jwdsail
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Maybe, just maybe, this would be the first Air I'd consider buying..
If, this update would bring Thunderbolt to the Air..
USB-only is still a deal-breaker for me, I'd rather walk to the internet, uphill, both ways, in the snow, than be that limited in a laptop..
An Air, with Thunderbolt... Wouldn't be my primary Mac, but would make an Air/iMac combo look better than a maxed-out 15" MBP...
Shrug..
If, this update would bring Thunderbolt to the Air..
USB-only is still a deal-breaker for me, I'd rather walk to the internet, uphill, both ways, in the snow, than be that limited in a laptop..
An Air, with Thunderbolt... Wouldn't be my primary Mac, but would make an Air/iMac combo look better than a maxed-out 15" MBP...
Shrug..
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 :)
rdowns
Apr 28, 04:06 PM
Because there was never a question of wither or not any of those men were born in the US, with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him. Obviously he doesn�t remember BEING BORN in hawaii..his parents could have just told him that.
But now we have proof and its all over with there�s no need to be calling names about it.
BS, we already had proof from 2008.
But now we have proof and its all over with there�s no need to be calling names about it.
BS, we already had proof from 2008.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 06:24 PM
You know what?
Third friggin' RS store I have called and ALL
say that even if you get a PIN tomorrow it is
no guarantee of a phone.
I think I am going to order directly from Apple.
Third friggin' RS store I have called and ALL
say that even if you get a PIN tomorrow it is
no guarantee of a phone.
I think I am going to order directly from Apple.
squeeks
Apr 28, 03:58 PM
Did you ask to see W's birth certificate, or any other president's birth certificate? Why not?
Because there was never a question of wither or not any of those men were born in the US, with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him. Obviously he doesn�t remember BEING BORN in hawaii..his parents could have just told him that.
But now we have proof and its all over with there�s no need to be calling names about it.
Because there was never a question of wither or not any of those men were born in the US, with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him. Obviously he doesn�t remember BEING BORN in hawaii..his parents could have just told him that.
But now we have proof and its all over with there�s no need to be calling names about it.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 27, 09:03 AM
Encrypting the existing database and giving us the option to get rid of it. Sounds fine to me.
raymondso
Sep 19, 08:51 AM
the apple store is still going very healthy now
does that mean no update today?
does that mean no update today?
notabadname
Apr 8, 07:28 AM
Isn't apple as equally guilty of this exact accusation against BB? Holding stock back until the next day; or is the difference that they sell everything they have available from the previous day.
Apple isn't holding stock, they are inventorying it the evening they receive it in the drop-shipment. They sell it all in the morning before the store even opens for normal business hours the next day. (At least that is how they have done it every time in Cincinnati)
Apple isn't holding stock, they are inventorying it the evening they receive it in the drop-shipment. They sell it all in the morning before the store even opens for normal business hours the next day. (At least that is how they have done it every time in Cincinnati)
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...
Peterkro
Feb 28, 12:57 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:15 AM
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
Stridder44
Jul 27, 11:03 AM
For Great Justice!!
Rafterman
Apr 27, 08:05 AM
I know of no cell tower or wifi device that works up to 100 miles away.
shartypants
Apr 6, 10:33 AM
Wow, Intel is really keeping up with the processors. Someday I imagine Apple will make a 15" MacBook Air and call it a MacBook Pro (maybe not quite as thin but thinner than current MBP).
koobcamuk
Mar 25, 10:36 PM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
I agree entirely.
I also think 10.4.11 is the best OS ever.
Just what I think anyway.
I agree entirely.
I also think 10.4.11 is the best OS ever.
ssk2
Apr 14, 04:20 PM
But the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone on the market and will continue to be so well past June.
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
LOL. Right.
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
TripHop
Jun 9, 08:53 PM
Okay.. well I guess I wont be taking my chances at RadioShack. If they let me preorder, would I be good to go on launch day? Or could i still encounter problemsLooks like it will be no problem to lock in an iP4 for launch morning as long as we pre-order next Tuesday morning. It's sort of like 2 launch days - pre order next Tuesday the 15th for a $50 advance (in the form of a gift card) and receive the 24th. The Shack is much handier than any other launch store for me. :)
Lincoln
Aug 5, 03:52 PM
I'll have to wait and hope that there will be a Quicktime Stream of the keynote. It'll be on very late here in the UK so I have taken the next morning off from work to watch it Tuesday morning.
That's pretty sad of me.:o
I'm also not going to see what's released before I watch the keynote (I don't like to watch the making of a film before I see the film and this is similar to that). I just hope that the Quicktime Apple Channel has a link to it otherwise I'll have to visit one of t news/rumor sites to find the link.:(
That's pretty sad of me.:o
I'm also not going to see what's released before I watch the keynote (I don't like to watch the making of a film before I see the film and this is similar to that). I just hope that the Quicktime Apple Channel has a link to it otherwise I'll have to visit one of t news/rumor sites to find the link.:(
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
This is the most likely explanation for me (too).
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
This is the most likely explanation for me (too).
cmaier
Apr 20, 09:40 AM
It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
Is it obvious it's not licensed by Apple, though?
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
No they wouldn't. They have to prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Actual confusion is evidence of likelihood of confusion, but it's not necessary.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
Is it obvious it's not licensed by Apple, though?
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
No they wouldn't. They have to prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. Actual confusion is evidence of likelihood of confusion, but it's not necessary.
afrowq
Apr 6, 08:50 PM
If your sector of the business has decided to move to Premier because it works for them, awesome- but don't paint it as an industry trent. Cause I've seen zero migration from FCP to PP in Toronto post houses. Pro editing is still a two horse race: AVID and FCP.
And I can't help but think how ironic it will be if the new FCS will be built on AV Foundation, which was pioneered on your hated "itoys".
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
Never said it was an industry-wide trent (sic). I said "a lot of professionals" have made the switch.
Thanks.
And I can't help but think how ironic it will be if the new FCS will be built on AV Foundation, which was pioneered on your hated "itoys".
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
Never said it was an industry-wide trent (sic). I said "a lot of professionals" have made the switch.
Thanks.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 04:46 PM
well said. it's hard to even have a civil conversation here anymore. not sure what the majority of the age group here is now, but the discussions since i've joined here just a couple of years ago seem to be on the decline with immaturity. there are a handful of respectful and open minded people who do back up their thoughts with details and sense, but you'd have to wade through a lot of "fanboy" (i hate that term) jargon to sift the ones worth replying to.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 12:58 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
Obviously most people, including Catholics, aren't able to adhere to this ideal. So are they not allowed to be married? Obviously not. And I know Catholics who have divorced and remarried. That's equally abhorrent. Yet they're allowed to do this.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
Obviously most people, including Catholics, aren't able to adhere to this ideal. So are they not allowed to be married? Obviously not. And I know Catholics who have divorced and remarried. That's equally abhorrent. Yet they're allowed to do this.
ryanw
Aug 25, 09:26 PM
Funny how I just came across this thread, as I'm in the middle of an Apple support nightmare as well (I have one of those MacBooks that just turns itself off for no reason - completely unacceptable). I have been routed through 12 people over 3 calls, with several promises of "expedited resolution"s but no tangible result.
Although it's possible (and likely) that the prevalence of the MacBook defects have been overblown, I do know that Apple's support process puts you through a lot of hoops to get any major issue resolved (e.g., replacing a clearly defective product). Each person I've talked to has been courteous, but in the end I still have no faith in their ability to actually solve my problem in a timely manner.
Frustrated Apple User
I've seen this happen to me personally... the macbook just shuts down on me. I "THINK" I have linked it to the magnetic money clip in my pocket. I THINK when I put the macbook on my lap it thinks I have shut the cover due to the magnetic latch. Is it possible you're putting near or on something magnetic?
Although it's possible (and likely) that the prevalence of the MacBook defects have been overblown, I do know that Apple's support process puts you through a lot of hoops to get any major issue resolved (e.g., replacing a clearly defective product). Each person I've talked to has been courteous, but in the end I still have no faith in their ability to actually solve my problem in a timely manner.
Frustrated Apple User
I've seen this happen to me personally... the macbook just shuts down on me. I "THINK" I have linked it to the magnetic money clip in my pocket. I THINK when I put the macbook on my lap it thinks I have shut the cover due to the magnetic latch. Is it possible you're putting near or on something magnetic?