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.
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.
I'm puzzled why you'd say that about SpamSandwich's comment.
As it is, standard practice is supposed to be that those that make the original claims should be the ones that back them up. For example, rather than taking the presense of a chip and assuming it's encrypted to get license fees, those that started the story should have taken the simple steps to show that it actually is encrypted rather than whipping up the hysterics by saying it is without having done adequate verification. The presence of a chip means little, it could be a plain serial code or encrypted, without reading the signal, they don't know the difference.
I'm in complete agreement with your statement. And objective talk like that will get you labeled fanboy/fanboi/boy very quickly. I'm surprised you haven't taken flak already.
Obviously iLounge has made claims and assertions with no apparent evidence to support the existence of an "authentication chip". This is the second time Apple has been accused of using an alleged authentication chip. Supposition is not evidence. Maybe iLounge will present their evidence possibly with help from EFF engineers.
But Spam made reference to "what media assault", that there was none because he hadn't heard about one. Because it wasn't the one mentioned in his neck of the woods.
His statement about toning down rhetoric immediately following that "what media assault" leads me to believe that "toning down the 'rhetoric' " was referring to the AI story and not the media assault it mentioned.
The link I posted shows that "media assault" is not hyperbole given the number of sites running with iLounges' article. This reminds me of the "stories" about the "paint" one guy found flaking off of a black MacBook at an Apple Store. Lots of postings, accusations, and supposition, and it all started with one poster, and was never shown to be an issue.
I submit that if Spam had done a second or two of research instead of relying on post counts as substance because he was not hand-fed a link, he would have posted differently if at all.
So if his last sentence was aimed at the media assault itself of which he was unaware, then I apologize for my confusion.
I do not apologize for a low post count. I frequent the site often and post little. Post counts are for egos to encourage hits. They may allude to substance to some people but they do not imbue substance.
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.
I think that's the point. If you are integrating this into the other iPod lines, I don't think Apple would be able to get as clear of a gauge of how people like this new feature. Most people would probably just use the tried-and-true click wheel or touch interfaces instead of this new feature. With the shuffle, they could remove all of the older interface methods, introduce this new one as the only interface, and see how people respond. I, like Apple, I'm sure, am more interested to hear what people have to say once they are out in the wild, instead of just speculation or refusal to adopt a new way of thinking. The Shuffle makes perfect sense, then, since the people also buying these probably won't bother to replace the headphones with something else, where that might not be the case with the higher-priced iPods, giving Apple another reason to try this out on this market first.
You BS- if they're not better than why do you use them?
I use MDR-A35 - excellent headphones $15.
$15 headphones cost $3 to manufacture, so whatever you mean by "excellent" is not what most people would mean.
That said, all ears are different and a cheap headphone X can certainly sound better than a cheap headphone Y due to a better fit or a spectral response that better matches your own spectral sensitivity, not to mention taste.
Actually it's you who is being the idiot fanboy by defending Apple. Do you even know what fanboy means? We're the ones CRITICIZING Apple, which is pretty much ANTI-fanboy.
Back to the article, we're being reactionary because Apple has done this over and over again in the past. It has engineered an OS that can only be installed on its hardware. It engineered a Magsafe charger that nobody else is allowed to manufacture so MacBook owners must pay 2x more for a replacement A/C adapter than the market rates. It has engineered an iPod connector that any car or charger manufacturer must license or they can't interface.
We're reacting because, as above, Apple has a long track record of making accessories that are Apple-specific and not letting 3rd parties in on the game. They squelch competition. That's really not cool.
I wasn't defending Apple, moron, I was commenting on the first LOGICAL post. I didn't state wether I agreed or not. got it now?
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.
From mining Apple Stores data and Made for iPod licensing data, Apple has a pretty good idea of how many 3rd party headphones/earbuds are actually being sold for iPods. Though I only have anecdotal data, I think the reality is more likely that 20% (or less) of consumers choose to use a different headphone/earbud. And an even lower percentage of those who use the low-cost shuffle would shell out more dollars for another set of headphones.
I can't wait till we find out that this chip is nothing more than a bit of circuitry that enables multiple signals down one line (in this case, the three buttons having separate signals.). If it has more than that, I'll be SORELY disappointed in Apple. (well, already am... but the pushing the line thing)
Already I think the remote built into the headphone wire was a bad idea. At least sell little remote dongles that allow standard headphones to be plugged into it!
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons!
That would seem why it makes good sense to start with a new product.
First there is the appeal of a tiny iPod with 4GB capacity. A lot of people won't care about making it smaller but a LOT will. Control surfaces limit the miniaturization so it makes sense to put them on the earphone cord. They obviously had this in mind when they developed the new Touch headphones. With the controls on the cord as the selling point of this iPod trying to put additional controls on the Shuffle itself is just redundant.
The 2GB Shuffle is EOLd but the 1GB is still around for those who don't want the new one. Nobody is being forced to be locked into the new Shuffle. It doesn't make sense to redesign the *same* Shuffle just to use new earphones. How many more of those would they sell? Not a lot I'm guessing.
It's very easy. Buy what you like. Freewill is also about buying the new one if it works for you.
I don't think this is a DRM conspiracy. I'm not even sure I'd believe it's Apple trying to "tax" accessories. I just think it's piss-poor design on Apple's part. A design philosophy of minimizing buttons and maximizing hardware "sleakness" carried way, way too far.
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.
Don't get me wrong, Apple has every right to innovate (and thus make obsolete) its own products as well as competitors' similar products, but its an entirely different issue when they start to actively engage in acts of eshewing entire product markets, something Apple has been doing more and more as of late. There's nothing inherently wrong or inferior with the way "standard" earphones connect to devices, especially my $130 Bang & Olufsens. It is perplexing that Apple would create a product like the Shuffle 4G whose functionality and use is governed by an accessory, and headphones are definately accessories to music players.
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 certainly agree that it has been over-engineered. I can't think of any appreciable gain from making the player any smaller than it already was - other than bragging rights - and the bizarre remembering how many clicks you need to make your player move forwards or backwards just seems infinitely less usable and intuative than the 5 buttons that came before it. Let's hope Apple quickly move on from this 'embarrasment'.
So much BS for one Apple product. Apple has a line of products that don't only their own headphone, but one $79 iPod that may fit a niche has people going ballistic. And what's funny, people comparing Apple to Microsoft again. Bringing up Windows and Zunes to make a point. How one little addition to Apple's product line can shatter the world.
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 then don't buy the product or enable your 802.11n wifi on your imac, it's that simple. Besides the old shuffle is there, if you want to use your 300 dollar headphones with it.
Comments
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.
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.
A gift... that's so nice of you.... please send it FEDEX my # 345Q0938T21F002.
What a prince!
You're welcome, but wait awhile before tracking
I'm puzzled why you'd say that about SpamSandwich's comment.
As it is, standard practice is supposed to be that those that make the original claims should be the ones that back them up. For example, rather than taking the presense of a chip and assuming it's encrypted to get license fees, those that started the story should have taken the simple steps to show that it actually is encrypted rather than whipping up the hysterics by saying it is without having done adequate verification. The presence of a chip means little, it could be a plain serial code or encrypted, without reading the signal, they don't know the difference.
I'm in complete agreement with your statement. And objective talk like that will get you labeled fanboy/fanboi/boy very quickly. I'm surprised you haven't taken flak already.
Obviously iLounge has made claims and assertions with no apparent evidence to support the existence of an "authentication chip". This is the second time Apple has been accused of using an alleged authentication chip. Supposition is not evidence. Maybe iLounge will present their evidence possibly with help from EFF engineers.
But Spam made reference to "what media assault", that there was none because he hadn't heard about one. Because it wasn't the one mentioned in his neck of the woods.
His statement about toning down rhetoric immediately following that "what media assault" leads me to believe that "toning down the 'rhetoric' " was referring to the AI story and not the media assault it mentioned.
The link I posted shows that "media assault" is not hyperbole given the number of sites running with iLounges' article. This reminds me of the "stories" about the "paint" one guy found flaking off of a black MacBook at an Apple Store. Lots of postings, accusations, and supposition, and it all started with one poster, and was never shown to be an issue.
I submit that if Spam had done a second or two of research instead of relying on post counts as substance because he was not hand-fed a link, he would have posted differently if at all.
So if his last sentence was aimed at the media assault itself of which he was unaware, then I apologize for my confusion.
I do not apologize for a low post count. I frequent the site often and post little. Post counts are for egos to encourage hits. They may allude to substance to some people but they do not imbue substance.
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons! They could have started including the cable on the other iPods... the Nano, the Classic, the Touch, and even thd old Shuffle, just to give third parties a head start on making adapters and headphones that use the controls. At least all their other iPods have controls on the face of the player so you're not required to use the Apple headphones.
I think that's the point. If you are integrating this into the other iPod lines, I don't think Apple would be able to get as clear of a gauge of how people like this new feature. Most people would probably just use the tried-and-true click wheel or touch interfaces instead of this new feature. With the shuffle, they could remove all of the older interface methods, introduce this new one as the only interface, and see how people respond. I, like Apple, I'm sure, am more interested to hear what people have to say once they are out in the wild, instead of just speculation or refusal to adopt a new way of thinking. The Shuffle makes perfect sense, then, since the people also buying these probably won't bother to replace the headphones with something else, where that might not be the case with the higher-priced iPods, giving Apple another reason to try this out on this market first.
You BS- if they're not better than why do you use them?
I use MDR-A35 - excellent headphones $15.
$15 headphones cost $3 to manufacture, so whatever you mean by "excellent" is not what most people would mean.
That said, all ears are different and a cheap headphone X can certainly sound better than a cheap headphone Y due to a better fit or a spectral response that better matches your own spectral sensitivity, not to mention taste.
Actually it's you who is being the idiot fanboy by defending Apple. Do you even know what fanboy means? We're the ones CRITICIZING Apple, which is pretty much ANTI-fanboy.
Back to the article, we're being reactionary because Apple has done this over and over again in the past. It has engineered an OS that can only be installed on its hardware. It engineered a Magsafe charger that nobody else is allowed to manufacture so MacBook owners must pay 2x more for a replacement A/C adapter than the market rates. It has engineered an iPod connector that any car or charger manufacturer must license or they can't interface.
We're reacting because, as above, Apple has a long track record of making accessories that are Apple-specific and not letting 3rd parties in on the game. They squelch competition. That's really not cool.
I wasn't defending Apple, moron, I was commenting on the first LOGICAL post. I didn't state wether I agreed or not. got it now?
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.
From mining Apple Stores data and Made for iPod licensing data, Apple has a pretty good idea of how many 3rd party headphones/earbuds are actually being sold for iPods. Though I only have anecdotal data, I think the reality is more likely that 20% (or less) of consumers choose to use a different headphone/earbud. And an even lower percentage of those who use the low-cost shuffle would shell out more dollars for another set of headphones.
Already I think the remote built into the headphone wire was a bad idea. At least sell little remote dongles that allow standard headphones to be plugged into it!
Still, the new Shuffle is the one Apple product where it makes the least sense to incorporate this new control scheme because they removed all the buttons!
That would seem why it makes good sense to start with a new product.
First there is the appeal of a tiny iPod with 4GB capacity. A lot of people won't care about making it smaller but a LOT will. Control surfaces limit the miniaturization so it makes sense to put them on the earphone cord. They obviously had this in mind when they developed the new Touch headphones. With the controls on the cord as the selling point of this iPod trying to put additional controls on the Shuffle itself is just redundant.
The 2GB Shuffle is EOLd but the 1GB is still around for those who don't want the new one. Nobody is being forced to be locked into the new Shuffle. It doesn't make sense to redesign the *same* Shuffle just to use new earphones. How many more of those would they sell? Not a lot I'm guessing.
It's very easy. Buy what you like. Freewill is also about buying the new one if it works for you.
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.
Don't get me wrong, Apple has every right to innovate (and thus make obsolete) its own products as well as competitors' similar products, but its an entirely different issue when they start to actively engage in acts of eshewing entire product markets, something Apple has been doing more and more as of late. There's nothing inherently wrong or inferior with the way "standard" earphones connect to devices, especially my $130 Bang & Olufsens. It is perplexing that Apple would create a product like the Shuffle 4G whose functionality and use is governed by an accessory, and headphones are definately accessories to music players.
I still prefer the original. 6 key selling features the old has over the new.
1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage
3. Nice sound quality
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhere)
Perhaps you should do some due diligence before you open you mouth.
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 certainly agree that it has been over-engineered. I can't think of any appreciable gain from making the player any smaller than it already was - other than bragging rights - and the bizarre remembering how many clicks you need to make your player move forwards or backwards just seems infinitely less usable and intuative than the 5 buttons that came before it. Let's hope Apple quickly move on from this 'embarrasment'.
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 then don't buy the product or enable your 802.11n wifi on your imac, it's that simple. Besides the old shuffle is there, if you want to use your 300 dollar headphones with it.
Perhaps you should do some due diligence before you open you mouth.
Perhaps you should:
Originally Posted by rain
I still prefer the original. 6 key selling features the old has over the new.
1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage He means direct to USB.
3. Nice sound quality Not 2G nor 3G equals the original.
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator Doesn't need a voice.
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhereAgain he means direct charge no dock or cable required.
Why don't you read before you bark?
You BS- if they're not better than why do you use them?
I use MDR-A35 - excellent headphones $15.
Dude I said I have used them before on my ipods because they are cheaper than buying the stock ones from Apple but they both sound the same to me.