I like Sirius better than XM too. Better stations IMO and I have listened to/had both. I'm also all for this iPod integration. I'll be getting an iPod along with the adaptor for my Pioneer radio in my current Z. Being able to go from my 4th to 5th gen without touching the 5th would be perfect.

 

The cheapest iPod is $69.

 

So what your saying is that you will pay more for something with less features just so it is less complex. OK grandpa for that the Ipod is easier to use.

No you can purchase the FM tuners $50! for the Apple one and from $30 for the cheaper ones. Apple decided not to put FM tuners into its ipods because they didn't have to.

I understand BUT when you shop for a car do you want the one that drives the easiest but costs more (say Audi) OR do you want the one with more features like more power or more comforts like Onstar and Bluetooth.

 

Well, tell me what good those features are if they will be seldom used? Not only that, those features are often sub-par (cell phone cameras are a good example). And to have endless menu choices on the gadget to control something simple like MP3 playing is quite useless.

Don't think that I'm tech-illiterate - i have been working in IT industry for 7 years now in software development, so i am rather tech savvy. The bottom line though, elegance is in simplicity, that comes for code, that comes for engineering.

Not because they didn't have to, but because it complicated the UI, and their strategy was simplicity.


I like my Audi, so your example will not fare well , and frankly i don't want onstar, and have not warmed up to bluetooth yet. Those features are quite pointless to me. As for power... my car has satisfactory power, and while it is a nice thing to have, i will trade a little bit in the power department for overall design and execution. And generally speaking, that's what you pay for in Audis and that's what you pay for in iPods.

 

I agree with many of you, GM needs to offer Sirius.

 

Fair enough. To each his own. But you must realize that some people will see models with more features as better values, even if they never utilize those features.

 

Based on the market share, that would be the minority in the case of MP3 players.

Personally, I like my devices to be fairly single-purpose. I don't mind having a camera and some other handy things on my phone, but I use my digital camera when I want to take pictures. The interface on my phone is nicely set up so that the extras don't get in the way (unlike my wife's phone, which has a crappy interface that seemingly does nothing but get in the way).

 

I wasnt including the ipod 'shuffle' since I don't consider it a true ipod since it doesnt have the 'click wheel' nor a screen. Secondly most ipod adapters and etc are not compatible with the Shuffle like they are with the Nano and the standard ipod.

 

Gotcha. Nonetheless, it says iPod on it. It's an iPod. And it's easier to use than everything else in its price range, just like an iPod.

 

True.

I have thought for a while it would be wise for Apple to allow other mp3 makers to make "Shuffle-like' players that will work with itunes and Apple could keep the Nano and standard ipods (functionality and features) for themselves. This way it gives them appearance that Apple is opening up itunes to outsiders to dilute the case of impending lawsuits.

 

I think that has more to do with perception than actually being better.

iPod is the 'father' of MP3 players and a lot of people think the 'big name original' means it MUST be better than everything else out there.

iPod's are overpriced.

 

iPod was far from the first MP3 player. There were several before it.

No, iPods are expensive. There is a difference.

I'm getting the impression that you'll say anything if it makes the iPod look bad. You don't like them. We get it. Come back when you actually have a point to make.

 

Does GM own xm stock or do they just have an exclusive contract? If i recall correctly Toyota is or will be offering both xm and sirius...

 

I don't dislike iPods. I just find them too overpriced when there are other manufacturers with products just as good for less. Other brands are 'expensive' as well, but not always 'overpriced' so you are correct 'there is a difference'.

I have no desire to make the iPod look bad. I do have a desire to see others realize iPod isn't the greatest MP3 Player, it's just the first big name one. I have absolutely nothing against them as far as their ability to perform as expected.

There may have been several before it, but who in the majority of casual buyers actually knows much about them? When asked who had the first MP3 Player, I have little doubt most will answer Apple's iPod.

Irregardless, as long as they keep the aux. input jack for other brands I'll be satisfied.

 

That works I certainly like the network you picked.