-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Download 2 000 MP3s with 1 GB?
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
rwenzori
Honorary Master
With a 1000MB what? Cattle-prod? Account? Maybe remove the "a".
TiredOfWaiting
Expert Member
Depends on the bitrate... at 32kbps you can stuff 2 minutes into 0.5 MBs.
Or a 30 second song at 128kbps...
Why is this misleading, they never made any claim as to the length of the MP3 song, did they???
Or a 30 second song at 128kbps...
Why is this misleading, they never made any claim as to the length of the MP3 song, did they???
feo
Honorary Master
Well you can't make any claims on how many mp3s you can download with a GB, depends on the quality and quality determines the file size. Also depends on the length of the song.
I can download 20 50MB podcasts which are in mp3 format, that's far from 290 so basically nobody should be able to claim that with x GBs you can download X mp3s or x video clips or whatever because not all mp3s and videos are the same length or quality.
And 1000MB != 1GB.
I can download 20 50MB podcasts which are in mp3 format, that's far from 290 so basically nobody should be able to claim that with x GBs you can download X mp3s or x video clips or whatever because not all mp3s and videos are the same length or quality.
And 1000MB != 1GB.
TiredOfWaiting
Expert Member
feo
Honorary Master
Because it uses the assumption that all mp3s are the same size i.e. about 3.5MB which isn't true.
TiredOfWaiting
Expert Member
No, your mind filled in those gaps.
It merely claims that the average size over 290 songs COULD be 3.5MB.
Personally I don't see why they had to retract the 2000 songs thing either.
It merely claims that the average size over 290 songs COULD be 3.5MB.
Personally I don't see why they had to retract the 2000 songs thing either.
feo
Honorary Master
Find me a 0.5MB song that's decent quality please.
And it's better not to make claims like these at all, just give us bandwidth and let us do what we want with it.
Because they put a figure to it (290)! Exactly what feo said.
Totally wrong and leaves the general public with little understanding wondering howcome they only got 100mp'3 (or whatever), out of the deal and not 290 as claimed.
TiredOfWaiting
Expert Member
ldmelsa
Executive Member
good point
feo
Honorary Master
But they made a claim on how many you could download with 1GB which IMPLIES that the songs are on average 3.5MB which gives an indication of quality depending on how it was encoded.
Nobody is gonna download 2000 songs at 0.5MB a pop where the bass sounds like an elephant having a diarrhea party now are they?
mancombseepgood
Executive Member
This is typical marketing twang. The general public are the ones being hoodwinked. You and I understand these things, but my friend's kid bro will push his folks to get it for "school projects" then hammer it with MP3's imagining the world is his oyster until mom gets the bill. It's manipulation. They can't sell the product on merit.
TiredOfWaiting
Expert Member
But they made a claim on how many you could download with 1GB which IMPLIES that the songs are on average 3.5MB which gives an indication of quality depending on how it was encoded.
Nobody is gonna download 2000 songs at 0.5MB a pop where the bass sounds like an elephant having a diarrhea party now are they?
Quality AND length of the song...
Those demo songs where you can download the first 30 seconds for free also qualifies as a song, even though it's only 30 seconds long. The quality would then be normal (128kbps) and still only be 0.5MB.
feo
Honorary Master
No it doesn't qualify as a song, it qualifies as a demo of a song.
Vie
Well-Known Member
Two problems with this. There should be some sort of qualification of these "statistics" by the person providing them, even if just to specify that they were worked out on some sort of average, in this case 3.5MB.
The second, is what Bradbowlllama described above. Are they just giving these unqualified statistics in an effort to try and coerce their users to misuse the information to their benefit.
Tiredofwaiting, but surely in the same light they shouldn't be allowed to make these sorts of misrepresentations, skewing the facts in their favour.
The second, is what Bradbowlllama described above. Are they just giving these unqualified statistics in an effort to try and coerce their users to misuse the information to their benefit.
Tiredofwaiting, but surely in the same light they shouldn't be allowed to make these sorts of misrepresentations, skewing the facts in their favour.
