A Star Is Born

October 17, 2006 8:02 AM

Straight Dope on the birth of the iPod from the sharp pen of WIRED's Mac maven Leander Kahney. Quoth Steve Jobs: "Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
posted by rdone (35 comments total)

Looks like you linked to the last page of the article. Was that on purpose?
posted by brundlefly at 8:08 AM on October 17, 2006

Okay, a post about iPods, where the first link goes to the third page of an article, and the second link is non-existant? You're about to get a shit-storm.
posted by piratebowling at 8:08 AM on October 17, 2006

A literal Shit-storm?
posted by ba at 8:17 AM on October 17, 2006

Interesting article, though, once you get to the first page. :) Maybe a mod can fix it. Meanwhile, get your shit-repellant umbrella.
posted by The Deej at 8:26 AM on October 17, 2006

Not another apple story... His comment on design is good though

Design is how it works.

On that point Jobs is spot on. It's something that bugs me quite a bit. Design is not aesthetics. That is a small, but certainly significant, part of the process.
posted by twistedonion at 8:28 AM on October 17, 2006

Straight Dope? Is this something I'd have to be heterosexual to know about? I don't see Cecil Adams' hand in this, either.

None the less, an interesting article. I'm no ipod fanboy.
posted by Goofyy at 8:32 AM on October 17, 2006

It's interesting how badly the competition sucked in terms of storage, battery life and ease of use when the iPod first came out. No wonder it took off. I only have a Sony mp3-CD player so I can't address the usability of the iPod's original competition but I must say, the ones I took notice of at the time were also butt ugly, looking more like garish Nike shoes than music equipment.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:33 AM on October 17, 2006

In uncompressed mode the ipod's audio electronics are surprisingly good, equivalent to an over $1000 cd player.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:38 AM on October 17, 2006

In uncompressed mode the ipod's audio electronics are surprisingly good, equivalent to an over $1000 cd player.

Hardly
posted by caddis at 8:39 AM on October 17, 2006

Hardly

the humble iPod is earning a place at the heart of the most expensive and exacting sound systems

caddis: Can you provide some supporting links?
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:54 AM on October 17, 2006

Vinnie can hot-rod your iPod to make it truly compare with high end CD players.
posted by caddis at 9:03 AM on October 17, 2006

hot-rod your iPod

Interesting. But the high end cd players that attempts to equal are $5 - 10 K.

Out of the box it performs like a $1 - 2K cd player.
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:08 AM on October 17, 2006

It's pretty funny that Steve Jobs would say that. As far as I can tell, Apple relies pretty heavily on people who view "design" as "the way it looks". If he really thought design was about the way things work, wouldn't it be a non-trivial task in OS X to set your default Finder view to columns-mode, or even store your preference per folder, without resorting to root account hackery? Wouldn't my iPod be able to mimic my iTunes setting to ignore artists that exist in my library only as part of compilations? Wouldn't iTunes be able to watch folders for music changes like any other god-damn jukebox app out there? Apple gets by largely on the money of people who view design as pure aesthetics.
posted by dvdgee at 9:17 AM on October 17, 2006

I have a $1k player and I have compared the iPod 5G 30 gig to it using a lossless format. The iPod was good, but the CD player was noticably better. It didn't even best my $400 player. Nevertheless, the iPod was very good. I would really love to put the CDs into storage and go with something like a McIntosh MS300, but they are still too dear for my finances.
posted by caddis at 9:19 AM on October 17, 2006

Good review of iPod here.
posted by caddis at 9:22 AM on October 17, 2006

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
posted by zsazsa at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2006

A UI so good they paid $100 million to licence it from Creative.
posted by MetaMonkey at 9:59 AM on October 17, 2006

From caddis's link's "wish list" of audio improvements:

• Tighter, more articulate bass
• Better decay of long held notes and delicate harmonics
• Firmer and more expansive imaging (the soundstage needed to open up and become more 3D)
• Superior treble extension, sweetness, and "sparkle"

Oh, audiophiles. If only Monster Cable made girls.
posted by neustile at 10:04 AM on October 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

set your default Finder view to columns-mode, or even store your preference per folder, without resorting to root account hackery?

Finder > Preferences > Checkbox: Open new windows in column view.

Once you change your view in any folder, it DOES remember that view for that folder. No root hackery needed.
posted by The Deej at 10:09 AM on October 17, 2006

Audiophiles wouldn't go near Monster Cable.
posted by davebush at 10:21 AM on October 17, 2006

I have a question about the iPod and whether or not it has a tendency to vibrate, but I don't know precisely how to phrase it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:23 AM on October 17, 2006

dvdgee: "Wouldn't my iPod be able to mimic my iTunes setting to ignore artists that exist in my library only as part of compilations?"

iPod -> Settings -> Compilations -> On

At least, that's how it works on my iPod. -shrug-
posted by Fofer at 10:52 AM on October 17, 2006

Astro... umm.... do you WANT it to vibrate? ;)

Mine doesn't vibrate at any discernable level. And the Nano and Shuffle are flash memory, so there is nothing moving.
posted by The Deej at 11:15 AM on October 17, 2006

The Deej's - it doesn't vibrate?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:26 AM on October 17, 2006

I think the word Jobs is looking for in engineering. Although, that brings up images of clever hard-working geeks as opposed to hipster 'designers.'
posted by damn dirty ape at 11:53 AM on October 17, 2006

Audiophile, def. of: Someone who cares a great deal more about hardware than music. See also, snob.
posted by aerotive at 12:13 PM on October 17, 2006

nihil novi, etc
posted by matteo at 12:19 PM on October 17, 2006

This iPod, it vibrates?
posted by kahboom at 2:25 PM on October 17, 2006

I think the Wired article may be wrong when it says the "iPod name came from an earlier Apple project to build an internet kiosk" in that the current ipod-as-ipod federal TM registration (serial no. 75982871) is from an earlier-filed application than the kiosk registration (serial no. 78018061). I could be wrong as there is a lot of activity in the '871 (and Swiss foreign priority!), but I don't have the time or interest for a full investigation now. There is also the later serial no. 78089144. Oddly enough, there is an even earlier use of an iPOD trademark for office furniture.
posted by exogenous at 2:33 PM on October 17, 2006

Wait, in Creative mode it plays better than a $100 million CD-player???
posted by rikschell at 2:49 PM on October 17, 2006

TheDeej: This only works for folders under your "home" directory, see here.

Fofer: I guess my 4g doesn't support this option. Well, at about 2 years old, I guess it's too obsolete to still expect support.
posted by dvdgee at 3:16 PM on October 17, 2006

The iPod truly is a paragon of design. It is extremely easy to use, even for the non-technical sorts, it's functions are incredibly useful and add to the experience of music, it looks beautiful and cool, and for the price the sound is really quite good. When the encyclopedia of product design is written for our era the iPod will be up near the top. (and all this praise comes from someone who hates walkmans, portable cd players, mp3 players and the like - I like to feel the music not just hear it through a 1/4 inch ear bud. I guess I am what you might consider an audiophile and I think this is one of the more exciting advances in playing back recorded music.)
posted by caddis at 4:18 PM on October 17, 2006

Counterpoint: the iPod is a johnny-come-lately, derivative, me-too piece of crap, with mediocre sound quality and execrable build quality. Its popularity is driven by fashion and canny marketing, and it exists as little more than a stealth agent for the Real Game, the iTunes store, and to induce people to open up and accept the shit sandwich that is digital rights management.

There were better players before and have been better ones since. None with larger ad budgets, or cannier viral injections, perhaps. iPod owners are the gadget equivalent of those people who wore pastel Lacoste logo'd polo shirts with the collars turned up way back when, because it was in.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:22 PM on October 17, 2006

Oh look, yet another "iPod killer!"
posted by The Deej at 5:23 PM on October 17, 2006

What do you mean my PORTABLE audio player isn't up to the exacting acoustic standards I've created for myself?! A total ripoff!!

</snark&gt

That's what drives me bananas about these back-n-forths: hardcore audiophiles that bitch about how this $350 portable media player is far from what they expect audio equipment to be. Yeah, buddy: no kidding. You want perfect, you sacrifice either the $350 tag (to pay much, much more) or you sacrifice the portability. Cripes.
posted by grubi at 8:44 AM on October 18, 2006