Is the shuffle really an iPod?
I caught a little flack yesterday when I mentioned I don’t consider the iPod shuffle to be a “real” iPod. Many people correctly pointed out the term “iPod” is Apple’s to do with as they please, and they alone 
should be able to decide what does and does not qualify as an iPod. If they want to call an Xserve an “iPod”, then it’s an iPod. I’ll not argue that.
What I am reacting to is Apple referring to the shuffle as an iPod in its marketing and sales figures. Apple never breaks down sales figures for iPod shuffles, nanos, classics, and touches. They are all lumped together into a “we sold 5 million iPods this quarter” statement every 3 months. I feel quotes like “At just $49, the iPod shuffle is the most affordable iPod ever,†made today by Greg Joswiak, Apple’s vice president of Worldwide iPod Product Marketing, are really lip service made to give the impression that Apple’s iPod are affordable enough for everyone, when that is really not the case.
Granted, at $49, the shuffle might be the most affordable “iPod” Apple makes, but it delivers a fraction of the features and costs nearly 3 times less than the closest “real” iPod Apple makes – the iPod nano. The shuffle is not the iPod students put on their Christmas lists, the kind of iPod you see commercials for, the kind of iPod that accessory manufacturers cater to, or the kind muggers kill over (that’s not to say iPods are worth killing over, but it’s always nice to be wanted).
Let me just say I have nothing against the shuffle. I completely understand its intended use
and have no problem with its existence. In fact, my 2nd iPod ever was a first gen white shuffle, and I respect that it fills the needs of a very specific demographic of exercise enthusiasts. But yes, to my mind, it is not an iPod, and I would estimate a good 80-90% of the country would agree with me. Sit 10 random people down ask them to draw an iPod, and I would wager not one would draw a shuffle (unless he was actively trying to “think different” and screw with you). This is because the shuffle just does not deliver on the multi-media “pod” marketing that the rest of the iPod line up does.
Lets take a quick look at was is the same and what is different about the iPod shuffle and the rest of the iPod line…
Similarities between the shuffle and all other iPods
– Plays music via headphones
– Has a rechargeable battery
– Can play/pause/skip tracks
– Can sync to iTunes
Now , a lot of the differences between the shuffle and the other iPods largely stem from the shuffle’s lack of screen, so while shuffle supporters (and again, I don’t hate the shuffle) may say “well, you can’t say it doesn’t support video and then say it doesn’t support photos, because those are both really because there’s no screen”. True. However, when you list it all out like this you really see how the shuffle fails to deliver what people expect from an iPod.
Differences between the shuffle and all other iPods
– No screen
– No dock connector
– No video support
– No photo support
– No album art
– No Apple lossless support
– No user set volume limit
– Requires iTunes 7.6 or later (shuffle 7.4)
– Extremely unintuitive song navigation
– Low capacity (although today it got a bump to 2 GB)
– 12 hour battery life (compared to over 20-30 on “real iPods)
– Hardly any accessories
– Nearly impossible to use audiobooks
– No video out
– No Contacts
– No Alarms
– No Notes
– No Games
– No Clock
– No Stop Watch
– No Calendars/reminders
Again, most of these are the understandable trade-offs that occur when you shrink 
something down to 5 ounces and have ditched a screen or other way to intelligently interact with the device. I’m not arguing all these things should be on the shuffle (although Apple Lossless support should) but what I am saying is there are enough major things different here between the shuffle and the rest of the iPod lineup that Apple should distance it from the “iPod” name. In my opinion, the shuffle is a different species from the iPod. Humans and Chimpanzees may share 98% of the same genes, but that extra 2% makes a load of difference (in most cases).
I understand the term “iPod” is now such a strong brand that the odds are Apple will never drop it from the iPod shuffle, but really the word “iPod” is there in name only with the shuffle, and it lacks the heart and soul of a true iPod.
Not sure if I made my point in the last post, but I couldn’t figure out all the hoop-la about the name.
Some of the people commenting started to sound like cry-baby fanboys that didn’t like the idea of the Shuffle not being part of the lineup.
Well, since you pointed out all the differences, I am more than inclined to agree with you. I don’t remember there being no support for the Apple Lossless… But then again, I have a total of 2 albums that were purchased from the iTunes store, or accidently ripped that way.
So, in all respects you’re right. It’s not an iPod.
But it does work pretty stinkin’ well when I get to the gym, and don’t want to get my new 8gb Nano all sweaty-like.
-Peter
Again, I like the shuffle for what it is, but what it is is no different than any other $20 MP3 player out there, with the exception that Apple allows it to work with iTunes. To me what makes an iPod an iPod is the software and awesome GUI design, two things the shuffle cannot have by its nature.
-The Doc
it’s not “the kind of iPod that accessory… muggers kill over.”
Good point! if it is not worth killing over, then it’s not an iPod, IMHO. End of discussion.
🙂
Guys, I love you. I like your site and what you do for the Mac community. Don’t be harsh to me, I wrote a post I think you should take a look at. You know where to find me. Bye.
😉
Sit 10 random people down ask them to draw an iPod, and I would wager not one would draw an iPod touch. iPod classic is therefore the only iPod.
Dodge makes a Caravan minivan with a list of options that could result in two Caravans with far more differences that listed above, yet they are both still Caravans.
Much of the differences list is features found in newer iPods, so were the older gens less iPoddish? They seemed very iPoddish at the time.
The shuffle gets music from iTunes and puts it into my ears using the same clicks as my Nano (left to go back, right to go forward). When I’m driving, walking or working out, the two are practically identical.
Nice site by the way.
I think it should be considered an iPod rather than some other creature like an “Apple Shuffle.” It’s just a tiny, stripped-down iPod whose main selling feature is portability. I feel that compatibility with iTunes is what makes an iPod. After all, without iTunes, anything else is just an mp3 player.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple updated the Shuffle with a little OLED display on the back for basic navigation and track information.
The feature I miss most is the Shuffle’s inability to be used/recognized on more than one Macintosh computer.
I believe that the iPod is a basic concept (Apple’s own version of portable music – and now more generally “entertainment”). The 800GB iPod Video with Foot Massager is a derivative of that concept just as much as the Under-Fingernail MicroShuffle.
I love my shuffle. I don’t exercise. And I don’t really want anything else.
I wipe it clean every week or so (about as often as it needs charging) and randomly refill it.
“Humans and Chimpanzees may share 98% of the same genes, but that extra 2% makes a load of difference (in most cases).”
Did you watch the PBS documentary on apes last night?
By your standards, the original iPod might not be even considered an iPod.
Brett, good point. And if Apple were selling it alongside the current models, I might question IT’S right tot he name as well.
-The Doc
iPod is the name for a wide class of devices made by Apple that store and play back digital media.. The distinguishing factor is the word specifying its differentiation within the class; e.g. shuffle, classic, video, nano, etc.
Sounds to me like you need to write something regularly to keep the income flowing; I respect that. But you add nothing of even short term value to the human experience other than baiting.
Take your talents and write the great American novel or something of equal worth. You can do better!
Income?
-The Doc
Comparing it like this makes no sense. I mean, if you compare the features of the iPod Classic and the iPod Touch, the iPod Classic falls behind too.
Differences between the Classic and the Touch:
– No touch screen
– No Wi-Fi
– No Safari
– No Mail
– No iTunes Wi-Fi Store
– No Notes
– No Maps
– No Weather
– No Stocks
– No edit function in Calendar
– No YouTube
– No web-apps
– No widgets
… and so on.
Does that mean the iPod Classic is not a real iPod? I guess not.
‘iPod’ means just one thing: portable media device by Apple. That’s it.
Wow, I may be dumber now for having read that! What, exactly, is your point? Why did you waste your time and mine with such a pointless argument? I don’t mean to be so harsh, but using your criteria, a 1st gen iMac isn’t a “real” Mac because it lacks SCSI, ADB and a floppy drive! As a previous poster said, a 1st gen iPod would also miss your criteria for “realness.”
An iPod is a portable media playback device, built by Apple, Inc. Period. It may or may not have a screen, it may have different battery life, it may play formats that others do not. Still an iPod. Please note: I’m not advocating a particular model; I’m simply baffled by your faulty logic. Remember, we Mac folk are supposed to be smarter and more creative than users of lesser OSes! 8^)
I expect more from Macinstein than this! Please, leave the nonsensical arguments to Ou and Dvorak, and write something of substance!
Hey Jeff,
Well, first I am sorry that you expected more from Macenstein, not sure what we did to lead you astray…
But as to your points, I suppose I must reluctantly concede that I am in the minority here with this opinion, so I will just let this one go, and keep my big fat mouth shut about the shuffle.
But now that you mention the original iMac.., WTF was Apple thinking?! You’re right! No WAY was that thing a Mac!
-The Doc
1. Take your list of things that make the shuffle not like an iPod.
– No screen
– No dock connector
– No video support
– No photo support
– No album art
– No Apple lossless support
– No user set volume limit
– Requires iTunes 7.6 or later (shuffle 7.4)
– Extremely unintuitive song navigation
– Low capacity (although today it got a bump to 2 GB)
– 12 hour battery life (compared to over 20-30 on “real iPods)
– Hardly any accessories
– Nearly impossible to use audiobooks
– No video out
– No Contacts
– No Alarms
– No Notes
– No Games
– No Clock
– No Stop Watch
– No Calendars/reminders
2. Compare it to the original iPod.
3. Note that, according to Macenstein, the original iPod (which fails on 90% of that list) was not an iPod.
4. Realize that Macenstein must have been bored and/or not feeling well when this article was written.
5. Forgive Macenstein and move on.
LOL! So what’s up next?
“Was the first iMac really a Mac?”
:p
I, for one, agree with you though. The shuffle is an iPod only because the branding says so. It’s like the illegal step child, who has the same last name but isn’t a part of the same family. 🙂
“[…] so I will just let this one go, and keep my big fat mouth shut about the shuffle.”
(O_O)
Doc, I don’t subscribe to your feed because you let the crowd choose your words. I certainly don’t because you let the squeaky wheels do it.
Let your opinion shine, whether anyone agrees with you or not.
“It’s like the illegal step child, who has the same last name but isn’t a part of the same family.”
What is the sentence for getting caught with an illegal stepchild? 🙂
An iPod is any mp3/aac player made by Apple. A Nomad is any mp3/wma player made by Creative Labs. What’s the problem?
Robert, you’re absolutely right! Screw everyone! I think the shuffle is NOT an iPod, and I should not let anyone tell me what to think!
Wait a minute… did I just let YOU tell me what to think? I’m so confused…
– The Doc
Pardon the french, but:
Fuck ’em, Doc.
I’m with you! I loved my Shuffle, but now I love my Nano more.
Guys, this is not a political debate! People’s lives will not end if we think that the Shuffle is an iPod in name alone! (Well, maybe the Emo kids, but that’s not a real big loss to the world).
So, kids. Cut the shit. Macenstein’s been super kosher up to, and through this point. It’s a good article. It’s still a good site.
Oh, and BTW Rob:
Dude, shut the hell up. Seriously. What on this site led you to the conclusion that what is posted is a dreadfully serious deal. Get out into the real world sometime, and get over it, dude.
-Peter
And just so everyone knows, I was refering to “Income Rob”
-Peter
I say a shuffle is still an iPod … I think the defining point is that it includes Apple’s thoughtful design.
The sleek design, solid build quality, integrated clip, and aluminum casing … all these things allow the shuffle to outsell other MP3 that are cheaper and have more functions like a screen, fm radio, video, etc.
I think if you try to break it down by specification or function you are missing a major point of Apple’s design.
“I think if you try to break it down by specification or function you are missing a major point of Apple’s design.”
…
Aesthetics over technological function? No, I think most of us understand the point behind Apple’s design. We just don’t always agree with it.
Sometimes specs and features do count and the shuffle may work for some, but for most the definition of an iPod boils down to carrying a massive music library with a sleek visual interface. For others who enjoy the shuffle, no one is trying to steal your thunder. There just happen to be a lot of us who can’t justify the purchase of a shuffle because it doesn’t include the things we expect and enjoy from current and previous generations of iPods.