[chabig]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's a total load of crap. Adding a button to a device takes up a very small amount of space. Have you looked at the power button for a white iBook G3? It's roughly the diameter of a dime and is just a lead on a circuit board. Apple easily could have added controls to the new shuffle - they chose not to in order to force buyers to buy an accessory just to use third-party headphones.

You don't understand how products are designed and built. Adding buttons increases cost, adds complexity, points of failure, weakens the case, costs more to manufacturer, etc. It's not as simple as you think.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by chabig 

You don't understand how products are designed and built. Adding buttons increases cost, adds complexity, points of failure, weakens the case, costs more to manufacturer, etc. It's not as simple as you think.

Yet the new Shuffle is more expensive than the old.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The resolution output by iPods/iPhone has been changed, though, since the days of the iPod photo.

Well, the current Apple authorized iPhone component video cable doesn't work with the iPod photo either.

PS. It's interesting you mention older iPods for video output. Standard third party cables that you would buy for say a camcorder wouldn't work with the iPod. Why? It turns out it was simply because Apple switched the output plugs around. However, to get around this, all you had to do was rearrange the plugs when you plugged in the cable:

Yellow = White
White = Red
Red = Yellow

The cable manufacturers very quickly realized this, and made unauthorized Apple-specific cables to compensate for the change.

Then Apple changed the cable entirely, and then started including an authentication chip. Hmmm... I wonder why.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yet the new Shuffle is more expensive than the old.

At twice the capacity and noticeably reduced size? Egad.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

At twice the capacity and noticeably reduced size? Egad.

Indeed. So what's the point of removing buttons from the player, again?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's a total load of crap. Adding a button to a device takes up a very small amount of space. Have you looked at the power button for a white iBook G3? It's roughly the diameter of a dime and is just a lead on a circuit board. Apple easily could have added controls to the new shuffle - they chose not to in order to force buyers to buy an accessory just to use third-party headphones.

I agree more or less with the rest of what you're saying, but this, unfortunately, is complete bunk.

For any mechanical piece, you need to figure space and fixtures for mounting, space for movement, even more added bulk since the case, which now has a hole in it, needs to be as stable as it was without a hole in it, if possible, rigid and durable spring mechanism, and real *cost* - electronics get way cheaper in bulk, as almost the entire cost is upfront in development; mechanics, not so much.

The power-switching circuit board on a G3 iBook is roughly the size of a dime. That's roughly the size of the ENTIRE innards of the new shuffle - including the battery, power supply circuitry, storage chip, CPU, control chip, power/shuffle switch and D/A stage.

Add mechanics, and you're back where they were at the last generation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Indeed. So what's the point of removing buttons from the player, again?

Making it smaller and doubling the capacity without doubling the cost?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

In the meantime, you can always get your illegally-reverse-engineered shuffle accessories for a few dollars on DealExtreme.

Only until they stop working, of course.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Making it smaller and doubling the capacity without doubling the cost?

No one knows exactly how these trade-offs are represented in the final cost, so it's not worth much speculation. I guess what I and others are saying here is that there is a cost to the user associated with making it smaller, and that making it smaller in fact does not carry much weight (no pun intended) with the end user once you've already crossed some threshhold of basic usability (there is such a thing as "small enough"). See my SNL screencap on page 2 for more information.

[shifuimam]

Okay, so lets say that adding buttons to the case adds a few millimeters of thickness and a few cents to the cost of manufacturing the product.

As and end user, would you rather have something that's a little thicker but allows for controlling the shuffle without buying an extra headphone adapter for third-party headphones, or would you rather have this? What was flawed in the last generation? They could have added the VoiceOver gimmick and inline remote controls to the 2G shuffle very easily. Do you really want to spend $80 on something that can be so easily lost? Moreover, do you really want to spend $80 on something that is so ridiculously crippled?

I don't buy that it's impossible for Apple to put buttons on the 3G shuffle. It seems a lot more likely that they didn't do it so that they could artificially increase the accessories market...just like they've done with the BS DRM chip in iPods that prevents uncertified hardware accessories from working with them.

I will admit that I'm no EE expert, but given how much tiny electronic crap is out there with buttons and switches and whatnot, I highly doubt that Apple had no choice but to make a button-less shuffle. They did it to increase profits.

Also, I'm totally bummed that they got rid of all the colors. I'm sure they're just waiting to release those until people have already bought into the new product universe, but it's BS that it's only available in black and silver.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

You don't understand how products are designed and built. Adding buttons increases cost, adds complexity, points of failure, weakens the case, costs more to manufacturer, etc. It's not as simple as you think.

Except, Apple has only removed *2* buttons from the Shuffle. The other three have been moved into the headphone cable.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree more or less with the rest of what you're saying, but this, unfortunately, is complete bunk.

For any mechanical piece, you need to figure space and fixtures for mounting, space for movement, even more added bulk since the case, which now has a hole in it, needs to be as stable as it was without a hole in it, if possible, rigid and durable spring mechanism, and real *cost* - electronics get way cheaper in bulk, as almost the entire cost is upfront in development; mechanics, not so much.

The power-switching circuit board on a G3 iBook is roughly the size of a dime. That's roughly the size of the ENTIRE innards of the new shuffle - including the battery, power supply circuitry, storage chip, CPU, control chip, power/shuffle switch and D/A stage.

Add mechanics, and you're back where they were at the last generation.

As for how much space buttons take up, all you need to do is look at the space taken up by the buttons on the headphone cable remote. I suspect that's about as small as they get. Moving that into the current Shuffle design would certainly increase the size, but, really, it'll *still* be extremely small. It's not like the size would even increase by 25%.

The inline remote is nowhere near to bringing the new Shuffle up to the size of the old Shuffle. Especially when you consider that you don't need to include the plastic housing used for the inline remote.

[fhoubi]

For ergonomics I am not sure yet; ask any XBox360 owner if they like the newer headsets where volume & mute controls are somewhere dangling in the cable, or the old ones where at the beginning so they form actually a fixed extension of the controller. Everyone hates the newer ones.

It is not the same, but I surely miss direct controls on my 1G Touch, double-click the home button was stupid. Now we have up to triple-clicks with variations (hold/not hold)...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As for how much space buttons take up, all you need to do is look at the space taken up by the buttons on the headphone cable remote. I suspect that's about as small as they get. Moving that into the current Shuffle design would certainly increase the size, but, really, it'll *still* be extremely small. It's not like the size would even increase by 25%.

The inline remote is nowhere near to bringing the new Shuffle up to the size of the old Shuffle. Especially when you consider that you don't need to include the plastic housing used for the inline remote.

Okay, so you've accounted for the presence of buttons. Let me break down my post again:

- space and fixtures for mounting,
- space for movement,
- even more added bulk since the case, which now has a hole in it, needs to be as stable as it was without a hole in it, if possible,
- rigid and durable spring mechanism

If you add all that to the new iPod shuffle, you're RIGHT BACK WERE YOU WERE in the 2nd generation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Okay, so you've accounted for the presence of buttons. Let me break down my post again:

- space and fixtures for mounting,
- space for movement,
- even more added bulk since the case, which now has a hole in it, needs to be as stable as it was without a hole in it, if possible,
- rigid and durable spring mechanism

If you add all that to the new iPod shuffle, you're RIGHT BACK WERE YOU WERE in the 2nd generation.

Glue the inline remote to the side of the new Shuffle. Is it the same as before?

Also, it's not like the old Shuffle was too big.

[Spheric Harlot]

You're being facetious.

The original iPod wasn't "too big", either.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If you add all that to the new iPod shuffle, you're RIGHT BACK WERE YOU WERE in the 2nd generation.

Yeah, and pretty much everybody here was fine with that size and the freedom to chose their own headset w/o a pricey adapter.

If what you say is true Apple traded size for this freedom. And people here think that was the wrong call. And when average customers see a $75 price tag plus factor in 30 bucks for an adapter many of them will chose a competitor's device. That's what pretty much everybody in here has realized and is complaining about. Apple made the wrong call. Plain and simple. And sales will show. I'll be sure to quote this when the numbers come in.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Then Apple changed the cable entirely, and then started including an authentication chip. Hmmm... I wonder why.

I'll take greed for 100, please.

[Spheric Harlot]

Simon, I think you're wrong. I think this thing will sell quite well.

Apple thinks you're wrong, too.

I don't really care all that much, either way - I'm only picking out mistaken assumptions and correcting them.

[Simon]

And a vast majority in here thinks Apple was wrong. I'm confident the numbers will support that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

And a vast majority in here thinks Apple was wrong. I'm confident the numbers will support that.

"A vast majority" of the thirty people who contributed to this thread (only six or so more than once) on a quiet backwater forum of this message board constitute a veritable force of nature that is representative of the market force that will cause Apple's marketing department to implode upon itself.

I don't think it will fly off the shelves. I think it will sell better than the last version of the shuffle has been. That's all it needs to do.

The shuffle has been an "also-ran" in the iPod segment for some years now.

Again, I'm withholding my own judgement until I see it in person.

I expect it will be surprisingly gorgeous, but I have no problems with being disappointed.

[Simon]

If the last version didn't sell well at $49/$69 I guess we know what to expect from the new one at $75 (plus adapter tax) during an economic crisis.

[Eug]

Do we actually know how well the old one sold?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

If the last version didn't sell well at $49/$69 I guess we know what to expect from the new one at $75 (plus adapter tax) during an economic crisis.

Um, the last version didn't sell badly. Once everybody who wanted one had one, it was completely eclipsed by the new nano.

There's a very clear shift in the market - people are actually starting to keep ten- and twenty-gig or more libraries on their computers, and the merit of having a larger iPod with direct selection is clear to them (this didn't used to be the case).

The new shuffle is also going to go over quite well with those who want a 'Pod primarily for running, but do occasionally want/need menu-selection ability. For them, the only option previously was a huge price jump to the cheapest nano - overkill for many.

[ajprice]

I think a shuffle is also quite often a second iPod. People dont want to carry around a white/classic iPod all the time, so having a shuffle that's small and weighs next to nothing is much easier for carrying a few albums around. The smaller it is, the less of an issue it is to carry it all the time. Then the other iPod is there to carry the whole library, videos, photos etc.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Okay, so you've accounted for the presence of buttons. Let me break down my post again:

- space and fixtures for mounting,
- space for movement,
- even more added bulk since the case, which now has a hole in it, needs to be as stable as it was without a hole in it, if possible,
- rigid and durable spring mechanism

If you add all that to the new iPod shuffle, you're RIGHT BACK WERE YOU WERE in the 2nd generation.

I'm curious to know why you're so adamantly defending Apple's decision to implement what is essentially hardware DRM, via moving necessary controls to the headphones. Apple could have made design changes to the shuffle without removing the button controls. There are ways to do these things.

So why defend them? They're alienating customers who have already spent big bucks on high-end earphones and don't want to buy a yet-to-be-released adapter just so they can use an $80 PMP. They're forcing people who do buy into the product to purchase extra required accessories if they don't want to use the included earbuds.

How is any of this a good thing?

[ort888]

Guys, you are missing the whole point.

Everyone I know was always bitching about how huge the old shuffle was. I mean, seriously, have you ever tried to walk around all day with that monster clipped to your shirt or in your pocket? It was tiresome. The thing was like a ball and chain around your ankle.

Now that Apple has finally removed the one big thing holding the line back (the ridiculously unwieldy size) I expect these shuffles to fly off the shelf.

Thanks for always listening to your customers Apple!

[brassplayersrock²]

new accessory: http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/09/03...ter.announced/

[Hg2491]

Not quite the adapter people are expecting so eagerly.

[CollinG3G4]

Alright, enough with the engineering business. We are talking about Apple. The people that machine laptop bodies form solid blocks of aluminum. Adding a touch sensor to the device surface is not pushing any sort of theoretical limit.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

new accessory: http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/09/03...ter.announced/

Those aren't new. I got one of those headphone jack to USB dongles two weeks after the 2G shuffle came out. It was white and cost 6 bucks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm curious to know why you're so adamantly defending Apple's decision to implement what is essentially hardware DRM, via moving necessary controls to the headphones. Apple could have made design changes to the shuffle without removing the button controls. There are ways to do these things.

So why defend them? They're alienating customers who have already spent big bucks on high-end earphones and don't want to buy a yet-to-be-released adapter just so they can use an $80 PMP. They're forcing people who do buy into the product to purchase extra required accessories if they don't want to use the included earbuds.

How is any of this a good thing?

It makes the iPod shuffle incredibly tiny (even more so than the previous one was), and it stands a pretty good chance of substantially increasing Apple's profit.

See this post as "defending", if you will, but goddamn it, it's like those stupid MacBook-without-Firewire marathon discussions all over again: What is it about this message board that automatically equates "reasonable explanation from point of view of manufacturer" with "OMG apologist defending the indefensible"?

Did you miss this bit of my post above?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree more or less with the rest of what you're saying, but this, unfortunately, is complete bunk.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and paint me into a corner:

I love DRM.
I love Apple.
I believe Apple can do no wrong.
I believe that Apple has only our best interests in mind.
I believe that Apple doesn't care about their own profits.
I believe that a decision being good for Apple's bottom line automatically means I have to like it (rather than just live with it much the way most of us simply deal with real life).
I believe that Apple generally makes decisions that make no business sense at all.
I believe that shifu, Simon, and Wiskedjak do not have a clear idea of how product design works, while Apple has absolutely no idea at all.
I believe that nailing a cable remote to the outside of an aluminum box is the same thing, mechanically, as integrating them directly into the design of said box.
Steve Jobs is my God.
I would much rather pay $30 for an accessory than $10.
I think this shuffle is so amazing that I've alread ordered three, despite the fact that I have two working iPods, a 450GB music library, and absolutely no use whatsoever for them.

Pick any three, shifu; just don't bother me about them, okay?

[Simon]

What's with the drama? Why do you overreact when people argue and disagree with you. You defended this iPod vehemently against all the criticism in here and then when people call you for it you get all defensive. I think you need to decide what it's gonna be. Are you gonna be the tough rambo Apple sales guy or are you going to be the fluffy MacNN patron saint of TLC?

Seriously, why make any of this personal? You like the product, others not so much. Fine. Why not just argue the product and leave the personal baloney out of it? Strong disagreement does not mean any of this has to be personal.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

What's with the drama? Why do you overreact when people argue and disagree with you. You defended this iPod vehemently against all the criticism in here

Actually, no, I didn't.

And that's the crux: I don't appreciate being misrepresented.

That's the "drama", and that *is* personal.

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Guys, you are missing the whole point.

Everyone I know was always bitching about how huge the old shuffle was. I mean, seriously, have you ever tried to walk around all day with that monster clipped to your shirt or in your pocket? It was tiresome. The thing was like a ball and chain around your ankle.

Now that Apple has finally removed the one big thing holding the line back (the ridiculously unwieldy size) I expect these shuffles to fly off the shelf.

Thanks for always listening to your customers Apple!

You've got to be kidding. I don't know many people who clipped it to their shirt unless they were exercising or in transit. After that it was put away not stuck there the rest of the day. And if its in your pocket its still a third the size of a Nano and probably a fifth the size of your average cell phone which isn't an issue for most people. Size was the last complaint I ever heard of from anyone about the Shuffle. You must know some very anal people because I doubt the "average" person had a problem with the size of the old Shuffle.

This thing is going to sell. Sell about as well as the Fat Nano and we all saw how long apple stuck to that design form before going back to something that resembled the revisions that predated it.

[AKcrab]

Adjust your sarcasm meter, Langdon.

I can't believe a Shuffle can cause this much dissent...

[Wiskedjak]

Apperantly Apple felt they had room to stick in a hardware DRM chip ...
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/0...e-chip-in.html

We also get a nice idea there (and here) of how much space the buttons *really* take up.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I can't believe a Shuffle can cause this much dissent...

I think it's more that for some us, this Shuffle design is just the latest example of a disappointing trend emerging from Apple.

[shifuimam]

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good profit-increasing move on Apple's part to force consumers to buy accessories in order to use the new shuffle with basic hardware (third party earphones/headphones). It is, however, extremely anti-consumer. They raised the price, removed critical features from the main device, and created it in such a way that you now have to buy an additional accessory if you want to use any pair of 'phones you already own.

So why couldn't Apple have instead included the dongle with the Shuffle? Or how about including the dongle and a regular pair of their earphones, at the very least? Don't tell me it's about cost - that crap all comes from China and doesn't exactly cost a lot to manufacture.

Your points are valid in that if Apple added controls to the Shuffle, it would change the design in one way or another. However, they are deliberately alienating a huge portion of their consumer base and, unlike when they tried to force FW400 and avoided USB 2.0 until the bitter end, the iPod market is a hell of a lot larger than the Mac market.

This would be like Microsoft randomly deciding to start requiring a TPM chip in a machine in order to install Windows on it. They'd be alienating an enormous chunk of their market by forcing everyone to buy a new computer (or a USB drive with TPM, or whatever - you get the point). This level of hardware DRM is entirely unnecessary. They could have made a smaller shuffle and still put buttons on it. I don't believe for a minute that this would have been physically impossible.

As others have said, Apple has gotten an overinflated ego over their successes in recent years, and are now showing their true colors - which amounts to a burning desire to be as monopolistic as possible with their chosen market.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Your points are valid in that if Apple added controls to the Shuffle, it would change the design in one way or another. However, they are deliberately alienating a huge portion of their consumer base

And this is where I believe you're wrong.
There is a rather large market between the shuffle and the nano, and Apple is no longer ignoring it. They figure the dongled headphones are a worthwhile tradeoff for the benefits of smaller size and a semblance of menu control.

I'm not defending their use of the dongle chip at all - I'm not sure whether it's pure income maximization or not, but it sure looks that way.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This would be like Microsoft randomly deciding to start requiring a TPM chip in a machine in order to install Windows on it.

...AND THEN INSTALLING WINDOWS ON EVERYTHING. Most buyers would *never* know, nor care, since they're quite content with the solution as provided out of the box.

I think you're all VASTLY overestimating the number of consumers who use different headphones with their iPod shuffles.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

As others have said, Apple has gotten an overinflated ego over their successes in recent years, and are now showing their true colors - which amounts to a burning desire to be as monopolistic as possible with their chosen market.

I take no issue with this statement. Quite possible. They certainly can afford to.

[Simon]

Even if the headphones were not an issue, what about connecting the shuffle to my car stereo or to any other kind of stereo system? Goodbye cheep convenience. Hello adapter tax.

[Eug]

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think it's more that for some us, this Shuffle design is just the latest example of a disappointing trend emerging from Apple.

Yes, it seems as though consumers are being squeezed a little harder than normal for their Apple Tax©.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Even if the headphones were not an issue, what about connecting the shuffle to my car stereo or to any other kind of stereo system? Goodbye cheep convenience. Hello adapter tax.

I think this is likely the bigger issue.

TBH, I still use the earphones/headset that came with my iPhone, mostly because I don't want to buy anything else with a mic built in.

However, I use my iPhone in the car all the time, especially when driving down to visit my mom or whatever. Not being able to plug it into any 3.5mm input without an adapter (if you want controls, that is) is a big limitation.

It's even more ridiculous that they're using this BS "DRM chip" which, thanks to the DMCA, allows them to sue the crap out of anyone who attempts to sell compatible products without paying Apple a nice chunk of change for the sheer privilege of putting "compatible with iPod Shuffle" on the packaging.

Who the hell does Apple think they are, anyhow? The world will go on if they don't get to approve every single product that works with their hardware and software...it's ridiculous how much of a chokehold they have over third party product production.

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, everybody, unbatten the hatches and untie your panties, because IT AIN'T NO DRM CHIP.

Third-party headphones do require Apple-supplied chip
Some headphone makers have confirmed that Apple requires use of a custom IC to interface with the iPod shuffle, but at least one denies that the IC performs any authentication

No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle - Mac Rumors

Apparently.

[Simon]

You still have to pay extra for what was previously part of the device. Panties will remain tied.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You still have to pay extra for what was previously part of the device. Panties will remain tied.

You do?

When did Apple stop including them in the package?

[Spheric Harlot]

...and with that, I'm out.

Y'all have fun.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, everybody, unbatten the hatches and untie your panties, because IT AIN'T NO DRM CHIP.

Third-party headphones do require Apple-supplied chip
Some headphone makers have confirmed that Apple requires use of a custom IC to interface with the iPod shuffle, but at least one denies that the IC performs any authentication

No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle - Mac Rumors

Apparently.

Yet it's still a custom, exclusively-Apple-provided chip required for third-party headphones to work with the shuffle (without the optional dongle accessory). At the end of the day, Apple is still getting extra royalties/profit from every company who wants to make headphones for the 3G shuffle.

WRT Apple not including what was previously included - they are not including any way to use anything but their own earphones with the new shuffle. Rather than include their regular earphones and a dongle, so that any earphones can be used without paying for an additional accessory, they're only including proprietary earphones.