At what point does "popular" become a four letter word?

Whoa. He lives!

Seems the new user columns have power to draw even the deadest of us out of slumber. Muahaha!

I think my point stands. You of all people should know that popularly results in backlash. Is it deserved? Not usually. But, it always happens. And you, my friend, are the quintessential underground elitist! You often, I'd say, go out of your way to associate yourself with things that are underground and non-mainstream, rather than what everyone else is doing.

I, of course, love the iPod and totally agree with what you've said here. I'm just not sure you practice what you preach, that's all. ;)

I don't necessarily hate certain bands because they are mainstream, but I find that I hate (hate may be too strong a word) them because I get tired of hearing the same song everywhere. There tends to be the "top 40" songs and not much else in the mainstream, the same songs and artists get repeated so often that even an amazing song becomes tiring or annoying.

That's why I don't tend to listen to the radio. My iPod on shuffle mode is my domain :)

I am the same ilyanep, except I don't like shuffle. The only way I know what songs are popular are by looking at the top 100 on iTunes, I rarely listen to the radio.

The iPod is definitely not a fad. It's a fad at the moment in that the mainstream public image is that the iPod is the cool, hip and trendy gadget to own, and that fad may pass.

I'm with Brian, the iPod as a fashion item has passed out of being a "fad". Mobile phones also have the same phenomena. I love the phone I have, and it's very important to me that I have a nice phone, but my older sister's obsession with her phone will never cease to amaze me. Gadgets in general are becoming a huge fashion item, I can't see that changing any time soon.

Some of us buy our mp3 players and phones because they're great gadgets that we use all day, but most younger people care more about the fashion statement than what the device is actually capable of.

OFF HANDED POST - SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST

I will say that while Apple was not the first to bring an MP# player by far... I will say they were the first to get it right and make it basic and easy to use. Its the 'un-gadget'. This would explain why it is no longer perceived as a gadget aside from being such a common item that most any MP3 player is simply called "iPod".

Though I still believe that in its own way it is still a fashion accessory gadget - how else would you explain the 'skins' that so many people sell. Id say the same thing is going to happen with the SONY PSP once the PS3 hits the stores.

Apple rides the success of iPod in the name because it really isn't all that great a machine anymore- definitely nothing innovative there (but it does work...as does a Creative Zen). Even my George Foreman Grill... the original was great, but things like "the next grilleration with a digital timer.... c'mon... nothing new added but two red numbers with the same price tag as the original. I even think that is because they have to keep the original sticker price but justify it so they 'update' the model, slap a consistent price tag on it and we keep buying it because we believe it is better - like the Dodge Charger... the 2006...not so great... 1966...great.

The iPod "isn't all that great anymore"? Are you saying the iPod of today isn't as good as the old ones? Battery life has gone up, size and weight has gone down, capability has gone up (as in hard drive space, ability to play different music formats, etc), the screen is now color (much nicer), and the major revisions to the button layout in 2G, 3G and 4G have all created a far superior device. The only time Apple has reduced the "greatness" of the iPod is when they trimmed the Firewire cable, but that came with a price drop and most people won't even notice (Firewire cable is only useful to "power users").

The "digital timer" you mention isn't in the iPod as far as I can tell, but if you're trying to say Apple is hyping irrelevant features, maybe you should take a look at Apple's own iPod homepage? You have to specifically hunt for a tiny "More features..." text link to see anything small, and even then it's things like having a different clock for whatever cities in the world you want, which is a huge feature for anyone who does lots of traveling. Some third party news websites do hype the new features, but don't you can't blame Apple for that.

It sounds to me like you don't like anything unless it's a brand new idea.

1.) You're are absolutely right, the digital timer is on the George Foreman Grill. Just. Like. I. Typed. It.

2.)

but don't you can't blame Apple for that.

um.... I don't know what to make of that really.

Extended battery life, flashable media, smaller size...all of that is a revision, things that the consumer asked for and many were wondering why it wasn't thought of first - some people why they haven't done anything to make a more scratch resistant screen -but - the over all functionality has not changed. EVERY version of the iPod does at least one thing - play music. So why the price change? My point was that you can't sell the first version of iPod for $299.99 anymore - so from a business aspect how do you rake in the same amount of money with the same product? You revise it, add a couple of minor things, re-release it with materials that cost less (because of time, not quality) and you rake in the same dough. Now, I will say that the iPod does what it is designed to do and does it well. The inverse wasn't my claim.

I'm not going to debate the product worthiness of an item.... I've learned picking a fight about anything Apple in front of Brian Ford is fruitless at best. Aside from that, yes I'm saying that a lot of products hype themselves up and it is still my honest opinion that any iPod after the initial release only succeeded in marginal steps. How exciting was the 50 dollar FM tuner that a Creative Zen had for ages? Riddle me that one. You world clock... if you travel a lot, chances are you can afford a watch that does the same or a PDA... hell a PDA camera phone with those options... redundant, redundant, redundant... I made a point to not harp specifically on Apple, but since the item shown was an iPod I stuck with JUST an iPod.

Anyway, before I open a can of worms I'm ill prepared to fend off in this neck of the 'vine'...

I can blame the manufacturer for that because they are the same features hyped up to the resellers... how else would they know what to make a selling point. Selling points are not an arbitrary list of 'stuff'. most of the time, a reseller has to list specific things to sell the product and it is done through an agreement between the manufacturer and the reseller.

An example of this was the NOKIA N-GAGE, or "the taco you can talk to". While working at EB Games (one of my retail managing experiences), the idea of a cell phone that you could listen to FM radio, play games (multilayer at that), and have a normal cell phone all at the same time got a LOT of people to pre-order. I must have sold 250 pre-orders in a month. The day the phone came out, 75 were returned because it was a huge let down. it was slick looking (aside from being taco-esque), had great marketing, and a definite consumer desire. Three months into the release of the phone we couldn't pay someone to have one, and the whole project went under shortly after.

It isn't that I don't like anything unless its a brand new idea (see also the challenge of inherent originality and its lack of existence), but I don't coo over every shiny rock thrown at me without at least understanding its basis either. If the base form is a glittery version of something done before with a different interface, of course I'll yawn at it. Forgive me for being obtuse to your modern ways of consumerism.

I think the question, if restated, would sound similar to "Mass appeal or banana peel?". The idea that something is popular because it is good, or is it good simply because it is popular? Why do some people shy away from the mainstream 'pop' items vs. those who trample through malls buying ONLY those items? Simply put (without making brand references), it is because some people buy into doing what they are told and others are insubordinate to the whims of mass marketing ploys.

Next time you read an ad or see one on TV, pay very close attention to the phrasing of the ad. You'll read or hear things like " NEED", "MUST", "NOW" All terms associated in a class of 'instant gratification. There are reasons why unsold products are handed to the potential buyer. I worked retail for 7 years, 5 of which were mid to upper level management - I know how to sell something and if you pay close attention - you'll see how things are hyped up. iPod is no exception.

Extended battery life, flashable media, smaller size...all of that is a revision, things that the consumer asked for and many were wondering why it wasn't thought of first - some people why they haven't done anything to make a more scratch resistant screen -but - the over all functionality has not changed. EVERY version of the iPod does at least one thing - play music. So why the price change? My point was that you can't sell the first version of iPod for $299.99 anymore - so from a business aspect how do you rake in the same amount of money with the same product?

Thats economies of scale surely?

Apple are selling FAR more iPods now than they were when I bought the 1G and also technological changes and advances have meant they can fit more in a small package for less money.

Its simple really.

You revise it, add a couple of minor things, re-release it with materials that cost less (because of time, not quality) and you rake in the same dough.

Minor things? Just the invention and addition of the Clickwheel itself constitutes as one of the biggest improvements in portable music players of all kinds -- digital, CD-player, MD or walkman.

And let's not forget that since the first iPod, we've gotten not just a Clickwheel, but also color displays and video (which plenty of people enjoy for smaller things like Saturday Night Live episodes), and as of recently, motion sensor-basic music enhancements through the Nike iPod Sports kit.

How exciting was the 50 dollar FM tuner that a Creative Zen had for ages?

How exciting was anything ever released by Creative? Aside from some of their players having marginally better technical specs sometimes, did they ever do anything that people really got excited about? Because I sure can't remember.

You world clock... if you travel a lot, chances are you can afford a watch that does the same or a PDA... hell a PDA camera phone with those options... redundant, redundant, redundant...

I really don't want to carry a watch on my arm that is large enough to fit four world clocks on it. I'm perfectly happy with my relatively large Seiko Kinetic that I got from my father. Anything bigger than this is too big for me, and I sure can't imagine putting three extra clocks on this thing and have it work.

As for PDA's: not my thing, I have a Powerbook but I can't always open that up easily, whereas I can check my iPod without a problem.

Phones, same deal. I don't have a very sophisticated phone because form factor is by far the most important thing for me in a phone.

Let me ask you this: why shouldn't the iPod offer something that may be useful to a lot of people (like myself) ? Especially when it doesn't require anything more than a few kilobytes in the iPod's operating system; no hardware changes necessary.

An example of this was the NOKIA N-GAGE, or "the taco you can talk to". While working at EB Games (one of my retail managing experiences), the idea of a cell phone that you could listen to FM radio, play games (multilayer at that), and have a normal cell phone all at the same time got a LOT of people to pre-order. I must have sold 250 pre-orders in a month. The day the phone came out, 75 were returned because it was a huge let down. it was slick looking (aside from being taco-esque), had great marketing, and a definite consumer desire. Three months into the release of the phone we couldn't pay someone to have one, and the whole project went under shortly after.

And this is a perfect example that hyping up a bad product isn't going to work. Which, in turn, proves once again that the iPod isn't a hyped-up bad product, but a good product that thanks to its quality has enjoyed additional hype.

If the base form is a glittery version of something done before with a different interface, of course I'll yawn at it.

If you want to yawn at a change from 5GB to 60GB, then go ahead. Meanwhile, let the rest of us enjoy the twelve-fold increase in storage space.

The idea that something is popular because it is good, or is it good simply because it is popular?

Something doesn't become popular while being a bad product, point in case, your very own Nokia N-GAGE example.

No amount of marketing and hype can keep a bad product at a 74% market share lead for four years in a row and counting.

@ Brian & gang
I never said an iPod sucks, nor did I say it fails in comparison to anything else out there. That would be picking a fight. For the THIRD time, I used iPOD because the picture is there for me to easily call things to mind.

I stated I found nothing exciting about an iPOD, nor did I understand the delight in the small changes - then ATTACK!.... okay if that's how you want to play it.

@Faruk Ates

No amount of marketing and hype can keep a bad product at a 74% market share lead for four years in a row and counting.

Then please explain to me the marketing behind Windows.

How many techno-gadgets do you own that offer the same features? - this was my point. People who own a phone, laptop, and PDA walk around with similar feature sets... which was my redundancy point. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

all of your other 'points' I've touched and explained my side. If you aren't going to bother to read what I've written before the post you replied to , I'm not going to repeat myself for the sake of someone being lazy. Sorry.

@MatthewM
Of course it is simple - what company will release a product and try to NOT sell more each year. Its common sense and simple logic that defines this, that after the initial release of a product, as the popularity of it grows, then the sales should increase.

Again, I never said iPOD sucks, I may question aspects of it, but I didn't see anyone stop and think "maybe this guy is utilitarian". No, suddenly someone questions popularity and uses a product i like as an example - lets rally. No, I don't see the point in a lot of modern gadgets. I'm not afraid to do things tha old way. I still use a pencil, I don't mind physically rolling a window down, I have vinyl records. You know what though, I can start a fire with sticks, I can find my location on a map and get from point A to point B 15 miles apart with a hand held compass and a topographical map, and I can do intermediate math without a calculator. I don't need a machine to do things for me. I fell that at times it makes us weaker and dependant on things apt to break. I dont' get the fashion aspect of phones and MP3 players because they are devices with a purpose not to make you look good doing it. Form over function is a concept I'll never get. I'm sorry to have disappointed some of you. For what it is the iPod holds its own IMO, but I was thinking about the device itself as far as function in comparison to what things are out there in the same field. How it acts and who did it first. I figure if you want to claim something as best, then you need to back it with physical fact - the problem is that it is backed with opinion therefore never really wrong, but never right either. If you like a product because it caters to your needs (whatever they may be), great - kudos to you. If I find it to fall short for what I look for in a product, you can't tell me I'm wrong without first understanding what I want or don't want it for. The question asked was, "When did popularity turn into a 4 letter word?" I answered the best way I couldand if you don't like what I've said - well... life's tough.

Then please explain to me the marketing behind Windows.

Windows was never much of a choice for consumers.

First, Microsoft made a killer deal with IBM, which to date is still seen as the most lucrative business deal in all of human history. Hey, someone's gotta have it, doesn't mean they're any good though.

Second, the killer deal basically ended up forcing Windows down people's throats. It wasn't much of a consumer choice because it was either an Apple Mac, or a PC from one of many different vendors who were competing fiercely with each other and were all a good amount cheaper than Apple's Macs were.

Then, there's the lack of consumer choice from the business environment: people were forced to work with Windows because a company would simply have Windows machines throughout all departments. The employees didn't get to choose which computer and OS they'd like, it was stuffed down their throats.

There are many different factors for it, but in the end, it's pretty clear that Windows didn't get to its dominating position thanks to being such a tremendously wonderful product compared to its competitors, or through it's fantastic marketing — it all started with one good business deal (and Apple having really poor leadership between '86 and '97, the exact period wherein Microsoft exploded into ultimate richdom).

Point being, Apple never forced you to get the iPod instead of another product. You didn't buy a computer or a car and get an iPod with it, nor did you start working somewhere and have a new iPod waiting at your desk, with the explicit order from your boss to use it.

@Brian
- point noted

@Faruk Ates
- You're right, there is a choice here in what MP3 player you have. There's an iPod, and without looking anything up - tell me the names of 5 others and how they compare - then I'll believe you are an informed consumer...

Five competitors off the top of my head is a bit hard, since I've usually studied them for 10 minutes, decided they were no good, and then never seen them mentioned on the internet again.

But I can come up with 3:

Sony something-or-other: good quality, ok design, good battery life, bad menu system, major problems with anything that's not sony's own format, and has very poor software.

Dell DJ: a really vanilla device with nothing to set it apart from the rest.

Creative's various models: good overall quality, excellent audio quality (I have a few audiophile friends and their initial tests came out extremely positive), good feature set, ok design, bad menu system (BTW: this is the only non-iPod I've had hands on experience with), poor compatibility with my mac.

As for the "facts" why I think the iPod is the best device:

It's been around longer, and as a result is a far more "polished" product. This is something most people miss, but is extremely important to me. I'm talking about things like the center of the wheel being a tiny bit raised, making it easy to find any button without looking at the device. Combined with the touch-sensitive scroll wheel, this means I can change tracks, adjust volume, pause and scan forward/backward, all without even putting my hand in my pocket, the cloth of my pants don't provide any hindrance to the iPod's controls. These things are extremely important to me, and don't exist in a "new" device (early-gen iPods don't have the same polish as the latest ones).

Compatible with Macs and the iTunes music store. Macs because that's what I have, iTMS because that's what most people use (like it or not, iTMS is the most popular music store).

Simple, elegant looks. I'm not a fashion person, my iPod never leaves my pocket and is scratched like you wouldn't believe (iPod + keys in same pocket while riding bike == bad). But I still like my devices to at least not be ugly, or overly "pretty".

Really high quality software on the other end. iTunes has smart playlists, great podcast and audiobook support, great integration with an online store, syncs automatically when I plug it in, etc.

I can install an operating system on it, and use it as my startup disk (PC users would call it the C drive). This has rescued me twice when I've had a failed hard drive and not enough money to immediately buy a new one.

I don't have a video iPod, but the User Interface on them looks extremely easy to use and far better than any other MP3 player that I've seen.

It's generally thinner and lighter than competitor's products. I love the form factor of the iPod Nano (which is what I'd buy if I was buying an iPod today).

There's an insane range of accessories available (from importing pictures from a digital camera to microphones to FM transmitters to completely useless flashlights, the iPod has everything).

I've already mentioned it, but I want to emphasize the polish of the iPod. If I accidentally unplug the headphones, it pauses the podcast or audio book I was listening too. There's no "off" button, which means there's no "on" button, and therefore rarely ever any waiting for it to start up. If you turn off the hold button, the backlight of the screen immediately lights up, the scroll wheel is far better than any other system I've seen for selecting an item from a long list. Go ahead and select "Evanescence" from 400 artists on a creative or sony player, then watch how fast I can scroll to it on my iPod.

The iPod is jam packed with tiny little things like that which I've never seen in any competing product, for the simple reason that they haven't got the time, the money, or the resources to focus on changes that can't be used as a bullet point on the box. I don't blame them, it's the only way to run a successful business (the 1st, 2nd and even 3rd gen iPods were significantly lower quality than the 4th and 5th gen ones), but even though I won't say it's their fault, I will still mark it as a draw back to any younger product which hasn't had time to "grow up".

There's an iPod, and without looking anything up - tell me the names of 5 others and how they compare - then I'll believe you are an informed consumer...

First, how does this really refute my point in any way? Just because someone can't recall the product names of products they looked at but didn't end up choosing, they are somehow "forced" into buying the one that they did?

But anyway, last I checked (for the Creative line this was almost half a year ago now, so products may have changed since then) there were the Creative Zen, Zen Nano, Zen Micro, Zen Micro Photo, Zen Photo... and then 20 others with similarly confusing and unidentifiable names.

iRiver had a bunch of players that I couldn't for the likes of me remember for more than 5 seconds because they don't actually use names, but product numbers. iFP-500, iFP-600, iFP-700... H100, H10, E10, H300... how can anyone remember such products?
(admission: I did look up the iRiver player names for this because I honestly couldn't recall whether they were iMP, iFP, iAF or whatever, just that they were ridiculous)

Sony have those "Walkman Bean" players but that's the only product name I can recall from their line.

And Sandisk had the sansa e280, I believe it was called. Only knew of that product thanks to the recent iDont-campaign extravaganza, though.

As for comparisons, you'll have lost me because I haven't actively looked at them in a long while. And why would I, I did that when I was in the market for "an mp3 player" and ended up getting the iPod for its excellent interface and iTunes integration.

Plus, the comparisons don't have much value to me. I don't really care too much about tech specs -- so what if the Sony player supports WMA? Having various friends in audio and video-related professions, I know better than let those horrible Windows Media formats come anywhere near me.

Any comparison you make between the iPod and other players will ultimately bring forward the biggest difference that applies to all of them: the iPod's clickwheel and iTunes interface. These two features are what truly distinguish the iPod from its competition, and they are the primary reasons why the iPod has a 74% market share and the others are fighting for the leftovers, competing largely with each other and hardly at all with Apple.

Oooh, I beat Brian to the punch while making the exact same observations and arguments.

Do I get a Vine Prize, now? ;-)

(ahem. carry on)

Sweet! It'll go nicely next to my "Congratulations, you managed to ruin a perfectly good discussion by going completely off-topic once again, you a-hole!" trophy. ;-)

Bringing things back on topic...

If anything, the inability to name 5 products off the top of my head is just another reason why no one has been able to compete with the iPod

That's an excellent point, I hadn't thought of that one.

again, I wasn't implying the iPod was worthless, and don't care about ANY MP3 player. I listen to music in my car on a CD which has better audio than MP3 anyway but... MP3 players are about portability therefore the lower quality (marginally) is justified. MP3 players are also not targeting audiophiles so, that's a lost fight also. However, my argument was that many people blindly buy a product BECAUSE it is popular. I'm pretty sure that the iPod has a decent amount of sales because it is popular and not because it is good. That's what I was implying. It was good to see that someone did a bit of searching.

I happen to love my Creative Zen Xtra - it interfaces with anything I want it to, where as the thinking that kept me from buying an iPod was not that it is an Apple product but because of the finicky interface and the delicate screens to the headphone jack issues (which over time willbe resolved). My Creative has taken an abrasive beating and gone strong for a few years now, and when purchased had longer battery life, and a much larger HDD. I don't NEED a pretty picture, but again I'm somewhat of a utilitarian. To each their own and if they feel they have their moneys worth in value - great, power to you (regardless of how I feel - it wasn't MY money that bout YOUR product).

You can rip CD's to MP3's of equal quality, and MP3 players can play them still just fine.

Also, you decided against an iPod for "popular" anti-iPod marketing. Finicky interface? It's commonly hailed by even the average iPod hater that the Clickwheel is the best interface for a portable device ever made. Delicate screens? There was an issue with a good amount of nanos, but on the whole the iPod screens are just as resilient as other players' — I know mine is still in great shape despite fairly abusive usage from time to time. Headphone jack issues? Never heard of any of that.

Shawn, I suggest you read my latest post, which covers this issue.

I have to agree, the issues you mention are very rare and covered by waranty. The *only* widespread issue with iPods that I know of is battery life, and that's simply because many people have really bad habits as to how often they charge their iPod. This affects every competitor as much as it does Apple, and is easy to resolve. Li-Ion batteries don't like to be drained 5% and then charged fully several hundred times in a row. The never used battery power eventually becomes "stale", and the 5% you've been using becomes the only power available. Fully drain your battery every couple of weeks, and it will last years before you see any noticeable change in battery life.

Apple ships an *insane* amount of iPods. Millions defective units a year (worldwide) means you have something like a one-in-a-thousand chance of having a defective unit yourself. Unfortunately, those millions of people are very vocal, even though the issue is usually fixed under warranty.

Actually, if you look at this comment you'll find that it's generally far, far less than 1% of products that is defective.

The battery issue is still a valid point, albeit perhaps a bit exaggerated ;)

@Faruk
actually you can not rip a CD to the same quality of an MP3 and still make it worth the portability. MP3s were meant to be much smaller in file size to the CD WAV.... so ripping it to the same quality and keeping the file size negates reason for MP3, no?

How many times do I have to remind you that I wasn't stating the iPod sucked - get off of my back about it, its a product, prone to opinions of others who don't find it "a pillar of excellence" and don't give it a second look.

I said the interface was finicky. I purposefully omitted any mention of the word defective because, and hold on to your hats, I read and understood that only 1% of the iPods were in fact defective, just like any other product on the market.

Faruk you are beating a dead horse and with points I never made.

There are lossless formats that are 100% identical to whatever you ripped them from, provided it's a digital source. They are actually capable of much, much higher quality than CD's if you can find a different source for the original data. Some of them have no compression (like aiff and wav) and are pretty much useless, but others (including laac, which iPods support) give filesizes roughly half the size of an Audio CD (it varies massively depending on the song mind you). A 60GB iPod can hold around 4,000 songs encoded in laac, which is good enough to render file size a non-issue.

Many competing MP3 players also support at least one lossless format.

How many times do I have to remind you that I wasn't stating the iPod sucked - get off of my back about it, its a product, prone to opinions of others who don't find it "a pillar of excellence" and don't give it a second look.

I'm not disagreeing with you because of the mention of iPods, I'm disagreeing with you because you're coming up with arguments that aren't true. You mentioned something which was completely wrong, so I corrected.

As for the iPod being a product prone to opinions, I totally agree. I just don't agree with your incorrect statement that songs ripped from CD to a digital format are always worse quality. As Abhi already pointed out above, there are various lossless formats that can provide higher quality music than CD's can, at a smaller filesize.

Faruk you are beating a dead horse and with points I never made

I'm not gonna argue about it, it isn't worth it, but... half of the stuff you argued, I never said.

Yes you did:

I listen to music in my car on a CD which has better audio than MP3 anyway but... MP3 players are about portability therefore the lower quality (marginally) is justified. MP3 players are also not targeting audiophiles so, that's a lost fight also.

That's all I'm responding to, and all of my responses apply to this statement.

I have three audiophile friends, they all have MP3 players.

I was referring to your debate on the defective aspect of an iPod, which I never said was defective...

Just because an audiophile has an MP3 player, doesn't mean they are a better format than anything else, nor does it mean that the format was targeting audiophiles. It means that your audiophile friends have an MP3 player, nothing more (based on what you've told me). I have an MP3 player, this doesn't mean that I bought it for sound quality - and if you must know - I bought it for portability.

If you actually read what I've said, I said that MP3 players are not targeting those concerned nor take time to discern the difference between the sound quality of 192kpbs at 44KHz in 16 bits to 320Kpbs at 44KHz in 24 bits. Unless you REALLY listen to it carefully and analyse the waveforms, you wont pick it up - which IS the point of MP3 formats as well as a smaller more manageable file size. I was saying that for portability and file size the format justifies itself.

And we were saying that portability no-longer requires using a low quality audio format like MP3. Formats like laac and flac *are* targeted at audiophiles, and it's possible to get extremely high quality sound by plugging an iPod into a good amp via the firewire/usb socket (headphone jack isn't going to be impressive, of course). I'm not aware of any true audiophile amps that are compatible with an MP3 player, but it'd be trivial if someone decides to do it (at least with an iPod, not sure how flexible creative's products are).

It's certainly true that the iPod and most MP3 players aren't targeted at audiophiles, but with the right equipment there's no reason why they couldn't be perfect. We're not talking about 320Kbps, we're talking about a variable bit rate that will use whatever it needs to reproduce the exact same sequence of ones/zeros when decompressed (usually around 600 to 800kbps), at whatever KHz/bit rate the original file was. Wikipedia doesn't say exactly what laac is capable of, but it'd be similar to flac which can support up to 1048.56kHz at 32 bits. iPods are perfectly cable of outputting a source of that quality via the data port on the bottom, which is what most speaker accessories, and even some headphones use.

I'm well aware of audio formats - I DJ and produce music. Music is my arena, however I'm glad someone understands the things you do. That kind of knowledge makes my life easier sometimes. I had used common bit rates used by common users on a day to day basis so as to illustrate a general.

Anyway, This whole thing was never ABOUT the iPod, but its obvious success and why. i grow tired of debating and hearing people justify the iPod. I don't care. Its a piece of plastic with a screen and electronics inside, just as a flag is cloth with color - its the sum of its parts and the value that the consumer holds on it is dictated by the perception of the mass in addition to the value added by the needs of individual consumer.

So you know... Creative is very flexible with formats and what you can do with them, just as much as iPods are. You might want to look up a couple of the Creative MP3 players in the same price range as the iPods. They support a lot of different things. Sony is supporting a lot of audio formats as well now too.

Hate to say it, but since when is a rat tail a fad? I love my rat tail! lol

That sir, is a question you should reserve for Billy Ray Cyrus and 1984. :P

The iPod is not a craze in the same way that cabbage patch dolls or any craze is, its an ever changing product, updated and revised to take into consideration the latest technologies and priced at the best point Apple can (after all, they can only make so many).

Sure the iPod might be taken over by new technology in the same way the Walkman was (remember that, was that a craze) but then that was down to Sonys own fault for dropping the ball and being zealous over not using MP3s (they are a record label after all). Thats the reason iPod is currently ubiquitous for MP3 player in the same way the Walkman was ubiquitous for personal tape player. I hope though that Apple and Steve will have enough foresight to catch the next change and keep right with it.

Are cars a craze? Are computers a craze? Are watches a craze? Maybe you're simply crazy.

@MatthewM: I voted your comment up just for

Maybe you're simply crazy.

cheers, appreciated ;-)

We've had enough conversations on here about not letting our replies get too long, soo...I wrote an article in response. :)

Thanks for the inspiration!