edit: found one. This was so much easier. cause you could visually tell when something was shuffled or not. hopefully apple will sue them so they will change it back to the old way.
It isn't the same color, doesn't have the same layout, doesn't have a scroll wheel, and isn't as thin as an ipod. So how is it coping it? cause it actually looks good? ( lol I know I am going to get denied for that, but I think it looks good )
Why the heck do you think that i am comparing iPod and Zune?
I am strictly refering to the two stores.
Though I never would compare an Apple device to an MS device.
i was making the point that its a direct rip-off from itunes, not that they should use the old one lol.
I know but I just wanted to mention that the new buttons ( while probably familiar to those that use itunes ) doesn't look good on the wmp11 interface. It used to be visually changed if it was in shuffle mode, now it just glows a strange hue of blue. ( looks horrible )
which I guess just goes to show that MS shouldn't copy people, because they aren't very good at it.
I absorb dribbles of different things like a sponge so when I talk about them it seems like I know a lot about the subject. Useful when bullsh*ting my way into jobs but not so good when I have to learn up fast to actually do the job.
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
1. Interesting. Strong indication that Zune will possibly skim a little off Apple (in terms of stealing a bit of iPod sales... but Apple iPod marketshare worldwide would still increase anyway), and looks like Zune will mostly squeeze out iRiver, Samsung, SanDisk and Creative. DIE CREATIVE!! DIE ALREADY!!!!!!
2. Apple's worldwide mp3 player marketshare 49% for 2006??? Wow, we'll see when the final numbers are compiled, but the 2006 pie chart will be interesting to check out. I read the In-Stat link (http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=1649) the article is dated May 1, 2006 and says "recent research" shows 49% (I'm assuming that's worldwide the way the article is written)... We'll see the final figure. It could be 55% or more(!) worldwide for 2006 when the final data is compiled. Particularly with iPod nano sexyback and swallow-able iPod shuffle. (I think for the iPod shuffle the stickers "Do not steal music" have been replaced with "Do not eat iPod".
1. Interesting. Strong indication that Zune will possibly erode a little of Apple, but mostly squeeze out iRiver, Samsung, SanDisk and Creative. DIE CREATIVE!! DIE ALREADY!!!!!!
2. Apple's worldwide mp3 player marketshare 49% for 2006??? Wow, we'll see when the final numbers are compiled, but the 2006 pie chart will be interesting to check out.
I hope they do supply another chart, from whereever they got it from.
I'm subscribed to several invester newsletters that have info like this, but I can't post it. It's tough therefore, to always come up with those numbers, so I get into arguments. AI, and others, have to step up to the plate on this.
I hope they do supply another chart, from whereever they got it from.
I'm subscribed to several invester newsletters that have info like this, but I can't post it. It's tough therefore, to always come up with those numbers, so I get into arguments. AI, and others, have to step up to the plate on this.
That's cool, when you're duking it out with others, not only is it fun to watch, but public data like you posted somehow gets trawled and brought to the surface.
But screw your newsletter policies, just post the info from them! I guess it's a big breach of your subscription agreement though \
That's cool, when you're duking it out with others, not only is it fun to watch, but public data like you posted somehow gets trawled and brought to the surface.
But screw your newsletter policies, just post the info from them! I guess it's a big breach of your subscription agreement though \
Unfortunately, yes. You can't just post data that you agreed to not make public.
The problem with the internet is that according to an article (that I don't remember the name of), more than 66% of all pages on the internet are in private databases not reachable by any search engine.
In that case, you need to have the actual address. In many cases, once data on a page that has been "expired", it is in one of those databases. You "might" be able to access it by typing the address, but usually once it been relegated to that status, a password is needed.
I'm sure that all of us have been in the situation where we read an article that we didn't think to bookmark, that was useful in some discussion days, weeks, or even months later. If others are like me , they won't always remember the name of the article, who wrote it, or even on what site they read it.
Then good luck finding it again! Sometimes I spend hours looking for something that just seems buried. Sometimes I find other articles that are "sorta, kinda" ok, but leave things open to interpretation, so I don't like to use them.
It can be frustrating. Sometimes I don't even bother to post because I know I can't find the info I need to back up what I'm saying.
I absorb dribbles of different things like a sponge so when I talk about them it seems like I know a lot about the subject. Useful when bullsh*ting my way into jobs but not so good when I have to learn up fast to actually do the job.
Unfortunately, Apple got rid of that footnote on the new shuffle page, I think because there aren't all those "pack of chewing gum" references anymore.
Comments
edit: found one. This was so much easier. cause you could visually tell when something was shuffled or not. hopefully apple will sue them so they will change it back to the old way.
http://flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif
You need to learn to use Flickr
You need to learn to use Flickr
oops I copied the picture instead of link... (noob)
WMP11 Beta 1
Heh, you http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noob ...!!!
yer i no what that means, i just ent a computer geek, i just show a passing interest. i do have other things in life to do, unlike some...
yeah I don't know why they changed it. I liked the old shuffle and repeat buttons better.
i was making the point that its a direct rip-off from itunes, not that they should use the old one lol.
you do realize that creative sells more mp3 players than apple sells ipods right?
they are the most popular mp3 brand in asia.
You do realise that you are wrong?
http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=1649
Notice that 49% is a worldwide figure.
EDIT: add this.
http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/08/...tive/index.php
Notice Creatives total sales figures. for the quarter. This includes mp3 players, audio boards, speakers, accessories, etc.
Digital music players and their accessories are 65% of that total. Then go look at Apple's numbers for the ipod.
Why are people saying it is an ipod-ripoff?
It isn't the same color, doesn't have the same layout, doesn't have a scroll wheel, and isn't as thin as an ipod. So how is it coping it? cause it actually looks good? ( lol I know I am going to get denied for that, but I think it looks good )
Why the heck do you think that i am comparing iPod and Zune?
I am strictly refering to the two stores.
Though I never would compare an Apple device to an MS device.
You do realise that you are wrong?
http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=1649
Notice that 49% is a worldwide figure.
EDIT: add this.
http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/08/...tive/index.php
Notice Creatives total sales figures. for the quarter. This includes mp3 players, audio boards, speakers, accessories, etc.
Digital music players and their accessories are 65% of that total. Then go look at Apple's numbers for the ipod.
I'm sorry I guess I stand corrected.
Thanks for the info.
i was making the point that its a direct rip-off from itunes, not that they should use the old one lol.
I know but I just wanted to mention that the new buttons ( while probably familiar to those that use itunes ) doesn't look good on the wmp11 interface. It used to be visually changed if it was in shuffle mode, now it just glows a strange hue of blue. ( looks horrible )
which I guess just goes to show that MS shouldn't copy people, because they aren't very good at it.
yer i no what that means, i just ent a computer geek, i just show a passing interest. i do have other things in live to do, unlike some...
Typical n00b excuses.
Look, I didn't really learn about ROFL until maybe a year+ ago
And I don't know WTF is up with myspace, youtube, and all that exhibitionism.
I'm caught in the middle - semigeek, I would say. Somewhere between
n00b and 1337 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet)
I absorb dribbles of different things like a sponge so when I talk about them it seems like I know a lot about the subject. Useful when bullsh*ting my way into jobs but not so good when I have to learn up fast to actually do the job.
yer i no what that means, i just ent a computer geek, i just show a passing interest. i do have other things in live to do, unlike some...
Yeah, like working on learning how to write English properly.
Yeah, like working on learning how to write English properly.
ouch...owned!
I'm sorry I guess I stand corrected.
Thanks for the info.
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1770
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1770
sweet a pie chart, I can handle that.8)
evidently my source was completely wrong. (sueing cnet for making me look like an idiot
Thanks for the info, I am linking that for future reference.
Hi Woody. I'm not trying to rub this in, but I spent almost two hours looking for this article earlier, before I posted to you, but I couldn't find it.
Now that I was looking for something completely different, it popped up!
I figured I should post it. These numbers are from 2005, a year before, so take Apple's number given (26%), and change it to the newer number from this year (49%).
The rest of the numbers can then be changed accordingly, though SanDisks can be increased to about 6%.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1770
1. Interesting. Strong indication that Zune will possibly skim a little off Apple (in terms of stealing a bit of iPod sales... but Apple iPod marketshare worldwide would still increase anyway), and looks like Zune will mostly squeeze out iRiver, Samsung, SanDisk and Creative. DIE CREATIVE!! DIE ALREADY!!!!!!
2. Apple's worldwide mp3 player marketshare 49% for 2006??? Wow, we'll see when the final numbers are compiled, but the 2006 pie chart will be interesting to check out. I read the In-Stat link (http://www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID=1649) the article is dated May 1, 2006 and says "recent research" shows 49% (I'm assuming that's worldwide the way the article is written)... We'll see the final figure. It could be 55% or more(!) worldwide for 2006 when the final data is compiled. Particularly with iPod nano sexyback and swallow-able iPod shuffle. (I think for the iPod shuffle the stickers "Do not steal music" have been replaced with "Do not eat iPod".
1. Interesting. Strong indication that Zune will possibly erode a little of Apple, but mostly squeeze out iRiver, Samsung, SanDisk and Creative. DIE CREATIVE!! DIE ALREADY!!!!!!
2. Apple's worldwide mp3 player marketshare 49% for 2006??? Wow, we'll see when the final numbers are compiled, but the 2006 pie chart will be interesting to check out.
I hope they do supply another chart, from whereever they got it from.
I'm subscribed to several invester newsletters that have info like this, but I can't post it. It's tough therefore, to always come up with those numbers, so I get into arguments. AI, and others, have to step up to the plate on this.
I hope they do supply another chart, from whereever they got it from.
I'm subscribed to several invester newsletters that have info like this, but I can't post it. It's tough therefore, to always come up with those numbers, so I get into arguments. AI, and others, have to step up to the plate on this.
That's cool, when you're duking it out with others, not only is it fun to watch, but public data like you posted somehow gets trawled and brought to the surface.
But screw your newsletter policies, just post the info from them! I guess it's a big breach of your subscription agreement though
That's cool, when you're duking it out with others, not only is it fun to watch, but public data like you posted somehow gets trawled and brought to the surface.
But screw your newsletter policies, just post the info from them! I guess it's a big breach of your subscription agreement though
Unfortunately, yes. You can't just post data that you agreed to not make public.
The problem with the internet is that according to an article (that I don't remember the name of), more than 66% of all pages on the internet are in private databases not reachable by any search engine.
In that case, you need to have the actual address. In many cases, once data on a page that has been "expired", it is in one of those databases. You "might" be able to access it by typing the address, but usually once it been relegated to that status, a password is needed.
I'm sure that all of us have been in the situation where we read an article that we didn't think to bookmark, that was useful in some discussion days, weeks, or even months later. If others are like me
Then good luck finding it again! Sometimes I spend hours looking for something that just seems buried. Sometimes I find other articles that are "sorta, kinda" ok, but leave things open to interpretation, so I don't like to use them.
It can be frustrating. Sometimes I don't even bother to post because I know I can't find the info I need to back up what I'm saying.
Typical n00b excuses.
...
I absorb dribbles of different things like a sponge so when I talk about them it seems like I know a lot about the subject. Useful when bullsh*ting my way into jobs but not so good when I have to learn up fast to actually do the job.
I like this aproach.
swallow-able iPod shuffle. (I think for the iPod shuffle the stickers "Do not steal music" have been replaced with "Do not eat iPod".
This brings to mind one of my favorite AtAT scenes ever.
Unfortunately, Apple got rid of that footnote on the new shuffle page, I think because there aren't all those "pack of chewing gum" references anymore.