or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple details new Voice Over controls for iPod shuffle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple details new Voice Over controls for iPod shuffle - Page 2

post #41 of 103
(Quick disclaimer: I just woke up and didn't roam the various sites for updates and also didn't install the new iTunes yet, so I'm working blindly right now.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

iTunes doesn't change your song files. Where did you get that from? The VoiceOver audio recordings will be separate files internally linked via some database to the songs, I imagine.

Saw a 9to5 post linked from... Gizmodo or Boing Boing Gadgets:
Quote:
iTunes 8.1 will put some extra voice data in your music files (see below) to include the name of the band and title of the song. While this will be relatively small in size, the space changes will take up more space than before, thus growing the size of your library.

Though I of course don't know how true that info is, but it was at the time the most definite statement in that area, so I assumed the worst. If it's true that iTunes only generates "thumbnail" files, so to speak, then that'd be mighty fine for me. But until I see that confirmed somewhere, I won't hit the "Let VoiceOver loose on my library" button
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFatWookie View Post

Did anybody read the product infoon Appl's website

If they had actually read the information or watched the demo, these threads would be half the size.
Leave it to humans to take sound bites and base decisions on them - without truly understanding it.

I think that the controls on the 2G Shuffle were frustrating. I was using my friends and I found myself clicking next instead of back, or turning it up when I wanted to turn it down.

I think they realized that people just want to press play and let it run - they don't need to focus on controls b/c people won't use much more than one button.

People that are complaining about having to press multiple times are just complaining at the thought of doing it (obviously because they have yet to do it)

The ONLY thing I agree with some of them on is using THEIR 3rd party headphones, and not having the controls available. Thats they only viable reason to hate it now. for them, there is no alternative as of yet. But I haven't seen them in the stores yet (haven't looked either) so I'm not sure how many people already have them. Maybe Apple DOES have an adapter that will be out very soon, probably before most will even get the new shuffle (you know, not everyone goes to a new movie thursday night at 11:59).
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiR View Post

But until I see that confirmed somewhere, I won't hit the "Let VoiceOver loose on my library" button

Think the new Nano - the ease of access functions work similarly
post #44 of 103
Sure are a lot of people upset over this. I have to admit I'm a little surprised.

For my own part, it seemed like a very interesting attempt to allow the user to get some song info from a screen-less device. I didn't much see the point, except that the notion you can actually access different playlists is pretty cool. But if it's too complicated for you, fine. Use it like a shuffle. The complicated stuff is if you want the higher level info. Even then, it doesn't look especially complicated from the video Apple posted.

And to the one poster who talked about giving one to his dad: See, this is why your parents always liked your big brother better. He probably them your dad a nano
post #45 of 103
VoiceOver would have been a great addition to the Shuffle but as a replacement for traditional controls this products's not for me.

VoiceOver will sound pretty damn ropey unless you run Leopard (and although I don't have the stats to back this up - I suspect the vast majority of Shuffle users have Windows).

Presumably VoiceOver takes up storage space as each track will need a clip recording and also the syncing time will be increased while iTunes talks to the OS to generate the voice over. These aren't massive issues but I couldn't be bother to learn the controls lose the storage space or wait for the sync. This simply isn't making life easier.

All that said VoiceOver is a nice idea and I'm sure they'll be a demand for it higher up the iPod food-chain.
post #46 of 103
Ok I hear all kinds of people complaining about the new Shuffle UI (or lack of). So here are my 2 cents.

A typical Shuffle user puts a bunch of music on it and press Play and then sometimes press Pause. That's it. If you are a power user and need playlist etc, you are not the target user.

Now Apple looked at this and said: how can we make the Shuffle smaller and cost less to make (to make more profit). Solution: remove the buttons.

They could've stop there and give users the same functionality without the buttons on teh Shuffle. Meaning Play, Pause/Stop, Skip/Back, Fast Forward, Rewind. But they gave more: VoiceOver + Playlists.

Also people who are working out or jogging, love the tiny buttons on the earbuds. I own an iPhone and I use the button of my V-Moda earbud much more than I thought I would when listening to music.

My 2 cents
post #47 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

VoiceOver would have been a great addition to the Shuffle but as a replacement for traditional controls this products's not for me.

VoiceOver will sound pretty damn ropey unless you run Leopard (and although I don't have the stats to back this up - I suspect the vast majority of Shuffle users have Windows).

Presumably VoiceOver takes up storage space as each track will need a clip recording and also the syncing time will be increased while iTunes talks to the OS to generate the voice over. These aren't massive issues but I couldn't be bother to learn the controls lose the storage space or wait for the sync. This simply isn't making life easier.

All that said VoiceOver is a nice idea and I'm sure they'll be a demand for it higher up the iPod food-chain.

Did you see the new DJ feature in iTunes?
I can just imagine that stupid robotic voice saying "Now spinning- Push, Push, in the Bush"!
Insane!!
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazinlwfl View Post

People who buy Apple should be expected to only use what Apple allows them too - when has that changed?

It changed at about the time the Apple ][ was eclipsed by the Macintosh.

Back on topic, my gut reaction is that these controls seem like a step backwards in terms of intuitiveness. It seems to be more complicated to do most of the same things as you could do with the previous generation, and therefore it's more complicated than it needs to be.

On the other hand, I've never personally tried any of these minimalist headset remotes (various other vendors offered their own permutations on the concept) and so I'll reserve final judgement until I've had a chance to do so. But since my current gear still works just fine, and I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade based on what I've seen so far, it may be quite some time before I allow myself a chance to try it out.
post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It seems like most people do use stock earbuds though. I wonder if that consideration would even come up any time before the earbuds die or break.

But what about listening in the car, or hooked up to a stereo? I rarely ever listen on headphones.

This seems like a terrible idea, particularly since there are less buttons now so controlling it is more arcane and less intuitive, not to mention the lack of flexibility with headphones.

The addition of playlist support is nice, and it's always good to have more space. But overall, this seems like a worse model than previous generations (including the first one), and way way overpriced considering you can get an mp3 player with 4 gigs and a small screen for under $25.

Apple needs to let go of their "small" fetish, it has always been small enough.

Cliche or not, I'd have to agree with "epic fail". This arguably has the worst product design Apple has put out in a long time. Just update the last model to 4 gigs and be done with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFatWookie View Post

Did anybody read the product infoon Appl's website? If you use your existing hedphones that don't have any controls, the new iPod shuffle will work EXACTLY like the previous model. Move the on switch to the shuffle position, and it will begin play of all of your songs in random order. So nothing is lost.

The previous model let you fast forward and rewind, and change volume. How is that done without controls?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlutenBoy View Post

Now Apple looked at this and said: how can we make the Shuffle smaller and cost less to make (to make more profit).

It's hard to be swayed by an argument based on cost when they raised the price.
post #50 of 103
Firstly: it's an iPod Shuffle. If you're buying one you are, by very definition, relinquishing absolute control of the order of the songs that you listen to.

Secondly: don't you see that Apple is gradually migrating to an all-but-invisible iPod? By refining the controls in this way and removing the buttons from the device they're moving us closer to the world where the device is small enough to almost not exist; you'll basically have a set of headphones with a nub on the end which doesn't even unplug. Welcome to the iPod Earbud. Perhaps there won't even be a small nodule - the smarts will be embedded in the wasted space in the earbuds. Sounds daft? Give it two years (and in the mean time open up your iPhone to see how efficiently the use the space).

It will weigh almost nothing, it will charge and sync god knows how (inductive + wi-fi?), and it will be the first of its kind. And you will already know how to use it. And it will sell like hot cakes and you know it.

Or ... you could just keep complaining about the new Shuffle and go buy a Creative. Do they still even make mp3 players? I dunno ... nobody seems to talk about them much any more. ;-)
post #51 of 103
Watched the video... was there something small she was selling? If so, I'll buy it! What a honey!
post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

ABSTER2CORE, Adjei1, and CJD21112

Now that is one of the nicest things you have ever done, i.e., to include me in such intelligent company.

Thank you,

Abster2core.
post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

But what about listening in the car, or hooked up to a stereo? I rarely ever listen on headphones.

Um. You're buying an iPod shuffle to play in the car? Epic fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

... considering you can get an mp3 player with 4 gigs and a small screen for under $25.

And the interface on that mp3 player won't be absolutely heinous? Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Apple needs to let go of their "small" fetish, it has always been small enough.

See my previous post, above. Look forward. Think Different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Just update the last model to 4 gigs and be done with it.

Let's leave the "incrementally upgrade the previous model and hope people will buy it" sales model to Microsoft, shall we? They seem to be doing rather well from it.

Oh, wait...
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Now that is one of the nicest things you have ever done, i.e., to include me in such intelligent company.

Thank you,

Abster2core.

I'm sorry I forgot to add the period at the end of your name.
post #55 of 103
I like that they've redesigned the headphones switches as I've gone through 3 pairs of iphone headphones cuz dust or (whatever) gets into it and the Mic and switches stop working.

The $70 dollar upgrade (99->169 Canadian) to a an 8GB nano seems to be the better route. You get actual switches on the device, FAST scrolling through songs, double the memory. I'd think this size factor satisfies runners, etc as well?



... and why couldn't Apple add Voice Over to this line?...
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jen729w View Post

Firstly: it's an iPod Shuffle. If you're buying one you are, by very definition, relinquishing absolute control of the order of the songs that you listen to.

Secondly: don't you see that Apple is gradually migrating to an all-but-invisible iPod? By refining the controls in this way and removing the buttons from the device they're moving us closer to the world where the device is small enough to almost not exist; you'll basically have a set of headphones with a nub on the end which doesn't even unplug. Welcome to the iPod Earbud. Perhaps there won't even be a small nodule - the smarts will be embedded in the wasted space in the earbuds. Sounds daft? Give it two years (and in the mean time open up your iPhone to see how efficiently the use the space).

This reads like you already have one embedded in the cortex of your brain.
post #57 of 103
Hmmm, time to get my ear-canals upgraded in order to use the shuffle's controls.

(Stock earbuds don't fit properly in my ears)
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevc View Post

I like that they've redesigned the headphones switches as I've gone through 3 pairs of iphone headphones cuz dust or (whatever) gets into it and the Mic and switches stop working.

The $70 dollar upgrade (99->169 Canadian) to a an 8GB nano seems to be the better route. You get actual switches on the device, FAST scrolling through songs, double the memory. I'd think this size factor satisfies runners, etc as well?

... and why couldn't Apple add Voice Over to this line?...

Now that is totally sensible. Leave the shuffle as is- except upgrade the sound and lossless capability. Add all this other nonsense to the Nano.
post #59 of 103
Honestly... it keeps amazing me how so many people miss the point whenever Apple releases something new.

Someone already pointed this out above, but I feel it needs to be stressed: this is an iPod Shuffle, everyone! It's meant to be switched on and off, basically. Either you're listening to it (and it shuffles whatever music you have there) or you're not. Period. Anything besides that is to be taken as mere interesting extras - and they are interesting! Come on, you have an incredibly tiny little thing that holds 4Gb worth of music, lets you shuffle it and, in addition, even speaks to you and allows you to play around with playlists - something way beyond the scope of such a device!

If your interest is having a so-called "real" iPod, that lets you do everything you can dream of doing with a portable music player (even play games!), then you want a Nano, Classic or Touch. Not this! This is for joggers, gym enthusiasts and so on... and they will all appreciate what it can do in such a simple an unobstrusive way (yes, controls on the actual headphone are way more practical than ones in the actual device - again, for those to which this product's aimed at).
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Surely the next logical step is to make the Shuffle voice controlled?

As long as you're willing to wait till the next time you plug your Shuffle into your computer for it to process the commands.
post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

Honestly... it keeps amazing me how so many people miss the point whenever Apple releases something new.

Someone already pointed this out above, but I feel it needs to be stressed: this is an iPod Shuffle, everyone! It's meant to be switched on and off, basically. Either you're listening to it (and it shuffles whatever music you have there) or you're not. Period. Anything besides that is to be taken as mere interesting extras - and they are interesting! Come on, you have an incredibly tiny little thing that holds 4Gb worth of music, lets you shuffle it and, in addition, even speaks to you and allows you to play around with playlists - something way beyond the scope of such a device!

If your interest is having a so-called "real" iPod, that lets you do everything you can dream of doing with a portable music player (even play games!), then you want a Nano, Classic or Touch. Not this! This is for joggers, gym enthusiasts and so on... and they will all appreciate what it can do in such a simple an unobstrusive way (yes, controls on the actual headphone are way more practical than ones in the actual device - again, for those to which this product's aimed at).

Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Hmmm, time to get my ear-canals upgraded in order to use the shuffle's controls.

(Stock earbuds don't fit properly in my ears)

I don't know of any otologist that has made an earbud that fits all. Stock or otherwise. Every ear is different from each other. Even the two on your head.
post #63 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.

But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I'm sorry, but replacing 5 intuitive buttons with 3 buttons, a multi-color blinking LED, and page long set of instructions to decode it all just to make it a little bit smaller is not good interface design.

This is a crock.

The instructions are no more complicated than the original shuffle, they are somewhat more simple actually. Go look up the chart of various blinking lights etc. that explain what's going on with the original shuffle and you will see for yourself.

Conflating the description of the indicator lights with the action of the controls makes for good humorous copy, but it does not reflect the actual operation of the device. Just as with the previous generation shuffle, one can ignore the lights altogether and just focus on operating the buttons.

Looked at that way, what they have done is replace 5 intuitive buttons with two intuitive buttons and one less than intuitive, but easily "discoverable" one.

People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.

It took me all of five minutes to discover how the headset buttons worked when I got my iPhone and I'm sure others will have similar experiences. The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

This is a crock.
It took me all of five minutes to discover how the headset buttons worked when I got my iPhone and I'm sure others will have similar experiences.

There are buttons on my iPhone headset?!?
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.

I have a theory on this: people freak out when they're only given ONE option. Even if it's the only one they need or will ever use! Go figure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.

Now that's a funny thing... I actually noticed my iPhone controller flexing "less" last December (I'm not joking) and now it's perfectly normal again. Still, it always operated as expected, it just felt different. Weird...
post #67 of 103
I'm not in need of the new shuffle, but I was intrigued in the copy of this article that suggests the new headphones are compatible with iPhone!

I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.

The Apple website doesn't indicate they are compatible -- has anyone tried them with their iPhone? Maybe an iPhone software update will be required?

e.
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.

That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.
post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by etaylor3971 View Post

I'm not in need of the new shuffle, but I was intrigued in the copy of this article that suggests the new headphones are compatible with iPhone!

I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.

The Apple website doesn't indicate they are compatible -- has anyone tried them with their iPhone? Maybe an iPhone software update will be required?

e.

The headphones are conpatible in that they will send audio, pause/play and forward reverse a track, but the other commands won't work, including the volume. You have to get an iPod Touch or the next version of the iPhone.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by etaylor3971 View Post

I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
e.

Thank you. This proves my point that nobody knows that "everybody" uses Apples headphones on their products for this very reason alone. All I hear on here is -"9 out of 10", "blah, blah, blah"
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

There are buttons on my iPhone headset?!?

If not, there will be.

This whole shuffle outcry is ridiculous. Not intending to sound too fanboyish . . .

0) If you can't learn the few simple gestures it takes to run this remote, this product
is not for you. Move along. My ten-year-old will love this device because he
couldn't stand the lack of playlists on the previous model, and he would master
the remote in about 15 seconds. Same for any teen or college student you know.

1) Apple would love you to give this a shot and then decide to upgrade to premium
earbuds that I'm sure will be released soon. They'll have the remote control on them and
sound great -- and cost about as much as the shuffle itself -- and they'll sell.

2) Apple would love you to use any earbuds or car-stereo conversion kit you like, so
they'll also offer to sell you a little connector cable with the remote on it, and an "in" jack
for your favorite cable. Coming soon, I'm sure.

3) Apple would love you to take a few minutes to learn the interface, because it's great on
your iPhone and probably future devices as well. I for one would love to get the
hypothetical cable I mentioned in #2 above, because a quick click or two on that remote
would beat picking up my iPhone in traffic, hitting the button, sliding my thumb across the
lower portion of the screen, possibly hitting the iPod icon, and finally tapping pause on the
display, or sliding the volume slider up or down.

Would it surprise me if Apple ended up making more money on premuim earbud sales
and cable connectors than they do on shuffles? Not really.

I think the trolls are just whining because many of them have never seen this before.
Sony MD players and all kinds of similar portable sound devices have had similar remotes
for decades. They are familiar to many audiophiles around the world, and the one Apple
have implemented is pretty good, really.
Journalism is publishing what someone doesn't want us to know; the rest is propaganda.
-Horacio Verbitsky (el perro), journalist (b. 1942)
Reply
Journalism is publishing what someone doesn't want us to know; the rest is propaganda.
-Horacio Verbitsky (el perro), journalist (b. 1942)
Reply
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.

So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...

And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse?

I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.

With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.

Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.

If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.

People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

It's hard to be swayed by an argument based on cost when they raised the price.

I was taking about Apple making more money by lowering their manufacturing cost, not the other way around.
post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.

With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.

Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.

If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.

People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.

I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!

I just think you're being so overly dramatic about such a simple and intuitive thing. \
post #76 of 103
Not to mention that it's plain ugly- looks like a bluetooth module from Verizon. All it needs is a blue LED.
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!

Just like a ten year old kid could learn all the patterns for the controls, a ten year old kid can probably also learn how to use all the common UNIX command line tools in an evening, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to inflict that on everyone else.
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dueces View Post

lolololololololololololol

Don't worry, us adults will get along fine with it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?

Perhaps the skills used to operate your mouse?

Quote:
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.

If you're fiddling around with iPod controls while riding a bike it's probably going to end badly regardless of whether you can operate said controls or not.


Do people genuinely find these controls too complicated? Just look at everything you do, either with computers or other devices - is it really that hard to click a button three times?
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #79 of 103
"Apple to Preview iPhone OS 3.0 on March 17th"

Now that's something to talk about... this discussion is pointless.

Cheers!
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...

Thanks for the strawman. You should be a political pundit.

Quote:
And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?

I think the point is that I wouldn't do it with just a single button. All this seems to be a solution to an unnecessary agenda.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple details new Voice Over controls for iPod shuffle