Which mp3 player is better?

Exo

My son has got the Sony, nice bit of kit and well set out menus.
Maybe worth shopping around for the best prices, especially if you do not mind the colour.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-NWZ-S639FB-Video-Player-Tuner/dp/B001FB56PC/ref=pd_ts_zbw_ce_573372_8?pf_rd_p=218838091&pf_rd_s=right-4&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=560884&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0KN1WCDGK85SF7NCMKY5

http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk/shop/MP3_Players.1/Sony.76/NWZS639F/Sony_NWZ-S639_16GB_Walkman_MP4_Video_Player___FM_tuner.3498.html

drilldown

To be fair the Sony's do look nice, still think the iTouch is a better overall purchase.

Knub

Is this soley based on an Mp3 player? Or do you want it to sing/dance/make Tea/run out of battery instantly?

It really depends what you want

M4RKM

<ocd>
It is an iPod Touch.

I say that on the basis of that it is a brand name, and a registered trademark, Apple have not registered or released a product called an iTouch or an itouch or an Itouch, or an Ipod, (with the capitals the wrong way around)



</ocd>

the iPod Touch wins hands down in my opinion, it's so thin, and it is an amazing gadget. Also when 3.0 software comes out you'll have bluetooth with a2dp support for wireless headphones, which the sony doesn't support.

M

Marty_J

My fiancee calls it an "iTouch".

I must really love that woman.

Bowling_4_Gold

Marty_J wrote: »

I would hardly say iTunes charges a premium.

I must say I disagree with you there. I mean, quite a lot of up-and-coming digital download companies are charging a considerable amount less than iTune's 79p per track and £6 or whatever for albums. The only reason I see anyone using iTunes for downloading songs on a regular basis is if they either really love their mac and refuse to even touch anything non-apple branded, can't be bothered to shop around or were given an iTunes Giftcard.

Marty_J

Bowling_4_Gold wrote: »

I must say I disagree with you there. I mean, quite a lot of up-and-coming digital download companies are charging a considerable amount less than iTune's 79p per track and £6 or whatever for albums.

It's the record companies who charge a premium. Amazon sell some songs for less than Apple can buy them for. Apple's revenue from the iTunes Store last year was about $2 billion (that's revenue, not profit). Apple's total revenue was $32.48 billion. Given the immense popularity of iTunes, in relation to their rest of their products, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not exactly an enormous money-spinner for them.

The only reason I see anyone using iTunes for downloading songs on a regular basis is if they either really love their mac and refuse to even touch anything non-apple branded, can't be bothered to shop around or were given an iTunes Giftcard.

Or perhaps they find it more convenient, or easier to use. Or maybe they want one of the millions and millions of songs that iTunes has but no one else does.

tomsutton529

heard nothing but trouble about the Ipod touch. my brother in law has sent 4 back to the shop in the last 3 months as the headphone jack keeps breaking.

Bowling_4_Gold

Marty_J wrote: »

It's the record companies who charge a premium. Amazon sell some songs for less than Apple can buy them for. Apple's revenue from the iTunes Store last year was about $2 billion (that's revenue, not profit). Apple's total revenue was $32.48 billion. Given the immense popularity of iTunes, in relation to their rest of their products, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not exactly an enormous money-spinner for them.

From a Business perspective, taking into account your theory, if the record companies are charging 'so much', then how can Amazon, and the like, be able to sell at such a loss? Sure, it would make sense for them to do an introductory offer, but their low prices cannot persist for the number of months this digital downloading has been going on without incurring what can only b persieved as an astounding loss.

Or perhaps they find it more convenient, or easier to use.

I kind of said the typical iTunes user must find it more convinient when I said

can't be bothered to shop around

Maybe they want one of the millions and millions of songs that iTunes has but no one else does

I'm sure they would be able to find the one song they are looking for, for less than iTunes, with a quick Google (or Blackle) search. Fair enough, it is convienient to have them all in one place, but Mr Thrifty almost certainly could find the song he is looking for elswhere than iTunes.

Imo, apart from all the genuine in-chart and well known songs on iTunes, songs from 'up and coming bands' on iTunes just sound like 3 or 4 people strangling cats for 3 mins. It's only my opinion though.

Marty_J

Bowling_4_Gold wrote: »

From a Business perspective, taking into account your theory, if the record companies are charging 'so much', then how can Amazon, and the like, be able to sell at such a loss?

They don't sell at a loss; in an effort to thwart iTunes' popularity, the record companies charge Amazon less for the songs.