wnurse
Aug 26, 07:04 PM
Let's make it clear. The first revision of any highly integrated system is produced with an acceptable failure rate. With results coming in, failures recorded and internal testing continuous between the life of the first and second revision you will see a drop in failures in the next revision.
Every item that is in the next revision will have been tested, more flaws removed, etc. No piece of hardware is released with zero defects. [human interference aside such as dropping the product, overheating it, intentionally forcing failure]
If for every 1000 systems shipped approximately 20 fail, after a minimum predicted total hours, this 2% attrition rate is highly desirable. If you can't accept it you can stop using technology, now.
For every ten people bitching on this board about failures there is over 1,000 that don't.
I agree.. did you read what he was replying to?. The guy he was replying to detailed how he had a horrible time getting apple to pay attention to him. His reply seemed like he was blaming the guy for buying apple revision A product instead of faulting apple support for jerking this guy around.
Read what he was responding to, i think you will agree his response was ridiculous.
Every item that is in the next revision will have been tested, more flaws removed, etc. No piece of hardware is released with zero defects. [human interference aside such as dropping the product, overheating it, intentionally forcing failure]
If for every 1000 systems shipped approximately 20 fail, after a minimum predicted total hours, this 2% attrition rate is highly desirable. If you can't accept it you can stop using technology, now.
For every ten people bitching on this board about failures there is over 1,000 that don't.
I agree.. did you read what he was replying to?. The guy he was replying to detailed how he had a horrible time getting apple to pay attention to him. His reply seemed like he was blaming the guy for buying apple revision A product instead of faulting apple support for jerking this guy around.
Read what he was responding to, i think you will agree his response was ridiculous.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:17 PM
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)Me first! I'll do it!
Full of Win
Apr 11, 11:40 AM
If true, this means that Apple has raised the white flag and accepted the defeat that Android has given to them. Not caring about the power of the hardware relative to others in the marketplace is a hallmark of a niche ecosystem.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
Michael383
Apr 8, 04:41 AM
So no one is questionning this rumor at all ? We're just to accept as fact that "apparently" based on the sayings of "one guy who works at BB with pimples on his face says" ?
Before everyone jumps the gun and says "BB sucks! They deserve this!" can we at least get some kind of confirmation ? After all, they still advertise them on the web :.
With all the Best Buy bashing on this thread good luck.
Before everyone jumps the gun and says "BB sucks! They deserve this!" can we at least get some kind of confirmation ? After all, they still advertise them on the web :.
With all the Best Buy bashing on this thread good luck.
powers74
Apr 10, 08:26 PM
When this hits it's going to piss a lot of people off.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:32 PM
Because as we all know Costco is the leading reseller and indicator for technology products.
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
BGil
Aug 8, 04:32 AM
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago,
It's kinda unfair to say Microsoft just announced PreviousDocs/Shadow Copy "about a week ago" because it's been in every build for the last year.
Winsupersite on build 5219:
Windows Vista build 5219 also includes an integrated Shadow Copy client, which you manage from the Shadow Copies tab of the Properties dialog for your hard drive (Figure). This feature, which first originated in Windows Server lets you cache older versions of data files so that you can recover information in the event of an error. So if you overwrite a critical file, or inadvertently change part of a document, you can "go back in time" and access older versions.
Let's see how this works. First, you need to enable Shadow Copies from the aforementioned dialog. Then, after you've mucked up a file, you can access its Properties dialog in Explorer and navigate to the Previous Versions pane (Figure). Here, you can select between various different versions of the document (and your time travel experience is complete). This is a great feature, and I'm glad to see it being added to the Windows client.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-26.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-25.jpg
That build was released in September of 2005.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5219.asp
Even before that Bob Muglia, who head the Longhorn Server project, said it would be integrated into NTFS.
MS also ships a shadow copy client for XP.
If anything, Apple has known about Previous Docs for over a year now.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago,
It's kinda unfair to say Microsoft just announced PreviousDocs/Shadow Copy "about a week ago" because it's been in every build for the last year.
Winsupersite on build 5219:
Windows Vista build 5219 also includes an integrated Shadow Copy client, which you manage from the Shadow Copies tab of the Properties dialog for your hard drive (Figure). This feature, which first originated in Windows Server lets you cache older versions of data files so that you can recover information in the event of an error. So if you overwrite a critical file, or inadvertently change part of a document, you can "go back in time" and access older versions.
Let's see how this works. First, you need to enable Shadow Copies from the aforementioned dialog. Then, after you've mucked up a file, you can access its Properties dialog in Explorer and navigate to the Previous Versions pane (Figure). Here, you can select between various different versions of the document (and your time travel experience is complete). This is a great feature, and I'm glad to see it being added to the Windows client.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-26.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista-5219-review-25.jpg
That build was released in September of 2005.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5219.asp
Even before that Bob Muglia, who head the Longhorn Server project, said it would be integrated into NTFS.
MS also ships a shadow copy client for XP.
If anything, Apple has known about Previous Docs for over a year now.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
wpotere
Apr 27, 12:59 PM
Would you call someone a moderate when he would leave a baby alone in a room to die after the baby had survived an abortion? Most people here already know that I'm against the stimulus and against "gay" rights. As for the stimulus packages, Ford just reported a profit, and that company refused the stimulus money. If a company is going to fail let it do that. Let it take responsibility for its own blunders. Don't let a codependent government rescue it.
You do realize that Bush started that right? As for Ford, their European division saved their butts and the jobs lost would have made the recession a lot worse. Yeah, good idea, let it all fail. Maybe we should let the government fail as well eh? They seem to be having monetary issues now.
You do realize that Bush started that right? As for Ford, their European division saved their butts and the jobs lost would have made the recession a lot worse. Yeah, good idea, let it all fail. Maybe we should let the government fail as well eh? They seem to be having monetary issues now.
noahtk
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
WE CAN ONLY HOPE!!! A price drop would be nice too.
cgc
Jul 21, 03:20 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:43 PM
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 28, 01:21 PM
However, in your case, as opposed to your fictional version, you have formed an opinion.
True enough, whatever Obama's virtues, I think that as a President of the United States, he's incompetent.
True enough, whatever Obama's virtues, I think that as a President of the United States, he's incompetent.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 12, 05:38 PM
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
shawnce
Jul 14, 11:20 PM
AARGH MY EARS!
Whoever came up with that abomination should be SHOT! UGH! they could have put together a nice little slideshow or whatever...but no, they had to make some stupid video with a horrible song i'll NEVER be able to get out of my head!
School House Rock - "Oh, I'm just a bill, a lonely old bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569494088/002-8458341-9463244?redirect=true)
Whoever came up with that abomination should be SHOT! UGH! they could have put together a nice little slideshow or whatever...but no, they had to make some stupid video with a horrible song i'll NEVER be able to get out of my head!
School House Rock - "Oh, I'm just a bill, a lonely old bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569494088/002-8458341-9463244?redirect=true)
obeygiant
Mar 17, 01:03 PM
Obeygiant, you have a way of distilling issues down to their core. The funny thing is, I don't think Lee even realizes he's doing it.
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
YoGramMamma
Apr 6, 03:02 AM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
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 internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
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..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
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..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
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.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. 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.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
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..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
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..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
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.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. 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.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
notjustjay
Sep 19, 10:57 AM
why does anyone need to justify to you why they want 64-bit computing?
My demanding you to give me a reason has about the same weight as all the people in this thread (and many others) demanding Apple provide them with the machine they think they needed yesterday.
My demanding you to give me a reason has about the same weight as all the people in this thread (and many others) demanding Apple provide them with the machine they think they needed yesterday.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 06:58 PM
Merom Already Shipping
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?
"...Otellini confirmed that quad-core isn't the only processor series moved up. The CEO confirmed Merom has been moved up and is already shipping to revenue, as was reported by HKEPC (English) several days ago. Intel's Tulsa processors for Xeon MP are also already shipping to revenue according to Otellini, but the availability of these processors has largely been overshadowed by yesterday's launch of Itanium 2 Montecito and the recent launch of Xeon DP Woodcrest.
Typically there is a two to three week lag between revenue shipments and retail availability, so expect to see many of these new "shipping to revenue" processors before the end of the month." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421)Wow, if true and Apple is ready with the new body, we might see the all new Mobile Pro Core 2 Duo Mac sooner than any of us expected. That would be great. :) Only 18 days until we find out. :D
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?
"...Otellini confirmed that quad-core isn't the only processor series moved up. The CEO confirmed Merom has been moved up and is already shipping to revenue, as was reported by HKEPC (English) several days ago. Intel's Tulsa processors for Xeon MP are also already shipping to revenue according to Otellini, but the availability of these processors has largely been overshadowed by yesterday's launch of Itanium 2 Montecito and the recent launch of Xeon DP Woodcrest.
Typically there is a two to three week lag between revenue shipments and retail availability, so expect to see many of these new "shipping to revenue" processors before the end of the month." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421)Wow, if true and Apple is ready with the new body, we might see the all new Mobile Pro Core 2 Duo Mac sooner than any of us expected. That would be great. :) Only 18 days until we find out. :D
CaptMurdock
Mar 22, 07:02 AM
Fox News, huh?
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
Bosunsfate
Aug 5, 04:52 PM
Here are some rumors I've heard, but don't feel like linking to. Check with Google if you want.
*BitTorrent - Integrated into Leopard as a core technology, much like Spotlight. Used in Software Update and a new version of Safari.
*iChat Phone - Call numbers through iChat as part of .Mac... I guess you could make a conference with a combination of multiple phone numbers/iChatters.
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I didn't check the details, yet, but the Maps and Phone aspects do sound interesting.
The only problem with the iChat Phone....you call through your computer. That's not really true VOIP, where you have an actual phone.......which could mean the OS really leads to a new product....:cool:
As for Maps....hmm...the part I can't see....all the people walking around with a MBP looking at a map....but....you are at coffee shop, checking on email, then need to see a map for some new spot....hmm. still sounds like a new widget...
Good thoughts though.:)
*BitTorrent - Integrated into Leopard as a core technology, much like Spotlight. Used in Software Update and a new version of Safari.
*iChat Phone - Call numbers through iChat as part of .Mac... I guess you could make a conference with a combination of multiple phone numbers/iChatters.
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I didn't check the details, yet, but the Maps and Phone aspects do sound interesting.
The only problem with the iChat Phone....you call through your computer. That's not really true VOIP, where you have an actual phone.......which could mean the OS really leads to a new product....:cool:
As for Maps....hmm...the part I can't see....all the people walking around with a MBP looking at a map....but....you are at coffee shop, checking on email, then need to see a map for some new spot....hmm. still sounds like a new widget...
Good thoughts though.:)
mcrain
Apr 27, 02:55 PM
Oh- and you're always objective. You are arguably one of the most abrasive and biased people here, and proud of it.
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
iliketyla
Apr 6, 01:53 PM
I don't really watch television at all, so I was just wondering if there are many commercials for tablets besides the iPad?
I can't recall ever seeing a Xoom commercial even in passing, although I have seen an iPad commercial.
I can't recall ever seeing a Xoom commercial even in passing, although I have seen an iPad commercial.