Searching \ for '[TECH] Playing MP3s on the iPhone?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=playing+mp3s+iphone
Search entire site for: 'Playing MP3s on the iPhone?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Playing MP3s on the iPhone?'
2009\08\17@043144 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
So I finally joined the iPhone herd. Unfortunately, there is one thing that
I cannot figure out: how do you play MP3s on the iPhone? Not the songs you
get from iTunes, but the ones I already have in my collection?

Any help is appreciated.

Bah,

Vitaliy

2009\08\17@072219 by Heinz Czychun

flavicon
face
Hi Vitaliy,

      Not an iPhone user, but a Mac user with experience in iLife,  
of which iTunes is a part.
My first thought would be that you need to load your collection into  
iTunes, first, them into the iPhone.  Does that make sense?

     I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it  
too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy.

Heinz


On 17-Aug-09, at 4:30 AM, Vitaliy wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2009\08\17@085553 by Alexandros Nipirakis

picon face
Vitaliy,

I have had to help someone with this recently.

Basically, the way that iTunes works with this is that it has a "Sync"
operation.  You have a couple of options:

1. You can load all your music into itunes -- then create playlists and then
sync the playlists onto the iphone.  If you connect your iPhone to the
computer and have iTunes open, you should be able to click onto the Music
tab under the iPhone device and either sync all playlists or specific
playlists.

2.  You can set the iPhone to be manually sync'd and just drag the music
onto the iphone its self.  Thing to keep in mind is BE CAREFUL with your ID3
tags -- you will not see file names on the iPhone but rather the song name
and artists.  This is a problem for me (but probably not you) since I did a
lot of my Mp3's back in the day before a good encoder came around.

I have a screenshot somewhere if you need it to show you where to check onto
manually manage music -- I think (off the top of my head) it is on the music
tab on iPhone, but cannot say for sure.

Thanks,

Aleksei



2009/8/17 Heinz Czychun <spam_OUThczychunTakeThisOuTspamlks.net>

{Quote hidden}

2009\08\17@181234 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Thanks for your help, guys! A friend with an iPhone recently confirmed what
you said (upload them to iTunes first).

Vitaliy


{Original Message removed}

2009\08\17@192244 by solarwind

picon face
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Heinz Czychun<.....hczychunKILLspamspam@spam@lks.net> wrote:
>      I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it
> too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy.

Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality
of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen.

2009\08\17@202412 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
solarwind wrote:
> I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it
> too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy.

Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality
of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen.
--------------

People who need a justification for the failure of their software love this
argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market" excuse).

>From my experience -- if you have a good product, it tends to sell itself.
If you have a product that people don't want (no matter how technologically
sophisticated it is), you can spend boatloads of money on marketing and
still not even recoup the development costs.

The trick is finding a good balance between how much of your resources you
spend on engineering, versus how much you spend on marketing.

Vitaliy

2009\08\17@214314 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>>> I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it
>>> too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy.

>> Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality
>> of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen.
--------------
> People who need a justification for the failure of their software love
this
> argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market" excuse).

I'll bite!
[[First web excursion of my new 5101 HP Mini - definitely going to be a nice
toy - but I'm going to have to point out to HP some mistakes that they made.
More on that anon ]].

I'm closer to agreeing with SW than with V here.
The 600 pound gorillas do execrable things that little players would never
get away with.
Apple and Sony are fine examples. They wrap things up in çotton wool'', in
part to ïmprove"the user experience but more (IMHO as ever ) to facilitate
feathering their own nests. They also not only pander to the whims of the
crowd, but also GENERATE the whims for their own commercial gain.

There is absolutely no technical reason at all that an IPhone cannot play
MP3s directly. A small manufacturer producing an innovative product MAY add
extra new features but would also be compelled to allow sensible existing
practices and formats to coexist. And yes, I'm aware of the backwards
compatability versus superior-clean-sweep-start-over-again argument. Only
arguable here if you are a 600 pound gorilla.

Sony make the sensors in the finest 35mm full frame DSLR the world has ever
known to date. But in their own offerings (so far) they instead provide
a madding-crowd & marketing driven product line that serves up megapixel
madness and sensor noise in the place of the performance they could offer as
well if they wished. A very few years ago people were waxing lyrical over
the Canon EOS1 Mkxxx with its 3 / 6 / 12 megapixel sensors. Each one
redefined the face of serious photography (or so everyone said at the time).
But Sony can afford to gazzump the market with a noisy 24 MP class leader
and all others must scramble to follow. Serious photography is being
skewed by Sony marketing.

I walk through the computer syores and note the room per display item given
over to Macs compared to PC products. I note the super slim Mac Air
whatevers. Heft one (as I do with all small notebooks) and you find another
story. HEAVY!. Amazingly so. Small is only half the story for portability.
But Apple doesn't seem to have a problem charing a really premium price for
large but thin and HEAVY pieces of art. Why would I care if a product was
thin if it's footprint was as large of a 'normal' laptop and its weight as
high - apart from the fact that it looks good? Sure, volume decrease is
good, but footprint is a major issue. But Apple can get away with it and
have people pay for the privelege.

Whatever.

HP 5101:
           End of first message . Keyboard is useable but definitely not as
good as a "normal" $US10 keyboard to use. Some very strange decisions have
been made re certain key assignments. Small (10.1") screen is fine for my
must-wear-$2-spectaces-to-read-any-screen eyes.  As in other HP laptops they
have subverted the Help function for their own ends making it hard to find
what should be there (System restore points in this case). Slow processor
speed does appear noticeable on some functions. More on that anon. Going to
be a nice machine for its purpose overall. Photo display speed is OK.Screen
is as good as can be reasonably hoped for at the size. Beats the average or
most any photo frame to a pulp. Win XP Pro is a nice touch. GMail spilling
chucker broken - don't know why yet.


    Russell






2009/8/18 Vitaliy <piclistspamKILLspammaksimov.org>

{Quote hidden}

>

2009\08\18@031757 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it
>>> too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy.

>> Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality
>> of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen.
--------------
> People who need a justification for the failure of their software love
this
> argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market" excuse).

I'll bite!
[[First web excursion of my new 5101 HP Mini - definitely going to be a nice
toy - but I'm going to have to point out to HP some mistakes that they made.
More on that anon ]].
=========

Russell, congratulations on the new laptop! Would you consider turning off
"quoted-printable", so OE inserts the ">" in quoted text for me?

Vitaliy

2009\08\18@055451 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> Russell, congratulations on the new laptop! Would you consider turning
off
"quoted-printable", so OE inserts the ">" in quoted text for me?

/>>

I'd love to.
I've been searching high and low for whatever it is that allows one of my
GMail accounts to insert > for quoted text, but not the other.

How do you do that?
After I send this I'll look again, but ... ?

Russell

2009\08\18@060354 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> How do you do that?
> After I send this I'll look again, but ... ?

Ah. Plain text.

A good start.


Also changed to UTF8, which may be a bad idea :-).

               R

2009\08\18@074731 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> People who need a justification for the failure of their software
> love this argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market"
> excuse).

I agree there are far too many people griping about Microsoft just because
they are a success.  That doesn't excuse some of the business practises of
Microsoft though.

>> From my experience -- if you have a good product, it tends to sell
>> itself.
> If you have a product that people don't want (no matter how
> technologically sophisticated it is), you can spend boatloads of
> money on marketing and still not even recoup the development costs.

My observation is that once a product is "good enough", the rest is up to
marketing, distribution channels, etc.  Marketing can't compensate for a
outright crappy product when there are better alternatives for a reasonable
price, but it seems that being somewhat better than good enough doesn't get
you very far except in niche markets.

It is possible to eventually build up a reputation of superior quality and
then you can get away with charging more for it, but it takes a long time
and lots of effort to get there.  Think of HP up to the mid 1980s.  Even
then, others had higher volumes.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\08\18@094814 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Russell McMahon<.....apptechnzKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> I note the super slim Mac Air
> whatevers. Heft one (as I do with all small notebooks) and you find another
> story. HEAVY!. Amazingly so. Small is only half the story for portability.

There is a high correlation between weight and a user's perception of
sturdiness/solidity/reliability.  Take the same laptop, remove 30% of
the weight, and let someone handle the two machines - they will have
the sense that the heavier of the two is 'better', the lighter one
being flimsier, 'toy like', etc.

Of course it's less portable, but the goal of Apple is presentation at
the time of sale - they don't care that your back aches a month down
the road, they only care about what you are feeling when you are
pulling out the wallet.

The portion of the population that actually tabulates all the features
they want and picks according to the feature set rather than what they
see, feel, hear (and even smell) at the store is vanishingly small.

User perception is very interesting.  Car manufacturers spend a
significant amount of time tailoring the sound of the car door to the
vehicle and the segment they are marketing the vehicle to.  Luxury
vehicles get a nice, muffled, 'weighty' woompf sound, while the
cheaper compact cars get the quick, light, tinny slam.  There's a very
specific audio signature over time that is tuned by modifying things
around the whole vehicle - a car door slam gives a lateral force tot
he vehicle frame, and other parts rattle, vibrate, etc elsewhere on
the vehicle.  All these parts are affixed not just for mechanical
stability, but for the sound they make when the various doors close.
The type of gasket around the door, where it's placed, etc makes a
bigg difference in whether you hear the door latch clicking, and
whether the door travels noticably far beyond the latching point.

And all this so the consumer can _feel_ the difference between the
vehicles and believe they are getting something of greater or lessor
value even though it's largely artificial - a way to segment the
market and extract the amount the consumer is willing to pay for a
product, rather than the lowest amount that will meet their needs.

-Adam

2009\08\19@033059 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Ah. Plain text.
>
> A good start.
>
>
> Also changed to UTF8, which may be a bad idea :-).

Brilliant.


2009\08\19@034952 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> People who need a justification for the failure of their software
>> love this argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market"
>> excuse).
>
> I agree there are far too many people griping about Microsoft just because
> they are a success.  That doesn't excuse some of the business practises of
> Microsoft though.

Yes, true.


{Quote hidden}

Yes.


> ...but it seems that being somewhat better than good enough doesn't get
> you very far except in niche markets.

The product I had in mind, is targeting a niche market without much in the
way of competition. So I think it doesn't matter whether you're in a niche
market or not, what matters is whether the product maximizes the qualities
that are important to the consumer. See http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/


> It is possible to eventually build up a reputation of superior quality and
> then you can get away with charging more for it, but it takes a long time
> and lots of effort to get there.  Think of HP up to the mid 1980s.  Even
> then, others had higher volumes.

I think that a reputation of superior quality should be a byproduct of the
way a company does things. I am strong believer in the theory that "quality
is free". Shoddy work costs far more than doing things right the first time.

Vitaliy

2009\08\19@074211 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I think that a reputation of superior quality should be a byproduct of
> the way a company does things. I am strong believer in the theory that
> "quality is free". Shoddy work costs far more than doing things right
> the first time.

To a point.  After that point you are adding cost with less benefit in
return.  Everything is a tradeoff.  This is why good engineering matters.
Part of good engineering is deciding how good good enough is.

Take laptops for example.  They get bumped around and physically abused on a
regular basis.  Obviously some level of abuse needs to be designed for.  But
how much abuse tolerance are you willing to pay for?  Let's say you can get
a ordinary laptop with the features you want for $1000 and it's designed to
handle normal wear and tear and abuse.  Let's say you can drop it onto a
carpeted floor from desk height without permanent damage a few times.  How
much more would you be willing to spend and how much additional weight and
size would you tolerate to get a laptop that can withstand a fall onto a
concrete floor from the top of a cabinet.  Hey, it could happen, right?  A
fall out of a second floor window?  Accidentally getting run over by your
car in your driveway?  Left on the dashboard in a closed car in the Phoenix
sun all day in July?

All these things represent higher quality that could be designed for, but
they add cost and other attributes you won't like (size, weight).  If I
could offer you the same laptop but you were convinced it could take all the
abuse I mentioned, would you buy it for $1500 instead of the normal one for
$1000?  Probably yes, I'm guessing.  What if it were $3000, $10,000,
$50,000?  At some point it's just not worth it anymore.  That point is
different for everyone, but there's probably a bell curve like distribution.
Being way off the end of the bell curve with superior quality is not free.
The company that tries that won't make a profit on that product.

All I'm tring to point out, once again, is that everything is a tradeoff.
Blanket statements like yours above are rarely valid.  One person's shoddy
work is another's effective design for affordability.  Whether the tradeoffs
were made well can only be judged in the context of each particular case.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\08\23@025327 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olin Lathrop" <EraseMEolin_piclistspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTembedinc.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 04:44
Subject: Re: [TECH] Playing MP3s on the iPhone?


{Quote hidden}

Olin, I'm traveling and don't have much time to address this properly, but
basically the problem is that you equate "quality" with "goldplating".

I understand "quality" to mean "conformance to requirements". If you get a
chance, pick up a copy of "Quality is Free" by Phlip Crosby.

Vitaliy

2009\08\23@090813 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I understand "quality" to mean "conformance to requirements".

I guess this is the difference.  To me "conformance to the requirements"
means "good enough", which is one possible level of quality.  Quality is
about a whole range of not only meeting requirements (or not) but also about
above and beyond.  I think people will generally perceive a item to be of
higher quality when it doesn't fail when they abuse it out of spec a bit.
You can often charge more for a item that has perceived higher quality
compared to one that doesn't, even if both perform correctly just to the
specs.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\08\23@102255 by Russell McMahon

face picon face

Olin said:
> I think people will generally perceive a item to be of
> higher quality when it doesn't fail when they abuse it out of spec a bit.
> You can often charge more for a item that has perceived higher quality
> compared to one that doesn't, even if both perform correctly just to the
> specs.

FWIW, In another lifetime I worked for a large (by NZ standards)
corporate who defined quality as

"Exceeding customer expectations at a price that represents value to
the customer".


      Russell McMahon

2009\08\24@182931 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> From: "Olin Lathrop" <@spam@olin_piclistKILLspamspamembedinc.com>
>> Vitaliy wrote:
>>> I think that a reputation of superior quality should be a byproduct
>>> of the way a company does things. I am strong believer in the
>>> theory that "quality is free". Shoddy work costs far more than
>>> doing things right the first time.
>>
>> To a point.  After that point you are adding cost with less benefit
>> in return.  Everything is a tradeoff.  [...]
>
> Olin, I'm traveling and don't have much time to address this
> properly, but basically the problem is that you equate "quality" with
> "goldplating".
>
> I understand "quality" to mean "conformance to requirements". If you
> get a chance, pick up a copy of "Quality is Free" by Phlip Crosby.

Quality of software development is partly about the amount and impact of
the bugs in the product. The likelihood that there is a bug that in some
situation causes a "non-conformance" is pretty big in a complex
application, and software engineering is partly about keeping this
likelihood under the acceptable (but usually not quite specified, in the
sense of "measurable") threshold.

Up to a certain degree, writing good code results in cheaper code, among
others by keeping the bug count low. But above a certain level, making
the code more bug-free results in much more expensive code without any
other significant advantage. That work then isn't free -- but it would
be required if "absolute" conformance to requirements were necessary.

With your current practices (which is valid for just about everybody),
there is still quality improvement possible (it's always possible to
improve). You don't go there, because it isn't free and you don't have
the resources to spend. This is where you set the balance of the
tradeoff.

Gerhard

2009\08\24@184939 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Olin, I'm traveling and don't have much time to address this properly, but
> basically the problem is that you equate "quality" with "goldplating".
>
> I understand "quality" to mean "conformance to requirements".

IMO with most things there are "essential requirements" and "nice to
have features"

For example for a portable computer essential requirements might
include, being able to be carried by a person, able to run on batteries
and cheap enough to be afforded by a rich buisnessman.

Nice to have features might include running a reasonablly recent OS,
having more processing power, being small, being light, being robust,
having a long battery life etc.

One of the old luggables would meet the essential requiremnts
requirements but you'd have a hard time selling one of those now (except
to a collector at a tiny fraction of it's original manufacture cost)
because there are much better (that is they do better in terms of the
"nice to have features") things on the market. There is a wide range of
different laptops because different people value those "nice to have
features" and many of the nice to have features are somewhat
contradictory so every laptop is a compromise.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...