IF DirecTV were smart, they'd offer some relatively inexpensive (less than $100? + discount on HDTV for a few months) trade-in program, preferably to a newer MPEG4 capable Tivo.
What is it with these customer-oriented companies that forget where their money is coming from?
Comcast, TimeWarner, DirecTV, Qwest, SBC (and there are many more) -- all think that it is acceptable to offer horrible service/options and charge a premium for it. All are theoretically dependent on keeping their customers happy (since losing them would result in future revenue losses) -- but apparently are so arrogant as to not care anymore.
Orrin Hatch thinks he's recording artist (because he put out a lame CD) and gladly sides with RIAA and MPAA, regardless of what his constituents might think. Those pesky little people are irrelevant.
And he'll not let that pesky little Constitution get in the way of his desires to crush rights -- when the activist judges (ie. Supreme Court) declares a law unconstitutional, his solution is to just change the Constitution. See his Flag Burning amendment as a wonderful example. The Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to Mr. Hatch.
After 25 years it office, I think it's time for Mr. Hatch to retire.
There are many, many problems associated with software patents.
I never see much mention of the fact that a software patent extends for 17 years makes it equivalent to 100 years in another industry. I think this will become more of a problem as other industries accelerate in production.
Think about the state of computers 17 years ago (1988), who's patents are only now expiring. We're talking pre-Internet.
In general, patents are supposed to encourage innovation. But that was never needed in the software industry. Patents are now used as corporate weapons and nothing more.
The big guys have thousands of patents in their arsenal and you're likely infringing on one of them unless you can PROVE you're not. the result -- the little guys (the innovators) are the losers and ultimately, the entire industry becomes the loser as innovation slows down.
1. Not a Mac OS X user (clearly) 2. Believes that version numbers still accurately reflect changes 3. Relies on other non-Mac OS X users to review Mac OS X. 4. Requires a dramatic visual change (perhaps change the color to bright red?) to "realize" the value of a new product.
YES -- "one of the main" 200 features is an RSS reader. And it happens to be very nicely integrated into the browser for an experience that definitely adds value. Of course there are 199 other features too.
True, a lot of features in this release are under the hood. What that means is that developers will be creating some very cool apps as a result of the new release (that they couldn't easily create in the past). But even so, there are major benefits in this ".release" to the end user and while not all 200 features are on the level of Spotlight or Dashboard or Automator or QuickTime 7, they do add up.
In a horizontal product (such as an OS), not every feature is meant for every user. When a word processor adds support for Table of Contents, it won't matter so someone that just writes letters. But it will matter to someone who has had to create TOC manually or through some third-party tool in the past. Same thing for features in Tiger.
And what the hell do you care -- you're clearly not a Mac user, so you won't be buying it anyway. You might as well complain about cup-holder that they left out of the new Ferrari.
This only goes to provide that just because you can do a feature from a technical standpoint doesn't mean you use do a feature (from a user standpoint).
I agree that Voyager was a major stumbling of the ST family.
The most annoying thing for me was that no matter what horrible thing was happening to the crew, it would always be fixed at the end of the episode (TNG had a few of these, but it was a noticeable, regular event in Voyager).
This became more obvious with other Sci-Fi series that changed the rules a big (DS9, B5 both come to mind) with longer story arcs and more long term consequences for actions taken in an episode. The most annoying of these was when they decided to merge Tuvak and Nelix (sp?) together only to figure out how to separate them at the end of the episode. Come on,
As mentioned, the Borg handling became mundane. "Oh No, yet another freakin' borg ship that our little craft will destroy." Apparently the Borg learned NOTHING from their encounter with the Federation (where they were able to destroy dozens if not hundreds of ships much larger than Voyager). The result is that even that it wasn't believable anymore (which is really bad in the Sci-Fi world).
To me, it represented a very near-sighted writing skill, the writers seemed unable to think past the current episode -- and I tuned out from boredom.
What exactly is the point of worrying about cosmic event that you have absolutely no control over?
How about focusing on the here and now -- enjoying the life you have. Worry about the end of the entire world from a Gamma Radiation Burst a few seconds before it occurs.
Silly rabbit -- the interpretation of the Constitution that says you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or that you can't say "Kill the " to incite a riot is not "illegal". It could, maybe, be viewed as unconstitutional.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging speech", just the "freedom of speech".
So is requiring a disclosure of who paid for your "opinion" an abridgment of freedom of speech? I don't think so. It doesn't dictate what you can and cannot say. I think it benefits the American people to know.
Otherwise, you could have some radical right-wing political element create a news channel and claim it is "fair and balanced" and deem everyone who doesn't agree with them a "liberal". We wouldn't want that sort of thing to happen in this country.
1. Apple would have had to build Mac OS compatibility into BeOS. That's why Mac OS X was so late in the first place. Developers were unwilling to rewrite their apps for Yellow (now Cocoa).
2. Apple would have to finish BeOS (the reason its so lightweight is because it wasn't done)
3. Apple wouldn't have had the leadership of Jobs which helped bring Apple back to relevancy. I don't believe JLG could ever have done that. So we would be without iMacs, iBooks, iPods.
4. If cloning had continued, Apple would be in the same financial shape that Be was in (in other words, looking for buyers).
BeOS was lightweight only because it was immature for the OS.
I think counting the "number of files that it is comprised of" is silly. Next you'll measure the software value by counting the number of lines of code. These metrics don't have real-world value.
I don't know what you meant when you say the file meta data issue is still quite messy in OS X. BeOS may have been advanced with its file meta data, but I think it is a non-issue with Tiger.
Ultimately, Apple would not be the same (ie. much less significant) if not for the purchase of NeXT. As a developer, I am glad that Apple chose the way it did.
If they trusted their customers -- iTMS wouldn't have DRM (do you think Apple really wants to focus on locking up the music, or that RIAA requires them to have DRM in order to sell the music?)
If they trusted their customers -- they wouldn't try to copy-protect CDs that I buy to keep me from putting it in a format that works best for me.
RIAA are nothing more than thugs. And thugs, because they're untrustworthy themselves, aren't willing to trust anyone else.
You already admit you suspect that a specific piece of software is the cause of the problem (which is very likely given Konfabulator's heavy resource usage -- a quick search will show you this) but are not will to spend 5 minutes uninstalling software to try it out.
Instead -- you'll spend those same 5 minutes writing a message about how slow the machine is.
Yes -- Macs in general do just work. But Apple doesn't write every piece of software. There is software that uses things like APE that inject themselves in other programs and can cause conflicts. And yes, some programs are just not well written.
Btw, there are plenty of places to get help with software related issues on the Mac. Your complaint is not very genuine.
Basically you said; "I installed a bunch of shit and my computer no longer runs well. I'm unwilling to uninstall the shit -- so I'll blame the OS or the machine"
That may be -- but these guys are trying to fool the ordinary consumer into thinking their product is Apple's. They are basically using Apple's brand to sell their product.
Similar name virtually identical look, not even a color change virtually identical ads
The intent here is to profit from Apple's product name and while IANAL, it seems a pretty open and shut case that this is trademark infringement both with the name (SuperShuffle is way too close to iPod shuffle) and dress (if you're looking at the front picture of it can you tell the difference? I can't).
But remember, the problem is I don't know what song it is!
Are you saying you cannot recognize any song on your playlist? Perhaps the song before or the song after? Maybe I'm some kind of "superman", but I can usually recognize the song or at the very least, artist without needing to see the track information.
Also, we're talking about 120 or 240 songs. We are not talking about having to guess from a library of 11,000 songs which track you're listening to.
It may be a paradigm shift for you. I've been doing this exact thing
The paradigm shift is not about mixing up the songs. It's about now worrying about what you're listening to because you're listening to songs you obviously like
Dropping the screen isn't a 'paradigm shift'.
Dropping the screen can be both a tradeoff and a paradigm shift. The fact is that dropping the screen changes the way people use the device. Part of it is the lack of screen, part of it is the simple interface created because there is no screen and part of it is changing the requirements for the type of device. The shuffle does all of these things.
I think that the paradigm changes that Apple has made with the iPod, the iPod mini, and now the iPod shuffle are the reason for its success. They came up with a different way to listen to music, once, twice, thrice. MP3 players have been around for some time (years and years), so it's not like Apple came up with that idea -- yet somehow they've managed to jump to the top of the stack. You don't become the #1 anything by simply following the same path everyone else doe. You have to create a new path. Some of us like to call those 'paradigms'. A new way of listening to music, a new way of organizing music (iTunes), of buying music (ITMS). Some of these new ways may be driven by tradeoffs, but that's what makes them unique. Taking a tradeoff and turning it into a strength
Apple described this concept in ads a few years back: Think Different. Thinking outside the box, taking a problem and turning it into a solution is what it's all about. Busting out of our preconceived patterns. Of course they've been doing that for a long time, it's just that folks are noticing it more.
Save up for you Mac mini/iPod shuffle combo -- I think it'll be worth the effort. OS X (especially with Tiger) will continue to change the way you work with your computer. Just remain open to that change
Apple may make a claim, but the proof is actually using it. My guess, you've never used a shuffle in real life. And it sounds like you might be afraid to open your mind to new possibilities.
I'll reserve judgment on the new Sony players when they are really out. There are very few details out on it (I couldn't even find anything on Sony's site when I looked). The shuffle interface is very simple and clean, much better than any flash player on the market. I can't tell from the single picture how the interface works.
Ultimately, you misunderstand the argument. It's not about screens being a sign of being clueless, rather that there is a DIFFERENT way to listen to your music and it's a way that works really well. Given how well the shuffle has been selling, I think others tend to agree.
As for Sony, if they would have agreed to partner with the iTunes Music Store, they'd be in a much better position to sell their new flash players). Part of the iPod mystic is also what makes the Mac so great. It's a hardware/software combination that brings a great user experience and it's something that most PC companies don't get.
This is a typical response from people who don't understand Apple. Yes, cost was a factor, but with Apple, being cutting edge is as important. Apple didn't want to create a mini-mini.
They could have just made a cheaper Mac too, but they wanted more than that -- that's why the Mac mini is apparently the envy of Intel (given their recent virtual carbon-copy of the box, sans real parts).
Apple managed to keep the iPod paradigm WITHOUT the screen. And on top of making it cheaper, it also made it lighter. In fact, it's so light that you'll likely carry it wherever you go.
Perhaps you're unwilling to try something different. That's fine. I can only say that the shuffle is a different way of thinking and the competitors don't get that. They keep making the same stuff and wondering why they're not getting anywhere.
iTunes will show you your complete list of songs on your shuffle when it is plugged in. You're not required to play "Name that Tune" with your entire library. People often forget that iTunes is a major component/feature of the iPod.
The shuffle has a battery indicator on the back. Push it and it is green for good battery, orange for low battery, pretty simple and as effective as any of the batter monitors (I had a Rio 500 that I'd take out with a full battery -- according to the indicator -- and within 15 minutes it was emptied to where it died in the middle of my workout. I could never trust its readings).
I do think the shuffle is a paradigm shift -- people think they need to a screen (I thought the same thing, especially coming from a 20GB iPod), but I'm telling you, it's overrated.
As is expected with any shift in paradigm, many will cling to the old paradigm for fear of change. I think the shuffle is such a shift.
Actually, Kudos should go to Apple for truly thinking outside the box.
Until the shuffle came along, most flash-based player manufacturers thought "People need to see what song they are listening to" and thus tried to cram a poor interface with display on a tiny gadget. But Apple said "let the interface be clean and simple, and let there be new no display -- and there was no display". "Let the users listen to songs that they like, and they listened to songs that they liked, whether it was in a playlist order or a random order -- they still liked the songs."
I didn't think I'd like the iPod shuffle without a screen, but I wanted a flash-based player (& iTunes support).
Having had a shuffle since Macworld, I can say it is the only player I use (I also have a 20GB iPod). Screen? Don't really need the screen.
And here's a tip -- ONLY ADD THE SONGS YOU WANT TO HEAR!! Then it doesn't matter if it is in playlist mode or shuffle mode, you'll always be listening to songs that you like.
Going with WordPerfect doesn't buy you much these days. It's still only a Windows-only solution. Corel WordPerfect for Mac doesn't support OS X and I believe the Linux version was discontinued.
Microsoft is still making money off this deal, I guess that's why they're a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
IF DirecTV were smart, they'd offer some relatively inexpensive (less than $100? + discount on HDTV for a few months) trade-in program, preferably to a newer MPEG4 capable Tivo.
What is it with these customer-oriented companies that forget where their money is coming from?
Comcast, TimeWarner, DirecTV, Qwest, SBC (and there are many more) -- all think that it is acceptable to offer horrible service/options and charge a premium for it. All are theoretically dependent on keeping their customers happy (since losing them would result in future revenue losses) -- but apparently are so arrogant as to not care anymore.
Orrin Hatch thinks he's recording artist (because he put out a lame CD) and gladly sides with RIAA and MPAA, regardless of what his constituents might think. Those pesky little people are irrelevant.
And he'll not let that pesky little Constitution get in the way of his desires to crush rights -- when the activist judges (ie. Supreme Court) declares a law unconstitutional, his solution is to just change the Constitution. See his Flag Burning amendment as a wonderful example. The Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to Mr. Hatch.
After 25 years it office, I think it's time for Mr. Hatch to retire.
There are many, many problems associated with software patents.
I never see much mention of the fact that a software patent extends for 17 years makes it equivalent to 100 years in another industry. I think this will become more of a problem as other industries accelerate in production.
Think about the state of computers 17 years ago (1988), who's patents are only now expiring. We're talking pre-Internet.
In general, patents are supposed to encourage innovation. But that was never needed in the software industry. Patents are now used as corporate weapons and nothing more.
The big guys have thousands of patents in their arsenal and you're likely infringing on one of them unless you can PROVE you're not. the result -- the little guys (the innovators) are the losers and ultimately, the entire industry becomes the loser as innovation slows down.
What typical nonsense from someone who is:
1. Not a Mac OS X user (clearly)
2. Believes that version numbers still accurately reflect changes
3. Relies on other non-Mac OS X users to review Mac OS X.
4. Requires a dramatic visual change (perhaps change the color to bright red?) to "realize" the value of a new product.
YES -- "one of the main" 200 features is an RSS reader. And it happens to be very nicely integrated into the browser for an experience that definitely adds value. Of course there are 199 other features too.
True, a lot of features in this release are under the hood. What that means is that developers will be creating some very cool apps as a result of the new release (that they couldn't easily create in the past). But even so, there are major benefits in this ".release" to the end user and while not all 200 features are on the level of Spotlight or Dashboard or Automator or QuickTime 7, they do add up.
In a horizontal product (such as an OS), not every feature is meant for every user. When a word processor adds support for Table of Contents, it won't matter so someone that just writes letters. But it will matter to someone who has had to create TOC manually or through some third-party tool in the past. Same thing for features in Tiger.
And what the hell do you care -- you're clearly not a Mac user, so you won't be buying it anyway. You might as well complain about cup-holder that they left out of the new Ferrari.
Now who's the troll?
Let's list what XP has given for FREE in their service packs (patching giant security holes doesn't count as features).
And lest we forget -- XP cost more for the initial version than Mac OS X. Even bundled, you likely go the crippled XP Home unless you paid extra.
This only goes to provide that just because you can do a feature from a technical standpoint doesn't mean you use do a feature (from a user standpoint).
Yeah - I'm guessing they discover a cure for obesity or something in the future.
And where were the lazy folks. You know, the ones where you tell them to set a course for a starbase and it takes a week for them to get around to it.
And the moron that used dad to get a job but couldn't screw in a light bulb (forcing his coworkers to always cover for him).
Or the administrator that wants a progress report, even though you're in the middle of a conflict because his/her job depends on pushing paper around.
The whole group of series missed some major groups in their representation.
I agree that Voyager was a major stumbling of the ST family.
The most annoying thing for me was that no matter what horrible thing was happening to the crew, it would always be fixed at the end of the episode (TNG had a few of these, but it was a noticeable, regular event in Voyager).
This became more obvious with other Sci-Fi series that changed the rules a big (DS9, B5 both come to mind) with longer story arcs and more long term consequences for actions taken in an episode. The most annoying of these was when they decided to merge Tuvak and Nelix (sp?) together only to figure out how to separate them at the end of the episode. Come on,
As mentioned, the Borg handling became mundane. "Oh No, yet another freakin' borg ship that our little craft will destroy." Apparently the Borg learned NOTHING from their encounter with the Federation (where they were able to destroy dozens if not hundreds of ships much larger than Voyager). The result is that even that it wasn't believable anymore (which is really bad in the Sci-Fi world).
To me, it represented a very near-sighted writing skill, the writers seemed unable to think past the current episode -- and I tuned out from boredom.
What exactly is the point of worrying about cosmic event that you have absolutely no control over?
How about focusing on the here and now -- enjoying the life you have. Worry about the end of the entire world from a Gamma Radiation Burst a few seconds before it occurs.
Your life will be a much happier one.
Silly rabbit -- the interpretation of the Constitution that says you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or that you can't say "Kill the " to incite a riot is not "illegal". It could, maybe, be viewed as unconstitutional.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging speech", just the "freedom of speech".
So is requiring a disclosure of who paid for your "opinion" an abridgment of freedom of speech? I don't think so. It doesn't dictate what you can and cannot say. I think it benefits the American people to know.
Otherwise, you could have some radical right-wing political element create a news channel and claim it is "fair and balanced" and deem everyone who doesn't agree with them a "liberal". We wouldn't want that sort of thing to happen in this country.
Wrong!
1. Apple would have had to build Mac OS compatibility into BeOS. That's why Mac OS X was so late in the first place. Developers were unwilling to rewrite their apps for Yellow (now Cocoa).
2. Apple would have to finish BeOS (the reason its so lightweight is because it wasn't done)
3. Apple wouldn't have had the leadership of Jobs which helped bring Apple back to relevancy. I don't believe JLG could ever have done that. So we would be without iMacs, iBooks, iPods.
4. If cloning had continued, Apple would be in the same financial shape that Be was in (in other words, looking for buyers).
BeOS was lightweight only because it was immature for the OS.
I think counting the "number of files that it is comprised of" is silly. Next you'll measure the software value by counting the number of lines of code. These metrics don't have real-world value.
I don't know what you meant when you say the file meta data issue is still quite messy in OS X. BeOS may have been advanced with its file meta data, but I think it is a non-issue with Tiger.
Ultimately, Apple would not be the same (ie. much less significant) if not for the purchase of NeXT. As a developer, I am glad that Apple chose the way it did.
RIAA doesn't trust its customers.
If they trusted their customers -- iTMS wouldn't have DRM (do you think Apple really wants to focus on locking up the music, or that RIAA requires them to have DRM in order to sell the music?)
If they trusted their customers -- they wouldn't try to copy-protect CDs that I buy to keep me from putting it in a format that works best for me.
RIAA are nothing more than thugs. And thugs, because they're untrustworthy themselves, aren't willing to trust anyone else.
IANAL, but you might be able to make an argument that Scrabble has taken a generic meaning, like Kleenex, or aspirin.
It would make Hasbro's claim harder.
The site is actually escrabble.com -- not scrabble.com.
C & D order would indicate they might have to change their name, but they might be able to negotiate a deal with Hasbro.
You already admit you suspect that a specific piece of software is the cause of the problem (which is very likely given Konfabulator's heavy resource usage -- a quick search will show you this) but are not will to spend 5 minutes uninstalling software to try it out.
Instead -- you'll spend those same 5 minutes writing a message about how slow the machine is.
Yes -- Macs in general do just work. But Apple doesn't write every piece of software. There is software that uses things like APE that inject themselves in other programs and can cause conflicts. And yes, some programs are just not well written.
Btw, there are plenty of places to get help with software related issues on the Mac. Your complaint is not very genuine.
Basically you said; "I installed a bunch of shit and my computer no longer runs well. I'm unwilling to uninstall the shit -- so I'll blame the OS or the machine"
Agreed. Pushing back the deadline gives no incentive to the corporations to actually comply.
And the ultimate loser in all this : the consumer!!
FCC and Cable companies do not like to concern themselves with such unimportant things like "consumers".
FCC = Friends of Cable Companies
That may be -- but these guys are trying to fool the ordinary consumer into thinking their product is Apple's. They are basically using Apple's brand to sell their product.
Similar name
virtually identical look, not even a color change
virtually identical ads
The intent here is to profit from Apple's product name and while IANAL, it seems a pretty open and shut case that this is trademark infringement both with the name (SuperShuffle is way too close to iPod shuffle) and dress (if you're looking at the front picture of it can you tell the difference? I can't).
New computers have the latest iLife installed, but Tiger will not come with iLife '05 (unless you're buying it with a new computer).
But remember, the problem is I don't know what song it is!
Are you saying you cannot recognize any song on your playlist? Perhaps the song before or the song after? Maybe I'm some kind of "superman", but I can usually recognize the song or at the very least, artist without needing to see the track information.
Also, we're talking about 120 or 240 songs. We are not talking about having to guess from a library of 11,000 songs which track you're listening to.
It may be a paradigm shift for you. I've been doing this exact thing
The paradigm shift is not about mixing up the songs. It's about now worrying about what you're listening to because you're listening to songs you obviously like
Dropping the screen isn't a 'paradigm shift'.
Dropping the screen can be both a tradeoff and a paradigm shift. The fact is that dropping the screen changes the way people use the device. Part of it is the lack of screen, part of it is the simple interface created because there is no screen and part of it is changing the requirements for the type of device. The shuffle does all of these things.
I think that the paradigm changes that Apple has made with the iPod, the iPod mini, and now the iPod shuffle are the reason for its success. They came up with a different way to listen to music, once, twice, thrice. MP3 players have been around for some time (years and years), so it's not like Apple came up with that idea -- yet somehow they've managed to jump to the top of the stack. You don't become the #1 anything by simply following the same path everyone else doe. You have to create a new path. Some of us like to call those 'paradigms'. A new way of listening to music, a new way of organizing music (iTunes), of buying music (ITMS). Some of these new ways may be driven by tradeoffs, but that's what makes them unique. Taking a tradeoff and turning it into a strength
Apple described this concept in ads a few years back: Think Different. Thinking outside the box, taking a problem and turning it into a solution is what it's all about. Busting out of our preconceived patterns. Of course they've been doing that for a long time, it's just that folks are noticing it more.
Save up for you Mac mini/iPod shuffle combo -- I think it'll be worth the effort. OS X (especially with Tiger) will continue to change the way you work with your computer. Just remain open to that change
Feel free to cling to your old paradigm.
Apple may make a claim, but the proof is actually using it. My guess, you've never used a shuffle in real life. And it sounds like you might be afraid to open your mind to new possibilities.
I'll reserve judgment on the new Sony players when they are really out. There are very few details out on it (I couldn't even find anything on Sony's site when I looked). The shuffle interface is very simple and clean, much better than any flash player on the market. I can't tell from the single picture how the interface works.
Ultimately, you misunderstand the argument. It's not about screens being a sign of being clueless, rather that there is a DIFFERENT way to listen to your music and it's a way that works really well. Given how well the shuffle has been selling, I think others tend to agree.
As for Sony, if they would have agreed to partner with the iTunes Music Store, they'd be in a much better position to sell their new flash players). Part of the iPod mystic is also what makes the Mac so great. It's a hardware/software combination that brings a great user experience and it's something that most PC companies don't get.
This is a typical response from people who don't understand Apple. Yes, cost was a factor, but with Apple, being cutting edge is as important. Apple didn't want to create a mini-mini.
They could have just made a cheaper Mac too, but they wanted more than that -- that's why the Mac mini is apparently the envy of Intel (given their recent virtual carbon-copy of the box, sans real parts).
Apple managed to keep the iPod paradigm WITHOUT the screen. And on top of making it cheaper, it also made it lighter. In fact, it's so light that you'll likely carry it wherever you go.
Perhaps you're unwilling to try something different. That's fine. I can only say that the shuffle is a different way of thinking and the competitors don't get that. They keep making the same stuff and wondering why they're not getting anywhere.
iTunes will show you your complete list of songs on your shuffle when it is plugged in. You're not required to play "Name that Tune" with your entire library. People often forget that iTunes is a major component/feature of the iPod.
The shuffle has a battery indicator on the back. Push it and it is green for good battery, orange for low battery, pretty simple and as effective as any of the batter monitors (I had a Rio 500 that I'd take out with a full battery -- according to the indicator -- and within 15 minutes it was emptied to where it died in the middle of my workout. I could never trust its readings).
I do think the shuffle is a paradigm shift -- people think they need to a screen (I thought the same thing, especially coming from a 20GB iPod), but I'm telling you, it's overrated.
As is expected with any shift in paradigm, many will cling to the old paradigm for fear of change. I think the shuffle is such a shift.
Actually, Kudos should go to Apple for truly thinking outside the box.
Until the shuffle came along, most flash-based player manufacturers thought "People need to see what song they are listening to" and thus tried to cram a poor interface with display on a tiny gadget. But Apple said "let the interface be clean and simple, and let there be new no display -- and there was no display". "Let the users listen to songs that they like, and they listened to songs that they liked, whether it was in a playlist order or a random order -- they still liked the songs."
I didn't think I'd like the iPod shuffle without a screen, but I wanted a flash-based player (& iTunes support).
Having had a shuffle since Macworld, I can say it is the only player I use (I also have a 20GB iPod). Screen? Don't really need the screen.
And here's a tip -- ONLY ADD THE SONGS YOU WANT TO HEAR!! Then it doesn't matter if it is in playlist mode or shuffle mode, you'll always be listening to songs that you like.
Going with WordPerfect doesn't buy you much these days. It's still only a Windows-only solution. Corel WordPerfect for Mac doesn't support OS X and I believe the Linux version was discontinued.
Microsoft is still making money off this deal, I guess that's why they're a monopoly.
I was actually referencing suing one's customers and/or fans.