iPod Shuffle Sales Surge 50 Percent, But Why?

[JMcEntegart]

A post on AppleInsider today reports that iPod Shuffle sales have surged, increasing 50 percent in the week following the launch of the revamped model.

iPod Shuffle Sales Surge 50 Percent, But Why? : Read more

 

[p05esto]

people who buy ipods don't know any better and get scammed. there are so many, much cheaper mp3 players out there that get the job done just as well if not better. clueless consumers.

 

[thedipper]

Well, it's an Apple product in the area of budget.

Apple's iPod is marketed on people, both by Apple and consumers' peers, so an affordable, less capable iPod is sure to see a sales surge.

Why -this- model? Well, who knows.

 

[AdamB5000]

I can't find my gen1 shuffle. I just moved and I don't know where I put it, so I snagged a gen2 before they were all gone. I like the size and I like the functionality. I interface with yamipod on my pc instead of itunes.

Yeah, Sansa's little player appears to be nice, but it's a tad bulkier than the shuffle. I like how I can clip the shuffle to any garment of clothing during a run/workout and forget that it's there. I just set it to random and do my workout. Good stuff.

I don't like the new design. I don't want to rely on Apple's headphones. If they break I don't want to have to buy another set of $30+ earbuds. I also wish itunes wasn't so bulky. I'd like to see the Shuffle with "drag & drop" interface. But I guess Apple is like Sony - everything is proprietary. You buy their product, you use their software. Bleh.

Also, when is small too small? They're pushing the envelope of, "Hey, that's just too f*****g small!"

 

[OrderChaos]

A) People already have the bigger (i.e. touch, classic)
B) people want smaller one to workout with
C) People don't want to spend $50-70 for a 1 or 2 gb player,
D) People don't want to spend $150-200 on a second player. (i.e. nano)
E) when they look at the 4gb for $75 they see that as a 'deal'
F) People are morons who don't realize there are better players in the low end (i.e. less than $100) range of mp3 players.
G) People really are morons who don't realize that there are other mp3 players aside from ipods. People think they need an ipod because it is the only one that works.

I don't like the new shuffle and think it is a bland design and to quote AdamB5000 it is "just too f*****g small!"

ok aside from my rant, on a positive note, this means people are spending money to stimulate the economy.

 

[mpasternak]

DOES this include older generation shuffle which are still available on store in the 1gb variety?

I know 4 people who, upon the announcement of the new shuffle, went out and bought the old one. they had been putting off their purchase hoping for a larger capacity version or some feature upgrade and with the new release, decided they needed to buy the old one before stock dissapeared

 

[Guest]

Because there is finnaly a product that Apple can't make smaller.

 

[necro1783]

[citation][nom]Braxton[/nom]Because there is finnaly a product that Apple can't make smaller.[/citation]

wanna bet?

 

[Guest]

The lack of colours is part of Apple's business plan. The first generation of their product will come out in 1 or 2 colours, then next year they'll release the exact same product, but in oooOOOOOOOHHH! a few new colours!!!! They stay top-of-mind that way, as it looks like they're constantly refreshing their models every year. Year 3 they'll add maybe a new option or 2 & even more colours. Year 4 They'll have a whole new design & start the process over again.

 

[daft]

so what if the sales rose 51%. that only means that 15 people bought it instead of the first 10 the original week.

 

[tayb]

Sales rose but probably not because of the new shuffle but because of the old shuffle. Stores are discounting the old shuffle, sometimes significantly, to clear stock for the new shuffle.

When you compare the two products the last gen shuffle is CLEARLY the better device but I wonder if this increase is due to a bunch of idiots buying a god-awful MP3 player or people snatching up deals on the old one.

 

[ctbaars]

what's the best mp3 player then? if not Apple.

 

[JimmiG]

I don't get iPods, at least not the smaller, low-capacity ones. I bought a no-name MP3 player which was available from 1GB to 8GB, comes with a proper screen, lots of functions, good sound quality, I can use any headphones etc. I can understand why someone would want something like an iPod Touch, because they've got some strong features and a good design going for them. But why pay more for a 4GB Shuffle than you do for a generic 8GB player with all those extra features?

 

[mpasternak]

[citation][nom]JimmiG[/nom]I don't get iPods, at least not the smaller, low-capacity ones. I bought a no-name MP3 player which was available from 1GB to 8GB, comes with a proper screen, lots of functions, good sound quality, I can use any headphones etc. I can understand why someone would want something like an iPod Touch, because they've got some strong features and a good design going for them. But why pay more for a 4GB Shuffle than you do for a generic 8GB player with all those extra features?[/citatione ]

The previous gen Shuffle was great for working out. Especially jogging or biking. you don't need a screen cause youn'll almost never need it. You just need small. and clipped somewhere easy to access to change the song or volume.

This new shuffle fails on that. the earbuds themselves aren't very good for jogging with as they bounce out of your ears (most buds do). And since you can't replace them with other earphones, you're stuck.

 

[KyleSTL]

In Apple's defense AAC sounds much better at a given bitrate than MP3. That is definitely the top reason I would buy another iPod next time (I have a 40GB Gen 3 which cost $500 in 2004).

 

[Scooder]

The previous gen Shuffle was great for working out. Especially jogging or biking. you don't need a screen cause youn'll almost never need it. You just need small. and clipped somewhere easy to access to change the song or volume.

Also, because the average person doesn't like to spend 15 minutes researching what they buy, and instead go off pure hype. There are plenty of name brand, light MP3 players within 10 grams of the Shuffle's weight for almost half the cost. Which aren't stuck using Apple software. Which can be used with any set of headphones.

Apple is the king of marketing.

 

[neodude007]

I think people like the size of it and how much it holds, and they are buying it for running or going on vacation or something because those seasons are approaching quickly.

 

[DXRick]

OK, so for those (like me) that are clueless about the MP3 player market, what are the better cheap players????

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]Scooder[/nom]Also, because the average person doesn't like to spend 15 minutes researching what they buy, and instead go off pure hype. There are plenty of name brand, light MP3 players within 10 grams of the Shuffle's weight for almost half the cost. Which aren't stuck using Apple software. Which can be used with any set of headphones.Apple is the king of marketing.[/citation]

Let's see them then. The shuffle I own cost me $30 for 2GB. Sure it is green and not my color of choice but oh well beggers can't be choosers.

No way in hell I would buy the new shuffle but the old one is the best mp3 player at working out that I have found. If there are "plenty" of other ones I'd like to see them.

 

[ravenware]

I guess small unmanageable music players are popular.

I have never liked the shuffles. The Creative Zen Nanos were smaller than the original shuffles but had an lcd to view and manage tracks.