why are people hating the shuffle and mini?


Recommended Posts

The iPod Shuffle is great for its price. Those who complain about the lack of a screen forget agbout this: all that would fit on that tiny player would be a 1-line screen. How useless is a screen if it isn't at least 3 lines? Come on, you have to admit that a tiny flash player with 512mb at just $99 is a hot deal.

No LCD is a big turn off. It's not that expensive to put a little LCD on the damn thing, I mean even a 30 dollar CD player has one. You mean I have to flip through 512MB worth of songs just to find what I want to listen to? That's just retarded. Put a screen on it and voila you got a ten times more appealing player. It's not gonna break the bank...

As for the Mini, It's a great concept... but the fact that you can't upgrade the parts inside, and that only Apple makes APPLE COMPUTERS, means that you really have no upgrade options and you get stuck with the stuff you buy it with.

It's like going to WalMart and picking up a premade computer with crappy GPU, RAM and Processor and not just building it yourself and putting what you want in it. That's the only gripe. And probably the only way you can get a powerful Mac is to spend a fortune, YOU CAN"T BUILD YOUR OWN!!!! It sucks... lol

Because Apple is obsessed with trying to take the market any way they can. It's very lame. Anything to get ahead.

585317479[/snapback]

Becuase making products people like and will purchase is SO wrong, eh? Honestly, I see the Shuffle and the Mac Mini's target audiences and think they're perfect for them. The Mac Mini (which by all appearences, IS upgradeable in the RAM, HD, and maybe even CD sense) is targeted at PC users tired of massive, gaping holes in their OS that are bigger than goatse. The Shuffle is for people who either don't have a lot of music, or for those who have a lot, but only want to carry their favorite songs because they don't want or need an full iPod. I for one fit in none of the aforementioned catagories, but I still want both, since they are better than any offering for the same pricepoint from other manufacturers, and I can't very well build my own Mac, but I undestand that, as then we'd see idiots who can't build anything right harping on Apple for making a crappy OS and having crappy hardware makers screwing up the quality of components of Macs.

I was blown away when I first saw Mac mini..then i read the details...saw the external power supply and I'd been thinking does Apple really deserve all the praise for designing "the smallest" "Desktop" ever ?

I mean come on they've used all the notebook components they could find and pack it in a nice cubical box and call it a "desktop"

585315372[/snapback]

I tend to agree with you. Also what will happen the first time this thing gets knocked off the desk or table.

Because Apple is obsessed with trying to take the market any way they can. It's very lame. Anything to get ahead.

585317479[/snapback]

If you were a shareholder don't you expect that from your company? :laugh:

Ass I have already said in another thread, the choice is clear, you can get the iPod shuffle with no screen OR a zillion other flash MP3 players with a screen that cost a bit more. No which product stands out to consumers?

And no, Apple can't just pull and product out of their *** and sell it. Look at the Cube.

Edited by Phillip
Why do I hate the iPod Shuffle and Mac Mini?

Because Apple has always been about expensive, quality computers/accessories. They are like the elite of computers, in my mind. Don't get me wrong, I love the concept behind the new products: cheaper/smaller makes them more affordable to others.

But think of the long run. If everyone has a Mac, they will turn in to the PC world. More and more viruses will appear on the Mac platform, cheaper, lesser grade hardware will show up in stores, and that's just the beginning.

585298752[/snapback]

You think that just because they have one affordable computer, that everone in the long run might have a Mac? Are you forgetting they still have to dish out more money for the keyboard, mouse, and Apple's stinkin expensive displays? You think just because they have an inexpense computer that that makes it not elite??? I don't see the logic behind any of this.

I think that they should stay smaller than the PC world because they are elite. I use the same reasoning on why I would like to see Firefox remain less used that Internet Explorer.

um, this thread is called why do people hate the ipod shuffle, and i was telling him why i hate it

A) why is it called the ipod shuffle?

B&C) If all they are buying it for is jogging, they can also make do with a no name mp3 player

D) I realize that 1gig flash doesnt play music, but then again, i was stating how expensive it was

Read the thread name before you scold me for whining and "talking about things i dont know"

585315735[/snapback]

I have every right to scold you about things you dont know about, for youre speaking out of ignorance. You just now asked me why it was called the ipod shuffle if you are not obliged to use the shuffle feature. Why the hell are you asking me that? Ask Apple. Its just a sales pitch, everyone here knows shuffle is nothing new. As for the no-name MP3 player you pretty much repeated what I said. People never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

Are you forgetting they still have to dish out more money for the keyboard, mouse, and Apple's stinkin expensive displays?

585332098[/snapback]

Are you forgetting that it will work with pretty much any display, mouse or keyboard (including that old junk one you probably have laying around in your closet). This computer is marketed at people wanting to REPLACE an older computer! How many times does that have to be said????????????

You think that just because they have one affordable computer, that everone in the long run might have a Mac?  Are you forgetting they still have to dish out more money for the keyboard, mouse, and Apple's stinkin expensive displays?  You think just because they have an inexpense computer that that makes it not elite???  I don't see the logic behind any of this.

585332098[/snapback]

Apple NEVER recommended you get their displays. They don't even put that as an option when you buy your Mac mini. Even if you did want it, you have to get that separately. The mouse and keyboard are option too. Apple doesn't force you. It does even say "RECOMMENDED" like Dell.

Because Apple is obsessed with trying to take the market any way they can. It's very lame. Anything to get ahead.

585317479[/snapback]

doesn't every company try to do that?

Personally I believe that the hate towards the Shuffle is the lack of LCD screen but thats not a worry to me; I can live with my 20GB 4G Player thank you very much!

And as for the Mac Mini, well I've been nothing but good things about this, its a great little product designed like a beaut. The price is also very good; this product will increase Apple's Market Share, however much that may be.

The two largest groups of people complaining are:

(1) The Linux freaks - mainly this is penis envy... the current Macs beat them in every way and that, frankly, scares the hell out of them.

(2) Mac geeks - they've always had a sense of elitism that is threatened by a mainstream Mac.

They both have missed the point. The Mac Mini is NOT for Mac people - it's designed to attract PC users who are ga-ga over OS-X but don't want to commit to a full Mac system. This is a VERY smart move on Apple's part... it's a market that's got plenty of interest but until now no way of tapping it.

Besides... the sales of these two items speak louder than the critics... they are both flying off the shelves. You have a MINIMUM three week wait for a Mac Mini and most places are reporting they can't meet demand for the iPod shuffle.

There really is no reason for apple to not have an lcd on this. If it was for design reasons they could have put the screen on the side edge of the player or they could have put a sliding cover on it. I think they got greedy, wanted more for less, simply counting on ipods popularity, trendiness, and fanaticism.

There really is no reason for apple to not have an lcd on this.  If it was for design reasons they could have put the screen on the side edge of the player or they could have put a sliding cover on it.  I think they got greedy, wanted more for less, simply counting on ipods popularity, trendiness, and fanaticism.

585345935[/snapback]

it doesn't need a ****ing screen, sometimes its nice to have something SIMPLE.

There really is no reason for apple to not have an lcd on this.  If it was for design reasons they could have put the screen on the side edge of the player or they could have put a sliding cover on it.  I think they got greedy, wanted more for less, simply counting on ipods popularity, trendiness, and fanaticism.

585345935[/snapback]

Maybe cause you can't make a intuitive interface with such a small screen. In the Shuffle dissection photos I have see, there is no space for a screen. If they did put a screen, they would have to sacrifice the size to make a player that is the same as everyone else's. A screen also would make the player cost more - the Shuffles margin is less than 20%.

Every single damn company in the world is greedy. But in this case, Apple isn't counting on the iPods to make the money. They want people buying the more expensive iPods and Macs after they have had a good experience with the Shuffle. And plus there's nothing wrong with Apple 'simply counting on the iPods popularity' - I bet its what you would do if you were in charge.

it doesn't need a ****ing screen, sometimes its nice to have something SIMPLE.

585346525[/snapback]

You're right, why did they even bother adding controls? Just set everything in itunes. :rolleyes:

and since when do screens make them so damn complex anyway?

Maybe cause you can't make a intuitive interface with such a small screen. In the Shuffle dissection photos I have see, there is no space for a screen. If they did put a screen, they would have to sacrifice the size to make a player that is the same as everyone else's. A screen also would make the player cost more - the Shuffles margin is less than 20%.

Apple is known for its innovation and engineering feats, of which the shuffle is neither. As far as I'm concerned its a step backwards.

Apple is known for its innovation and engineering feats, of which the shuffle is neither.  As far as I'm concerned its a step backwards.

585346820[/snapback]

How is it backwards? Who ever said Flash MP3 players needed a screen? Most people who are going to buy a Shuffle don't need a screen. Its adds on weight, and adds on extra bucks. As far as I am concerned the Shuffle IS innovative in the sense, it doesn't have a screen, reducing the costs. Has anyone out there got a cheap player these days without a screen? Innovation doesn't always have to be engineering feats or scientific breakthroughs.

How is it backwards? Who ever said Flash MP3 players needed a screen? Most people who are going to buy a Shuffle don't need a screen. Its adds on weight, and adds on extra bucks. As far as I am concerned the Shuffle IS innovative in the sense, it doesn't have a screen, reducing the costs. Has anyone out there got a cheap player these days without a screen? Innovation doesn't always have to be engineering feats or scientific breakthroughs.

585347327[/snapback]

Its a step backwards cause any dumbass company out there can remove their lcd if they wanted to, add a little more memory and voila: a shuffle. adds weight?? give me a break, maybe half an ounce. Add bucks yes. Innovative my ass, it removes & reduces functionality. Innovation would be creating a shuffle WITH a screen, that is just as elegant, unobtrusive, and sold for the same price. Now THAT would be a worthy feat. The shuffle is currently nothing but a pretty, glorified usb drive.

Its a step backwards cause any dumbass company out there can remove their lcd if they wanted to, add a little more memory and voila: a shuffle. adds weight?? give me a break, maybe half an ounce.  Add bucks yes.  Innovative my ass, it removes & reduces functionality.  Innovation would be creating a shuffle WITH a screen, that is just as elegant, unobtrusive, and sold for the same price.  Now THAT would be a worthy feat.  The shuffle is currently nothing but a pretty, glorified usb drive.

585347385[/snapback]

Shuffle with a screen, huh? I think they have a name for that: The iPod.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • After I installed KB5095093, the volume on my ARM laptop won't go above 20%. It's stuck on the hearing protection level, which is pretty much useless if you want to listen to anything. I rolled back.
    • Amazon Prime Day slashes Samsung's newest Galaxy Watch Ultra by 45 percent by Karthik Mudaliar Samsung’s flagship Android smartwatch has received one of its steepest Prime Day cuts. Amazon has dropped the 2025 Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra in Titanium Blue to $357.24, saving buyers around $292 from its $649.99 list price. That's a 45 percent discount (purchase link below). The 47mm Galaxy Watch Ultra uses a titanium casing and a 1.5-inch Super AMOLED display with a resolution of 480 x 480 and peak brightness of 3,000 nits. It includes LTE connectivity, Bluetooth 5.3, Wi-Fi, NFC, and dual-frequency L1+L5 GPS for more accurate outdoor route tracking. The 2025 model has 64GB of storage, a 590mAh battery, sapphire crystal glass, 10ATM water resistance, IP68 protection, and MIL-STD-810H durability testing. Its health and fitness tools include heart rate monitoring, sleep coaching, Energy Score, Running Coach, body composition analysis, temperature sensing, and ECG support, where available. This model is best suited to Android users who regularly run, hike, cycle, or train outdoors and want cellular access without carrying a phone. The larger battery, rugged construction, bright display, and dedicated Quick Button also make it a stronger option than Samsung’s regular Galaxy Watch models for extended workouts and demanding environments. Grab the Titanium Blue Galaxy Watch Ultra before the Prime Day price resets: Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra (2025) [Sold and Shipped by Amazon] Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Google begins rolling out its post-Epic Play Store billing model next week by Karthik Mudaliar Google has confirmed that its redesigned Play Store billing and fee structure will take effect on June 30, 2026, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Economic Area. The changes will let eligible developers offer their own payment systems or send users to an external website for purchases, while separating Google’s platform service fee from the cost of using Google Play Billing. The rollout puts concrete dates and detailed rate cards behind the broader Android policy overhaul Google announced in March. That announcement followed a proposed settlement with Epic Games intended to resolve their long-running disputes over app distribution and payments, although the U.S. portion of the agreement still requires court approval. Under the new billing choice program, developers selling digital content or services can display an alternative payment option alongside Google Play Billing. They may also direct users to their own websites to complete a purchase. Developers can use Google’s standard payment-choice screen or design one that complies with the company’s user-interface rules. Choosing another payment processor does not eliminate Google’s cut altogether. The company will continue charging a service fee for transactions associated with apps distributed through Google Play, regardless of whether payment is handled by Google, an alternative provider, or a developer’s website. Google argues that this fee covers the value and infrastructure provided by Android and the Play Store. For developers earning up to $1 million annually, the service fee will generally be 10 percent. That rate also applies to auto-renewing subscriptions. When Google Play Billing is used in the U.S., U.K., or EEA, Google will add a separate 5 percent billing fee, and developers processing payments elsewhere will not pay that additional charge. This means Google’s familiar flat 30 percent commission is disappearing, but developers will not necessarily see a dramatic reduction on every transaction. An in-app purchase from an existing user processed through Google Play Billing can still reach a combined 30 percent. The biggest savings are likely to come from subscriptions, smaller developers covered by the $1 million tier, and companies able to move customers to their own payment infrastructure. Google is also offering lower rates through its Apps Experience and revamped Games Level Up programs. Apps and games that satisfy the company’s requirements can qualify for 15 percent service fees on new-install transactions and 20 percent on existing-install transactions. The criteria include performance and reliability standards, support for additional Android device categories, and selected platform features. Those program rates are scheduled to become available in the initial markets and Australia on September 30. For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on whether developers adopt alternative payments and pass any savings on through lower prices. For developers, however, June 30 begins a more flexible but considerably more complicated Play Store economy in which distribution, billing, install dates, revenue thresholds, and program participation can each affect Google’s final cut. Google is also separately developing a Registered App Stores program designed to simplify the installation of qualifying third-party stores. That initiative is expected to arrive with a major Android release later in 2026 and will launch outside the U.S. first. Google says the rest of the world will receive the changes by September 30, 2027, although billing rates for markets outside the US, UK, and EEA have not yet been announced.
    • 38% off a super insane price is still an INSANE price.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!