j26
Nov 29, 06:26 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
addicted44
Mar 26, 12:13 AM
I still don't know what people want on these forums. I am SUBSTANTIALLY more excited about Lion than I was about Leopard or Snow Leopard. I don't care about more eye candy. Versions, autosave and resume are all great features and more importantly they're features non-techies will appreciate even more.
Merging server is damn cool, Mission Control and the improvements to Spaces both look very compelling and I like the interface changes.
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
Merging server is damn cool, Mission Control and the improvements to Spaces both look very compelling and I like the interface changes.
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
LagunaSol
Mar 23, 09:28 AM
It's telling that a discussion about RIM's and Samsung's tablet devices devolve into a battle over the English language and the proper positioning of the pinky finger while drinking tea.
My hunch is these "iPad Killer" devices will get similar attention from the typical consumer (Zzzz....) while the iPad continues to snowball into an iPod-like phenomenon. ;)
My hunch is these "iPad Killer" devices will get similar attention from the typical consumer (Zzzz....) while the iPad continues to snowball into an iPod-like phenomenon. ;)
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:53 PM
We'll like a previous post said, they must release serveral phones, because i'm sure they want all the market they can get.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
ergle2
Sep 20, 02:23 PM
...except that he's a she...a demi-goddess.
She certainly has the attitude of one.
Frequent updates are a good thing. I would not want to stop the march of progress just so I could personally feel better about a little money I spent.
The only real downside I see is that Intel Macs are unlikely to hold their value anywhere near as well as the PPC line did due to the quicker changes we'll see now.
I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.
She certainly has the attitude of one.
Frequent updates are a good thing. I would not want to stop the march of progress just so I could personally feel better about a little money I spent.
The only real downside I see is that Intel Macs are unlikely to hold their value anywhere near as well as the PPC line did due to the quicker changes we'll see now.
I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.
KnightWRX
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
double.
dvswede
Mar 26, 11:48 AM
I'm curious to see what Lion will bring. While the current OS looks great I would like to see a user interface update. The only thing higher on the list then that is a iTunes break up into more manageable pieces. iTunes was the reason I stayed away from apple for several years. I didn't like it's look/performance/stability and bulk. I still don't even if I have accepted it now. It's the one program that seem to crash more then adobe SW (ok not more then but still).
.jpg "Kids+edrooms For oys")
stubeeef
Aug 7, 03:25 PM
Just got off the apple website and WOW, some is obviously eye candy, but I LIKE IT ALOT!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ichat.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ichat.html
savar
Sep 13, 07:14 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
macduke
Mar 25, 10:51 PM
So is there real resolution independence or just a x2 mode?
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
KnightWRX
Mar 22, 12:59 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
Coaches all over the world. You know, to replace their paper Playbooks. ;)
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
Coaches all over the world. You know, to replace their paper Playbooks. ;)
iMeowbot
Sep 19, 08:43 AM
All you people who keep whining about "But I want 64 bit!!!" need to step back and think about what possible benefit a 64-bit system will give you. Those of you who need to address more than 4 gigs of RAM are excused. The rest of you, tell me WHY you need 64-bit computing.
There is a general unease about the AMD64 instruction set. We are already seeing a few programs that only run on Intel Macs. What's to stop developers from ignoring the x86 target in new software, especially on the high end, given the short sales cycle of x86-only Macs? The Mac Pro didn't even have a 32-bit version.
There is a general unease about the AMD64 instruction set. We are already seeing a few programs that only run on Intel Macs. What's to stop developers from ignoring the x86 target in new software, especially on the high end, given the short sales cycle of x86-only Macs? The Mac Pro didn't even have a 32-bit version.
eeboarder
Jul 27, 02:29 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
geoffism
Aug 11, 10:22 AM
I don't care so much about the iPod capability, but I would like to see the result of a smartphone by Apple. I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of the Treos and Palms.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
Call me a sucker, but I'd like somehting that could do all the mundane, make my life easier, organization crap, and have it look cool as well. Oh, and not run on a crap OS.
Multimedia
Jul 28, 04:57 PM
I am a new Mac owner. I just bought my new 20 " iMac and I am learing aout the upcomming conference and possible new product releases. I
Would appreciate any thoughts on my question.
I am considering returning the new 20" I just bought in the 14 day period and taking the 10% hit and waitning to see if the iMac gets updated and I will repurchase. What is the likelyhood that the version I have will be updated. I would be bummed if I just bought it and I am at the end of a cycle. The $160 fee would actuallly be worth it to me to get thte latest. I would have to return it prior to the conference to stay within the 14 days but i may not want to loose out on lthe chance to get the latest.
Any thoughts on this 20 " model be increased with a new processor??
Thanks,
New Mac owner.....merk850
dont take it back.
I dont think that the difference will be that much, with the new systems.
If your happy with its performance then keep it.
A mild CPU boost isnt all that, and I doubt that the video cards will be upped that much.
I wouldnt take the hit in money lost, cause you can always sell it later down the line and get the lastest and greatest thats really a must buy.I respectfully disagree. I say take it back and be ready for a much faster iMac Core 2 Duo. You want the latest, take it back. It won't be the latest for many more weeks. Core 2 Duo will be the latest for two more years.
Would appreciate any thoughts on my question.
I am considering returning the new 20" I just bought in the 14 day period and taking the 10% hit and waitning to see if the iMac gets updated and I will repurchase. What is the likelyhood that the version I have will be updated. I would be bummed if I just bought it and I am at the end of a cycle. The $160 fee would actuallly be worth it to me to get thte latest. I would have to return it prior to the conference to stay within the 14 days but i may not want to loose out on lthe chance to get the latest.
Any thoughts on this 20 " model be increased with a new processor??
Thanks,
New Mac owner.....merk850
dont take it back.
I dont think that the difference will be that much, with the new systems.
If your happy with its performance then keep it.
A mild CPU boost isnt all that, and I doubt that the video cards will be upped that much.
I wouldnt take the hit in money lost, cause you can always sell it later down the line and get the lastest and greatest thats really a must buy.I respectfully disagree. I say take it back and be ready for a much faster iMac Core 2 Duo. You want the latest, take it back. It won't be the latest for many more weeks. Core 2 Duo will be the latest for two more years.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:22 AM
It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.
Absolutely...that's what's so impressive about the results for some of these non-universal apps. Just wait until the universal CS3 is available...the Mac Pro will destroy the Quad G5.
Absolutely...that's what's so impressive about the results for some of these non-universal apps. Just wait until the universal CS3 is available...the Mac Pro will destroy the Quad G5.
three
Dec 9, 03:28 AM
Anyone else have trouble leveling up your B-Spec driver? Mine really sucks and can't even finish the FF race in whatever car he drives.
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Well if I'm wrong about the information, then I don't think anyone will argue about the fact that the Palm OS has been around since 1996, and the Apple iPhone uses a similar interface..
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3721/palmiiicwcradle.jpg
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3721/palmiiicwcradle.jpg
steve_hill4
Jul 27, 02:13 PM
What difference does it make if virtually no consumer software is effected by 64-bit processors, even now?
Remember that the G5 is 64 bit. While the consumer apps may not be too directly affected at first, (speed increases, but nothing else), as more memory is required, 32 bit will hit a brick wall at 4GiB, whereas 64 bit can go along happily to 2,305,843,009,200,000,000GiB.
Realistically, it will take some time to get to that level, but with the last G5 supporting 16GiB, 32 then 64 wouldn't be too far off. within 10 years, I'm sure 1TiB will start to become common.
Remember that the G5 is 64 bit. While the consumer apps may not be too directly affected at first, (speed increases, but nothing else), as more memory is required, 32 bit will hit a brick wall at 4GiB, whereas 64 bit can go along happily to 2,305,843,009,200,000,000GiB.
Realistically, it will take some time to get to that level, but with the last G5 supporting 16GiB, 32 then 64 wouldn't be too far off. within 10 years, I'm sure 1TiB will start to become common.
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:50 AM
He's also the guy that headed up Adobe Premiere. Sure, the iMovie revamp wasn't a high point but the guy laid the foundations for two of the three most popular NLE's so he can't be all bad. ;)
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
k995
Mar 23, 04:13 AM
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
adamfilip
Jul 20, 11:48 AM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
