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

    • Which finger's fingernail are we talking about? I can see how not having this info can lead to massive differences in interpretation.
    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
    • Qualcomm takes on NVIDIA with new Dragonfly CPU and AI chips by Pradeep Viswanathan Microsoft, Google, Amazon, AMD, Meta, Apple, OpenAI, and several others have been developing their own chips for AI infrastructure. However, NVIDIA still remains the dominant player in the market. Today, Qualcomm announced a major expansion of its data center infrastructure portfolio to better compete with NVIDIA. The new lineup includes the Qualcomm Dragonfly C1000 CPU, Qualcomm High Bandwidth Compute technology, the Dragonfly AI300 inference accelerator, new connectivity products, and custom silicon solutions. Qualcomm claims that this new lineup improves performance per watt, token throughput, and total cost of ownership for AI data centers. The Dragonfly C1000 is a new data center CPU built with Qualcomm’s custom Oryon cores. This chip will feature more than 250 cores, frequencies above 5GHz, and a chiplet-based design. Qualcomm claims that this new C1000 can deliver more than 2x better performance per watt compared to existing server CPU offerings based on specifications. The Dragonfly C1000 will support PCIe Gen 7 with more than 2TB/s of connectivity, along with CXL, advanced RAS features, and both air and liquid cooling. Qualcomm expects the Dragonfly C1000 to be commercially available in 2028. Additionally, Qualcomm and Meta announced a multi-year, multi-generation agreement under which Qualcomm will supply Dragonfly C1000 data center CPUs for Meta’s next-generation server fleet. Qualcomm also announced High Bandwidth Compute, a new near-memory computing architecture designed to address AI’s memory bandwidth bottleneck. HBC Gen 1 will debut with the Dragonfly AI250, which is expected to sample in mid-2027. The AI250 will deliver 133TB/s per card, an 18x increase in effective memory bandwidth compared to the AI200 with LPDDR5X. The new Dragonfly AI300 with HBC Gen 2 is a rack-level AI inference platform from Qualcomm. Qualcomm claims that the AI300 can deliver 4x to 8x better performance per watt compared to existing GPU-based architectures based on memory bandwidth per watt per card. The Dragonfly AI300 is expected to be available in 2028.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Meta Plast earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!