Apple: iPod Shuffle's Market Share Increased To 58%
Posted by configure on 05 May 2005 - 12:06 · 85 comments & 4675 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configure
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configureContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(12 replies)
#1 Posted by antsy on 05 May 2005 - 12:14
- I still don't like Apple players, they have no Radio or Vorbis support
-
#1.1 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 15:10
- The iPod (like many of Apple's products) is a great piece of hardware. They are top of the line players that look great and perform very well.
My ONLY problem with them is that I do not like how Apple's DRM locks you into using iTunes and iPod. I am worried that at some point down the road another company will come out with a player I like more then the iPod, but all the DRM music I bought from iTunes would not play on it. My other fear is that someday Apple might stop making improvements to its Windows version of iTuens and start telling users they need a Mac to get all the latest improvements.
Yes, yes, I know, I don't have to buy DRM music, but I like buying my music online. I don't want to have to go out and buy CDs. -
#1.2 Posted by Callaway on 05 May 2005 - 15:31
- I picked one up last week. For the price, space, and rechargeable battery, I couldn't find a comparable product on the market. Those players that did have a lcd screen / radio, were either too big or required AAA batteries. Sorry, but I don't want to run to the store to buy batteries or carray recharges around w/ me. The ability to slap my shuffle into my USB port and have it charge that way is just too convenient to pass up. It's been fantastic for my daily jogs and working out, no more ipod-microdrive-skipping-crap.
-
#1.3 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 05 May 2005 - 15:56
QUOTE The iPod (like many of Apple's products) is a great piece of hardware. They are top of the line players that look great and perform very well.
They don't sound the best, they don't support the most audio formats, they don't have the best battery life. Top of the line?
They do look great though. Nobody can take that away.-
#1.4 Posted by aristotle-dude on 05 May 2005 - 16:10
- I am glad to see other competitors trying to to get serious in the music player market.
My only problem with them is that I do not like how MSFT's DRM locks you into using WMP on Windows.
If MSFT and their cohorts want to compete seriously, they should support both platforms. If they really want to get a leg up on Apple, they should consider supporting Linux.
I really don't give a crap about OGG or FLAC or WMA (since the latter has no support for the mac anyway). I also don't listen to radio because it's crap and radio reception does not tend to be good in secure areas. -
#1.5 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 19:59
- Microsoft's DRM does not lock you into WMP; there are a lot of 3rd party players that support Microsoft's DRM. I don't know of any, but I don't see why a 3rd party player supporting MS's DRM couldn't be ported to Linux or Mac OSX (Microsoft already has a Mac version of WMP).
If I had the choice to be locked to Microsoft's DRM or Apple's DRM I would choose Microsoft's any day, simply because it allows 3rd party players (both hardware and software) to play the music. Plus you have a choice of more then one music store (some may like Napster's monthly subscription service for unlimited music for example).
Microsoft DRM = options
Apple DRM = iTunes, iPod and any device they chose to allow (such as that Motorola phone)
I really wish Microsoft’s DRM supported the iPod, and Microsoft has extended the olive branch to Apple, but Apple basically said “screw you, we are making plenty of money on our own thank you.” -
#1.6 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 20:42
QUOTE I don't know of any
Great, thanks for the help...
QUOTE (Microsoft already has a Mac version of WMP).
And it's frozen at 9 and even comparing WMP 9 for Mac to WMP 9 for PC is pathetic--numerous features aren't supported. However, Janus = ZERO Mac support.
QUOTE If I had the choice to be locked to Microsoft's DRM or Apple's DRM I would choose Microsoft's any day, simply because it allows 3rd party players (both hardware and software) to play the music.
Does it? At this point Napster still only recommends a handful. Real's new service recommends 2 only. There are numerous reports of PlayForSure compatibility problems. iPod use is not tied to iTunes, plenty of other apps work. And iTunes is actually compatible with a number of other players as well.
QUOTE Plus you have a choice of more then one music store (some may like Napster's monthly subscription service for unlimited music for example).
Hardly. Napster has wider selection. Real's selection is less. Microsoft offers what OD2 and Loudeye offer. Walmart's selection is pathetic. They are all standardizing on almost the exact same terms and price. More choices of the same thing is not choice. It's just trickery into beleiveing you have options.
QUOTE I really wish Microsoft’s DRM supported the iPod, and Microsoft has extended the olive branch to Apple, but Apple basically said “screw you, we are making plenty of money on our own thank you.”
Olive branch, my ass. And how does would doing this be any different from decades of MS behavior? Do you think Microsoft can't support HFs file systems? You don't think anybody has said we have a dominant standard would you like to use it to Microsoft? Jesus.
Last edited by 9953 on 06 May 2005 - 00:29-
#1.7 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 21:50
- It is not a matter what the online store recommends, it is a matter of compatible DRMs; any MS DRM player can play any MS DRM song from any MS DRM store (so long as you have it licensed properly); pretty simple. You speak of compatibility problems, but I don’t know of any, perhaps you could enlighten me?
My point about Napster is that they offer a licensing style other then what Apple offers. You can't pay Apple $10 a month and then start downloading all the songs you want. I’m not really sure what your point about selection was; all the big players (iTunes, Napster and MSN) have just about the same selection. You have the occasional short-lived exclusive contract, but they pretty much have the same selection.
The iPod and iTunes are tied. No other online store supports the iPod or iTunes. No other software player will play songs bought from iTunes. Only an extreamly small number of devices will play songs bought from iTunes. As I said, yes yes it all works fine when you have DRM-free music, but like I said, I like buying online, so DRM support is really all I care about.
As far as the DRM between Apple and MS, well, they both have their own system. MS wanted to work with Apple to make the iPod compatible with MS' DRM (in addition to Apple's); that is about all you can expect from them. They are not going to abandon their entire system in favor of using Apple's DRM anymore then Apple would do the same for Microsoft. -
#1.8 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 22:10
- Also, just wanted to clarify. When I said "I don't know of any" I was talking about MS DRM players for Linux (sorry that was a little unclear). Just about every player for Windows supports DRM. To name a few MusicMatch, Real Jukebox, WinAMP, RioPort, Sonic Foudry, Sonique, Virtuosa, Creative Play Center, Roxio EZ CD Creator (not a player, but it allows you to burn DRM music to an audio CD)…
-
#1.9 Posted by dp123 on 06 May 2005 - 00:01
QUOTE any MS DRM player can play any MS DRM song from any MS DRM store (so long as you have it licensed properly)
Not true at all. PlayForSure means several different things. None of it guarantees that any MS DRMed song will play on any MS DRMed device.
And licensing? What? Licensing is all the same. It has nothing to do with whether or not a Rio device is going to gag on a WMA song (and they do and will).
QUOTE My point about Napster is that they offer a licensing style other then what Apple offers.
You claimed their were more options on Windows. You weren't comparing one Windows option with one Apple option. Now you say...
QUOTE all the big players (iTunes, Napster and MSN) have just about the same selection.
Exactly, the Win world doesn't offer more choice. And they do not all have the same collection. iTunes and Napster are the largest wil iTunes having more exclusive content. MSN is a hodge podge of crap licensed through Loudeye.
QUOTE The iPod and iTunes are tied.
No, they aren't. An iPod works fine without using iTunes. And iTunes works fine without using an iPod.
QUOTE No other online store supports the iPod or iTunes.
Which is completely unrelated from whether those two products are tied.
QUOTE Only an extreamly small number of devices will play songs bought from iTunes.
Wait... There's support for other devices? No!!!!!! THat can't be!!!
And... is it really better to have the choice of 30 or so devices that have 10% market share than it is to have the choice of 3 models that 90% of other users own?
QUOTE MS wanted to work with Apple to make the iPod compatible with MS' DRM (in addition to Apple's);
No, they didn't. Get real. Microsoft wanted Apple to use their own proprietary scheme. The same thing with QuickTime... We'd love to work with you... By that we mean abandon QuickTIme and support WMP... Microsoft did not want to "work with" Apple. They wanted a free, cheap, easy partner to push their own crap. That's not working together and Apple is one of the few companies smart enough to not fall for it.
QUOTE that is about all you can expect from them.
Actually I can expect them to support industry standards that have ruled the media world for 2 decades now... standards which they have patents to and claim to support... standards which are open to all licensees and contributions can be made by any worhty developer... But, no, they try to cripple mpeg at every step and build their own "standards" based on what they learn from mpeg and other "partners" and claim it is better.
QUOTE They are not going to abandon their entire system in favor of using Apple's DRM anymore then Apple would do the same for Microsoft.
But, it's okay for you to bitch at Apple? Time to take off the fanboy costume.
QUOTE I was talking about MS DRM players for Linux
Okay, but name a single Mac player that supports WMP10. You claimed they exist, they don't.-
#1.10 Posted by sphbecker on 06 May 2005 - 04:11
- Nothing you said was correct, and I mean nothing (usually your posts are at least full of half truths). Every point you maid either contains incorrect information or shows you did not understand my point when you replied. I am committed to not ague with you because you are one who cannot be reasoned with. If anyone else is interested in my analysis of your post I will provide one, otherwise will rest my case.
-
#1.11 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 May 2005 - 05:28
- No sphbecker, everything he said was correct.
There is no support for playing WMA DRMed content on a mac. In other words, mac users are completely locked out of using WMA and Real based stores with any WMA or Real compatible portable players because those two companies have "not" updated "their" software to work on the mac. Apple is not doing anything to stop them from supporting the "mac platform".
There is also no support for linux for DRM'ed WMA content for playback or purchase.
There is nothing preventing you from using emusic.com or any other mp3 based legal service with iTunes and/or the iPod. You can also use iTunes with other portable players for transferring non-drmed content. -
#1.12 Posted by sphbecker on 06 May 2005 - 13:46
- Those statements were correct, however not a valid reply to me because I never claimed it was any other way. If you look at my original post I said that you have a number of player choices for Windows and there is no technical reason why a player could not be developed for Linux or OS X.
QUOTE I don't know of any, but I don't see why a 3rd party player supporting MS's DRM couldn't be ported to Linux or Mac OSX
My basic beef with Apple's stuff is the lake of choice and that is a valid complaint. I do not want to start buying music for my iPod and then not be able to move that music to another player down the road if something else comes out that I like more. dp123 in post #1.6 told me I was wrong and that Apple's DRM supported a number of devices (which is what started the agreement). He later edited that post to remove his incorrect statement. I'm not sure how but he then got on a tangent talking how he thinks Microsoft's DRM does not work as well as it should. All I am saying is stated very clearly in post #1.1.
Last edited by 74534 on 06 May 2005 - 14:01
-
#2 Posted by Afroman on 05 May 2005 - 12:27
- i just don;t get why people think the shuffle is great..
i mean there are like over 100 flash based players out there with a screen and usb charge.. is it because it's apple?
i mean jeez..
ipod i'm ok with but the shuffle just showed that apple zombies come out in swarms.
-
#3 Posted by OceanMotion on 05 May 2005 - 12:30
- It a friggin joke that people are buying this shuffle . Absolute ripoff. Well done Apple though. They know how to sell the in thing. They can do know wrong.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by SkaterAustin on 05 May 2005 - 12:32
- Ya, the ipod shuffle is a complete pos its got no screen, you got to hit bottons to play your song.. but then again people are fugging retards and buy an IPOD because it says APPLE IPOD on it, so its got to be great.. IPOD = Fad
creative has the muvo micro and there flash based players that all have screens, radios, voice recorders, and a few other options.. and there are many other players out there that do the same.. -
#4.1 Posted by Zatko55 on 05 May 2005 - 17:42
- Beauty in simplicity. The lack of a screen is a feature. Think about the target market for flash based music players...
I've seen a ton of the shuffles at my gym and everyone there is constantly bitching about not having a voice recorder. They could care less about it being tiny, virtually weightless, and easy to use. Well as soon as this physical fitness fad dies, so will the shuffle. -
#4.2 Posted by aristotle-dude on 05 May 2005 - 18:16
- Then don't buy it and stop bitching about it.
I see people with shuffles on the "bus" staring out of the window. Do you really think they need or want a screen, radio, or voice recorder on a crowded bus? How do you think the radio reception would be on a bus or underground subway anway?
To reiterate what Zatko55 said, I think people at the gym don't want to fumble with buttons and screens when they have sweat in their eyes from working out. They certainly will not be taking down audio notes for their autobiography.
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by thefunkymunky on 05 May 2005 - 12:44
- The reason why the iPod shuffle is a success. Three words. "Keeping it simple"
-
#5.1 Posted by Cephas on 05 May 2005 - 13:04
- I don't see how a display showing what song is playing is going to confuse the hell out of anyone. I think it's all about the white earbuds
-
#5.2 Posted by msing on 05 May 2005 - 23:14
- The reason why the iPod shuffle is a success. Three words. "All about style"
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by iomayho on 05 May 2005 - 12:50
- not everyone wants radio voice recorders and the "extra" features that most mp3 players offer.
-
#6.1 Posted by meamog on 05 May 2005 - 13:01
- right on - i can tell you exactly how often i've wished my iPod would play ogg or flac files, record voice, or listen to the radio.
exactly never.
It plays music, and does it cleanly and efficiently. And for that, I love it. -
#6.2 Posted by HawkMan on 05 May 2005 - 21:40
- if it's sosimpler, why is it then more expensve than layrs with higher sound quality(better hardware/components) an all those extra features ?
-
#6.3 Posted by dp123 on 06 May 2005 - 00:04
- What does simple and easy have to do with being cheap? (By the way, please name these many cheaper, better players... There are few players with the same capacity that are cheaper, and if so, only by 20-30 bucks....) But, really, since when does simpler mean cheaper? Apple is an American company that specializes in its own R&D and innovations... It is not a cheap Pacific rim assembler of parts.
-
#7 Posted by jasondefaoite on 05 May 2005 - 13:08
- Cheap, and most importantly iTunes compatible. Wouldn't buy one personally though, navigating thought 512MB of music might be ok, but not 1Gigs worth. Stick to my 20G 4G
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by insurektion on 05 May 2005 - 13:46
- Cheap, simple and your favourite songs in a small portable package. I don't know why people bash it. You don't need a screen to tell what song your listening to if it is one of your fave's. Play, pause, next, previous, shuffle. I don't know what other options people use when listening to music but whatever you need to tweak (equalization) can be don in iTunes. It is a good product and provides a cheap way to access the iTMS.
-
#8.1 Posted by Richteralan on 05 May 2005 - 14:26
- I bet you can find better DAPs with similar size as ipod shuffle, and better sound quality, and with a screen on it
-
#8.2 Posted by aristotle-dude on 05 May 2005 - 18:18
- With the same amount of storage and same or lower price?
Last edited by 18285 on 05 May 2005 - 18:56 -
#8.3 Posted by insurektion on 05 May 2005 - 19:28
- and form factor. the shuffle is pretty damn durable and pretty small. I dont think its a rip at all. I mean I love my iPod and all but I don't want to come off as a apple zionist but seriously the shuffle is a pretty good deal for what it offers. iTMS, iTunes intergration (some may like drag and drop better but then you have to mess around naming each mp3 etc) and its small and easy to carry around.
I don't get what is with all the nay sayers. not everyone wants fm radio, voice recording, and equilizer on the device. its inefficient to try to do most that stuff (exception fm) in a small size its a mp3 player not a swiss army audio tool.
I mean for some people the shuffke isnt what they are looking for but for most who want to take their music with them the shuffle has got them covered.
-
(5 replies)
#9 Posted by Rishdeep on 05 May 2005 - 14:16
- The success of the iPod Shuffle just proves that most people are buying it for the image and nothing else. There are several flash based players that are far better in terms of features and functionality yet people still continue to buy it.
I love my 20gig iPod but the success of the Shuffle is almost laughable. Well done to Apple for exploiting the market and making those bucks though. -
#9.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 05 May 2005 - 14:26
- People are buying it because it is the only flash-based player that works with iTMS. The fact that it is cheaper than most other players of the same size helps too.
-
#9.2 Posted by Richteralan on 05 May 2005 - 14:27
- hm.......
is that only me that hate itunes?
-
#9.4 Posted by Ahnteis on 05 May 2005 - 16:41
- No.
I hate itunes also.
I don't even like my ipod (20GB, 4g) but I got such a good deal, I couldn't pass.
I'd much rather have a 20GB version of this.
NONE of my music is in DRM form and I like to be able to drag it on or off any computer/OS that supports removeable drives. Additionally, the ability to have a backup battery for those long biking/hiking/whatever trips is a huge deal.
Last edited by 8406 on 07 May 2005 - 01:17 -
#9.5 Posted by insurektion on 05 May 2005 - 19:30
- your iriver is a littler bigger than the shuffle. what specifically dont you like about itunes?
-
(7 replies)
#10 Posted by Richteralan on 05 May 2005 - 14:25
- lol
that proved most consumers are ignorant
-
#10.1 Posted by eAi on 05 May 2005 - 14:45
- I think it proves that most consumers look for somthing else when they buy a audio player. People are used to playing tapes and CDs - they don't tell you what they're playing. I imagine thats the kind of market the shuffle has captured, while the more "committed" music listeners pay the exta $50/£30 for the iPod mini.
-
#10.2 Posted by Ahnteis on 05 May 2005 - 16:42
- If that's all they want, why don't they go for the non-fad players that are cheaper? Oh right--they don't say "Ipod" on them.
-
#10.3 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 16:47
- Right, being bigger, uglier, less intuitive, and less integrated into high quality apps has nothing to do with it... Nor does the fact that these "competitors" are non-name Pacific rim companies that no one knows about, will they be around, do they produce good products, good software...
-
#10.4 Posted by roadwarrior on 05 May 2005 - 17:44
- @Ahnteis: Which flash players are cheaper (for the same amount of storage) than the iPod shuffle?
-
#10.5 Posted by Enrickey on 05 May 2005 - 20:19
- Here is a Sandisk player, $10 cheaper http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00066EK2W/qid=1115324019/sr=8-4/ref=pd_csp_4/002-9203228-1676010?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846.
Here is another one by Kanguru, no usb cable is needed for it just like the shuffle, $10 cheaper as well http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007L72VC/qid=1115324298/sr=1-44/ref=sr_1_44/002-9203228-1676010?v=glance&s=electronics. -
#10.6 Posted by roadwarrior on 05 May 2005 - 21:46
- Thanks for those links. If I were in the market for a flash player (my wife and I both have iPod minis right now), I might consider them, but the fact that they don't support iTMS would be my first turn-off. I have a bunch of songs that I won in the Pepsi promotion (my wife and I drink a lot of Mountain Dew ), and imported all of our CD collection into iTunes as AAC. The extra $10 for the iPod shuffle would be worth it considering that I spend more than that on snacks any given week, and it would be a hassle to convert all of my music again (it took me all day to rip our CD collection when we bought our iPods).
-
#10.7 Posted by Zatko55 on 06 May 2005 - 00:48
QUOTE Here is a Sandisk player, $10 cheaper http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00066EK2W/qid=1115324019/sr=8-4/ref=pd_csp_4/002-9203228-1676010?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846.
Here is another one by Kanguru, no usb cable is needed for it just like the shuffle, $10 cheaper as well http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007L72VC/qid=1115324298/sr=1-44/ref=sr_1_44/002-9203228-1676010?v=glance&s=electronics.
Neither of those players are even in the same league as an the ipod shuffle. The first one is huge and both of them look to have tortured interfaces. Not to mention that both use batteries... They'll end up being considerably more expensive than a shuffle. So, you go stick it to apple and get your cheapo player. The majority of us consumers will stick with the obvious superior product.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by WolfpacKid on 05 May 2005 - 14:58
- Reasons for the success of Shuffle
1. iTMS
2. Recharagble battery over USB.
3. Is also a USB flash drive that plugs in directly to a computer.
4. Simple controls meaning you don't even have to look at the controls to make it work.
5. Cheaper then competitors.
6. Most people except for some geeks on Neowin don't want all the extra useless gagdets which over complament a device.
-
#11.1 Posted by Richteralan on 05 May 2005 - 20:36
- 1. maybe some people like it, and some doesn't(e.g. me) and itune doesn't offer flexibility in codec support.
2. many other DAPs can recharge from USB, just take longer.
3. many other DAPs are UMS compliance.
4. that is a positive interpretation. negative interpretation can be lacking of controllability/function.
5. yes it is true, price saved from lacking LCD screen.
6. a simple stuff that only plays music. it is a valid opinion.
So, the success of ipod shuffle probably made up from ipod brand name effect and it's price -
#11.2 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 20:46
QUOTE itune doesn't offer flexibility in codec support.
Yes, it does. Oh, are you confused? Do you not understand that a store is different than a player app and that the player app is connected to a fully-extensible media subsystem? Sorry if I don't listen to you.
QUOTE So, the success of ipod shuffle probably made up from ipod brand name effect and it's price
That's a completely illogical interpretation. Nothing you said says "the success is solely due to branding and marketing."
-
#12 Posted by noir on 05 May 2005 - 15:06
- I consider myself a fairly advanced user but I still love the shuffle, it does exactly what I need and nothing more. I don't really care if it doesn't have voice-recording and whatnot, how often do you actually use that? It does what it's supposed to do and that's play music and that at a relatively low price.
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by nasserd on 05 May 2005 - 15:12
- WHAT A CROCK OF JUNK!!!
In 3 months this product magically dominates the market?! YEAH, RIGHT!!! Other players have been dominating for YEARS; highly doubtful that the low-quality Shuffle suddenly dominates the million units previously sold.
The closest thing is *maybe* a fair number of people *buy* them, but I sure as heck do not own a Shuffle when my SanDisk works just a-okay! -
#13.1 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 16:49
- your only evidence that this is false is yourself? Ha, ha, ha... What a crock of junk!
-
#13.2 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 20:10
- nasserd,
% of Market Share is a measure of % of all SALES during a period of time, not % of total owned in the world. Having said that your post does not make a lot of sense. Apple dominates the portable player market and to say otherwise would be ridiculous.
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by Bling3k12 on 05 May 2005 - 15:28
- Find me a low cost flash player that works with my Mac and plays back iTunes Music Store files, then we'll talk.
I'll stick with my Shuffle until then.
-
(3 replies)
#15 Posted by Xinh on 05 May 2005 - 16:16
- I have been looking around for a good no nonsence flash player for when I jogging. And guess what? The iPod shuffle keeps coming out on top. The reasons?
- I have looked at everything from no-names to Creative's Muvo series and Apple is cheaper then almost all of them.
- Plus it works as a USB memory stick. Hey two devices in one. Great for when I stop at at an Internet cafe when I am on the road.
- I do not need a screen (I am jogging . I would rather be looking at the river or watching out for kamikaze bicyclists or speeding cars then trying to squint at some tiny screen.
- As far as the file formats, I already use AAC and everything I download off the web (Podcast and indy music) is in MP3 format.
- And since I do not speak the local language (an American in Italy) very well, radio listeining is out anyway (even if I did live in the States, I would not want to listen to Clear Channel Crap anyway).
- In addition Apple has followed the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principale of design. Why do you need the kitchen sink thrown in?
So I guess I am giong to go to my local store and give Apple some money. -
#15.1 Posted by dhan on 05 May 2005 - 17:34
- - all flash players work as thumb drives
- you don't have to continuously look at screen !!! its useful when you want to listen to that one song ...how to achieve that w/o a screen
- I don't get argument about AAC/MP3
- its added feature, you don't have to listen to it
- Apple has branded & done good job at marketing of a really inferior product -
#15.2 Posted by aristotle-dude on 05 May 2005 - 19:11
- -no **** sherlock, the shuffle just happens to be a "higher capacity" thumb drive for the price.
-When you want to listen to "that" song? You don't jog do you? If you are busy looking down at the screen searching for a song, you are liable to get yourself hurt or killed because you are not looking where you are going.
-Added features you don't need add to the price and complexity.
-That's a matter of your opinion.
-
#16 Posted by Galley on 05 May 2005 - 16:16
- I'd love to have an iPod shuffle to use on break at work. I could take it in on Monday, and have enough songs to last me all week. Shuffle mode would be great in this instance. For all other listening, I have a 40 gigger.
-
(8 replies)
#17 Posted by neufuse on 05 May 2005 - 16:45
- I have an iPod mini, love it... but cant see why people would want the shuffle mainly since for relatively the same amount of money you can get one with a small screen that at least says what is playing and better navigation
-
#17.1 Posted by insurektion on 05 May 2005 - 19:37
- From the comments here Id imagine most of you havent held a shuffle in your hand. the thing is [SIZE=1]tiny[SIZE=4]. the impod mini is small but still signifigantly bigger. you can forget the shuffle is in ur pocket.
-
#17.2 Posted by Richteralan on 05 May 2005 - 20:38
- small.....
hm......
I can think of a lot of DAPs which are very small and have a screen on it -
#17.3 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 20:53
- I can't think of one that's flatter than a pack of Doublemint. Most of them are about 1 inch square. It's hard to forget you've got a 1 inch square device in your pocket. The Shuffle is thin. It can be in a shirt front pocket and you wouldn't detect any weight or thickness. Please cite a single player like that.
-
#17.4 Posted by Jstphish on 05 May 2005 - 21:05
- I agree. If you haven't held the Shuffle you have no room to talk. It's only a few ounces which means you can hardly tell it's in your hand. It really does weigh less than a pack of gum ... at least in my opinion.
-
#17.5 Posted by neufuse on 05 May 2005 - 21:52
- haven't held one? gawd I just sold one I had on ebay because I was very unimpressed by it.. .sure its small, and light... just missing a few key features like a display to see what is playing... ive seen a lot of MP3 players at best buy the same size and even some smaller! that have displays on them
-
#17.6 Posted by sphbecker on 05 May 2005 - 21:54
- There a number of flash players that are the right size to fit in a pocket (not square), but none as small or light as the Shuffle. It is a really nice player, but slightly limited due to the lack of a display. However, as many have pointed out, most of the places where you would want a flash player over a hard drive player are places where you would not be using a display. I would consiter buying the Shuffle, but I already own a large amount of music from Napster and MSN, and it would not transfer.
-
#17.7 Posted by dp123 on 05 May 2005 - 23:16
QUOTE ive seen a lot of MP3 players at best buy the same size and even some smaller!
Name them. Not the SanDisk, not the iRivers, nothing from Rio... which are these players that are not just as small as the Shuffle in 2 dimension but in all 3? Please.-
#17.8 Posted by Richteralan on 06 May 2005 - 01:44
- sorry I can't
I can't find any small player without a LCD screen
-
#18 Posted by Devil Fish on 05 May 2005 - 18:28
- I have an iPod shuffle and it's a good little player. It's also a handy mobile storage device which is useful for transfering files when I am moving from office to office. It's simple and cheap, and does exactly what I need it to.
I don't understand why people feel the need to rubbish a certain player be it from apple or anyone else in a very juvenile fashion. Buy what works for you, it's simple folks.
Last edited by 23193 on 05 May 2005 - 18:36
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by RADicaLMMS on 05 May 2005 - 19:17
- The stupider they are, the faster they sell. Just like any thing else in this world, from software to hardware...
Simple ain't it, make 'em DUMB.... move 'em fast! -
#19.1 Posted by insurektion on 05 May 2005 - 19:38
- kinda like your post's.
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by loc[a]lhost on 05 May 2005 - 20:24
- I love Apple, and i'm a proud owner of an G4 iPod, but the iPod Shuffle is just stupid. pretty hard to believe 58% of the people who have bought a flash player could settle without a screen.
-
#20.1 Posted by Jstphish on 05 May 2005 - 21:10
- It doesn't make it stupid just because you don't understand why they like it.
-
#20.2 Posted by loc[a]lhost on 05 May 2005 - 21:37
- I know, that's just my opinion.
-
#21 Posted by Jstphish on 05 May 2005 - 21:09
- [edit]oops, wrong reply[/edit]
-
#22 Posted by msing on 05 May 2005 - 23:28
- I guess people like throwing out $150 for 1Gb of music.
-
#23 Posted by ThunderRiver on 06 May 2005 - 00:54
- What is with this stupid debates? Lets face it.. if iPod Shuffle is complicated with LCD display, people will say iPod is too difficult to use now a day.. and it is no different from other competitors except its circular control.
Now with iPod being screen-less and feature-deprived, you call it a rip-off. Honestly, just don't buy it if you are against it so much. I personally wouldn't buy it, but there are a tons of people who do, and I have no problem with that.
I own 4G 20Gb, and I am fine with what I have.
-
#24 Posted by EduardValencia on 06 May 2005 - 03:28
- go apple wtf
-
#25 Posted by dangel on 06 May 2005 - 10:14
- Really i'm impressed with the success of Apple and their music monopoly but sometimes i wonder if i took a turd, painted it white and stuck an apple logo on it you'd all rush out a buy it for $100
I don't have anything against Apple products, but sometimes you really CAN do better for your money kids..
-
#26 Posted by Yogurth on 06 May 2005 - 11:52
- Want a truly remarkable Flash and HD players? 50 hours of continous play?
Go to http://jetaudio.com
-
#27 Posted by wildk on 06 May 2005 - 12:05
- Certainly if i was going to be in the market for an iPod shuffle i would have to consider if it was worth for £99 or pay an extra £40 for the iPod mini and get an extra 3Gb of storage. As i understand it the mini can be charged from the USB port and it has a display, yes it is bigger, but it is still a small unit.
Oh well while my first gen DAP jukebox is still working!
In a report to clients released today and obtained by The Mac Observer, Oppenheimer said the Apple executive told him preliminary March results from research marketing firm NPD showed the shuffle's market share rose from 43 percent in February to 58 percent in March, what Milunovich characterized as "a stunning figure."
Oppenheimer reportedly said Apple was "supply-constrained in March and will be interested to see the April [sales] data." Milunovich said he was told by the exec that "Apple isn't feeling competitive heat yet" in the digital media device market from the likes of Creative, Sony, iRiver and others.
Key features for the upcoming expansion pack: