Sign In
Register
Help
In reply to:
From arstechnica:
Gizmodo has pointed out that a price comparison site, Shopping.com, has recently added 2GB and 4GB iPod shuffles to their product listing. The current iPod Shuffle line consists of a 512MB and 1GB versions. One has to wonder if this is some sort of preview of a revamp of the Shuffle line or just a screw up on the part of the website. The 2GB and 4GB versions are still on their website, so one can make a couple of dufferent (sic) assumptions: either Apple legal is on vacation or this just wishful thinking. If the iPod Shuffle's capacity is raised, will the iPod mini line's capacity also be raised, or will Apple have a 4 GB shuffle and a 4 GB mini? You might remember last month we wrote about Sony beating Apple in the solid-state music player in Japan.
Hmm. There has been speculation about this since Toshibas announcement of higher capacity flash memory being made available. Some of the comments at arstechnica are interesting. Onse user indicates:From arstechnica:
Gizmodo has pointed out that a price comparison site, Shopping.com, has recently added 2GB and 4GB iPod shuffles to their product listing. The current iPod Shuffle line consists of a 512MB and 1GB versions. One has to wonder if this is some sort of preview of a revamp of the Shuffle line or just a screw up on the part of the website. The 2GB and 4GB versions are still on their website, so one can make a couple of dufferent (sic) assumptions: either Apple legal is on vacation or this just wishful thinking. If the iPod Shuffle's capacity is raised, will the iPod mini line's capacity also be raised, or will Apple have a 4 GB shuffle and a 4 GB mini? You might remember last month we wrote about Sony beating Apple in the solid-state music player in Japan.
In reply to:
Posted August 21, 2005 @ 2:23PM by tl
4GB is way too much music to not have a display. Heck 2GB is too much. 1GB is pushing it.
I find it ironic how the concept of quality is lost on the vast majority of the planets population. If I had a 2GB or better 4GB iPod shuffle to complement my 60GB iPod that would indicate to me that I could store music at higher bit rates and thus improve playback quality. But I guess it is too much to expect logic in a time where people actually believe that the 128Kbps download from the Web is a better choice than actually having tangible uncompressed media to rip to their computer. (iTMS has the right marketing model, mind you, but the fact that better quality downloads are not an option is why iTMS is not an option for audiophiles like myself.)Posted August 21, 2005 @ 2:23PM by tl
4GB is way too much music to not have a display. Heck 2GB is too much. 1GB is pushing it.
If I want to have access to my music collection, which does require navigation capabilities, then I use my iPod. When I just want to go to the gym in which case the only thing I will be listening to is house musichigh energy music is a must if you are exercisingthen all I need is something to randomly play the 90 or so house cuts that I have. A 2GB iPod shuffle would fit that bill quite nicely. I do not need to know what is playing when I am working out, I just need something to keep my mind off of the fact that I am doing a monotonous activity while using the rowing machine or recumbent cycle.
If these shuffles are truly about to hit the market then I am up for getting one; some lucky undergrad will inherit my current 512MB iPod Shuffle. This also means that when I get my new Mac and rip my collection to iTunes I can do so at 256Kbps or better across the board instead of having to revert to 128Kbps for the Club/Dance playlist which will be dumped on my iPod Shuffle for the gym.
MultiQuote
