Bring back the remote

[AudioPhile]

I am an old time iriver user an think the best thing about iriver player was the little remote that you can use to control the player. This meant that you could stick the player in you book bag or pocket and you didn't have to worry about getting mug cuz know new that you were carry and expensive mp3 player in you bag.

Bring back the remote!!!!!

it's nice to look at all the uber color screens but bring back the remote!!!! or at least have and option to buy one separately.

Anyone with me?!!!!!!

if not then I will just shutup

[Step666]

To be honest, none of the current iRiver players would really benefit from a remote, IMO. They're all small, flash-based players.

If iRiver were still producing large, HDD-based DAPs then, yes, remotes would still be of some use. But when the remote would be about half the size again of the player itself, it's just unnecessary, it's added bulk with no real benefit.

Then again, that's just my opinion, it's no more or less valid than yours.

[BBD]

Sorry, but I'm a big fan of a remote, regardless of size. I love being able to tuck my DAP away and operate it with a smaller unit, especially when I can put it in a protective case/bag/etc. And the thought of a tiny bluetooth enabled wireless remote controlling a 50gb+ music collection...let's just say: hooray....

However, I think the days of the remote--as well as HD-DAPs in general--are numbered. Damnable market forces....

[Dunno]

Make it a Cordless remote, some bluetooth thingy, now that would "kick-ass" as a yank would say.

[Classical Gas]

Where would the headphones go? in the wireless remote or the unit? The only way it would really work would be to have wireless headphones with controls on them or 3 separate items (the dap, remote and headphones).

With DAP's the size they are I think remotes are dying..still wish HD-DAPs were being made. I miss having my entire music collection in my pocket (will have to wait for 80gb+ flash DAP for that though-so i'm not holding my breath)

[Step666]

Originally Posted by Classical Gas

(will have to wait for 80gb+ flash DAP for that though-so i'm not holding my breath)

32GB SSDs can be had for ~$500 already, so it's really just a matter of time before the prices of larger ones (say 64GB, which would then be bigger than any HDD-based DAP iRiver ever produced) become more affordable.


As for 'regardless of size', personally I like the fact that my Nano is tiny, if I had a remote for it, it would be a bit dumb really.
Part of the point of flash-based DAPs is that they're small, so anything that adds to the size unnecessarily is a waste of time.

[Dunno]

Originally Posted by Step666

anything that adds to the size unnecessarily is a waste of time.

I agree.

1).If it had no remote, It would be nice to stream music directly from the DAP to one's music center.
). The remote would come in handy if the DAP is plugged into the music center/hifi.

[BBD]

That's just it: unnecessarily is certainly in the eye of the beholder. For an S10 or S7, a remote would be silly, but even the anorexic Nano could benefit from a remote, if a user wanted one. What better way to bypass that asinine click-wheel than a tiny, joystick remote?

[Step666]

A Nano would not benefit from a remote the size of the ones that the H300s had, it would just be a waste of space - it's most of the size of the DAP over again.

[BBD]

Yes it would....

[Step666]

Come on, look at it seriously - all you're doing is carrying around extra stuff for no gain.
It'd be as quick to pull the Nano out of your pocket as it would be to use the remote (believe me, I've got it down to a fine art).

[BBD]

No it wouldn't....

[Step666]

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion (regardless of how completely wrong it is ).

[BBD]

No I'm not....

[AudioPhile]

err yeah well thanks for you responses I thought this tread would go dead after my post. But I figure maybe some earbud headphone with and nice remote at the end would be nice. The remote can function also as blue tooth receiver so you dont have wear those big weird looking blue tooth head phones. Sounds good to me. But and optional remote that works with all the DAP would rock. Make it option so you aret force to buy it if you dont want it.

[Mike]

The problem, as I see it, is that the companies simply are not innovating as they should. Apple does it, and note the success; likewise Archos. And look at the attention that new, innovative Samsung players get.

Have any of these folks thought about getting a group of us in a room to brainstorm as to an ideal player; then check the financials; and then make it work? Yep, you're right--the player would cost money to build. And Apple owns 75-80% of the DAP market and has resurged (and very profitable) life due to that series of little players, all which started with a cool design and interface and features.

How about a wireless remote, and wireless earphones? How about large capacity players that are cool and fun to operate, and audiophile-like (i.e. a modern iHP-180, or 1120/1180)?

[Step666]

Originally Posted by Mike

The problem, as I see it, is that the companies simply are not innovating as they should. Apple does it, and note the success; likewise Archos. And look at the attention that new, innovative Samsung players get.

A few points:

Firstly, Apple, innovative?
Yes, they market well and they tend to make the products more pleasing on the eye but what do they ever produce that hasn't been done before?

Archos, some of their players are interesting like the D2 but, equally, a large number of them are just the same old PMPs with a makeover.

And Samsung, well I'm sure they're good and all but what's this attention you speak of?


And you seem to be ignoring what iRiver are doing, the Clix and Clix2, along with their derivative the S10, use an innovative control system, they're all highly thought-of and score well in reviews. They're at least as innovative as anything else on the market.
Just because it's in a different direction (small, flash-based players as opposed to Audiophile HDD-based DAPs) doesn't mean that they're any less innovative.

As for wireless remotes and earphones, yes I'm sure they could be produced but unless a standard were quickly reached and widely adopted, you'd just end up with a small range of proprietary (and probably expensive, not to mention relatively poor) products, who'd want to pay money for them?
(This is more with regards to the earphones than the remotes)

[AudioPhile]

I think iriver has been doing a good job of providing what the mp3 person wants. BUt that was all F@ck up by apple. Now the mp3 has gone main stream it's no longer about the sound it's all about the flashiness. That's an area in which iriver was lacking until now. But you gotta had it to Apple. They opened up the mp3 online market and made it work and the people took the bait hook line and sinker. It's almost the same with nintendo back in the 80s they mad video gaming really popular even though the machine was crappy.
But that's off topic.
Viva la remote!!!!!
I dont care if it's not wireless.

[Mike]

Yes, Apple is innovative, in putting together devices that my 80-year-old mother can use relatively easily. And its interface for the new phone product is pleasureable and user-friendly, seemingly. Likewise, Archos continues to come out with advances in video/audio players that critics applaud--who else is doing that?

And, yes, iRiver also has come out with successful, innovative players, such as the Clix line--I didn't suggest otherwise.

But I just don't see the innovation needed to meet consumer needs and to excite us generally, and to get critics to applaud as they would like. Again, when is the last time that a nice, high-capacity audiophile player came out? The iHP-1xx and 3xx series (with Rockbox), and the Cowon iAudio x5s? And more than x years since the Apple DAP came out, there still isn't a "killer app." there--this just does not seem to be rocket science, folks. The parts and pieces are there--they're just not being put together.

[Step666]

Originally Posted by Mike

Yes, Apple is innovative, in putting together devices that my 80-year-old mother can use relatively easily.

I wouldn't say that it were, in the case of the iPods at least, a matter of being innovative - all they do is leave out as many features as possible, which makes the device as simple as possible.

Originally Posted by Mike

And its interface for the new phone product is pleasureable and user-friendly, seemingly.

Well, I can't comment on that as I haven't tried one, what with them not being available over here.

Originally Posted by Mike

Likewise, Archos continues to come out with advances in video/audio players that critics applaud--who else is doing that?

Well, to be fair, critical acclaim doesn't necessarily denote innovation. That said they have pioneered the PMP market, turning it from a niche to something considerably more and they were the first to add, I believe, features such as wi-fi.
However, with Archos, there's the ever-present threat that if you buy one of their players, it will be a lemon. They're trying to innovate for innovation's sake and that's the wrong way to go about things.

Originally Posted by Mike

And, yes, iRiver also has come out with successful, innovative players, such as the Clix line--I didn't suggest otherwise.

Not explicitly though the way your previous post was written strongly implied that only the three brands you'd mentioned were innovative.

Originally Posted by Mike

But I just don't see the innovation needed to meet consumer needs and to excite us generally, and to get critics to applaud as they would like. Again, when is the last time that a nice, high-capacity audiophile player came out? The iHP-1xx and 3xx series (with Rockbox), and the Cowon iAudio x5s? And more than x years since the Apple DAP came out, there still isn't a "killer app." there--this just does not seem to be rocket science, folks. The parts and pieces are there--they're just not being put together.

You're assuming that your needs match that of the majority of the market, which clearly they don't or someone would be producing something to match them, which they're not.
The market is moving towards small flash-based DAPs or large video-centric devices. Basically you have to pick one or the other.

[Mike]

Step666, just because something is not being made does not mean that the public wouldn't want it if made. You're assuming that the manfs. know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I see it from a different angle, based on experience to date. And I just disagree as to Apple--they made technology that people easily can use (the Apple interfaces still are superb, as a general matter, although with some gaffes), and in fact are excited to use--that is innovation in a form. I just wish that others would combine that form of innovation with enhanced and exciting technological development--if Rockbox can do it, why can't Company X.

[Step666]

Originally Posted by Mike

Step666, just because something is not being made does not mean that the public wouldn't want it if made.

I realise that.
However, I think you'll find that the demand for audiophile-grade DAPs is a slight minority compared to the market as a whole. Just because a few people would want to buy it doesn't mean that everyone would.

And, yes, I do believe that manufacturers have quite a good idea of what they're doing, they are after all out to make money and to do that you need to produce something that sells. Preferably sells a lot.
That's why they're all focusing on small, flash-based DAPs because, whatever your feelings on audiophile HDD-based DAPs, or the feelings of some other people (but in no way most other people), the demand for the smaller, more durable players is vastly greater. So, yes, a modern H300 would probably sell but it would never do as well as, say, the Clix2.

Quote: