What is Digg?34 Comments
- aaronlidman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yah bad for HP cuz it was making them some bucks, but really if i was CEO i would drop it too, they need to think about their future in making PCs, and Apple is out to get that same market, so no making friends with the enemy anymore.
- castufari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I never understood why they wanted to market them anyway. If you want to get in bed on the craze then preload iTunes on HP PCs...for a fee.
- CowboyBebop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, I read a review somewhere online and the bottom line was that if you're a PC/Windows user, you're best to go with the HP branded one. HP offered a better warranty as well as support for Windows whereas Apple's support for Windows with the iPod was spotty at best.
I have an HP iPod. I got it from Sam's Club. For $320, I got the 20GB, and FM tuner from Griffin and a car adapter. I didn't think I'd like the FM tuner, but it really makes the CD player in my car useless. It was cheaper to buy it from Sam's with those accesories than to buy it from Apple even with a student discount.
And I agree with others. I think HP is looking to make their own MP3 players. And why not? Why just get a small percentage of profit off selling an MP3 player when you can get all of the profit selling your own.
I'm sure their agreement was more beneficial for Apple since HP has retail inroads that Apple does not. I imagine it would be pretty easy for HP to come up with their own MP3 player. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""HP Drops iPod Like It's Hot"
Don't ever use that terminology again."
Why not? Because YOU say so? You're all that huh? - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CowboyBebop wrote:
"I'm sure their agreement was more beneficial for Apple
since HP has retail inroads that Apple does not. I imagine
it would be pretty easy for HP to come up with their own
MP3 player."
I suspect that was the plan. But it didn't turn out that way. As I understand it the HP percentage of all iPods sold was barely a blip on the radar. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, most people opted to by their iPod directly from Apple.
CowboyBebop also wrote:
"HP offered a better warranty as well as support for Windows
whereas Apple's support for Windows with the iPod was
spotty at best."
Are you saying that Apple provided a different level of warranty protection to Windows users than they did for purchasers who own Macs? In what way? - althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree that HP and ipod were never a good mixture. However, the ipod is a dominant force in the mp3 market for a reason. And similar to the mac market, you have to own one to understand why they are that much better than the competition. I love my ipod.
Bottom line... I don't think it matters whether or not HP endorses the iPod. The iPod doesn't need HP for anything. - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""HP Drops iPod Like It's Hot"
Don't ever use that terminology again."
Don't YOU ever use that terminology again, by terminology of course, you meant colloquialism haha. - jediboytj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0with the popularity of the iPod, who needs another brand to resell it? I guess I never fully understood why HP needed to re-sell the iPod anyway
- Leviathan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My guess is HP is going to get into the mp3 market, seems to be a little late though.
I'd love to find an mp3 with similiar build quality and usability as the ipod for cheaper. Unfortunatly everything I've looked at seems pretty cheap and crappy. - AlxCds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I never saw the whole point of the HP iPod. It was the same price as the regular iPod, so why would I get an HP iPod instead of one straight from apple? It was a dumb move to begin with.
- VickieDavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I too, wondered why Apple let them put their name on the iPod boxes anyway!
- jbeezy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maybe hp will go in the direction of a hybrid vid/mp3 player. I can see it now Vodcasts!
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0right thur right thur, on the hizzle fo shizzle gizzle to ma bizzles crizzle
- CowboyBebop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+016x9 wrote:
"Are you saying that Apple provided a different level of warranty protection to Windows users than they did for purchasers who own Macs? In what way?"
Essentially, yes. Apple only offers 90 days of phone support, whereas HP offers it for a full year. After 6 months, Apple requires you to pay $30 to have it sent in or visit an Apple store. For most people, that's not an option. Whereas with the HP iPod you can just take it to an authorized seller such as Best Buy.
I was able to find the review comparing the two "different" iPods.
http://playlistmag.com/features/2004/09/hpodvsipod/index.php - digital_ice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good Move HP
- kfstickman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ehh iPods are good but they're not getting better.
- uraligoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0about damn time, I remember leo on the screen savers going "hp made new ipod...nobody cares."
- dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0too bad they've basically sponsered "The 70's House" on mtv with these iPods.
- Elxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Hmmm... some pretty passionate ipod haters out there! All I can say is that the ipod haters are usually the ones who don't have one... they are really nice music players! Yes, they're pricey, but they're small, good looking, of nice quality, and very functional. Lighten up!"
Very functional? Where's the voice recording? Oh yeah, that's $40 more. Where's the FM radio that almost ALL other mp3 players have? And where's the battery life? And since when was the iPod good looking? Oh yeah, since Apple patented the colour white and all the Apple fanboys immediately succumbed to their marketing and declared that everything not white was so totally uncool. - rentz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just wonder if this will change hp's support of the current hp+ipods out there. and how they will replace broken ones when they dont sell them anymore.
- leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Could this mean that HP is finally working on their own line of MP3 players? They already make PDA's and Digital Cameras, so starting a media player line wouldn't be much of a stretch.
- danielwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://nytimes.com/2005/07/30/technology/30hewlett.html
- crash331, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did you not read the line that said they could not DEVELOP or SELL another mp3 player until August 2006? It was part of the iPod contract.
"Very functional? "
Yes
"Where's the voice recording?"
It's an mp3 player, not a PDA. I use it to LISTEN to sounds.
"Where's the FM radio that almost ALL other mp3 players have? "
Again, why do I need this? I thought about it a while and tried to decide if I wanted an iRiver. I used the iRiver for 20 mins and the iPod for 20 mins at BestBuy an decided the iPod was infinitely more usable.
And where's the battery life?
15 hours, not too shabby. - hdherndon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmmm... some pretty passionate ipod haters out there! All I can say is that the ipod haters are usually the ones who don't have one... they are really nice music players! Yes, they're pricey, but they're small, good looking, of nice quality, and very functional. Lighten up!
also... "podcast" is disgusting enough, let's NOT EVER, EVER say "vodcast" Please?
I think the ipod will be fine withought HP's sales network, and I think whatever HP comes up with will be fine in a not-ipod sort of a way! - clubgus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0its all part of the Restructuring at HP, I mean HP talks about inventing but I guess they didn't Invent the iPod maybe they're inventing something mp3ish it better be innovative, not like some Chinese/Taiwan wannabe copy cats
- nickzee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yup HP should stick to crappy printers that have cartridges that expire...(check the BBC for the printer cartridge story)
- stickyboot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone know of a story explaining why HP resold Ipods in the first place? I Toatally missed that one.
- tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"HP Drops iPod Like It's Hot"
Don't ever use that terminology again. - larriveejp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, "Billdozer" was taken, so I did the best I could. Lighten up.
- auricomnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm all for it. I'd rather not have their logo that is synchronic with low quality on an ipod.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well la-de-da. Who needs iPods? Granted, iPod marketing has been like brainwashing so there's a huge population of frothing zombies willing to buy whatever is sold with the iPod label. I guess HP is making a horrible error because there's nothing quite like rich frothing zombies for the bottom line. Most normal people (not on Digg) won't buy an iPod straight from Apple, instead opting for resellers such as Mal*Wart selling HP branded iPiss. Thus, in retrospect, this is a horrible decision.
- igibson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I gotta admit, that title is da bomb
- Billdozer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I gotta admit, that headline is the gayest thing you could have possibly come up with.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is