Talk:Portable media player

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Mobile digital media player)
Jump to: navigation, search

First DAP[edit]

Koryosaram: Stop deleting the section about the player, I've done the research, this is the first commercially available DAP. I'm NOT USING SELF PUBLISHED SOURCE, obviously, the link is the original website at If you delete this a third time then I will seek remedy with higher authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinv311 (talkcontribs) 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How many songs[edit]

how many songs does the Zune hold

Ok... are you sure you are in the right place to ask a question? If it has 30GB, it would have the same capacity as a 30GB Creative Zen, or a 30GB Apple iPod. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it can hold the same amount of songs consider the different file formats the players support
Whoever you are, please sign your name. And a 30GB Zune can approximately play 7500 songs, judging from cellphone advertisements claiming 4GB phones can play a 1000 songs. Since you're asking for commercial information, I give you that with a commercial source. And shouldn't you ask, "How many songs does a 30GB MP3 player hold?" --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, guess all the poor people who read this will think wikipedia is pro zune and thus microsoft, the entire linux community will ban us. And hell zune is a copyright and he didn't put it on. Hell this has international scandle written all over it. Someone using a product name to ask a question about a product in a discussion forum, I don't know how these people sleep at night.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. That's why I decided not to answer that anonymous poster's question, but provide related information that may suit his/her needs. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|24-14-4 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the 2nd anonymous post was me, and while I agree this is not a forum, just to finish it off, the estimated 7500 songs is based on a 128kbps Mpeg Layer-3 audio file that is 210 seconds in length (there are also formatting factors with the harddrive so you won't really get 30GB)TMV943 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Against Chinese MP4/MTV Player Merge[edit]

While this article summarizes the general characteristics of all portable media players worldwide, original of fake, Chinese MP4/MTV Player focuses on Chinese-made-and-designed players; many are pirated or imitations of popular brands. A "no brainer"? Go figure. Chinese MP4/MTV Player should be expanded to include information about the labour status in China, and what causes the companies there to make fakes.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese media players" is no more of a sensible article subject (note: article, not category) than lesbian biochemists. It makes little sense to have a subcategory when the main page is currently a stub. If the article is being used specifically to point out fakeness issues, that's pretty blatant WP:SOAP. Chris Cunningham 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't you propose a deletion of that article?--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? Most of the content is good and applies just as well to generic media players as to Chinese ones. A merge would be more constructive. I'd probably go for a deletion of Chinese MP4/MTV Player if if were just a redirect to this article, yes, but first we need to merge. Chris Cunningham 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would support a merge if there wasn' that much information in the Chinese MP4 players article. I have been to China myself, and I may not understand economics very well, but it is the unique history and controversy of those players that should be a separate article. No, I'm not trying to advertise or spread propaganda, or being biased (fake is a term to describe something that is not original. I don't see how this is not NPOV). But I thought that the articles should remain as such. Already, that article contains information about the causes of the companies making fake players and labelling them as MP4 players, if you read the History section. Creating a little section under Portable media players for the "MP4" players is doing injustice for researchers who want to know more about them, and readers who barely knew about them. After all, Wikipedia is about displaying real facts and figures for the world as much as possible. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. Well, regardless, that article is fairly long and detailed and this one isn't. The generic stuff should be moved here, and then we can have a discussion about whether the pecularities of the Chinese media player market warrant a detailed article to themselves. Chris Cunningham 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree; the two articles should remain separate, but the generic information should be moved here. The Chinese "MP4" players can be considered a separate subcategory, since they are so different from the commercial retail products we're so familiar with, and have a history and controversy of their own. I believe if these two articles should be merged, by the same logic we should merge the iPod, Zune, and Zen articles as well.--bicostp 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In a desperate attempt to discourage the merger of these two irrelevant articles, I am sorry to announce that I have added back the other two sections of this article. I know it's ridden with POV, Engrish, unstandardized content, lack of links, outdated info, original research etc. I will try to find some time and/or motivation to do a complete edit of them, and then maybe we'll see if those two articles should be merged. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete, I'm against merging though, but if it means saving the article, yes, please. Overall, this is probably an example of what an article should not be with a lot of unsourced and... generally, general information. You see, I'm not the casual Wikipedian, but I've made it my goal to maintain a single article and I have done that... I would say it's been more grammatically correct than all the nonsensical changes that have continuously and I stress, continuously been re-added, what it up with that? Sans Nom Reeves 02:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have decided that the "Downsides" section is POV-biased, and added two new ones (to be expanded, of course). --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Cant we list a few Portable Media Players? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Rsrikanth05 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you read WP:NOT thoroughly, and discover why it is not allowed? (You can, however, include PMPs in examples. That means you might need some effort to write. Like, "Portable media players with flash memory have reached 16GB, like the ZEN V Plus."(Don't copy this.)--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 06:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not I feel there needs to be some examples to help understanding--AresAndEnyo (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese MP4 player article merge "complete"[edit]

I've left the Chinese article separate, but I've moved almost all content which can be generalised in here. This means the MP4 player article is basically just a list of complaints, but at least it gives us some content to play with. Both articles need massive improvement. Chris Cunningham 09:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... without much consultation (and no other agreement of merger), you've decided to "merge" them, while leaving the MP4 article to be "basically just a list of complaints". (!) Is even beneficial for both articles, especially the MP4 one? And when you segregate the content of the MP4 article in each section of this article, people might think, "Oh, why not take out those info and place it in a new article?" What is the point, then? You might as well place them in 1 section. But the host article contains LESS information than the Chinese MP4 players one, not the other way around. (Go see Digital audio player.) Even if I agreed to merge, I wouldn't take such drastic steps.
... Or maybe I need to clarify my own opinion. I have already stated earlier that it "is doing injustice for researchers who want to know more about them, and readers who barely knew about them. After all, Wikipedia is about displaying real facts and figures for the world as much as possible." If I would read an article like this one, I might expect it to summarize the general information of portable media players; information about the common characteristics. If there was little information on one article and the general article has more, then merge, of course.
Well, the least you can do is to place all the information on the MP4 players in one section, and maybe it will seem OK. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See two whole sections above for the "consultation". The alternative was to sit about and wait for the articles to fix themselves which was na-ga-happen.
I am still to hear what the definition of "MP4 player" is, from a real, normative source, if not just a cheap PMP which has various flaws. As such, I took anything which said "generic PMP" from the Chinese article and moved it here. Unsurprisingly, the result was that the Chinese article became little more than a collection of rants about deceitful advertising and bad manuals. So I tagged it.
If it can be definitively stated that various media formats or functionality are exclusive to Chinese MP4 players then I'm up for moving said items back to the article. But I haven't seen any of that. Almost everything is qualified by an undefined "most", "some" or "nearly all", which is hardly definitive. Chris Cunningham 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no more arguments. I've got the stuff taken from the Chinese MP4 article and remade, or rewrote based on them, into proper paragraphs. I will be planning, however, to segregate information regarding various features/specifications on Chinese players, like the support of those inexpensive codecs and a few others (and you still insisted, "If it can be definitively stated that various media formats or functionality are exclusive to Chinese MP4 players then I'm up for moving said items back to the article. But I haven't seen any of that." I know there are non-Chinese players which are like them, but they are very rare in number.) I'm sorry, but I would also be removing information based on original research and opinion, such as the speculation of Archos' inspiration on Chinese manufacturers, naming them "MP4 players" as commercial value, and whatnot. It's still a work in progress, but I am doing what I can do with the time I have. Don't worry, there's much more to go before this article is even worthy of FA-class. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Good work. Thanks a lot for your work on this. Chris Cunningham 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So you guys did a merge? What happened to all the general information? I don't see it on the main article here. Sans Nom Reeves 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Read my long reply on the "the focus?" section. But I suppose it was a "copy-those-info-from-that-article-and-filter-it", not a "merge". --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

the focus?[edit]

after the merge with the Chinese players (which still has it's own article), this article seems more focused on them then PMPs in general, I think the only other players mentioned are the Clix and Archos Jukebox. TMV942 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we're working on it. This is actually an unauthorized merge, or the other article would be deleted. I will be personally squeezing all information - which are really essential of PMPs in general - and remake them into proper paragraphs, while segregating stuff about Chinese players (including their almost unique support of AMV, MTV|, ATV (Note: In my opinion, 'MTV' and 'ATV' could just be container formats created by the Chinese for commercial value, to cash in on TV networks MTV and the Hong Kong station of the same initials), SMV, etc) into another. Looks a little better already! --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The article needed expansion already. Feel free to help out! Chris Cunningham 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
why is the article on the Chinese players under Supported file formats? 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright... there is certainly some confusion here. You guys had seen the merge tags on both articles and suddenly... there's stuff from the Chinese article directly pasted on this article - which I had converted anything useful from that into proper paragraphs. Now, from what I understand, Thumperward/Chris Cunningham had proposed a "merge" (may be a wrong term for his actions) between the two articles. While the Wikipedia community, represented by 3 users including me, opposed "it", Thumperward went on to do an unauthorized "merge" - extracting any "relevant" content from the Chinese article to this one as this article badly needed expansion - while leaving the other intact. Anyway, I had to literally filter the "relevant" content, do some research, and... there you go so far. The one part which was specific to Chinese players (as I've mentioned... "including their almost unique support of AMV, MTV") had its mini-section... you know what? Once all those content is filtered, I don't think this article'd be recognizable to the other. A big thanks to Thumperward for (and I'm sure that's the right words) suggesting to use the Chinese MP4/MTV Player article as a foundation to expand Portable media player. (Sorry for the long-windedness. XD Trying to explain something here!) --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discussedits) 09:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pic of the PMP[edit]

Why there is some cheap rip-off of Meizu M6 pictured? This isn't a PMP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it even matter? At least it doesn't represent any major manufacturers (Neutrality) and it's quite generic. What's with the insult? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|12-9-2 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And what if there were more pictures in the article of an assortment of players TMV943 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable history left out[edit]

The History section ought to include the following things:

  • The iPod, the most popular portable media player for five years running.
  • Early devices: portable tape players, walkmen. Technically, they're portable and they play media.

--nblschool (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are in the Digital audio player article, I think. Please read the description of this article first before discussing. --PenaltyKillahJw21 09:09, 11 August 2008

True, but these are considered portable media players, especially given that they now play more than just audio. Addidionally, the transition to the use of two classes of multifunction devices as PMPs(UMPCs and smartphones) should be mentioned, as these are now becoming new standards for the industry. --nblschool (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think this article should be combined with the article: digital audio player (mp3 player)? I mean they are almost the same thing. one can only play audio files and the other can play audio and video WHRM3 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You could as well copy the smartphone history section to the history section of this article. Nowadays nearly every phone (smartphone or feature phone) costing more than Euro 70,- is a portable media player. Andries (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


The article lists that all PMP devices have screens, but there are media players that don't have screens, and are designed to be plugged into a television. Most of these aren't portable, but ones like the andisk Sansa TakeTV are designed to be very portable... Mattpace (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

TakeTV isn't a PMP even though it has a Sansa branding, you can't really play media on the go, its more like a HD media player but with low capacity flash memory TMV943 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Digital audio player[edit]

The topic this article covers (digital media) is already covered in that other article, so I don't see the need for duplication. -or- We could change the focus to be more general, and include analog as well as digital media. After all my old Walkman is a portable media player, even though it uses old-fashioned cassettes. ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)(jared masias was here)

I agree. The terms are nearly synonymous anyways. Scy1192 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I support a merge. I have put up merge banners suggesting Digital audio player be merged into this article. I don't feel strongly about the details but do there is unnecessary overlap between these two articles and something should be done. --Kvng (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
little activity in this direction and the digital audio player article is fairly long; i think we could tolerate having two distinct articles, especially as audio-only players are still available. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose the merge, because digital audio players have a different history than portable media players and also I think that digital audio players will continue to exist because they can be made much cheaper than portable media players or smartphones. Andries (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm restoring the merge banners until we're done with this discussion. While Digital audio player is long, Portable media player is short. The merge will not be difficult, nor will we end up with an unmanageable article. By the definitions put forth in the leads of the respective articles, all portable audio players are also digital media players. In the articles, I do not see a distinct history for the purported two classes of devices. Portable media player#History is an unfinished subset of Digital audio player#History. --Kvng (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose because the terms are not synonymous. Marcus Qwertyus 03:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What exactly distinguishes the two in your opinion? --Kvng (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because audio and media players are different. In addition the digital audio player is a long article that will lose a lot of information if merged. JDDJS (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Portable media player is short so the resulting article would look more like Digital audio player than Portable media player. Would you be supportive if we changed the merge destination to be Digital media player? --Kvng (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Digital media player doesn't have very much common usage. Let me know if you intend to create though. Marcus Qwertyus 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose They are different things. A portable media player can be both digital and analog. And a digital audio player can be both portable and stationary. Alex³ (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I assume you infer from reading the titles. If you read the leads of the articles, you see that they're both talking about players that are digital and portable. --Kvng (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing that says you can't cover different but related things in a single article. We have two incomplete articles with some overlap. The merge would make for a single complete article without overlap. If you oppose to the merge, I encourage you to help complete the articles and eliminate overlap. --Kvng (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No one opposing the merge has made any improvements to try and address the issues. I have performed the merge and am working on smoothing it. Let's try to improve the article in this form for a while. If it doesn't work out, we can always split. --Kvng (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this article: dedicated portable media players[edit]

I think the scope of this article should be limited to devices that are either dedicated portable media players or devices that have as main function portable media players. In other words, I think this article and the corresponding category should not be mobile phones, because that would make it too broad. Andries (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Smart phones need to be mentioned because they're sucking up the market once occupied by these devices. I agree that we should not try to cover phones here. --Kvng (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


How did this happen?

Other features
Some portable media players have recently added features such as simple camera, built in game emulation (playing Famicon or other game formats from ROM images) and simple text readers and editors

Under Hardware section it says that the media player can have text readers and editors. I don't this this is a hardware component. As well the device's battery or microphone is not listed as a hardware component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Korean and English inventions[edit]

this article is placed under the categories Korean and English inventions, which doesn't make sense. Remove these? --Makkachin (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Excessive mention of non notable products?[edit]

just thought this page contains a lot of information that is neither notable or worth talking about... such as the model Cowon iAUDIO CW100.. far far far from notable. V-apharmd (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)