corywoolf said:
True, but doesn't the shuffle feature a mechanical slider on the back? The rotating button head with a sensor that told the ipod it is in that position would be cheaper then having a non rotating button that has an oled behind it and changes dynamically.
Manufacturing wise, this would make the Shuffle a lot more complicated and costly.
The slider switch has been around since electricity was first generated. A rotating set of buttons is not near as easy to make tiny where it will be reliable. That is one reason that Apple went away from mechanical buttons and wheel on the original iPod to what we have today. Today we are up to the 4th version of the click wheel if memory serves. Each time it becomes more simple, smaller and reliable.
Also, I stress that the Shuffle works equally well for left and right handed folks.
While your design allows for rotation, it is not easy to hold the rotated Shuffle compared to the current version.
Remember, the Shuffle was created for sports/on the go type activity. The basic idea is simplicity which the Shuffle does in spades.
corywoolf said:
I still like the design, but it does take on the Creative look partially due to the screen that doesn't have rounded corners. I guess it depends if you like form over function. I think the minimalist approach is great (to a certain point), but when you start scrapping features like a grip on the slider, it starts to become the hot girl who can't do anything (if you know what I mean). I saw a nano up close (in real life) for the first time last night and was amazed. I think the nano must be smaller then the shuffle in height. I guess I would just scrap the screen and focus on features like playlist toggling and size. I don't think there is a market for screen attachments for the shuffle, if the attachment cost $30 to $50 and the shuffle cost $80 to $99, who would buy the attachment? Hard to believe the nano is that expensive, but I guess it packs a lot of features in the thumb size device. When I saw it I was like "Is that a nano, wait that's way to small, it must be a remote." The shuffle is hard to improve on, because it does so little and that is about all it can handle.
Understand your attachment to your design.
Reminds me of the F-16 when it was designed. The main control (stick) did not move. Rather is relied upon stress gauges that measured the pilots input force. The engineers where very happy with their design. The test pilots gave them some rather blunt negative feedback that it doesn't work in the real world.
So now the F-16 stick moves so that the pilots receive feedback.
My point being, is don't become too attached to a design idea. Personally I like the way your design looks. But then when I imagine using one it looses a lot of it's charm.
I think that you are right about the added display. Especially now with the Nano.
You've some great creative energy. Looking forward to seeing what else you have up your sleeve.