News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

October 22, 2006

ipod

iPod diatribe makes molehills out of Mt. Everest

Posted Oct. 22, ’06, 11:05 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | iPod

Mt. EverestNeal Mueller has a problem with his iPod: it doesn’t work at the highest point on Earth. Mueller, a first year graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, complains that the iPod he brought with him to climb Mt. Everest crapped out, though his Creative MuVo kept on pumping the Van Halen (seriously, you get all the way to the top of Mt. Everest and you pick Van Halen?).

On our expedition, we brought enough electronic gadgetry to outfit an army. What broke first? The iPods. The batteries croaked, the cases scratched and the hard drives seized from the rarified air.
Okay, let’s start with the basics here: according to the Apple tech specs for the iPod 5G (I’m going to assume that’s what he was using, since he references a hard drive), the operating temperatures are 32°-95°F (or 0°-35°C); they’re even nice enough to provide the maximum operating altitude, 10,000 feet. Mt. Everest’s summit averages -2°F (or -19°C) in its warmest month, July; its altitude is around 29,028 feet. Now, Neal, I’m sorry that your iPod didn’t survive the trip to the top, but complaining that it doesn’t work 34 degrees below the low threshold of its operating temperature and almost 20,000 feet above its maximum altitude is like being upset because your car doesn’t work underwater.

Mueller does say that his Van Halen-playing Creative MuVo continued to work; he doesn’t specify which model he’s using, but he does say it uses AAA batteries, so we can presume it’s a flash player, not a hard-drive based model like the iPod. Nor does he say anything about how new the players were relative to each other, which also makes his comparison suspect. I wasn’t able to find operating temperatures for the MuVo at Creative’s site; the closest I located was Creative’s DMP FX100, which had a similar range to the iPod, listing 0°-45°C.

Sigh. If only Mueller had stopped there, I might have shrugged my shoulders and said “You know, that’s too bad, but then again, most people don’t try to climb Everest.” But, unfortunately, Mueller decided to shift his missive into non-mountaineering pastures.

Instead of sticking with his experience of climbing Mt. Everest, Mueller decides to fall back upon fallacious iPod myths. If you’re playing at home, I’m sure you know them by now (when you think about it, they’re really just the same criticisms that were leveled at the Mac for so many years). Here’s myth number one: The iPod is a “closed system.”

The MuVo is an open system and can accept music from a variety of sources. By comparison, iPods live in their own little world. They only work with custom cords and other special accessories. They only work with their own music format. Basically, the iPod perpetuates its own exclusive clique. It’s no team player.
I…I…I don’t even know where to start. Yes, I suppose the iPod does only work with “special accessories,” of which there are only over 3000. Whereas, clearly you can fit the MuVo into any generic MP3-player case out there. And remind me again: how many Creative MuVo-comptaible speaker systems are there? Right.

Then there’s the good old “iPod only plays its own music format.” I’m assuming he’s referring to AAC. One: Apple doesn’t own AAC; it’s an open format. Apple owns the FairPlay DRM scheme which it uses to encrypt AAC files sold through iTunes. Two: The iPod can, of course, also play MP3s, which are still far and away the most prevalent digital music format in existence. Either way, you’re hardly limited to music bought from the iTunes Store. It’s not as if Apple pulled a Sony and released a music player that could only play ATRAC.

Mueller continues:

Watching my fellow climbers lug their broken iPods up and down Mount Everest gave me some strong opinions. I’d go as far as to say I think Paris Hilton is to Hollywood what the iPod is to portable music players. Both are radiant, glossy and coveted, and like any flash-in-the-pan they are overpriced and cantankerous.
Okay, I don’t have anything technological to correct in this paragraph, so pardon me as I swap my technology hat for my writerly hat. One: this analogy is terrible. It’s so bad, I expect to see it in the SATs some day. For one thing, as opposed to Paris Hilton, the iPod can actually do things. And comparing digital music players to Hollywood is forced at best (How, exactly, are they like Hollywood? Overpaid? Greedy? Constantly producing trash while ignoring real gems?). Two: You should probably look up idioms before using them. The expression “flash-in-the-pan” means (according to Wikipedia) “A transient happening which results in no long-term effect.” As the iPod turns five tomorrow, I think you’re going to have a difficult sell dismissing it as “transient.” Especially as it’s dominated the market for digital music players pretty much since its introduction. And the idea that it will have no long-term effect when it’s revolutionized the way that society looks at music has, as I like to say, gone plaid.

It’s a rigorous climb to the highest point on Earth, so I’ll cut Mueller a little slack if he’s not the best writer out there. What else has he got?

When a device is priced at a considerable premium and derives the majority of its sales from chic mystique or verve, I say it’s a fad. My climbing friends agree, making our team 100 percent anti-iPod. Buying an iPod for its musical value is like buying a BMW for its high-speed cornering. The iPod is conspicuous gadget consumption. It’s bling.
Yes, you heard here first: five out of five climbers of Mt. Everest are anti-iPod. But all of them recommend Trident. This, dear friends, is what we like to call iPod myth number two: the “expensive” myth. Sure, the first iPod cost $400, which was way higher than most music players on the market at time. But most music players on the market at the time, pardon my language, sucked. And today the iPod is pretty competitively priced against players of similar capabilities, especially given the recent price drop. Furthermore, while you’re looking up “flash-in-the-pan,” you should probably look up “fad” too. I’m no car buff, so I don’t know if buying an iPod for its musical value is like buying a BMW for its cornering, but damned if I know what else I might use my iPod for—“sure the music playing isn’t so hot, but it makes a fantastic $250 doorstop!”

Look, reaching the top of Mt. Everest is an impressive achievement—one that I will likely never accomplish in my lifetime. But, as far as I know, it doesn’t confer upon you some special knowledge—you don’t become a technology expert as a result. You’re free to have your own opinion, of course, but I’d recommend against making it based upon faulty information and absurd comparisons. After all, it’d be like jumping out of a boat with no parachute.


18 Comments

pdkoenig Author Profile Page said:

I read that article and marveled at his good luck at staying alive this long. If his expedition didn't realize in advance that an iPod was unlikely to survive the climb (i.e. battery life shorter that the climb and contains a consumer grade hard drive and enclosure), then I'm suspicious of their ability to judge the quality of the mountaineering equipment. I've never owned a Windows machine, but I'd quickly recommend a Toughbook over a Macbook on a high mountain climb because there are some highly specialized niches that Apple simply does not make products for.

And, on a climb like that, you should be listening to the environment and your team, not Van Halen -- as much as Everest is climbed today, it is still quite dangerous.

October 22, 2006 11:41 AM
deedubya said:

I raed this guys article first thing today and was blown away that this tripe was printed in the W. Post.
I like to think he was lacking oxygen at the time of it's writing.

October 22, 2006 12:35 PM
Michael Long said:

I agree that someone venturing into extreme conditions should have the sense to check the spec's on their equipment.

But while Everest, like most things, has the potential to be dangerous, it's long been dumbed down to the point where nearly any tourist with more dollars than sense can make the climb.

It's a good thing he didn't take a digital camera with a microdrive in it (same miniture 2.5" drive as a pod), or he'd be complaining that Canon's cameras are junk too...

October 22, 2006 12:48 PM
Philippe Azimzadeh said:

Right on(Dan)!

October 22, 2006 2:29 PM
Ankit Soni said:

And this guy got into Wharton? Now I believe Ivy League goes in for money and Alumni kids. No brains? No Problem.

October 23, 2006 3:57 AM
John Laurenson said:

I guess a question I would ask is what was the purpose of all five of buying and carrying the extra weight of iPods to the top of Mt. Everest when they were given Creative players?.....of course the question answers itself when you realize Creative sponsored them.

October 23, 2006 12:56 PM
Ed said:

I decided to check into the claim that the iPod was expensive compared to the MuVo. If you click on the creative ad in the sponsorship links page it takes you to the Creative site for the "MuVo V200". Actually finding a price for this product was itself a bit of a challenge, requiring about 8 page views starting with a google search. I finally found it. The 1GB Muvo is priced at $99 at this page:
>Good Gear Guide. For $99 you get one gig and disposable batteries. It appears that this product is no longer available, so comparing it to the current shuffle is just sad. However, even against the old shuffle at the same price point, this device does not offer a decent battery, so I'm not sure you can claim the iPod is expensive in comparison.

October 23, 2006 2:38 PM
Peter Ross said:

It would all have made sense if he had slept in a Holiday Inn after coming down from the mountain. Hey, it worked for Moses.

October 23, 2006 11:01 PM
der_rex said:

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Reading this took away my anger against this dumb f#!?. this hillclimber must have lost a lot of braincells during his various climbs OR he get´s sponsored by this other company who makes an ugly device you can listen to music with...you definitely let him have it and your style of writing is fingerlickin´ cool. pardon my french, i´m a berliner...

October 25, 2006 10:51 PM
Liquidmark said:

I can't believe what that guy did.

He climbs Mt. Everest, which is an accomplishment. But then he starts trying to trash one of his SPONSORS competitors with a pile of falshoods.

I don't care what degree he has or where he went to school. The man is gutter-trash to me. He has no honor.

October 25, 2006 10:55 PM
akatsuki said:

More importantly, his climb was funded by Creative. You would think a newspaper would bother to point that out as a conflict of interest.

October 26, 2006 4:42 AM
rahrens said:

What? The WASHINGTON POST actually admit to a conflict of interest? Now I think you'll begin to expect the sun to come up over California tomorrow morning!

October 26, 2006 6:03 AM
Matthew said:

Great rebuttal, Dan.

It's obvious (to me, anyway) why the Washington Post would print this "article": controversy drives traffic.

I love it how Creative is one of his sponsors. Too bad he didn't work with Apple: they would have told him to bring a flash-based nano or, better yet, a super-light iPod shuffle.

October 26, 2006 7:15 AM
Mark said:

Good rebuttal. I absolutely love your closing sentence; touché.

October 26, 2006 9:19 AM
LD said:

His BMW comparison is laughable too. The BMW M3 is well known for having excellent cornering ability. As such it's an excellent choice for the purpose, just as the iPod is an excellent choice for music. Both might have bling, but both excel at their intended duties. Form AND fucntion.

October 26, 2006 11:40 AM
Ion said:

Well I'm disapointed with my iPod too, because when I crossed the Atlanic ocean swimming, my iPod stopped working after only a few minutes underwater! And it didn't even float! Therefore my teamates agreed that the iPod sucks and is overpriced and you can only listen to closed format songs and it gives you cancer and aids and eat baby brains! .... yeah, right...

October 26, 2006 1:00 PM
williamP said:

Thanks to Dan Moren for setting the record straight. But Dan is too easy on this guy. Neal Mueller has ties to Creative. He is a shill and an a**.

October 27, 2006 2:09 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: