iPod Shuffle On The Way Out Already?

An anonymous reader writes "A CNN Money article, of all things, talks about the reasons Apple might have for getting rid of the iPod shuffle." From the article: "The shuffle may not be long for this world. The tiny MP3 player, a favorite of gym-goers, is cheap at $129, but lacks a screen. It may soon be replaced by a 1-gigabyte version of the iPod nano, according to UBS analyst Ben Reitzes. Currently, the smallest nano has 2 gigabytes of storage, enough for about 500 songs, and costs $199."

Comments

Not such a bad little thing, the shuffle

[ursabear]

The Shuffle was and still is a great idea. It is an extremely well made product that isn't really a lot more expensive than a plain USB memory stick (relative, folks). Both my kids love their shuffles because they're lightweight, unobtrusive, and they get to load up a day's worth of tunes at one shot (they've got 1GB Shuffles).

I really enjoy my Nano, and my wife enjoys here Mini, but to be truthful, the Shuffle is more "handy."

Re:Re shhhhh!!

[AKAImBatman]

Hey, my 1GB Creative Zen Nano cost $89, has a screen, is half the size of a shuffle, and uses standard AAA batteries.

1. The Shuffle is quite a bit smaller than the Zen Nano. The Zen is fat while the Shuffle is elongated. Zen: 1.73 cubic inches. Shuffle: 1.06 cubic inches.

2. The Shuffle has a built-in rechargable battery that charges directly from your computer's USB port. As far as most users are concerned, it really never needs to be charged as it all happens while the music is being swapped.

3. iTunes is an excellent music management program, far superior to the Zen's software.

Each person has their own preference, but you shouldn't feel the need to justify it by spouting nonsense.

Dissapointing but expected

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Acceptance of the shuffle has been hit or miss. People focus entirely on its lack of screen, but I have to agree when Apple with their motivation for coming out with a cheap music player without a screen, you don't really need it.

I own an 30gb iPod that has my entire music collection on it. Of course it needs a screen in order to browse and find 3000+ music files. But in reality, when using the 30gb iPod, I put it in shuffle mode and rarely look at the screen. I am happy to simply let the music I enjoy be randomly selected. I know who sings the songs because, unlike a large majority of people, I don't simply download illegal music without discretion so I have countless songs I have never heard of by artists I am not familiar with. All the music on my iPod is legit and payed for and known.

The Shuffle was always intended to be an auxiliary player, NOT a music storage library. I plug the Shuffle into my Mac, it randomly fills it with songs, and I take it to the gym or on the road. I don't feel that the lack of screen has ever been a detriment to the Shuffle.

But there is a market segment of people that don't own that much music. Who were looking for a cheap player that could actually store their entire music library in 512mb or 1gb of storage space. People bought the Shuffle without realizing it's not the product that was intended to suit their purpose. And of course, these people complained loudly. At the time the Shuffle was release there was NO cheaper digital music player on the market (I looked, there really wasn't), so the Shuffle was attractive as an inexpensive music player with the high profile of Apple's iPod lineup. I can understand how some people not familiar with digital music players would buy the Shuffle without considering if it met their needs.

So, I will be disappointed if Apple drops their Shuffle product, but I can't see how it can continue. There is no reason for a Shuffle with more then 1GB of storage. Putting too much storage into a screenless player will only exasperate the problem with a screenless player. As you put more storage, people expect to be able to browse and search larger collections of music. Apple could put a screen on the Shuffle, but Apple is slow to let people feel they made a mistake or go against Apple's original convictions. Like the 1 button mouse, Apple won't simply cave in to consumer demand. Apple released the minute iPod Nano which fills in the market segment for small players with a screen, and as the price of the Nano drops, it can easily fill in the same market of the Shuffle.

But I was really hoping for Apple to release a micro sized shuffle, make it the smallest, lightest, and cheapest player on the market. I would easily buy something that was half the size and weight of the Shuffle, or even smaller. It would be a novelty item, but it would still be cool. Apple could always release a product that didn't have a screen, but create a remote attachment with a screen (it would be Apple's way of suggesting they were right in making a screenless player a success, but still give consumers what they want). Turn the Shuffle into a two piece Nano with an optional remote screen, that would be very cool.

Re:Dissapointing but expected

[Shawn Parr]

While I agree with what you say about how Apple probably sees the market value of the Shuffle, I think it is really unfortunate.

I actually wish there were a 2 or 4G shuffle as that would be perfect for my wife. My wife hates gadgets and computers. To the point she calls me from work when she wants to attach emails or upload files to the university's Blackboard system.

She needs a memory stick as she does design work, and occasionally will do it digitally with a tablet (after we found the right software/tablet combination that it feels as little like dealing with a computer as possible). These files can be quite big, and when she is working on a production she will often have a couple dozen or so at a time.

She doesn't listen to much music, but she does enjoy books on tape/cd. The Shuffle really works well as she can move her renderings back and forth between work and home, and keep a few books on it for when she is exercising, etc. This allows her to have one really small device that is amazingly easy to use to do both tasks, so she doesn't have to carry two things (in that case she wouldn't have any music player), and she doesn't really have to deal with the technology involved at all.

The form factor is one of the reasons this works so well. Since the Shuffle is just a USB flash drive with an audio jack and a few buttons she doesn't have to deal with adapter cables like the Nano, or it being big and bulky (making her feel 'dorky').

Good -- more shelf space

[Anonymous Coward]

I went out looking for a new high capacity MP3 player and everywhere I went had a shelf full of iPod variants, and maybe one other. Is there no where I can go to escape the freaking iPod?

Re:Sept the article misses a few things

[falcon5768]

not very conclusive testing. they did blunt force, but have you ever had one of those slim cellphones? they snap in half which is what the nano can easily do. Ever tried to snap a lego brick in half? thats about how strong the Shuffle case is.

Re:Re shhhhh!!

[Fiver-]

Uh, why are you guys being such dicks about which MP3 player you decided to buy? Are you that afraid of regretting a purchasing decision?

Maybe, but have you considered

[blueZ3]

That the shuffle is a "loss leader" in some ways? I personally know a couple of people who bought shuffles and liked them enough that they then later went out and "upgraded" to either full-size iPods or Nanos. Once your average punter has that investment in iTunes DRMed music, they don't have another (easy) option. (What, you expect them to search out and use a tool like iOpener? Too "geeky") Because of DRM and other issues, it seems fairly cost-effective to catch people who are just getting interested in digital music players and hooking them on Apple's software and services.

Selling shuffles at a price competitive with "low end" makes sense for Apple, I think. They prevent people from getting started in digital music with another player, drive traffic to iTunes (which is something of a "lock in" for non-technical users) and are a good entry-level player.

But I guess Apple's marketing department will have the ultimate say in whether these are cost effective or not.

Re:I have always failed to understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why I've owned multiple iPods (3rd gen which is dying a slow and painful hard drive death, 4th gen photo that was stolen):

- No futzing with files and directories, everything's automatically organized in iTunes, which translates directly to the iPod. I used to be a big futzer, but I guess I grew tired of that as I grew older.

- Automatic sync between iPod and iTunes every time I connect. Again, no futzing.

- Smart Playlists (does not apply to iPod shuffle). This is the biggie for me. Makes my listening experience so much smoother and ultimately more enjoyable. A well-crafted Smart Playlist gives me the superior control I want without wasting my time on unnecessary futzing.

- iPod automatically updates metadata like last-played time and play count every time a song is played on the go. Smart Playlists using this data automatically update. Data gets synced with iTunes next time I connect. I make very extensive use of this stuff, it's great!

I've looked at the competition and still find that nobody else offers the above combination of features. I won't buy anything that doesn't have all of the above.

Why I refuse to buy another iPod (until it's fixed): lack of support for true gapless playback. I like listening to full albums, and many of my CDs have tracks whose audio blends together seamlessly between songs. A few competitors do offer gapless, but none offer anywhere near the above features that I love about the iPod.

For true gapless playback, iPod and iTunes need to treat individual songs as they do now, with full metadata support on a per-song basis. None of this BS about ripping a CD as one big track without chapter markers. That "solution" doesn't allow me to skip around to different tracks, nor does it allow me to put individual tracks in various playlists. Ripping twice is no good either - wastes space, and metadata isn't synced between the full-album and individual-song versions.

This can be done by augmenting the chapter functionality so an album is one big file with chapters, but metadata is stored per song, and individual songs within that album file can be dragged into any playlist. Shouldn't be too hard, but Apple freaking doesn't care. 99.9999% of their customers don't care, so why should they? Bah!

</tangential rant>