2G iPod shuffle review round-up
by Conrad Quilty-Harper, posted Nov 4th 2006 at 10:45AM
When the original shuffle launched,
Creative CEO Sim Wong Hoo claimed that
the "whole industry will just laugh at it" thanks to its basic feature set. While executives at music companies may have had a few chuckles at the orginal shuffle behind closed doors, the power of the iPod brand combined with the simple design of the shuffle made it one of the most successful models in Apple's line-up. Now that the 2G iPod shuffle has hit the stores, Apple's competitors aren't laughing anymore, although the new shuffle isn't quite the technological revolution that Apple might claim it to be. iLounge and C|NET picked up on one particular problem that was previously the shuffle's forte: a distinct degradation in audio quality when compared with the first shuffle -- although it's worth noting that The Washington Post had no complaints in this area. Other niggles range from the inclusion of the "old style", ergonomically questionable earbuds to the stupid requirement that the user turns the shuffle off and on to check the battery life; all of which are insignificant when you factor in the new miniscule form factor, convenient clip, and improved price:capacity ratio. Unfortunately for Apple's competitors, at the moment the only significant distraction from the 2G shuffle's appeal is the new iPod nano range.
Read - C|NET
Read - iLounge
Read - The Washington Post
[Image: This is what 200 iPod shuffles look like]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7of7 @ Nov 4th 2006 11:01AM
You wouldn't be calling those details insignificant if this player were made by any other company. When did Engadget become Apple's unpaid marketing wing?
Richard Lai @ Nov 4th 2006 11:11AM
You see guys, the problem is that a lot of consumers nowadays don't care about the audio quality anymore; they just go for the brand and appearance. If only Creative can steal Apple's designers from California...
omega @ Nov 5th 2006 9:27AM
Creative had got lousy built-quality and bad design. The player simply won't last very long. I had one that last 2 months, waste of money.
Without EQ, its audio is about the same with iPod. Besides you nedd to pull a few hairs off your head figuring out using the interface, software and updating it-so many choices to update that you get lost sometimes.
Matt @ Nov 4th 2006 11:28AM
Who else thinks that the reason these come with old-style headphones is to clear Apple's warehouses of them?
Lou @ Nov 4th 2006 11:36AM
The headphones may be of questionable ergonomics, but I don't think the millions of people that wear them care. The sound quality may not be great, but do you really think that someone who paid $75 for a shuffle really cares.
For the majority this thing is about having a stylish music player that you may just listen to on the way to work or while you are working out.
supmarty @ Nov 4th 2006 11:38AM
i want one.
Lou @ Nov 4th 2006 11:39AM
Although, if we are talking about stylish, I can't believe Apple just reused the box from the nano. Also, why white with green, all green would have looked much better.
As for continuing attacks from environmentalists, that is an incredibly wasteful box.
LukeA @ Nov 4th 2006 11:47AM
"Who else thinks that the reason these come with old-style headphones is to clear Apple's warehouses of them?"
Me.
QUOW @ Nov 4th 2006 1:16PM
You see, people didn't really buy the shuffle for it's featureset. No, they bought it because it was the lowest-cost entrypoint into Apple's "image."
Hey! My friends are "cool" because they have an iPod. But those are $250! Wait, a "shuffle" for ony $80? I'm in! No screen? Normally, that would bother me, but this is APPLE we're talking about!
I'm fairly sure that's what went through a lot of people's heads.
Brian @ Nov 4th 2006 1:27PM
I think the shuffle G2 was one of Apples, "yea sure, redesign and slap a price tag on it, and ship it out" It just seems like a last-minute-cereal-box-prize, the packaging was not thought out as much as the nano, the sound quality, earbuds, battery indicator are all junk.
There are better players for the same 70$ out there...
Taylor @ Nov 4th 2006 3:05PM
The biggest thing i saw with the original shuffle was the price:capacity ratio; It was amazing compared to EVERYTHING else on the market at the time. Nike was still selling their 128MB players for $90 when the $100 512mb shuffle came out. It was so much cheaper than anything else. Then, in like a week, everyone's prices fell, but it was the shuffle that caused the industry wide price drop in flash players.
-Taylor
Jeff Minter @ Nov 6th 2006 3:45PM
I picked up the 1st generation ipod shuffle 512mb refurb model from Fry's on sale for $30 usd.
At that price I picked up 5 of them, in case I need to replace one of them.
The audio qualilty is superb! Better than even the Nano and 5th Gen models. Bass response is unbelievible.
For ear buds, I bought the Apple M9394G/B iPod Earbud Headphones. They are so much better than the stock buds, while still not bad in price.
Thataboy @ Nov 4th 2006 4:28PM
You people don't get it. These things are meant for running and the gym. If some of you pasty-faced nerds would leave your computers and XBoxes for a few minutes, maybe you'd see the utility in a tiny, durable, wearable, AAC-playing device.
Who actually uses the stock earbuds? I don't need to check the battery status, I don't need a screen to see album art. I clip it, push play, and lift.
Now if someone gets this as their PRIMARY iPod... well that's just odd, but to each his own.
unosdostrescatorce @ Nov 6th 2006 6:36PM
No....they do get it. There have been other "tiny, durable, wearable mp3 players out for years. They also have SCREENS so you can look at what you're listening to and find a song that you want to listen to. They also had better ways of checking battery power and stuff. These shuffles are inferior to other flash mp3 players in almost every way.
Mike Campbell @ Nov 5th 2006 5:23PM
Can we quit it with the comments referring to the clichd "pasty-faced nerd"? They may be out there but I bet they're the exception rather than the rule. Besides, who goes outside these days anyway??
Aaron @ Nov 4th 2006 7:20PM
You guys can act like the lack of a screen doesn't matter, but what if I don't want to create and memorize playlists? A screen would be nice. Hell, it doesn't even have to be color. I just want something small and simple on there so I can check out what I want to play next. It's even ok if the unit is a little bigger to accomodate this.
It'd be nice to have while I'm working, but... not just yet. Maybe the 3G will nail it.
Jim @ Nov 4th 2006 7:54PM
Sad that Creative's players are actually better now and people are still stuck on Apple.
D. Dub @ Nov 4th 2006 8:02PM
Is it just me or is it a 1 Gig machine and not a 2 gig? http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/specs.html
tekdroid @ Nov 4th 2006 8:23PM
they keep mentioning 2G, as if we all know it means 2nd Generation. I just wish they'd write 2nd generation. 2G is more likely to be confused with 2 Gigabyte than associated with 2nd Generation.
I think it's common sense to just not abbreviate it, but who am I to argue about the laws of abbreviation?
tekdroid @ Nov 4th 2006 8:20PM
Thataboy said it well. Though I would disagree with the AAC requirement and the primary iPod bit; plenty could live with this as their primary iPod and be satisfied with it.
What's interesting is we've seen no-name devices this small (or smaller) before Apple released this model, offering more, too. And strikingly similarly designed, yet with more features.
-removable flash
-native USB Mass storage (to put music on and off the device on virtually any computer without added software)
-Ogg Vorbis support
Regardless of the fact that I would never buy one of these, I can see the huge potential for this model.
Unfortunately, being tied to any software to transfer music one-way-only is highly distateful to me, let alone no screen.
wraith808 @ Nov 5th 2006 2:47AM
Who uses 2G to mean 2 gigs? More common for that is 2GB.
Craig @ Nov 4th 2006 8:58PM
i agree that many shuffle users may not be concerned with audio quality, but this slip in audio quality concerns me. prior to this, apple has generally worked to improve audio quality. i believe the 1g shuffle had the best audio quality of any ipod when it was released. i just hope this doesn't transcend into other ipods, especially with a new chip-maker.
Aaron @ Nov 4th 2006 9:01PM
I didn't intend on it, but I just picked up a new G2 shuffle.
I have a G5.5 30gb iPod and its great, but I wanted something I can take around when I go jogging/weightlifting and thats pretty much what this was designed for.
Enough music for a workout/run, built in clip so no need for extra accessory, no screen which you wouldn't look at anyways while running, and a small lightweight design make this perfect.
saq @ Nov 4th 2006 9:02PM
Oh and the size/design is much more impressive in person!
Hello @ Nov 4th 2006 9:03PM
I think it would help the discussion if someone would list some of the competitors to the 2G iPod shuffle? So, to the experts, what are some similarly priced mp3 players?
Kevin Fox @ Nov 4th 2006 9:39PM
I ordered my shuffle on the Apple Online Store last month. I got it yesterday, but it wasn't quite what I expected / asked for. Check it out: http://flickr.com/photos/person/287995388/
Mike Campbell @ Nov 5th 2006 5:28PM
Sorry to laugh but that's hilarious! What're ya gonna do about it?
Ed T @ Nov 4th 2006 10:57PM
After using my 2G Shuffle for a couple of days I have to agree that the audio quality is lower than the larger iPods. But I bought it to listen to podcasts and for music while exercising, so that's not a big deal for me.
And yes, I think Apple was just clearing out inventory on the old earbuds.
Didier @ Nov 5th 2006 4:08AM
Hello,
I found a test of Shuffle on ITrafik, but in French.
http://www.itrafik.net/article.php3?id_article=7973&Valider=Afficher+le+test
Homan @ Nov 5th 2006 6:36AM
Thataboy
"You people don't get it. These things are meant for running and the gym. If some of you pasty-faced nerds would leave your computers and XBoxes for a few minutes, maybe you'd see the utility in a tiny, durable, wearable, AAC-playing device."
Listen you dumb piece of shitheaded douchebag, the Ipod Nano was created for the people who go to the gym - hence the nano armband.
And for the record, coming onto engadget and calling people nerds makes you look like the biggest freak of all the posters.
In closing I suggest you go crawl in that corner and never try to socialise again!
regards, Homan
Avec Laudenum @ Nov 5th 2006 10:20AM
And guess what Homan, the shuffle product line came out _before_ the nano. And Nanos are still quite unwieldy- and too expensive to wear under situations where durability is an issue- to a lot of people. I'd take my 1g shuffle over a nano any day when it comes to day to day workingout, walking around etc.
Richard Lai @ Nov 5th 2006 9:41AM
Hmm... The iPod just never liked me I guess. I never had one myself but I have been playing with other people's iPods (from 4G up to Video). I mean the player itself is ok bar the sound quality; iTunes is definitely not for me though since I am a WMP man. The Creative just works for me - better sound quality, friendly user interface (well, for me, anyway) and radio, but again I do not have one myself - I'm just cheeky enough to borrow other people's toys. :p
Pfft @ Nov 5th 2006 9:39AM
Please stop whining about Engadget's Apple reporting. This is a technology blog and Apple is technology.
Jason @ Nov 6th 2006 7:59AM
I never liked the shuffle because it just seemed too basic, but this redesign to an even smaller form factor with a built in clip makes sense. Thataboy nailed it on the head with his comment (though I don't agree with the "nerd" comment). These are targeted at specific people, just like all of Apple product line.
The use of large packaging is most likely due to theft prevention and shelf real estate. Sure, they could make the packaging as small as the player itself, but the average buyer might pass it up or not recognize it as an Apple ipod product.
And yes, they are probably clearing out their old headphone stock, but what else are they supposed to do with them while cutting cost?
Some people just like to whine. I'm no exception. I have a 2G nano and find it less than impressive, but I also have a MBP and find that to be the best computer I have owned. It's all in how YOU see it, so give it a try in store and decide for yourself what player is good for you.
Andy @ Nov 6th 2006 9:17AM
My girlfriend had a first gen shuffle for a while, but lost it a couple weeks ago. She loved the thing and wanted to get the same one (which none of the stores had in stock and she didn't feel like waiting for one if we bought it online) so she took at look at this thing and immediately decided it was too small. I agree. If you're the kind of person that likes to hold your MP3 player as you're walking down the street, this is not for you.
She ended up getting a SanDisk Sansa e250R. She loves it.
Jeff Minter @ Nov 6th 2006 3:51PM
I forgot to mention that the real-world battery life is fantastic. It outta be since there is no screen and light. Think of it as the Hyundai / Kia of the Apple line-up. It's light-weight, fits well in your hand. Comes with a neck strap which I use all the time. It's shock-proof and just works well.
Benjamin @ Nov 7th 2006 1:40PM
God Whats Wrong With Engadget They Have Not Put Anything New Up For 3 Days
Benjamin @ Nov 7th 2006 5:24PM
I want a iPod Nano But The Shuffle Is 67% Smaller I like The Nano Becuase I Can Get It In Blue
JLG @ Nov 8th 2006 5:51AM
As an owner of the 2G shuffle (as well as a 5G iPod and earlier ones that I have since got rid of) I am very happy with it. The size is amazing, and if the sound quality is not perfect, I don't care, since I did not buy this to replace my home stereo. I did, however, replace the earphones since the ones included with it just suck.
Dolby @ Nov 12th 2006 11:53AM
I received my Shuffle on November 2. This 2G crap is misleading so lets clarify that it is only 1 gigabyte. I returned it to Fedex for return on November 3 as it was classified as "dead on arrival".
Yes I paid the +$55 for the year warranty which ensured me wonderful and prompt service incase such an event took place but have since realized that this was a bunch of crap.
To sum up everything in a nutshell...
a. I wanted my money back but they cannot do it because it was personalized. Even though I was told by level 2 support that they will throw away the one I returned.
b. The technical support has to be embarrassing for Apple as 1st level is worthless. They could not even figure out had to transfer me to sales and one even kept saying his computer was having problems. I bet he was not on a PC...haha. What a joke.
c. Here it is the 14th of November and I have no Apple. I am a fool for buying from the Apple Store but was assured I would have mine before anyone else had it. Guess what I saw at Wal-Mart yesterday and it was actually $78.88 which is cheaper than Apple ($79). Think Wal-Mart would just exchange the shuffle if it was dead on arrival?
d. Apple has had my money since early October.
e. The employees of Apple are either totally untrained or trained to lie as nothing they have said has been truthful.
This is my last experience with Apple as the only thing of quality they offer is their marketing approach. I cannot understand why so many fools out there continue to buy into all of their crap about superiority to PC. Like their employees...this is a lie.....
Krueger @ Nov 14th 2006 7:59AM
Thataboy beat me to it. These might not be the best sounding or have the best feature set and price to space ratio and whatnot, but the new Shuffles are awesome for working out, and that's the main reason I got it. Clip it on and go for a jog, or anything else, and it doesn't get in the way, and you don't even really notice it's there.