[Apple Pro Underwear]

I think 399 is a great price and a steal for this device. I was looking for a good mp3 player for a mac and was not really impressed by anything. Especially the Nomad and Archos Jukeboxes. (by the way seem very Wintel friendly if ya ask me).

I was willing to drop $300 for one with no idea apple would make anything like this ipod. Also, i was looking for a solution for transfering data, lugging zip discs and cds were such a lame way to operate. Buying a small drive seemed like a good idea but not worth it for 200 plus dollars. ( iwas looking a 2 gig vst deal)

So for 400 dollars i get an attention grabbing mp3 player that is very functional for productivity (graphic designer/grad.student).
Plus i get to:

1.Make the best mp3 software even more better and useful
2.Have the best mp3 player ever created.
3.Show everybody at work my ipod.

I can afford the Ipod and will get it. I can understand people don't have the cash.

I'm personally wondering if the people who can afford it are willing to pay for it.

[slider]

This is a good question. If I had the money would I buy the iPod for what they are asking. I think I would if I was the carry around and listen to my music kind of guy. Over all I think they should shave off about $100, but Apple is a business and like any business they are looking to maxiumize profits. I assume Apple did the market research and felt that they could get this price and of course the timing of the release (before Christmas) probably plays a role. I wouln't be surprised if there was a price drop after the holidays.

[timmerk]

Yes I am willing to pay for it. In fact I already ordered!

It is extremly worth it - I'm wondering if Apple is making any profit - the 1.8 in hard drive retails for $499, the ipod is already 100 dollars less, plus has all the other good stuff.

[Leaping Gnome]

I think the price is justified for the product they are selling. Everyone complaining that the price is too high (including me) want the price to be lower so it is easier for us to afford it.

[zeltrio]

Yeah I think it's worth it as well. Placed my order the other day. The only thing I'm now worrying about however is the battery life...I don't believe the battery is replaceable(at least user replaceable and we all know how much apple charges for computer service). So how many cycles will the battery have? 500? I guess it depends on how much you use it away from a powersource...any other opinions on this? For $US 400 I'd like it to last me a long time....longer than 3 years. My walk/disc men are still kickin ; )..and they're very old! hehe

-z

[Chimpmaster]

No way dude.
$400 for a portable player is madness.

I would spend maybe 250...

[dn15]

For what you get (FireWire connection, playlist synchronization, doubles as hard disk) I think it's probably reasonably priced.

At the same time it's too much for me. Don't mean to sound cheap but I'm not going to spend $400 on any music player no matter how cool it is. It's just not a priority.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Chimpmaster and DN15,

it's not a mp3 player. it's a portable hard drive.

and vice versa. that's why it costs so much.

i think the point i'm trying to make is that your just not paying 400 for a mp3 player or a hard drive. It's the fact that they combined it. Some people say "oh, a mp3 player costs blank blank and a 5 gig HD costs blank blank and thats why ipod sucks." Well, would you guys carry a mp3 player in one pocket and a hard drive in the other? Nope, and that's the genious of apple. It's expensive to develop/design and make a devices that takes 2 products and mooshes them into one.

it comes standard and they just set a precedent for all mp3 players in the future. Nobody but apple can do this by the way. Nobody in the mac world can do this but them. Wintel people are too divided to be able to do it. I'm no wintel expert but i believe that "Winamp" would have to make a ravishing mp3 player that uses "i-link", or a "IEEE1394" card (i'm not sure but i believe firewire for them is different than ours? something with the bus power?) or usb 2.0. I seriously don't think wintel people would even buy it because they have too many choices in terms of mp3 players. Ipod really is great for mac users.

well, i guess some people have no use for the harddrive so then it becomes "just" a big ass mp3 player. you get the option though!

[mrfett]

Of course it's worth it. It's the only game in town as far as multi-gig mp3 players go. What good is a 6 or 20 MB drive with USB? In the week it takes to sync that bitch an iPod user has enjoyed their music and come back to re-sync 20 times. There's just no comparison. I'll say it again:

6 GB is worthless if you have a USB interface.

Not to mention that once you have that 20 GB, all you can do is play randomly because it's so damn hard to navigate the sucker.

If you're a music-lover, you want an iPod, period.

Originally posted by mrfett:
<STRONG>I'll say it again:

6 GB is worthless if you have a USB interface.

</STRONG>

How many times do you upload 6 gigs to your player?

Once, when you sync first.

Do that overnight.

Syncs after that will be incremental (20-30 songs at a time) and will take mere minutes regardless of whichever interface you use.

You're talking as if people sync up 6 gigs of new songs every day. Nobody does that.

What an idiot.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

How many times do you upload 6 gigs to your player?

Once, when you sync first.

Do that overnight.

Syncs after that will be incremental (20-30 songs at a time) and will take mere minutes regardless of whichever interface you use.

You're talking as if people sync up 6 gigs of new songs every day. Nobody does that.

What an idiot.</STRONG>

you are the idiot here... Ipod is the only mp3 player that uses Sync to describe the upload of songs to the mp3 player, other mp3 players DO NOT have a database to SYNC with, you need to UPLOAD those song.

Why do I have to leave my computer on over night just for uploading songs to a mp3 player? what a waste of energy, do you have any idea what conservation is ? it's people like you who's killing the planet.

[watashi]

Got my hands on an iPod Saturday at the Apple store -- it was laying on the counter at the Genius Bar, no theft protection (what a trusting lot those Apple store workers are -- No, I didn't steal it).

The thing is cool.

The interface is very easy and fast and there's no vibration or noise from the drive (unless every song I started to play was cached already).

$399 seems steep, but it isn't for what you get and if $399 is too steep for you, get what you can elsewhere. I'm sure these things will sell well.

My reason for not buy an MP3 player before now was the media was too expensive. I've already got three CD's full of MP3s that I keep in my briefcase for work and in my iBook. I didn't want to carry around three or four 128MB CF cards just to listen to a small variety of music in my car. Right now the old iBook rides under the seat for music on the road with a cassette adapter in the deck.

An iPod will address all my needs.

When you look at alternatives, $399 is not too expensive.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: watashi ]

Originally posted by &lt;ihxo&gt;:
<STRONG>

you are the idiot here... Ipod is the only mp3 player that uses Sync to describe the upload of songs to the mp3 player, other mp3 players DO NOT have a database to SYNC with, you need to UPLOAD those song.</STRONG>

Whoop de doo. Apple used a new word to describe the very same thing. Big deal.

You're uploading songs from your PC to your player in both cases. Who cares what fancy word you use to describe it?

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

Whoop de doo. Apple used a new word to describe the very same thing. Big deal.

You're uploading songs from your PC to your player in both cases. Who cares what fancy word you use to describe it?</STRONG>

LOL so you got nothing more to say than this?

nonono ... Sync means u some compare to do in the process of upload, that's the whole concept behind CVS.

if they still looks the same to you then congratulations .. you are stupid.

[Michaelm8000]

$399 is totaly worth it! Lets put it into prespective...

You can get a $200 Rio MP3 player with 64MB...
Or you can get a $399 Apple iPod with 5,000MB...

and size is only one part of it.

[applenut1]

I can't see hwo someone could say the price ISN'T justified considering the 5GB drive Apple uses has a MSRP of $499 alone.

[mrfett]

I can't believe I'm feeding the trolls here, but it's Sunday night and I'm bored...

wiggles, I realize that no matter what I say you're going to make an asinine comment, but for you to ask, "who syncs 6 GB more than once" is exactly my point. No one does because no one can. My MP3 collection far exceeds 6 GB. I buy CD's all the time, usually two or three at a time. Now, if I had a Jukebox, I'd be screwed because I'd have to do what you're saying: do an upload the first time I use the thing, and then afterwards delete a file here, add a file there. You have to carry around a bunch of CD-Rs with you wherever you go, so you probably don't care, but I do. The fact that I can transfer GIGS at a time is awesome! I can get four new CD's on there in a minute, and not think twice. When I re-sync, I can change it up again. I'm not stuck with feeling like I should keep all my base CD's on there because it'll take forever to get them back on.

For example, my car CD player lets me input the names of discs. Problem is, it only lets me put in a set number. So for the first few weeks I had it, I was putting in titles. But then my collection grew, and the CD's that used to be in all the time were now going in less frequently because they'd been replaced. Do you think I've continued inputting names? No way! Stupid feature. Anything that makes you feel trapped isn't really a feature worth having. As far as MP3 players go, right now the most usable ones are those with a 128 MB memory card. Your CD-R player is cool too, except it lacks the flexibility and compactness, plus it's no good for sports activities. It's all about what's important to people.

You never want to acknowledge _size_ as a valid feature. Or _unskipability_. These are very big things to a lot of people, especially in the target market.

You also like to claim Steve Jobs didn't develop this for Windows because of some sort of ego problem. This isn't the case at all. Steve Jobs was quoted as saying that Apple wants to bring this to Windows and is looking into it, although the experience won't be as good. The reason it wasn't done upon launch was two-fold: they developed this in less than a year, so there simply wasn't time (remember Windows drivers are not their specialty); and the amount they can produce before Christmas is probably just enough to meet the demand from Mac users. They realize that these are going to be hard enough to find as it is without the whole world having access to one. After Christmas, the Windows version will probably appear. They're spending a ton on advertising this thing. Their strategy is to drive consumers into their brand new stores to check it out. When people find out it's Mac only, they might leave, but they figure a certain percentage will pony-up for the whole kit-and-caboodle. They only need a small percentage to do that to make pretty big inroads (for them). In addition, even the people who leave empty-handed will have just been introduced to something they didn't know about before. That also is worth a lot.

I just realized this post is obscenely long for a troll feeding. I'll stop now.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: mrfett ]

Originally posted by &lt;ihxo&gt;:
<STRONG>

LOL so you got nothing more to say than this?

nonono ... Sync means u some compare to do in the process of upload, that's the whole concept behind CVS.

if they still looks the same to you then congratulations .. you are stupid.</STRONG>

Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>I can't see hwo someone could say the price ISN'T justified considering the 5GB drive Apple uses has a MSRP of $499 alone.</STRONG>

<STRONG>i agree, it's like a buying a car for less than the price of the engine. If you don't like the car, the engine or the price : buy yourself a bike. </STRONG>[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by mrfett:
<STRONG>but for you to ask, "who syncs 6 GB more than once" is exactly my point. No one does because no one can.</STRONG>

Nope. No one does because no one listens to that much music.

10-20 songs once a week I can understand.

4 CDs every day is just freaky.

P.S. 4 CDs worth of mp3 music is less than 400 megabytes at 192kbps, which, at the standard 12mbps speed if USB, will take less than 4.5 minutes to transfer, which is perfectly acceptable.

It takes far more time to rip 4 CDs than to upload 4 CDs through USB. If you're so pressed for time, maybe you shouldn't waste so much time buying/ripping CDs in the first place.

As for iTunes's sync feature, that will crap out on you big time because you obviously have more than 5 gigs of music on your computer, and iTunes will have no idea what to sync.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>


Syncs after that will be incremental (20-30 songs at a time) and will take mere minutes regardless of whichever interface you use.
</STRONG>

This is the IT professional? USB and Firewire are the same speed? nice one. &lt;wiggles&gt; leaves when the heat is turned up and his clearly uninformed comments are debunked. Sometimes it only takes a comment or two and he's scared off! Where'd ya go wiggly? come on back! or don't.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

Nope. No one does because no one listens to that much music.

10-20 songs once a week I can understand.

4 CDs every day is just freaky.

P.S. 4 CDs worth of mp3 music is less than 400 megabytes at 192kbps, which, at the standard 12mbps speed if USB, will take less than 4.5 minutes to transfer, which is perfectly acceptable.

It takes far more time to rip 4 CDs than to upload 4 CDs through USB. If you're so pressed for time, maybe you shouldn't waste so much time buying/ripping CDs in the first place.

As for iTunes's sync feature, that will crap out on you big time because you obviously have more than 5 gigs of music on your computer, and iTunes will have no idea what to sync.</STRONG>

well he's back, and now he thinks your freaky if you listen to a lot of music.
That's besied the point, though. Since he decided to take the maximum throughput spec of USB for his calcs, let's do the same for firewire. That would be what 8 seconds for the same 400 MB? that's pretty significant.

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
[QB]
P.S. 4 CDs worth of mp3 music is less than 400 megabytes at 192kbps, which, at the standard 12mbps speed if USB, will take less than 4.5 minutes to transfer, which is perfectly acceptable.
[QB]

This math is terribly flawed. Say you've got 400MB to transfer. You've got a 12Mbps connection, but most USB devices rarely excide 4Mbps. I think Creative claims something like 3.6 for their NOMAD devices. This is just cuz USB is not designed to move 400MBs.

So with 4Mbps you could transfer 400MB in 10 min right? Nope. That transfer speed is Megabits-per-second, not Megabytes. You're looking at about 80 min to move that kinda data.

That sucks. So... I just ordered my iPod from the developer store for $319. Now that's a price I'm comfortable with. The education store has it for $369 too. I'm also worried about the battery losing its go-power. Lithium-polymer is nice stuff though. That and I hope the screen is scratch resistant. It's freakin' huge!

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>
...let's do the same for firewire. That would be what 8 seconds for the same 400 MB? that's pretty significant.
</STRONG>

That's technically possible. But almost nothing but the protocol supports that kind of speed. The hard drive inside the iPod isn't nearly that fast, and the chip that converts from hard drive speak (probably IDE) to FW is a bottleneck too. Not to mention any software on top of the protocol.

Apple said a CD in 10 secs. I figure they're talking 5 or 6 M(Bytes) per second. So that would mean a bit over a minute to transfer 400M(Bytes). Still not bad compared to 80.

[zeltrio]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

Nope. No one does because no one listens to that much music.

10-20 songs once a week I can understand.

4 CDs every day is just freaky.

P.S. 4 CDs worth of mp3 music is less than 400 megabytes at 192kbps, which, at the standard 12mbps speed if USB, will take less than 4.5 minutes to transfer, which is perfectly acceptable.

It takes far more time to rip 4 CDs than to upload 4 CDs through USB. If you're so pressed for time, maybe you shouldn't waste so much time buying/ripping CDs in the first place.

As for iTunes's sync feature, that will crap out on you big time because you obviously have more than 5 gigs of music on your computer, and iTunes will have no idea what to sync.</STRONG>

Ah, you seem to think the 'fast transfer' capabilities are only for transfering music. Maybe they won't be copying 6GB worth of music all the time, but they might be transfering 6GB worth of other files all the time. It depends on what they use it for. Also...If you want true CD quality sound, maybe they'll keep their music in wav format. So that is what, maybe 10 CD's worth of music? I have a lot more than 10 CD's! ; ) Just some things to think about.

-z

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by PerfectlyNormalBeast:
<STRONG>

That's technically possible. But almost nothing but the protocol supports that kind of speed. The hard drive inside the iPod isn't nearly that fast, and the chip that converts from hard drive speak (probably IDE) to FW is a bottleneck too. Not to mention any software on top of the protocol.

Apple said a CD in 10 secs. I figure they're talking 5 or 6 M(Bytes) per second. So that would mean a bit over a minute to transfer 400M(Bytes). Still not bad compared to 80.</STRONG>

Yeah, I know it's unreal, just as getting 12mbps out of USB is. That's my point! Same point you made in another post. I was pointing out the clearly biased uninformed information from wiggly.

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>

Yeah, I know it's unreal, just as getting 12mbps out of USB is. That's my point! Same point you made in another post. I was pointing out the clearly biased uninformed information from wiggly.</STRONG>

Sorry. Didn't mean to be critical. I'm on your side. I was just trying to use real numbers for perspective purposes.

I can't wait for my iPod.

Assuming full performance, a 12mbps (megabits per second) USB connection will transfer 400 Mb (megabytes) in 4.5 minutes.

Let's do the math.

12mbps = 1.5Mbps
400 Mb / 1.5 Mbps = 266.6 secs
266.6 secs =~ 4.5 min

As you can see, the result is not 80 min. I don't know where you got that number.

[iWolfe]

regarding the lifespan of the LiPoly battery in the iPod;

Out of experiance I can say that modern batteries last a long time - my 5300's NiMH battery (which is two generation previous to LiPoly) is still going strong and it is 4 1/2 years old (and it has gotten very hard use). The advent of Lithium batteries basically iliminated the 'memory effect' of batteries - that is, if you leave a Lithium battery laying on a shelf for 2 weeks not doing anything it will only lose 1 or so % of juice maximum. My old NiMH battery can loose half it's charge in the same time.

So - going by those known facts and the fact that the iPod battery is even newer technology than what Apple even ships in it's laptops... I would say that a good life span for such a battery in the iPod should be at least 3 years and probably much, much longer.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

Nope. No one does because no one listens to that much music.
</STRONG>

I do. I, like thousands of other people, are live concert traders. Of one band I have close to 100 shows, each 2-3 CDs. I hate my mp3 player because I can't even store half a show on the stupid thing. iPod would be a godsend for me but I just don't have the money. I feel that they had no choice but to charge $400 for it because of the price of that hard drive. That being said I still think it won't sell well because of the price.

I think Apple should sell it for Windows for $450 with iTunes bundled with a FW card. They should make iTunes missing a bunch of features and have a bunch of ads reminding them that iTunes is free for Mac and can do a lot more.

[VRL]

Plan to order two - one to keep, one for a Mac-using friend

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>
What an idiot</STRONG>

I considered myself to be.

I had never felt so alone. The Microsoft man was three hours late for the appointment and I just didn't know what I'd be forced to do if my MS barcode wasn't imprinted on the nape of my neck right then, that very minute. I furiously typed drivel and tried to keep my mind off the issue at hand but it was no use. The day seemed to stretch on forever, with no lemming relief in sight.

Like a rampaging gay-basher who really just needs a heaping helping of man-on-man action, I frittered my life away, trying in vain to antagonize people who were different than me. They had the presence of mind to do their own thing. In stark and depressing contrast, I could only advise conformity.

What was I thinking? Maybe I'll never know. The overriding need to impress had taken its toll. My love of my own voice had left me a husk of a man, lacking content, and never likely to know true content-ment. I was obviously as foolish as a bag of doorknobs. In fact, I had become one of those knobs. I wept.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>Assuming full performance, a 12mbps (megabits per second) USB connection will transfer 400 Mb (megabytes) in 4.5 minutes.

Let's do the math.

12mbps = 1.5Mbps
400 Mb / 1.5 Mbps = 266.6 secs
266.6 secs =~ 4.5 min

As you can see, the result is not 80 min. I don't know where you got that number.</STRONG>

You seem to ignore the posts you don't like wiggly.

The same 400MB transfer would take 8 seconds with firewire. (given it's max speed, just as you have done for USB)

8 seconds is not equal to 4.5 minutes. (though you pointed out that it would take minutes regardless of interface, which is simply not true)

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>8 seconds is not equal to 4.5 minutes</STRONG>

The difference is negligible.

You would spent more than 5 minutes deciding which songs to listen to that day anyhow! You would the bottleneck in either case!

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

The difference is negligible.

You would spent more than 5 minutes deciding which songs to listen to that day anyhow! You would the bottleneck in either case!</STRONG>

Oh gimme a break! you're really grasping for straws here. Ok so it'll take 5 mins 8 secs to pick my music and transfer (with firewire) or, 9 mins 30 secs with USB.

Again, very significant.

You're arguments can't hold water pal. Try again.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

The difference is negligible.

You would spent more than 5 minutes deciding which songs to listen to that day anyhow! You would the bottleneck in either case!</STRONG>

IC you spend 5 mins selecting songs, maybe that's why you are using PC, COZ on Mac we don't really select songs, we already selected those song long time ago in playlists, again your just "SYNC" those songs on playlists to ipod.

and well even I need to spend 5 mins to slect song I don't need to spend another 5 mins to wait for the song to upload on ipod COZ I got better things to do in 5 mins than sitting there waiting for songs to upload.

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
<STRONG>


Oh gimme a break! you're really grasping for straws here. Ok so it'll take 5 mins 8 secs to pick my music and transfer (with firewire) or, 9 mins 30 secs with USB.

Again, very significant.

You're arguments can't hold water pal. Try again.</STRONG>

Nope! You can pipeline.

You pick your first song and start uploading it, while you start looking for your second song. You put the second song in the pipeline while you look for the third song.

The entire operation takes 5 min in either case!

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

Nope! You can pipeline.

You pick your first song and start uploading it, while you start looking for your second song. You put the second song in the pipeline while you look for the third song.

The entire operation takes 5 min in either case!</STRONG>

Obviously we all love this retarded iPod product. We are all feeble-minded people who find joy in this Apple product. Since you are so much smarter, and more intelligent, why spend all your time with all of us, who all have such small brains, and are so stupid according to your own words. You're the retarded one for hanging out with idiots like us. Show us you are bigger and better than us, go away, and leave us alone. You rank higher on the social ladder, leave us plebes to ourselves.

Originally posted by GetSome681:
<STRONG>
You rank higher on the social ladder, leave us plebes to ourselves. </STRONG>

My intention is to knock some sense into you Macheads and convert some of you to PC.

Dream on Wiggles !!!! I have never read such a load of drivel in all my days on the Internet.

It must be so nice to be the only person in the world who knows everything and is always right, but then aren't all teenagers like that ?

I'm glad you are on these Forums so much, because it gives all us Mac users such a good laugh

U BETTAz L00K OUT ALL U MaCHEAD F00LS

dA TRutH TrAIn iS C0Mln yUr wAY !!

[Leaping Gnome]

Wiggles you have to be the biggest troll on this board and I've only been here a week. You completely ignore informed posts that refute your arguments. You constantly post information you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, like this:

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>Assuming full performance, a 12mbps (megabits per second) USB connection will transfer 400 Mb (megabytes) in 4.5 minutes.

Let's do the math.

12mbps = 1.5Mbps
400 Mb / 1.5 Mbps = 266.6 secs
266.6 secs =~ 4.5 min

As you can see, the result is not 80 min. I don't know where you got that number.</STRONG>

USB will NEVER get 12mbps, it's not possible. As was explained in an above post, the average USB connection gets 2-4mbps. So multiply your time by 3 to 6 times.

Firewire is industry accepted as a much faster connection method than USB. USB was designed for low bandwidth, low speed applications, like mice, printers, negligible copying. Firewire was designed for hard drives, digital video, intense copying. Firewire is much faster, get over it.

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: Leaping Gnome ]

[thevil]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
<STRONG>
I'm personally wondering if the people who can afford it are willing to pay for it.</STRONG>

I can afford the Ipod and will get it. My Sony MS-player and Yepp is already in the trash.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

this post just brought a new idea into my head.

what ipod brings you is the ending of usb vs firewire.

apple said firewire is now the system they support for large data transfer and thats the end of it. we never have to decide/calculate transfer rates/percentage again.

APPLE HAS CHOSEN FIREWIRE.

it's the right choice too because firewire can charge devices because it the bus can provide more power(correct me if i'm wrong!) and it's just faster and more efficent. Apple took control and i'm glad they did ,goddamn it.

I WANT A FIREWIRE CELLPHONE!
I WANT A FIREWIRE DIGITAL CAMERA!
I WANT A FIREWIRE PDA!
I WANT A FIREWIRE PRINTER (when it's not using it with a network)!

P.S. Wiggles, i really enjoy virtual pc. it's a good program.

Of course the price isn't justified. That is why the iPod sales will max out at around 23.

[nana2]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
<STRONG>
I WANT A FIREWIRE CELLPHONE!
I WANT A FIREWIRE DIGITAL CAMERA!
I WANT A FIREWIRE PDA!
I WANT A FIREWIRE PRINTER (when it's not using it with a network)!
</STRONG>

Firewire cellphone? I'd rather have bluetooth connectivity.

Firewire digital camera? Spend the big bucks on a pro level Nikon or Canon digital camera.

PDA? Gimme wireless anyday.

Firewire printer? Will suck up too much power for Firewire to power a printer.

[nana2]

Originally posted by iWolfe:
<STRONG>regarding the lifespan of the LiPoly battery in the iPod;

Out of experiance I can say that modern batteries last a long time - my 5300's NiMH battery (which is two generation previous to LiPoly) is still going strong and it is 4 1/2 years old (and it has gotten very hard use). The advent of Lithium batteries basically iliminated the 'memory effect' of batteries - that is, if you leave a Lithium battery laying on a shelf for 2 weeks not doing anything it will only lose 1 or so % of juice maximum. My old NiMH battery can loose half it's charge in the same time.

So - going by those known facts and the fact that the iPod battery is even newer technology than what Apple even ships in it's laptops... I would say that a good life span for such a battery in the iPod should be at least 3 years and probably much, much longer.</STRONG>

Lithium Polymer batteries currently have less recharge cycles than NiMH, even though they do have higher capacity per weight/volume.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

My intention is to knock some sense into you Macheads and convert some of you to PC.</STRONG>

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

My intention is to knock some sense into you Macheads and convert some of you to PC.</STRONG>

That's not a very lofty goal, wigglestein. Why not shoot for ALL of us? There's something to aim for. Are you up to the task? Your results so far are pretty dismal but I don't want to discourage you. Maybe you've actually got something up your sleeve. We're waiting for that killer app you're going to roll out any minute now...

My intention is to (SNIP) convert some of you to PC.

What a truly terrible fate to wish on someone!