Hmmm, time to get my ear-canals upgraded in order to use the shuffle's controls.
(Stock earbuds don't fit properly in my ears)
I don't know of any otologist that has made an earbud that fits all. Stock or otherwise. Every ear is different from each other. Even the two on your head.
Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.
I'm sorry, but replacing 5 intuitive buttons with 3 buttons, a multi-color blinking LED, and page long set of instructions to decode it all just to make it a little bit smaller is not good interface design.
This is a crock.
The instructions are no more complicated than the original shuffle, they are somewhat more simple actually. Go look up the chart of various blinking lights etc. that explain what's going on with the original shuffle and you will see for yourself.
Conflating the description of the indicator lights with the action of the controls makes for good humorous copy, but it does not reflect the actual operation of the device. Just as with the previous generation shuffle, one can ignore the lights altogether and just focus on operating the buttons.
Looked at that way, what they have done is replace 5 intuitive buttons with two intuitive buttons and one less than intuitive, but easily "discoverable" one.
People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.
It took me all of five minutes to discover how the headset buttons worked when I got my iPhone and I'm sure others will have similar experiences. The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.
People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.
I have a theory on this: people freak out when they're only given ONE option. Even if it's the only one they need or will ever use! Go figure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.
Now that's a funny thing... I actually noticed my iPhone controller flexing "less" last December (I'm not joking) and now it's perfectly normal again. Still, it always operated as expected, it just felt different. Weird...
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.
That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.
I'm not in need of the new shuffle, but I was intrigued in the copy of this article that suggests the new headphones are compatible with iPhone!
I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
The Apple website doesn't indicate they are compatible -- has anyone tried them with their iPhone? Maybe an iPhone software update will be required?
e.
The headphones are conpatible in that they will send audio, pause/play and forward reverse a track, but the other commands won't work, including the volume. You have to get an iPod Touch or the next version of the iPhone.
I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
e.
Thank you. This proves my point that nobody knows that "everybody" uses Apples headphones on their products for this very reason alone. All I hear on here is -"9 out of 10", "blah, blah, blah"
That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.
So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...
And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse?
I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.
With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.
Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.
If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.
People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.
I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.
With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.
Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.
If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.
People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.
I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!
I just think you're being so overly dramatic about such a simple and intuitive thing. \
I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!
Just like a ten year old kid could learn all the patterns for the controls, a ten year old kid can probably also learn how to use all the common UNIX command line tools in an evening, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to inflict that on everyone else.
Don't worry, us adults will get along fine with it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
Perhaps the skills used to operate your mouse?
Quote:
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.
If you're fiddling around with iPod controls while riding a bike it's probably going to end badly regardless of whether you can operate said controls or not.
Do people genuinely find these controls too complicated? Just look at everything you do, either with computers or other devices - is it really that hard to click a button three times?
So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...
Thanks for the strawman. You should be a political pundit.
Quote:
And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?
I think the point is that I wouldn't do it with just a single button. All this seems to be a solution to an unnecessary agenda.
Now that is one of the nicest things you have ever done, i.e., to include me in such intelligent company.
Thank you,
Abster2core.
Abster2core, don't even waste your time with that child. The boy truly believes he is God's gift, sadly he needs a lesson in respect. Again, it must be nice when he's behind his little keyboard and monitor, if he ever talked to me the this way in person he'd be walking funny and squeezing his ass cheeks to type.
Comments
Hmmm, time to get my ear-canals upgraded in order to use the shuffle's controls.
(Stock earbuds don't fit properly in my ears)
I don't know of any otologist that has made an earbud that fits all. Stock or otherwise. Every ear is different from each other. Even the two on your head.
Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.
I'm sorry, but replacing 5 intuitive buttons with 3 buttons, a multi-color blinking LED, and page long set of instructions to decode it all just to make it a little bit smaller is not good interface design.
This is a crock.
The instructions are no more complicated than the original shuffle, they are somewhat more simple actually. Go look up the chart of various blinking lights etc. that explain what's going on with the original shuffle and you will see for yourself.
Conflating the description of the indicator lights with the action of the controls makes for good humorous copy, but it does not reflect the actual operation of the device. Just as with the previous generation shuffle, one can ignore the lights altogether and just focus on operating the buttons.
Looked at that way, what they have done is replace 5 intuitive buttons with two intuitive buttons and one less than intuitive, but easily "discoverable" one.
People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.
It took me all of five minutes to discover how the headset buttons worked when I got my iPhone and I'm sure others will have similar experiences. The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.
This is a crock.
It took me all of five minutes to discover how the headset buttons worked when I got my iPhone and I'm sure others will have similar experiences.
There are buttons on my iPhone headset?!?
People have been using these headset buttons with iPhones and iPod touches for a while now and no one has complained. All of a sudden because it's now the only option on the low-end shuffle it's a big deal? Not.
I have a theory on this: people freak out when they're only given ONE option. Even if it's the only one they need or will ever use! Go figure...
The only downside I have seen in practical use is that the control is based on a flexing piece of metal and thus craps out or is very hard to use in sub-zero weather (which there has been a lot of lately) because the metal won't flex properly.
Now that's a funny thing... I actually noticed my iPhone controller flexing "less" last December (I'm not joking) and now it's perfectly normal again. Still, it always operated as expected, it just felt different. Weird...
I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
The Apple website doesn't indicate they are compatible -- has anyone tried them with their iPhone? Maybe an iPhone software update will be required?
e.
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse? Jesus, everybody's been doing the same for ages with their iPhone headphones and no-one's ever complained. Why? Because it makes sense! Ask anyone.
That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.
I'm not in need of the new shuffle, but I was intrigued in the copy of this article that suggests the new headphones are compatible with iPhone!
I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
The Apple website doesn't indicate they are compatible -- has anyone tried them with their iPhone? Maybe an iPhone software update will be required?
e.
The headphones are conpatible in that they will send audio, pause/play and forward reverse a track, but the other commands won't work, including the volume. You have to get an iPod Touch or the next version of the iPhone.
I'd love to have volume control on the headphones (not to mention rewind/ffwd and voiceover) since my iPhone sits in my pocket when I'm out and about.
e.
Thank you. This proves my point that nobody knows that "everybody" uses Apples headphones on their products for this very reason alone. All I hear on here is -"9 out of 10", "blah, blah, blah"
There are buttons on my iPhone headset?!?
If not, there will be.
This whole shuffle outcry is ridiculous. Not intending to sound too fanboyish . . .
0) If you can't learn the few simple gestures it takes to run this remote, this product
is not for you. Move along. My ten-year-old will love this device because he
couldn't stand the lack of playlists on the previous model, and he would master
the remote in about 15 seconds. Same for any teen or college student you know.
1) Apple would love you to give this a shot and then decide to upgrade to premium
earbuds that I'm sure will be released soon. They'll have the remote control on them and
sound great -- and cost about as much as the shuffle itself -- and they'll sell.
2) Apple would love you to use any earbuds or car-stereo conversion kit you like, so
they'll also offer to sell you a little connector cable with the remote on it, and an "in" jack
for your favorite cable. Coming soon, I'm sure.
3) Apple would love you to take a few minutes to learn the interface, because it's great on
your iPhone and probably future devices as well. I for one would love to get the
hypothetical cable I mentioned in #2 above, because a quick click or two on that remote
would beat picking up my iPhone in traffic, hitting the button, sliding my thumb across the
lower portion of the screen, possibly hitting the iPod icon, and finally tapping pause on the
display, or sliding the volume slider up or down.
Would it surprise me if Apple ended up making more money on premuim earbud sales
and cable connectors than they do on shuffles? Not really.
I think the trolls are just whining because many of them have never seen this before.
Sony MD players and all kinds of similar portable sound devices have had similar remotes
for decades. They are familiar to many audiophiles around the world, and the one Apple
have implemented is pretty good, really.
That argument works for three things, play pause, skip forward and skip back. The iPhone already had those. Shuffle adds more. The control for skipping playlists seems pretty arcane.
So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...
And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?
But complex how?! That is precisely what I don't understand... the only thing that changed is the position of the controls and they are simplified in the sense that it only takes one button to do everything! How can it be worse?
I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.
With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.
Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.
If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.
People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.
It's hard to be swayed by an argument based on cost when they raised the price.
I was taking about Apple making more money by lowering their manufacturing cost, not the other way around.
I guess it depends on how you understand "simple". Simpler to build? Probably. Simpler to fit into a smaller package? Undoubtedly. Simpler to operate? Perhaps with practise, but categorically false for an uninitiated user who has to unlearn the way he's done the same sort of operations in the past.
With the previous Shuffle's input system, there were five buttons which did five distinct categories of things. If you wanted to go forward, you used the forward button; if you wanted to go backward, you used the backward button, etc. You could learn how to operate it just by looking at it - you never had to read any manuals.
Now, you have a single button that takes the place of three of the original five, and you have to keep track of how many times you've clicked the button to make it do different things. You'd absolutely need to spend more time figuring out how to get it to do all the same things you could already do before.
If it takes longer for a person of average cognitive ability to understand thing A than to understand the functionally equivalent thing B, then B is by definition simpler than A.
People have been trained to associate tasks with a command interface that is differentiated spatially rather than temporally, and for many of them, there's going to be significant resistance to unlearning all that. For such people, it is most assuredly not simpler.
I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!
I just think you're being so overly dramatic about such a simple and intuitive thing.
I understand your point of view and they're valid points... but for way more complex operations, not the kind we're talking about here. Come on, let's be realistic: like someone said above, a 10 year-old kid would learn this in a minute. Hell, I figured out my iPhone controller even before I had one, just by watching the keynote video!
Just like a ten year old kid could learn all the patterns for the controls, a ten year old kid can probably also learn how to use all the common UNIX command line tools in an evening, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to inflict that on everyone else.
lolololololololololololol
Don't worry, us adults will get along fine with it...
Apple took something that was so simplified and now made it so complex. What are we missing?
Perhaps the skills used to operate your mouse?
How exactly are controls on headphones easier for bikers, rowers, etc, etc?? Your hand is closer to your hip than your neck.
If you're fiddling around with iPod controls while riding a bike it's probably going to end badly regardless of whether you can operate said controls or not.
Do people genuinely find these controls too complicated? Just look at everything you do, either with computers or other devices - is it really that hard to click a button three times?
Now that's something to talk about... this discussion is pointless.
Cheers!
So you're complaining because you have more functionality than before?! Some people are difficult to please, that's for sure...
Thanks for the strawman. You should be a political pundit.
And how on earth would you implement such a feature on a single button controller, if not the way Apple did? Keep in mind that the aim was simplifying operation (one button does all), while not having to rely on using the actual player unit (hence moving the controller to the headphones). You're not telling me you would place 5 different buttons on the headphone controller, would you?
I think the point is that I wouldn't do it with just a single button. All this seems to be a solution to an unnecessary agenda.
Now that is one of the nicest things you have ever done, i.e., to include me in such intelligent company.
Thank you,
Abster2core.
Abster2core, don't even waste your time with that child. The boy truly believes he is God's gift, sadly he needs a lesson in respect. Again, it must be nice when he's behind his little keyboard and monitor, if he ever talked to me the this way in person he'd be walking funny and squeezing his ass cheeks to type.