CNET: Five reasons not to buy an iPod | iLounge News


CNET: Five reasons not to buy an iPod

“For the past year, the media has been clamoring about iPod killers on the horizon—new MP3 players with more features, longer battery life, and designs nearly as svelte as the iPod’s. However, this oversimplifies the situation; in truth, while the iPod rocks, it’s not now, nor has it ever been, perfect for everyone.

We too have run our fair share of iPod-centric headlines—for a good reason. With about 1.5 million units sold, the iPod is the most popular MP3 player in the world, and it still makes other players look and feel inelegant in comparison. Don’t get me wrong; it’s still our favorite overall MP3 player. Although everyone can think of reasons why they want an iPod, I’ve decided to use this column to list a few reasons why not to buy one.”

« The Register UK: iTunes is ‘not a money maker’

ZDNet UK: What’s wrong with digital rights management? »

Related Stories



Thats a load of Bollocks!  I don’t argee with the comments made, except the battery life. 

Posted by Shiz on November 7, 2003 at 6:06 PM (CST)


iPod sucks, deal with it guys. It’s over hyped and overpriced cheap-ass Singaporean made crud, tarted up like a cheap whore to impress quickly.

$500 for 40GB?!? You people are sheep.

Posted by sucks on November 7, 2003 at 7:37 PM (CST)


iPod sucks, deal with it guys. It’s over hyped and overpriced cheap-a s s Singaporean made crud, tarted up like a cheap w h o r e to impress quickly.

$500 for 40GB?!? You people are sheep.

Posted by sucks on November 7, 2003 at 7:37 PM (CST)


You guys should read the comments (reader/user reviews) for this article.. Look at all the feedback on how poor this player performs.

Posted by AudioGod on November 7, 2003 at 7:52 PM (CST)


that Shiz or sucks is an I D I O T! ipod is not made in SINGAPORE.

Posted by currypuff on November 7, 2003 at 9:15 PM (CST)


The iPod is NOT made in singapore dumbass. Whew how dymb can u be? Just stick to YOUR CHEAP-ASS CD player and get a life.

Posted by hahaa on November 7, 2003 at 11:14 PM (CST)


Would that the iPod was manufactured in Singapore—at least that’s an advanced non-Communistic country.

Apple contracts out iPod assembly from cheapest parts sourced in Taiwan and Shanghai, the former crappy, the latter Communist and third-world.

You are listing to a wog box, Apple losers.

Posted by Shanghai on November 8, 2003 at 12:02 AM (CST)


Dude, im from Singapore and i dont have anything against my own country. iPod’s are not even assembled in Singapore let alone MADE.

Posted by hahaa on November 8, 2003 at 4:12 AM (CST)


to be honest everyones getting het up about everything. as many other readers have pointed out its only noting its not perfect for everyone…for me, it is. because no other mp3 player is *allowed* to use the ipods interface/software none will ever compete with it on that front, they all have squidily buttons and breakable knobs.
put it like this, if u gave an ipod and the new dell player to a not very technically minded person, told them the controls of both players, they wud love the ipod as its overly simple to use; menu = back, centre = forward. me, and all of my friends LOVE the ipod.
and sure, not havin a good quality record function sucks, but its not wot i use it for. the ipod is designed to play music…(for now)

Posted by silver_haze on November 8, 2003 at 8:26 AM (CST)


the new iriver cost as much as the ipods…no way abt tt…dell…they dun haf their own service department, all warranty are out-source to servicing agencies. Dell is from M’sia! they only make and sell, they provide no aftercare services….u think abt it man….

Posted by jm on November 8, 2003 at 9:55 AM (CST)


hp dell and ibm all deal in asia for there part dumbass shanghi

Posted by Phill in Texas on November 8, 2003 at 1:09 PM (CST)


Keep in mind that advertising a marginally longer battery life is the best these knockoffs can do. Thats it.

Not everyone can afford a BMW. If someone wants to buy the knock-off piece of what-ever let ‘em. Suckers.

That dell piece of crap, with those crappy levers and thumbwheels. Reminds me of when iMacs came out, and pc manufacturers started making pcs in blue, green and fuscia, and called it close enough. If you are into this stuff, it really makes a difference.

No investment to product development and it showed.

Someone actually bought one of those uglyass Hewlett Packard Pavillions, and someone’s gonna be weedin’ around that Roxio site they call “Napster” (castrated from all its rebel charm), download those awful, good-for-nothing windows media format to their Dell piece of shit, and think to themselves that they’re just as smug as an iPod on iTunes.


I’ve owned three, and they’re all worth it. If you can’t afford a new one, go on to eBay for chrissake.

The knock offs don’t push any innovation. There’s no comparison, just a definitive step down.

Posted by Mabopo on November 8, 2003 at 8:24 PM (CST)


“I’ve owned three, and they’re all worth it.”

Of course, after $900 to $1,500 invested in something, one is never biased. ;)

Posted by Ioa on November 8, 2003 at 8:57 PM (CST)


“Keep in mind that advertising a marginally longer battery life is the best these knockoffs can do. Thats it. Not everyone can afford a BMW. If someone wants to buy the knock-off piece of what-ever let ‘em. Suckers.”

Dude, don’t forget that Creative, Archos, Rio and iRiver had portable players out before the iPoid. In many cases their product line is more complete than Apple’s—for people who want it, they offer models with recording, or with FM, or with video. So in many ways the iPod is a knock-off of the older players. Svelter, yes, but also cut down in features.

So I have to take issue with your analogy. When I bought my BMW I was buying a superb machine with more horsepower, handling and, yes, weight, than most other cars. That doesn’t describe the iPod to me.

I think a closer analysis is:

ipod… Miata. Small, curvy, excellently designed, looks good around a woman, underpowered, doesn’t do very much.

Archos… Elantra. Cheap, functional, when it works it’s a deal, but the quality control is poor.

Karma… Mini Cooper. Small, chunky, full of bottle.

Zen… Mustang. A Muscle Car. Big, heavy, fast, does a lot but takes some handling.

iRiver… Lexus. Pricey, neato, nice lines, definitely not for everybody but uncompromised performance.

Samsung Napster… New Beetle. Gimmick car. Looks kind of interesting, but you get sick of it quickly.

Lyra… Prius Hybrid. Advanced, (does video and audio) but looks like a space-age device. Complexity and unfamiliarity scares people. Good mileage though.

Posted by Beamer on November 8, 2003 at 11:13 PM (CST)


> No investment to product development and it showed.

I am so sick of reading   c r a p like this. Apple didn’t do R&D on the iPod—they bought it off-the-shelf from PortalPlayer. It’s based on the PortalPlayer 5002 reference design. In two years, Apple haven’t upgraded their component selection one bit—not event to upgrade to the PortalPlayer 7002. They just made the hard drive bigger and tarted up the case a little for eye candy.

In many ways they have stepped down from the reference design: the PP5002 offered SPDIF (digital connections) and WMA support. Also direct flash media access. Apple dumped all this to keep their margins high.

So next time you witter on about Apple’s “R&D”, know what it is you speak about.
Apple assembled the iPod from commodity parts, PortalPlayer don’t have an exclusive deal. Someone else could and should just buy the same components and slap them together. Apple have as much a lock on the iPod as IBM had on the PC. Remember how that turned out?

Posted by sayonara on November 8, 2003 at 11:22 PM (CST)


iPods may integrate designs and components from outside companies? I believe Frog Design designed that original Macintosh case design, what with with the cpu and monitor as one. Also, the original adb mouse. But who really cares, right?

For me, its an issue of user experience. There’s more to this device than where Apple purchased the parts from, PortalPlayer or whatever. That matters to you? Really? C’mon, you curmudgeon you.

The original Apple OS came from some exotic Xerox/Parc experiment. Would knowing that matter to you? Or would you choose a superior computing environment because its available to you?

Apple excells at integrating softare to their own hardware standards. IBM started out as a hardware company, and sold the rights to that fabulous DOS os to Microsoft back in the early 80s. Some comparison.

iTunes has the same majestic qualities that Quicktime had when it came out. Simple, elegant, and powerful. Music store works for people, so they say (but there’s no money in the music store, its used to sell their hardware).

The best I can tell, especially from how they’re promoted, is that there’s some lesser-named junk who’s competitive advantage is that they play proprietary music file formats for a marginally longer battery life. Clumsy, awkward, ugly, for the about the same price.

Is this the best they can do? An integrated FM transmitter? Does it come in biondi blue? Is there really some kind of comparison here?


Posted by Mabopo on November 9, 2003 at 12:36 AM (CST)


“The original Apple OS came from some exotic Xerox/Parc experiment. Would knowing that matter to you? Or would you choose a superior computing environment because its available to you?”

I worked on the original Mac and let me tell you nothing about it came from PARC except the rumor of an idea about windows. We paid Xerox a cool million bux stock for a walkaround their lab. Our people came back with sketches and some back-of-the-envelope ideas. We wrote the MacOS from a blank page and in fact Bill Atkinson had no idea that PARC’s windowing system was so brain-damaged. They didn’t even do off-screen compositing. We designed our own system that was superior to PARC’s in all the ways that counted.

I don’t see the same advancement with the iPod. I see eye candy. I see a dead company walking.

Posted by sayitaintso on November 9, 2003 at 1:10 AM (CST)


i love my iPod :)
thats all!

Posted by iPod on November 9, 2003 at 3:59 AM (CST)


What disturbs me about the article, as I’ve discussed in other circles, is that the article was written in the first place.

It is an arrogant display of negative, anti-promoting of one product in particular that serves no purpose other than to raise eyebrows and redirect consumer attention from one product to another.

Noone is debating that the article poses no truth, but did it even need to be written? Why not point out the fine features on the competitors products and leave the iPod out of it? Why not have the Top Five Reasons Not to Buy the “Other” MP3 Players, too?

Imagine a reviewer giving the Top Five Reasons Not to See a New Movie:

1. The Dolby Theatre Surround was just too loud.
2. My seat was very uncomfortable for a 3 hour film.
3. The film was too expensive - $8 to see it, $10 for snacks!
4. The screen was too wide for me to get the full picture.
5. There was not enough battery life… uh… wait…

This kind of negative reviewing serves as much as a purpose as the McDonald’s vs. Burger King ads of the 1980s. Nobody wins.

Eliot Van Buskirk keeps the wolves at bay by claiming “it is still the best designed iPod in the world” and “it’s still our favorite” but that simply leaves him room to remain a good guy for a spell.

He failed to post a paragraph regarding the redeeming qualities of the iPod that might make a consumer recount their buying decisions and glance back to the iPod.

Firewire? interface? control scheme? the device IS a portable hard drive with current sizes up to 40GB(+/-)?

These facts should have been covered, but were left for only the adoring fans to keep under their pillows.

My friend Jorge has been talking about getting an iPod, but he just can’t afford one. I sent him this article and his reaction was, “these other iPods look cool and they’re pretty cheap! I’m gonna check them out.”

I was bummed out that he called them “other iPods” and will buy one based on a short-sighted article that took a cheap shot at a great product when nobody was looking.

Add some water to your half-empty glass, Mr. Van Buskirk.

Posted by Mark Campbell on November 9, 2003 at 5:55 AM (CST)


My only gripe with the ipod is the eq settings.  most of them seem to make my decent enough sounding mp3’s sound quite poor.  more importantly, there is no capability to set your own eq’s…....unless i have missed something.

maybe this will be updated (if it hasn’t already??).  or maybe i could throw out the call to all those gifted in the art of code to write a patch giving user defined eq…....

Posted by MORE_EQ on November 10, 2003 at 12:22 AM (CST)

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy