In article ,
Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
> >> I already have all those things organised in another media player, it
> >> would be nice if iPod integrated itself into them as a plugin rather
> >> than trying to take over. I see reviews in which people complain about
> >> having to use iTunes.
> >
> >Those are people who like DFM express the desire to control the
> >file/song management themselves. (they also want better lossless
> >support, Vog Orbis and other geek stuff).
>
> What utter rubbish. I want something to be simply, not the other way
> round. I sure don't want some bloated piece of software that I need to
> learn like iTunes appears to be.
>
"Bloated" is subjective.
Office is "bloated" if all you want to do is write a few simple
documents, maybe crunch a few numbers. But Word, Excel and the rest
have features most people who use Office will never touch.
> >iPod is a mass market item. A lot of people who use it aren't technical
> >at all or used to manipulating hundreds or thousands of files on their
> >computer.
> >
> >Should Apple design the product to cater to the mass market or the geek
> >niche?
> >
> >There are other players which do more of the stuff that geeks want. But
> >even those companies would rather have the sales volume of the iPod.
> >They just don't have the software talent to pull it. Probably only MS
> >can do it and Google if they want to get involved.
> >
> >Sony designs gorgeous, advanced hardware in this market but atrocious
> >software. Hence they're also-rans.
>
> Please don't bother mentioning my name in a rant like this! I do not
> fit your stereotype.
> --
That wasn't a rant.
Just an observation. If you go to tech enthusiast sites, which is
probably where you read the complaints about iTunes (or where such
complaints probably originated) , that is the expressed wish, that it
acted like a removable volume and you just manually moved files on and
off the device. |