[Parvez]

Damn it! I pity this thread. My first famous thread was closed by a MOD (argh) and a link was given to this thread.

GRRRRRRRR! I hate this thread.

[icruise]

Don't worry. I took your thread to a farm owned by a nice old couple, where it can run and play in the fields with other threads.

Seriously, though, the same topics were being discussed in both threads, so I just decided to go with the one that seemed like more of an all-purpose topic, and that had more posts.

[AC Rempt]

Originally Posted by analogika 

What do you mean "inexplicable"?

There's a completely obvious explanation.

iPods don't do calendar editing. You want a PDA - buy the iPhone.

Product differentiation has been an industry fundamental since its inception.

Which part are you not getting?

The part where you can edit contacts but not calendars! WTF? First, I think editing a calendar is more likely than editing contacts. And if Apple left calendar editing out to drive you towards the iPhone, why let you edit contacts?

I assume you can also set alarms with the clock, so you would have the little wheel icon thingy (sorry for the jargon) to set dates in the calendar, so the tools are there. Ya just can't use them with the calendar.

[Parvez]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Don't worry. I took your thread to a farm owned by a nice old couple, where it can run and play in the fields with other threads.

Seriously, though, the same topics were being discussed in both threads, so I just decided to go with the one that seemed like more of an all-purpose topic, and that had more posts.

Thanks

[analogika]

Originally Posted by AC Rempt 

The part where you can edit contacts but not calendars! WTF? First, I think editing a calendar is more likely than editing contacts.

I find the opposite is true, but that may be due to the fact that I no longer bother editing calendar entries on my k800i due to the fact that it's SO ****ING ANNOYING.

I see the problem in other industries as well:

I'd love a car that handles like a Porsche, has a camper-van interior for family vacations, can still be well used for carting about a Hammond organ and a backline, and is available in a price range I can afford.

Porsche doesn't make camper-vans with MDF interiors! WTF are they thinking!?

[richwig83]

I just can't get past the "forehead" on the iPod touch. I've never been a fan of the "chin" on the iMacs either. With the iPhone, the area above the screen houses the earpiece. Not sure what purpose it serves on the iPod touch. I guess they couldn't reduce the size any more. I certainly hope it wasn't on purpose just to keep it looking like it's in the same "family" as the iPod. Here's what I wish the iPod touch looked like:

I think they did if for 2 reasons.... Symmetry (thats either good or bad i guess) and to make it easier to handle and operate in landscape mode.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I find the opposite is true, but that may be due to the fact that I no longer bother editing calendar entries on my k800i due to the fact that it's SO ****ING ANNOYING.

Yeah, I hate editing calendar entries on my K790i due to the fact that it's so ***ing annoying.

That is why I'd want an iPod touch to have this ability, cuz well, it has a full qwerty keyboard on screen.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I'd love a car that handles like a Porsche, has a camper-van interior for family vacations, can still be well used for carting about a Hammond organ and a backline, and is available in a price range I can afford.

Porsche doesn't make camper-vans with MDF interiors! WTF are they thinking!?

That analogy sucks.

However, I forgive you, because car analogies always suck.

P.S. In case you missed it: The iPod touch is FULLY CAPABLE of handling iCal event entry. It's just that Apple intentionally removed it. Remember, the iPod touch really is just an iPhone that's missing the phone part. It's the same OS and the same apps. And in fact, it's even the same binaries apparently for some of the apps.

[SirCastor]

I've got 11GB worth of stuff on my 4G. I imagine that I might have more if I had a 5G, because then I would have video, but with movies, I don't really see myself watching them more than a couple of times.
I think most people have succumbed to a "just in case" feeling about their media. They want to have all of it all the time just in case they wanted to listen to it or watch it. I think most people would find that they rarely watch all their content through in a cycle.

I have a lot of DVDs, but only 10% or less of them ever get watched more than once. They're the movies like Star Wars, that have continuing value. Some of the movies are very good films, but I probably won't watch them more than once or twice while I own the disc. Likewise, I'm only going to watch an episode once or twice. I've got all of season 3 of BSG in iTunes, but I haven't watched any episode more than 3 times, and most eps just once.

What Apple needs to develop is a sophisticated, automated way for people to cycle through their media on their iPod. Some things would always be there, your most watched/listened to stuff. Some stuff, that only gets listened to rarely would not be on as often. This software would automatically (ottomatically) sync stuff quickly, and quietly to your iPod.

People don't need massive amounts of media everywhere, just a better method of organizing it.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

What Apple needs to develop is a sophisticated, automated way for people to cycle through their media on their iPod. Some things would always be there, your most watched/listened to stuff. Some stuff, that only gets listened to rarely would not be on as often. This software would automatically (ottomatically) sync stuff quickly, and quietly to your iPod.

People don't need massive amounts of media everywhere, just a better method of organizing it.

Well actually, they already have such a system. It's called Smart Playlists. The problem is that most people don't really know how to use them. If you have a few well crafted Smart Playlists, you can do everything you mentioned. For example, my 60GB wasn't nearly big enough to store all of the TV shows and movies that I had ripped from DVD. We're talking about 200GB+ of stuff. But as you say, there's no need to have all of that on the iPod, just in case you feel the need to watch a particular episode of a TV show. What you probably need is to have one or two episodes of a particular show that you haven't seen (or haven't seen recently). So I have Smart Playlists that will only put a certain number of unseen episodes on the iPod. When I view an episode, it automatically drops off of the list and is replaced by the next one. It's all invisible to me, but as long as I sync my iPod fairly regularly, I'll always have new content to watch or listen to.

[icruise]

By the way, I just heard about the little plastic stand that comes with the iPod touch. That's a good idea. I've been looking for something similar to prop up my iPhone. I suppose the touch's stand wouldn't work with the iPhone?

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by icruise 

By the way, I just heard about the little plastic stand that comes with the iPod touch. That's a good idea. I've been looking for something similar to prop up my iPhone. I suppose the touch's stand wouldn't work with the iPhone?

No way. It's just more or less a flat piece of plastic with a little notch in it for you to drop the iPod into. It fits the Touch like a glove, meaning the iPhone will be way too fat. It's a nice thing to put in the box though - just pop it into the stand for syncing/charging and you won't miss not having a dock in the box (except if you wanted line-out, I suppose). Ah, the good old days, when iPods came with a Dock, case, wired remote, an iTunes CD, and used Firewire. Kids these days.

[lamewing]

Hey,
Cancel those preorders for iPod touch. If you get to Best Buy early enough you can get one without having to wait until Sept. 28th. At least two of our local stores in Dallas/Fort Worth area have both the 8GB and 16GB models in stock...if you want one.

Joe

[PhotoBug]

they have some at apple stores as well. just tucked away.

[exca1ibur]

Apple Store Emeryville has them in stock. I just picked up a 16GB at lunch.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, I hate editing calendar entries on my K790i due to the fact that it's so ***ing annoying.

That is why I'd want an iPod touch to have this ability, cuz well, it has a full qwerty keyboard on screen.



That analogy sucks.

However, I forgive you, because car analogies always suck.

P.S. In case you missed it: The iPod touch is FULLY CAPABLE of handling iCal event entry. It's just that Apple intentionally removed it. Remember, the iPod touch really is just an iPhone that's missing the phone part. It's the same OS and the same apps. And in fact, it's even the same binaries apparently for some of the apps.

In the end, EVERY feature limitiation is pretty much arbitrary, determined *only* by how the product is going to be marketed.

To continue a failed analogy () - there is probably no reason why a camper van can't be built to handle like a small Porsche, except that it would be *immensely* expensive. There would be no market for it at the price it would have to be sold at.

[icruise]

That analogy is even worse. I don't know if any automotive analogies are going to work, but this is the same kind of thing that Apple was doing with the iBook and PowerBook a while back. The iBook was perfectly capable of display mirroring, but Apple disabled it so it wouldn't compete too closely with the PowerBook.

One thing that people haven't mentioned is the possibility that all of this is part of Apple's contract with AT&T. You can imagine that AT&T would not be particularly happy about Apple introducing a product that was nearly identical to the iPhone but without the need for expensive wireless service two months after the iPhone launch, and I think it's conceivable that they made it a provision of their agreement that some features be left off of the touch. If that's the case, I'm a little surprised that Safari made it on there.

[andretan]

I guess the brave ones are hard at work again.

Liveblogging the iPod Touch - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by icruise 

That analogy is even worse. I don't know if any automotive analogies are going to work, but this is the same kind of thing that Apple was doing with the iBook and PowerBook a while back. The iBook was perfectly capable of display mirroring, but Apple disabled it so it wouldn't compete too closely with the PowerBook.

And that, too, was *completely* understandable, IMO.

I just don't see what the big deal is. So it doesn't do certain things you'd like.

Well, I guess it's just not for you, then.

Wait until it does what you'd like it to, buy a different product if there is one that suits you better, or live with not having it, just the way you lived the past thirty or however many years.

Spend the money on a short vacation to Cuba or something.

Originally Posted by icruise 

One thing that people haven't mentioned is the possibility that all of this is part of Apple's contract with AT&T. You can imagine that AT&T would not be particularly happy about Apple introducing a product that was nearly identical to the iPhone but without the need for expensive wireless service two months after the iPhone launch, and I think it's conceivable that they made it a provision of their agreement that some features be left off of the touch. If that's the case, I'm a little surprised that Safari made it on there.

That's quite likely.

As for Safari, Jobs introduced it with the sole justification that Wi-Fi is completely useless in most hotspots without a web browser to log-in with.

Thus, they might weasel it past the contract lawyers by claiming it's an inherent part of WLAN accessibility. It certainly seemed that way from the intro.

[lamewing]

I like the device. Nice of Beast Buy to sell it early...and Apple too it seems.

Having said that, I may take my back for an iPod Classic 160GB. Crazy,yes, but I am just not feeling the love like I did with my first iPod, my first Cowon, my first Sony MD, and my Zune. What is the problem? The arbitrary crippling of the Touch...grrrrr.

I just cannot grasp the concept of allowing us to input contacts, but NOT calendar events. Silly because allowing that is NOT going to cannibalize sales. Those who want an iPhone are going to buy it, no matter what. The NOTES app is missing. It isn't crippled, it is GONE. I have been carrying notes on my previous iPods and Cowons for years. Why the heck did they take it out???

This may not seem like much, but this seems to be a trend that is going to continue into the future. Apple said they won't break a 3rd party app, but they won't go out of their way to not break it in a future firmware update. No SDK ???

It seems Apple is acting more and more like the Sony of the last few years. Please tell me this isn't so!!! Sony's hubris pretty much killed Sony's future in the U.S. regarding DAPs; a small sprinkling of flash-based units is all that they have left.

I had so hoped that this new iPod would be the next gen Newton for the masses. If it is really running a version of OSX, the possibilities are endless, yet Apple seems to want to keep tihs little device limited to a simple entertainment device. Where is the bluetooth keyboard support? This thing would rule the university classrooms as a small, efficient note-taking device. No more need to carry a laptop to class, just sync it when you get home!

The wireless sounds great, but is is also limited. No ad hoc connection between units. No wireless syncing to a Mac/PC (nice for small syncs and uploading iTunes purchases bought via the iPod Touch). Where is the Zune-like music sharing? Apple could implement an unlimited music sharing option....no time or play limits...just follow the iTunes model and only transfer over 30 seconds of the file.

Having said the negatives, I am impressed with the language support. It is nice to be able to input kana, kanji and hangul via the keypad. A bit slow at first, but still a NICE ability.

I hope that Apple allows more options for the iPod Touch in the future.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

Where is the Zune-like music sharing? Apple could implement an unlimited music sharing option....no time or play limits...just follow the iTunes model and only transfer over 30 seconds of the file.

You didn't just...no, you did. You...er...I... Um.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

I Apple could implement an unlimited music sharing option....no time or play limits...just follow the iTunes model and only transfer over 30 seconds of the file.

Yeah, cause there are so many times I've seen someone else with an iPod and thought "I'd love to listen to 30 second snippets of their songs over and over and over!"

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

Yeah, cause there are so many times I've seen someone else with an iPod and thought "I'd love to listen to 30 second snippets of their songs over and over and over!"

You meet another ipod user...you trade some songs. If you like them, you then either buy them on iTunes, locally, or just delete the file if you don't like it.

I guess you "younger folk" just don't get the idea of sharing music...in person. Way back in my day (the day of cassettes, etc) we would trade music and enjoy meeting the person who owned the music. I guess that idea is just dead.

[vertigociel]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

I guess you "younger folk" just don't get the idea of sharing music...in person. Way back in my day (the day of cassettes, etc) we would trade music and enjoy meeting the person who owned the music. I guess that idea is just dead.

Don't get me wrong, I trade songs with other people all the time - we take a look at each other's iPod or iTunes library - if we see something that piques our interest, we either check it out on their shared library, or actually share headphones to listen to a couple of songs. I love trading music collections, I just think that 30-second over-the-air samples are a brain dead way to go about it. A headphone splitter is way more effective, and they cost a couple of bucks at Radioshack.

[Eug]

As dumb as the iPod touch iCal entry thing is, Zune squirting is just dumbererer.

[phobos]

I just read a well written review of ipod Touch at Gizmodo.
Here are some quite important negatives of the device.
Apparently there's no disk mode which means you can't use it to transfer files. This is a feature that should have been there whether people use it or not.
The screen isn't as good as iPhones. You have to tilt it a bit to get the picture looking the way it should. Looking at the device head on makes the colors look washed out.
You can't adjust the volume without taking the device out of your pocket. You can do that quite easily with the classic ipod.
Other drawbacks like crashing the device while scrubbing the film forwards and backwards might be easily fixed with a new update.

Kinda makes me regret I ordered it.

[Kaspers]

Hopefully people hack the device in order to get the iPhone calendar working..
If they get, the iTouch is becomming more a PDA, which is imo its money worth..

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

You meet another ipod user...you trade some songs. If you like them, you then either buy them on iTunes, locally, or just delete the file if you don't like it.

I guess you "younger folk" just don't get the idea of sharing music...in person. Way back in my day (the day of cassettes, etc) we would trade music and enjoy meeting the person who owned the music. I guess that idea is just dead.

I think I'm old enough to know what you're talking about, and smart enough to know that "squirting" was some managers' little wet dream that went horrifically wrong because nobody bothered to think it through, and musician enough to know that there's no way in hell this kind of thing could be done and licensed in any way that makes the slightest sense for consumers.

I just think it's hilarious that you should choose the single most notoriously BROKEN feature of the Zune - "squirting" - as an example that Apple should follow.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by vertigociel 

Don't get me wrong, I trade songs with other people all the time - we take a look at each other's iPod or iTunes library - if we see something that piques our interest, we either check it out on their shared library, or actually share headphones to listen to a couple of songs. I love trading music collections, I just think that 30-second over-the-air samples are a brain dead way to go about it. A headphone splitter is way more effective, and they cost a couple of bucks at Radioshack.

So you would rather carry a splitter to listen to some other person's songs than use a technique that is a little to Zune-like? Why not take the Microsoft idea and improve upon it??? Okay, how about this...the iPod touch could set up an Ad Hoc network where it could transmit songs and other iPod Touch units could listen in.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As dumb as the iPod touch iCal entry thing is, Zune squirting is just dumbererer.

The name is silly, I agree.

The limitations to listening is not so "dumb", in that it allows another person to listen to your music, but they still need to buy it for themselves. I would prefer a less-strict version of the 3 days or 3 plays idea....to restrictive. Actually, the limitations of the Zune idea have more to do with the lack of Zune in the wild With more iPods "out there" this idea could really take off.

Maybe I just missed your point. What is "dumb" about the idea of a quick way to let others try out your music?

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I think I'm old enough to know what you're talking about, and smart enough to know that "squirting" was some managers' little wet dream that went horrifically wrong because nobody bothered to think it through, and musician enough to know that there's no way in hell this kind of thing could be done and licensed in any way that makes the slightest sense for consumers.

I just think it's hilarious that you should choose the single most notoriously BROKEN feature of the Zune - "squirting" - as an example that Apple should follow.

I cannot believe I have to respond to so many of these posts that are just not clearly thought out.

Come on guy. I didn't say to use the idea in the exact same manner, with the same limitations, but the idea of quickly transmitting a song via wifi is brilliant. The only problem with the Zune idea it the tyrannical limitations put on it by the RIAA and co.

Yes, it was broken on the Zune, but that is why I suggested it here, so that it could be implemented in a more rational manner.

Or is the mere idea of using something that originated on the Zune beyond acceptance?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

IThe only problem with the Zune idea it the tyrannical limitations put on it by the RIAA and co.

How do you propose Apple implement the feature so that it won't run afoul of the RIAA?

[applemacbook]

I'm willing to bet more people hate the emotional limitations of 16gb than the physical

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by icruise 

How do you propose Apple implement the feature so that it won't run afoul of the RIAA?

Did you read my earlier posts? I mentioned giving a longer period of time for folks to check out a song or to follow the iTunes store model and allow a 30 second "teaser" to be sent to other ipods....even the DRMed songs. Lastly, I suggested using the iPod Touch and iPhone to create ad hoc wifi networks to stream music to other iPods.

Sorry for the attitude earlier, but it seems some folks are just so blinded by the Apple fanaticism that they cannot notice a good idea if it bit them in the arse.....if it doesn't come from Jobs/Apple directly.
Joe

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

Did you read my earlier posts? I mentioned giving a longer period of time for folks to check out a song or to follow the iTunes store model and allow a 30 second "teaser" to be sent to other ipods....even the DRMed songs. Lastly, I suggested using the iPod Touch and iPhone to create ad hoc wifi networks to stream music to other iPods.

Sorry for the attitude earlier, but it seems some folks are just so blinded by the Apple fanaticism that they cannot notice a good idea if it bit them in the arse.....if it doesn't come from Jobs/Apple directly.
Joe

Wouldn't it make more sense for the person to simply log onto the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store if they want to listen to a 30-second sample of a song? What sense does it make to allow sharing when you have the entire iTunes catalog available on the iPod itself? With the increasing number of Wi-Fi networks, I think the idea of putting the store in the hands of the user is far more useful than an implementation of file-sharing which is not goin' to bode well with the RIAA or any other record company.

[megasad]

Originally Posted by pheonixash 

Wouldn't it make more sense for the person to simply log onto the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store if they want to listen to a 30-second sample of a song? What sense does it make to allow sharing when you have the entire iTunes catalog available on the iPod itself? With the increasing number of Wi-Fi networks, I think the idea of putting the store in the hands of the user is far more useful than an implementation of file-sharing which is not goin' to bode well with the RIAA or any other record company.

I have to agree with lamewing with regards WTF are people so against this idea?

Depending on the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store means you are requiring not just an active wireless network that's connected to the internet but also limiting yourself to only the music on iTunes.

To play games with other people using my Nintendo DS, I do not need a pre-existing wireless netowork; the DS creates an ad-hoc one, other people connect to it and if they don't have a copy of the game we want to play the required bits are sent for temporary use.

For the iPod touch to share music with other people all you would need would be for it to behave in the same way as music sharing currently does in iTunes. The iPod creates an ad-hoc network, (with or without a password, up to you), and if someone joins it they see your music in a playlist/submenu similar to how it does in iTunes. No copies of files are sent out to people and so the RIAA don't need to get upset about "piracy", yet everyone can share all of their music, no wanky DRM involved.

Finally, if you want to make it more money-motivated, you can improve upon the iTunes sharing style and let the iPods remember what songs you have listened to, so that when you next go to the iTunes Store, either regular or Wi-Fi, you can see what you heard and buy any that you liked.

Simply for that last reason you'd think it would be in Apple's interest to support this... Sure it's more intimate to share headphones, but not having to remember a band's name has its own advantage and having your iPod keep track of what you heard when you weren't connected to the internet lets you spend even more money when you are.

I wrote too much. I don't even listen to that much music. It just seems a good idea.

[icruise]

First of all, I'll have to agree that the iTunes Store is a way better use of wi-fi than what the Zune has done. It's hard to believe that they still haven't done anything more with it. But that's not to say that wifi can't be used for other things.

The idea of streaming could be cool if done well, but I'm not sure that it would escape the notice of the RIAA. Remember, these are the people who want to charge stores fees just for playing the radio. Still, it's not very different from the sharing of an iTunes library over a network (which is allowed), so maybe it would work. But there are still a lot of details that would need to be worked out. Presumably only one person could stream at once -- I doubt if the iPod is up to streaming music to multiple clients. I'm not even sure if it could handle playing two different songs at once, so you might be limited to listening to what the iPod's owner is listening to at the time -- not much different than sharing headphones.

In the end, I can't help but think that it would be simpler to just keep the functionality connected to the iTunes Store. Maybe make it easy to send a link to a song from one iPod to another (and while you're at it, enable some local text-based messaging like that on the Nintendo DS).

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Smart playlist =

Complete itunes library =

Amen!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

I cannot believe I have to respond to so many of these posts that are just not clearly thought out.

Come on guy. I didn't say to use the idea in the exact same manner, with the same limitations, but the idea of quickly transmitting a song via wifi is brilliant. The only problem with the Zune idea it the tyrannical limitations put on it by the RIAA and co.

Yes, it was broken on the Zune, but that is why I suggested it here, so that it could be implemented in a more rational manner.

Or is the mere idea of using something that originated on the Zune beyond acceptance?

Please don't accuse me of not thinking this through.

As you so rightly mentioned, the only problem with the Zune idea (apart from the name) is the RIAA and co. It's sheer malevolent BRILLIANCE that Sony decided to give Microsoft an additional shot in the kneecap by refusing to license most of their content for "squirting", although there is absolutely no way of telling which will work until you actually try it - I mean that's just so catastrophic for this feature that it's hard to even come up with any imaginary worse failure!


It may have escaped your attention, but Apple Inc. is BY FAR the largest online retailer of music, and in fact, the #3 music retailer of ALL in the United States.

I'll give you another chance to READ what I wrote:

Originally Posted by analogika

I think I'm old enough to know what you're talking about, and smart enough to know that "squirting" was some managers' little wet dream that went horrifically wrong because nobody bothered to think it through, and musician enough to know that there's no way in hell this kind of thing could be done and licensed in any way that makes the slightest sense for consumers.

Apple does not own the iPod's content. iPod owners do not own the iPod's content (except for the tiny portion that uses it to carry their own self-produced music).

Incorporating a feature into the iPod that is either so restrictive that it depends on every single record label's continued approval - inevitably resulting in the devastation that Sony's pull-out meant for "squirting" - or if not, that INHERENTLY represents the definition of piracy (think "home squirting is killing music") would mean instant death to most, if not all, of Apple's music distribution license deals.

There is No Way™ to incorporate this kind of functionality so that it actually makes sense, and I simultaneously shake my head and applaud Microsoft for being stupid enough to try.



Edit: The only possibly imaginable way would be, as mentioned, something like iTunes library sharing - listening, but not downloading or saving. The problem would be to lock this down enough to make it impossible for some random stranger with a Linux or WinMobile-based PDA at a Starbuck's to pull stuff off your device. iTunes Library Sharing got past the record labels and the RIAA because it's limited to the local subnet (Apple caught hell for the first version that wasn't and changed that *really* quickly). I.e., it stays in-house.

That's not the case for a Wi-Fi iPod sharing its library over a public access point.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by pheonixash 

Wouldn't it make more sense for the person to simply log onto the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store if they want to listen to a 30-second sample of a song? What sense does it make to allow sharing when you have the entire iTunes catalog available on the iPod itself? With the increasing number of Wi-Fi networks, I think the idea of putting the store in the hands of the user is far more useful than an implementation of file-sharing which is not goin' to bode well with the RIAA or any other record company.

What would be the point? Well, say you are not in a wifi enabled area. It happens or the wifi spot is encrypted. Also, if you use the viral concept (without RIAA/Zune limitations) then each person who has the song then could share it with another person, with the song still having some limitations on it.

Also, I listen to Jpop and many of the folks in my japanese classes do as well. It is much easier for a person to say, "here is a song" and sharing it, versus me scouring the iTunes store for a song that I might not find simply because i might not know the correct kanji...or if it is an english song, because I simply have never heard of the band.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lamewing 

Also, I listen to Jpop and many of the folks in my japanese classes do as well. It is much easier for a person to say, "here is a song" and sharing it, versus me scouring the iTunes store for a song that I might not find simply because i might not know the correct kanji...or if it is an english song, because I simply have never heard of the band.

...only to find, of course, that that particular song isn't shareable at all because it's released on Sony and Sony's distribution contract for that particular artist doesn't cover iPod sharing...that's the sort of thing that you try exactly three times and then never bother with again.

[ph0ust]

this arguement is lame. i get the feeling that people hate such a feature because ms came up with it and not apple. regardless, the itunes store is not a fair comparison because it houses ALL music. the concept of sharing is to see what others have that is perhaps similar/same to you, then look at what they have that you DON'T in an attempt to find new music. it is not to simply scroll through all the music available like one would on the itunes store.

i'm surprised, however, that no one has thought about simple library sharing built into itunes. the riaa doesn't seem to mind that we are able to share our library on our computers for others to listen to. the same feature would work with an iphone/ipod touch. of course, this would limit its usefullness to only the period of time you were near someone.... which would kinda suck if you were somewhere very transient (e.g. a subway or something). i'm sure there are more than a few ways around that though with buffering it or snapshotting what's there. anyway, apple employs a ton of people to figure that crap out....

[zero1207]

I thought id post a positive review of the touch. I got the 16gb so I had to leave half my music at home but its not like I'm going to hear the same song twice. The college I go to has campus wide wifi so that's working out really well. Also when typing the touch automatically fixes any errors i make like the iphone does. Finally, this was posted from the ipod touch and it was pretty easy.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

this arguement is lame. i get the feeling that people hate such a feature because ms came up with it and not apple.

It's a stupid feature because it doesn't seem possible to implement it in a fashion that won't nullify any advantages that it has. The whole "don't know if you can send a particular song until you try" thing is an example of this.

i'm surprised, however, that no one has thought about simple library sharing built into itunes. the riaa doesn't seem to mind that we are able to share our library on our computers for others to listen to. the same feature would work with an iphone/ipod touch. of course, this would limit its usefullness to only the period of time you were near someone.... which would kinda suck if you were somewhere very transient (e.g. a subway or something). i'm sure there are more than a few ways around that though with buffering it or snapshotting what's there. anyway, apple employs a ton of people to figure that crap out....

And I'm surprised you didn't notice us discussing this exact issue above.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

i'm surprised, however, that no one has thought about simple library sharing built into itunes.

I'm *not* surprised that people will barge into threads they've obviously not even read.

[mitchell_pgh]

The real problem with music sharing on the iPod (or any portable music device) is that it sounds great on paper, but really doesn't work in the real world. It adds a layer of complexity to the entire process. Also, the iPod isn't a social device... it's a personal device.

[glideslope]

Sometimes it almost seems the only reason for Wi-Fi on the Touch is Starbucks.

[ph0ust]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's a stupid feature because it doesn't seem possible to implement it in a fashion that won't nullify any advantages that it has. The whole "don't know if you can send a particular song until you try" thing is an example of this.



And I'm surprised you didn't notice us discussing this exact issue above.

icruise, its hardly a stupid feature. in fact, many, many people seem to like the idea. it's hardly difficult to implement other than the riaa being anti-consumer, like they normally are, which certainly makes it more challenging... but hardly difficult from a technical perspective. after reviewing an earlier post, i see you tangentally mentioned itunes library sharing, while also saying that the itunes store does all this, which it certainly does not do well because it is not intended for the purposes of finding similar music from others. you did mention it though.... my bad.

Originally Posted by analogika

I'm *not* surprised that people will barge into threads they've obviously not even read.

well apparently your all-knowingness ignored my several previous posts in this thread. you seem to be paying attention less than i did of icruise mentioning library sharing. get off your high horse dude and at least pay attention if you want to criticize people.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

it's hardly difficult to implement other than the riaa being anti-consumer

I suggest you get back to us when YOU figure out a solution to that.

Because it's rather unlikely that anybody else will.

End of discussion.

[ph0ust]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I suggest you get back to us when YOU figure out a solution to that.

Because it's rather unlikely that anybody else will.

End of discussion.

ok, i take back my earlier comment.... NOW this is really lame. you honestly believe this can't be done technically???????

look at what divx vod did MANY years ago: encode the file transferred with an embedded cert on the originating device. all flagged content is automatically deleted after played x times or in a given time period based on the cert. and that's an old example. this can be done in hundreds of different ways... none of which are terrifically complicated by any means.

in the scheme of things, this is not technically challenging... this isn't even mildly technically challenging. apple just hasn't felt it a compelling value proposition and the riaa would probably be pissed off. i'm sure we'll see innovative new things like this as time goes on though. between the starbucks thing and polk's new i-sonic that will flag a track for you to buy later... we are already starting to see interesting new things itunes/ipods will do in the future. granted these aren't spectacular... but it's a start at least.

we have done far more interesting things with software than to get stumped by the enigmatic problem of music sharing. it is more an issue of protecting IP, which at this point is mostly a lost cause cuz you can hack anything. quite frankly, the only things slowing such technology down is the threat of legal action. if we are all lucky, the notion of preventing innovative new ways to access ip will give way to leveraging technology to get people using your ip.

fear will give way to opportunity eventually.

[icruise]

Nobody is talking about technology. Of course it can be done technically. The question is whether it can be accomplished in the *real world*. Do you really think Apple or anybody else is going to implement a feature that would get them sued by the RIAA?