# Flash iPod - No Screen? - No Way



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Obviously we're only an hour or two away from finding out but I can't bring myself to believe that Apple would launch 1 or 2 gig flash-based iPods with no screen (this rumour popped up a month or two ago with "leaked" prototype images and has resurfaced in the past couple of days on the rumour sites).

Does it make any sense to anyone that Apple would produce a device that allowed only random access or defined playlist access to a few hundred mp3/aacs (the rumour sites have it that the ad campaign will be based on the "Life is Random" slogan? 

With such a big part of the iPod UI being based on the super slick click wheel, I just can't see this happening (there is also a rumour that it will have a small screen).

Am I the only person who thinks this would be crazy?


----------



## stevieb (Dec 10, 2004)

I agree, having no screen is suicide. There was a small mp3 player made by MPIO that had no screen and it didn't sell well at all. 

I know, just being an Apple prodcut will make it sell better then the mpio, but I think a screen is a must.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

mycatsnameis said:


> Obviously we're only an hour or two away


Erm, I believe his keynote is _tomorrow_, not today.  

*IF* a new Flash iPod is released tomorrow, with or without a screen, if it has AM/FM tuning in addition to music playback, I will likely get one. I am sure that Apple would not design a screenless iPod if they didn't have an elegant and practical way to make it work without one.


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

can't remember where I saw that but the "flash ipod" would be released with a screen , the same as in the mini-ipod, minus 2 lines...

Lets open the bet :greedy:


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

ok, it seems that it will not have a screen
Check this ling for the most up to date infos available.
http://www.macitynet.it/english/aA20182/


----------



## stevieb (Dec 10, 2004)

Willy Z said:


> ok, it seems that it will not have a screen
> Check this ling for the most up to date infos available.
> http://www.macitynet.it/english/aA20182/


Those pictures seem to prove that there is no screen


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Random play for an hour's worth of MP3s is nothing. But if you're talking about over a thousand songs, that's another matter. Plus imagine an audible.com book with mixed chapters - yikes!


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Audible.com books don't come in chapter form for Mac OS. They are only broken into chapters if you have a PC and want to burn to a CD. There may be multiple files for a book but you probably will only carry one file at a time on a flash based device (depending on the memory size). A 7 hour audible file will take up 70-80MB. The largest book I have put on my iPod is "The Company" by Robert Littel and it ways in at 40 hours spread over 6 files.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Well, I'm pretty sure its gonna have a display. I dont think apple is gonna post a banner of its yet to be released product in a public area!!!!. The report said they had pics of the unit but were made to erase them from the camera. yeah right!. This is likely a banner for something completely different, maybe not even from apple.


----------



## mikelr (Sep 6, 2004)

*iPod without a screen*

If this is true then apple *WOULD NOT* make it lack a screen :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

The Doug said:


> Erm, I believe his keynote is _tomorrow_, not today.
> 
> Oops, remembered that onthe way home [excuse]got off 30 hour shift this am just prior to posting[/excuse].
> 
> ...


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

*no screen? that would blow.*

I hope this is wrong--I was thinking a little 1 GB player would be a nice addition to the family, but in my opinion, an iPod without a screen would blow. Maybe it's on the other side? ( I didn't see any pics of the unit, just the "random" poster -- It does look like the typical iPod campaign poster though).

I'm more of an "album" kind of guy--long walks / drives / rides are great times to experience an album. I rarely use shuffle play because I listen to many types of music and I like to pick what fits my mood.

I'll probably want one as soon as I see it though...


----------



## Betty Fooz (May 2, 2003)

I am getting sooo frustrated. I can't see the ipod in those pictures. I can see the banner but not the iPod, please help.

Betty Fooz


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

what are you guys looking at in those pictures?
i can't see any ipods as well
it's hard enough to see the banner being put up with all that watermarking!


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

Before I purchased my iPod just under a year ago, I had a Discman which had a display on the remote ... which was in the shape of a cylinder ... you could change tracks by turning the edge of the cylinder ... I don't see why this type of idea could not be used ... the screen does not have to reside on the player itself. I do agree some type of screen is preferable.

BTW - the Discman has not seen the light of day since the iPod arrived on the scene.

I can't wait until tommorrow ...


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

No screen? Could this be the $99 US iPod?

I wouldn't pay any more for something without a screen.

Maybe the screen is on the remote like some other players?


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Good points Derrick and Ken. Maybe this is not another "fatal" iPod flaw but yet another business opportunity for the Vesuvian iPod accessory market.


----------



## iBrodie (Sep 11, 2004)

Who knows but we really know have hours to wait at this time to see what they really do come out with. All i hope is that we can buy it right away and it is not like the mini and we have to wait months and months


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

I have an iPod mini and actually think having some kind of display on the remote is a good idea ... especially for activities like working out ... if the remote had the same form factor as when iTunes is minimized ... I think that would look pretty cool ...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

From Macworld UK as reported on Macrumors.com:


> The micro iPod is white, and will hold 240 songs ? but has no screen so will play the unlisted tracks in a set order or in random fashion. Four buttons are arranged in a square formation ? two large buttons and two smaller ones.


----------



## boba fett (May 28, 2003)

Trust me, a small cheap, screen-less ipod will sell very well. Just the amount of people who will use it for working out is enough to be a hit. The key is iTunes. The reason the other types of mp3 players stink is mainly because of the UI on your computer. iTunes is so elegant and easy to use. Plus, look at how many 3party companies make peripherals for Apple products? I'm sure the iPod Shuffle will have it's share of gadgets making it much more appealing. Do you see the competition having this sort of attention? Apple is on a roll. For those that were not able to buy iPod before solely on price will jump on these. 

my 2 cents.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

they should consider building in an FM tuner... a lot of the smaller units have them...


----------



## re:load (Mar 7, 2004)

could this be it?


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

i guess we'll see shortly.

wow, huge photo!


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

re:load said:


> could this be it?


I wish! But no.


----------



## PeterBarron (Sep 21, 2004)

iPod Shuffle! :lmao:


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

10:47am - Attributes of current flash players: AAA battery, tortured UI, very small display, no click wheel. Needed an original idea.
10:48am - Something happened in the iPod market. They discovered a new way to listen to music: shuffle. Basing new flash-based player around shuffle. iPod Shuffle. No display on player. Looks like a little stick. Smaller than most packs of gum. Like an elegant thumb drive. Weighs less than one ounce. Button to play and pause. Volume up and down button. Previous and next song. That’s it. Nothing else.
10:50am - Cap on bottom hides USB 2.0 connector (you can use it as a flash drive!). PC or Mac. Shipping with lanyard. 12 hour rechargeable battery. Integration between device and iTunes. 10:52am - Something called “AutoFill”. Will automatically build a playlist for iPod Shuffle.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

iPod Shuffle. Damn. that'll get the kiddies hopping. good price too. didn't think they could pull it off. no screen.


i smell my dad's birthday present... (he couldn't justify the expense of a mini for the 3-4 cds he owns...)

all right apple!


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Way ...

(Sorry had to beat one of you cheeky Monkeys to it :lmao: )


----------



## re:load (Mar 7, 2004)

mycatsnameis said:


> Way ...
> 
> (Sorry had to beat one of you cheeky Monkeys to it :lmao: )


 huh?


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

... sigh , read the title of the thread


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

this will sell like water.

buy apple stock, NOW.


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

Okay, so it's cool. I'll admit it. (not as cool as the Mac Mini though!)
But it also blows a little.
But I also want one.
Damn you Apple!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I think this is quite brilliant and it will sell. Apple has added the functionality to iTunes to make a displayless iPod plausible and desirable. Before we had iPods people had walkmans and never looked at a display to see what was on. If you need a display, get the iPod mini.

I would have loved a radio (I brought a Muvo TX FM as I needed one) but I can't help but admire the simplicity and elegance of this thing. Very nice!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Way


----------



## marrmoo (Jul 24, 2003)

Just placed my order .
MY daughter will be excited


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Just placed my order too. 

Okay, so there's no radio. On the commuter train I listen to classical on CBC Radio Two... but it'll soon be classical on my iPod Shuffle. Will post pics as soon as it arrives (next week I hope).


----------



## re:load (Mar 7, 2004)

oh… way…


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

mycatsnameis said:


> Way ...
> 
> (Sorry had to beat one of you cheeky Monkeys to it :lmao: )





re:load said:


> oh… way…
> 
> http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle...opc20050111.jpg





Carex said:


> Way<!-- / message -->


Hah! Beat you guys to it on page 3. You know that this officially makes you both "Cheeky Monkeys" .
<!-- / message -->
<!-- / message -->


----------



## re:load (Mar 7, 2004)

mycatsnameis said:


> Hah! Beat you guys to it on page 3. You know that this officially makes you both "Cheeky Monkeys" .
> <!-- / message -->
> <!-- / message -->


 I don't deny being cheeky…


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

or a monkey?


----------



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

Methinks Apple just played an ace. US$99 will hook kids to the iTMS and to bigger iPods. Anyone who works out will want one and the existing market for flash players will shrivel up and die. Even more remarkable is the fact that Apple has maintained the price on the mini and the bigger iPods since introduction of the respective models. They have the luxury of market leaders and pricing that their competitors must be gagging over.

The shuffle or playlist control is also very intuitive. It just requires effective setting up of playlists in iTunes. Jobs was right on the money with this one. But they won't make much money from the Shuffle so there's just been an inflexion point where iTMS income and the need to be dominant has become as important as hardware.

I'd expect Apple to release Gen 5 iPods in May/June and maybe bump the mini's in a month or so (no change in price but 5 Gb).

Plays For Sure should be renamed Plays 10% of the Time......


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I think that this is a brillant device. I initially had reservations about the lack of screen, but heck, are you changing songs while running or working out? Shuffle or playlist is a terrific idea. I remember when pundits said that the iPod mini wouldn't sell...


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

For a teeny tiny storage device, there's nothing to navigate to. No need for a screen. If it makes it cheaper and cleaner... do it!


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

This 'screenless' Ipod is like a sand thrown into people's eyes.

All companies come up with products that go forward but Apple (being a strong brand and having a niche image) is 'pushing' this inferior product and asking consumers to step back in the history of technology (like going back to walkman age).

This product of course will hit record sales as being 'affordable' luxury but in educated consumers' minds it is just a hook to get people buying or "upgrading' to more expensive Ipods (mini or others).

Other than being an apple product I am 100% confident that this thing doesn't offer any value with it's given price.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

yatko said:


> This 'screenless' Ipod is like a sand thrown into people's eyes.
> 
> All companies come up with products that go forward but Apple (being a strong brand and having a niche image) is 'pushing' this inferior product and asking consumers to step back in the history of technology (like going back to walkman age).
> 
> ...


This sounds remarkably similar to a lot of the naysaying that went around after the introduction of the original iPod and, later, the iPod mini. Have you considered that Apple may have done its homework, and found that this product fills a niche that other iPods don't? Not to mention that other posters have already shown it to be very competitively priced.

Prediction: many, many will be sold, and buyers will find plenty of value in their purchase.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Would you buy this if it wasn't an Apple?


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

i would buy it if it wasn't apple

but it would have to have to sync with itunes or another program that is just as easy to use

i can see myself buying one of these for biking or jogging
heck i only use the screen on my 4g ipod to select a playlist


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

yatko said:


> Would you buy this if it wasn't an Apple?


I'm not sure how my answer relates to your point, since I'm only in the market for a portable music player that works happily with OS X and iTunes (preferably including iTMS). For better or worse, that leaves Apple products -- though if a non-Apple one were identical minus iTMS, I might go for it despite the inconvenience. I do not need or want a HD-based player; I may well buy a Shuffle but haven't decided yet. 

Like other iPods, Apple has made no attempt to jam every possible feature into this product; instead, they looked at an existing product category and came up with an entry that's stripped down to essentials. IMO, that principle is the single biggest reason for the success of all previous iPods. 

You haven't stated the reasons for your opinion, but I presume the minimalist feature set and interface are behind your assertion that there's no value there. If so, that is indeed the criticism of the original iPod all over again; it fails to account for the value to be found in simplicity and minimalism.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Since I am coming from PC background and actually tried (and returned) numerous flash based MP3 players in the past, what I look for is "summer portability' ie it must be very small and doesn't require any additional software to transfer files at all (ie drag and drop).

For my personal taste I find iTunes to be a heavy software with all the agents it runs etc. I had to download Quicktime just to watch keynote and had to install Itunes as well and still feeling guilty about running these services that it came with, even for a couple hours. So for me there is no value in the software the Ipod Shuffle comes with. YMMW.

The thing bothers me most is (I was/am leaning towards to purchase an Ipod (a flash based, 'jean pocketable' one) so I have nothing against Apple (it is not like Wintel vs Apple) but the Apple product design teams' push to make me buy (or limit my option) an inferior product. They make the assumption that I will not need a display infact while all other vendors (regardless of how big or small) offer the display feature.

If I go buy a razor thin (or close to that) watch from a dollar store for 5 bucks it will come with a legible display (or indicator). This unit doesn't. And I know for sure (micro electronics was my hobby during 80s) that a cost of LCD display is close to nothing ($1 or $2 may be) and can be fit into any player.

If they could not build this display (or indicator) to the actual unit itself, a good comprimize would be to build it on to the earphones/remote (has anybody ever seen MP3 capable CD players, esp Panasonic ones that sell sub $70 cdn which has these cool display on remotes?) Something like that would be a good comprimize.

I think what Apple did was deliberately market a 'cheap' product with a very high profit margin (it will be each and every highschool kids dream to own one since it is 'affordable luxury') yet not to compete with the bigger brothers/sisters of its own (Ipod mini, and regular Ipod).


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

If a display is a critical feature for you, then this is not a product for you. But I honestly do not believe Apple omitted it simply to make an extra couple of dollars/unit; they did it because they believed it wasn't necessary in order to meet the goal of making their product as simple and elegant as possible. 

If I've loaded 20 albums on it and set it to play in sequence, all I need is a way to navigate forward and back. If I've let it load a random selection from my library and play in shuffle mode, all I need is a way to skip back and forth. A display is not essential in either case, at least not for me.

As for drag-and-drop use, it may be possible since the Shuffle can be used as a keychain drive. Can't say without trying it, though. 

I will agree with you on one point: Apple did make an effort to avoid competing with its other iPods. That strikes me as a very sensible thing to do.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Display has multi functions, not just showing tracks.
It can also indicate how much battery life is left(this is critical), how much available space left etc.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

yatko said:


> Display has multi functions, not just showing tracks.
> It can also indicate how much battery life is left(this is critical), how much available space left etc.


Agreed on the battery part. I wonder if there's either a battery indicator (one or more LEDs, like on laptop batteries) or an audible low-battery warning. As for space, you have to connect it to a computer to manage the contents, so IMO there's no need for an indicator on the unit itself.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thought I'd interject with some humour...

I actually saw this complaint on another website:

"How am I supposed to know what song is playing?" 
"You have to wear it around your neck!"

Obiviously coming from a brainless Apple basher.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

The biggest plus about this is that you can bash the **** out it and it's not going to die! 

Ipods are really pretty delicate devices, it's the one drawback about them that bugs me. 

Oooops...swears! I'm leaving it in... :lmao:


Oh my [email protected]#$in' god!!! There is now auto censoring on this board!! What the f$%k is that all about?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Here is a little article with some first impressions of the iPod Shuffle. Battery status is indicated via an LED that changes colour according to the battery's remaining charge.

I can't wait until mine arrives. Ship date is next week (January 19th). Hope the date won't get changed - I think the new device is already a hot seller.


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

Great article, The Doug--looking over the Apple pages for "real" info on this is kind of frustrating. In the end, I guess you have to hear from a user (like Apple never explains the battery indicator light).
Still nothing concrete on the transfer rate though--the Apple specs all say "USB connector" which kind of implies it's 1.1, or 12 Mbps (1.5 MB/s) (they never shy away from saying USB 2.0 when it works in their favour).

Funny that "how do I know what song I'm listening to" line--I traded a bunch of tunes with a friend a while ago, and now I'm checking the screen all the time to see what song it is...


----------



## appleninja (Nov 6, 2003)

*iPod Shuffle - I want one*

Like most people, I was initially shocked to discover there was no display, but I've heard of so many people buying them -in multiples- that I know it will be a success. Hopefully it will be profitable enough for Apple. For the active lifestyle people this player will be perfect. Apple is going to have a monopoly soon! I wonder if they will eventually offer them in different colors?


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

OK. Just to clarify, I am not here to bash Apple. Geez, where else one has to make such disclaimer before posting to a forum other than Apple one.

I want to find out whether this thing also supports folders?

The fight for Id3 Tags was a big issue in the last couple of years and now this product 'eliminated' that need.

I don't know I am still disappointed with the limits that this product introduced and might dominate the way how flash players work.

Let's wait and see what the real user/end user experiences/reviews will be.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Gretchen said:


> Oh my [email protected]#$in' god!!! There is now auto censoring on this board!! What the f$%k is that all about?


What's so shocking about that? Like I want to read someone saying the F word. The world needs a bit less of it in my opinion.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

farfisa said:


> Still nothing concrete on the transfer rate though--the Apple specs all say "USB connector" which kind of implies it's 1.1, or 12 Mbps (1.5 MB/s) (they never shy away from saying USB 2.0 when it works in their favour).



"Connectivity: USB 1.1 and 2.0 through integrated USB connector"

http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/specs.html


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Gretchen said:


> Oh my [email protected]#$in' god!!! There is now auto censoring on this board!! What the f$%k is that all about?


Oh you poor thing. Boo hoo.


----------



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

This player will require a different type of user behaviour. With the new add-on to iTunes that optimizes loading of songs, you'll be able to set up a series of mini-playlists. These are meant to be used in "sessions". Swapping in and out will be much more frequent that with the mini of other iPods (as is also the case with other flash players). Apple left off the screen for at least three reasons: to differentiate the product (you want a screen? Buy the mini); to save cost ($99 is a critical price point and it also helps preserve battery - no AAAs is a major cost advantage to the user); to increase simplicity. The iPod shuffle is not meant for the geeks but for listeners. Plug it in, pop it out and listen. Jonathan Ive's stark design ethic is dominant in both the shuffle and the Mac mini. That is no coincidence.


----------



## davidslegend (Jan 6, 2004)

Has anyone mensioned SJ, statements on the "ipod economy". I believe the that a 3rd party vendor or two will come out with a display or remote devise for these things within weeks. 

Perhaps, Apple is trying to encourage the growth of supported preferiouls (spell?) for his company?!?

My second thought is that these things don't have a display because alot of mp3 players that play cd formatted disks don't have the ability to display songs as well as the former walkmans devices in the past. So they aren't needed in a proven sort of way.

Cheers!

davidslegend

Note: I guess I am not over impressed with the shuffle though...to be honest.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Quick question, is a remote screen actually possible for an iPod? I can't remember seeing any product that connects through the two prong headphone port that has a screen on the other end.

As to the issue of screen no screen I'm warming up to the idea (as a card carrying Apple zealot I reserve the right to bitch (let's see if my reference to a female canine gets censored :heybaby: ) about a product one day and cheer it the next).

1) In fact I do use my 40 gig click wheel mostly in shuffle mode. 

2) I would like to have a tiny unit to use while working out (really the only playlists I have are for working out).

3) I've recenty been pricing 1 gig USB keys b/c I need one (well need is a relatelive thing after all) and I would like one that fits an entire CD.

====> So, for a bit of a premium I get a 1 gig USB key that also syncs and plays my favourite tunes and I don't have to have any worries about wiping all teh music if I need to d/l a big file.

Starting to sound like there's a a 1 gig iPod Shuffle in my future


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

iMatt said:


> "Connectivity: USB 1.1 and 2.0 through integrated USB connector"
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/specs.html


That's just saying that it works with a USB 2.0 port--USB 2.0 ports work with USB 1.1 devices, but don't make them faster. Know what I'm saying?

Okay, so now I'm convinced it's a 1.1 port.


----------



## rhythms (Sep 24, 2003)

yatko said:


> I want to find out whether this thing also supports folders?
> 
> The fight for Id3 Tags was a big issue in the last couple of years and now this product 'eliminated' that need.


I don't understand why you need folders. All your file organization is done through the iTunes program. Plus, since there's no display, how would you 'see' a folder?

Also, does anyone know if this player supports all files types that a regular iPod does (mp3, Apple Lossless, uncompressed AIFF, etc.) in addition to AAC?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

farfisa said:


> That's just saying that it works with a USB 2.0 port--USB 2.0 ports work with USB 1.1 devices, but don't make them faster. Know what I'm saying?
> 
> Okay, so now I'm convinced it's a 1.1 port.


C'mon, do you really think that Apple would release, in 2005, a 1 gig iPod that takes <i>15 minutes</i> to load? Can you imagine the outcry? It's USB 2.0, backwards compatible with 1.1, which is what the page I quoted says. If you look at the other iPods on the same page, you'll see it says they're USB 2.0 only.


----------



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

It'll transfer at up to USB2.0 speeds..... and is USB1.1 compatible. From  the Apple iPod shuffle page: 

"iPod shuffle can transfer the contents of an entire CD in a flash, so even if you change the entire contents of iPod shuffle, you won’t be waiting very long at all. Of course, total time varies depending on how much music you want to add or replace. Connect your iPod shuffle directly to your computer’s USB port — a USB 2.0 port for even faster transfers — then recharge your iPod shuffle and sync files in no time flat."

OK farfisa?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If anyone wants an MP3 player with a screen...Then get a Lexar MP3 player 
You can always add a Lexar 1.0 gb jump drive later 

The thing that puzzles me about the Apple Shuffle is where is the internal
battery and is it sealed inside or can it be user replaced when it dies.

I see that you can get a piggyback battery pack for it, But that to me is just
Apple trying to sell all the accessories and the main product this time around.

Dave


----------



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

Ummm.... for C$130 you are worried about the battery dying after a couple of years? In that case buy an iRiver or Creative flash drive and spend $100 bucks a year on AAAs.....

The iPod battery fuss was exaggerated and hyped and there is no story here for the iPod shuffle. Having an internal battery is a *huge* advantage over external AAAs. Not only that, even if the battery drops to say <20 min, then you *still* have a 512K or 1 Gb USB 2.0 drive. Move along folks, nothing to see.....


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> Having an internal battery is a *huge* advantage over external AAAs.


I have 2 AAA rechargeable batteries in my Lexar MP3 player and when they lose
their charge I just pop in my second set of charged AAA batteries.

If the internal Apple battery dies (Can't be charged anymore) then I'll have to rely
on a piggyback battery pack with AAA rechargeable batteries, Or I'll have to
perform pocket surgery and crack the thing open to see what type of hack battery it takes.

Don't mind me...I hate buying disposable items, Even if they are just cheap iPods.

Dave


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

People who talk about the cost of the disposable batteries never heard of rechargable AAA ones (set of four+charger goes under $20)?


----------



## lilainjil (Oct 23, 2003)

To answer 'rhythms' question regarding iPod shuffle's format compatibility...
here's the word from Apple http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300464

Neither Lossless or AIFF is supported.

A dealbreaker for me.

Andy


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

iMatt said:


> C'mon, do you really think that Apple would release, in 2005, a 1 gig iPod that takes <i>15 minutes</i> to load? Can you imagine the outcry? It's USB 2.0, backwards compatible with 1.1, which is what the page I quoted says. If you look at the other iPods on the same page, you'll see it says they're USB 2.0 only.


I seriously did think that's what was going on. You and jwoodget have set me straight though, and eased my fears--thanks! 

I'm suspicious, okay? When I hear "USB" I think "USB 1.1," when I hear "USB 2.0" I think "USB 2.0..." Do they think "Connectivity: USB 1.1 and 2.0 through integrated USB 2.0 connector" would be too confusing? No less confusing than suddenly dropping the numbers altogether on a spec sheet.

Ages ago, another member (CarbonKen maybe?) tried a regular iPod with a USB 1.1 connection--it worked too, but was obviously slow as hell. Probably couldn't charge the bigger iPod battery on a 1.1 connection?


----------



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

The reason lossless and AIFF are not supported natively is that the iPod shuffle would only hold 5-10 songs in those formats (say 60 Mb/song instead of 4 Mb). However, in iTunes 4.7.1, you can set the iPod shuffle preferences for re-encoding/compressing AIFF files to 128 kbps AAC "on the fly". It takes a lot longer to transfer, just like ripping. But there isn't much point in loading only 10 songs onto the device.

Point taken on the rechargeable AAAs. I just don't like the extra gizmos....


----------



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

Here's what the CEO of Creative (Sim Wong Hoo) said about the iPod shuffle:" We’re expecting a good fight but they’re coming out with something that’s five generations older. It’s our first generation MuVo One product feature, without display, just have a (shuffle feature). We had that — that’s a four-year-old product. So I think the whole industry will just laugh at it, because the flash people — it’s worse than the cheapest Chinese player. Even the cheap, cheap Chinese brand today has display and has FM. They don’t have this kind of thing, and they expect to come out with a fight; I think it’s a non-starter to begin with."

Wonder how long long it will take him to eat his words?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

yatko said:


> People who talk about the cost of the disposable batteries never heard of rechargable AAA ones (set of four+charger goes under $20)?


Where have you seen these for $20? The only ones I've seen that cheap aren't worth the money you've spent on them in my limited experience. A good set will run at least $50 I've found.

That said, the battery the iPod shuffle is using is obviously there to save space, and make life more convenient. To replace it, I'm pretty sure we'll see the same thing happen with the iPod shuffle as happened with the original iPod. Replacement batteries will be available soon enough. 

That said, the iPod shuffle has some odd restraints on what it can/can not play. MP3s up to 320 kbps? I find that odd. Granted that you won't find your average consumer using bit rates higher then 128 (maybe 160), but is this due to a much more limited processor? Does anyone know if other standard flash based players have this same flaw, as I've never seen it before.


----------



## manty007 (Nov 7, 2004)

i, for one, was disappointed with or lack of several features of ipod shuffle and i am not talking of the battery/batteries either. i think it should have had exchangable sd flash cards /they are getting to 4gigs now/, and i agree there should have been a screen, and fm radio wouldn't hurt too. said that i like the elegance and simplicity of form. the last thing, why the cup of the usb connector is not on a hinge like a zippo for example, they are going to get lost quick.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

*My 1GB iPod shuffle is on order!*

Another interesting tidbit:



> iPod shuffle is formatted as an MS-DOS volume—a volume that’s compatible with both the Mac and Windows PC.


----------



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

Adding all of the bits like FM radio, even a tiny screen, etc. are counter to the design and use philosophy of the shuffle. It is only meant to play 100-200 song sessions. It's the KISS principle. Want more? Buy a more expensive and capable iPod. Chealion, the bitrate constraint is simply to stop users accidentally downloading much larger music files. The limitation is what makes the auto-load sync work for the iPod shuffle. Think about it.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

jwoodget - Good point. After all, having Apple Lossless or huge MP3 files makes it hard for the iPod shuffle to really work correctly (in that it needs more then a handful of songs).


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Chealion said:


> Where have you seen these for $20? The only ones I've seen
> that cheap aren't worth the money you've spent on them in my limited
> experience. A good set will run at least $50 I've found.












I bought these at Staples for $18.99
Although I'm using my Quest Charger to recharge them.

You'd have to factor in an additional amount of money for a charger if you don't already have one.
My charger is used for recharging my AA Digital camera batteries as well as the AAA MP3's batteries. 

Dave


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

dolawren - yatko was making the point that you can get a charger and the batteries for under $20. I haven't seen any, as usually a set of 4 AA/AAA batteries is roughly $19.99 (rechargeables).


----------

