Rave reviews
pouring in for the Nano incite neither desire nor envy
in me. The Nano is a beautiful machine, no question about it, and perhaps I'd want one if I weren't repelled by the
iTunes tie-in. But here's the thing. My eye rests on the Archos Jukebox Recorder on my desk, and I realize the Nano has
brought me full circle in my relationship with the ancient, brick-like device. I've had it for
too many years to remember; it long predates
the iPod line. As an accessory of style, the Archos compares to the Nano as Pong compares to the Xbox. Heavy enough for
wrist curls, housed in industrial silver metal with thick rubber shock absorbers on the corners, the Archos Jukebox
could double as an assassination weapon.
But let me hasten to emphasize that this vintage artifact has better features than the Nano and its siblings. It is a
much more powerful device than the all-style, no-feature iPods. With its record-on the fly voice mic, line-in jack
rendering VBR MP3 files from any source, digital In/Out jack, and 10 hours of write time, this stalwart performer is
not asking to be replaced. There was a time when I became embarrassed to show it publicly. Now, at the start of the
Nano age, my old friend looks so irredeemably retro, so square and blocky, that I take it out with pride. It's like a
musician hauling a Hammond Leslie to a gig. Square is hipper than thin in my household, and if I don't start a trend
toward archival MP3 players, certain basic facts cannot be denied: the new iPod still doesn't match the features of a
seven-year-old dinosaur.
iPod Nano Reviews, and My Ancient Player
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Yeah, we understand what you're saying, superberg, but what Brad (the author) is saying is that people forget that there is a point where form shouldn't be a priority over function. I really do wish my iPod had good recording capabilities, I find myself moving back to my old Sharp MiniDisc recorder because the sound quality rocks and it has a lot more features.
The truth is that the iPod is a great mp3 player, but it is missing a great many features. Functionality shouldn't be overlooked.
I sure as hell am not going to pay $250 dollars for something that holds a pitiful 4gb, just because it's cool looking and is tiny.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Tushar Dayal
4. Dude, why do you want Apple to force all of their users to pay extra for a feature that most of them won't use? If you want audio recording and all of the other features you described, get an ipod ad-on. I can assure you that Apple considered all of these things and ultimately did what was most appealing to the consumers.
There is a reason why the iPod isn't super-sized to add extra 'functionality'. If you were to add all of the features that are offered by third party add-ons (like from Belkin etc), then the iPod would be ridiculously expensive and unusable.
Are you asking Apple to design an iPod specifically with the features that you want? Get an iPod. Get add-on features. But don't complain that Apple didn't converge every portable audio device on the market into one oversized brick. For most users, less is more. For the minority who actually care, third party manufacturers have created a vibrant iPod ecosystem.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Sergio
5. I had one of these Archos crapfests too. Chortled with glee when some idiot bought it from me over eBay. It rebooted if you breathed on it hard, took about 90 seconds to start up, and used a proprietary USB cable that cost something like $25 from Archos, the month or two that they were actually selling them. The MP3 encoder was so poorly implemented that trying to use it was like mashing potatoes by taping them to the grill of your car and driving into a wall over and over again, then repeating for additional potatoes.
I agree it has some 'retro' cred, but you can get that without all the pain by taking your Archos, gutting it, lining it with dense foam, and using it as a case for a better MP3 player.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Rufus
6. "...but what Brad (the author) is saying is that people forget that there is a point where form shouldn't be a priority over function."
Yes, Tushar, but what Brad consistently forgets is that form and function are often related. There is a ridiculous refusal to identify size and weight as a feature. Or software. Or interface. Or a color screen, or any of the other obvious advantages Apple has against much of its competition. In Brad's narrow world, features are limited to operating specs.
And even in terms of operating specs, it doesn't make sense. With the exception of a single feature (audio recording), the iPod does everything the Archos does, and does it better, in a smaller package. Why wouldn't people choose a smaller, lighter player with a color display and better software over such an unwieldy box whose only advantage is a recording feature that very few consumers would actually use?
The "form-over-function" argument just doesn't hold water. Those who use it to complain about Apple's market dominance either do not understand the integration of those two concepts, or are being disestablishmentarianists for the street cred and trying to disguise it as being technologically discerning.
7.
Sage: Good comment. Your criticism of my utilitarian valuation of features is a point well taken, though I'm not as extreme as you say. I do value size and weight as features. My comparison to the Archos was made for dramatic effect; if I were confronted for the first time with a Nano and an Archos Jukebox today, I would buy neither. The more apt comparison is between the iPod line and modern competing lines from iRiver, Creative, Sandisk, Samsung, and others. There, the overwhelmingly superior features (utility features) are packaged neatly and at a better price.
The Nano breaks new ground; I don't deny that. The size/weight issue has been taken to the next level. I don't know how long Apple can continue to trade its size/weight advantages for dominating marketshare. I think there are compelling alternatives by any standards you care to apply.
Just as form and function should not be separated, neither is disestablishmentarianism necessarily divorced from discernment.
8. If I were in a gang fight i want the Archos not that sissy iPod...Ho can I protect my life with that little thing. :)
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Robert Gutierrez
9. You could have someone's eye out with that Nano! :P
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Stuart
10. Hah! another JBR user!
Despite its relative lack of quality, I love my JBR. I've upgraded mine with some third-party (and much better) firmware from http://www.rockbox.org
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by sheepbat
11. Well, I ask - why an Ipod in the first place?? There are so many other, better mp3 players on the market. I own a Creative Zen Xtra...30 GB.....it sounds really great....has great playback capability, holds a LOT of music....is better than a pricier Ipod....which costs a lot more and actually sounds sick.....
12. I think this way. I have my mp3 player and I have a minidisc recorder. I have a phone that has a voice recorder and its a camera. I also have another mp3 player with radio and recording function. Now, my experience with multifunction devices is that they never ever do either functiion perfectly. It's funny that people always want that mp3 player with built-in phone, recording, video, camera function for 6oo bucks when they can get separate devices fr less and be rest assured that if the mp3 player is not working, you still have 3 other devices that do work!!!
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by dbaker6165
13. A few facts to consider:
1. The iPod nano autosynchs only if you want it to autosynch. It is configurable.
2. The incessant price/GB blathering I see so much of everywhere almost always misses an important point: the nano (and the Shuffle) are flash players. Check the price of flash memory and then try to say they're expensive. The fact that there isn't a spinning hard drive in there has non-trivial value.
3. The blanket generalization that the iPod line has poor sound quality has no basis in fact. Quite the contrary: the iPod Shuffle has consistently been shown to have one of the best headphone output stages on ANY portable player on the market. It remains to be seen how the nano performs, but early reports are excellent.
4. There is a large contingent of people for whom the relative lack of features in the iPod line are a good thing. I'd rather have a device that does one thing well than a device that does 10 things in a mediocre way. Complaining that the iPod doesn't have a radio tuner is like complaining that a cell phone doesn't have a camera built-in. I want a good portable mp3 player. The iPods fit the bill, and then some.
In the end I have nothing against the do-it-all players from yesterday or today. My complaint is this: The fact that I bought and like my iPod(s) does not make me a fool. It simply means the iPod is the best choice for what I want to do.
DP
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by David Powell
14. My brother has the jukebox and it's REALLY heavy.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Shirley Liu
15. iPods have audio in, its in the same jack as the audio out. I'm not sure about the newest ones, but all the previous iPods did.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by ltieman
1. You neglect to mention a few things: storage space and method of connectivity. It's likely it has more storage than a nano, but how long does it take to add files to it? Does it quickly, automatically sync when you plug it in?
As an owner of a 40gig 4G iPod, the only feature I find compelling on your jukebox is audio recording, which I doubt I'd use as much as I'd like (sneaking a recording device as expensive as an iPod into a concert is dangerous to your wallet).
I don't compare my 40GB iPod to a nano; it has nowhere near the storage I prefer. But there is a market for people who want to take a smaller music collection with them, and the nano is certainly easier on a pocket than your jukebox.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by superberg