or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip' - Page 3

post #81 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7Aces View Post

This isn't even an article.

It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.

By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.

And this is coming from me, who owns several Apple products.

Explain how to implement a remote control to a device without adding extra wires for each button.

How do we do this?

What do you think happens when you press a button on an IR-based remote for your TV?
post #82 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Yes which is more sales, you didn't have to register to write this crap.

Well, I thought it was worth a shot to try to drag you out of your thick haze of blind fanboyism. My mistake.

Sure, Apple can screw their costumers over as much as they like - as long as it sells, right?
post #83 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

Sigh, here come the drones. As a long, long, long time Apple customer, people who eat up Apple's new MicroSoft approach to sticking us every chance they can and calling it a feature are starting to make me want to pull my hair out. Open your eyes and think a little. This is EXACTLY what MicroSoft does. Microsoft forces it's will upon it's customers via software (that's all they make). Apple is now doing the same more and more with hardware.

Your argument is valid when applied towards buying an Apple computer vs. a "built" PC. You can't trot that argument out for every product under the sun.

We're talking earphones here. Completely different than say, a printer with it's own set of complex PPDs that has to communicate through various hardware components within an architecture (all with their own firmware) to work with all the different software that prints to it.

Earphones, stick jack in portyour done.

What exactly is the free-for-all, and reduced reliability involved with plugging a little stick of metal into a hole. How many moving parts in a Jack? How much software is involved in controlling one? There is no "system" here that has anything to do with managing an environment or trying to get complex interfaces between components to function optimally.

One more time, here's how the components work incase your missed it:

Stick jack in port. There is no software involved. Just a metal prong attached to wires, probably made by a few manufactures who sell the same little jack to all the earphone manufactures, including whatever company is making Apple's for them.

Until now, whatever happened on the other side of the plug had nothing to do with how well the earphones functioned, their quality, their form factor.

I guarantee you, if you are looking for reliability within a wide range of comfort, sound quality, and price compared to Apple's crappy earphones, there is a whole world of 3rd party companies that blow Apple a way. There are companies that do nothing but specializing in earphones and they do it way better than Apple does. The same goes for displays for that matter.

This will sound insulting, I wish it weren't, I just think it's true. Your complacency represents everything that is going wrong with Apple. They count more and more on consumers who don't know any better than to swallow the line of crap in which they tell you:

In order to use one Apple product, you must have their piece of fruit on every other electronic device you might want to connect to it, unless they don't make one. Even if the only reason is an authentication chip that serves no other purpose than to render other products useless, and they are doing you a favor by taking away your choices.

For some reason, as they are dolling that crap out, too many customers bend over and say thank you. Nothing makes me more sad than to see the company I've supported for so long BECAUSE they represented a different way of doing things, start to become more and more like MicroSoft.

Who told you Apple is different from Microsoft, they are both companies that want your money, get that through your head.
post #84 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

So go buy one if you want to use your 300 dollar headphones with your 79 dollar shuffle.

I use $15 Sony sposts headphone which sound twice as good as Apple headphone. I've owned 5 iPods and have 4 unopened Apple headphones laying in a drawer. Who buys iPods for Apples headphones anyway?

So go ahead and buy your new $79 Apple Koolaid suppository.
post #85 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Aren't the old ones still being sold?

Indeed they are! Finally, someone with an ounce of knowledge. For everyone who hates the new shuffle (even though no one on this forum has touched one, let alone seen one in person), you can still get the 1GB second-gen shuffle for $49.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=MTYzNDU2Mg
post #86 of 239
I think most of the uproad is coming from the fact that yet again, Apple has gone out of its way to make things overly difficult for the consumer. This situation is very much akin to the new unibody macbooks sporting mini-DVI ports. Here they are, providing a new product, and are telling you what kind of accessory you can use, without that type of accessory being widely available nor mainstream throughout the market. With these earphones, Apple is diving into murky waters indeed, since they are essentially saying that the 4G Shuffle and these earphones are one product, naturally, because you can't adequetly control the Shuffle without them. This is quite strange, as IMO probably 99% of consumers consider earphones/headphones as accessories to their music players, and don't want to be told what type, style, or kind of earphone/heaphone they have to purchase and use.
post #87 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beklim View Post

Problem:
1. Multiple buttons on a remote control.
2. Add no extra wire to the cable to reduce cost/weight/flexibility.


Solution:
Add extra wires so newssites all over the world is happy while the consumers suffer.

Better solution:
Add a tiny chip inside the remote that translate keypresses into signals that is read by the processor on the unit itself, all without adding extra wires.

Hmm that's funny, I didn't know the old iPod Shuffle had any problems with it. It worked fine, was compact, and didn't force you to learn Morse code in order to use it.

There's such a thing as over-engineering. It happens when someone tries to improve upon something that doesn't need improvement and ends up making it needlessly complex in the process.

The Mighty Mouse is a good example. People have been using two button + scroll mice for ages. So what does Apple do? They come up with a touch sensor idea that requires you to lift your left finger in order to successfully right click. The result is a mouse that has some nifty engineering behind it but is ultimately more complicated to use than a normal two-button mouse.

Same applies to the Shuffle. The new one is a big step back and solves "problems" that never existed in the first place in a way that makes it more complicated, more inconvenient, and (if you want to use non-Apple earbuds) more expensive.
post #88 of 239
the article was serious kool-aid. but my real points are these.

first, i live in southern california, a land where people play and frolick about outside quite a bit. i see lots of shuffles clipped on sleeves, waistbands, sportsbra straps, even hats, and though this is my anecdotal experience, i do pay attention as i am a product designer, in all those spottings seems like most folks are using aftermarket headphones. all my runner friends use some variation of an over-the-ear-clip design, claiming the ipod ones don't stay put. i do think the dollars will do the talking and i anticipate seeing an article in the not too distant future declaring the shuffle the most returned item in apple's yard.

second, from the product design angle, i love and hate this thing. it's a creative solution, but i wouldn't go so far as to call it innovation. i love how clean that little box looks, but after reading that chart and realizing i need to dust off the morse code merit badge manual, i am gonna pass on the new shuffle.

third, aren't we over this closed off crap? this is the hardware version of DRM, the young people most responsible for the growth of consumer electronics are getting more savvy each day, and they don't put up with crap like proprietary headphones. why do you think the cell industry decided to standardize chargers? we are at that point where certain aspects of devices need to be universal.
post #89 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I use $15 Sony sposts headphone which sound twice as good as Apple headphone. I've owned 5 iPods and have 4 unopened Apple headphones laying in a drawer. Who buys iPods for Apples headphones anyway?

So go ahead and buy your new $79 Apple Koolaid suppository.

I've also owned 15 dollar Sony earphones, in fact these ones and they don't sound any better than the stock Apple white ones:

post #90 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7Aces View Post

Well, I thought it was worth a shot to try to drag you out of your thick haze of blind fanboyism. My mistake.

Sure, Apple can screw their costumers over as much as they like - as long as it sells, right?

Yeah they are screwing their customers but yet more and more people line up to give their money to Apple, I guess those doing that must be complete "idiots" and you know better than them, since Apple isn't screwing you over.
post #91 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

Indeed they are! Finally, someone with an ounce of knowledge. For everyone who hates the new shuffle (even though no one on this forum has touched one, let alone seen one in person), you can still get the 1GB second-gen shuffle for $49.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=MTYzNDU2Mg

No way dude, no way Apple is selling the old, I mean they aren't forcing their customers to buy the new more expensive one.
post #92 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

I think most of the uproad is coming from the fact that yet again, Apple has gone out of its way to make things overly difficult for the consumer. This situation is very much akin to the new unibody macbooks sporting mini-DVI ports. Here they are, providing a new product, and are telling you what kind of accessory you can use, without that type of accessory being widely available nor mainstream throughout the market. With these earphones, Apple is diving into murky waters indeed, since they are essentially saying that the 4G Shuffle and these earphones are one product, naturally, because you can't adequetly control the Shuffle without them. This is quite strange, as IMO probably 99% of consumers consider earphones/headphones as accessories to their music players, and don't want to be told what type, style, or kind of earphone/heaphone they have to purchase and use.

So in other words, you believe Apple should just follow instead of lead and use antiquated industry standards, no matter how useless or out-of-date they are. Apple has always and consistently been in the business of innovation, and has more often than not been proven right.

With their computers, for example, Apple was the first to move away from floppy drives, the first to remove a physical latch on their laptops that could and would always break, the first to integrate web cams on their computers, and now one of the first to adopt display port. These are only just a few of the examples too. This doesn't even start to get into all the innovations that the iPod and iPhone brought to their respective markets. Look back to 2000, before the iPod came out, and tell me things aren't completely different (in a good way) single-handedly because of the iPod. Easy-to-use interfaces, dead simple media syncing, readily available media in an integrated store... the list could go on and on.

I am not going to say the new shuffle is hands-down the best yet, as I have not played with one myself yet, but I am willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt before I will judge any of their innovations, because their track record speaks for itself.
post #93 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Yeah they are screwing their customers but yet more and more people line up to give their money to Apple, I guess those doing that must be complete "idiots" and you know better than them, since Apple isn't screwing you over.

Apple makes good products - I don't deny that, writing this from my iMac, my iPod touch next to me, in the same living room as my Apple TV. So yes, I have no problem handing my money to Apple when the deal doesn't involve me being screwed over. But unlike you, I don't let my enthusiasm for some of Apple's products cloud my sense of free will.

But when they pull this kind of stuff, monopolizing a universal accessory like headphones and then charging others for making compatible ones, or charging to enable 802.11n WiFi on iMacs, they are stepping way over the line.
post #94 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

I've also owned 15 dollar Sony earphones, in fact these ones and they don't sound any better than the stock Apple white ones:


You BS- if they're not better than why do you use them?
I use MDR-A35 - excellent headphones $15.
post #95 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

So in other words, you believe Apple should just follow instead of lead and use antiquated industry standards, no matter how useless or out-of-date they are. Apple has always and consistently been in the business of innovation, and has more often than not been proven right.

3.5mm audio jacks are antiquated industry standards?

BTW I bet you're really mad Apple stopped using their proprietary BS and started using industry standards (even though you claim to hate anything that is standardized). I suppose in your ideal world, we'd all be using ADB keyboards and mice instead of USB, AAUI network ports instead of ethernet, ADC and DB-15 for digital and analog video (instead of DisplayPort, DVI/HDMI, and VGA), and those weird Mac serial port connectors for miscellaneous devices instead of USB. Oh, and external SCSI instead of USB and Firewire.

Where Apple does a good job is picking up on newly introduced industry standards and adopting and promoting them so they become popular. They did it with USB (they weren't the first to include USB, but they were the first to make it popular). They're doing that with DisplayPort. Far from being a proprietary Apple-only connector, DisplayPort is a new standard that will eventually provide a much more versatile means of connecting monitors to computers.

Your entire argument is basically "Apple innovates; therefore, anything and everything they do is good." You're completely ignoring the subtleties of the situation. Apple is good at getting rid of legacy connectors, but they are also good (at least now) at sticking to industry standard connectors.
post #96 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post

3.5mm audio jacks are antiquated industry standards?

BTW I bet you're really mad Apple stopped using their proprietary BS and started using industry standards (even though you claim to hate anything that is standardized). I suppose in your ideal world, we'd all be using ADB keyboards and mice instead of USB, AAUI network ports instead of ethernet, ADC and DB-15 for digital and analog video (instead of DisplayPort, DVI/HDMI, and VGA), and those weird Mac serial port connectors for miscellaneous devices instead of USB. Oh, and external SCSI instead of USB and Firewire.

Where Apple does a good job is picking up on newly introduced industry standards and adopting and promoting them so they become popular. They did it with USB (they weren't the first to include USB, but they were the first to make it popular). They're doing that with DisplayPort. Far from being a proprietary Apple-only connector, DisplayPort is a new standard that will eventually provide a much more versatile means of connecting monitors to computers.

I'll admit my post was made a little hastily, but this was the point I was trying to make. Apple doesn't stand by and necessarily use something just because it is an industry standard. There are standards out there that are hands-down integral to anything, but the ones that aren't, Apple always tends to be at the forefront of changing them or replacing them. As far as your 3.5mm comment, it is pointless, as Apple is not replacing the 3.5mm audio jack, just using it in a different way than any of their competitors, and that is what I would call innovation. Whether or not it is innovation people want or need, only time will tell.

And to clarify, I never did say I hate standardized products, just that Apple is always one of the first to adopt new ones or change old ones that have run their course.
post #97 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Who told you Apple is different from Microsoft, they are both companies that want your money, get that through your head.

Well, Apple for one.

Get this through your head, oh master of the obvious and oversimplification:

Of course they want my money. Any company that wants my money better give me a reason to give it to them. Wanting me to isn't enough. Hoping that if I buy one of their products once, I won't mind being forced into accepting a host of other things I don't want in order to use it, pisses me off. The general reason people give their money to Apple is because they offer a better alternative for their particular needs for a given product. Alternative doesn't always mean better. Start adding barriers (which you have to pay for as part of the cost of the unit) that prevents me from using other alternatives I want and I'll give my money to any number of other companies who also want it.
post #98 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

So in other words, you believe Apple should just follow instead of lead and use antiquated industry standards, no matter how useless or out-of-date they are. Apple has always and consistently been in the business of innovation, and has more often than not been proven right.

With their computers, for example, Apple was the first to move away from floppy drives, the first to remove a physical latch on their laptops that could and would always break, the first to integrate web cams on their computers, and now one of the first to adopt display port. These are only just a few of the examples too. This doesn't even start to get into all the innovations that the iPod and iPhone brought to their respective markets. Look back to 2000, before the iPod came out, and tell me things aren't completely different (in a good way) single-handedly because of the iPod. Easy-to-use interfaces, dead simple media syncing, readily available media in an integrated store... the list could go on and on.

I am not going to say the new shuffle is hands-down the best yet, as I have not played with one myself yet, but I am willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt before I will judge any of their innovations, because their track record speaks for itself.

There is a distinct difference between "leading the industry" and making unnecessary changes to a product that was perfectly functional in the first place. I agree with Luca in that Apple has over-engineered the Shuffle with the 4G. Please tell me why a music player's sole mode of operability should come from a pair of earphones? The key words are sole mode of operability. That's kind of ridiculous, no? In actuality, I *can* see these earphones being very useful for the larger iPod/iPhone, products that you would typically keep in a pocket, case, etc and therefore have blocked access to the controls, but the Shuffle? Why strip the shuffle of controls when most typically clip Shuffles on their clothes, i.e. have easy external access to it? Defacing the Shuffle and routing its control features through earphones makes absolutely no sense anyway you look at it.
post #99 of 239
iLounge always goes off the deep end, presenting any accessory-compatibility issues in an oddly one-sided way, without acknowledging the reasons why a new connector (or whatever) might actually be NECESSARY or have certain benefits over the old. The incompatibilities are worth noting, but not in such a one-sided way. They did the same thing about the video connection change: noting only the bad, but usually failing to mention the addition of component video that made a change necessary!

I only have two theories: 1) they never intended to make iPods their lives, and the money keeps them there but they hate their jobs or 2) they get their money through sales of 3rd-party accessories (directly or via sponsoring ads) and so they have a financial reason to "punish" Apple for changing the shape or connections of their devices.

Besides, what better bandwagon to jump on than to cry "DRM"? That's ad hits by the barrelful right there!

I DO want the new connection to be explored--but thoroughly and reasonably, please.
post #100 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

There is a distinct difference between "leading the industry" and making unnecessary changes to a product that was perfectly functional in the first place. I agree with Luca in that Apple has over-engineered the Shuffle with the 4G. Please tell me why a music player's sole mode of operability should come from a pair of earphones? The key words are sole mode of operability. That's kind of ridiculous, no? In actuality, I *can* see these earphones being very useful for the larger iPod/iPhone, products that you would typically keep in a pocket, case, etc and therefore have blocked access to the controls, but the Shuffle? Why strip the shuffle of controls when most typically clip Shuffles on their clothes, i.e. have easy external access to it? Defacing the Shuffle and routing its control features through earphones makes absolutely no sense anyway you look at it.

I believe the sole reason Apple is doing this on the shuffle is to test this new innovation in the lowest-risk market possible. Put this on the low-end shuffle, see how it goes, if it tanks, just drop it, but if it takes off, start integrating it into everything else. There really is not much of a risk doing this. If they put this on the iPhone first and it bombed, things could get complicated. If it bombs on the shuffle, there won't be too much of a loss. I for one am intrigued to play around with one of these, but unlike other people on this forum, will reserve judgment until I have my first-hand experience.
post #101 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beklim View Post

Explain how to implement a remote control to a device without adding extra wires for each button.

How do we do this?

What do you think happens when you press a button on an IR-based remote for your TV?

Explain how it makes sense to design a product you cary attached to yourself that requires a remote control.
post #102 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I believe the sole reason Apple is doing this on the shuffle is to test this new innovation in the lowest-risk market possible. Put this on the low-end shuffle, see how it goes, if it tanks, just drop it, but if it takes off, start integrating it into everything else. There really is not much of a risk doing this. If they put this on the iPhone first and it bombed, things could get complicated. If it bombs on the shuffle, there won't be too much of a loss. I for one am intrigued to play around with one of these, but unlike other people on this forum, will reserve judgment until I have my first-hand experience.

Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.
post #103 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fred 1 View Post

A gift... that's so nice of you.... please send it FEDEX my # 345Q0938T21F002.

What a prince!

You're welcome, but wait awhile before tracking
post #104 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I'm puzzled why you'd say that about SpamSandwich's comment.

As it is, standard practice is supposed to be that those that make the original claims should be the ones that back them up. For example, rather than taking the presense of a chip and assuming it's encrypted to get license fees, those that started the story should have taken the simple steps to show that it actually is encrypted rather than whipping up the hysterics by saying it is without having done adequate verification. The presence of a chip means little, it could be a plain serial code or encrypted, without reading the signal, they don't know the difference.


I'm in complete agreement with your statement. And objective talk like that will get you labeled fanboy/fanboi/boy very quickly. I'm surprised you haven't taken flak already.

Obviously iLounge has made claims and assertions with no apparent evidence to support the existence of an "authentication chip". This is the second time Apple has been accused of using an alleged authentication chip. Supposition is not evidence. Maybe iLounge will present their evidence possibly with help from EFF engineers.

But Spam made reference to "what media assault", that there was none because he hadn't heard about one. Because it wasn't the one mentioned in his neck of the woods.

His statement about toning down rhetoric immediately following that "what media assault" leads me to believe that "toning down the 'rhetoric' " was referring to the AI story and not the media assault it mentioned.

The link I posted shows that "media assault" is not hyperbole given the number of sites running with iLounges' article. This reminds me of the "stories" about the "paint" one guy found flaking off of a black MacBook at an Apple Store. Lots of postings, accusations, and supposition, and it all started with one poster, and was never shown to be an issue.

I submit that if Spam had done a second or two of research instead of relying on post counts as substance because he was not hand-fed a link, he would have posted differently if at all.

So if his last sentence was aimed at the media assault itself of which he was unaware, then I apologize for my confusion.

I do not apologize for a low post count. I frequent the site often and post little. Post counts are for egos to encourage hits. They may allude to substance to some people but they do not imbue substance.
post #105 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post

Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.

I think that's the point. If you are integrating this into the other iPod lines, I don't think Apple would be able to get as clear of a gauge of how people like this new feature. Most people would probably just use the tried-and-true click wheel or touch interfaces instead of this new feature. With the shuffle, they could remove all of the older interface methods, introduce this new one as the only interface, and see how people respond. I, like Apple, I'm sure, am more interested to hear what people have to say once they are out in the wild, instead of just speculation or refusal to adopt a new way of thinking. The Shuffle makes perfect sense, then, since the people also buying these probably won't bother to replace the headphones with something else, where that might not be the case with the higher-priced iPods, giving Apple another reason to try this out on this market first.
post #106 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

You BS- if they're not better than why do you use them?
I use MDR-A35 - excellent headphones $15.

$15 headphones cost $3 to manufacture, so whatever you mean by "excellent" is not what most people would mean.

That said, all ears are different and a cheap headphone X can certainly sound better than a cheap headphone Y due to a better fit or a spectral response that better matches your own spectral sensitivity, not to mention taste.
post #107 of 239
123 delete me
post #108 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Actually it's you who is being the idiot fanboy by defending Apple. Do you even know what fanboy means? We're the ones CRITICIZING Apple, which is pretty much ANTI-fanboy.

Back to the article, we're being reactionary because Apple has done this over and over again in the past. It has engineered an OS that can only be installed on its hardware. It engineered a Magsafe charger that nobody else is allowed to manufacture so MacBook owners must pay 2x more for a replacement A/C adapter than the market rates. It has engineered an iPod connector that any car or charger manufacturer must license or they can't interface.

We're reacting because, as above, Apple has a long track record of making accessories that are Apple-specific and not letting 3rd parties in on the game. They squelch competition. That's really not cool.

I wasn't defending Apple, moron, I was commenting on the first LOGICAL post. I didn't state wether I agreed or not. got it now?
post #109 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

This is quite strange, as IMO probably 99% of consumers consider earphones/headphones as accessories to their music players, and don't want to be told what type, style, or kind of earphone/heaphone they have to purchase and use.

From mining Apple Stores data and Made for iPod licensing data, Apple has a pretty good idea of how many 3rd party headphones/earbuds are actually being sold for iPods. Though I only have anecdotal data, I think the reality is more likely that 20% (or less) of consumers choose to use a different headphone/earbud. And an even lower percentage of those who use the low-cost shuffle would shell out more dollars for another set of headphones.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #110 of 239
123 delete me
post #111 of 239
I can't wait till we find out that this chip is nothing more than a bit of circuitry that enables multiple signals down one line (in this case, the three buttons having separate signals.). If it has more than that, I'll be SORELY disappointed in Apple. (well, already am... but the pushing the line thing)

Already I think the remote built into the headphone wire was a bad idea. At least sell little remote dongles that allow standard headphones to be plugged into it!
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #112 of 239
Quote:
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons!


That would seem why it makes good sense to start with a new product.

First there is the appeal of a tiny iPod with 4GB capacity. A lot of people won't care about making it smaller but a LOT will. Control surfaces limit the miniaturization so it makes sense to put them on the earphone cord. They obviously had this in mind when they developed the new Touch headphones. With the controls on the cord as the selling point of this iPod trying to put additional controls on the Shuffle itself is just redundant.

The 2GB Shuffle is EOLd but the 1GB is still around for those who don't want the new one. Nobody is being forced to be locked into the new Shuffle. It doesn't make sense to redesign the *same* Shuffle just to use new earphones. How many more of those would they sell? Not a lot I'm guessing.

It's very easy. Buy what you like. Freewill is also about buying the new one if it works for you.
post #113 of 239
I don't think this is a DRM conspiracy. I'm not even sure I'd believe it's Apple trying to "tax" accessories. I just think it's piss-poor design on Apple's part. A design philosophy of minimizing buttons and maximizing hardware "sleakness" carried way, way too far.
post #114 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I believe the sole reason Apple is doing this on the shuffle is to test this new innovation in the lowest-risk market possible. Put this on the low-end shuffle, see how it goes, if it tanks, just drop it, but if it takes off, start integrating it into everything else. There really is not much of a risk doing this. If they put this on the iPhone first and it bombed, things could get complicated. If it bombs on the shuffle, there won't be too much of a loss. I for one am intrigued to play around with one of these, but unlike other people on this forum, will reserve judgment until I have my first-hand experience.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has every right to innovate (and thus make obsolete) its own products as well as competitors' similar products, but its an entirely different issue when they start to actively engage in acts of eshewing entire product markets, something Apple has been doing more and more as of late. There's nothing inherently wrong or inferior with the way "standard" earphones connect to devices, especially my $130 Bang & Olufsens. It is perplexing that Apple would create a product like the Shuffle 4G whose functionality and use is governed by an accessory, and headphones are definately accessories to music players.
post #115 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I still prefer the original. 6 key selling features the old has over the new.

1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage
3. Nice sound quality
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhere)

Perhaps you should do some due diligence before you open you mouth.
post #116 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

There is a distinct difference between "leading the industry" and making unnecessary changes to a product that was perfectly functional in the first place. I agree with Luca in that Apple has over-engineered the Shuffle with the 4G. Please tell me why a music player's sole mode of operability should come from a pair of earphones? The key words are sole mode of operability. That's kind of ridiculous, no? In actuality, I *can* see these earphones being very useful for the larger iPod/iPhone, products that you would typically keep in a pocket, case, etc and therefore have blocked access to the controls, but the Shuffle? Why strip the shuffle of controls when most typically clip Shuffles on their clothes, i.e. have easy external access to it? Defacing the Shuffle and routing its control features through earphones makes absolutely no sense anyway you look at it.

I certainly agree that it has been over-engineered. I can't think of any appreciable gain from making the player any smaller than it already was - other than bragging rights - and the bizarre remembering how many clicks you need to make your player move forwards or backwards just seems infinitely less usable and intuative than the 5 buttons that came before it. Let's hope Apple quickly move on from this 'embarrasment'.
post #117 of 239
So much BS for one Apple product. Apple has a line of products that don't only their own headphone, but one $79 iPod that may fit a niche has people going ballistic. And what's funny, people comparing Apple to Microsoft again. Bringing up Windows and Zunes to make a point. How one little addition to Apple's product line can shatter the world.
post #118 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7Aces View Post

Apple makes good products - I don't deny that, writing this from my iMac, my iPod touch next to me, in the same living room as my Apple TV. So yes, I have no problem handing my money to Apple when the deal doesn't involve me being screwed over. But unlike you, I don't let my enthusiasm for some of Apple's products cloud my sense of free will.

But when they pull this kind of stuff, monopolizing a universal accessory like headphones and then charging others for making compatible ones, or charging to enable 802.11n WiFi on iMacs, they are stepping way over the line.

So then don't buy the product or enable your 802.11n wifi on your imac, it's that simple. Besides the old shuffle is there, if you want to use your 300 dollar headphones with it.
post #119 of 239
123 delete me
post #120 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Perhaps you should do some due diligence before you open you mouth.

Perhaps you should:

Originally Posted by rain
I still prefer the original. 6 key selling features the old has over the new.

1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage He means direct to USB.
3. Nice sound quality Not 2G nor 3G equals the original.
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator Doesn't need a voice.
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhereAgain he means direct charge no dock or cable required.

Why don't you read before you bark?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip'