dont

no others offer the storage capacity that the ipod classic does

i am actually surprised to hear that. but i would never support apple by buying their shitty products if there are alternatives

Most apple products are pretty good, just expensive. But when you consider most companies just source cheap equipment and have poor build quality it kinda makes up for it.

well "shitty products" is a generalization. the quality of their products is usually fine actually but i hate their philosophy of prohibiting customers to use their products as they wish, they force you to use certain tools, etc and limit functionality if it supports their cause.

True for ipods/iphones/itunes I suppose and their coding for windows is shocking.

itunes @ windows is the biggest piece of garbage ever.

but it's awesome under osx :)

It's ok, I preferred how I had foobar setup on my old laptop though, but it's not worth the effort to change.

I think they also forbid you to use OSX on anything but their machines.

They just don't support non-apple hardware, nor try to. From their point of view it means less work and more polish.

Sensible business practice if you ask me.

no, from what I know their license only allows you to use the software you bought on their hardware.
Not actively supporting other hardware is another matter, altogether.


/e

found you a link ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86

Since when does anyone follow licenses?

Of course they are going to put that in the license, they want you to buy the hardware/software as a complete package and the company is better because of it.

OSX itself doesn't limit functionality or force you to use their tools.

how does denying the customer to legally use a product he buys to it's full extend improve the product?

I didn't say it improves the product per se.

ok, but still the only reason they do it is to get more money, it doesn't benefit the customer in any way.

It does in a way, as a result of them taking up that policy with the OS they can forget completely about other supporting other hardware and focus only on making it run "perfect" on theirs.

You could say if they allowed it to be installed on non-apple hardware they could still not support it but there would be a level of expectation that they do support it and it would reflect badly on them as a company when they refuse to.

Microsoft with Windows on the other hand has to support as much hardware as possible and isn't always as smooth and efficient as it could be because of it.

I diagree.

The could print on their box that the software is optimized for their own hardware and there won't be support for anything else. And that will be enough for most apple users to only buy that hardware. Believe me, I got two of those in my family :P

Making it illegal only has this one reason: profit.

Oh and in case you didn't read me link, apple is actively trying to stop companies from installing the OS on other hardware. So it clearly is not a case of not wanting to support it.

I didn't say it wasn't for profit, but it doesn't have a negative affect on the consumer like you suggest it does.

Simply saying they don't support other stuff, as you well know, will always come back to burn them, hence the illegality of it.

it doesn't?

how about businesses having to pay much more money if they want to legally run pcs with OSX?

They can use other systems?
It's not like OSX is some industry standard forced upon everyone. Pretty much every program you can get for Mac there is a windows or linux equivalent.

It'd be different if, say, iTunes was the only way to purchase music and they made it only work in OSX and on Apple computers but that's not the case.

When you buy an Apple you buy the package, sure it would be nice to install the OS on non apple hardware but it was never intended as a stand alone product ala Windows. It's always been seen as a single product, the only reason you can even buy it standalone is so that people can upgrade to the latest version.

The iPod/iPhone on the other hand do try to be pretty damn restrictive and they suffer because of it.

so why do that actually pay money (for lawyers etc.) to keep companies from installing the software on other hardware.
To benefit the customer?

They do so in an attempt to enforce the license that otherwise nobody would pay it any attention (like other unenforceable laws, like banning weed etc.).

In those circumstances there is no benefit to the consumer but the ensuring Apple products are only run on Apple products allows them to offer better technical support, fix problems quicker, have a stable, efficient OS etc.

On the one hand they do these things for profit, yes, but they also do them for performance and efficiency (Both of the products and the things around the product).

but they also do them for performance and efficiency (Both of the products and the things around the product).

I don't believe that for one second.

If they only want to keep supporting their own hardware which is their good right of course, all they have to do is say so, or even if you insist have their license.

Spending money on enforcing that license only serves one goal: Get people to buy their hardware instead of someone else's.
And the money for that comes out of the profit margin the customers pay.

Sure, it is a pretty "normal" business move, but I can stand it if people proclaim Apple does so much for their customers.

If they didn't attempt to enforce the license then nobody would follow it.

Nobody following the license, results in the perception that it is an OK and supported practice (because you can bet 99% of people won't have a clue it's even against the license).

So, all of a sudden because they haven't attempted to enforce their license they will have people requesting support from Apple for unsupported problems (You can bet you'd have tonnes of people buying OSX for their laptops then taking them into Apple stores, making it all far less efficient).

When Apple turn to them and say "sorry, we don't support that" all it does is piss off the user and gives Apple a negative brand image.

If you have a law and don't enforce it, people believe their is no law (see the common misconception about weed being legal in the Netherlands, it's not, it's simply unenforced).

By getting rid of this problem through the license and attempting to enforce it, it sends a strong message that it is illegal and unsupported allowing them to focus on their products entirely and not have to mess about with morons installing OSX on PCs or having to support other hardware to ensure that they don't get a negative brand image. (It also stops people using OSX to advertise rival products etc.)

hmm I don't think we'll ever agree on this one and pretty much all has been said so let's just stop it here.




but I do believe you agree that your earlier statement: "They just don't support non-apple hardware," was a bit inexact.

Apple is a company that rely on good brand image, don't underestimate how the simple act of allowing OSX to be installed on any hardware could undermine that.

Just look at Microsoft's reputation and they don't even make PC Hardware.

So no I don't agree that my statement was wrong, not supporting it includes ensuring that it remains fully unsupported etc.

well to me there is a difference between not supporting certain hardware and actively stopping others from using it. hence inexact.

Stopping people from doing so is part of ensuring that it's not supported.

you wrote "just" in your statement which makes it look like the only thing they are doing is not supporting other hardware, while I wrote that they forbid using the OS.
therefore your statement was inexact.

You have no idea. There is still no fucking flash plugin for the Ipod Safari. That sucks balls, man. How the hell can i jack off to 30 second porn scenes, that are available on the mobile? :|

porn hub...

There are alternatives!

youtube now offers html5 vids, no flash needed \o/
dunno if the moblie safari supports it though

this is why im asking if there are any alternatives to itunes..

Yes. A freaking ton. I use winamp myself.

The build quality of Apple products is usually very good. sure, they're expensive but you honestly don't see too many hardware problems. i've been using both macs and PCs for years... and the only times where i've really had hardware issues is when i was being cheap instead of buying parts from expensive but reputed brands.

the ipod also does have a pretty intuitive interface so it's quite a solid music player. i don't know if other players offer better sound quality though.

the only problem i see with an ipod is using shitty itunes on windows but pretty much everyone on this site should have the smarts to use alternative software that gives you full functionality.

You honestly don't need 160 gigs if you're only going to be storing music on it, unless you're one of those guys who gets entire albums at a time. Or if you want to add videos or pics. In that case, then yeah get as much as you can.
I used to have one of the earlier Creative Zen mp3 players and it was fantastic. And at about half the price of an ipod at the time, it was a good bargain. May wanna check out something like that, too.

unless you're one of those guys who gets entire albums at a time

Why wouldn't he be? Proper music comes in album form.

B/c sometimes you only like one or two songs an artist/group does, and you don't wanna have the entire album?

and how would you know if you like th e songs without actually listening to it, and more than once? Looking back, most of my favorite songs weren't love at first sight, far from it

So the only way you listen to new music is to get entire albums?
You never download music, or ask your friends or family for recommendations?

There are many ways to hear new single songs w/o having to purchase an entire album's worth. Plus iTunes let you listen to a 1:00 sample before purchasing, so you can tell if that's "the song I heard the other day that I love soooo much!1!" etc.

There are plenty of ways to discover if you like the music on an album before purchasing it.

If I was to ask friends/family for recommendations I doubt anybody would name a song, they would name an artist/album. I would then do "research" into it to see if I liked it and act accordingly.

You're talking about discovering new music, and my post was a response to syl's comment.
I originally said "why would you buy entire albums at a time" if you only like one or two songs an artist/group did. syl seemed to say that that's the basic way of finding out what you like, which I (gently) mocked since we all know it's not.

But he never claimed you had to buy entire albums?

And I never claimed singles were the only way to go?

No, nobody said you did :)

It's not the only way, never said that. But if I like an artist in general I'm more inclined to get the whole album than just the two or three songs I might know

Right, but that doesn't really apply to my comment of

B/c sometimes you only like one or two songs an artist/group does, and you don't wanna have the entire album?

If you already know you only like a few songs an artist/group did, you're not going to buy entire albums. You're going to buy only the singles you want, and not waste space on your ipod or w/e.

We seem to have derailed to "finding new music" versus "knowing what you like and deciding to get just a few songs or an entire album."

Nobody ever said having a single track was a bad thing, whereas saying "unless you're one of those guys who gets entire albums at a time" implies that it is either weird (Or possibly "stupid" but I doubt it was meant like that).

I replied saying proper music comes in album form, which is true for the most part. There's very few artists that I think "Oh, I like this single track but everything else is rubbish".

You're inferring something I did not imply, but I understand where you're coming from.
When I said that, I didn't mean it in a negative sense. I simply meant that if you're someone who gets albums at a time, instead of mostly singles, then yes, of course you'll need more storage space.

The implication was that it was unusual to do so.

I still think it is. Maybe not on ESR, but I'd be willing to bet most people don't get entire albums at a time. Well, those who pay for it, anyway. lol

People who like music do.

No, getting an album is the most typical, traditional way to buy music. Even if only one single on it is good. iTunes is the first music store that allows you to do otherwise, yet I'm guessing most people still buy full albums. Personally, in all of my experience, if an artist has only one stand out song on their album, it's just by accident, the song is shit, and it's a shitty artist, and I need to not ever bother with them again.

Nah, people have been buying singles for the last 50 years (probably longer), and probably always will.

lol @ americans buying songs

Who said anything about buying? :P

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1810452#pid1810452

im trying to figureout my macos yet :(

winamp

job done.

or foobar

keep in mind they can be iffy when it comes to album art. it was also a pain to get multiple cd albums working correctly through anything other than itunes.

both are far better than itunes though

also, proper tagging into the respective media libraries!

win!

the tagging thing is my biggest concern, when ive used itunes in the past id add an album i have on my pc and alot of the time it would spread songs out into dif albums, although in hindsight it was probably just me being a retard and not sorting them out properly.

iTunes organises based on Album Artist, so if you have that blank and just use Artist it'll organise them all under different bits (for albums with multiple artists).

dont iuse itunes for tagging

use tag&rename

i use ImTOO Ipod and it works great just drag ur songs on to ur ipod, and the other way around. but u have to tag the songs first so it looks nice on ur ipod..

anyone knows an alternative for itunes for the iphone 3gs?

sharepod is pretty nice and works flawlessly.

http://www.floola.com/modules/wiwimod/

Might work on windows 7.

On the topic of mp3 players

Can anyone recommend a small mp3 player, like say, ipod shuffle or something along those lines in terms of size. I don't care much about the space really. Just need a few songs so I can go jogging or on the way to uni. Market seems to be going towards the whole MVP thing...

what about the nano? got an 8gig one, still fits in my jeans pockets and isn't too heavy for sports either.

too expensive

http://www.sony.de/product/nws-e-series/nw-e005

It says 140€, but i got mine for like 30. You'll need to search around a bit, 'cause it's pretty "old".
Downside is, that it forces you to use ATRAC on it. So, like with ipods, you will have to use a certain software to store your mp3's on it (SonicStage). But it's not that bad really.

SanDisk Sansa Clip+ apparently best one of 2009

i have the non + one and it's great as well

Creative Zen Stone http://www.techshout.com/images/creative-zen-mp3.jpg
I got it myself (how's that for a sales speech?)
Ideal for running, and what not.

I got an iPod Touch as well but hardly use it outdoors because of the bulk and hassle..

Thanks for all the replies. I couldn't find the Sony anywhere. The sansa is probably a bit too big for my purposes.

Any recommendations for earphones?

Was looking at the Creative EP 630 or whatever. They seemed ok for my purposes. Though, on my earphones, the cable usually breaks at the end of the plug from stuffing it in my pockets. The zune player Headphones have some nice fabric covered cables. Any other manufacturers do this kind of thing?

why not just get an iphone? holds all the same shit, but then you can also use it for movies and other shit.

ive got a HTC hero. the ipod will spend most of its time plugged into some hifi speakers and used that way

Perhaps you should get an airport express and stream to your hifi speakers instead

well i dont see the point of getting an ipod for music. when you can get something else and NOT have to USE itunes.

you don't have to use itunes. Apple wants you to but you really don't have to. there are many alternatives available.

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/

Maybe you'll find something you like.

I have Cowon D2+ and its fucking awesome.

Had my 80gb for quite a while now, super happy with it.

-edit-
As I slowly wake up at work it strikes me you most likely know everything I wrote, fuck. If you find anything I'll take it too x) Couple of good suggestions here already...

just google for it
there's a winamp plugin that'll let you manage your ipod (instead of using itunes)
doesn't work for ipod touch/iphone tho since they have a way to manage files

don't even need a plugin for it

Media Monkey
Songbird

Use Mediamonkey. I rip all my CDs to a secondary harddrive (internal) in FLAC format, thenit synchs automatically with the iPod.

winamp & ephpod
eac & lame
tag&rename


...been like that for years now.

and as far as that argument/nonsense above, if you can afford an intel mac, in any form, there is no reason to own any other piece of hardware unless you have highly specialized needs.

Floola ( http://www.floola.com/modules/wiwimod/ ) works great for me (ipod nano). it's free and doesn't need installing, you can just copy the file to your ipod and run it straight from there anywhere you go.

Spotify.

Are there any which let you play the music on the ipod but then copy the files off onto another machine without any hassle?

ipod is complete shit in comparison to the old player i had from 2004 which was 40gb and basically just worked as another hdd, so you plugged in the usb and dragged and dropped anything you wanted in and played it. Also meant you could organize easily using windows folders. I could give a fuck less about playlists or sorting by artist or genre blah blah blah.

I've owned my 5th generation 30gb video ipod since it came out... in 2005 i believe, and the battery life is still good on it and I've haven't had any problems with it.

I'm really happy with it, but I'm not really much of a fan of apple and their douchebaggery.

so i finally bought an ipod, got the 5th gen nano 16gb. really nice little device.
however having to use itunes at the moment which i really didnt want to do. winamp doesnt support the latest devices yet, something about apple changing security or whatever to stop 3rd party software.
the other problem i have is it doesnt seem to be compatible with the speaker dock thing i have which was the main reason for buying the ipod. fits in the cradle but no sound unless i crank the volume up the highest and then only a very slight sound, will look into it further.
so all in all doubly fucked over! still its a nice gadget and i will get an fm transmiter thing to use it in the car/van.