winmacguy
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
Redneck1089
Aug 29, 12:30 PM
Greenpeace can shove it.
SuperJudge
Apr 24, 10:36 AM
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:04 PM
I would suggest that most Apple users are willing to look "outside the box", and not be bound by pre-conceived "notions".
jchung
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
skunk
Mar 25, 07:13 PM
You too.
Mademan12321
May 8, 10:53 AM
I've had AT&T/Cingular since 2002/3. I've barely ever had an issue. When I did, it was one month where they did seem to run ******. Then that went away and I've not had an issue again *shrug* (Ok, once at a county fair where probably all the people conglamerated together in an area that usually isn't that populous probably overloaded the towers there. Actually, it turned out it was my iphone had crashed and needed to restart which has happened to me occasionally). I've used my phone in Washington, Georgia, Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' they're is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
gnasher729
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 12:04 AM
Oh well...Japan is history...
Time to start relocating the population and all their assets to Afghanistan. Didn't we find some ancient Buddhas there which the Taliban blew up? Well, we now declare that The Holy Buddha Land of the Japs! That MUST be were they originated from! They can even rebuild the nuclear reactors there too since no one gives a crap about that environment evidently. :p
Time to start relocating the population and all their assets to Afghanistan. Didn't we find some ancient Buddhas there which the Taliban blew up? Well, we now declare that The Holy Buddha Land of the Japs! That MUST be were they originated from! They can even rebuild the nuclear reactors there too since no one gives a crap about that environment evidently. :p
emotion
Sep 20, 10:30 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300.
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
deannnnn
May 5, 01:06 PM
Check out this poll that was on Facebook today!
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
SPUY767
Sep 26, 10:40 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:24 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.
Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.
Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)?
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.
Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)?
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
quigleybc
Sep 20, 11:50 AM
it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote.
What do you do with your Xbox that would been relevant to watching videos on your TV?
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
What do you do with your Xbox that would been relevant to watching videos on your TV?
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:18 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.Excuse me?!?!
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
MattInOz
Apr 20, 11:54 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
kas23
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
I fully agree with this. It's not a full-fledged computer.
As for the slip to 4th, so much for the end of the netbook market. In fact, I can see myself buying a netbook in addition to my iPad 2 because there are a bunch of functions a netbook can do that an iPad cannot (such as adding and editing music into iBooks and Stanza, downloading music and placing them into iPod app, obtaining files without an Internet connection or iTunes - a USB, etc.)
Marx55
Sep 26, 03:17 AM
So, first it was the number of transistors per processor, then they coupled that with higher clock speeds (MHz) and now with multi-cores inside multi-processors.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
res1233
May 2, 03:24 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs or like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
if anyone knows a better one let me know, thnx.
Dude, the only viruses antivirus software ever pick up are Windows viruses, to prevent them from being passed along unintentionally to windows users. Most of what "antivirus" software does for macs is catch other forms of malware which are not viruses. This is part of the confusion about what the word "virus" means. The correct term for this software should be "antimalware", but the average consumer wouldn't know what that is if they saw it, so the misinformation continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment