
The original iPod, 10 years later: a re-review - jseliger
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/10/2001-to-2011-ars-re-reviews-the-original-ipod.ars
======
alanfalcon
I skipped class in college to watch the iPod introduction. I first thought all
Apple did was make me want an MP3 player for the first time: I asked for and
got some Rio player for Christmas because it was cheaper than the iPod and
really, what could the difference really be? The Rio was terrible in so many
ways and the next year I got a real iPod and haven't made the same mistake
again. Turned out that I didn't want an MP3 player, I wanted an iPod. Later, I
didn't want a Smartphone, I wanted an iPhone.

I still have an iPod Classic to hold my whole music library and most of my
audiobook collection. There's still something to be said for being able to
hear any song I own at any time[1], which still requires a hard drive for me.

[1]I suppose if I signed up for iTunes Match I could do this with my iPhone
today without a hard drive.

------
Daishiman
Truth is, the original iPod was not a good music player. I remember the varied
competitors it had at the time. I ended up purchasing an iRiver iHP-120.
_That_ was a device that still holds its own to this day: a 20GB hard drive,
MP3, WAV and Vorbis support (and it can play FLAC nowadays), USB mass storage,
LCD remote control, dedicated line-out and _digital_ line out, which, to this
day, I know of no other player that has this.

~~~
seunghomattyang
Are you kidding? If anything, what you said reinforces the fact that iPod is a
great music player. It had the best way to browse music library (wheel),
syncing experience (playlists, play counts, etc), best interface and best
industrial design, all suited for one purpose: listening to music.

~~~
dextorious
Yes, but did it have useless (for a portable player) FLAC and vorbis support?

~~~
Daishiman
For some of us, audio quality is actually important, even in portable audio
players.

~~~
dextorious
Yes --to the same people that think Monster cables are better than an ordinary
cable, and the same people that just don't get blind A/B tests and their
results...

~~~
Daishiman
It's funny you mention in. Back then I participated in multiple A/B tests for
LAME and other encoders and did several blind tests with all my audio playback
equipment. Needless to say, the iRiver was far and away superior to the iPod
in practically every metric.

I used to own a pair of Sennheiser HD-280s back then, and the difference was
pretty damned clear. The AKG K-540s I own now are basically unlistenable with
iPods of the time.

------
lionhearted
Man, I thought the iPod was damn stupid when it came out, and here I am using
all Apple stuff.

Lots of people are "ahead of their time" - few people can force time to move
forwards the way Steve Jobs did.

~~~
TruthElixirX
The very first iPod was sort of stupid though.

Firewire only. First generation did not sync with Windows, though a later
revision made it work using Music Match, which was an awful program to use.

Eventually we get a USB cable, but it cannot be used for charging, data
transfer only.

It wasn't until 2003-2004 that the iPod actually became something most people
could use.

~~~
pohl
That wasn't stupid. It was cunning. Record labels only signed on because the
market looked to be safely relegated to Macs. Little did they know that iTunes
would be ported to Windows and FireWire would be supplemented with USB.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Record labels didn't sign on till later. The first iPod was for playing songs
you'd ripped from CDs, or found on the internet.

~~~
pohl
_Record labels didn't sign on till later._

Yes, that is precisely my point.

~~~
dextorious
How can this be "your point"?

Your _original_ point was

"record labels only signed on because the market looked to be safely relegated
to Macs. Little did they know that iTunes would be ported to Windows and
FireWire would be supplemented with USB".

and he just told you that Record labels signed LATER when the market was no
longer relegated to Mac, and USB iPods and iTunes for Windows already existed,
i.e the opposite of your original point.

~~~
pohl
It can be my point because I understood ZeroGravitas to be saying that the
record labels did not sign on until after the original iPod was released,
which of course is correct.

Your interpretation of his post seems to be that he was claiming that the
record labels didn't sign on until after a USB iPod was released, and after
iTunes became available for windows. But I have too much respect for
ZeroGravitas to think that he was saying something that was not historically
accurate.

Wikipedia says that the iTunes store was introduced April 29, 2003, and that
the 3rd-generation iPods (the first with USB) were first available on April
28, 2003. Furthermore, iTunes for Windows was announced on October 16, 2003.

So when, in this timeline, do you think labels would have signed contracts
allowing Apple to distribute their music? It would be incredible to think that
they put pen to paper after the store was introduced, wouldn't it?

