"Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is."
Of course there is. There are laws specifically prohibiting certain kinds of speech. Free speech does not entitle you to say anything you like.
"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.
Don't know where you get that idea nor where you get the idea that I consider free speech a "privilege". I'm not here to defend Dan Rather nor Bill O'Reilly nor Ann Coulter nor any other pseudo-journalistic lying assholes. Nevertheless, there is no first amendment right to knowingly lie in order to damage another person. When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, kind of like what we have here on/. regarding anyone who posts comments against the feelings of the majority. Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post.
I didn't see that, but my father said that the monkey is definitely alive and screaming while it's brain is being eaten. Apparently, sadism is quite the appetizer for some in that culture.
What surprises me is the whitewashing of the practice. Looking into it today, I read that the monkey is killed first (not true) and the practice is unlikely to exist at all (don't believe that either). It may well be illegal but then so is cock fighting in Indonesia, yet last time I was there there was no shortage of people offering to take tourists to see it and the events were protected by local police. When you go to a resturant and see a hole in the center of the table there is no question what it's for. I've seen it myself and I've asked about it.
When you see a rhino in the wild (like that's possible any more) it makes you sick to think that people would kill such a magnificent animal to saw off a little piece of hardened hair from its head. Same for an elephant or even a shark. There's no shortage of sick fucks in this world and if you want to see examples of willful, meaningless slaughter of animals, look no further than the east asian cultures.
Who says it will be amateur journalism? Journalism is "the style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation." http://www.answers.com/journalism&r=67
Anyone who reads/. knows that the direct presentation of facts is rarely the goal. I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that. Until recently, lack of journalistic integrity was a risk to one's career. This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process.
So you have contempt for these "poseurs" who desire to emulate the arrogant, elitist attitudes of mac users as you describe; mac users who are now too mainstream to be elitist enough for you? Where do you "come from" and what is your next, non-conformist elite platform? Hopefully one that can automatically correct street-slang misspellings.
I think you'll have a hard time finding a platform that's still optimized for 9" screens, lacks protected memory and preemptive multitasking, and is still burdened with a one-button mouse. Congrats if you find one and can crawl off in a corner and feel superior.
"Given the price differential between a new Apple and the projected incremental cost of a Vista capable there is no longer any disadvantage in going Mac."
Of course there is. There's a million of them and they're all the PC apps people have that don't run on a mac. Then there's personal preference (which only mac people think is entirely in favor of the mac) not to mention that no one is obligated to upgrade to Vista. Just what is the "projected incremental cost" of Vista compatible hardware anyway? The machines I own are all capable of running it already. I thought that macs weren't more expensive?
Apple won't be developing that tool in any case (at least not one that works as you say).
These same nations that eat, or at least use to, live monkey brains served complete with the screaming monkey strapped to the table?
While it may be generally illegal now, my father personally witnessed it in Singapore in the late 70's and you can still see tables with holes in the center for that purpose. Compared to your East Asian nations, I'd say my culture is pretty much guilt-free.
All yours are stale arguments as well. Force the PC to compare to the mac configuration (an impossible task), place premium value on every difference no matter how slight, then the factor in the subjective value of software differences (that can't be resolved) in favor of the mac and the mac wins every time. It's a fact that if you want to run OS X then mac is your only choice. That doesn't make the mac cheaper.
In this particular example, Apple people will argue that the mini's size is a critical factor yet they won't place any value whatsoever on the superior 3.5" drive or the expandability of the somewhat larger PCs that are compared. They argue that iLife is somehow distinguishing in spite of the fact that the only consistently useful iLife app is free for Windows as well. When all else fails, they argue that no operating system other than OS X is worth having. Why argue at all?
When I priced the Dell 1505 my result was $1523 (+20 for bluetooth). Same memory, hard drive, and video memory, the Dell has an x1400 (not x1300 as you say) and the fastest proc is 2.16GHz not 2.33. In it's favor is a superior 1680x1050 screen that Apple does not offer. Not all features will be identical but that doesn't mean that every difference is inherently in favor of Apple.
All these always come down to the fact that PC's can be configured cheaper, there are always differences that can't be factored out, and Apple people always claim the differences are proof that the Apple product is better. There's no limit to the closed-mindedness of Apple fans nor any end to the arguments they perpetuate about macs being cheaper and better than PCs nor any line they won't cross to misrepresent PC pricing/configurations to prove their fallacies true. How anyone can come up with $2600 for a an equivalent Dell is beyond me.
I think Apple's done a good job making iPods increasingly appealing but field failure rates could improve.
I imagine Zune's/URGE's DRM will get cracked over time but I don't really know. I'm not familiar with the restrictions either. DRM'ed music really is a non-starter for me so I don't own any.
I know the second sentence refers to the first. The mistake is in your misunderstanding of the word "identifying".
Here's the whole quote:
"1725 teenage and adult US residents were asked whether they planned to buy an MP3 player in the next 12 months. Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners and 59% of those who owned other brands said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
Furthermore, here is you incorrect statement:
"58% of those buying an mp3 player in the next year are iPod owners. This shows that the market of potential buyers is split between iPod owners and non-owners."
The quote does not say "Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identify themselves as existing iPod owners...", it says "identifying". Big difference. Furthermore, the market is not split into two groups as you say, it is split into three. The third group isn't discussed and we don't know the distribution among the three groups. The 58% does not describe the distribution of the groups, it describes the feelings among the current iPod owners.
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners... said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
58% of of those who intend to buy in the next 12 months and "identifying" as iPod owners are somewhat likely (or more) to choose a Zune. Note that this does NOT say that 58% of future purchasers currently own an iPod. It's right there in plain English.
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so,... 59% of those who owned other brands said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
59% of of those who intend to buy in the next 12 months and identifying as owners of other brands are somewhat likely (or more) to choose a Zune. Pretty much the same percentage resulting in the conclusion regarding brand loyalty.
I seriously don't get how you misunderstand this. The relevant stats are 58& of iPod owners, 59% of other owners. The 15%/85% is an unrelated statistic. We don't know the mix of new buyers, existing iPod owners, and existing owners of other brands.
"That conclusion has already been shown to be biased by the survey's poor methodology."
No it hasn't. There are people here who claim it has. That's all.
"Comparing a paper description of Microsoft's player to other real-world players is yet another example of the survey's poor methodology."
The survey didn't do that so it's not an example of poor methodology. Furthermore, no examples of poor methodology have been proven so it's not "yet another example". Nice try.
"This whole thing smacks of a typical Microsoft attempt to create a positive buzz for a product relsase."
Whatever. Sure is an odd way to do that. If Apple were to do it they'd just have a pep rally and fabricate numbers showing their machines are faster than everyone else's. Shameless promotion is nothing new.
"I don't think the survey is necessarily bad at describing what kind of interest there will be in the zune when it comes out, but i do think it isnt a good survey for determining brand loyalty among ipod owners."
I agree completely. I don't think the survey was being presented as a measure of brand loyalty though. All it demonstrated was that iPod owners were not any more closed to the idea of considering Zune than owners of other brands.
As I said in another thread, this survey was not about iPod brand loyalty, it was about the willingness of near-future buyers to consider the Zune. Brand loyalty was brought up in the conclusions.
One of the missing pieces of information was how soon existing owners were considering replacing their players. If the typical iPod owner is replacing his after 3 years while other brands want replacements after 6 months, that says something. Also, if 100% of one brand considers replacement, that says a lot too. We just don't know. All we know from the survey is that iPod owners are just as likely to consider Zune as owners of other brands.
My takeaway from that is that buyers intend to be objective (as they should be) and that vendor lockin isn't on their mind. The results are a good thing and I'm not saying that because I love Microsoft. I think many buyers will still buy iPods on merit alone but I want iPods to compete on merit and not on monopoly, image, or lack of competition.
STFU dickhead. That point had been well established already and any effort to follow the comments will show that I'm the one making that argument, not misunderstanding it.
"The fact that they don't tell you how many responses that they threw out is a flaw in the reporting methodology."
A flaw in the reporting perhaps, but not a flaw in the methodology unless they ended up with insufficient samples.
"This says *nothing* about the brand-loyalty of the people who responded to the survey saying they prefer Ben & Jerry's. Why?"
Because your example is so poorly formed? It is in no way comparable to the actual survey.
"If you want a brand-loyalty survey..."
They didn't want a brand loyalty survey!!! That was the/. article's error. The survey was specifically of those who were considering a purchase in the next 12 months. The conclusion was that brand loyalty wasn't a factor in their next purchase. RTFA.
"Given the numbers reported in the article, they could have surveyd 17xx people, and thrown out all but 50 of the responses because only 50 people they surveyed were in the market for a new DAP in the next 12 months. Probably not, but we don't know, because they don't tell us how many people were left after they culled the sample."
Is that your best Ann Coulter impression? For all we know, they're planning to divorce their husbands, too.
Is the claim that some iPod owners aren't brand-loyal reason enough to assume corruption? You seem to think so because you expect there to be complete data in a one paragraph summary and the lack of it is evidence of taint. Companies that are paid to do surveys know how to do them even if their results are intended to be misleading. Just because they haven't provided their credentials in the summary doesn't mean they're waging a smear campaign against Apple either.
Yes, and it specifically says that it won't count you. The reason for that is that you won't be considering ANY mp3 player over the coming year so your loyalty or your willingness to consider Zune doesn't matter. You aren't buying so you don't count.
Every owner of a current player that's not considering replacing it is equally loyal to their current brand, so I don't know why you should be considered special. The moment you offer up the money in your wallet again, Apple and Microsoft will be interested in your opinion again.
This is the quote that seems to annoy people from the article:
""Our conclusion," says principal analyst Steve Wilson, "is that iPod users don't display the same passionate loyalty to iPods that Macintosh users have historically shown for their Apple products." Only 15% of iPod owners said they were "not very likely" or "not at all likely" to choose Zune."
Of course they didn't substantiate their claims of mac loyalty in the article, but who would argue that mac users aren't loyal? Furthermore, such relative lack of loyalty shouldn't come as any surprise since the typical iPod owner doesn't use a mac, he uses Windows, and Windows-using iPod owners are less likely to exhibit Apply loyalty than all-Apple ones.
This article is simply about a poll that suggests that new buyers are willing to consider a Zune, nothing more. What's interesting is all the people who view it as an Apple insult.
"This survey is apparently not about iPod satisfaction, it is about the market of potential buyers, and whether that market is likely to buy a Zune."
Yes, that's exactly right. Manufacturers aren't trying to earn the business of those not in the market.
"58% of those buying an mp3 player in the next year are iPod owners."
You have also misread the article. Here I've quoted it and removed the clause causing the confusion:
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners... said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
58% of iPod owners are at least somewhat likely to choose a Zune over another brand. That is contrasted with 59% for owners of other players, so brand loyalty is not a factor in future purchase decisions.
"I don't really see why you felt the need to flame me over my post."
Because you flamed the article and you were entirely mistaken.
"People who are planning to buy a new mp3 player in the next year are not a representative sample of mac users or even the market in general."
1) mac users aren't of concern, all users are. 2) anyone not buying a player soon doesn't matter. They are sticking with what they have. 3) the people surveyed were clearly described.
"...you're removing a lot of customers who exhibit brand loyalty just because they don't see a need to replace their ipod over the next 12 months."
100% of those are brand-loyal by definition, so including them would taint the results and they have no impact on the 12-month market by definition. 100% of those owning iPod competitors that aren't buying replacements are similarly "brand-loyal".
"The typical consumer does not have a functional 300-500$ mp3 player AND the desire to replace it within the next year."
Any facts to back that claim up?
"(bullshit made-up data)...From this the study would conclude that 60% of users are "disloyal" to the ipod brand, which is clearly not representative."
Wrong again. Not only have you not provided enough data regarding existing players for those in the market, you've stated the conclusion incorrectly. The survey is "of those who will buy in the next 12 months". Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
"Bottom line, if you're going to talk brand loyalty with respect to ipods..."
You sure talk like an expert for someone who has basic reading comprehension problems.
"The study is conducted on a subset of their sample based on rules that do not produce a group of people that is representative of anything, and they don't even give us the numbers involved."
Wrong, it produces numbers representitive of the group that manufacturers are interested in, i.e. those who will buy product, and it provides numbers for those. No one cares about buyers who aren't buying.
"As I said before, the methodology is shoddy."
Yeah, well I didn't expect you to learn anything.
"Here's a TOTALLY WILD IDEA for a study. Why don't you survey people who own mp3 players and ask them if they'd buy another mp3 player from the same manufacturer?"
Because I have no financial or personal interest in the result nor do I have any difficulty understanding what was presented. Those issues are all yours apparently.
It sure didn't seem like a slam dunk to me. The article was totally clear on that.
I would think that any iPod-owning mac user wouldn't consider a Zune since OS X won't be supported. Of course, OS X users constitute a minority of iPod owners and you would expect them to be among the more loyal buyers.
"...if it played movies I downloaded off the internet, had 50 hours of battery life, a 100gb drive and cost $80."
And even then many mac fans would refuse to acknowledge it's superiority. Don't forget that it would have to be nano sized and have a 7" viewing screen.
"If ipod owners are not loyal, why haven't there been any mass defections to any of the previous ipod killers?"
The survey says nothing about how loyalty played a part in past buying decisions and it says nothing about product merit. Perhaps previous customers WERE loyal or perhaps pervious competitors weren't good enough. The survey says nothing about these things.
"The fact of the matter is, the market is growing, and apple's share is probably growing as well."
The article didn't suggest otherwise. In fact, it supports your claim that mp3 player buyers intend to base their decision on merit. That's exactly how it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is."
/. regarding anyone who posts comments against the feelings of the majority. Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post.
Of course there is. There are laws specifically prohibiting certain kinds of speech. Free speech does not entitle you to say anything you like.
"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.
Don't know where you get that idea nor where you get the idea that I consider free speech a "privilege". I'm not here to defend Dan Rather nor Bill O'Reilly nor Ann Coulter nor any other pseudo-journalistic lying assholes. Nevertheless, there is no first amendment right to knowingly lie in order to damage another person. When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, kind of like what we have here on
I didn't see that, but my father said that the monkey is definitely alive and screaming while it's brain is being eaten. Apparently, sadism is quite the appetizer for some in that culture.
What surprises me is the whitewashing of the practice. Looking into it today, I read that the monkey is killed first (not true) and the practice is unlikely to exist at all (don't believe that either). It may well be illegal but then so is cock fighting in Indonesia, yet last time I was there there was no shortage of people offering to take tourists to see it and the events were protected by local police. When you go to a resturant and see a hole in the center of the table there is no question what it's for. I've seen it myself and I've asked about it.
When you see a rhino in the wild (like that's possible any more) it makes you sick to think that people would kill such a magnificent animal to saw off a little piece of hardened hair from its head. Same for an elephant or even a shark. There's no shortage of sick fucks in this world and if you want to see examples of willful, meaningless slaughter of animals, look no further than the east asian cultures.
Who says it will be amateur journalism? Journalism is "the style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation." http://www.answers.com/journalism&r=67
/. knows that the direct presentation of facts is rarely the goal. I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that. Until recently, lack of journalistic integrity was a risk to one's career. This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process.
Anyone who reads
Only in the sense that arguing with any mac lover is nonsensical. There is no making sense to a fanatic.
So you have contempt for these "poseurs" who desire to emulate the arrogant, elitist attitudes of mac users as you describe; mac users who are now too mainstream to be elitist enough for you? Where do you "come from" and what is your next, non-conformist elite platform? Hopefully one that can automatically correct street-slang misspellings.
I think you'll have a hard time finding a platform that's still optimized for 9" screens, lacks protected memory and preemptive multitasking, and is still burdened with a one-button mouse. Congrats if you find one and can crawl off in a corner and feel superior.
"Given the price differential between a new Apple and the projected incremental cost of a Vista capable there is no longer any disadvantage in going Mac."
Of course there is. There's a million of them and they're all the PC apps people have that don't run on a mac. Then there's personal preference (which only mac people think is entirely in favor of the mac) not to mention that no one is obligated to upgrade to Vista. Just what is the "projected incremental cost" of Vista compatible hardware anyway? The machines I own are all capable of running it already. I thought that macs weren't more expensive?
Apple won't be developing that tool in any case (at least not one that works as you say).
These same nations that eat, or at least use to, live monkey brains served complete with the screaming monkey strapped to the table?
While it may be generally illegal now, my father personally witnessed it in Singapore in the late 70's and you can still see tables with holes in the center for that purpose. Compared to your East Asian nations, I'd say my culture is pretty much guilt-free.
Oh yeah, there's that one too. Nevermind that the argument was that it didn't cost more. *shrug*
All yours are stale arguments as well. Force the PC to compare to the mac configuration (an impossible task), place premium value on every difference no matter how slight, then the factor in the subjective value of software differences (that can't be resolved) in favor of the mac and the mac wins every time. It's a fact that if you want to run OS X then mac is your only choice. That doesn't make the mac cheaper.
In this particular example, Apple people will argue that the mini's size is a critical factor yet they won't place any value whatsoever on the superior 3.5" drive or the expandability of the somewhat larger PCs that are compared. They argue that iLife is somehow distinguishing in spite of the fact that the only consistently useful iLife app is free for Windows as well. When all else fails, they argue that no operating system other than OS X is worth having. Why argue at all?
When I priced the Dell 1505 my result was $1523 (+20 for bluetooth). Same memory, hard drive, and video memory, the Dell has an x1400 (not x1300 as you say) and the fastest proc is 2.16GHz not 2.33. In it's favor is a superior 1680x1050 screen that Apple does not offer. Not all features will be identical but that doesn't mean that every difference is inherently in favor of Apple.
All these always come down to the fact that PC's can be configured cheaper, there are always differences that can't be factored out, and Apple people always claim the differences are proof that the Apple product is better. There's no limit to the closed-mindedness of Apple fans nor any end to the arguments they perpetuate about macs being cheaper and better than PCs nor any line they won't cross to misrepresent PC pricing/configurations to prove their fallacies true. How anyone can come up with $2600 for a an equivalent Dell is beyond me.
I think Apple's done a good job making iPods increasingly appealing but field failure rates could improve.
I imagine Zune's/URGE's DRM will get cracked over time but I don't really know. I'm not familiar with the restrictions either. DRM'ed music really is a non-starter for me so I don't own any.
I know the second sentence refers to the first. The mistake is in your misunderstanding of the word "identifying".
... said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
... 59% of those who owned other brands said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
Here's the whole quote:
"1725 teenage and adult US residents were asked whether they planned to buy an MP3 player in the next 12 months. Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners and 59% of those who owned other brands said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
Furthermore, here is you incorrect statement:
"58% of those buying an mp3 player in the next year are iPod owners. This shows that the market of potential buyers is split between iPod owners and non-owners."
The quote does not say "Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identify themselves as existing iPod owners...", it says "identifying". Big difference. Furthermore, the market is not split into two groups as you say, it is split into three. The third group isn't discussed and we don't know the distribution among the three groups. The 58% does not describe the distribution of the groups, it describes the feelings among the current iPod owners.
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners
58% of of those who intend to buy in the next 12 months and "identifying" as iPod owners are somewhat likely (or more) to choose a Zune. Note that this does NOT say that 58% of future purchasers currently own an iPod. It's right there in plain English.
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so,
59% of of those who intend to buy in the next 12 months and identifying as owners of other brands are somewhat likely (or more) to choose a Zune. Pretty much the same percentage resulting in the conclusion regarding brand loyalty.
I seriously don't get how you misunderstand this. The relevant stats are 58& of iPod owners, 59% of other owners. The 15%/85% is an unrelated statistic. We don't know the mix of new buyers, existing iPod owners, and existing owners of other brands.
"That conclusion has already been shown to be biased by the survey's poor methodology."
No it hasn't. There are people here who claim it has. That's all.
"Comparing a paper description of Microsoft's player to other real-world players is yet another example of the survey's poor methodology."
The survey didn't do that so it's not an example of poor methodology. Furthermore, no examples of poor methodology have been proven so it's not "yet another example". Nice try.
"This whole thing smacks of a typical Microsoft attempt to create a positive buzz for a product relsase."
Whatever. Sure is an odd way to do that. If Apple were to do it they'd just have a pep rally and fabricate numbers showing their machines are faster than everyone else's. Shameless promotion is nothing new.
"I don't think the survey is necessarily bad at describing what kind of interest there will be in the zune when it comes out, but i do think it isnt a good survey for determining brand loyalty among ipod owners."
I agree completely. I don't think the survey was being presented as a measure of brand loyalty though. All it demonstrated was that iPod owners were not any more closed to the idea of considering Zune than owners of other brands.
As I said in another thread, this survey was not about iPod brand loyalty, it was about the willingness of near-future buyers to consider the Zune. Brand loyalty was brought up in the conclusions.
One of the missing pieces of information was how soon existing owners were considering replacing their players. If the typical iPod owner is replacing his after 3 years while other brands want replacements after 6 months, that says something. Also, if 100% of one brand considers replacement, that says a lot too. We just don't know. All we know from the survey is that iPod owners are just as likely to consider Zune as owners of other brands.
My takeaway from that is that buyers intend to be objective (as they should be) and that vendor lockin isn't on their mind. The results are a good thing and I'm not saying that because I love Microsoft. I think many buyers will still buy iPods on merit alone but I want iPods to compete on merit and not on monopoly, image, or lack of competition.
STFU dickhead. That point had been well established already and any effort to follow the comments will show that I'm the one making that argument, not misunderstanding it.
"The fact that they don't tell you how many responses that they threw out is a flaw in the reporting methodology."
/. article's error. The survey was specifically of those who were considering a purchase in the next 12 months. The conclusion was that brand loyalty wasn't a factor in their next purchase. RTFA.
A flaw in the reporting perhaps, but not a flaw in the methodology unless they ended up with insufficient samples.
"This says *nothing* about the brand-loyalty of the people who responded to the survey saying they prefer Ben & Jerry's. Why?"
Because your example is so poorly formed? It is in no way comparable to the actual survey.
"If you want a brand-loyalty survey..."
They didn't want a brand loyalty survey!!! That was the
"Given the numbers reported in the article, they could have surveyd 17xx people, and thrown out all but 50 of the responses because only 50 people they surveyed were in the market for a new DAP in the next 12 months. Probably not, but we don't know, because they don't tell us how many people were left after they culled the sample."
Is that your best Ann Coulter impression? For all we know, they're planning to divorce their husbands, too.
Is the claim that some iPod owners aren't brand-loyal reason enough to assume corruption? You seem to think so because you expect there to be complete data in a one paragraph summary and the lack of it is evidence of taint. Companies that are paid to do surveys know how to do them even if their results are intended to be misleading. Just because they haven't provided their credentials in the summary doesn't mean they're waging a smear campaign against Apple either.
Yes, and it specifically says that it won't count you. The reason for that is that you won't be considering ANY mp3 player over the coming year so your loyalty or your willingness to consider Zune doesn't matter. You aren't buying so you don't count.
Every owner of a current player that's not considering replacing it is equally loyal to their current brand, so I don't know why you should be considered special. The moment you offer up the money in your wallet again, Apple and Microsoft will be interested in your opinion again.
This is the quote that seems to annoy people from the article:
""Our conclusion," says principal analyst Steve Wilson, "is that iPod users don't display the same passionate loyalty to iPods that Macintosh users have historically shown for their Apple products." Only 15% of iPod owners said they were "not very likely" or "not at all likely" to choose Zune."
Of course they didn't substantiate their claims of mac loyalty in the article, but who would argue that mac users aren't loyal? Furthermore, such relative lack of loyalty shouldn't come as any surprise since the typical iPod owner doesn't use a mac, he uses Windows, and Windows-using iPod owners are less likely to exhibit Apply loyalty than all-Apple ones.
This article is simply about a poll that suggests that new buyers are willing to consider a Zune, nothing more. What's interesting is all the people who view it as an Apple insult.
"This survey is apparently not about iPod satisfaction, it is about the market of potential buyers, and whether that market is likely to buy a Zune."
... said they would be "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to choose a Microsoft Zune player over an iPod or another brand of MP3 player."
Yes, that's exactly right. Manufacturers aren't trying to earn the business of those not in the market.
"58% of those buying an mp3 player in the next year are iPod owners."
You have also misread the article. Here I've quoted it and removed the clause causing the confusion:
"Of those responding that they were likely to do so, 58% of those identifying themselves as existing iPod owners
58% of iPod owners are at least somewhat likely to choose a Zune over another brand. That is contrasted with 59% for owners of other players, so brand loyalty is not a factor in future purchase decisions.
"I don't really see why you felt the need to flame me over my post."
Because you flamed the article and you were entirely mistaken.
"People who are planning to buy a new mp3 player in the next year are not a representative sample of mac users or even the market in general."
1) mac users aren't of concern, all users are.
2) anyone not buying a player soon doesn't matter. They are sticking with what they have.
3) the people surveyed were clearly described.
"...you're removing a lot of customers who exhibit brand loyalty just because they don't see a need to replace their ipod over the next 12 months."
100% of those are brand-loyal by definition, so including them would taint the results and they have no impact on the 12-month market by definition. 100% of those owning iPod competitors that aren't buying replacements are similarly "brand-loyal".
"The typical consumer does not have a functional 300-500$ mp3 player AND the desire to replace it within the next year."
Any facts to back that claim up?
"(bullshit made-up data)...From this the study would conclude that 60% of users are "disloyal" to the ipod brand, which is clearly not representative."
Wrong again. Not only have you not provided enough data regarding existing players for those in the market, you've stated the conclusion incorrectly. The survey is "of those who will buy in the next 12 months". Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
"Bottom line, if you're going to talk brand loyalty with respect to ipods..."
You sure talk like an expert for someone who has basic reading comprehension problems.
"The study is conducted on a subset of their sample based on rules that do not produce a group of people that is representative of anything, and they don't even give us the numbers involved."
Wrong, it produces numbers representitive of the group that manufacturers are interested in, i.e. those who will buy product, and it provides numbers for those. No one cares about buyers who aren't buying.
"As I said before, the methodology is shoddy."
Yeah, well I didn't expect you to learn anything.
"Here's a TOTALLY WILD IDEA for a study. Why don't you survey people who own mp3 players and ask them if they'd buy another mp3 player from the same manufacturer?"
Because I have no financial or personal interest in the result nor do I have any difficulty understanding what was presented. Those issues are all yours apparently.
"This is far from the slam dunk that it seems."
It sure didn't seem like a slam dunk to me. The article was totally clear on that.
I would think that any iPod-owning mac user wouldn't consider a Zune since OS X won't be supported. Of course, OS X users constitute a minority of iPod owners and you would expect them to be among the more loyal buyers.
"...if it played movies I downloaded off the internet, had 50 hours of battery life, a 100gb drive and cost $80."
And even then many mac fans would refuse to acknowledge it's superiority. Don't forget that it would have to be nano sized and have a 7" viewing screen.
"The main reasons are iTunes integration, portability, has has a cool brand name and is fricking gorgeous."
Those aren't features? The Zune isn't portable? "iPod nano" is a cool brand name" WMP integration doesn't count?
The Nano is compelling because it is beautiful and is functional for many buyers. Frankly it's the first iPod I *really* wanted.
The main features the Zune has over the iPod are the larger screen and the WiFi. Those advantages will be hard to translate down to the Nano level.
"I just don't see MS having that sort of product pipeline."
Apple didn't originally either. In fact, Apple didn't even support the Windows platform originally.
The big difference is that Apple didn't have a formidable competitor as it grew its marketshare. Perhaps it still doesn't but Zune sure does.
Finally a comment worth modding up.
"If ipod owners are not loyal, why haven't there been any mass defections to any of the previous ipod killers?"
The survey says nothing about how loyalty played a part in past buying decisions and it says nothing about product merit. Perhaps previous customers WERE loyal or perhaps pervious competitors weren't good enough. The survey says nothing about these things.
"The fact of the matter is, the market is growing, and apple's share is probably growing as well."
The article didn't suggest otherwise. In fact, it supports your claim that mp3 player buyers intend to base their decision on merit. That's exactly how it should be.