OPINION: One controller for iPods please Apple.
W hen are Apple going to get some consistency with their iPod interfaces?
Who remembers the old Sesame Street game “One of these things is not like the other?” So let’s play it with some Apple hardware…
Did you pick it? It’s the one in the middle. The good ol’ iPod. The first is the remote for the new iMac G5 and the other is the iPod shuffle.
Why is the button layout for the iPod different to the shuffle and the remote? Is it simply because the need for volume controller on those two made the top and bottom buttons the logical choice? If so, that was a stroke of luck, for the shuffle’s controller is more intuitive than the standard iPod’s. The remote and the shuffle got it right.
So why not follow suit with the iPod and put the play button in the center? It is more logical having the play/pause button between the rewind and fast forward buttons, plus giving it central position is useful because it is the button you want to access most - particularly when it’s in your pocket and you want to pause without looking. The raised button in the middle is very easy to find. There’s no doubt when you find it even with your eyes shut. Whereas the play button at the bottom now can be a bit of hit and miss - and worst of all, if you’re trying to find it without looking, you can easily mess with the volume. Hence the simple process of pressing pause becomes messier and longer.
Also, moving it means the select button which takes you down through menu branches, and the menu button which takes you up menu branches, are then more logically laid out.
Of the iPod shuffle’s controller, the Apple site says:
Touch of Genius
Good things really do come in small packages. The controls on the iPod shuffle feel as intuitive and easy to use as those on every iPod model. Play, pause, skip, repeat, shuffle and hold at the touch of a thumb: The circular, ergonomic controls and one-click slider make it simple to listen without looking.
Whereas of the iPod it says:
The Apple Click Wheel gives you access to your entire music, photo and video library — from one thumb. Control volume and browse using the touch-sensitive surface. Play. Pause. Rewind and fast-forward. Rate your favorites. Create playlists on the go. Launch photo slideshows. The Click Wheel puts everything at your fingertips, so you can keep your eyes and ears on the music.
It’s not as convincing as for the shuffle. And do I really want to have to keep my eyes on the music?
The shuffle by its very nature forced Apple to design a better control interface, and one as they say, that enables you to “listen without looking”. That’s what I like most about the shuffle. The controls are easier and more intuitive than its siblings and the core operations play/pause, fast forward and rewind, can be done without looking.
There’s many people that would argue against this suggestion, but they’re the same one’s who swore Apple would never release a two button mouse, or switch to Intel. It’s no good to hold on to something Apple does just because they’re Apple and they “must be right”.
This change is possible to do - it does not affect the way the sliding action works on the click wheel for volume adjustment or scrolling. Apple have shown in the past they will change the iPod’s controller if they find a better way, as they did after the success of the mini’s controller. It’s time for Apple to acknowledge the better layout of the shuffle’s controller, and pass that on to the other iPods.
I think the point of inconsistency that bugs me the most is — where is the scroll wheel on the Apple remote? I wouldn’t want to scroll through the songs on my iMac without that lovely wheel….
I would like to state that nobody agrees with the idea that the shuffle controls are more intuitive than the iPod’s. The clickwheel is what makes the iPod so capable in scrolling through large volumes of music. It is also the most recognizable part of the iPod, it identifies it. Having the play button in the center makes it impossible to scroll through your library while still being able to play and pause the current song. This is because the center button is a default ’select’ button whis is very intuitive. I believe the iMac remote WOULD have a clickwheel if it were economically feasible. The iMac remote and the remote for the iPod dock are literally the same, and having a second click-wheel remote for an iPod is also stupid. I believe that the remote is just a stepping stone to the true concept: using the iPod as a remote for the iMac, (and possibly any other bluetooth enabled mac). That way when you have front row enabled, you can stream music from your ipod, or just use it as a remote to navigate through the computer’s existing library. When front row is in music mode, it looks just like the iPod interface, the only thing missing is the clickwheel. However if bluetooth enabled iPod’s are not within Steve’s field of vision, then at the very least, a click-wheel remote will be. Point being: the shuffle controls are NOT better than the clickwheel, not by a longshot.
Um… are you missing the point here? The click wheel is made for going through hundreds of songs, whereas the shuffle is made to be as simple as possible. Way to have the concept fly way over your head…
that’s stupid. have you ever USED an ipod? you’d really rather hit a “next” button than be able to use the click whell to scroll through songs? the shuffle only holds a few songs, and there’s no screen, so obviously it doesn’t need the wheel (or have room for it). and the remote - well, since the screen is far away, there’s no need for the scroll wheel there either. and if it was big enough to accomodate one it would be close to the size of the ipod anyway, in which case you might as well just have the ipod in your hand and be transmitting the audio anyway (which would be a great idea if there was an affordable solution where the audio quality was good enough)
I don’t think the author is suggesting that Apple ditch the Scroll Wheel. I think he is suggesting that the middle select button be swapped with the play button on the bottom of the wheel. That being said, I still think it’s a dumb idea.
You cannot swap the ’select’ button in the middle with the ‘play-pause’ button on the clickwheel, because you need to be able to hit the select button without touching the clickwheel - otherwise you would scroll to a different selection when trying to hit the select. The select button is the only one that must not be on the clickwheel.
I’m sorry sir, but you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever even used and iPod or a Shuffle? It seems as though you have not. If you had, maybe you would have been able to make a more educated opinion. Really, what you are doing here is comparing apples with oranges. The iPod serves a different purpose than the Shuffle. The iPod is meant to hold your entire music library. For most, this means several thousand songs. We need a quick way to scroll through all of them quickly. Thus, the apple click wheel, a stroke of genius. For it’s intention, it works marvelously. Now let’s look at the Shuffle. This can only hold at max 240 songs. Apple has managed to make it so small that they have eliminated the screen. There’s not even room for a click wheel. Even if there was, it wouldn’t work well because there is no screen. So, for the Shuffle’s purpose, it’s wheel fits it perfectly. As far as the apple remote goes, it would be nice to have a click wheel, but this would increase it’s size and fragility. Not to mention this may not even be possible. So, for each iPod, it has the appropriate controls. And as far as “Which one of these is not like the other”, have you forgotten about the Nano? Click wheel. Next time you should do a little more reading and perhaps a little more thinking before you bash genius technology.
Gee, different interfaces for different uses? What IS Apple thinking?!?
The fact is, as it has been said in other comments, that the iPod’s click wheel is designed for large music libraries and the Shuffle’s controls have been designed for screenless music navigation.
You argued that with the Shuffle, Apple made a interface that controls your music without having to look at the Shuffle. Why would this be so desirable for the regular iPod? Maybe as an inline remote, but as the main interface? No thanks.
You’ve posted an article simply to get hits. This is sad. At least next time you want some traffic try using good old fashioned intelligence.
Maybe I was disadvantaged by owning a shuffle before the standard iPod (yes, to those who doubted - I own and use both). After using the shuffle, I was used to being able to pause songs without taking it out of my pocket. After a couple of months, I still find this cumbersome to do on my iPod photo.
As Macjunkie pointed out, the main point was I want the play button in the centre of the iPod scroll wheel. I do not want a shuffle controller on the standard iPod.
Thanks Lawrence for posting the most rational response as to why this is not desirable. And Dave - good point!