iPod Shuffle Lookalike Hits CeBIT

An anonymous reader writes "It shouldn't be long before Apple's legal team goes after this one. LuxPro out of Taiwan introduced the Super Shuffle at CeBit, a look-a-like portable that is identical to the iPod Shuffle right down to the sihouette ads, but with the addition of an FM tuner and voice recording."

Trade secrets

If we discuss Luxpro's trade secrets, will they sue us just like Apple does?

What law has been violated?

I don't think there are any trademarks that have been hit and other than that they just kind of look the same and have similar functionality.

As far as I can see this really isn't all that different from walking into the grocery store and finding the generic products that do about the same thing next to the name brand ones.

Re:What law has been violated?

Using a "similar" name is still trademark infringement. They're using Apple's brand to sell their product.

Re:What law has been violated?

The use of symbols is not required by law. If you register your trademark, you get to skip over the part of the lawsuit where you demonstrate that it's a trademark.

In this case, demonstrating that "shuffle" is an integral part of the "iPod shuffle" mark would take about two paragraphs and ten minutes of a legal assistant's time to type up.

Re:What law has been violated?

No, it means that someone has taken the design that Apple put effort into developing and duplicated it at no cost to them. This is how they were able to shove in an FM radio and record feature without increasing the price. And this is why Apple's design is protected by law, because that's not a fair business practice and it should not be done.

Just think of it as a GPL violation. We all get up in arms about that, right?

Re:What law has been violated?

> This is much more like software patents, where we get frustrated with the fact that we're not allowed to copy what somebody already invented. Generally speaking copying is allowed.

No, the issue with software patents is that most of the patents are for things so trivial that anyone could (and probably has) independantly develop them.

A software patent on an application that is suffiently innovative, non trivial and non obvious is no better or worse than a patent on a physical invention, it's just that in the world of software patents, the patent examiners seem to have no clue and assume that anything someone has done with a computer must be worthy of patenting.

If you have any other problem with software patents then it's not software patents you have a problem with, it's patents in general.

But back to the Super Suffle.
It looks almost identical to the iPod Shuffle, and it has an extremely similar name - "xxx Shuffle"
I've never heard of another MP3 player called "Shuffle" so it's certainly not a generic term.

I think it well and truly satisfies the "Confusingly similar" requirement.
Similar to copyright, trademarks don't _need_ to be registered to be protected under trademark law.
I guess the real issue here is whether or not they will try to sell it in a market that has trademark laws that will allow Apple to sue them.

Re:What law has been violated?

The basic purpose of trademark is preventing consumer confusion. When one company markets a product, they advertise unique features of their product that allows the consumer to choose their widge machine over the next guy's. They attach claims to their advertisements too, describing things like guarantees and warranty, plus associating the company's good name (reputation) with the product.

Another company selling widget machines might decide that instead of spending money on marketing, they can just make their widget machine look identical to (or very close to) the well-known widget machine. This creates "brand confusion", and pisses off customers when they buy what they thought was brand X but in fact was a visual knock-off of brand X by brand Y. They thought they were getting the promises from brand X, but brand Y is usually a lower quality unit with none of the promises, and the customer also finds they were not in fact buying from the well known and trusted brand, but rather some unheard of company. This is a case of fraud, where you are trying to trick the consumer into buying your product under the pretense that it's a different product.

To illustrate... If you went to the grocery store and bought a bag of Cheetos and got home and started munching on them and they tasted like crap, (or, really, tasted like anything besides Cheetos) then you look closely at the bag (which at a glance looks IDENTICAL to a bag of Cheetos) and see the name is "Cheatos", you too would be pissed. Trademark laws are not only to help companies - they also protect the consumer against fraud.

Re:What law has been violated?

other than that they just kind of look the same

Kind of ?? There are more similarities between these two players than between successive generations of non-mini iPods. If they put it in a similar box a lot of people won't notice the difference. It's practically a twin.

walking into the grocery store and finding the generic products that do about the same thing next to the name brand ones.

For many of those products, namely medicines, the original creator has a patent that lasts many years before generics can be produced by other companies.

Re:What law has been violated?

Well, I don't know about the US, but here in the UK designs can be legally protected, so this could well be infringing under that law. Also, by calling it the "Super Shuffle" they're almost certainly going to fall foul of trademark law under a "confusingly similar" clause (Apple *has* tmed the name "Shuffle", right?)

Re:What law has been violated?

You're correct. Under English law, Apple have at least three causes of action:

- trademark re. the name
- design rights re. the design
- "passing off", i.e. selling a product which people may think is made or endorsed by Apple.

Most of the major jurisdictions have similar laws.

Trademark and trade dress

By producing a nearly identical product to Apple's and giving it a nearly identical name, Luxpro is clearly trying to make consumers believe they are buying an Apple product. I mean, it's so blatant they're even ripping off the advertising.

Apple can, and will, go after them for trademark issues because of the product's name, and trade dress issues because of the appearance of the device.

If you're not familiar with it, trade dress is when two products "kind of look the same" enough (in the eyes of a court of law) that consumers could be fooled into thinking cheap knockoff B is actually name-brand product A. Trade dress infringement claims are how Apple killed off those cheesy all-in-one PCs with a blue and white/translucent color scheme [macspeedzone.com] that quickly appeared after the original iMac [epower2go.biz] was released.

~Philly

Fun stuff

Why I can already hear Jobs smashing extra Newtons already,..

Apple's in trouble...

their's isn't super! :(

Re:Apple's in trouble...

What's more you can eat this one !

At least I can't see any mention anywhere on the page that you can't.

Way to go LuxPro !

Hmmm...

I saw this a week or so ago, and the first thing what wandered through my mind was not 'They are going to get sued' but 'So this is the OEM version of the Shuffle eh?'.

There has been a lot of speculation that Apple never designed the Shuffle but bought it in from outside, guess we will find out if and when Apple sue over it.

Innovation

Are businesses REALLY interested in innovation or just being copycats? I foresee a lawsuit coming out of this blatant duplication of the shuffle.

good stuff gets copied.

Only good products get copied over and over.

I don't think Apple has much of a case...

IANAL but I don't think there is much apple can do. Unless they stole some patented technology, they should be fine with that desing. You cannot copyright style or asthetics. If there were a trademarked shape (apple, nike swoosh) also copied then there would be a problem.

You cannot protect a scent, that's why fragrances can be duplicated, generic drugs and grocery store products are another example.

Designs

IAAL and...

You can actually protect style and aesthetics to a certain extent. It depends on the jurisdiction, but in many countries there is intellectual properties in designs, as opposed to patented methods or copyrighted works. In Australia, for instance, the rip-off iPod would clearly breach rights in Apple's shuffle design, assuming they were validly registered etc., not because of the similar functionality but because of the identical aesthetics.

Furthermore, Apple may have an action for 'passing off' in that this company is clearly trying to ride on Apple's market reputation to sell their own product through the name, advertising and styling of the device. This is an illicit subversion of Apple's goodwill and they will be able to take action on this basis in most countries.

Finally, if the allegations about asian tech manufacturers and Apple's partners prove true, there will very likely be an action in contract or equity against any company that has participated in sharing the technology used in the Shuffle for this device.

That is the legal position. My OPINION, however, is that Apple deserve to get screwed over because this new device looks as good and has better functionality than the Shuffle. Plus it is refreshing to see that you don't have to have the Godly powers of Steve Jobs in your fingertips to produce the same hardware at the same (or lower, presumably) price.

Re:Designs

It's easier to produce the same device, with perhaps an extra feature or two for less money when you reuse the R&D and marketing of the company that you are ripping off.

Apple certainly do not deserve to be ripped off. There is nothing stopping this company from producing shuffle like device in a different color and slightly differnet shape than the iPod shuffle. That they haven't done that, and made it visually identical with identical advertising is both illegal AND immoral.

Guess you weren't around for the iMac

Right after Apple released the iMac back in 1998, everyone started jumping on the "all-in-one" PC thing again. A new company at the time, eMachines, tried to market a near copy of it called the eOne PC. They were slapped with injunctions in the US and Tokyo shortly after that and later forced to stop production.

The review for the eOne is still up on epinions, along with a stock photo: eOne Photo [google.com]

Daewoo tried something similar. They both got the smack down. See here. [com.com]

Do you remember when Cobalt Networks was about to sue Apple over the Cube? Because of Cobalt's Qube design? Only to find out a few months later Apple owned NeXT at that point, which created the original Cube. At that point Cobalt changed their tune and decided suing might not be so smart. Some Cobalt info. [macworld.com]

The reason for suing is brand dilution. When you make a look-a-like, you're copying a design that's identified with the product. It's the same reason stores brand soda tries to have similar color schemes to Coke, or Pepsi. You identify the product by the colors, shapes and patterns of the packaging or product itself.

I get what the Taiwanese company is doing. They would have been better off sticking to knock off Nintendo games though. I'd guarantee Apple already knows about the knock off at this point, and we'll probably be seeing lawsuits within a week or two.

I think they do

> IANAL but I don't think there is much apple can do. Unless
> they stole some patented technology, they should be fine with
> that desing. You cannot copyright style or asthetics.

I don't that's true. Patents aren't the only thing protected. Designs, trademarks, logos, and appearances are protected, too.

You can't market a product that can be mistakened for the product of another. The reason is that psychologically, people associated items that look similar as having the same quality as the original product, and consumers will assume that the two companies have something in common. In other words, the rip-off product is trying to bank on the consumer perception of the original product.

In my Consumer Behavior class we studied the case of a regional soft drink called "Corr's Natural Soda". The can looked vaguely like "Coors", but the script was different (to someone paying attention) and the former can had a big cross-section of a lemon on it.

Coor's Brewing Company sued the regional soda manufacturer claiming that "Corr's" was trying to facilitate their market position and gain benefits through the name and the look of the can. The latter defended by saying that it was named after the owner "Robert Corr".

The courts sided with Coor's Brewing Company. They told the regional soda company to change the product to make it less similar to Coors. They were told to not put the name in script and if they wanted to name their soda after the person, they had to use the guy's full name and not just the last name with an apostrophe s so as to not deceive. The soda was changed to "Robert Corr Natural Soda," the name was put in a regular (albeit ugly) Serif font, and the can looked different enough from Coors that no one would expect there to be a connection.

The Coors versus Corr's case gives some insight, so I think Apple has a case. Many people will look at this "Super Shuffle" and think either Apple made it (since it looks almost exactly like the iPod shuffle), or that this company builds it for Apple (and thus the customer is getting the same product for less money because they don't pay Apple's markup). Then they'll go home and find out it doesn't support purchases from the iTunes Music Store, and you'll have some unhappy customers.

Clearly this ripoff product is gaining value by banking on Apple's look and feel. The fact that they put "Shuffle" in the name (a non-obvious name that only has value now that Apple has an iPod shuffle) and their ad rips Apple's ads off makes it worse.

I'm sure Apple Legal will have a response Monday morning. Like with the case of Future Power who ripped off the iMacs years ago, Apple needs to quelch the iPod ripoffs early and often. If someone wants to make a competing product, great, but market the product on its own merits, not trying to deceive customers.

Why no AM radio?

This lawsuit-bait would almost be worth considering if it had an AM radio. I wonder why these things include FM radio only. Perhaps the AM radio hardware is much more expensive. Regardless, it is much less useful without it. An FM radio is sort of redundant. I use FM radio for music, and there are already music files on the player. I use AM radio for news, and there aren't news MP3's.

Re:Why no AM radio?

A decent AM radio antenna (ferrite rod) would be way too large to fit in the case.

Will there be a clash?

This is going to be very interesting to see played out. They're going after the iPod Shuffle market, with nary a thought to even partially concealing their inspiration.

However, there's absolutely nothing wrong with copying a good idea. Apple has no patent for the concept of an mp3 player, and I don't know if they can claim that a white tongue depressor is a "copyrighted piece of art". Otherwise the whole USB key market would be in a state of utter chaos, as my USB key looks pretty much like everyone elses.

The iPod Suffle is certainly a trademark, but the SuperShuffle isn't the same thing, and no one is going to be fooled. Apple doesn't make the "Shuffle"-- they make an iPod with "Shuffle" attached. I would argue that the SuperShuffle is as legal a name as the SuperPhoto or the SuperMini.

So, would Apple have a leg to stand on? Or is this a situation where the consumer (finally) is going to win on all sides?

mmmm. iPod souffle .....

"The iPod Suffle is certainly a trademark"

Is it any tastier than iPod Quiche? Will it collapse if you slam your Powerbook closed?

*Yawn*

I doubt it has tight integration with iTunes, which is a major selling point of the various iPods.

Re:*Yawn*

Oddly enough, on the Mac, it probably will do (at least, with iTunes itself, not the Store).

iTunes Mac has just worked with every single MP3 player I've ever plugged into my Mac. Creative Zen thingies all the way down to little no-name USB players. iTunes grants Mac-using owners of these devices almost every bit of functionality that they'd get with an iPod.

However, iTunes on the Windows side works only with the iPod.

Some changes to take care of it.

1. Make it black

2. Make the circular control area square.

3. Make it narrower (even if it means making it longer to cram the electronics in). This is one area where it would actually improve on the real Shuffle, which is just too wide, especially where it plugs in, requiring a USB extension cable or unplugging the other plugs that are crammed in near the USB plug.

Without iTunes it's half the product!

The only justification for lack of LCD is that you use iTunes to operate your iPod Shuffle. If you don't use iTunes smart playlists and iTunes autofill option, iPod Shuffle is actually quite worthless. It has no LCD because some elements of its UI are incorporated into iTunes. "Fake Shuffle" has no LCD either, but you have no software to make it out for you.

The real question..

So how much are they? can they undercut apple but a significant amount?

even if they're a blatant ripoff, I'd buy one if they were cheap.

No design patents?

I figured Apple would have a design patent in for the Shuffle, but it seems there's nothing there yet. There's design patents for the regular 1/2/3G iPod, but not the 4G or the Shuffle yet, and I can't locate any in the published applications either. Is there other protection afforded to designs for products other than design patents in the USA?

Holy Knockoff Batman

Looks like LuxPro is about to discover the iSue.

emachines redux

It's been a while since the business with the original iMac ripoff, so my memory might be a bit fuzzy, but I think the shuffles might be even more identical than the teardrop computers.

Then again, maybe not [impress.co.jp].

Not only the Shuffle

I am here at CeBit and have been a bit amazed at a couple of look a like iPod mini's and iPod's as well. Apple will easily stop this in the US under "trade dress" litigation.

I also wondered, what are they (the manufacturers that knock off almost exact copies) thinking!?

But their's is Super

They are totally different.

Apple's is a Shuffle, or iShuffle, or iPodensmallened, or something.

Lux Pro's is Super. I mean by adding the word Super it is clear that they are disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see they are serious? Get out of their way, all of you! This is no place for loafers. Join them or die. Can you do any less? For lucky best mp3, use Super Shuffle.

Get over it

Yes, it's a bit on the cheeky side, but get over it.

- Apple wasn't the first company to make an MP3 player
- Apple wasn't the first company to make an MP3 player that did suffle
- Apple wasn't the first company to make an MP3 player without a display
- Apple wasn't the first company to make an MP3 player that plugged into a USB port
- Apple wasn't the first company to make something shaped like a USB key/stick/dongle

Apple is primarily a marketing machine.

Zilch.

Re:Get over it

"Apple is primarily a marketing machine."

Yes indeed, just like Sony, Philips, Renault, Toyota and most other high quality makers of commodity goods.

Marketing means finding out what people want, finding out what people need and then making it and getting it sold. Sounds simple, no? It isn't. One of the reasons is that people mostly forget about the what people need part or the getting it sold part.

And anyway, the making it part isn't simple either, since you have to combine design and engineering with marketing. Look at all the high quality unusable products out there or the good looking crap and you see what I mean.

Another thing: people confuse advertising with marketing... Good marketing deserves good advertising, but good advertising doesn't sell crappie products, at least not too many times at the same people.

For companies like Apple and Philips (one of the inventors of good marketing) saying they're primarily marketing companies is high praise indeed

Hey...

You can't, like, trademark a product's look, feel, and functionality, man.

What? You can? Oh. Yeah, those guys are screwed.

"Share connector"

This addon [luxpro-corp.com] is quite cool. It lets you copy files between two Super Shuffles. I've not seen this for iPod shuffle, has anyone else?

How about it?

How about a new name for this, Lux? "EyePawed: Shah-phel"

No Apple FM..

Tell me again why Apple doesn't put FM in the iPod?

Re:No Apple FM..

It has to do with perceived value.

To keep the numbers simple and because I'm too lazy to look them up right now, let's say there are 10 million iPod owners. (I think that's pretty close.) Let's say that Apple has telephone numbers for half of them, because they bought their iPods from an Apple retail store on the online Apple store.

Apple picks a thousand of them and calls them up and asks them how they're enjoying their iPods. They follow up with a series of questions, one of which is, "Do you wish your iPod had a radio in it?" They note the answers. People who take the time to respond get a $10 gift certificate or something.

They go back and collate the answers, and discover that out of their statistically valid sample of 1,000 users, only 20 said that they wanted a radio in an iPod. That's only 2%, compared to the 85% who said they'd like their iPod to have a longer battery life or hold more songs or be cheaper. So when Apple makes their list of priorities, battery life, size and cost are up top and adding a radio is way, WAY down on the list.

But let's ignore that for a second. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that Apple has the opportunity to add a radio for zero cost and zero time. Let's say somebody waves a magic "radio" wand and there it is.

What do we know? We know that only 2% of iPod customers, on average, are interested in getting a radio, but that 85% of their customers wish the product were cheaper. What does that mean?

That means that a whole bunch of people are going to look at the new radio-equipped, same-priced iPod and think, "I don't want a stupid radio, but Apple's making me buy one! How much cheaper could this thing be if it didn't have the stupid radio in it?"

Even though, in our contrived example, the answer is "zero dollars cheaper," the damage has been done. The customers perceive that they're paying for something they don't want.

A device like an iPod, especially a cheap iPod, needs to be as stripped down as possible to give the customer the impression that he's getting pure value for his money. All it does is play prerecorded music, so every dollar you spend on it is going toward prerecorded music playback. You're not paying for a radio you'll never use.

And of course, because the market for a radio-equipped iPod is so small, the idea of manufacturing one version with a radio and one without is just absurd. They'd never sell enough of the radio-equipped iPods to cover the cost of designing, building, shipping, marketing and selling another model of iPod.

That's why Apple doesn't include a radio.

Of course Apple's lawyers are after it, see here

Apple to stop CeBIT presentation of iPod shuffle clone [heise.de]

coca~cola

Ever see any red and white cans of soda at the store that just say "cola"? Pretty obvious those are a knock off of cocacola, yet they are out there. Similar but not exact product, similar colored can, not the exact swirl but similar, similar size, shape, weight,etc. I wonder if this will come into "play"?

Apple Legal Team Jurisdiction?

Does the US trademark laws even have any relevance in Taiwan? It may not matter that this is a knock-off ( with more features )

The Shuffle is a clone to begin with.

They probably make them in the factory next door to the clone factory they make the iPod Shuffle in.

When Steve Jobs got on stage in 2004 and poo-poohed flash music players, concentrating on the high end, I was livid. He was talking about flash music players as if the big bulky high-end were the only possible competition. I immediately went to Apple's site and sent in a suggestion that if they thought flash music players were $200 behemoths they ought to have a look at the music player I'd bought for my daughter back in late 2002 or early 2003. It cost me $70 and it had the minimum features imaginable... no screen, no way to select specific songs, you just plugged it in like a flash drive and copied MP3 files over... and it played them in whatever random order they landed in memory.

I had even figured out the way to use iTunes with this player to get the equivalent of what they later called their "Autofill" function using their Party Shuffle. Sure, it only held a couple CDs worth of songs, but you could reload them when you recharged the battery overnight... so who cared?

Apart from the "reshuffle" ability, and the memory size (after all, this was 3 years ago), it was functionally identical to what Apple released a year later as the iPod Shuffle. It was a little bigger than the shuffle, but not much, and even hung from a lanyard like the Shuffle does. Oh, Apple's definitely done their usual wonderful job of [re]design... but all in all the Shuffle is just a few tweaks applied to the Magic Star "Gray Whale" MP3 player:

http://pc-memory-upgrade.co.uk/memory/magic-star -m p3-player.asp
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t g/detail/-/B000 08AJSO/002-0805304-2818432?v=glance

The killer feature of the Shuffle, for me, is that the 512M Shuffle is cheaper than the 512M "Gray Whale"! This may be the first time in memory that an Apple product was less expensive than the third-party equivalent... but it's got a lot less of Apple in it than most people seem to think.

About LUXPRO

LUXPRO CORPORATION is recognized by a technological group. They work in researching, designing, and innovation products for over 30 years. LUXPRO always insists to provide you comfortable customer services and high quality products to match your requirements.

We will keep going to be a designing leader. Our products are always so useful to meet what you need. Our mission is to improve your living quality and to create your life value. If you can imagine it, LUXPRO CORPORATION can make it.

No matter how old you are, what you do, or where you live, chances are a LUXPRO CORPORATION product touches your life.

All your base are belong to us.
-- Apple Lawyer

Apple already tried to stop it

Heise News article (in German) [heise.de] and the Google-Translation [google.com] (replace "conditions" with "booth", and it makes more sense). LuxPro had removed the notPod from their booth on Friday, but put it up again on Saturday.

quite common

This kind of ripoff is actually quite common. I see Rbok and Nke shoes all of the time and they are cheaply made direct copies of the originals. In fact, many Chinese factories that make the original will also do the ripoffs using the same equipment, just different grades of electronics, plastices and other items. It even goes as far as cars. I read a article in Time where knock offs cost not just the computer industry, but almost every industry on the planet. Callaway golf clubs, Yamaha Motorcycles, Nikon cameras, etc etc....

I bet this Super Shuffle does not even work with Apple's DRM'd files.

Interesting WHOIS

Administrative Contact:
hotels.com.tw
tom lin ([e-mail])
7F.-2, No.10, Shaosing N. St., Jhongjheng District, Taipei City -
Taipei, tw, tw
P: +886.223912558 F: +886.223912650

Technical Contact:
hotels.com.tw
tom lin ([e-mail])
7F.-2, No.10, Shaosing N. St., Jhongjheng District, Taipei City -
Taipei, tw, tw
P: +886.223912558 F: +886.223912650

Billing Contact:
hotels.com.tw
tom lin ([e-mail])
7F.-2, No.10, Shaosing N. St., Jhongjheng District, Taipei City -
Taipei, tw, tw
P: +886.223912558 F: +886.223912650

Is the Shuffle made in Taiwan as well?

Cola

The 'Cola' and 'Grocery Store' comparisons I've heard are a little off. In those examples, you're comparing two products that have a similar purpose. That'd be like comparing the iShuffle to all other MP3 players, or comparing a Rolex to other watches.

The debate here would be analagous to someone making imitation Rolexes that are exact, blatant aesthetic ripoffs. What's wrong with that, you say? The only reason anyone wants a fake Rolex is because it looks like a Rolex, but is much cheaper. Here, people might want to buy the Super Shuffle because they think it's just a cheaper (not sure), better (could be soundwise) iShuffle with more features.


Also: Someone posted a remark saying it couldn't use iTunes. Are you sure? I'm sure that could be easily cracked if the hardware inside is similar at all. What software do they plan on providing the users with otherwise?

Booth Pic

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2005/03/super _shuffle_f.html [ubergizmo.com]

The Shuffle wasn't the only thing they copied ....

No design patent on iPod Shuffle?

Originally I was going to claim that this is a perfect example of design patent infringement, but I've just done a quick search of the USPTO web page and I can't find any design patents relating to the iPod Shuffle, just the normal iPods.

Unless I've missed it somehow, this means that they can at least get away with copying Apple's design for the time being, since the patent's most likely pending.

Not the First Time

About 5 years ago, right after Apple came out with the first iMac, eMachines came out with a blatant knockoff and Apple successfully sued http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/08/20/ 1345216&tid=3 [slashdot.org]. This website http://ordinateurs.free.fr/APPLE/copies_pc_iMac.ht m [ordinateurs.free.fr] is in French but has pictures.

identical...

Except it has more features, doesn't require a proprietary program to use it, and costs less.

Headphones

They copied the F@#$#$ headphones. I wonder if it comes with a shuffle manuel, or did they have to make that themselves?

No legal recourse in China...

People have missed the point. This company is going to sell an iPod Shuffle knock-off in China. There's no way that it will be sold (for long) in Europe or North America -- just like knock-off Rolex watches. Apple will have an extremely difficult time pursuing the manufacturer through the Chinese legal system. If they do manage to exert suitable pressure to get the company shut down, it may well be a year from now -- after all the money's been made. Clever strategy in the Chinese "Wild West."

That's what you get, Apple...

When you don't listen to your customers, they'll find someone who will. Serves them right.

The best bit

One of the best bits is that in some stores they are using ipod shuffle wall ad posters and just sticking the logo of the Luxpro over the top.
if you want one, grab one while this company is still in business, which it won't be for much longer

audio quality

It might be pointed out that one of the chief negatives against the entire iPod line is that it possess lower audio quality than competing manufacturers.

This is the first time reading someone being concerned over the iPods' audio quality. I've read reports on the contrary, where audiophiles could not find problems with it. I wonder what the Consumer Reports report had to say, which the web page author refers to.

Consumer Reports

"The iPod ear-bud headphones are among the best we've tested."

Super Shuffle?

How do they integrate the extra features without extra buttons?

Also, has anyone ever bought ANY product made by Luxpro? Their website only has digital mockups of their stuff.

Supports WMA, not Apple AAC

"Decoding Format: MP3 (8~320Kbps), MP3-VBR, WMA, WMA-DRM (5~192Kbps), WAV (ADPCM)"

They support WMA, but no mention of AAC and fairplay. This could be good for Napster, etc.

Fair enough

Fair enough if they made it so it looked a bit different. A different colour even?
Fair enough if they made it a different size, or shape, or changed the position of the buttons, or something
Apple do not have a monopoly on flash-based MP3 players, they don't have a patent on the idea. What Apple do have, however, is ownership of the design of the iPod Shuffle.
What Apple are (rightfully) pissed off at is the blatant rip-off of their intellectual property - the look and feel.

immitation

Immitation is the highest form of flattery.

That said, this is a total bust. Apple rocks. Cheap knockoffs suck.

But does it run

Linux

Re:Confusing

"Let's create a better product at a lower price, but without hordes of millions of fanboys blindly buying it at once..." comes to my mind immediately. ;)

Re:The best part

look like? it is a 99.9% clone. it would be like Chevy cloning a Ford Mustang but using a different layout on the dashboard.

Apple always has legal protection on the physical design of their products as well as the rest of it. they went after those people that came close to ripping off the old CRT iMac look and stopped them. this is a blatant rip-off of Apple's design. even if you hate Apple, you have to see that.

Re:The best part

[i]2) the FM radio is a good idea[/i]

I'd prefer it to be DAB digital radio [bbc.co.uk]... I'd be a bit more excited if it were.

RTFA

Did you even read the article? This is not just an MP3 player: it looks and has controls just like the iPod. Outrage over any non-Apple MP3 player is one thing. Outrage over a non-Apple player that is a deceptive look-alike is another.

Re:The best part

This thing most likely uses the same GUTS even as the iPod shuffle, the chip in the shuffle already supports FM radio, Apple (like any sensible company) didn't provide it out of clean UI design.

Re:Let's see how long that product will be availab

It doesnt matter to them. This is a typical "asian" hit & run operation: Design a knockoff of something wildly popular, make half the web advertize it for free, and sell some hundreds of thousands (or millions) during a couple of months. By the time Apple wakes up, you have already made millions in profits. Apple won't be able to get a penny from you, for obvious reasons: a) you're in Asia. and b) you have a big & loyal family.

You botched that:

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

But the advertising is no equivalent

Worse, it looks like the silhouette in the knockoff photo is an asian chick who clearly can't dance!

[Not that there aren't plenty of asian chicks who can...but the ones who can are mostly in North America]

Re:Great marketing for Apple

Good job! I think it'd be great if all Slashdotters were as honest as you were when you chose a subject for your ad^H^H post. ;)

Re:The best part

Good to see that there is at least *some* sense on slashdot.

Re:Battery

This player doesn't, it uses an internal li-ion battery like the shuffle does. If it's the same dimensions as the shuffle, there's no room for an AAA battery in the player.
From the LuxPro page:
Power Supply: Li-Ion rechargeable built-in battery (Charging via USB port from computer or power adapter)

Maybe reason Apple can NOT fill it's orders

Could it be that the reason the supply of shuffles is so inelastic to demand is that Apple and its OEM are having a cat-fight, and this is a power play by Lux?

Have not seen this dicsussed yet but I ordered a shuffle 7 days after it's debut from mac mall and have yet to recieve it. I checked around and all re-sellers are out or have cryptic notices like we dont gaurentee in stock at time of order. Mac mall says they have 4000 orders they cant fill.

On the other hand if you go to apple's store they are delivering with 1-3 day ship delays. Obiously they in a position where demand outstrips supply and as a result are taking the sales premium for themselves (that is they pocket the profit thed lose at the MSRP by letting someone else sell it.).

So my guess is that Lux is the OEM for these and is squeezing apple by only producing the contracted number. THey have excess capacity or are holding back expanding in return for some concession form apple like letting them re-sel their own version. Apple cant bit the hand till the find another maker.

Or so I wildly speculate.

So do you have an ipod on order from other than apple. Where sis you order it from and how long did you wait. I perhaps foolishly in hindsight, ordered from mac mall because the ipod shuffle came with a load of freebies ( senhieser headphones, a second set of ear buds, and some base station speakers from logictech.) A good deal if I could just get it delivered before ski season ends....

Re:Intellectual property is evil

There is nothing wrong with intellectual property laws to the extent that they allow innovators a period of exclusivity to reap the rewards of their innovation

Wrong. There is everything wrong with such laws, but the wrongs are sometimes balanced with rights. It is bad that companies can't copy others' inventions, but there is a potential benefit of increased R&D spendings.

You seem to have the belief that laws are fundamentally good, no matter what they say. There are many good ways to solve the problem of "innovation coming to a screeching halt", while also opening the world of ideas to human creativity. For example, compulsory licensing of patents and designs would allow that company to make their Super Shuffle as long as they pay Apple, say 10$ per item. We would still get our FM-enabled shuffle and Apple would still be stimulated to develop great designs in the future.

Re:Intellectual property is evil

This isn't 'IP' like software patents, or DMCA copyright schemes, it's 'IP' as in 'identity'.

No one would cry 'foul' at this product, if it were functionally exactly like it is now, but didn't look just like an iPod shuffle, and wasn't packaged with Apple type adverts (dancing black silhouettes with white 'pods over a green background).

I agree that fighting competition with 'IP" instead of innovation is evil, but this thing isn't 'competition', it's impersonation.

Re:Intellectual property is evil

WTF are you talking about? Competitors DO have the right to make better products with more and better features. They don't however, have the right to shamelessly rip off the design and marketing of a product.

There is nothing stopping anyone from making a cheaper, smaller, and more featureful mp3 player than the iPod shuffle.

Quit your bitching.

Re:Confusing

Probably something like "How long will it take Apple to sue us?"

There's only three things that come out of Apple; Ipods, Macs and Lawsuits. For any company to blatently rip off one of Apple's designs takes a lot of guts, especially since Apple's got some of the scariest lawyers in the industry.

A typical anonymous coward

Try new Anonymous Coward Lite! Opinionated, and low in facts!

Apple has actually spanked MS a number of times in the last ten years, lawsuit-wise. The problem is that as soon as it begins to look like Apple is winning, MS immediately settles. One of the settlement conditions is always that neither of the principals will discuss the settlement, so it takes a little digging to get the information, but there are always some leaks.

For example, there was the company that MS paid a rather surprising amount of money to get a copy of Apple's QuickTime source code from. At the time, MS's video player was less than half the speed of Apple's, on Windows. So they just appropriated huge chunks of code wholesale from Apple's software. And, when Apple took them to court, they settled out of court. According to the best scuttlebutt available, the large MS investment in Apple in the late 90s, and the agreement to continue developing MS Office for the Mac, were part of the settlement.

-fred

Re:Slur against a whole continent?

"Asian" in this usage was referring to the type of consumer electronics, not the owners of the store.

Settle down, and take it easy. Nobody's "slurring" anybody here.

Re:The best part

Urgh... Parent presents valid points against something related to Apple in a polite manner and it gets modded down as troll!!

Re:The best part

the FM radio is a good idea

I like to use my music player on airplanes.

Airlines don't allow devices with radio tuners on airplanes.

There, a real reason to leave out the bloody radio. Besides, I haven't heard anything good on the radio in years (exaggeration - but not by much).