Griffin Announces iVault for the iPod Shuffle

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://griffintechnology.com/products/ivault/index.php' target='_blank'>http://griffintechnology.com/products/ivault/index.php</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Introducing the iVault, an aluminum case for the iPod Shuffle. Griffin, in collaboration with designer Greg Gutierrez, has created a stunning enclosure that incorporates maximum protection in an elegant design. Machined entirely out of aluminum, the iVault safely encloses your iPod Shuffle, while still allowing total access to the control wheel, audio jack, on switch, USB port, and LED. The front and back halves of the case are joined together by 4 small screws, so your iPod Shuffle is guaranteed to be secure."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/prod_ivault_main.jpg" /><br /><br />If you've got an iPod Shuffle and want to protect it, this looks like a slick solution. It's funny, the Shuffle would have been the first Apple product that I'd ever have purchased...if only it supported WMA! As it stands now, it's just another pretty Apple product that isn't compatible with my digital lifestyle.

[cmchavez]

WMA Support: Exactly! I would love to buy an iPod, but I refuse to convert all 3000 of the current wma files I have over to a format that will play on one of the iPod devices. Oh well, maybe the Toshiba Gigabeat F-Series MP3 Players will be just the devices I am looking for!

Thank you Jason for confirming that I am not the ONLY person who requires that native WMA support be part of a device specs before any money is parted with... :)

[James Fee]

All it proves is the only "safe" format for choice is mp3. I can go back and forth between an iPod and iRiver without any fear.

[Jason Dunn]

All it proves is the only "safe" format for choice is mp3. I can go back and forth between an iPod and iRiver without any fear.

Indeed. But for Apple (or any other vendor for that matter) to think that we'd want to transcode our entire music collection just to use their product is sheer lunacy...we know that the hardware Apple uses is CAPABLE of WMA decoding, it's purely a political move. Bastards. :evil:

[SubFuze]

All it proves is the only "safe" format for choice is mp3. I can go back and forth between an iPod and iRiver without any fear.

Indeed. But for Apple (or any other vendor for that matter) to think that we'd want to transcode our entire music collection just to use their product is sheer lunacy...we know that the hardware Apple uses is CAPABLE of WMA decoding, it's purely a political move. Bastards. :evil:

The same could be said of all the other players that don't support AAC. I find iTunes to be a vastly superior music manager to WiMP, and have thought about encoding my colleciton in AAC format. However, this was before I had my iPod, and at the time I decided that MP3 would be the best format for my music to be compressed in. To my ears, a properly encoded MP3 sounds better than a WMA file at the same bit rate anyway...

Regardless... AAC is a recgonized standard as opposed to WMA which is merely a de facto standard (if you can even call it that...). I'm suprised more players don't support AAC.

[Felix Torres]

I'm suprised more players don't support AAC.

Uh, it miiiighht have something to do with Apple not licensing Fairplay at all, while MS licenses WMA to all comers...

Just a wild guess, mind you...

[ale_ers]

The only reason I can see for anyone to buy a shuffle is that they already have an iPod (and therefore a lot of music in AAC) and want a flash player for exercising.

I mean, haven't there been much better players with many more features for a long time. The Shuffle has no FM and no screen and is the same size as a ton of other flash players. It takes a certain kind of marketing to sell this to people and have them think they are getting a deal. That said, Apple does indeed have that power over people.

[SubFuze]

I'm suprised more players don't support AAC.

Uh, it miiiighht have something to do with Apple not licensing Fairplay at all, while MS licenses WMA to all comers...

Just a wild guess, mind you...

AAC and Fairplay are *NOT* the same thing. It would be perfectly feasable to support non-fairplay AAC files on any other MP3 player, yet few to none do.

[SubFuze]

The only reason I can see for anyone to buy a shuffle is that they already have an iPod (and therefore a lot of music in AAC) and want a flash player for exercising.

I mean, haven't there been much better players with many more features for a long time. The Shuffle has no FM and no screen and is the same size as a ton of other flash players. It takes a certain kind of marketing to sell this to people and have them think they are getting a deal. That said, Apple does indeed have that power over people.

When it was released, it was one of, if not the cheapest player per Megabyte out there. If you're buying a flash player for exercising, a screen isn't really that important, and many people who listen to portable MP3 players have really cut back or completely cut out the radio. Just because something has more features, doesn't mean it's a better product.

[Jason Dunn]

Regardless... AAC is a recgonized standard as opposed to WMA which is merely a de facto standard (if you can even call it that...). I'm suprised more players don't support AAC.

You're right, if someone had their entire music collection in AAC they'd be just as frustrated as I am now. ;-) I donj't know that AAC is a "recognized" standard - it's merely the format that the #1 audio player on the market supports, but it's an equally valid argument that Windows Media Player is likely the #1 media player on the market from a numbers standpoint, and it rips in WMA by default (most users won't change it to MP3)...thus making WMA support important. Ultimately I just wish it was more about the technology and less about politics. :roll:

[Felix Torres]

AAC and Fairplay are *NOT* the same thing. It would be perfectly feasable to support non-fairplay AAC files on any other MP3 player, yet few to none do.

AAC and Fairplay are not the same thing.
But AAC without Fairplay is not AAC, as far as the market is concerned.
(Just ask Real networks.)

AAC is defined by the iPod, just as Windows Media is defined by PCs.
If a device claims to support AAC it has to play every file that the iPod can play.
If it can't it will be seen as being *objectively* inferior and non-competitive. Rather than raise expectations they can't meet and give Apple a free bullet for product comparisons, manufacturers stay away from AAC.

Similarly, customers buying a device claiming WM compatibility expect it to be compatible with DRM'ed files and will complain if they don't play properly.
You see it in the gripes over Napster-to-go's limited compatible-devices list, as opposed to the broader list for non-Janus DRM, and more recently in the firmware issues with the Buffalo Tech InkTheater, which has trouble playing WMV HD disks which play fine on a PC.

Just because a committee gets around to codifying a spec doesn't make it any more legitimate than a real-world, market-sanctioned defacto standard. In fact, in the computer business, defacto trumps committee 99% of the time.
If it didn't, the Internet would be running on GOSIP/OSI instead of TCP/IP.
Google it. :-)

A standard is whatever describes what people buy and use.
Right now, AAC isn't what the committee says it is; AAC is what *apple* says it is...

[ale_ers]

Ultimately I just wish it was more about the technology and less about politics. :roll:

How true!

It is the whole Beta vs. VHS all over. Most would agree that the better product didn't win out, just the more widely accepted standard. It drives me crazy that companies spend so much time bickering about which standard to use, when they could spend more time making a better product.

I fail to see people's argument over which standard sounds better than the other (MP3, OGG, WMA, AAC, whatever). Choose what you like or rather what works best for you. You may say that AAC sounds better than WMA, but WMA compresses better than AAC, (http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1090733979;fp;2;fpid;206)so just up the rate of the WMA and it should all equal out in the end.

Ultimately I think if people have a Mac or an iPod, they use AAC. I myself have a Media Center PC and 3 different players so WMA works for me. After that people pick what they want and tend to defend it. If every company put all standards on their players, we wouldn't have to worry. And the best player, music store etc. would win. Not to mention the average consumer (not people like us who understand these things) would not have to know what works with what.

[Felix Torres]

It is the whole Beta vs. VHS all over. Most would agree that the better product didn't win out, just the more widely accepted standard.

Most would then be propagating misinformation.
(Got no problem with the rest of your points, but this one ...annoys me... on principle...) :wink:

Beta had marginally better technical specs early on (VHS eventually caught up and surpased then, but you never hear that side of the story; guess where S-video came from?) but VHS won because it had a better story in the marketplace, technical specs, early or late, be damned.
It did 2-4-6 hours per tape when that mattered.
It had multiple vendors from the beginning, when it mattered.
It built-up network effects early, generating more revenue for video sales and rentals, when it mattered.
VHS was simply superior when and where it mattered.
The market chose the better product, not the techies.

Contrary to myth, Beta vs VHS was a case of the market deciding, not a market failure.
Markets only "fail" when the pundits are fail to read the market right.
Rest assure there are lessons there for both MS and Apple.
Only question is which, if any, will take note.

[ale_ers]

Beta had marginally better technical specs early on (VHS eventually caught up and surpased then, but you never hear that side of the story; guess where S-video came from?)

I learn something new everyday. None-the-less, I think the audio format standards have their differences, but people seem to choose based on what player/computer they work with, Not which they think sounds better.

[klinux]

A standard is whatever describes what people buy and use.
Right now, AAC isn't what the committee says it is; AAC is what *apple* says it is...

That is FUD. Why don't you tell that to people who are using Nero, Real, or FAAC?

I like the fact that AAC is a standard* from MPEG and approved by ISO and backed by several big names but dislike the fact that it is clsoe sourced and heavily patented.

The fact that AAC+Fairplay is confined to Apple and its products (iPod, iTunes, and Quicktime) is a separate discussion but to dismiss AAC as a legitemate codec is uninformed, in my opinion.

Hydrogen Audio has a good read (wiki) on AAC: here (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=AAC).

* PS - To me the market ultimately define what a standard is, not a corporation, just wanted to make that clear.

[SubFuze]

Ultimately I just wish it was more about the technology and less about politics. :roll:

Isn't that the truth. As much as I dislike the idea, in instances like this it would be nice for a large entity to say "this is the way things are going to be" and have everyone follow. The problem is getting that entity to do so not because it would be in their best interest (ie Janus WMA for Microsoft or Fairplay for Apple), but because it would be in the best interest of the marketplace.

There's a similar problem in the Blu-ray / HD-DVD war. Even though Blu-ray is fundamentaly better technology, the HD-DVD troupe is fighting tooth and nail to push an inferior product to marketplace, creating confusion and frustration among the consumers and lower sales for both sides (no one wants to be an early adopter to see their choice get left behind in a few months/years).

Back to the subject at hand- I think it makes far more sense for Apple/Real/whoever wants to sell music, to move to a watermarking system. Imprint the tracks with the identity of the downloader so that proper responsibility/punishment can be doled out to the responsible party should the tracks be put out in the open as opposed to locking down the tracks and depriving consumers of many of their fair use rights (ie- resale, medium shifting, etc). That could also solve the problem of player compatibility...

[SubFuze]

I fail to see people's argument over which standard sounds better than the other (MP3, OGG, WMA, AAC, whatever). Choose what you like or rather what works best for you. You may say that AAC sounds better than WMA, but WMA compresses better than AAC, (http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1090733979;fp;2;fpid;206)so just up the rate of the WMA and it should all equal out in the end.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-06.html

Those graphs just confirm what I can hear when listening to WMA files- the upper-end is trashed- high-hat cymbals especially sound utterly terrible to me, almost to the point of the files being unlistenable.

[Jason Eaton]

Yeah I think the wma would really tarnish this case, it can only be appreciated through AAC though.

Okay, if you thought the above line was silly... well...

I think a little metal case would go well to keep it from being crushed, but does it add any protection for drops and impact?