Last week, we discussed how the iPod Shuffle was the new radio. Its a straight forward thesis, hard to argue against.
Have a gander at a this meme making its rounds on the net — evincing even more evidence that the radio business model of playing music is fading:
Here’s a short list of blogs posting variations of Shuffle Play:
The Republic of T. gets props for being the earliest of these I’ve found — dating all the back to April 2, 2004. Scott’s Place gets special mention for having assembled at least 7 random shuffle collections (Kudos!).
If you know of any other shuffle play posts, please let me know, and I’ll add them to the list . . .
(listed bloggers feel free to trackback to this post).
Okay, let’s say you have 2500 songs. To simplify, let’s say that’s 10 songs per album for a total of 250 albums. And we’ll define "repeat" as "hearing a song from the same album you’ve already heard a song from". How often will you hear a repeat (by that definition)?
By the time you get to the 20th song, the odds of having heard at least one repeat by the same artists is an extremely surprising 76%!
I’d love to see that math verified . . .
UPDATE: January 24, 2005 6:30 am
Tobias Brandt weighs in on the subject of the Math of shuffle play
"I disagree with Prof. Booty’s analysis of the probability of getting a repeat album within 20 songs and my own analysis puts the odds at 54%. (See spreadsheet used to get the result). The spreadsheet also has the benefit of being able to account for excluding repeats of previous songs, a feature many media players have.
Prof Booty: Not sure what accounts for your mistake but generally speaking one can’t just sum probabilities and it’s best to look at things like this in terms of a probability tree diagram.
I wish I could get all my questions answered so quickly and succinctly!
UPDATE II: February 6, 2005 11:31 am
If you are curious how the Pod actually makes its shuffle decision, check out:
A Look Inside the iPod Shuffle
hat tip: iPoditude
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.