Flash iPod Details?

[iGary]

No screen, me no buy.

Looking for something lighter for running (my iPod's been in 9 marathons with me), but I never use shuffle (which makes me a minority, it seems).

Oh well.

 

[reyesmac]

So, Apple figured out a way to mess up the cheap version of the ipod just enough to keep people buying the costlier versions. If they were any other company they would have made a product that gives its users most of the features of the bigger iPods but hold less songs. But, in true Apple fashion, they have crippled the cheap version and deprived those hoping for an iPod-like experience.

Don't get me wrong, having a little even more portable version of the iPod that just plays your very favorite songs in random order is a good idea and would be fun to use. BUT, something like this should not be sold for even $100. How dare they make a $100+ player that doesnt give it's user any control on what song to play next. They could have put a stinking watch screen on it for crying out loud. Or a tiny one like the sony headphone controls. Now I have no hopes of seeing anything spectacular if they come out with a sub $500 imac.

 

[lyonsden]

Makes sense to me

What is the biggest complaint about the current line-up of iPods? (other than the price?) The HDD supposedly can't stand up to a beating that a good workout or long run can dish out . No big surprise, Apple comes out with a flash-based iPod to appease that crowd. It should also come as no big surprise that they thought it through and did it the best way they could.

Look, what's the most fragile part of an iPod after the HDD? The display -hell, it may even be more fragile. What's more likely to happen to an iPod that is being used during an exercise routine? It's going to get dropped - period, not might, not maybe - it will get dropped. Putting any kind of screen in an MP3 player this small would probably subject it to more stress when dropped than the screens in the regular iPod's do.

Someone at Apple was probably tasked with protecting the screen and maybe come up with a way to make it usable after the screen broke. Then the proverbial light bulb went off and they realized that they could just eliminate the 'fragile' screen. Save money, Save Battery life, Save size - you don't get many solutions that can do all three.

The health-nuts among us will use iTunes to set up their workout mix, transfer it to their mini-mini iPod and go out their exercise routine. They don't need to see what's playing, they can hear it while in motion. They don't need to select from the vast catalog of all their music, they already did that on their computer. If their mood changes - back to their computer to update their playlist (or two) and back out the door.

If your mood changes that drastically while you are away from your computer - get a bigger iPod.

 

[ScottDodson]

Why do you need a screen to navigate 200 songs? They will be arranged alphabetically, so you scroll through and find a song if you want to play a particular song. It wouldn't take that long, especially if they have a quick scroll button like the current scroll wheel.

!!!!!

No way, so for me to spend 5 minutes to search for song number 210 (without a screen) which happens to be Spinal Tap: Big Bottom...too much work. And a fast scroll wheel....so I scroll past it, then try to scroll back to find it...then scroll forward again...then lose count and have no idea what number song I'm on...there is no way it would work. Even a simple one line dispaly would help to scroll through. 240 songs is a lot, and to search for what I want to hear is not something that turns me on...just the idea to "find" what I want...no way. I want a MP3 player that I can use, not have an adventure with.

 

[jettredmont]

Like iTunes does?

I'm told it's hard for software and computers to truely pick something at random. What we call true random doesn't go by statistics and odds. It goes on a principle of not picking the same thing again and picking extremes

Two ways of doing "random".

1) Each time the user clicks "next", pic a number between 0 and the number of songs on the device. Play the song at that number.

2) When the user first hits "play", generate a randomized ordered list of songs you will be playing using a relatively simple list-shuffle algorithm. Perhaps re-shuffle when you get to the end of the list, or perhaps just loop back around to the start of the list. This is much preferable to the above on a small set of items, as it is almost impossible to hear the same song twice in a row (and even then only when you reshuffle at the end of the list).

A "third" way is to kee a forward-looking "window" of, say, 100 songs which don't repeat, and keep adding to the far end of the window once done playing the one at the playing end.

Most players opt for the first method. It's cheap and easy, and by definition the second or third methods have to include the code to do the first as well (as it's just a random number/pick a song algorithm). I wouldn't put it beyond Apple to go the road less traveled so that shuffle is actually useful on a small set.

 

[dnnx]

All I know is that apple should know what is doing, hey I still have my Cube , and its going to sell well if they want, these things are cheap to make so AAPL can sell em cheap if they need to.

Ill be in the Preferred section tomorrow, well see what Steve has to say

 

[iRiKliAN]

No screen? Thats a bloody F&$#&N Joke. I cant possibly imagine an efficient way of navigating 200 songs without a screen. Shuffle only... who the f&(k wants shuffle only? It bloody absurd... and destined for failure.

 

[barnett25]

So I take it the new iPod Shuffle won't have the Music Quiz game will it?

 

[reyesmac]

If they could incorporate text to speech technology so the playlists can be read when they are flipped thru, this could work. Otherwise, it will just be an overpriced underfeatured product. Usefull to only those who need the very basics, like, having a song play. But is that worth $150? If you can wear it around your neck, maybe. But it would have to be the size of a 50¢ coin.

 

[joeswinehart]

there is a gigantic market for flash players out there and iPod shuffle will satiate that demand. the lack of a screen is a simple exercise in knowing your target audience. the iPod shuffle customer is likely to be:
...
c) the exercise crowd. hard drive based mp3 players are just too fragile for constant exercise ... for these people iPod shuffle is going to be huge. i suspect that should the price of the iPod shuffle be in the $100-$150 range you will see a large number of existing iPod and iPod mini owners pick these up to supplement their existing unit.

I'd second that idea, my iPod is great, but I do get a little worried when I am cycling or I have it clipped into my helmet when working with a chainsaw. A nasty crash or falling limb (uhhh...tree limb, not one of my own!) could seriously damage my little companion. If I had a $100-$150 unit with few moving parts, I would feel much better!

 

[~Shard~]

This whole "no screen" thing concerns me, but if anyone knows what they're doing, it would be Apple! Guess we'll all find out tomorrow!

A Steve Jobs keynote on my birthday - doesn't get much better than that!

 

[joeboy_45101]

Oh, people will buy them. But, not to play music.

Everybody on here is looking at this thing in one-dimension. The one-dimensional thinking has you looking at it as digital music player. But, did anybody think of this as something else altogether. This is a USB FLASH DRIVE that can play music. Think of somebody in their cubicle, doing some work, saving files to their iPod USB FLASH DRIVE, then they get a call to go down to the second floor and bring some of the files they are working on with them. The person can eject the drive, plug in headphones, and listen to music while they leave. A simple device that is useful in the office space and enjoyable too, managers won't have to look at you funny because you've got an iPod but instead will see that as a neccessary thing to have around the office.

 

[.Andy]

no screen
Pros = lighter, smaller, cheaper, (less fragile?).
Cons = can't choose song (but will be able to shuffle and presumably will be able to upload playlists from iTunes).

I have a 40GB iPod and only use on shuffle 99% of the time. Only very occasionally I go looking for a song and play games. I've often thought that I'd love to be able to disable the screen so I can skip songs without wasting any battery and without having to turn off the backlight/contrast. So this'll do for me!

And yes the interface and clickwheel are fantastic resons to buy ipods but remember another biggest reason is being able to use the iTMS. That is a huge reason to buy an Apple branded player.

Oh yeah and waterproof would an amazing addition for us swimmers/beachgoers .

 

[MSLonghorny]

If this is the "one more thing" that Steve shows, he will be booed off stage. I'm sorry, not even Apple can make a screenless 240 "iPod" a must have, even by those that it is targeting.

Although I am not in the market for an iPod, I feel that if the iPod flash is exactly as rumored, it will fail, compared the the other iPods, because there will be nothing about it that sets it apart from other flash based mp3 players.

"One more small thing"
iPod shuffle

"One more HUGE but still small thing"
Sub 600 Macintosh

In my opinion will be called "iMac LC"

 

[jettredmont]

MacWorld.co.uk posts confirmation of previously posted images of an ad banner for the upcoming Flash iPod (Shuffle). MacWorld.co.uk provides the following description of the upcoming device:



One more day.

1) "No screen" is not necessarily true, given the evidence at hand. Remember the "screen on the back" meme from last month? Still possible. I don't think that the banner ad that got away somehow contained a 3D rotating hologram of the device. Maybe there's a second banner with the back side showing a screen and navigational controls that reads "You have control (you pedantic anal retentive lost soul)" You screen-o-philes and control freaks can keep your hopes up for another couple of hours

2) IMHO, as I said in the Milano thread, this makes perfect sense. Instead of looking at the flah pod as an iPod with next to no music on it, think of it fresh. iTunes is the controller. You set it up, and thirty seconds later you have a whole fresh set of songs on your flash pod. Maybe you want a random batch every time. Maybe you want just your absolute favorites every time. Maybe this time you want your cross training mix. Maybe this time you want your punk mix. You decide before you go, or you let iTunes decide for you.

3) Random. Random can be good, very good. Think Party Shuffle in iTunes. I wish my 4G iPod could do party shuffle.

Again, Apple likely didn't look at this as a compromise, thinking, "crap, we need to make this smaller, and with less memory, so we have to give up everything!" I suspect they looked at this as they usually do for new products from a set-of-use-cases perspective. I suspect those use cases included short trips, jogging, and work outs. I suspect it didn't include people who really want an iPod or iPod mini but whose entire music collection can fit on 1GB of flash memory, as that's both a small market and a market by definition not interested in spending a lot of money on music. History shows that Apple tends to cater to its use cases impeccably, and the people outside those use case targets bitch and moan about how the product will never work because it didn't address their particular peccadillo.

No flash device will hold your 45 GB of music and allow you to pick any song you ever think of. You either view that as a curse or as a fact and a challenge.

Time to dream. In the morning I'll know ...

 

[jholzner]

Thinksecret says it's going to have a screen...I will pray tonight that they are right.

 

[Hattig]

So, Apple figured out a way to mess up the cheap version of the ipod just enough to keep people buying the costlier versions. If they were any other company they would have made a product that gives its users most of the features of the bigger iPods but hold less songs. But, in true Apple fashion, they have crippled the cheap version and deprived those hoping for an iPod-like experience.

Don't get me wrong, having a little even more portable version of the iPod that just plays your very favorite songs in random order is a good idea and would be fun to use. BUT, something like this should not be sold for even $100. How dare they make a $100+ player that doesnt give it's user any control on what song to play next. They could have put a stinking watch screen on it for crying out loud. Or a tiny one like the sony headphone controls. Now I have no hopes of seeing anything spectacular if they come out with a sub $500 imac.

That's a lot of stuff to write about something that hasn't been seen clearly at all, so unclearly that they didn't even see how many buttons it has!

Maybe it has a display that was obscured in the picture. Maybe it is on the side. Maybe it is on the cord.

The details were really vague.

Wait until tomorrow to condemn the product. Just like lots of people did with the original iPod.

 

[billystlyes]

I was going to buy one but without...

I was going to buy one but without a screen its a lame device! Thus I will get the mini when they up the drive size. Apple has been on such a roll with the iPod and iTunes maybe they are due for a flop and these little suckers could pile up in the wharehouse fast.

 

[woogli]

what about on the remote?

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the display may be on the accompanying remote or cable?? (if there is one)...

Just a thought. If it's already been mentioned, NEVERMIND!

I just noticed, that someone else just posted this possibillity two posts before this one. Ahh well. Perhaps it opens like a clam. heh.

 

[djsteele]

iPod? Really?

For those of you who are jumping on the iPod "Shuffle" bandwagon... I can only hope you are wrong. I'm not yet convinced that the "Shuffle" has anything to do with the iPod. If it does, I think it's more likely to be an iPod accessory from Apple, designed to be the ultra portable playlist device.

Personally, I think Shuffle has more to do with a GarageBand update or some product aimed at the music industry (or hobbyists). Remember in June/July, when Jobs debuted the GarageBand and pointed out that 6 of 10 households have at least one musician (or someone who plays an instrument)? That's a big (and untapped) market and easily accessible by a company (Apple) who has built a big name for itself in the music industry. Wasn't there a previous rumor regarding an Apple device to take musical instruments in for the purposes of recording music (real-time)?

Oh yeah, and didn't Apple just discontinue their Soundtrack software? Seems to be some connection to me, but maybe it's being replaced by some other software.

I have no doubt that the iPod with have a flash-based counterpart tomorrow, but I'm still not buying in to the Shuffle only device.

But that's just me.

 

[u2mr2os2]

The name

I seriously doubt that it would not be called an iPod. I cannot imagine them not wanting to take advantage of the huge name recognition.

Maybe they'll call it the iPod Pea, and it'll come with a carry case called the iPod Pea Pod (available in Pea Green)

 

[dnnx]

So I take it the new iPod Shuffle won't have the Music Quiz game will it?

No , but I heard from reliable sources that it does have the bricks game









(disclamer to protect my a$: I did not "hear" anything)

 

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says....is this it.....oh yeah!
image from:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00009KO3A/ref=dp_product-image-only_0/103-6633374-8350234?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=3345561

 

[ipedro]

"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"

I don't see why iPod Shuffle can't look and feel just like an iPod remote. Perhaps it would need to be slightly thicker to accomodate a battery but the interface will probably look alot like this.

It looks like 4 buttons (2 large, 2 small), but the volume is actually a tilt button which means it's actually two buttons, each tilting either way. If the Play button works this way, we bring the total up to 6 buttons:

- Volume +
|<< >>|
Play/Pause Next Playlist

Hold Play to toggle between Random and Sequential mode. A beep/double beep can confirm the change in mode.

I can see these things propogating like little bunnies all over the world. They're a Little Brother to the iPod, an accessory, something you can use as an optional device in places you aren't usually comfortable taking a pricey iPod to.

I don't see any need for a display when you think of it in this way.

 

[edgar_is_good]

Open to expose screen?

There is a vast difference between 12 songs and 240.


Walkmans didn't have a screen -- you put in a tape and pressed play.
Maybe the approach with iPod Shuffle is the same -- you load 1G of songs, press play. Difference is obviously that 1G is more than the 12 songs than a tape and that "shuffle" dances the order around. But the concept could be the same. Sort of a 'set it and forget it' mantra

[/QUOTE]

The other difference is that before the walkman there was no iPod. Now people are used to some degree of user interface. Please! Is the gym-rat audience big enough to justify a new product? I'm skeptical of that.

As a suggestion - could there be an internal screen? I mean, consider these cell phones that slide apart to expose a keyboard. What if you had the keys on the surface and opened it to reveal the internal lcd. The buttons don't require an advanced connection, after all, and this would explain why the people who've seen it say it has no screen. But then you select a playlist, press play, close the case and voila, "Life is random".