Comments on: iPod Shuffle 2G vs. iRiver S10

By: erjzon

erjzon — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:24:01 +0000

fashion wise I go for ipod..

By: OrionZ

OrionZ — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:12:47 +0000

i mean “enough money”..ehe..sorry…

By: OrionZ

OrionZ — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:10:52 +0000

i choose ipod shuffle,..why?bcoz it has great quality,mettalic,nice earphones(more tougher and endurance than the others, specially than theS10),longer battery life,impressive design,cool gadget,and it suits for you in whatever you do and dress like…go for ipod products their the best when it comes to gadgets and accesories!!!if only i have enough to buy those,I WOULD BUY THEM!!!

By: JC

JC — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:30:32 +0000

wow! i’m impressed with the s10. I wonder where can I get one here in the Philippines. Anybody knows where?

By: yogurfriend

yogurfriend — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:36:02 +0000

Its not a fair comparision. The iriver S10 should be compared to the nano instead of the shuffle.

But if I had to choose i would obviously go for the S10. Personaly I dont like the idea of pressing the same button 114 times before reaching the song I want to hear. And I dont care a lot about the battery life ( I ussualy only hear from 1 to 4 hours of music before reaching my house, so, no need to worry) the choice is yours!

By: james

james — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:05:35 +0000

well the i just got the new shuffle and it has great qulaty of music and its made out of meatle wich is preeity cool. iv choswe orange look great i would say shove the iriver up ur arsse .fuck iriver

By: RR

RR — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:09:26 +0000

The iRiver is cool, but it’s double the price of the Shuffle. And has 4 hours less of battery. There are only certain moments when I miss the display on a shuffle, but I prefer living with that than having less battery and weird controls. But I’m just in the border of taking the iRiver; I just wish they had gone for a better battery life instead of over-featuring the display– I don’t need a battery-eater that can show 65.000 colors, I just wanna see the name of the song! and for the pictures… who the hell is still using the worst image format available (aka BMP)?

By: Dear Joke

Dear Joke — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:29:24 +0000

if for fashion thingie go for iPod.
as for today iPod got lots of clone types.

if for great sound quality and lots of features go for iRiver.

By: BizToolbelt

BizToolbelt — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:07:43 +0000

iRiver S10 may beat iPod shuffle?…

Apple releases the new iPod shuffle while iRiver releases the S10, an ultra small screen-more digital music player that can for some weird reason display pictures in BMP format. Nonetheless, the S10 is sized up against the iPod shuffle giving……

By: markku

markku — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:08:37 +0000

Wow, ogg vorbis on such a small device. I’ll take the iRiver.

By: imroanne

imroanne — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:42:56 +0000

err, i vote for iPod nano than shuffle coz shuffle’s too small, and nano’s cuter. but, if i were to choose bet iRiver and iPod shuffle, i choose iRiver. but given iRiver and nano as an option, i go for nano. haha, so much for the nano lover.

By: imroanne

imroanne — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:41:20 +0000

err, i vote for iPod Nano. iPods are selling like hotcakes because they also have cool accessories, as what i’ve seen through Podzone, a UK based site that posts the trends on iPod accessories (even the weird ones :P). this supersedes the lame walkman and cd players… and obviates the need for an mp3 phone.

By: Cheeseter

Cheeseter — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:32:50 +0000

I prefer iRiver over iPod. I rather choose a feature rich device over the over glorified one. The one thing I just like about iPods is the capacity.

By: blogtimizer

blogtimizer — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:45:26 +0000

i still prefer the iPod.. wish i could buy one in the near future. haha

By: vance

vance — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:07:01 +0000

Hmm,,,, ishuffle it quite small hehe, but only 1 GB, so if your looking for higher capacity go with iriver.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:22:57 +0000

I agree, iRiver is indeed impressive.