[Rylan @ Sep 25th 2007 9:19AM]

A step in the right direction. Now if they'd only sell it in lossless format...

[John B @ Sep 25th 2007 10:10AM]

256Kbps is quite an acceptable rate for those of us who aren't audiophiles but still dislike the distortion of "standard" 128 Mbps.

One step at a time, dear boy. One step at a time. If you move too quickly you'll just scare them back into their hole.

I still wonder why they were they making such a bitch-and-moan session over Apple's $1.29 per DRM-free track yet they're supposedly happy with Amazon's 89 to 99 cent price. Huh? Wha--? I can't believe for a second that Universal is actually happy that the customer is getting a better price.

[Naris @ Sep 25th 2007 10:32AM]

256kbps is a lot higher than most stores these days. And it's very hard to notice non lossless songs while on the move. I have all my Zune stuff in 256kbps MP3 and it sounds fine. On my computer with peace and quiet FLAC does sound much better... but I can't imagine the bandwidth costs it would take to offer FLAC downloads. Not to mention the amount of bitching the music corporations would offer to have full CD quality...

[Jimmy @ Sep 25th 2007 11:11AM]

@John B.

quote--"I still wonder why they were they making such a bitch-and-moan session over Apple's $1.29 per DRM-free track yet they're supposedly happy with Amazon's 89 to 99 cent price. Huh? Wha--? I can't believe for a second that Universal is actually happy that the customer is getting a better price."--quote

Maybe it is Apple that wants the higher price for DRM Free iTunes? If the music they sell can be played on any MP3 player then people have no reason to purchase Apple's cash printing machine called the iPod.

[Scott @ Sep 25th 2007 12:22PM]

Except for the fact that the iPod is still (ok..arguably) the best MP3 player out there in terms of features, build, and cost.

[Quix @ Sep 25th 2007 12:21PM]

"If the music they sell can be played on any MP3 player then people have no reason to purchase Apple's cash printing machine called the iPod." - Jimmy

Oh please, it's the tired old argument that iPod success is due only to iTunes lock-in. Give me a break. There are many reasons to choose an iPod over competing players, price being one of them (160GB for $349 - hard to beat that).

Troll different.

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2007 12:48PM]

"I can't imagine the bandwidth costs it would take to offer FLAC downloads"

Amazon charges only 13 cents per GB for their S3 service so their costs are even lower. Assuming an average lossless CD is 250-500 MBs that's only 3.25-6.5 cents per full album. And that's the price Amazon currently charges to make a profit, so their actual cost would be even less.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261

[Larz @ Sep 25th 2007 12:50PM]

"Except for the fact that the iPod is still (ok..arguably) the best MP3 player out there in terms of features, build, and cost."

Don't try to pass off opinion as fact.

Fact: iPod is not a good value. There are smaller machines with more storage space and less propriety out there for cheaper cost (and there have always been).

Opinion: I think the iPod has a pretty slick interface. I've always liked jog controls (I know what you fanboys out there are thinking... "blasphemy! Apple didn't invent that interface?!?!" No, they didn't).

Have I or would I ever buy one? No. The cons outweigh the pros for me.

[BEE Bopp @ Sep 25th 2007 1:09PM]

Clearly Scot and Quix have not priced other models - Ipods lack the features of other players and cost much more!

[Quix @ Sep 25th 2007 2:24PM]

Perhaps Larz and BEE Bopp can send me a link for an iPod-equivalent DAP with *160 GB* of storage for less than $349?

I'll be waiting...

"Don't try to pass off opinion as fact." - Larz

"Fact: iPod is not a good value" - Larz

Larz, perhaps you should take a hard look at your first statement and then reevaluate your second.

[pam @ Sep 25th 2007 3:00PM]

Just because apple offers a 160gb ipod for $349 doesn't make them the best. Look at offerings in the $80 range - you can buy a 1gb ipod shuffle with no screen and very basic features or a 2gb Creative Zen with a 1.5" display and advanced features including AM/FM radio and the ability to view photos. Not everyone wants to spend $350 on a mp3 player.

[Andy @ Sep 25th 2007 3:50PM]

@ Pam

Exactly, just because they are doing well at one pricepoint, the highest, does not mean they are doing well overall. Every other device in the lineup is beat by an equivalent with lower price, or more features for the same price.

Remember, the battle for the average Joe is not taking place at 350 dollars, but at the sub 200 range. And with a store like this with great high quality cheap music and no DRM, plus the ability to buy any player you want, its all about choice, of which Apple gives you little.

[Larz @ Sep 27th 2007 4:22PM]

Quix:
That statement was fact and I backed it up with the following: "There are smaller machines with more storage space and less propriety out there for cheaper cost"

It's stupid to ask me to make comparisons on 160GB models. 160GB DAP's are a brand-spankin-new thing. I admit Apple has a decent price for those and is one of the first out the gate with them... and they should be, since they've made butt-loads of cash off iDiots who bought earlier bulky iPods with low storage capacity for $400.

Asking me to compare 160GB models is like asking to compare all the Cell/BE products out there.

But if I must make some comparison: Archos does have a 160GB PMP coming out with a huge screen--a touch screen even, WiFi, TV out, web browser, PDF viewer, video recorder, audio recorder, more file type support for audio video and photo's, etc. For $399--a much better VALUE.