For an Apple product, the new iPod Shuffle is a bit underwhelming in the aesthetics department. It’s tiny, for sure, but I can’t and most likely won’t ever get over the fact that I have to use Apple’s earbuds. What am I supposed to do with my Ultimate Ears and Shures?
The controller itself sits a bit higher than expected and probably would be better served had it been placed a few more inches down the cable. It’s a bit chintzy and I’m sure Apple stores will see droves of folks coming in with broken earbuds.
The Voice Over feature works with non-iTunes purchased music (aka pirated music!) and flipping through playlists is easy as pie, but you have to listen to the little robotic man in the Shuffle tell you which track and artist is playing before you can get to your playlists. That’s a bummer right there. The only time I foresee myself having to use the Voice Over feature is if someone else is listening to it and they want to know what’s currently playing. I doubt I’ll be making playlists if I have to go through the whole process every time.
Is the new Shuffle worth $79? Put it this way: I’m just glad I can expense this unwanted Apple purchase.
Photo Gallery by Picturesurf
One of the things I liked best about the Shuffle is that its ONE playlist – my workout mix. If I’m not in the mood to listen to a song, skip to the next, because I’ll probably like that and you can be damn certain its not by Elton John…or whatever the devil trendy children listen to these days that in no way pumps you up. Adding the ability to make separate playlists to a tiny iPod without a screen is stupid at best, and Ballmer driven at worst.
I can only speak for myself, but the only reason I have/use my Shuffle is to work out. I have an old fifth gen iPod for the rest of my collection. I would guess most people fall into a similar camp, so who is this really designed for?
Truth be told, I use my Samsung Pebble to work out because I don’t have to deal with iTunes and just drag and drop tracks. This new Shuffle is a dud.
You know I wouldn’t buy it either but your review is pretty unimpressive; except for tidbit about the placement of the control, you aren’t telling your readers anything we can’t find out from reading the Apple site.
“aka pirated music”. Let’s see, 1 point for being pseudo clever. -10 points for being un-reasonable. There are these things called CDs. A lot of people’s itunes library were are based on CDs they ripped, even if they are not buying too many now a days. Amazon, eMusic, Never heard of these sites? And of course it works with all your music, that would be lame even by apple’s standards if it didn’t. And like I said, Apple already makes that clear.
Absolutely it’s not the ultimate iPod; it’s so clearly marketed at a specific audience. Someone who wants the smallest possible device and not have to fumble for buttons, because they want to use it while being active. It would have been nice if you put yourself in these shoes when you were reviewing.
The voiceover seems really helpful not because of itself but indirectly; it provides a way to access playlists when you don’t have a screen, so that you can now sync more than one playlist. Do you really think that when somebody is running they are dying to know the name of the song they are listening too? Or is it possible maybe they want to have more than one playlist to choose from? I think the latter.
If you think about it, that’s what, at the very least, makes this interesting; how did they do it!? My guess; the voice over is synthesized as a small audio file on the PC and then that is sync’ed to the device, which plays it on demand, explaining why it sounds different if you’ve synced from a Mac vs. PC. Seems more plausible then building the synth capability into the device itself, based on metadata, and supporting different languages.
I personally wouldn’t buy it either, not the least of all because I wouldn’t want to be locked into their headset.
You should count your lucky stars that you get to review technology “for a living”. Next time trying being useful and providing a thoughtful and thorough review rather than just trying to post something as fast as possible.
There’s a clear distinction between “hands-on” and “review.” Perhaps you should take note of that the next time you judge someone’s work.
If you’re going to rationalize a superficial discussion of the product because it’s only a “hands on” and not a review, maybe you should defer the question of whether it’s worth $79 until you do an actual “review.”
Why? Sometimes its easy to tell out of the box whether the product is up to snuff, or whether a competing device is a better product. Or (gasp) the previous generation was better, in which case its clearly not worth the money since an older one can be had on the cheap.
I see what you’re saying about waiting to make a determination after more time with something, and giving all sides to it – but that can take time. This is a pretty radical change to an iPod, so getting some early feedback without every angle being covered isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And given all the Apple cheerleaders out there, its refreshing to see an impartial reaction.
I agree with earlier comments. Not only is this a lame, uninformative review, the insult about pirated music betrays your own criminal mind. I have over a thousand bought-and-paid for CD’s, and these are the only ones that find their way to my iPod.
I agree. The new shuffle is flawed: http://www.onlineobservations.net/one-flaw-in-the-newest-ipod-shuffle/
I can’t listen to music without my Bose.