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

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • 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
      463
    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!