Dell walks dangerous thin line... will they get sued ???
Dell DJ v.s. iPod
Off of dell.com
Dell offers comparision to the iPod
Problem is:
A) they show a 20GB Dell Dj priced at 249$ -actual price is 299$
With song capacity they compair 64kps for Dell and 128kps for iPod -in efforts to make it seem like Dell DJ holds almost 2 times the songs
C) Dell DJ now claims 20 hour battery life ??????? Was it not 16ish hours less than 2 months ago ????? How do they come up with 20 hours??? Back light not on ???? and continuous play ??? on 64kps size files ???
For anyone serious about music would know 64kps does no cut it
How does Dell not have to show trademarks by respected owners ???
More over, how can Dell get away with "Dell cannot be responsible for errors in typography or photography." is that even legal ??????? ?????? ???????
So Dell get the price right of your own products!!! -If your going to show 20GB capacity then show the price for the 20BG Dell DJ not 15GB... or show the Price for the 15GB iPod not 20GB 299$ v.s. 399$
LMAO LMAO LMAO: Funny how the comparisionis no longer on the Dell DJ "home page" -but now a "link" (pop up window)
Oh and Poster cannot be responsible for errors in typography or photography."
++also++ Apple; iPod , Dell; Dell DJ are trademarks of their respected owners
:::edit:::
alos is this not contradicting their 20hr battery life "claim"
gotta change the .gif if your going to change your produts "stats"
Off of dell.com
Dell offers comparision to the iPod
Problem is:
A) they show a 20GB Dell Dj priced at 249$ -actual price is 299$
With song capacity they compair 64kps for Dell and 128kps for iPod -in efforts to make it seem like Dell DJ holds almost 2 times the songs
C) Dell DJ now claims 20 hour battery life ??????? Was it not 16ish hours less than 2 months ago ????? How do they come up with 20 hours??? Back light not on ???? and continuous play ??? on 64kps size files ???
For anyone serious about music would know 64kps does no cut it
How does Dell not have to show trademarks by respected owners ???
More over, how can Dell get away with "Dell cannot be responsible for errors in typography or photography." is that even legal ??????? ?????? ???????
So Dell get the price right of your own products!!! -If your going to show 20GB capacity then show the price for the 20BG Dell DJ not 15GB... or show the Price for the 15GB iPod not 20GB 299$ v.s. 399$
LMAO LMAO LMAO: Funny how the comparisionis no longer on the Dell DJ "home page" -but now a "link" (pop up window)
Oh and Poster cannot be responsible for errors in typography or photography."
++also++ Apple; iPod , Dell; Dell DJ are trademarks of their respected owners
:::edit:::
alos is this not contradicting their 20hr battery life "claim"
gotta change the .gif if your going to change your produts "stats"
Comments
The data might even be accurate, if you look at all those footnotes. They could have dropped the price to $249 for an hour or so, and then put up this page. That's not very nice but it's technically not lying
Originally posted by Gon
Usually marketing only lies about intangible things. When you start pulling numbers out of your ass, it's not legal anymore.
The data might even be accurate, if you look at all those footnotes. They could have dropped the price to $249 for an hour or so, and then put up this page. That's not very nice but it's technically not lying
actually the junkbox was $199 for 20 gigs for a short time one of my friends ordered one
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
If I remember correctly the DJ has 2 batteries
And weighs in at about four kilograms, right?
they dont say what they compare it to so it is a null point
Originally posted by Existence
WMA>AAC. WMA at 64kbps is the equivalent of 96-128kbps Mp3 and marginally superior to AAC at a given bitrate. I had a hard time believing it first, but then I decided to listen to some WMA at 64kbps and I am now a believer.
the mids are there in wma but the highs arent as crisp, and bass, nowhere to be found. (in my experiance) and ripping takes a crapload more cpu when using wma in wmp as compared to aacin tiunes (althought i use 192k mp3, because it is totaly open) but i did try aac and am a huge fan of it in the itms traks
I have little experience with .wma, I try to avoid it when possible, even if it sounded better I wouldn't support the close standard that it is.
If you look in the picture above ^^^
With the Dell DJ in someones back pocket.... Notice how its not in use .... the cords (ear phones) clealy are going down .... ones ears are north of their waist...right ????
Originally posted by M.O.S.T
Also:
If you look in the picture above ^^^
With the Dell DJ in someones back pocket.... Notice how its not in use .... the cords (ear phones) clealy are going down .... ones ears are north of their waist...right ????
Sorry that is just extra cord length. It shows it going down but the second line is it coming up.
Originally posted by M.O.S.T
Also:
If you look in the picture above ^^^
With the Dell DJ in someones back pocket.... Notice how its not in use .... the cords (ear phones) clealy are going down .... ones ears are north of their waist...right ????
Well they are when one's head is up one's posterior...
...isn't "Mac OS (Ten)" good enough to spell 'most'?
You would think a company that makes such a big deal in their commercials about having an easy to use online store would have a website a bit more oh I don't know.. Easy to use? I mean even if they left it the jumbled mess of links it is now, at-least get rid of the inconsistencies..
I accidentally ripped a CD this morning at 128kbps AAC. The moment I played it on my headphones I knew that something was seriously wrong. I usually record at a minimum of 256kbps VBR MP3. I can't begin to imagine how horrible 64Kbps WMA must sound... like a record with a blunted needle being played through a tin can.
Of course, Dell is probably just advertising well to their market of gullible trailer trash who only have one ear anyway ("64kbps is just fine for Cleatus here since he can only hear in one ear, so he doesn't need all 128kbps").
In other news, Dell.com starts selling KIA sub compact cars...
Sound is all relative to the listener. Let's assume 64kbps WMA sounds close enough to 128kbps AAC (I don't know, I haven't listened to them). What's the problem? What if Dell advertised WMA at 128kbps? I don't think labeling Dell customers as deaf trailer trash is very fair, nor does it really speak positively on your character.
Religious riots incited over this crap sometimes put AO to shame. Bravo.
Originally posted by LoCash
You do realize that those of you complaining about Dell advertising at 64kbps aren't complaining about Apple advertising at 128kbps. Also that you guys have proclaimed proudly that you rip at incredibly high bit rates. Don't you find that odd?
Sound is all relative to the listener. Let's assume 64kbps WMA sounds close enough to 128kbps AAC (I don't know, I haven't listened to them). What's the problem? What if Dell advertised WMA at 128kbps? I don't think labeling Dell customers as deaf trailer trash is very fair, nor does it really speak positively on your character.
Religious riots incited over this crap sometimes put AO to shame. Bravo.
I don't own an iPod. I know enough to divide by two for how many songs an iPod could hold for because I rip at a higher rate. My point was that 64kbps is hardly usable unless you only have one ear. Dell is just plain using a stupid bitrate in the first place.
Maybe Creative should list how many songs they can hold at 32kbps? I can just see it now "Holding four times as many songes as the iPod..."
I'm surprised that no-one has claimed the real issue with Dell's use of 64kb encoding: Where do you find 64kb WMA? Is that what Napster uses? MusicMatch? Rhapsody? WalMart? Dell? Is that the default encoding quality used by Windows Media player, or the other WMA-based encoders? If it's not, then Dell is actively misleading people: When they load the player up with music from all the likely sources, their total will be a fraction of Dell's claim (unless they're the Minutemens' biggest fans...).
There's no problem with Apple basing their claims on 128kb AAC, because that's what iTunes defaults to, and it's what iTMS serves up, so it's what's going to actually be loaded onto the overwhelming majority of iPods.
a_greer mentioned that the MP3 format is "totally open." It's not. It's an MPEG industry standard just like AAC, and there are royalties and licenses involved just as with AAC. This is why people who need "totally open" codecs use Ogg Vorbis and its ilk.
[edit: I have to side with LoCash here: The slamming of "trailer trash" is baseless class warfare, completely unwarranted here. -Amorph]