Alexander Turcic
01-12-2005, 04:34 AM
Walter Mossberg is probably one of the first persons on the planet who got to play around (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110548347772523279,00.html?mod=rss_personal_t echnology) with Apple's latest MP3 player, the USD $99 iPod Shuffle (http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/). Since WSJ requires online subscription, I share with you the most informative parts of the review here:
I've been testing the new iPod Shuffle for a couple of days, and, in my tests, it fulfilled -- and even exceeded -- Apple's claims for convenience, battery life and song capacity. Sound quality is so good you can barely believe the music is coming from something so small. [...]
The Shuffle uses cheaper, lower-capacity "flash" memory chips to store the music, instead of the small hard disk drives used by the other iPods. This puts it in direct competition with scores of other so-called flash players. But, belying its high-priced reputation, Apple has actually undercut the market. [...]
In my tests, the iPod Shuffle performed well, exceeding Apple's claims. Apple puts the new player's battery life at 12 hours on a single charge. But, in my testing, it did much better than that, lasting 15 hours and 44 minutes. [...]
Similarly, I found that the iPod Shuffle could hold many more songs than Apple claims. By choosing manual mode to load the player, I was able to cram as many as 188 songs onto my 512-megabyte test model, rather than the 120 Apple claims, without reducing the audio quality of the songs. [...]
There are a few design downsides to the iPod Shuffle. The lack of a screen means you can't use playlists of collected songs on it, because you have no way to select such a list. For many people, play lists are a key part of the iPod experience. The Shuffle also lacks many of the extra features of the bigger iPods, such as various equalization settings for music playback, and the ability to display calendar and contact information. And I found the three-way mode button on the back difficult to move. I was forced to press it so tightly that I often tripped the playback controls on the other side.
Convinced?
I've been testing the new iPod Shuffle for a couple of days, and, in my tests, it fulfilled -- and even exceeded -- Apple's claims for convenience, battery life and song capacity. Sound quality is so good you can barely believe the music is coming from something so small. [...]
The Shuffle uses cheaper, lower-capacity "flash" memory chips to store the music, instead of the small hard disk drives used by the other iPods. This puts it in direct competition with scores of other so-called flash players. But, belying its high-priced reputation, Apple has actually undercut the market. [...]
In my tests, the iPod Shuffle performed well, exceeding Apple's claims. Apple puts the new player's battery life at 12 hours on a single charge. But, in my testing, it did much better than that, lasting 15 hours and 44 minutes. [...]
Similarly, I found that the iPod Shuffle could hold many more songs than Apple claims. By choosing manual mode to load the player, I was able to cram as many as 188 songs onto my 512-megabyte test model, rather than the 120 Apple claims, without reducing the audio quality of the songs. [...]
There are a few design downsides to the iPod Shuffle. The lack of a screen means you can't use playlists of collected songs on it, because you have no way to select such a list. For many people, play lists are a key part of the iPod experience. The Shuffle also lacks many of the extra features of the bigger iPods, such as various equalization settings for music playback, and the ability to display calendar and contact information. And I found the three-way mode button on the back difficult to move. I was forced to press it so tightly that I often tripped the playback controls on the other side.
Convinced?