Maybe they could merge the functionality of these two products somehow?
perhaps one reason is the component cost. Now that flash is so cheap (small capacities) its reached the same total manufacturing cost as a remote. Remotes are not as popular as shuffles so they also bear a slightly inflated cost from the outset. I think your idea to merge the two is a great idea and would add value to both products.
Although that would have made more sense when the Shuffle was a larger form factor. I think it'd be useful as an extra remote, but I'd still like to keep the 'bigger' one - I'd hate to lose both the remote and my Shuffle at the same time
By the way, I noticed a few weeks ago by accident that the remotes all seem to have the same frequency. Now that Apple has the tv as well as a lot of people having iMacs in the lounge, don't they need to have a think about this? It's quite easy for one remote to accidentally control two machines at once...
Maybe Apple will go the same way as Sony and other TV manufacturers... Perhaps Bluetooth or WiFi makes more sense for remotes these days?
By the way, I noticed a few weeks ago by accident that the remotes all seem to have the same frequency. Now that Apple has the tv as well as a lot of people having iMacs in the lounge, don't they need to have a think about this? It's quite easy for one remote to accidentally control two machines at once...
Maybe you could also notice that its easy to "pair" a remote to the aTV and or computer, so problems like this don't arise
The wired remote is also a radio tuner...the iPod Radio Remote is how it's commonly referred. You all knew that...right? Not to mention, what would be the purpose for a player being a remote control for another player?
The wired remote is also a radio tuner...the iPod Radio Remote is how it's commonly referred. You all knew that...right? Not to mention, what would be the purpose for a player being a remote control for another player?
Is this, like, some type of sarcasm thread?
No, I didn't intend to be sarcastic at all. Yes, I do realize the wired remote includes radio capability (although I never use it--I've pretty much given up on traditional radio as being something worth listening to). I also remember people giving away free radios as swag at conferences, etc--even 10-15 years ago. I can't imagine the cost of the radio is significant.
The iPod Shuffle does contain 1GB of RAM, sturdier casing, and a dock that the remote doesn't (not to mention any circuity and software that makes it an iPod). I think those costs outweigh the cost of adding AM/FM to the remote.
I use the wired remote, typically clipped to a pocket, to control an iPod in my pocket. This allows me to easily adjust volume, pause, resume, and skip tracks, forward or backward--without pulling the iPod out of my pocket or holding it in my hand.
So, if the Shuffle could perform the function of the wired remote (controlling, say, an 80GB iPod with a 20,000 song library) AND, when I don't need the entire library, operate on it's own as a Shuffle--I'd feel like I got much better value for my $49 than I did buying a wired remote.
Bottom line: the wired remote is way overpriced (remember when they were included with iPods?)
Comments
Maybe they could merge the functionality of these two products somehow?
perhaps one reason is the component cost. Now that flash is so cheap (small capacities) its reached the same total manufacturing cost as a remote. Remotes are not as popular as shuffles so they also bear a slightly inflated cost from the outset. I think your idea to merge the two is a great idea and would add value to both products.
Although that would have made more sense when the Shuffle was a larger form factor. I think it'd be useful as an extra remote, but I'd still like to keep the 'bigger' one - I'd hate to lose both the remote and my Shuffle at the same time
By the way, I noticed a few weeks ago by accident that the remotes all seem to have the same frequency. Now that Apple has the tv as well as a lot of people having iMacs in the lounge, don't they need to have a think about this? It's quite easy for one remote to accidentally control two machines at once...
Maybe Apple will go the same way as Sony and other TV manufacturers... Perhaps Bluetooth or WiFi makes more sense for remotes these days?
By the way, I noticed a few weeks ago by accident that the remotes all seem to have the same frequency. Now that Apple has the tv as well as a lot of people having iMacs in the lounge, don't they need to have a think about this? It's quite easy for one remote to accidentally control two machines at once...
Maybe you could also notice that its easy to "pair" a remote to the aTV and or computer, so problems like this don't arise
Maybe you could also notice that its easy to "pair" a remote to the aTV and or computer, so problems like this don't arise
Excellent - didn't realise you could do that. How is it done?
PS Apologies to the thread author for misreading the title - for some reason I thought it was to do with the Apple remote, not the iPod wired remote!
Mind you... A shuffle that doubled up as a remote would be quite cool...
Is this, like, some type of sarcasm thread?
The wired remote is also a radio tuner...the iPod Radio Remote is how it's commonly referred. You all knew that...right? Not to mention, what would be the purpose for a player being a remote control for another player?
Is this, like, some type of sarcasm thread?
No, I didn't intend to be sarcastic at all. Yes, I do realize the wired remote includes radio capability (although I never use it--I've pretty much given up on traditional radio as being something worth listening to). I also remember people giving away free radios as swag at conferences, etc--even 10-15 years ago. I can't imagine the cost of the radio is significant.
The iPod Shuffle does contain 1GB of RAM, sturdier casing, and a dock that the remote doesn't (not to mention any circuity and software that makes it an iPod). I think those costs outweigh the cost of adding AM/FM to the remote.
I use the wired remote, typically clipped to a pocket, to control an iPod in my pocket. This allows me to easily adjust volume, pause, resume, and skip tracks, forward or backward--without pulling the iPod out of my pocket or holding it in my hand.
So, if the Shuffle could perform the function of the wired remote (controlling, say, an 80GB iPod with a 20,000 song library) AND, when I don't need the entire library, operate on it's own as a Shuffle--I'd feel like I got much better value for my $49 than I did buying a wired remote.
Bottom line: the wired remote is way overpriced (remember when they were included with iPods?)