7 ms·

I personally hate that the Shuffle is dead. It was a prime example of a device that did one thing only and did it well. No love for minimalism these days, I sup

I personally hate that the Shuffle is dead. It was a prime example of a device that did one thing only and did it well. No love for minimalism these days, I suppose.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I used to love my shuffle since running with a phone wired up to headphones sucks (well, before the iPhone, an iPod). I'm quite happy with bluetooth headphones for the gym today though, it doesn't solve the running problem completely, but works perfectly fine for a stationary machine.
mehrdada 9y ago
Apple Watch + Bluetooth headphones is the replacement.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
  I thought this required the iPhone to actually store and play the music? If the watch itself can store it, hell I'll buy one today. Anything to avoid lugging the phone on a run.
  - pfranz 9y ago
    Zero firsthand experience, but it sounds like you can store 1gb of music on the watch itself (and you can up that to 2gb) and play via Bluetooth headphones. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204691 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204691 Funny enough, the Shuffle had 2gb capacity over the past 7 years. I'm guessing that was the sweet spot for Apple.
  - drewg123 9y ago
    You can do this with the 2nd generation I think. I'm in the android ecosystem, and have had 2 watches that do this: Moto 360 Sport, and now have Polar M600 that can store music (from Google Play), and which allows running without a phone.
  - sgloutnikov 9y ago
    I think it is able to store up to 2GB of music. And I just saw this for Spotify -- https://snowy.rocks https://snowy.rocks
  - mehrdada 9y ago
    Yes, watch works standalone; you need an iPhone to fill up the music though.
  - qudat 9y ago
    I'm currently using 2nd gen watch and airpods hoping that my workout experience would be more hands free. There are couple of things that I find off-putting about the experience and tend to simply stick with airpods + iphone. 1) You only get a few options in terms of what music you put on your phone. You cannot simply select the albums you want, you can choose these options: * Classical Music * My Top Rated * Recently Played * Top 25 Most Played * 90's Music * Playlists I would much rather upload specific albums instead and find it really annoying that I have to jump through hoops to accomplish that goal. 2) Airpods really struggle to switch between iphone to iwatch. Half of the time they cannot pair correctly. My macbook pro and iphone have no troubles at all pairing but the iwatch seems to struggle a lot. If those two things do not bother you then go for it. When you have the music you want on the iwatch and the airpods pair correctly, it's a really nice experience especially with exercising.
  - ggreer 9y ago
    You need an iPhone to activate and sync data to an Apple Watch, but the watch retains many capabilities when disconnected from the phone. It will pair with headphones, join wifi to fetch emails, and play music. I use an Apple Watch Series 2 for running and cycling. The S2 has GPS, so Strava works without the iPhone. I love it, but I have two gripes: 1. Only one playlist (up to 2GB) can be synced to the watch at any time. This is an annoying artificial limitation. 2. The heart rate monitor can be spotty. Around 10% of the time, it picks up my cadence instead of my pulse. I've tried every possible combination of orientation and band tightness. For exercise, I much prefer the watch to a phone + armband. It's less weight. It's far easier to glance at. And it's waterproof, so I don't have to worry about damage from rain or sweat. If you're interested, you might want to wait before buying one. It's been almost a year since the last update. Apple will likely release new hardware before the holidays.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  So a $1,000 replacement for a $50 device. And the watch has exceptionally inferior battery life, and is exponentially more breakable.
  - JimDabell 9y ago
    New Apple Watches start at $269 and you can pick up a pair of Bluetooth headphones for less than $10 these days. Why are you saying $1,000? It has battery life that lasts almost two days, which is more than enough for most people. How is it exponentially more breakable? By what measure?
    - nsxwolf 9y ago
      $269 is still a lot more than $50. Where I'm from anyway. The Shuffle was great and still easier to use than the standalone music playback capability of the Watch.
      - JimDabell 9y ago
        Sure, but $269 is far less than $1,000 too. If you want to complain that it's more expensive, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is the outright misrepresentation of the facts.
    - JeremyBanks 9y ago
      ...plus the $1000 iPhone you need to use the watch?
      - JimDabell 9y ago
        You can buy a new, unsubsidised iPhone for $399, and everybody in the target market for Apple Watches already owns one anyway. Why are people here so intent on misrepresenting the cost of Apple gear? You don't need to spend a grand on an iPhone to get an Apple Watch to work and you don't need to spend a grand on an Apple Watch either.
userbinator 9y ago
If you want an MP3-playing USB drive, there are still plenty of S1s[1]to be had for incredibly low prices, some very Shuffle-like in appearance: https://www.aliexpress.com/price/mp3-player-usb-drive_price.html https://www.aliexpress.com/price/mp3-player-usb-drive_price.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player (I played around with S1s when they were really popular; they're a cute little Z80-based embedded system. It's rather surprising that they are apparently still in production, for over a decade now.)

I personally hate that the Shuffle is dead. It was a prime example of a device that did one thing only and did it well. No love for minimalism these days, I suppose.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

I used to love my shuffle since running with a phone wired up to headphones sucks (well, before the iPhone, an iPod). I'm quite happy with bluetooth headphones for the gym today though, it doesn't solve the running problem completely, but works perfectly fine for a stationary machine.

mehrdada 9y ago

Apple Watch + Bluetooth headphones is the replacement.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
I thought this required the iPhone to actually store and play the music? If the watch itself can store it, hell I'll buy one today. Anything to avoid lugging the phone on a run.
- pfranz 9y ago
  Zero firsthand experience, but it sounds like you can store 1gb of music on the watch itself (and you can up that to 2gb) and play via Bluetooth headphones. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204691 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204691 Funny enough, the Shuffle had 2gb capacity over the past 7 years. I'm guessing that was the sweet spot for Apple.
- drewg123 9y ago
  You can do this with the 2nd generation I think. I'm in the android ecosystem, and have had 2 watches that do this: Moto 360 Sport, and now have Polar M600 that can store music (from Google Play), and which allows running without a phone.
- sgloutnikov 9y ago
  I think it is able to store up to 2GB of music. And I just saw this for Spotify -- https://snowy.rocks https://snowy.rocks
- mehrdada 9y ago
  Yes, watch works standalone; you need an iPhone to fill up the music though.
- qudat 9y ago
  I'm currently using 2nd gen watch and airpods hoping that my workout experience would be more hands free. There are couple of things that I find off-putting about the experience and tend to simply stick with airpods + iphone. 1) You only get a few options in terms of what music you put on your phone. You cannot simply select the albums you want, you can choose these options: * Classical Music * My Top Rated * Recently Played * Top 25 Most Played * 90's Music * Playlists I would much rather upload specific albums instead and find it really annoying that I have to jump through hoops to accomplish that goal. 2) Airpods really struggle to switch between iphone to iwatch. Half of the time they cannot pair correctly. My macbook pro and iphone have no troubles at all pairing but the iwatch seems to struggle a lot. If those two things do not bother you then go for it. When you have the music you want on the iwatch and the airpods pair correctly, it's a really nice experience especially with exercising.
- ggreer 9y ago
  You need an iPhone to activate and sync data to an Apple Watch, but the watch retains many capabilities when disconnected from the phone. It will pair with headphones, join wifi to fetch emails, and play music. I use an Apple Watch Series 2 for running and cycling. The S2 has GPS, so Strava works without the iPhone. I love it, but I have two gripes: 1. Only one playlist (up to 2GB) can be synced to the watch at any time. This is an annoying artificial limitation. 2. The heart rate monitor can be spotty. Around 10% of the time, it picks up my cadence instead of my pulse. I've tried every possible combination of orientation and band tightness. For exercise, I much prefer the watch to a phone + armband. It's less weight. It's far easier to glance at. And it's waterproof, so I don't have to worry about damage from rain or sweat. If you're interested, you might want to wait before buying one. It's been almost a year since the last update. Apple will likely release new hardware before the holidays.
reaperducer 9y ago
So a $1,000 replacement for a $50 device. And the watch has exceptionally inferior battery life, and is exponentially more breakable.
- JimDabell 9y ago
  New Apple Watches start at $269 and you can pick up a pair of Bluetooth headphones for less than $10 these days. Why are you saying $1,000? It has battery life that lasts almost two days, which is more than enough for most people. How is it exponentially more breakable? By what measure?
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    $269 is still a lot more than $50. Where I'm from anyway. The Shuffle was great and still easier to use than the standalone music playback capability of the Watch.
    - JimDabell 9y ago
      Sure, but $269 is far less than $1,000 too. If you want to complain that it's more expensive, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is the outright misrepresentation of the facts.
  - JeremyBanks 9y ago
    ...plus the $1000 iPhone you need to use the watch?
    - JimDabell 9y ago
      You can buy a new, unsubsidised iPhone for $399, and everybody in the target market for Apple Watches already owns one anyway. Why are people here so intent on misrepresenting the cost of Apple gear? You don't need to spend a grand on an iPhone to get an Apple Watch to work and you don't need to spend a grand on an Apple Watch either.

userbinator 9y ago

If you want an MP3-playing USB drive, there are still plenty of S1s[1]to be had for incredibly low prices, some very Shuffle-like in appearance: https://www.aliexpress.com/price/mp3-player-usb-drive_price.html https://www.aliexpress.com/price/mp3-player-usb-drive_price.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1_MP3_player (I played around with S1s when they were really popular; they're a cute little Z80-based embedded system. It's rather surprising that they are apparently still in production, for over a decade now.)