Lies! All lies!

First of all, I don't know how other people use their Ipods, but I generally set mine on random -- if a song comes on I don't like, I just hit the beautifully designed forward button, and skip to the next track. Which is to say, I *need* all my 10,000 tunes, dammit. The whole point of the Ipod is that you don't listen to just a few selected tunes, because they're all accessible at once.

Second of all, what makes an Ipod different than a Walkman? Ever since the 80s, people have worn headphones and blocked out city noise. There's nothing different about the Ipod, except for the fact that it's better, it's prettier, and nyah nyah nyah.

And third of all, I'm lending you my Ipod so you can see what I mean. What, the Segway owners should have all the hostile fun?

"Second of all, what makes an Ipod different than a Walkman? Ever since the 80s, people have worn headphones and blocked out city noise. There's nothing different about the Ipod, except for the fact that it's better, it's prettier, and nyah nyah nyah."

Heh. Certainly it's true that a Walkman is used for the same purpose of drowning out the outside world. But an Ipod is also about broadcasting the fact that one is such devoted fan of music that one could not possibly abide having less than thousands of songs at their fingertips, to match their endlessly shifting protean moods. A Walkman inherently cannot be used to perform that sort of public message, because it can only play one album at a time.

You have addressed only one of my concerns, portable audio playa hata.

The facts cannot be disputed. The Ipod is the prettiest and the best! It totally changes the way I listen to music, because I no longer have to worry about grabbing three weighty, carefully selected CDs for, say, a plane trip. The main reason I use it is pragmatic, not elitist: it makes it easier to listen to more music, faster. I don't have to think about it, I just have to pick it up; it's like picking up my whole stereo system. Jesus, Clive, you're like one of those people are who are against Tivo because it's "just a fancy VCR."

Also, it's frankly kind of gorgeous. Surely, you -- a technology journalist! -- should appreciate the sheer pleasure of a well-designed object.

I've found that the single biggest use I have for my iPod is at work; it allows me to have pretty much my entire CD collection available to iTunes on my work Mac, without having to burden the company disk space. Likewise in the car, where it is jacked in to a cassette adapter. On the rare occasion when the iPod actually travels by itself, I replaced the white earbuds, which I find uncomfortable. I can't hold any illusions that having an iPod makes me something special; after all, doesn't everyone have them now?

Of course, citing myself as an exception doesn't make the NYP's points any less valid; I just don't think they apply to me.

So... is the problem just those iPod users who show them off (intentionally or unintentionally)? Surely that's a wider issue than just one focussed around one object or brand?

*declaration of interest* I love my iPod and can no longer imagine ever wanting to not own one. I do however use third-party headphones with mine, partly because I found the Apple ones poorly fitting, and partly because I have no wish to be conspicuously associated with any 'taste tribe'.

iPods... Google... Google's new e-mail service without folders... the way it's looking, we will never have to sort or select ever again! We'll just type in what we want & it'll be there.

I don't have an iPod, but I do keep all my files in one big giant folder and use the Find command to summon forth the stuff I want.

Isn't it kind of bizarre that Ipods garner more comments here than a post about robot-Jesus? I'm not trying to say that Ipods are bigger than robot-Jesus or better than robot-Jesus, I just find it amazing that Ipods--specifically Ipods, and not just MP3 players generally--seem to demand, produce or elicit a very real affective investment. I doubt that anyone would stand up for their Dell PC the way that they stand up for their Ipod and I just don't know why.

I should be clear -- I do, in fact, think the Ipod is a superbly designed piece of technology, and incredibly useful for people actually want to have 10,000 songs on hand. My point merely was that many, many people don't need or even want to have 10,000 songs on hand, because they rarely listen to music that way. Since they don't actually need an Ipod -- or more precisely, don't need the awesome functionality of an Ipod; a regular, $60 MP3 player would do them just fine -- then why do they spend $400 on one? Clearly there's some other cultural reason, some aspect of conspicuous consumption going on.

That's the phrase I was looking for... 'conspicuous consumption'. Yes. That's an issue I can understand taking a stance against, and the iPod's white headphones (great piece of branding, right there) are an easy focus for that right now.

Mnyeah. The iPod (eeurgh, even the spelling is trendy) does seem to be a solidly designed product, but face it ownership of it is more about tribal identity, economic status and snob appeal than the pure utility of the product. The people who get all giddy over it just seem kind of pathetic to me. The "6 songs over and over for weeks on end" is an interesting figure and confirms the obvious fact that People Will Pay Way Too Much Money To Feel Good About Consuming Something. My anti-materialist hackles raise at the thought of those trendy goddam commercials and the VW Bug advertising tie-ins.

Although using the device as a portable hard drive to take large amounts of generic data to and from work is a pretty awesome use.

I don't entirely agree that the iPod could just as easily be replaced by a 128meg player. I did own one of those before I upgraded to the iPod, which only stored about 20 songs on it. Since it required effort and thought to change the songs, I never changed them and listened to the same 20 songs for months without changing them, and it drove me crazy. So basically, I bought the iPod (well, the mini - 4 Gig was enough for me) because I couldn't get organized enough to change out my music. I needed a good selection always loaded into it. I was willing to pay a premium for more convenience.

It's true that if you have a smaller-capacity MP3 player, you change your music selection far less often. I've got an old-school 64-meg one, and I tend to leave the same mix on for weeks at a time. The Ipod definitely would allow one to change the mix up much more frequently.

iPods are trendy and people in New York buy trendy things -- not exactly a Nobel-winning discovery.

Why is it news to anyone that iPods are more than just music players but also social signifiers? That's the point or at least the dream of all marketing. Are ug boots just boots? Are Prada bags just bags? Is a 1969 Vespa just a way to get around town? Nuh uh. So it goes with iPods.

Clive seems to be saying that we pretend to buy things solely for functional reasons and that iPod users have been caught out because the functionality outstrips actual usage. But that premise is nonsense. We also buy because we like things --for purely personal, unrational aesthetic reasons. Did the New York post also come out against people who drive Mazdas rather than Buicks or smoke American Spirits rather than Parliaments or drink Diet Coke instead of Diet Pepsi?

Conspicuous consumption! In New York of all places! Say it ain't so!

(disclosure: I own an iPod. Clive bought it for me.)

ahahah! I'm caught out.

Actually, I think you're wrong. Ipods are a rather unique case of people claiming almost purely utilitarian motives for when they buy it. When people buy Uggs or Prada bags, they definitely talk about the "high quality", but they will also easily admit that it's about fashion. Ipod owners and retailers uniquely gush about the functionality; I have never, ever heard someone say they bought an Ipod just because "it looks cool", whereas I've heard that about any number of pieces of fashion.

And actually, Vespaboy, I bought you your Ipod specifically *for* a utilitarian purpose: You were going abroad for a year and it was the only way to take your music collection with you! Indeed, it was one of the few situations in which an Ipod's functionality truly makes sense. The same isn't true for the Seattle hipster listening to the Strokes album for two months solid on infinite loop.

You're confusing what are purely style elements and what are functional elements of a consumer object's nature. Clothing is a special case in which putting aesthetic affection above utilitarian need is not considered overly indulgent because a primary function of clothing is to look good. Style *is* function with clothing.

Technology (and most everything else) has function separate from its style, which means the reasons for acquiring it necessarily bifurcate into the rational and the emotional. And that's where people like you come along and make value judgements about the two categories -- in this case dismissing the rational and mocking the emotional.

Oh, I don't mock emotional reasons for buying technology! My brief is with people's claims for the sheer utilitarianism of the Ipod. You note correctly that I dismiss the rational reasons for buying an Ipod -- but that's because my whole point is that I'm not actually sure there very frequently *are* any rational reasons to buy an Ipod. From what I can tell, the majority of people listen to the same few songs or albums over and over until they abruptly tire of them, then move on. That's precisely why I was intriguted to see Bull's research!

The corollary is the zeal for Palm Pilots a couple of years ago. Everyone wanted one, even though I knew plenty of people who never used it for anything more than checking the time. The point was merely to *look* like you were organized in a hip, contemporary fashion.

You're right, Mr. Gates. No one will ever need 20 gigs of memory.

If I were to agree with you, I would think a better comparison than Palm Pilots is that black Motorola clam shell cellphone from a few years back. Everyone used all the main functions of it -- make calls, store numbers -- just as everyone uses the main function of the iPod -- play music -- but that's not enough to explain why people own them because there are a lot of cheaper ways to do exactly the same thing with minimal performance difference. (Palm Pilots, on the other hand, are almost completely under-utilized).

But I don't agree with you so I will simply say that you're wrong,

Also of interest to this conversation is this story which was in all the UK papers last week about how the easily identifiable iPod earphones are being targeted by muggers.

Heh. True, phones are quite close to the Ipod -- people regularly claim they're buying them for a particular function, when in reality they just like the way they look.

That link to the Register story is excellent! "The police are advising iPod junkies to use less distinctive headphones, something which is apparently akin to asking Victoria Beckham to shop at Oxfam. The Sun quotes one iPod representative as saying: 'There are guys who’d rather be robbed than change the colour of the headphones.'"

I don't have anything against iPods, just the people I know who use them. I'll leave out their surnames here ^_^

Case 1: Mark... The Apple Junkie.
He is, pure and simple, and indie kid. He wants to be different, so he started buying Apple products and non-stop praising everything about them. I'm not saying Apple products suck, but just spend 5 minutes with this person and you know they only do things to try and be different. Anyway, he bought an iPod before they became fashionable. He still hangs on to it to show off his dedication to Apple, the indie-kid's computer company! ^_^

Case 2: Adam... The Loser.
I don't like this person at all, but not for the reasons I'll state (he's just a general jerk really, heh). He always feels he has to be part of something. When some of the people in his class were all going to the Reading Music Fesitval, he found out all the weekend tickets were sold out - so he bought three day tickets, costing well over £100 more altogether. Okay, so he went along with this people (who frankly wish he didn't go) and of the whole 3-day festival, went to see 2 or 3 bands I believe it was. HE DOESN'T LIKE MUSIC!! It's a simple fact, this person is not a music fan. And yet, as son as iPods become fashionable, he instantly buys the newest model to fill up with his massive collection of maybe 100Mb of songs... Why didn't he save around £275 and just buy a cheap 128Mb mp3 player? Because it's just not fashionable.

Heh, I like ranting about people!! ^_^

Anyway, my point is that people seem willing to pay an extra £75-£125 for an iPod rather than any other mp3 player with plenty of storage that can do the same functions (and sometimes more).

I own a Nomad Jukebox 2. I'll admit, not the most functional in the world - but it does everything I, and more or less everyone else who listens to a lot of music, will need it to do - which is hold a lot of music and be able to add it to a current playlist straight off. It looks more or less like a CD player, thus the reason it won't sell half as well - because it's not a fashion accessory like the iPod is.

Now, if the iPod was to drop in price to be in the same league as other mp3 players, I'd give it a hell of a lot more respect, but just the fact that it's a LOT more expensive, and yet still sells many more units, makes me think that the world really does choose style over having more frickin' money! ;)

*Deep breath*
Ah I feel better now.

Ahahahaha! I've heard those Nomad jukeboxes are pretty good, too.