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."
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
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.
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.
Nano's are fragile. VERY fragile
The Nano might not be as fragile as you think.
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.
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.
That's nice. I don't think the article mentions the fact that the shuffle becomes a personal floatation device in the event of a water related disaster.
I've told you twice now that the touch sensors for the DISPLAY can be overlayed above the plastic. What is so hard to understand about that? Here, I'll even draw you a little ASCII diagram:There's nothing magical in the LCD that makes the touch sensors work. Just in case that's not percolating, there's nothing magical in the LCD that makes the touch sensors work. The sensors that make a touch screen work are overlayed on top of the screen or whatever protection it uses to protect the screen. There are even touch keypads that allow you to punch in numbers through thick glass. (This is used in some security systems to prevent access to the keypad itself, while still allowing the owner to punch in his code by just tapping at the glass.)
Now go stand in the corner and read how touch screens work.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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/
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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?
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
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>
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.