xStep
Apr 10, 11:35 PM
Everyone is pretty worried about this new overhaul because the guy who botched iMovie is the guy now in charge of FCP.
Uh, iMovie was botched?
Uh, iMovie was botched?
nilk
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
Once you have it, you don't want it without.
ps:I type fastttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
sent from swipe keyboard :D
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
ps:I type fastttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
sent from swipe keyboard :D
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
Shagrat
Jul 21, 12:28 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
5.
:(
5.
:(
steadysignal
Apr 8, 07:16 AM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
new information for me. did not know that BB sold :apple: product in the past. i had thought the store in a store thing was BBs first foray.
i don't understand why apple would have issues with BB - isn't more exposure good? or is this just a matter of any attention (good or bad) is good?
DrJohnnyN
Apr 8, 08:12 AM
Slick move, Best Buy.
claus1225
Mar 31, 05:48 PM
I used to have a friend who would spend days tweaking the LINUX OS code so that his browser would look super duper cool.
How many people like that do you know?
How many people like that do you know?
Machead III
Sep 19, 11:52 AM
lolol did you see Steve? He invented MacTop. new laptoP.
rofl. it is g5
rofl. it is g5
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.
maverick18x
Aug 5, 07:54 PM
im really hoping if there is a new ipod coming out they anounce it monday cause my b-day is in a week and ill might be able to get a new one and if they anounce a full screen ipod and can aford it ill get that or hope they drop the price in the curent ipods like maybe 199 for 30 gig and 299 60?;)
Read my lips: no new iPods!
Read my lips: no new iPods!
Vulpinemac
Apr 6, 03:22 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
macaddiict
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
money grubbers
I agree, Apple is pretty ridiculous at times.
That must be who you meant, since you clearly haven't had time to read the lawsuit yet.
Or do you think all lawsuits are 'money grubbers'?
I agree, Apple is pretty ridiculous at times.
That must be who you meant, since you clearly haven't had time to read the lawsuit yet.
Or do you think all lawsuits are 'money grubbers'?
Teddy's
Sep 19, 08:38 AM
News rumors: MR reports that new posts are going to appear in its website. Those include reports of angry individuals complaining about issues such as: my screen has white blobs, my (sony) battery exploded, I licked my magsafe and I got zapped!, my laptop is yellow, I found a piece of plastic surrounding the cpu fan, for god's sake! learn how to spell, we want Core 3 Duo new laptops now, Intel macs = apple's biggest mistake, my moo cow, my mbp whines... again, I am on my fifth MBP, I found a dead chinese cockroach inside the box, etc.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
outlawarth
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
Analysts can just shove it. Complete BS all over the place. So.. according to them, we're going to have OSX Lion, iOS5, iPhone5, new iPods AND iPad 3... ALL IN THE FALL?! Complete bull. Oh, and throw in macbook pro updates for the later part of the fall, as usual. Just think about that for a second.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
+1... Thank you.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
+1... Thank you.
Island Dog
Aug 25, 08:24 PM
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
Sydde
Mar 22, 12:50 AM
...the US's role will remain very limited. Like the Gulf War, we will let our Arab League allies be the first ones across the border, and give the security operations to the French and British.
This makes me want to go have lunch at the Cafe My Lai.
This makes me want to go have lunch at the Cafe My Lai.
mwswami
Jul 20, 11:56 AM
See http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 for comparison of Woodcrest, Opteron, and Ultrasparc T1.
Dual Woodcrest (4 threads) easily outperformed Ultrasparc T1 (32 threads). The power consumption of the dual 3.0GHz Woodcrest system came out to be 245W compared to 188W for the Sun T2000 with 8-core Ultrasparc T1. But, the metric that's most important is performance/watt and that's where Woodcrest came out as a clear winner.
Dual Woodcrest (4 threads) easily outperformed Ultrasparc T1 (32 threads). The power consumption of the dual 3.0GHz Woodcrest system came out to be 245W compared to 188W for the Sun T2000 with 8-core Ultrasparc T1. But, the metric that's most important is performance/watt and that's where Woodcrest came out as a clear winner.
Eduardo1971
Apr 6, 01:43 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
Some at MR asking for hearfelt advice?
My advice: sure; why not wait.
:D
Does this mean I should cancel my order on the 11" Mac Book Air 1.4GZ, I got it with 4GB ram and it's a refurb so I saved some cash. Should I wait until June.
Thanks in advance for your advise!!
Some at MR asking for hearfelt advice?
My advice: sure; why not wait.
:D
illegalprelude
Jul 15, 04:12 AM
Not a chance in the near future. Blu Ray and Sony are in utter shambles right now.
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
Full of Win
Apr 27, 08:44 AM
It doesn't keep a log of the "location" but which WiFi spots you have been on. Also, the database is not easily accessible. But really, don't complain if you enabled Location Services...
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
Andrew7724
Aug 6, 01:33 AM
yes, i DO NOT want to see a new design of the macbook pro. haahah :P
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
aswitcher
Aug 6, 01:41 AM
EVERYONE is missing something that MUST be updated A.S.A.P.!
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
I would hope for MIMO at least. Perhaps a Pre-N with flash upgrade possibilities for later when the standard is finalised.
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
I would hope for MIMO at least. Perhaps a Pre-N with flash upgrade possibilities for later when the standard is finalised.
justaregularjoe
Feb 28, 03:17 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
thebeans
Apr 27, 10:04 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
No comments:
Post a Comment