Well if they do start making low-cost iPods, I'd buy one... I'd buy an expensive one if I had the money.
i would get onr if thay are about £100, i do all ready own a 10 gig i pod and i dont even use the full 10 gig as for the batrey problem, then yes i would worry if i had to spend out £100 a year just for an ipod
All this quibble over the battery problem should be laid to rest. There have been plenty of iPods sold. Two ducks make a video with a website and all the sudden it's a big deal. Look, the dude tried replacing his battery himself and failed. While a 30 year old woman on a mac forum I belong to did it successfully. It doesn't matter anymore anywho as they have a replacement program and it's not that bad. That said It'll be a happy day when I get my $100 iPod. 800 songs is enough for me for at least time between computer visits. I went a semester in school with a single burnt CD after a hard drive crash. Though I do foresee a good number of issues arising. One being quality of this cheaper iPod. Also, it's said these are sort of a low-profit or "company supporting indirect profit producing device" like the XBox. They loose a little money here, but gain a lot by getting people onto iTunes and therefore the iTunes Music Store. Not all to the music store, but a good number none the less. If they keep it the same size as the other iPods and maybe make it not so good looking, I wouldn't mind keeping it in a pocket or something, however if it's just like the others I'm afraid I'll have to build myself a small shrine and accompanying carriage [ maybe something the size of a rickshaw, armor plated ] to carry it in. But for $100, you really cannot go wrong unless you demand more storage.
In which case it will be most likely locked to the music store, if you want to listen to music you will have to download it from the store.
They wouldn't.. they couldn't sell any that way either What I meant is they make a slim profit on the iPods. More from the music store. Or maybe it's the other way around... Come to think of it It would make more sense that they make their money from the iPod sales generated by the music store... I'm confused. Don't listen to me.
Yup, I remember reading that iTunes barely breaks-even, with the majority of money going to the labels. Apple makes their money from having a related product (iPod). This was from an interview with one of Apple's top guys regarding the recent surge of iTunes clones. He questioned their profitability as iTunes only really exists to push the iPod.
You know what I find curious, the fact that the RIAA demands so much money out of each song sold that it's commercialy unviable to even really sell music. Isn't there laws put into place that deny this sort of "dominance" type behavior? Yes it's all well and fine that the record companies get more cash to line their greedy pockets with, hell, maybe they'll be able to put another payment on their second (or is that third?) multi-million dollar house. But I will ONLY buy music song by song if either 1 I very seriously enjoy the music, or 2 I know for a fact the money is going directly towords the band who made the song, and therefore is the rightful benifit of my spent dollar. Am I right?
