My Thoughts on the New iPod Shuffle

[Jason Dunn]

<p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1236875157.usr1.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p><em>I weighed in on the <a href="http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/showthread.php?t=92906" target="_blank">discussion of the new Shuffle</a> over at Apple Thoughts, and I thought my response was worth sharing on this site.</em></p><p>I'm all for MP3 players breaking into new ground, and thought the original Shuffle was pretty damn brilliant - a screen isn't as mandatory as everyone thinks it is for some scenarios like working out in a gym - but this new Shuffle missed the mark in a few ways.</p><p>First, the fact that you have to use Apple's headphones in order to control the device in any way at all is a big problem. From a quality standpoint, the $3 headphones that Apple includes can't measure up - ever - to the quality of stand-alone headphones that cost $99+. And even if they're "not bad" as far as headphones go, not everyone's ears can fit them - my wife for instance couldn't use the headphones on her Shuffle because her ear canals are quite small. We always have to buy her extra-small headphones. By moving the controls onto the headphones, Apple is shutting out 100% of people who:</p><p>a) Want (or already own) better quality headphones</p><p>b) Can't fit/don't like the included headphones <MORE /></p><p>The idea of investing money in a great set of headphones is that you can use them over and over again with all sorts of device - and Apple decides to break this concept? Yeah, I know third party companies are doubtless salivating over re-releasing new versions of their headphones with Shuffle controls on them, but there's zero benefit to the consumer.</p><p>I never heard anyone complain that the Shuffle was too big, so I'd have preferred to see them keep the size but add a screen (the SanDisk Sansa Clip manages this very nicely), or increase the battery life, etc. This seems to be a case of making something smaller because they can, not because it really benefits the consumer.</p><p>I think the voice-over idea is kind of neat, but the implementation sounds just as bad as text to speech systems from a decade ago. The PC version sounds especially awful. Apple tends to implement technologies when they've matured and deliver real value to consumers, so this is especially surprising that they'd deliver something so incredibly lame.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[Bob Anderson]

Wait.

I thought Apple knew best in all situations!

Seriously though, yeah, Apple makes strategic mistakes from time-to-time, and it annoys me that they still cling to this "closed" system approach. It is such a legacy concept, that continues to gain new "life."

[wardseward]

You do all realize that very soon there will be a ton of 3rd party headphones that have the controller built in, right? Just like you can get 3rd party headphone with the button that works on the iPhone.

[Dyvim]

The idea of investing money in a great set of headphones is that you can use them over and over again with all sorts of device - and Apple decides to break this concept? Yeah, I know third party companies are doubtless salivating over re-releasing new versions of their headphones with Shuffle controls on them, but there's zero benefit to the consumer.
I agree with most of your points, but I think you missed something here. Apple thinks the future of DAP control will be with on-headphone controls (whether they're right about this remains to be seen of course). I believe all of their latest devices minus the iPhone 3G support the new headphone remotes (and the iPhone does so as well minus the volume control). So yeah, you have to invest in a new set of headphones (or use Apple's) to get on the bandwagon, but once done you will be able to reuse them just like any other headphones. Since this is Apple and iPod we're talking about, there will soon be plenty of 3rd party choices and they will work just fine with other DAPs even if they don't support the protocol (which I think would be a great idea for them to do if it's not proprietary).

I've really grown accustomed to the remote control for play\pause\prev\next\answer call on my iPhone and really wish I had volume up\down as well. It's great to be able to make adjustments one-handed on your headphones without having to pull your device out from your pocket. This is not something I thought I would use (and you probably don't think you would use it either), but having actually used it, I love it, and actually prefer my Apple earbuds despite their horrible fit, due to the added convenience they provide. (Note: I only use them while I'm out and about, so sound quality isn't an issue for me when I'm in a crowded store or waiting for a train.)

Anyway, I love the new remote controls even though I would prefer to have an alternate set of controls on the device itself. My (long-winded) point being that I disagree with your assertion that there is zero benefit to the consumer as I think the remote controls are a great plus.

[Jason Dunn]

You do all realize that very soon there will be a ton of 3rd party headphones that have the controller built in, right?

Umm...did you read my whole post? :)

"Yeah, I know third party companies are doubtless salivating over re-releasing new versions of their headphones with Shuffle controls on them, but there's zero benefit to the consumer."

I've got a really nice set of Ultimate Ears 5EB's that sound great. Why would I want to buy a new set with headphone controls on them just so I can use them with the new Shuffle?

[Jason Dunn]

...there will soon be plenty of 3rd party choices and they will work just fine with other DAPs even if they don't support the protocol (which I think would be a great idea for them to do if it's not proprietary).

Well, that's the thing: if this were about some sort of industry-standard in-line control solution, it would be a bit different. Instead this is Apple creating headphones that don't have any benefit when used with a non-iPod device. Yes, they control 73% (or whatever it is now) of the market, but not everyone uses an iPod.

...but having actually used it, I love it, and actually prefer my Apple earbuds despite their horrible fit, due to the added convenience they provide. (Note: I only use them while I'm out and about, so sound quality isn't an issue for me when I'm in a crowded store or waiting for a train.)

Well, I suspect that if sound quality is lower on your list than convenience, you're the kind of person that Apple is counting on not to care about this. Myself, sound quality is the single most important thing to me in headphones. Oh, and not having to buy new headphones is also important to me. Different slices of the market. :)

[Dyvim]

Well, I suspect that if sound quality is lower on your list than convenience, you're the kind of person that Apple is counting on not to care about this. Myself, sound quality is the single most important thing to me in headphones.
It's not that I don't care about sound quality- I care a great deal about sound quality. I'm just honest enough to admit that on a crowded subway, an airplane, or a busy street with all the outside noise intruding I can't distinguish between Apple earbuds and higher quality headphones. Note that I'm not willing to use canal-blocking or noise-canceling phones while I'm on the street because I find they isolate me too much from the environment, which IMO is (a) rude, and (b) dangerous. I'm also not willing to play the music loud enough to damage my hearing. So recognizing that I'm never going to have an audiophile (or anywhere close) experience from my DAP while I'm out and about, yeah convenience is an important factor (esp. if you live some place that is (a) cold, or (b) prone to theft).

[Jason Dunn]

Let me put this another way: could you imagine if Dell released a desktop computer that didn't have a power button on it, but included a special wired keyboard with a power button, and the only way to turn on the PC was to use the Dell keyboard. You have a nice keyboard you already like? Sorry, you need to use the Dell keyboard.

Stop and think about it - doesn't that sound idiotic? That's exactly what Apple has done here, but because they're Apple, people are forgiving them for it. That double standard drives me nuts. :rolleyes:

[Dyvim]

Let me put this another way: could you imagine if Dell released a desktop computer that didn't have a power button on it, but included a special wired keyboard with a power button, and the only way to turn on the PC was to use the Dell keyboard. You have a nice keyboard you already like? Sorry, you need to use the Dell keyboard.
Actually that sounds exactly like Apple!:p
Their routers don't have power buttons at all - you reboot by yanking the plug!

I admit that it's a questionable move, but on the other hand I can see where they're going with this. I find the design interesting even if it's not my cup of tea (although as I mentioned I do enjoy the on-headphone remote). Really these things are getting so ridiculously small that soon they could just be part of the headphone itself and you wouldn't need any cord at all (and it wouldn't even add any noticeable bulk or weight).

[doogald]

I've got a really nice set of Ultimate Ears 5EB's that sound great. Why would I want to buy a new set with headphone controls on them just so I can use them with the new Shuffle?

You would not have to if you bought an inline patch cable with iPod controls on it. Sort of like the kind of thing that you need for a G1 Android phone, say. If Apple does not make one, I assume that somebody (or, lots of somebodies) will.

Christopher Breen of MacWorld posted this (http://www.macworld.com/article/139345/2009/03/shuffle_reaction.html):

But I’m not the target buyer for this device. If you walk along any city street, ride a subway or bus, or wander through the local gym, you’ll see that nearly everyone uses the stock Apple earbuds. It’s not that their ears are any more ideal for these things than mine, it’s just that most people don’t care or know any better. This is what I got, this is what I’ll use.

I think that's pretty true; I see a lot of stock white earbuds when I am out and about. I think that a lot of people just use the buds that come with their player.

The new Shuffle is definitely not something that interests me, but the old ones never were, either.

[doogald]

Let me put this another way: could you imagine if Dell released a desktop computer that didn't have a power button on it, but included a special wired keyboard with a power button, and the only way to turn on the PC was to use the Dell keyboard?

Actually, Apple computers were once exactly like that - the power button was on the keyboard.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I love inline remotes. Not the small fiddly ones. The big huge ones that came with Japanese players (CD, Tape, MD) back in the 1990s. The only downside was that you have to get the short cable (or re-cable) earphones else you'd end up with 10 feet of earphone and remote control cable!

[Macguy59]

That double standard drives me nuts. :rolleyes:

Well that and Zune sales tanking :p

[EscapePod]

I was thinking along the lines of doogald. In fact, I was also wondering where in the earphone cord the controls are located. If they are closer to the plug end, I would consider cutting it and installing a mini-plug (female end) on the Shuffle side, so that my top-of-the line earphones would be able to plug right in. And, if I needed to use the Apple earphones, I could just install the male mini-plug there.

One place I, and many friends, use the Shuffle, is in a typical automobile installation. Not the fancy ones like iPod2Car -- I'm talking about for car radios with an aux jack in the headunit face; or in the console box (like the Lexus IS250, etc.). An adapter with two male ends would work perfect with splicing described above.

[EscapePod]

... I just saw the pic at Engadget -- the so-called remote looks to be about 4" (OK, maybe around 100mm) from the earphone end, and only in one wire. Guess I'll wait until aftermarketeers make an adapter. <img src="http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />

[mboone]

First, the fact that you have to use Apple's headphones in order to control the device in any way at all is a big problem.

Jason I could not agree with you more. It's a complete deal breaker. Not just because of sound quality - sometimes I use really cheap headphones while working out, and I have a set that's wired into a hat so I can just clip the shuffle on my hat and go for a run. I've got another set I bought for 25 cents. And a set of Sennheiser headphones that sound pretty good. But if I got the new shuffle I'd have to abandon them all and go with their headphone.

Even my wife, who would never think of using anything other than the headphones that come with the iPod, said the same thing. She might never use any other headphones, but wants to know that she can if she needs to.

[ptyork]

What I don't get is why? In essence they cut the old shuffle in half, put one half at the bottom and the other half in between the bottom and the top. The old one was small enough to BE a remote itself--many clipped it to their collar or to a band on their sleeve. In fact, it was as small as my "old" iPod touch wheel (2003) remote. Look at this press picture for the new shuffle: http://images.apple.com/ipodshuffle/gallery/images/ipodshuffle_image7_20090311.jpg. E.g., a pair of Sony buds that came short (but with an extension) would make it possible to wear the old one like this without the wire jungle hanging below camera (great for exercise and yard work where the wire can really get in the way). Now, well, you've taken away the flexibility of switching headphones, you didn't shrink much it (just added wire in between the two halves...in fact, if you add in the extra wire you may have actually increased the size), and, well...yeah, Jason, I agree wholeheartedly. Boneheaded. Much more so that the fatty nano (which my wife owns and really isnt' all that bad). If this type of "innovation" (along with the non-removable laptop batteries and the 3rd spec bump they called the "new" Mac Mini) foreshadows what they have in store for the next generation iPhone then Roger McNamee may turn out to be prophetic... :)

[Jason Dunn]

Actually, Apple computers were once exactly like that - the power button was on the keyboard.

Yeah, I remember that - but that was before the time when wireless keyboards were available, and people commonly upgraded their base keyboards, right? So it probably didn't matter all that much.

[Jason Dunn]

One place I, and many friends, use the Shuffle, is in a typical automobile installation. Not the fancy ones like iPod2Car -- I'm talking about for car radios with an aux jack in the headunit face; or in the console box (like the Lexus IS250, etc.). An adapter with two male ends would work perfect with splicing described above.

Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't the adaptor end up being bigger than the iPod itself? It seems like a single cable coming out of the last-gen Shuffle would be a smaller/more elegant solution, no?

[djdj]

A few hits and a few misses on the points made...

(1) Yes, Apple has alienated anyone wanting to use high quality headphones. I use a $300 set of Shures to listen to music on my Zune, and there is no way I'd buy another set just to be able to use them with a Shuffle, so I would never buy one. But I also care about sound quality (as you would assume anyone with $300 earphones would) so I wouldn't buy an iPod anyway. The designers of the entire iPod line have abandoned any hope of true high fidelity audio. Just about every other line of players out there sounds better. So I'm not sure that Apple is trying to target audiophiles with the Shuffle (or other model) anyway; if they were, they'd put higher quality DA converters and cleaner amplifiers in them. Most iPod owners don't care that much about sound quality (as shown by the recent research showing, unbelievably, that a majority of listeners actually prefer the sound of MP3s over the uncompressed versions of the files... heaven help us).

(2) If someone makes an adapter to allow other headphones to be used, it either (a) puts the controls near the device, or (b) you have a heck of a lot of cord to deal with between the adapter and your ears. Neither is desirable.

(3) I understand that Apple likes to have clean designs on their products, but the total removal of all playback controls is idiotic, going way too far with that idea. I don't use my iPod Touch to listen to music because of its lack of tactile buttons for volume and track control -- you can't adjust either without pulling it out of your pocket and looking at it). Backtracking on their design philosophy a bit would probably give them much more usable products. I'm not asking for dedicated buttons for every function, but there ought to be buttons for volume, advancing to the next track, and play/pause.

(4) I actually think the Windows voice sounds better than the Mac Leopard voice on the VoiceOver feature... "Alex" (Mac) sounds metallic and suffers from unnatural jumps in pitch between phonemes. "Mary" (Windows) is much smoother and doesn't suffer from the same issues. But I think the whole VoiceOver feature is pretty silly. Since the device only holds 4 GB, listeners probably already know what is on there. Honda already tried voice announcement of track/playlist on their early iPod kits, and it was nearly univerally panned as gimmicky and useless. Same thing applies here.

Overall it seems like a pretty silly product. The previous generation was considerably better.

[Stinger]

It's obvious that the Shuffle has been designed around one use-case: people working out. It's not designed as solely a low-cost mp3 player, it's designed as a light-weight and durable player for running/the gym.

The reason for all of the changes is so that you don't need to fiddle with the player when you're out running. A simple tap on the remote and you're away.

Would I buy one? No. Is the gym crowd a niche market? Probably. Do Apple's design decisions make sense for this use-case? Yes.

[doogald]

I understand that Apple likes to have clean designs on their products, but the total removal of all playback controls is idiotic, going way too far with that idea. I don't use my iPod Touch to listen to music because of its lack of tactile buttons for volume and track control -- you can't adjust either without pulling it out of your pocket and looking at it).

Well, the new Touch (available for a while now) has volume controls on the side of the device. And Apple does sell earbuds with remote that works with the Touch (see link below) so you can control the device without looking, if that's what you want to do.

I was thinking along the lines of doogald. In fact, I was also wondering where in the earphone cord the controls are located. If they are closer to the plug end, I would consider cutting it and installing a mini-plug (female end) on the Shuffle side, so that my top-of-the line earphones would be able to plug right in. And, if I needed to use the Apple earphones, I could just install the male mini-plug there.

Apple does sell these earbuds for $29 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB770G/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0Ng&mco=MjE0NDgxMg) with the remote controls on the cord, closer to the plug. But, again, I would hope that there will be third party solutions cheaper than this.

[Jason Dunn]

I think that's pretty true; I see a lot of stock white earbuds when I am out and about. I think that a lot of people just use the buds that come with their player.

Sure, I agree, but as I pointed out in my first post, Apple is making the assumption that everyone CAN use the included headphones. My wife couldn't, she needed to buy headphones that fit her. Bundled headphones won't be a good fit for everyone, and it's not like I begrudge Apple for having to go out and buy new headphones - that's fine. But it just seems silly to put controls in headphones that not everyone can use, thereby rendering your product useless until third-party options come out.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm not asking for dedicated buttons for every function, but there ought to be buttons for volume, advancing to the next track, and play/pause.

Exactly! Just like the last generation. The last-gen Shuffle was a *brilliant* product that was designed for a very specific set of scenarios, and it handled them very well. I quite liked the Shuffle until, two months out of warranty, the headphone jack on it broke and it became useless. Good ol' Apple quality - I swear they design iPods to break after "x" daily uses. :D

[doogald]

Maybe the margin on Shuffles is not so great, and this is Apple's way of directing customers to Nanos and Touches?

(And, all this said, they are not discontinuing the second gen Shuffle - you can still buy one of those if you do not want spoken selections and controls that work with any set of headphones. And 1 GB is enough for shuffling.)

I do have to say that my Nano has the spoken stuff on it and I tried it for a bit - I figured it would be great to use when I could not focus on the device, as I frequently find myself when using it - but the functionality drove me bats after a while and I turned it off. Though that was before I realized that I could turn off the cover flow when it was turned landscape, which always made the thing say the name of the album. Maybe I'll try it again . . .

[Jason Dunn]

It's obvious that the Shuffle has been designed around one use-case: people working out. It's not designed as solely a low-cost mp3 player, it's designed as a light-weight and durable player for running/the gym.

It's funny though that because everyone is different, Apple's design decisions won't work for everyone - when I was working out at the gym every weekday last year (wish I could say I still am...<sigh>) I saw all sorts of ways that people got the headphone cable out of their way. People who just do treadmill/stairmaster work don't care about the headphone cable dangling in front of them. But people doing free-weights, ground work, and some machines have to get the cable out of the way, usually securing it somehow behind them. For a time I put the headphone back down the back of my shirt so it was out of the way - if I had controls on it, I couldn't have reached it if I wanted to. My SanDisk Sansa Clip attached to the waistline of my gym shorts, and I could easily control it from there.

So who knows, maybe this is ONLY the "running iPod". :D

[Dyvim]

<sigh>For a time I put the headphone back down the back of my shirt so it was out of the way - if I had controls on it, I couldn't have reached it if I wanted to.
The controls are on the cord below the right earbud before the 2 cords join, so should be accessible just about no matter how you hide the cord- it's typically at around neck height. That's part of what makes the remote so useful - if you had to fumble around lower down on the cord where it might be beneath at least one layer of clothes or stuffed in a pocket, it's not really useful. 'Course this only works for headphones with the remote built-in- any adaptors are most likely going to be down near the iPod.

The big problem is that a ton of people all say the same thing (as do I): Apple earbuds won't stay in my ears when I'm at the gym (if they even fit at all when you're less active).

</sigh>

[Jason Dunn]

The controls are on the cord below the right earbud before the 2 cords join, so should be accessible just about no matter how you hide the cord- it's typically at around neck height.

Unless this video isn't accurate (http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/guidedtour/tour/large.html), that's not correct:

http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/shuffle-headphones.jpg

The controls are at collar-bone level, so put that behind your back and it's either impossible to reach or pretty damn awkward at best.

Anyway, this is all academic since I'm not going to buy a new Shuffle - I'm just expressing my opinion and it seems in the eyes of many here, Apple is flawless in their execution and I'm just not "getting" it so I should probably stop trying to point it out. :)

[Janak Parekh]

Anyway, this is all academic since I'm not going to buy a new Shuffle - I'm just expressing my opinion and it seems in the eyes of many here, Apple is flawless in their execution and I'm just not "getting" it so I should probably stop trying to point it out. :) I don't see many people thinking that Apple's execution is flawless here. In fact, I don't see any. I see a bunch of folks trying to figure out Apple's mindset.

I find the new Shuffle rather humorous, a la the Onion posting about ever-smaller Shuffles; it's become a parody of itself. The headphone technology is even more interesting than you think: from what I've heard, the new inline remotes with volume control use a proprietary Apple chipset that third-party manufacturers must license. I can't find the link right now, so take it with a small grain of salt, but that's the discussion I remember when the 4G nano came out.

My other feeling is Apple doesn't care that much if they lose the X% of the market that won't use their headphones with the Shuffle. Many people who have better headphones buy their higher-end products, anyway. The new nano is small and great for exercise (as is my ancient, beaten-up 1G nano) and doesn't cost that much more.

--janak

[Dyvim]

Unless this video isn't accurate (http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/guidedtour/tour/large.html), that's not correct:

http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/shuffle-headphones.jpg

The controls are at collar-bone level, so put that behind your back and it's either impossible to reach or pretty damn awkward at best.
Ok now you're nitpicking. Collar-bone / neck level, it's pretty much the same. I've never bothered looking in a mirror while I've got the iPhone ones on, so maybe they are a little lower or maybe she's just small. Either way, no one said you'd have to stuff it so tightly down the back of your shirt that you couldn't leave enough slack for the remote to hang by your collarbone. What's nice is that once you learn where it is, you can operate it without looking (which is practically impossible to do anyway given how close it is to your head).

[stlbud]

This is the cheapest pod in Apple's iPod family. This is the entry level pod used by 12 year olds or people who don't know any better. If you are truly worried about sound quality, why would you buy a Shuffle?

[stlbud]

... Apple thinks the future of DAP control will be with on-headphone controls (whether they're right about this remains to be seen of course). ...

Do you really think so? Apple is all about selling product. Apple does so by whipping the public into a frenzy over useless features and convincing them this something they MUST HAVE. It doesn't matter that someone just bought one a few weeks or even days ago. They appeal to an emotional tie to be associated with Apple's idea of new technology.

Yeah, they got it right with the whole iPod scheme of online store, home based pc media manager, and portable device all seamlessly tied together. (they also got touch screens right - finally) The rest of it is hype and too many people fall for it. Think about it carefully for a moment - there are people out their who can't live unless they have all the Nano colours.

Apple appeals to an emotional part of the brain that responds in a sensuous or even sexual way. It's a fetish and nothing more.

[Dyvim]

... Apple thinks the future of DAP control will be with on-headphone controls (whether they're right about this remains to be seen of course). ...
Do you really think so? Apple is all about selling product. Apple does so by whipping the public into a frenzy over useless features and convincing them this something they MUST HAVE...
None of what you said contradicts my point- the earbuds with remote are being implemented across the iPod and iPhone line (a transition that has been in effect since mid-2007), so clearly this is not a one-off gimmick just to sell shuffles. (Having a super small shuffle with no other controls, however, could be seen as a gimmick.) I also disagree that the remote is a useless feature- I find it quite useful (although it is more useful on a phone where its mic lets you take phone calls handsfree).

Now last year's shake to shuffle on the 4G nano- THAT was a useless feature! As well as the rotate to switch to cover flow that everyone complained so much about until they added a setting to disable it in a firmware upgrade.

Anyway, what tech company doesn't want you to upgrade to their latest line of products? Most people on these sites know that what you're buying is obsolete almost as soon as you purchase it. It's just part of the game.

[stlbud]

None of what you said contradicts my point- the earbuds with remote are being implemented across the iPod and iPhone line (a transition that has been in effect since mid-2007), so clearly this is not a one-off gimmick just to sell shuffles.

I agree this may be evolutionary as well as gimicky. And I remember Apple did provide a corded remote for their 3G and 4G iPods. A lot of people complained when that went away.

There has been a lot of heated discussion about this, here and on other forums. I still think it is silly to complain about a lack of ear options for the Shuffle. It is their lowest of the low. Putting a $50.00 headset on a $50.00 DAP is a bit much IMO. Besides, the quality of any DAP is well below anything we would put in our media rooms.

[Jason Dunn]

Here an interesting wrinkle:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-shuffle-third-generation/P6

"There is, however, something that many users will care about: the new shuffle doesn’t fully work with any headphones except Apple’s. Because of what Apple has done here—something sneaky and arguably terrible for consumers, especially if it continues with other iPod and iPhone products in 2009—if you plug your old third-party headphones of any sort into the new shuffle, you’ll find that you can’t do anything with the device other than have it continuously play music, without volume controls or interruption, unless of course of you turn it off. Surprise: the only third-party headphones that will work are ones that haven’t even entered manufacturing yet, because they’ll need to contain yet another new Apple authentication chip, which will add to their price. Your only alternatives will be third-party remote control adapters—also not yet available, as Apple’s not even making one—and using Apple’s earphones. The prices for the third-party adapters will be no less than $19, and quite possibly more like $29; compatible headphones announced thus far start at $49."

So Apple is essentially using their marketplace position to lock out headphones that they don't get royalties on. It's starting with the Shuffle, but I bet it won't end there.

[Jason Dunn]

There has been a lot of heated discussion about this, here and on other forums. I still think it is silly to complain about a lack of ear options for the Shuffle. It is their lowest of the low. Putting a $50.00 headset on a $50.00 DAP is a bit much IMO. Besides, the quality of any DAP is well below anything we would put in our media rooms.

I think you're missing the point though: this isn't about the Shuffle itself, it's about the concept of what Apple is doing - what it represents when the market leader in MP3 players decides to make their product only work with their headphones.

[Bob Anderson]

Let me put this another way: could you imagine if Dell released a desktop computer that didn't have a power button on it, but included a special wired keyboard with a power button, and the only way to turn on the PC was to use the Dell keyboard. You have a nice keyboard you already like? Sorry, you need to use the Dell keyboard.

Stop and think about it - doesn't that sound idiotic?

Yes, it is completely idiotic! For every "cool" thing Apple does, it seems, they slip in another way to limit choice/use of their products. I agree with later posts that sure, this is just the "shuffle" right now ... but could end up being the entire "line-up" sooner rather than later. Heck, maybe they'll do this with their MacBooks too.

People need to understand the power of "open standards" ... it's what has made computing what it is today, starting with the little old RS-232 serial cable, etc. Let's not spend our money with a company that is "locking up" peripherals, software, etc. with provisions only geared to make them money at the expense of consumer choice/convenience.

I was just in an Apple store yesterday - and again - I can see the "hip" nature of their products, but their closed platform and rigid "rules" just keep me from pulling the trigger. This headphone controversy is just another "little" thing that makes me grateful I haven't given Apple any of my money since the mid 80s when my Apple //e was my primary computing device.

[Janak Parekh]

Yes, it is completely idiotic! For every "cool" thing Apple does, it seems, they slip in another way to limit choice/use of their products. I agree with later posts that sure, this is just the "shuffle" right now ... but could end up being the entire "line-up" sooner rather than later. Heck, maybe they'll do this with their MacBooks too. I understand the "slippery slope" argument, but I don't buy it in this instance -- especially when you apply it to laptops.

People need to understand the power of "open standards" ... it's what has made computing what it is today, starting with the little old RS-232 serial cable, etc. Let's not spend our money with a company that is "locking up" peripherals, software, etc. with provisions only geared to make them money at the expense of consumer choice/convenience. That's a dangerous argument. By that argument, you should not buy Apple nor Microsoft-based phones... or, for that matter, most any phone from any of the major carriers. You gotta go OpenMoko (http://www.openmoko.com/), and based on its reviews, I'm not going to switch anytime soon.

I was just in an Apple store yesterday - and again - I can see the "hip" nature of their products, but their closed platform and rigid "rules" just keep me from pulling the trigger. This headphone controversy is just another "little" thing that makes me grateful I haven't given Apple any of my money since the mid 80s when my Apple //e was my primary computing device. Keep in mind, though, that Apple has also had its hands in popularizing several technology standards over the years -- especially device connection interfaces, including SCSI, Firewire, and USB. The kernel used in OS X has been open-source for years, and a number of their other cool technologies are, too. Apple is a weird hybrid of open and closed.

I for one will apply this more selectively. The new shuffle is not of interest to me, so if I wanted to buy an iPod, I'll vote by spending my $$ on another one.

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

By that argument, you should not buy Apple nor Microsoft-based phones... or, for that matter, most any phone from any of the major carriers. You gotta go OpenMoko (http://www.openmoko.com/), and based on its reviews, I'm not going to switch anytime soon.
--janak

Well, phones - specifically cell phones - are a subject fitting to an entirely different thread (in the sense that I do not like the way the market is structured right now) however there are a couple big differences:

1) Microsoft does not "control", per se, hardware to the extent that it enriches them. Sure they may require specific processors, or quantities of RAM/ROM but it does not do so to make money off of it. Apple on the other hand is "controlling" the headphones by way of a scheme whereby you have to have a chip authorized by them, presumably for some sort of fee or process that will generate revenue or royalties for them. That's not right!

2) Microsoft does not "control" software, other than to the extent that if you want to develop and sell something it has to run on WinMo. That's fair. Apple on the other hand, supervises what can be sold, and forces it to be sold through their store. That's back to Apple enriching themselves.

Sure Apple was involved in a lot of standards based development, and while I don't have time to identify when each of those events occurred (particularly USB, FireWire, SCSI) I bet most came into existence when Apple wasn't led by Jobs. There was a day when Apple allowed Mac clones!!! That got shut down when Jobs came back!!!

Shame on Apple.

[Janak Parekh]

Well, phones - specifically cell phones - are a subject fitting to an entirely different thread (in the sense that I do not like the way the market is structured right now) however there are a couple big differences: Without a doubt, one could argue that Windows Mobile is "more open" than the iPhone OS, especially for developers. But that's not the same thing as saying it is "open". For instance, you have to spend $$ on Visual Studio (the free version does not build WM apps). There's also DRM features on WM devices that you can't work around. The OEMs have the ability to control which WM apps you get, and you don't have a say in it. You do not have the right to modify the ROM to get the missing apps.

Apple on the other hand is "controlling" the headphones by way of a scheme whereby you have to have a chip authorized by them, presumably for some sort of fee or process that will generate revenue or royalties for them. That's not right! Well, keep in mind there is no current standard for inline remote with volume controls. What about the fact that WM OEMs make proprietary data connectors and require you to buy cables from them? Or HTC's extUSB connector that requires you to buy an adapter to use standard headphones? I guess your differentiation is strictly on the "presumably for some sort of fee" bit. Yes, that is a license-level control that's one step further than most WM devices, but "control" itself is a vague term. (Do we know if HTC lets people "legally" clone their extUSB adapter cables?)

2) Microsoft does not "control" software, other than to the extent that if you want to develop and sell something it has to run on WinMo. That's fair. Apple on the other hand, supervises what can be sold, and forces it to be sold through their store. That's back to Apple enriching themselves. Who is to determine what is fair and what is not? :) Every centralized handheld store system does charge the developers some $. Sure, on WM you can distribute the software yourself, but in my experience most don't. Oh, and ironically, Apple's stupid software censorship doesn't enrichen themselves. ;)

Sure Apple was involved in a lot of standards based development, and while I don't have time to identify when each of those events occurred (particularly USB, FireWire, SCSI) I bet most came into existence when Apple wasn't led by Jobs. There was a day when Apple allowed Mac clones!!! That got shut down when Jobs came back!!! Yes, because Mac clones nearly killed the company. SCSI was most definitely adopted while Jobs was there. The first Apple product to adopt USB wholesale was the iMac, which was Jobs' creation. Firewire, I can't remember, but it was post-iMac, so under Jobs.

Shame on Apple. Up to you. ;) For what it's worth, despite my devil's advocacy above, I think Apple's new Shuffle design is somewhat stupid, and I don't like the fact that their new headphone standard isn't a free published spec (so far). I know I won't be buying one. You do make some worthwhile points, but my counterargument is that said distinctions are somewhat arbitrary.

Also, I have no illusions that Apple controls stuff and Microsoft doesn't. The Zune, for instance, must be synced with Zune software, doesn't expose the hard drive, uses Zune DRM (not even PlaysForSure), and much of its online content isn't available outside the US.

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

Yes, because Mac clones nearly killed the company. SCSI was most definitely adopted while Jobs was there. The first Apple product to adopt USB wholesale was the iMac, which was Jobs' creation. Firewire, I can't remember, but it was post-iMac, so under Jobs.

Also, I have no illusions that Apple controls stuff and Microsoft doesn't. The Zune, for instance, must be synced with Zune software, doesn't expose the hard drive, uses Zune DRM (not even PlaysForSure), and much of its online content isn't available outside the US.

--janak
The fact that clones almost killed the Mac/Apple further points out the weakness of Apple in my opinion. They can't make money unless they have a proprietary/closed platform.

I think Jobs' use of USB was driven by economics - not choice. When he came back on board and began designing the iMac, Apple was close to death. He had a limited amount of time to hit the ball out of the park, so to speak, so he had to go with what was cheap and readily available. Develop a "new" protocol/hardware solution for mice/keyboard or go with the industry standard? There was no time to do something proprietary like ADB (Apple Desktop Bus.) USB, according to Wikipedia, was launched in 1996 - prior to Jobs return in 1997.

Firewire is similar in it's heritage, according to Wikipedia, it was launched by Apple in 1995 - prior to Jobs return in 1997.

SCSI, again, according to Wikipedia, was "standardized" in 1986 and Jobs left Apple in 1985.

My point in all of this is, Apple knows exactly what it is doing under Jobs' stewardship. He is looking to maximize control to further revenue, NOT enhance customer experience (the only experience he really wants to control is the experience of money flowing out of your wallet into his company!) If the only way Apple can survive is a "protected" eco-system of products and services, so intertwined that they are not "open", then I think I'll stick with other alternatives that offer as much functionality and allow me to choose the accessories I want.

As for the Zune argument - completely different in my opinion. Licensing for audio/visual material (even books) have been controlled by regions of the world for a very long time - that has to do more with the deals that Microsoft could make, not their choice for increasing revenue to themselves. Tech specs for Zune show it will play unprotected MP3s, so I think that disputes the MSFT requires DRM argument, in so much as Apple has it's AAC DRM scheme as well, and as for "exposing the hard drive" argument, how does that enrich Microsoft?

[Janak Parekh]

The fact that clones almost killed the Mac/Apple further points out the weakness of Apple in my opinion. They can't make money unless they have a proprietary/closed platform. Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that Apple's closed platforms are profitable, successful, and popular. That view probably pisses off many geeks, though.

There was no time to do something proprietary like ADB (Apple Desktop Bus.) USB, according to Wikipedia, was launched in 1996 - prior to Jobs return in 1997. Yep, although Apple put much more emphasis on USB after his return, by having only USB in the new iMacs etc. Ditto with Firewire.

SCSI, again, according to Wikipedia, was "standardized" in 1986 and Jobs left Apple in 1985. Interesting! I guess the Mac Plus was the first unit with SCSI - not sure how much of a hand Jobs had in it.

My point in all of this is, Apple knows exactly what it is doing under Jobs' stewardship. He is looking to maximize control to further revenue, NOT enhance customer experience (the only experience he really wants to control is the experience of money flowing out of your wallet into his company!) Well, isn't that what all companies are seeking to do in some sense? Apple is certainly making enough customers happy that their products are flying off the shelves. I have a friend who's always wanted to make an altruistic company, and I wish him all the best, but there's very few of them that really succeed.

If the only way Apple can survive is a "protected" eco-system of products and services, so intertwined that they are not "open", then I think I'll stick with other alternatives that offer as much functionality and allow me to choose the accessories I want. That, of course, is entirely your prerogative, and I completely understand.

As for the Zune argument - completely different in my opinion. Licensing for audio/visual material (even books) have been controlled by regions of the world for a very long time - that has to do more with the deals that Microsoft could make, not their choice for increasing revenue to themselves. Tech specs for Zune show it will play unprotected MP3s, so I think that disputes the MSFT requires DRM argument, in so much as Apple has it's AAC DRM scheme as well, and as for "exposing the hard drive" argument, how does that enrich Microsoft? It (no hard drive, no open platform for loading content on the Zune) doesn't enrich Microsoft. Isn't that my point? ;)

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

Well, isn't that what all companies are seeking to do in some sense? Apple is certainly making enough customers happy that their products are flying off the shelves. I have a friend who's always wanted to make an altruistic company, and I wish him all the best, but there's very few of them that really succeed.
--janak
Of course, companies want to make money, but it is the method in which they do it that causes me angst! In the old days, as it has been pointed out, AT&T would only allow you to connect phones they manufactured and sold on their network. The argument was that they couldn't control the quality of the network if everyone could put stuff on the network. AT&T made TONS of money on the closed proprietary system, until the government said enough is enough, and shortly thereafter the market was flooded with innovations and quality phones! (there were some duds, too, but those were weeded out pretty fast by consumers only choosing quality.) I don't recall any network crashes as a result of this free-market reform!

Apple aspires to be the modern day Ma Bell. We'll do great things for you, but we'll tell you how you'll do it and we'll tell you what you can use to do it (by the way, we'll get rich off of more than just the service we provide, because we'll tell you what you will use, we'll also make sure you buy it from us!)

Imagine a world, where gas for cars was proprietary - after all GM wants to make sure every Chevy truck and Cadillac sedan "has the best user experience" so you can only burn gas they design and refine for optimum performance! Instead, the automakers design cars around specifications that ensure their products perform as designed. The automakers DO NOT profit from the creation of the specifications, other than to support a stable market that allows more of their vehicles to be sold.

The path Apple chooses is scary. I'm waiting for the FCC and FTC to start dismantling some of this "closed system" non-sense that is creeping back in to our business world. It's like AT&T 2.0!!

Oh, and the Microsoft limitations on Zune, again, are not designed to make money for MSFT. The Apple iPod Shuffle headphone "chip" features are, by their very nature, designed to make money for Apple.

If Jobs wants to be "open" then he should suggest an industry standard headphone with remote control features to an industry body for adoption. (Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bluetooth SIG has something similiar with the Stereo and AV stacks for wireless headphones!)

[Janak Parekh]

Of course, companies want to make money, but it is the method in which they do it that causes me angst! In the old days, as it has been pointed out, AT&T would only allow you to connect phones they manufactured and sold on their network. The argument was that they couldn't control the quality of the network if everyone could put stuff on the network. AT&T made TONS of money on the closed proprietary system, until the government said enough is enough, and shortly thereafter the market was flooded with innovations and quality phones! (there were some duds, too, but those were weeded out pretty fast by consumers only choosing quality.) I don't recall any network crashes as a result of this free-market reform! I personally think it's a long stretch to compare Apple to AT&T.

If Jobs wants to be "open" then he should suggest an industry standard headphone with remote control features to an industry body for adoption. (Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bluetooth SIG has something similiar with the Stereo and AV stacks for wireless headphones!) Ironically, Apple just announced A2DP support in their new iPhone 3.0 firmware. ;)

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

I personally think it's a long stretch to compare Apple to AT&T.

Ironically, Apple just announced A2DP support in their new iPhone 3.0 firmware. ;)

--janak

Comparing Apple, right now, to AT&T at the time it was forced to allow other equipment on the network is a stretch... but when you compare the beginnings of AT&T's "regulated monopoly" and how they got there... it's not IMHO. The arguments about what we now call "customer experience" were similar to all the reasons AT&T wanted their network "closed."

As for Apple finally jumping on the A2DP support bandwagon - YIPPEE - it's about time. But I still believe they would rather not do it and push something they can control and make money off of!

[Janak Parekh]

Comparing Apple, right now, to AT&T at the time it was forced to allow other equipment on the network is a stretch... but when you compare the beginnings of AT&T's "regulated monopoly" and how they got there... it's not IMHO. The arguments about what we now call "customer experience" were similar to all the reasons AT&T wanted their network "closed." I disagree, but we can leave it at that for now ;)

As for Apple finally jumping on the A2DP support bandwagon - YIPPEE - it's about time. But I still believe they would rather not do it and push something they can control and make money off of! Then why does the iPhone support all of these open standards? In addition to A2DP, they will now support things like LDAP and CalDAV in addition to their existing IMAP, POP3, Exchange support. The Q&A after the 3.0 announcement suggested they'd even support BT profiles on the 2nd-generation iPod touch, whose BT was restricted only to Nike+ upon launch.

I think there's two ways to look at Apple: Apple controls the platform in order for (their perception of) user experience with profit as a side goal, or Apple controls the platform for profit with user experience as a side goal. You clearly believe in the latter. I don't.

--janak

[doogald]

As for the Zune argument - completely different in my opinion

Doesn't Zune software require Microsoft Windows?

[Jason Dunn]

Doesn't Zune software require Microsoft Windows?

If you're suggesting that Microsoft is using the Zune as a means of selling copies of Windows...that's the funniest thing I've heard this month. :D

[doogald]

If you're suggesting that Microsoft is using the Zune as a means of selling copies of Windows...that's the funniest thing I've heard this month. :D

I was just pointing out something else in this conversation.

Also, I have no illusions that Apple controls stuff and Microsoft doesn't. The Zune, for instance, must be synced with Zune software, doesn't expose the hard drive, uses Zune DRM (not even PlaysForSure), and much of its online content isn't available outside the US.

As for the Zune argument - completely different in my opinion. Licensing for audio/visual material (even books) have been controlled by regions of the world for a very long time - that has to do more with the deals that Microsoft could make, not their choice for increasing revenue to themselves. Tech specs for Zune show it will play unprotected MP3s, so I think that disputes the MSFT requires DRM argument, in so much as Apple has it's AAC DRM scheme as well, and as for "exposing the hard drive" argument, how does that enrich Microsoft?

Since I own no Microsoft Windows computers, I cannot use a Zune. If I want to buy a Zune, I need to install Windows. The issue of exposing the hard disk would mean that if the Zune would simply allow the device to work like a standard USB drive, anybody with a computer OS that supports external USB storage would at least be able to get music files onto the device.

No, I'm not suggesting that Zunes are selling Windows, but I am suggesting that if you are going to tar Apple with a closed, proprietary brush, don't go denying that Microsoft does this as well. The Zune is just as tied to a product that Microsoft profits from (greatly, I believe) from license sales to third parties than this new Shuffle is.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

To claim a US listed company having a profit motive as a side goal is hard to swallow.

[Janak Parekh]

To claim a US listed company having a profit motive as a side goal is hard to swallow. OK, point taken (well, for any capitalist company). ;) I guess the better way to argue it is are they taking the short-sighted or the long-sighted approach.

--janak

[doogald]

Well, it looks like the new Shuffle is pretty successful compared with the old one.

iPod shuffle sales surge 50% as iPod touch maintains top slot (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/04/01/ipod_shuffle_sales_surge_50_as_ipod_touch_maintains_top_slot.html)

http://images.appleinsider.com/ipodsales-090401.png

[Janak Parekh]

Well, it looks like the new Shuffle is pretty successful compared with the old one. That might just be new launch buzz, though. Let's see what sustained sales are.

--janak

[doogald]

Might be, but I was honestly expecting this to be a complete bust - I expected sales to drop off completely. I was wrong about that.

(Though, in thinking about this, perhaps all of these sales were the old 2G device, as people rushed out to buy them before they disappeared? Those are just the sales of devices less than $100 . . .)

[Janak Parekh]

Might be, but I was honestly expecting this to be a complete bust - I expected sales to drop off completely. I was wrong about that. Really? Remember that average joes just use the bundled headphones. Heck, even my officemate, who graduated from MIT and is as much a geek as anyone, will occasionally use his white Apple earbuds. (He also has a pair from Ultimate Ears for when he's really listening to music, but you get my point.)

(Though, in thinking about this, perhaps all of these sales were the old 2G device, as people rushed out to buy them before they disappeared? Those are just the sales of devices less than $100 . . .) Is the population that large? Considering that Apple still sells at least one 2G version? I doubt it.

--janak

[doogald]

I hate to bring this discussion back, but it wasn't so much the earbud lock-in that I thought was dumb, but the awkward UI. I guess if all that you do is play, pause and change volume, it's not so bad, but all that double-clicking, triple-clicking, double-clicking and hold, etc., sounds awkward. Click and hold to bring up the playlist menu - to go through them, do you use +/-, or the center control; do you click once, or hold, or what? It's so unintuitive; I figured that people would just figure that a Nano was a better option, if they really want a low-cost iPod.

[Janak Parekh]

I hate to bring this discussion back, but it wasn't so much the earbud lock-in that I thought was dumb, but the awkward UI. I guess if all that you do is play, pause and change volume, it's not so bad, but all that double-clicking, triple-clicking, double-clicking and hold, etc., sounds awkward. Click and hold to bring up the playlist menu - to go through them, do you use +/-, or the center control; do you click once, or hold, or what? It's so unintuitive; I figured that people would just figure that a Nano was a better option, if they really want a low-cost iPod. I think you're overthinking it. ;) I think that most people say "ooo, iPod, I want one", pick it up, and then discover what they can or cannot do.

--janak

[doogald]

This does not sound good (http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/09/04/02/ipod.shuffle.3g.problems/).

Despite the player only being a few weeks old, problems are already being reported with the third-generation iPod shuffle, specifically in relation to contact with moisture. According to support discussions, play and volume controls may malfunction when used during activities associated with sweat, such as a run or a workout. Volume may suddenly ramp up to the loudest setting, or down to the quietest; play controls can become unusable, and some iPods may shut off completely.

In some cases users have stated that after leaving a Shuffle alone for an extended period of time, controls return; the next time the device is taken out for exercise however, glitches may resume. The problem is further believed to be persistent across Shuffles, as even replacement units have broken down. A temporary fix is suggested in the form of using other headphones with volume controls, and preventing cords from coming in contact with skin.

At present, no information has been released by Apple in regards to the cause of the malfunctions, or any plans for recalls or refunds.

[Jason Dunn]

This does not sound good (http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/09/04/02/ipod.shuffle.3g.problems/).

I shall say nothing at all. :D