iPod Shuffle the Last iPod? Apple's FitBit?

[Mac 128]

Now that Apple has dropped the headphone jack, it seemed like a logical step to finally give the Shuffle a standard Lightning port, and remove the headphone jack. But they would also need to give it BlueTooth.

It seems like the Touch is on its last legs, replaced by the ever more affordable SE, and the nano customer will likely be better served by the increasingly affordable Apple watch.

But then I started thinking, the Shuffle makes an excellent entry level device, and if they keep it around, they'll need a better way to interface with it. So why not take a note from the Apple Watch and allow it to be synced and managed by the iPhone, and other mobile phones? That way Apple can keep the price low by not adding a Touch screen. Then I realized, most people use it for workouts, so why not add an accelerometer? And maybe a few more health sensors. It could also be used with chest straps, and other outboard sensors. Since it has a BT radio, it could basically be used as an entry level Apple Watch, or Apple's answer to FitBit, all for around the same $50 price tag.

And just like the old nano/watch trend, fitness straps could be used with it to wear on the wrist, encouraging a fitness band accessory market, just like the Apple Watch.

Or will Apple just let it die a slow death as the last iPod and fade into history?

 

[Pakaku]

the Shuffle makes an excellent entry level device, and if they keep it around, they'll need a better way to interface with it. So why not take a note from the Apple Watch and allow it to be synced and managed by the iPhone, and other mobile phones?

Because you effectively spike the price of this new Shuffle by a few hundred or thousand dollars by requiring it rely on a phone, which is not an "entry level" price at all. And why do you think there's demand for "a better interface"? It sounds like you just want a cheaper Apple Watch, not a Shuffle.

 

[Mac 128]

Because you effectively spike the price of this new Shuffle by a few hundred or thousand dollars by requiring it rely on a phone, which is not an "entry level" price at all. And why do you think there's demand for "a better interface"? It sounds like you just want a cheaper Apple Watch, not a Shuffle.

I'm not suggesting that's the only way it could work. Right now, the shuffle requires a PC -- so the price of entry is already over $1,000. So adding a phone is a convenience not a requirement. If anything it lowers the bar for entry as everyone tends to have a phone now, or a tablet, but necessarily a PC -- and if they don't a phone is a lot less expensive than a PC. When I say "better", I mean more accessible -- not the current requirement to tether up to a PC with proprietary single function cable -- that's a decade old concept at this point.

Currently, Apple can't competent with FitBit which currently has significant market share. So either they drop the price of the Apple Watch which does a lot more than just fitness monitoring, or they add some of the same functionality to a product that's already being used in that capacity. Or, they just don't worry about competing with FitBit, and continue offering the Shuffle as a single function music player, or discontinue it with the rest of the iPod line in a year or two. Seems like a missed opportunity if the latter is the path they chose.

 

[Pakaku]

I'm not suggesting that's the only way it could work. Right now, the shuffle requires a PC -- so the price of entry is already over $1,000. So adding a phone is a convenience not a requirement. If anything it lowers the bar for entry as everyone tends to have a phone now, or a tablet, but necessarily a PC -- and if they don't a phone is a lot less expensive than a PC. When I say "better", I mean more accessible -- not the current requirement to tether up to a PC with proprietary single function cable -- that's a decade old concept at this point.

So what you want isn't a Watch scenario, but you want the phone to replace the computer, like putting iTunes on iOS. That I could agree with, since it would make them less dependant on computers to begin with (and make something like an iPad Pro one step closer to a standalone laptop replacement)

As for Fitbit competition, I don't think Apple cares about specializing the Watch in any way. They probably want to rely on something that does a lot of things okay, so it caters to more people. The Shuffle is also specialized (to music), but that's only because iPods by tradition have always been specialized like that. Adding more features would just make it more expensive anyways and defeat the original purpose of the Shuffle, and I think Apple is trying to get away from the specializing side of things. The basic Shuffle still works for them as their gateway drug, too, so there's less incentive to beef it up. They'd probably benefit more from putting extra features into a Nano than a Shuffle.

 

[Mac 128]

So what you want isn't a Watch scenario, but you want the phone to replace the computer, like putting iTunes on iOS. That I could agree with, since it would make them less dependant on computers to begin with (and make something like an iPad Pro one step closer to a standalone laptop replacement)

As for Fitbit competition, I don't think Apple cares about specializing the Watch in any way. They probably want to rely on something that does a lot of things okay, so it caters to more people. The Shuffle is also specialized (to music), but that's only because iPods by tradition have always been specialized like that. Adding more features would just make it more expensive anyways and defeat the original purpose of the Shuffle, and I think Apple is trying to get away from the specializing side of things. The basic Shuffle still works for them as their gateway drug, too, so there's less incentive to beef it up. They'd probably benefit more from putting extra features into a Nano than a Shuffle.

The watch is clearly the nano replacement. I don't see the nano lasting much longer.

I see your position, but again, Apple doesn't really have an entry level Watch product, the way they have an entry level iPhone, iPad, Mac, TV, and currently an iPod. Once Apple eliminates the iPod line, the Shuffle will be the sole representative. In a world of multifunction devices, it's hard to imagine a $50 mp3 player being in much demand. And make no mistake the Shuffle has been $50 for years without necessarily adding any new features the way Apple's other products do. The Bluetooth radio is a must, and adding relatively minor features like an accelerometer will not affect their bottom line at all, and make the Shuffle more relevant to a broader market that isn't interested in the upsell to the Watch.

 

[0x100]

I'm not suggesting that's the only way it could work. Right now, the shuffle requires a PC -- so the price of entry is already over $1,000. So adding a phone is a convenience not a requirement. If anything it lowers the bar for entry as everyone tends to have a phone now, or a tablet, but necessarily a PC -- and if they don't a phone is a lot less expensive than a PC. When I say "better", I mean more accessible -- not the current requirement to tether up to a PC with proprietary single function cable -- that's a decade old concept at this point.

Currently, Apple can't competent with FitBit which currently has significant market share. So either they drop the price of the Apple Watch which does a lot more than just fitness monitoring, or they add some of the same functionality to a product that's already being used in that capacity. Or, they just don't worry about competing with FitBit, and continue offering the Shuffle as a single function music player, or discontinue it with the rest of the iPod line in a year or two. Seems like a missed opportunity if the latter is the path they chose.

A PC compatible with ipods cost around $100-200.
A Phone compatible with ipods cost $400.

Apple is not going to let you sync an Ipod with a 3rd party phone.

The shuffle is an entry level product for people who have never owned any apple product. It exists for the same reason as the Mac mini.

Apple does not want an entry level watch product.

 

[Mac 128]

A PC compatible with ipods cost around $100-200.
A Phone compatible with ipods cost $400.

Apple is not going to let you sync an Ipod with a 3rd party phone.

The shuffle is an entry level product for people who have never owned any apple product. It exists for the same reason as the Mac mini.

Apple does not want an entry level watch product.

You assume anyone using a shuffle doesn't own a phone.
You assume anyone using a shuffle is only using the minimal PC required to use it.
You assume anyone using a shuffle has never owned an Apple product.
You assume Apple will never let an iPod sync to a 3rd phone, yet Apple Music is now available on Android, just like iTunes is available on PCs.
You assume Apple will never expand the watch to be compatible with other Phones (itself a sync able music player), despite severely limiting it's potential market share.
You assume that Apple won't ever make the Shuffle syncable with an iPhone, despite the Watch having this ability, and makes more sense condering Apple's dominant market.
You assume the Mac mini is only bought by people who have never owned an Apple product before.
You assume Apple has never changed, and never will, the way a product interacts with other devices.
You assume Apple doesn't want an entry level watch product despite pointing out yourself that both the shuffle and the mini exist for exactly this reason -- an entry level product in their respective categories.
You assume a lot.

 

[0x100]

You assume anyone using a shuffle doesn't own a phone.
You assume anyone using a shuffle is only using the minimal PC required to use it.
You assume anyone using a shuffle has never owned an Apple product.
You assume Apple will never let an iPod sync to a 3rd phone, yet Apple Music is now available on Android, just like iTunes is available on PCs.
You assume Apple will never expand the watch to be compatible with other Phones (itself a sync able music player), despite severely limiting it's potential market share.
You assume that Apple won't ever make the Shuffle syncable with an iPhone, despite the Watch having this ability, and makes more sense condering Apple's dominant market.
You assume the Mac mini is only bought by people who have never owned an Apple product before.
You assume Apple has never changed, and never will, the way a product interacts with other devices.
You assume Apple doesn't want an entry level watch product despite pointing out yourself that both the shuffle and the mini exist for exactly this reason -- an entry level product in their respective categories.
You assume a lot.

I am only stating facts.