iconoclastic

I have never liked the iPod.

I know that I know. This puts me on the wrong end of the 42 million people who have bought one since it was introduced in 2001, and that includes my publisher and a couple of good friends. But that’s what iconoclasts do: they attack popular ideas and institutions, and these days, you can’t get more popular than Steve Jobs’ billion-dollar baby.

Some of the reasons I don’t like the iPod are just gut-wrenching. First of all, I’m sick and tired of words sporting the traveling “i” as a way of conveying… what? Oh I do not know.

But there are more logical reasons why I never picked up the iPod and its evil twin, iTunes.

Now, before you Apple fans light the torches, let me put on record that I’m a satisfied iBook user (there’s that “i” again) because Mac OS X runs great without isolating itself from the rest of the world. I don’t have to go through file sharing contortions with colleagues who use Windows or Linux on their computers.

The same cannot be said for the iPod, which is designed to be a closed system. To use an iPod, you must use Apple’s iTunes software.

While many people trust iTunes, I always found the program intrusive in the way it offered to scan your hard drive for songs, tried to sell you music, or consumed more disk space by duplicating your songs in its own directory.

Unlike most other music players, you can’t just drag MP3 files from a personal computer to iPod and expect them to play. Instead, you must import songs to your iTunes library before transferring them to iPod.

MP3, the most common standard for compressed audio, isn’t even the iPod’s native format. Apple iTunes, iPod, and the iTunes Music Store use AAC (Advance Audio Coding) instead. So, to share songs with non-iPod users, you need to convert them first.

Songs purchased from the iTunes store also include copy protection called Fairplay, which is the complete opposite. The restrictions for end users seem trivial: you can’t play iTunes songs on more than five PCs. But the copy protection scheme also prevents people using other MP3 players from using songs purchased from the iTunes store. This block is now the subject of several antitrust lawsuits against Apple in the United States and France.

Another feature of the iPod that I never liked was that the battery is not user-replaceable. To replace a battery that is out of warranty, you have to pay Apple $65.95 for the new battery, service, and shipping costs, if you live in the US. In smaller markets like the Philippines, you have to work through resellers authorized dealers or service centers, where the charges will be even higher.

Clearly none of these quibbles matter to the millions of iPod users who gleefully pay for Apple’s shiny new toys as they roll off the production line. I’m sure product quality, ease of use, cool design, and clever marketing have a lot to do with it. You certainly don’t have to worry about battery life if you keep buying as new models come on the market.

Now comes the iPhone, a product that Jobs says will reinvent the mobile phone and revolutionize the way it is used. Announced earlier this month, the product will be available in Asia in 2008.

Many early press reports have been embarrassingly effusive, praising the iPhone’s elegant buttonless design and touchscreen interface while ignoring its weaknesses.

Would I like to shell out $500 or $600 today for a mobile phone that does not have a replaceable battery, touch keyboard, expansion memory, 3G support, Bluetooth modem facility, and a 2-megapixel camera? ? Probably not, when most of the established phone makers already offer better features on their high-end phones.

However, Apple is betting that 42 million iPod users will line up like lemmings to buy the iPhone. And at least one analyst suggests the phone is in a class of its own, beyond smartphones. He called it a “brilliant phone.” Brother.

What PC magazine columnist John Dvorak describes as Steve Jobs’ reality distortion field is clearly at work. It’s time for a reality iCheck.