OSX compatible MP3

Wondering if someone could suggest a few OSX compatible MP3 players. I know their are the iPod makes, but is there anything else?

It's just Futureshop employees generally have very little playing room when it comes to Apple products, but if there is nothing else i'd gladly buy an iPod.

I need something 16gb +, preferably more.

 

Why would you want to consider anything but an iPod though? In all seriousness, they are one of the best players on the market and with so many options/sizes, there's one for everyone.

I own an iPod Video 30gb, iPod Shuffle 2G 1gb, and an iPhone 16gb. I'll never buy a non-apple mp3/media player again.

 

I use a Sandisk e280 Sansa, which is OS X compatible. A third-party even wrote an Applescript to allow syncing with iTunes. However, I believe Sandisk has newer models that replaced it, but I'm not sure if those of OS X compatible.

And I choose the e280 over it's iPod Nano competition, because at that time the Nano didn't have video playback support while the e280 does.

 

Just because i may be able to get a non iPod product for cheaper. I must say, however, there is some strange lure that iPods have and i may just end up buying on either way.

 

there definitely is a reason iPods are the most popular media players, so if possible that is definitely the way to go.

as far as other media players go. . .hmm, no idea.

 

If you're looking for a phone, the new Blackberry Bold is supposed to be able to sync with itunes. So you could use it as a phone and mp3 player.

 

you know, there is this other phone that works pretty well with OS X. . .

 

Yeah... BUT... Does it play mp3 files?

 

Only problem I have found with that other phone is compared to my ipod 5.5G its audio quality from the headphone jack sucks big time. Not sure if that has improved in the other phone 3G but my 2G sounds totally awful. Thats through €100 in ear isolating phones not the standard buds. Also a bit more expensive than an iPod (consider the contract) as well and the battery life isnt really good enough to use as your main MP3 player if your also a heavy phone user and internet browser like me.

The iPods sound quality isn't market leading but the older you get the less you can determine a difference and its perfectly fine for me. The level I play my tunes its amazing I dont use sign. If your looking for Apple alternatives maybe try here as your guaranteed not to find an iPod bias (which I have, sorry) which gives reviews from companies like Cowon, iRiver, Creative etc whos sound quality if often superior and they may have features you would like that Apple dont provide.

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/

 

a bit more expensive? lol.

people don't understand that the iphone is really a $1500+ proposition.

 

The iPod interface is really nice...but so is the one that Creative has on their Zen. Hell, Apple was in a lawsuit for ripping off elements of the Creative UI

You can get something like the Creative Zen working in OSX using: http://www.wentnet.com/projects/xnjb/

I bought one for my mom a while ago, and it's always tempting to switch over to the creative product - it can have memory added to it, has radio, an excellent screen, and a nice interface. It also doesn't require iTunes to act as a gateway for your media, if that's an issue for you.

 

I would not buy an iPhone unless i could get an unlocked one. My phone works fine for what i use it for (Nokia 7610). I don't need to check email on the go or browse the web, i just need to occasionally text and make calls.

It seems like everything other than the iPod ends up costing just as much, if not more. The 80gb ipod classic only costs 230 a d the creative x-fi is 280 for the 32gb.

 

and then when you try to explain that to them they don't listen. o well.

 

Or, at the very least, the iPhone 3G or any iPhone with an AT&T contract is costs $1500 through the two years.

If you buy a used iPhone, then unlock it, it costs about the same as any other phone that costs however much used iPhone 1.0s are going for on ebay.

 

What you are ignoring is that every cell phone cost 10x more than what you are paying for up front. It's not just the iPhone.

 

^ +1

The iPhone may be a $1500, but so is every other phone out there that uses a contract. You gotta pay to play people.

 

Uhm, yes? And if that was supposed to be irony in some way I fail to see it

 

thats a solid point.

still, i am on a $30/month plan w/ unlimited texting and plenty of minutes. thats pretty much a best case scenario from what i know. so, that is $720 over the two years (phone was free). the iphone is $200 and an additional $30/month, right? so thats still an additional $920, over what a normal best case regular cell user pays.

im not saying its not worth it, or that its not valuable (i'd love an iphone).

i just think its funny that people buy into the idea that its just $200, or that the new iphone 3g is cheaper than the 1st gen iphone (it isn't)

 

what can't? even my lamp can play back MP3's

 

unfortunately, as Apple appeals to more and more people, it will become painfully obvious that quite a large majority of people are kind of dumb, and get angry when things don't work they way they think they should, (like an iPod Touch being "more expensive" than an iPhone) even if the other way is significantly better. they will complain on the internet, and there will be so many of them that it will seem like legitimate news, until everyone else realizes all of these people are kind of dumb, and all will be forgotten a week later.

wait, isn't this how all the big news networks currently operate anyway?

 

Yes, but you're paying more with the iPhone, which was, I believe, the point.

 

Wow thats quite an assertion that most people are dumb. Its kinda like your saying Apple products actually appeal to dumb people, and are doing so more and more. I'm sure you have some pretty good evidence to back that up?. The only thing I really see dumb with the increased uptake of Cupertino's finest products is some of Apple's products themselves not functioning as intended by Apple or as advertised by them. Those 'dumb' people may include those who signed up for Mobileme which is not working as intended for a lot of people including Apple using false advertising as regards so called push capability and placing a €605 holding charge on my credit card for 5 'free' trial accounts. Or buggy iPhone 2.0 software which is causing an awful lot of people problems simply because Apple did not Q+A the thing properly. Or extremely serious issues with Leopard 10.5.2 for musicians and their interfaces and equipment just for some examples among many.

You must mean those 'dumb people' who bought Apple products, some of which happen to be members of this forum. Believe me Circa I talk to an incredible amount of people daily who really don't have a clue about tech in general but I don't think most of them are dumb, just maybe inexperienced or sometimes scared of the stuff. Although I'm sure you would prefer to just tell those people to keep their mouths shut online and not complain but Apple seem to be deleting posts from unhappy users on their forums anyway so I guess thats gonna accomplish the same thing either way. Since to you these must not be legitimate complaints you must agree with Apple's actions, yes/no??.

Apple have the best interfaces in the business, they are miles ahead of the competition IMHO in this regard but they are losing control of quality control in the race for dominance and market share. That is what is causing the increase in complaints compared to total installed user-base numbers, not the increasing amount of customers or their, as you would like to believe, lower level of intelligence. Its also stopping me buying an iPod classic 160gb to replace my 80gb 5.5. In fact if a product is easier to use it is easier to identify if it isn't working as intended. The harder the interface the more likely inexperienced users will mistake difficulty of use for product faults. Apple cannot rely on that excuse.

The Touch/iPhone price comparison in peoples minds is pretty obvious to me really. Both devices look visually very similar. They are both technically similar with the only real difference being the phone component making the iPhone a phone. Some people only look at the number on the sales tag. Everyone kinda does that. Advertising something at $999 looks a lot better than $1000 psychologically, thats why its done. Put a low initial buy-in price on an iPhone and the Touch at $299 'looks' more expensive. If people actually looked at total cost of ownership of products institutions like creditcard and finance companies would be out of business. It also helps people justify the purchase to themselves, or whoever holds the purse-strings.

Does anyone find a big difference in sound quality between their Touch and a regular iPod or indeed the iPhone (wonder if the additional radios impair the sound reproduction)? For in-pocket use I prefer the regular iPod for track switching and volume control and I'd worry about smashing the Touch/iPhone screen in my pocket when out and about. Any thoughts?

 

I didn't see this thread turning into a debate like this when i made it, lol.

I've used a touch before, and i much prefer the regular iPod. My plan is to just flip the touch i get with my machine and grab a nice 80gb, or if i can still find one a 30gb.

 

One of my mates has a 80gb classic and it makes my 80gb 5.5G feel a little obese in comparison. I'm not sure but the new 80gb classic feels more in line size wise with the 30gb 5.5G, but that could be the classics rounded edges giving that impression.

 

I don't care so much about the size so long as it's not a brick. I was just considering the old 30gb because it may be cheaper and i'll never need more than 30gb of music on me at any one time.