Why would this be necessary? When I plug in my Meizu, I don't have to sync anything unless I want to. And even then, only what I want to.
And you don't have to sync the iPod if you don't want to either.
Originally Posted by Jumbie
It was the roadblock like I said but I am aware of something like Yamipod so if she had a PC (like 95% of the world's computer users do) it wouldn't have been a problem for me. However, for most others in this situation, they would not be able to transfer songs (and let's pretend that they're even sharing legally).
This has nothing to do with having a PC or not. You can use a PC formatted iPod on a Mac. There are potentially benefits to using a Mac formatted Mac on a Mac, but in your sister's case I don't think they apply. Perhaps it could be better documented, I'm not sure. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
But regardless, for transferring songs you still have the "sync with one computer limit". This is not a Mac/PC formatting issue, it's a usage methodology that Apple use. There ARE reasons behind this btw, but I don't want to derail the thread more than it already has :)
Originally Posted by Jumbie
Which is why, in my opinion, iPod + iTunes (or let's say iTunes specifically since it's possible to do it with other software) is inferior.
No argument there, it's your opinion. All depends what you want out of it.
Originally Posted by Jumbie
If you designate 20 Gb of your 60 Gb iPod for file storage, that space is lost to music use. With UMS players, it isn't.
Absolutely untrue. It's statements like this that make me wonder about your experience with an iPod. No offence intended, it's just a pretty significant usability issue and it's completely false. I believe some of the Creative players had that issue, but it has never applied to iPod.
So you say that you know how the iPod works, but I do detect a bit of confusion about it. But still - it's not for everyone. You're certainly entitled to knock the product without being a guru on it.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
But regardless, for transferring songs you still have the "sync with one computer limit". This is not a Mac/PC formatting issue, it's a usage methodology that Apple use. There ARE reasons behind this btw, but I don't want to derail the thread more than it already has :)
Okay, last post from me because you're right that this has gone off topic from the iPhone.
I just didn't understand what you were getting at with the whole syncing of 80 Gb every time thing. And all I'm saying is that that doesn't need to happen so what exactly were you trying to point out?
Quote:
No argument there, it's your opinion. All depends what you want out of it.
For sure.
Quote:
Absolutely untrue. It's statements like this that make me wonder about your experience with an iPod. No offence intended, it's just a pretty significant usability issue and it's completely false. I believe some of the Creative players had that issue, but it has never applied to iPod.
So you say that you know how the iPod works, but I do detect a bit of confusion about it. But still - it's not for everyone. You're certainly entitled to knock the product without being a guru on it.
Maybe I didn't get my point across properly but if you drag and drop to the iPod i.e. use it for data storage, you lose that space to music. I think my mistake was in saying that if you allocate 20 Gb, you lose 20 Gb (indicating that this would be the case even if you're only using 1 Gb). My bad.
Forgetting about the hidden folder (I'd completely forgotten about that cause it was a moot point in my case since my sister had her iPod formatted for a Mac file system and therefore not readable on a PC without extra software) because most people have no clue how to enable hidden system files and therefore would not be aware of this either, let me give you an example.
My player has a 4 Gb capacity (which is more than I need cause I don't carry my entire collection with me; although some people like to do that).
If I put 1 Gb of songs (data) on it, I can share that 1 Gb with someone else if I wanted to. I still have 3 Gb free.
If I put 1 Gb of songs on a 4 Gb iPod and knew I'd be going by a friend and wanted to share music with him (let's say I'm average Joe user who knows nothing about a computer except I plug in the USB and iTunes opens and syncs my music) I'd then have copy those same songs to data storage so that I could share them. I now only have 1/2 my space free and also wasted (only a little time in this case) time transferring everything over again.
And while I'm certainly not an iPod guru (never claimed to be) I do believe that this is the case and is the point I was trying to make. Files stored as data on an iPod are only seen as data even if they are media i.e. audio or video. They cannot be played by the iPod without being synced and therefore copied over again. Whereas with a different format e.g. UMS, it's one and the same. Correct me if I'm wrong. But let's say I bought a brand new iPod so there's nothing on it and I stored 10 songs on it using Data storage i.e. drag and drop, I couldn't play those songs although I could share them.
WTF are you talking about. The PPC has a complete touch screen. If the ipod's controls were so revolutionary... someone would have made a program to match that of the ipod's circle control.
You're the one who cracks me up. You obviously don't know what he's talking about. I'm quite sure that he's not talking about the touch screen.
This is the sensor he is talking about.
Quote:
iPhone employs advanced built-in sensors—an accelerometer, a proximity sensor and an ambient light sensor—that automatically enhance the user experience and extend battery life. iPhone’s built-in accelerometer detects when the user has rotated the device from portrait to landscape, then automatically changes the contents of the display accordingly, with users immediately seeing the entire width of a web page, or a photo in its proper landscape aspect ratio.
iPhone’s built-in proximity sensor detects when you lift iPhone to your ear and immediately turns off the display to save power and prevent inadvertent touches until iPhone is moved away. iPhone’s built-in ambient light sensor automatically adjusts the display’s brightness to the appropriate level for the current ambient light, thereby enhancing the user experience and saving power at the same time.
I'm with the camp that says that the iPod iPhone will outsell the Axim and most of the PDA phones currently out there - not that it'll be tough to do so, given how little Dell and MS have pushed the buggers over the last two or three years. Between the fact it has phone capabilities with a bit of 'wow' due to the iPod name and Apple linkage, it's already got two things going for it that Windows Mobile devices didn't have over the past couple of years.
The nice thing about this is that it has a simpler interface than most smartphones, and is prettier than WM5 - which is a big selling point for the average Joe Consumer who doesn't know what Windows Mobile is, and doesn't care that it's versatile - just that it lets him or her make phone calls, watch videos, and maybe browse the web. If the battery life is what they claim it to be, and it's advertised well enough (with Apple, this is almost a given), we're going to see quite a few phone sales among three categories of users:
1) The True Believers (of Apple): They'll buy it because Steve Jobs said it's a revolution. They'll buy it because it comes from Apple. They'll buy it because it links to their iTunes the way their iPods do, and it looks good. Whether it works well or not won't matter - it's Apple. These are the people who bought the first-generation gumstick-style Shuffles: they'll buy this, and $600 be damned.
2) The Trendy Type: The iPhone looks good, has a nifty-looking interface, and is a 'smartphone' that doesn't have the name "Treo" on it; if it plays music (which it does), they'll go for this the way they didn't go for the Motorola ROKR. They're the same people who first shelled out $400 for a RAZR 3+ years ago, when the RAZR was new and hip and skinny.
3) Average Consumers wanting a Music Phone: They're not interested in the power of a smartphone, and they want something simple to use and which also plays music, because they've been hearing a lot about MP3 phones. Their exposure to 'high tech' consists of the odd 5-minute snippet of TechTV they run across when flipping through channels, or the odd news clip on the evening news' tech corner. They may or may not have an iPod (chances are they do, because those are 'MP3 players', and they may have been taught to rip music by their kids or their frends). Now, you bring in a big brandname they know (Apple), a phone company they may have already got a contract with (Cingular), and the fact it looks simple to use with its touchscreen. A good portion of them may buy the product right away - some more will wait and see how their friends do with it. But many of them will probably go the iPhone route at some point, just as many of them went the RAZR route once it became affordable.
We'll see how this does in the next year or two, but I won't bet against Apple yet - they've got a lot of hype, and unlike MS they know how to sell a product without employing naked force ("You MUST upgrade, or else we won't give you any more patches for our buggy software") - Apple goes the "You WANT to buy an iPod. You WANT to be part of the in-crowd. You WANT to be sexy, don't you? route instead. And they're damned good at spin control, unlike MS.
My hope is that some of the features of this thing (automatic switching to landscape mode, widespread use of brightness sensors which were only seen on one HP iPaq, more finger-friendly phone usage for touchscreens which is missing from WM5 Smartphone) end up in other devices too. As it is, this may replace my Nokia not-so-smartphone.
Maybe I didn't get my point across properly but if you drag and drop to the iPod i.e. use it for data storage, you lose that space to music. I think my mistake was in saying that if you allocate 20 Gb, you lose 20 Gb (indicating that this would be the case even if you're only using 1 Gb). My bad.
Forgetting about the hidden folder (I'd completely forgotten about that cause it was a moot point in my case since my sister had her iPod formatted for a Mac file system and therefore not readable on a PC without extra software) because most people have no clue how to enable hidden system files and therefore would not be aware of this either, let me give you an example.
My player has a 4 Gb capacity (which is more than I need cause I don't carry my entire collection with me; although some people like to do that).
If I put 1 Gb of songs (data) on it, I can share that 1 Gb with someone else if I wanted to. I still have 3 Gb free.
If I put 1 Gb of songs on a 4 Gb iPod and knew I'd be going by a friend and wanted to share music with him (let's say I'm average Joe user who knows nothing about a computer except I plug in the USB and iTunes opens and syncs my music) I'd then have copy those same songs to data storage so that I could share them. I now only have 1/2 my space free and also wasted (only a little time in this case) time transferring everything over again.
And while I'm certainly not an iPod guru (never claimed to be) I do believe that this is the case and is the point I was trying to make. Files stored as data on an iPod are only seen as data even if they are media i.e. audio or video. They cannot be played by the iPod without being synced and therefore copied over again. Whereas with a different format e.g. UMS, it's one and the same. Correct me if I'm wrong. But let's say I bought a brand new iPod so there's nothing on it and I stored 10 songs on it using Data storage i.e. drag and drop, I couldn't play those songs although I could share them.
Ah ok, I see. Yes, you're right, if I understand you this time :)
Let's say you have your favourite song that you want to listen to -and- share it with a friend. You have one copy in your iTunes library (syncs to iPod) and put a second copy on there as "data". So two copies of one song.
I think that's what you're saying right? And you're totally correct.
Notwithstanding the third party tools to get around this etc... But it's a "standard" iPod limitation. Incidentally I think I read that this was a design feature (cannot pull music off the iPod easily) that Apple was forced/coerced or influenced into including by the music industry. It makes it a little harder to pirate music this way. Sure it's a minimal hassle for the geeks. But for your average user I guess it's at least an inconvenience.
The reason I was confused is that there is a player out there (I think by Creative) that made you "partition" the player. So you told it "I have 20GB or space, make 10GB music and 10GB data". Then you could never have 11GB of music, even if you had only 3 GB of data. But now I think that's not what you're referring to. :)
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Well it IS an iPod so sure, why not download from iTunes? I don't know if that's implemented or not. Not sure if you read but it's also claimed to have substantial web browsing capabilities too.
There are some significant reasons for it to have 802.11g as opposed to purely additional speed of surfing. Probably going to deep into the networking and too far away from the Axim, but it's a great move to include 802.11g in it, as opposed to 802.11b. It's not a waste and a battery drain at all.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Watching the presentation, it was hard not to be impressed with the iphone, it looks a great piece of hardware. I do think it has a number of problems which won't make it the revolutionary device to change the cell phone industry. I think its size it a big draw back, i think it going to cost too much (when tied in with cell phone contract etc) and I think being tied into itunes and OsX and apple and certain cell phone carriers will not do it any favours. I think the phone will sell, as it looks great and has all the features but this model is not going to threaten nokia/sony too much. Hopefully it will lead to better devices though which push the technology and lead to better ui and hardware from the other manufacturers.
As for it against the axim, I was surprised how it looks kind of like the axim, more so than any ipod. Thinness of iphone is cool
The resolution of the iphone is a bit of a let down, just once you have vga resolution on the axim it would be hard to go back, if the device was smaller the lower resolution would be more acceptable. I do like the wide screen aspect ratio though, but higher res of axim is the winner for me
The wifi on the axim is a bit slow for streaming mpeg2 otherwise i have no issue with it, if the iphone had faster wifi that would be cool, doubt the video features of the iphone will very versatile though probably tied into itunes.
The Ui on the iphone looked pretty cool and a step forward i think, for getting much work done i think using the finger might get a bit limiting. It an interesting touch technology change from the stylus and possibly the way things will go in the future. I like the button on the axim always handy for games video controls etc, would miss them on a iphone type device. Iphone could win with the new ui, will have to wait and see if it proves itself as more versatile and usable then whats gone before
The memory, should be fine for most people, but people waiting for a wide screen ipod hoping to store lots of video might be scratching their heads, wondering if thats enough memory for them, i think the versatile sd/cf card solution of the axim wins when it comes to memory, you can switch in endless memory cards if you want.
Battery life sound reasonable for the iphone. Axim allows swapping of batteries and is versatile, so win here.
Processor, I'd be surprised if the iphone uses a faster processor than the iphone. It did seem pretty fast at the demos, but i would say with the better battery life it might be slightly slower. Will really come down to how well the os performs to give a balance of good speed and battery performance. The axim does a good job so the iphone probably wont be much better, but it might be a lot worse, have to wait and see.
Phone features, i guess the iphone would win here, but as a phone device it must be one of the biggest phones. This might be it's biggest disadvantage in the phone market. I know I always carry my phone and want it a close to 100g and comfortable in my pocket. We need more phones with wifi though
Music player. I had an ipod for a while and don't think i would go back to the itunes system again, just too locked down for me, album art is nice and all but i like to be able to dump some mp3s direct from the pc onto the playback device. Sony ericsson walkman phone and k series phones are great phone/music player haven't used nokia but I'm sure there not too bad. The iphone will beat the axim as a music player, but won't be for everyone.
Video player. The axim is a great video player, if it was widescreen aspect ratio it would be perfect. Iphone will be less versatile and tied into itunes and also the lower res. Axim better for video i think
Internet browsing. Looked pretty good on the iphone, fast and clever with the zooming. The browsers on wm5 aren't all bad, but could really be improved on, safari looked years ahead of explorer, browsers like netfront do a descent job. If iphone can give good wifi browser performance it will be a huge plus for it, actually it didn't look that fast, was the one area of the demo where it struggled slightly for speed. Hope microsoft update the wm5 browser, it sucks
Photos, camera. Photo browsing looked better than my k800, very fast, camera won't be up to much though, with no flash like some new phones, 2mp res, nice feature but nothing special. Beats the axim i guess :)
Os X mobile will be a newer os than wm5, so it would be hard to see it not push ahead of microsoft in some areas, will be good to see if microsoft(or even palm) come back at apple with some newer software. wm5 is well established with some great apps/games etc so axim wins over iphone for the short term
Great piece of hardware from apple but won't be buying into this generation of device from apple, really nice to see an axim style device reappear after so long ;), i though pdas were on the way out, would really like to see some new axim style pdas/smart phones competing. We need more small wifi browsers/media/phone devices.
Don't think the iphone would replace the axim for me anyway, just don't see it as small enough as a phone or as versatile as the axim, will be waiting for something smaller with good wifi browser
-no buttons -- the exact reason I completely ditched the idea of PocketPC remote. No feeling for the buttons, which is important for me.
-durability -- I am already deathly afraid of the Axim screen shattering when I dropped it. Now this thing is slim and a touchscreen. Bad combo.
-non-expandable memory. Mind you, my DivX MP and the Holy Grail straight from DVD is already 1 GB. Add a few hundred songs and you blow yourself up. Currently my CF card is 4.5GB used. But then again, the slim shape might not make this very likely.
-Not "revolutionary" as they claim. Touchscreen? no...; gyro sensors (for the rotation thing)? no (Wii and Camcorders already does it)...; the brightness detector? Maybe to the handheld market, but certianly not new tech (Light meters).
>The reason I was confused is that there is a player out there (I think by
>Creative) that made you "partition" the player.
Creative Vision series. My brother has one.
I am also Drag and Drop spoiled. I don't like installing something on a computer just to do one thing *thinks of MD nightmares
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
