Where's the complaint about charging through the mic port? That means you have to use Apple's Dock like the prior shuffle. What's that? I hear nothing from the peanut gallery.
You don't hear anything because you don't know what you're talking about. Unlike the 2nd gen shuffle, there's no special dock needed. That's actually a real advantage, no worries about losing the dock.
The included iPod shuffle USB cable goes straight from the shuffle's headphone jack to a USB port on a computer (or to a power adapter that you may have bought for use with any of the last 120 million iPods). Amazing.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
You turn it on, and it just starts playing, no way to stop, pause, skip tracks, or change volume. Technically, you can still play music, but dare I say it, functionality that limited would be unacceptable to anyone but the most hardcore fanboy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
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?
It seems obvious he's simply saying that a unit with a USB connector on it doesn't require carrying an extra dock, cable, or adapter. Personally, I can see how some would consider that an advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRRosen
I don't understand why I'm the first one asking this but Why do all these people own expensive earphones but not iPods?
I mean they are so upset that there being forced to by a new shuffle as they don't have a music player now, and only have $80. (apparently) but they have hundred dollar Shure earphones that they wont be able to use because they don't have a remote on them.
Don't forget people who listen in a car or on a home stereo, or people who have cheap headphones that they just happen to like. Not to mention that if the dog chews up your headphones, you'd have to get $29 ones to replace instead of the cheapest ones you can find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Perhaps you don't have to seen them, but to suggest that the sound is poorer or most of the key features that are "missing" aren't if you did a little reading.
I did a little reading, and it sure didn't look like you refuted those points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRRosen
Music starts by itself...
If you don't like that song why did you put it on there in the first place???
Just because you like a song doesn't mean you would never want to skip over it...and what if you wanted to hear it again? Or pause it when you are interrupted. Or CHANGE THE VOLUME? You can't be seriously suggesting that it would be an acceptable user experience with out the headphone remote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
You plug in any set of headphones and wait for like ... a second, and the music will play.
And how exactly do you set the volume? You really think anyone would be happy using the device like that?
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.
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.
The rest of your post was pretty much drivel, comprised of blatant, unadultered fanboyism. Apple has 'carefully arranged it' (interesting use of working there) so that you can still use headphones without the 'new features' (pause/play/fwd/back, and VOLUME are features now!). It says something about you when you imply people should be cool with that.
I definitely classify headphones incapable of executing these 'features' as incompatible, and you, unsurprisingly, do not, since you call it 'manufactured BS'.
I praise Apple when they make good decisions. I buy their good products. This is not a good dcision, and not a good product. And I express that when I find it to be the case. I suggest you try to become a more intelligent consumer and do the same, instead of being a volunteer member of Apple's PR team.
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
Impressive passion is being shown for this little device. Let's not forget that Apple has missed the mark with other products in the past, but they are still the Apple we love. Things come and go. When I want to really enjoy my music, I put on my Grado SR225i's put a disc in the player or vinyl on the table and crank it up!
I'll bet that's a whole lot closer to maybe than maybe not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
Yes, Apple builds a lot of Shuffles. But the number of shuffles built and sold, particularly 3G shuffles, absolutely pales in comparison to the headphone market as a whole.
But that's pretty irrelevant and somewhat misleading, particularly given the short amount of time the 3G has been available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
And good headphones don't get a very large slice of the pie to begin with. I suspect that there will be a wide selection of crappy headphones that work with the shuffle, and they'll be artificially expensive. Meanwhile you won't be able to use better headphones with the shuffle.
Well good headphones don't because they tend to be more expensive. Great headphones get even a smaller slice. Whose fault is that, really?
There are a lot of people who don't upgrade for many reasons: they don't want to spend the money that "good" headphones tend to demand; they're listening circumstances/environment make "good" headphone moot; OEM headphones are "good enough"; listening experience is relative, to name a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
I suspect that there will be a wide selection of crappy headphones that work with the shuffle, and they'll be artificially expensive.
True, that that happens in almost any and every accessory market. There will be manufacturers that make crap and those that make quality goods. And they will be priced relative to competition in their respective market niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
Meanwhile you won't be able to use better headphones with the shuffle.
Sure you will. Not right away but soon we'll see adapters. The first to market will be more expensive. Competition will lower the average price. Not enough for some people but some are never satisfied anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl
And for some usage models, the shuffle will simply no longer be useful. I have my 1G shuffle plugged into my stereo in my garage with a headphone->RCA splitter. It's the perfect solution -- cheap and robust. Since I can't start music playing on the 3G shuffle without the headphones, that usage model is out.
Yes, some people will not be able to use the new Shuffle in the same way they used the old one. And they probably won't buy the new one. Problem solved. Again, others will opt for an adapter which will let them use it in the usage model you describe. Almost as cheap, and just as robust. Again, problem solved. Those who don't want to spend any money won't bother with the new Shuffle.
Not having a chance to audition the new Shuffle, I can't say that my "good" Shures will sound as good on it as they do the iPhone or Classic. Maybe yes, maybe no.
I really think that this ire and outrage will go the way of the angry mobs that rallied when the iPod and iMac G4 first debuted. People were quick to condemn both products (and more) and yet, they've managed to survive moral outrage.
This Shuffle will probably do as well. Or when it's a total miserable failure, there will be those who can finally say "I told you so!". But they shouldn't hold their breath.
1. Apple's business model does not include "money grab" tactics, they are into creating customer loyalty. They try to build innovative, dependable products and earn their good reputation.
Which Apple are we talking about again? I thought that we were talking about the one with $26 billion in the bank, that rakes its customers over the coals charging a substantial premium over other vendors for displays, keyboards, computers, mice, RAM, etc..
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.
Quote:
2. There is nothing bad for consumers here because consumers have dozens of other players that they can purchase instead.
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.
Quote:
3. Just because you have spent x-amount of cash on Apple products doesn't mean you know what type of devices other people want.
I believe this shuffle will be a disaster. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Quote:
4. Always the same bottom line. Don't like the new <insert product name> don't buy it.
And be wary of buying proprietary Apple technology in the future. They just may screw you again.
Apple is just a business. They will extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can.
I really think that this ire and outrage will go the way of the angry mobs that rallied when the iPod and iMac G4 first debuted. People were quick to condemn both products (and more) and yet, they've managed to survive moral outrage.
I forget, what were the problems with those units comparable to taking all the buttons off an mp3 player?
You seem to think the intent is to force you to use Apple headphones, rather than to force competitors to pay Apple in order to produce headphones that can be used with Apple's platform.
It amounts to the the same thing. It means I have to pay for Apple's enforced limitations. It adds cost to 3rd parties who have to pass that cost onto the customer, it will by nature exclude some altogether who won't bother to make said products because of the added cost, not to mention the fact it renders any existing headphones (including Apple's) I already own useless without additional cost. Earphone mfg.s do not sell "Apple compatible" earphones now. They simply sell earphones that (until now) are compatible with Apple products by nature. Not every company sells products at Apple's inflated margins (few actually). How many companies would choose to decrease their current margins (either due to eating a new Apple imposed-cost, or through lost sales due to a price increase) for the privilege of handing money on the sale of their own products over to Apple? If the answer excludes the one who makes the earphones you prefer, than for you as the individual customer, the answer is one too many. The more important thing to consider, which you ignored from my previous post, is to apply that same philosophy to every other product that one usually uses in conjunction with, or attaches to a computer or any other device that accepts peripherals.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttupper
What could be happening here is this: Apple wants to extract some money from firms that want to profit from their platform. That is not the same as "Apple wants to be the only manufacturer of headphones." If you can't see that, I'm not sure what I could say that could help you... but may I say that I think your position is myopic.
No help needed. I see exactly what you are saying. However, as I feel no need to ask if I may, I will say, I feel your position sounds far less "visionary" than you seem to think it does, and is almost as ridiculous as your self-important condescending tone. If by "extract" you mean "extort" you are right. Which "Platform" are you talking about? The "platform" is the OS, and if proprietary, the computer than it runs on. That doesn't by default extend to the entire universe of every and all devices you might want to attach to a computer and every device you might to attach to each other and/or your computer. If a company is successful in getting you to buy that it does, see the naughty word I used before.
Apple didn't invent the concept of a digital player, nor the concept of headphones. Just because Apple happens to make both, doesn't make all similar products made by other mfg.s subject to their artificial constraints of the "platform" (which you seem to determined to redefine the definition of). 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 seem to think that customers exist to provide profits to companies. Companies exist by offering products to customers. They need us, more than we need them. In fact, we don't "need" them at all. Any company that loses sight of that is ignoring what makes them profit in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttupper
One other point: hurling around names like "dumb-ass" hurts your position, not mine, because it simply proves that you can't have a rational or civil discussion. You come across looking like someone who cannot stand to have his or her ideas challenged, and who cannot concoct a rational argument, preferring instead to resort to name calling and personal attacks. It's not very impressive to anyone who engages brain before mouth, FYI.
FYI, If you are so thin-skinned that a word such as, "dumb-ass" somehow inhibits, decreases, negates, or erases your ability to gage the meaning or logic of other words surrounding it simply because you encountered a naughty word, you probably should refrain from visiting any message board at all. The digital ether can be a rough place. If you are made of such a delicate constitution, I suggest you avoid the internet altogether. I really hope you aren't that frail, my petite little flower.
So what is your beef, here? That Apple didn't put controls on the unit itself?
Yes, I would think that was obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttupper
Are you not aware that they also manufacture a number of other ipod models that DO have that feature?
Of course. I don't see what that has to do with expressing my opinion that I think leaving controls off the unit is a dumb idea.
And why is giving the opinion that this particular design decision is bad "wasting your time and energy" while giving the opinion that this particular design decision is good not "wasting your time and energy"? I'm not upset, nor have I put forth any conspiracy theories, just giving my opinion, same as you are doing.
It's really simple:
1) I think the previous generation (and even the first generation) was a pretty darn good design.
2) I think this design gets more things worse than better. And
3) I think it won't be particularly well received and we'll see the shuffle with controls on the unit again in the future.
Perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Of course. I don't see what that has to do with expressing my opinion that I think leaving controls off the unit is a dumb idea.
Absolutely true, and my apologies for indicating otherwise. There has been so much hoopla in here that I'm afraid I confused your statement of your personal taste with many of the other fringy statements being made here.
It amounts to the the same thing. It means I have to pay for Apple's enforced limitations. It adds cost to 3rd parties who have to pass that cost onto the customer, it will by nature exclude some altogether who won't bother to make said products because of the added cost, not to mention the fact it renders any existing headphones (including Apple's) I already own useless without additional cost. Earphone mfg.s do not sell "Apple compatible" earphones now. They simply sell earphones that (until now) are compatible with Apple products by nature.
The fact being that the purchase and use of the iPod Shuffle is entirely voluntary. If you don't like the way it works you don't have to buy it.
Quote:
Not every company sells products at Apple's inflated margins (few actually). How many companies would choose to decrease their current margins
Most companies make premium and commodity products. They charge more for the premium and less for the commodity. Apple only makes premium, the Shuffle is pretty much their only commodity product.
Quote:
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.
Headphone companies don't have proprietary technology that Apple needs to use. If they did, they would charge for it. Which chips are you vaguely refrering to that Apple only uses to charge cost?
Apple does license a lot other companies technology for its own products. Hardware as well as software.
Quote:
Apple didn't invent the concept of a digital player, nor the concept of headphones. Just because Apple happens to make both, doesn't make all similar products made by other mfg.s subject to their artificial constraints of the "platform" (which you seem to determined to redefine the definition of). 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 seem to think that customers exist to provide profits to companies. Companies exist by offering products to customers. They need us, more than we need them. In fact, we don't "need" them at all. Any company that loses sight of that is ignoring what makes them profit in the first place.
To make the point that Apple is only using this technology to impose an artificial cost. You completely ignore the possibility that Apple has invented a good way to use headphone remote.
EVen though headphone remotes have been around for years, no one has found a way to make it easy to use and popular. Perhaps Apple has found a solution that will make it popular.
I forget, what were the problems with those units comparable to taking all the buttons off an mp3 player?
It was the result of one problem: Apple made a product nobody wanted, or so naysayers would have people believe.
Apple brought out both of those and there was public outcry for various reasons mostly related to "Apple screwed up" just as being said now about the Shuffle.
The new Shuffle is not meant for everybody. Every time Apple brings out a product, a segment of the market projects and complains that the product is flawed and is bad for everybody because it doesn't work for them.
Apple made a design choice to take the controls off of a Shuffle, a device that since it's initial introduction was not meant to be a full featured iPod. It was designed without a screen and without any indication of what music was playing with no options for playlists. It was designed to be a "set and forget" type of device generally for people who wanted to spend time doing some kind of activity other than manipulating an iPod and still listen to music. It sacrificed size and capacity for lightweight and convenience.
I didn't pay any attention because that wasn't a device for me at the time. The Shuffle got smaller in size and larger in capacity until it gained my interest.
Yet people are outraged because a product they don't own and don't have to was introduced with a feature they don't like.
The VoiceOver feature was attacked as being inferior to a display. We have a 4GB Shuffle that costs only a few dollars more than the previous 2GB model which didn't have a display. Yet the new version is faulted for not having one. How much more would that have cost and how much more difficult would it have been to read which of a 1000 songs you were listening to when the Shuffle is clipped to your sleeve, lapel, belt, etc., and you're biking up a hill, spinning faster than the guy next to you, whatever.
There are no doubt situations where reading such a display is better than listening to The Voice. I can't think of any but clearly anybody who can should get a full featured iPod.
I don't think looking at a tiny scrolling font is as convenient as clicking the earphone control and listening to a voice. And if you can remember a phone number, there shouldn't be too much trouble remembering how many clicks to move music.
Apple has come up with a unique product that some people will like and that some people already like to hate. If the product sells well then Apple has not done a disservice to the market place. They will have created a product that makes some money for them and fills a function for the buyer.
The fact remains that there are still choices. You make compromises whether you by a Sansa, Zune, iPod, or Shuffle. Some places still sell the 2GB Shuffle for those who prefer it. It's a matter of what compromises you care to make.
I'm going to the Apple Store to take a look at this. It may have a place in how I live life. It's completely irrelevant to anybody else as we are not the same people.
And yet to some if this works for me I (and others) am a fanboy. If I (and others) don't hate it I'm a fanboy. If I (and others) give it a 50/50 chance I'm a fanboy.
Apple is in business to make money and Jobs does have a vision of technology. If they make a product that works for me and offers value I'm interested. If they don't I pass.
Comments
Where's the complaint about charging through the mic port? That means you have to use Apple's Dock like the prior shuffle. What's that? I hear nothing from the peanut gallery.
You don't hear anything because you don't know what you're talking about. Unlike the 2nd gen shuffle, there's no special dock needed. That's actually a real advantage, no worries about losing the dock.
The included iPod shuffle USB cable goes straight from the shuffle's headphone jack to a USB port on a computer (or to a power adapter that you may have bought for use with any of the last 120 million iPods). Amazing.
Best to stick to talking about what you know.
Did you read your post dude? It makes zero sense.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
You turn it on, and it just starts playing, no way to stop, pause, skip tracks, or change volume. Technically, you can still play music, but dare I say it, functionality that limited would be unacceptable to anyone but the most hardcore fanboy.
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?
It seems obvious he's simply saying that a unit with a USB connector on it doesn't require carrying an extra dock, cable, or adapter. Personally, I can see how some would consider that an advantage.
I don't understand why I'm the first one asking this but Why do all these people own expensive earphones but not iPods?
I mean they are so upset that there being forced to by a new shuffle as they don't have a music player now, and only have $80. (apparently) but they have hundred dollar Shure earphones that they wont be able to use because they don't have a remote on them.
Don't forget people who listen in a car or on a home stereo, or people who have cheap headphones that they just happen to like. Not to mention that if the dog chews up your headphones, you'd have to get $29 ones to replace instead of the cheapest ones you can find.
Perhaps you don't have to seen them, but to suggest that the sound is poorer or most of the key features that are "missing" aren't if you did a little reading.
I did a little reading, and it sure didn't look like you refuted those points.
Music starts by itself...
If you don't like that song why did you put it on there in the first place???
Just because you like a song doesn't mean you would never want to skip over it...and what if you wanted to hear it again? Or pause it when you are interrupted. Or CHANGE THE VOLUME? You can't be seriously suggesting that it would be an acceptable user experience with out the headphone remote?
You plug in any set of headphones and wait for like ... a second, and the music will play.
And how exactly do you set the volume? You really think anyone would be happy using the device like that?
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.
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.
The rest of your post was pretty much drivel, comprised of blatant, unadultered fanboyism. Apple has 'carefully arranged it' (interesting use of working there) so that you can still use headphones without the 'new features' (pause/play/fwd/back, and VOLUME are features now!). It says something about you when you imply people should be cool with that.
I definitely classify headphones incapable of executing these 'features' as incompatible, and you, unsurprisingly, do not, since you call it 'manufactured BS'.
I praise Apple when they make good decisions. I buy their good products. This is not a good dcision, and not a good product. And I express that when I find it to be the case. I suggest you try to become a more intelligent consumer and do the same, instead of being a volunteer member of Apple's PR team.
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
I praise Apple when they make good decisions.
Evidence to the contrary. As you said in only your second of three negative posts, "This is fucking ridiculous. Fuck you, Apple."
Maybe, maybe not.
I'll bet that's a whole lot closer to maybe than maybe not.
Yes, Apple builds a lot of Shuffles. But the number of shuffles built and sold, particularly 3G shuffles, absolutely pales in comparison to the headphone market as a whole.
But that's pretty irrelevant and somewhat misleading, particularly given the short amount of time the 3G has been available.
And good headphones don't get a very large slice of the pie to begin with. I suspect that there will be a wide selection of crappy headphones that work with the shuffle, and they'll be artificially expensive. Meanwhile you won't be able to use better headphones with the shuffle.
Well good headphones don't because they tend to be more expensive. Great headphones get even a smaller slice. Whose fault is that, really?
There are a lot of people who don't upgrade for many reasons: they don't want to spend the money that "good" headphones tend to demand; they're listening circumstances/environment make "good" headphone moot; OEM headphones are "good enough"; listening experience is relative, to name a few.
I suspect that there will be a wide selection of crappy headphones that work with the shuffle, and they'll be artificially expensive.
True, that that happens in almost any and every accessory market. There will be manufacturers that make crap and those that make quality goods. And they will be priced relative to competition in their respective market niche.
Meanwhile you won't be able to use better headphones with the shuffle.
Sure you will. Not right away but soon we'll see adapters. The first to market will be more expensive. Competition will lower the average price. Not enough for some people but some are never satisfied anyway.
And for some usage models, the shuffle will simply no longer be useful. I have my 1G shuffle plugged into my stereo in my garage with a headphone->RCA splitter. It's the perfect solution -- cheap and robust. Since I can't start music playing on the 3G shuffle without the headphones, that usage model is out.
Yes, some people will not be able to use the new Shuffle in the same way they used the old one. And they probably won't buy the new one. Problem solved. Again, others will opt for an adapter which will let them use it in the usage model you describe. Almost as cheap, and just as robust. Again, problem solved. Those who don't want to spend any money won't bother with the new Shuffle.
Not having a chance to audition the new Shuffle, I can't say that my "good" Shures will sound as good on it as they do the iPhone or Classic. Maybe yes, maybe no.
I really think that this ire and outrage will go the way of the angry mobs that rallied when the iPod and iMac G4 first debuted. People were quick to condemn both products (and more) and yet, they've managed to survive moral outrage.
This Shuffle will probably do as well. Or when it's a total miserable failure, there will be those who can finally say "I told you so!". But they shouldn't hold their breath.
Another false report by iLounge making up their own claim simply because new style headphones don't exist yet.
1. Apple's business model does not include "money grab" tactics, they are into creating customer loyalty. They try to build innovative, dependable products and earn their good reputation.
Which Apple are we talking about again? I thought that we were talking about the one with $26 billion in the bank, that rakes its customers over the coals charging a substantial premium over other vendors for displays, keyboards, computers, mice, RAM, etc..
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.
2. There is nothing bad for consumers here because consumers have dozens of other players that they can purchase instead.
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.
3. Just because you have spent x-amount of cash on Apple products doesn't mean you know what type of devices other people want.
I believe this shuffle will be a disaster. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
4. Always the same bottom line. Don't like the new <insert product name> don't buy it.
And be wary of buying proprietary Apple technology in the future. They just may screw you again.
Apple is just a business. They will extract as much money out of their customers as they think they can.
I really think that this ire and outrage will go the way of the angry mobs that rallied when the iPod and iMac G4 first debuted. People were quick to condemn both products (and more) and yet, they've managed to survive moral outrage.
I forget, what were the problems with those units comparable to taking all the buttons off an mp3 player?
You seem to think the intent is to force you to use Apple headphones, rather than to force competitors to pay Apple in order to produce headphones that can be used with Apple's platform.
It amounts to the the same thing. It means I have to pay for Apple's enforced limitations. It adds cost to 3rd parties who have to pass that cost onto the customer, it will by nature exclude some altogether who won't bother to make said products because of the added cost, not to mention the fact it renders any existing headphones (including Apple's) I already own useless without additional cost. Earphone mfg.s do not sell "Apple compatible" earphones now. They simply sell earphones that (until now) are compatible with Apple products by nature. Not every company sells products at Apple's inflated margins (few actually). How many companies would choose to decrease their current margins (either due to eating a new Apple imposed-cost, or through lost sales due to a price increase) for the privilege of handing money on the sale of their own products over to Apple? If the answer excludes the one who makes the earphones you prefer, than for you as the individual customer, the answer is one too many. The more important thing to consider, which you ignored from my previous post, is to apply that same philosophy to every other product that one usually uses in conjunction with, or attaches to a computer or any other device that accepts peripherals.
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.
What could be happening here is this: Apple wants to extract some money from firms that want to profit from their platform. That is not the same as "Apple wants to be the only manufacturer of headphones." If you can't see that, I'm not sure what I could say that could help you... but may I say that I think your position is myopic.
No help needed. I see exactly what you are saying. However, as I feel no need to ask if I may, I will say, I feel your position sounds far less "visionary" than you seem to think it does, and is almost as ridiculous as your self-important condescending tone. If by "extract" you mean "extort" you are right. Which "Platform" are you talking about? The "platform" is the OS, and if proprietary, the computer than it runs on. That doesn't by default extend to the entire universe of every and all devices you might want to attach to a computer and every device you might to attach to each other and/or your computer. If a company is successful in getting you to buy that it does, see the naughty word I used before.
Apple didn't invent the concept of a digital player, nor the concept of headphones. Just because Apple happens to make both, doesn't make all similar products made by other mfg.s subject to their artificial constraints of the "platform" (which you seem to determined to redefine the definition of). 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 seem to think that customers exist to provide profits to companies. Companies exist by offering products to customers. They need us, more than we need them. In fact, we don't "need" them at all. Any company that loses sight of that is ignoring what makes them profit in the first place.
One other point: hurling around names like "dumb-ass" hurts your position, not mine, because it simply proves that you can't have a rational or civil discussion. You come across looking like someone who cannot stand to have his or her ideas challenged, and who cannot concoct a rational argument, preferring instead to resort to name calling and personal attacks. It's not very impressive to anyone who engages brain before mouth, FYI.
FYI, If you are so thin-skinned that a word such as, "dumb-ass" somehow inhibits, decreases, negates, or erases your ability to gage the meaning or logic of other words surrounding it simply because you encountered a naughty word, you probably should refrain from visiting any message board at all. The digital ether can be a rough place. If you are made of such a delicate constitution, I suggest you avoid the internet altogether. I really hope you aren't that frail, my petite little flower.
Those claims are demonstrably false.
Unless they had a source that lied to them, they lied.
Where is the retraction?
Update: Apple has denied that any DRM authentication mechanism is involved.
Hmmmm... seems like Cramer or somebody was "Fomenting the market" again?!
So what is your beef, here? That Apple didn't put controls on the unit itself?
Yes, I would think that was obvious.
Are you not aware that they also manufacture a number of other ipod models that DO have that feature?
Of course. I don't see what that has to do with expressing my opinion that I think leaving controls off the unit is a dumb idea.
And why is giving the opinion that this particular design decision is bad "wasting your time and energy" while giving the opinion that this particular design decision is good not "wasting your time and energy"? I'm not upset, nor have I put forth any conspiracy theories, just giving my opinion, same as you are doing.
It's really simple:
1) I think the previous generation (and even the first generation) was a pretty darn good design.
2) I think this design gets more things worse than better. And
3) I think it won't be particularly well received and we'll see the shuffle with controls on the unit again in the future.
Perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Of course. I don't see what that has to do with expressing my opinion that I think leaving controls off the unit is a dumb idea.
Absolutely true, and my apologies for indicating otherwise. There has been so much hoopla in here that I'm afraid I confused your statement of your personal taste with many of the other fringy statements being made here.
iLounge and EFF ran the table with unsubstantiated claims.
Those claims are demonstrably false.
Unless they had a source that lied to them, they lied.
Where is the retraction?
Retraction? Prove it's false.
You can't- no more than they can prove it's true. It's a theory, that's all.
It amounts to the the same thing. It means I have to pay for Apple's enforced limitations. It adds cost to 3rd parties who have to pass that cost onto the customer, it will by nature exclude some altogether who won't bother to make said products because of the added cost, not to mention the fact it renders any existing headphones (including Apple's) I already own useless without additional cost. Earphone mfg.s do not sell "Apple compatible" earphones now. They simply sell earphones that (until now) are compatible with Apple products by nature.
The fact being that the purchase and use of the iPod Shuffle is entirely voluntary. If you don't like the way it works you don't have to buy it.
Not every company sells products at Apple's inflated margins (few actually). How many companies would choose to decrease their current margins
Most companies make premium and commodity products. They charge more for the premium and less for the commodity. Apple only makes premium, the Shuffle is pretty much their only commodity product.
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.
Headphone companies don't have proprietary technology that Apple needs to use. If they did, they would charge for it. Which chips are you vaguely refrering to that Apple only uses to charge cost?
Apple does license a lot other companies technology for its own products. Hardware as well as software.
Apple didn't invent the concept of a digital player, nor the concept of headphones. Just because Apple happens to make both, doesn't make all similar products made by other mfg.s subject to their artificial constraints of the "platform" (which you seem to determined to redefine the definition of). 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 seem to think that customers exist to provide profits to companies. Companies exist by offering products to customers. They need us, more than we need them. In fact, we don't "need" them at all. Any company that loses sight of that is ignoring what makes them profit in the first place.
To make the point that Apple is only using this technology to impose an artificial cost. You completely ignore the possibility that Apple has invented a good way to use headphone remote.
EVen though headphone remotes have been around for years, no one has found a way to make it easy to use and popular. Perhaps Apple has found a solution that will make it popular.
I forget, what were the problems with those units comparable to taking all the buttons off an mp3 player?
It was the result of one problem: Apple made a product nobody wanted, or so naysayers would have people believe.
Apple brought out both of those and there was public outcry for various reasons mostly related to "Apple screwed up" just as being said now about the Shuffle.
The new Shuffle is not meant for everybody. Every time Apple brings out a product, a segment of the market projects and complains that the product is flawed and is bad for everybody because it doesn't work for them.
Apple made a design choice to take the controls off of a Shuffle, a device that since it's initial introduction was not meant to be a full featured iPod. It was designed without a screen and without any indication of what music was playing with no options for playlists. It was designed to be a "set and forget" type of device generally for people who wanted to spend time doing some kind of activity other than manipulating an iPod and still listen to music. It sacrificed size and capacity for lightweight and convenience.
I didn't pay any attention because that wasn't a device for me at the time. The Shuffle got smaller in size and larger in capacity until it gained my interest.
Yet people are outraged because a product they don't own and don't have to was introduced with a feature they don't like.
The VoiceOver feature was attacked as being inferior to a display. We have a 4GB Shuffle that costs only a few dollars more than the previous 2GB model which didn't have a display. Yet the new version is faulted for not having one. How much more would that have cost and how much more difficult would it have been to read which of a 1000 songs you were listening to when the Shuffle is clipped to your sleeve, lapel, belt, etc., and you're biking up a hill, spinning faster than the guy next to you, whatever.
There are no doubt situations where reading such a display is better than listening to The Voice. I can't think of any but clearly anybody who can should get a full featured iPod.
I don't think looking at a tiny scrolling font is as convenient as clicking the earphone control and listening to a voice. And if you can remember a phone number, there shouldn't be too much trouble remembering how many clicks to move music.
Apple has come up with a unique product that some people will like and that some people already like to hate. If the product sells well then Apple has not done a disservice to the market place. They will have created a product that makes some money for them and fills a function for the buyer.
The fact remains that there are still choices. You make compromises whether you by a Sansa, Zune, iPod, or Shuffle. Some places still sell the 2GB Shuffle for those who prefer it. It's a matter of what compromises you care to make.
I'm going to the Apple Store to take a look at this. It may have a place in how I live life. It's completely irrelevant to anybody else as we are not the same people.
And yet to some if this works for me I (and others) am a fanboy. If I (and others) don't hate it I'm a fanboy. If I (and others) give it a 50/50 chance I'm a fanboy.
Apple is in business to make money and Jobs does have a vision of technology. If they make a product that works for me and offers value I'm interested. If they don't I pass.
Simple really.