Markov
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
Do they? I thought they phased them out, along with most of the other electronic hobbyist items that they alone used to carry.
Some stores do, the one I work in does.
That's me!
Nearest Apple Store is 90 minutes away. Nearest Authorized AT&T store that would carry the iPhone is like 60. Radio shack is just 10 minutes.
I'm wondering though, what would be the advantages/disadvantages to buying it at Radio Shack vs AT&T vs The Apple Store? Once I have the item purchased, will I notice any sort of difference what-so-ever?
Cheers.
Uh... no. It's the same iPhone 4. Why would there be a difference?
I used to work at radioshack too and the resources there suck. Activation will take longer than usual and they can mess up your account/credit. I hated activating phones cause it was a hassle since we were not connected directly with carriers.
Wrong. They've changed that. We get to customers faster, upgrades typically take 5 minutes if ATT isn't slow or down.
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
Seriously? You mean, your not joking? Why should RadioShack die? The other stores need the competition. And why would you be against going to RadioShack?
Some stores do, the one I work in does.
That's me!
Nearest Apple Store is 90 minutes away. Nearest Authorized AT&T store that would carry the iPhone is like 60. Radio shack is just 10 minutes.
I'm wondering though, what would be the advantages/disadvantages to buying it at Radio Shack vs AT&T vs The Apple Store? Once I have the item purchased, will I notice any sort of difference what-so-ever?
Cheers.
Uh... no. It's the same iPhone 4. Why would there be a difference?
I used to work at radioshack too and the resources there suck. Activation will take longer than usual and they can mess up your account/credit. I hated activating phones cause it was a hassle since we were not connected directly with carriers.
Wrong. They've changed that. We get to customers faster, upgrades typically take 5 minutes if ATT isn't slow or down.
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
Seriously? You mean, your not joking? Why should RadioShack die? The other stores need the competition. And why would you be against going to RadioShack?
Tussen69
Aug 6, 09:39 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
macnews
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
I have been hoping for some time that Final Cut Server be integrated into Final Cut. Considering Lion Server is included with Lion, I'd say the chances are pretty high! Finally, some real asset management!
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
TennisandMusic
Apr 10, 12:31 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
No idea, but I just don't get those tactics. I mean, other than being ruthless business people. :p
Just show your stuff without having to strong arm...
No idea, but I just don't get those tactics. I mean, other than being ruthless business people. :p
Just show your stuff without having to strong arm...
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:32 PM
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
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 :)
macfan881
Aug 11, 12:29 AM
Just saw on the video preview for amazon.com that this will have the Top Gears track i thought that was pretty awesome cant wait for this to finally come out. Wasn't this game a original Launch game?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
oregonmac
Nov 29, 01:11 PM
see http://www.tunecore.com/
Universal is simply increasing the rate of their own demise. And why do they think artists find them necessary?
Universal is simply increasing the rate of their own demise. And why do they think artists find them necessary?
NT1440
Mar 23, 10:27 AM
Good for Samsung!
To the industry: THIS is the approach you take to new markets. Don't just come up with an answer to the original (iPad in this case), get you engineers engaged and push to define where the market will go, not where it currently is.
This is honestly the first tablet introduced by the industry that I feel is a competitor to the iPad.
That said, sales wise iPad will be king of the castle for quite some time. You can't really price the apple ecosystem, or beat the usability of iOS. iPad definitely has the mindshare, which is what you need in emerging markets. Take a look at the category definers Apple has introduced. Basically they set the standard for whatever market they are in (with exceptions for a few).
To the industry: THIS is the approach you take to new markets. Don't just come up with an answer to the original (iPad in this case), get you engineers engaged and push to define where the market will go, not where it currently is.
This is honestly the first tablet introduced by the industry that I feel is a competitor to the iPad.
That said, sales wise iPad will be king of the castle for quite some time. You can't really price the apple ecosystem, or beat the usability of iOS. iPad definitely has the mindshare, which is what you need in emerging markets. Take a look at the category definers Apple has introduced. Basically they set the standard for whatever market they are in (with exceptions for a few).
puuukeey
Nov 28, 10:39 PM
https://home.comcast.net/~puuukeey/evil2.gif
cjoy
Apr 25, 03:01 PM
Brings to mind:
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
statistics show that distribution of firearms mainly lead to more homocides and also suicides using firearms.
if guns are outlawed, their distribution is greatly limited, making it a lot harder for outlaws to obtain them.
the more you spread guns, the greater is the risk of them being used in illegal activities.
..oh wait... this forum is about apple and computers, right? :rolleyes:
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
statistics show that distribution of firearms mainly lead to more homocides and also suicides using firearms.
if guns are outlawed, their distribution is greatly limited, making it a lot harder for outlaws to obtain them.
the more you spread guns, the greater is the risk of them being used in illegal activities.
..oh wait... this forum is about apple and computers, right? :rolleyes:
GekkePrutser
Apr 6, 11:31 AM
There are with 18 Watts. Besides, wouldnt be the first time intel made special Cpus for Apple. So it isnt impossible an i3 even less than 18 special made for apple.
I think you mean the 380UM? But those aren't Sandy Bridge, they're Arrandales, and hopefully Apple won't go near them (they have left them alone so far even though they were already available at the time of the last update)
In Sandy Bridge there's only the i5/i7's mentioned already, and a celeron of 1.1 Ghz (called B847). That one's not even labeled i3. I really hope that one won't make it to the MBA. But even then there's only one so hopefully they'll offer an upgrade to i5/i7 in that case as the high-end CPU.
I think you mean the 380UM? But those aren't Sandy Bridge, they're Arrandales, and hopefully Apple won't go near them (they have left them alone so far even though they were already available at the time of the last update)
In Sandy Bridge there's only the i5/i7's mentioned already, and a celeron of 1.1 Ghz (called B847). That one's not even labeled i3. I really hope that one won't make it to the MBA. But even then there's only one so hopefully they'll offer an upgrade to i5/i7 in that case as the high-end CPU.
shawnce
Jul 20, 05:56 PM
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
Current PowerMacs have both of these... it supports ECC and has dual GigE
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
Current PowerMacs have both of these... it supports ECC and has dual GigE
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:14 PM
That's actually more than I expected.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
MikeD23nu
Apr 6, 06:26 PM
I just got my low end 13" MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM today too. Should I keep it?
Me too! It's killing me...don't know what to do.
Me too! It's killing me...don't know what to do.
8CoreWhore
Apr 10, 04:37 AM
As bad as it sounds for Apple to "boot out the others", Apple doesn't have the authority to do that. FCUG organizers chose to do it at Apple's request because they require the space and time. FCUG could have said no to Apple, but why would they? It's not a Canon Group, it's a FCU Group...
BC2009
Mar 22, 07:07 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Ummm.... why does every product have to be an "Apple iDevice Killer"? None have succeeded that yet, though many have been successful as competitors. The Apple jealousy factor is so huge.
Meanwhile, Apple is drowning in orders and battling light leaks (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/22/buyers.complain.of.multiple.faulty.replacements/) in displays. If the quality cannot be improved expeditiously, would-be customers may investigate the competition. :(
Drowning in orders is a problem? Trying to imagine that. If they sell 2M iPad 2's in March that would be double what they did last year with their runaway success.
I don't think they are drowning in "light leaks". Mine is fine, and I'm sure most units are. Many many LCDs leak some light on the edge. Certainly the video I saw of this on one particular iPad 2 was extremely pronounced, but I have owned many LCD monitors that leak light to some degree. The outcry is likely because there aren't that many units out there right now so folks are afraid to return it and be without it while waiting for an exchange.
Anyway, I hope the competition flourishes. Sure Apple is innovating fast and furious right now, but that's because they want to own this market for a long time to come. I don't want them to dominate it so much that they become complacent (though I hope they will have learned from their past in that regard). Just because I prefer to use iPad doesn't mean I think everybody must and should -- to each his own. Obviously I think the iPad is better than the competition, so I bought one. Somebody else's choice to buy a different tablet won't validate or invalidate my choice of an iPad in any way.
I'm cheering for Apple to produce better products that I am excited to own, but this is not a sporting competition where only one team can win. Eventually there will be 2 to 4 leaders in the tablet space. Samsung and RIM are both trying to ensure their place as one of those leaders (and so is Motorola). I would venture to say that none of them are thinking that they will "kill the iPad" which defined the market they are trying to compete in, but rather each of them wants to be the leading "other option" to an iPad and capture a good chunk of the growing tablet market.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Ummm.... why does every product have to be an "Apple iDevice Killer"? None have succeeded that yet, though many have been successful as competitors. The Apple jealousy factor is so huge.
Meanwhile, Apple is drowning in orders and battling light leaks (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/22/buyers.complain.of.multiple.faulty.replacements/) in displays. If the quality cannot be improved expeditiously, would-be customers may investigate the competition. :(
Drowning in orders is a problem? Trying to imagine that. If they sell 2M iPad 2's in March that would be double what they did last year with their runaway success.
I don't think they are drowning in "light leaks". Mine is fine, and I'm sure most units are. Many many LCDs leak some light on the edge. Certainly the video I saw of this on one particular iPad 2 was extremely pronounced, but I have owned many LCD monitors that leak light to some degree. The outcry is likely because there aren't that many units out there right now so folks are afraid to return it and be without it while waiting for an exchange.
Anyway, I hope the competition flourishes. Sure Apple is innovating fast and furious right now, but that's because they want to own this market for a long time to come. I don't want them to dominate it so much that they become complacent (though I hope they will have learned from their past in that regard). Just because I prefer to use iPad doesn't mean I think everybody must and should -- to each his own. Obviously I think the iPad is better than the competition, so I bought one. Somebody else's choice to buy a different tablet won't validate or invalidate my choice of an iPad in any way.
I'm cheering for Apple to produce better products that I am excited to own, but this is not a sporting competition where only one team can win. Eventually there will be 2 to 4 leaders in the tablet space. Samsung and RIM are both trying to ensure their place as one of those leaders (and so is Motorola). I would venture to say that none of them are thinking that they will "kill the iPad" which defined the market they are trying to compete in, but rather each of them wants to be the leading "other option" to an iPad and capture a good chunk of the growing tablet market.
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.
Chundles
Aug 27, 11:42 PM
I don't think we're going to see Merom in the MacBook Pros tomorrow. Of course, I'm HOPEING. If they were annouced tomorrow, it would make not only my day, but my month! I've been waiting since June and was expecing it at WWDC. So I'm keeping my fingers crosses 100%. If the're annouced tomorrow, I'm going to order it withen the first 5 minuts of me finding out.
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
Why are you buying the DLink Bluetooth thingy?
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
Why are you buying the DLink Bluetooth thingy?
Gatesbasher
Mar 31, 09:06 PM
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The everyday user has been buying Android phones in large numbers because they're cheap and are available on more carriers. This is not about everyday users, it's about the Fandroids who have been screaming "'Open' good, 'closed' bad!!" at the top of their lungs for the last three years.
I stand by my three groups: 1�indiscriminate Apple-haters (like you), 2�people who just want a team to root for: "Go Android!!" Right or wrong, and 3�the true believers in the open-source religion.
Now as I said before, the only truly "open" phones would be FreeRunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement from components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free, so I have no idea what new savior they'll turn to to save them from the tyrant Jobs. Be funny if it was Microsoft!
And no, I see no "bias" in the article�I think you're using the Rupert Murdoch definition: "Facts I don't want anybody to hear."
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The everyday user has been buying Android phones in large numbers because they're cheap and are available on more carriers. This is not about everyday users, it's about the Fandroids who have been screaming "'Open' good, 'closed' bad!!" at the top of their lungs for the last three years.
I stand by my three groups: 1�indiscriminate Apple-haters (like you), 2�people who just want a team to root for: "Go Android!!" Right or wrong, and 3�the true believers in the open-source religion.
Now as I said before, the only truly "open" phones would be FreeRunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement from components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free, so I have no idea what new savior they'll turn to to save them from the tyrant Jobs. Be funny if it was Microsoft!
And no, I see no "bias" in the article�I think you're using the Rupert Murdoch definition: "Facts I don't want anybody to hear."
gnasher729
Jul 31, 05:39 AM
I've built a gaming PC around the Core 2 Duo E6700. I'd like to be able to install OS X on it, because the only reason why I'd ever use Windows is for the latest games. Here are the spec's, think this would run OS X nicely? ;-)
For $599 you can buy a MacMini with a Core Solo processor. That is currently the cheapest way to get a legal copy of MacOS X for Intel. It is clearly illegal to install that copy of MacOS X on your home-built computer while it is still on the Macintosh, it is unclear whether it is legal or illegal to install it if you removed it from the Macintosh (seems legal in many european countries). If it is legal, then obviously you can also salvage parts for the MacMini, like DVD drive, harddisk, a bit of memory and save a bit of money that way. Unfortunately an unmodified MacOS X will refuse to run on anything that is not a Macintosh.
You may be able to get MacOS X slightly cheaper by buying a refurbished MacMini, or by buying one on eBay. And sometimes people sell broken computers on eBay.
For $599 you can buy a MacMini with a Core Solo processor. That is currently the cheapest way to get a legal copy of MacOS X for Intel. It is clearly illegal to install that copy of MacOS X on your home-built computer while it is still on the Macintosh, it is unclear whether it is legal or illegal to install it if you removed it from the Macintosh (seems legal in many european countries). If it is legal, then obviously you can also salvage parts for the MacMini, like DVD drive, harddisk, a bit of memory and save a bit of money that way. Unfortunately an unmodified MacOS X will refuse to run on anything that is not a Macintosh.
You may be able to get MacOS X slightly cheaper by buying a refurbished MacMini, or by buying one on eBay. And sometimes people sell broken computers on eBay.
BC2009
Apr 6, 03:28 PM
Nice...I'm glad to have a more rare piece of hardware. I love mine and have no issues, it'll only get better over time.Reminds me of the days of the RAZR, that's what the iPhone and iPad have become.
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think its funny that when Google gains the edge in the smartphone marketshare battle the fandroids declare victory, but somehow the Xoom is the "BMW" of tablets when its marketshare sucks.
Xoom is NOT a terrible product, but to be called the BMW of tablets would require that it is better than the iPad. This is more like Hondas and Hyundais. Android tablets are currently the Hyundais -- trying to copy the Hondas as closely as possible (Hyundai's name is close to Honda and so is there logo, and so are most of their car styles). However, what you find is that the Hyundai while it may be priced comparably and has comparable technical specifications that it is really not built as well.
However, on the smartphone side, your analogy does in fact hold very well. Android is on high-end phones as well as the cheap freebies the carriers are giving away. There are variants of Android being used on devices that Google has no control over and behave in a far more inferior manner than regular Android phones, but are counted among the Android numbers. Android is the Chevrolet of the smartphone market (selling everything from Corvettes to Aveos) while Apple's sells only to the premier customers. People don't buy iPhone because they could not get an Android phone, but they do buy an Android phone because they could not get an iPhone for the price they wanted it. iPhone is the one that is more highly desired, though folks will settle for an Android phone because its cheaper to acquire and more widely available -- just like a Chevrolet.
Apple creates premier products. With the iPad, they were the first of such premier products and they are experiencing what Henry Ford experienced with the Model-T. Five years from now there will be a fleet of competitors that are as good or even better, but right now iPad is the standard and the competition is basically trying their best to copy or anticipate Apple's next move.
Ironically, the one area that Xoom got higher marks than iPad on Consumer Reports was "Versatility". This was because they had a Micro SD slot. I think its funny that a non-functioning Micro-SD slot is better than a $30 camera kit that includes two adapters that actually makes for a functioning SD-card connection or USB connection. I can connect SD cards to my iPad-2 all day long with my adapter. I also have a USB port via an adapter, HDMI, VGA, Composite Video, and Component Video. Sure it requires adapters, but at least I have the options -- they are all there. I also have better options at my disposal and only resort to wired connections when I have to (AirPlay >> HDMI -- wireless transfer >> SD card).
In summary.... Xoom good, iPad better (both iPad 1 and definitely iPad 2). Even the idiots at Consumer Reports can figure out that the Xoom is only as good as the comparable iPad 1 (which costs far less).
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think its funny that when Google gains the edge in the smartphone marketshare battle the fandroids declare victory, but somehow the Xoom is the "BMW" of tablets when its marketshare sucks.
Xoom is NOT a terrible product, but to be called the BMW of tablets would require that it is better than the iPad. This is more like Hondas and Hyundais. Android tablets are currently the Hyundais -- trying to copy the Hondas as closely as possible (Hyundai's name is close to Honda and so is there logo, and so are most of their car styles). However, what you find is that the Hyundai while it may be priced comparably and has comparable technical specifications that it is really not built as well.
However, on the smartphone side, your analogy does in fact hold very well. Android is on high-end phones as well as the cheap freebies the carriers are giving away. There are variants of Android being used on devices that Google has no control over and behave in a far more inferior manner than regular Android phones, but are counted among the Android numbers. Android is the Chevrolet of the smartphone market (selling everything from Corvettes to Aveos) while Apple's sells only to the premier customers. People don't buy iPhone because they could not get an Android phone, but they do buy an Android phone because they could not get an iPhone for the price they wanted it. iPhone is the one that is more highly desired, though folks will settle for an Android phone because its cheaper to acquire and more widely available -- just like a Chevrolet.
Apple creates premier products. With the iPad, they were the first of such premier products and they are experiencing what Henry Ford experienced with the Model-T. Five years from now there will be a fleet of competitors that are as good or even better, but right now iPad is the standard and the competition is basically trying their best to copy or anticipate Apple's next move.
Ironically, the one area that Xoom got higher marks than iPad on Consumer Reports was "Versatility". This was because they had a Micro SD slot. I think its funny that a non-functioning Micro-SD slot is better than a $30 camera kit that includes two adapters that actually makes for a functioning SD-card connection or USB connection. I can connect SD cards to my iPad-2 all day long with my adapter. I also have a USB port via an adapter, HDMI, VGA, Composite Video, and Component Video. Sure it requires adapters, but at least I have the options -- they are all there. I also have better options at my disposal and only resort to wired connections when I have to (AirPlay >> HDMI -- wireless transfer >> SD card).
In summary.... Xoom good, iPad better (both iPad 1 and definitely iPad 2). Even the idiots at Consumer Reports can figure out that the Xoom is only as good as the comparable iPad 1 (which costs far less).
Danksi
Aug 15, 12:58 PM
Amazing.
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario