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

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!