DarkBlue: if you think the article is not biased, you’re really being vulnerable to the FUD. Why? Because people don’t buy a brick that does everything! That’s why the iPod is successful, and for what it does, should win on both performance AND features/design. Lumping features and design together was just a way to marginalize iPod’s obviously superior design. I’ve read so many hilarious reviews that tally up “features”, forgetting that every added feature is added weight, and every hour of extra life is added weight. If I wanted 20 hours of battery life, I’d carry a battery! But no, I just recharge at the end of the day, every day. Big deal.

It should also be a big hint to you that the iPod did not lose on value. After all, it’s the premium unit. Now, the iHP-100 is trying to claim the “preminum” spot since their low cost attempts failed earlier.

If low doesn’t work, try to go higher! Yeah, but how to make higher? Oh, I know, cram everything you can think of into it, despite its marketability, and “out iPod the iPod.”

Why do so many people miss it? People are not just buying the iPod because of street cred. It’s got street cred, and mom cred, because it’s a dedicated device that does its job beautifully. It doesn’t pretend to be anything else, or if it does, it doesn’t get in your way. Four button and scroll for all the controls. That’s something, no? iHP-100 requires a separate display because the main unit is so big you’ll never get it out of your backpack to look at the display.

Lastly, how can you compare iTunes? They work together, and it’s intentional, and all the better for us. Until someone comes up with a viable competitor to iTunes, forget trying to beat the iPod.

I quote, “The iPod is wonderfully designed – a triumph of engineering – and has truly become a cultural icon. Sound quality is good, and navigation and uploading are based on ID3 tags. The library is managed by the excellent iTunes application. Transfer speed is excellent over Firewire and there are some fantastic (if pricey) accessories.”

Now I challenge anyone to read that article and come away feeling that iPod isn’t a premium MP3 player.

The winner of the group test is the equally stunning iRiver iHP-100 series. Again, I can’t fault PCPro’s review.

The ratings are based on three principles: performance, features & design and value for money. The first two are where the iPod just loses out.

Unfortunately the magazine doesn’t quantify street cred, desirablity, mass market appeal or strength of brand. If it did, we all know there would be two very clear winners (both of them from Apple) and a cluster of also-rans.

I found the PCPro comparisons to be subjective, well argued and informative but, and it’s a big “but”, the iRiver could be £200 cheaper and I would still buy an iPod – the sheer beauty, elegance and appeal of the device is beyond price.

Says Al, “a magazine that lives and dies on the amount of Microsoft adverts it gets.” That’s a sweeping generalisation – this month’s issue has 286 pages (including cover space), of which only two contain Microsoft adverts!

“As usual, more FUD.” Where? There’s no FUD, just a good, unbiased comparison test.