Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MooseMan3000
/me sheds a single tear for everyone who bought an iPod expecting it to be a video player.
Why do people insist on doing this? Listen: it's not called the "iPod Video." It's the iPod 5G. It's an mp3 player that happens to have very limited (read: broken) video playback capability. Why don't people buy real multimedia devices? I'm looking at iRiver and Creative in particular. Both companies have models with larger screens, better battery life, better playback capability, more file format support, and for similar or lower prices. It seems to me like people pay this premium for a player that only works with a proprietary video format, and even then not very well. God.
|
I was just looking at those alternative video players and, correct me if I'm wrong but, according to their respective websites, those other two players only play Windows Media Video files. Ironically, the players you suggested are the ones that play proprietary video formats and not the iPod. Neither the generic MPEG-4 (whatever that is) nor the H.264 formats are proprietary, in any way. So, it's hard to imagine what you mean when you say that they have "more file format support."
Also, according to their websites, they are more expensive and have less storage than the iPod, so it's unclear what you mean by "similar or lower prices."
It's true that they have larger screens and longer battery life, but it's also true that they are, both, larger devices, hence the larger screen and larger battery for more life. This cuts down on their portability, so it's a simple trade-off decision for the consumer.
Furthermore, despite having larger screens, both players you've mentioned, according to their websites, have the same resolution as the iPod, so they really didn't make good use of their larger screens!
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm far from Apple's biggest fan, but your comparison with the iPod was totally unfair...