ears. I much prefer ear buds.
Yeah, it's a shame iTunes doesn't have exactly this option. I sure would have been using it for the past year with my shuffle. Hm... I wonder if Jasen ever checked the options to see if this is possible...
I'll take this as a snarky way to point out that the option is there - as someone else pointed out. I only have a nano, and I don't think this option exists - if it does, I'd love to know where to find it.
I'll take this as a snarky way to point out that the option is there - as someone else pointed out. I only have a nano, and I don't think this option exists - if it does, I'd love to know where to find it.
I don't know that it is really lower margins. Cost of chips has been steadily dropping, but apple hasn't lowered prices or bumped capacity for a long time. This probably just brings a margin way bigger than most apple product more into line with their average.
Macworld.co.uk is saying £32 and £45. Might want to wait to get all the facts before whining next time.
The facts are what it says on the Apple Store, not what a fan site says . The UK store was down as well but back up with the same £49. I've just spoken to a rep there and they have said they have no information on a price-drop... again...
...and now the new price is on the apple store UK, exactly what macworld.co.uk said: £32.
I believe this was created when the Shuffle was a 512MB USB stick.
You can easily make copies of your audio tracks in other bitrates and codecs using iTunes in a just a few clicks.
But that's a huge pain in the butt (messes up ratings, play counts, etc). It would be great to have the option of iTunes automatically converting files for ANY ipod, I don't know why they don't do it. They really should.
But that's a huge pain in the butt (messes up ratings, play counts, etc). It would be great to have the option of iTunes automatically converting files for ANY ipod, I don't know why they don't do it. They really should.
I see your point and he is screwed.
While not time intensive for one file, if you are do this for 4, 8, 80 or 160GB of audio the time would become excessive. I don't see Apple implementing this now as capacity is doubling much faster than our desire to double audio bitrates.
i really don't see how this is going to change anything.
If you already own one as I do there is abolutely no need for a new one. Many if not most people use them for the gym and an hour - 1 1/2 hour workout has more than enough music on it.
i really don't see how this is going to change anything.
If you already own one as I do there is abolutely no need for a new one. Many if not most people use them for the gym and an hour - 1 1/2 hour workout has more than enough music on it.
You don't see how dropping prices and raising capacities will raise sales?
These aren't intended for people who already own one, it's aimed at the millions of people who either don't have an iPod yet or have an iphone/classic/touch or something else that isn't workout friendly.
You don't see how dropping prices and raising capacities will raise sales?
These aren't intended for people who already own one, it's aimed at the millions of people who either don't have an iPod yet or have an iphone/classic/touch or something else that isn't workout friendly.
How many people are there? 7 billion or so. Ok, even with half not being able to afford this, or being too young, that still leaves around 3.5 billion.
That's not a fan site, that's a mac news site. It's evening in the UK right now, how much you want to bet the price is updated by tomorrow morning at the latest there?
By fan site I mean a site set up by people not associated with Apple in any way other than liking their products... you call it a mac news site, I call it a fan site, same difference. As far as I'm aware AI is in exactly the same position?
Well of course the price updated the next day ... what I don't get is why Apple pull down the UK store around 1:00 PM (not in the evening after the standard "close of business") then put it back up in the UK with no changes and tell their online reps to play dumb for 18 hours or whatever. Seems some kind of deliberate attempt to get a last few sales at the higher price, and we all know they aren't short of a few pounds so why bother.
And this practice isn't even consistent, Aperture 2 appeared on US & UK at the same time last week, but a month back the Apple TV price dropped on US site and still hasn't budged on the UK one
Even taking the tax into account, £199 is no way close to $229.
Anyways, I've a right to whinge... 'ave you seen the weather here?
That's not a fan site, that's a mac news site. It's evening in the UK right now, how much you want to bet the price is updated by tomorrow morning at the latest there?
By fan site I mean a site set up by people not associated with Apple in any way other than liking their products... you call it a mac news site, I call it a fan site, same difference. As far as I'm aware AI is in exactly the same position?
Well of course the price updated the next day ... what I don't get is why Apple pull down the UK store around 1:00 PM (not in the evening after the standard "close of business") then put it back up in the UK with no changes and tell their online reps to play dumb for 18 hours or whatever. Seems some kind of deliberate attempt to get a last few sales at the higher price, and we all know they aren't short of a few pounds so why bother.
And this practice isn't even consistent, Aperture 2 appeared on US & UK at the same time last week, but a month back the Apple TV price dropped on US site and still hasn't budged on the UK one
Even taking the tax into account, £199 is no way close to $229.
Anyways, I've a right to whinge... 'ave you seen the weather outside?
Oh and as I'm apparently welcome, I'd just like to point out that the facts at the time of your post and Mr Underhills post were not what macworld.co.uk said. That's the point I was making, I wasn't denying macworld were right, simply that until it actually happens it is not, in fact, a fact.
Comments
That's nothing new. Except for a few months after an iPod update, there usually were several competitors with cheaper models with more features.
And don't forget SanDisk's annual drop in price for the holidays. They top Amazon's list, along with the iPod, for a solid month each year as cat their prices nearly in half for the holidays.
The included iPod headphones are honestly not that bad, and I doubt that they're as cheap as 50 cents to make. I think Bob 'Dr. Mac' Levitus had a review where he gave Apple headphones some grudging props.
I have a pair of Shure E3Cs, which are very popular among audiophile headphones, and while they whup absolute ass on the iPod 'phones in regards to detail and clarity, the iPod 'phones have better bass and just make you want to 'groove' more somehow.
I'd much rather listen to jazz or classical on the Shures, but for working out, rock, rap, metal, etc I'd go with the stock 'phones. Though perhaps that says more about the Shure's lousy bass performance, and the crappy quality of a lot of popular music recordings.
I think if you want to hear some truly lousy 'phones, you go with some of the el cheapo 'Sony Extended Bass' numbers or its clones. There is some really muddy, imbalanced sound to be had out there, and of course if you play tracks that are already over-bass'ed, it gets even worse.
My candidate for an Oscar in this area of craptacular-ness has to be a certain kind of home loudspeaker, though... you know, the kind you can get for really cheap, yet have 15" woofers.
.
I haven't listened through them myself. I'm going by the reviews which have all said to throw them away and get good ones.
Two years ago, at the Home Entertainment Show here in NYC, my daughter and I were walking past the Shure booth, where a young lady had their various model phones, and was letting people try them (with throwaway covers!). I asked my daughter if she was interested, and she was. I let her try the different models while I walked to the next booth. When I came back, she said that she liked the same ones you bought, so I bought them for her. In that booth was a guy from a company that made custom earplugs for the phones, so she sat down, and they shot some silicone in her ears, and we bought a set of those, which they mailed to us when they were done (free lifetime replacement).
She likes these a lot, and surprisingly, is very careful with them, though, with the custom plugs, they don't fit into the Shure case.
I haven't listened through them myself. I'm going by the reviews which have all said to throw them away and get good ones.
Try them for yourself then. You may be surprised to find that, for rock and pop and the like, they aren't half bad... especially for included 'phones.
.
The refurbs and the new ones are the same price now! How does that make sense?
re: iPod headphones:
The ones that came with my 160GB Classic are a lot better than the ones that came with my second gen Nano. They sound a lot better than any of the other headphones I have actually. Better bass, fuller sound, less noise, etc.
Try them for yourself then. You may be surprised to find that, for rock and pop and the like, they aren't half bad... especially for included 'phones.
The ones that came with my 160GB Classic are a lot better than the ones that came with my second gen Nano. They sound a lot better than any of the other headphones I have actually. Better bass, fuller sound, less noise, etc.
My problem with iPod headphones is the design. They aren't comfortable for my ears. I much prefer ear buds.
Yeah, it's a shame iTunes doesn't have exactly this option. I sure would have been using it for the past year with my shuffle. Hm... I wonder if Jasen ever checked the options to see if this is possible...
I'll take this as a snarky way to point out that the option is there - as someone else pointed out. I only have a nano, and I don't think this option exists - if it does, I'd love to know where to find it.
- Jasen.
I'll take this as a snarky way to point out that the option is there - as someone else pointed out. I only have a nano, and I don't think this option exists - if it does, I'd love to know where to find it.
The option only exists for the Shuffle.
I don't know that it is really lower margins. Cost of chips has been steadily dropping, but apple hasn't lowered prices or bumped capacity for a long time. This probably just brings a margin way bigger than most apple product more into line with their average.
Macworld.co.uk is saying £32 and £45. Might want to wait to get all the facts before whining next time.
Computer tough guy huh!!
The option only exists for the Shuffle.
And let me point out how dumb this is now that he Shuffle has the same capacity as my nano.
- Jasen.
The facts are what it says on the Apple Store, not what a fan site says
...and now the new price is on the apple store UK, exactly what macworld.co.uk said: £32.
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore/
You're welcome.
...and now the new price is on the apple store UK, exactly what macworld.co.uk said: £32.
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore/
You're welcome.
Heh heh!
And let me point out how dumb this is now that he Shuffle has the same capacity as my nano.
I believe this was created when the Shuffle was a 512MB USB stick.
You can easily make copies of your audio tracks in other bitrates and codecs using iTunes in a just a few clicks.
I believe this was created when the Shuffle was a 512MB USB stick.
You can easily make copies of your audio tracks in other bitrates and codecs using iTunes in a just a few clicks.
But that's a huge pain in the butt (messes up ratings, play counts, etc). It would be great to have the option of iTunes automatically converting files for ANY ipod, I don't know why they don't do it. They really should.
But that's a huge pain in the butt (messes up ratings, play counts, etc). It would be great to have the option of iTunes automatically converting files for ANY ipod, I don't know why they don't do it. They really should.
I see your point and he is screwed.
While not time intensive for one file, if you are do this for 4, 8, 80 or 160GB of audio the time would become excessive. I don't see Apple implementing this now as capacity is doubling much faster than our desire to double audio bitrates.
If you already own one as I do there is abolutely no need for a new one. Many if not most people use them for the gym and an hour - 1 1/2 hour workout has more than enough music on it.
i really don't see how this is going to change anything.
If you already own one as I do there is abolutely no need for a new one. Many if not most people use them for the gym and an hour - 1 1/2 hour workout has more than enough music on it.
You don't see how dropping prices and raising capacities will raise sales?
These aren't intended for people who already own one, it's aimed at the millions of people who either don't have an iPod yet or have an iphone/classic/touch or something else that isn't workout friendly.
You don't see how dropping prices and raising capacities will raise sales?
These aren't intended for people who already own one, it's aimed at the millions of people who either don't have an iPod yet or have an iphone/classic/touch or something else that isn't workout friendly.
How many people are there? 7 billion or so. Ok, even with half not being able to afford this, or being too young, that still leaves around 3.5 billion.
That's enough people for Apple to expand into.
That's not a fan site, that's a mac news site. It's evening in the UK right now, how much you want to bet the price is updated by tomorrow morning at the latest there?
By fan site I mean a site set up by people not associated with Apple in any way other than liking their products... you call it a mac news site, I call it a fan site, same difference. As far as I'm aware AI is in exactly the same position?
Well of course the price updated the next day
And this practice isn't even consistent, Aperture 2 appeared on US & UK at the same time last week, but a month back the Apple TV price dropped on US site and still hasn't budged on the UK one
Even taking the tax into account, £199 is no way close to $229.
Anyways, I've a right to whinge... 'ave you seen the weather here?
That's not a fan site, that's a mac news site. It's evening in the UK right now, how much you want to bet the price is updated by tomorrow morning at the latest there?
By fan site I mean a site set up by people not associated with Apple in any way other than liking their products... you call it a mac news site, I call it a fan site, same difference. As far as I'm aware AI is in exactly the same position?
Well of course the price updated the next day
And this practice isn't even consistent, Aperture 2 appeared on US & UK at the same time last week, but a month back the Apple TV price dropped on US site and still hasn't budged on the UK one
Even taking the tax into account, £199 is no way close to $229.
Anyways, I've a right to whinge... 'ave you seen the weather outside?
Oh and as I'm apparently welcome, I'd just like to point out that the facts at the time of your post and Mr Underhills post were not what macworld.co.uk said. That's the point I was making, I wasn't denying macworld were right, simply that until it actually happens it is not, in fact, a fact.