By Rob Beschizza at 6:43 pm Thu, Mar 12, 2009
It’s a shame they didn’t just put a few subtle buttons on it and call it a day… At this point, they’ve made this incredible fiasco of a product, all in the name of rampant smallification. (what’d they save, 2mm?)
I bike around all the time, and I go through a set of earbuds in about two months. So there’s that issue- having to reup a (probably) bad pair of earbuds every so often. Also, pairs with a plastic doohicky on the cable are always extra fussy and annoying, be it snagging on your clothes, controls getting nudged around…
My 512mb old white shuffle is still the most functional of this family, due to the inbuilt USB plug- and even it is a backward design- a device over $30 that doesn’t have a hint of a screen? Come on. I’m surprised my shoes don’t have OLED force gauges on them by now.
“Pretty soon you’ll just wear underwear, and hear music in your head.”
– Lewis Black
it’s just an mp3 player, for someones sakes!
I really don’t understand the naysayers who say the shuffle will be a Fiasco.
Maybe the future isn’t in the controls via earphones but anyhow, we’re in front of the only company today that dares to invent new concepts and really tries new solutions even for the simplest things.
“Oh God, a buttonless smartphone, and they call it the iPhone! What a fiasco”
Same reasoning, albeit in a bigger scale.
@5 No one said that about the iPhone. We knew it had a touch screen which is effecively infinite buttons. And calling Apple the only innovative company these days makes me want to puke.
@5: I understand your frustration with the horde of anti-fanboys, but really, “the only company today that dares to invent new concepts”? That’s a bit too kool-aid, even for a Apple fanboy.
@6: I’d like the ipod touch better though if i didn’t have to turn it on and slide the slider just to advance a song.
Apple buds are very frustrating though, so its too bad you get locked in more with these.
I think it’s amazing that they get 10 hours of playback out of only 73 mAh of battery. That’s incredible.
The new Shuffle is certainly in the spirit of previous models. There’s plenty of times that I really don’t care if my MP3 player has a screen or not (like at the gym), so if that’s not what you need, then fine – buy a Nano or something. And honestly, who cares about having lots of audiophile headphone choices at this price / form factor ? The Apple earbuds are good enough, and you can always get some of those thin, foam covers for them if they tend to slip out of your ears like they do mine. Such things are avail all over for a few bucks per 6-10 pairs.
Like Garr @4 said, it’s just an inexpensive MP3 player for fsck’s sake…lighten up.
I always think the people who buy shuffles like the idea of buying into ipod brand but are to tight to get a proper ipod
As I can’t stand in ear headphones , as as you are lucky to get 2 months out of Apple bud phones, bo thanks.
The classic with its fantastic battery life is the one for me
Inexpensive to a significant portion of the American consumer population. Certainly not to someone making $8/hour, but it’s a LOT less than a day’s pay for the average American. (median for a person employed full time regardless of gender being about $157/day.)
To me that’s inexpensive. Not “impulse buy, throw away tomorrow” level cheap, but definitely inexpensive.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin