Number of HD radios sold

[dbdigital]

Denon is offering a line of home stereo receivers that are "XM-Ready". And in a perversely funny twist they are referring to it as "XM-HD".

There's nothing "perversely funny" about it. Two of XM's channels ARE offered in HD (surround sound): 76 ("Fine Tuning") and 113 ("XM Pops"). Home receivers capable of reproducing those two channels in 5.1 surround went on the market last spring.

So why not simply call it "XM-Surround". The use of the HD abbreviation is an obvious attempt to stir the pot of confusion in the minds of the public as to what really is HD Radio.

Not that I have a problem with XM or Sirius using "HD" in describing their products. After all, iBiquity started the whole bogus trend and they certainly don't have a lock on using the letters "HD". To me it's just an amusing marketing 'war of words or letters' with the consumer caught in the middle.

db

 

[clouseau]

But, according to clouseau, no one uses Google to search the Internet (thus, voiding Google Trends), but read the newspaper and magazines, to get their information, instead !

As usual, this is complete garbage. My point was and continues to be that Google trends is not representative of the general population. You know that's what I've said and you continue to avoid the issue and now make stuff up. There are many many people who search the internet with Google. So what? They are not a representative samople of the general population. No amount of reposting the Google trends link makes it any more valid. Neither does fabricating falsehoods about what I said.

 

[700WLW]

But, according to clouseau, no one uses Google to search the Internet (thus, voiding Google Trends), but read the newspaper and magazines, to get their information, instead !

As usual, this is complete garbage. My point was and continues to be that Google trends is not representative of the general population. You know that's what I've said and you continue to avoid the issue and now make stuff up. There are many many people who search the internet with Google. So what? They are not a representative samople of the general population. No amount of reposting the Google trends link makes it any more valid. Neither does fabricating falsehoods about what I said.

It is a non-random, unbiased sampling of the general population, in any specified region - you are just upset, that this tool can be used, to check consumers' on-going apathy towards HD Radio. From the anemic sales of HD radios, to the explosive growth of iPods and MP3s, is accurately reflected on Google Trends. You are not going, to be able, to discredit this tool.

 

[700WLW]

But, according to clouseau, no one uses Google to search the Internet (thus, voiding Google Trends), but read the newspaper and magazines, to get their information, instead !

As usual, this is complete garbage. My point was and continues to be that Google trends is not representative of the general population. You know that's what I've said and you continue to avoid the issue and now make stuff up. There are many many people who search the internet with Google. So what? They are not a representative samople of the general population. No amount of reposting the Google trends link makes it any more valid. Neither does fabricating falsehoods about what I said.

There was a special segment, on WRC Channel 4 News Washington, D.C tonight, on the iPod - demand is so great ("exploding"), that companies producing supporting accessories, are working 18-hour days to keep up with demand. Evidentually, tens-of-millions of iHome units have been sold, in the past 15 months:

http://www.google.com/trends?q="hd+radio",+podcast,+sirius,+ipod,+mp3

No, doubt !

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The use of the HD abbreviation is an obvious attempt to stir the pot of confusion in the minds of the public as to what really is HD Radio.

It is, in fact, no such thing. XM was using "HD" long before the term "HD Radio" existed.

 

[clouseau]

It is a non-random, unbiased sampling of the general population, in any specified region

1) We agree. It's not random. If it were random it might mean something. It shows a trend among internet searchers. It can not possibly show trends by people not using the internet. Even you would have to agree to this I would think.

That's a minimum of over 30% of the population according to your figures. I would suspect these people would not be representative of the "Has the net" population. For Instanve...

Do these people have Ipods? I suppose you could own an IPOD and not have internet, but I doubt it.

Do these people own cars? I would imagine so. Almost everyone owns a car.

Do these people live in caves and not interact with everyone else? Not likely, they represent almost one in three people in the US according to your numbers.

One in three aren't even "ON" the internet. You agree THEY aren't counted.

How about Jane Average. She's 38. Has a couple of teen aged kids so her fammily has AOL dial up. The kids visit a webpage here and there for school. She doesn't like them on the internet because whe thinks it's a place where her kids can get into trouble with Child Molestors. She and her Husband don't see the point in the whole thing. They are counted as a net user, but don't ever think of using a seach engine like Google. (They think Engines break down and cost money, just like the one in the car.) Do they have money? Yes enough to get by and spend a little. Are they rich? - NO (But they don't count either and they are still counted in the 2 out of 3 that has the net)

My point was is and continues to be that "Net Users" is not "Cross section of the population."

This point has bee demonstrated at great length. You may continue to cite these trends as indicative of the real world and mislabel them as reality. However I will no longer continue to waste my time showing you the falacy of your conclusions. If you contonue to post garbage, then you will have garbage. I can't be any clearer.

you are just upset, that this tool can be used, to check consumers' on-going apathy towards HD Radio.

I'm not the least bit upset. Frankly you are demonstrating something a lot more telling than HD radio sales when you claim this to be meaningful data and misrepresent it as "proof".

From the anemic sales of HD radios, to the explosive growth of iPods and MP3s, is accurately reflected on Google Trends. You are not going, to be able, to discredit this tool.

Again you avoid the point. I'm not discrediting the tool. I'm discrediting your misapplication of what you think it says.

Clouseau

 

[700WLW]

It is a non-random, unbiased sampling of the general population, in any specified region

1) We agree. It's not random. If it were random it might mean something. It shows a trend among internet searchers. It can not possibly show trends by people not using the internet. Even you would have to agree to this I would think.

That's a minimum of over 30% of the population according to your figures. I would suspect these people would not be representative of the "Has the net" population. For Instanve...

Do these people have Ipods? I suppose you could own an IPOD and not have internet, but I doubt it.

Do these people own cars? I would imagine so. Almost everyone owns a car.

Do these people live in caves and not interact with everyone else? Not likely, they represent almost one in three people in the US according to your numbers.

One in three aren't even "ON" the internet. You agree THEY aren't counted.

How about Jane Average. She's 38. Has a couple of teen aged kids so her fammily has AOL dial up. The kids visit a webpage here and there for school. She doesn't like them on the internet because whe thinks it's a place where her kids can get into trouble with Child Molestors. She and her Husband don't see the point in the whole thing. They are counted as a net user, but don't ever think of using a seach engine like Google. (They think Engines break down and cost money, just like the one in the car.) Do they have money? Yes enough to get by and spend a little. Are they rich? - NO (But they don't count either and they are still counted in the 2 out of 3 that has the net)

My point was is and continues to be that "Net Users" is not "Cross section of the population."

This point has bee demonstrated at great length. You may continue to cite these trends as indicative of the real world and mislabel them as reality. However I will no longer continue to waste my time showing you the falacy of your conclusions. If you contonue to post garbage, then you will have garbage. I can't be any clearer.

you are just upset, that this tool can be used, to check consumers' on-going apathy towards HD Radio.

I'm not the least bit upset. Frankly you are demonstrating something a lot more telling than HD radio sales when you claim this to be meaningful data and misrepresent it as "proof".

From the anemic sales of HD radios, to the explosive growth of iPods and MP3s, is accurately reflected on Google Trends. You are not going, to be able, to discredit this tool.

Again you avoid the point. I'm not discrediting the tool. I'm discrediting your misapplication of what you think it says.

Clouseau

Stretch this meaningless argument out far enough, and the original subject of the thread is lost, under all your B.S. 55% of the US has broadband Internet access, and of course, a percentage has dialup. Nice try, but Google Trends is representative of consumer trends, like-it-or-not:

"What kind of digital radio are listeners searching for?"

"What a cool analysis Google now provides via Google Trends. It's what folks are searching for - and we can assume that search is a representation of interest."

http://www.hear2.com/2006/10/what_kind_of_di.html

 

[vsa]

Clouseau opined: "How about Jane Average. She's 38. Has a couple of teen aged kids so her fammily has AOL dial up. The kids visit a webpage here and there for school. She doesn't like them on the internet because whe thinks it's a place where her kids can get into trouble with Child Molestors. She and her Husband don't see the point in the whole thing. They are counted as a net user, but don't ever think of using a seach engine like Google. (They think Engines break down and cost money, just like the one in the car.)..."

Your condescending opinion of Jane Average, her husband and her children helps to explain why you think there is a bright future for HD radio.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Visa said:

Your condescending opinion of Jane Average, her husband and her children helps to explain why you think there is a bright future for HD radio.

I just wanted to add a few words:

Your condescending (self serving, erroneous) opinion of Jane Average, her husband and her children helps to explain why you think there is a bright future for HD radio.

FMeXtra, the only FCC fully approved digital broadcasting system, that generates no air pollution, or greenhouse gasses (odious deception).
www.dreinc.com

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

How about Jane Average. She's 38. Has a couple of teen aged kids so her fammily has AOL dial up. The kids visit a webpage here and there for school. She doesn't like them on the internet because whe thinks it's a place where her kids can get into trouble with Child Molestors. She and her Husband don't see the point in the whole thing. They are counted as a net user, but don't ever think of using a seach engine like Google. (They think Engines break down and cost money, just like the one in the car.) Do they have money? Yes enough to get by and spend a little. Are they rich? - NO (But they don't count either and they are still counted in the 2 out of 3 that has the net)

Not only condescending, but just plain WRONG on so many counts. I actually know many parents of that age. AOL dial-up? ROFLMAO!!!!!! Parents with teens have high-speed, and the parents know perfectly well that the school and the library have it too, so they can put all the controls they want onto the home computers and it won't mean squat. They know perfectly well what Google is (after all, they have teenagers in the house). They aren't rich, but they don't have to be. High-speed Internet is as much a part of the average family as 2 cars, 4 TV sets and taking the kids in the minivan to soccer practice is. Parents in their mid- to late-30s are quite possibly telecommuters, and use computers at the office as well as at home. They are used to being early adopters of new tech. That's how they grew up.

And BTW, the current figure is 3 out of 4 US households with some sort of Internet access.