DeathChill
Mar 31, 09:52 PM
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 02:13 AM
Why do you keep countering an argument that no one is actually making?
Straw man fail.
Not at all. I'm only showing where Apple has done what they don't like being done to them. Only a die hard defends them at all cost.
Straw man fail.
Not at all. I'm only showing where Apple has done what they don't like being done to them. Only a die hard defends them at all cost.
balamw
Aug 7, 06:39 PM
Norton's GoBack, which was purchased from some other company
Yeah, I recommended GoBack to a number of users back in the day (I think it was Adaptec that owned it at one point). No-one seemed to like it at the time.
As I and others reminisce it's a feature that has been around for well over 20 years in VMS. It's only relatively new to personal computers.
B
Yeah, I recommended GoBack to a number of users back in the day (I think it was Adaptec that owned it at one point). No-one seemed to like it at the time.
As I and others reminisce it's a feature that has been around for well over 20 years in VMS. It's only relatively new to personal computers.
B
likemyorbs
Mar 18, 01:58 AM
The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. � Ron Paul
Uhhh....didn't america become a fully secular nation a few centuries ago? pretty sure i grew up in a secular nation. america is NOT a christian nation, never was, and definitely never will be. As for the second part about being biased against christianity, that's just too unintelligent and ignorant to respond too, i wouldn't even know where to begin. The day we start taxing churches, but not other religious houses of worship, is the day we become biased against christianity. personally i don't think religious organizations should be tax exempt. We can totally fix the deficit just by taxing the catholic church alone...
Uhhh....didn't america become a fully secular nation a few centuries ago? pretty sure i grew up in a secular nation. america is NOT a christian nation, never was, and definitely never will be. As for the second part about being biased against christianity, that's just too unintelligent and ignorant to respond too, i wouldn't even know where to begin. The day we start taxing churches, but not other religious houses of worship, is the day we become biased against christianity. personally i don't think religious organizations should be tax exempt. We can totally fix the deficit just by taxing the catholic church alone...
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 10:21 AM
This should all go public.
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Won't you think of their children, and reconsider?
:rolleyes:
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Won't you think of their children, and reconsider?
:rolleyes:
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:47 PM
If Apple FAD goes away, where will Google copy from next?
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
What the heck are you talking about. Google is building upon the technology. Apple did a great job advancing the technology which pushed everyone else to do the same. Its called competition its been happening for years and in every industry.
You are delusional if you think Google is not building upon the Apple FAD.
What the heck are you talking about. Google is building upon the technology. Apple did a great job advancing the technology which pushed everyone else to do the same. Its called competition its been happening for years and in every industry.
Stridder44
Aug 7, 05:24 PM
I'm sure I'm not going to hate it, it's probably gonna be fabulous, but it's not an innovation as Steve advertises it. In fact, not a single thing they showed about Leopard up to now is an innovation. Everything already exists somehow. I'm not complaining about the new features of the OS, but about how they present them. They're all (hopefully) improved versions of existing stuff!!
True, I guess we can only hope that the top secret stuff is top secret for a reason (or because it wasn't ready for the Keynote)
True, I guess we can only hope that the top secret stuff is top secret for a reason (or because it wasn't ready for the Keynote)
usptact
Apr 11, 02:12 AM
Get me right but i get negative impression about Apple reading this : "Canon was told last night that Apple has demanded ALL “lecturn” or stage time exclusively."
It is ok to be ambitious but not imperialistic and mean!
It is ok to be ambitious but not imperialistic and mean!
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 :)
diamond.g
Apr 11, 02:38 PM
snip...
I think it is very telling that last week (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215598/Clorox_cleans_out_BlackBerries_in_favor_of_iPhones_Android_devices?taxonomyId=154&pageNumber=1) when Clorox CIO offered 2000 Clorox employees the option to switch off Blackberry and get an iPhone, Android or Win Phone 7 device on the company's dime to replace their Blackberry device, that 92% of those 2000 employees chose a 10-month-old iPhone 4, with only 6% choosing Android, and 2% choosing WP7. Google would have you believe that people prefer Android. The truth of the matter is that the people who don't care about having a smartphone or not just choose the best "free phone" or BOGO option that the carrier offers -- if that option happens to be Android, then sure Android commands a greater market share of the growing smartphone market. Those customers will never care what their mobile OS is -- they were just looking to get what they could for free (or cheap). Its like asking somebody if they would prefer the Honda or Hyundai -- most would prefer the Honda, but many may settle for the Hyundai if it is cheaper. But when you take cost out of the equation then the story changes. The moral of that story is that Apple needs a cheaper entry point for an iOS smartphone if they want to command market share and especially to put their phones in the hands of more teenagers.
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
I think it is very telling that last week (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215598/Clorox_cleans_out_BlackBerries_in_favor_of_iPhones_Android_devices?taxonomyId=154&pageNumber=1) when Clorox CIO offered 2000 Clorox employees the option to switch off Blackberry and get an iPhone, Android or Win Phone 7 device on the company's dime to replace their Blackberry device, that 92% of those 2000 employees chose a 10-month-old iPhone 4, with only 6% choosing Android, and 2% choosing WP7. Google would have you believe that people prefer Android. The truth of the matter is that the people who don't care about having a smartphone or not just choose the best "free phone" or BOGO option that the carrier offers -- if that option happens to be Android, then sure Android commands a greater market share of the growing smartphone market. Those customers will never care what their mobile OS is -- they were just looking to get what they could for free (or cheap). Its like asking somebody if they would prefer the Honda or Hyundai -- most would prefer the Honda, but many may settle for the Hyundai if it is cheaper. But when you take cost out of the equation then the story changes. The moral of that story is that Apple needs a cheaper entry point for an iOS smartphone if they want to command market share and especially to put their phones in the hands of more teenagers.
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:04 AM
I'm glad they're fixing this "bug"
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
kwyn
Jun 8, 06:49 PM
How bout Best Buy?
Spanky Deluxe
Apr 27, 08:01 AM
Poo. I'd rather have the option to keep backing up that cache file to iTunes. I like the ability to see a map of where I've been using the iPhoneTracker app. :(
adamfilip
Jul 14, 02:42 PM
more importantly then dual optical is being able to support 4 hard drives then!
aohus
Apr 19, 03:08 PM
Lol if apple was a religion it would have more extremists than Islam, Judaism, and Christianity combined! :eek:
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
janstett
Sep 16, 10:14 AM
Dude, how many times do I have to repeat myself before you myopic '90s-era IT geeks understand me? I was referring to the difference between Windows 9x and Windows NT. I neither knew, nor care, that there were different versions of NT itself. For. Christ's. Sake. I have said this three times now. Don't make me come over there.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
Well then, if you are so consistantly misinterpreted, have you ever stopped to think you should CLARIFY yourself, or that you must not be communicating your point clearly? The truth is Microsoft has dealt with two simultaneous families of operating systems from 1987-2003, and the survivor is NT/2K/XP, and it was always the better of the two operating system families that geeks like us would be concerned with, so naturally that's the one most people think of when projecting back in history.
poppe
Jul 14, 02:37 PM
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
Appleinsider is saying that it can be used for both at your choice, but you have to go buy it and put it in. Not a add on to ordering.
So excited... How come no FW800 infront? thats a little crazy no?
Just think if this was apple leaking out information when really its a completely different design. Since they're was that leaking lawsuit and all. Wouldn't it be great if the figured out the sources leaking internaly and made those sources give Appleinsider false information.
Come August 7th, It's completely different... (oh just woke up from my dream.)
Appleinsider is saying that it can be used for both at your choice, but you have to go buy it and put it in. Not a add on to ordering.
So excited... How come no FW800 infront? thats a little crazy no?
Just think if this was apple leaking out information when really its a completely different design. Since they're was that leaking lawsuit and all. Wouldn't it be great if the figured out the sources leaking internaly and made those sources give Appleinsider false information.
Come August 7th, It's completely different... (oh just woke up from my dream.)
THX1139
Jul 21, 04:56 PM
I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.
Some peoples choice of hobby boggles my mind.
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.
Some peoples choice of hobby boggles my mind.
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
LagunaSol
Mar 23, 09:28 AM
It's telling that a discussion about RIM's and Samsung's tablet devices devolve into a battle over the English language and the proper positioning of the pinky finger while drinking tea.
My hunch is these "iPad Killer" devices will get similar attention from the typical consumer (Zzzz....) while the iPad continues to snowball into an iPod-like phenomenon. ;)
My hunch is these "iPad Killer" devices will get similar attention from the typical consumer (Zzzz....) while the iPad continues to snowball into an iPod-like phenomenon. ;)
tanbo
Jun 22, 05:40 PM
According to Radio Shack, the full, non-contract price, for the iPhone 4 will be $649.99 for the 16GB and $749.99 for the 32GB.
Seems pretty high to me.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150207691250542
Seems pretty high to me.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150207691250542
dougny
Nov 28, 06:44 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:15 AM
BTW: Im so glad to have some MAC rumors to talk about...the 24/7 iOS fest gets tiresome :rolleyes:
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 11:40 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
No comments:
Post a Comment