Slashdot Mirror
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."
On the way out my arse! It's tiny, leightweight, unobtrusive, and works well... only losers need a screen and/or video.
Mac rumours is talking about Apple patent applications for multipoint touchscreen control, prompting speculation (based on clear diagrams) that a video ipod will be all screen with a virtual clickwheel (more reasonable than the tablet application at this point in time).
0 007.shtml
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/2006020207
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."
A Passionate Independent Musician
The tiny MP3 player, a favorite of gym-goers, is cheap at $129, but lacks a screen.
1. The $129 is for the 1GB version. The 512MB is very popular at $99, a full $100 less than the iPod Nano.
2. While the Nano's screen is very cool (*I* want one!), not everyone needs one. I gave my wife a 512MB Shuffle a little while back, and she couldn't be happier. As far as she's concerned, the screen is just a liability that she would never use anyway. Thus she's in no hurry to upgrade.
In fact, I probably wouldn't have gotten my wife an iPod at all if the 512MB price point wasn't so low. She asked me explicitly not to spend too much money on her (she was afraid I'd go out and get a $300 iPod), so I took the route of saving up a bit of extra spending cash here and there for a few months, and paid cash for the Shuffle. Even at $150, the Nano would be priced a bit too high for such a range.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Micro isn't smaller than nano. Perhaps you meant pico?
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm one of the aforementioned gym-goers and my iPod shuffle has been part of the reason I've lost so much geekweight(30kg) in the last year. Having a little, robust and fuss-free mp3 player with me has got me through some tough long distance runs and some gym sessions where I didn't want to be there.
I often sit there for ages with my iPod video not knowing which of the 30gb of music & podcasts I actually want to listen to, having that hassle on runs before with other media players has been more than off-putting.
Likewise one of the best uses for my Shuffle has been that I can use it as a flash drive. It works great, and loads on EVERYTHNG and is about the size a flash drive should be, which is NOT what the Nano is.
Nothing says they cant just throw a screen on the tiny Shuffle form factor, even if it mattered which looking at Apple's Sales figures, it didnt.
Looks to me this is just some more uninformed analyst chestbeating.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I use the 60Gb for day-to-day use at home and in the car, and my wife uses her Mini the same way. But we've also got a Shuffle for two reasons:
- it's plugged into the stereo, so we can load it up with appropriate music for a party and leave it playing
- I sometimes take it kayaking.
For both of those applications, a screen and a larger capacity are irrelevant. But by the same token, neither the screen nor the larger capacity would be an impediment, so if Apple wanted to rationalize the product line a bit and bring out a Nano at the $100 price point, I'm sure they'd sell bazillions of them, even to people who only needed a Shuffle.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
" talks about the reasons Apple might have for getting rid of the Shuffle."
The real reason is Apple wants to phase it out before some dumbass sues them for hearing loss because they don't know how to turn the volume down.
My dad has a bit less than 20/20 eyesight. If we give him a Nano or regular iPod he would fumble around with the clickwheel to select what he wants to listen to in the car. With the shuffle he just loads it with the few things that he wants and skips around.
If it's not making business sense I understand... but it is a good product. I hope that they are just coming out with a new incarnation of the Shuffle.
If you don't need a screen, why have one? It just adds weight, size, complexity and cost. The main reason to keep the suffle is sound quality. It has the best amp of any portable mp3 player. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1777890,00.as p
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
I've never had a problem with any of them, and I've got probably 20-25 throughout the house.
That many batteries in a house? Must be a toddler nearby.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
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.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
That many batteries in a house? Must be a toddler nearby.
;)
Or one very lonely woman.
...why people insist on speding the kind of jack on an MP3 player that iPod owners do.
My wife wanted some kind of music player for working out. I found just what she needed: a SanDisk m260. 4GB flash memory, earbuds, strap, case, some software. Uses a standard AAA battery you can actually replace easily (unlike the $40 battery and removal tool I had to buy for my daughter's iPod Mini, which isn't holding it's charge after six months).
Sale price at local retailer: $150.
The sound is great and I've already dropped 330 MP3 files on it and still have 2.7 GB left to fill. It requirs no software: you plug it into an USB port and the OS sees it as a removeable drive, so you can just drag and drop files on it all day. This allows it work with any OS, including Linux (which I use) and that other system on her laptop.
Is watching video on a 2-inch screen really worth all that money? And, no, I don't work for SanDisk.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
FYI, you can get an iPod battery through Other World Computing for as low as $14.99 (depending on the model of your iPod).
I used them to replace the battery in my old iPod to give to my sister, and it's not very difficult to change out the battery. They provide everything that you need to open the iPod without damaging it (basically, two nylon tools). My model required unscrewing one of the logic board screws, to free the connecting wire, and they do not provide a small screwdriver, but you could pick that up for under $3 at your local hardware store, if you don't already have one. IIRC, it took me less than 10 minutes to open it up, put the battery in, and close it up. (I'm not as quick as the guy who did their instructional videos on how to change the battery, who does this in about 2 minutes.)
Or you can have them replace the battery for you, for $39 plus the cost of the battery. (This includes the cost of FedEx Overnight both ways, and they state a 72 hour turn-around time, including the time the iPod is in transit.)
Details on this can be found here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ipod/batteryreplace ment/
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?
I have a Nano, and have absolutely no protection for it except the little leather-esque sleeve Apple now ships with them (they didn't come with the earlier shipments though).
I carry my Nano daily in the little pocket (match pocket, watch pocket) in my jeans, use it almost daily sitting out in a wood/metal shop (scenery shop at a theater), and it has no real scratches on it thus far, although it does collect dust.
No screen cracking, a few small scratches near the connector, but none near the screen which is especially telling as I have one of the infamous Black Nanos.
Shawn's Tech Articles
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.
I have lots of music from artists I'm not familiar with. I frequent mp3blogs and visit artist's websites and download half a dozen demo songs at a time, then just stick them in iTunes like tiny time-bombs set to go off randomly in my Party Shuffle. I also buy used CDs and sometimes even cheap mix CDs from gas stations, and toss them in as well... so I never know what I'm going to hear.
Even on my iPod Shuffle.
But that's OK, I'll hear it again soon enough when iTunes gets around to playing it. If I like it, a quick trip to the iTunes Music Store gets me another half dozen time-bombs to add to my supply.
Life is random.
Long before mp3blogs and the iPod Shuffle I used to buy cheap mix CDs
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.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Heh. Had I mod points they would be yours.
I had a MuVo, which I gave to my mother when I picked up a Shuffle. Am I under the impression that the Shuffle is the perfect player? No. Would I recommend it to everyone? No. Would I recommend it to people whose needs and use patterns are similar to mine? Yes... but I'd suggest looking at the Nano as well.
There are good and bad points to all of the players out there. For example, the shuffle is light, very small, supports bookmarkable files, and allows you to skip them while in shuffle mode (no need to skip past that audiobook while out for a run), it has the best interface on the Mac, and being bright white is easy to spot on my cluttered desk. On the other hand, there is no "skip album" feature, no "skip N songs" feature, and no screen, so navigating long playlists (especially those where you don't remember which songs are where) is a pain in the ass (fortunately, none of these are really a problem for how I use it: audiobooks in the car, random songs when I run/bike). It's too easy to hit the next/previous track buttons when trying to adjust the volume, it's too easy to shift it into shuffle mode when you want straight play mode, and the battery status button is way too non-responsive.
And of course there's the battery issue: do you want the long term pain of a dead battery a few years down the road and no ability to recharge without a powered USB port nearby, or do you prefer the shorter, repeated pain of constantly switching out batteries, but with the ability to change them on a bus or on top of a mountain?
Bottom line, there is no "best player", only "best current player for a specific set of needs".
-30-
A quick google finds me a lot of people who say they think this must be a problem, but I'm not finding anyone who says it's happened to them.
Personally I'm convinced I'd just plain lose a Nano, and the scratching put me off to start with, but "snaps in half" doesn't register on my list of concerns. Evidence?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This is true if all you do is play a list of songs. But if you want management, you need iTunes or its equivalent. Just for one example, with a couple of mouse clicks and a few key strokes, I can create a smart playlist that finds 1 gig of songs that I've rated 3 stars or higher, that meet certain specified genre conditions, and that I haven't heard in the last two months. This is updated dynamically and then used to fill my shuffle. Hardly something you can do easily by drag and drop.
Actually, there is right now both the 1 GB iPod nano (with screen) abd 1 GB and 512 MB iPod shuffles ,.. with big price drops.
So the shuffles stayed for at least now.