# Time for Apple to face the music?



## preethesh.shetty (Nov 7, 2007)

Hi, 
   not sure if this is a repost (since it is quite old), but really makes an interesting read. This is exactly what I wanted to ask but didnt whom to...



> *Columnist Bill Thompson asks whether the time has come for Apple to be put under the EU microscope in the same way as Microsoft has.
> 
> *      *newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/66a.gif
> Microsoft was humiliated by the European Union's Court of First Instance on Monday when it rejected almost all elements of the software giant's appeal against the 2004 rulings made by the competition commissioner.
> ...


* Source*
 *news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7002612.stm


----------



## goobimama (Nov 7, 2007)

Apple seriously needs to get into it's senses before it turns into the bad guy...


----------



## RCuber (Nov 7, 2007)

Yea the first disappointment for me was the video cable.. My current cable cost me just 100 bucks. Now I have to think twice before going for a new iPod product .


----------



## din (Nov 7, 2007)

Offtopi

@Charan - What happened to video cable ? Is it something related to iPods, if so, would you please give details / links ? Just curious what problem it is.


----------



## RCuber (Nov 7, 2007)

^^^ no the the video cable is ok .. what I was saying is related to the new chip verifications(authentic ) ok the new generation iPods aka iPod Classic and iPod touch... which wont work with off the shelf video cables..


----------



## din (Nov 7, 2007)

Oh ok, thank you for explaining.

I am planning to go for an iPod touch (not rt now, only in future), so wanted to know what are all things we need to take care.


----------



## krazzy (Nov 7, 2007)

Despite all this stuff people still blindly go for iPods. When will they learn that there are better players on the market which offer better performance and don't restrict you to a particular software for file transfers? Even Sony which earlier forced its customers to use the pathetic SonicStage software to transfer content to the Walkman players now offers the convenience of drag-and-drop through UMS and ability to sync with WMP. Its the outrageous popularity of iPods that lets Apple get away with all this. 

I think its time, not for Apple, but the people to come to their senses (because i don't think Apple ever will). People dumped Sony's once iconic Walkman brand when they tried to force their ATRAC3 format on them. Its now that they support mp3 and wma that they're becoming popular again. Maybe a similar lesson should be taught to Apple.


----------



## RCuber (Nov 7, 2007)

^^ so what do you recomend?


----------



## din (Nov 7, 2007)

I am having a creative mp3 player already. I know the limitations (most but not all) of iPods, but still love to have one ! May be I am crazy but will buy iPod touch. I will be buying iPod (if I buy in future) after I know all drawbacks.


----------



## krazzy (Nov 7, 2007)

Charan said:
			
		

> ^^ so what do you recomend?


I recommend you buying from a company which gives you the freedom to do what you want and not what they think you should do. There is no scarcity of music players in market which offer good sound quality and don't restrict you to a particular software, like ones from Creative, Sandisk, Samsung, Cowon, Philips, iRiver, etc. These are big companies. There are smaller ones too like Transcend, Mitashi, YES, Safa, mobiBLU, etc. which offer good sound at very affordable prices. One can buy these. Is it so that if you want a music player, it must be an iPod? Also is it necessary to adjust yourself to the player you buy instead of buying one that suits your needs?


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 7, 2007)

there are things better then iPod, but no one looks. Well, there are things better then Windows ( i m joking ) but who cares to look...

iPod touch is a nothing new, we had Touch screen PMP's from iRiver & Cowen already with gigs of storage space, its just the iPod branding due to which iPod touch is selling..

iPod nano & classic...well, Creaive Zen finally gives more compelling reasons like big screens etc to buy it.


----------



## ashfame (Nov 7, 2007)

i am unable to decide bw shuffle and nano. pl tell me abt diff in sound qualities.
afaik ipods sound amazing.. but how good are they? pl tell asap. i have a plan to buy it on diwali


----------



## Gigacore (Nov 7, 2007)

lets hope apple has a slow progress here


----------



## faraaz (Nov 7, 2007)

iPods are ****...buy iRiver Clix ... my friend has one and it is SO bloody cool, I'm ditching my iPod and getting one with the money I am getting for that...no additional investment needed!


----------



## Pathik (Nov 7, 2007)

+1 for sandisk sansa and creative zen/w


----------



## din (Nov 7, 2007)

ashfame said:
			
		

> i am unable to decide bw shuffle and nano. pl tell me abt diff in sound qualities.
> afaik ipods sound amazing.. but how good are they? pl tell asap. i have a plan to buy it on diwali



May be goobi / Arya can help you.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 8, 2007)

Like ms every other os should be scanned.
Why is it always ms


----------



## Gigacore (Nov 8, 2007)

I think Transcend T610 Can perform better than iPods... it has no good looks.. but if someone has listened both to iPod and T610 they will feel the difference.. . The reason why iPod sells a lot is because of its looks.

Anyway creative zen can perform better than iPods and Transcends...


----------



## aryayush (Nov 9, 2007)

ashfame said:
			
		

> i am unable to decide bw shuffle and nano. pl tell me abt diff in sound qualities.
> afaik ipods sound amazing.. but how good are they? pl tell asap. i have a plan to buy it on diwali


If the budget permits, go for the iPod nano.


----------



## Pathik (Nov 9, 2007)

the shuffle sucks IMO.. the Nano is neday better..


----------



## goobimama (Nov 9, 2007)

The shuffle does not suck. It's really compact, water-resistant (so you can sweat it out), has a long battery life, looks sleek and syncs with iTunes. Sure the Nano is better, but for where you need quick operations without looking, nothing beats the shuffle...

[if budget permits, go for nano]


----------



## kumarmohit (Nov 9, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> The shuffle does not suck. It's really compact, water-resistant (so you can sweat it out), has a long battery life, looks sleek and *syncs with iTunes*. Sure the Nano is better, but for where you need quick operations without looking, nothing beats the shuffle...
> 
> [if budget permits, go for nano]



Wat does nano sync with?
Real player- LOL

I mean cmon goobi this is not a distinguishing feature for shuffle from other ipod products


----------



## aryayush (Nov 9, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> water-resistant


LOL! It is not water resistant, Milind.

What he (Milind) meant to say was that the shuffle has those cool features. Of course, other iPods have them too but he wasn't comparing it to them. He was making a case for the shuffle's not sucking.


----------



## goobimama (Nov 9, 2007)

Well the new one is pretty much water resistant. Not dip-in-the-pool water resistant, but ride-in-the-rain water resistant.


----------



## ashfame (Nov 9, 2007)

i have never heard any ipod. one guy also told me about ipods that bass in nt that much good bt still m gonna luv it. can i have a idea of what i am going to have? (sound quality)


----------



## krazzy (Nov 9, 2007)

ashfame said:
			
		

> i have never heard any ipod. one guy also told me about ipods that bass in nt that much good bt still m gonna luv it. can i have a idea of what i am going to have? (sound quality)


Sound quality is pretty good. Out of 5, i'll give it 4 stars. But players from Cowon, iRiver and some Sony models offer better sound (5-star sound). An important factor, i.e. manual equaliser is not present in iPods. There are just presets. So you can't customize the sound to your preference. Among the current range of iPods, the iPod Classic is said to have the best sound compared to Touch, Nano and Shuffle.


----------



## aryayush (Nov 10, 2007)

Oh honestly! Who, except for the most geekiest of audiophiles, bother with the equaliser? Most people who change the equaliser from the defaults only end up making the music sound crappier.

This is just a classic case of wanting features just for the sake of having a lengthier spec list. Who cares for a custom equaliser!

What matters in a music player is the sound quality, battery life and user interface. The iPod shuffle excels in two of these departments (it does not have much of a user interface though) and the other iPods excel in all three.


----------



## goobimama (Nov 10, 2007)

^^ Why doesn't it have an excellent user interface? You can operate the thing without even thinking where the buttons are (particularly useful if you are listening to music while going to sleep). You can even switch playlists with the 2G iPod. It doesn't always have to have a display.

[I'm defending the shuffle so much cause I might be getting one as a buffer between now and the iPhone... the touch is too tempting]


----------



## aryayush (Nov 10, 2007)

Screen _to hai nahin. Kya khaak ka_ user interface! 

Translation: User interface, my foot! It doesn't even have a damn screen. 


Why the Hell do you keep pouring the money out! _Bahut jyaada ho gaya hai kya!_


----------



## goobimama (Nov 10, 2007)

Kya tereko samosey kharidneko chaho kya?


----------



## aryayush (Nov 10, 2007)

LOL! I think I need a translation for that sentence, which is just gibberish in its present form. 

You need to work on your Hindi.


----------



## krazzy (Nov 10, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> Oh honestly! Who, except for the most geekiest of audiophiles, bother with the equaliser? Most people who change the equaliser from the defaults only end up making the music sound crappier.
> 
> This is just a classic case of wanting features just for the sake of having a lengthier spec list. Who cares for a custom equaliser!
> 
> What matters in a music player is the sound quality, battery life and user interface. The iPod shuffle excels in two of these departments (it does not have much of a user interface though) and the other iPods excel in all three.


 Just because you don't use manual equaliser, doesn't mean the rest of the world don't use it. Manual equaliser is not just a feature that fills up spec sheet, IT WORKS. It is important when you want to compensate for the lack or excess of a particular frequency. All audio devices and speakers don't have absolutely flat frequency output graphs. Some times the player, the amp or the speakers cannot faithfully reproduce the original signal or sometimes the original signal itself is not to your liking. This is when manual equaliser comes to you aid. You can reduce of boost the freqs to your taste. Most of the audio equipment, from the cheapest mp3 players to high-end sound systems have this feature. Manual equalisers are unnecessary only when one has almost perfect system or when one does not wish to alter the original sound. For most others manual equalisers prove to be a boon.


----------



## faraaz (Nov 10, 2007)

^ - +1

Even with my iPod, I can't listen to Techno music until I turn up the bass, preferably with settings like Dance or Club or something...iPods DO suck in that aspect as none of the settings are exactly what I want...

And arya, mp3 player without equaliser is like a car without wipers...


----------



## aryayush (Nov 11, 2007)

krazyfrog. said:
			
		

> Manual equalisers are unnecessary ... when one does not wish to alter the original sound.


That, IMHO, includes almost everyone.


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 11, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> That, IMHO, includes almost everyone.


 
Not everyone's ears are same.


----------



## krazzy (Nov 11, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> That, IMHO, includes almost everyone.


 Some times its the player itself which alters the original sound either by boosting certain frequencies (e.g. overpowering treble) or by cutting-off some freqs (e.g. low bass). In these situations, manual equalisers help to bring the sound back to the original by boosting or attenuating the freqs. 

In my Walkman phone, the sound with the default headphones is pretty good, but lacks treble a bit. So i use the manual equaliser to boost the treble. And then the sound is nearly perfect. So you see, manual equalisers are actually useful.


----------



## aryayush (Nov 11, 2007)

When did I say they weren't? I said, "Who, except for the most geekiest of audiophiles, bother with the equaliser?"

And that, my dear friend, is true. I, for one, have no clue what treble is or how to determine whether it is low or high and how to improve it. It all sounds the same to me. And most people out there are like me, not you. It is the same with high definition. I love HD because I can tell the difference between HD and DVD quality and I appreciate and value it. But most people don't.

Manual equaliser is useful. No doubt at all. But no one uses it (and by "no one", I mean that the people who do use it are not a significant number, which is also clearly evident by the sales of the iPod).


----------



## faraaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Source please! You're pulling random statements out your pants...


----------



## RCuber (Nov 11, 2007)

ROFL ..  ha ha .. no more comments.. =))


----------



## krazzy (Nov 11, 2007)

The sales of the iPod aren't an indication of anything. Most of the people only buy it because its "iPod" and not for any other reason. These people then also adapt themselves to live without manual equalisers, fm radio, recorder, etc. and are happy to be restricted to using iTunes alone. Most of them don't even know that iPods are made by Apple and for them mp3 player=iPod. iPod has become a phenomenon and most people buying it don't buy it because they like its features or because it suits their needs, but basically because its supposed to be 'cool' to have one and everybody else has it too. Not having one might result in your family disowning you or your friends stop recognizing you.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 11, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> When did I say they weren't? I said, "Who, except for the most geekiest of audiophiles, bother with the equaliser?"
> 
> And that, my dear friend, is true. I, for one, have no clue what treble is or how to determine whether it is low or high and how to improve it. It all sounds the same to me. And most people out there are like me, not you. It is the same with high definition. I love HD because I can tell the difference between HD and DVD quality and I appreciate and value it. But most people don't.
> 
> Manual equaliser is useful. No doubt at all. But no one uses it (and by "no one", I mean that the people who do use it are not a significant number, which is also clearly evident by the sales of the iPod).




I don't mean to be personal, but I think you are a bit too ignorant. There are several who like a booming bass and several who like a good trebel.

anyway, back to the topic, the only reason iPods still sell despite many good and better rivals is because it is one of those few players honoured with a RockBox built for it and iPod linux.

I don't find anything good for my Transcend T Sonic 610 2GB, and hence I regret buying it(who wants only mp3 and wma with wav?).

Cowon iAudios are much better than Apple iPods.

and for your average unbranded item buyer, there is something called "Sony iPod" which has 52 hours music playback(nokia batteries power this thing), usable as a flash drive and video, at RS 1300/-

There is also "JXD", which comes with 1 gig space(SD expandable), camera(video, audio and photo) and playback of the same alsong with radio at RS 1800/- for 2.5" screen and RS 6500 for 4.5" screen

all these unbranded stuff also sound better than iPods


----------



## narangz (Nov 11, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> When did I say they weren't? I said, "Who, except for the most geekiest of audiophiles, bother with the equaliser?"
> 
> And that, my dear friend, is true. I, for one, have no clue what treble is or how to determine whether it is low or high and how to improve it. It all sounds the same to me. And most people out there are like me, not you.



Even a kid out there want an equalizer. Atleast those whom I know.



			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> all these unbranded stuff also sound better than iPods



I cannot be so sure of those unbranded/Chinese stuff but I can guarantee there are many branded music players available in market which sound better than an iPod. 

I always have a feeling that Apple products are just bought as a status symbol.


----------



## goobimama (Nov 11, 2007)

So it's another one of those "Finder has no cut option" type of discussions eh!

What's with all the negatives? It doesn't have this, doesn't have that. Look at what it has. Battery life, easy syncing, interface, good quality sound (may not be the *best* but there's no doubt that it's very good), and add to that it looks sexy. Also, if I want to buy a Cowon out here, I would have to wait a month for my dealer to get it, and I'll have to buy it without trying it out. Warranty will surely be a hassle and my uncle will spank me with a yard stick. 

"People" buy an iPod because it is easy to use, looks cool and sounds amazing. They don't want to know that an iRiver *will* sound amazing after buying it. They are assured of the iPod and that's why it sells. I've seen 80 year old people buying an iPod because they are marvelled at how easy it is to manage their music.


----------



## krazzy (Nov 11, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> So it's another one of those "Finder has no cut option" type of discussions eh!
> 
> What's with all the negatives? It doesn't have this, doesn't have that. Look at what it has. Battery life, easy syncing, interface, good quality sound (may not be the *best* but there's no doubt that it's very good), and add to that it looks sexy. Also, if I want to buy a Cowon out here, I would have to wait a month for my dealer to get it, and I'll have to buy it without trying it out. Warranty will surely be a hassle and my uncle will spank me with a yard stick.
> 
> "People" buy an iPod because it is easy to use, looks cool and sounds amazing. They don't want to know that an iRiver *will* sound amazing after buying it. They are assured of the iPod and that's why it sells. I've seen 80 year old people buying an iPod because they are marvelled at how easy it is to manage their music.


So you're suggesting people should always look at the positive aspects before buying and not the negatives? Wise

Btw companies like iRiver, Cowon, Sony, Creative also have a quality standard and always provide excellent sound. You don't have to buy it to know about it. Anybody who have heard of these companies know about it. Plus there are people out there who review these things for us so we know exactly what we're buying. 

If you don't get a particular product in your area, by all means buy the ones that are easily available and serviceable. I'm saying that if you do have a choice, you don't necessarily have to buy iPod only, which is what most people do, without checking out the alternatives.


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 11, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> What's with all the negatives? It doesn't have this, doesn't have that. Look at what it has. Battery life, easy syncing, interface, good quality sound


 
Comparing iPod shuffle to Creative Zen Stone Plus...ok?

Zen stone plus as a screen, shuffle doesn't

Zen stone does not requires any software for syncing with a computer. Just drag & drop songs to the drive, due to which it works with any os out there whether vista or Fedora Core 2. Shuffle requires iTunes or hacks to work on Linux.

Zen stone doesn't uses any database hassle, shuffle needs one.

Zen stone can be used anywhere due to which copying songs to & from is easy & requires not software. With shuffle u can't copy songs from Shuffle to a friends computer.



> "People" buy an iPod because it is easy to use, looks cool and sounds amazing.


 
There are better players available. Like Creative Zen is better then iPod Nano anyway.


----------



## faraaz (Nov 12, 2007)

@gx_saurav: What are you talking about?! No one needs Linux or atleast, I don't use so its obvious that NO ONE ELSE uses ANYTHING other than WHAT I USE! Right? Also, who wants a screen? iPod Shuffle is from Apple! Just look at the UI!!! Oh no...wait... [/sarcasm]


----------



## goobimama (Nov 12, 2007)

> Zen stone does not requires any software for syncing with a computer.


So how does one manage songs? I'm sure Windows Media Player or some other media management software might work, but they still don't come to being as simple as iTunes + iPod is. 

@faraaz: I'm assuming you are hinting that the iPod shuffle doesn't have a UI cause it doesn't have a screen. If in case you forgot, UI is short for User Interface or How a user interacts with the device. It does not have to have a screen for it to have a kickass interface...


----------



## faraaz (Nov 12, 2007)

@goobimama: I was just making a (very sarcastic) point about some statements made by someone else I think we both know well on this board...


----------



## goobimama (Nov 12, 2007)

Ah. Why didn't you PM me then? After all, I do have a mac. I mean, look at it's UI..it's so cool! :sunglasses smiley:


----------



## mehulved (Nov 12, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> So how does one manage songs? I'm sure Windows Media Player or some other media management software might work, but they still don't come to being as simple as iTunes + iPod is.


What he meant there was that most of the media players can be simply mounted as a USB disk and you can work on it as on the media on your hard disk. It's not the same for ipod, which required something like gtkpod or amarok or some such tools.


----------



## goobimama (Nov 12, 2007)

I know what he meant. Dragging stuff within explorer is fine when you have a few songs here and there. But when it comes to managing thousands of tracks (as many people have nowadays) the task becomes much simpler with a media organiser like iTunes or WMP. So while you CAN drag and drop within explorer, given the option many would prefer to use a dedicated media organiser. 

So when an average user is presented with an easy to use syncing with iTunes, they are obviously floored by it's way of working with music and that's why the iPod wins. Most people don't like options. They like just one method of doing things and not LEARN other ways of doing things. I know a lot of these kinds of people where even tasks which seem trivial to us, need to be actually learnt by them. 

I'm telling you man. I hang out at the Apple store sometimes, the mac geek that I am, where a lot of these 'Average people' walk in asking about iPods. They have just about bought a computer and have no idea how to use it. Sometimes I handle the customers in there. Just show how to add their existing CDs to iTunes, how to search for media on their computers and add it to the library, and how to sync the iPod with it. And they had no idea that such a marvel existed.

I hope I'm not rambling too much.


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 12, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> So how does one manage songs? I'm sure Windows Media Player or some other media management software might work, but they still don't come to being as simple as iTunes + iPod is.


 
Lolz....thats the beauty, you can use any software u want with Zen Stone whether Winamp or WMP.

Why r u calling WMP as not easy? Have u ever tried using music library in it? I use it extensively, & it works fine with WMA, MP3, M4A, OGG all music type management something at which iTunes failes. Try it goobi, I would be glad to help u in this....just don't use WMA & stick to mp3 format so that u can use then on Mac too.

To sync in WMP just click on the Sync tab & drag & drop songs to the sync sidebar, & click on sync. Done. If u r connected to net then it will automatically download a profile for your PMP like Creative Zen & also copy the album art to the device.


----------



## mehulved (Nov 12, 2007)

milind are you sure it's just the newbies? I have even seen a one computer engineering student unable to understand how to use iTunes.
My point isn't that iTunes is difficult to use but that people are much more comfortable with what they're familiar. You cannot use iPod with your favourite music player either. Or in the case of linux you will need to use some extra libraries, which usually don't even work with newer releases of iPod for a while. There's no such problem with most other mp3 players out there.
eg.
I just have to connect my transcend mp3 player on a PC running ubuntu. It will auto mount it and pop up the dialog box asking if i want to manage the music using rhythmbox.
For using iPod I would need to install extra libraries for it too.


----------



## aryayush (Nov 12, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> the only reason iPods still sell despite many good and better rivals is because it is one of those few players honoured with a RockBox built for it and iPod linux.


LOL! With all due respect to Linux and the open source movement, that is definitely the most absurd statement I've ever heard or read. This one is right up there with 64K.

iPods sell because of RockBox whatever? Really? You truly believe that? That's like saying that bullocks have started jumping off rooftops!

The last thing most (in fact, almost all) iPod buyers have in their mind when buying one is that they will install some other operating system onto it.

How many people even think of installing Linux onto their iPods? It is not even an insignificant minority. It's absolutely non-existent. And to say that "the only reason" iPods sell is because of Linux is like... LOL! I have no words to describe the sheer stupidity of that statement.

Thanks for a good laugh though!


----------



## goobimama (Nov 12, 2007)

> milind are you sure it's just the newbies? I have even seen a one computer engineering student unable to understand how to use iTunes.


What I meant to say is that newbies are the ones who find iTunes really easy to use. 

You have to realise that n00bs don't like choice. They like a one track method of doing things and they get really comfortable doing it. The moment they have to choose their manager, or use it through explorer, or something else, it scares them. And I'm not talking about noobs like those who have just joined the digit forum.

@mehulved: The moment you enter the Linux zone, you also enter the geek zone and a zone that requires a whole lot of customization. The iPod is not for the linux geek...

While I have no reason to use WMP11 (need to bonjour sync music from PC to Mac and vice versa), I have used it in the past. As soon as WMP 11 was out, I installed it and moved my library in there (it was just files and folders). I was the only one who used it for a while. Then I moved to iTunes and now all of us use that for playback. Although, I do use foobar2000 for playback cause it has plugin support for 6 channels (but iTunes for organising)


----------



## mehulved (Nov 12, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> @mehulved: The moment you enter the Linux zone, you also enter the geek zone and a zone that requires a whole lot of customization. The iPod is not for the linux geek...


So, for one that can be counted as the downside of iPod.


----------



## preethesh.shetty (Nov 19, 2007)

krazyfrog. said:
			
		

> The sales of the iPod aren't an indication of anything. Most of the people only buy it because its "iPod" and not for any other reason. These people then also adapt themselves to live without manual equalisers, fm radio, recorder, etc. and are happy to be restricted to using iTunes alone. Most of them don't even know that iPods are made by Apple and for them mp3 player=iPod. iPod has become a phenomenon and most people buying it don't buy it because they like its features or because it suits their needs, but basically because its supposed to be 'cool' to have one and everybody else has it too. Not having one might result in your family disowning you or your friends stop recognizing you.


agree totally with this.....
i've seen my own colleagues (all software engineers) clamouring for an ipod just because it's supposed to be cool to have one, without realising how restrictive its going to be later. They are not even aware that there are media players other than ipod! And, this is from software engineers, who are supposed to be geeks!! Now, we can only imagine how it is with the common folk.


----------



## iMav (Nov 19, 2007)

mehulved said:
			
		

> So, for one that can be counted as the downside of iPod.


iv listed so many when i got mine i remember some members even telling me that if u hate it so much y did u buy it ...  its a bloody hell restrictive device and no ipods dont sell for rockbox which again is a very crappy application/firmware for using the interface sux  totally   ipodwizard is better for customization  and the same can be said abt the touch and even the iphone no customization - 

jobs definition of a gadget:

a device that u use as i want u to use as opposed to what it should be a device that u use as u want to

having said that the ipod touch safari is really nice and the touch should be bought only if u have a strong wi-fi network at ur home/office or intitute else its just a very very useless gadget - trust me on this 1 it very useless as a pmp as the so called touch interface will be in ur pocket only if u use it a s a pmp which is a stupid waste of money


----------

