Apple's 3G iPod shuffle reviewed: a step too far?

[AppleInsider]

The iPod shuffle has taken on an unusual role in Apple's lineup both as its price leader and as an example of the company's efficiency in design. But with its third version now out the door, there may be signs Apple isn't sure of where to go next with its least expensive media player.

A brief history of the iPod shuffle

When Apple first unveiled the iPod shuffle in January 2005, it was half inspired by the nature of digital music. Most people had always assumed that any digital music player had to have a screen, and this had led to a rash of very low-cost players that often had only two- or three-line displays and tiny controls. But by taking a gamble and assuming people wouldn't mind playing music at random, mimicking a radio station, Apple had managed to create a device that had full-sized (if limited) controls without pushing up the size or the price.

As a result, the tiniest of iPods has, from its launch, always had at least a mild amount of success. It became a sometimes ideal choice for the gym or for a run; a device small enough to be almost unnoticeable and without a screen to break has had an unexpected but sustained appeal for the past four years.

The second-generation iPod shuffle of September 2006 has an at times almost cult-like following. While it was still unlikely to sway those who demanded a display, it was what you might call functionally "perfect:" it accomplished the goal of having a very compact, screenless, wearable player in style. That the company and its audience liked it was likely borne out by Apple leaving the design virtually unmodified for two and a half years. Aside from increasing the capacity and changing the color mix, what could Apple realistically do without breaking the formula?

And it's here that the other half of the iPod shuffle's reason for being becomes clear: it was also a calculated marketing decision. Apple chief Steve Jobs mentioned in the iPod shuffle's Macworld keynote introduction that needed a player to conquer the low-end flash player market, and from then on the shuffle's design has always been partly dictated by its role as the simplest and least expensive iPod available. Cynically, one could argue that it exists chiefly to upsell buyers to the iPod nano, where competition on price is less necessary and where it's easier to entice customers with iTunes Store music and video purchases.



Accordingly, the third-generation iPod shuffle was virtually destined to pose a problem for Apple before the first concept sketch was ever finished. When you've largely mastered a design but are forced to refresh it with something new and cheap to maintain interest, where do you go? For a company lately guided by "less is more," the answer is minimalism; and as we'll soon see, that guides every facet of the new iPod, for better or for worse.


Design stripped to the bone

Starting from the MacBook Air, Apple has lately been on a quest to see how much it can strip from a design's shape, features and controls without compromising what makes it work. Many thought that the unibody MacBooks were the culmination of this process: not only had Apple excised FireWire in the name of thinness and chassis strength, but it had actually found a way to remove all buttons from the trackpad when some critics had been arguing for more.

The new iPod shuffle, however, takes this progression one step further. Since Apple now has a headphone remote that can perform nearly all the tasks the on-device buttons would normally handle, it has used this advancement to remove nearly all the controls from the iPod itself. In a sense, it's the logical extreme of Apple's distaste for cluttered design.

That provides mixed blessings for actually using the iPod. Since the player is even smaller than before, especially in width, it fits into even tighter spaces and is even less intrusive. It also has the unusual effect of being the first truly understated iPod; because the player itself is virtually featureless, it can be clipped to a coat, pocket or shirt and blend in. If you're prone to wearing black or gray, the two introductory models will practically be camouflaged.

Simultaneously, that change also makes it the first out-and-out dull iPod design in some respects, and very occasionally less practical. The blank front side practically begs for a control, or at least some artwork, to liven it up. The shrink has also produced a smaller, thinner clip that, while it has space for a lanyard and fits in more spaces, is slightly harder to open. Also, Apple as always has found away to try and slip chrome back into its designs when users have complained that it's too easily scratched. The second-generation's all-aluminum back was more resilient against wear and tear.



But again, it's the controls that have seen the greatest overhaul, and it's in that area that Apple has stirred up one of the greatest controversies in its recent history.


Interface: two steps forward, two steps back

More often than not, it's exercisers that most often call out for remote controls for their music players, but Apple has always approached this in a roundabout way with the iPod shuffle. Instead of producing a remote, it just made the player small and wearable enough that it could sit where the remote would have been.

With the third-generation model, Apple made the remote necessary, but didn't really need to do much homework as to what it would use. Minus the obviously rather unnecessary microphone, the new iPod's default controls are a near-exact duplicate of the in-line remote that comes part of official, optional replacement sets, including the high-end iPod In-Ear Headphones. They even share the same controls: a single click plays or pauses, two and three clicks skip forward and back, while dedicated volume buttons sit on either side. A slight change is the addition of fast-forward and rewind by holding the clicker at the end of the forward and back commands.

If nothing else, it's extremely convenient. The iPod no longer has to sit in an easily reached location, and it's less likely to disorient listeners who may find the controls upside-down if the player is worn differently than usual.

The new iPod's centerpiece, though, is the addition of an additional control scheme dubbed VoiceOver. A single click-and-hold will speak out the track title, while holding it down until a tone is played lets you pick from playlists as their names are read aloud. It's an odd choice, but it does make for the first screenless music player that can still hold multiple playlists, podcasts and even audiobooks. That's more than a little relieving to owners of previous-generation models (yours truly included) who've been forced to change sync preferences every time they want a different mix or to listen to spoken-word audio.



Even so, it quickly becomes evident that the remote-only and VoiceOver controls together feel as much like regressions as they do steps forward. Bluntly stated, the remote actually makes things more complex, not simpler: what almost always took one click with the second-generation model now takes two or three clicks. Using these controls will be familiar to most any iPhone owner or to anyone who's bought one of Apple's newer headphone sets since September, but Apple's own elaborate control map shows that its attempt to be clever has partly backfired.

VoiceOver is also awkwardly implemented. Since Apple insists that the iPod say the complete track title before switching to playlists, you're forced to wait longer than you'd usually like. It simply feels arbitrary. Most users already know what songs they have on their iPods; why feel compelled to remind them every time they want to hear an exercise mix or a favorite album?

Moreover, the interface as created isn't very intelligent in coping with podcasts. Rather than give each podcast its own virtual playlist, Apple lumps all of them into a single "podcasts" section and treats them like songs; you either play them in the order established during sync or play them shuffled. The system makes it impossible to hold more than one episode of a given podcast and discourages placing any more than one podcast on the iPod at a time. The software designers didn't even have the courtesy of stopping playback outright at the end of a podcast, as it invariably loops back to the beginning of the first podcast stored on the player.

As such, the iPod shuffle still ultimately feels like a simple, all-or-nothing music-oriented player first. While it provides some relief for those with more complex listening tastes than "completely random," it introduces a significant (if sometimes forgivable) nuisance and still doesn't really solve the problem of juggling multiple listening formats. Those most likely to enjoy it the most are those who use it like the random jukebox first- and second-generation players, which somewhat defeats the point.


Listening quality and the question of Apple headphone lock-in

Thankfully, there does appear to have been a boost in the iPod shuffle's audio fidelity with this third iteration. The slight background hiss during quiet moments appears to be gone. Whether or not the intended output has improved is harder to determine and may vary from user to user, but in testing it seemed like the new shuffle was above the second-run model in quality but below high-end devices like the iPhone. Bass and treble are a bit more distinct.

This may latter less to most owners than what the move to put the controls on the remote has done. By requiring a remote just to use the shuffle beyond starting or stopping playback, Apple has effectively shoehorned most users into sticking with Apple's pack-in earbuds. For many, this is a quirk they'll never notice: when even cheaper steps up in audio quality cost nearly as much as the iPod in question, it doesn't usually make economic sense to buy a new pair of headphones.

Given that Apple's stock headphones aren't exactly known for their fidelity or their ability to remain in place on some ears, though, a significant portion of Apple's audience is likely to be frustrated. If you prefer the comfort of in-ears or simply want better listening, you'll either have to opt for Apple's iPod In-Ear Headphones -- which, at $79, cost as much as the iPod shuffle -- or else wait until either an adapter is available or an integrated third-party headphone set comes along with the price and features you want. It's good to know that Apple isn't using DRM to require its own remote control chips, but that fact is also small comfort to those who already own better-sounding third-party equipment than what Apple provides.



Additionally, it's now just about impossible to use the shuffle with anything beyond headphones. Until an adapter exists, the device can't be plugged into the aux-in jack of a car stereo or bookshelf speakers. Even then, VoiceOver is decidedly less appealing when everyone in earshot can hear your current track and your playlist choices.

Battery life and iTunes sync

One consequence of a smaller player is smaller space for a battery, and that's immediately apparent. The iPod shuffle officially nets about 10 hours of battery life and is the first iPod to sink below 12 hours of estimated runtime since the third-generation, scroll wheel iPod from 2003. Of all the iPods, a long battery life is least essential on the shuffle, but that's still disappointing when the previous shuffle claimed 12 hours.

In practice, Apple has been known to deliberately underestimate its battery life and does manage to claw back some of what it's lost. A test of near-uninterrupted playback managed 11 hours and 52 minutes despite holding mostly 256Kbps and 320Kbps songs. While certainly a relief, the older model also easily outran its official benchmark. Don't expect the newest shuffle to last a cross-border trip as well as its predecessor.

Connecting the player has at once become easier and harder. Gone is the proprietary dock that always made owners play a small guessing game as they flipped the player upside-down and tried to align it properly. Instead, owners get a simple cable that leads from the iPod's combo headphone and data port to a standard USB connection. It's as quick as plugging in any set of headphones, but the absence of a dock option (as of this writing) and the extremely short cable also means the iPod sometimes has to sit in a less-than-ideal spot while it charges or syncs. Users without USB ports on their keyboard or on the front of their computer may find themselves reaching around to attach or disconnect an iPod dangling in mid-air.

Syncing has become more complex, though this is easier to understand than for the iPod's own interface. Since the first- and second-generation iPod shuffles were extremely simple, loading them was just as easy; users had only to plug the iPod in and hit the "autofill" button to get as much random music as the device would hold. Support for multiple playlists, audiobooks and podcasts has pushed Apple to require checkmarking manual sync and highlighting "music" in the device contents before it becomes an option. While it would likely still have been possible to make autofill a one-click affair, this new option does let owners add as many playlists or other audio before they fill the rest with music.



Speed, unfortunately, remains something of a liability. Apple has always used slower flash memory for the iPod shuffle than for the iPod nano, iPod touch and iPhone. That wasn't an issue when 1GB was the most an iPod shuffle could hold, but with 4GB of memory onboard the latest version, the impact of that cost-cutting has been magnified that much more. Loading the iPod with almost exactly 3GB of music took a painfully long 14 minutes; if it had been filled to its maximum, formatted 3.8GB limit, it would have taken nearly 18 minutes. That's not pick-up-and-go speed, and while multi-playlist support means you don't have to reload the entire player to keep the music fresh, many users will almost dread clicking the "autofill" button unless they can afford to wait.


In the end: recommendations and reservations

For all the criticism of the new iPod shuffle, it's likely to remain in use here at AppleInsider and is hard not to like on at least some levels. Outside of a slightly more complicated sync process, it's still the quintessential exercise iPod and the most likely to be a companion to an iPhone or one of Apple's larger iPods. The addition of playlists alone may tip the balance for those who wanted more diversity in what they could play, and the remote-borne input is easier to manage in mid-run than a player bouncing and jiggling on your clothes.

Also, those with most existing iPod shuffles who wanted an upgrade in capacity will no doubt be happy. As much as the slow transfer speeds make syncing an exercise in patience, 4GB allows for much more diversity in music than the 1GB of space most iPod shuffles have had in the past.

However, this is the first iPod in recent memory that would give prospective buyers a serious reason to pause. Are you willing to tie yourself into buying only certain kinds of headphones or using only certain accessories? Do you have enough patience to wait several seconds to switch playlists, or a quarter of an hour to completely refill your music selection? Many aren't and don't, and asking them to make this choice where they didn't have to before is unfortunate, to say the least.

It's increasingly clear that Apple has run into the limits of what the iPod shuffle can do, not to mention its own design aesthetic. A redesign for its own sake is rarely likely to impress someone; and pulling out genuinely handy controls to satisfy a disdain for buttons or bulk is a help to no one. Apple either needs to consider a return to the iPod shuffle's roots for its fourth outing or, finally, acknowledge that it may need a player with a screen at or below the $100 mark. Just making a device smaller doesn't make it better.



Rating 3 out of 5



Pros:
Smaller, more upscale design
Remote convenient in at least some cases
Support for audiobooks, playlists and podcasts
Improved audio quality
Better-than-estimated battery life

Cons:
Too heavily dependent on remote; change is arbitary
Locks users into special headphones or adapters
VoiceOver forces too much waiting
Shorter battery life than 2G
Transfer speeds too slow[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11068)

[Virgil-TB2]

Wow, what a long-winded review! I'm sure you'll start a long flame war with this post and I don't want to really get into it in as much detail as you have here, but I have to say I disagree with almost every aspect of this review. It's not so much a review as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It trips all over itself and contradicts itself at times also. You say the new controls are more handy and intuitive at times but then at other times that the new shuffle has pulled out "genuinely handy" controls (the old ones) for reasons (you assume), that are strictly superficial (even though you present no proof that the reason for the decision was in fact that).

It's as if you really hate the thing, but realise that there isn't really that much to hate and that the design reasoning behind it is actually rather sound, but you still just don't like it. So you dance around for three or four pages trying to justify your dislike, even though you sort of can't.

Overall, this is like a review of a burger shack, treated as if you were eating at a five star restaurant. I can't help but continually come back to the fact that this is a super cheap low end PMP that is only intended to shuffle music for grandma when she goes to the gym, but you review it as if it's the latest Porsche that isn't quite up to your standards.

It's a shuffle dammit! It has higher capacity for less cost than the previous model, better sound, easier to use controls and is smaller, easier to clip to things, has a lanyard etc. etc. etc. Give it a rest why don't you and just say it's a better product all around but if you don't like it the old one is still available?

[iName]

Many (many, many) people don't like the new Shuffle.
But at least Apple have the guts to try something new and since I own the new In-ear headphones, I don't care about the lack of buttons on the device!

[grandplan]

It wouldn't be surprising if this design is short-lived, rather like the fat Nano. Like the article alluded to, it may primarily be an industrial-design-led refresh (meant to buy time until a more significant update), rather than a functionality-led refresh. We might just see a return to past model/controls, but with much improved functionality, in two years or so (which would mean it's already on the roadmap, obviously). Or do you guys (readers/responders) believe the clickwheel is gone from the Shuffle for good?

[bigdaddyguido]

I'm going to go ahead and preface this whole comment with the statement that I have no need for a shuffle, and will never be the target audience for this device. That said, I really like the direction of this shuffle.

In my opinion, the shuffle is clearly not designed for true audiophiles, they are expected to go for a combination of a classic/ipod touch/iphone and a nano. Personally, I think the nano's are more than small enough to work out with, and so the shuffle is only if you really wanted a completely stripped down experience for working out with or something, or you're simply not that in love with music.

People using the shuffle just want a streamlined experience for working out, or are curious about the ipod/apple platform and are using it as a cheap way to jump in and test it out. These are not the people owning $200 Shure's and so they aren't going to mind as much using the stock ipod headphones. While I admit that I personally will never ever touch those low fidelity pieces of junk again, I know many many people who never notice a difference. For these people, the newly designed shuffle is a great concept, giving them complete control without moving/looking at the device.

It seems like software updates are necessary for the voice over interface, maybe a way to toggle it on/off easily, so that at times where you don't need the device telling you the name of songs you know by heart it wont be wasting your time. However, in theory, this is a wonderful interface for a device which has needed something in this vein for years.

I think apple is, properly, truly separating the nano from the shuffle and making it quite obvious to potential buyers which one will be worth it for them. If you want any sort of easy direct control over the device, the shuffle is not for you, but if want no hassle plug in and play then this is nearly a culmination of engineering.

[oberpongo]

Although i do not yet own the new shuffle. It is exactly, what i have been waiting for:
A tiny player you can put anywhere and with controls you can easily reach and blindly operate.

i would say less than 1% of all shuffle owners in the world use different headsets and less than 1% actually use it for more than randomly listen to music.

And who actually changes his music selection completely everytime he syncs it? Usually auto-fill will throw out some old often skipped tracks and will replace them with some new additions to his collection.

[frugality]

It's a silly design. Now that even the controls have been taken off of the unit, and the unit is so small, Apple might has well have done an all-in-the-headphones design. One of those over-the-ear things, with the controls on one earpiece. Having this little Chicklet stick that you have to clip somewhere doesn't make much sense. Just get rid of the cords altogether, except for one going behind the head to connect the 2 earpieces.

I prefer my previous-generation Shuffle. The voice-over is cool, though, as is the multiple playlists. But the physical design of this new Shuffle is silly.

[Wonderkid]

I am an Apple fan and user (MacBook White + Touch V2), but think the new Shuffle a human factors disaster, not to mention, it's way overpriced in comparison to better equipped and more innovative alternatives from Apple themselves, Philips (see March 2009 Register review of their OLED miniplayer), Creative and others. Just today, I got to play with a Nokia 5310. It costs £99 unlocked (max price) and yet has a 3.5mm jack, very good sounding music player, an FM Radio with RDS, a camera (crap, but there), all the Symbian Series 40 features and it's ultra thin. And unlike the Shuffle, it has controls on it - and can take calls.

Again, I just don't see what Apple are doing here? Why not an iPhone Nano instead, IE, an iPod Nano with basic phone functions for the youthful crowd?

New Shuffle will fail, except for those with restricted eye site, for which Apple should be focusing this product.

BTW, my next expensive phone will be the next generation iPhone as the Touch has sold me on the GUI and App store. Until then, considering the Nokia 5310 as it's so sweet and innocent.

[Mr. H]

Wow Virgil, only 133 posts to go before you can change your tag to "Devoted Apple fanboy", "Drunk on the koolaid", "Infected by the RDF and I like it" or some such. Do you really think Apple can do no wrong at all?

I can't help but continually come back to the fact that this is a super cheap.

Super cheap? Er no, this new shuffle costs £59. Here's (http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2041599/art/clip-sonic/mp66-1-gb-mp3-player-whit.html) an mp3 player that costs £12 and here's (http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2545783/art/atmt/hilite-mp3-player-4gb-blu.html) a 4 GB player that costs £20. They are super-cheap. The shuffle has never been super cheap.

low end PMP

As low-capacity players go, the shuffle is high end.


easier to use controls

Easier to use? What kind of twisted logic did you use to come to that conclusion? How is clicking a button three times to skip backward (and remembering that it's three times rather than two times, one time, two and half times whilst hopping) easier than clicking once a button marked with a "skip backward" symbol?

Have you seen this Onion piece (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary)? This new iPod is disturbingly close in ridiculousness to the Onion's piss-take.

I remember when I was 17 having an AIWA walkman with inline remote (a quick Goggle found me this image (http://www.hood.de/img/full/1658/16585270.jpg), mine had the same remote, shown in bottom right); it connected via a four-pin plug like this iPod, but had properly seperated play, stop, back, forward etc. buttons in a joypad arrangement, much like the arrangement of controls on the previous shuffles. This new shuffle is crying out for a two-line OLED display covering the whole of the currently blank front face, and a remote control with separate buttons instead of this ridiculous control scheme.

[Mr. H]

Has the reviewer ever actually ran?
Nothing bounces or jiggles more than headphone wires. A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all and the 2G controls were entirely intuitive unlike this shuffle.

The sky must be falling; I agree with teckstud :err::wow::lol:

[parky]

Wow Virgil, only 133 posts to go before you can change your tag to "devoted Apple fanboy", "Drunk on the koolaid", "infected by the RDF and I like it" or some such. Do you really think Apple can do no wrong at all?



Super cheap? Er no, this new shuffle costs £59. Here's (http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2041599/art/clip-sonic/mp66-1-gb-mp3-player-whit.html) an mp3 player that costs £12 and here's (http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2545783/art/atmt/hilite-mp3-player-4gb-blu.html) a 4 GB player that costs £20. They are super-cheap. The shuffle has never been super cheap.



As low-capacity players go, the shuffle is high end.




Easier to use? What kind of twisted logic did you use to come to that conclusion? How is clicking a button three times to skip backward (and remembering that it's three times rather than two times, one time, two and half times whilst hopping) easier than clicking once a button marked with a "skip backward" symbol?

Have you seen this Onion piece (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary)? This new iPod is disturbingly close in ridiculousness to the Onion's piss-take.

I remember when I was 17 having an AIWA walkman with inline remote (a quick Goggle found me this image (http://www.hood.de/img/full/1658/16585270.jpg), mine had the same remote, shown in bottom right); it connected via a four-pin plug like this iPod, but had properly seperated play, stop, back, forward etc. buttons in a joypad arrangement, much like the arrangement of controls on the previous shuffles. This new shuffle is crying out for a two-line OLED display covering the whole of the currently blank front face, and a remote control with separate buttons instead of this ridiculous control scheme.

Have you actually used one for any length of time?
I have the new iPod Shuffle (having owned all the previous models as well) and it is a great device and very easy to use.

If you can't remember the VERY simple operation of the shuffle then maybe you should stay away from technology!

[ghostface147]

I like the idea behind the new Shuffle, but I personally need a screen. I can't imagine going through up to 1,000 songs without a screen. If I want to hear only the songs from Master of Puppets, how do I know how to get to Orion specifically? The stock headphones suit me just fine and the voice feature sure is a gimmick to me. It sure does look nice though.

[Mr. H]

If you can't remember the VERY simple operation of the shuffle then maybe you should stay away from technology!

Maybe you think it's simple. I'm also confident that I would have no problem with these controls. That is beside the point. To try and claim these controls are easier to use than previous shuffles, is, frankly, stupid. I've helped out enough non-tech-savvy people with their gadgets to realise that these controls are not simple and not intuitive. The remote would not have to be that much bigger to provide dedicated buttons rather than a single multi-function button and would unarguably be easier to use; therefore the decision to use one button was misguided. Perhaps we'll see third-parties come out with multi-button remotes.

[Dorotea]

The shuffle isn't super cheap. If controls are in the earbuds, then the earbuds should fit properly for more people. For me, the earbuds hurt after 10 minutes. For others they fall out. While having controls in the earbuds is a neat idea, the execution is terrible.

Love most Apple products. Like the looks and idea of the new shuffle. Just hate the execution.

[thesmoth]

Although i do not yet own the new shuffle. It is exactly, what i have been waiting for:
A tiny player you can put anywhere and with controls you can easily reach and blindly operate.

i would say less than 1% of all shuffle owners in the world use different headsets and less than 1% actually use it for more than randomly listen to music.

And who actually changes his music selection completely everytime he syncs it? Usually auto-fill will throw out some old often skipped tracks and will replace them with some new additions to his collection.

Ah, a completely wrong fanboy, those are hard to find aren't they?

About 99% of users i've ever seen use different headphones to those that come with the Ipod. I've had 3 ipods and i've never once even opened the ones that come with the ipod. They are well known for being terrible quality and not fitting in the ears well. I walk around university where I can easily see 100 people in a day listening to ipods and I RARELY ever see anyone with the stock head phones.

[merdhead]

Wow, what a long-winded review! I'm sure you'll start a long flame war with this post and I don't want to really get into it in as much detail as you have here, but I have to say I disagree with almost every aspect of this review. It's not so much a review as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It trips all over itself and contradicts itself at times also. You say the new controls are more handy and intuitive at times but then at other times that the new shuffle has pulled out "genuinely handy" controls (the old ones) for reasons (you assume), that are strictly superficial (even though you present no proof that the reason for the decision was in fact that).

It's as if you really hate the thing, but realise that there isn't really that much to hate and that the design reasoning behind it is actually rather sound, but you still just don't like it. So you dance around for three or four pages trying to justify your dislike, even though you sort of can't.

Overall, this is like a review of a burger shack, treated as if you were eating at a five star restaurant. I can't help but continually come back to the fact that this is a super cheap low end PMP that is only intended to shuffle music for grandma when she goes to the gym, but you review it as if it's the latest Porsche that isn't quite up to your standards.

It's a shuffle dammit! It has higher capacity for less cost than the previous model, better sound, easier to use controls and is smaller, easier to clip to things, has a lanyard etc. etc. etc. Give it a rest why don't you and just say it's a better product all around but if you don't like it the old one is still available?
I'd never thought I'd find myself saying this, but this is a good review. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you should make up criticisms of it. They don't contradict themselves but rather are trying to make a more nuanced point about the usability of the device. They certainly don't show a strong bias against, which is unusual because AI usually pander to the fanboy crowd.

The bottom line is that Apple sometimes steps over the form-over-function line. Within the current product line it's done it with the MacBook Air, and now again with the new Shuffle. It's probably done a better job than most, but Apple is held to a high standard, and rightly so. They need to have another look at this product and fix it up in a revision.

[merdhead]

Have you actually used one for any length of time?
If you can't remember the VERY simple operation of the shuffle then maybe you should stay away from technology!

When I picked it up, it was so obvious that I had to click twice or three times. The interface just screams click multiple times, it's not like you need to read the manual or anything. You never have to read the manual with Apple products.

So, yeah, we're all idiots for not being able to remember how many clicks to use for going forward or backward or whatever.

[Adjei]

Don't see what's the big deal about this shuffle. Used one at the store, nice to use and control, voice feature is nice too. Might pick one up.

[Bill_F]

Oh dear, I'm afraid I agree with oberpongo (about stock ipod headphones, maybe not 99% but a high percentage, and now, after a week's use with new shuffle I can say that the playlists transform the use of a shuffle. Despite what it says in the review there is nothing to stop you having multiple episodes of a podcast on the shuffle. One improvement would be to be able to turn off the track announcement before getting the playlist menu. A simple update could change this. Others can disagree, as is their right, but this has made a huge difference to my use of a shuffle.

[solipsism]

Speed, unfortunately, remains something of a liability. Apple has always used slower flash memory for the iPod shuffle than for the iPod nano, iPod touch and iPhone. That wasn't an issue when 1GB was the most an iPod shuffle could hold, but with 4GB of memory onboard the latest version, the impact of that cost-cutting has been magnified that much more. Loading the iPod with almost exactly 3GB of music took a painfully long 14 minutes; if it had been filled to its maximum, formatted 3.8GB limit, it would have taken nearly 18 minutes. That's not pick-up-and-go speed, and while multi-playlist support means you don't have to reload the entire player to keep the music fresh, many users will almost dread clicking the "autofill" button unless they can afford to wait.
Is it the slow flash or the fact that the data is being pushed through the headphone jack?

Support for audiobooks, playlists and podcasts
Improved audio quality
Such a lengthy review and still no mention of this being the first Shuffle to support Apple Lossless. I'm flabbergasted that this doesn't even get a nod as being the Shuffle being powerful enough to play ~1000kbps audio files.

PS: I'd like to see a battery usage analysis of Apple Lossless compared to 256kbps AAC (et al.) but if reviewers aren't even going to acknowledge it I am surely asking for too much. If my current Shuffle wasn't adequate and/or I actually worked more I would buy the damn thing to test myself.


The sky must be falling; I agree with teckstud :err::wow::lol:
In a way he is right, but it is much easier to grab the right side of your headphones to change switch tracks than trying to do it while it's on your arm or waist or elsewhere.

I've used my 2G Shuffle with my Sony in-ear phones with a removable cable so they are perfect length for going from your head to your sleeve. They also are meant to be worn on the back of the neck and have two different length wires. I love that design. Despite that, I now use Apple's in-ear phones with my 2G Shuffle because changing tracks from the wire is easier.

[solipsism]

Apple earbuds are uncomfortable.

My ear cartilage agrees with you. I'd rather get waterboarded at Gitmo than have to wear those things for a day. They don't eveb sound good when sitting in my ear properly. If I want the best sound I have to turn them sideways so the speaker faces front. I must some funky ears.

Apple's new in-ear phones are nice if you want to shell out $79 for a decent pair of headphones. Good quality for the price, though the bass could be more pronounced.

[Bill_F]

Further feature not mentioned in review. Pause a track then double-click. Next song is announced; not the song you want then double-click again and it then the following song is announced etc. Don't need to hear whole of title: as soon as you recognize it as one you want then click to play or double-click to next song announcement without it finishing the announcement. I hope you can guess what triple-click does on pause mode! So choose your song from the playlist fairly painlessly if you keep playlists down to album lengths.

[jowie74]

Super cheap? Er no, this new shuffle costs £59.
Yes... And didn't the last gen Shuffle also only cost £32? I know it was 2GB not 4GB but where's the old £32 price point? Or has that gone because of the poxy pound?

[rfrmac]

Well, I like the new Shuffle. It is light, easy to control, love the voice - wish I had it on my iTouch. The price is right and it holds enough. A step to far? No, I step in the right direction. The nice thing is, if you would prefer another type of iPod, just go buy it. What's the big deal. Nothing Apple does is for everyone.

[bdkennedy1]

This iPod is a disaster. Now that the controls are separated from the Shuffle, you are guaranteed to accidentally leave the headphones at home with no way to control your music.

You can no longer plug it into your car or home stereo and their list of blinking lights and button presses is a nightmare.

They haven't simplified anything. It just looks like they have.

Hell, had they just moved the battery to the headphones it could have been 1/3 the size it is now. I guess they'll save that for the 4th gen. Better yet, the 4th gen iPod could just be invisible - you just sing all the tunes in your head. No need for a player or headphones.

[Galley]

The shuffle earbuds should have had a split cable like many Sony's do. The short cord is perfect for a shuffle clipped on your sleeve or lapel.

[Wiggin]

I think they need to update the review to indicate that the USB sync cable is not only ridiculously short (which they mention), but it is also incompatible with the 2nd gen shuffle's cable. Obviously, there is no "dock" for the 3rd gen model. But potential buyers may think they can use a 3rd party cable from their 2nd gen shuffle, or the one included with the 3rd gen shuffle, to sync and charge both a 2nd gen and 3rd gen shuffle. You can't! Apple changed the order of the contacts on the 4-contact headphone jack.

That is my understanding from other reviews I've read. And if you already own a 2nd gen, you'll need yet another free USB port or have to constantly swap cables.

[cygnusrk727]

I had two complaints with my last shuffle and two complaints only. 1) ear buds HURT and were a definite no go. 2) so small that I would misplace it for days and it finally got washed in the washer where it died. So now what? A much smaller shuffle with the controls on the god awful ear buds. And my last shuffle I connected through a cassette adapter in my truck's stereo. How would you control this new shuffle if you wanted to do that?

[rasnet]

Easier[/i] to use? What kind of twisted logic did you use to come to that conclusion? How is clicking a button three times to skip backward (and remembering that it's three times rather than two times, one time, two and half times whilst hopping) easier than clicking once a button marked with a "skip backward" symbol?

Have you seen this Onion piece (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary)? This new iPod is disturbingly close in ridiculousness to the Onion's piss-take.


I am reminded of this strip from the webcomic Bob & George (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/archives/index.php?date=030924)

[solipsism]

Well, I like the new Shuffle. It is light, easy to control, love the voice - wish I had it on my iTouch. The price is right and it holds enough. A step to far? No, I step in the right direction. The nice thing is, if you would prefer another type of iPod, just go buy it. What's the big deal. Nothing Apple does is for everyone.
I'd wager that after the hype of this device dies does they will issue a firmware for the other iPods and iPhone to allow VoiceOver.

As for the 2G Shuffles, Apple obviously realizes this is an extreme move and may not fit everyone's needs as the old shuffle has been available on the Apple Store since the day the 3G Shuffle launched. Not in the Refurbished section, either, but in the main stoer with a proper page and link on the main page clearly stating it is still available.


I think they need to update the review to indicate that the USB sync cable is not only ridiculously short (which they mention), but it is also incompatible with the 2nd gen shuffle's cable.
[...]
And if you already own a 2nd gen, you'll need yet another free USB port or have to constantly swap cables.
I read that too, but is it incompatible both ways or can the 3G Shuffle use the 2G Shuffle connection type? Does it at least allow for charging?

It's too bad that they didn't make a USB2.0 passthrough on this cable. Though people would have complained about that too.


And my last shuffle I connected through a cassette adapter in my truck's stereo. How would you control this new shuffle if you wanted to do that?
At this point, you wouldn't unless you wanted to just play it and not control it any other way. There will soon be headphones with controls for it. There will soon be cheap adapters with controls so you can use your favorite headphones.

There is also no reason that car stereo and home theaters won't be able to control this Shuffle from their main controls. After all, this Shuffle is now the last iPod (as well as the iPhone) to be controllable by the headphone controls.

For comparison sake, the current iPod Touch, iPod Classic and iPod Nano can use all the same controls except for the track FF/RW that the new Shuffle has. The iPhone also can use these controls except for volume control and the afore mentioned track FF/RW. I'm not sure about the track FF/RW but the volume controls require new HW so the next iPhone will get it.

I am reminded of this strip from the webcomic Bob & George (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/archives/index.php?date=030924)
:lol: That pretty much explains it.

[canadan]

I don't know why people are complaining so much about this new shuffle. I bought it and I love it for what it can do for me at the gym. Apple does seem to have a direction they're heading into with this model. I like the idea of VoiceOver which I'm sure will be perfected in time. I wouldn't be surprised if this leads Apple to explore voice command functionality at some point in the near future with their devices too. Not all iPods can do everything, that's why there are a variety to choose from. If you don't like this one because of the remote or because it has no screen, then buy the previous model or keep it if you already have it, or get one with a screen, pretty simple. If you can't connect it to your stereo devices, then connect your nano or touch or whatever other model. They can't do everything and we don't need to have every type of iPod either.

[fleet]

Overall I thought this was a good review, even if I am not sure I agree with it. It had a lot of good information that helped me to understand the device better.

What struck me as a little off were the complaints about Voice Over. My understanding is that Voice Over is not triggered every time you change songs as the review implied when they complained about the extra time it takes over the old shuffle. The complaints went on about how long the process is to change play lists versus the old player which didn't even support playlists. Adding a screen could make the process faster, but given the way that the shuffle seems to be used, many people wouldn't be able to look at the screen to do that. I think Voice Over is a great idea for offering greater control and flexibility to the shuffle without requiring people to stop what they are doing and look down at the screen. It would be great to have that functionality on an iPod or iPhone when using them in a car. These benefits were kind of glossed over in the review.

[JeffDM]

I remember when I was 17 having an AIWA walkman with inline remote (a quick Goggle found me this image (http://www.hood.de/img/full/1658/16585270.jpg), mine had the same remote, shown in bottom right); it connected via a four-pin plug like this iPod, but had properly seperated play, stop, back, forward etc. buttons in a joypad arrangement, much like the arrangement of controls on the previous shuffles.

I had a couple Sony minidisk players that had an inline remote, which allowed the use of any headphones with the jack on the remote. It had play/pause as a button, a knob to skip tracks, a hold slider and an LCD screen to display the track ID info, and a shirt/lapel clip built in - not much room for jiggling around. It was pretty nifty for the time, I don't think I've seen it bested any since then.

This new shuffle is crying out for a two-line OLED display covering the whole of the currently blank front face, and a remote control with separate buttons instead of this ridiculous control scheme.

OLED display would be really cool.

Ah, a completely wrong fanboy, those are hard to find aren't they?

About 99% of users i've ever seen use different headphones to those that come with the Ipod. I've had 3 ipods and i've never once even opened the ones that come with the ipod. They are well known for being terrible quality and not fitting in the ears well. I walk around university where I can easily see 100 people in a day listening to ipods and I RARELY ever see anyone with the stock head phones.

To me, 99% looks way out of whack even for hyperbole. At a midwest university, it seemed like maybe 50%.

At this point, you wouldn't unless you wanted to just play it and not control it any other way. There will soon be headphones with controls for it. There will soon be cheap adapters with controls so you can use your favorite headphones.

Is it the same kind of connection as the iPhone 3G? It seems that there should be some adapters out that control volume. None of the examples I've seen posted so far have it. I think I had the Shure adapter. On the iPhone, not having volume control was a downside but wasn't so terrible because there were alternative controls.

There is also no reason that car stereo and home theaters won't be able to control this Shuffle from their main controls. After all, this Shuffle is now the last iPod (as well as the iPhone) to be controllable by the headphone controls.

That could be pretty cool.

[solipsism]

Is it the same kind of connection as the iPhone 3G?
The same kind of connection, but the player's hardware doesn't have the capabilities to use all the controls the same way. But the headphones can be used with the inline remote across all models.

For example, Apple's in-ear phones with mic and in-line remote says it isn't supported on the iPhone. Which is technically true in that the volume doesn't work, but everything else works fine.

I see no reason why the next versions won't have the appropriate HW.

[Shunnabunich]

This iPod is a disaster. Now that the controls are separated from the Shuffle, you are guaranteed to accidentally leave the headphones at home with no way to control your music.

You can no longer plug it into your car or home stereo and their list of blinking lights and button presses is a nightmare.

They haven't simplified anything. It just looks like they have.

Hell, had they just moved the battery to the headphones it could have been 1/3 the size it is now. I guess they'll save that for the 4th gen. Better yet, the 4th gen iPod could just be invisible - you just sing all the tunes in your head. No need for a player or headphones.

It'll still require a one-button remote control, though - how else would they force you to tap out the name of the desired function in Morse code? :lol:

Play: .--. .-.. .- -.--
Pause: .--. .- ..- ... . (no, not the same as the "play" command)
Next Track: -. . -..- - - .-. .- -.-. -.-
Previous Track: .--. .-. . ...- .. --- ..- ... - .-. .- -.-. -.-
Rewind: .-. . .-- .. -. -.. (but hold the last dot until finished)
Fast Forward: ..-. .- ... - ..-. --- .-. .-- .- .-. -.. (again, holding the last dot until finished)

Because that is the direction they're actively pursuing here. It already feels like Morse code, they just haven't gone all the way yet. If anything, the reviewer was being just a little too apologetic, but thankfully nowhere near the distasteful depths of iGroveling Dan Dilger stooped to in his recent article on the shuffle.

[wizard69]

Though I'm not a shuffle sort of person, atleast I don't own one at the moment, this gas to be Apples best shuffle ever. It is the first of the shuffle series that caused any interest on my part at all.

The reasons are many and start with a reasonable amount of storage. The controls are an important factor two as that provides for device control for active people. For shuffles target user base it is about perfect.

Shuffle isn't perfect of course and I have to wonder why all these so called in depth reports never comment on shuffle operating temperature range. It is very limited and does impact users.

I predict brisk sales of the new shuffle.



Dave

[solipsism]

What good is lossless sound if the headphones don't reproduce it?
First of all, Lossless doesn't indicate the quality of the audio, only that the codec used has not reduced the quality when it was encoded. Your assertion that you can't tell the difference on the Shuffle between 128kbps audio and Lossless files from CDs while using good headphones is laughable. I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps AAC on my 2G shuffle.

The real plus of having Apple Lossless on the 3G Shuffle is that I can go back to having a single music library and not have to use manage separate libraries using lower bitrate lossy audio because the player cannot handle the load. The Shuffle has always (and still has) an option to convert to 128kbps. If I get tired of the duplicates I may just get the new Shuffle.

edit: It's technically one library, but I have duplicate song titles for the Shuffle.


Are you talking this?
image: http://www.monstercable.com/images_db/mobile/ai_sh_hphone_glam.jpg
Because surely you don't think grabbing a swinging cable while running is easier.
No, I'm talking about the in-line controller on the headphones that come with the Shuffle and iPhone.

[solipsism]

because that is the direction they're actively pursuing here. It already feels like morse code, they just haven't gone all the way yet. If anything, the reviewer was being just a little too apologetic, but thankfully nowhere near the distasteful depths of igroveling dan dilger stooped to in his recent article on the shuffle.
. -..- .- --. --. . .-. .- - . -- ..- -.-. .... ..--..

:)

[solipsism]

. . .

[JeffDM]

Hey- how did you manage a blank page?

If you look at the code, it is light blue on light gray. And the periods are tiny, so they're hard to see.

testing

[solipsism]

But you won't be hearing lossless sound at it's optimum with those headphones.
The quality of the original audio that it was encoded with is moot point as I clearly stated that having multiple tracks of the same songs for different players is not pleasant for organization. If your statement that Lossless files copied from HQ audio will not shine on the Shuffle then that argument will hold for all iPods and pretty much every PMP available.

But I didn't copy my audio from HW audio sources, I copied them from CDs I owned as i wanted to have a master copy that did not remove any data from the files. I own better than average headphones and can't hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and Apple Lossless copied from CDs. Should I be copying all my audio over to 256kbps AAC because that is the now? Perhaps in the future I'll get a better player or better headphones or be given Calculon's ears by the Robot Devil. It's best to have a quality master copy and since I don't put all my music on my PMPs I can easily store the ~1Mbps files.

Note: If you take a bunch of audio files of the exact same song in different lossy codecs and bitrates, then convert each one to lossless the size will be about the same regardless of the lossy quality or codec used. It will be about 1Mb per second of audio. For this reason it's not good to refer to the audio of a lossless track as being higher quality as it doesn't dictate the originating audio quality. It's only preserving the original audio but it's also not going to make your audio any higher quality than it was when encoded it. Why would anyone convert low quality audio to lossless? it surely wouldn't make any sense to, but the point is that seeing a lossless file doesn't not mean that it's high quality audio, only that the file has not lost audio data when it was encoded.

Why not listen to stereo via a tin can then ? You'll be able to hear a difference on that as well. My point is lossless deserves better if your going to have it. But these headphones have not an received audio review up to snuff to even deserve lossless.
First of all, any credibility as a poster goes out the with hyperbolic statements equating the Shuffle with a tin can. Secondly, I guarantee that will hear the difference between Apple Loss and 128kbps, the level in which it will automatically convert audio, on the device. Finally, I've already made mention that I have in-ear phones for my iphone with in-line controls. Ones that sound good for $79, albeit low on bass.

Is it that hard to make a dedicated playlist called shuffle with just 256 kkbps in it?
Hard? No, but I've explained twice now why I don't want to have multiple codecs and bitrates in my library.

And if your left handed? Anyway it doesn't matter because it's on a cord that jiggles.
I'm right handed and wish the controls were on the left-hand side. it would be easier to grab that side with my right hand as I'd have to crock my hand in a little less (I just tested this). But the difference is very minimal and certainly easier than reaching across your body to your sleeve or going to your hip while jogging.

Hey- how did you manage a blank page?
I didn't. I put in 3 dots seperated by spaces which is the 5 character minimum for this forum. I then changed the font colour to light blue so it mostly matchs the background.

[solipsism]

Ooh, thanks for the trick for retraction. :smokey:

You'll still have to go advance to uncheck Show your signature. I assume that vBulletin has a delete feature, I wonder why they don't use it.

[acslater017]

Has the reviewer ever actually ran?
Nothing bounces or jiggles more than headphone wires. A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all and the 2G controls were entirely intuitive unlike this shuffle.

Yea, maybe at your waistband, but not anywhere else. Obviously, one's arms and legs are always moving when running. At least an earphone remote always floats in front of your shoulder. You can grab it without interrupting your movement (except for one hand of course).

Not that I really love this new design. 3/5 seems like a reasonable score. Maybe they should have kept the buttons, but made the remote headphones standard. Or, made two different versions available. I might pick one up anyway for working out - I only need something small, durable, able to do the occasional track skip, etc. I'm just afraid I might accidentally swallow this new version when exercising.

[solipsism]

Or, made two different versions available.

As you wish...• 2G Shuffle :: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_shuffle_2gen?mco=MTE4MzA
• 3G Shuffle :: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_shuffle?mco=MTE2NTU

[mason2046]

It's a silly design. Now that even the controls have been taken off of the unit, and the unit is so small, Apple might has well have done an all-in-the-headphones design. One of those over-the-ear things, with the controls on one earpiece. Having this little Chicklet stick that you have to clip somewhere doesn't make much sense. Just get rid of the cords altogether, except for one going behind the head to connect the 2 earpieces.

I prefer my previous-generation Shuffle. The voice-over is cool, though, as is the multiple playlists. But the physical design of this new Shuffle is silly.

I bet the new shuffle is no more heavier than its headphone. Sometimes you need the weight and size to justify your presence. If extremely small, why not just go straight invisible. So this is not a step too far but a step not that far enough. But I don't think Apple would ever make a complicated headphone with all controls in it. It is just not Apple.

[jowie74]

I am reminded of this strip from the webcomic Bob & George (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/archives/index.php?date=030924)

How about the Mactini - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noe3kR8KqJc

sound familiar? :)

[Marvin]

I think the new Shuffle is a step backwards. Adding more storage doesn't help when it's still difficult to navigate through the music. The bottom line is that you need a visual guide to navigate a lot of music tracks just like you need two physical buttons on a mouse to reliably interact with a computer. Apple's workarounds just don't cut it.

Putting the controls on the headphones is stupid because as someone mentioned, unless you're a woman without a bra on or a fat guy without a corset, the headphone cable jiggles around the most when jogging. The ipod itself is always fastened securely in a known position.

Even assuming they wanted to go with the in-line controls, why didn't they add a 3.5mm jack to the top of the control box so that you could use any headphones?

For the price the Shuffle is, they should have come up with something better. Even a single line OLED screen or a mini gesture pad like you get on the laptops where you click to play/stop. Swipe up/down for volume, left/right to change track, 2 finger swipe to change playlist etc. There wouldn't have to be a button really, as you could tap the side to start playing. 2-finger tap could read the current song out.

Also, having an audible battery indicator would be nice too. One of my relatives has the 2G model and they say it just dies. The light changes color but only after it's dead.

[cesjr]

Frankly I hate reviews that have such a personal bent. Obviously people feel differently about this shuffle. Some people really like it (I do). Your job as a reviewer is write for a general audience, including people that might like the choices and tradeoffs apple made. Not justify your own strong opinions. I also hate it when reviews have an air of "objectivity" but they really aren't. Some people simply can't be objective - their own personal wants and desires just always carry the day. Seems like this writer is one of those. If you want to see how a real pro does it - always keeping his audience in mind - read Walt Mossberg. He's the best there is in my book, even if occasionally he gets it wrong (just occasionally mind you). He gave the new shuffle a good review by the way.

[zeasar]

Seriously to those who complains about the new controls, have you guys ever used the iphone's in-line controls? I have and I love it, and I only have to skip once or twice during my trip to work everyday.

How many of you have the need to skip songs on a regular basis? If you dont like certain songs, dont put it in the playlist in the first place!

Oh and I must say most people (not pulling random numbers out of my arse like 99% shit) that I come across uses the apple ear phone, infact one of my friend wont even consider a 3rd party earphone when her store ones broke.

[Bill_F]

I think the new Shuffle is a step backwards. Adding more storage doesn't help when it's still difficult to navigate through the music. The bottom line is that you need a visual guide to navigate a lot of music tracks just like you need two physical buttons on a mouse to reliably interact with a computer. Apple's workarounds just don't cut it.

We are obviously going to disagree, but how on earth do you control which songs you listen too on the old 2G shuffle containing 400 songs? On the 3G shuffle navigation is easy (and easier when you are on the move than walking in front of cars while gazing at a list on the nano. Once manufacturers have an adaptor so you can plug it into your car it will be much safer than looking at visual playlists plus all new ipods since September 2008 will be able to use this feature). You might have 10 playlists of songs you might choose by mood, situation etc and its easy to swap between them with the audible prompts. Choose a song in a playlist? - just pause the song, double click for next song audible prompt, double click if thats not the one you want etc.

Of course to find 1 song in 400 is difficult if its not on a particular playlist but at least it is better than the old shuffle where the only real control you used are play/pause, shuffle and volume.

[palegolas]

I think it was absolutely great that they removed that tacky wheel. You now controll the whole thing with three buttons, right? That's fine with me. What they should have done is to make the whole iPod a 3-button controller, with pressure sensitive areas similar to the mighty mouse. Top, bottom and middle, and designed it so that you could feel with your fingertips where you were squeezing the iPod while not looking at it. This way the whole thing could be operated without a peripheral, but still have the exact same functionality.

[JeffDM]

Seriously to those who complains about the new controls, have you guys ever used the iphone's in-line controls? I have and I love it, and I only have to skip once or twice during my trip to work everyday.

How many of you have the need to skip songs on a regular basis? If you dont like certain songs, dont put it in the playlist in the first place!

There are some flaws with argument the last line. For one, iTunes can "autofill" the Shuffle. The user might not be aware of what goes onto it at dock time, not without reading line by line what made it into the device. Another is that a song good for one mood might not be suitable for another.

[digitalclips]

Wow Virgil, only 133 posts to go before you can change your tag to "Devoted Apple fanboy", "Drunk on the koolaid", "Infected by the RDF and I like it" or some such. Do you really think Apple can do no wrong at all?


Mr. H, you missed the closing quotes after "Infected by the RDF" and before "I like it"

Constanoon Afterable ;)

[digitalclips]

Has the reviewer ever actually ran?
Nothing bounces or jiggles more than headphone wires. A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all and the 2G controls were entirely intuitive unlike this shuffle.

Please pardon the side bar folks. A Quick Language Police Question:
I am familiar with English 'dived' is now 'dove' in US. However, is English 'ever run' really 'ever ran' in US? Or is that just a mistake? I am new US Citizen trying to learn all the verb differences here. Thanks.

[Adjei]

How did you try it at the store- with ear bud headphones that hundreds have used? :rolleyes:
When I went they showed it to me from a salesperson's pocket with the ugly USB dangledopper hanging off it.

Yes I used it with the earbuds that hundreds have used and it sounded great.

[Way2Poppy]

Why does everyone want to make the Shuffle a full-featured iPod? I just don't get it. The iPod Shuffle fits a narrow niche - a small, simple and light music player. It's perfect for going to the gym, on a run, working in the yard, walking the dog, etc. That's it. If you want more than that, go buy a Nano or above.

Personally, I use mine for working in the yard where the lack of buttons is actually welcome. It's not something I do for hours on end and a random shuffling of music is fine. Or sometimes I just sync the music I've most recently downloaded.

The biggest downside to me is that with the controls on the earbuds, lose them and the player is rendered almost completely worthless. There will indeed be a plethora of third-party options I'm sure though.

[solipsism]

Putting the controls on the headphones is stupid because as someone mentioned, unless you're a woman without a bra on or a fat guy without a corset, the headphone cable jiggles around the most when jogging. The ipod itself is always fastened securely in a known position.
As multiple someones also said that the assumptions that it's harder to navigate while moving are false. In reality it's easier to use controls on the wire than on the device if attached to your person. The only way that the controls would be easier to use on the device would be in the device was in your hand.

I think the new Shuffle is a step backwards. Adding more storage doesn't help when it's still difficult to navigate through the music. The bottom line is that you need a visual guide to navigate a lot of music tracks just like you need two physical buttons on a mouse to reliably interact with a computer. Apple's workarounds just don't cut it.
Dude! They added VoiceOver so you could navigate the library better. A voice telling you what track you are on is more useful than a single line telling you the same data. You don't have to stop to look at a really small one line display. Ever try reading a small LCD when moving? And if it's attached to your person it completely defeats the point of this device.

Also, having an audible battery indicator would be nice too. One of my relatives has the 2G model and they say it just dies. The light changes color but only after it's dead.
So much misinformation! The Shuffles have always used the indicator light to tell you the charge. Your relative should have spent 8 seconds googling. The new Shuffle also uses VoiceOver to inform you of the battery life.• http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1510

[Obi-Wan Kubrick]

I am disappointed by the new shuffle. There was no need to update the design of the player. All they needed to do was combine the shuffle, play in order, and off button together as in the new model. I use my 2nd Gen shuffle more than my other iPod's. The new design is ugly and I love minimalism but this iPod has gone to far. They should of made the cord controls optional.

[wnurse]

Has the reviewer ever actually ran?
Nothing bounces or jiggles more than headphone wires. A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all and the 2G controls were entirely intuitive unlike this shuffle.

A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all?.. hahahahahahahahaha

A player snapped to your waistband move with your waist. (i know, this one is tough... it's like sitting in a moving car and thinking you are stationary.. no, you are moving at the same speed as the car)... anyway, if you photographed yourself running with a player snapped to your waistband, you would see that it moves while you are running (up and down that is). I've ran with headphones before... this is not advanced physics.. nothing happened.. i didn't melt, get annonyed or anything. only when apple does not do something that people start claiming it is hard (like apple idiotic explanation for not doing cut and paste in an iphone before)..

[Marvin]

We are obviously going to disagree, but how on earth do you control which songs you listen too on the old 2G shuffle containing 400 songs?

What I was saying is that increasing the storage makes this issue worse. The 3G improves some aspects but not enough IMO.

On the 3G shuffle navigation is easy (and easier when you are on the move than walking in front of cars while gazing at a list on the nano.

You get voiceover on the nano too but it's about speed. If I have even 10 playlists, I don't want to hit a button then wait to hear the description, hit a button, hear the next description. A visual list that you can scan is so much quicker - it's like random access vs linear.

It's not only selecting a playlist by title but being able to quickly see what is in the playlist. I can select a playlist visually. You also don't gaze at the list constantly, you just select and leave it once you have the selection.

Once manufacturers have an adaptor so you can plug it into your car it will be much safer than looking at visual playlists

The current nano can be used in a car without an adaptor. Engadget pointed this out but manufacturers pay a license fee to Apple and they'll pass it onto the consumer so shuffle plus adaptor might cost the same or more than a nano, which you can use anywhere without having to remember the adaptor.

The Shuffles have always used the indicator light to tell you the charge.

What my relative probably meant was that she only noticed the light had changed after the ipod stopped playing. An audible warning fixes this.

In reality it's easier to use controls on the wire than on the device if attached to your person.

Not for people climbing or cycling, playing tennis, golf etc where you might put the wire over your back to keep it from getting in your way. Also in winter time, you can't keep your hands in your pocket and change tracks.

[solipsism]

The current nano can be used in a car without an adaptor. Engadget pointed this out but manufacturers pay a license fee to Apple and they'll pass it onto the consumer so shuffle plus adaptor might cost the same or more than a nano, which you can use anywhere without having to remember the adaptor.
You don't need to get your 3.5mm headphone jack attachments certified by Apple to work with any of the new iPod, just don't expect Apple to sell it in their stores or on their website if you don't.

[SDW2001]

This is the worst review I've read here. It reads like a MacOS Rumors review. My lord...how many pages?

[trip1ex]

Talk about over-analysis.

It's a Shuffle. Aimed at the exercise crowd. Controls are on the earphone wires.

'nuff said.

[Takeo]

i would say less than 1% of all shuffle owners in the world use different headsets and less than 1% actually use it for more than randomly listen to music.

I just love how people randomly make up their own statistics.

[solipsism]

I just love how people randomly make up their own statistics.

Oberpongo started his statement with "I would say..." which clearly makes it an opinion.

[sjoshuaj]

I'm shocked no one has brought this up yet. It seems clear to me apple should have taken this concept one step further and offered voice command. While your busy running or lifting weights just speak into the built in microphone on the ear buds. Move the track forward speak "Next" or move it backwards by speaking "Previous". Additional commands could be "Pause", "Play", "Stop", and "Next Playlist". I think you get the idea. It's simple, clean, and requires absolutely no fumbling with the physical controls. Perfect for those of use for go to the gym. Or for those of us who are working on something dirty like car engine work and don't want to touch our ipod with grease. Or we're skiing down the mountain and have our hands full holding the ski poles.

[Virgil-TB2]

Well I'm not going to take your comments too seriously, as it seems the world is topsy-turvy today in that you actually agree with "tekstud" below as you mention yourself. Also I won't bother with the usual form which is if a poster mentions the word "fan-boy" in any capacity, they usually aren't worth talking or listening to. :)

... Super cheap? Er no, this new shuffle costs £59. ... To this I would only say there is cheap and there is junk. You can find calculators stuck in the end of pens but one shouldn't compare them to a calculator that one might purchase as opposed to something one might receive in a blister pack with a free pair of socks and some mouthwash at the local Tesco's.

Where I live, most people are dead cheap and a large portion of them never buy iPods for that reason alone. What they buy are usually hundred dollar players in the same general price range as shuffles that are tiny little things with a tiny LCD screen or no screen made out of plastic. This is what I see most people using on the train every day and the new shuffle fits right in that category IMO.
... Easier to use? What kind of twisted logic did you use to come to that conclusion? How is clicking a button three times to skip backward (and remembering that it's three times rather than two times, one time, two and half times whilst hopping) easier than clicking once a button marked with a "skip backward" symbol?

Here I said easier because I have used them and to me, they are easier. That was like, an "opinion."

The article itself also goes on about how they are "handier" easier to get at etc. so one could also argue that they are easier in that they are more accessible. The difference between these controls and the previous generation controls is really almost negligible anyway. People making a big hoo-ha over it have likely never used it.

On the old one it's a single click to go back (on one button) and a single click on a second button to go forward. On the new one it's a double click on one button and a triple click on the same button. If you cannot master this, consult any five year old child and they can show you how it works.

In the end all they have done is change a five button control to a three button one and move it to the speaker wires. All of you that are so hot against this move are simply wrong. People already buy the shuffle in large numbers and Apple does tons of research into these things before making changes like this to it's product lines.

The odds that they discovered that moving the controls to the wires would piss people off and then went ahead anyway because of some ideological slant against buttons (which is essentially what most are arguing here), are slim to none. This thing will be really really popular and will prove all of you as wrong as you generally are when you think you know better than a group of award winning designers running one of the most successful companies in recent memory.

[solipsism]

I'm shocked no one has brought this up yet. It seems clear to me apple should have taken this concept one step further and offered voice command. While your busy running or lifting weights just speak into the built in microphone on the ear buds. Move the track forward speak "Next" or move it backwards by speaking "Previous". Additional commands could be "Pause", "Play", "Stop", and "Next Playlist". I think you get the idea. It's simple, clean, and requires absolutely no fumbling with the physical controls. Perfect for those of use for go to the gym. Or for those of us who are working on something dirty like car engine work and don't want to touch our ipod with grease. Or we're skiing down the mountain and have our hands full holding the ski poles.

Relaying a voice of a track and artist and conveying a voice command are very different beasts. The VoiceOver is actually done by your PC prior to copying the files on the Shuffle. It creates a small audio file of the track and artist metadata. I doubt the Shuffle is sophisticated enough to process such information. If this were to come out I would imagine that will happen in the iPhone and Touch first.

[Quadra 610]

For the average user the Shuffle is just fine - in fact, better than fine, since the controls are now much more convenient to get to.

People who post regularly on AI are most certainly not average users. Or course, our opinions count, but we're not exactly representative of the average user.

[cnocbui]

it's a better product all around but if you don't like it the old one is still available?

Lot's of people do not share that view, including myself. That there is remaining stock of the old model is of little comfort. When that stock is exhausted, there will just be the hugely flawed new one, or other manufacturers products. Now there's an idea.

[johnqh]

People still don't get it.

Shuffle is no longer positioned as "cheap iPod". Instead, it is an "exercise iPod" now.

G1 iPod was the cheap iPod for kids. G2 iPod was already moving toward as the secondary iPod for exercising. G3 is solely focused as exercise iPod. Keep in mind, the G1 iPod Shuffle 1GB costs $149, same as the lowest priced Nano right now.

Everything about the new Shuffle design is about keeping it invisible. You don't change songs when exercising. You don't care about audio/earphone/headphone quality when exercising. Instead, you want it as light as possible. You may want different style of music depending on the type of exercising, so it adds the ability to change playlist.

If you want better audio quality (cheap headphone replacement), better media management etc, get Nano or Touch. Shuffle is not designed for that. Actually, I should say "Shuffled is designed PURPOSELY NOT FOR that".

Edit: why does Apple move the controls to the earphone? Because that's the best place when you exercise. No matter where you put the iPod, the controls are easily accessible no matter what activities you are doing. For people who are exercising, the best placement is to place the iPod in the pants pocket, and run the wires inside the T-shirt. With the old Shuffle, you have to reach inside your pants pocket to change anything. The new controls are much better.

Edit: I will predict the next generation shuffle will have weather proofing.

[Boogerman2000]

Talk about over-analysis.

It's a Shuffle. Aimed at the exercise crowd. Controls are on the earphone wires.

'nuff said.

Exactly. How is it that everyone is missing that?

[scstsut]

It's increasingly clear that Apple has run into the limits of what the iPod shuffle can do, not to mention its own design aesthetic.

There is plenty of room for the Shuffle to evolve. Screenless, multi-touch, gesture controls on that empty flat side. With A2DP they could put the controls back on the iPod and have even more convenience.

Personally I hope they make all those "complicated" inline controls work with the next version of the iPhone/iPod Touch (actually the whole iPod line); including VoiceOver.

[Quadra 610]

Exactly. How is it that everyone is missing that?

Only the tech-heads (small minority of the customer base) miss that. It's the same group that's always been up in arms over copy and paste, etc. LOL, like anyone else gives a damn.

The average user this is targeted toward will snap up these Shuffles like they were candy. And happily, I consider myself an average user, too. 8-)

[Expat]

People still don't get it.Everything about the new Shuffle design is about keeping it invisible. You don't change songs when exercising. You don't care about audio/earphone/headphone quality when exercising. Instead, you want it as light as possible. You may want different style of music depending on the type of exercising, so it adds the ability to change playlist.

You just contradicted yourself here - you want to change styles of music, but not songs? I don't think this is possible for the most part.

That being said, when I work out or run, I tend to have a short attention span. I appreciate the fact that the 2G Shuffle allows for easy changing of songs. I do agree that I don't care as much about earphone quality, but then again I also could care less about voiceover or switching between playlists (or a display for that matter). Just let me upload 100+ songs and I'll listen to what I want and skip what I don't.

Edit: why does Apple move the controls to the earphone? Because that's the best place when you exercise.

Not for all of us. When I run, I have my shuffle clipped to the bottom of my shirt, with the headphone cables run up the inside of my shirt. Unless the controls on the new earphones are rather high up, they won't be accessible to me. On top of that, when I run or work out my hands are closer to my waist then my neck, so it makes the headphone controls more pointless.

I'd rather have to use my player controls than have my headphone cable out. It flaps around, your hand/arm can get caught in it while running, same with weights.

I think the amount of outrage over the new iPod is that for a lot of us, the 2G model was the perfect iPod for working out, or just for listening to news podcasts on the way to work. Sometimes, when you add features, you're just tacking stuff on for the sake of taking it on. As for the controls, the iPod, regardless of the model, has ALWAYS been about ease of use. The whole experience, from iTunes to the unit itself, is about simplicity. The "morse code" of controls makes a mockery of this.

Yes, you can control different playlists, and you have voiceover to tell you what is playing (instead of a screen), but like most Shuffle users, I have a larger iPod with all of this stuff, so what do I care about more features on the shuffle? My whole take on the Shuffle is "keep it simple, stupid" - the 2G was great, and I didn't think that they could do much with it. maybe more storage, or a lower price.

The 3G is, as mentioned before, the fat Nano of the shuffle line. I fully expect the 4th generation to be different, either incorporating more of the 2G look or features, or just making serious revisions to the 3G. After all, use that blank face on the 3G for the same controls on the headphones - that would be a start. That, and lower the price. AFter all, the Shuffle is rarely a person's primary and only iPod - its an accessory for us iPod users.

ALl of that being said, I do like the USB sync cable. It could be a little longer for some users, but I like it a lot more than the 2G dock.

[johnqh]

You just contradicted yourself here - you want to change styles of music, but not songs? I don't think this is possible for the most part.

When do you ever change songs when running?

You may want some soft music for yoga, but rock for running. How hard is that to understand?

[Virgil-TB2]

As multiple someones also said that the assumptions that it's harder to navigate while moving are false. In reality it's easier to use controls on the wire than on the device if attached to your person. The only way that the controls would be easier to use on the device would be in the device was in your hand. ...I'd also like to smack down this assumption, which I think is based mostly on "teckstud's" comments (need I say more about the source?) :)

I actually have used these things and the Apple in-ear headphones of similar design and the idea that they jiggle around to the point that they are unusable is simply wrong.

The control is about 2.5 inches at most from the bottom of your ear, it's always there and can be easily found "by feel" with no problem at all. There just isn't enough cord to swing at that short distance from your ear. I always find the control with my hand, I never have to look, jogging or no.

This is just not a factor at all except in the minds of trolls like "teckstud" who supposes more than he knows of, a whole variety of "flaws" that don't really exist. It's one thing to put out a statement like "it seems to me that the cable might swing," but another to post as he has that this is a serious problem when he hasn't even tried it.

[johnqh]

Not for all of us. When I run, I have my shuffle clipped to the bottom of my shirt, with the headphone cables run up the inside of my shirt. Unless the controls on the new earphones are rather high up, they won't be accessible to me. On top of that, when I run or work out my hands are closer to my waist then my neck, so it makes the headphone controls more pointless.

Please go to Apple Store and take a look first before making a comment. The controls are very high, higher than where the wires split.

Yes, the position of the hards is a good point, but still, I will bet it is easier and faster to find the location of the G3 controls, than to find G2 and trying to figure out which button is which. [Edit] Actually, when you run, your hands are chest high. It is about the same distance to the bottom of your shirt and to your neck level.

Your comments shows that you like the G2 very much that you won't even consider a newer way. I am not saying G2 is bad. However, I have the G1 only so I can compare the G2 and G3 more fairly.

[solipsism]

Lot's of people do not share that view, including myself. That there is remaining stock of the old model is of little comfort. When that stock is exhausted, there will just be the hugely flawed new one, or other manufacturers products. Now there's an idea.
When Apple is trying to get rid of left over stock they put it on the their refurb or clearance site? It's not their practice to still offer the previous generation product in their main store, much less advertise on the main page that the previous generation in every colour, including Product Red, is still available. That doesn't sound like they are trying to a quick buck on old stock to me.

When Apple does eventually stop selling the 2G Shuffle in their main store and in their discount section what is stopping you from buying it from other sources. It'll be cheaper, too boot.

PS: Why is that with every Apple product release we get people crying that Apple is no longer supporting their needs? Does this happen with other vendors, too?

[jimcord]

I actually own this and can comment on it. Yes it is small and that is great, It works fantastic out at the gym or when running. After a few tries, you completely get the hang of using the click response on the remote. I personally think it is getter than the last shuffle. It still was to heave to hang off of a mans tshirt to now bounce around when running or exercising.

[cnocbui]

Something no one has mentioned so far; robustness.

In my experience, cords/cables are always a weak link. They are usually the first element in a system to break or malfunction. For this reason alone, putting the controls for a devise on a cord is not a good thing for the consumer. Such a design necessitates far greater interaction and manipulation of the weakest link, with the inevitable, tugs and jerks that will cumulatively hasten the time when the cord fails.

My 3rd gen iPod came with a wired in line remote. I have used this in my car audio installation as a convenient way to control the iPod. Quite recently, it failed, where the cord went into the proprietary plug which plugs into the iPod.

I was able to fix it, but most people wouldn't be able to. Now this brings me to an interesting observation.

When I bought my 3rd gen iPod, it was from an Apple I admired and thought highly of. A company that made products of value. In the charming origami like box was:

The ipod
An attractive and functional protective case with belt clip.
A firewire cable of decent length.
A pair of earbuds
A good length cable with wired remote (with clip) and a socket, compatible with ANY headphones.
A dock
A mini USB adapter

These days you count yourself lucky if you find a $5 off voucher towards a $25 USB sync cable ;)

At the very minimum, the shuffle should have come with an adapter cable with controls that would have allowed any headphones or other devices to be used with it.

Even cooler would have been if it had come with the controls on a detachable wireless remote that could be clipped anywhere and yet still operate it. Any headphones or other devices could then have been used with it. This would have made for a more robust device of far greater utility. It would have been a true advance.

Trouble is, it would also have been out of character for Apple of today, the one which probably thinks they were mad in making the 3rd gen iPod such great value and a nice experience for the consumer.

[cnocbui]

PS: Why is that with every Apple product release we get people crying that Apple is no longer supporting their needs?

In my case it is because I have no problem envisioning products that could have and should have been better, knowing full well there is little chance any other manufacturer will come even close, any time soon.

The Touch is a good case in point, even now, years after it's first release, this multimedia device remains a tantalising potential acquisition, but is crippled in being limited to only 32gb. I have seen several claims the iPod classics are far and away the best selling iPod model, which means most people have a need for greater capacity than can be provided by solid state memory, which is still way too expensive to substitute for hard drives. The Touch, with it's obvious visual media features, is something which even more than the Classic, should be a device with a large storage capacity.

If Apple made a Touch with a HD and therefore realistic storage capacity, appropriate to it's potential, I would buy one in a flash, as I imagine would many, many others.

Whats wrong with criticising something you perceive as flawed?

If you got a school report back for your child and it said, 'outstandingly intelligent, but could try harder' would you think things were just fine, or would you perhaps consider there might be room for improvement?

Apple is like that child - it's all you have - you can't just ask the stork for a better one, the only course of action is dialogue, in the hope of encouraging future improvement.

I have a a 13" Macbook, and it pisses me off constantly that it does not have a firewire port. Please don't suggest I should have forked out an extra $1k and got a 15" pro, just for a firewire port. I have never believed for a moment that including a firewire port in the existing form factor was impossible. Given that the technical specifications / cost ratio of a Macbook already make it poor value for money compared with other brands - annoying niggles like needlessly missing features are just salt on the wound.

There is no hope of future improvement by keeping silent and not voicing legitimate criticisms.

The squeaky wheel, gets the oil.

Does this happen with other vendors, too?

Yes, if I am a customer :D Now about that Panasonic Plasma TV I just bought...

[Tut]

Syncing this shuffle is weird.

In iTunes the Shuffle (under Devices) shows the correct play count, but that information is not mirrored in the iTunes Library.

This means that iTunes does not increment the play count or remove what has been listed to, like podcasts or audio books, which I no longer wish to have on the Shuffle.

It does not recognize anything inside the Audiobooks playlist. It is as if it was not there. I had to create a special playlist for that stuff, to be able to get at it on the Shuffle. Really strange. (Maybe the audio books have to be bought through iTunes to be accepted? Have not tested that)


:???:

[PXT]

I wonder if Apple are expecting headphone suppliers to innovate with the headset and controls, while letting Apple focus on the parts they are more interested in. 3rd parties may go well beyond the simple cable earbuds and go on to make single-piece headsets, bike pods, helmet pods, etc into which the iPod unit plugs in. Maybe even a little slot in a car where you push the shuffle in and let the car's controls take over without having dangly cables.

Apple keep control of the software/content integration and let 3rd parties innovate in the area where Apple has no interest. I'd buy a one-piece over-ear headset with easy controls in a flash, for the gym. Come on Bose - you know you want to!

[Abster2core]

Pros:
Smaller, more upscale design Why do we always have to advance?
Remote convenient in at least some cases The only time I could think it was inconvenient if I couldn't find the remote, just like I sometimes forget my headphones
Support for audiobooks, playlists and podcasts More features to select
Improved audio quality Not if you lose your remote
Better-than-estimated battery life Cripes. They have the nerve to give more than they advertise?

Cons:
Too heavily dependent on remote; change is arbitary Just like my PVR
Locks users into special headphones or adapters Just like my PVR Remote does to change channels unless I want to walk half way across the room
VoiceOver forces too much waiting Just like clicking Info on my PVR
Shorter battery life than 2G How long is that? Never had one
Transfer speeds too slow [B]Does that mean that every time I add a new song it will take forever?[/B

Missed the most important Pro, i.e., right now you have a choice amongst 25 iPods*, re function, size, and color.

And one other Con, i.e., the audacity to still offer even 5 more†.

Now that means there are 30 iPods to choose from! Damn you Apple! You could at least have made one in brown!

*http://www.apple.com/ipod/whichipod/
†http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_shuffle_2gen?mco=MTYzNDU2Mg

[gmcalpin]

Oberpongo started his statement with "I would say..." which clearly makes it an opinion.
97.4% of the time when people make up statistics, they're just making shit up to support whatever their opinion is in the first place, so it's stupid.

[Quadra 610]

97.4% of the time when people make up statistics, they're just making shit up to support whatever their opinion is in the first place, so it's stupid.

Well that's your opinion . . .

[Quadra 610]

Anyway, does this topic even merit 90+ responses??

C'mon people, it's the stupid Shuffle! Like who cares, really? It's Apple's bottom-end iPod.

I'm surprised it's even getting this much attention. There's an assload of other iPods, plus most of us either have an iPod Touch or at least a Classic, or an iPhone anyway . . .

[Mr. H]

Also I won't bother with the usual form which is if a poster mentions the word "fan-boy" in any capacity, they usually aren't worth talking or listening to.

The fact you see that word mentioned so often in relation to you should tell you something.

The majority of your posting history suggests that if Apple did release the fictional "MacTini" or "MacBook Wheel", you would probably defend them to the death as innovative and easy to use when any reasonable impartial observer would realise they were idiotic products.

To this I would only say there is cheap and there is junk.

Sorry, you said the iPod Shuffle is "super cheap"; you are demonstrably wrong. There's a huge number of players from all kinds of manufacturers that are both cheaper and have displays. Whether you consider cheaper alternatives to be junk or not does not change the fact that the iPod Shuffle is premium priced in its category.

Here I said easier because I have used them and to me, they are easier. That was like, an "opinion."

The article itself also goes on about how they are "handier" easier to get at etc.

You have confused "convenient" and "easy to use". If the remote had individual buttons for play/pause, stop, back and forward instead of its single center button, it would be both more convenient and just as easy to use as previous shuffles.

As it stands, you will never convince me that these controls are easier than previous ones as there is no logical basis for that assertion.

On the old one it's a single click to go back (on one button) and a single click on a second button to go forward. On the new one it's a double click on one button and a triple click on the same button.

:lol: nice try.

If you cannot master this, consult any five year old child and they can show you how it works.

A young brain is able to learn simple repetitive tasks like this very easily, especially with limited prior experience to confuse matters. Older brains are different; for example, the vast majority of older people I know intensely dislike predictive text on T9 phones and turn it off - there's something about it which makes it very hard for them to learn or puts them off wanting to learn it ("techno-fear" or something).

Anyway, that's an aside. Just imagine that you've got a person who's never used any music player of any sort before. In terms of basic playback control - play, pause, stop, back, forward, rewind, fast forward - which is going to be easier to teach them: a 2G Shuffle or a 3G Shuffle? I cannot see how anyone could honestly believe it's the 3G Shuffle - hence the 2G is easier to use.


In the end all they have done is change a five button control to a three button one and move it to the speaker wires. All of you that are so hot against this move are simply wrong.

Apple will probably sell billions of these things. That doesn't mean a 5 button remote wouldn't be easier to use.


People already buy the shuffle in large numbers and Apple does tons of research into these things before making changes like this to it's product lines.

The possessive of "it" is "its".

Sometimes they do lots of research and sometimes they don't; sometimes once they've done it they ignore it. Steve Jobs is on the record as saying so.


The odds that they discovered that moving the controls to the wires would piss people off and then went ahead anyway because of some ideological slant against buttons (which is essentially what most are arguing here), are slim to none.

Having the controls on the wires is a good idea. Pursuing a blind devotion to "the fewer buttons the better" is not.

[Banalltv]

If you follow the minimalist idea to it's ultimate conclusion you end up with a future generation of Shuffle which is nothing more than a headphone wire, losing completely the 'Showing Off Your Personality' aspect of sporting a pretty little coloured 'Expression Of Your Personality' which the previous Shuffle was.

I didn't own one but they sure were pretty.

The current Shuffle looks like something from a hardware store, and I'm surprised at that.

[coolcatdaddy]

with you virgil. certainly apple will sell their fair share of these, but i bet the new design causes more people to turn away from the shuffle than adopt it. just like the fatty nano, this just strikes me as a wrong heading.

i use my shuffle to exercise/work around the house. i run the headphone wire behind me. i bet a lot of other folks do to. because of this controls on headphone wires are not good for me.

we should keep track of those who approve v. disapprove of this design so when the results are in we can have a friendly 'i told you so'.

[gmcalpin]

3rd parties may go well beyond the simple cable earbuds and go on to make single-piece headsets, bike pods, helmet pods, etc into which the iPod unit plugs in. Maybe even a little slot in a car where you push the shuffle in and let the car's controls take over without having dangly cables.
Exactly! Headphones similar to the one teckstud showed before (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1393741&postcount=35) could be much better because of the new Shuffle's smaller size (and — possibly — have all the extra controls people here want, like dedicated FF and REW buttons).

Anybody who hasn't realized this yet is seriously short on imagination. The possibilities of this new shuffle are amazing.

The only problem I see with this thing is that none of those accessories exist yet… and that's kind of a big problem.

[cycomiko]

Edit: why does Apple move the controls to the earphone? Because that's the best place when you exercise. No matter where you put the iPod, the controls are easily accessible no matter what activities you are doing. For people who are exercising, the best placement is to place the iPod in the pants pocket, and run the wires inside the T-shirt. With the old Shuffle, you have to reach inside your pants pocket to change anything. The new controls are much better.

have you actually ever done any exercise, or just making stuff up?

[Expat]

Your comments shows that you like the G2 very much that you won't even consider a newer way. I am not saying G2 is bad. However, I have the G1 only so I can compare the G2 and G3 more fairly.

I'm more than willing to consider new features, I thought I pointed that out. My main issue with the Shuffle is that they've been going through the process of reducing the player, but not always for the better. The original was an all-in-one, controls, battery and even USB port.

Admittedly, I was skeptical about the G2 when it came out, as it scrapped the USB port for the sake of size and gave us yet another accessory which I have to keep in my bag if I want to sync on the fly. That being said, the result of omitting the USB port allowed the iPod to be small enough to clip wherever. That was a benefit that outweighed the loss of the USB port. (and in regards to running and hand position, regardless of where your hands are when running, you can always have the G2 and its controls close by).

With the G3, we have removed the controls from the unit. And like the G2, we have another accessory to worry about - headphones with controls. But, like the G2, do we have a benefit? I am not sure that we do, or at least not one that interests me right now.

Perhaps after letting the G3 grow on me, I might find something with it, but at first and second glance, nothing. Again, from my means of use, the voice ID doesn't do anything for me - if I got one it would be the first thing I turned off. As for the larger size, as I said, most shuffle users have a second, larger iPod, so I don't know if its a big deal. All the talk of removing the controls is being hailed as a positive, but I just see it.

[MacTel]

It sounds like they have much room for improvement on this new design as listed in the cons of the review.

Personally I believe the voiceover will be refined and be able to allow Shuffle users to use Nike+ components. There's no reason why Apple couldn't do that in the shuffle and have the iPod give voice updates or one's progress on a run or walk.

The Shuffle could also gain a GPS chip and give one's location. Voice directions should be just as good as visual.

[ivan.rnn01]

does iPod (Shuffle, God bless its designers) have to do with 3G :???:

[Mr. H]

what does iPod (Shuffle, God bless its designers) have to do with 3G :???:

Here, 3G means third generation. This is the third generation of iPod Shuffle.

[ivan.rnn01]

Here, 3G means third generation. This is the third generation of iPod Shuffle.

Ah. Thanks. ;) Somewhat misleading.

[mr O]

Just imagine that you've got a person who's never used any music player of any sort before. In terms of basic playback control - play, pause, stop, back, forward, rewind, fast forward - which is going to be easier to teach them: a 2G Shuffle or a 3G Shuffle? I cannot see how anyone could honestly believe it's the 3G Shuffle - hence the 2G is easier to use.

Well said Mr. H :)

The clickwheel of the 2G shuffle is very idiot proof. The new shuffle isn't. Apple needs a video to explain the new Shuffle. It won't appeal to new entrants that are not too familiar with technology. Hence the tragedy.

The new shuffle will appeal to the high end (iPhone/iPod touch) user however.

[solipsism]

Ah. Thanks. ;) Somewhat misleading.
Confusing, sure, but I wouldn't call it misleading. The cell carriers and cell vendors have pushed '3G' as a marketing term so much to refer to cell radios that we've forgotten that it just means 3rd generation. We use GPRS and EDGE but then didn't use UMTS, HSDPA, HSUPA or HSPA. Granted that is a whole lot of confusing acronyms and those are just for 3G on GSM-based networks.


The clickwheel of the 2G shuffle is very idiot proof. The new shuffle isn't. Apple needs a video to explain the new Shuffle. It won't appeal to new entrants that are not too familiar with technology. Hence the tragedy.

There is no click wheel on the 2G Shuffle. It's just buttons in a circular arrangement. I don't think having a video means it's difficult to use, only that it's different. I've been using the in-line remote on my iPhones for nearly two years now without issue. I even bought Apple's $79 in-ear phones with in-line remote and mic because I find the controls so useful (and because I just hate Apple's ear buds with a passion). I could have bought other vendor's in-ear phones but I would have lost functionality without gaining much, if any, improvement in sound for the price over Apple's premium offering.

The first iPod with a synaptic clickwheel was unusual but natural enough that it was quickly understood. This remote with click once to play/pause, click twice to FF, click thrice to RW, and the plus sign for volume up, minus sign for volume down should not be difficult to understand.

The new shuffle will appeal to the high end (iPhone/iPod touch) user however.
Why exactly will appeal to them but not others?

[ivan.rnn01]

Confusing, sure, but I wouldn't call it misleading. The cell carriers and cell vendors have pushed '3G' as a marketing term so much to refer to cell radios that we've forgotten that it just means 3rd generation. We use GPRS and EDGE but then didn't use UMTS, HSDPA, HSUPA or HSPA. Granted that is a whole lot of confusing acronyms and those are just for 3G on GSM-based networks.

Isn't it ®egistered? ;)

UPD: Can't state that for sure. Yet ITU employs (http://www.itu.int/home/imt.html) 3G as a synonym to IMT-2000 with no hesitation.

[solipsism]

Isn't it ®egistered? ;)

UPD: Can't state that for sure. Yet ITU employs (http://www.itu.int/home/imt.html) 3G as a synonym to IMT-2000 with no hesitation.

It doesn't matter if it is or not, since it was commonly used prior to any 3rd generation network being created. I think being a trademark also means that the use of 3G would have to be written a certain way AND be used in a used way to be in any violation. Referring to the 3rd generation iPod Shuffle as simple 3G in plain text should not be in violation.

(I'll need my large iced coffee from McDonalds® before all my cylinders are firing)

[ivan.rnn01]

It doesn't matter if it is or not, since it was commonly used prior to any 3rd generation network being created. I think being a trademark also means that the use of 3G would have to be written a certain way AND be used in a used way to be in any violation. Referring to the 3rd generation iPod Shuffle as simple 3G in plain text should not be in violation.

(I'll need my large iced coffee from McDonalds® before all my cylinders are firing)

OK, OK, you convinced me. ;) Afaik, I could easily get it as new iPod was gonna cost 3G's, too :lol:

[jeffharris]

. . .

Brilliant insight.
:lol:

[Chris_CA]

Ah. Thanks. ;) Somewhat misleading.
Yeah, you can tell some people are really "confused" when they ask the difference between a 2G iPhone and a 3G iPhone...
:lol:

[solipsism]

Yeah, you can tell some people are really "confused" when they ask the difference between a 2G iPhone and a 3G iPhone...
:lol:
Just wait until we start talking about the 3rd generation iPhone in a simplified form on these forums.

[ivan.rnn01]

Yeah, you can tell some people are really "confused" when they ask the difference between a 2G iPhone and a 3G iPhone...
:lol:
They're asking that? They should have got some reasons... Wait... Both batteries are crap. You can still watch youtube over EDGE... No, some people got the right to be confused... ;)

[minderbinder]

Great article, I totally agree with it. This really looks like a redesign for its own sake - they took something that wasn't broke and tried to "fix" it.

One quibble - I disagree that apple was "forced" to redesign to keep buyers interested. I'd argue that a price drop and capacity boost would have been a good start. If they really wanted to do more, they could have added playlists and/or voice to the old form factor (I think it would be better to have the option to have the voice ONLY for changing playlists). Or even include the remote in addition to the controls on the unit.

Apple got it right with the second generation (and I'd even argue that even the first gen had advantages, I always liked the USB port on the unit itself so no adapter or cable was needed). This really seems like a step back, and I really think it's likely that we'll see the controls come back in the next redesign (sure they'll sell some of these, but I wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being more demand for the 2nd generation, which apple is still selling).

[Chris_CA]

They're asking that? They should have got some reasons... Wait... Both batteries are crap. You can still watch youtube over EDGE... No, some people got the right to be confused... ;)
Both batteries?
Serious? You know what differences there are between a 2G iPhone and a 3G iPhone (think about your original post)?

[minderbinder]

Exactly. How is it that everyone is missing that?

Because there are people who use shuffles and actually DO use the controls? How are you missing that?

PS: Why is that with every Apple product release we get people crying that Apple is no longer supporting their needs? Does this happen with other vendors, too?

I agree that there seems to be complaining with every apple product release. But that doesn't mean that the complaining is right in some cases.

There are people demanding esoteric features that nobody really wants. But in this case they are selling a music player with no controls on the device. And the controls on the remote are less intuitive than the last version.

[ivan.rnn01]

Both batteries?
Serious?
Absolutely.:lol:

You know what differences there are between a 2G iPhone and a 3G iPhone (think about your original post)?
I do, I do...:lol: My original post wasn't about iPhone. What's the point to think of it?

[Chris_CA]

What's the point to think of it?
You asked what does 3G has to do with the shuffle.
If you are refering to a 3G network, nothing You seem to have confused a 3G network with the 3G (3rd generation).
A 2G (2nd generation) iPhone IS a 3G (cell network) iPhone. There is no difference because they are one and the same.

'nuff said...

[ivan.rnn01]

You asked what does 3G has to do with the shuffle.
If you are refering to a 3G network, nothing You seem to have confused a 3G network with the 3G (3rd generation).
Quite so. I believe "3G" has now steady meaning being a synonym of the "wireless networking standard of 3rd generation".

A 2G (2nd generation) iPhone IS a 3G (cell network) iPhone. There is no difference because they are one and the same.

'nuff said...
If you like it. Just beware nobody uses the notion "2G iPhone". People used to call it "iPhone 3G" meaning the iPhone of 2nd generation by that.

[Chris_CA]

Quite so. I believe "3G" has now steady meaning being a synonym of the "wireless networking standard of 3rd generation".
If you are talking about cell phones, yes it does. If you are talking about iPods, it does not, as in a 3G iPod nano or in this case, as you brought up, a 3G iPod shuffle.

Just beware nobody uses the notion "2G iPhone"
Yes they do which is why I (am really sorry I) brought it up.
Some people hear "3G" and assume a "2G" must be the previous model.

[jcgarza]

While syncing, the computer is also having to create and upload all the VoiceOver audio files that the user might potentially listen to. (It was exciting to believe that the shuffle had real text-to-speech capabilities, but it doesn't...)

[ivan.rnn01]

If you are talking about cell phones, yes it does. If you are talking about iPods, it does not, as in a 3G iPod nano or in this case, as you brought up, a 3G iPod shuffle.


Yes they do which is why I (am really sorry I) brought it up.
Some people hear "3G" and assume a "2G" must be the previous model.

OK, I learned it all right now. ;)

[flex]

I live in an area where the weather gets cold and when it does the controls on my iphone don't work. They seem to get too cold to double click. About the only thing that seems to work is a single click and even that doesn't work well. So for me purchasing one of these would be out of the question because I wouldn't be able to use and of the controls

[lamewing]

I bought the new nano a couple of days ago and finally decided to return it. Being currently boxed into Apple earbuds ecosystem was unacceptable to me. Maybe when there is an adapter...a heavy duty adapter, I will reconsider.

[Mac Donald]

Just think if Apple would put a touch surface on the side of the shuffle and also some sorta simple E-ink display!

[ecking]

The new shuffle is the first ipod that has not interested me at all and after reading this review I am now certain it's not for me. I am really surprised that after 5 pages of what was essentially complete negativity that it still netted a 3/5. I think anyone that sees no problem with instantly spending more money on headphones that cost as much as the player or having to wait for (hopefully) third parties to make some kind of jack lead or better headphones as well as it not even remotely fitting in with literally thousands of aux stereo devices and accessories out there is being too much of an apologist.

And that's not even to mention the ugly, bland design. At least throw the apple logo on the front, it's the first item to not need the front and that's what they do with it? And why can't the player have the exact headphone rocker controls on the side of the body or something, it would still look discrete, they could still intend the headphones to be the main control area and it won't leave people out in the cold.
But people will quickly chime in and tell me I'm cluttering it up, making it ugly, making it non-apple etc. Well to take I say then is just being made this small for the sake of being small. People don't need anal suppository music players. Form is crippling function.