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 port?your 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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?
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 port?your 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.