We don't apply that same logic to any other aspect of the computing world. For example, Microsoft charges obscene amounts of money to be a member of their developer network, and their dev tools by themselves are very pricy. A single seat MSDN license is $10,000 dollars - that's what a corporate user pays. Yes, you heard me right: for my company to develop software for M$, we have to fork out $10,000 per developer seat.
This is completely false. The dev tools are very inexpensive ranging from free to $18K (before current discounts) for THREE years and that includes Team Suite AND MSDN Premium which isn't anywhere close to required. For anyone to do professional development the cost is no more than $249.99 from Amazon for Visual Studio Standard or if you're willing to put up with the limitations of Visual Studio Express...$0.
Actually, MS is currently offering an "switcher" discount so that VS 2008 Standard is $100 off and Pro is $250 off. So standard edition is only $149. Hardly obscene.
Quote:
Want to use TFS for integration and code manegement? Better be prepared to take it in the shorts, so to speak.
Only if you want to. Team Suite is not a requirement. Or for that matter that great at the moment IMHO.
Quote:
By contrast, Apple charges $99 for a developer license for iPhone and gives away xcode and the other dev. tools for free. Why aren't you screaming about how predatory MS is? By the logic flying around here, Microsoft ought to make these development systems available for free, wouldn't you think? After all, what right has MS to control or charge people for the tools and knowledge required to develop for their platform?
VS Express Edition: $0.
XNA Game Studio 3.0: $0.
XNA Creator Club: $99
Because they do make these development systems available for free.
Quote:
The whole thing just screams of people blabbing without really thinking, in my opinion.
soon there will be a lot of compatible headphones, just because apple builds a lot of shuffles- and people buy them, so other companies will pay whatever small fee apple is charging and they will make money too...
that's the way things go
companies innovate and if they are successful others will follow and pay fees.
apple has to pay fees for mp3 license to fraunhofer others will pay fees to apple, so what?
Maybe, 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.
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.
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.
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'.
first post. was also motivated to register due to disappointment with the new shuffle design. crazy, i know, but i think i have romantic feelings for my current, shuffle, so any change hits home with me. this IS a great discussion.
i agree with the ilounge opinion, and those expressed here that the new shuffle is over engineered and unnecessarily complicated for it's general purpose/use.
i also agree with the person who theorizes that this control feature is something of a test balloon for apple. it WOULD be crazy to try something potentially disastrous on the iphone line.
i use my shuffle for running/biking/lifting. i insist on having the headphone cord behind me. i would therefore never buy a player on which i couldn't access controls while exercising.
the good news, as several pointed out, is that the current design will probably be available for quite some time.
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.
You mean, "Stores data via USB flash drive"
3. Nice sound quality Not 2G nor 3G equals the original.
Funny my son and I just got them and they don't sound any different than the 10 other iPods we own. I even used my Sony NCs and it sounded no different.
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator Doesn't need a voice.
Like the Green. Orange and Red indicator lights
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhereAgain he means direct charge no dock or cable required.
Like it shows in the manual.Could you give an example where no cable is required?
Why don't you read before you bark?
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
I just don't get this analysis. A fundamental question should be this: why should a platform, developed at great expense and with great effort by any entity, be open to development by any third party without some sort of fee?
We don't apply that same logic to any other aspect of the computing world. For example, Microsoft charges obscene amounts of money to be a member of their developer network, and their dev tools by themselves are very pricy. A single seat MSDN license is $10,000 dollars - that's what a corporate user pays. Yes, you heard me right: for my company to develop software for M$, we have to fork out $10,000 per developer seat. Want to use TFS for integration and code manegement? Better be prepared to take it in the shorts, so to speak. By contrast, Apple charges $99 for a developer license for iPhone and gives away xcode and the other dev. tools for free. Why aren't you screaming about how predatory MS is? By the logic flying around here, Microsoft ought to make these development systems available for free, wouldn't you think? After all, what right has MS to control or charge people for the tools and knowledge required to develop for their platform?
My point is this: Apple developed the platform, and financed that development, and Apple invested the time and effort to bring the product to market. Apple has a reasonable expectation to profit from that effort. Why should someone else, a headphone maker for instance, have a reasonable expectation to profit from Apple's platform without paying Apple some degree of royalty for the knowledge required to do so? The whole thing just screams of people blabbing without really thinking, in my opinion.
Earphones are not dependent of any particular platform, there is no reason for them to be. Due to the fact that they are devices you actually stick in a bodily orifice, earphones are a very personal piece of electronics that one chooses for a ton of different reasons that have been stated all over this thread. Since Apple doesn't make earphones that satisfy all of those different variables, why would you be so willing to give up the option to use earphones of your choosing just to use an ipod. I think Apple is floating this one out to see how well it goes over. What's next? Would you be OK with chips in all their computers that only allow the use of internal and external hard drives, RAM, video cards, monitors, desktop speakers, printers, network devices, etc., that Apple puts a sticker with a piece of fruit on it available only from them requiring proprietary cables, adapters, etc. to use them?
If you're OK with that, you're a dumb-ass. Should that day come, Dark Overlord Gates will start to become the recipient of my money.
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
Funny. Many people defending a product they've never seen.
Well, not really. It's almost always better to see and hold a device before you buy it. However, if you have half a brain you generally do a little research up front to see if it warrants the effort to do so. You don't have to hold a product in your hand to read a spec sheet, look at pictures, or watch a product video to know it's features and understand how it works, or see that it doesn't work with something you already own and want to use because you can plainly determine such from the available info from the seller showing it's fundamental features and design (and limitations). I've never seen my own heart but I know pretty much how it operates in laymen's terms.
I can't imagine these new ones selling than the older ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen has buttons again, if apple ever had a reason to backtrack on a product, this is it.
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.
Twenty percent (or less) is not insignificant. But since it's not the majority, they can F off?
Mining Apple Stores data and Made for iPod licensing data gives Apple an idea of what THEY sell in THEIR stores. It's not the best way to determine the sale of non Apple products sold over all. It may give you an idea of how many products there are available, but not their total sales from all sources. The fact that there are (as I posted somewhere before) over a hundred different sets of earphones by other mfg. sold on the Apple store seems to say there are at least enough being sold that doing so is profitable—kind of like Apple sales in general. Apple only has 10% of the market on computers and phones combined, Using your numbers, why do they even bother to exist?
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
That's a really odd response. Do you really need to see the new ipod to know things like that you lose the controls if you use generic headphones?
For the most part those seem like valid points to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol
It's funny. On the first day, all the spoken menu stuff was lambasted as useless and unnecessary fluff.
But now that people can't access those 'useless' features with their existing headphones, it's the end of the world.
Apple's clearly wrong in this instance. But damn if the life-cycle of hate here isn't amusing.
I don't get what you're trying to say. The spoken stuff is pretty silly, and a screen would probably be better. And you can't control the unit AT ALL without the headphones. I don't see how the two points are contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
The usuals are whining now, but I bet someday all mobile devices requiring headphones will use such controls.
You think this is the start of a trend of devices with no buttons on them? I bet not.
I think you're wrong here, but I admire the fact that you seem to have an argument and have made up your own mind about things. Too much of this thread is being dominated by trolls like teckstud and his alt accounts and that contributes exactly zero to any real discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by action trousers
... i see lots of shuffles clipped on sleeves, waistbands, sportsbra straps, even hats, and though this is my anecdotal experience, i do pay attention as i am a product designer, in all those spottings seems like most folks are using aftermarket headphones. all my runner friends use some variation of an over-the-ear-clip design, claiming the ipod ones don't stay put. i do think the dollars will do the talking and i anticipate seeing an article in the not too distant future declaring the shuffle the most returned item in apple's yard.
I would argue that what you see here has nothing to do with any assumed poor quality of the iPod earbuds, it's just about making them stay in your ears instead of the "hanging" design of the basic earbuds. The "over-the-ear" type are well known to have the worst sound quality in general and also the most "leakage" to other people. I'm sure there are few people who haven't been driven crazy by some old guy on the bus or train that has the over the ear type thinking he is cool, when in fact he's just annoying. Personally, I use the Apple "in-ear" ones as they stay in your ears, have better sound than the original and also allow you to keep the volume significantly lower, which is much better for your ears.
I think you are going over the top with this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by action trousers
... this is the hardware version of DRM, the young people most responsible for the growth of consumer electronics are getting more savvy each day, and they don't put up with crap like proprietary headphones. why do you think the cell industry decided to standardize chargers? we are at that point where certain aspects of devices need to be universal.
This is really nothing like "the hardware equivalent of DRM" in that it has nothing to do with forcing you to use any particular piece of hardware, nor does it create any actual incompatibility with any other piece of hardware.
I think that's a point that people are seriously overlooking here.
ANY headphones will work in the shuffle, but you will lack controls because there are no controls on the device. All headphones therefore actually work in exactly the same way as they always have. All this talk of introducing incompatibilities is exactly backwards. Apple has made a new type of headset (an innovation) and purposely made it so that the plug is backwards compatible with other older headsets. They didn't have to do that.
You will shortly be able to use either of the two new types of headsets (with the controls), on the entire iPod line, (most will work already). On the cheap end "budget" model iPod however, there are no controls for playback beyond "shuffle" and "play." That's a much more accurate way to look at the situation.
Really guys lets not get worked up over nothing. This is possibly one of Apples better ideas that we have seen in recent times. In the end I'd be surprised if this improvement adds more that a $1.50 to the cost of a headphone set.
As other have stated I see this as a proving ground for the remote controls. Ideally they will port this capability to the next iPhone/Touch device. Hopefully the signaling is compatible with the mic input though there is a good possibility that they have simply repurposed the signal line. I really can really see this as being very popular on new devices like iPhone as it would allow you to keep the device in the pocket yet effectively control audio playback. For an iPhone it would be more desirable as you are far more likely to have the iPhone in a substantial pocket. Lets hop this does in fact work in combination with the mic input.
In the end there are a lot of people looking at this in a negative manner. Something I'm very willing to do when looking at the iMacs, but not with this new Shuffle. The new shuffle has many things going for it and this remote control is one of them. You do have to take a step back and look at it positively and also imagine how well this would work when ported to other new devices. In that vain it is an acceleration of the technical development of the head phone set and has even more to offer newer iPhones and other devices, if it get ported there.
ANY headphones will work in the shuffle, but you will lack controls because there are no controls on the device. All headphones therefore actually work in exactly the same way as they always have. All this talk of introducing incompatibilities is exactly backwards. Apple has made a new type of headset (an innovation) and purposely made it so that the plug is backwards compatible with other older headsets. They didn't have to do that.
Did you read your post dude? It makes zero sense.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
Are you suggesting that people carry 2 sets of headphones? One to get the music started... unplug it, plug in the next set so the music doesn't sound like shit.
Oh... oh... lets skip that track... unplug good headphones that don't sound like shit, plug in Apple headphones, hit the next track, unplug Apple headphones, plug in good headphones that don't sound like shit.
Yah... sounds like a great innovation. Real user friendly. .....
Comments
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.
Dude- What happened to the ones it came with? Try the MDR-A35- tell me they sound the same.
We don't apply that same logic to any other aspect of the computing world. For example, Microsoft charges obscene amounts of money to be a member of their developer network, and their dev tools by themselves are very pricy. A single seat MSDN license is $10,000 dollars - that's what a corporate user pays. Yes, you heard me right: for my company to develop software for M$, we have to fork out $10,000 per developer seat.
This is completely false. The dev tools are very inexpensive ranging from free to $18K (before current discounts) for THREE years and that includes Team Suite AND MSDN Premium which isn't anywhere close to required. For anyone to do professional development the cost is no more than $249.99 from Amazon for Visual Studio Standard or if you're willing to put up with the limitations of Visual Studio Express...$0.
Actually, MS is currently offering an "switcher" discount so that VS 2008 Standard is $100 off and Pro is $250 off. So standard edition is only $149. Hardly obscene.
Want to use TFS for integration and code manegement? Better be prepared to take it in the shorts, so to speak.
Only if you want to. Team Suite is not a requirement. Or for that matter that great at the moment IMHO.
By contrast, Apple charges $99 for a developer license for iPhone and gives away xcode and the other dev. tools for free. Why aren't you screaming about how predatory MS is? By the logic flying around here, Microsoft ought to make these development systems available for free, wouldn't you think? After all, what right has MS to control or charge people for the tools and knowledge required to develop for their platform?
VS Express Edition: $0.
XNA Game Studio 3.0: $0.
XNA Creator Club: $99
Because they do make these development systems available for free.
The whole thing just screams of people blabbing without really thinking, in my opinion.
Or folks spreading FUD. Like you.
soon there will be a lot of compatible headphones, just because apple builds a lot of shuffles- and people buy them, so other companies will pay whatever small fee apple is charging and they will make money too...
that's the way things go
companies innovate and if they are successful others will follow and pay fees.
apple has to pay fees for mp3 license to fraunhofer others will pay fees to apple, so what?
Maybe, 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.
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.
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.
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'.
first post. was also motivated to register due to disappointment with the new shuffle design. crazy, i know, but i think i have romantic feelings for my current, shuffle, so any change hits home with me. this IS a great discussion.
i agree with the ilounge opinion, and those expressed here that the new shuffle is over engineered and unnecessarily complicated for it's general purpose/use.
i also agree with the person who theorizes that this control feature is something of a test balloon for apple. it WOULD be crazy to try something potentially disastrous on the iphone line.
i use my shuffle for running/biking/lifting. i insist on having the headphone cord behind me. i would therefore never buy a player on which i couldn't access controls while exercising.
the good news, as several pointed out, is that the current design will probably be available for quite some time.
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?
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
I just don't get this analysis. A fundamental question should be this: why should a platform, developed at great expense and with great effort by any entity, be open to development by any third party without some sort of fee?
We don't apply that same logic to any other aspect of the computing world. For example, Microsoft charges obscene amounts of money to be a member of their developer network, and their dev tools by themselves are very pricy. A single seat MSDN license is $10,000 dollars - that's what a corporate user pays. Yes, you heard me right: for my company to develop software for M$, we have to fork out $10,000 per developer seat. Want to use TFS for integration and code manegement? Better be prepared to take it in the shorts, so to speak. By contrast, Apple charges $99 for a developer license for iPhone and gives away xcode and the other dev. tools for free. Why aren't you screaming about how predatory MS is? By the logic flying around here, Microsoft ought to make these development systems available for free, wouldn't you think? After all, what right has MS to control or charge people for the tools and knowledge required to develop for their platform?
My point is this: Apple developed the platform, and financed that development, and Apple invested the time and effort to bring the product to market. Apple has a reasonable expectation to profit from that effort. Why should someone else, a headphone maker for instance, have a reasonable expectation to profit from Apple's platform without paying Apple some degree of royalty for the knowledge required to do so? The whole thing just screams of people blabbing without really thinking, in my opinion.
Earphones are not dependent of any particular platform, there is no reason for them to be. Due to the fact that they are devices you actually stick in a bodily orifice, earphones are a very personal piece of electronics that one chooses for a ton of different reasons that have been stated all over this thread. Since Apple doesn't make earphones that satisfy all of those different variables, why would you be so willing to give up the option to use earphones of your choosing just to use an ipod. I think Apple is floating this one out to see how well it goes over. What's next? Would you be OK with chips in all their computers that only allow the use of internal and external hard drives, RAM, video cards, monitors, desktop speakers, printers, network devices, etc., that Apple puts a sticker with a piece of fruit on it available only from them requiring proprietary cables, adapters, etc. to use them?
If you're OK with that, you're a dumb-ass. Should that day come, Dark Overlord Gates will start to become the recipient of my money.
Dude- What happened to the ones it came with? Try the MDR-A35- tell me they sound the same.
Lost them but didn't want to pay Apple 30 dollars for the stock ones.
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
Funny. Many people defending a product they've never seen.
Well, not really. It's almost always better to see and hold a device before you buy it. However, if you have half a brain you generally do a little research up front to see if it warrants the effort to do so. You don't have to hold a product in your hand to read a spec sheet, look at pictures, or watch a product video to know it's features and understand how it works, or see that it doesn't work with something you already own and want to use because you can plainly determine such from the available info from the seller showing it's fundamental features and design (and limitations). I've never seen my own heart but I know pretty much how it operates in laymen's terms.
Perhaps you should do some due diligence before you open you mouth.
Wut?
If you read my post, it clearly indicates that i'm talking about built-in usb connector. Who wants to carry a dock and cables with them everywhere?
Maybe you should do some due diligence like tekstud suggested.
geez... failed flamer or what. lol
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.
Twenty percent (or less) is not insignificant. But since it's not the majority, they can F off?
Mining Apple Stores data and Made for iPod licensing data gives Apple an idea of what THEY sell in THEIR stores. It's not the best way to determine the sale of non Apple products sold over all. It may give you an idea of how many products there are available, but not their total sales from all sources. The fact that there are (as I posted somewhere before) over a hundred different sets of earphones by other mfg. sold on the Apple store seems to say there are at least enough being sold that doing so is profitable—kind of like Apple sales in general. Apple only has 10% of the market on computers and phones combined, Using your numbers, why do they even bother to exist?
Funny. All the negative comments from those that never have seen them.
That's a really odd response. Do you really need to see the new ipod to know things like that you lose the controls if you use generic headphones?
For the most part those seem like valid points to me.
It's funny. On the first day, all the spoken menu stuff was lambasted as useless and unnecessary fluff.
But now that people can't access those 'useless' features with their existing headphones, it's the end of the world.
Apple's clearly wrong in this instance. But damn if the life-cycle of hate here isn't amusing.
I don't get what you're trying to say. The spoken stuff is pretty silly, and a screen would probably be better. And you can't control the unit AT ALL without the headphones. I don't see how the two points are contradictory.
The usuals are whining now, but I bet someday all mobile devices requiring headphones will use such controls.
You think this is the start of a trend of devices with no buttons on them? I bet not.
... i see lots of shuffles clipped on sleeves, waistbands, sportsbra straps, even hats, and though this is my anecdotal experience, i do pay attention as i am a product designer, in all those spottings seems like most folks are using aftermarket headphones. all my runner friends use some variation of an over-the-ear-clip design, claiming the ipod ones don't stay put. i do think the dollars will do the talking and i anticipate seeing an article in the not too distant future declaring the shuffle the most returned item in apple's yard.
I would argue that what you see here has nothing to do with any assumed poor quality of the iPod earbuds, it's just about making them stay in your ears instead of the "hanging" design of the basic earbuds. The "over-the-ear" type are well known to have the worst sound quality in general and also the most "leakage" to other people. I'm sure there are few people who haven't been driven crazy by some old guy on the bus or train that has the over the ear type thinking he is cool, when in fact he's just annoying. Personally, I use the Apple "in-ear" ones as they stay in your ears, have better sound than the original and also allow you to keep the volume significantly lower, which is much better for your ears.
I think you are going over the top with this part:
... this is the hardware version of DRM, the young people most responsible for the growth of consumer electronics are getting more savvy each day, and they don't put up with crap like proprietary headphones. why do you think the cell industry decided to standardize chargers? we are at that point where certain aspects of devices need to be universal.
This is really nothing like "the hardware equivalent of DRM" in that it has nothing to do with forcing you to use any particular piece of hardware, nor does it create any actual incompatibility with any other piece of hardware.
I think that's a point that people are seriously overlooking here.
ANY headphones will work in the shuffle, but you will lack controls because there are no controls on the device. All headphones therefore actually work in exactly the same way as they always have. All this talk of introducing incompatibilities is exactly backwards. Apple has made a new type of headset (an innovation) and purposely made it so that the plug is backwards compatible with other older headsets. They didn't have to do that.
You will shortly be able to use either of the two new types of headsets (with the controls), on the entire iPod line, (most will work already). On the cheap end "budget" model iPod however, there are no controls for playback beyond "shuffle" and "play." That's a much more accurate way to look at the situation.
As other have stated I see this as a proving ground for the remote controls. Ideally they will port this capability to the next iPhone/Touch device. Hopefully the signaling is compatible with the mic input though there is a good possibility that they have simply repurposed the signal line. I really can really see this as being very popular on new devices like iPhone as it would allow you to keep the device in the pocket yet effectively control audio playback. For an iPhone it would be more desirable as you are far more likely to have the iPhone in a substantial pocket. Lets hop this does in fact work in combination with the mic input.
In the end there are a lot of people looking at this in a negative manner. Something I'm very willing to do when looking at the iMacs, but not with this new Shuffle. The new shuffle has many things going for it and this remote control is one of them. You do have to take a step back and look at it positively and also imagine how well this would work when ported to other new devices. In that vain it is an acceleration of the technical development of the head phone set and has even more to offer newer iPhones and other devices, if it get ported there.
Dave
ANY headphones will work in the shuffle, but you will lack controls because there are no controls on the device. All headphones therefore actually work in exactly the same way as they always have. All this talk of introducing incompatibilities is exactly backwards. Apple has made a new type of headset (an innovation) and purposely made it so that the plug is backwards compatible with other older headsets. They didn't have to do that.
Did you read your post dude? It makes zero sense.
Exactly how do you play any music without the Apple headphones?
Are you suggesting that people carry 2 sets of headphones? One to get the music started... unplug it, plug in the next set so the music doesn't sound like shit.
Oh... oh... lets skip that track... unplug good headphones that don't sound like shit, plug in Apple headphones, hit the next track, unplug Apple headphones, plug in good headphones that don't sound like shit.
Yah... sounds like a great innovation. Real user friendly.
Anyways who else wants to see Hana naked?
That means: No license=No label
Wut?
If you read my post, it clearly indicates that i'm talking about built-in usb connector. Who wants to carry a dock and cables with them everywhere?
Maybe you should do some due diligence like tekstud suggested.
geez... failed flamer or what. lol
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?