High-quality unboxing photos of Apple's third-gen iPod shuffle

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    msnlymsnly Posts: 378member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michaelb View Post




    Oh well, I use Sennheissers. Looking forward to wiring new buds onto Apple's cord.



    I just got a new pair of Sennheissers and there's no way in hell I'm even thinking of slicing the cord, those buds sound like molten chocolate.
  • Reply 62 of 78
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud;1389755

    Has anybody else noticed how all the iPods (including the 2G shuffle) in an Apple store have gigantic [B



    Bose[/B] headphones attached to them? Just a thought- no trolling.



    Using ear buds on the display models would be unhygienic and gross. Of course they use padded, over-ear headphones in a setting where people are going to be taking them on and off all day long. Since Apple doesn't make any of those, Bose it is. They could just as easily be Sony or AKG, but it's not a tacit admission that Apple doesn't think their earbuds are up to snuff.
  • Reply 63 of 78
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MsNly View Post


    I just got a new pair of Sennheissers and there's no way in hell I'm even thinking of slicing the cord, those buds sound like molten chocolate.



    One of these might do the trick (once they are available of course).





    http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/12/s...mpatible-ipod/



    Maybe not the best solution, but as noted in my previous post, apple has the power to force industry to change, we might see a lot more headphones compatible with the shuffle in the near future. That would be a huge plus if these controls were made to work for other devices too (I understand some ipods can use them?).
  • Reply 64 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    One of these might do the trick (once they are available of course).





    http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/12/s...mpatible-ipod/



    Maybe not the best solution, but as noted in my previous post, apple has the power to force industry to change, we might see a lot more headphones compatible with the shuffle in the near future. That would be a huge plus if these controls were made to work for other devices too (I understand some ipods can use them?).



    This looks nice, but it will ruin the entire elegance of the idea... fisrt you have the iPod itself, then you have the bulge of the remote, then the bulge of the adapter, then you have the headphones...



    That's 2 bulges too many.



    I wish Apple would just make the in-ear headphones with remote in a short-cord version so I can clip the iPod to my lapel, short sleeve or shirt pocket like I would like to. Better yet, put the buttons on the iPod so I can use my existing buds.
  • Reply 65 of 78
    Is the hole sturdy enough and the right size to use this as a keychain?
  • Reply 66 of 78
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    Pardon my ignorance, I've never used a digital music player, but how does the shuffle differ from a $10 MP3 player?
  • Reply 67 of 78
    ajpriceajprice Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    Pardon my ignorance, I've never used a digital music player, but how does the shuffle differ from a $10 MP3 player?





    http://shopper.cnet.com/buy-mp3-play...ce9%20asc#sort



    Show me a $10 player with 4Gb of storage and I'll tell you.
  • Reply 68 of 78
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajprice View Post


    http://shopper.cnet.com/buy-mp3-play...ce9%20asc#sort



    Show me a $10 player with 4Gb of storage and I'll tell you.



    As I said, I'm not familiar with MP3 players. Since I have a 4 GB USB drive that I paid under $10 for, I assumed MP3 players were in the same ballpark. Mea culpa.



    However, what IS the difference between a (more expensive) MP3 player and a Shuffle? If I bought one of them for my daughter(s), which would be the most bang for the buck - excluding the form factor?
  • Reply 69 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    If they made it waterproof...you know that's going through the washer.



    that is entirely possible it happened to my 1st gen shuffle. now it's only a usb memory drive.
  • Reply 70 of 78
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    From Tales of the Goofy Side, another use for the new Shuffle:



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/earlysound/3350598708/
  • Reply 71 of 78
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    As I said, I'm not familiar with MP3 players. Since I have a 4 GB USB drive that I paid under $10 for, I assumed MP3 players were in the same ballpark. Mea culpa.



    However, what IS the difference between a (more expensive) MP3 player and a Shuffle? If I bought one of them for my daughter(s), which would be the most bang for the buck - excluding the form factor?



    For the Shuffle, I think iTunes integration is the biggest advantage. iTunes can autofill it with very little input. If you only use it as a shuffling player and don't worry about playlists or the voice feedback, it's the simplest player out there.
  • Reply 72 of 78
    akaaka Posts: 7member
    In light of all the Green Apple ads lately, 2 words: Wasteful packaging.
  • Reply 73 of 78
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    As I said, I'm not familiar with MP3 players. Since I have a 4 GB USB drive that I paid under $10 for, I assumed MP3 players were in the same ballpark. Mea culpa.



    However, what IS the difference between a (more expensive) MP3 player and a Shuffle? If I bought one of them for my daughter(s), which would be the most bang for the buck - excluding the form factor?



    The main difference would be the ability to use iTunes to manage your music and playlists. And it's absurdly teeny tiny.



    It's too bad they decided to price it at $70 rather than $50, but that'll change if they don't sell like hot cakes. $50 is a better price to encourage "what the heck, this would be a cool gift idea" purchases. Having said that, I paid $100 for the first shuffle when it came out (or was it $129?).
  • Reply 74 of 78
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Using ear buds on the display models would be unhygienic and gross. Of course they use padded, over-ear headphones in a setting where people are going to be taking them on and off all day long. Since Apple doesn't make any of those, Bose it is. They could just as easily be Sony or AKG, but it's not a tacit admission that Apple doesn't think their earbuds are up to snuff.



    Ok fine. So when and if they display the new shuffle with the Bose headphones engaged and you can't do anything with the Bose attached- isn't that slightly asinine?

    Will they post a sign -"For listening only- all other features crippled"?
  • Reply 75 of 78
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aka View Post


    In light of all the Green Apple ads lately, 2 words: Wasteful packaging.



    I hope you're being sarcastic, did you see all the stuff that's packed in that box? It doesn't look huge, and I don't see where you're going to make the huge size reduction like you seem to suggest. It's not as if it's a bubble pack on a huge hanging card done in a big double layer sealed plastic tombstone to prevent easy shoplifting.
  • Reply 76 of 78
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Ok fine. So when and if they display the new shuffle with the Bose headphones engaged and you can't do anything with the Bose attached- isn't that slightly asinine?

    Will they post a sign -"For listening only- all other features crippled"?



    That's a good point-- I guess there's no way for Apple to let people listen to the new shuffle, at the moment, which I agree is pretty lame. Actually, it's fairly insane, and ends up playing up the downside of the redesign right where Apple has the power to control the experience.



    They should have had an adapter dongle ready to go, instead of the usual Apple move of promising something in a while. It would have been a good point of sale demo that the new on-the-cord control scheme needn't limit your choice of headphones. Oh, and the adapter should cost $9.99, not $19.99 like it probably will-- cheap enough so that folks won't feel unduly fleeced if they want to roll their own cans.



    I wonder why Apple so frequently does this "here's a cool thing that is somewhat limited in compatibility without another bit which we will get around to selling in due course" routine? The other bit is usually a trivially simple thing, something that surely doesn't take much engineering or design time, yet it brings up the rear by weeks or months. It just seems like it would be much more effective to be able to say "for those of you who want to use the new hotness with your old peripherals, here's the solution, available now."
  • Reply 77 of 78
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    CNET review of the new shuffle:



    The good: The third-generation Apple iPod Shuffle is as light as a feather and as small as a paper clip, and it includes VoiceOver cues, and improved support for podcasts and audiobooks.



    The bad: You need to operate the Shuffle using a pill-size remote control on your headphones, battery life isn't great, features are few, and the design is a bit boring.



    The bottom line: The third-generation iPod Shuffle is the next best thing to an invisible MP3 player, but the quirky controls and microscopic design make it a limited recommendation.
  • Reply 78 of 78
    lewchenkolewchenko Posts: 111member
    Seems expensive too. (Especially as the old shuffles are now 1/2 the price of this new one)



    £60 in the UK, which seems a fair bit higher than the $-£ exchange rate.



    I personally find the design boring and very non apple. Miniaturization for the sake of it ? Perhaps.
Sign In or Register to comment.