Sony's answer to ipod shuffle...

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Korgun

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
6,619
 
GJSNeptune said:
Looks like a little whiskey flask or somethin'.

But still cool.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pics Korgun.

More like a cigarette lighter =). Personally, I think it's about time sony heads back into the world of demand - demand being flash based mp3 players. They sold so many entry level cd players, there was no reason for them to just simply stop there. Lots of crummy generic mp3 players out there, and lots of good but overpriced ones.

Regarding the shuffle, if Sony does any marketing in the US their new flash players should sell pretty well at the proposed price range. I'm sure millions of Americans assume that the Ipod Shuffle is the best flash-based mp3 player simply because Apple does lots of crazy dancing commercials, and other companies don't =). I never considered a shuffle anyways - no lcd!

It might actually be a good thing if Sony doesn't market heavily. The fewer people use a product that you use, the cooler and more unique you are. And please sony, don't include white corded buds with your players :D .
 
I'm just glad there's someone going against Apple. But on the other hand, Sony is usually quite expensive, too.

I would love something like this for working out. It's just not worth using an HDD player while running and exercising.



By the way, what's the player called?
 
I think us nerds should realize that there are definitely more options than Sony and Apple. iRiver and Sandisk come to mind. Still, this Sony solution is intriguing. I'm very impressed by the overall aesthetic, particularly the OLED display. It's too bad Sony didn't go the extra mile by including the USB connector directly onto the device. I'm sure everyone would have forgiven Sony for the slight increase in length.
 
GJSNeptune said:
I'm just glad there's someone going against Apple. But on the other hand, Sony is usually quite expensive, too.

I would love something like this for working out. It's just not worth using an HDD player while running and exercising.



By the way, what's the player called?
Click to expand...

NW-E505/E507
Here you go buddy: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6451_7-5716809-1.html?tag=prmo1

The pricing isn't that bad actually, for the style and hopefully durability. I heard you get 20$ off if you buy the non-fm versions.
 
ycchan said:
I would get it if it didn't only use the ATRAC format :mad:
Click to expand...

The new flash based players actually support MP3 now. What is too bad is that you have to use their garbage SonicStage software to manage your music. :rolleyes:

These, in no way, are "the answer" to the iPod shuffle. Especially considering that the shuffle is cheaper respectively.
 
I'm casually looking for something a bit smaller than my iRiver H320 to carry with me / go to the gym, etc.

My concerns with this player would be:
- legibility of the VFD display in direct sunlight
- Supported formats (I refuse to use the craptastic Atrac3 or Atrac3Plus formats)
- Playlist support
- Connectivity/Portability (Drag & Drop Explorer interface, not the DRM-infested SonicStage software)
- Sound Quality, Volume.
- Capacity. (At least 1GB would be nice)
 
aBSoLuT_0 said:
These, in no way, are "the answer" to the iPod shuffle. Especially considering that the shuffle is cheaper respectively.
Click to expand...

I dont know if many would consider an extra $50 (when in fact you get a bonafide lcd) reason enough to dismiss these new players as "not the answer to the shuffle".

If you enjoy music without lcd conveniece, then save the 50$ and go for the shuffle. As for me and most of the critics of the shuffle... $50 is a good price to pay for that lcd goodness.
 
SilverMK3 said:
I'm casually looking for something a bit smaller than my iRiver H320 to carry with me / go to the gym, etc.
Click to expand...
I've had my eye on the H320, but how do you like it? So many people rip on the interface.


Anyway, I've heard bad things about Sandisk's mp3 players, mostly their short-lived lives.
 
SilverMK3 said:
legibility of the VFD display in direct sunlight
Click to expand...
Haha, no one would use a VFD in a portable audio player--they draw too much power. No, it's an OLED display.

I've heard conflicting reports from owners of OLED-display-equipped mobile phones. Some they they do great in direct sunlight, while others don't. Personally, I can't think of any display technology that can truly beat direct sunlight, yet is practical for use in a battery-powered device.
 
Pinipig523 said:
I dont know if many would consider an extra $50 (when in fact you get a bonafide lcd) reason enough to dismiss these new players as "not the answer to the shuffle".

If you enjoy music without lcd conveniece, then save the 50$ and go for the shuffle. As for me and most of the critics of the shuffle... $50 is a good price to pay for that lcd goodness.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people feel a display on an MP3 player that only holds so many songs is so important. You should know what music you are listening to, YOU put it there. Sure, a 20gb iPod wouldn't function without one, but a 512mb player that only holds about 100 songs @ 192kbps... do you really have that much trouble knowing which song you are listening to? Don't like it? Well you shouldn't have put it on your iPod to begin with and you can always just skip to the next track and hope for better luck.

Also, iTunes is lightyears ahead of the shit-a$$ SonicStage software Sony shoves down your throat. Because, unfortunately, that's what you will be using when you buy Sony.
 
Don't sound so confrontational. I fully agree that the iPod Shuffle can get away without using a display. I don't fault Apple for that. However, wouldn't you agree that a display might be useful if it doesn't appreciably increase size and power consumption? You don't have to look at it if you don't want to.

...okay, of course an LCD would increase size and power consumption a little bit, but I can understand why some people are fretting over that precious LCD that they have become accustomed to. Then again, most of these people don't work out much, and they wouldn't understand why they don't need to see the LCD display often or much at all while working out or walking around everywhere.
 
absolut,

Calm down before you pop a vein. Unlike you, other people want an lcd on something they spend over a $100 on, jack---.
 
Pinipig523 said:
absolut,

Calm down before you pop a vein. Unlike you, other people want an lcd on something they spend over a $100 on, jack---.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't think I was getting excited... I mean, I didn't even use ALL CAPS. :rolleyes:

Tell you what, I'll edit my post and make it easier for you to digest.

Edit: I wasn't trying to sound confrontational either. I just hear/read so many people whining about the lack of a display, like the player is useless without it. They don't realize how little it actually gets used or at least needs to be used. As far as Sony's product, I'm just stating the facts. I had the "pleasure" of helping a friend load some music on a Sony MD mp3 player. Not a pretty sight.
 
aBSoLuT_0 said:
The new flash based players actually support MP3 now. What is too bad is that you have to use their garbage SonicStage software to manage your music. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dealbreaker.


You mean when you connect this thing to your PC it won't be recognized as an external HDD/USB mass storage device?
 
GJSNeptune said:
I've had my eye on the H320, but how do you like it? So many people rip on the interface.

Anyway, I've heard bad things about Sandisk's mp3 players, mostly their short-lived lives.
Click to expand...

I love my H320. Great sound. The interface is pretty intuitive once you get past the learning curve. Having a good directory structure helps out a lot, so does using Red Chair Software's Irivium Explorer to manage your playlists. I'd much rather use an Explorer interface to manage my music library than "jukebox" software like iTunes or SonicStage. Its so much faster.

The included Sennheiser earbuds are allright, better than your average buds, but you'd really benefit from some larger cans.

[Begin iPod Shuffle Rant]
As far as having a display on a flash memory based mp3 player goes, I'd still rather have one than not. You can make all the excuses for Apple that you want, but the fact remains that even the most basic portable CD player at least tells you what track you're on. The only ones that don't are the $19.99 Wal-Mart brand specials. Removing the LCD was not a decision made to increase the ergonomics of the device, it was strictly a cost-cutting measure to ensure that Apple could still make a rediculous profit based solely on brand-recognition while still offering a a player at roughly the same price point as other devices of the same capacity; albeit without a display.

Its like buying a white, Apple-branded watch that only has an Hour hand for slightly more than a Timex watch that has hands for Hours, Minutes, and Seconds, plus an alarm. The Apple fan-boi's will tell you that "all you need is the hour hand, you can extrapolate the minutes based on the position of that hand,", and that "its more efficient than having a complex, confusing watch with too much going on.". But the reality is that they're shelling out extra $$ for the Apple name in order to get a product with a reduced feature-set compared to existing products.

Instead of a $150 iPod Shuffle 1GB which still reminds me of a stylized home-pregnancy test with buttons, sell me a $199 iRiver iFP-799 which will play mp3, wma, ogg; automatically rip to mp3 from any audio source (including the built in FM tuner and mic); has a backlit LCD, replaceable battery, and more included accessories.

And then there's iTunes... :rolleyes:
​
[/End iPod Shuffle Rant]
 
If you wanted to bash Apple for its software, maybe you should have done your research. With Anapod Explorer, you can use regular old Explorer to manage your songs in any iPod product.

As for your rant, whatever, it's your opinion. I think you are ignoring the Shuffle's biggest market with your statements, but whatever. I'm not going to force my opinion on you.
 
xonik said:
If you wanted to bash Apple for its software, maybe you should have done your research. With Anapod Explorer, you can use regular old Explorer to manage your songs in any iPod product.

As for your rant, whatever, it's your opinion. I think you are ignoring the Shuffle's biggest market with your statements, but whatever. I'm not going to force my opinion on you.
Click to expand...

Dude... Apple didn't make Anapod Explorer, its made by Red Chair Software, the same company that made the iRivium Explorer software that I've been using for months. Why would Apple offer an alternative to their own iTunes software which drives sales to their music store?

I tried to like iTunes, I really did. I have to admit that it has a nice GUI, but the features and speed that I want are just not there. Plus it clogs up my system tray with all kinds of "helper" daemons and unnecessary processes. I'll stick with iRivium. I was happy to pay for it rather than use iTunes.

Yes, my posts are 100% my opinions, as are yours. Nobody can force opinions on anyone else. You either agree with them or you don't. Given enough valid arguments, I'll concede my opinion for someone else's. I haven't come across any compelling ideas that make me want an iPod yet, though.

What, exactly, is Apple's target market with the shuffle, though? I mean, iPod has done well in the HD-based jukebox market, but its a newcomer to the saturated Flash-based player market that has been around for longer. Flash-based players are almost a commodity, with all of the other heavy hitters (Creative, Rio, iRiver, etc) getting most of their profits from their larger HD-based products.
 
SilverMK3 said:
Dude... Apple didn't make Anapod Explorer, its made by Red Chair Software, the same company that made the iRivium Explorer software that I've been using for months. Why would Apple offer an alternative to their own iTunes software, which drives sales to their music store?
Click to expand...
So what's your point?

My point is that you don't have to use iTunes if you don't want to. I don't use iTunes, and that's probably why I'm more happy with my iPod purchase than if I were stuck with iTunes.
 
xonik said:
So what's your point?

My point is that you don't have to use iTunes if you don't want to. I don't use iTunes, and that's probably why I'm more happy with my iPod purchase than if I were stuck with iTunes.
Click to expand...

My point?
That I think Apple's iTunes software sucks, and the option of using a different company's product doesn't make iTunes suck less.

The main opinion I was trying to express though, is that Apple's mp3 products are sub-par in general. When compared against what is already out there, none of their products offer anything new - they just offer "simplified", feature-reduced versions of what other companies are already doing at a premium price. They pass off these stylized and dumbed-down copies as cooler and more "user friendly" than the orginals, then pour millions into marketing and people eat it up!
 
What you call sub-par others call superior. For instance, throwing a bunch of "nerd" features in like recording and removable hard drives and Ogg Vorbis and such are things that "nerds" eat right up. I don't like to lump people into classes, but I think you get the idea. Apple's customers don't seem to care about such things, so why should Apple spend the extra money on them? You could argue that Apple's ripping off the customer by not offering those extras, but from a business sense, I think Apple's doing a great job, and it's obvious from sales figures that their customers are more or less satisfied. So I guess I can conclude my point as follows,

iPod owners find people like you to be nerds, and they couldn't give a shit that you don't like their iPods.

Non-iPod owners find iPod owners to be ignorant sheep who have no technical background and only care about style.

Take your pick of which side you want to take. I think I'll sit this one out.
 
those look pretty sweet, they will also hold more songs than an ipod of equiv size thanks to sony's atrac3plus, i still take my MD over those though, im not an mp3 flash *sheep* guy
 
xonik said:
Have you seen the new Hi-MD player?

http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_MZ_RH10_Hi_MD_Walkman/4505-6490_7-31299471-2.html
Click to expand...

Downside: The media is cheap, but you're going to have to carry a bunch of MDs when you go on long trips

LOL he made it sound like the media being cheap is a downside, shouldn't it be

Downside: You have to carry a bunch of MD's when you go on long trips BUT media is cheap?

well why do you have to carry a bunch of MD's that can hold 45hours each. how many hours do you POSSIBLY need? 90? 135?

135 is 5.625 DAYS!!! thats more than a business week, how many does an ipod hold? who the hell is going to listen to 90hrs(3.75Days) STRAIT of music?

i DO have 32+ Days of music but thers no way in hell i can listen to even 4 hours strait without getting bored or going insane

WinampQueue.jpg
 
xonik said:
What you call sub-par others call superior. For instance, throwing a bunch of "nerd" features in like recording and removable hard drives and Ogg Vorbis and such are things that "nerds" eat right up. I don't like to lump people into classes, but I think you get the idea. Apple's customers don't seem to care about such things, so why should Apple spend the extra money on them? You could argue that Apple's ripping off the customer by not offering those extras, but from a business sense, I think Apple's doing a great job, and it's obvious from sales figures that their customers are more or less satisfied. So I guess I can conclude my point as follows,

iPod owners find people like you to be nerds, and they couldn't give a shit that you don't like their iPods.

Non-iPod owners find iPod owners to be ignorant sheep who have no technical background and only care about style.

Take your pick of which side you want to take. I think I'll sit this one out.
Click to expand...

LOL!

oh, and i use, appreciate, hell, even love iTunes. there, i said it.
 
Even after messing with the EQ, I didn't like how iTunes made my music sound. I much prefer Winamp, even with all the EQ levers in the middle.

iTunes' interface is awesome, but I like to list artist first instead of song, and I like having the artist in the song name, like:

DMB - (Crash) 01. So Much To Say

And when I went through and edited the info. for all my songs in iTunes, the changed ID tags horribly mangled how they displayed in Winamp. I basically use iTunes to sample music, reference artists, albums, and songs and their correct spellings, and to let other people in my dorm listen to my songs.
 
In terms of the LCD, I don't think the issue is whether you know what song is playing. The point is that w/out some way of navigating through the songs, you literally have to press fwd 68 times to get to a song or album you have to listen to. That's why I'm stoked about the sony players (the one's not linked in the first post, but the other new line) as they are almost exactly the same price as the shuffle but have an lcd and also have sony features like volume limiting and what, I am gonna' guess, is superior sound quality (are the rumours about Apple's mediocre sound quality true?).
 
navsimpson, of course you are right in a way, but iPod Shuffle owners are people who don't tend to listen to music in a set order. They want something spontaneous and random. Think of how radio stations work. People who listen to the radio don't usually know what's coming up next, nor do they really care as long as it's their style of music. Up until recently, there were no LCDs on radios, and most people I know still listen to radios without needing an LCD to display anything besides the radio station frequency.
 
Looks pretty fragile to me, I can especially see that knob on the top wearing out really quickly. I have a Sony NetMD minidisc player that I used before I got my iPod, and the buttons on it wore out way too fast for my liking.
 
don't get caught going through the airport with that thing... it looks like some detonator device. lol (if you travel a lot like me.. you gotta think of these things, I already have a hard time with all the gadgets I bring through security already.)
 
I'm really happy with my current RCA Lyra RD1021. Comparing it personally with an iPod shuffle its just slightly bigger and I have the option of adding more memory through the use of a SD disk.

I personally dont like the designs of any of the iPods. I personally dont like trimmed down things. But I understand where people are coming from when they do. Its all a personal perference and I could care less what other people like/dont like.
 
Apple's shuffle defies my own logic as to why it's so successful.
The only thing I can think of that makes it successful is: marketing.

From the commercials you'd think that apple invented the random format, and it's a blatant attempt to divert attention away from the lack of a screen.....as if it was an intentional omission.

I thought of another reason: apple's products are simplistic, and that is what the average joe needs. It's so simple that it can't go wrong....the shuffle is what the original muvo was like 4 years ago. No one reading these forums would have a problem with the sony's and irivers.

To make me feel better, I have concluded that the shuffle sells so well because it caters to the public better than the irivers, sony's, etc: the masses need total and untainted simplicity. Extra buttons and a lot of older folks get confused. Judging from the girls I know, playlists and smartlists are a little tough to grasp. But the flat out truth is that the shuffle does FAR less than iriver, sony's, etc players do for the same money, and with less battery life. I would never, ever buy a shuffle, and I don't think anyone but total newbies who have owned a flash player before really consider the shuffle when you know what else is out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top