The NYNE Cruiser is a small Bluetooth speaker that can be mounted to handlebars. I have an older Raleigh mountain bike with fairly thick handlebars and I was able to get the clamps around them with a little pressure (it took less than 2 minutes to get it mounted and ready to go). Once the speaker was mounted to the handlebars, it seemed to be stable. I mainly use the mountain bike like a stationary bike since it is on a Kurt Kenetic trainer most of the time, but I wouldn't hesitate taking this speaker on a typical ride on cement (or an easy dirt track).

The upside is that I can now be on the bike and not have to worry about fiddling with my iPhone. I can take calls, turn up and down the volume, pause audio and play without taking the phone out of my pocket or a bag. While the speaker is not the last word in high volume or bass, I would not expect it to be. It is small and physics are still at work here. However, what I do expect is clear, undistorted audio and it accomplishes that goal with flying colors. I also want to mention that I had no problems connecting it via Bluetooth to my iPhone. It was immediately "discovered" and connected in seconds.

The Bluetooth speaker is also nice for just sitting on a desk. If you put it on its side, it has a very small footprint. Also, it has an aux input, so if you want to just plug an mp3 player into it via the headphone out on the player, you can play audio that way as well. It comes with a red 3.5mm cable to make that an easy process.


They also included a red USB cable for plugging it into your own USB power supply Typically, I would knock a star off of a review for not including a power plug, but in this case, I didn't. The main reason is that you can use the power supply that came with your phone to charge the speaker AND your phone. The speaker maker had enough foresight to supply an extra USB port on the speaker that you can plug your phone/mp3 player into to charge. This means you don't need two separate power sockets because one socket can effectively charge both devices.


The speaker also came with a pouch for storage which is a great idea. I plan to throw this thing in a suitcase when I go out of town and like the extra protection. All in all, this speaker performed every task I expected and threw in a couple "extras" (like the extra USB port and pouch) that made me happy about the device.

First let me say that this article isn't an attempt to say that Apple shouldn't update the Apple TV.  Of course it can benefit from an update, and I am curious to see what they can do with it (HomeKit? Siri integration?) if they do update it.  

However, the article is a defense of the current Apple TV for people that use iOS devices and explains why I think it is still a great device even as the market get saturated with new devices.  

The thing that pushed me to write this article was a recent video (8 minutes and 45 seconds in) by Andy Ihnatko.  While I am usually a fan of his work, especially his appearances on MacBreak Weekly,  I don't agree with many of his comments here or I find them out of context or just plain strange.

One of his comments said that the Apple TV  "was outclassed by every competing product".  This is a bit strange coming from someone that supposedly uses Macs and an iPad.    While the Chromecast certainly is cheaper, it isn't outclassing the Apple TV in any way.   The Apple TV has an optical digital output so it can be used with older receivers or DACs (great for music setups).  The Chromecast would require adapters to have this ability.  The Apple TV has an ethernet port and the Chromecast doesn't.  This means that if you have wifi issues, you can use ethernet to connect your Apple TV.  These are basic features that make the Apple TV a more versatile product.   The main upside to the Chromecast is that it is dirt cheap and small, but I don't see anything makes it "outclass" an Apple TV, especially for the hundreds of millions of people that own an iOS device. 

He also spent a lot of time complaining about the remote.  At least it has one (unlike the Chromecast) and the Apple TV can be functional without needing to "cast/mirror" to it.   The little Apple remote, which has also gotten raves for its minimalistic design, is irrelevant for people that have a universal remote or for anyone that has walked through the third party remote setup on the Apple TV screen (which he does mention and pretty much undermines his own argument).   Personally, I use the Apple remote for vacations and appreciate the small size for travel.  For home, I use a Harmony remote or an iPhone (Roomie Remote app/Apple Remote) to control it wirelessly.    He mentions that he loses it because it is so small, but the alternative is having a bunch of large remotes sitting on your side table (not ideal at all, which is why I don't usually use the remotes that comes with any devices and choose to use universal remotes).

As an example of how having a remote is more useful, I have someone stay at my house when I am away and they can use the Apple TV without needing a computer or mobile device to control it.  They can use the Harmony remote, which has macros for getting to the right inputs on my TV and receiver with a touch of a button.   It also has macros built in to to take you to anything you want to do in my complicated setup.  With the Chromecast, you would need a remote for controlling the receiver and a device to control what you are watching.  A child, a visitor, or anyone that doesn't have a mobile device or computer on hand would find the Chromecast impossible to use.  The Apple TV has plenty of the most popular apps built in that do not require anything other than a Harmony remote or the small remote they include with the Apple TV.

Andy also dismisses Airplay by saying that with the iPhone he can stream YouTube to his Roku.  This is true, but the casting feature is EXTREMELY limited with the Roku on the iPhone/iPad.  Try streaming Kelbyone, Downcast, Rdio, Spotify, iTunes Radio, etc, etc, etc... to it and you are out of luck. This is the main limitation with the Roku, it can cast a couple apps from iOS and that is about it.   You usually have to rely on the apps built into the Roku.   The Apple TV also provides "Airplay Mirroring".  This means that you can simply share the screen of the device you are using.   It also works with certain Macs.    Additionally, the Apple TV can run headless with numerous music apps because of Airplay. 

While Roku has a ton of apps to choose from, many are JUNK.  Just go through their catalog and you will see what I mean.   On the other hand, they have a Spotify app, but unfortunately it is limited when compared to the iPhone app.   Also, you can't use it without a premium subscription.   However, you can just Airplay the free version of Spotify from your iPhone to the Apple TV.  They also have an Rdio app, and while it is better than Spotify, it is still no comparison to navigating on an iPhone, and as usual, it is still limited on features in comparison to the iOS app.   The upside is that you can do everything with a Harmony remote (the remote I got with my Roku XS is worse than the Apple TV remote and for some reason it turns on our LED lighting when I use it).  If you are willing to live with half-baked apps that  are much more useful when used via Airplay, then I guess the Roku is for you.

He also talks about a "wait icon" and a "we are validating you"  icon on the Apple TV.  While my Roku isn't the newest thing on the market, it is not any faster than the Apple TV.  As a result, should I buy a new Roku because I have to wait for 5 seconds for Netflix to sign in?  He is right that I don't get an icon, but I do sit on the Netflix page and the YouTube page while everything loads.  I would say it actually takes longer to load than the comparable apps on Apple TV, but I don't find it to big a big deal.  So if Apple takes three or four seconds to load Netflix and another newer device takes 2 seconds to load it, is that really a big deal to someone?  I rarely sit down to watch a movie when I can't wait a few seconds for an app or an app feature to load.  If you do find it an issue, it may be time to cut back on the caffeine and relax a little bit.

The Apple TV is more of a hybrid device that fits in the niche between the Chromecast and the Roku.  You can watch Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, PBS,  Flickr streams, Vevo, Youtube, and more without needing a computer or mobile device to control it.   This makes it ideal for other family members and guests to use with just a Harmony Remote control.  The Chromecast isn't even sold with a remote.

Airplay is a huge feature for the Apple TV, despite Andy practically dismissing it.   If you own an iOS device, it opens nearly everything up to you.  You can send video to the Apple TV from most apps.  This means when you don't have a Roku app for Linda.com videos, Kelby One videos, your local news channel, and many more, you can Airplay it from your iOS device to your Apple TV.   For music, you get the full experience from apps like Spotify and Rdio without the trade offs.  Also it is just easier to use these apps for navigation than trying to use the Roku remote or even Roomie or Roku's app.  For photos, I can pull up the Lightroom/Photo app on my iPhone and send a slideshow to my TV.  You simply can't do most of this with a Roku.  I think Chromecast has more features than Roku in this area, since it is only casting, but I am not sure how compatible it is across the iOS system when compared to Airplay.    However, my understanding is that Chromecast is not much better than Roku if you are using it with iOS apps.   Chromecast is mainly for the Chrome browser and I would rather just launch an app and play rather than trying to navigate webpages in a browser. 

Another bonus is that you have direct access to iTunes, iTunes Match, iMovies, iCloud Photos, Podcasts (which is handled a lot better by the Apple TV than the Roku.... you would think Andy would have mentioned this since he is on podcasts), Apple Movies, Special Concerts, Apple Keynotes, etc..  These feature are not available on competitor devices, which is why I think Apple TV is still the BEST choice for people in Apple's ecosystem.  Another useful feature is that you can send audio from the Apple TV to any other AirPlay receiver.  It is very convenient if you have multiple AirPlay devices.  

The funny thing is that after I started writing this article, there was an article saying that Apple is losing market share to Chromecast.   From what I can tell, Apple has never worried about market share.  As of right now, they are the most valuable company in the world despite having a lower marketshare to Windows when compared to OSX, smaller market share with iOS compared to Android, and now a smaller marketshare in this area.   They sold $1 billion dollars worth of Apple TVs in 2013 and the thing typically sells for $99 instead of $35.  This means that they are most likely making a lot more money on the Apple TV when compared to most (all?) of the competition.   Also,  Chromecast has plenty of bundles that make it practically free if you want the services they are giving bundling with it. Right now they have 3 free months of Google Play and 2 free months of Hulu Plus (this is around $46 of value for the purchase of a $35 device).  Earlier this year, they were giving them away with the off contract purchase of theMoto X.  Yeah, I think Apple could give away the Apple TV and they would increase market share, but they have never shown that to be a concern.  For some reason, they prefer to make money. 

In short, despite the rantings of Andy (he addresses the Apple TV at 8:45 minutes in), I think the Apple TV is still the best option for people that like Apple's ecosystem and I am sure that number is quite large.  The combination of Airplay and built in apps is a hybrid between most services and fits my personal needs the best even when compared with the Roku.   If you don't believe me, take a look at PC Magazines' "10 Holiday Tech Gifts for Less than $100" this month.  Right out of the gate, they recommend the Apple TV.

I do agree that the Apple TV will benefit from an update, but so will most tech.  It starts aging the minute you figuratively drive it off the lot.  However, for those in the Apple ecosystem it is still the best and most obvious choice.  Of course, you can sit around and wait for an update or go with a device that doesn't take advantage of the Apple ecosystem, but it would depend on whether you want to make the massive trade offs.  Personally, I chose to buy an Apple TV and a Roku.  However, if I had to throw one of them out, it would be the Roku....and it would be an easy choice.

I can't say just how long I have wanted a streaming service that offered lossless audio (real CD quality).  I first started using streaming services years ago with Rhapsody.  When MOG announced 320K streaming, I switched from Rhapsody.  Then MOG was purchased by Beats and I had to find a new streaming service.  To be honest, none of the 320k streaming services completely filled the void left by MOG.  As a result, I tried Rdio, even though they were using lower bitrates.  It was, by far, the most fully realized service and if it streamed 320k, it would be the replacement.  Guess what, Rdio upped their bitrate to 320K AAC in recent weeks and I dropped Spotify (which I was carrying for sound quality).

I was really in love with all the features offered by Rdio when Tidal came out yesterday.   However, Tidal is lossless and Rdio isn't.  Is that enough to switch streaming vendors?   Well, a comparison is in order.

I have several different audio systems around my house.  As a result, I am always looking for better quality audio.  I am not so worried about sound quality that I am looking at different audio speaker wire or wondering if magic rocks and coloring my CDs will make them sound better, but I do care about sound.  On a scale of disinterested to obsessed, I would fall closer to obsessed than disinterested, but I do own receivers, so I am not a full blown audiophile (by audiophile standards).  

Even though I haven't done an ABX test, I am just going to give Tidal the edge in sound quality.  Some would say it would be a slight edge over 320K on good day.  

Coincidentally, I was comparing Norah Jones "Come Away with Me" album that I have in lossless format on my computer with Rdio over the last weekend (before Tidal was released).  To my ears, they were slightly different, but I didn't really prefer lossless over Rdio in this case.  I will say that I have always ripped my CDs in lossless because I might hear a difference on some albums and I don't have time to test every single file.

Winner: Tidal

For its part Rdio has numerous paths for curation.  When you listen to music, they automatically build a playlist/station that is made up of your favorites, they provide recommendations similar to artists you like, the list artist similar to artists you have been listening to, they have "dig deeper" recommendations of artists you have listened to, etc...  There are just a lot of ways for them to suggest music for you.    

Tidal is very weak in this area.  They have a section under an individual artist that has similar artists listed.  Rdio also has this feature, but they also have "inspired by"  and "influenced" to give more context into an artist.  Both services appear to use the incredible ALLMUSIC for their Biographies, so no one gets an edge in that area.

Winner:  Rdio (by a long shot)

Tidal has video available.  I found this feature less impressive than I thought it would be.  To find a video, you have to go to a specific artist and then navigate to the video link.   When I tried this, the pickings were slim.  As an example, U2 doesn't have any videos listed.   I thought I would take a look at Miles Davis.  He has videos listed, but they are a photo of Miles with audio playing in the background.  Not very useful.  Bruce Springsteen had some listed, but none of his iconic videos from the 80s.

Tidal has a landscape mode (see pic below) on the iPhone that I found useful.  It allows you to control the song/album that is playing, but it falls short in some ways, too.  You have to put the phone back in portrait mode to get off of that screen if you want to listen to something else.

Another cool feature of Tidal is that it has articles about certain albums and subjects.  For example, there is an article called "15 Ways to Nirvana: Records that shaped the band".    It is like having a subscription to an audio magazine in addition to listening to music.

Rdio has its own set of unique features.  By far the most unique is that ability to remotely control the Rdio desktop app from the iOS app.   Therefore, if you have Rdio running on a computer,  it works just like the iPad/iPhone app.   It will also let you control Rdio running on one iOS device with a separate iOS device.  This is great if you have an old iPhone docked for audio and want to use your iPad to look at the news while listening to music.

Rdio also has a Shazam plug in that helps you build playlists.  It has something called Boil The Frog that is another unique way to build playlists.

One other feature that Rdio has is the ability to set the streaming bitrate independently for cellular and wifi streaming.  I really wish Tidal had this feature.  I don't want to eat through my GBs on my wireless plan too quickly.

They both had the ability to play music based on an artist, but Rdio is more full featured in this area, as well.  With Tidal you can select an artist, or track, and it will play music similar to them.  I found the "track" selections to be less than desirable.  I was playing Joe Henderson's "Double Rainbow" album (which is Bossa Nova music) and a few songs later it picked "Precis" by Sam Rivers to play.  It is more of a "free jazz" (for lack of a better description) styled song.  Not really want I want to hear when I select tracks similar to "Felicidade".  For my tastes, Rdio did a much better job with "track radio".

Also, Rdio has a setting for artist radio that will allow you to play "Artist Only" to "Adventurous" with an option to play music in the middle of those two choices.  With Tidal, the selection is obviously steered toward adventurous.

Another incredible feature on Rdio is the choice to turn on "Autoplay".  This will allow similar music to continue to play after you finish an album.   

Rdio also has the ability to set up a station based on the record label.  A very unique, but often used feature.

Personally, I think Rdio is a better service overall.  I wouldn't mind video, but Tidal needs a better way to find it and they need a better selection.    Tidal's articles look interesting, but I need to read several of them before I decide how useful it is.   Tidal currently costs twice as much as Rdio.  If Rdio had an option to pay $10 extra for lossless, I would pay it.  However, they don't, which is going to make it hard to decide which service will eventually get my money.   Right now, I am currently leaning toward keeping Rdio, but I need to do some back to back listening of the two services over the next month to decide.  I will keep you posted.

NOTE:  Please make sure you also check out my newer 2010 Mac Mini vs Sonos Connect article.

Since Sonos new marketing blitz, I have seen a lot of questions related to how Sonos compares to Apple's Airplay.   For those that aren't aware, Sonos and Airplay have many similarities, but there a major differences between the two.

Sonos and Airplay are used for wireless/wired streaming  in many different devices.  For example, Sonos makes individual speakers, a sub, and a device that is simply for connecting to a separate DAC/receiver.   All of the Sonos devices are made by Sonos.  Airplay is a small part of the Apple ecosystem.   Apple makes the Apple TV and the Airport Express that both receive an Airplay signal.  They also license the use of Airplay to many different companies from inexpensive devices by Phillips to high end products by McIntosh.  

Below I am going to list several features of each of these wireless streaming services and how the other compares (NOTE:  Be aware that I strongly suggest buying either product from a vendor with a good return policy in case you have problems that you can't resolve):

1.  Airplay can be used for video, photos, and for mirroring a computer screen with the AppleTV.  

Sonos only works for audio.

2.   Sonos sets up a separate "mesh" wifi signal (in late 2014, Sonos added an update to allow you to also use your regular network)  that works outside of your main wifi setup.  This can be beneficial if your wifi is a problem.   

The Airport Express can bridge or expand your wifi network.  It connects directly to your current network.

3.  Sonos requires a $49 Bridge that connects to your router to setup a wifi network.  (Note: This is no longer required unless you are using their surround system or want to continue using their mesh network)

The Airplay devices connect directly to your current network via wifi or a direct connection via ethernet.

4.  Sonos has wireless individual speakers.  These speakers need to be plugged in and they start at $199.  

Airplay is available in individual speakers, too.  Since it is available in many different products, you can find speakers in the $75 range.  Unlike Sonos, many have batteries and can be portable.  When outside of wifi, some of them have Aux (the cheapest Sonos Speaker with Aux input costs $399) and USB inputs that make them more versatile for a portable setup.  The speakers with USB inputs can charge and play audio from devices like the iPad and iPhone. 

5.  Sonos has the ability to add another speaker and use them for stereo.

I am not aware of any Airplay speakers that have this ability.  You can buy Airplay systems like the Phillips DS9800W that comes with stereo speakers.  However, I would highly suggest getting an Airplay capable receiver and wired bookshelf speakers if you want to use Airplay in a stereo environment.  Unlike Sonos, most bookshelf speakers actually publish their specs.

6.  Sonos makes a Connect that will attach to your current system via analog or digital.  It costs, $349 + $49 for the Bridge (the bridge is no longer needed) if you connect it via Sonos wifi. 

Apple makes the Airport Express that connects to your current system via digital or analog.  It also works on wifi or by direct ethernet connection.  It costs less than $100.   I should mention that I can put an Airport Express in 4 systems for the same price as the Connect + Bridge.

7.  Sonos makes a wireless 5.1 system.  The sound bar is $699, the sub is $699, if you use Play1s for your surrounds, they are $199 each + the $49 for the Bridge.  

I am not aware of anyone making wireless 5.1 systems for Airplay (although there are so many Airplay devices that I could be wrong).   You should be able to put together a wired setup that is cheaper and sounds better for less money, though.  Also, there are devices available by Outlaw and others that will make any speakers wireless.  However, I have never used a wireless solution, so I am not sure how well they work.  

8.  Sonos has an app for Android and iOS.  These apps are designed to work with different services that have a Sonos plug in.

Airplay audio works with nearly every audio app on iOS.   For example, if you currently want to stream iTunes Radio, Tidal, Overcast,  JazzRadio, Downcast, or audio from most any other iOS app (including sending audio from video apps) to an Airport Express, you can do so with Airplay.   In other words, there are a lot more apps that work with Airplay using an iOS device. (Note:  Google play was added to Sonos after I initially wrote this article, so I decided to update this article.  It should be noted that Spotify is adding a Connect service and Apple bought Beats music, so it is possible that Sonos will no longer work with these services in the future.  It probably depends on whether these companies feel that it is cutting into their business.  Currently, Apple doesn't seem to care that much, but who knows what their plans are now that they have Beats?)

Android has several apps that appear to work with Airplay.   I don't own an Android device, so I can't comment on these services, but the AirAudio app professes to send Airplay audio from any Android app.  If it works as they say, it also has more versatility than Sonos.

9.  When using Sonos, most apps are streaming directly from the web despite being controlled by an iOS or Android device.  This means you can leave the area with the device while Spotify (for example) is playing and it will continue to play.

When you Airplay from an iOS/Android device with a third party app like Spotify, you are streaming directly from the device, so if you leave the area, you lose the signal.  Obviously, you can stream anything from a computer to iOS (directly with new Macs or indirectly using Airfoil from other computers), so, if you plan to leave and still want music to continue to play, you can do this directly from a computer.  My preference is using a Mac Mini (see my Sonos vs Mini article) as a media server.

10.  Sonos can send multiple streams to different Sonos devices from one app at the same time.

Airplay can't do this.  You would need multiple devices to send multiple streams.  While that is usually the case, I have a Synology NAS with Airplay built in that will send different streams from a music collection at the same time to separate Airplay devices.  (Note:  The WHAALE app has the ability to send multiple streams from iOS (soon to be an Android app, as well) with certain streaming sources.  See my article on WHAALE here).

11.  As I mentioned, there are many brands that have Airplay built in.  I own a Denon receiver with Airplay.   I can start Pandora, send an Airplay signal to my receiver, and the receiver will turn on and allow me to control the volume without a remote and without leaving the app.

Sonos is not built into receivers, so this is not possible.  They do make a Sonos Connect:amp that will allow you to connect speakers, but it does't compete in a home theater with a receiver and real speakers.  For one thing, there aren't any digital or video inputs.

12.   As I mentioned, Airplay can be used for audio with almost any app.  However, another major benefit by using it with an iOS device (Touch, iPhone, iPad) running iOS7 (or later) is the ability to control volume, skip or go back, and pause from the Control Center.  This means you can be in Safari, Twitter, Facebook, etc.. and still control these features without leaving the app you are in.  You can even control what is playing from the lock screen.

This is not possible with Sonos.

13.  With newer Macs, you can send ANY audio to an Airplay device.  There is also a $25 app called Airfoil (Mac & Windows) that will allow you to send audio from any program to any or all Airplay devices.  

Sonos has an app for computers that allows you to use only the apps with Sonos plug-ins.  

14.  Airfoil also includes something called Airplay Speakers that will allow a computer to be setup as an Airplay receiver.  This allows the computer to show up as an Airplay device and you can send audio to it.  This is beneficial if you use a computer in your main audio setup.  Airfoil Speakers is also available for Linux machines.  Airplay Speakers can also be used on a computer to receive a signal from an iPhone and then send that signal to multiple airplay devices.    

Sonos has nothing similar.

15.  Audiovarna +, Pure Music, and other audio enhancing programs work with Airplay.

Sonos uses its own software.

16.  The Sonos Connect is 2.91 x 5.35 x 5.51 inches (HWD).

The most current Airport Express is smaller in every dimension:  
0.9 x 3.85  x 3.85 inches.  The AppleTV is .9 x 3.9 x 3.9.  This small size makes it easier to fit into tight spaces and desktop systems.  Since Airplay is built into  many devices, you may not even need to take up any extra space.

One thing that should be mentioned is that most people will be happy with adding an Apple TV to their home theater and using it for music, video and photos.  However, it only sends out a 48khz signal, so most audiophiles will also want an Airport Express to play CD quality (16/44.1) bit perfect audio.   The good news is that the price of both together is less than one Connect.

Upside to Sonos:
1.  Complete Wireless Home Theater system
2.  Possible "mesh" wifi network (no longer a requirement )
3.  Ability to buy one speaker now and add a speaker later for stereo
4.  Send different audio signals to different Sonos devices simultaneously
5.  Direct streaming from the web with certain apps

Upside to Airplay:
1.  Better integration with iOS
2.  Works with a lot more apps 
3.  Built into many devices/receivers/speakers
4.  Airport Express can expand your wifi network
5.  A lot cheaper than Sonos 
6.  Better integration in computers (especially with Airfoil and Airfoil Speakers)
7.  Portability of certain battery operated speakers

It should be mentioned that most of the upsides of Sonos can be eliminated within the price differential of the two systems and be more useful in the long run.   For example, the wireless Sonos sub is $699 and only works with other Sonos speakers.  For $674, you could buy an Outlaw LFM-1 Plus/OAW3 Wireless Audio Combo.  This would be less expensive and work with any audio setup now and in the future, unlike the Sonos.   

If your wifi has tons of traffic, the Sonos mesh system might seem to make sense.  However, in most homes the Home Plug (power line ethernet) solution should be better and cost less money.  For example, for $59, you could add a TP_Link Gigabit adapter kit to get ethernet over your power lines (Typically, according to the linked FAQ, the line must be inside 5000 Square Feet).  The upside is that you would be able to connect it to a $99 Airport Express to extend your wifi network, which would benefit all of your wireless products that you use in that area of your home.  The new Home Plug solutions  work with up to 64 units, but the FAQ recommends 16 as the max.  

If you desire simultaneous streaming to different setups at the same time, for less than one Connect ($349), you could buy an iPod Touch for each setup for $224 and add an Airport Express ($95) device and still have money left over.  Personally, I think the need for different music playing in different setups being controlled by one iOS or Android device would be a very rare need.  It would be much more feasible that these separate setups would be for listening to music by different users.  Having a separate controller for each system seems like a much more practical way to manage separate devices.

Also, direct streaming from the web is similar to directly streaming from an iOS device.  If you are worried that your family will be listening to music in your living room from your iPhone via Airplay and you suddenly have to leave, which would cause the music to stop playing, the answer is to buy an iPod Touch that you leave at home.  This could be used as the main streaming device and you could leave with your iPhone without the music stopping.  As I mentioned, the cost of an iPod Touch is $224 (cheaper if you buy last year's model or a refurb) and the price of an Airport Express is $95 (can also find refurb or last generation versions for a lot less money.  I paid less than $60 from Amazon for a last gen version).  It is still cheaper than the Connect by itself or combined with a Bridge.  Personally, I would spend a few extra bucks and get an iPad mini 2 (now $249 for a refurb) for this type of setup, if I didn't already own an iPad.

The advantages of the numerous companies making Airplay devices can't be added to Sonos because it is a closed system.  The only hope is that more audio apps will be supported in Sonos in the future.   

For audiophiles, I think the Airplay devices offer more flexibility and a much more inexpensive way to accomplish similar tasks.  Neither of them currently offer hi rez streaming, so they are on par for sound quality (assuming you use the Connect with the same DAC/receiver).  When you start adding individual speakers, the Airplay speakers can offer more flexibility  because they are in a lot more devices.  If you want a speaker with a lot smaller footprint and battery powered portability, you can get a Phillips Fidelio  SoundRing.  If you want Airplay, but you also want hi rez streaming, you can buy a Pioneer A4 which has Airplay and DLNA built in.  If you want a receiver, but don't want a device hooked to it, you can buy components from Pioneer, Onkyo, Sony, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, McIntosh, etc,  because they have models with Airplay built in.   

While most articles on this subject prefer Sonos, I really think it is no contest and an easy win for Airplay when it comes to most features, cost, and flexibility.   

NOTE:  If you are a Sonos user and I missed something, please let me know.  I am mainly working off of the information on Sonos' webpage, so it is possible that I missed a feature.

NOTE:  Please make sure you also check out my newer 2010 Mac Mini vs Sonos Connect article.



(edit - 3/22-14) I have had some comments and observations about this article.  I will paraphrase some of the points below:

1.  "Airport Express is more difficult to setup" - While I have never owned an Sonos device, I have setup 3 Airport Express (Update: I bought a 4th for less than $60) devices and they took less that ten minutes for the entire process...including launching Airport Utility on a computer (I only had Windows PCs when I got my first Airport Express and the process is even easier now) and setting it up to expand the network.  Since the Airport Express uses your regular wifi network, if your network has issues, there is a possibility that it could take longer to setup. 
*(important disclaimer below)

Some have said that Sonos is plug and play, but their support page shows that a lot of people have issues with the Sonos, too.  There is a post on Amazon with someone that has had Sonos for 4 years and it continually had to be reset and after several calls to Sonos the issue still hasn't been resolved.    As a result, I can't really say with certainly that Sonos has an advantage in this area.*(important disclaimer below)


2.  "Airport Express requires a double jump, so I have read that drop outs can be frequent" - It isn't a requirement, but for an app like Pandora, you usually send it to your iOS or Android device and then back to the Airplay receiving device.  However, I have seen very few drop outs in my setup.  I actually use Airplay quite a bit for Lynda.com videos.   Airplay can handle sending video from my network to my iPhone and back to my AppleTV without a problem, so it explains why  (in my setup) audio is handled without any issues.  Also, you can wire your Airport Express if you do have an issue.  I have a couple articles (article 1, article 2) on using ethernet power line adapters.  They work great and you can avoid ever using wifi for audio if you have a computer running an app like Rdio, Spotify, or iTunes.   Also, Spotify will add Spotify Connect to the desktop and become another wired only option (currently, you can use the "Remoteless app" for controlling Spotify on a desktop with an iPhone). 

* Note: I have since updated to the "TP-LINK Archer C5 AC1200 Dual Band Wireless AC Gigabit Router, 2.4GHz 300Mbps+5Ghz 867Mbps, 2 USB Ports, IPv6, Guest Network" which essentially doubled my speed across the network via the 5GHz band.  Luckily, the new Airport Express will support these bands.  The Sonos Connect is maxed out at 2.4Ghz so essentially, the double jump would result in the same speed range as a Sonos Connect).
*(important disclaimer below)

Sonos plays directly from the web, so you only need to worry about audio traveling one path.  The only possible benefit is that you don't need a computer in the mix.  However, I find that using a 2010 mini (see my  offers many more options for my overall needs (runs Plex, XBMC, iTunes, Security Cameras, etc..) and only uses 10 watts of idle power.  The Airport Express uses 2 watts of idle power.  A Sonos Playbar, just for comparison purposes, is 13 watts and bridge is 4 watts of idle power. 

*(important disclaimer below)

*DISCLAIMER
* I should mention that I can't say how either device will work in your home, so I have stayed away from this topic in my original article.  You can find  a lot of people that have had issues and success with both systems, so without real numbers, I can't say which is better.   My suggestion is that you buy these devices from vendors that have a good return policy in case you have issues.  

While I am on the subject of issues, I also want to mention that the Airport Express can have issues with dropouts between songs that clip off the beginning of songs with certain DACs.  I have used Airport Express units with 5 different DACs and I have never had an issue, so I am not sure how common the issue is.  As with the above, I would buy (at least the first one)  from a reliable source that has a good return policy.  With anything  tech, it is best to have some time with the product to determine if it will work with your environment.  

3.  The AppleTV has a feature that will allow you to send the audio to  any other Airplay receiver.  This is convenient if you have a headphone setup with an Airport Express near the area you watch AppleTV.  I have an Airport Express headphone setup next to my bed, so I can lay in bed and watch AppleTV without disturbing anyone.

Sonos doesn't have a similar feature.  

4.  Some have pointed out that it is convenient to have all of the apps built into one remote app like you have with Sonos.  This makes it easy to setup playlists and go in between several different services without needing to open several apps to do the same thing.

While this may be a benefit to some, you lose features from many different apps by going with the Sonos only app.   I am a subscriber to MOG (unfortunately, they go out of business in less than a month, but I am using this as an example) and their most unique feature compared to other music streaming services is the radio slider built into their app.  It allows you to start with the slider all the way to the left for shuffling music by one artist.  As you push the slider to the right, you add more similar artists.  You lose this feature by using a Sonos.  From what I have read, you also lose functionality for other apps like Spotify.  When it comes down to it, I would rather use the app designed by the music service since it is built to make the most of their service rather than using a "catch all" app designed by Sonos.   

The other benefit of using the app designed by the actual music steaming company is that you probably use that app when you are away from home via your cellphone.  I can listen to MOG in my car via bluetooth audio and walk in the house and flip up the Airplay controller and switch the audio to an Airplay device without leaving the app.  It works the other way around, too.  When I am listening to audio in the morning on Airplay devices,  I can leave the house and switch to bluetooth audio in my car without missing a beat.  Not possible with Sonos.

I will let people decide for themselves which approach they prefer, but I much prefer using apps that aren't crippled in exchange for integration between apps in a Sonos remote setup. 

5.  "My Sonos allows me to use a USB hard drive attached to my router without needing  a computer/NAS and it will catalog those songs into its system" - There are a lot limitations to the routers that this works with, so you may also need to add the price of a new supported router to the price of the Sonos system if you want to go this route.  

Airplay works with most apps in the iOS ecosystem.  While I use a NAS and/or a mac mini in my setups, I did a five minute search and found a $5.99 app called FileBrowser that works on iPhones/iPads (there are probably other apps that are similar, but this is the first one I ran across).  It will actually find any drive hanging off your network.   I have my music in folders arranged by artist/albums/songs and it is connected to an older Airport Extreme router.  It will allow you to open the folder with the songs and play the music and it works with Airplay.  It won't catalog the songs, so it is still limited in comparison to Sonos and an approved router, but it works fine if your goal is to play music.  I also want to mention that this app also works with supported video formats, so you can Airplay video to an AppleTV without using a computer.  I was surprised that it also works with DD5.1 soundtracks.

Rather than using the FileBrowser (although I recommend this app and plan to review it in the future), I would suggest loading your music up to Google Play (free for 20,000 songs), iTunes Match ($25 a year with a 25,000 song limit), or Amazon's service (that I have not tried).  The downside to these services is that they don't use lossless Codecs.  However, the Codecs are fine for most people if the popularity of the lossy Codecs used by iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and Pandora are any indication of what is acceptable to most people.   

The upside is that by allowing these services to scan your library,  you will get a cloud backup of your library in the formats that these services use (the last time I checked Google was using 320kbps mp3s and Apple was using 256k AAC files).  This will be an upgrade for some and a downgrade for those using lossless.  However, I think for the typical person the upside of having a cloud backup that is available anywhere via their cell phone outweighs the possible downside of using a 256k file.   I personally prefer listening to my own music at home in lossless, because I know nothing is missing, but I don't usually buy lossy music, so I know I am outlier.

The other upside is that iTunes Match is integrated right into the AppleTV's GUI and Siri on the iPhone/iPad (which means you can just tell Siri what you want it to play without even looking at a screen). If someone is using AppleTV, I would recommend iTunes Match.  For those using Chromecast, I would suggest using Google Play.  I have my music on both services because I tried Google's music service and loaded my files up to their service at the time.  While I didn't subscribe to Google Play, my music is still available in their app.

Since Sonos doesn't work with either of these services (Note:  They finally added Google Play after I wrote this article... nearly a year after it was available on everything else), I would call that a downside.  I would suspect that Google Play is integrated nicely into Android phones, but people will need to research that for themselves since I don't own any Android devices.

Another option is a hard drive that connects to your system via ethernet.  The Seagate Central that currently starts at $129 for a 2 terabyte drive.  It has an Android and iOS app that gives you remote access and the ability to stream audio via Airplay in lossless formats.  It also does the cataloging of your music.  I prefer a Synology NAS (that start at $149 for a one slot diskless platform) and their fantastic DS Audio app, but it can cost more.  However, I would prefer any of these to buying and setting up a new router.

6.  "I am ignorant of Airplay and I refuse to buy Apple products, but Sonos makes the best product on the market" - Ummmm...  Then  buy a Sonos!  It doesn't hurt my feelings.  I don't work for Apple.  These are just my observations after researching both products.   Sonos spends a lot of money on marketing their solution and Apple spends next to nothing on Airplay.  As a result, a typical consumer may have no idea that there is another, much cheaper, device that does very similar things (some better, some worse).   This article was to help those people understand the differences.  It isn't to convert Apple haters that want to stay ignorant about Airplay.

7. It has been brought to my attention that this article seems to be biased toward Airplay.  Well, Airplay simply does more (video/photos), is compatible with more devices (Denon, Sony, McIntosh, Phillips, etc..) and apps (currently Downcast, iTunes Match, iTunes Music, YouTube, etc..), and usually costs less.  

It is hard not to sound biased.  Even Sonos knows this or they wouldn't have a web page promoting the benefits of Airplay ( of course, you have to read the small print to realize that you need an Airport Express to make it work):

As I mentioned in the article, there are some upsides to Sonos.  It really just comes down to a cost/benefit analysis of whether those upsides justify the price and the loss of features available via Airplay.   Of course,  Sonos seems to think you should just buy both systems and then you get the upsides of both systems...  I would recommend this if you actually need those features and price is of no concern.

Yep, I have had my trusty iPhone 4s for two years and I plan to stick with it until the iPhone 6 comes out, or at least until it is introduced.  

The iPhone 5s looks interesting but the new features just aren't enough to make me want to sign another 2 year contract or pay full price for a new phone.  Let me explain the top 5 ways I currently use the phone and it may help explain why I am not updating:

1.  Other than phone calls, it is mainly used for emailing.  The iPhone 4s is perfectly fine for checking and reading email.

2.  Audio - I use iTunes Match, Downcast, MOG, SiriusXM, and iHeart radio on nearly a daily basis.  These work fine on the 4s.

3. Twitter - no issues on the 4s.

4.  Rowmote Pro - helps control a Mac Mini and jailbroken AppleTV that are hooked up to a TV.  The smaller more balanced design of the 4s is probably better than the longer 5 for this purpose.

5. Calendar, alarms, Siri - all work perfectly fine now.

In short, adding some length to the iPhone 4s and a little better processing power just won't change the way I use my phone.  The fingerprint reader would save a minute or so per day, but it is not worth the contract and price of a new phone for this purpose.  Also, while the camera (especially the flash) is supposed to be better, it still has a lot of compromises without a real zoom and 8MP files.  The downside to 8MP is the inability to use cropping as a way to zoom in on a far off subject.  I don't shoot video very often, so the slow motion effect doesn't hold any appeal.  In other words, these would offer little change in the way I use my iPhone.  Also, right now my iPad 3 and iPhone 4S use the same connectors.  I have a mount in my car based on this connector.  As a result, I am not in a big hurry to change to the new connector.

One of the main problems for old tech is simply boredom with seeing the same thing everyday.  It is why a lot of people choose to update annually.  However, with iOS7, I feel like new life has been breathed into the iPhone 4s.  It is already like having a new iPhone.

The only thing that would change the way I use the phone would be a larger size.   I would use Safari more often, Flipboard more often, Snapseed more often, and it would simply change the way I use my phone.  Yeah, I know Samsung makes great, large phones that would fit my needs, but I don't want to give up Airplay, Photostreaming, and the other features that work across the Apple system.  

Apple changes the physical form of the iPhone every other year, so I am expecting a larger iPhone next year.  I believe they will really push Siri and say that you no longer need to touch the entire screen with one hand because Siri is so "magical".  I think this is already possible, but it won't be marketed until Apple brings out the larger phone next year.  I also think they will continue to improve Siri and it will make it easier for everyone to envision using it on a more frequent basis.  I noticed just the other day that I can now ask Siri to take me to Bluetooth settings and it will take me right into Settings so I can connect to any of my Bluetooth devices.

If, for some crazy reason, Apple decides to keep the long, narrow design next year, I will have to unhappily move to another system.   I will just have to get used to using my iPad for Airplay and figure out a way to move photo files from whatever system I choose to my iPad and network for editing.  I have a Synology NAS that will probably make that easier than I expect.  I just haven't put in the time to investigate this issue because of my current expectations for the iPhone 6.

There were rumors this week that Apple was testing a ...wait for it... 6 INCH IPHONE!  Yep, here is the story from MacRumors.

While there is no guarantee that Apple will actually make a phone this large, it is encouraging to know that they are at least looking at a design that is bigger than the current iPhone 5.  

Personally, I have a tiny iPhone 4S and my contract is up in October.  Actually, I had offers to trade it in earlier, but decided against it.  In the new age of LTE and having a fast connection all the time, my desire for a larger iPhone has only increased.

As I have explained on my Mac Attack page, I switched to using Mac computers after I bought my first iPad (the Original).  My enthusiasm for Apple was at an all time high and my love for their ecosystem only solidified that opinion.  I still love their ecosystem, but their choice of going with a thin "bookmark" (per David Pogue) design for the iPhone 5 was a disappointment.

While I wish that a bigger size was coming out this year, it isn't supposed to happen.  As a result, I have decided to wait until 2014 to see if they increase the size (width).  With Siri, is it really all that important to be "one hand" friendly?  I personally don't think so.   Personally, I use my iPad more than my iPhone and I can' t remember every wishing I could stretch my thumb all the way across the screen.  Unfortunately, if they stick with the "bookmark"  design next year, I am going to switch to one of the new phones from another company.  Apple knows that many of their clients want larger phones, so I expect them to make one.  

By the way, I don't know if a 6 inch phone is too big to fit in a pocket, but I suspect that Apple knows that it will need to fit in a pocket if it is going to be popular.   Also, some people will say that they followed other companies that make larger phones, but I really don't care.  They just need to make a better large phone...  The last time I checked, they didn't invent the smartphone, either.  They just made it better.

Macrumors published a report that a 5 inch iPhone may be on the way this year.   Wow!  The rumor definitely created a ton of controversy!   There were posters that said that Apple was doomed, others said they were now a market follower rather than a leader, and others seemed to be happy to have more choice.

One of the main comments is that Apple made a huge point of saying that the iPhone 5 was operable with one hand.  In reality, they could put a phone feature in the iPad mini and it could be operated with one hand as they continue to improve Siri.  You can already make calls with one hand without typing by simply telling Siri to call your contact.  Texting can also be done with Siri.  Calendar, reminders, alarms, checking sports scores, calculations, etc.. can all be done with one hand using Siri (assuming you can hold the device in one hand, there is no pressing need to be able to hit every button on the screen with one hand).  

A better feature would be to have a larger screen for when you want to use it for Safari, navigation, or just about anything else that is visual.  Most, if not all, apps have the ability to speak your demands rather than typing them.  I have an iPhone 4S and mainly bought it for Siri and the better camera.  Even when my contract is up, I don't see a pressing need to change to the iPhone 5 for the extra length.  It just isn't enough of an update to make me change the way I use the iPhone.  

A 5 inch phone, on the other hand, would definitely be worth an upgrade.  While many are crediting Samsung with the invention of the larger screen phone, I believe it was around with HTC before Samsung got into that market.  However, Samsung has captured the large phone market because Apple isn't even competing at this point.  If you want a larger phone, and many people do, you have to go with another operating system.  To me, it seems like Apple is leaving money on the table and pushing people that want a larger phone to Android.  When my contract is up, I sure hope Apple has entered that market.  Otherwise, I will wait until they no longer offer firmware updates on the 4s before changing my phone.  At that point, I would definitely consider other vendors even if I prefer to stick with iOS because of the cross pollination of apps with my iPad and the ability to use iTunes Match, photo streaming, etc.

I have read posts that make the point that they already make the iPad and the iPad mini for those that want iOS with a larger screen.  I happen to own an iPad 3 and I definitely prefer the screen to the iPhone 4S.  However, I don't always have it with me.  I usually just carry my keys, wallet, and iPhone.  Why would I want to always lug around another device?  I want something that can fit in my pocket and can be carried with me all the time.  I am sure a 5 inch iPhone would fit that description.

I think having two iPhones that don't attract the market that wants the largest possible screen that can fit in a typical pocket is pushing customers away from Apple.  I know people that have switched from iOS for this reason.  Why not offer more choice?  There isn't a downside to adding another size that will attract customers and possibly bring some of the customers that switched back to Apple.  I am not saying they should stop making a smaller iPhone, I just think they should offer more choice.  

The article below (scroll down the page) was on one of my old blog sites and I recently tracked it down because of all of the new comments about the iPhone 5.

A thread was recently started on a forum I frequent that discussed Apple's new power cable for the new iPhone and the conversation, as per usual, became a troll haven for comments about Apple and all of Apple's products....once again leaving the subject at hand to learn about someone's personal irrational feelings.

Some of the new comments are similar to the old:

1.  Apple's customer service is a joke:  While one person's experience is their experience, you have to look at these things in total because some customers may be idiots that demand things that are irrational.  Articles from last year:

Apple tops in customer satisfaction for 8th year

Apple ranked highest in customer satisfaction among smartphone manufacturers

Given the surveys above, it shows that they still lead the industry in satisfaction for computers and smartphones.

2.  Apple has a the highest customer satisfaction rate in the industry  because their users don't know how to use a computer (this is the summary of one very long post):  Apple's users are like any other user base.  They want a product that works with little headaches.  The user base is made of people that are tech geeks (ever heard of jailbreaking?) and people that just want a reliable device for their basic needs.  There are similar people that use Windows and Android, but their customers are not as satisfied.  

3.  The iPhone lacks features of other phones:  The most quoted missing feature is Flash.  Personally, I am glad they didn't support it.  It forced websites to move to HTML5.  Here is an article on why this change is for the better.  That being said, Apple has allowed browsers in their app store that support Flash websites.  I have tested the Photon app on my iPad and it ran Flash.   Needless to say, I won't be needing it for Flash very often since most sites have an app or HTML5 available...thanks Apple! 

4.  The new iPhone 5 is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary:  Let's be honest, the last revolutionary hardware in the smartphone market was the original iPhone.  Just because Samsung apparently stole the blueprints and then made a bigger device, it doesn't make it revolutionary.  It is a tweak to what was already on the market.. a touchscreen interface with apps.  Given the size limitations that require the phone to fit in a pant pocket (for most people), it limits the ways you can fundamentally change the form factor.  I think back to The Office (television show) episode where they were using triangle phones.  This is a perfect example of a revolutionary change, if you don't mind the small inconvenience of 3 pointy ends and a holster that would hold such a device.  Not really for mass public consumption.

In addition to allowing for Flash in apps, Apple's ecosystem has gotten more sophisticated.  Siri, Photostream, iCloud, etc.. are all major changes to how I use my iPhone.  Here are a few examples:

a.  I want to set a Reminder:  I simply pick up the phone, push a button and tell it the time and date I want to be reminded and I am all set.  It also works for alarms and calendar entries.

b.  I want to take photos on my iPhone and edit them on a Mac:  I simply take the photo and it automatically puts it in my Photostream.  When I sit down at my computer, it is already there waiting to be edited.  I also use this with an Eyefi card, so I am not limited to the iPhone's camera.

c.  I want to backup my very large music collection:  I subscribed to iTunes Match, so my ~23,000 song collection is now on the web in 256k format.  This is great (so great that Amazon has copied the feature) for backing up a collection in case of a catastrophe at home.  I know it is not lossless, like my home collection, but it is better than not having any of the collection I have built over the years.

d.  I want to access the music I backed up in iTunes Match:  I simply push a button on the iPhone and tell it to play an album.  It will then go out to the cloud, find the album and start playing.  This beats shuffling through my collection to find an album or artist.

e.  I want to play that music over my speakers:  If I am at home, I simply push the Airplay button on the iPhone and pick the Airplay device I want to use.  If I want to play it over my main system, it will turn on my Denon receiver and allow me to control volume from the Music app.  It works with most audio apps in my collection.

f.  I want to take a photo and see it on my AppleTV: Since AppleTV is hooked up to Photostream, my photos automatically show up.  It also works with iTunes Match for when my Mac Mini is off.

These are just a few of the important new features that make it hard to leave Apple.  With IOS6 around the corner, I am sure there will be more.

Read below for the old post I was referring to above

Why not feed the trolls?
My canned response related to Apple products that I own

Back in 2003, I bought my first iPod. It was the 2nd Gen version that had a firewire port and predated iTunes on the PC. It was one of the few models out at the time that had 20GB of storage space. Over the course of time, I have gathered a few more products (Shuffle, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPhone 3GS, Airport Express, and iPad, respectively). In my quest for more information related to gadgets and audio, I participate in a few online forums. What amazes me is that whenever I mention any Apple product, I get some ludicrous comments from one or more members. As a result, I am creating this blog entry to put in my signature link that can respond to these comments without derailing every thread in which an Apple product is mentioned into a debate about Apple.

Below are some of the most common comments and my reponse to them. If you want to add further comments, use the comment button, send me an email, or PM over your issue using the forum where you got this link, and I will try to answer the comments here:

1. You are an Apple Fanboy - this is by far the most common comment to any of my (or others) posts related to Apple devices. The comment is meant to imply that I only like Apple products because of some sort of blind loyalty to the company. This would make sense if I did not also own two portable players by Creative and own several computers running Windows.

2. Apple products are gimmicky – I think some people confuse ease of use and cutting edge devices as gimmicky. iPod hit the scene back in 2001. By 2007, over 100 million iPods had been sold. A gimmick is a “quirky feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value”. Most people do not think of ease of use, apps for everything, 160GB hard drive space, etc.. as quirky features.

3. Faddish - A fad usually means that it is a product that is fashionable for a short period of time and then disappears. The iPod is not going anywhere. Also, I would argue that other players are much more faddish. An iPod is about as common as wearing socks. A SanDisk player (for example) is much more likely to be faddish because of their small market share and its flavor of the month status in some circles.
Edit: Woot had a deal on SanDisk Sansa Fuze and I bought one for comparison purposes. It was cheap, which is its main benefit and has decent EQ choices. Personally, I don’t think portable devices and EQ work that well together unless you live near a subway or have to take a bus and just want to mess with settings. I still prefer the iPod Touch because it is much better at a lot of stuff. Also, I don’t think it needs EQ out of the box like the Sansa. From what I understand, there are very good EQ apps available at the Apple app store, but I have not tried them.

4. Trying to look cool - Many have their own interpretations of “cool”. However, if owning an exceptional product is part of being cool, then I guess some buy them for the coolness factor. However, they are only cool because the product is viewed by the buyer as an exceptional device.

5. Trendy – How trendy can something be when 100 million+ devices have been sold? Once again, iPods have been around for 10 years. If they are still trendy, it is because of their exceptionalism when compared to the rest of the market. There is also news out that the iOS devices have now sold over 100 million, too.

6. Build Quality is suspect – I am sure every brand of electronic device has had an example of it being broken or just stopped working at some point. I still own a fully functional 2nd Gen iPod. So, from that perspective, I would say that this iPod is exceptionally well built. My 1st gen shuffle also works like it did the day I bought it.

Also, the fact that the popularity has not diminished seems to point to the fact that people are happy enough with the product to buy a new version of one. This is extremely common for iPhones and iPods. If people were miserable with the build quality, why would they buy the new version when it came out? There are many other options…many that appear to be copied directly from Apple. The fact is that the build quality is good enough for most people.

Sound quality sucks – I think that this is marketing hype put out by companies trying to get some market share. The fact is that sound quality is in the ear of the beholder. I would not argue if someone claimed that they prefer the sound of a Fisher Price record player to a VPI Scout. It is their opinion. The fact is some like tubes, some like solid state, some like analog, and some like digital. Its not an absolute. However, Apple makes some of the most flexible players if you want to improve on the small amps and DACs in a portable player.

There are many LODs (line out docks) that skip the internal amp to send the sound to a better portable amp (PA2V2 and Fiio E5 are two products I own). Also, if you want to spend the money, you can get a Pure, Wadia or Onkyo dock that will allow you to dig out the digital stream and send it to a better DAC (digital to analog converter). Most portable players have no way of doing this.

For the iPad, you can get the camera connector and send out a digital signal to a DAC via USB. Once again, this is not possible on most devices. While some people may appreciate Sony’s tweaked sound (for example), the fact is that most of their players do not even support compressed lossless formats (FLAC, WMA Lossless, etc..). As a result, the source file is lossy and I would argue garbage in/garbage out.

Edit (1/9/11) For the record, the iOS devices will now play FLAC if you want to download the FLACPlayer or one of the other apps in the Apple Store that make it possible. Personally, to me, lossless is lossless and I have no problems with ALAC.

Edit (1/9/11): Apple has made the USB a little more of a pain to use with unpowered devices. It now requires a T3hub (which tricks it) to work with my uDac. However, they added Airplay which gives it (and iPhones and the iPod Touch running the latest firmware) the ability to stream audio from the the iOS device to the AppleTV, Airport Express, certain receivers and speakers. I did an update for my Denon 4311CI receiver and I just tell the iPad to send the audio stream to my receiver and it will turn on the receiver and begin to play music. It also has volume control right on the iOS device. What other company makes devices with this type of flexibility? Also, best of all, this update from Apple was FREE!

(Edit) Apple is great at marketing – Yes, they have features the other guys don’t (or didn’t before they were copied), so it is easy to market them. Also, no one is saying Sony can’t market its mp3 players, but somehow they can market the PS3. Maybe marketing works better if you have a unique device that has features no one else has?

While the above are general comments that appear in any discussion of any Apple device, here are some popular comments related to specific products:

iPhone
The iPhone requires a jailbreak to be useful - OS4 should have put an end to this complaint. With it, you now have multitasking…which is the reason I jailbroke my 3GS. While many gadget fiends like myself will jailbreak, mod, and push a product past its basic commercial limits, it does not mean these products are useless before geeks get ahold of them.

There are better phones on the market - I don’t think there is a better phone for me. I like to have functionality across platforms. For instance, I download the Orb app to my iPhone. I then sync it to my computer. After that, I sync my iPad and iTouch to my computer and now I have Orb on all three devices. It is simplicity at its best. I also like the way the “Remote” app integrates with iTunes on my computer.

iPad

Here are a couple to address some concerns:
Its a big Touch – umm…yeah…that is why I wanted it. If someone wants to argue that a 3.5 inch screen is better than a 9.7 inch screen for anything visual, I would just have to say they are a liar. Fortunately for the iPad, the 9.7 inch screen makes it better for Netflix, Orb, ABC, USA Today, Pulse, Zinio, Pandora, etc.. The Touch is only more portable…but comes in handy when you need a pocket device and don’t own an iPhone.

A netbook does more – Who cares? My laptop does more than a netbook. My swiss army knife does more than my butcher knife. The question is what you use it for and how well it does those tasks. Have you tried chopping meat with a swiss army knife? Most people have netbooks for quickly getting on the net. They like them for their portability and battery power when compared to a laptop. However, it has a keyboard that takes up half the space. As a result, the iPad is easier to read on, carry from room to room, and it is faster to boot up. In other words, a netbook may do some things that iPad doesn’t, but I would use it much less… We own an MSI netbook and I would gladly trade it in for another iPad. At this point, I also use it A LOT more than my fairly new laptop. Form factor is everything!

iPod Classic 160GB – I rarely post about this product, but I have a good reason for selecting it instead of Cowon (which I also like). My car has a plug in that works with iPods. It allows the user to control what is playing (via genre, playlist, album, artist) using the head unit or the steering wheel controls. There is not another brand that will work with it, so it is what it is. However, the fact that so many accessories (I also have a Sendstation pocket dock for attaching my iPhone to my car’s USB input) are made specifically for Apple devices makes them more user friendly than other devices. I should also mention that I wanted 160GB, so I could use lossless files.

Ipod Touch – I got one of these while I was locked into using a Treo on Sprint. The apps and the wifi capabilities are incredible. While I rarely use it since I got an iPhone, it is what got me interested in apps and the iPhone. It also has an LOD output that allows it to be used with outboard amps. The new version also works with airplay.

Airport Express – Inexpensive music server. Unlike the Roku Soundbridge I also own, it does not take up any desktop space. It can be controlled using the Remote app. Edit (1/9/11) It also supports Airplay which means I can fire up audio on my iPad and it will play it back on this device.

While I am not saying that Apple devices are perfect, AT&T for the iPhone in the USA is an issue (Edit..obviously, Verizon now has the iPhone, too), I am saying that making a bunch of ignorant comments about them anytime they are mentioned serves no purpose…other than derailing threads to a point that the original post is no longer being considered. Admit it, Apple makes some decent products.

(Since I lost all of my old articles, thanks to moving to a new host, I am reposting some of my old articles…Thanks to Google for the ability to get the old articles from their cache.)

As I have mentioned, I got a new camera, and unfortunately, it does not include GPS data with the photos.  Of course, Canon has a nice solution for you....however, it costs over $250 and attaches to the  flash hot shoe.  From what I can tell, you can't use a flash while using the GPS (GP-E2).

I was preparing for a trip to the Smoky Mountains and decided to try out a cheaper solution.  The iPhone has several apps for GPS tracking, but I went with Geotag Photos Pro ($3.99) after reading some reviews online.   They do have a free version, but I did not try it.

When I arrived in the mountains, I opened the app, synchronized the time with my camera and started a "new trip" and began recording.  Since I was not getting a signal from AT&T at the location, I was wondering if the app would actually work.  To my surprise, it had no problems.  

The iPhone battery does burn down faster than it would in sleep mode, but I got through a day of shooting with about half the battery left.  We weren't in my vehicle, so I was unable charge the phone during the day (note to self:  buy a car charger).

At some point, I gave the app my email address and then I uploaded the logged data.  When I got back home, I setup a password on their website and downloaded their desktop app.  Once I had the app installed, I opened it, chose the folder with the photos and had it attach the GPS data.  

After several hours, it finished attaching the GPS data to my 1300 or so RAW files.  I am not sure if it takes less time with smaller jpegs, but you may want to keep this in mind if you need to work with your folders quickly.   Also, I made the mistake of importing my files into Lightroom before attaching the GPS information.   The GPS data did not automatically attach, so I had to remove the photos from Lightroom and reimport them.   The GPS data was now there and I was able to click on the map and see the location of the photos.

Since I have so many photo files, I can't say for sure that all of them have correct data, but with the several files I have checked, the location seems correct ( I was in the mountains, so it is a bit difficult to pinpoint the exact location of a photo.  I would like to try it in the city before saying for sure).

After attaching the GPS, I still had issues uploading the information to Flickr from Lightroom.  However, I exported the photo to Aperture and didn't have any issues with the GPS information being attached.  Click the picture below to see the map (on the right of the photo):

As you can tell, I like this app.  For $3.99, it is a bargain!

I was recently visiting New Orleans and decided to bring along an iPhone and Canon Point and Shoot (SX200 IS).  I figured I could pull out the P&S when I had a need for more zooming and use the iPhone for most everything else.

Well, it worked out pretty well, accept for the fact that it rained.  We were able to get out and about with umbrellas, but the ability to take photos was hampered by the fact that I did not want to get my iPhone or Canon wet.

When I got home, I started to think about getting a water resistant case.  We have a pool in the backyard, so I already have a bag that you can put an iPhone or Touch in and keep it from getting wet.  The main issue is that the bag makes  it difficult to hear the speaker, makes it difficult to talk if the phone rings, and most importantly, makes it hard to navigate the screen.  

 There are some companies that let you send in your iPhone and they actually  add an invisible layer that is supposed to make the iPhone water resistant.  I looked into this, but they said you should not submerge your phone.  This made me question the integrity of this solution, so I decided to go with the more bulky route.

I have a coworker that has a LifeProof case to protect her phone from her two young children and she said it worked great once you get used to the feel of the screen.  I decided to go ahead and buy the white LifeProof case to go with my iPhone.

When I received the box, there were some instructions to test the case before putting it on the phone.  Their website has some great setup videos that you can watch, too.  I put the empty case in the sink ,  then filled the sink with water, and then placed a coffee cup on it  to keep it underwater for their recommended hour.   It worked without a leak.  I was then ready to test it with the iPhone.

I put the case on, made sure everything was tight and took it out to the pool.

As you can see, I completely submerged the iPhone.  It is recommended that you do not take the case below 6.6 feet, but they say they have tested it without issues deeper than that.  My pool is around 9 feet deep, so if I ever drop it in the deep end, I might (unfortunately) have a chance to see if I reach the actual limits.  

When the phone is submerged, you cannot use the touch screen.  Therefore, if you want to shoot video, you have to start recording before going underwater.  I shot video, snapped pics using the volume buttons (so working in the rain is not an issue at all), and it works great.  The one issue is that I use the phone to send bluetooth audio to a stereo setup I have near the pool, but when you take the phone underwater, you lose the connection.  It probably isn't possible to send bluetooth through water, but thought I would mention it anyway.

There are some issues besides the extra bulkiness compared to most cases.  The dock connector has a hinge over the dock connector  that is easy to open (so be careful not to open it in water!!!), but it is a pain if you use a dock.  Since the hinge only folds back about half way, you also have to maneuver an Apple connector to fit in the hole properly.

Luckily, they sell something called a dock extender that makes it possible to dock your iPhone with the case on.  The extender costs $24.99, which seems pretty outrageous, but if you want to put your iPhone in an Apple Dock (or most docks), you will need it.   My main issue is that you now have the iPhone sitting higher than usual, which may put stress on the dock connector.  Also, in my car, it puts the iPhone up so much higher that it is no longer supported by my Pro Clip mount.   I think it may be possible to put something between the mount and the phone that could help support it (I got some little rubbery things that came with some speakers that would probably work), but I decided to just keep the iPhone off the dock for now.  The extender does not detach easily from the iPhone, so it requires some fiddling to get it apart.  Not something I want to deal with every time I use it in the car.

The other issue is that the sound while talking on the iPhone is a bit different than using the iPhone without the case.  It is tolerable, but sounds a bit more tinny to my ears.   Also, they claim to use the back of the case as a subwoofer to give it a "richer, fuller sound", but I prefer the sound of the iPhone speaker without the case.  I also found that it sounded better with the dock connector cover open.  Not really a big deal for me since I mainly dock it, use airplay, or use bluetooth for audio.  

Another issue is that the headphone port does not work with most headphones or mini plug adapters without their included headphone adapter.  While most other cases I have used have issues with some headphones, this is the first case I have owned that would not work with one of the cheap adapters for recessed headphone jacks.   

It may sound like I do not like the LifeProof case, but overall, I am still happy with it.  I dock the iPhone at work and home, so I am okay without docking it in the car.   Also, the ability to have the iPhone near the pool (or in my hands while floating around on the water) so that I can control what is playing over bluetooth, check email, answer the phone, etc.. is fantastic.  The fact that I can also shoot video for pool parties is cool, too.   That being said, after I close the pool for the winter, I will most likely switch to another case just because of the docking issues.  For me, this would be the perfect protective case if they could resolve that one major issue.