The responses to this make me feel old.
-
@unchartedworlds @david_chisnall
I don't recall it being more than the three sentences, but perhaps there was a full review that I am not remembering?
(As an aside, if I'm commenting on something from my perspective - such as a review of piece of tech - my focus is on how it makes *me* feel / how it works for *me*, rather than trying to provide some kind of objective overview!)
As I recall, this was the editor’s commentary on a link to the release announcement.
-
As I recall, this was the editor’s commentary on a link to the release announcement.
@david_chisnall @unchartedworlds
Yes, that is my recollection too (albeit accepting that the passage of many years may have dulled this!)
Their, personal, view of what was announced, rather than a commentary on whether it would be a global success or not.
-
@unchartedworlds @david_chisnall
I don't recall it being more than the three sentences, but perhaps there was a full review that I am not remembering?
(As an aside, if I'm commenting on something from my perspective - such as a review of piece of tech - my focus is on how it makes *me* feel / how it works for *me*, rather than trying to provide some kind of objective overview!)
Yeah I realise some reviews are purely "I like it / don't like it and here's why", but when I think in the abstract of tech reviews, the writing-flavour which comes to mind does have a fair bit of "this will suit people wanting X, while for people wanting Y, it's just about adequate" etc.
I don't remember the original, though!
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/116079430711748391
The responses to this make me feel old.
For those who answered ‘no’ and didn’t look it up, this was the Slashdot review of the original iPod, which subsequently became an enormously successful consumer electronics product. It became a meme for geeks not understanding the things that make people actually like a product (which seems relevant with respect to Discord at the moment).
The Nomad (from Creative Labs, the maker of SoundBlaster and related lawsuits) had a terrible UI and exposed itself as a mass-storage device. You just had to copy your files across. The iPod required you to use iTunes (the next version that worked with Windows also allowed an alternative music player).
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation. Only 10-20% of the population thinks of hierarchies as the structure for organisation and music is a great example of their limitations. If you do band/album/track, how do you find all of the track by a particular artist on compilations (you’ll end up with a big ‘Various Artists’ folder)? If you want a playlist that is ‘all music from the ‘60s that isn’t classical or by The Beatles’ (an actual playlist I had in iTunes), the hierarchical view doesn’t help, but iTunes model of a soup of tracks filtered by metadata did. Gmail also leaned into this model, with tags and searches rather than traditional mail folders.
The iPod itself had 5 GB of space on a micro drive (1.8” hard disk). That was enough for 40-50 CDs at 128 Kb/s, which was more music than a lot of people owned, so just plug it in and it syncs all of your music was a much better interface than copying files in a file manager. I think my hard disk, when the iPod came out, was 20 GB, and I didn’t want to use 1/4 for music! You put a CD in your computer, iTunes ripped it automatically and then the next time you plugged in the iPod it was sync’s (and play counts for the tracks were sync’s back. These also were usable in smart playlists. I had one for ‘underplayed good songs’ which found things with a rating of 4-5 stars with a low play count). If you had more music than would fit, you could select playlists to sync and it would copy those. This included smart playlists, so you could create simple saved metadata searches and sync all the tracks they found, even if you never played them as a playlist.
You had less control in this model than with the Nomad, but it didn’t matter because the thing that most people wanted to do almost all of the time was very easy, whereas the Nomad made it harder.
As Jef Raskin argued, making difficult things possible shouldn’t come at the expense of making simple things easy.
@david_chisnall it's a great study in how UX matters.
-
@david_chisnall @unchartedworlds
Yes, that is my recollection too (albeit accepting that the passage of many years may have dulled this!)
Their, personal, view of what was announced, rather than a commentary on whether it would be a global success or not.
Aaah that makes sense.
(I _am_ old but obviously wasn't paying attention in that direction at the time
) -
Aaah that makes sense.
(I _am_ old but obviously wasn't paying attention in that direction at the time
)@unchartedworlds @david_chisnall Perhaps you were too busy listening to your Nomad
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/116079430711748391
The responses to this make me feel old.
For those who answered ‘no’ and didn’t look it up, this was the Slashdot review of the original iPod, which subsequently became an enormously successful consumer electronics product. It became a meme for geeks not understanding the things that make people actually like a product (which seems relevant with respect to Discord at the moment).
The Nomad (from Creative Labs, the maker of SoundBlaster and related lawsuits) had a terrible UI and exposed itself as a mass-storage device. You just had to copy your files across. The iPod required you to use iTunes (the next version that worked with Windows also allowed an alternative music player).
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation. Only 10-20% of the population thinks of hierarchies as the structure for organisation and music is a great example of their limitations. If you do band/album/track, how do you find all of the track by a particular artist on compilations (you’ll end up with a big ‘Various Artists’ folder)? If you want a playlist that is ‘all music from the ‘60s that isn’t classical or by The Beatles’ (an actual playlist I had in iTunes), the hierarchical view doesn’t help, but iTunes model of a soup of tracks filtered by metadata did. Gmail also leaned into this model, with tags and searches rather than traditional mail folders.
The iPod itself had 5 GB of space on a micro drive (1.8” hard disk). That was enough for 40-50 CDs at 128 Kb/s, which was more music than a lot of people owned, so just plug it in and it syncs all of your music was a much better interface than copying files in a file manager. I think my hard disk, when the iPod came out, was 20 GB, and I didn’t want to use 1/4 for music! You put a CD in your computer, iTunes ripped it automatically and then the next time you plugged in the iPod it was sync’s (and play counts for the tracks were sync’s back. These also were usable in smart playlists. I had one for ‘underplayed good songs’ which found things with a rating of 4-5 stars with a low play count). If you had more music than would fit, you could select playlists to sync and it would copy those. This included smart playlists, so you could create simple saved metadata searches and sync all the tracks they found, even if you never played them as a playlist.
You had less control in this model than with the Nomad, but it didn’t matter because the thing that most people wanted to do almost all of the time was very easy, whereas the Nomad made it harder.
As Jef Raskin argued, making difficult things possible shouldn’t come at the expense of making simple things easy.
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation.
As I recall it, my gripe with iTunes at the time wasn't that it would allow for metadata filtered playlists -- I thought this was great -- but that it would physically change the folder hierarchy of the underlying music libray to better fit its own data model.
I had my own music library organized as one album per folder, and only ~70-80% of it was properly tagged (which back in 2002, was actually pretty good for a collection of self ripped CDs going back 5 years or so). With no warning, iTunes decided to rearrange it into anartist/albumhierarchy, which rendered the whole thing unusable with other software and HW players lacking sophisticated metadata support.
And you can imagine the havoc this wreaked among the part of library that was not tagged...Now, this happened to me specifically with the first version of iTunes that Apple ported to Windows, back in ~2002, I believe; I'm pretty sure later versions fixed that. But that certainly gave me cold feet about ever wanting to try it again.
-
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation.
As I recall it, my gripe with iTunes at the time wasn't that it would allow for metadata filtered playlists -- I thought this was great -- but that it would physically change the folder hierarchy of the underlying music libray to better fit its own data model.
I had my own music library organized as one album per folder, and only ~70-80% of it was properly tagged (which back in 2002, was actually pretty good for a collection of self ripped CDs going back 5 years or so). With no warning, iTunes decided to rearrange it into anartist/albumhierarchy, which rendered the whole thing unusable with other software and HW players lacking sophisticated metadata support.
And you can imagine the havoc this wreaked among the part of library that was not tagged...Now, this happened to me specifically with the first version of iTunes that Apple ported to Windows, back in ~2002, I believe; I'm pretty sure later versions fixed that. But that certainly gave me cold feet about ever wanting to try it again.
Yup, and this was a legitimate concern for a lot of people who managed their own music like this (later iTunes had a 'leave files where they are' option). But for most people, managing this hierarchy was work and iTunes meant that they didn't have to do the work.
-
@unchartedworlds @david_chisnall Perhaps you were too busy listening to your Nomad
I was probably still on cassettes
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/116079430711748391
The responses to this make me feel old.
For those who answered ‘no’ and didn’t look it up, this was the Slashdot review of the original iPod, which subsequently became an enormously successful consumer electronics product. It became a meme for geeks not understanding the things that make people actually like a product (which seems relevant with respect to Discord at the moment).
The Nomad (from Creative Labs, the maker of SoundBlaster and related lawsuits) had a terrible UI and exposed itself as a mass-storage device. You just had to copy your files across. The iPod required you to use iTunes (the next version that worked with Windows also allowed an alternative music player).
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation. Only 10-20% of the population thinks of hierarchies as the structure for organisation and music is a great example of their limitations. If you do band/album/track, how do you find all of the track by a particular artist on compilations (you’ll end up with a big ‘Various Artists’ folder)? If you want a playlist that is ‘all music from the ‘60s that isn’t classical or by The Beatles’ (an actual playlist I had in iTunes), the hierarchical view doesn’t help, but iTunes model of a soup of tracks filtered by metadata did. Gmail also leaned into this model, with tags and searches rather than traditional mail folders.
The iPod itself had 5 GB of space on a micro drive (1.8” hard disk). That was enough for 40-50 CDs at 128 Kb/s, which was more music than a lot of people owned, so just plug it in and it syncs all of your music was a much better interface than copying files in a file manager. I think my hard disk, when the iPod came out, was 20 GB, and I didn’t want to use 1/4 for music! You put a CD in your computer, iTunes ripped it automatically and then the next time you plugged in the iPod it was sync’s (and play counts for the tracks were sync’s back. These also were usable in smart playlists. I had one for ‘underplayed good songs’ which found things with a rating of 4-5 stars with a low play count). If you had more music than would fit, you could select playlists to sync and it would copy those. This included smart playlists, so you could create simple saved metadata searches and sync all the tracks they found, even if you never played them as a playlist.
You had less control in this model than with the Nomad, but it didn’t matter because the thing that most people wanted to do almost all of the time was very easy, whereas the Nomad made it harder.
As Jef Raskin argued, making difficult things possible shouldn’t come at the expense of making simple things easy.
@david_chisnall I was a Creative Nomad Jukebox user with a 20 GB hard drive swap and I could have written this review. But once I switched I realized how wrong I was.
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/116079430711748391
The responses to this make me feel old.
For those who answered ‘no’ and didn’t look it up, this was the Slashdot review of the original iPod, which subsequently became an enormously successful consumer electronics product. It became a meme for geeks not understanding the things that make people actually like a product (which seems relevant with respect to Discord at the moment).
The Nomad (from Creative Labs, the maker of SoundBlaster and related lawsuits) had a terrible UI and exposed itself as a mass-storage device. You just had to copy your files across. The iPod required you to use iTunes (the next version that worked with Windows also allowed an alternative music player).
iTunes was also unpopular with the Slashdot set because they had folder hierarchies for organising music and didn’t want something else in the way of their organisation. Only 10-20% of the population thinks of hierarchies as the structure for organisation and music is a great example of their limitations. If you do band/album/track, how do you find all of the track by a particular artist on compilations (you’ll end up with a big ‘Various Artists’ folder)? If you want a playlist that is ‘all music from the ‘60s that isn’t classical or by The Beatles’ (an actual playlist I had in iTunes), the hierarchical view doesn’t help, but iTunes model of a soup of tracks filtered by metadata did. Gmail also leaned into this model, with tags and searches rather than traditional mail folders.
The iPod itself had 5 GB of space on a micro drive (1.8” hard disk). That was enough for 40-50 CDs at 128 Kb/s, which was more music than a lot of people owned, so just plug it in and it syncs all of your music was a much better interface than copying files in a file manager. I think my hard disk, when the iPod came out, was 20 GB, and I didn’t want to use 1/4 for music! You put a CD in your computer, iTunes ripped it automatically and then the next time you plugged in the iPod it was sync’s (and play counts for the tracks were sync’s back. These also were usable in smart playlists. I had one for ‘underplayed good songs’ which found things with a rating of 4-5 stars with a low play count). If you had more music than would fit, you could select playlists to sync and it would copy those. This included smart playlists, so you could create simple saved metadata searches and sync all the tracks they found, even if you never played them as a playlist.
You had less control in this model than with the Nomad, but it didn’t matter because the thing that most people wanted to do almost all of the time was very easy, whereas the Nomad made it harder.
As Jef Raskin argued, making difficult things possible shouldn’t come at the expense of making simple things easy.
@david_chisnall
I had a Nomad at that time end I liked it.
I used iTunes because it was the best way to rip my CDs - if I remember correctly, it was the most reliable for getting metadata.I ripped my >800 piece CD collection at least 3 times in ascending quality, ending with lossless.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
