Tones2
Apr 19, 03:58 PM
Funny, I'm a Dallas Cowboy fan, the fans are fanatics and everyone who is not a Dallas fan HATES the Cowboys. I feel the same heat being an Apple fanatic. The fans are loyal and defending of the brand while every other tech fan hates us. I need a big white Apple logo with a blue Dallas Cowboy star in it. I might be shot!!!! lol
Dallas fans will criticize the Cowboys if they play poorly. Apple fanboys will not. It's not like being a fan, it's like being indoctrinated, with no real vested interest. It make no sense whatsover.
Dallas fans will criticize the Cowboys if they play poorly. Apple fanboys will not. It's not like being a fan, it's like being indoctrinated, with no real vested interest. It make no sense whatsover.
Sydde
Mar 19, 05:46 PM
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;) Yes I agree business is in charge colored by perceived economic end-results.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
radiohead14
Apr 19, 03:46 PM
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
AMEN! ...ahem.. I mean +1 :D
side note: it's silly that I have to state that I own a bunch of Apple computers/devices when I criticize Apple.. or else I'm in danger of being called a "troll".. I think that those who call others "trolls" are either immature, or have nothing to really add to the discussion.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
AMEN! ...ahem.. I mean +1 :D
side note: it's silly that I have to state that I own a bunch of Apple computers/devices when I criticize Apple.. or else I'm in danger of being called a "troll".. I think that those who call others "trolls" are either immature, or have nothing to really add to the discussion.
Dont Hurt Me
Jul 15, 09:30 AM
well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)Not really a mess but not anywhere near quicksilvers ease of use but still holds a ton of optical and a ton of hard drives. Apples Powermac G5 series are kind of pathetic in this respect.
Im still hoping apple throws away the radiator and go back to something Quicksilver like.
Im still hoping apple throws away the radiator and go back to something Quicksilver like.
SeaFox
Apr 8, 01:49 AM
Best Buy is now WORST BUY!!!!
2004 called. They want their joke back. :rolleyes:
I think it would be quite hilarious if Best Best lost their iPads and everyone had to go to ToysRUs instead. :D
2004 called. They want their joke back. :rolleyes:
I think it would be quite hilarious if Best Best lost their iPads and everyone had to go to ToysRUs instead. :D
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
GFLPraxis
Mar 31, 02:23 PM
John Gruber's take:
So here�s the Android bait-and-switch laid bare. Android was �open� only until it became popular and handset makers dependent upon it. Now that Google has the handset makers by the balls, Android is no longer open and Google starts asserting control.
Andy Rubin, Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt: shameless, lying hypocrites, all of them.
Can't say I disagree.
So here�s the Android bait-and-switch laid bare. Android was �open� only until it became popular and handset makers dependent upon it. Now that Google has the handset makers by the balls, Android is no longer open and Google starts asserting control.
Andy Rubin, Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt: shameless, lying hypocrites, all of them.
Can't say I disagree.
AppleFreak89
Jun 8, 07:55 PM
I kind of take offense to the statement that the radioshack employees can ruin your credit. truth is it is impossible..there is no way to touch your credit when running an activation. the used phone incident sounded like a mistake, hardly the norm. I've never heard of that happening. Radioshack is connected to the carries and in fact have their own representative for each carrier. Also, Radioshack offers a 30-day policy same as everywhere. Oh and the cell-phones sold at Walmart, target and Sam's club are owned by Radioshack BTW.
4God
Jul 14, 02:32 PM
If true, these definitely would be powerful machines, however for people like myself, the power and resulting price tag will be simply too much to justify. Leave the Xeons for the PowerMacs, but introduce some mini-tower machines with Conroe chips - they would fit nicely between the iMac and PowerMac. For me, the Mac mini isn't enough, the iMac is great, however non-upgradeable. I'd like something upgradeable, where I could replace/upgrade HDDs, optical drives, and most importantly the display - yet a PowerMac is overkill for my needs. It sure would be nice to see, but I doubt Apple will do it... :cool:
Well said, I agree with you. Apple, IMHO, needs an "inbetween" machine for upgradablity. This would shorten the gap between consmumer and prosumer.
Well said, I agree with you. Apple, IMHO, needs an "inbetween" machine for upgradablity. This would shorten the gap between consmumer and prosumer.
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:25 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
maclaptop
Apr 12, 07:51 AM
Maybe they need to wait in order to get 28/32nm A5 chips. No point in having an iPhone 5 with a 3 hour battery life
Or maybe their waiting while the new antenna engineers they hired try and convince Steve to leave them alone to do their job.
They want to put the antenna inside where it belongs.
Jobs ego can't handle it.
Or maybe their waiting while the new antenna engineers they hired try and convince Steve to leave them alone to do their job.
They want to put the antenna inside where it belongs.
Jobs ego can't handle it.
meghop
Aug 11, 01:10 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release a phone sold in their stores that would work on all networks? Or have several versions of the phone that will work for Verizon, Cingular...
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
God I hope this is true. I seriously hate that phones and networks are always tied together. I always end up paying more for an unlocked phone because i tend to buy a really nice phone and then keep it for 3-4 years instead of getting the free or super cheap phone from a different provider every year or so. I also hate the idea of being forced to switch to a certain provider to get a certain phone. I suppose someone somwhere will be selling unlocked iPhones on ebay when it comes out, and I'll just buy it that way, the way I did my last phone. Wish I could just walk into an Apple store and buy one, slap in my sim card, and be good to go though... :D
Burnsey
Apr 27, 11:00 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
If this birth certificate said that Obama wasn't born in the US they would be singing a different tune. Heck they would be singing a different tune given the tiniest most unlikely evidence that he wasn't born in the US.
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
If this birth certificate said that Obama wasn't born in the US they would be singing a different tune. Heck they would be singing a different tune given the tiniest most unlikely evidence that he wasn't born in the US.
jonnysods
Apr 8, 06:04 AM
Seems like a pretty big slap on the wrist. Wonder if this is true....
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 18, 10:37 PM
I hate how some people think the ~800 standard cars are going to look like GT4 cars. Obviously they wont, because even at half the poly density of the premium cars they would still look gorgeous.
Meh, haters gonna hate as the kids say.
I just hope the it has a 2008 cobalt in the game. My friend claims the focus is one of the worst cars ever made but he drives a cobalt :rolleyes: So i want to pit them against each other on a track.
Meh, haters gonna hate as the kids say.
I just hope the it has a 2008 cobalt in the game. My friend claims the focus is one of the worst cars ever made but he drives a cobalt :rolleyes: So i want to pit them against each other on a track.
severe
Jun 22, 01:00 AM
Yeah I thought about that... But I'd rather not go through the hassle of craigs list and eBay...
Just a suggestion. Don't blame ya. eBay is a disaster. And Craigs wasn't far off, with all the inquiries and little follow through. I let it go for less than I would have liked, just to be done with it.
Still glad I did.
Just a suggestion. Don't blame ya. eBay is a disaster. And Craigs wasn't far off, with all the inquiries and little follow through. I let it go for less than I would have liked, just to be done with it.
Still glad I did.
Chundles
Jul 20, 11:46 AM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.
I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.
diamornte
Apr 9, 02:23 AM
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
J
Final Cut jobs tend to pay less than Avid jobs.
J
Final Cut jobs tend to pay less than Avid jobs.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:59 AM
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
nightcap965
Apr 25, 02:27 PM
Lawsuits are filed against Apple every week. That's why they have their own legal department and engage powerful firms as outside counsel. Any idiot can file suit. Nothing to see here, move along.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
thunng8
Apr 7, 05:31 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
ohla313
Apr 6, 10:13 AM
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Super Dave
Aug 5, 09:16 PM
Thanks for the links, Dave! I found them both very informative, especially the one on Quartz 2 Extreme.
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
I have no inside information. I just read rumour and news sites� a lot! Although I use the pro Apps for a course I take, I'm not familiar enough with them to know their typical release schedule. For instance, iLife is once a year, whereas Adobe CS products are about every 18 months - 2 years. With Apple's Pro Apps I just don't know. Anyone?
David :cool:
Do you have any feel for when we will see a roll-out of the pro apps? I recall quite a bit of rumor-mongering just before the Intel announcement. Since then it has been rather silent. I thought the sudden drop in Quake might be a precursor to something fairly soon??
I have no inside information. I just read rumour and news sites� a lot! Although I use the pro Apps for a course I take, I'm not familiar enough with them to know their typical release schedule. For instance, iLife is once a year, whereas Adobe CS products are about every 18 months - 2 years. With Apple's Pro Apps I just don't know. Anyone?
David :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment