Ivan Hewitt at arts.telegraph makes the argument that classical music is not well suited for iPods, for practical reasons--such as the wide dynamic range of many classical pieces that make listening difficult with background noise common to portable listening--but also for the philosophical reason that classical music can't be enjoyed in isolation, because that was not the intent of the composer.

On the wide dynamic range, point taken. However, I frequently listen to classical music in quiet environments, and it works fine.

On the second point, I call bullpucky, and make the counter argument that it is impossible for any person living to enjoy Mozart as he intended it, because while composing he had particular audiences in mind, all members of which have long since assumed room temperature. Those alive today (even those in Vienna) will bring to Mozart a different worldview than his intended audience had, and therefore will perceive his music in a different way, regardless of whether they are listening to a live performance or on an iPod.

This article is interesting to me, only because like so many others, it pretends like personal portable listening didn't exist until the iPod came along. If nothing else, it shows what a huge impact the iPod has made on society.  

A man does good business when he rids himself of a turd. --King Edward Longshanks

At least some CDs on the Sony BMG label, including current titles by Foo Fighters and Dave Matthews Band, use a copy protection scheme which cannot be used on iPods. The copy protection is specific to the WMA format, which cannot be used with iTunes or iPods.

If you're interested in going through the trouble, this can be overcome by ripping the CD, burning a new audio CD copy, then re-ripping the burned copy. However, this method likely would not work on Macintosh computers. Apple has stated flatly that it will not license it's FairPlay technology (the copy protection used in the iTunes Music Store). Label executives assert that this prevents them from making iPod-compatible CDs. One exec put the turd firmly in Apple's pocket, stating "It's up to Apple to flip the switch."

In actuality though, Apple's refusal to license FairPlay by definition does not prevent Sony BMG from making iPod compatible CDs, because Sony BMG's discs do not comply with specifications required to bear the "Compact Disc" trademark. All CDs are iPod compatible, and any disc that is not iPod compatible is not a "CD" (though it may play in CD players).

This is all semantic nonsense if you're a Mac using Foo fan. Fortunately, some of the music on offending CDs can be obtained through the iTunes Music Store. Tracks purchased in that way are of course iPod compatible.

Despite the iPod incompatibility, the "CD"s are selling well. It turns out you don't need an iPod or even a computer to use a CD. (Huh. I've almost forgotten what that's like.)  

Hmmm... This is a bit weird. Digital-Lifestyles.info also has an article about the Zen Vision that states that iPod won't have video until 2006 (see previous post). This makes me wonder whether Creative is the source of this (mis)information. However, it isn't in Creative's Zen Vision press release.  

vnunet.com has posted a new review of Creative's Zen Vision device. The device basically does what the iPod does, but (a) has a bigger screen, (b) has a lower maximum storage space, (c) is larger and heavier, (d) has a shorter battery life (even with music playback only), (e) costs the same as Apple's 60GB iPod ($399), and (f) does video. The article doesn't comment on how usable the device is, and doesn't provide a good photo at the item itself. As iPod users know, ease of use and sexy looks are what it's all about. (About the only thing the article does depict well is the Zen Vision's photo browsing screen, which looks exactly like the iPod's.)

The article's assessment: Despite its shortcomings, video playback puts this item ahead of the iPod, "which is not expected to offer such a function until 2006."

Evidently they have been so busy reporting the news lately that they haven't had time to read it.

This item is good for one kind of user: those who have never bought songs from iTunes (it won't play them) and therefore is not upgrading from a low-end iPod, or someone who has to have video. (The "video makes it an iPod killer" conclusion is about to be blown out of the water, since we're evidently on the brink of an "iPod video" release.)

Now is a really bad time to buy a non-iPod music player. Except for buyers who have to have the ability to play WMA format (the format all the other stores offer which is incompatible with iPods, which use AAC songs offered by iTunes Music Store), potential buyers shouldn't dismiss the iPod.  

AustralianIT reports today that HP won't be selling digital cameras in Australia any more.

This tells FreeiPodGuy that the recent move to cut the iPod from HP's product line was not a move specific to the iPod, but rather part of a more general trimming. We may see more HP cutbacks in the near future.

Too bad HP's "digital camera" press release wasn't combined with their "iPod" press release. That probably would have cut down on the "THE SKY IS FALLING" headlines a bit.  

According to Engadget, Apple has updated its iPod trademark from "portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, and audio files" to read "portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, audio, image, and video files" (emphasis added).

Since the word "image" was also added, clearly the trademark was due for an update, and maybe they just added video as a hedge against the need to add it in the future. Regardless, this is very significant, because now, for the first time, we finally have something directly from Apple that contradicts Steve Jobs' earlier statements regarding video on the iPod. This is more than just another piece of the iPod video puzzle. This is the smoking gun.

The only question that remains is "when"? It could happen within the next month, so that Apple can claim the "back to school" and Christmas sales seasons. The "back to school" rush is already beginning however. If it doesn't happen before September, this is something to look for at the first Macworld Expo of 2006. (I'm betting it will happen soon though.)  

If you're following this blog, you may have noticed that there were no news items for the last 36 hours or so. Simply put, that's because there was no news yesterday. Or rather, there was no news that you care about. Though there were hundreds of iPod articles on the web, they basically broke down like this:

97%: Apocalyptic articles about HP not reselling the iPod anymore (Something which FreeiPodGuy readers (a) found out about Friday and (b) probably didn't care too much about anyway.)

3%: Articles I KNOW you don't care about. (OK, I'll provide this link in case you actually care what half of Vermont has on their iPods, and it's every bit as interesting as it sounds.)

Now, while it may be true that not much has happened with regard to the iPods themselves while people are enjoying their weekends, the reporting itself is interesting to me. First, HP and Apple's PR people clearly released their piece on Friday to help keep it from getting blown out of proportion. That's standard procedure: release "bad" news at the end of the day Friday so more people will miss it, and release good news Monday morning for the opposite reason. Personally, I think the HP story is GOOD news, but the companies understandably fear that the press will put a negative spin on it, and indeed they have, with headlines like "HP Dumps iPod" and "HP to Apple, 'Take this iPod and shove it'".

So stick around. If something important happens I'll let you know first, with just the right mix of wit and spite with an occasional fact thrown in just in case anyone's watching.