HiRez
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :DYou're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
fishkorp
Mar 18, 05:47 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
zarusoba
Aug 30, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:18 PM
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
pourhadi
Mar 18, 11:37 AM
This is just going to hurt Apple in the eyes of the music industry.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
Lepton
Oct 25, 11:00 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Pipian
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 07:49 PM
This is my first post but I think I can comment on this thread because my wife and I use both a Mac and a PC in our business.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:22 AM
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
Apple leads. The PC you use today runs an OS that got its inspiration from Apple popularizing the GUI in the marketplace. The smart phone you use today gets its design cues from the iPhone.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 05:04 PM
You're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
liavman
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:41 AM
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
pmz
Mar 18, 08:53 AM
I didn't say it was right, but you still signed that contract. Not at&t's fault.
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Rasta4i
Apr 21, 04:02 AM
Irregardless of whether or not carriers will lock it down, it's available RIGHT NOW. And in the event that they put in measures to stop it, someone will find a way around it eventually.
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
It was NEVER available for iOS.
Your wariness in downloading apps doesn't negate the fact that there are many apps available, and all you have to do is spend an extra 20 seconds reading reviews to find out if the app is legitimate or not.
I had poor battery life on my Optimus as well. Then I found Data Switch, and my battery lasts forever now. I haven't tested how long it will go, but I imagine I'd easily get 2 days out of it.
I just hate that people have to blindly bash Android products, and this isn't aimed directly at you, just the majority of users on this site in general.
I respect the iPhone, it's a beautiful piece of hardware.
It works, and it works well.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
The value in an iPhone just isn't there for me in particular.
The way you speak about tethering is as if apple are charging you for it... I live in the UK where the iphone is on every network now, some allow tethering for free some made you pay. I was with o2, they were the first network to get the iphone over here and they no longer charge extra for tethering. you saying it was never available on iOS confuses me as its clearly not true and based on the carrier
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 03:54 PM
I'm not pleased with this development, because Apple's DRM is necessary to maintain the compromise they made with the record labels and allow the iTunes Music Store to exist in the first place. If the labels gets the jitters about how well Apple is controlling distribution, that threatens a good part of our "supply" of music, even though I wouldn't expect a large percentage of mainstream customers to actually use a program like PyMusique.
Will Apple be able to teach the iTunes Music Store to distinguish the real iTunes client from PyMusique with software changes only on the server side? If not, I imagine that only an iTunes update (which people would have to install) could stop the program from working.
Suppose iTunes is updated to use a new "secret handshake" with the iTunes Music Store in order to stop other clients from spoofing iTunes. Will iTunes have any way to distinguish tunes previously purchased through PyMusique from tunes acquired from other sources, i.e., ripped from CDs? Perhaps the tags identify them as coming from iTMS and iTunes could apply DRM after the fact. Then again, tags can be removed.
Will Apple be able to teach the iTunes Music Store to distinguish the real iTunes client from PyMusique with software changes only on the server side? If not, I imagine that only an iTunes update (which people would have to install) could stop the program from working.
Suppose iTunes is updated to use a new "secret handshake" with the iTunes Music Store in order to stop other clients from spoofing iTunes. Will iTunes have any way to distinguish tunes previously purchased through PyMusique from tunes acquired from other sources, i.e., ripped from CDs? Perhaps the tags identify them as coming from iTMS and iTunes could apply DRM after the fact. Then again, tags can be removed.
LightSpeed1
May 3, 06:40 PM
Looks like I'll stop using safari.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:36 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
FoxyKaye
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
belovedmonster
Sep 12, 03:37 PM
I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD.
Thats where having your Mac Mini in the living room comes into play. Its basically just a box to interface from a computer to the TV, where you put the computer is up to you, and in this case why not have a Mac Mini in the living room?
Thats where having your Mac Mini in the living room comes into play. Its basically just a box to interface from a computer to the TV, where you put the computer is up to you, and in this case why not have a Mac Mini in the living room?
No comments:
Post a Comment