» Bringing Ideas To Life. With Love!

Compelling offer #02 - iPod Shuffle?

By Rajesh Setty on Mon 18 Apr 2005, 4:10 PM - 4 Comments

I love Apple and they never cease to
amaze with all the new and cool things that they come out with.
However, I was a bit surprised when they came out with iPod Shuffle. It felt like it was more of a marketing play than a pure product innovation. I expected a lot more from Apple.

Here is why:
iPod
from Apple already has a feature called “Shuffle” that will shuffle the
songs and randomly choose the sequence of upcoming songs. The lowest
version today costs about $199.00. Of course, iPod has a lot more
features than iPod Shuffle (costs $99)

If that this the case, does it mean that the “Shuffle” feature on iPod is worth $99?

What do you all think?

Related Articles:

Posted in the Business Models, Compelling Offers, Main Page category.

If you enjoyed this article, Get Life Beyond Code delivered by email or subscribe using your Feed Reader and

RSS

« Previous Post

Anonymous on April 19th, 2005

It is not the “shuffle” feature selling as everyone perceive. iPod shuffle has breakthrough audio fidelity performance compared to other iPod models and other radical changes: If Apple touts this, they might as well alter the user perception of other existing models resulting in cannibalization. Shuffle is more a play it safe strategy.

Anonymous on April 19th, 2005

Hmmm.. that makes sense. May be this audio fidelity stuff is buried in the fine print then. Thanks for the note Ravi.

Anonymous on April 26th, 2005

Just wanted to comment on the shuffle. Apple created a product based on the most popular feature of their IPOD. They listened to their consumer and created a product based on that.
I dont think the price for a Shuffle reflects the shuffle feature. I know they make $30-$40 profit on each shuffle and more when the price for the USB flash drops.

Anonymous on April 26th, 2005

Thanks Chicstar. Anyway, I want to be clear. I like Apple and I admire what they do. My only point was that they were more opportunistic than innovative in this case.