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

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA 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.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!