Popeye206
Apr 25, 02:58 PM
This...
You are explicitly asked if you want Google to collect this information.
You can say NO. It does reduce the accuracy of some programs when you opt out, but YOU have the choice.
You do have the option to enable this feature at any time if you feel you need too.
Same on the iPhone... this is not what we're talking about here. Application tracking has always been opt in or out.
This is just a database of cell tower pings. That's all. it's shared with NO ONE and goes nowhere except on your phone. It's like your web browser cache.
You are explicitly asked if you want Google to collect this information.
You can say NO. It does reduce the accuracy of some programs when you opt out, but YOU have the choice.
You do have the option to enable this feature at any time if you feel you need too.
Same on the iPhone... this is not what we're talking about here. Application tracking has always been opt in or out.
This is just a database of cell tower pings. That's all. it's shared with NO ONE and goes nowhere except on your phone. It's like your web browser cache.
CaptMurdock
Mar 22, 07:02 AM
Fox News, huh?
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
SteveRichardson
Jul 27, 11:04 AM
Me too. I'm just going to hang onto my aging iBook G4 until they come out. I really would kick myself if I bought a MacBook Pro now so close to them being updated. I'm just hoping I can order soon, and then they will arrive at the end of August... just in time for school. *crosses fingers*
Yeah same same. Haha I've had my iBook G4 for like 2 1/2 years now (can it be that long already?).
tiiimeee for an upgrade.
I wonder if they can ship it to my dorm in one piece if needed (as in if I need to wait that long before they become available....:( )
Yeah same same. Haha I've had my iBook G4 for like 2 1/2 years now (can it be that long already?).
tiiimeee for an upgrade.
I wonder if they can ship it to my dorm in one piece if needed (as in if I need to wait that long before they become available....:( )
SuperCachetes
Mar 23, 04:23 PM
"Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:29 PM
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
roland.g
Apr 6, 11:19 AM
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
I didn't say I use it for content creation or production capabilities. Desktop power. Screen real estate. I'll take my iMac with 24" screen over a notebook at 11.6 or 13.3. And my graphics and cpu power over that in an MBA. And when I want something instant on, and quick access, and light and mobile, I've got an iPad 2. Sorry, but read the whole post. I apologize if I'm not one of those people who kids themselves into thinking that a notebook is a viable "real work" machine.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
I didn't say I use it for content creation or production capabilities. Desktop power. Screen real estate. I'll take my iMac with 24" screen over a notebook at 11.6 or 13.3. And my graphics and cpu power over that in an MBA. And when I want something instant on, and quick access, and light and mobile, I've got an iPad 2. Sorry, but read the whole post. I apologize if I'm not one of those people who kids themselves into thinking that a notebook is a viable "real work" machine.
zacman
Apr 19, 02:43 PM
Ya right. :rolleyes:
http://ronnie05.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gartner-1011101.jpg?w=594&h=256
Apple Q3/09: 7 million devices and 17.1% marketshare
Apple Q3/10: 13.4 million devices (almost doubled!) but 16.7% marketshare.
Nokia Q3/09: 18 million devices and 44% marketshare
Nokia Q3/10: 29 million devices (+ 11 million!) but only 36% marketshare
So Apple sold 6.5 million more units but lost 0.4% marketshare.
Ya, right.
http://ronnie05.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gartner-1011101.jpg?w=594&h=256
Apple Q3/09: 7 million devices and 17.1% marketshare
Apple Q3/10: 13.4 million devices (almost doubled!) but 16.7% marketshare.
Nokia Q3/09: 18 million devices and 44% marketshare
Nokia Q3/10: 29 million devices (+ 11 million!) but only 36% marketshare
So Apple sold 6.5 million more units but lost 0.4% marketshare.
Ya, right.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:19 AM
Well...I've used and ENJOYED iMac G4 for five years which is still going strong by the way. I just can't help but wonder how stupid and childish it is to expect that Apple will upgrade it already awesome MBP. The Merom CPU has very minor perforformance benefit over Yonah until Santa Rosa is out next year. It has double the L2 catch, 140M more transistors and 3 Watt/hour more cons (34W/H) than Yonah (31W/H). Conroe with faster FSB is a totally different story. So I personally have nothing against those poor souls expecting new notebooks but sympothy.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
The benchmarks show it actually has better performance with almost exactly the same battery life.
I'm positive Apple will go merom ASAP simply because their competition will, and it is a 64 bit chip.
wpotere
Apr 27, 01:30 PM
Who would think I'd support Bush? He's not conservative enough for me, and his administration spent to much.
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
I started to dissect this mess, but you dive in six different directions. I'm starting to wonder if you are my father, he pulls the same crap.
This is just not worth touching. You are so focused on the negative of everything that nothing positive can come of it!
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
I started to dissect this mess, but you dive in six different directions. I'm starting to wonder if you are my father, he pulls the same crap.
This is just not worth touching. You are so focused on the negative of everything that nothing positive can come of it!
Soba
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
RedTomato
Sep 13, 08:49 AM
Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
Damn, yes, that would be the ultimate future hot machine - a second hand or refurb Mac Pro 2ghz, - I reckon by October they will about �1200 second hand, then in the new year, down to about �800, get one, then pop in 2 x 4 cores.
Anyone know if the chipset will be pin-compatible with the next generation quad-cores?
Seems we are stuck as far as increasing MHZ goes, 3ghz seems to be near the realistic limit. Now we're just adding more and more cores in. How many cores will be the feasible limit?
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
SteveRichardson
Jul 27, 10:27 AM
MBPs the end of august? I START school in the end of august.
ughghghghghghg
ughghghghghghg
ShiftClick
Apr 5, 05:06 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 27, 10:55 AM
The difference is a question of access. To get at the records kept by your cell phone provider, you need a subpoena. Any roommate/guest/thief/stalker with access to your computer or iPhone can get the data off your iphone or the backup as it exists right now. I don't mind the former, but I want to do everything I can to prevent the latter.
Keep better tabs on your phone. Encrypt the computer backup. Yeah yeah, I know sometimes we lose things. Hell, I've lost my iphone in my couch and took a half hour to find out WHERE in the couch it went.
Even still, you have to take some responsibility at some point. We can't all rely on Apple/Google/Purina Brand Puppy Chow to keep our data completely 100% safe. As they say in the IT security industry, "Your biggest threats are the end users". Technology can only go so far.
If you're REALLY paranoid, install Where's my Iphone, and if you lose it, remote wipe it.
Keep better tabs on your phone. Encrypt the computer backup. Yeah yeah, I know sometimes we lose things. Hell, I've lost my iphone in my couch and took a half hour to find out WHERE in the couch it went.
Even still, you have to take some responsibility at some point. We can't all rely on Apple/Google/Purina Brand Puppy Chow to keep our data completely 100% safe. As they say in the IT security industry, "Your biggest threats are the end users". Technology can only go so far.
If you're REALLY paranoid, install Where's my Iphone, and if you lose it, remote wipe it.
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 02:25 PM
Motorola not selling any units of a crappy product? Huh... who'd have thought.
No need to brag IMO and did you really try a Xoom and put it through it's paces?
I didn't, but tried an ipad 1 and it wasn't doing all I would want it for, plus I never buy a first gen Apple product. (That little rule has served me well since 1984)
Apple is waaayyyyyyy ahead at the moment and the copy cats are playing catch up.
But, I like that there will be a race forcing each manufacturer to make the product better and better.
While Apple is not ignoring what the competition does, their philosophy of making their own products better and better seems to be successful.
So, why change that formula or shake in your boots , just because somebody launches a new copy?
No need to brag IMO and did you really try a Xoom and put it through it's paces?
I didn't, but tried an ipad 1 and it wasn't doing all I would want it for, plus I never buy a first gen Apple product. (That little rule has served me well since 1984)
Apple is waaayyyyyyy ahead at the moment and the copy cats are playing catch up.
But, I like that there will be a race forcing each manufacturer to make the product better and better.
While Apple is not ignoring what the competition does, their philosophy of making their own products better and better seems to be successful.
So, why change that formula or shake in your boots , just because somebody launches a new copy?
leekohler
Mar 1, 07:47 AM
It's amazing how the message can be impacted so much by where it is coming from. If leekohler would have said "I'm chronically gay," many of us might've gotten a chuckle out of it. ;)
The sheer willful ignorance is astounding. People like this do not want to understand others who are different from them. They want to remain ignorant.
The sheer willful ignorance is astounding. People like this do not want to understand others who are different from them. They want to remain ignorant.
ziwi
Nov 29, 09:32 AM
Just nuts - this would be a real bummer if it went through. It makes no sense whatsoever.
smiddlehurst
Mar 31, 02:53 PM
Thats not at all what this article is saying. The Android project is still going to be "open source".
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
MacsRgr8
Aug 5, 06:06 PM
I think the Merom will be introduced:
Thus a MacBook Pro wil probably be announced, and made available right away, or otherwise very soon.
The Conroe and Woodcrest will probably take longer.
So, the Mac Pro and Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve) will be announced, but shipping in about 6 weeks.
Thus a MacBook Pro wil probably be announced, and made available right away, or otherwise very soon.
The Conroe and Woodcrest will probably take longer.
So, the Mac Pro and Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve) will be announced, but shipping in about 6 weeks.
b166er
Apr 7, 10:39 PM
It's psychology, man. big companies use it against us every day. I have worked in retail a long time, and I see this all the time with high demand products. Dollars to doughnuts apple has a stock pile of iPads and they are just letting so many thousand slip out at a time. Hype generates massive amounts of free press and profits at no cost to the company making the product.
boringName
Nov 29, 10:14 AM
The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
Yes, that's the irritating part - Universal isn't providing anyone with anything, here. It seems much more like blackmail to continue offering their music library on iTunes (should this "deal" go through) and the Zune store.
To address another item - I'd like to point out that, while not an angel, I "ripped" far more of my friends' music back in the old-days of cassette tapes.
Yes, that's the irritating part - Universal isn't providing anyone with anything, here. It seems much more like blackmail to continue offering their music library on iTunes (should this "deal" go through) and the Zune store.
To address another item - I'd like to point out that, while not an angel, I "ripped" far more of my friends' music back in the old-days of cassette tapes.
ECUpirate44
Apr 11, 11:38 AM
If the iPhone 5 has a bigger screen and 4G connectivity it will be worth it. I can't imagine Apple will release another phone with only 3G with all these Verizon 4G phones coming onto the market.
Right. If their going to wait until late summer or fall, it will surely be 4G.
Right. If their going to wait until late summer or fall, it will surely be 4G.
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 :)
Liske
Aug 21, 01:28 AM
Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.
What I most would like to know is how does the 2GHz Mac Pro stack up to the Quad G5.
And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.
What I most would like to know is how does the 2GHz Mac Pro stack up to the Quad G5.
And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......
No comments:
Post a Comment