Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with this. As long as customers continue to pay, that's good business. But make no mistake about it. Steve Jobs doesn't care about his customers, he cares about his company's pile 'o cash.
Just because customers continue to pay "premium" prices doesn't mean that Jobs doesn't care his customers. I've found that some of the most expensive hotels demonstrate a lot more caring to me than the cheaper ones.
Quote:
Yes and no. Most consumers can purchase dozens of other players. Many consumers, however, are locked into iPods because of Apple's Fairplay DRM. That's right, the DRM that Apple won't license to other players. These consumers have locked themselves into Apple's products by using Apple's proprietary technology. Sound familiar? I imagine Apple *hopes* that its consumers will buy expensive headphones with their little connector doo-dad. Because these consumers will now be locked into iPods.
Apple explained why they didn't license Fairplay to others.
Quote:
I believe this shuffle will be a disaster. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
I believe the opposite but it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Quote:
And be wary of buying proprietary Apple technology in the future. They just may screw you again.
I'm thinking every Apple product has something proprietary about it. Just like about 95% of other tech and consumer electronics companies out there.
[/QUOTE]Apple is just a business. They will extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can.[/QUOTE]
Every business will try to extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can. The question is whether you get value for your money. You imply that Apple's customers are fooled into giving up their money for products that aren't worth it. But customer satisfaction ratings show that most Apple customers believe the opposite. If Apple has really fooled their customers since Jobs return, it still hasn't been exposed. (Back in the 1990s, Apple was exposed and became "beleaguered".)
That's funny, really - thanks for the laugh. Note that I didn't say it inhibited my ability to understand your point, I said it inhibited your ability to appear credible. It still does. May I add also that your prideful self-congratulation regarding your capacity to be indelicate, vulgar, and unable to carry on civil discourse all at the same time speaks volumes about your character, something that does not appear to concern you in the least. My guess, though, is that if you were standing next to me you'd probably refrain from being the way you are now. So, what is that saying to me and anyone else listening in about who you really are, divorced from civil nicety? Something to consider my friend.
Well, if you're asking my permission, no you may not add those things (joking, don't get yourself in a snit). You're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that you hide behind an affected formality as a loophole to dismiss an argument you are having difficulty with. Note that I said "If" regarding your ability to understand. You seemed to imply that your main criteria in discerning validity from a logistical standpoint, or to find credible the "meat" of another's argument, rests squarely on whether or not they use the words you want them to use (or not use). Their meaning, is their meaning. Choosing to dismiss it off-handedly or to find it less cogent simply because they don't speak the way you want them too (or not to) sounds awfully prideful and self-congratulatory on your part to me. I can discuss just about anything with anyone and appreciate their point of view in any vernacular they choose (as long as it's spoken in English) based on it's logical merits. If I was standing next to you, I would speak exactly as I normally do?no facade. I appreciate the same in others.
I expect to run across many over the age of 12 who might just happen to have an "earthy" sense of humor (we'll just call it an ascorbic wit for the sake of diplomacy) and it won't throw me a bit. The fact that you choose to offer me a lecture on manners in what sounds like the voice of a victorian schoolmarm speaks volumes about your ability to carry on an adult conversation without taking yourself too seriously. Or maybe, you're just very good at changing the subject away from the original topic. (common, "victorian schoolmarm" didn't that give you just a bit of a chuckle?)
I'm guessing Apple's remote chip exists solely for controlling the device, and I suspect they did that because their design aim was to produce a tiny device, and they decided the device was too small to put effectively usable buttons on it.
I'm guessing the same about the chip. The previous "authentication chip" claim turned out be be false.
But I'm thinking that the buttonless design was as much as a part of form as function if not a little more so.
All of Apple's devices differ from their mainstream counterparts in appearance as well as features. They almost if not all have a clean almost spartan look to them. Minimalism is an Apple hallmark. This design move has clearly upset some people. Some of them view this as a conspiracy to screw the customer. I disagree.
They want to fault Apple for removing the controls. It seems clear to me that additional hardware would be needed for that. I like the look and don't think it would be a problem for me. I will buy it or not.
Now the conspiracists could be right that this is all some kind of Apple/ Ponszi scheme and they're trying to outdo Madoff.
I wasn't criticizing MS for charging $$ to provide tools and information useful to developers. I was pointing out that some people around here seem to think that Apple ought to make developing for their hardware platform free, yet think it's no problem to charge money for tools and information that make developing for a software platform possible.
Except that neither Apple nor MS does for stategic reasons.
Quote:
If that doesn't describe you, then maybe you should just relax a little bit and reduce the soaring rate of your blood pressure. If it does describe you, maybe you could try addressing the point I'm making rather than frothing at the mouth in your indignation at any perceived slight to MS.
It isn't a perceived slight. What you were writing was completely untrue.
Quote:
By the way, If you think we got ripped off or not, It is of absolutely ZERO consequence to me, I want you to know that - if you think your opinion of what I've said means even a marginal fraction of a whit to me, you are widely off the mark.
I'm correcting an untruth you are spreading. If you are so unmotivated to click on a link I provided to show how your company can save money I couldn't care less.
Quote:
The point I made - that professional development for any platform is seldom free - is pretty much not contestable.
It is contestable given even Oracle hands out free deb licences. Today, development costs are FAR lower than before.
Quote:
One final point for you: if you are buying one or two subscriptions to MSDN and sharing them among more than one or two developers, as you suggested is common practice, you are violating MS licensing requirements and I can only hope someone will report you to the BSA. Once that has happened, get back to me about how much it costs to comply with Microsoft's licensing requirements.
We have a site license for pretty much everything. We also buy enough MSDN subscriptions for everyone. In any case, you cannot share MSDN benefits but as long as you aren't using any of the licences for team use you also don't need to buy for folks not using any benefits. Especially given that some of our folks get free MSDN as MVPs.
Pretty hard for MS to now insist the entire dev team must have MSDN because they gave some of us free subs.
Quote:
Don't confuse that last barb with the point of my statements; just use it to further explode your blood pressure.
Your point is weak and even now you are incapable of admitting it doesn't cost 10k per year to develop for MS. It can be free and you were wrong at best and spreading FUD at worst.
You plug in any set of headphones and wait for like ... a second, and the music will play.
The shuffle itself has a hardware button for "shuffle" or "play straight through." According to what I've read, this works with any headphones. Considering most people buy a shuffle because they just want to hear a shuffled version of their library or playlist, I'd think this is pretty much the same way it always worked.
There is no "incompatible" new headphone or headphone jack here. The new headphones can be used on old players but they lose the new features (the wire controls). The older headphones (no wire controls) can be used on the new player and neither lose nor gain anything. Because the *player* no longer has controls, you lose the controls by using an old headset on a player that has no hardware controls, but Apple has carefully arranged it so that even then, you can still *use* the old headset if you want to. They also made the old shuffle still available for those that are really peeved. This whole controversy is manufactured BS.
Just so you know, here you reveal yourself as someone not even worth replying to. If you want to actually have an intelligent debate about this stuff, you might want to reign in your "inner teenager" a bit.
In fact, lets apply your "logic" a little further. In the light of the fact that Apple didn't invent earphones, why don't those companies charge Apple a fee so Apple will have the privilege of their ipods being useable with said other companies earphones? Probably because they aren't arrogant and dumb enough to hurt their own sales to adopt such punitive practices. Apple already has chips in some of their other products that serve no other purpose than to limit use, and you have to pay for those chips which is built into the overall cost of the device.
No, because the headphone mfrs know that more people care about buying iPods/iPhones than headphones. It's how capitalism, and platforms/ecosystems work.
Bottom line: If you already own headphones and have no interest in moving to this scheme of controls in the headphone/cable, then the iPod shuffle is clearly not for you. Realize, however, that Apple will be convincing the public that being able to control their hidden/pocketed iPods/iPhones (as well as Macs) via such controls has added value. Most headphone mfrs will be releasing new sets with these controls; given Apple's dominance of mp3 players, in the long run, many of these mfrs will stop selling headphones without these controls.
Quote:
You don't require any software or special hardware for any set of earphones to work with any standard jack. Requiring such is imposing an artificial cost, inconvenience, and form limitation that does nothing to serve the customer, only Apple.
You don't see any added value in it for the customer, but there are plenty of people who want to operate their music (and maybe more) on their iPods/iPhones without looking at them. Apple seems pretty certain of this even for the iPod shuffle use case, otherwise, they'd have kept the $69 shuffle around too. (If it wasn't for the recession, I'd bet the $49 shuffle would've been EOLed already.)
You can't- no more than they can prove it's true. It's a theory, that's all.
Have all confirmed there is no DRM in the Shuffle 3G headphones.
They proved it for me.
iLounge still thinks they have a valid point even if it's not technically DRM for content control, and EFF now has a redacted version of the story on the site.
I can't imagine these new ones selling than the older ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen has buttons again, if apple ever had a reason to backtrack on a product, this is it.
I bet you the new more expensive ones outsells the older cheaper ones.
Have all confirmed there is no DRM in the Shuffle 3G headphones.
They proved it for me.
iLounge still thinks they have a valid point even if it's not technically DRM for content control, and EFF now has a redacted version of the story on the site.
the internet leaves those who speak first and investigate later looking like fools.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
Are you suggesting that people carry 2 sets of headphones? One to get the music started... unplug it, plug in the next set so the music doesn't sound like shit.
Oh... oh... lets skip that track... unplug good headphones that don't sound like shit, plug in Apple headphones, hit the next track, unplug Apple headphones, plug in good headphones that don't sound like shit.
Yah... sounds like a great innovation. Real user friendly. .....
Anyways who else wants to see Hana naked?
Yes you can listen to music with any headphone, just can't change the track or volume.
This is fucking ridiculous. Fuck you, Apple. I've given this company tens of thousands of my dollars over the years, and this shit is what makes me regret it. I seriously can't believe there's people defending this. Get your heads out of your asses. There's NOTHING good about this, its simply a cynical money grab by Apple.
Its also pathetic and humorous how some here are trying to put a positive spin on this by suggesting that controls on headphones is somehow a new thing, and that Apple is being a technological trailblazer with this. At first I realized it may have been sarcasm/satire, then I realized it wasnt. You people arent doing Apple any favors by consistently defending and apologizing for their every move.
This is a bad, bad thing for consumers, and you should all hold Apple's feet to the fire, if you have the objectivity to do so.
Dude shut up and buy the old ones if you feel so offended.
What a ridiculous, assinine, self-righteous post. So what if he wants to see Hana naked? What heterosexual male (or female for that matter) wouldnt? It means his opinion is worth nothing? I think you have something stuck a bit far up your ass.
And for the record, I've already tried googling for revealing photos of Hana. No luck. Shes cute as hell. Sorry if that offends you. For everyone else- give me a heads up if you find anything
As Apple intended, you find yourself looking at Hana more then the Shuffle. My comment was just an observation of Apple throwing some sex into their product demo's. Wonder if she really works at an Apple store?
While I know some company will create a headphone/volume control passthrough, Apple should've done that to begin with, but there is still some nickel and dimeing left to do.
New slogan:
Apple Inc. - There's still more profit to be had.
I can see Apple doing this sort of thing on the next iPods/iPhones too, if the Shuffle somehow sells, that Apple will use that as some sort of precedent, and do the same thing on those.
Do you consider that an acceptable user experience?
Doesn't really matter to me since If I were to get the new shuffle I would use the stock earphones, instead of going out and purchasing 200 dollar earphones to go with a 79 dollar shuffle or you could always buy the older shuffle.
While I know some company will create a headphone/volume control passthrough, Apple should've done that to begin with, but there is still some nickel and dimeing left to do.
New slogan:
Apple Inc. - There's still more profit to be had.
I can see Apple doing this sort of thing on the next iPods/iPhones too, if the Shuffle somehow sells, that Apple will use that as some sort of precedent, and do the same thing on those.
They are becoming as bad as Sony.
The passthrough you are think of has already been announced, saw it on engadget the same day the shuffle came out.
Apple will not remove media control on their other ipods or on the iphone, that doesn't even make any sense. What this will do though is get the headphone industry moving forward, there will be lots of headphones with remotes on them, and guess what? They will be usable on all ipods. So in the end if you are not getting a shuffle, you can have an ipod (with media controls on it) plus headphones of your choice with a built in remote. That sounds like a good thing to me (remote > no remote).
PS - The update states that Apple has said that there is no DRM on the headphones, I love how this is 5 pages of flames because of someone's speculation of what a chip they found in the remote was for, maybe it was for translating all the complicated key presses?
Comments
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with this. As long as customers continue to pay, that's good business. But make no mistake about it. Steve Jobs doesn't care about his customers, he cares about his company's pile 'o cash.
Just because customers continue to pay "premium" prices doesn't mean that Jobs doesn't care his customers. I've found that some of the most expensive hotels demonstrate a lot more caring to me than the cheaper ones.
Yes and no. Most consumers can purchase dozens of other players. Many consumers, however, are locked into iPods because of Apple's Fairplay DRM. That's right, the DRM that Apple won't license to other players. These consumers have locked themselves into Apple's products by using Apple's proprietary technology. Sound familiar? I imagine Apple *hopes* that its consumers will buy expensive headphones with their little connector doo-dad. Because these consumers will now be locked into iPods.
Apple explained why they didn't license Fairplay to others.
I believe this shuffle will be a disaster. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
I believe the opposite but it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
And be wary of buying proprietary Apple technology in the future. They just may screw you again.
I'm thinking every Apple product has something proprietary about it. Just like about 95% of other tech and consumer electronics companies out there.
[/QUOTE]Apple is just a business. They will extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can.[/QUOTE]
Every business will try to extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can. The question is whether you get value for your money. You imply that Apple's customers are fooled into giving up their money for products that aren't worth it. But customer satisfaction ratings show that most Apple customers believe the opposite. If Apple has really fooled their customers since Jobs return, it still hasn't been exposed. (Back in the 1990s, Apple was exposed and became "beleaguered".)
Keep at it, maybe you'll make it happen again.
That's funny, really - thanks for the laugh. Note that I didn't say it inhibited my ability to understand your point, I said it inhibited your ability to appear credible. It still does. May I add also that your prideful self-congratulation regarding your capacity to be indelicate, vulgar, and unable to carry on civil discourse all at the same time speaks volumes about your character, something that does not appear to concern you in the least. My guess, though, is that if you were standing next to me you'd probably refrain from being the way you are now. So, what is that saying to me and anyone else listening in about who you really are, divorced from civil nicety? Something to consider my friend.
Well, if you're asking my permission, no you may not add those things (joking, don't get yourself in a snit). You're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that you hide behind an affected formality as a loophole to dismiss an argument you are having difficulty with. Note that I said "If" regarding your ability to understand. You seemed to imply that your main criteria in discerning validity from a logistical standpoint, or to find credible the "meat" of another's argument, rests squarely on whether or not they use the words you want them to use (or not use). Their meaning, is their meaning. Choosing to dismiss it off-handedly or to find it less cogent simply because they don't speak the way you want them too (or not to) sounds awfully prideful and self-congratulatory on your part to me. I can discuss just about anything with anyone and appreciate their point of view in any vernacular they choose (as long as it's spoken in English) based on it's logical merits. If I was standing next to you, I would speak exactly as I normally do?no facade. I appreciate the same in others.
I expect to run across many over the age of 12 who might just happen to have an "earthy" sense of humor (we'll just call it an ascorbic wit for the sake of diplomacy) and it won't throw me a bit. The fact that you choose to offer me a lecture on manners in what sounds like the voice of a victorian schoolmarm speaks volumes about your ability to carry on an adult conversation without taking yourself too seriously. Or maybe, you're just very good at changing the subject away from the original topic. (common, "victorian schoolmarm" didn't that give you just a bit of a chuckle?)
I'm guessing Apple's remote chip exists solely for controlling the device, and I suspect they did that because their design aim was to produce a tiny device, and they decided the device was too small to put effectively usable buttons on it.
I'm guessing the same about the chip. The previous "authentication chip" claim turned out be be false.
But I'm thinking that the buttonless design was as much as a part of form as function if not a little more so.
All of Apple's devices differ from their mainstream counterparts in appearance as well as features. They almost if not all have a clean almost spartan look to them. Minimalism is an Apple hallmark. This design move has clearly upset some people. Some of them view this as a conspiracy to screw the customer. I disagree.
They want to fault Apple for removing the controls. It seems clear to me that additional hardware would be needed for that. I like the look and don't think it would be a problem for me. I will buy it or not.
Now the conspiracists could be right that this is all some kind of Apple/ Ponszi scheme and they're trying to outdo Madoff.
When that's revealed, my face will be read.
And once again you miss the point entirely.
No, your assertion is based on untruths.
I wasn't criticizing MS for charging $$ to provide tools and information useful to developers. I was pointing out that some people around here seem to think that Apple ought to make developing for their hardware platform free, yet think it's no problem to charge money for tools and information that make developing for a software platform possible.
Except that neither Apple nor MS does for stategic reasons.
If that doesn't describe you, then maybe you should just relax a little bit and reduce the soaring rate of your blood pressure. If it does describe you, maybe you could try addressing the point I'm making rather than frothing at the mouth in your indignation at any perceived slight to MS.
It isn't a perceived slight. What you were writing was completely untrue.
By the way, If you think we got ripped off or not, It is of absolutely ZERO consequence to me, I want you to know that - if you think your opinion of what I've said means even a marginal fraction of a whit to me, you are widely off the mark.
I'm correcting an untruth you are spreading. If you are so unmotivated to click on a link I provided to show how your company can save money I couldn't care less.
The point I made - that professional development for any platform is seldom free - is pretty much not contestable.
It is contestable given even Oracle hands out free deb licences. Today, development costs are FAR lower than before.
One final point for you: if you are buying one or two subscriptions to MSDN and sharing them among more than one or two developers, as you suggested is common practice, you are violating MS licensing requirements and I can only hope someone will report you to the BSA. Once that has happened, get back to me about how much it costs to comply with Microsoft's licensing requirements.
We have a site license for pretty much everything. We also buy enough MSDN subscriptions for everyone. In any case, you cannot share MSDN benefits but as long as you aren't using any of the licences for team use you also don't need to buy for folks not using any benefits. Especially given that some of our folks get free MSDN as MVPs.
Pretty hard for MS to now insist the entire dev team must have MSDN because they gave some of us free subs.
Don't confuse that last barb with the point of my statements; just use it to further explode your blood pressure.
Your point is weak and even now you are incapable of admitting it doesn't cost 10k per year to develop for MS. It can be free and you were wrong at best and spreading FUD at worst.
Are you saying that wherever you go, you don't carry any connectors and expect that they will be universally available at your beckoning call?
When it comes to the iPod Shuffle... YES!!!
Thats my whole freak'n point dude.
You don't need any cables with the first Shuffle. It was perfect.
Doood!
You plug in any set of headphones and wait for like ... a second, and the music will play.
The shuffle itself has a hardware button for "shuffle" or "play straight through." According to what I've read, this works with any headphones. Considering most people buy a shuffle because they just want to hear a shuffled version of their library or playlist, I'd think this is pretty much the same way it always worked.
There is no "incompatible" new headphone or headphone jack here. The new headphones can be used on old players but they lose the new features (the wire controls). The older headphones (no wire controls) can be used on the new player and neither lose nor gain anything. Because the *player* no longer has controls, you lose the controls by using an old headset on a player that has no hardware controls, but Apple has carefully arranged it so that even then, you can still *use* the old headset if you want to. They also made the old shuffle still available for those that are really peeved. This whole controversy is manufactured BS.
Just so you know, here you reveal yourself as someone not even worth replying to. If you want to actually have an intelligent debate about this stuff, you might want to reign in your "inner teenager" a bit.
So you don't want to see Hana naked then?
In fact, lets apply your "logic" a little further. In the light of the fact that Apple didn't invent earphones, why don't those companies charge Apple a fee so Apple will have the privilege of their ipods being useable with said other companies earphones? Probably because they aren't arrogant and dumb enough to hurt their own sales to adopt such punitive practices. Apple already has chips in some of their other products that serve no other purpose than to limit use, and you have to pay for those chips which is built into the overall cost of the device.
No, because the headphone mfrs know that more people care about buying iPods/iPhones than headphones. It's how capitalism, and platforms/ecosystems work.
Bottom line: If you already own headphones and have no interest in moving to this scheme of controls in the headphone/cable, then the iPod shuffle is clearly not for you. Realize, however, that Apple will be convincing the public that being able to control their hidden/pocketed iPods/iPhones (as well as Macs) via such controls has added value. Most headphone mfrs will be releasing new sets with these controls; given Apple's dominance of mp3 players, in the long run, many of these mfrs will stop selling headphones without these controls.
You don't require any software or special hardware for any set of earphones to work with any standard jack. Requiring such is imposing an artificial cost, inconvenience, and form limitation that does nothing to serve the customer, only Apple.
You don't see any added value in it for the customer, but there are plenty of people who want to operate their music (and maybe more) on their iPods/iPhones without looking at them. Apple seems pretty certain of this even for the iPod shuffle use case, otherwise, they'd have kept the $69 shuffle around too. (If it wasn't for the recession, I'd bet the $49 shuffle would've been EOLed already.)
Retraction? Prove it's false.
You can't- no more than they can prove it's true. It's a theory, that's all.
Have all confirmed there is no DRM in the Shuffle 3G headphones.
They proved it for me.
iLounge still thinks they have a valid point even if it's not technically DRM for content control, and EFF now has a redacted version of the story on the site.
I can't imagine these new ones selling than the older ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen has buttons again, if apple ever had a reason to backtrack on a product, this is it.
I bet you the new more expensive ones outsells the older cheaper ones.
Have all confirmed there is no DRM in the Shuffle 3G headphones.
They proved it for me.
iLounge still thinks they have a valid point even if it's not technically DRM for content control, and EFF now has a redacted version of the story on the site.
the internet leaves those who speak first and investigate later looking like fools.
Did you read your post dude? It makes zero sense.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
Are you suggesting that people carry 2 sets of headphones? One to get the music started... unplug it, plug in the next set so the music doesn't sound like shit.
Oh... oh... lets skip that track... unplug good headphones that don't sound like shit, plug in Apple headphones, hit the next track, unplug Apple headphones, plug in good headphones that don't sound like shit.
Yah... sounds like a great innovation. Real user friendly.
Anyways who else wants to see Hana naked?
Yes you can listen to music with any headphone, just can't change the track or volume.
This is fucking ridiculous. Fuck you, Apple. I've given this company tens of thousands of my dollars over the years, and this shit is what makes me regret it. I seriously can't believe there's people defending this. Get your heads out of your asses. There's NOTHING good about this, its simply a cynical money grab by Apple.
Its also pathetic and humorous how some here are trying to put a positive spin on this by suggesting that controls on headphones is somehow a new thing, and that Apple is being a technological trailblazer with this. At first I realized it may have been sarcasm/satire, then I realized it wasnt. You people arent doing Apple any favors by consistently defending and apologizing for their every move.
This is a bad, bad thing for consumers, and you should all hold Apple's feet to the fire, if you have the objectivity to do so.
Dude shut up and buy the old ones if you feel so offended.
What a ridiculous, assinine, self-righteous post. So what if he wants to see Hana naked? What heterosexual male (or female for that matter) wouldnt? It means his opinion is worth nothing? I think you have something stuck a bit far up your ass.
And for the record, I've already tried googling for revealing photos of Hana. No luck. Shes cute as hell. Sorry if that offends you. For everyone else- give me a heads up if you find anything
We are talking about this Hana right?
http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/
- click on the 'Watch the guided tour'.
As Apple intended, you find yourself looking at Hana more then the Shuffle. My comment was just an observation of Apple throwing some sex into their product demo's. Wonder if she really works at an Apple store?
Yes you can listen to music with any headphone, just can't change the track or volume.
Do you consider that an acceptable user experience?
New slogan:
Apple Inc. - There's still more profit to be had.
I can see Apple doing this sort of thing on the next iPods/iPhones too, if the Shuffle somehow sells, that Apple will use that as some sort of precedent, and do the same thing on those.
They are becoming as bad as Sony.
Do you consider that an acceptable user experience?
Doesn't really matter to me since If I were to get the new shuffle I would use the stock earphones, instead of going out and purchasing 200 dollar earphones to go with a 79 dollar shuffle or you could always buy the older shuffle.
I've said a lot more than you buddy.
And what are you sayin? NOTHING.
Kind of difficult to contribute rational, lucid thoughts in this particular thread when there is so much static being spewed by 13-year-olds.
While I know some company will create a headphone/volume control passthrough, Apple should've done that to begin with, but there is still some nickel and dimeing left to do.
New slogan:
Apple Inc. - There's still more profit to be had.
I can see Apple doing this sort of thing on the next iPods/iPhones too, if the Shuffle somehow sells, that Apple will use that as some sort of precedent, and do the same thing on those.
They are becoming as bad as Sony.
The passthrough you are think of has already been announced, saw it on engadget the same day the shuffle came out.
Apple will not remove media control on their other ipods or on the iphone, that doesn't even make any sense. What this will do though is get the headphone industry moving forward, there will be lots of headphones with remotes on them, and guess what? They will be usable on all ipods. So in the end if you are not getting a shuffle, you can have an ipod (with media controls on it) plus headphones of your choice with a built in remote. That sounds like a good thing to me (remote > no remote).
PS - The update states that Apple has said that there is no DRM on the headphones, I love how this is 5 pages of flames because of someone's speculation of what a chip they found in the remote was for, maybe it was for translating all the complicated key presses?