Charles on… anything that comes along

For The Guardian: video on demand bigger than you thought; beware the web cults; Creative Vision:M reviewed

12 Responses to “For The Guardian: video on demand bigger than you thought; beware the web cults; Creative Vision:M reviewed”

1. Ian Hobson Says:
   December 20th, 2005 at 4:42 pm

   Charles
   Jack must be getting to you already! Though of course, I’m in one of the categories above - people who get wound up about things!

   Your review of the Creative misses/glosses over several points. Not least is the price. You suggest it might be £200 but on what evidence? It the US, the price as I understand it is at least $30 MORE than the 30GB iPod. If it is £19 LESS in the UK, that’s interesting. But if it is £19 more that’s also quite interesting don’t you think? Me thinks you’ve translated a price without VAT.

   Then you talk about battery life. The 14 hours audio is to my knowledge the same as the iPod 30GB. Only on video is it substantially better (according to spec). You do point out that mileage varies, and indeed it does. But there is actual evidence of the iPod performance as people have them. Has anyone really compared these two in real-world tests? Note, the iPod 60GB has 20 hours of audio performance which exceeds the Zen.

   Finally, you say there’s little difference in the devices in your pocket. Can you really not notice a volumetric difference of more than 70%? And a weight difference of 20%? There is even significant penalty in size and weight over the 60GB iPod. Personally, I don’t think it “raises the bar” when your engineers require 70% more space to do essentially the same thing. And, if you look at history - people pay more for smaller things. That happened with the smallest walkmans, the smallest, thinnest mobile phones and it happened when the iPod mini came out. Half of the press was caught out because they thought it was about price/gigabyte when it isn’t. The same is happening with the nano. The iPod video is a superb achievement because it does more than the older one in a smaller package with more battery life. That’s the engineering achievement. And I think people appreciate that. The Creative people have NOT cut down on size compared with previous devices (to my knowledge). They have taken longer to deliver something bigger, and heavier, and more expensive than Apple (you can get a USB charger should you need one for next to nothing on Amazon).

   Of course, we’ll just let the public decide and see which one wins.

2. Charles Says:
   December 20th, 2005 at 5:29 pm

   Ian - the Creative price wasn’t available (perhaps still isn’t, I haven’t looked). But it does include a power charger, which you won’t get in the iPod; that’s an “extra”. Battery life is one of those unknowns, which I think I alluded to in the piece.

   As to what happens when you put them in a pocket - well, then they’re in your pocket, aren’t they? I can’t imagine anyone carrying *both* around, one on each side, and saying “Ooh, no, this is no good.” That’s not how people behave. They might compare them in a shop, but they might also look at spec. I don’t think that at this end of the market that size matters; things like battery life, screen brightness, colours, content availability, and so on.

   I don’t think the volume difference between a 30GB iPod and 30GB Vision:M is 70% - one might be one-third smaller, you mean. Thinner, perhaps.

   Here’s the thing, though - I’ve seen them both, while I don’t think you have. I’ve seen them both working; I don’t think you have. I’ve seen what content there is; I’m not sure you’ve considered that. (Napster subscription is quite cool, in fact.) Creative’s under no obligation to make smaller stuff, just to make better stuff.

   Of course, we’ll just let the public decide and see which one wins.

   Righty-ho - you’re backing Windows, then?

3. Ian Hobson Says:
   December 20th, 2005 at 7:46 pm

   iPod 30GB dimensions - 10.4×6.1×1.1 cm. Volume = 69.784 cm3
   Creative dimensions - 10.4×6.2×1.9cm. Volume = 122.512cm3
   Therefore the Creative is 75.5% more volume than the iPod 30GB (and 38% more volume than the 60GB). Happy with that maths? Put it another way and the iPod is 57% the volume of the Creative. That is substantial in my book and more than 1/3 whatever way you choose it. And when people get these things in their hands it DOEs make a difference. The weight is 22% more as well. Less costs more is a golden rule in products from walkmans to phones to laptops. You say that “I don’t think at this end of the market that size matters” but all experience so far is that it very much does. Did you have an iPod in your hand at the same time?

   The price is very important and you made a guess that it was £200. Everything I’d seen pointed to a price that was 10% more than the iPod as the US price IS known. So, that would make it about £240 here compared with the iPod’s £219. If that isn’t true, then great. But why did you guess £200 when any evidence points to a pricier product?

   And, I pointed out that a power adapter costs very little - should you need one (there are a multitude of USB chargers available not just from Apple). Many iPod users already have a power adapter. And with charging via USB hubs/airportexpresses/computers there’s little need for a separate charger. Would I rather “save” £20 and have the choice? Absolutely. And if a charger actually cost £20 to make, I think Creative would not have included it in the package so it could be priced closer to the iPod. Incidentally, check out http://www.mobileaccessorywholesaler.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=1477 for a £2.95 iPod charger.

   Incidentally, I didn’t see you criticise the Creative for not including Firewire either!

   Anyway, to me raising the bar is innovation. This is a device that in 2D looks very similar (Creative-not!), but hasn’t been engineered as cleverly so that it’s buliker and heavier. At the least, I’d expect to pay a lower price for that. But unless you can confirm that £200 price, I think you’ll be disappointed with that too. And content? Where is the video content? It’s not on Napster UK as far as I could see.

   And the other advantages? Can you confirm that you’ve seen the difference between a 65,000 colour screen and a 230,000 one? There are only about 230,000 pixels anyhow, and with compression software, I really doubt that you’ll have any pictures that have each pixel a difference colour. You mention the various video formats. But the iPod does not just mpeg-4 but H.264 which is very hard work indeed but responsible for incredibly small file sizes. I do not believe the Creative does H.264. Happy to be corrected, and happy to get into arcane debates about number of colours and different video file formats.

   If you value those extra colours on the screen, those numerous file formats and don’t mind paying £20 over the smaller iPod just so you can have a charger, then perhaps it is better (assuming you can get one). But I know where my money is. If this is a journalistic effort to try to drum up some competition back in this business fine. At least you didn’t use the headline “iPod killer”!

4. Bobbie Johnson Says:
   December 20th, 2005 at 11:58 pm

   Well, when I played with it - briefly, admittedly - I thought the latest Zen was pretty fine stuff. It’s not going to sell any iPod users (and clearly hasn’t in Ian’s case) but there are features that I’d gladly pay for - a microphone, for one.

   Here’s my problem, though: I like using a Napster subscription, but the DRM slows everything down SO MUCH. I’m no anti-DRM fanatic but it takes an age to transfer files and even to switch between them.

5. Charles Says:
   December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 am

   Interesting tactic, Ian - arguing from a position where you don’t have experience of one product, and where it claims to be better (colours on the screen) imply it doesn’t matter, and where it doesn’t support something (H.264, which the Creative Vision:M doesn’t do) imply it’s really, really important. It’s a form of arguing, but I don’t think it has much merit.

   Creative didn’t develop Firewire, so it’s not surprising they haven’t included it. None of the new models of iPod introduced this year has Firewire for data transfer - had you noticed that? I thought it was interesting.

   The price I had to guess at, on deadline, with hints. That’s all. As for the charger, not everyone carries their computer around (eg a child using a parent’s computer, going to school). It’s a big problem if they find they have to get a charger - it’s another shopping process. If Apple included it but Creative didn’t, I think we’d be hearing about that. That’s the weakness of your system of argument here: it doesn’t look dispassionately at what the two sides have.

   When you get a moment, go down to Dixons or something and compare the two. And think about subscriptions: those are very compelling.

6. Chris Says:
   December 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pm

   I’ve thought about subscriptions, and I’m certainly not compelled. One year of Napster to Go costs the same as 227 tracks from iTunes. Now, you might listen to 227 different tracks a month with a subscription, but at the end of the year you will own precisely none of them. That does not make sense to me, but I’m sure some people might like it.

   Do any subscription services work with Macs anyway?

7. Ian Hobson Says:
   December 21st, 2005 at 4:07 pm

   Charles
   Apart from the fact that you did not address my major points including size and weight, so I therefore assume you’ve accepted them, let’s deal with the others:
   1. Number of colours. Yes, you’re absolutely right, I have not tested this. But what I am pointing out is that this great figure about number of colours is quoted as if because it’s a multiple of 4x, then it must be someway better. I just don’t think that’s the case at all. Can you tell us when as consumers we’ll benefit from this many colours - what types of video, photos, etc? What I do know is that the iPod screen has been uniformally praised, and never once have I heard any complaint about it not having a richness about it.
   2. H.264 is much more recent format than the base mpeg-4, and it happens to be quite intense in it’s processor requirements (try playing an mpeg-4 then a H.264/AVC file on your powerbook and you’ll see). H.264 is becoming quite common and is at the heart of a number of initiatives including its use in HDTV broadcasts etc. That it is missing from the Creative spec (as far as I know) IS relevant. Is it missing because they don’t see it as important, or because it drains the battery faster, or the processor can’t handle it? Nevertheless, it is as important that this is (apparently) missing from the Creative device as it is to note that it has formats that the iPod doesn’t have (but that Quicktime and other applications can happily convert from if necessary, exception being WMV).
   3. Firewire. I have published a number of articles about firewire on my blog, and am well aware of it’s missing in newer iPods. My point is that either Firewire is important or it’s not. One of the reasons that firewire’s importance has waned (though I have highlighted a few on my blog including blaming Apple), is that the press does not appear to value it, case in point here. That the Creative (or any other non-apple player for that matter) does not have Firewire is as relevant as the fact that the iPod doesn’t any more. If you don’t have USB 2.0 you’ll be hampered as much with either player. If a feature doesn’t get “reviewer points” then it’s eventually going to be dropped.
   4. Your charger argument is bogus. I have pointed out you can buy a charger for as little as £2.95 that will charge any USB device (eg some SonyEriccson phones as well as iPods). You can also pick an Apple one up at point of sale though you will then find your price nearer the price of the Creative. That’s 2 more choices you get than with Creative’s package.
   5. Fine you guessed at the price. But now that you know it, do you feel the same way? All I can find of this device on Dixons online (and I can’t find it on any other UK online service) is an older version equivalent to the older 20GB iPod photo which retails at £219 - the same price as the 3 month old 30GB iPod video. The first article I read on the Creative had the US$ price and the yen price. I didn’t find it that hard to translate to £ and add VAT.
   6. If I can find the device somewhere, then I’ll check it out. As for subscriptions, I’m not really interested in a rental model. I want to own my music. Bobby’s comments here are quite clear about how these services work together though - badly. And that is another thing you didn’t mention in the review - the complete integration of the iTunes/iPod experience on Windows or Mac. No matter how hard Creative works, they’re not going to solve this alone, and as yet, it’s not solved.

   You may be fair to point out that I’m quite one-sided, but that was in response to what I considered was a review which was short on facts, short on interpretation of relevance of features, and one-sided the other way (though I don’t consider you, personally, biased). It was NOT my review, and I think it is quite reasonable to expect that I will rebut the things I think are wrong with facts/features from the “other side”. I’d be happy to be paid to do a thorough side-by-side review of both products :)

   Ian

8. Ian Hobson Says:
   December 21st, 2005 at 4:31 pm

   >Do any subscription services work with Macs anyway?
   This question could also be put as Macs and/or Linux, as there is a lack of both (and Linux may be severely limited for commercial services over time).
   However, the new Real Rhapsody service is supposed to work with both. But only when connected to the internet via a browser. And limited to 25 tracks per month. But then it’s FREE. Not sure it’s made it here yet. There was an interesting interview with Rob Glaser of Real in Engadget a few days ago which reveals a lot about the challenges faced by Real - as well as Apple and others. It is a complex world out there with most opportunities for innovation stifled by the labels/industry. I’m not a fan of Real/Glaser for various reasons (surprised?) but these guys all know what they have to do to succeed, and that gives me comfort that the whole business will find a way to innovate.
   What I WOULD buy is a low-priced subscription service allowing me to try the music I haven’t discovered, but only let me listen a few times or with heavy restrictions. Easy ordering/delivery of the actual title with a preference for either digital or physical (though why not both to help convenience?). But as someone who is pleased to own lots of CD’s I know at this stage in my life, I’d be regretting having paid to rent it for 20+ years, and not own a single track!

9. L. Says:
   December 21st, 2005 at 5:04 pm

   Does anyone actually care about subscription services? Nobody wants to rent music as people keep saying. (Mind you I do subscribe to emusic, but of course that lets me keep the music and it is cheap per track (though still pricey when you consider that a lot of the stuff I download was recorded 70-80 years ago by people who are long dead))

10. Charles Says:
    December 21st, 2005 at 9:01 pm

    Subscription services *are* interesting. On the Creative, for example, you can play a subscription track and if you like it you can press a menu button and get “purchase this”. Click it, and the track will be bought next time you re-sync. And then, guess what! You’ll own it! Forever, or until your drive and backup dies. I think it’s a good way of sampling lots of music - I’d much rather do that than try to guess from 30-second clips whether a track’s worth purchasing. I don’t buy much stuff now because I don’t trust the industry not to stuff songs with junk, and don’t want to re-buy songs I bought on other formats which I still have hanging around somewhere.

    To be honest, and pragmatic, not working on Macs nor Linux is not going to be a huge hindrance to most subscription services.

    The review, Ian, was of the Creative - not of iTunes/etc. It was short because space is short on the physical paper for those reviews (but I’m going to alter what happens there anyway). The Zen Vision on Amazon is not the thing I’m talking about; I can’t find a price for the Vision:M in the UK, and suspect it hasn’t really launched here. So any conversion you do is fallacious.

    I’ve looked again at the Vision:M, and its size is comparable to an iPod photo. If your point is that the iPod photo was such a horrible bulky product then hey, so is the Vision:M. If you thought the iPP svelte and sleek, so is the Vision:M, with an easier-to-read menu to boot.

    Colours. If the screen (hence processor) can handle more, it’ll output more to your TV set. Simple as that, really. (The Creative does have video out.)
    H.264 - if there’s no content being made available for purchase, there’s no point supporting it. I’ve no idea why Creative didn’t; maybe a mixture of what you suggested. I’d guess there’s a couple orders of magnitude more WMV content available than H.264.
    Firewire - nothing to do with the press; everything to do with Intel, the dominant PC CPU supplier, having developed USB.
    Charger - my father-in-law’s fiance was spitting mad to find that the new iPod does not include a charger. Cheap or not, it’s still an added annoyance if you don’t know it’s missing. It used to be included with iPods. Now it ain’t. Explain again how that’s good? Having “choices” to have to buy something that others bundle is *good*? Can’t you see that your logic is getting really warped here?

11. L. Says:
    December 22nd, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    Hmmm, 30 secs? I can tell in 5 secs if I want to buy a track! I really don’t need to be able to listen to the whole thing - snippets are fine.

12. Ian Hobson Says:
    December 23rd, 2005 at 9:51 am

    Charles
    I’ll guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I am clearly not getting certain points across well.
    I am surprised you resort to comparing the Zen’s thickness with a PREVIOUS iPod model as if that’s justification. You neglect to state that in fact you used the 60GB iPod photo model thickness - not the comparable 30GB thickness (which again is considerably less). Your article was about raising the bar. Surely that’s over current products, not products from 18 months ago?
    You are wrong on number of colours on the screen. That figure refers to the particular LCD in the device. Output to an external screen will be subject to the limitations of that device (and other factors which are essentially simiar between the devices as far as I can tell).
    The charger argument stems from my assertion that the Creative is significantly more expensive than the iPod - something you got wrong in your review. And I pointed out that the £20 difference in (estimate) price could not be completely explained away by the lack of a charger. As I said, I would rather “save” £20 on a device and have a choice of whether to buy a charger. I already feel I have plenty (my airport expresses work, my powerbook and mini does it, and I have a charger I bought to go with a nano).
    If your father-in-law’s fiance is spitting mad, perhaps she should read the specs or “what’s included” on a box or whatever. If people are that ignorant about buying they deserve what they get. The same goes for the lack of firewire really (and the Intel deal has nothing to do with losing firewire - I’ve posted on this with links to articles about why). My point again about firewire is that Apple is held to a standard where they SHOULD include it, but that no other vendor is.
    I don’t feel my argument’s are getting warped if read back to the original. It’s not easy to write in a 4 line comment box here, and it’s not easy to refer back to earlier comments for the context of the point being made.

    As for music services. I referred to Bobby’s post that all is still not yet well with DRM in these worlds. You yourself highlighted the poor DRM in the HMV world. Bobby’s post indicates that it’s not all smooth yet by far. And as for not supporting Mac and Linux, I understand the arguments. But from a mac perspective, I cant see any other system as “open” if it doesn’t support my requirements. So I prefer the one that works on at least 2 of the platforms with 100% functionality, that uses fully open standards for compression (only resorting to proprietary for DRM, as also in the WMV world). I’m free to make my OS/platform choice that way. The WMV way is just proof that the EU was actually right to fine MS (but wrong in it’s implementation). And Real’s acceptance of a large chunk of momey from Redmond doesn’t change that.

    That point is still fundamentally that this device does NOT raise the bar because it’s bigger, heavier and more expensive than a product introduced 3 months earlier. The closeness of the products in other aspects of the specifications (which I can’t find on Zen’s site still) are much more subjective and relatively arcane for most people except perhaps to the key of whether you like the tight integration of the Apple solution or the connect the dots of the Zen/WMV world. And, finally, despite your review, the Zen product is NOT available in this country today, and I still can’t find any information to say when it will be!

    Anyway, my last on this subject. As it’s your blog you can always claim the last word!

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website