How can anyone praise the iPod Shuffle?

[MXracer250F]

I really like that the Shuffle is cheap as dirt and all, but I can't think of one other thing it does right. I mean, it doesn't have a screen, it's battery life is less than adequate in a flash player market where the standard is 16 hours, it doesn't allow you to choose your songs individually, it has no extra features of any sort, and it's missing some of the accesories that should have come with it in the first place such as the arm band. Is it just me, or is this a major letdown. I would have bought the iPod flash in a heartbeat if it actually had a screen and allowed me to choose my own songs and such, but it doesn't. :(

It also eliminates several of the features that made the iPod so popular, such as the ease of use and scroll wheel. Sure, the Shuffle is easy to use but that's only because its so dumbed down. Also, why hype up the shuffle feature as if it was new when its on literally EVERY other flash and hard drive player on the market?! I mean, in reality the Shuffle is nothing more than a usb thumb drive with mp3 support and the Apple logo slapped on it. Talk about innovation! :| How can anyone praise it as a good player when it takes so many steps back from what the rest of the flash market is doing? Is this just first time jitters or what?

Sorry if I sound so mean, but I was looking forward to the flash Ipod so bad even though i'm not particularly into Ipods as evidenced by my post history. It seems kind of sad to wait this whole time in anticipation to only be horribly let down. There is no spin on this, the Shuffle isn't the leader in terms of anything other than price in the flash market, and that leaves me disappointed and stuck in a position of either waiting for Apple to release a new one or just buy a different brand entirely :mad:

[camster]

will people stop asking this question? the shuffle isn't supposed to compete with the ipod or the mini. it is for people that don't want to spend so much. its for people who don't want extra features. it's for people who want to say they have an ipod, but don't want to spend that much. if they added a screen, it would partly defeat the purpose, and make it more expensive. this question has been answered many times. it is not supposed to replace the ipod. it is not supposed to be better than the ipod. its for people who want to listen to music for a cheap price. you don't need a screen for that.

[unit]

Not expensive? I can get a fully featured flash-player for half the price. Seriously I thought Apple was taking the #### with the ipod photo (no direct connectivity with a camera et al) but this takes the cake.

I couldn't believe the glowing review on this morning - as if it was the most amazing revolutionary thing, and the fact that you could only play your music is shuffle-mode as amazing. Really I never play my music in shuffle. How long have flash-disk players been on the market again?

[2_hotty]

Where can you get a fully featured flash player, with 1gig of storage, for 75 bucks?



BTW, you can turn off the shuffle feature.

[Blue_Dawg]

you all are missing the target here. Joggers, and people work out regularly will eat this up. No hard drive so it won't skip and have problems like the iPod or the Mini. Just enough music to keep you busy during your workout or run, or bike ride. If you drop it no big deal, it will still play. There are tons of positives to this little music player. Stop being so critical of Apple.

[jerrodh]

I'm not blindly defending Apple here, but they truly have the concept of the flash player correct!

This is not the iPod for most current iPod owners.
This is not the iPod for feature freaks or geeks.

This is the iPod for young kids (my sister LOVES it!).
This is the iPod for moms (mine LOVES it!).
This is the iPod for anyone who can't spend a lot.
This is the iPod for the frequent exerciser.

...and as such, it's going to sell like hotcakes. You not getting it is irrelevant. :D

[unit]

Ok I can get a creative muvo for the same price - which has a screen, the ability to select tracks, an fm radio and 15 hours battery life for the same price. Imagine that.

The whole point of a flash point player is a small number of tracks that can be updated for daily use. If i was in the market for a flash-based player I'd rather get one that acrtually allows me to select the track, even if it were 256mb. Frankly I'd much rather live with the 256 as opposed to the 512 or 1Gb, and have a screen and the ability to select tracks.

And so, yes I'm quite justified in being critical of apple. I think this and the photo are cynical products, and they're taking the p@ss. some people are so blinkered that apple could sell the public a minimalist white turd and they'd think it was the 2nd coming....

[DilbertLand]

Originally posted by camster
will people stop asking this question? the shuffle isn't supposed to compete with the ipod or the mini.
I don't think anyone is saying it's supposed to compete with the ipod or mini, it's supposed to compete with other flash based MP3 players. And it only seems to be able to do this if you strip off every feature that has become standard on all the other flash based MP3 players....and then ignore they are gone and say "oh look it has 1gig and is cheaper than some of the other players with 1gig". I really get the feeling that a lot of IPOD users have completely ignored what other MP3 manufactures have been doing and simply don't know what's already on the market. But this is just my opinion....

[jerrodh]

Originally posted by unit
some people are so blinkered that apple could sell the public a minimalist white turd and they'd think it was the 2nd coming....

You know... in terms of features, EVERY SINGLE iPod has been a minimalist white turd.

When the 5GB iPod debuted at $399, everyone said it'd flop.
When the 4GB iPod mini debuted at $249, everyone said it'd flop.
Virtually every iPod in between has taken some sort of hit for it's price, features, or price vs. features ratio.

10,000,000 iPods have now sold. Minimalism works in the mass market.

Feature:price maximizing customers have never been the target market of the iPod series.

[MeTaL]

Check this player out at www.buy.com ... sandisk ...they've been making flash memory for ages...
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90141762&loc=111&sp=1

It has a play button, shuffle and weighs an ounce.

There are more... you can choose not to look at the screen if you don't want to. you can choose not to listen to fm if you don't want to. you can choose to not to use it with itunes if you don't want to. you can choose not to record with its microphone. you can choose not to use the arm band and carrying case that comes with it.

Guys there are other players. The features need not be used. If you don't want them. Its not the lack of screen that is the main thing. Surprisingly everyone's talking about that...

How about an equalizer ? How about bookmarking ?

I want to listen to that song by ModestMouse.... I have to wait till my new player surprises me :)

If you still prefer the shuffle, its better.... atleast you are making a choice :)

[DilbertLand]

Originally posted by Blue_Dawg
you all are missing the target here. Joggers, and people work out regularly will eat this up. No hard drive so it won't skip and have problems like the iPod or the Mini. Just enough music to keep you busy during your workout or run, or bike ride. If you drop it no big deal, it will still play. There are tons of positives to this little music player. Stop being so critical of Apple.

I think this kind of shows the point I was trying to make. People that want something that will do this have been buying flash players for YEARS. The only people that don't seem to know that these products were available all that time are some of the IPOD folks. It's almost as if Apple doesn't make it, it doesn't exist. But again, this is just the feeling I get from reading the posts.

Of course, like MXracer250F, I'm just expressing my frustration. I was hoping that Apple would deliver something far superior to what was already on the flash market. Instead it's not even comparable.

[baggss]

Originally posted by unit
Ok I can get a creative muvo for the same price - which has a screen, the ability to select tracks, an fm radio and 15 hours battery life for the same price. Imagine that.

So the Creative is $99 for 512Mb and $150 for 1Gb? I think NOT...

You can get a 256Mb for about $109, but the 512Mb is $130 and the 1Gb is $200...

The rest of your post was crap, so I deleted it.....

[baggss]

Originally posted by DilbertLand
The only people that don't seem to know that these products were available all that time are some of the IPOD folks. It's almost as if Apple doesn't make it, it doesn't exist. But again, this is just the feeling I get from reading the posts.


Nah, I still have my old RIO 600 with a whopping 64Mb of memory. It cost more than the 1Gb iPod does now when it was new....

[ham_man]

To answer the original question:

1. This can be used to only play a playlist you select in the order you choose

2. It isn't that expensive

3. It has both thumbdrive and MP3 capabilities

4. It's small and looks great

5. It's flash, so it is great for excerciser

-Andrew

[DilbertLand]

Originally posted by baggss
Nah, I still have my old RIO 600 with a whopping 64Mb of memory. It cost more than the 1Gb iPod does now when it was new....
lol...I have one of those laying around too....I acutally bought the replacement battery compartment that expanded the total memory to 96 or 128MB (I can't remember).... I can't recall what I paid for it, but I'm sure just the expansion was more than the new .5Gb shuffle...lol... how things have changed!

[unit]

Originally posted by azdude_40GB
You know... in terms of features, EVERY SINGLE iPod has been a minimalist white turd.

When the 5GB iPod debuted at $399, everyone said it'd flop.
When the 4GB iPod mini debuted at $249, everyone said it'd flop.
Virtually every iPod in between has taken some sort of hit for it's price, features, or price vs. features ratio.

10,000,000 iPods have now sold. Minimalism works in the mass market.

Feature:price maximizing customers have never been the target market of the iPod series.

Ok my language was a tad harsh and emotive. Personally, I think the ipod and ipod mini are great products and believe they've received due recognition and compelled other manufacturers to lift their game. The may not have been the first HD-based players but they have revolutionised the market and Apple deserves the profits and Kudos. And before anyone accuses me of an Anti-apple bias, I've just placed an order for one of the new mac mini for my parents. Given the grief their old 1.2Gb Duron based PC gives then, I think the mac mini will really suit them

My irritation with apple is that they've let success go to their heads and become arrogant (not a bit like microsoft really). They are after just a corporation beholdent to their shareholders i guess.

The ipod shuffle is a cynical exercise and I believe is the ipod photo (not drag and drog, no direct connectivity with a camera, the inability to download or upload images from more than one computer). This all spells GIMMICK to me - and it irks me no end when in the case of the shuffle, the media praise it as revolutionary (how long have flash players been on the market now?), and when its limitations are marketed as a 'feature', (i'd take a muvo anyday if i was in the market for a flash player for all the reasons i outlined).

[yinyang]

just like with every generation of iPod and the mini, people criticise apple/iPods/users for all sorts of so-called inadequecies yet the iPods still keep selling, and more so to windows users than apple users, to the point where creative are trying (rather poorly imho) to out-market apple.

at the end of the day if you don't like then don't buy it - do yourself a favour and chill out about whether or not it's better than product x, or better value for money than y, or whether apple can sell white turds...!

[unit]

Originally posted by baggss
So the Creative is $99 for 512Mb and $150 for 1Gb? I think NOT...

You can get a 256Mb for about $109, but the 512Mb is $130 and the 1Gb is $200...

The rest of your post was crap, so I deleted it.....

Oh yes, sorry, I guess should've said " the ipod shuffle is amazing. OMG I'm like so getting one, no hang one, make that two, one for each arm. Apple have done it yet again...'

[MysticSyphon]

I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be to navigate 512-1K MBs worth of music without a screen. Of course, many would argue that much of that space would go to storing files and such. Well, in that case, Apple shouldn't even be marketing this as music player -- it's a thumbdrive plain and simple (with music capabilities as a side dish). Besides its attractive price to capacity ratio, the shuffle has absolutely nothing going for it -- other than the iPod brand name, of course. And, I have to add, I feel sorely for those who make the decision to spend their hard earned cash on a shuffle solely because it has "iPod" engraved on the back, when there are so many other better options out there for a flash player. The mini is still arguably one of the best -- if not the top -- $249 DAPs on the market. Heralding the iPod shuffle as the top of its class is assuredly going to be an uphill battle for Apple. Shame that even a one-line LCD screen would have made a huge difference, or would that have made the already sorry battery life even worse?

[threeball]

But yinyang, Amount of Sales does not equal how good a product is, which is what you just stated.

[jessica.]

If you scroll up and read the responses from baggs then I just have to say DITTO.

Are we really going to have dozens of posts on the same subject?
And "people think that if Apple doesn't make it then it doesn't exist?" WTF? That is a stupid ### statement.

[unit]

exactly threeball. I think apple are resting on their laurels and in 2005, they'll face stiffer competition from their competitors, with products that are in many ways superior, and an increasingly savvy market who may well begin to realise that there's more to DAP players than the ipod name. Also the success is beginning to become counterproductive, whereby for some its 'cool' not to be one of the masses with an ipod.

The photo and the shuffle are imho products that are indicative of a company that is definitely resting on its laurels. And believe me, the competition is seriously shaping up...

[threeball]

Yes, this Chroma which has been in speculation for over half a year is supposively the diamond in the rough that could challenge the iPod, based on hype alone. I don't think it will challenge seriously, but will draw enough attention to make Apple have to go back to the drawing board. If the rumor specs are true, its feature set(audio-related, not counting things like voice record or line-in) factored in with its small and thin size with very easy navigationlooks pretty wicked from an audiophile's standpoint, except for the rumored 12 hour battery life. I think the other companies need to take it one step at a time instead of going for the throat.

[FallN]

I'm still taking a "wait and see" approach to this. I do workout 6 days a week and am dreading jogging with my current iPod... so this "Shuffle" thing would have been great... if it just had a stinkin' screen!

I'm the type of user that interrupts a Playlist mid-song just to add another song or stop the Playlist and listen to something else. The iPod Shuffle woud totally throw a kink into the way I listen to my music... and Dear God, I don't see how I'd find my way through 1 GB of randomly strune music to find the one I want to listen to on the fly...

So, I'm sitting back and watching... waiting to hear onslaught of comments from people that have actually gone out, bought it, used it and have real world, first-hand experience with it...

We shall see indeed...

[yinyang]

Originally posted by threeball
But yinyang, Amount of Sales does not equal how good a product is, which is what you just stated.

amount of sales may not necesarily mean that a product is good, but it definitely shows that it is popular, and from a business point of view that means revenue (and hopefully profit), which is the main driving force for ANY business.

however my original point was that despite all the criticism aimed at all the iPods they still manage to sell well, which infers that the criticism was mostly invalid, and that apple's marketing abilites are enviable.

[Joshdude]

Ok I think the shuffle feature, while cool (I'd buy one if I didn't have an iPod. Maybe) can be totally ignored. All you have to do is order your playlist by artist and album so that you can know where to navigate. This is if you want to listen to something. However, as i said, the totally random thing is cool. I often do this with my iPod and listen to one of over 1000 random track. I get to listen to stuff I'd never heard before then. The shuffle feature is a way to keep things interesting, but not everyone will appreciate it.

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by MysticSyphon
I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be to navigate 512-1K MBs worth of music without a screen.

Why would you need a screen to scroll through 120 songs? All screens do on current flash players is show on a little dinky 3 line display, what song is currently being played.. If there are only 120 songs do you really need something to tell you what is being played, can your ears not tell you that? With the screen on other flash players you still need to go through each song for the majority of players, by clicking next, next, next, next, until the song is found.. There is no menu where you can scroll through your music for flash players, from my experiences at least, and for those that do, the menus are extremely cumbersome! This is why the screen was not included, which allowed for a low price..

-Dan

[yinyang]

Originally posted by unit
exactly threeball. I think apple are resting on their laurels and in 2005, they'll face stiffer competition from their competitors, with products that are in many ways superior, and an increasingly savvy market who may well begin to realise that there's more to DAP players than the ipod name. Also the success is beginning to become counterproductive, whereby for some its 'cool' not to be one of the masses with an ipod.

The photo and the shuffle are imho products that are indicative of a company that is definitely resting on its laurels. And believe me, the competition is seriously shaping up...

all apple's competitors are able to do at the moment is boast about how many extra features they can add to the form factor of a DAP, be it recording, fm stereo, ogg, wma, 20 hour battery, oleds, video playback, digital camera, etc. but to many people 'cool' counts for way more than any or all of those features - do you think that apple is not going to make use of that cool factor in generating revenue? given the amount of money that they spend on r&d, they are constantly striving to make sure that they can meet the needs of the market (iPod shuffle) or redefine it (as you mentioned earlier on with the original iPod) so that they do not rest on their laurels like they did so many years ago - i am sure steve jobs will never forget that episode in apple's history.

competition is always good, so let's see what apple's response is...!

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by MXracer250F
it's battery life is less than adequate in a flash player market where the standard is 16 hours

Where the standard is also AA and AAA batteries...

-Dan

[ham_man]

Why did Apple stick with the Lithium battery? Just curious...

-Andrew

[mdobilas]

People who buy apply products do it for two main reasons
1. the name: the like apple and it's quality and stick with it
2. the like the form and function of apple products.


The Shuffle will sell more units then any other "thumb drive" to date. It's priced perfectly for people who want a quality MP3 player and arent sure what to buy.

Apple has never and will never release something that has every feature packed into it, it doesnt need to. Apple makes great looking, great sounding, great performing mp3 players and the market has spoken.

[podsurfer]

Apple announced first quarter financial results, with a net profit of $295 million or $.70 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $63 million or $.17 per diluted share in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $3.49 billion, up 74% from a year ago. Gross margin was 28.5%, up from 26.7% a year ago. International sales accounted for 41% of revenue. [Jan 12, 2005]

I think they know what they're doing.

Newsflash MXracer: Apple is in business to make money. Some really smart guys at Apple have figured out how to do it. Don't buy an iPod Shuffle if you don't like the product.

[cmoney]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
Where the standard is also AA and AAA batteries...


Exactly. While it's nice to have an easily available battery source, it would be a huge pain to have to replace the battery every few days. Built in rechargeable battery is a definite requirement for me. And making a AAA battery source an accessory is perfectly fine with me.

Unrelated: the beautiful thing about the pricing is that Apple saves by not having a screen and so can price it lower, but competitors will now be competing with the lower priced shuffle but providing less memory. Slick selling point for Apple: do you want the sort of usable screen or do you want 4x the memory for the same price?

[FallN]

Wait, wait. For the people talking about "where's the AA and AAA batteries": Apple has also released an "Extended Battery" thingy. You can hook it up to the Shuffle and have a long running, easily renewable power source that uses AAA batteries. ;)

[MeTaL]

Yup pay an extra $29 to get a battery holder and then pay $10 to get AAA batteries. :) Then why discard them in the first place....

I don't like it when certain things are sold as accessories when they should be included. An armband - an extra $29 ?

Apple.... I don't like the new apple... Its sour :rolleyes:

[shervon]

Originally posted by cmoney
Exactly. While it's nice to have an easily available battery source, it would be a huge pain to have to replace the battery every few days. Built in rechargeable battery is a definite requirement for me. And making a AAA battery source an accessory is perfectly fine with me.

Unrelated: the beautiful thing about the pricing is that Apple saves by not having a screen and so can price it lower, but competitors will now be competing with the lower priced shuffle but providing less memory. Slick selling point for Apple: do you want the sort of usable screen or do you want 4x the memory for the same price?

while it's good to have an easily available battery source, it's always unfortunate if you encounter a battery leak, which will not be covered by most warranty. for this, i have to recommend players from reliable company, because getting expensive battery doesn't help

[shervon]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
Why would you need a screen to scroll through 120 songs? All screens do on current flash players is show on a little dinky 3 line display, what song is currently being played.. If there are only 120 songs do you really need something to tell you what is being played, can your ears not tell you that? With the screen on other flash players you still need to go through each song for the majority of players, by clicking next, next, next, next, until the song is found.. There is no menu where you can scroll through your music for flash players, from my experiences at least, and for those that do, the menus are extremely cumbersome! This is why the screen was not included, which allowed for a low price..

-Dan

scrolling through one by one will drain battery life, irregardless whether AAA or rechargeble.

[Edvard_Grieg]

There are other flash players at that same price point with all the features too....

Sandisk 512MB, voice recording, LCD WMA/MP3, playlists
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=55-125-003&depa=0

$103


Transcend 1GB, FM, WMA/MP3, voice recorder, LCD
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=55-159-004&depa=0

$145

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by shervon
scrolling through one by one will drain battery life, irregardless whether AAA or rechargeble.

My point was that the majority of flash players out there do not have a menu system anyways and you will spend time either:

a)Going through each song, one by one
b)Going through a attempted menu/list of some sort on a 2-3 line display.. Not what I call fun...

Screen or not this is the same with many flash players...

There are other flash players at that same price point with all the features too....

Sandisk 512MB, voice recording, LCD WMA/MP3, playlists
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-125-003&depa=0

$103


Transcend 1GB, FM, WMA/MP3, voice recorder, LCD
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-159-004&depa=0

$145

Again, this does not include the price for AA/AAA batteries...

-Dan

[PrintNameHere]

I like this flash based player better. More features, and it is SMALL! Like, almost too small.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/31138459-2-300-overview-1.gif

[Edvard_Grieg]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour

Again, this does not include the price for AA/AAA batteries...

-Dan


And the 99/149 doesn't include the cost of a replacement battery when the internal one dies either. I would say that someone would spend the same amount on a rechargeable NiMH battery as they would replacing the one inside the Shuffle thus making it a non-issue. Plus, there is the added benefit of being able to toss in a new battery in the other player if dies, with the Shuffle, unless you buy the extra battery pack (again thus dismissing your argument for buying batteries) if the battery dies, you're screwed until you find a USB port.

Realistically though, you're arguing over at most $10 (the amount I'd pay for some rechareable batteries and a charger), which I doubt anyone would seriously use to discredit a product on that merit alone.

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by Edvard_Grieg
And the 99/149 doesn't include the cost of a replacement battery when the internal one dies either. I would say that someone would spend the same amount on a rechargeable NiMH battery as they would replacing the one inside the Shuffle thus making it a non-issue. Plus, there is the added benefit of being able to toss in a new battery in the other player if dies, with the Shuffle, unless you buy the extra battery pack (again thus dismissing your argument for buying batteries) if the battery dies, you're screwed until you find a USB port.

Realistically though, you're arguing over at most $10 (the amount I'd pay for some rechareable batteries and a charger), which I doubt anyone would seriously use to discredit a product on that merit alone.

It's not only the cost, but a loss in the quality of the machine I think. It just detracts from the overall sleekness of the model, and makes it cheap in my opinion. It also adds to the weight of the overall player.. I think the NiMH battery in the DAP market will soon be the past.. It is a lot simpler to use a rechargeable battery (Li-Ion would also weigh less than NiMH) than one that must be charged..

-Dan

[Blue_Dawg]

Everyone who is anyone knows that a Lion battery is better because for one, they NEVER get a memory. A NmH has to be charged and then depleated every time. If you only charge it half way each time it will begin to only hold a half charge. I would take a Lion over NmH any day of the week.

[Edvard_Grieg]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
It's not only the cost, but a loss in the quality of the machine I think. It just detracts from the overall sleekness of the model, and makes it cheap in my opinion. It also adds to the weight of the overall player.. I think the NiMH battery in the DAP market will soon be the past.. It is a lot simpler to use a rechargeable battery (Li-Ion would also weigh less than NiMH) than one that must be charged..

-Dan


I just looked back over my post and realized the links were broken (now fixed), so obviously you didn't actually look at either the SanDisk or the Transcend, but the Sandisk is a very solid and sleek looking unit. The Transcend is also very sleek, but not quite as aestetically appealing IMHO. In either case neither one is exactly 'bulky' and any 'weight' that is added due to the 1xAAA battery is negligible at best.

[zapod]

Battery issues aside, do any other cheap flash players play the stuff I've purchased thru iTunes Music Store?

Thought not.

[DilbertLand]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
It also adds to the weight of the overall player.. I think the NiMH battery in the DAP market will soon be the past.. It is a lot simpler to use a rechargeable battery (Li-Ion would also weigh less than NiMH) than one that must be charged.. -Dan
I think weight is pretty much a non-issue with devices this size. If I just cut a solid chunk of metal to the same dimensions, I doubt I'd even notice the weight while carrying it around. Look at keychains, I can't really tell the difference between 4 and 6 keys in my pocket (or if I'm carrying $0.45 or $0.95 in change).

[tysoh]

"THINK DIFFERENT", that is Apple very classic say. Why must we always be in the main stream? Why cant we go upstream?


Apple is a company that like to try out new ideas, they may not be the best products, but at least they have tried out ideas, which other company wouldnt want to risk.

I like the spirit of this company, they really think differently. Apple is the only company I see so different from the rest. There is no point copying other companies ideas, which you can do it so differently, or even better. You never try, you never know. I personally like the marketing concept of Apple, for examples:

1) iMac G5 , the creator from Ipod
2) iPod Shuffle, life is random

and many more...

[l3vi]

I h8 the new iPod shuffle, so im ignoring it... im pretending apple never made it :)

[threeball]

tysoh: This isn't a new idea.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/20167567-2-120-0.gif

Creative did this well over 3 years ago, Apple is 4 years late. People need to quit treating it like a groundbreaking product, because it isn't.

Doug Gilmour: The price of the Sandisk player may go up because of batteries, but isn't the same said about buying accessories for the iPod? And the Shuffle price is the price, not including features such as a screen.

And who gives a #### if it can't play tunes purchased from the Music Store? I do not even "purchase" my music online anyway, so who cares? Plus, does the Shuffle work with any other music stores out there?

[(PUNK)]

How can you defend this at all? No screen...no go... How can you say that you dont need a screen for over 100 songs? this is just a small cd player, with absolutely no extra features.

[maxview]

I'm planning to get a 512 MB iPod Shuffle mostly because it's cheaper than the 1GB, but also because I think managing 1GB of music would be more difficult without being to see the playlists on a screen. I know you can skip from playlist to playlist on the Shuffle, but the fewer you have the easier they will be to deal with with no screen.

I already own a 15GB iPod and a Creative MuVo Micro (that I bought to exercise with since nothing could stop the iPod from seizing when running over 15 minutes).
The 512 MB MuVo Micro has all the features you could want, but it's a hassle to get tracks out of iTunes and into the Micro, then retitle all the tracks. Once I got my play lists loaded, it worked well and I never looked at the screen while in use, so not having a screen wouldn't become an issue at this point with only a maximum of a 1/2 gb of music loaded. I don't need to look at the screen to read the title of the songs since I already know all the music I loaded on the player.

I used the FM tuner a couple times at the gym, but there were so many commercials on the radio, that I stopped after one day. The FM tuner could be usfeul if I was following a game.
Plugging it into a USB slot to recharge also is no issue.

The biggest issue I see with the iPod Shuffle is that I consider the "real price" to be $129 because the armband is optional and overpriced at $29 and you really need to have it if you're going to be running. The armband is standard on the Micro.

I have a friend that doesn't use iTunes that wants to buy my Micro, so it's all working out.

[MXracer250F]

So the general concensus i'm getting is that the Shuffle isn't meant to compete with the other flash players of the market and is more of an exercise tool. This actually makes sense to me, but when will Apple come out with a real flash player that actually has a screen and features of any kind at all? Comparing the current shuffle to pretty much anything else in the flash market is laughable. For lack of a better word, the shuffle is raped by all comers in every way except for price. Does anyone know if apple is working on a real flash player? I can envision it now, something that looks similar to that new Iriver flash player, the n10 I think.

[maxview]

When flash gets cheap enough, I suppose they could make a 5 GB flash-based Mini.

[iPodHawk]

I'm intrigued by this simply for use while exercising, at which point I don't need a screen or an FM radio. I'm not saying that those aren't legitimate features, I'm just saying that I don't need them in the context in which I would use a shuffle. I am, however, annoyed that the Apple armband costs that much - but if the Shuffle is at all successful, others may step in to offer lower-cost alternatives.

[maxview]

Originally posted by iPodHawk
I'm intrigued by this simply for use while exercising, at which point I don't need a screen or an FM radio. I'm not saying that those aren't legitimate features, I'm just saying that I don't need them in the context in which I would use a shuffle. I am, however, annoyed that the Apple armband costs that much - but if the Shuffle is at all successful, others may step in to offer lower-cost alternatives.

The Creative MuVo Micro N200 already exists. It just doesn't work with iTunes, so it is not an alternative for people who want to use iTunes.

[Edvard_Grieg]

From an exercise standpoint, assuming that's what the shuffle is being marketed towards, one of the problems is that there is no fm tuner. while maxview pointed out the drawbacks of many radio stations in that they have too many commercials etc, a major benefit to the radio, is that many gyms use short-wave FM transmitters to supply audio for the TVs which are setup. That way they don't have to blast the TV sound through speakers and most people that are exercising can merely tune into that frequency and hear the audio.

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by threeball

Doug Gilmour: The price of the Sandisk player may go up because of batteries, but isn't the same said about buying accessories for the iPod? And the Shuffle price is the price, not including features such as a screen.

I have had my 3G 10GB iPod for nearly 15 months now. I have bought NO accessories.. It can play without accessories, while flash players cannot without batteries...

As already stated, I don't quite see the use in a screen.. Look back a few posts and you will see my reasoning..

Zapod,

That really isn't much of an argument.. I hardly find having music encoded at 128 AAC an advantage.. Also it is not only flash players that don't support AAC, but the rest of the DAPs other than iPods, which include iHPs, Micros, Karmas, etc... (As far as I know..)

-Dan

[maxview]

If they add an FM tuner, then they would also have to add an LCD, which is not what they wanted.
Maybe next year there will be a second-generation Shuffle with an LCD and FM tuner and 5GB flash memory, but that would kill the Mini.
They could probably shrink the iPod into the Mini's form factor by then and also make an MaxiPod that plays and records video.

[iPodHawk]

Originally posted by maxview
The Creative MuVo Micro N200 already exists. It just doesn't work with iTunes, so it is not an alternative for people who want to use iTunes.
I'll take your word for it, since I've never heard of it. No doubt other flash players exist as well. I have been quite happy with iTunes and my 3G iPod, so as you note it is logical for me to look for an exercise-friendly DAP that is compatible with my current musical library, particularly since I have no need for additional features like a screen or FM tuner.

[hazel]

i don't know if anyone else has noticed this...but the iPod Shuffle kinda looks like one of those home pregnancy test kits, hahaha! what with the plus & minus icon and the round space in the control. if i see it hanging on someone's neck, i might burst out laughing. what a crappy design!

[filmmaker2002]

So you obviously don't like it...don't buy it. There are millions of others who will...Apple has nothing to worry about.

[baggss]

Originally posted by hazel
[B if i see it hanging on someone's neck, i might burst out laughing. what a crappy design! [/B]

At least we will be able to provide you with some humor in your life. If I see you laughing at me, I'l just punch you to make up for it. How's that? ;)

[MXracer250F]

Hey ,it does look like one of those pregnancy tests! Maybe Apple's next foray into the market of pregnancy tests? Anyways, lighten up Baggss, who rained on your parade :|

[hazel]

Originally posted by baggss
At least we will be able to provide you with some humor in your life. If I see you laughing at me, I'l just punch you to make up for it. How's that? ;)

thanks for the heads up, baggss! i'm cancelling my trip to Margaritaville for fear of having to dodge any of your punches. awww!

[baggss]

At least hazel understood it was a joke.....:)

[Starboard]

It's funny. It's like the mini all over again. People predicting doom and lashes out at Apple. Because a product doesn't meet your needs, doesn't mean it's a bad product. The Shuffle meets the needs of many people who don't think like you and don't listen to music the way you do. For them its the perfect product.

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by Starboard
It's funny. It's like the mini all over again. People predicting doom and lashes out at Apple. Because a product doesn't meet your needs, doesn't mean it's a bad product. The Shuffle meets the needs of many people who don't think like you and don't listen to music the way you do. For them its the perfect product.

Yes, I remember people saying, "What is this clickwheel!?" and predicting it to be a complete failure...

-Dan

[ham_man]

With time comes change, and with change comes resistance...and acceptance. Some will hate the shuffle and some will love it (me).

-Andrew

[hazel]

i'm amazed at how people affiliated with iPodlounge (Azdude, Yinyang..etc) are so vigorously defending the iPod Shuffle as though Apple's first venture into flash-based DAP is perfect enough as it is and that consumers like us have no business to be critical about it. For me, the whole point is for Apple to come up with something better. Why do you think we have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen iPod, iPod mini & iPod photo? let me think... because the 1st gen left a lot of room for improvement! The iPod wouldn't have evolved if people hadn't voiced out their opinions. Same is true for the Shuffle. I wanted a tiny flash-based iPod for those times that i don't wanna carry my 4G, but after looking into it, i'd rather wait a bit 'coz Apple will surely have a better one in line. Hopefully, all those valid points raised by the public can be taken into account. There is a huge market for flash-based players and the iPod Shuffle is probably flying off the shelves as i speak but it can't hurt to come up with something better for those who have held out initially.

and BTW...i still stand by my observation. It really does look like a pregnancy test kit! :D

[jlb2003]

Hazel makes a valid point, it does look like a pregnancy test. Apple should probably post a warning not to use it a such, they already posted a warning about not eating it...lol The way I look at it, apple (or any company for that matter) is never going to put in every desired feature into their products, so I see no need in complaining about it. For those of you who desire an lcd, give it a month or two and some company will develop a snap on monitor, controller, whatever you desire. I think the most important part about the shuffle is that it carries the iPod name and that alone will help drive sales, just as did the walkman name before it, for those of you who remember portable cassette and cd players...lol

[mrjamie]

reading a few pages (not all of the thread) it seems to me that there are two types of complaints.

The first type is valid and friendly enough, and relatively wise. Usually reads something like 'I am looking for X and Y in a flash player, and the iPod Shuffle has X but not Y and I also don't think that having Z is a good idea.'

The second type is, 'This product will fail because this other product exists,' or 'This is the stupidiest thing ever,' or even the straight out 'I wanted something else, so this product sucks.' Basically the standard trolling/anti-ipod nonsense that has been around from the first generation.

Anyways, I'm probably going to end up buying an iPod shuffle for myself. I skate a lot (inline street skating) and I like skateboarding and snowboarding and dancing as well. All of these activities would be benefitted more by an iPod shuffle than my current 4G ipod, which occasionally suffers from stuttering and weighs down my pocket regardless of what I am doing.

So yea, I'm pretty freakin' happy about the shuffle.

[klang]

one very, very important thing about the iPod Shuffel .. something that most iPod owners just, sort of forgets about, because it just _works_

iTunes

all iPods, the new shuffel included, integrates seamlessly with iTunes... that little fact makes the missing screen the "lower" battery time compared to other flash-based players worth it ..
a) you don't need a screen because "Life is Random"
b) 12 hours of power is a lot .. (and this is the 1st generation)

and again .. Apple has iTunes and the music store to back up it's product .. something that no other flash-based player has..

[Girdag]

a) you don't need a screen because "Life is Random"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, quoting slogans at me will REALLY make the product better. In 1GB, you can fit 200 songs if you compromise on sound quality (and sound quality of something that size isnt going to be that good anyway). You cannot realistically navigate 200 songs without a screen.

b) 12 hours of power is a lot .. (and this is the 1st generation)

12 hours is pathetic. The iFP-899 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002DCJT0/qid=1105794323/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-1636178-8299659) has 40 hours of battery life off ONE AA battery. Being English here, I can get an AA battery for around ??1. OK, so the iFP is ??60 more expensive, but for that ??60 you get a screen, OGG support, recordable sound and an FM tuner. The shuffle offers none of those, and, if you want to play a certain song, well, have fun trying to find it among the 200 others with no screen.

EDIT: And the iFP has an armband included.

[swy32x]

Um - if you have the iFP then you have to sift through all 200 songs while listening and reading a screen - or you could just listen and do it without a screen with the shuffle.

If you are looking for a particular song, you will know what it sounds like.

[Girdag]

Um - if you have the iFP then you have to sift through all 200 songs while listening and reading a screen - or you could just listen and do it without a screen with the shuffle.

Just because there is a screen, it doesn't mean you have to look at it all the time. They dont explode if you look away.

If you are looking for a particular song, you will know what it sounds like.

Yes. But you wont know where it is. You will have to shuffle through upwards of 100 songs, listening to the first few seconds of each (depending on where it is but it wont always be where you want it). This could take minutes to find the song you want.

EDIT: Spelling gremlins got into my computer.

[silver_haze20]

I personally don't know what to make of this. I obviously have a 60gb photo. So will not buy it. I can see why it would appeal to some people, people who just want to load some music, go for a jog and not bother with anything. However, from a normal iPod perspective, I couldn't stand not having a screen...imagine you're at a party with your brand new 1GB shuffle...

You: Hey John, check out this song that I got, hadn't heard it before, but I really love it

John: Yeh, go for it...

*You search for the song, you used iTunes autofill, it randomly picked your songs as it assumes you like everything in the library, which is true. Trouble is you don't know the persons voice as you haven't heard the song before. Also, the last time you heard it, there was no bookmark feature to get to it quickly again, you have to sift through up to 239 songs to get the song you heard*

So, up to 239 songs later, you find this song.

John has gone of with your girlfriend as you spent almost 20 minutes (listening to the first 5 seconds of every track to see if it was it) being a loser trying to find a song.

See what the shuffle does!?

Bear in mind, this is from an iPod owner, so a screen is essential, and its the way I NEED to browse my songs, and thats the first scenario that comes into my head.

Also, I can't see how a 1 line LCD screen just to tell you what the name of the song is, will cost more than $5. Its not new technology, screens have been in calculators since the 80's, they're black and white, and are really cheap, Apple would be buying the min massive bulk, so they would likely come to about $2 or something...I have no facts for this, but I can't see it knocking the price up

[waylon]

It seems a little strange to me that some ppl feels that it requires same amount of time to browes through (lets say 100 songs) with an flash mp3 player with a screen (1-few lines unually) and with the iPod shuffle.

Lets suppose that i want to look for a specific song (assumed that i know the song quite well that i can recognize it as soon as i hear it). To the extreme, let it unfortunally positioned as the last song of the play list (of couse i have to assume that i don't know about the arragment of the list and i have a big playlist for all the songs) ^_____^

:) So, for an iPod shuffle:
I have to browes through 100+ songs before i can find a particular song~~ since i have no screen, i guess i have to listen to the first few seconds (some songs starts right away, usually has about 3 second of silence.) of every songs.......... it will take a least a few minutes (100*3s= 300s=5min) before i can locate the song i like.

So this is the LONGEST time it will take me to find a song (of course in real life situation you luck can't be always that bad. SInce the song can appear at any position of the list (random), after some math, i calculated that the "expectation finding time" for finding a song within a 100 songs playlist by listen to the first 3sec of every song is 151.5 seconds = 2 and a half minutes)


:) For a flash MP3 player with screen:
let it have only a one line screen (so i can only see the title of one song at a time), so i have to push a switch/ button to go to the next song. With everthing else the same as the iPod shuffle case, i want to look of a specific song out of a 100 songs playlist. Lets say it takes me 1 to 1.5 second to read one song title (some people can do it much faster, but have to account for the fact that i have to push a button to see the next line / song title on the screen).

Now it will take me AT MOST 100-150 seconds to locate the song even if it is at the very last place of the playlist. Compare to 500 seconds or so for the IPod Shuffle. Of course it will only be fair to calculate the expectation time of this too. Given that the song is as likely to be in any position of the playlist, the expectation finding time is around 50 second if i have no idea where the song is in the first place.


All i want to say is that having A SCREEN does make significant improvment on shortening the time it takes to locate a song simply because it is more efficient to read a title than to hear the first few seconds of the song. The IPod sheffle is a good flash memory storage device for its low price and mp3 feture as a sidekick, but droping the screen really does hurt it a bit as an mp3 player. I am not saying that they should add all those extra fetures on the shuffle...... just a screen will be make this device much more user friendly. ^___^ :D

A thought just come up...... just image i don't know that song very well and i only know its name..... ha ha.

[[zerophase]]

Originally posted by MXracer250F
I really like that the Shuffle is cheap as dirt and all, but I can't think of one other thing it does right. I mean, it doesn't have a screen, it's battery life is less than adequate in a flash player market where the standard is 16 hours, it doesn't allow you to choose your songs individually, it has no extra features of any sort, and it's missing some of the accesories that should have come with it in the first place such as the arm band. Is it just me, or is this a major letdown. I would have bought the iPod flash in a heartbeat if it actually had a screen and allowed me to choose my own songs and such, but it doesn't. :(

It also eliminates several of the features that made the iPod so popular, such as the ease of use and scroll wheel. Sure, the Shuffle is easy to use but that's only because its so dumbed down. Also, why hype up the shuffle feature as if it was new when its on literally EVERY other flash and hard drive player on the market?! I mean, in reality the Shuffle is nothing more than a usb thumb drive with mp3 support and the Apple logo slapped on it. Talk about innovation! :| How can anyone praise it as a good player when it takes so many steps back from what the rest of the flash market is doing? Is this just first time jitters or what?

Sorry if I sound so mean, but I was looking forward to the flash iPod so bad even though i'm not particularly into iPods as evidenced by my post history. It seems kind of sad to wait this whole time in anticipation to only be horribly let down. There is no spin on this, the Shuffle isn't the leader in terms of anything other than price in the flash market, and that leaves me disappointed and stuck in a position of either waiting for Apple to release a new one or just buy a different brand entirely :mad:

I'll have to disagree with you. The battery life on the ipod shuffle is rechargable whereas those 16 hours on others are powerd by battery. if u want to do that with the ipod shuffle there is an acessory and it increases it by 20 hours. now about you saying it has no screen namd no clickwheel... its 1 inch wide. u can't fit a clickwheel there. and if u only have 240 songs at most, especially if there your "favorite songs" why would u need a screen? to read what the title of the song was? now the clickwheel. why would u need one? its not like your going through 5000 songs at once. the controls are simple and do there job. there not all fancy like the other flash players. the whole thing is pretty dam cheap compared to all the other ipods. i'm actually really happy how simple it is.

[Girdag]

let it have only a one line screen (so i can only see the title of one song at a time), so i have to push a switch/ button to go to the next song. With everthing else the same as the iPod shuffle case, i want to look of a specific song out of a 100 songs playlist. Lets say it takes me 1 to 1.5 second to read one song title (some people can do it much faster, but have to account for the fact that i have to push a button to see the next line / song title on the screen).

And most flash players have songs organised by artist, so its even faster.

why would u need a screen? to read what the title of the song was?

To select a specific song to play?

those 16 hours on others are powerd by battery

See the player I posted earlier. Splash out a tiny ammount on a rechargable battery, and there you have 40 hours of rechargable battery.

[drac]

This is a well-designed, tiny, cheap, barebones MP3 player.

It's not for anyone who doesn't care about those main qualities of the device.

Competing products (including those suggested earlier in the thread, the MPIO, the MuVo, etc.) are either 2-3 times the size, 2-3 times the price, aren't rechargeable, or are shoddily made, or some combination of the above.

If those differences are of no significance to you, good for you; but it is idiotic to feel that they should be of no significance to everyone else as well, or that everyone should share the same priorities.

It does indeed look like a pregnancy test, but I don't care. I'll probably get one. Those who want to pay more money, or accept a larger size or poorer build quality in order to get a screen can feel free. Screens do have uses, though I've found the tiny screen on the affordable flash MP3 players to be all but useless.

I am eager to see an FM tuner on the other iPods.

[mrjamie]

If there is only one song you want played out of 256, you have a problem with the music you like. I can easily think of 120+ songs that I would want on an iPod shuffle. Any of those songs would be of sufficient caliber that I should feel comfortable lending the earphones to a friend. If you only have 1 song among 120 you really want a friend to listen to, maybe you shouldn't be having your friend listen to your music in the first place ;0

Secondly, the iPod shuffle, last I checked, was for you to enjoy while you do things, not for you to show off your music collection. If you really want to pretend you're really cool by showing how you have a weightless recordings hip-hop song, or a certain radiohead song on your iPod maybe you aren't 'really cool' at all :o.

[baggss]

Originally posted by hazel
i'm amazed at how people affiliated with iPodlounge (Azdude, Yinyang..etc) are so vigorously defending the iPod Shuffle as though Apple's first venture into flash-based DAP is perfect enough as it is and that consumers like us have no business to be critical about it.

What amazes me is how a lot of folks (yourself included) can look at a picture of a not yet (or barely) released product, and declare that it sucks and should be better. I mean, at least wait until we get some reports from folks that have them. This WAS the exact same thing that happened with the Mini, folks like you declaring it the dumbest or ugliest thing they had seen and screaming about how much Apple had screwed up and how the Mini was going to flop and never sell etc. You have every right to be critical, once you actually KNOW something about the product in question. Looking at pictures and reading the manufacturers web site, doesn't tell you enough to know if it's crap or not. You may not like how it looks or how you THINK it will sound or work. Wait a few weeks and see what folks have to say about it. See what the computer mags have to say about. Don't just spout off crap about it because "it looks like a pregnancy test"....

[hazel]

Originally posted by baggss
What amazes me is how a lot of folks (yourself included) can look at a picture of a not yet (or barely) released product, and declare that it sucks and should be better. I mean, at least wait until we get some reports from folks that have them. This WAS the exact same thing that happened with the Mini, folks like you declaring it the dumbest or ugliest thing they had seen and screaming about how much Apple had screwed up and how the Mini was going to flop and never sell etc. You have every right to be critical, once you actually KNOW something about the product in question. Looking at pictures and reading the manufacturers web site, doesn't tell you enough to know if it's crap or not. You may not like how it looks or how you THINK it will sound or work. Wait a few weeks and see what folks have to say about it. See what the computer mags have to say about. Don't just spout off crap about it because "it looks like a pregnancy test"....

dear diary,

i have to confess that i may have sparked the wrath of Baggss for pointing out that the new iPod Shuffle looks like a pregnancy test kit and that its design is crappy. he's already threatened to punch me so i'm a little bit scared. he's totally right, dear diary. i should have just kept my mouth shut coz what do i know? i just looked at the Apple's website! so, now i'm just waiting to see what the computer mags or those people who actually bought it will say. i'm just waiting for them to tell me stuff about the shuffle that wasn't on its website! i'm so excited, dear diary! till next...

yours truly

:D H

[baggss]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NICE! ;)

It was a bit pompous, no?

[Weasel]

If any other company had come out with the Suffle they'd be laughed at and no one would buy it. The only reason this will sell is because Apple slapped the iPod name in front of it. Seriously, how hard would it have been to create an LCD remote? This was just a lazy effort on Apple's part and to me sulley's the iPod name. Anyone here who says they still would have bought this product if say Rio came out with it is flat out lying.

[mrjamie]

Originally posted by Weasel
If any other company had come out with the Suffle they'd be laughed at and no one would buy it. The only reason this will sell is because Apple slapped the iPod name in front of it. Seriously, how hard would it have been to create an LCD remote? This was just a lazy effort on Apple's part and to me sulley's the iPod name. Anyone here who says they still would have bought this product if say Rio came out with it is flat out lying.

Actually, you're right, but for reasons you don't consider.

As other people have mentioned, Apple is selling not just the iPod Shuffle; they are also selling the whole user-experience. If you want to argue that iTunes sucks and is horrible then I'm going to sit here and laugh at you.

In other words, if Rio had come out with a product just like the iPod Shuffle but without integration with iTunes, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done very well. Then again, who knows.

I have a few thoughts concerning the whole iPod shuffle debate, which I will now share:

- Anyone who has a good relationship with his or her music does not need an LCD for checking the name, title, or album of a song. This goes without saying in the case of the iPod shuffle since no more than a few hundred songs will be stored at any given time.

- I wonder how useful the current LCD bearing flash players actually are. Something about the really small screen and buttons has never appeared to me as a satisfactory user interface. A lot of people on the forums argue that without an LCD the world will fall apart, but how many of these people have actually used a tiny, flash-based MP3 player with a screen? Could we get some input from people who have?

- Anyone who has a collection of music that they themselves like will be at ease with completely random selection from their music library. If you don't believe this, try the following: a) create a regular playlist called 'Random', b) enable the Party Shuffle playlist if it is not already enabled, c) set the Party Shuffle source to library, and set Party Shuffle to display 0 recently played songs and 50 upcoming songs, d) Reset the Party Shuffle playlist by playling the last song currently listed, e) in the source list over on the left drag Party Shuffle onto the Random playlist you created, f) enjoy a quite refreshing listen that may leave you wondering where you left your credit card.

cheers

[lucydavies1989]

The iPod shuffle is great idea. Apple have done a great job and it is the perfect price for 15yr olds like myself. I am now able to buy one without nagging my parents.
I enjoy listening to music and i have quite a fair small music collection. 120 songs is enough for me. Thats about 10 albums. I only have 3 or 4 albums that i'm really into at the mo.
Apple have done a great job, and the iPod shuffle is going ot sell like hot cakes, just like the rest of the iPod family have done!

[shirles759]

Originally posted by yinyang
all apple's competitors are able to do at the moment is boast about how many extra features they can add to the form factor of a DAP, be it recording, fm stereo, ogg, wma, 20 hour battery, oleds, video playback, digital camera, etc. but to many people 'cool' counts for way more than any or all of those features - do you think that apple is not going to make use of that cool factor in generating revenue? given the amount of money that they spend on r&d, they are constantly striving to make sure that they can meet the needs of the market (iPod shuffle) or redefine it (as you mentioned earlier on with the original iPod) so that they do not rest on their laurels like they did so many years ago - i am sure steve jobs will never forget that episode in apple's history.

competition is always good, so let's see what apple's response is...!

I agree. The ipod just has that coolnes factor that means all the kids and everybody else just want it, no matter if it is a bit more expensive and has a few less features... average people really just want something easy to use that plays their mp3s. and if J-Lo and half the other celebrities have it, they want it... these million-dollar placements campaigns are really paying off! i went to 24 hr gym the other day and literally 9 out of 10 of the mp3 players were ipods. no joke!

[Girdag]

how many of these people have actually used a tiny, flash-based MP3 player with a screen? Could we get some input from people who have?

I borrowed a friend's Rio Forge for a week's holiday. The screen was useful, as if (for example) I wanted to listen to all of 'American Idiot', or suddenly decided I wanted to listen to a certain song (usually U2), then I could do it quickly and easily. A few problems with the tiny buttons, but nothing really awkward.

[loGan]

I'm a 3g iPod owner who tried flash players in the early days. In fact I just dug out my old MPMan flash player from 4,5 years ago? It cost a fortune took forever to sync and I used it maybe twice. I then picked up a mobile phone with flash player. Siemans sl45 or something like that and that made sense. 1 gadget to rule them all except back then there was no iTunes and so music management was rather more manual.

Then I picked up and iPod and the rest as they say is history. The perfect combination of software and hardware. All 30 gigs of my musical history stored on one device which I have used every day since.

My only ciriticism of the iPod is that every once in a while it is too big and a little bit fragile. I fly a lot and I have often thought about having a smaller player or simply a player on my mobile again.

Then here comes the iShuffle. It pretty much fills my requirements for a durable, cheap and small substitute for my day to day iPod on those days where I prefer to leave Mr 3G at home. I was also in the market for a USB flash dongle but could never bring myself to pay up for the 1Gig ones. At ??100 or there abouts I ordered one right away. Without iTunes it would be little more than a well priced 1 GIG flash drive but with iTunes it becomes a usable occasional alternative to my iPod proper.

It isn't going to change the world but it will tide me over until an iPhone arrives with a 30gig iPod + phone in one box.

[Leoml88]

Originally posted by 2_hotty
Where can you get a fully featured flash player, with 1gig of storage, for 75 bucks?

First off, its $150 for the 1 gig player. Second of all, its not fully featured. By now, a built in screen, 16 hours or more of battery life, and an fm radio are standard in mp3 players.



BTW, you can turn off the shuffle feature.

[Leoml88]

oops. I accidently quoted everything. the middle paragraph is my words

[bhaalspawn]

But the important thing with mp3 players is not features, if it was then the regular sized ipod would be sunk, it has less features than an awful lot of mp3 players. The important thing is ease of use and people go for this over osmething with many features but that is not easy to use. The shuffle is easy to use becuase it syncs with itunes,and the fact it doesn't have a screen, considering the amount of information that would have to be crammed onto it to make it useful makes it easier not harder to use.

Some people will disagree and I can see the attraction to having a screen but it would only be a two line affair at most and so you couldn't see more than the name of the song which is still not great for finding songs.

If the shuffle doesn't sell very well (unlikely) Apple need only do one thing, release firmware that means that if you press the >> button three times in quick succession it will go to the next playlist. Then as long as you put some basic organisation into your music you can find what you want pretty easily.

[Xarthan]

screen = increase in price
Prob 1GB with screen will be 200 Bucks. Y not buy a mini then?

[Diegoso]

Easy to use????
I read the manual of ipod shuffle in apple.com, and isn???t easy to memorize what mean every color of the light, the only thing that tell you if your ipod is working or is run out of battery. I know that obviously if the light is green every thing is fine. But what about and orange light that bright 3 times in enterable of 2 seconds?
:confused: :mad:

[AaronS]

Originally posted by Diegoso
Easy to use????
I read the manual of ipod shuffle in apple.com, and isn???t easy to memorize what mean every color of the light, the only thing that tell you if your ipod is working or is run out of battery. I know that obviously if the light is green every thing is fine. But what about and orange light that bright 3 times in enterable of 2 seconds?
:confused: :mad:

As for the battery:

Green= 100-30% Charge
Orange=30%-2.5ish% Charge
Red=Charge me now

As for the LED in the front:

Who cares? Just shuffle your music. ;)

as

[Girdag]

But the important thing with mp3 players is not features, if it was then the regular sized ipod would be sunk, it has less features than an awful lot of mp3 players. The important thing is ease of use and people go for this over osmething with many features but that is not easy to use.

No, the important thing is brand name, and people go for this because it is an IPod without considering the alternatives. Apple will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[gbobm]

Originally posted by MeTaL
Check this player out at www.buy.com ... sandisk ...they've been making flash memory for ages...
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90141762&loc=111&sp=1

It has a play button, shuffle and weighs an ounce.

There are more... you can choose not to look at the screen if you don't want to. you can choose not to listen to fm if you don't want to. you can choose to not to use it with itunes if you don't want to. you can choose not to record with its microphone. you can choose not to use the arm band and carrying case that comes with it.



If you were looking for a quality built car and there was a Basic spec Audi with hardly any features or a Lada with every feature under the sun at the same price, which would you buy?

With apple, you know that you are buying quality and have ample support to back up any issues you may have.

[Girdag]

Basic spec Audi with hardly any features or a Lada with every feature under the sun at the same price, which would you buy?

The one with the features. Ergo, not the Shuffle.

[AaronS]

Originally posted by threeball
Plus, does the Shuffle work with any other music stores out there?

Oh, damn, you're right. The iPs only works with 70% of the music legally purchased online. Kinda sucks doesn't it?


You cannot realistically navigate 200 songs without a screen.


Do you not understand that the iPs is not being marketed towards people who want to navigate through 200 songs? It's marketed towards those who want to press the play button and go.


Ok I can get a creative muvo for the same price - which has a screen, the ability to select tracks, an fm radio and 15 hours battery life for the same price. Imagine that.


How easily can you sync your muvo? How good is the software that comes with it? iPs has the ability to select tracts. Imagine that.

How often do you use the FM radio feature? Oh, let me guess, you use it "all the time".


I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be to navigate 512-1K MBs worth of music without a screen. Of course, many would argue that much of that space would go to storing files and such.


I won't argue that it's for storing files. I'll argue that (as I have already stated several times) the purpose of the iPod shuffle is not to "navigate" through songs. What purpose is a screen if you're shuffling your music?

Apple made a judgment call. They saw that many (not all) of their users enjoyed and frequently used the shuffle feature on the other iPods. Apple saw this and said, "What if we made a stripped down (oh lord, did I just say it was stripped down?! gasp!) player that focused on this frequently used method of listening at a great price?" The iPs is that.


Amount of Sales does not equal how good a product is, which is what you just stated.


Obviously this is a true statement, just take a look at what Microsoft sells. But what do you mean when you say "good"? Do you mean a "good" feature set? Do you mean "good" battery life? Do you mean "good" UI or "good" included software?

As Steve said, there are tons of flash based players currently on the market. How can one accuse Apple of forcing people to use an MP3 player with no screen? There are other choices. Apple is focusing the iPs towards a specific group of people. If you are not one of those people, you may not choose the shuffle.

"Good" is a relative term. Good for you may not be good for me.


And believe me, the competition is seriously shaping up...


Just as it was last year? And the year before?


it's battery life is less than adequate in a flash player market where the standard is 16 hours


As was mentioned before, the standard is also AA and AAA batteries. The $$$ adds up if you actually use your player.


I don't like it when certain things are sold as accessories when they should be included. An armband - an extra $29 ?


Why do you say this should be included? And I'm sure many others will come out with armbands that are $9.99. You must realize this product is 6 days old.


There are other flash players at that same price point with all the features too....

Sandisk 512MB, voice recording, LCD WMA/MP3, playlists
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-125-003&depa=0

$103


Transcend 1GB, FM, WMA/MP3, voice recorder, LCD
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-159-004&depa=0

$145


So sticker price is everything? Should one not take into account useability? Ease of syncing? Are those things not important?

Okay, I'll stop now.

as

[Adam_89]

a lot of you guys are missing an important factor to the ipod shuffle, or any ipod for that matter; iTunes. iTunes is by far the best and easiest way to buy music, rip CD's, burn CD's, and manage your collection. there is no player in the $100-$150 range that can utilize itunes but the ipod shuffle. from what i hear the Autofill feature works like a dream, and everything else is as seamless as can be. now how do those generic players work?

like god, i mean Steve Jobs said, most flash music players have a tiny screen, confusing buttons, a tortured user interface, and something else from that macworld thing... thats not important. it doesnt matter how many other players there are in the 512mb and 1gb range that are the same price or comprably priced to the shuffle. what good is a screen if the UI sucks and its so tiny you can only see 2 lines? then again, what good is any mp3 player if you have to use some bootleg interface to get songs on it?

[AaronS]

originally posted by threeball
People need to quit treating it like a groundbreaking product, because it isn't.


No, you can't look at the iPs and think it's a groundbreaking product. Few products that are geared towards the low end of the market are. Is the Mac Mini groundbreaking? Not in terms of specifications, which seem to be most iPs nay-sayers main focus (probably because it's the only thing they can take a shot at).

The introduction of the iPs is not about groundbreaking specifications. It's about brigning an easy to use MP3 player to the masses. It's about giving people what they need most, and not cluttering it with things they wouldn't use.

Oh great, that last statement is going to cause a stir I'm sure.


But Aaron, it shouldn't be up to Apple to decide what people need. People should be able to choose that on their own.


People can choose on their own. Have you seen all of the flash based players currently on the market? Just because Apple doesn't make the iPs with an FM transmitter doesn't mean that Apple is forcing people to buy an MP3 player without an FM transmitter. People can buy something else!

Do you want to know why Apple didn't include an FM transmitter? (the following is my assumption, so don't come back with the statement, "so you know everything about what the people at Apple are thinking?") Apple made a judgment call. What would people want more in a $99 device? FM transmitter, or more storage? Apple chose more storage.

Now what about the first part of your statement where you say the following:

originally posted by threeball
Creative did this well over 3 years ago, Apple is 4 years late.


You're calling Apple outdated because they haven't included a screen, and then spend the rest of the thread complaining that the iPs doesn't have a screen! You can't take both sides!

as

[2_hotty]

Originally posted by Leoml88
First off, its $150 for the 1 gig player. Second of all, its not fully featured. By now, a built in screen, 16 hours or more of battery life, and an fm radio are standard in mp3 players.


You missed what I was saying.

Someone above me posted that they could get the same player for half the price, with better features. So I just asked what players were out there that were 75 bucks, and fully featured. I wasn't suggesting that the Shuffle was.

[IpodHumper]

[Edited by AaronS: Please keep posts from being vulger. Try to keep them on topic as well.]

as

[Girdag]

iTunes. iTunes is by far the best and easiest way to buy music, rip CD's, burn CD's, and manage your collection.

Audiograbber is better for ripping, IMO. More options, more formats, more reliable. Most people will have better software that came with their computer for burning CDs, but RealPlayer is perfectly good for those who don't. And as for buying music....I generally prefer to get an actual CD. It may be the album art, the lyrics, the possibility of actually being able to use it on a non-Apple MP3 player, or the ability to rip it into the format and quality I want.

[threeball]

You guys are too hung up on ease of use. Sure the iPods may be easy to use but that doesn't mean all other players out there are extremely difficult to use. The three mp3.com editors even said that the Carbon is easier to use than the iPod mini, and its not like the Creative MuVo TX needs a manual sitting next to you at all times. Even when a player may not be as easy to use, it takes like what, 30 minutes-an hour to get the hang of it, and after that, its like second nature? Ease of use should only be accounted for the first hour or so you use the player. But when you guys talk about ease of use you act like every other player out there is difficult to use.

[baggss]

Can you buy music on-line with MM or the Creative software? Can you then upload that purchased music directly to the device without having to go through another program??

[AaronS]

Originally posted by threeball
The three mp3.com editors even said that the Carbon is easier to use than the iPod mini


I can name three online journalists who said the iPod mini would be a complete failure. Does that mean it's true?


Even when a player may not be as easy to use, it takes like what, 30 minutes-an hour to get the hang of it, and after that, its like second nature? Ease of use should only be accounted for the first hour or so you use the player.

Ah, but we differ here again. I am not solely focusing on the ease of use of the player but also the software. How easy is it to sync? How easy is it to get new music on the device? How easy is it to add new music to the software so you can get it on the device?

Ease of use of the player is important, because you need to know how to work it, but just as important (if not more) is the ease of use of the software. Not just for transfering music from computer to device, but other things too. People use iTunes to listen to music on their computer, burn/rip CD's, purchase music, etc. They don't just use it when they need to copy songs to their player. They can do it all in one application.

as

[AJames]

I thnk a lot of people are missing the point about the iPod Shuffle. To Apple's marketing department, the iPod is 3 things:

1. A marketing image that has proved wildly popular, and has every kid on the block wanting "a real iPod"

2. A total music system, with portable players closely integrated with iTunes software, the iTunes Music Store, and a proprietary music format with Apple DRM.

3. A hardware product.

As a hardware product, the Shuffle is not innovative or a bargain in any way. But that doesn't matter. It's "an iPod", so the kids who couldn't afford one of the more expensive models can still say that they got a real iPod. Image is everything! And it supports and extends reach of the Apple total music system. If you're the type of customer who compares the hardware to competing products, you're not Apple's target.

[BigFil]

I don't understand the people who say "well i can get a Creative Muvo or (insert other flash player) that has this, that, and this other thing also for the same price". Why don't you just go spend your money, go get player x, and be happy that it fits your needs? Do you really feel that people don't realize that other players have screens? Maybe it's the need to feel important and that you must be the single person who comes and saves everyone from Apple because you the hold information that isn't available to anyone who has an internet connection.

[Starboard]

Originally posted by AaronS
I can name three online journalists who said the iPod mini would be a complete failure. Does that mean it's true?



Ah, but we differ here again. I am not solely focusing on the ease of use of the player but also the software. How easy is it to sync? How easy is it to get new music on the device? How easy is it to add new music to the software so you can get it on the device?

Ease of use of the player is important, because you need to know how to work it, but just as important (if not more) is the ease of use of the software. Not just for transfering music from computer to device, but other things too. People use iTunes to listen to music on their computer, burn/rip CD's, purchase music, etc. They don't just use it when they need to copy songs to their player. They can do it all in one application.

as

bingo. i think alot of people are missing the point that it's not just the hardware, but it the hardware-software integration that makes this special.

A lot of critics are saying the shuffle feature has always been around. But really, not the way Apple is implementing it. On other players, you select your songs, load it onto the machine, and play it on shuffle. On the iPs, you let iTunes choose from your 3000+ songs each time you sync.

Two two reasons this is different.
One you don't have to go through all of your list to find your songs. iTunes does it for you. So the chance of a song that you would normally overlook, showing up in your iPs is just as good as any other song.
Two, you literal don't know what songs are on your player, so it's a true surprise.

[AaronS]

And some people like surprises. It's like you're opening your first gift on Christmas (or any other holiday) every 4.2 minutes...

...okay, so not quite like that, but you know what I mean...

as

[IpodHumper]

How can anyone not praise the IPod Shuffel?

Apple has done it again, producing one of the most innovative players on the market, they take off the screen, funcions, and even battery life, no player out in the market has done this yet.

Everybody tries to cram more features and battery life into a player while Apple with their genius engineers working hard day and night to produce the porch of flash players by encasing some made in china electronics into a made in china white plastic shell.

Apple is always at the front of innovation with their decision to put in a shuffel mode into a flash player!!!!!! and to make up a catchy slogan of "Life is random" Other players don't don't even bother to make up any slogan and only put a long boring list of features the player has.......

Apple is so innovative that other companies making flash players such as creative and scandisk will copy these innovative features by eliminating their screen, features, and reducing the battery life to match the awesomeness of the Shuffel.

Hype sells, ######s buy, that is the way the world works, but I don't really care, at least Apple is an American company instead of all the korean companies..................

[AaronS]

Originally posted by iPodHumper
mumblemumblemumble

as

[IpodHumper]

Humm, I don't know where i posted mumblemumblemumble, but since AaronS quoted me saying mumblemumblemumble guess I will say it now: mumblemumblemumble

Now everyone is happy.

[cpn.luckycharms]

Originally posted by azdude_40GB
I'm not blindly defending Apple here, but they truly have the concept of the flash player correct!

This is not the iPod for most current iPod owners.
This is not the iPod for feature freaks or geeks.

This is the iPod for young kids (my sister LOVES it!).
This is the iPod for moms (mine LOVES it!).
This is the iPod for anyone who can't spend a lot.
This is the iPod for the frequent exerciser.

...and as such, it's going to sell like hotcakes. You not getting it is irrelevant. :D

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[datektrader21]

Hey everyone else is throwing their 2 cents in so heres mine.


The shuffle is going to sell really well. It???s very simple, own an Ipod? Use Itunes? Yes to either of those is an instant sale of the shuffle. The shuffle is a great addition to the Ipod/Itunes family no HD means no skipping for those on go. Heck Apple could have just grabbed and generic player on the market, slapped in Itunes support and they would have had an instant hit. Cool sold the Ipod, Itunes will sell the shuffle. Not features, battery life or logic.

But please don't say this player is special in anyway shape or form. It???s not; it???s just another player that goes well with Itunes. Most every flash producing company out there makes an easy to use flash player. With a screen or without, with a rechargeable battery or with standard AA, AAA batteries. There is nothing super easy about the Shuffle, you can hit next just as easily on any player and get to the next song. Many have a random or DJ feature. And as far as price goes, all Apple has done with their price is made it better for us the consumer. If anyone has margin to spare it???s an Asian company. When the shuffle hits the shelves competitor???s prices will hit the floor.

It would be waste of time to quote all the different points people have made about the shuffle to point out there flaws but I will try and hit a few I found interesting.

The cost of accessories for instance, an armband for 29.99 that???s insane it???s a piece of elastic with a Velcro clip, why force the consumer whom you have already locked into your player with your music service to pay even more for crap that should rightfully be in the box. That to me is a picture of a company that in no way respects there loyal consumers.

The lack of a screen, not really a big deal I guess considering at the most you get is 3 lines. and while it may help somewhat in finding songs, Apples motto seems to be all about random surprises so why not go with it.

Built in rechargeable battery, why oh why would they go with this. I???m not even talking about the rechargeable part, that???s great, but its built in what If something happens to the battery ( its not like apple has a great rep on batteries) it would be quicker and probably cheaper to just buy a new shuffle. What if you go to the gym often? I through my flash player in my gym bag after working out, sometimes I remember to take it out sometimes I don???t. if I don???t and the battery is dead I just swap it out with a AAA, a pack of 8 is like 6 bucks. That???s enough for 90 hours of continuous play or 3 months of working out at the gym to music for an hour a day.

That???s sad in my opinion; there are many companies that make many small custom fitting Li-ion batteries that could easily have been made to be removable on this player without sacrificing the size or battery life. I saw three companies at CES alone that could have made the battery. At least a removable one means I can keep a spare in my car or bag. And again it???s just disrespectful to the consumer to not give them some simple piece of mind features.

External battery pack is cool, especially if it charges the internal battery.

The Dock seems like just one more thing to clutter my desk, besides I have a USB port on my KB.

Lack of FM tuner, not an issue at all. Have you heard FM on a flash player? Its mainly a novelty.

Lastly I???ll say that other companies namely Creative ( since they seem most mentioned, and I have their flash player now) have great players, if your not using Itunes then they defiantly have products worth looking at. The Muvo N200 for instance can do direct encoding from any audio source. So there is not even a need for a computer to get music. And it???s just as small and only .02 ounces heavier than the shuffle. Plus it comes with an armband. Syncing music to it takes like 3 clicks in WMP10 (works the same with most any brand player that has the new ???Plays for sure??? logo). And just about as many in Media Source (Creative???s own software for those that don???t know). So while the Shuffle is great for those with Itunes and it will defiantly sell well, it???s not special and not innovative it???s Apple doing what Apple should, trying to make money for themselves and their shareholders, and their damn good at it :)

[AaronS]

Originally posted by iPodHumper
mumblemumblemumble


I type that because...oh nevermind...

Originally posted by datektrader21
Cool sold the iPod, Itunes will sell the shuffle. Not features, battery life or logic.


An interesting statement, and one that I for the most part agree with. I do think price will sell the iPs as well. When you say $99 for an iPod, people's ears perk up.


But please don't say this player is special in anyway shape or form. It???s not; it???s just another player that goes well with Itunes.


I think you've hit a key point here. The iPs is special because of its tight integration with iTunes.


Most every flash producing company out there makes an easy to use flash player.


Who cares if the player is easy to use if you have to struggle to get the music to and from the device itself.


There is nothing super easy about the Shuffle, you can hit next just as easily on any player and get to the next song. Many have a random or DJ feature.


That sounds "super easy" to me.


The cost of accessories for instance, an armband for 29.99 that???s insane it???s a piece of elastic with a Velcro clip, why force the consumer whom you have already locked into your player with your music service to pay even more for crap


Hey, if you don't like the price, don't buy it! Trust me, there will be many other companies who will come out with arm bands, probably in the $9.99 area. Apple is not forcing anyone to pay for more crap.


...that should rightfully be in the box. That to me is a picture of a company that in no way respects there loyal consumers.


Rightfully be in the box? It is your right that Apple include and armband in the box? Does that mean it's your right for Apple to include a screen on the iPod Shuffle? Is it your right to only be charged $79 instead of $99 for an iPs, because Apple's margins are too high?


Built in rechargeable battery, why oh why would they go with this. I???m not even talking about the rechargeable part, that???s great, but its built in what If something happens to the battery ( its not like apple has a great rep on batteries) it would be quicker and probably cheaper to just buy a new shuffle.


You want to know why they went with this? Design. They would have had to make the shuffle much thicker in order to shove a battery the size of a AAA or AA in there. They looked at what they wanted the iPs to be and decided they wanted it thin and light. This was probably just one of the reasons.


What if you go to the gym often? I through my flash player in my gym bag after working out, sometimes I remember to take it out sometimes I don???t. if I don???t and the battery is dead I just swap it out with a AAA, a pack of 8 is like 6 bucks. That???s enough for 90 hours of continuous play or 3 months of working out at the gym to music for an hour a day.


Well, if you're working out for an hour a day, you'd have 12 days or so to remember to take it out, wouldn't you?


there are many companies that make many small custom fitting Li-ion batteries that could easily have been made to be removable on this player without sacrificing the size or battery life. I saw three companies at CES alone that could have made the battery. At least a removable one means I can keep a spare in my car or bag.


Agreed. I think anyone would prefer to have an easily replaceable Li-ion battery than one that is permanently in the device.


And again it???s just disrespectful to the consumer to not give them some simple piece of mind features.


Disrespectful? I don't understand how not including a replaceable battery is disrespectful.

Syncing music to it [the creative player] takes like 3 clicks in WMP10 (works the same with most any brand player that has the new ???Plays for sure??? logo).


Sucks for those who have a Mac...


it???s not special


Everyone is special in my eyes ;)


and not innovative


Read my previous statements as to why.


it???s Apple doing what Apple should, trying to make money for themselves and their shareholders, and their damn good at it :)

Yes, yes they are ;)

as

[davebach172]

nice one AaronS! you had the patience to type it all out as well!

[Girdag]

Who cares if the player is easy to use if you have to struggle to get the music to and from the device itself.

Syncing music to it [the creative player] takes like 3 clicks in WMP10 (works the same with most any brand player that has the new ???Plays for sure??? logo).

You even quoted the second one yourself, without realising the contradiction.

[Lone]

With the screen on other flash players you still need to go through each song for the majority of players, by clicking next, next, next, next, until the song is found.. There is no menu where you can scroll through your music for flash players, from my experiences at least, and for those that do, the menus are extremely cumbersome! This is why the screen was not included, which allowed for a low price..

BS, sir. With the exception of the very first tiny 32/64 MB players, all modern flash players use the screen to navigate music, without having to skip track by track to find the song you're looking for. Most of the flash players navigate very similarly to the iPod shuffle; for example, the joystick on iRiver players controls like this; push in to play/select a song, push right to go the next track, push left to go back a track, and up and down to control the volume. Same configuration as with the SHuffle, albeit slightly differently constructed buttons.

[AaronS]

Originally posted by Girdag
You even quoted the second one yourself, without realising the contradiction.

Hmm. I had to look at this one for a second and I don't think that I did contradict myself. I stated that the ease of use of the device isn't important if you can't transfer music to the device easily. That is still true.

The other quote was what threeball stated. If the statement was true, then it does sound easy to copy music from the computer to the device.

I see your point though. Nice observation.

as

[drivebysneezing]

The only thing I like about the shuffle is the new ear buds that come with it.
http://www.ipodlounge.com/assets/images/reviews_apple/shuffle/08.jpg

I like the little slider thing that lets you adjust the cord length like on the Shure earbuds only not.

[IpodHumper]

AaronS are you a realRoyal Wombat or a badger, mushroom, or snake?

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

[AaronS]

Originally posted by drivebysneezing
The only thing I like about the shuffle is the new ear buds that come with it.
http://www.ipodlounge.com/assets/images/reviews_apple/shuffle/08.jpg

I like the little slider thing that lets you adjust the cord length like on the Shure earbuds only not.

My understanding is that the earbuds are the same, they simply have an added piece of plastic for cord management.

as

[AndyH]

Originally posted by AaronS
As was mentioned before, the standard is also AA and AAA batteries. The $$$ adds up if you actually use your player.
As was mentioned before in this thread, anyone with one of these flash-based MP3 players that uses standard alkaline AA or AAA batteries really should invest in a set of NiMH rechargeable batteries and a charger. I purchase all my NiMH rechargeable batteries here:
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/

And just for the record, I wish the iPod shuffle had an LCD screen :(

[AaronS]

Originally posted by AndyH
As was mentioned before in this thread, anyone with one of these flash-based MP3 players that uses standard alkaline AA or AAA batteries really should invest in a set of NiMH rechargeable batteries and a charger. I purchase all my NiMH rechargeable batteries here:
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/


Touch??.

as

[datektrader21]

Originally posted by AaronS
Who cares if the player is easy to use if you have to struggle to get the music to and from the device itself.


Again with most players it's not a struggle it???s really rather easy. WMP10 is pretty easy to use, Media source while somewhat less user friendly than WMP10 it is more robust in its features and with a little time is also pretty easy to use. I can see though that ease of use is a hard thing to debate, what???s easy for one person may not be easy for another. Rather like driving a car, some come natural to it, others have high insurance premiums.




Rightfully be in the box? It is your right that Apple include and armband in the box? Does that mean it's your right for Apple to include a screen on the iPod Shuffle? Is it your right to only be charged $79 instead of $99 for an iPs, because Apple's margins are too high?

Again a bad choice of words on my part and I do apologize. When I say rightfully what I???m trying to get at is that something as simple as an armband does not have a high cost. When you sell it separately you undoubtedly cut out a percentage of people who can buy it. Yes I???m sure there will be generic armbands but as cool seems to be synonymous with iPod would it be cool to have a generic armband instead of the genuine Apple armband?

As for Apples margin, I???m sure that while it is decent it is probably not anywhere near that of the Asian companies in the industry. considering that Apple generally only gives a few points of margin to retailers, say 4-6 points, where as Asian companies tend to sit around 15+ point area for margin to retailers. There can't be much there, I know your thinking they don't have to give high margin to retailers because there products sell fast. While that is true, you also have to consider that Apple puts far more in to advertising than most of the Asian companies combined. (I???m sure Apple will have a super bowl spot for the shuffle)





You want to know why they went with this? Design. They would have had to make the shuffle much thicker in order to shove a battery the size of a AAA or AA in there. They looked at what they wanted the iPs to be and decided they wanted it thin and light. This was probably just one of the reasons.

H W D
3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33 Ips

2.58x1.32 x 0.51 N200

Now that???s the dimension difference between the Ips and the N200 from Creative. what I think is important in this is that you say the Shuffle would need to be much thicker for a standard AAA battery yet the difference is .18" in depth, I would sacrifice that un-noticeable amount of depth ( thickness) for a removable battery.


Well, if you're working out for an hour a day, you'd have 12 days or so to remember to take it out, wouldn't you?

true, very true. but have you every seen a product live up to its advertised battery life? especially if your not a battery savy user who does not perform all the charge and rundown cycles taht people recomend to break in Li-ion batteries?




Disrespectful? I don't understand how not including a replaceable battery is disrespectful.


Maybe disrespectful is a little harsh, let???s just say it???s not user friendly. As I said, if that battery fails your looking at a new unit. The redeeming factor of course is that a new unit is only 99 or so dollars.


Sucks for those who have a Mac...


If you have a Mac you probably use an I-pod or the shuffle. That???s just how it is. If you have a Mac why would you even consider using a music service from another company?you have Itunes. So it doesn???t really suck for those that have a Mac because they are not the target audience of these large online content providers such as Microsoft. Why would you target 5% of the market anyway? There goal is to provide a viable alternative to Itunes on the PC and with partnerships in the ???Plays for Logo??? program they hope to also provide an alternative to your next Mp3 player purchase.



Everyone is special in my eyes ;)


that makes me feel all warm and fuzy :)

[datektrader21]

Originally posted by AaronS
Who cares if the player is easy to use if you have to struggle to get the music to and from the device itself.


Again with most players it's not a struggle it???s really rather easy. WMP10 is pretty easy to use, Media source while somewhat less user friendly than WMP10 it is more robust in its features and with a little time is also pretty easy to use. I can see though that ease of use is a hard thing to debate, what???s easy for one person may not be easy for another. Rather like driving a car, some come natural to it, others have high insurance premiums.




Rightfully be in the box? It is your right that Apple include and armband in the box? Does that mean it's your right for Apple to include a screen on the iPod Shuffle? Is it your right to only be charged $79 instead of $99 for an iPs, because Apple's margins are too high?

Again a bad choice of words on my part and I do apologize. When I say rightfully what I???m trying to get at is that something as simple as an armband does not have a high cost. When you sell it separately you undoubtedly cut out a percentage of people who can buy it. Yes I???m sure there will be generic armbands but as cool seems to be synonymous with iPod would it be cool to have a generic armband instead of the genuine Apple armband?

As for Apples margin, I???m sure that while it is decent it is probably not anywhere near that of the Asian companies in the industry. considering that Apple generally only gives a few points of margin to retailers, say 4-6 points, where as Asian companies tend to sit around 15+ point area for margin to retailers. There can't be much there, I know your thinking they don't have to give high margin to retailers because there products sell fast. While that is true, you also have to consider that Apple puts far more in to advertising than most of the Asian companies combined. (I???m sure Apple will have a super bowl spot for the shuffle)





You want to know why they went with this? Design. They would have had to make the shuffle much thicker in order to shove a battery the size of a AAA or AA in there. They looked at what they wanted the iPs to be and decided they wanted it thin and light. This was probably just one of the reasons.

H W D
3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33 Ips

2.58x1.32 x 0.51 N200

Now that???s the dimension difference between the Ips and the N200 from Creative. what I think is important in this is that you say the Shuffle would need to be much thicker for a standard AAA battery yet the difference is .18" in depth, I would sacrifice that un-noticeable amount of depth ( thickness) for a removable battery.


Well, if you're working out for an hour a day, you'd have 12 days or so to remember to take it out, wouldn't you?

true, very true. but have you every seen a product live up to its advertised battery life? especially if your not a battery savy user who does not perform all the charge and rundown cycles taht people recomend to break in Li-ion batteries?




Disrespectful? I don't understand how not including a replaceable battery is disrespectful.


Maybe disrespectful is a little harsh, let???s just say it???s not user friendly. As I said, if that battery fails your looking at a new unit. The redeeming factor of course is that a new unit is only 99 or so dollars.


Sucks for those who have a Mac...


If you have a Mac you probably use an I-pod or the shuffle. That???s just how it is. If you have a Mac why would you even consider using a music service from another company? You have Itunes. So it doesn???t really suck for those that have a Mac because they are not the target audience of these large online content providers such as Microsoft. Why would you target 5% of the market anyway? There goal is to provide a viable alternative to Itunes on the PC and with partnerships in the ???Plays for Logo??? program they hope to also provide an alternative to your next Mp3 player purchase.


Everyone is special in my eyes ;)


that makes me feel all warm and fuzy :)

[datektrader21]

Originally posted by AaronS
Who cares if the player is easy to use if you have to struggle to get the music to and from the device itself.


Again with most players it's not a struggle it???s really rather easy. WMP10 is pretty easy to use, Media source while somewhat less user friendly than WMP10 it is more robust in its features and with a little time is also pretty easy to use. I can see though that ease of use is a hard thing to debate, what???s easy for one person may not be easy for another. Rather like driving a car, some come natural to it, others have high insurance premiums.




Rightfully be in the box? It is your right that Apple include and armband in the box? Does that mean it's your right for Apple to include a screen on the iPod Shuffle? Is it your right to only be charged $79 instead of $99 for an iPs, because Apple's margins are too high?

Again a bad choice of words on my part and I do apologize. When I say rightfully what I???m trying to get at is that something as simple as an armband does not have a high cost. When you sell it separately you undoubtedly cut out a percentage of people who can buy it. Yes I???m sure there will be generic armbands but as cool seems to be synonymous with iPod would it be cool to have a generic armband instead of the genuine Apple armband?

As for Apples margin, I???m sure that while it is decent it is probably not anywhere near that of the Asian companies in the industry. considering that Apple generally only gives a few points of margin to retailers, say 4-6 points, where as Asian companies tend to sit around 15+ point area for margin to retailers. There can't be much there, I know your thinking they don't have to give high margin to retailers because there products sell fast. While that is true, you also have to consider that Apple puts far more in to advertising than most of the Asian companies combined. (I???m sure Apple will have a super bowl spot for the shuffle)





You want to know why they went with this? Design. They would have had to make the shuffle much thicker in order to shove a battery the size of a AAA or AA in there. They looked at what they wanted the iPs to be and decided they wanted it thin and light. This was probably just one of the reasons.

H W D
3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33 Ips

2.58x1.32 x 0.51 N200

Now that???s the dimension difference between the Ips and the N200 from Creative. what I think is important in this is that you say the Shuffle would need to be much thicker for a standard AAA battery yet the difference is .18" in depth, I would sacrifice that un-noticeable amount of depth ( thickness) for a removable battery.


Well, if you're working out for an hour a day, you'd have 12 days or so to remember to take it out, wouldn't you?

true, very true. but have you every seen a product live up to its advertised battery life? especially if your not a battery savy user who does not perform all the charge and rundown cycles taht people recomend to break in Li-ion batteries?




Disrespectful? I don't understand how not including a replaceable battery is disrespectful.


Maybe disrespectful is a little harsh, let???s just say it???s not user friendly. As I said, if that battery fails your looking at a new unit. The redeeming factor of course is that a new unit is only 99 or so dollars.


Sucks for those who have a Mac...


If you have a Mac you probably use an I-pod or the shuffle. That???s just how it is. If you have a Mac why would you even consider using a music service from another company? You have Itunes. So it doesn???t really suck for those that have a Mac because they are not the target audience of these large online content providers such as Microsoft. Why would you target 5% of the market anyway? There goal is to provide a viable alternative to Itunes on the PC and with partnerships in the ???Plays for Logo??? program they hope to also provide an alternative to your next Mp3 player purchase.


Everyone is special in my eyes ;)


that makes me feel all warm and fuzy :)

[AaronS]

Wow, you must have been passionate about your comments to post them three consecutive times ;).

Originally posted by datektrader21
Again with most players it's not a struggle it???s really rather easy. WMP10 is pretty easy to use, Media source while somewhat less user friendly than WMP10 it is more robust in its features and with a little time is also pretty easy to use. I can see though that ease of use is a hard thing to debate, what???s easy for one person may not be easy for another. Rather like driving a car, some come natural to it, others have high insurance premiums.


Yes, ease of use is somewhat difficult to debate, because it is in fact, like you say, a relative term. I still think Apple wins in this category for all around ease of use. From syncing your music with a "no-click" method, to getting your music from the iTMS to your iPod with as little as one click, I think iTunes still has the advantage.


Again a bad choice of words on my part and I do apologize. When I say rightfully what I???m trying to get at is that something as simple as an armband does not have a high cost.


Agreed. The armband does not have a high cost. It does seem a little outrageous to charge $29.00 for an arm band, but you get this sometimes with Apple accessories (think $400+ for a 1GB stick of RAM for the Mac Mini).


would it be cool to have a generic armband instead of the genuine Apple armband?


Ha, of course not! ;)


As for Apples margin, I???m sure that while it is decent it is probably not anywhere near that of the Asian companies in the industry. considering that Apple generally only gives a few points of margin to retailers, say 4-6 points, where as Asian companies tend to sit around 15+ point area for margin to retailers.


I'll comment as much as I can for this one. The margins for the iPs are less than that of the iPm and the regular iPod for Apple. Apple stated this in their quarterly earnings report. For resellers of the iPod, the margins they get are generally even across the board, but higher than 4-6% (although not by much).



There can't be much there, I know your thinking they don't have to give high margin to retailers because there products sell fast. While that is true, you also have to consider that Apple puts far more in to advertising than most of the Asian companies combined. (I???m sure Apple will have a super bowl spot for the shuffle)


Not quite sure what the point of this statement is, but it's early, so I'm sure I'm just missing it.


H W D
3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33 Ips

2.58x1.32 x 0.51 N200

Now that???s the dimension difference between the Ips and the N200 from Creative...I would sacrifice that un-noticeable amount of depth [.18in]( thickness) for a removable battery.


You make a good point. I think you must also consider though then volume of the battery. There is also extra width added by a AAA battery. They have to move components out of the way to make room for the battery. This would be even more for a AA battery. That said, your point is well taken.


true, very true. but have you every seen a product live up to its advertised battery life?

Early reports on the iPs seem to indicate 15+ hours is not uncommon. So to answer your question, I don't think the iPs lives up to its advertised battery life, I think it regularly exceeds it.


Maybe disrespectful is a little harsh, let???s just say it???s not user friendly. As I said, if that battery fails your looking at a new unit. The redeeming factor of course is that a new unit is only 99 or so dollars.


Why don't we call it a "possible design compromise". Some (you) may consider this a big compromise. Others (myself) may prefer it, or at least not consider it a big deal.


If you have a Mac you probably use an I-pod or the shuffle. That???s just how it is. If you have a Mac why would you even consider using a music service from another company?


Why would anyone else consider another music service ;)?


So it doesn???t really suck for those that have a Mac because they are not the target audience of these large online content providers such as Microsoft. Why would you target 5% of the market anyway? There goal is to provide a viable alternative to Itunes on the PC


Oh, no, I completely agree. I don't think very many people would use the WMP online music store if it was available for the Mac. I was just attempting to make a point. I probably didn't do a very good job as I don't even remember the point I was trying to make.


and with partnerships in the ???Plays for Logo??? program they hope to also provide an alternative to your next Mp3 player purchase.


And they try in vein...


that makes me feel all warm and fuzy :)

This is a family forum, let's not get too over the top here ;).

It was nice to see someone take apart my comments like that. I think that makes for good discussion. It shows that you actually took into account what I said. Good comments. Good discussion. I enjoyed it...

...

All three times :D.

as

[AaronS]

Originally posted by iPodHumper
AaronS are you a realRoyal Wombat or a badger, mushroom, or snake?

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

I'm the real deal.

as

[Torgo11]

I read this whole thread, and I'm repeating a lot of what has come before, but I feel the same way a lot of people do about Apple's latest.

I love the iPod, I love iTunes, I like OSX (marginally more than XP), but the Photo and the Shuffle rank highly in the Worst Products Apple Has Ever Produced category.

The Shuffle is particularly galling. Yes, iTunes is terrific and the hardware/software integration almost redeems the Shuffle, but we shouldn't have to accept compromises. When other manufacturers are offering more features, easier usability (it hasn't been mentioned, but the MuVo TX is drag-and-drop for music, the easiest interface there is), longer battery life and (gasp) better design (check out the iRiver N10 or some of the Mpio players)...you seriously start wondering what the hell is going on in Cupertino.

Yeah, the price point seems pretty good, until you consider that the Muvo TX is averages only around twenty bucks more, includes an armband (almost a requirement for this type of player) and all of that additional content. Other players are cheaper and have plumeted in price recently. The iPod is also no paragon of build quality and many of the cheaper or similarly price competition offer better quality. The value proposition doesn't really wash.

Despite all of this people defend the Shuffle because it will work for some people and because of the iPod marketing juggarnaut. I certainly don't disagree, people will buy this thing. However, they're probably buying it because:
a. they're ignorant of other product offerings and go the McDonalds route (stick with what you've heard of)
b. they're into the "kewl" iPod factor (despite that the thing looks like a tampon)
c. they want to be seen with an iPod

None of these seem to me to be truly defensible reasons for buying the Shuffle. We should demand better from Apple rather than feeling defensive about its products.

[AaronS]

Originally posted by Torgo11
I read this whole thread, and I'm repeating a lot of what has come before, but I feel the same way a lot of people do about Apple's latest.


Welcome to the forums. Glad you posted. Impressed you made it through the entire thread.


I love the iPod, I love iTunes, I like OSX (marginally more than XP), but the Photo and the Shuffle rank highly in the Worst Products Apple Has Ever Produced category.


You've sparked my interest. I'm curious as to why you think this. Now I shall read on.


Yes, iTunes is terrific and the hardware/software integration


This alone adds value to the device.


but we shouldn't have to accept compromises.


See, this is the thing. If you truly think the iPs is a compromise you don't have to accept it! You can buy something else. Alternatively, you can always give Apple your thoughts on how to improve their products. (http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html)


When other manufacturers are offering more features


At a higher price, or with less storage..


easier usability (it hasn't been mentioned, but the MuVo TX is drag-and-drop for music, the easiest interface there is)


You can do the same thing with an iPod.


better design (check out the iRiver N10 or some of the Mpio players)


Obviously, design is relative. I personally feel those designs are inferior to the iPs.


...you seriously start wondering what the hell is going on in Cupertino.


I wonder that too, but for different reasons.


Yeah, the price point seems pretty good, until you consider that the Muvo TX is averages only around twenty bucks more, includes an armband (almost a requirement for this type of player) and all of that additional content.


I'd say it averages between $15 and $40 more. If you take the high end, you can add an arm band (from Apple) and still save $10. If you don't go with an Apple arm band, you could potentially save even more. In terms of additional content, I'm curious how frequently people use the FM transmitter and the voice recorder. That's like saying people use an iPod as a PDA.


Other players are cheaper and have plumeted in price recently. The iPod is also no paragon of build quality and many of the cheaper or similarly price competition offer better quality.


I disagree with this statement. I feel the build quality of the iPs (along with the rest of the entire iPod line) is stellar.


The value proposition doesn't really wash.


You have certainly not convinced me of this.


Despite all of this people defend the Shuffle because it will work for some people


It will work for many I'm sure


and because of the iPod marketing juggarnaut.


I don't defend the iPod because it is a marketing juggernaut. I defend it because I own one and believe it is a top notch product. I enjoy using it and hope to express that joy to others.


I certainly don't disagree, people will buy this thing. However, they're probably buying it because:
a. they're ignorant of other product offerings and go the McDonalds route (stick with what you've heard of)
b. they're into the "kewl" iPod factor (despite that the thing looks like a tampon)
c. they want to be seen with an iPod


If these were the reasons that people purchased an iPod, sales would soar initially, but plummet quickly. Sales have only gone up since its introduction in 2001. To me, this disproves your point.

Your McDonalds theory doesn't work either. It might if you were talking about a $3.99 hamburger, but when you talk about a device that runs between $99 and $599, people take more things into consideration.

We should demand better from Apple


Then demand better. (http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html)

as

[Torgo11]

/me does the snazzy broken quote thing.
Originally posted by AaronS
This alone adds value to the device. I agree, that's why I said that.



[quote]See, this is the thing. If you truly think the iPs is a compromise you don't have to accept it! You can buy something else. Alternatively, you can always give Apple your thoughts on how to improve their products. (http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html)Of course everything is in my opinion, this thread is about why people defebnd the Shuffle, I've stated my reasons why I think it's inferior and mostly indefensible.



At a higher price, or with less storage..See below.



You can do the same thing with an iPod.Not true, you need iTunes to transfer music. Since this is clearly intended to be used by 95% of users as a music player, that's a crutch.



Obviously, design is relative. I personally feel those designs are inferior to the iPs. Fair enough, but it's not exactly muy macho, is it?



I wonder that too, but for different reasons.Kind bud.



I'd say it averages between $15 and $40 more.My man, I paid 119 for my Muvo 512Meg TX FM at newegg, I guess that's between 15 and 40.
If you take the high end, you can add an arm band (from Apple) and still save $10. If you don't go with an Apple arm band, you could potentially save even more.An arm band is "high end"? I think it's a requirement for a player a large number of people will use to work out with. But that's just me.
In terms of additional content, I'm curious how frequently people use the FM transmitter and the voice recorder. That's like saying people use an iPod as a PDA.I use the radio all the time because the broadcats the TV channels that way in my gym (and most gyms). I've yet to record anything, but you have to admit, it's nice to at least have the option



I disagree with this statement. I feel the build quality of the iPs (along with the rest of the entire iPod line) is stellar.The Shuffle is not up to the Mercedes-like quality of the Mini and regular 'pod, it's not even close. iRivers are beautifully made, so are Creatives. At least this is not a selling point for the Shuffle vis-a-vis the other players.

I don't defend the iPod because it is a marketing juggernaut. I defend it because I own one and believe it is a top notch product. I enjoy using it and hope to express that joy to others.OK. IYO.

If these were the reasons that people purchased an iPod, sales would soar initially, but plummet quickly. Sales have only gone up since its introduction in 2001. To me, this disproves your point.No, it doesn't because I'm not talking about the Mini or regular pod, both of which I consider to be far superior products to the Shuffle and industry standards. My comments only pertain to the Shuffle, and the jury remains out on that one.

Your McDonalds theory doesn't work either. It might if you were talking about a $3.99 hamburger, but when you talk about a device that runs between $99 and $599, people take more things into consideration.I'm sure Grandma and Joe Non-Tech are going to go to Best Buy, look at flash players and say "iRiver, WTF? Creative WTF?... oh look, iPod, that I know" and buy the shuffle. That's my point and that's a #### poor reason for buying somthing, IMO.

[Torgo11]

/me does the snazzy broken quote thing.
Originally posted by AaronS
This alone adds value to the device. I agree, that's why I said that.



See, this is the thing. If you truly think the iPs is a compromise you don't have to accept it! You can buy something else. Alternatively, you can always give Apple your thoughts on how to improve their products. (http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html)Of course everything is in my opinion, this thread is about why people defebnd the Shuffle, I've stated my reasons why I think it's inferior and mostly indefensible.



At a higher price, or with less storage..See below.



You can do the same thing with an iPod.Not true, you need iTunes to transfer music. Since this is clearly intended to be used by 95% of users as a music player, that's a crutch.



Obviously, design is relative. I personally feel those designs are inferior to the iPs. Fair enough, but it's not exactly muy macho, is it?



I wonder that too, but for different reasons.Kind bud.



I'd say it averages between $15 and $40 more.My man, I paid 119 for my Muvo 512Meg TX FM at newegg, I guess that's between 15 and 40.
If you take the high end, you can add an arm band (from Apple) and still save $10. If you don't go with an Apple arm band, you could potentially save even more.An arm band is "high end"? I think it's a requirement for a player a large number of people will use to work out with. But that's just me.
In terms of additional content, I'm curious how frequently people use the FM transmitter and the voice recorder. That's like saying people use an iPod as a PDA.I use the radio all the time because the broadcats the TV channels that way in my gym (and most gyms). I've yet to record anything, but you have to admit, it's nice to at least have the option



I disagree with this statement. I feel the build quality of the iPs (along with the rest of the entire iPod line) is stellar.The Shuffle is not up to the Mercedes-like quality of the Mini and regular 'pod, it's not even close. iRivers are beautifully made, so are Creatives. At least this is not a selling point for the Shuffle vis-a-vis the other players.

I don't defend the iPod because it is a marketing juggernaut. I defend it because I own one and believe it is a top notch product. I enjoy using it and hope to express that joy to others.OK. IYO.

If these were the reasons that people purchased an iPod, sales would soar initially, but plummet quickly. Sales have only gone up since its introduction in 2001. To me, this disproves your point.No, it doesn't because I'm not talking about the Mini or regular pod, both of which I consider to be far superior products to the Shuffle and industry standards. My comments only pertain to the Shuffle, and the jury remains out on that one.

Your McDonalds theory doesn't work either. It might if you were talking about a $3.99 hamburger, but when you talk about a device that runs between $99 and $599, people take more things into consideration.I'm sure Grandma and Joe Non-Tech are going to go to Best Buy, look at flash players and say "iRiver, WTF? Creative WTF?... oh look, iPod, that I know" and buy the shuffle. That's my point and that's a #### poor reason for buying somthing, IMO.

[flatso]

The closest I have ever come to having music come out of thin air was today when I had the shuffle and my etymotic er-6 and the shuffle tucked under my hat. It's like it's not there man!

[AaronS]

You'll learn to love the broken quotes. It makes things much easier to read, and in my point of view, makes an arguement for or against something much easier to decipher.

Originally posted by Torgo11
I agree, that's why I said that.


Agreed.



Of course everything is in my opinion, this thread is about why people defebnd the Shuffle, I've stated my reasons why I think it's inferior and mostly indefensible.


Then here we shall differ, and that's just dandy with me.


Not true, you need iTunes to transfer music. Since this is clearly intended to be used by 95% of users as a music player, that's a crutch.


Read theBrowse Hidden Files (http://www.macworld.com/2003/08/secrets/insidetheipod/index.php) section. Their method wasn't what I was thinking. Your next point I'm sure is going to be that at least some application is required, and I'll concede that. I was just trying to make a point.


My man, I paid 119 for my Muvo 512Meg TX FM at newegg, I guess that's between 15 and 40.


I've seen as low as $113.99 at Amazon and as high as $139.99 at Best Buy or Circuit City.


An arm band is "high end"?


I was referring to the fact that if you went with the high end of the price range (i.e. $139.99) for the Muvo, the Apple arm band would still leave you at a $10 discount if you went with the shuffle. That's all.


I use the radio all the time because the broadcats the TV channels that way in my gym (and most gyms). I've yet to record anything, but you have to admit, it's nice to at least have the option.


I feel that I make my point with that statement, but I also take your point. It is nice to have options.



No, it doesn't because I'm not talking about the Mini or regular pod, both of which I consider to be far superior products to the Shuffle and industry standards. My comments only pertain to the Shuffle, and the jury remains out on that one.


My misunderstanding, I thought you meant everything.


I'm sure Grandma and Joe Non-Tech are going to go to Best Buy, look at flash players and say "iRiver, WTF? Creative WTF?... oh look, iPod, that I know" and buy the shuffle. That's my point and that's a #### poor reason for buying somthing, IMO.

I agree, that is a poor reason for buying something. You'll get people like that in every industry though. People need to do their research. I think we both agree on that.

Indeed.

as

[AaronS]

Torgo,

Do you feel posting multiple times gets your point across better?

;)

as

[stuckinthe80s13]

Originally posted by MXracer250F
I really like that the Shuffle is cheap as dirt and all, but I can't think of one other thing it does right. I mean, it doesn't have a screen, it's battery life is less than adequate in a flash player market where the standard is 16 hours..........................................
...............

Sorry if I sound so mean, but I was looking forward to the flash iPod so bad even though i'm not particularly into iPods as evidenced by my post history. It seems kind of sad to wait this whole time in anticipation to only be horribly let down. There is no spin on this, the Shuffle isn't the leader in terms of anything other than price in the flash market, and that leaves me disappointed and stuck in a position of either waiting for Apple to release a new one or just buy a different brand entirely :mad:

*agrees unequivocaly* This is TOTALLY below apple standards, i mean, for fricks sake my old 64 meg Samsung had a screen! how expensive is a screen on something that small?? not very. Even further, how expensive would a miniturized click wheel have been? SHEESH. I really was expecting something better when i first heard the flash rumors. *is dissapointed*

[MaddogTL]

Why is everyone thinking that a screen,fm radio and other crap needed? If I'm given a choice between having a screen but crappy software or no screen but great software I would take the great software. I have had flash palyers before and getting music on it was a chore that I dreaded cause it too so long. While the ipod shuffle does have it problems it is a proven design that works and with itunes which is a very good music management software the ipod will sell.

Also I'm one of those people that does look around and sees what is on the market but all of them that I have seen have not fit my needs or budget,the ipod shuffle is the first. The shuffle might not be here a year from now but it will force changes on iriver and creative to come out with better hardware/software cause that is the main reason the ipod shuffle will sell.

[zip22]

Originally posted by stuckinthe80s13
*agrees unequivocaly* This is TOTALLY below apple standards, i mean, for fricks sake my old 64 meg Samsung had a screen! how expensive is a screen on something that small?? not very. Even further, how expensive would a miniturized click wheel have been? SHEESH. I really was expecting something better when i first heard the flash rumors. *is dissapointed*

have you seen the dissection? i see no room for a screen or a click wheel.
http://www.applematters.com/images/021.jpg


what was the screen on your samsung used for?

[AaronS]

Originally posted by stuckinthe80s13
*agrees unequivocaly* This is TOTALLY below apple standards, i mean, for fricks sake my old 64 meg Samsung had a screen!


I know! I mean, it's just like when the iMac came out. Every other computer in the world had a floppy drive! But the iMac didn't! And man oh man did the iMac suck!


how expensive is a screen on something that small?? not very.


Not even going to comment.


Even further, how expensive would a miniturized click wheel have been? SHEESH.


Okay, in my mind this proves that you have not even seen the iPod Shuffle in person! Take a look at your thumb. Now think about a white stick only millimeters thicker than your thumb. Now you have the width of the iPod shuffle. How on earth are you going to use a click wheel if the device is just as thick as your thumb?

Here,
take a look at this (http://homepage.mac.com/aaronsteele/.Pictures/ipsfinger.jpg).


as

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by AaronS
I know! I mean, it's just like when the iMac came out. Every other computer in the world had a floppy drive! But the iMac didn't! And man oh man did the iMac suck!



Not even going to comment.



Okay, in my mind this proves that you have not even seen the iPod Shuffle in person! Take a look at your thumb. Now think about a white stick only millimeters thicker than your thumb. Now you have the width of the iPod shuffle. How on earth are you going to use a click wheel if the device is just as thick as your thumb?

Here,
take a look at this (http://homepage.mac.com/aaronsteele/.Pictures/ipsfinger.jpg).


as

Good points Aaron. I think one other thing people seem to overlook is that the shuffle was meant to compete against the low-mid end flash player market (256MB-1GB). In doing so Apple also needed to make sure there was both a price and feature difference between the shuffle and mini. If Apple were to make a screen on the shuffle and add some other features the pricing would be different. I'd say $150 for 512MB and $200 for 1GB. Do you not think that a lot of these sales would be lost to the mini (or even vice-versa) because of the small price difference..? By making such distinctions between each division of iPods [low-mid end flash, low-end HDD (meant to attract high-end flash as well), and the mid-high end HDD].

-Dan

[AaronS]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
I think one other thing people seem to overlook is that the shuffle was meant to compete against the low-mid end flash player market (256MB-1GB). In doing so Apple also needed to make sure there was both a price and feature difference between the shuffle and mini.


Yes, that is a good point.


If Apple were to make a screen on the shuffle and add some other features the pricing would be different. I'd say $150 for 512MB and $200 for 1GB.


If not a little more. But yeah, that sounds about right.


Do you not think that a lot of these sales would be lost to the mini (or even vice-versa) because of the small price difference..?

Yes.

Good points.

as

[LBThomas69]

Hi everyone,

New here so I thought I'd add my 2cents. I think the shuffle was a very smart move.

a) can't beat the price on storage, period!
b) it just works! (creative is terrible for that, just check the official forums)
c) if your old skool like me, you'll just want to play your favourite songs and don't require a screen (remeber the walkman back in the day). Sure screens are great, but I just like to listen to the music.
d) Simplicity in its purest form
e) iTunes

Don't need to go on do I?. The only thing for me, since I am a pc to mac convert, is that it doesn't support wma, but then iTunes solved that problem.

[AaronS]

LBThomas69 bring up another point that I'm sure has been mentioned, but since this thread has dragged on so long, I really don't remember.

One reason Apple is getting away with no screen is how they are marketing the device. Why don't you need a screen? Because you shuffle. When you shuffle, it doesn't matter what's next, because you don't know until the song starts playing.

Good marketing on Apple's part.

as

[mattipod]

This has probably been said already because there are a lot of posts on this one. You know, you guys can post cheaper alternatives to the ipod shuffle with more features and stuff, but nothing will beat the known reliability and style of apple products. People who haven't been able to purchase an ipod because of price will buy it because its a cheap ipod and everyone raves about them. These unknown brands that make these cheap flash players jam packed with accesories dont have the reputation that apple posesses. I'd rather spend a few more bucks and buy a product I know will last than buy an unknown hunk of crap witha voice recorder and such thatll last a month.

[YPie]

I was very tempted for a while after they come out. It does fit the way I listen to my music on my iPod, and I'd never dream of buying an alternative flash player because I'd need to re-encode all my music as it's all AAC apart from about 20 tracks.

But, the temptation has died down now, mainly due to one point which a lot of other people probably don't see as significant. It's nothing to do with the lack of screen, which doesn't bother me, it's the fact that it doesn't update the last played date in iTunes.

All my smart playlists, including the one I'd like to play on the shuffle are filtered by last played date in order to keep my music fresh and ensure a constant rotation of songs I haven't heard for a while (mixed in with newly added stuff mainly). At the very least, all my smart playlists exclude stuff I've heard in the last day to avoid repetition.

Not having an internal clock and not even giving it the time it was synched will put a big hole in my smart playlists if I get a shuffle as I understand that it doesn't even retain the existing last played date, it just replaces it with a big blank. I've got some of those on there at the moment (from when I was transferring computers and iTunes got a bit stroppy updating only playcounts not times) and it seems to treat them as though they have never been played (if you just go on the last date - they do have playcounts obviously), which would effectively push anything I've listened to on the shuffle back to to top of my playlists immediately.

So until Apple release a fix or a shuffle with an internal clock, I think I'll be holding off and using my precious 20GB at the gym. It's not come to any harm since September so hopefully it will carry on safely!

[YPie]

I was very tempted for a while after they come out. It does fit the way I listen to my music on my iPod, and I'd never dream of buying an alternative flash player because I'd need to re-encode all my music as it's all AAC apart from about 20 tracks.

But, the temptation has died down now, mainly due to one point which a lot of other people probably don't see as significant. It's nothing to do with the lack of screen, which doesn't bother me, it's the fact that it doesn't update the last played date in iTunes.

All my smart playlists, including the one I'd like to play on the shuffle are filtered by last played date in order to keep my music fresh and ensure a constant rotation of songs I haven't heard for a while (mixed in with newly added stuff mainly). At the very least, all my smart playlists exclude stuff I've heard in the last day to avoid repetition.

Not having an internal clock and not even giving it the time it was synched will put a big hole in my smart playlists if I get a shuffle as I understand that it doesn't even retain the existing last played date, it just replaces it with a big blank. I've got some of those on there at the moment (from when I was transferring computers and iTunes got a bit stroppy updating only playcounts not times) and it seems to treat them as though they have never been played (if you just go on the last date - they do have playcounts obviously), which would effectively push anything I've listened to on the shuffle back to to top of my playlists immediately.

So until Apple release a fix or a shuffle with an internal clock, I think I'll be holding off and using my precious 20GB at the gym. It's not come to any harm since September so hopefully it will carry on safely!

[Xay_J]

Originally posted by Doug Gilmour
Where the standard is also AA and AAA batteries...

-Dan

PWND

[stuckinthe80s13]

Originally posted by zip22
have you seen the dissection? i see no room for a screen or a click wheel.
http://www.applematters.com/images/021.jpg


what was the screen on your samsung used for?

Uh, thank you anythings possible...you should see the screen on minidisc players IN PERSON that was tiiiiny. Or better yet on my Samsung Yepp N30 S. It was really small and SHOCK!! it had a screen. It IS possible. The screen on my samsung was used for frying toast :o ...sheesh..i mean really what else is a screen used for??!? it was to display track info and despite its mini size it still did its job well. They could've fit a click wheel, seriously, the fit the little cheapo control scheme on there. If that werent possible they probably could've made an included remote or something...before you blindely embrace the shuffle, take these things into mind.


My old samsung (http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?prod_id=YP-N30S%252fXAA)

[AaronS]

Originally posted by stuckinthe80s13
Uh, thank you anythings possible...you should see the screen on minidisc players IN PERSON that was tiiiiny.


Tiiiiny as in difficult to read?


Or better yet on my Samsung Yepp N30 S. It was really small and SHOCK!! it had a screen. It IS possible.


It's possible to build a laptop with a 23" screen, but how useful is it?


They could've fit a click wheel, seriously, the fit the little cheapo control scheme on there.


You obviously didn't look at the picture I linked to in a previous post. It quite clearly shows how a scroll wheel would not have worked.


before you blindely embrace the shuffle, take these things into mind.


:takes those things into mind:

Yep, still happy with my purchase.

as

[Vendian]

For all of those people wondering about the lack of a scroll wheel...what's the point? There isn't a SCREEN to see what you're scrolling through so why care?? And like that other person said above me...your thumb fits perfectly over the controls. You don't even have to move it to use any of the functions, you just rotate your thumb slightly. This player is perfect without a screen anyway. I bought it so I could listen to my 5 star music in iTunes and at the same time carry my homework or whatever to school...and that's what it's good at doing. I don't have to see what I'm listening too, and quite frankly im not so picky that if I hit one song I don't want to listen too; that, I can't just click next and listen to the next good song. It's not like I'm going to hit five crappy songs in a row. It works, it's easy, and it's cheap. That's all I'm going to ask for in a $99 MP3 player.

[NinaVas]

Originally posted by Blue_Dawg
you all are missing the target here. Joggers, and people work out regularly will eat this up. There are tons of positives to this little music player.

Runners will love it.

Plus you can use the shuffle as a flash drive for files you need at College computerlabs. I have .mp3 .psd .ppt .doc .jpg and anything else I need to do work at school.

If I need more room for a large .ppt or .psd then I can just delete some of the .mp3 music files. Tada more space.

Sure beats the large, slow (USB 1), and delicate iomega zip 250 I was lugging to class everyday. Now I have room for music and school files.