Yankee617
Apr 8, 08:11 AM
Weird... I think there's more involved in this than we can imagine.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Yeah... BB could put the extra iPad's up on Ebay and pocket the extra cash.
Not a big deal if its just done at one or two stores, but if its organized at the
corporate level (with lots of creative accounting/reporting in-between) they
could have millions of dollars going straight to their bottom line (or lining
some unscrupulous executive's pockets).
Were those above-quota iPad's being held in-store and sold the next day,
or were they being forwarded/rerouted to another BB location?
I'm still planning to buy my iPad from my local Apple store.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Yeah... BB could put the extra iPad's up on Ebay and pocket the extra cash.
Not a big deal if its just done at one or two stores, but if its organized at the
corporate level (with lots of creative accounting/reporting in-between) they
could have millions of dollars going straight to their bottom line (or lining
some unscrupulous executive's pockets).
Were those above-quota iPad's being held in-store and sold the next day,
or were they being forwarded/rerouted to another BB location?
I'm still planning to buy my iPad from my local Apple store.
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
tekmoe
Sep 19, 07:38 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
i agree. i think the store would have went down already. next monday has got to be it.
i agree. i think the store would have went down already. next monday has got to be it.
marksman
Apr 19, 02:07 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
FreeState
Mar 4, 06:44 PM
Are they affiliated with WBC?
Nope. But according to Southern Poverty Law Center they are being watched as a hate group.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
Concerned Women for America
Washington, D.C.
San Diego, Calif., activist Beverly LaHaye, whose husband Tim would go on to become famous as co-author of the Left Behind novels depicting the end times, started Concerned Women for America (CWA) in 1979 to create an anti-feminist group that matched the power of the National Organization for Women. Today, CWA claims more than 500,000 members organized into state chapters, a radio program that reaches more than 1 million listeners, and a cadre of attorneys and researchers devoted to the group�s mission of promoting biblical values.
LaHaye has blamed gay people for a �radical leftist crusade� in America and, over the years, has occasionally equated homosexuality with pedophilia. In she hired prominent anti-gay propagandists Robert Knight (now with Coral Ridge Ministries; see below) and Peter LaBarbera (now with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, above) to launch CWA�s Culture and Family Institute. Matt Barber was CWA�s policy director for cultural issues in 2007 and 2008 before moving on to similar work with the Liberty Counsel (below).
While at CWA, on April 12, Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a �miniscule number� of anti-gay hate crimes and most of those �may very well be rooted in fraudulent reports.� In comments that have since disappeared from CWA�s website, Barber demanded a federal probe of �homosexual activists� for their alleged fabrications of hate crime reports.
CWA long relied on and displayed Knight�s articles and talking points, including claims that �homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks� and �gay marriage entices children to experiment with homosexuality.� Most remarkably, Knight cited the utterly discredited work of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute, below) to bolster claims that homosexuality is harmful.
Today, CWA continues to make arguments against homosexuality on the basis of dubious claims. President Wendy Wright said this August that gay activists were using same-sex marriage �to indoctrinate children in schools to reject their parents� values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.� Last year, CWA accused the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group that works to stop anti-gay bullying in schools, of using that mission as a cover to promote homosexuality in schools, adding that �teaching students from a young age that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly natural � will [cause them to] develop into adults who are desensitized to the harmful, immoral reality of sexual deviance.�
Nope. But according to Southern Poverty Law Center they are being watched as a hate group.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
Concerned Women for America
Washington, D.C.
San Diego, Calif., activist Beverly LaHaye, whose husband Tim would go on to become famous as co-author of the Left Behind novels depicting the end times, started Concerned Women for America (CWA) in 1979 to create an anti-feminist group that matched the power of the National Organization for Women. Today, CWA claims more than 500,000 members organized into state chapters, a radio program that reaches more than 1 million listeners, and a cadre of attorneys and researchers devoted to the group�s mission of promoting biblical values.
LaHaye has blamed gay people for a �radical leftist crusade� in America and, over the years, has occasionally equated homosexuality with pedophilia. In she hired prominent anti-gay propagandists Robert Knight (now with Coral Ridge Ministries; see below) and Peter LaBarbera (now with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, above) to launch CWA�s Culture and Family Institute. Matt Barber was CWA�s policy director for cultural issues in 2007 and 2008 before moving on to similar work with the Liberty Counsel (below).
While at CWA, on April 12, Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a �miniscule number� of anti-gay hate crimes and most of those �may very well be rooted in fraudulent reports.� In comments that have since disappeared from CWA�s website, Barber demanded a federal probe of �homosexual activists� for their alleged fabrications of hate crime reports.
CWA long relied on and displayed Knight�s articles and talking points, including claims that �homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks� and �gay marriage entices children to experiment with homosexuality.� Most remarkably, Knight cited the utterly discredited work of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute, below) to bolster claims that homosexuality is harmful.
Today, CWA continues to make arguments against homosexuality on the basis of dubious claims. President Wendy Wright said this August that gay activists were using same-sex marriage �to indoctrinate children in schools to reject their parents� values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.� Last year, CWA accused the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group that works to stop anti-gay bullying in schools, of using that mission as a cover to promote homosexuality in schools, adding that �teaching students from a young age that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly natural � will [cause them to] develop into adults who are desensitized to the harmful, immoral reality of sexual deviance.�
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
handsome pete
Apr 5, 08:31 PM
download/streaming version that will be usable for buying up to 4K movies through iTunes.
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
mkruck
Apr 6, 04:41 PM
Don't understand that there needs to be a pissing contest about Xoom OR ipad.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
Perhaps Xoom owners are on here because we own multiple devices and like all of them. Just because I'm using an Android device doesn't mean that I'm forever barred from reading and posting on a Mac forum.
Reading through the existing 8 pages, most of the Xoom owners aren't saying their device is better; rather, they're (we're) providing comments around what Android can do. To be quite honest, the defensive and snarky comments are coming from those that are not Xoom owners. Really makes me wonder why they are so defensive and strident, you know? Deflection? Insecurity? Projecting?
Yes, I'm being a smartass, no one needs to get their panties in a wad.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
Perhaps Xoom owners are on here because we own multiple devices and like all of them. Just because I'm using an Android device doesn't mean that I'm forever barred from reading and posting on a Mac forum.
Reading through the existing 8 pages, most of the Xoom owners aren't saying their device is better; rather, they're (we're) providing comments around what Android can do. To be quite honest, the defensive and snarky comments are coming from those that are not Xoom owners. Really makes me wonder why they are so defensive and strident, you know? Deflection? Insecurity? Projecting?
Yes, I'm being a smartass, no one needs to get their panties in a wad.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 11:38 AM
Yeah it's strange. I called them back. They
don't have anything in their system one way
or another but told me to stop in tomorrow and
they will check the system.
Store is on my way to work so I don't mind.
don't have anything in their system one way
or another but told me to stop in tomorrow and
they will check the system.
Store is on my way to work so I don't mind.
Bleubird2
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
takao
Dec 2, 04:09 PM
is it just me or does the quality of the 'Standard' cars also vary quite a bit ? i've got some which look really great (nissan fairlady '78, alfa romeo '63) and some which look barely 'acceptable' (a 90ties 'skyline')
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
wpotere
Apr 27, 10:17 AM
Trump is a hero. :rolleyes:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/trump-takes-credit-for-release-of-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/
I listened to the report and I can't understand a word he is saying. He babbles about nothing.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/trump-takes-credit-for-release-of-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/
I listened to the report and I can't understand a word he is saying. He babbles about nothing.
seenew
Aug 27, 02:26 PM
Maybe there will be a new iMac launched with the new iPod in October.
Digital Skunk
Mar 22, 01:05 PM
Can I exchange my iPad 2 for this Playbook?
I really like the minimal app appearance of the Playbook compared to Apple's cluttered group of tens of thousands of applications.
Hopefully Apple will take a cue from that.
I too do hate the way iOS looks on the home screen. It wreaks of tacky 4 year old OS.
I might have to go back and edit my first comment to be clearer.
I can leave the OS behind, but it's the 3rd party apps that I long for on a tablet. It's too bad that these guys don't port their apps over toe Android.
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
Playbook . . . as in what sport coaches use to hold their plays . . . e.g. their next moves, their plans on winning the game.
I really like the minimal app appearance of the Playbook compared to Apple's cluttered group of tens of thousands of applications.
Hopefully Apple will take a cue from that.
I too do hate the way iOS looks on the home screen. It wreaks of tacky 4 year old OS.
I might have to go back and edit my first comment to be clearer.
I can leave the OS behind, but it's the 3rd party apps that I long for on a tablet. It's too bad that these guys don't port their apps over toe Android.
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
Playbook . . . as in what sport coaches use to hold their plays . . . e.g. their next moves, their plans on winning the game.
OllyW
Mar 26, 06:54 AM
Got to wait for the results from the beta testers who buy 10.7 on release. Learn the lessons of 10.6, I waited until 10.6.2 was out!
I'll get it and try it on the release day but I'll have a clone of my Snow Leopard HD ready incase it all goes tits up. :)
I'll get it and try it on the release day but I'll have a clone of my Snow Leopard HD ready incase it all goes tits up. :)
Chupa Chupa
Apr 10, 09:12 AM
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it ain't the whole fact that Apple pushed aside every professional vid company just to announce their product. It's that they never have announced pro-level products at/alongside professional trade shows prior to this. CES is one thing, but I don't ever recall Apple ever placing any presence at/during NAB or AES (the latter of which they would present something related to the Logic Pro) before.
You need to consult a doctor ASAP because your memory isn't so good. It's only been a few years since Apple pulled out of NAB. Prior to that Apple use to announce products alongside NAB all the time. In fact the very first version of FCP was announced at Supermeet.
Since then:
NAB '01: DVD SP 1.5
NAB '02, '03: new versions of FCP
NAB '05, 06, 07, 09: new versions of FCS
Anyone else call BS on that whole article?
Huh? Did you see the video. This is a legit NAB discussion panel. But I see where you are coming from b/c it's completely unlike Apple to go off on a new paradigm. I mean Apple would be the last company to shock customers and the industry by ditching the floppy drive at the peak of it's existence. And it would never just completely rewrite a popular consumer program like iMovie. Or take the lead on a new connector like Thunderbolt. Never, because we all know Apple is a company that follows other's lead. :rolleyes:
I since there will be a lot of the usually howling when this new FCP is previewed. It looks like Apple is taking video editing in a completely new direction, hence the sentimental journey back to the place where FCP was first launched. Based on the video Apple is jettisoning old media (TV, Movie) editing for new media (web). The latter market is bigger and it also fits in better with Apple's new consumer-leaning sales model.
Personally I'm excited to see what Tues brings.
Although a new FCP is great news, I'm wondering if the new Motion is going to be equally exciting. It's about time it stepped up and challenged After Effects.
I suspect Apple did a re-think of the entire suite and the Motion graphics will not only give AE a run for it's money but that Motion will be better integrated into FCP.
You need to consult a doctor ASAP because your memory isn't so good. It's only been a few years since Apple pulled out of NAB. Prior to that Apple use to announce products alongside NAB all the time. In fact the very first version of FCP was announced at Supermeet.
Since then:
NAB '01: DVD SP 1.5
NAB '02, '03: new versions of FCP
NAB '05, 06, 07, 09: new versions of FCS
Anyone else call BS on that whole article?
Huh? Did you see the video. This is a legit NAB discussion panel. But I see where you are coming from b/c it's completely unlike Apple to go off on a new paradigm. I mean Apple would be the last company to shock customers and the industry by ditching the floppy drive at the peak of it's existence. And it would never just completely rewrite a popular consumer program like iMovie. Or take the lead on a new connector like Thunderbolt. Never, because we all know Apple is a company that follows other's lead. :rolleyes:
I since there will be a lot of the usually howling when this new FCP is previewed. It looks like Apple is taking video editing in a completely new direction, hence the sentimental journey back to the place where FCP was first launched. Based on the video Apple is jettisoning old media (TV, Movie) editing for new media (web). The latter market is bigger and it also fits in better with Apple's new consumer-leaning sales model.
Personally I'm excited to see what Tues brings.
Although a new FCP is great news, I'm wondering if the new Motion is going to be equally exciting. It's about time it stepped up and challenged After Effects.
I suspect Apple did a re-think of the entire suite and the Motion graphics will not only give AE a run for it's money but that Motion will be better integrated into FCP.
mark!
Aug 11, 05:57 PM
These rumors have been going for so long. Since right? 3 Years is a lot for technology.
But atleast we know they can't be just sitting there. With both the nano, and iPod with video being almost 1 year old, they can't just be sitting there. :)
Just gimme a new iPod & "iPhone". :)
But atleast we know they can't be just sitting there. With both the nano, and iPod with video being almost 1 year old, they can't just be sitting there. :)
Just gimme a new iPod & "iPhone". :)
milo
Aug 17, 09:21 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.
There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.
robanga
Mar 22, 01:48 PM
Can you imagine any scenario in which RIM remains relevant and does not continue its slide down?
Is there a founder waiting to come back and right the ship?
Will this product launch to a couple million sold in its first weeks, month or even quarter? Sold through now... not sold to a channel where they will sit on the shelf. This is an incredibly uphill battle for RIM, Motorola or whomever right now. Non-recognition of that is simply hope in a non-apple white horse.
I want Apple to have competition, without it they will grow complacent. I just don't see it on this front. Android phones is another story but tablets...yikes its going to take a lot more than this.
Is there a founder waiting to come back and right the ship?
Will this product launch to a couple million sold in its first weeks, month or even quarter? Sold through now... not sold to a channel where they will sit on the shelf. This is an incredibly uphill battle for RIM, Motorola or whomever right now. Non-recognition of that is simply hope in a non-apple white horse.
I want Apple to have competition, without it they will grow complacent. I just don't see it on this front. Android phones is another story but tablets...yikes its going to take a lot more than this.
~Shard~
Jul 15, 01:31 PM
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool:
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 28, 12:40 PM
And you sure do like to talk in circles. So doubting and not believing the certificate is legitimate are two different things. What in the heck are you talking about?? You birthers are all alike...in the face of being proven wrong, you just try to make stuff up as you go along.
I ask you whether Rockwell Blake would be a competent President of the United States. You reply, "I have no idea. Who's Rockwell Blake?" You don't believe that he would be a competent President of the United States. You don't doubt that he would do that. You haven't formed any opinion about whether he would be a competent one.
I ask you whether Rockwell Blake would be a competent President of the United States. You reply, "I have no idea. Who's Rockwell Blake?" You don't believe that he would be a competent President of the United States. You don't doubt that he would do that. You haven't formed any opinion about whether he would be a competent one.
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 :)
DJMastaWes
Aug 26, 10:12 PM
No. its usually by 6AM Pacific 9AM Eastern. I KNOW - not guessing.
Well, this was not the case for the BT Mighty Mouse.
Anyway, I'm hopeing that we see Merom in a the next few days. That would make me JUMP for joy!
Well, this was not the case for the BT Mighty Mouse.
Anyway, I'm hopeing that we see Merom in a the next few days. That would make me JUMP for joy!
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:36 AM
The Mactopus??
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!
My only...
My Mactopus...
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!
My only...
My Mactopus...
No comments:
Post a Comment