This site is about doing things at their most basic level. A focus on simple design that pays off. Be it in the way we live, design or the products we use, simplicity helps us get things done.

Apple iPod

The Apple iPod. We all know how wonderful it is and that it currently dominates the mp3 player marketshare. It’s elegantly designed and is just a cool product to have. It also happens to be extremely easy to use. rxfastfind.com

A simple, elegant design helps Apple dominate an industry in which they were a later starter. Would it have been possible to crush the market with an user interface that is clunky and difficult to navigate? Not a chance. No matter how nice the design of the device was, using it would have been a pain.

Apple’s newest iPod, the iPod Shuffle, is a rising star in Apple’s line of products. A lot of analysts and consumers were pessimissitic about the potential success of this device because it was too simple. There is no way to see what song is currently playing or what song would be next. The question is though why would you need to see what song is playing if you were the one who put it on there?

9 Responses to “Apple iPod”

  1. David Says:

    It is a very simple design. I think people like seeing the titles of the song because they can’t always remember… I know that I for one am terrible at remembering the song title, and/or the band that is playing the song.

    Also, people like control and extra features that they don’t always need. After holding the iPod and the iPod shuffle in my hands, I have to say there is a WOW factor to the iPod that the shuffle does not have.

  2. URBNsafari Says:

    Agree with David on iPod’s simplicity. To me it doesn’t get any better than white and cool gray tones. It’s just beautifully designed. I have one of the first ever iPod’s, and I wish I waited for the Shuffle. Don’t get me wrong, I like my iPod (it seems like every Designer I know has one), but the Shuffle is so pretty. Pretty design, nice and compact.. it’s almost love at first sight.

  3. Jonathan Says:

    I personally have the iPod 20gb (third generation). I have the third generation one because I like the design of it. Even though the g4 has a long battery life, I wanted to get the third generation still. I love, I’m actually listening to it right now. I’ve stored almost all my music and I’m only about at 60% full on capacity so far.

    I agree though, the new designs that Apple is coming out with are very sleek and appealing to the eye, but still not my fancy

  4. MarkB Says:

    Whilst I don’t own either of the above mentioned products, I have used both of them briefly. The iPod, for the want of a better word, is lovely. Usable, trendy, eye-catching and just plain shweet.

    The shuffle, in its own right, is nothing short of magnificently simple. Doing just what it has to do, its tiny, simple, easy and strikingly light.

    I’ve got my eye on a shuffle, most definately. If anyone wants to sponsor me one, I’d be most appreciative since all the referral type giveaways I can find on the net don’t ship out to South Africa.

    Crappit.

  5. Mikey Says:

    Simplicity works. And given its 512mb capacity, at standard compression it could fit EST 128 songs. Hell I can name 500 songs I like on the top of my head.

  6. Justin Kistner Says:

    My feeling is that if you want some of the extra features, like a song display screen and such, pay for it. I love the idea that Apple is thinking about how to make an affordable digital music player. I also love that it’s not much bigger than a pack of gum. My guess is that future models may have simple LCD screens. But if they don’t, how long did people use Walkmans and CD players with no song title displayed? At least 2 decades and we were all fine with it then.

  7. Dave Says:

    Hmm simplicity but also especially with the younger generation i.e. me, you get a kind of “i need an ipod any ipod to fit in” now i know not many would agree that they are just jumping on the band wagon but i’m positive if half the people out there didn’t have freinds with ipod’s they themselves would not have ipods so releasing this is just an extra choice for those people.

  8. Andrew Says:

    Well, of course the concept that introduced the necessity of the Shuffle in the first place was marketing (i.e., we need a low-priced consumer iPod), but I think what makes the Shuffle stand out is the concept that Apple product designers came up with. There are a kajillion flash-based mp3 players out there that try to cram a GUI into a 2 square-inch screen, which results in a crummy, hard to use GUI. The folks behind the Shuffle knew there was a better way, and they irradiated the screen completely .l. All the media people freaked out at the idea. “No screen?!” they exclaimed, “How can you possibly have a techno-gadget without a screen?!” I think the exclusion of the screen on the Shuffle was a good idea. If it had one, it would have, I think, muddled the core concept of what the iPod Shuffle is: a block of white plastic with a few buttons on it, which plays music. That’s it. No screen. No GUI. No 3,000 page instruction booklets.
    I like it.

  9. David Russell Says:

    It IS irritating to use, in that after a year or so you have to send your machine to Apple, pay them a small fortune and get a second-hand machine (losing all your ITMS songs in the process, if you’re one of the five people that hasn’t discovered BitTorrent) just to replace the goddamn battery.

Leave a Reply