Time Gadget of The Week: iPod Shuffle

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. Administrator emeritus

    Mudbug

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Location:
    North Central Colorado
    #2
    and here I was thinking it would be the Airbus...
     
  3. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #3
    Can always count on Time to give Apple some positive press
     
  4. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #4
    Blah blah blah... the Airbus A380 has screens... blah blah blah... the Airbus has a radio... blah blah blah... the Airbus has a microphone for voice... :rolleyes:

    Can we move on, already? The iPod Shuffle IS going to be wildly successful. It meets the needs of many people.

    For the umpteenth time:

    * The iPod Shuffle will play audiobooks. The Airbus will not.

    * The iPod Shuffle is SMALLER and LIGHTER than the Airbus.

    * The iPod Shuffle holds MORE MUSIC than the Airbus.

    * The iPod Shuffle is compatible with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store.

    * The iPod Shuffle costs significantly LESS than the Airbus.

    All these people who want an Airbus A380 (wow, catchy name :rolleyes: )... I say, go get one. The rest of us will enjoy our compact, simple iPods.

    And to the Airbus CEO who badmouths the iPod--let's see how many A380s you sell this year, and how many iPods Apple sells.

    Enough said.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #5
    Hmmm...I have no idea what an airbus is. I thought the first post was referring to the new jumbo jet that is replacing 747's. It did seem to me that it would be odd to classify a giant plane as a "gadget."


    I guess I'll google airbus.

    On second thought, I don't really care.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Trowaman

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Location:
    CD: TX-14
    #6
    Googled for you. It is a plane. Two story plane. Looked okay, but I bet it kills the environment with fuel effenciency. Sorry, just finished going through environmental check list stuff and the 108th U.S. Senate, environent's kinda on the mind right now.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #7
    Oh. Well then what the heck is nagromme talking about up there?
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    HKSAR
    #8
    But how many millions of ipod shuffle can an Airbus A380 carries?
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #9
    Made ME laugh.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    At a guess, this.

    ~J
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    [OFF TOPIC]The Airbus A380 is a lot more efficient than the 747.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    #12
    ...Wanna bet?

    Other than that, congrats for the funniest post in a while on these forums.

    From what I've read, one of the main points of this plane is that it is significantly less polluting than the current Jumbos. (Relatively, of course.)
     
  13. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    #13
    OT Yeah they'll sell a lot of iPod shuffles, but once you break even on the A380, it'll take a lot of iPod shuffles to catch up

    Come on 'nagromme', you forgot to add but, they both MOVE you. :D
     
  14. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #14
    You bet, it's cost around $12bn to design, but they estimate sales of $40bn. A $28bn profit is a LOT of Shuffles!!! :eek: :p
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    HKSAR
    #15
    Airbus vs Boeing; Apple vs M$


    You see Airbus finally beat Boeing, when will Apple beat M$?
     
  16. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    #16
    Don't be too sure about this one, most people that travel long haul, hate short hops and changeovers. AFAIK, Boeing is developing smaller planes with a longer range to get to these smaller airports in one hit, they are targetting the customer slightly differently.

    An A380 needs a longer runaway, but it's targetting the airports/airlines with restricted access/landing rights/used up their allocation etc, so that they increase their passenger capacity.

    So back on topic... two different 'platforms' with two different requirements, fulfilling the same goal. One though will be a better user experience...now where have I seen this before:D
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    HKSAR
    #17
    I mean the revenue of Boeing had already been pass by AB for two years, and now they lost the crown of biggest aircraft to AB
     
  18. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #18
    I'm starting to sway the other way now. Turns out you can order the Airbus in a variety of color schemes. I like that. It also has wheels--more iPod-like than the Shuffle, really.

    If I hadn't just bought an iPod, I might at least CONSIDER an Airbus 380. But the Shuffle will still sell more units.
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    redAPPLE

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    #19
    *lol* :D
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #20
    That would be called humor. Whoosh, right over my head. (not unlike an airbus)
     
  21. Administrator emeritus

    Mudbug

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Location:
    North Central Colorado
    #21
    Please tell me you guys didn't think I was serious...
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    #22
    :confused:

    The biggest question is whether or not you can eat the Airbus...

    :eek:
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #23
    It's a networking device. Pack an Airbus A380 with DVDs and fly it across the Atlantic ocean. Divide the total amount of data by the five hour flight time to get the bandwidth.

    (Hint: It's a really really big number!)
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #24
    100 songs at 160Kbps? Of course. What else would you expect?

    Overall, the article is mostly harmless, but I am bothered by his complaint that he only got 100 songs into it, when (by his own admission) most of his songs were encoded at a 160K bitrate.

    Apple has made no secret of the fact that their capacity estimates are based on a 128K with 4-minute songs. With these estimates, the theoretical capacity of 512M (assuming all of the memory is used for music) is 133 songs - about 10% higher than Apple's published count.

    At 160K, all the files are 25% larger. So any sane person would expect the maximum song-count to be smaller. And it is. At 160K (still assuming 4-minute songs) 512M has a capacity of about 106 songs (again, assuming all of the memory is used for music storage.)

    The fact that this reporter was unable to figure this out (or worse, knew it and chose not to report it) makes him unfit to work as a journalist.
     
  25. macrumors 603

    zelmo

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Mac since 7.5
    #25
    Nope, but some thought nagromme was :p
     

Share This Page