• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New iPod Shuffles released - new VoiceOver feature

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Anyone else find the voice pathetic for a consumer device?

I am currently stuck between getting an old shuffle ($40 on apple's site) or a nano (for the Nike+ compatibility)
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Click to expand...

They're going to have an adapter and most companies will come out with their own adapters.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

BIG difference. There are MANY other MP3 player options out there right now, anything they "force" upon you can simply be dealt with by spending your money elsewhere. While the iPods are indeed very popular, they are far from a monopoly.
 
Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Click to expand...

They're going to have an adapter and most companies will come out with their own adapters.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't coming out with an adapter. They said 3rd-parties would though.
 
Originally posted by: Kaido
Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Click to expand...

They're going to have an adapter and most companies will come out with their own adapters.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't coming out with an adapter. They said 3rd-parties would though.
Click to expand...

That's stupid. They could charge $20 for it and people would buy it. People pay $30 for the earbuds. 😕
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Kaido
Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Click to expand...

They're going to have an adapter and most companies will come out with their own adapters.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't coming out with an adapter. They said 3rd-parties would though.
Click to expand...

That's stupid. They could charge $20 for it and people would buy it. People pay $30 for the earbuds. 😕
Click to expand...

http://www.pcworld.com/article...headphone_adapter.html
 
Originally posted by: Kaido
Originally posted by: Kmax82
Yea.. I like the idea of the Apple Earbuds, but they fall out of my ears too. I've never been a fan of the shuffle, and this doesn't change anything. I like the design, but I feel they could've at least put one button on there to act as the "Play/Pause/Skip/Prev/Voiceover" that they are getting out of the center button on the earbuds.

Oh well...
Click to expand...

Not only that, but read this quote from Business Week:

I have only one problem with this design, and it?s one that applies to any product that uses multi-modal buttons, that is, buttons that do more than one thing depending on the context. The center button on this remote has an awful lot to do. A single tap starts the music, or stops it if it is already playing. A double tap skips to the next track and a triple tap moves back to the previous track. If you hold the button down, you get the track announcement. And if you hold it down even longer until you hear a beep, it will announce the playlists on the shuffle. You then press it again to select a playlist. Use it for a while, and you?ll get used to it, but this sort of multi-modalism always makes for a confusing user experience.
Click to expand...

:Q lol
Click to expand...

The thing is, all of that functionality makes sense to me. If I were presented with one button, I immediately think two taps is next, three is back, holding it will do something different that tapping it which is likely play/pause.

This is not rocket science.
 
Originally posted by: Tegeril
Originally posted by: Kaido
Originally posted by: Kmax82
Yea.. I like the idea of the Apple Earbuds, but they fall out of my ears too. I've never been a fan of the shuffle, and this doesn't change anything. I like the design, but I feel they could've at least put one button on there to act as the "Play/Pause/Skip/Prev/Voiceover" that they are getting out of the center button on the earbuds.

Oh well...
Click to expand...

Not only that, but read this quote from Business Week:

I have only one problem with this design, and it?s one that applies to any product that uses multi-modal buttons, that is, buttons that do more than one thing depending on the context. The center button on this remote has an awful lot to do. A single tap starts the music, or stops it if it is already playing. A double tap skips to the next track and a triple tap moves back to the previous track. If you hold the button down, you get the track announcement. And if you hold it down even longer until you hear a beep, it will announce the playlists on the shuffle. You then press it again to select a playlist. Use it for a while, and you?ll get used to it, but this sort of multi-modalism always makes for a confusing user experience.
Click to expand...

:Q lol
Click to expand...

The thing is, all of that functionality makes sense to me. If I were presented with one button, I immediately think two taps is next, three is back, holding it will do something different that tapping it which is likely play/pause.

This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Triple tap to go backwards is not at all intuitive. There's no reason to think that tapping something MORE will make it LESS (or go back if you're not thinking in math)

This thing needs a click wheel remote BADLY.
 
Scosche Industries announced an inline control adapter kit: (it's under the Klipsch earbuds)

http://www.engadget.com/2009/0...eover-compatible-ipod/

Looks like it's about 6" long...that's nice. I have a Griffin SmartTalk, which is a click-control adapter for the iPhone, and it has like a 6' cord. Can't use it while exercising because that plus a 6' headphone cable = ridiculous 😀
 
Originally posted by: aphex
Originally posted by: sactoking
So, when is Apple going to get sued for monopolistic mp3 player practices like Microsoft? I mean, isn't putting the controls on the branded earbuds and forcing you to use them or an Apple-supplied (or licensed) adapter akin to integrating IE into Windows?
Click to expand...

BIG difference. There are MANY other MP3 player options out there right now, anything they "force" upon you can simply be dealt with by spending your money elsewhere. While the iPods are indeed very popular, they are far from a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out that my original post was in jest. However, in seeing some of the responses I'd like to point out:

Windows market share <90% for the first time ever as of 12/2008.
IE market share <70% as of 12/2008.
iPod market share >70% as of 1Q 2008.

iPod is not to mp3 players what Windows is to OS, but it's getting pretty close.

 
Wow, Apple, WHAT THE F**K!

Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Dare I say that now I'm scared of the direction the company is going without SJ?
 
Originally posted by: Kaido
Third-party iPod shuffle headphones will require Apple-licensed authentication chip

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past Apple to actually do that, but something tells me that wording is misleading. Of course we don't know how everything will work but I'm guessing when they say the authentication chip will be required for third-party iPod Shuffle headphones, they really mean it'll be necessary for any third-party device that carries the iPod Shuffle controls on it. I'm guessing a few companies will release pass-through adapters that have the controls on them so you can use any headphones you want. And they'll probably charge like $20 for them, so it won't be hard for them to make up the low cost of including that authentication chip.

What it will do is further sour the Shuffle's already mediocre value. It's bad enough that it's $80 for 4 GB and no screen or buttons... it'll be another $10-$20 to use any headphones other than the included ones. And $10-$20 is significant when you're talking about an $80 device.

Of course this is all not to mention the fact that the new Shuffle is about as far away from Apple's old design philosophy as possible - they used to be all about making things simple, elegant, and easy to figure out. Now you have to learn to be a telegraph operator to use the thing. That's not innovation.
 
Originally posted by: Kaido
Third-party iPod shuffle headphones will require Apple-licensed authentication chip

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

The story's fake. It's a controller chip for the buttons. Pretty standard piece of electronics. Has nothing to do with authentication or DRM. The people who "broke" the story, a site called iLouge, seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against Apple. They make some pretty wild accusations about Apple blackmailing reviewers. Fooled a lot of people. Shows over people, nothing to see here.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343217,00.asp
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...-more-drm-ipod-shuffle
http://i.gizmodo.com/5170797/c...ation-chip-to-function
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/...ufacturer-confirm.html

I still think it's dumb though to have the controls on the buds. Bad design IMO.
 
Ugh... massive dissapointment. They took 2 years to come up with this?! Just take the 2g, cut out the bit of empty metal space to the left of the controls (making it a perfect square), add extra battery life, add more storage, add an extra feature or two maybe make it glow in the dark so its easier to find or something that wouldve been fine, pretty unremarkable but way more functional than this 3g shuffle theyve actually put out. I mean thats just 5 seconds of thought on my part, apples had 2 years to figure out something better.

This is like the nano 3g (fatty) that apparently wasent very popular. Maybe apple is losing its touch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top