Comments on: Hands-on: iPod Shuffle 2K9

By: Logitech Ultimate Ears 700 bust out

Logitech Ultimate Ears 700 bust out — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:50:42 +0000

[...] 26dB. Want beautiful music? It will cost you $229.99, but don’t think about using these with iPod shuffle 2K9. Yup, the earphones do not sport in-line controls or the required proprietary chip. Apple hates [...]

By: Review: Apple iPod Shuffle 2K9 with VoiceOver

Review: Apple iPod Shuffle 2K9 with VoiceOver — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:37:28 +0000

[...] FM radios, voice recorders and the like. Now, you might argue that they’re much bigger than the Shuffle 2K9, but so what? There comes a time when being that small is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. [...]

By: Dexim previewing the Shu-Lip for the iPod shuffle 2K9

Dexim previewing the Shu-Lip for the iPod shuffle 2K9 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:47:15 +0000

[...] latest iPod shuffle is all about being chintzy (our hands-on here), which is great for accessory makers like Dexim. You see, they will make a bunch of coin selling [...]

By: Vaibhav

Vaibhav — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:32:23 +0000

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.

By: freebo

freebo — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:32:17 +0000

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.

By: thebonafortuna

thebonafortuna — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:45:12 +0000

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.

By: bobdmac

bobdmac — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:27:36 +0000

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.”

By: Peter Ha

Peter Ha — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:28:20 +0000

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.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:43:28 +0000

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.

By: Peter Ha

Peter Ha — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:09:57 +0000

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.

By: thebonafortuna

thebonafortuna — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:43:25 +0000

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?