[Prestidigitweeze]

Wow -- lots of assumptions about motives I never expressed and conclusions I never made. Where to start?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This wasn't really Apple's fault, though. I had an mp3 player pre-iPod, and Apple (in the person of Jobs) was absolutely correct when he said that they "sucked." They had bad interfaces and even worse computer integration. (And the company that should have been the strongest counterweight to Apple - Sony - had pretty much the worst product available).

I'm amazed you were able to attribute that motive to me -- blaming Apple -- if you thought it was based on anything I said in the previous post. Please understand: I never stated, implied or even thought the iHP140's demise was Apple's fault.

That was the exact reason I mentioned hating other companies' shutting down the development of other players but stated I didn't hate the iPod itself:-- because the problem is the imitation that has followed Apple's successes and market domination. Apple's controlling side is a separate issue that shouldn't factor into objectively judging its products unless it impacts directly on functionality.

And no, Jobs was not correct, let alone "absolutely correct" in saying other players "sucked," any more than I would be in saying Apple "sucked" or you are in simply agreeing with Jobs's dismissal. Jobs was right to oversee the features and streamlining he wanted to add. He was right to follow his hardware/software model of integration. That doesn't mean, however, that the iTunes id3 tag organization model is right for people like me, who want their files to be organized purely by user-determined folder location and alphabetization. If your library is Id3-tag-based, your hard drive crashes and all you can recover are files, good luck tracing organization that no longer exists and folder/file-split names that are no longer coherent.

Of course, you can change that in iTunes prefs by not allowing it to organize your music. But you can't change that on an iPod -- 1G to Classic -- without installing custom firmware and forgoing iTunes sync entirely.

Again, I'm very happy about the ubiquity of third-party solutions for many Apple products and consider them powerful incentives to buy certain Apple devices. But notice that those solutions often reverse features and aspects of the user experience that Jobs dismissed as having "sucked."

Besides which, a product's user-to-user success is determined by said users' needs and the appropriate market for them, not vast world-dwarfing consensus. That's why audiophile music players have currently made a comeback in places like Korea: Now that everyone has been sufficiently fascinated by multimedia, listeners whose focus has always been music are finally getting updated versions of the niche players they had before and during the iPod's earliest days. It's very much like the pearl-screened eReader vs. multimedia tablet distinction.

Let's compare the features of the hoary old iRiver I mentioned and see how the original iPod stacked up: Will it play FLAC, ogg vorbis and other non-Apple files other than mp3s and wav? iRiver, yes, iPod, no. Organized by folder rather than tags? iRiver, yes, iPod, no. Digital optical out, allowing the user to plug in their own DAC to listen to audiophile-quality playback? iRiver, yes, iPod, no. Digital in, to allow digital recording with any ADC and high quality microphone available? iRiver, yes, iPod, no. Does it have a parametric EQ, compression, limiting and crossfade built directly into the device's firmware? iRiver, yes to all of that. iPod, hell, no.

Again, the person who wants to install something like Rockbox can have the EQ and folder organization on an iPod. But that means doing the things that you and Jobs claim "suck." No iPod ever made allows anyone to do digital recording with outside ADC and, until Wadia's development of the i170 in 2008, there was no possibility of using an external DAC with the iPod and even now the options are extremely pricey. Meanwhile, I've used $80 DACs with the iRiver without any issue.

The problem is not that the iPod 3G or the iHP-140 "sucked." It's people and companies making judgments like that without addressing sizable niches of other consumers.

Besides which, in my opinion, your Sony example is the worst you could have chosen to be representative of pre-iPod market. Sony deliberately restricted users from editing libraries and recording high-quality music because they acquired a record label. Sony was the worst for precisely the same reason Apple wasn't the best: Because of a non-user-base-friendly interest in controlling the user experience. Sony has had excruciatingly bad software and interfaces ever since Sony Music crippled the minidisc and sabotaged the work of MD engineers.

As with Apple, the problem has never been an absence of taste, innovation, talent or creativity. It has always been the conflict with features and freedoms many users prefer over whatever level of restriction's in the mission statement. Apple sometimes has good reasons for imposing their restrictions, but I don't have to agree with them as a user. Most Android smartphone and tablet users seem not to either, which means alternative markets should not be seen as insignificant.

Google is just as corporate as Apple, though, and one could argue they're even more invasive. That's why good vs. evil arguments seem tedious whenever Apple, Amazon or Sony's brought up -- wouldn't you agree? Sony are better about implementing eReader flexibility because they don't own a publishing empire, not because they're less "evil" than anyone else.

I mean, you can hate Apple because they came out with a product that didn't suck, but it's a kind of pointless exercise, since 80% of people were much happier with iPods than they were with any existing product.

I'm quoting the above paragraph for the person on another thread who suggested I've never been called an Apple hater.

Note to Andrew, my learnéd colleague: I've worked on Macs professionally for two decades now -- using them for studio work and desktop publishing, and going so far as to lay out my own book on a Mac even though the publisher had its own staff for that and had to be convinced my work would be adequate. If ever there were a person who didn't need to hate Apple, it would be me. But that doesn't mean I'm oblivious to pointless restrictions or wish my experience to be limited to Apple products. For me, it's Apple professionally and Android smartphones and PC laptops in the field.

That could change at any time based on which device made by whom suits my preferences. When that time comes, I hope you realize my decision won't be based on the idea that Jobs was (i) an heroic iconoclastic maverick who died for our industrial designers' sins or (ii) the anti-Christ of free software development.

The HP 140 failed in the market because it offered a lot of features people didn't care about (line in recording, a built in mike) and lacked features people did care about - like a software program you could put on your computer.

The last thing some of us want is for a portable device to impose music library software on our computers. Some of us would rather organize our music folders exactly once and be able to transfer the library by USB/Firewire/Thunderbolt/etc. and have it work on every device and operating system: Linux, iOS, OSX, Windows and Android.

Notice the assumptions you're making about "people" and about my statements. First of all, people includes me and the user base with which I'm still in contact even now, so it seems rather dismissive to overlook us. Second, the problem is not Apple itself but others' apparent need to develop every device as if it were made for Apple's market.

Yes, the iHP1xx was a niche player made in Korea. But that's precisely why it didn't need to be dropped in favor of an iPod clone that actually sold worse. And that's why another Korea-based company, HifiMan, is now putting out high-end music players for a much smaller consumer base and audiophiles are happier because of it. The market was always there. It was simply smaller and less attractive to companies that wanted to be the next Apple. This is a market for companies that want to be the next Arcam or B&W of portable audio.

Apple doesn't need to fail for other companies to succeed. Apple is successful in the consumer electronics business (less so in the computer business, although they have their moments) because it knows what customers want and delivers it.

Apple doesn't need to fail for its own sake, which is why I said I always hoped it would succeed enough to continue to be innovative and employ the best people. It needs to fail so that other companies will stop treating it as the holy grail of target marketing and product development. You don't have to agree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you understood my point.

I'm not sure where you get Amway - despite having a walled garden for Apps, Apple has the largest app store (although that is a pretty meaningless statistic now that we're talking hundreds of thousands of apps) and the best app selection.

The Amway quip had to do with product interdependency and lack of total cross-platform integration, not, for example, the idea of people selling Apple products in their spare time. And the app store is Apple's own store, which they guard vigilantly, edit aggressively and from which they make a percentage. I'm saying this not to suggest Apple's evil but to point out they're selling Apple and Apple compatibility even when they sell third-party apps, just as they are when they sell third-party accessories in the Apple store.

If you think that the iPad is an example of fashion over content, I would have to doubt your professed brand agnosticism.

I'm talking about the entire world and every manufacturer in it that makes tablets, not Apple and the iPad alone.

I think the iPad's design, restrictions and marketing are an example of fashion over content as they apply to the development of other products by other companies.

Again: I see the problem as Apple's domination of the market, what they do to remain there, what others do to be like them and the effect of that on other companies and products.

I do not consider the problem to be Apple products themselves but rather Apple products as predictors. In fact, I've argued Apple's ability to galvanize third-party diversity when explaining to audiophile friends why I still use an iPod 5G:

When a device becomes so popular that approved and disapproved options are provided for it by tens of thousands of third parties, we have to redefine the status of adjacent devices which at first glance seem more cutting edge. If third parties offer more diverse and practical uses for one device than another, they effectively make the more popular device more cutting edge in terms of the freedoms it offers. That's why my iPod 5G was modded by Vinnie Rossi and sounds amazingly good, whereas a Cowan iAudio 10 only sounds as good as the parts and signal path offered by the company that makes it. Vinnie never bothered to try to mod a Cowan player and there's a reason for that.

Once USB DACs for Android ICS are standardized and produced by a company like Fiio for around $70, I can't see buying a CypherLabs Algorithm Solo for $600 for a Touch or iPhone.

Thing is, I actually like the iPhone. My decision to buy a Galaxy S was a matter of practicality, not prejudice. My decision to buy a Galaxy Nexus in the next eight months will be practical as well (unless something better with the same upgrade path comes along).