Oooohhhhhhh. iPod still is amazing. 320 kbps. And still rocking the awesome screen on the iPods. And don't make me go into all the features iPods have that zune doesn't.Originally Posted by DaveSt
This is very simple to counter. Just about every audiophile website says the Zune HD is superior as a music player. If you want to do more than just listen to music and radio, iPod is the way to go. Unlike iPod fanboys, I'm dead serious about my music and so is my sister, who is a musician and professional music engineer for one of best recording studios in the world. She says there is a healthy mix of iPods and Zunes at work but many folks there say Zune is the better music player, but not necessarily the best device because you can do more things with an iPod. It's all in what you want your device to do. One thing a lot of people rave about is the Zune Pass. Like the App Store is a good reason why the iOS devices are so successful, the Zune Pass and Marketplace are what keep the Zune afloat. It's a much better subscription model than iTunes if you're serious about getting all kinds of content on your player and discovering new music.Originally Posted by grayshark95
Anyway, they're both good and you can't go wrong with either. I'm not knocking the iPod. I'm saying I've had all versions of both iPods and Zunes and, based on my experience swell as my sister's, the Zune just sounds better. The sad thing is Microsoft has really blown an opportunity to make the Zune shine and really compete against the iPod as a serious music player. The iPod IS the better device, no question about it. But I rest that the Zune is better for music quality. It's just one of those awesome products that never get over the hump because of lack of aggressive marketing and overseas support. Yet another reason why I'll haul off and slap Steve Ballmer upside the back of his head, should we ever cross paths. But that's another rant for another day.
No hatin' here. Much love and respect for iPod.
Michael "Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam. Hold the bacon and eggs." Sent from my iPad using iPF
For what it's worth, Apple is trying to offer music in studio quality. I understand none of the terms, but apparently all digital music is sold as 16 bit(?) and it is recorded in 24 bit (?). Apple is trying to create a way to offer the 24 bit sound on the iPods.
AAC is a better format for music than MP3, and you can get better sound quality if you do not compress the original, but then an iPod will only holds a few songs. That is the extent of my music knowledge. I love good music, but could never be considered an audiophile.
The hardware improvements in the ipad2 may not seem to be significant, but they are in regards to new apps. Twice the RAM (if true) faster dual core processing, MUCH faster graphics, 2 cameras and a gyroscope will relegate the first ipad to being stuck with first generation apps.
iMovie will be very useful to me for mocking up rough cuts of commercials and videos on the road. But already Apple has made iMovie only compatible with the ipad2. I think we will soon see many new "must have" apps that are only compatible with iPad2. I'm expecting that I will be able to process photographic Raw files with the ipad2 which was impossible with my original iPad.
So it really doesn't matter if we think the ipad2 is a major upgrade or not. It's a matter of being able to run the next generation of apps.
So far the iPad 2 only apps are Photobooth and FaceTime.
All other apps including iMovie will work on iPad 1, you just have to import the footage, rather then shooting directly on the iPad.
That is not to say that no other iPad 2 only apps will come out.
Last edited by DontUnderstandMyIpad; 03-06-2011 at 08:24 AM.
I'm sure developers will start building apps that take advantage of the hardware increase on iPad 2 - but whenever someone describes something as "must have", it is usually a sweeping, all-encompassing generalization which begets the question, "yes, but really?"
I really like how most people come back and yell again, but you just, I don't even know how to describe it, you just don't fight back. I think everyone on this forum, I including me, needs to learn that. Everyone has their opinion and that's ok.Originally Posted by Mtnmedic
I have a feeling that the ipad2 limitation for iMovie has more to do with needing more ram and graphics acceleration for NLE and real time effects previews without rendering. The current iPad is stretched pretty far already in this regard. None of us will know until Friday though.
"Must have apps" indeed vary based on a user's needs. For me they include the many times faster web browsing being reported due to the new OS and new processing/ graphics, better photo apps that don't limit image size dramatically due to minimal RAM, real RAW processing for my DSLR, more sophisticated midi sequencer and mixing apps that need all the processing power they can squeeze out. The new iPad isn't a laptop, but it will be able to do things my old one just can't do. It's definitely worth the $270 upgrade cost.
Last edited by Tarkio; 03-06-2011 at 10:25 AM.
I had already convinced myself, that I won't need an iPad 2.
However, this decision is fading, after a part of my family, who lives over-seas, mentioned that they will get the new one.
FaceTime will definitely cut the phone costs, but so would Skype and I have barely used it.
Currently I tend to spend 100£/year on international calls. If these would be replaced by videocalls, it would almost cover the difference between iPad 1 and 2.
My main concern is the availability. The reason Skype doesn't work for me, is because it requires both people to be online and at the pc/laptop, so I cannot make spontaneous calls. How does FaceTime handle this? Does it just keeps running in the background and then rings like a normal phone?