October 26, 2006
IPod Turns 5; IDon'tcare
Posted by Sean Moores at October 26, 2006 6:30 AMThe iPod turned 5 on Monday. I celebrated by listening to Guy Clark's first album, "Old No. 1" ... on my turntable.
I don't want to spoil the party. Aw, shit, who am I kidding? I want to spoil the party. I've managed to go five years without giving in to the hype, and I want to brag about that a little bit. I'll say this, though: perhaps the iPod is worth celebrating. After all, who would have guessed that a product with a reputation for breaking down and which offers the consumer almost no freedom of choice in buying music outside of its closed system would have made it this long?
Calm down, iCult members. Don't go firing off comments until you get to the end. First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll say that I bought my wife an iPod. She loves bells 'n' whistles, and she hasn't had any problems with her player (though she uses it infrequently). Second, I use iTunes to burn CDs, simply for the convenience of being able to dump songs into a playlist and change the order at will.
There are obvious positives to Apple's iPod and the iTunes Music Store. The ability to squeeze 10,000 songs into a player smaller than a pack of smokes and carry your entire music library on the morning commute is a big plus, if you go for that sort of thing. It's not much of a consideration for me. I read on the train to and from work. I can enjoy my music library when I get home.
When I am home, iTunes sometimes comes in handy. As I already mentioned, the ease of creating playlists and ability to change the order of said lists is a positive if you want to burn mix CDs or create custom playlists. There's considerably more romance associated with the mix tape, but considerably less convenience.
There's also the selection in the iTunes Music Store. There is a mind-boggling array of songs from which to choose. You also can buy them a la carte, opting for that one song you really like rather than buying a whole album.
Now that I've conceded a bit, here are the most glaring minuses:
The encoding Apple uses in the iTunes Music Store makes it a closed system. Unless you use cumbersome workarounds like burning your songs purchased on iTunes to CDs and then transferring them to another player, you can only use iTunes with the iPod or to play the songs on your computer. Another option is buying CDs and dumping them into iTunes and, in turn, into your iPod. Apple controls 70 percent of the legal-download market, partly because it has come up with the greatest selection and easy operation. It's also because they've effectively created a monopoly. Emusic has the next highest share of the market, at about 10 percent, and they sell only material from independent labels. If you're OK with Steve Jobs telling you where you have to buy your music, then I guess that's OK. It's not cool with me.
The iPod is notorious for being unreliable. Of the people I know that have them, I'd say the majority have experienced technical difficulties. The most common among them seem to be problems with that snazzy scroll wheel, batteries that hold a charge for progressively shorter periods as they age, and batteries that give out altogether. Since the iPod is only five years old, and not every owner was in on the ground floor, some have gotten relatively little use out of their players before experiencing problems. Granted, we're talking about relatively new technology, but that's still fairly unacceptable. If you bought a CD player for your home and it crapped out after a year or two, you'd think it was a piece of junk. You'd be right. So why do so many people have no problem with spending $300 on an iPod, and then shelling out another $59 to have the battery replaced after a year and a half? Or spending another $300 on a new player? I bought my first home CD player in 1987. I couldn't carry it or my entire music library in my pocket, but that player lasted for 17 years. Your iPod battery might not last until the end of this sentence.
The storage capacity of the iPod truly is amazing, but it comes at a price. Namely, compressed files. This might not be a big consideration if you listen to music exclusively on ear buds, but there is a drop-off in quality. Will my 10-month-old daughter's generation even know how good music really can sound?
While I'm busy being Cranky Old Guy, I might as well mention that while the option of purchasing just one song is handy, it could also go a long way toward hurting the sale of complete albums, even good ones. The Album still is a legitimate art form, and I'll offer Rosanne Cash's "Black Cadillac" and Drive-By Truckers' "A Blessing and a Curse" as two recent examples.
Part of Jobs' strategy in selling music fans on iTunes was convincing them that they deserved better than being treated like pirates by the recording industry, which equated downloading or file-sharing of any kind to stealing. It worked, but it also made Jobs a darling of the major record labels, which couldn't come up with a model on their own that would give them as much control over the product.
ITunes' closed system is great for the recording industry, but not so much for someone who would like a player more reliable than the iPod. Or any other player, for that matter. Jobs knows a good thing when he sees it, and he's fighting off lawsuits from foreign countries who claim that his system restrains trade, and filing lawsuits against companies who try to make products that are compatible with iTunes. Can you imagine an economic system that dictated you must buy only one brand of CD player to enjoy your music, or one make of automobile if you wanted to drive? It's a little too Orwellian for my taste.
As more consumers choose to buy their music digitally, iTunes' stranglehold on the market will become even more glaring. As you read this, Tower Records stores are being liquidated. The oft-repeated line in stories about that great chain's demise is that they couldn't adapt to changing times. That may be true, but I'll tell you this: If Tower Records, a company built on great selection and knowledgeable staff, can't make it in the business of selling music, then the business of selling music is in trouble. When it's finally gone, we'll be left with iTunes.
The funniest part of the whole scenario is that Apple is always painted at the white-hat-wearing good guys in the battle against the baddies at Microsoft. In reality, what Apple is doing is no different than what Wal-Mart and Best Buy are doing – selling convenience at a lower price than anyone else. And when they've eliminated the competition – be it the corner drugstore or the mom-and-pop grocery or the independent record store – what choices will be left? ITunes will be left, and you'll need to submit to their conditions and their restrictions on music that you legally purchase. That the iPod has thrived in the past five years is proof enough that plenty of music fans are OK with that trade-off.
It's not OK with me, though someday soon I might not have a choice.
So I grudgingly wish you a happy birthday, iPod. Just don't take it personally if I don't wish you many more.
oh my, you just reminded me why i held out for so long (i took the plunge last july), with a big 'o' slap in the face...
with a tear stained eye, i just threw my ipod out the window...
(not really)
Posted by: trey at October 26, 2006 6:56 AMI don't want anyone to throw out their iPod. It's all about having a choice. I choose not to, for now.
Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2006 6:58 AMAwesome rant, Sean! I still prefer turntables, and just stumbled on a treasure trove of old Mason Williams records at the local used-music shop. Stick THAT in yer ear!
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at October 26, 2006 8:17 AMI remember when pork chops were ten cents a pound.
Posted by: Hal at October 26, 2006 9:30 AMI'd like to find some Mason Williams LPs and some pork chops for 10 cents a pound. The turntable and the frying pan would both be running hot for a while.
Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2006 10:57 AMFirst off, you misleadingly confuse the iPod with the iTunes Music Store. Yes, they work well together, but there's absolutely no need to ever use the iTMS with the iPod. I've had my iPod for a couple of years and until a couple of weeks ago I had never bought anything from the iTMS. While the iTMS is a "closed system" the iPod is most definitely not. In fact, it supports the most open format there is: MP3. So, while your arguments that the iTMS is a closed system are valid, they really don't apply to the iPod unless you buy music from the iTMS, which many people I know don't ever do and which you are NEVER compelled to.
Secondly, your assertion that "the iPod is notorious for being unreliable" is made without any proof at all. Your further statement of "of the people I know that have them, I'd say the majority have experienced technical difficulties" isn't proof. Of the people I know who have them, none of them have experienced technical difficulties with them. None! Does that prove they are reliable? No, of course not. No more than your statement proves they are unreliable. The question I would instead ask is how reliable they are in comparison to other mp3 players. I don't know the answer to that question, but my guess would be that they're pretty similar. (You could also provide some actual stats like those at http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/ipodfailures.html which show that except for one model, iPods are generally pretty reliable.)
So, basically, if you don't like the iPod and don't want to buy one, that's fine. But, don't trash it, especially with incorrect data.
Posted by: Tanner Lovelace at October 26, 2006 11:59 AMTanner,
Pretty sure that the use of "I" constitutes opinion, not scientific fact. "I" also mentioned that dumping your own songs into the iPod, but probably should have been more clear about the fact that you could use the player without ITMS. Other than that, though, I believe I only represented my own experience and opinion. Thanks for reading HickoryWind.
Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2006 1:14 PMWhile I enjoyed the rant, I do have a couple of issues with it.
The first one, Tanner Lovelace covered; just having an iPod doesn't mean you have to buy your music from Apple. Of course many people will, but that is their choice.
The second is the "album vs. singles" debate. I just don't understand it, I honestly do not. Just because I can buy one song, doesn't mean I am limited to that one song. If I want the whole album, I can buy it and in some instances, if you do buy from iTMS, you don't have the option of buying one song, but the whole album.
I agree that there are albums that should be, or at least benefit from being, listened to as a whole. But honestly, that's not always the case. I'll pick on a specific artist here, Bob Seger (although I love Seger and have most of his albums). Seger refused to have his music on iTunes for a long time using the album vs. single argument. This is why it doesn't make sense to me (and I am honestly asking someone to enlighten me). Seger claims his albums should be listened to as a whole, as he created it, as he sequenced it. But, does Bob not remember those little vinyl discs called 45s? He had a few issued in his day. He also issued two volumes of greatest hits. Who buys a greatest hits album? People who don't want to buy the whole album for one song. If you want two Seger songs are you going to buy Greatest Hits or two albums full of stuff you don't want?
I think the album vs single argument holds true for a lot of reasons. A lot of music is simply exploration - so when you encourage exploration, you increase the odds for that pleasant surprise.
If you are just going the single route, and cease encouraging artists to explore a musical theme, you are in effect asking the artist to be the "hit-picker" for you. This will keep some really brilliant stuff from ever being released, simply because the artists themselves aren't too keen on it. While they may not release it as a single, they might be more comfortable using it as a cut on an album.
How many surprise favorites have you run across, while listening to an entire album? I for one am not willing to give up that opportunity just to streamline my listening. Sadly, many people are.
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at October 26, 2006 1:50 PMReally good post, Sean! You cite Apple's efforts to restrict the consumer's choice of how to use purchased music as a turn-off, but isn't the ability to buy single songs the ultimate expression of consumer choice? It isn't as if we're free to buy only the songs that the labels wish to release as a single, but any and all tracks on the album (in most cases).
Its as if I went into Target, ripped open a pkg of silverware and only purchased the spoon. Of course, I'd have 30 seconds to test drive each of the other utensils in the set, but I can purchase all or some of them at my discretion. Now, the manufacturer might argue that the spoon is best used as part of a set, but in the end, Its my choice.
Maybe "the biz" should offer buy-one, get-one-free (cheesy, I know) promotions to encourage further exploration. That said, there's a lot of filler music in the world and I'm hoping the buy-only-what-you-want trend will help keep it in check. Just my $.02.
Posted by: James at October 26, 2006 2:41 PMI don't really have a beef with the option to buy single songs at all. I'm more of an album guy, but I've been burned by some albums, too. Whether or not you're a big fan of Apple's set-up (I like the organization of iTunes; don't really like the restirictions placed on songs I might buy from iTunes), it's probably going to be the model for future online vendors.
Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2006 2:51 PMNice post-It certainly got people sharing their opinions!
What sold me on the iPOD as a gadget? After a ten hour drive my kids hopped out of the car and said "That didn't take that long!" Thanks to an iPOD, mp3 files and Lemony Snicket!
Yeah, I bought vinyl until it was no longer a viable option. I reinforced the living room floor with floor jacks so the turntable didn't skip when they danced around the house to "Banana Pudding" by SCOTS.
Singles? I always buy the entire disc. "Artists" could always issue their discs (Richard Buckner's "The Hill" comes to mind) as a one track cd if they really want listeners to hear the album in its entirety.
iTUNES? I usually use eMUSIC (cheaper than iTUNES) to purchase downloads.
Durability? If you carry it (anything)around it probably is going to break or get lost sooner or later. How long does a cell phone last? Don't know, don't have one. My camera? The shutter doesn't close after it got drenched in beer but it still takes pictures.
Are the pork chops done?
Gettin' there...just have to flip'em one more time.
Might as well flip the LP while I'm at it.
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at October 26, 2006 6:11 PMLook Sean, I respect that you have an opinion... but I think you are way off on this one.
The ability to carry around thousands of songs in your pocket never ceases to amaze me. Regardless of what you think of the music store or apple... the iPod is a wonderful thing. I have also found iTunes to be incredibly easy to use. I can understand your attachment to vinyls, etc. because I have a record player and play vinyl all the time. But a computer is so much easier to use for music on an everyday basis. And from my experience iTunes works as well as any other music player if not better.
You say durability is a problem but I disagree wholeheartedly. I've had my current iPod for more than two years. I have used it almost every day since I got it. I don't have a "face protector" or anything like that and it has never broken or had any major problems. Hell I still have the same earphones from when I bought the damn thing.
I know its going to sound like I'm an apple rep or something but the iPod truly has changed the way I experience music.
Posted by: Ryan at October 26, 2006 6:45 PMI'm pleased that you're enjoying the music. That's what it's all about, whatever your chosen format. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Sean at October 26, 2006 8:54 PMTo toss more fuel on the fire (pork chops are way past done now, Hal) -- the reason I bought my first iPod, several years ago now, was because I wanted to take iTunes with me everywhere I went. I love making playlists, and rating songs, and I love that I can carry (as of this writing) 9,878 songs in one tiny package. I love that an entirely new way to discover music -- created by the people (for now), namely *podcasts*, has been created by this little device.
Will it last forever? Will it become too commercial? (Is it already?) I don't know. All I know is, moving to mp3s changed the way I listen to music. Music is now more about my mood, or about rediscovery in a huge, huge record collection (well over 200GB at my last look) than anything else.
That being said, I still put on "Strangers Almanac" when I'm blue, "Eponymous" when I'm feeling nostalgic, and "O.K. Computer" when I wanna rock out.
Great post, dude. Thanks!
Posted by: larry at October 26, 2006 10:54 PMiPods, romantic cassette tapes, nostalgic vinyl. Am I the only person who loves CDs?
Posted by: Brendan at October 27, 2006 12:04 PMI love CDs. They make great pistol targets, and if you snap one in half you've got two 6-inch plastic knives...
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at October 27, 2006 1:05 PMAlternate use #2: When you drag those strings of C7 Christmas lights out of the attic, unscrew a bulb, put the threads through a CD (music side towards the bulb). Screw it back in and you got yourself a nifty reflector. Repeat As Necessary [which by coincidence happens to be the title to Dave Edmunds' best disc with excellent versions of Girls Talk, Crawling From The Wreckage, Home In My Hand and Sweet Little Lisa (with some killer guitar by Albert Lee) until you finish the entire string or run out of CDs].
