Ipod Nano Rant (sort of)
Posted by: andym
Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 18:17
SWMBO's sister is getting an Ipod Nano for her birthday in a couple of weeks so I was duly asked to perform the necessary installation work on their PC to make it work. Not a problem I thought..... Well, I was wrong.
The Nano arrives in a smart little plastic box containing the headphones, USB lead and what looks like a dock adaptor. So far so good..... plug the unit into one of spare USB ports, the PC recognises the device, a spot of hard disc grinding later and the Ipod is mounted as a drive in Windows.
Great, now where's the iTunes install disc? Nowhere to be seen, okay the box is a bit on the small side even for a CD single. So maybe they put on Nano itself so you could install off then delete. No such luck.
The PC isn't connected to the 'net, it will be soon, but for the time being there isn't even dialup. Not that I think it should be an issue, its owner simply wants to rip a bunch of CDs and transfer them over. Why should she need a net connection to even make use of a £100 piece of consumer electronics? Even a £5 network card comes with a CD containing the drivers.
They obviously blow an image into the thing at the factory, why can't they put a copy of the 'current' iTunes on it too?
As a result I've had to abort the install and retreat homewards to download a copy of iTunes and take it over on a USB memory stick. Good job it wasn't her birthday today or she'd have been really pissed off!
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 18:44
Well, not that I want to defend Apple, but I don't think any iPod has ever come with installation files or a manual. They expect you to get all that online, presumably so they can make sure that you're getting the latest version.
Also, how exactly was she planning on ripping the CDs with no internet connection? Was all the information going to be entered manually? That seems like more of something to complain about.
Posted by: andym
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 18:49
Quote:
Also, how exactly was she planning on ripping the CDs with no internet connection? Was all the information going to be entered manually? That seems like more of something to complain about.
Manually enter the info for the time being.... Whilst using the 'net would make the process easier. I believe you should at least be able to start using the product you've just forked out a load of money for without having to recourse to the 'net.
I think SWMBO's 4th gen came with a CD.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 19:04
I might be wrong about the CD. Still, I think they want you to be using the latest software, and as you've pointed out they wouldn't be able to fit it into the slick packaging they ship those in (although one of those credit card CDs might have fit).
In the past I think I was more surprised that they didn't include a manual. I don't care what people say, the iPod is not the greatest user interface in the world. I think you could ship a Tivo without a manual, but not an iPod. I would be able to figure it out, but my mom needed something to show her how to operate her new gadget.
Posted by: loren
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 19:30
My 5th gen had an install disc. And yeah... it would definitely make sense to put the iTunes install on the iPod so that when it mounts, you can just install from there. Seems pretty damn obvious actually... wonder why they don't.
Posted by: frog51
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 19:43
I entered about 130 CD's info manually because the only windows machine I had at the time was not going to be connected to the 'net.
It isn't that much of an issue, and it means the tags are always right, unlike CDDB or FreeDB.
I'm with Andy on this - I don't want applications to have to connect out. It implies bad design if there isn't a standalone version - why should I need connectivity to run a consumer gadget. Is nonsense!
(can you tell I have not yet seen an ipod variant I like and am not going to get one until it can actually do the things I want it to....?)
Posted by: Robotic
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 19:48
Quote:
Good job it wasn't her birthday today or she'd have been really pissed off!
Who? SWMBO or her sister?
Why would anyone get pissed off about receiving a birthday gift?
I hope you're not serious- or I hope that I've misunderstood.
Posted by: drakino
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 20:21
My iPod Nano (old plastic scratch attractor version) and the iPod shuffle gumstick versions came with manuals, and iTunes on a CD. And I remember my friends first gen, second gen, and 4th gen iPods coming with the same things. In each case, the manual is pretty small, but explains how to turn it on and off, control the music, and to use iTunes to add music to it.
I can understand the desire to shrink the packaging like they did with the new Nano, but it is odd they didn't load iTunes on there. Maybe they manufactured the devices before they had a final version of iTunes 7 ready, as apparently this last round of iPods was rushed to beat the Zune announcements.
Posted by: andym
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 21:37
Quote:
Quote:
Good job it wasn't her birthday today or she'd have been really pissed off!
Who? SWMBO or her sister?
Why would anyone get pissed off about receiving a birthday gift?
I hope you're not serious- or I hope that I've misunderstood.
Her sister, she'd be pissed off that all it's currently good for is looking at!
Rather like getting a camera and finding you can't take pictures with it until you've connected to the 'net.
The only person she'd be pissed off with is Steve Jobs, not that she'd know who he is!
Posted by: Cris
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 19/10/2006 21:55
I would take the whole thing even further, why should you have to load on iTunes at all!
You should be able to load on music you own in any method you like, not tied to an app which I personally find to be pretty crap at managing 40Gb+ of music.
Baah Humbug Apple! I think a driver CD is a standard thing, you shouldn't need an internet connection just to listen to music you already own!
Cheers
Cris.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 07:11
LOL, why do y'all always say "SWMBO"? "She Who Must Be Obeyed" (I had to look that one up). Don't tell me you actually "obey" your wife?
Quote:
LOL, why do y'all always say "SWMBO"?
Ooooh d33zy you're slipping up!
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 09:11
Quote:
Quote:
LOL, why do y'all always say "SWMBO"?
Ooooh d33zy you're slipping up!
Haha, you guys are nuts. This d33zy fellow apparently isn't the only person in the world that uses "y'all". 
Posted by: tman
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 09:26
At first I thought that maybe you ended up with a returned Nano that somebody had taken the CD. My original Nano came in a box big enough to fit a full sized CD in but obviously you can't shoe horn that into the new Nano packaging.
Looking at the
Nano page at Apple shows that they really do expect you to be able to download a copy of iTunes from the internet to get it to work. It is a 34MB download as well so I guess they expect you to have broadband or cheap internet...
Posted by: Ezekiel
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 10:23
Don't be silly. Poor rural people with dial up don't buy Apple products. They're too busy pitching manure to bother with new-fangled gizmos like that.
The real answer: 2,000,000 x $0.02 = $40,000. Why should they give that away?
For all the hippie funk that sticks to Apple, they're a business as greedy as any other.
-Zeke
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 10:29
Quote:
My iPod Nano (old plastic scratch attractor version) and the iPod shuffle gumstick versions came with manuals, and iTunes on a CD. And I remember my friends first gen, second gen, and 4th gen iPods coming with the same things. In each case, the manual is pretty small, but explains how to turn it on and off, control the music, and to use iTunes to add music to it.
Interesting. I stand corrected! I do know that my father's iPod and the iPods of a couple of coworkers didn't come with a manual at all, and frankly I don't think the manual you're describing is enough.
At any rate, for me this is all a moot point, and I agree with Cris completely. You should have a choice as to how you load your music. Personally, I will never own an MP3 player that isn't a mass storage compliant device. This is one of the reasons I'm so impressed by Archos. Since the AV500, you get to choose whether the player is a mass storage device, or can synch via Windows Media Player, and it's not a choice you have to make and then live with, you can switch back and forth any time. I'm not sure why no other companies (that I know of) have done anything like that.
Posted by: DWallach
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 11:11
I think Apple knows their market pretty well. Features like mass storage compliance aren't a big deal because it's cheap to buy yourself a USB memory stick. Also, keep in mind that Apple has all these Apple stores. I bet if you walk into one and say "hey, I don't have an Internet connection and I need iTunes" that they'll burn it onto a CD for you at the store (and/or offer you the opportunity to get yourself a shiny new Mac).
Posted by: rob
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 11:17
I just bought an 80GB iPod - no CD even though it comes in CD sized packaging. It *does* come with a printed manual, though!
I guess Apple save about $5m a year by not including a CD, assuming they pay 0.25c for a pressed and printed disc.
Rob
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 11:24
Quote:
I think Apple knows their market pretty well.
Oh, I know they do. I don't care if they stick to their ways, and I don't care if everyone follows, like they have so far. I'm just saying I'll never buy one.
Quote:
Features like mass storage compliance aren't a big deal because it's cheap to buy yourself a USB memory stick.
Okay...uh...I think you've missed the point. I'm not saying that mass storage is essential in an MP3 player for storing data and stuff, I'm saying I want that for music management. That's what I get from an Archos device. Data storage is a bonus.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 12:10
Quote:
I just bought an 80GB iPod - no CD even though it comes in CD sized packaging. It *does* come with a printed manual, though!
I guess Apple save about $5m a year by not including a CD, assuming they pay 0.25c for a pressed and printed disc.
Rob
I've kinda missed the whole point here: what does one need the CD for, anyway?
You just plug the thing in, it connects as a standard mass-storage device, you drag/drop some mp3s onto it, and unplug it again.
Nice standard interface, so custom/proprietary software is not needed.
Where to get mp3s? Lots of sites download them, lots of OSs have rip/encode software. Most people already have a huge mp3 collection before they even buy a player.
????
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 12:23
Quote:
Personally, I will never own an MP3 player that isn't a mass storage compliant device.
You, sir, lie. I know for a fact that you own one right now.
Posted by: andym
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 12:36
Quote:
I've kinda missed the whole point here: what does one need the CD for, anyway?
You just plug the thing in, it connects as a standard mass-storage device, you drag/drop some mp3s onto it, and unplug it again.
Where? There's no music/mp3 folder in the filesystem. There's a calendar folder and contacts folder but no music folder.
Posted by: Cris
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 13:21
Quote:
Where? There's no music/mp3 folder in the filesystem. There's a calendar folder and contacts folder but no music folder.
My Nano (long story, it never gets used!) has a partition on it so I can use it as a storage device, but any tunes stored there are not playable on the Nano, they have to be loaded on via iTunes.
Cheers
Cris.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 14:41
Quote:
Quote:
Where? There's no music/mp3 folder in the filesystem. There's a calendar folder and contacts folder but no music folder.
My Nano (long story, it never gets used!) has a partition on it so I can use it as a storage device, but any tunes stored there are not playable on the Nano, they have to be loaded on via iTunes.
Ahh.. really. Mmm. Okay, I've never actually used an Apple iPod, but just kinda assumed (wrongly, it seems) that the whole point of doing a mass-storage interface was so one could just dump the files onto and they'd work. Like my C$80 cheapie nano-clone does it.
Cheers
Posted by: drakino
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 14:45
Basically the iPod works a lot like the empeg does. Files are renamed and stashed away on the hard drive while all the real data the player uses is in a database. The main difference is that the empeg rebuilds the database, but with the iPod only iTunes can rebuild it. MSC allows people to store other files on the iPod, and also allows Apple to avoid having to write their own drivers for multiple platforms. Instead iTunes can just go out and look for the drive that is an iPod.
Posted by: andym
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 15:18
Quote:
My Nano (long story, it never gets used!)
I thought you had a shuffle? Or is that another impulse buy? 
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 15:25
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I will never own an MP3 player that isn't a mass storage compliant device.
You, sir, lie. I know for a fact that you own one right now.
*oops* 
Forgot about that.... oh well, I've lost all credibility now
And as the saying goes, "never say never." Perhaps one day Apple will release that video iPod of legend, and I will be tempted enough to purchase it. Even if I do, I'll feel dirty every time I load up iTunes.
And Mark, no, unfortunately the iPod will not work that way. That's why I was going on my diatribe about mass storage compliant devices. If you're ever in the market for an MP3 player, you might want to research if it works that way (if that's what you like). A good number of MP3 players are not mass storage compliant. I don't believe the Creative ones are, for instance.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 15:27
We already have two (completely different) portable flash-based mp3 players here. Both use mass-storage interfaces, and both just require that we dump the .mp3 files onto them with "cp" (or drag'n'drop in a GUI). If we want some structure, we just create subdirectories ("folders" in a GUI). Utter simplicity.
Cheers
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 15:35
Quote:
We already have two (completely different) portable flash-based mp3 players here. Both use mass-storage interfaces, and both just require that we dump the .mp3 files onto them with "cp" (or drag'n'drop in a GUI). If we want some structure, we just create subdirectories ("folders" in a GUI). Utter simplicity.
Exactly, I much prefer that method.
Posted by: andym
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 15:40
Quote:
We already have two (completely different) portable flash-based mp3 players here. Both use mass-storage interfaces, and both just require that we dump the .mp3 files onto them with "cp" (or drag'n'drop in a GUI). If we want some structure, we just create subdirectories ("folders" in a GUI). Utter simplicity.
All the 'cheapies' I've had use exactly the same method. Although their navigation tools consisted of a simple A-Z list of the files that were in each folder. No biggie, just put the files in the right place to begin with.
Posted by: peter
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 16:09
Quote:
Basically the iPod works a lot like the empeg does. Files are renamed and stashed away on the hard drive while all the real data the player uses is in a database. The main difference is that the empeg rebuilds the database, but with the iPod only iTunes can rebuild it.
Right, but the Empeg's "rebuilding" is just rebuilding it from the *1 files. Without the *1 files written by Emplode/Emptool/Jemplode, the Empeg can't do anything with the tune files, just like an Ipod. Same with the Karma, for that matter. Among Rio hard-drive players, only the Carbon was truly self-databasing and zero-PC-footprint -- although future Karma-derived Sigmatel-based players will also be self-databasing and zero-PC-footprint.
Peter
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 16:37
I think that there actually is an MP3 folder in there. But it's hidden somehow. I remember reading a "how can I get MP3s off my iPod" article somewhere. Of course, even if you can access existing tracks via mass-storage, there's no guarantee that you can add new tracks that way. Maybe; maybe not. I've not tried.
Posted by: Mataglap
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 17:03
Not quite MSC easy, but
SharePod is a small Win32 program you dump onto an iPod and run off of the iPod that lets you upload and download songs into the iPod database without using iTunes.
Personally, I went with
rockbox on my nano, which does ReplayGain, Ogg, and songs are added like Mark is talking about.
No matter what, it's a real pain to use both iTunes and some other way to manage/upload/download stuff from an iPod; either drink the kool-aid or don't drink the kool-aid, it's not worth trying to drink the kool-aid and the 18 year old single malt.
--Nathan
Posted by: BartDG
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 18:28
Quote:
Personally, I went with rockbox on my nano, which does ReplayGain, Ogg, and songs are added like Mark is talking about.
Is that Rockbox software any good? Would you recommend it?
(sorry for the thread hijack)
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 21:31
I'll chime in with exactly two cents.
1. I find iTunes 7+ (not iTunes 6 or any other version) to be the best music management and display software I've ever used or have had the opportunity to research/read about. I've got about 80GB in it right now. *not that iTunes doesn't have issues or things I'd like to alter.
2. When I looked into RockBox (about 6-12 months ago) it looked very unpolished and for the couple of music formats and features gained, you'd lose a huge ton of functionality and user interface polish. Maybe it's better suited to players that come with craptastic firmware, but for the iPod it just seemed like a downgrade. * not that iPod's firmware doesn't have some issues of its own, including navigation that could be done better.
Posted by: gbeer
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 20/10/2006 21:48
Quote:
At first I thought that maybe you ended up with a returned Nano that somebody had taken the CD. My original Nano came in a box big enough to fit a full sized CD in but obviously you can't shoe horn that into the new Nano packaging.
Looking at the Nano page at Apple shows that they really do expect you to be able to download a copy of iTunes from the internet to get it to work. It is a 34MB download as well so I guess they expect you to have broadband or cheap internet...
I think the expectation it that as an iPod owner you should also be a Mac owner. In which case iTunes is already loaded on the machine when you buy it. So... Who needs a CD.
Posted by: Cris
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 06:44
Quote:
I thought you had a shuffle? Or is that another impulse buy?
Good point! It is a Shuffle, that just goes to show how little it gets used
Cheers
Cris.
Posted by: BartDG
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 07:19
Quote:
I'll chime in with exactly two cents.
Two excellent points! Cheers Bruno!
Posted by: pedrohoon
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 11:30
Yep, my Creative MuVo Tx FM flash player does drag and drop for mp3s, works fine, I never even loaded the Creative software on my PC.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 15:44
Quote:
I'll chime in with exactly two cents.
1. I find iTunes 7+ (not iTunes 6 or any other version) to be the best music management and display software I've ever used or have had the opportunity to research/read about.
Ah, but that makes an assumption: that everybody wants a music management and display software in the first place. I tried iTunes. I was far happier with a basic Windows folder structure.
Posted by: msaeger
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 16:19
Quote:
Ah, but that makes an assumption: that everybody wants a music management and display software in the first place. I tried iTunes. I was far happier with a basic Windows folder structure.
Exactly !
Posted by: Mataglap
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 17:39
Rockbox? Good? That's so subjective. For what I need and want it's fine and works well. I don't want much graphical flash, foobar2k on the PCs, no viz or album art or anything like that on media players or the empegs.
Battery life is half of what the native firmware is, and who knows when better code will be checked in. USB transfers are 1.0 slow, so I boot into the Apple firmware for adding and removing songs, which is USB 2.0.
Advanced configuration and UI skins are tedious in the way programmers and Unix geeks tend to implement.
I only use it occasionally, travelling, dentist office, gym, that kind of thing, and it's great for me that I can use the same format on 3 computers, 2 empegs, the Treo, and the Nano.
--Nathan
Posted by: Mataglap
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 21/10/2006 17:55
Yeah, pretty much, Bruno. I personally don't need much in the way of management or display software, so those capabilities don't provide any value to me, and I've got a very large music collection too. Please note the only comment I made about iTunes was that it's a pain in the ass to use both iTunes and any other method, software, or system at the same time. Fortunetely, I found alternatives that work for me.
And rockbox is unpolished, but it's functional, and honestly, less troublesome than the v3a11 software, which I use daily.
--Nathan
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 22/10/2006 14:26
I still keep my folder structure the way I want it. iTunes oesn't mabage that part if you turn the option to copy songs OFF. So I can still manage stuff IN and OUTSIDE of iTunes.
I now have Album art on nearly every track in my collection and iTunes ability to properly group together Various Artist albums and its sub-sorting capabilities are why I use it. Looking simply at folders you have exactly one view on your tracks. That's not something I want for music. Using Spotlight and smart searches you can somewhat get around this of course, but iTunes as of version 7 does an amazing (and reather quick) job of it.
Hopefully sooner rather than later, I can start using a SqueezeBox 3 and Slimserver as well. Now I just need someone to write a piece of software that lets me use the iTunes UI to control playback from SlimServer.
Or a plugin of some kind for SlimServer to make it look like an Airport Express to iTunes.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 22/10/2006 15:15
Posted by: DLF
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 23/10/2006 20:13
Uh, which would be what players and where? I've heard of only one, but that one's not in the U.S. yet.
Quote:
... although future Karma-derived Sigmatel-based players will also be self-databasing and zero-PC-footprint.
Posted by: frog51
Re: Ipod Nano Rant (sort of) - 24/10/2006 07:11
Gaaaaaah - iTunes. I dislike it almost as much as I dislike MS Windows. Why oh why would anyone write a piece of software like that. I don't want software that tries to take over any decision making, or that attempts to enforce DRM in ways it was never meant to. Why add bloat when the main thing I want is to play some tunes, without worrying what format, on any of my home devices, no matter what platform.
Sigh - we hateses it