# um, how has apple "failed" with the ipod shuffle?



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

yatko said:


> The core problem with Apple IMO is being only limited to a one company. Although from time to time(as any vendor) they release very intuitive products (at least in terms of industrial design) but sometimes they fail miserably (ie Ipod shuffle-which is another topic of discussion and let's not get into this here) but regardless it still finds strong support, approval and even hard core, compassonate advocacy from existing or past Apple customers. In contrary these should be the ones to demand more or not to settle with an inferior product.


ok, you didn't want to discuss it in the other thread, so i'd like to inquire here: why do you feel apple has "failed miserably" with the ipod shuffle? i think it's a great product, priced unbelievably considering apple's normally high-end pricing, and they will no doubt sell heaps.

what makes it a failure? i am interested in your opinion. no sarcasm.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Please do check previous threads and my posts about this issue. There is a nice feature of 'search' that comes with this newly installed forum software since I hate repeating myself.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

wow, that was rude.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Pardon me? Why is there a trend to make things personal amongst some Apple customers? I think my response was quite adequate.

If I may ask for the future reference, could you reveal me your age group so that I know what kind of maturity level should I expect therefore adjust myself (either further correspondence or just ignore).


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think what Autopilot is implying is that you didn't want to discuss about it in the other thread
and would you now like to discuss it in this new thread?

Perhaps an unorthodox approach, But no need for the negative response.

(You can edit if you like, I'll close my eyes and pretend I didn't see anything)

Dave


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

But we discussed this already and my thoughts(man am I that important here? thanks) can be easily read on previous big iShuffle thread.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's not a matter of that at the moment...
You have to apologize to autopilot and edit your response.

Just some friendly advice.

Dave


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A simple link to the thread you refer to would have made it very easy for all concerned, wouldn't it?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

yatko - Your post may have been succinct, but it came across as rude. ASCII has no emotion, and so wording can make or break a post quite easily. That's one thing you'll find about ehMac, people try to make things polite around here, it's one of the things that makes this community so enjoyable.

A better way would have been to have said that you posted it earlier and that she could find it by searching. Some people forget that there is a person on the other end of the line, and forget any sense of respect or decorum. (Not you, just something I notice more then I would like to happen).


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> But we discussed this already and my thoughts(man am I that important here? thanks) can be easily read on previous big iShuffle thread.


OK, Looking for this iShuffle thread and not finding. A link would be helpful.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Well I believe I said on my first response 'please' didn't I?
Anyways I am honoured as a post is made just for learning my thoughts on certain issue.
Thanks again, apprecieated greatly and boosted my ego.

Group hug people?


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

iPetie said:


> OK, Looking for this iShuffle thread and not finding. A link would be helpful.



http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=22374

PS: On VBulletin when one puts their mouse over to the posters name there is a link that says find more posts by this user. No offense just FYI.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

in starting a new thread, my intentions were to get a discussion going on a topic i thought was interesting.

the attitude i got in return seemed rather condescending.

excuse me if i hadn't seen your previous diatribes on the subject...i assumed (excuse me again) that from the passage i quoted, you had not previously discussed your opinion.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Everyone wants to click on this link

yatko - You did say please, but the sentence it was in was characteristically blunt. Hence, the rudeness impression. No one is holding it against you, but it's worth noting.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

autopilot said:


> in starting a new thread, my intentions were to get a discussion going on a topic i thought was interesting.
> 
> the attitude i got in return seemed rather condescending.
> 
> excuse me if i hadn't seen your previous diatribes on the subject...i assumed (excuse me again) that from the passage i quoted, you had not previously discussed your opinion.


OK. Since it all started from a misundstanding I guess we are now clear. Still an ESL person (after all these years) so please forgive.

*Hands the peace pipe over to autopilot*


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I personally do not think Apple has failed with the iPod Shuffle... mostly because of the fact that a good number of people would like to have an iPod, however cannot justify the cost -- the Shuffle is a good median. For me, personally, the lack of screen isn't too much of a put-off although a simple bare-bones LCD screen would have been nice, but people have used the Walkmen in the past without requiring an interface so it's not impossible to do without.

Maybe Shuffle 2.0, or a slightly more expensive version will have enhanced features to include some sort of interface?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=22374
> 
> PS: On VBulletin when one puts their mouse over to the posters name there is a link that says find more posts by this user. No offense just FYI.


Ya, actually found it by doing that prior to your post. Just learning the new functionality. Pretty handy!


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

yatko said:


> OK. Since it all started from a misundstanding I guess we are now clear. Still an ESL person (after all these years) so please forgive.


hey, no problem. i was more confused than anything. no worries.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Maegelin (Dec 11, 2004)

Well I'll put in an on topic response. I think the iPod shuffle is an extremely smart move on Apple's part. iPod's are the "it" mp3 player, no one can deny that. But they are not really accessible at their prices. This is Apple's way to somewhat dumb it down but keep trademark iPod features at an extremely reasonable price.

I have told many people this week about the iPod shuffle and the first response I always get is, "No screen?" There is obviously a target group for this product and it makes perfect sense to me, even without the screen. Personally I bought an 1gb shuffle because I always listen on random anyway and for 1gb flash you can't go wrong. I use both PC's and Mac's, having a 1gb usb dongle is imperative for a quick data transfer.

If you want something more out of a mp3 player than go for the iPod 20g sure, but if you want a cool gizmo that has appeal, you don't need to see the song title and doesn't take a large chunk out of your bank then go for a shuffle.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I personally do not think Apple has failed with the iPod Shuffle... mostly because of the fact that a good number of people would like to have an iPod, however cannot justify the cost -- the Shuffle is a good median. For me, personally, the lack of screen isn't too much of a put-off although a simple bare-bones LCD screen would have been nice, but people have used the Walkmen in the past without requiring an interface so it's not impossible to do without.


Actually, in my case, I'm going to get one as in the past had no use for the bigger iPods and could not justify the cost. On the one Gig, I can have more than a few tunes and easily move files for work back and forth between work and home without having to go through the upload/download process.

I am also not a scanner. I tend to put music on and listen to, and absorb it. So a display is not necessary for me.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

At under $100 US price point look at the options.
Remind you the SD card reader functionality adds up considerably to the cost of manufacturing these things so that feature of below item could be easily substituted for more capacity (ie 512MB or 1GB).

But as we mentioned in the past Apple certainly didn't want to compete against it's own product line which is OK for Apple but as consumer of course I strongly oppose.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...=ULT31103&CMP=EMC-TIGEREMAIL&SRCCODE=CANEM285

PS: Also the 'failure' in that context was referring to the innovation as well as meeting customers expectations. Yes they will sell in record numbers -unbeliabale isn't it-, but doesn't mean it is the best product and will lower the overall quality of flash based MP3 market for a while (still hopeful that competition will come up with something to beat it in terms of features and comparable price point).


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> ...I personally do not think Apple has failed with the iPod Shuffle... mostly because of the fact that a good number of people would like to have an iPod, however cannot justify the cost...


Not only that, but a larger iPod, even the Mini, would be wasted on me. Do I need to spend roughly $300 or $400 for storage capacity and features I will likely never use? The only listening I do while away from my desktop is radio, while on the commuter train. Radio, even CBC Radio Two, comes with its share of announcer blather, which I find increasingly annoying - and let's not forget that radio playlists almost always contain tracks that you don't like, or don't want to listen to at the moment. When my iPod Shuffle arrives, I will be able to listen to my own playlists (whether shuffled or in order), and be free of announcer and similar interruptions to my enjoyment.

Sure, before now I could have purchased a flash player from another manufacturer - this may sound silly to some but there are those rare times (such as this) when my brand loyalty supercedes everything else. I would rather contribute to Apple's coffers, than to another company's (e.g. Creative etc.) for a product that I may enjoy owning and using.

The iPod Shuffle fits the bill for me, and is exactly what I needed / wanted. If you have to spend so much time criticizing the Shuffle iPod, then it just isn't for you. That does not mean that it will not find a valuable and appreciated place in other consumers' lives. Apple may have failed *you* with this product, but they have not failed *me*.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> At under $100 US price point look at the options.
> Remind you the SD card reader functionality adds up considerably to the cost of manufacturing these things so that feature of below item could be easily substituted for more capacity (ie 512MB or 1GB).


Does not work on a MAC. If you look at my sig, that would pose a problem. Also, by the time I a one gig SD card, it is waaaay overpriced compared to the shuffle. IMHO!


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

iPetie said:


> Does not work on a MAC. If you look at my sig, that would pose a problem. Also, by the time I a one gig SD card, it is waaaay overpriced compared to the shuffle. IMHO!



Actually the product referenced above was to show what Apple could come up with(innovation). So therefore it would be cross platform. I also mentioned that 512 MB or 1 GB could be embedded by replacing the 'reader function".

Lately in Apple's defense most people say that they excluded one vital functionality (ie display, indicator) in order to cut costs but I am referencing above product to prove otherwise.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

The Doug said:


> Apple may have failed *you* with this product, but they have not failed *me*.


Simply put some are lowering their standards. Of course that is understandable, 'love' is capable of making people a lot of irrational decisions.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> Actually the product referenced above was to show what apple could come up with(innovation). I also mentioned that 512 MB or 1 GB could be embedded by replacing the 'reader function". Mostly in Apple's defense most people say that they excluded one vital functionality (ie display, indicator) in order to cut costs but I am referencing above product to prove otherwise.


Well, they would have managed to cut about .12 cents from the cost by not supplying glass. I think it is more a differentiation move as opposed to a cost cutting move. So, we would tend to agree while disagreeing, I think?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Well put Petie & Doug, however I'd love to have a nice 20 or 40 gig iPod if only because of the massive amount of space to transfer files to and from work. I just can't afford one at this point.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

iPetie said:


> Well, they would have managed to cut about .12 cents from the cost by not supplying glass. I think it is more a differentiation move as opposed to a cost cutting move. So, we would tend to agree while disagreeing, I think?



OK since we are starting to agree with each other (nice I am converting apple owners here-good for me- or I should get a life  ), how much do you all think this Ipod Shuffle costs apple to manufacture and market?


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

*iPod Shuffle Remote*



RicktheChemist said:


> I think that accessories will make the iPod shuffle a better product.. if someone could come up with an iPod shuffle remote it would be awesome.


I tend to agree too.
When I first set eyes on the Shuffle I thought where's the display...blah blah blah. Then I thought there must be some kind of remote display that comes with it? I was shocked that there isn't one.

But I'm sure a third party company out there will come up with something similar to this…

*Sony Mini Disc Remote*











If I had a Shuffle I would buy one in a heartbeat. But I don't need one got my iPod


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

yatko said:


> But as we mentioned in the past Apple certainly didn't want to compete against it's own product line which is OK for Apple but as consumer of course I strongly oppose.


How else is a company (any company) supposed to do business? Competing against the high end with the low end is suicide; making the low and high end distinct from each other is the only way to go, as far as I can see.



> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...=ULT31103&CMP=EMC-TIGEREMAIL&SRCCODE=CANEM285


If it meets your requirements, what are you waiting for? Looks ugly and clunky to me, but that's OK -- my opinion doesn't stop you from having one.



> PS: Also the 'failure' in that context was referring to the innovation as well as meeting customers expectations. Yes they will sell in record numbers -unbeliabale isn't it-, but doesn't mean it is the best product and will lower the overall quality of flash based MP3 market for a while (still hopeful that competition will come up with something to beat it in terms of features and comparable price point).


Your argument (both today and in earlier discussions) seems to amount to "the better product is one that's less expensive and has the features <i>I</i> want." This is of course true for all of us looking at any product from our own perspective, but it is absolutely not an objective measure of "better". In the case of the iPod shuffle, you appear to be arguing that the cheapest $/MB MP3 player is a ripoff/failure because it doesn't have more features -- specifically, the features that are important to <i>you</i>.

You also appear to have completely ignored the argument that there is a design virtue in reducing a device to a simple, elegant set of essential features. If you want something that combines every imaginable feature, you already know where to find one -- so what's the problem? You can buy one of those, the rest of us can buy what we please, everyone's happy.


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

Most of the criticism of the iPod shuffle seems to focus on it's features (or lack of) compared to competing products ... I think Apple has succeeded in what it was trying to do ... making the 'price of admission' more accessible. I think the real benefit to Apple beyond the player itself is the exposure of more people to iTunes and the ITMS. The competitors seem to focus on the hardware aspects ... that is really the only aspect they have at the moment to differentiate themselves.

One aspect that seems to evoke a strong response (either positive or negative) is the lack of screen ... which I think will matter to a particular type of listener (ie. one who likes to 'jump around' when listening to their library) and be perfectly OK for others ... it's amazing to see the amount of discussion on the subject ... especially when almost everyone involved (including myself) have not yet touched or used the product.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> OK since we are starting to agree with each other (nice I am converting apple owners here-good for me- or I should get a life  ), how much do you all think this Ipod Shuffle costs apple to manufacture and market?


Component cost would be much lower than one would think. Open market Raw Die for flash memory 512= $13 USD 1Gig = $18 USD. Remainder of components maybe $5 - $7 USD. Manufacture, Packaging and shipping, maybe another $3 USD. 
So to produce, $23 to $35 bucks, maybe a little more. R&D, and marketing would comprise around the same total amount. Margin would therefore equal about 50% max. I would suggest they have built in allowance for flash prices going up and allow for Rev B. upgrade without price increase.

Pretty Standard, No?


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

In response to Imatts post (didn't want to quote the whole thing since would waste Dbase space):

I thought we covered that simplistic design issue in the past by mentioning a remote. Didn't we?

As far as flaming me for not liking and finding Eye Shuffle disappointing and miserable, I am not the one who made the post to learn (or announce) my feelings regards to this product am I? Look at the first post.

All who think similar on this issue could easily ignore my view on this product and move on. But yet me were quoted and a specific post is made for this, isn't it.

Yes the above referenced product is ugly (and this is the third repeat) posted for what can be done in terms of features in that scale of a device only.

Hope we all are clear on this now.

Once more though, let's put all the feelings aside would you buy this for $130+tax if it wasn't an apple. Unfortunatley this a repeat question as well.

It is also interesting to note that once the product is announced how some of the apple owners' view changed 180 degrees. I am not going to try to interpret this of course. At least not in the home field of dedicated Apple users tactically. I know I am a 'guest' here.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Whatever, _professor_. 

*De gustibus non est disputandum.*


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

The Doug said:


> Whatever, _professor_.
> 
> *Degustibus non est disputandem.*


Actually it is 

De gustibus non est disputandum


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

yatko said:


> Once more though, let's put all the feelings aside would you buy this for $130+tax if it wasn't an apple. Unfortunatley this a repeat question as well.


No, I would not! Apple, to me represents a quality of experience that I have found unrivalled. Up until about a year and a half ago, I had never even used an Apple computer or product. After being a windows user since 2.0.
Nothing wrong with appreciation of a company or its products if it works well for you. Nothing wrong with brand loyalty or the appreciation of aesthetic or experience. Mercedes and BMW have thrived off the same loyalty for a long time. Are they the best value? Most would say no, but some would look at you in disbelief for just asking the question.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

iPetie said:


> No, I would not! Apple, to me represents a quality of experience that I have found unrivalled. Up until about a year and a half ago, I had never even used an Apple computer or product. After being a windows user since 2.0.
> Nothing wrong with appreciation of a company or its products if it works well for you. Nothing wrong with brand loyalty or the appreciation of aesthetic or experience. Mercedes and BMW have thrived off the same loyalty for a long time. Are they the best value? Most would say no, but some would look at you in disbelief for just asking the question.


Ouch you hit me right on the heart with your arrow since after owning four BMWs I still keep drooling over them. All of them are used though so I can understand how it feels. But thankfully once someone critisez me for this I agree with them.


----------



## davidslegend (Jan 6, 2004)

The iPod Shuffle fits the bill for me said:


> me[/b].


Sorry, but I feel the failure of many an Apple debate is that enthusiast make blind statements that accuse the person questioning a products relevance with "it's your probem" attitude. I know by reading this persons whole diatribe that they did not mean this in a negetive way....but, I tire of this type of attack response.

I have always loved "Apple" to the point of addiction. Yet, I struggle to keep my zest in check so that I remain impartial. 

As for the "shuffle" it is a product that lacks special-ness. I think Apple made a product that panders to the "ipod" appeal with little to no innovation. I agree with others who say that it's ment as an entry level product to sell to the yearning teenage masses. Yet, why doesn't Apple add a low tech solution such as a radio to this product...perhaps we are seeing a monopolistic approach...Apple is strangling competors with a "price-right" solution which ties users further to there "iTunes" marketshare. It's no wonder that NAFTA doesn't charge Apple with unfair trade by "dumping" an product to the massess.

Should I leave my name...?????

Sincerely,

davidslegend


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

yatko said:


> As far as flaming me for not liking and finding Eye Shuffle disappointing and miserable...


I apologize if you thought that is what I was doing.

Rather, I believe you are dressing up subjective claims as objective ones. That is all. No flames intended, just vigorous debate.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Please people, we've been through this before, three years ago. The original 5 gig iPod was derided for being too expensive. So was the mini. 10 million iPods later, thse arguments look pretty lame. The iPod shuffle is simple to use, has a decent memory (c'mon 128 Mb players?) and WORKS with the iTMS.

I think Apple will sell 10 million iPod shuffles this year. Timing and price are right. If their profit margin is so great, how come Creative and the scores of other makers didn't have 512Mb players for US$99? They added features that no one used, cluttered the interface and forgot about the user. Apple (for once) has been aggressive on price and this has left the other players scurrying. At CES, Creative launched a 256 Mb flash player for more than the shuffle..... Game over?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

yatko said:


> It is also interesting to note that once the product is announced how some of the apple owners' view changed 180 degrees.


It is an interesting fact, in that when something new comes to the table showing a different way of getting something done (eg. iPod gave MP3 players 5GB instead of the 32MB you could buy) or being super easy to use by looking at what you did with the device differently (eg. iPod shuffle). These may be Apple examples but it isn't just Apple that does it.

When you discover a different way to do something, it more then likely will pique your interest in the possibility as to what you can do with the product and what it can do for you.

From what I gather, the biggest reason the iPod shuffle will be so popular is because it does what people do with their MP3 players. They just leave it on shuffle and go. I have an iPod photo, but mine is always on shuffle songs and if I don't like the song at the time I'll just press next.

Every person I've talked to who uses a MP3 player ends up leaving it on shuffle, because they have an amount of music that they like with them. It's their music, and there is something about that personal ownership that creates those behaviours.

davidslegend - I see the reason behind why you question someone's unnecessary protection of a company's products when the person has no reason to protect the company. Brand loyalty is an interesting phenomenon, but from what I see, I see someone showing the positive aspects of a product more often then not. If a product isn't relevant to a person, what's the point of complaining?

Pointing out believed flaws in a product is fine, but I have yet to see any actual flaws with the iPod shuffle design. It's an extremely well done product that is designed to one job and do it well.

I find it funny that both iRiver and Creative are comparing the iPod shuffle to cheap Chinese MP3 players, as if both are pond scum. I'm thinking that iRiver and Creative aren't seeing what Apple is seeing, that is the want in the market for something really easy to use, cheap, and practical. MP3 players have gotten much more complex and I meet people who hate their MP3 players because they can't just get them to just play music.


----------



## AdrianL (Jul 23, 2003)

I won't go as far as saying apple failed on the iPod shuffle. I think only time will tell if its a success or not, I personally would put my money on it being successful for a number of reasons. To name a few its got amazing value and its got the name brand of its bigger sibling.

Having said that, the Shuffle isn't for me. I like to have control of what I'm listening to. Never liked random songs probably never will. 

I do think a tiny screen that lets you choose from one playlist to another or just make everything random could have been done. Shuffle is great value and has its cons and pros. But just isn't for me. I NEED CONTROL! :nuts:

(Side note: any one notice the lack of applaud when the Shuffle was first introduced? I think people had reservations about it being random. The applaud came in once the price was announced.)


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Please people, we've been through this before, three years ago. The original 5 gig iPod was derided for being too expensive. So was the mini. 10 million iPods later, thse arguments look pretty lame. The iPod shuffle is simple to use, has a decent memory (c'mon 128 Mb players?) and WORKS with the iTMS.
> 
> I think Apple will sell 10 million iPod shuffles this year. Timing and price are right. If their profit margin is so great, how come Creative and the scores of other makers didn't have 512Mb players for US$99? They added features that no one used, cluttered the interface and forgot about the user. Apple (for once) has been aggressive on price and this has left the other players scurrying. At CES, Creative launched a 256 Mb flash player for more than the shuffle..... Game over?


Well said ... competitors are going to be scrambling ... typically poor interfaces and no ITMS access mean continued struggle for Creative and others.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I don't like the shuffle either. But undoubtedly it will sell.

In my experience as a marketer, if you offer three levels of a product, you will make more money by extending your brand prescence (and shelf space or mindshare). Psychologically, the consumer doesn't want the lower model, can't afford the higher model, so he/she buys the middle model.

Corolla, Camry or Lexus. 
Tall, grande, venti. 
Chaps, Polo, Ralph Lauren. 
Johnny Walker Red Label, Black Label, Blue Label.
Trinitron, Wega, Grand Wega.
eMac, iMac, PowerMac.
20", 23", 30" (youknowwhat)
shuffle, mini, iPod (incl. photo)

As the lowest model, the shuffle's lack of features at launch (which is a hard deadline for Apple Product Managers), suggests that perhaps this is what was accomplishable in the prescribed time frame.

Since Jobs' return, I can only think of the Cube as a failure, and that was a failure of marketing. So often, Apple's woes are a result of its poor predictions of success (lack of product points people to the competition) and not having product ready at the right time (iMac G5 was launched AFTER 'back to school' buying season and there were no iMac G4s to sell all summer).

All this being said, joggers will love the shuffle. Luxury car owners won't be buying any of these for their vehicles. It's all marketing, right?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

FWIW, John Gruber of Daring Fireball has posted an article called Small, Cheap, and without a Display.

Snippets:


> My mistake was not realizing that a low-cost iPod wouldn’t entail Apple joining the current market for low-end players, so much as Apple redefining the market for low-end players. Not because the iPod Shuffle has amazing new features (it doesn’t), but because Apple is going to sell so damned many of them, and everyone knows it.


It also covers some thoughts on the Mac mini


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

> define the market for low-end players


which is my concern hence these discussions.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Please people, we've been through this before, three years ago. The original 5 gig iPod was derided for being too expensive. So was the mini. 10 million iPods later, thse arguments look pretty lame. The iPod shuffle is simple to use, has a decent memory (c'mon 128 Mb players?) and WORKS with the iTMS.
> 
> I think Apple will sell 10 million iPod shuffles this year. Timing and price are right. If their profit margin is so great, how come Creative and the scores of other makers didn't have 512Mb players for US$99? They added features that no one used, cluttered the interface and forgot about the user. Apple (for once) has been aggressive on price and this has left the other players scurrying. At CES, Creative launched a 256 Mb flash player for more than the shuffle..... Game over?


No one here in their right mind will touch first or second generation Ipod here I am sure since there were very ugly experiences. If you looked at the sales chart that was shown in the keynote, after 3 releases (ie on the fourth release) sales picked up since people (first didn't know, second waited for bugs to be cleaned out). So yes after 3 version releases(or bug fixes) everybody will like the shuffle. Sooner we start to provide 'right feedback' better they will work on the initial release.
After all we, the consumers, are the kings remember?


----------



## AdrianL (Jul 23, 2003)

Harsh word about the Shuffle from Creative CEO
http://www.ipodlounge.com/ipodnews_comments.php?id=6124_0_7_0_C

I think its fear speaking. Deep down I think their all afraid of the shuffle.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Interesting debate ... though it got off to a bit of a rocky start ...

I think the iPod shuffle is beautiful - I'm a minimalist at heart. Since I'm loading songs I like I really do not care what comes next - I know I'm going to like it regardless (besides, some of the segues from random playlists are just inspired !). It's perfect for the gym - light, won't get in the way ...

I've been looking at mp3 players for a few weeks now. My office is moving to downtown TO, so I'll be commuting by public transit (hurrah !) rather than driving. The Shuffle is almost perfect for me - almost. Right now I get all of my news from CBC on my a.m. and p.m. commute, so I really did want a combo radio/mp3 player - primary use will be the radio, with a little music as an option (for the gym) ... 

Man, the other mp3 players out there are just plain UGLY ! I hate gimmicks - coloured displays, 4 million FM-presets ... just give me something that WORKS, simply and intuitively ... and, yes, that looks good.

The other big disadvantage of the non-Apple players is iTunes compatibility. It took me a long time to get on the iTunes bandwagon, but now that I have finally ripped my 1200-CD music collection I can't praise it highly enough - it truly has revolutionized how I listen to music ! I want a player that I can plug in, synchronize/update and not have to mess about copying files manually ... 

So, what do I do ... well, this is hardly an ideal solution, but I do think I'm going to go with 2 devices - the Shuffle and a stand-alone radio (which I assume exist ...) - hardly ideal, but Steve seems dead against FM in iPods, period ...

Mike McHugh

PS if anyone knows of a decent non-Apple player which might meet my needs, I'd love to hear about it !


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Creative CEO wits:


> "Actually, to me it's a big let-down: we're expecting a good fight but they're coming out with something that's five generations older,"


Expecting a good fight?










If they think they're holding their own _now_, wait until the next quarter's figures. 










Dude... just stay down before you get really hurt.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

AdrianL said:


> Harsh word about the Shuffle from Creative CEO
> http://www.ipodlounge.com/ipodnews_comments.php?id=6124_0_7_0_C
> 
> I think its fear speaking. Deep down I think their all afraid of the shuffle.



This shouldn't be taken for Apple's defense but Creative is also one of those non respect to customer companies.

Almost always they first release a product that is a cheap alternative to a valuable brand (ir their first release of CDRWs were Plextors, once the word is out, people jumped on Creative CDRWs and they ended up getting cheap Samsung ones. So called, different batch excuse.,

Same happened when they released first bacth of 4GB compact flashplayers. It was 'replacable' at the baginning and when the word hit the internet, everyone jumped on it yet they settled with a fixed one.

From personal experience, creative also does not provide Canadian warranty (ie you have to deal with their US office don't even provide (in the past at least) canadian 1-800 number,

So from one tyrant to another. All I can say about creative is Ceveat Emptor.

PS: It is interesting to read though the people's response to Eye Shuffle on Ipod Lounge Site.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

mikemchugh said:


> PS if anyone knows of a decent non-Apple player which might meet my needs, I'd love to hear about it !


The Lexar Jumpdrive Sport is what I've been using and I have enjoyed using it but it does have
its quirks that I don't like, Like the fact that when I turn it off it'll forget all of the preferences
and I'll have to reinput them each time I want to use it.

You can't beat the price though and you can insert different "Jump" flash drives for when you want to
make up multiple playlists.

Lexar jumpdrive Sport = $53.99 

Lexar 1 gb flash drive = $107.99 

As for the Apple Shuffle...
I like the idea of the Shuffle's switch on the back of the Shuffle,
The switch that allows you to switch between linear and shuffle mode.
That idea is what I think will make the Shuffle a real winner,
The ability to change a function physically rather than having to do it in a menu, Nice touch!

Dave


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

dolawren said:


> The Lexar Jumpdrive Sport is what I've been using and I have enjoyed using it...


This syncs with iTunes on Macs only, right? I read that many MP3 players work with iTunes but only on the Mac.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

yatko said:


> No one here in their right mind will touch first or second generation Ipod here I am sure since there were very ugly experiences. If you looked at the sales chart that was shown in the keynote, after 3 releases (ie on the fourth release) sales picked up since people (first didn't know, second waited for bugs to be cleaned out). So yes after 3 version releases(or bug fixes) everybody will like the shuffle. Sooner we start to provide 'right feedback' better they will work on the initial release.


Er..... wrong..... The 1st and 2nd generation iPods were not duds nor commercial failures. Ugly experiences? If that was the case, why the heck have sales escalated consistently? The sales curve is classic for a successful new product.

Perhaps someone could compare the iPod sales curve with that of the Tablet PC for an example of a failure (even though the technology has some nice features)? 

I suppose your idea of improving the iPod shuffle is to convert it into a Muvo? There is no logical business reason for Apple to add "features" to the the iPod shuffle. If you want a screen or adaptability, buy an iPod or one of the other flash products from 50 other companies. There will be improvements over time but, like the ipod, the core concept will remain unchanged. Don't mess with a winning design.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

dolawren said:


> As for the Apple Shuffle...
> I like the idea of the Shuffle's switch on the back of the Shuffle,
> The switch that allows you to switch between linear and shuffle mode.
> That idea is what I think will make the Shuffle a real winner,
> The ability to change a function physically rather than having to do it in a menu, Nice touch!


i didn't even think of this as an argument until you brought it up. too true. how much would i like being able to switch between linear and shuffle mode on my mini without accessing the screen menu?

again, i feel that to deem something a "failure" would mean waiting until a year down the road and looking at the sales figures. it doesn't matter that it's not as technologically advanced as other relases by apple. it may be "low standard" compared with other _apple_ products but as far as other manufacturers go, it kicks their asses, imo.

people have been requesting this type of product (cheap, small) from apple, and now apple has delivered. who can argue that apple won't rightfully sell millions of these devices? and yes, a similar "halo" effect will see people upgrading to ipods or minis, and even some to computer systems. brilliant marketing strategy.

and don't imagine that it isn't all about the marketing. apple is the market leader right now. smart move to not only corner the market with the low end flash player but to design it and price it right... how can they lose?

my $0.02


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> This syncs with iTunes on Macs only, right? I read that many MP3 players work with iTunes but only on the Mac.


I haven't tried syncing it yet,
But I have dragged and dropped songs from iTunes onto the flash drive and it plays them just fine.

Dave


----------

