- Stores up to 5,000 songs or 20,000 photos; supports AAC Protected AAC, MP3, MP3 VBR, Audible, Apple Lossless, WAV, and AIFF audio formats; and podcast ready
- 2-inch (diagonal) 65,536-color LCD with LED backlight
- Up to 15 hours of music playback; up to 5 hours of slideshows with music
- Comes earbud headphones, AC adapter, and USB 2.0 cable
- Compatible with Mac OS X v10.2.8 or v10.3.4 or later; Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 or later, or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later
Product Description
iPod Color 20GB White MP3 Player… More >>
Get A CREATIVE ZEN OTHER THAN THIS STUPID PIECE OF WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Zen has a REPLACEABLE that you don’t have send in. Zen lasts twice as long as an iPod. BOO iPod!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating: 1 / 5
20GB is all you will ever need, i just bought a 30 GB ipod photo and found there is no way u can put 7500 songs in your ipod
Rating: 5 / 5
I got this for my wife’s b’day and as soon as you open the box you get IMPRESSED…..
so you can not categorised you album
I realised why ppl creazy for this small white peace.
since we got this i was not able to talk to my wife and by any chance I try to talk to her eather she dont answer or reply me laud WHAT? because she got the samll ear pllugs in her ear.
I got 20GB photo for 250 from best buy and i think it is a good buy following is my statastic.
++SOUND QUALITY (I tried philips & creative they sounds little better than this but this is not even bed.)
+++++ LOOKS (cant compare with anything else)
+++ EASE OF USE it takes little time to start
+++++ transefer speed is excelent i transfered my 5GB songs in 1-2 min.
– DATA management : you can not namage your songs in directory structure (or i dont know how to do it) so all you can see is folders as album no sub folders
———- UPDATE AFTER 1 WEEK ——————-
I know it may sound funny but i am planning to get this one exchanged against philips goGear i just feel it is better
Rating: 5 / 5
Is iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store A Monopoly?
In the basic sense of the word ‘monopoly’, Apple has one in the iPod ecosystem.
There are multiple definitions as to what constitutes a ‘monopoly.’ There’s Microsoft’s Windows. Apple’s iPod ecosystem. Merriam-Webster’s definition. And the legal definition. Has Apple created a monopoly?
Yes. What goes around, comes around. Apple’s iPod ecosystem, which includes the ubiquitous iPod, iTunes on Mac and Windows, and the iTunes Music Store, is truly a monopoly.
Or, nearly a monopoly. Or, could be proven to be a monopoly. Or not. That’s how law seems to work these days.
Thomas Slattery sued Apple Computer, claiming the iPod is configured so that it will only play music from iTunes Music Store and not music from other online stores.
In short, Apple is facing a number of federal and state antitrust claims, and a California judge has ruled that the plaintiff (Slattery) in this case has met the qualifications which assert a “tying” claim.
The case may now proceed as a monopolization claim under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and other claims for violation of California’s antitrust and unfair-competition laws.
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates must be smiling. RealNetworks CEO (former Microsoft employee) Rob Glaser probably helped himself to another jelly doughnut.
The judge noted the basic facts: Apple has an 80-percent market share for online music sales, and more than 90-percent of the market for portable hard-drive music players.
According to Merrium-Webster (the only authority who would comment), there’s a non-legal definition for ‘monopoly`:
Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
If Windows is a monopoly at 90-percent of operating systems on PCs, then Apple can have a near-monopoly on portable music players and online music sales with the iPod’s ecosystem.
But a monopoly does not illegallity make.
The issue is how Apple wields that monopoly and both the plaintiff and the judge in the California case think Apple may need to loosen the iPod’s ecostrings.
It’s the whole ‘closed system` perspective that seems to continue to haunt Steve Jobs and Apple. Granted, the iPod ecosystem works very well. No one else has bettered the mousetrap.
That’s the point. It’s a trap. Mostly. Once you buy an iPod, you’re pretty much obligated to use iTunes if you want to listen to music on said iPod.
Once you start with iTunes, you’re just a click away from the iTunes Music Store, and, if you’re an iPod owner, that’s pretty much the only store from which you can buy tunes that will play on the iPod.
Except Wal-Mart, or Tower Records, or Sam Goody, or Target, or… you get the idea. There are alternatives, but online it’s mostly iTMS or nothing if you’re an iPod owner.
For example, you can’t buy music on Microsoft’s Music Store and play them on your iPod or within iTunes (not easily, not legally). But that’s not Apple’s fault.
Then again, Microsoft is not the monopolist when it comes to music on PCs. It’s an also ran. A runner up to the crumbs left by Apple’s stampede.
The lawsuit, and others of similar ilk, have a case, though with many holes. While Microsoft abused their monopolistic position by forcing manufacturers to pay for Windows on every PC shipped, and to bundle software (illegally, it was determined), Apple doesn’t really ‘force` iPod buyers to use iTMS.
That’s the difference, and it’s a big difference. The problem is that you can’t use other music from other online stores employing DRM (digital rights management) not compatible with iTunes.
Whose fault is that? Apple’s? Yes and no.
Posted by Tera Patricks at 9:35 am on Monday, February 6 2006
Category: News * Reader Comments (26) * Email It
Page 1 of 1 pages
Reader comments…
Jeff says:
The remark about Microsoft deliberately modifying Windows to make Quicktime shaky is not completely true. The Quicktime plugin developers did not fully understand what they were doing, and were relying (unknowingly) on an undocumented side-effect. When that changed, they had problems. That was definitely Apples fault, not Microsofts.
The whole “why won’t Apple license Fairplay” issue needs to be considered from a real business perspective. Does anyone know for a fact that Apple haven’t said to anyone “Sure, you can use it, the one-time cost is $1,000,000,000″? (Long term, thats probably not an unrealistic figure)
The courts cannot mandate a price for a company to sell its IP. That would set a precedent that would bring down the US economy.
You might as well sue Microsoft for not “making Steve Jobs an offer he can’t refuse”. That’d probably be the responsible thing for Microsoft to do, where responsible == return the greatest profit to MSFT shareholders.
Hell, Apple are already being hauled over the coals for charging 3rd party manufacturers a fee per unit for using iPod-compatible connectors. No-ones suing over that price-gouging, because they can’t. Its not illegal to price your product exorbitantly – if you can’t afford to make iPod-compatible hardware, thats *your* problem, go make parts for some other mp3 player.
Market forces are supposed to sort this one out. Your new widget appears on the Dell player instead, its an instant hit, people drop the iPod in droves, you get to sleep “on piles of money with many beautiful girls”
The one counter to all of this, that I’m aware of, is the “inter-operability” argument. That Apple should be forced to open its IP up, so that its competitors can inter-operate with it, in the same way that the EU forced Microsoft to show the Samba guys its internals.
But this is not the same situation – the iPod can already play MP3. The only thing it won’t do is support “someone elses file format” and thats a function of the business deal between two third parties, the other vendor and the music industry.
If the courts rule that Apple has to change its ways so that Microsoft and Sony can broaden their markets whilst maintaining their current contracts, then they (the courts) have sunk to an amazingly corrupt new low.
Posted by Jeff on Tuesday, February 7 2006 at 11:58 am
ian Johnson says:
Not a fanboy, however apple built a working system and a good interface to deliver. No one is required to use either one. You can still buy CD’s and play them on your a CD player. Should cassette- er 8-track manufacturers sue them for making CD’s inoperable in an 8-track slot? You probably can’t get the new Britny Spears on 8-track, and there’s probably a recording of “Pac Man Fever” on cassette that will never make it to CD. It’s called out with the old and in with the new. It happens. Don’t cry because it just makes it that much harder. Primus came out with a Brown Album on vinyl long after LP’s were much in vogue.
This is like the “Coffee is Hot” model with McDonalds. Based on these relatively simple premises:
1. Coffee is hot.
2. If at all possible avoid spilling it on yourself.
Nobody forces coffee to be hot. It’s just better that way. Do not commandeer a cup of brew unless you feel you are sufficiently able to navigate the liquid as it cools down, into your mouth.
If you don’t know how to load your iPod with songs that you got like your “Pac Man Fever” cassette. Get out your old Walkman. And return the iPod for someone more capable. If you want to buy a PossiblyWillPlay (TM) player and load it with songs you can only find on the iTunes store burn them on CD in audio format, after all you own a copy of the music, then use your Windows Media this or that to import the CD. As long as you bought the music you probably won’t be reported to the RIAA for putting your Pat Boone iTunes original collection on your iWinKyoob player.
And to Adam, anyone can put their music on iTunes, even Purple Grandma Deathkill Emo, and apparently keep every penny of the sale from their “Knitting with Satan” EP. See this on Digg
Ok Ok, I’m sort of a fanboy and this is mostly a rant, but more importantly I believe that when you dumb stuff down for the least common denominator, everything starts to suck. -Hey world, someone come up with a cooler idea for music distribution and delivery format and I’ll buy it. And in the meantime please keep the whining to a minimum.
Posted by ian Johnson on Tuesday, February 7 2006 at 2:50 pm
iDJ says:
Didn’t `WE’ choose for iPod and iTunes? Aren’t `WE’ the millions of people that made the same choice? Didn’t `WE’ kill the the `others’.
Apple made something that WE love, because of the looks, the feel and it’s easy to use too.
That’s what WE want and WE made this monopoly!
`WE control iPod’
Posted by iDJ on Tuesday, February 7 2006 at 4:07 pm
Jason says:
“For example, you can?buy music on Microsoft?Music Store and play them on your iPod or within iTunes (not easily, not legally). But that?not Apple?fault.”
Actually, that IS Apple’s fault. They won’t allow iPods to play any DRM’d music but their own through the iTMS. And when anyone has tried to make their alternate legal service work with an iPod (like Real), they got sued by Apple.
The iPod is technically capable of supporting WMA and the associated DRM. The portalplayer platform they’re all built on is used in other players that do. Similarly, other players could be made to work with Apple’s FairPlay DRM – there’s no technical hurdle, it is only that Apple refuses to license it.
Long story short: Apple holds the keys here and it is only their decisions that prevent interoperability (with either players or music stores).
Posted by Jason on Wednesday, February 8 2006 at 10:25 am
Fred Winston says:
Nope, Jason. That’s not it. It’s still not Apple’s fault that Windows media audio, even with DRM, won’t play on iTunes. It’s the DRM from Microsoft that’s at fault. Not Apple. It’s not an Apple licensing issue that other DRM’ed music won’t play in iTunes. It’s the fault of those that have proprietary DRM. The defacto standard for DRM is, of course, FairPlay. From Apple.
Posted by Fred Winston on Wednesday, February 8 2006 at 11:25 am
adam says:
Fred –
it’s equally the fault of apple that music bought from iTunes won’t play on other non-apple devices.
defacto doesn’t mean anything in this context.
Posted by adam on Wednesday, February 8 2006 at 12:10 pm
Kai Cherry says:
Wow. That’s all I can say here…after being `hung up on’ by a fellow Mac user for picking `the wrong side’ in this non-debate. The fact is, it feels good to be on top, some of us have a deep `love’ for Apple.
But love is often blind. Apple has an effective monopoly on the Online Digital Music (and soon, probably video) market. This is a fact.
Apple has an *overwhelming* market share of the Hard Disk digital player market…and likely the flash market too. All of this in about 4 years time…from nowhere. Sound familiar?
Alone, these two things are perfectly alright. But the vertical integration in these two markets, and a lack of interoperability, and fairly aggressive tactics to break interoperability are a problem.
And let’s not kid ourselves here: *Apple* benefits from this far more that the music rights holders. In the beginning, many, many large artists were not playing along, but the fact is, if you wanna move music online, there really isn’t anywhere else to go.
What’s really…weird…is that these same points people are using to defend Apple’s position are the same one’s Microsoft proponents were using. The difference is, by the time anyone stepped in to do anything about it, it was far too late. Everyone lost.
This is an emerging market. You can argue up one side and down the other about inferior competitive products or whatever, but if someone made a music store that sold songs for a nickel less per, worked with iPod/iTunes, and still had DRM…there would be more places to shop.
Or what of the higher quality audio and video people clamor for? Not gonna happen.
As well, if other folks stores could sell players that could play Fairplay DRM music (and lets be honest…this `they can sell in mp3′ is a strawman; no Major Content Provider is licensing non-DRM music/video…stay with reality) then there might be room for some new emerging and compelling players out there.
The likely remedy here tho would be that Apple would have to adopt or support another technology; the burden would be on them to interoperate with the rest of the market. And that market uses Helix or WMA DRM.
As it stands, there is a wall there, and there is no way to penetrate it. Think about 5, 10 years from now. What if somehow, Apple was bought, or was no longer “the Apple that we love”.
If it were *any other company* would this be “ok”? Seems to me that when it was, it wasn’t. All I’m sayin’
Posted by Kai Cherry on Thursday, February 9 2006 at 12:49 am
John says:
Just a thought, but one can turn around and, looking the other way note that tunes bought from Steve only play on (portably) an iPod. That’s more of a tie that binds….
Posted by John on Thursday, February 9 2006 at 1:56 am
Rating: 1 / 5
If you go to the contour design website, you can see pictures of the contour case. It looks deceiving once you have th case in your hands, because they provide you with this plastic clear sleeve you are supposed to put on your ipod before shoving it into the actual case. Well, even though that plastic sleeve is thin, it is just thick enough to make the ipod too fat for the case. When you push the ipod + sleeve into the case, the sleeve starts to bunch up and creates waves that cover the screen. These waves are not usually noticeable when the ipod is on.
Additionally, once you get the ipod + sleeve into the case, there’s no coming out. I had to shove it in the case pretty darn hard.
If you plan on never taking your ipod out of the case, which is difficult when u dock your ipod or use a tunebelt or anything like that, go ahead and get this case.
I, however, should have gotten the contour showcase instead.
Rating: 3 / 5