Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flash iPod: 'Life is Random'?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They oughta disable a few images and features, or limit viewing of certain forums to registered users... This really is crawling along...
I quite like the slogan "Life is random" just for the record...
I quite like the slogan "Life is random" just for the record...
Florida Gator said:
Ha! Ha! Ha!
That is classic.
Won't be so funny though if an iPod flash is introduced tomorrow with a screen and other typical iPod features
Macworld UK Seems to be on the ball with this
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10570&Page=1&pagePos=1
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10570&Page=1&pagePos=1
while i have SERIOUS doubts on how good it can really be OR sell without a screen i suspect something along these lines...
$99 for a 1 gig flash player the size of 2 stamps with no screen. plays tracks in sequence or in random shuffle. perhaps has an FM tuner.
$199 for a 5 gig iPod mini.
$299-$499 for iPod 4G's photo and otherwise.
i think Apple might feel that if they brand something "ipod" and give it a screen for $99 it will butcher the market for more expensive iPods since mom's and dad's will tell their kids "be lucky you are getting an *ipod* but we sure as heck aren't getting you the $199+ models."
this way they really set a MAJOR difference between models to encourage people to buy two iPods, one a "normal" one and another for times when you want something TINY, TINY, TINY that is immune to motion based skipping.
i still think it is a mistake, but i think apple felt a screen on a $99 model they called "iPod" could damage all other model's sales.
$99 for a 1 gig flash player the size of 2 stamps with no screen. plays tracks in sequence or in random shuffle. perhaps has an FM tuner.
$199 for a 5 gig iPod mini.
$299-$499 for iPod 4G's photo and otherwise.
i think Apple might feel that if they brand something "ipod" and give it a screen for $99 it will butcher the market for more expensive iPods since mom's and dad's will tell their kids "be lucky you are getting an *ipod* but we sure as heck aren't getting you the $199+ models."
this way they really set a MAJOR difference between models to encourage people to buy two iPods, one a "normal" one and another for times when you want something TINY, TINY, TINY that is immune to motion based skipping.
i still think it is a mistake, but i think apple felt a screen on a $99 model they called "iPod" could damage all other model's sales.
apple has a sucker born every minute, me included. i have SO longed for a TINY flash based ipod that i could use while running (and i consider even the iPod mini too large and too shockable with a HD) and play my itunes music store songs that i might just buy this thing at $99 even sans a screen. still stupid idea on apple's part but like a lemming i march...
lem0nayde said:
I believe IMIX is already in use on iTunes (music store). That is the name used for submited users playlist....
not true..
I have seen MP3 players that are ultra small with very puny memories (128 MB) that have no screen, just forward and backwards buttons... Although I don't believe Apple will make something that useless, partially because it does have iTunes to create ordered playlists and partially because Apple always pioneers new user interface standards.. .
I believe that Steve Jobs is a jokester and a showman. He is clowning the rumors communities by the phrase "life is random." That phrase is so vague, it could apply to many aspects of the iPod, including as another poster pointed out, the randomness of what comes over the radio (drum roll please, Sirius or XM Radio rumor tie in, add.)
j_maddison said:
I have seen MP3 players that are ultra small with very puny memories (128 MB) that have no screen, just forward and backwards buttons... Although I don't believe Apple will make something that useless, partially because it does have iTunes to create ordered playlists and partially because Apple always pioneers new user interface standards.. .
I believe that Steve Jobs is a jokester and a showman. He is clowning the rumors communities by the phrase "life is random." That phrase is so vague, it could apply to many aspects of the iPod, including as another poster pointed out, the randomness of what comes over the radio (drum roll please, Sirius or XM Radio rumor tie in, add.)
millypede said:
How are you going to browse Playlists without a screen? Or select different Albums? Artists? Songs? Or even set an option like Shuffle?
wouldn't it suck if this happened
"and now the new flash ipod!!!" :: power goes out :: windows logos popping out on the screens and gates' face popping on screen and goes"Steve i am your. . . . . . ." blue screen of death
"and now the new flash ipod!!!" :: power goes out :: windows logos popping out on the screens and gates' face popping on screen and goes"Steve i am your. . . . . . ." blue screen of death
dotnina said:Florida Gator said:
Apple would still sell it for $149. And people would still buy it.
without a harddrive
These sell here in Japan (Even have 2GB models):madmaxmedia said:
http://www.jetaudio.com/products/iaudio/g3/:
http://www.jetaudio.com/products/iaudio/u2/
...or 1GB player like this:
http://www.rioaudio.jp/product/su10/
I notice that all of these have a display.
I guess if you are using iTunes to manage your list and sync with FW, maybe a displayless iPod flash would be okay.
Sushi
The Gateway ipod?
Maybe this is designed to be the marijuanna of iPods -- the gateway device that leads you to buy a mini or a full-fledged model.
After all, maybe what Steve said holds true -- most flash-based players end up in a drawer. He just wants to be the one that sells it to you.
Maybe this is designed to be the marijuanna of iPods -- the gateway device that leads you to buy a mini or a full-fledged model.
After all, maybe what Steve said holds true -- most flash-based players end up in a drawer. He just wants to be the one that sells it to you.
The perfect name
Too bad TS has "confirmed" the name iPod shuffle. I have a better one...
iPod jump
Since "JUMP Drive" has sort of become the "Kleenex" of thumb-sized drives (and hopefully this new iPod will have this function), more recognizable to the average guy than "Flash" and...
You can JUMP with it and it won't skip and...
It JUMPs around from song to song, consistent with the "random" rumor.
Too bad TS has "confirmed" the name iPod shuffle. I have a better one...
iPod jump
Since "JUMP Drive" has sort of become the "Kleenex" of thumb-sized drives (and hopefully this new iPod will have this function), more recognizable to the average guy than "Flash" and...
You can JUMP with it and it won't skip and...
It JUMPs around from song to song, consistent with the "random" rumor.
I'm afraid that this rumored iPod shuffle won't sell well. Yes I know that was said about the mini, but at least it was full featured. I can just imagine someone looking at the mp3 players at bestbuy and saying, "Gee, that one looks cool, but all these others have a screen...". I know that the whole shuffle thing could work, but that's only if you do things the way Apple wants you to. Make a playlist, put it on random (and never want to look at what song is playing). That may work fine, but compared to other players out there that can do both that, and play songs like the "big" iPod, it might not seem like a very good buy.
The precedent
If this puppy is indeed screenless, I am a little concerned.
Is Apple sending a message saying that a screen isn't really needed? How would this message diminish the 'award winning iPod interface'?
If they push the 'life is random' argument too hard, then you could easily make the same argument for a 20gb hard disk based MP3 player, could you not?
So in effect, is Apple about to make the case that a screen simply isn't needed to listen to music? I presume that all the MP3 players on the planet can 'shuffle'. This isn't exactly innovation.
The only saving grace I see for this is if they make it very easy indeed to swap a new set of songs onto the unit through iTunes without having to deal with playlists.
Perhaps a feature in iTunes that identifies a new batch of 250 songs and replaces the old 250 onto the unit, without duplication, with just a click. That would be useful. (yes, I know about smart playlists and the ability to set them up to simulate this, but it requres steps that could be made redundant, making it easier for those who dont want to have to figure out playlist logic).
I must admit, when I hit the treadmill with my mini, I dont end up looking at it, ever. I just keep skipping tracks while it shuffles through them. So the argument could be made that someone who is running would like this - and I would fully expect Steve to come out and say this "when you are out running, you dont ever want to stop and look at your music player to fiddle with it).
If it comes with a very touch-intuitive remote, this could work.
If this puppy is indeed screenless, I am a little concerned.
Is Apple sending a message saying that a screen isn't really needed? How would this message diminish the 'award winning iPod interface'?
If they push the 'life is random' argument too hard, then you could easily make the same argument for a 20gb hard disk based MP3 player, could you not?
So in effect, is Apple about to make the case that a screen simply isn't needed to listen to music? I presume that all the MP3 players on the planet can 'shuffle'. This isn't exactly innovation.
The only saving grace I see for this is if they make it very easy indeed to swap a new set of songs onto the unit through iTunes without having to deal with playlists.
Perhaps a feature in iTunes that identifies a new batch of 250 songs and replaces the old 250 onto the unit, without duplication, with just a click. That would be useful. (yes, I know about smart playlists and the ability to set them up to simulate this, but it requres steps that could be made redundant, making it easier for those who dont want to have to figure out playlist logic).
I must admit, when I hit the treadmill with my mini, I dont end up looking at it, ever. I just keep skipping tracks while it shuffles through them. So the argument could be made that someone who is running would like this - and I would fully expect Steve to come out and say this "when you are out running, you dont ever want to stop and look at your music player to fiddle with it).
If it comes with a very touch-intuitive remote, this could work.
Shouldn't it be "240 songs
406788536364705812049357592148688531017205125918
282714606975596908148691892558510400910072972834
852292382089024587009865914715605190573256314738
159909845924475246302768811570537170462828632662
123845654330726760861254516833777966913875945176
039596821742361795433073703416459649696398681772
225222105976808085248994099560557917199966691600
404296529389679980059807998526419511950668157762
205621504485161823629213696000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000 ways" ?
406788536364705812049357592148688531017205125918
282714606975596908148691892558510400910072972834
852292382089024587009865914715605190573256314738
159909845924475246302768811570537170462828632662
123845654330726760861254516833777966913875945176
039596821742361795433073703416459649696398681772
225222105976808085248994099560557917199966691600
404296529389679980059807998526419511950668157762
205621504485161823629213696000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000 ways" ?
To add a little optimism here, I think the Shuffle will sell well, and I love the name... I think it was definitely a good move to distinguish it from the other iPods (instead of calling it the "micro"), since it is a pretty new kind of device.
I was thinking the two big buttons might be skip ahead and skip back, and the smaller could be play/pause and shuffle (because the macworld.co.uk update mentioned that it will be able to play the songs either in order or randomly). Plus, the thing is called "shuffle," so it might as well have the button!
As for what makes it different from other flash players out there... Hmmm... It, uh, works with iTunes? Yeah, otherwise it's just the allure of the design and the brand that set it apart, which is going to be enough for most people.
Rock on, Apple.
I was thinking the two big buttons might be skip ahead and skip back, and the smaller could be play/pause and shuffle (because the macworld.co.uk update mentioned that it will be able to play the songs either in order or randomly). Plus, the thing is called "shuffle," so it might as well have the button!
As for what makes it different from other flash players out there... Hmmm... It, uh, works with iTunes? Yeah, otherwise it's just the allure of the design and the brand that set it apart, which is going to be enough for most people.
Rock on, Apple.
Hlau said:
DUH... It syncs with iTunes and is compatible with iTMS songs?... And it is white, and cool, and can only play songs in er... shuffle...
Oh, I almost forgot... It comes with original (not some rip-off), Apple white ear-buds!!
ENOUGH!! Let me explain it; its rather simple...
...from an Apple, and Software/Designer Point of view:
What are the "problems" Apple has identified for/with Flash players, time and time again in public statments? If people learn to *listen and read closely* you'll see the Apple/Jobs has been "telegraphing" this all along...watch and learn. It will give you some insight into Apple thinking and marketing, as well
Flash Player "problems"
1. Low capacity
At the time this first came up, and *repeatedly since then* the Party Line has been that "Flash players don't hold enough music"...the numbers thrown out have always, *consistenly* been "like 256MB or 512MB"..."they get tossed in a drawer..." you know the routine.
I know folks will now recall this... "Yeah...thats right..."
They seem to be announcing a 1GB player, solving the "not quite enough room" *ehem* problem...but watch this, 'cus Apple is good at marketing:
They will not be stressing the "giggage" so much with this product...it will be about "hours and hours" of music. Go on, open iTunes, make a smart playlist, random, My Rating 3+ stars, maximum 1GB...and look at the status at the bottom of the iTunes screen. You'll come in around 235ish tunes...but lookie there...*20 hours*.
"20 hours of music...giving you 4 hours to sleep"...or something like this.
The appeal will be "can YOU listen to more than 20 hours of music in a day"...this is the angle I'm thinking they will persue. "20" is bigger than "1".
Get it?
Ok, on to Apple identified "problem" number 2:
"Flash players, while small and light, have terrible UI's/Navigation"
Yep. Apple will explain that even *they* couldn't solve THAT problem...(hahahaha)....so they decided instead of having a cramped and crappy interface to "forgo it altogether"...and instead "use the best interface from the best music jukebox on the planet instead: iTunes."
Mention of how "people told us they loved party shuffle..."
You see where this is going?
"Ooooohhhhhhh...." says the crowd. "Now I see it."
It will be SO OBVIOUS then its not funny, as its been obvious to me personally for awhile, and it fits the Apple style of "simplicity"...or...
"Sunshine Pumping" if you will. Then they get Ive on a video doing the "elegant minimalism thing"...Schiller by hyped about "the software hardware integration"...some pop star going "its better than radio...blah blah"...tie in some tune the kidz love...
So there ya go. You've been sold.
Watch
-K
...from an Apple, and Software/Designer Point of view:
What are the "problems" Apple has identified for/with Flash players, time and time again in public statments? If people learn to *listen and read closely* you'll see the Apple/Jobs has been "telegraphing" this all along...watch and learn. It will give you some insight into Apple thinking and marketing, as well
Flash Player "problems"
1. Low capacity
At the time this first came up, and *repeatedly since then* the Party Line has been that "Flash players don't hold enough music"...the numbers thrown out have always, *consistenly* been "like 256MB or 512MB"..."they get tossed in a drawer..." you know the routine.
I know folks will now recall this... "Yeah...thats right..."
They seem to be announcing a 1GB player, solving the "not quite enough room" *ehem* problem...but watch this, 'cus Apple is good at marketing:
They will not be stressing the "giggage" so much with this product...it will be about "hours and hours" of music. Go on, open iTunes, make a smart playlist, random, My Rating 3+ stars, maximum 1GB...and look at the status at the bottom of the iTunes screen. You'll come in around 235ish tunes...but lookie there...*20 hours*.
"20 hours of music...giving you 4 hours to sleep
"...or something like this.The appeal will be "can YOU listen to more than 20 hours of music in a day"...this is the angle I'm thinking they will persue. "20" is bigger than "1".
Get it?
Ok, on to Apple identified "problem" number 2:
"Flash players, while small and light, have terrible UI's/Navigation"
Yep. Apple will explain that even *they* couldn't solve THAT problem...(hahahaha)....so they decided instead of having a cramped and crappy interface to "forgo it altogether"...and instead "use the best interface from the best music jukebox on the planet instead: iTunes."
Mention of how "people told us they loved party shuffle..."
You see where this is going?
"Ooooohhhhhhh...." says the crowd. "Now I see it."
It will be SO OBVIOUS then its not funny, as its been obvious to me personally for awhile, and it fits the Apple style of "simplicity"...or...
"Sunshine Pumping" if you will. Then they get Ive on a video doing the "elegant minimalism thing"...Schiller by hyped about "the software hardware integration"...some pop star going "its better than radio...blah blah"...tie in some tune the kidz love...
So there ya go. You've been sold.
Watch
-K