tribulation
Nov 28, 08:12 PM
what if i have no artists distributed by universal? if this takes effect then the ipod price will just go up and we all will be paying for it. what makes them think that i am even listening to any of their artists on my ipod and why should they get a cut if i dont >> or even if i do. ridiculous and better not happen.
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. :(
dougny
Nov 29, 09:13 AM
Lame. As if they aren't gettign enough money as it is.
They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Silentwave
Aug 26, 10:42 PM
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
ciTiger
Apr 27, 08:58 AM
It seems a good argument to me.
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
a.gomez
Apr 6, 02:37 PM
It'll be 100,001 when it comes out in the UK when mine gets delivered..... Roll on Saturday!:D
100,002
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
100,002
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
ThunderSkunk
Apr 25, 03:04 PM
...if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
I think thats the whole thing this boils down to. Apple doesn't track you, your phone does (course, so does everything else), but Apple enables this by default because they see apps being able to utilize Location Services as a feature that'll enhance the user experience.
If they'd:
real madrid vs barcelona copa
real madrid vs barcelona copa
real madrid vs barcelona 2011
real madrid vs barcelona 2011
real madrid vs barcelona 2011
real madrid vs barcelona copa
real madrid copa del rey 2011
Barcelona v Real Madrid
real madrid vs barcelona copa
Real Madrid vs FC Barcelona
real madrid vs barcelona 2011
real madrid vs barcelona 2010.
I think thats the whole thing this boils down to. Apple doesn't track you, your phone does (course, so does everything else), but Apple enables this by default because they see apps being able to utilize Location Services as a feature that'll enhance the user experience.
If they'd:
kallisti
Mar 22, 05:52 PM
I'm not american, perhaps you should be utilising the 'proper' English that was invented here.
And you're last sentence makes you look rather condescending and quite frankly a bit of a pretentious moron.
And I'm sorry to say, I've never been to the states, but of course you make an unfounded and ignorant assertion that I have never travelled. Really, you're not doing yourself much good with that mentality you have.
Glad that you're just showcasing your pitiful character to the rest of us.
Just stop already. You made a couple of stupid and incorrect statements. You got called on them. Suck it up and admit you were wrong. It happens to the best of us :)
And you're last sentence makes you look rather condescending and quite frankly a bit of a pretentious moron.
And I'm sorry to say, I've never been to the states, but of course you make an unfounded and ignorant assertion that I have never travelled. Really, you're not doing yourself much good with that mentality you have.
Glad that you're just showcasing your pitiful character to the rest of us.
Just stop already. You made a couple of stupid and incorrect statements. You got called on them. Suck it up and admit you were wrong. It happens to the best of us :)
BlizzardBomb
Jul 27, 02:15 PM
Remember that the G5 is 64 bit. While the consumer apps may not be too directly affected at first, (speed increases, but nothing else), as more memory is required, 32 bit will hit a brick wall at 4GiB, whereas 64 bit can go along happily to 2,305,843,009,200,000,000GiB.
Realistically, it will take some time to get to that level, but with the last G5 supporting 16GiB, 32 then 64 wouldn't be too far off. within 10 years, I'm sure 1TiB will start to become common.
But with only 2 RAM slots in most current Macs (apart from obviously the Power Mac G5 which has 64-bit processor anyway), getting past 4GB is basically impossible/ ridiculously expensive at the moment.
Realistically, it will take some time to get to that level, but with the last G5 supporting 16GiB, 32 then 64 wouldn't be too far off. within 10 years, I'm sure 1TiB will start to become common.
But with only 2 RAM slots in most current Macs (apart from obviously the Power Mac G5 which has 64-bit processor anyway), getting past 4GB is basically impossible/ ridiculously expensive at the moment.
Nuck81
Aug 13, 12:21 AM
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
cloudnine
Aug 25, 04:51 PM
Speaking of asinine Apple happenings... why is it that the new Mac Pro standard configuration of 2 dual-core Intel 2.66ghz processors, etc, etc is at $2499, but Apple still has the PowerMac standard configuration of 2 dual-core PowerPC 2.5ghz processors, etc, etc at $3299?
Odd.
Odd.
PBF
Mar 25, 10:56 PM
In another news: iPad 3 is released in Fall 2011.
marksman
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Only if you do not add products like the iPad and the iPod Touch. In other words, if you throw out 50% of the iOS products.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
heisetax
Aug 5, 11:28 PM
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Try your tower below your chair. From there you could point a remote at the correct location. The floor seems like a good place to me. Like you I have mine on my table behind my 30" display. This leaves the computer in an easy to reach place, but it is still out of the way.
Bill the TaxMan
Try your tower below your chair. From there you could point a remote at the correct location. The floor seems like a good place to me. Like you I have mine on my table behind my 30" display. This leaves the computer in an easy to reach place, but it is still out of the way.
Bill the TaxMan
Cygnus311
Aug 27, 09:40 AM
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Nintendo sucks? You must not have payed attention to E3 this year.
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Nintendo sucks? You must not have payed attention to E3 this year.
supafly1703
Jul 27, 09:43 AM
C'mon Steve, wow us...
samcraig
Apr 27, 10:08 AM
revelated, beware! Apple is closing in on you with their black helicopters and vans to take you prisoner for mind control experiments.
OR
If they did this on purpose, maybe they wanted to know why so many people complain about AT&T in certain parts of SF. Or maybe they wanted to know how many users access Internet via all the Starbucks in the world? Maybe they wanted to direct ads at you based upon your location.
All of the above are already being done to you via many other avenues, e.g. your frequent buyer cards, ATMs, CCs, etc.
BUT
If you want to believe there is some BIGGER MYSTERIOUS PURPOSE in mind for them to do this, you go right own. LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU - WAS THAT A BLACK UNMARKED VAN!!!! :D
And maybe purging or limiting this DB won't slow location service based apps/etc either.
It goes both ways.
In fact - if purging this data WAS going to cause a performance issue - do you really think Apple would do it? They aren't exactly the type to sacrifice quality, are they?
OR
If they did this on purpose, maybe they wanted to know why so many people complain about AT&T in certain parts of SF. Or maybe they wanted to know how many users access Internet via all the Starbucks in the world? Maybe they wanted to direct ads at you based upon your location.
All of the above are already being done to you via many other avenues, e.g. your frequent buyer cards, ATMs, CCs, etc.
BUT
If you want to believe there is some BIGGER MYSTERIOUS PURPOSE in mind for them to do this, you go right own. LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU - WAS THAT A BLACK UNMARKED VAN!!!! :D
And maybe purging or limiting this DB won't slow location service based apps/etc either.
It goes both ways.
In fact - if purging this data WAS going to cause a performance issue - do you really think Apple would do it? They aren't exactly the type to sacrifice quality, are they?
fullmanfullninj
Apr 8, 02:14 AM
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps BB take a cut of Apple's share of the profit when they sell an iPad?
Based on what I've seen, BB doesn't take a cut of the profit.
Look at it this way - Apple has to approve a certain retailer to sell their products. Why would they then pay that retailer that they have approved? I admit this isn't a very compelling example.
My point(s) remain that managers are not hoarding iPads to meet their daily budgets and I do not believe BB gets any sort of money from Apple for every sale. Even then, that would not explain the stop-sale. In fact, that would encourage BB to go through their stock...
Based on what I've seen, BB doesn't take a cut of the profit.
Look at it this way - Apple has to approve a certain retailer to sell their products. Why would they then pay that retailer that they have approved? I admit this isn't a very compelling example.
My point(s) remain that managers are not hoarding iPads to meet their daily budgets and I do not believe BB gets any sort of money from Apple for every sale. Even then, that would not explain the stop-sale. In fact, that would encourage BB to go through their stock...
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.
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:
blackpond
Apr 11, 04:37 PM
This is bunk. Apple will not miss Christmas. Period, end of discussion.
If the 5 launches a short while before Christmas, the supply constraints would be 10x worse than they are for the iPad right now.
The only thing this rumor proves is that bloggers, speculators, and analysts are getting irritated with the lack of solid info compared to this time last year.
Apple can create Christmas any day of the year.
If the 5 launches a short while before Christmas, the supply constraints would be 10x worse than they are for the iPad right now.
The only thing this rumor proves is that bloggers, speculators, and analysts are getting irritated with the lack of solid info compared to this time last year.
Apple can create Christmas any day of the year.
paul4339
Apr 8, 12:10 AM
can't BB HQ send some ghost/mystery shoppers out and audit the store managers?
dba7dba
Mar 22, 04:27 PM
Samsung can say all they want about their products. There are the following glaring issues:
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
You obviously don't know much about samsung. Samsung makes RAM and CPU that apple uses in iphone/ipad. Possibly LCD too. A4 was definitely made by samsung. It's pretty certain A5 is also made by samsung, despite rumors TSMC will make them for apple.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
You obviously don't know much about samsung. Samsung makes RAM and CPU that apple uses in iphone/ipad. Possibly LCD too. A4 was definitely made by samsung. It's pretty certain A5 is also made by samsung, despite rumors TSMC will make them for apple.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment