milo
Aug 17, 04:29 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.
To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)
Ditto.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:34 PM
Well Rovio (Angry Birds) thinks otherwise:
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Actually, that article does not say they make more money - they say that the two are making about the same money RIGHT NOW. After the initial amount that they made from Apple, when revenues were much higher.
http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-android-ios/
"The company said in December that it expected to make $1 million per month from Android by the end of 2010. (...) Now that the app has seen about 100 million installs across all platforms, Rovio is not getting the same initial bump in paid download revenue from Apple�s app store. On Android, the company doesn�t offer paid Angry Birds apps, but sees recurring revenue from advertising."
So they make more money with their free Android version than they do with the paid iOS version.
Actually, that article does not say they make more money - they say that the two are making about the same money RIGHT NOW. After the initial amount that they made from Apple, when revenues were much higher.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Multimedia
Jul 27, 11:48 PM
Ahh so many announcments !!! Kill me now ! I'm waiting for the end of august then I'm buying whatever I can get.You might want to make that til Tuesday September 12 when the Paris Apple Expo opens with an Apple keynote.
"Otellini said the company expects to ship its 1 millionth Core 2 Duo processor in a little less than seven weeks after launch. In comparison, it took Pentium a year to reach that level of ramp-up. (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/27/core2duo/index.php)"
Two million cores shipped by this time in September. Wow!
"Otellini said the company expects to ship its 1 millionth Core 2 Duo processor in a little less than seven weeks after launch. In comparison, it took Pentium a year to reach that level of ramp-up. (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/27/core2duo/index.php)"
Two million cores shipped by this time in September. Wow!
DwightSchrute
Aug 27, 01:03 PM
Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
That is interesting because I ordered a Macbook on Tuesday (the 22nd) and mine is also scheduled to ship on the 31st. It is suspiciously strange and hopefully it means that we'll get Meroms because I was waiting for the Merom MBP when I decided to just order a Yonah MB.
That is interesting because I ordered a Macbook on Tuesday (the 22nd) and mine is also scheduled to ship on the 31st. It is suspiciously strange and hopefully it means that we'll get Meroms because I was waiting for the Merom MBP when I decided to just order a Yonah MB.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 27, 09:03 AM
Encrypting the existing database and giving us the option to get rid of it. Sounds fine to me.
AngryCorgi
Apr 6, 04:16 PM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
princealfie
Nov 29, 12:30 PM
Why yes, she does!
Got a few people from the SLC here I see...
I promise to buy her album then. Spasiba!
Got a few people from the SLC here I see...
I promise to buy her album then. Spasiba!
tkingart
Mar 27, 03:54 AM
The only thing I don't like in Lion (based on screenshots I've seen) are the "flat gray scroll bars" adopted from iOS, this going back to 2d seems like back pedaling. I think something between flat and 3d would actually work, like get rid of the rounded center, flatten it but keep the edges soft and shaded, keeping the scroll bar wells the same. I suspect it's being flattened because of possible support for touch screens.
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
Popeye206
Apr 11, 12:44 PM
If true, this means that Apple has raised the white flag and accepted the defeat that Android has given to them. Not caring about the power of the hardware relative to others in the marketplace is a hallmark of a niche ecosystem.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
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.
aafuss1
Aug 5, 10:56 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
A redesigned keyboard-should come in Mac Pro and white colors
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
A redesigned keyboard-should come in Mac Pro and white colors
triceretops
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
I wonder if this is why I can no longer get more than a days charge on my iPhone 4 with minimal use since it seems like it's an always on thing.
If you are having battery issues and you have Apple Care on the phone, you can take it to a store and have them replace the battery.
If you are having battery issues and you have Apple Care on the phone, you can take it to a store and have them replace the battery.
GermanSuplex
Jun 23, 10:30 AM
I've gotten no calls at all. I called twice yestereday (with the intent of talking to two different employees).
The first one said that they expect to be able to fulfill reservations (I was told last week I was the only one who reserved at that store), the second employee only told me "I haven't heard a thing."
The first one said that they expect to be able to fulfill reservations (I was told last week I was the only one who reserved at that store), the second employee only told me "I haven't heard a thing."
iGary
Aug 15, 11:39 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
2IS
Apr 10, 10:39 AM
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
Majority of laptops don't have a BL keyboard yet the majority of people still manage just fine despite not having it or night vision.
Majority of laptops don't have a BL keyboard yet the majority of people still manage just fine despite not having it or night vision.
babyj
Sep 19, 09:46 AM
I am new to this (and still waiting to buy my first Mac). BUT why all this talk about speed and not about screen size.
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
Consultant
Apr 7, 10:23 PM
Oh no. BB is a good way to find an ipad 2 in some areas.
MrXiro
Apr 8, 12:20 AM
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
Drives up the "hotness" of the product... I've seen Best Buys force you to buy their "packages" of accessories for whatever hot product and refused to sell to people unless they bought accessories and possibly their service plans.
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
Drives up the "hotness" of the product... I've seen Best Buys force you to buy their "packages" of accessories for whatever hot product and refused to sell to people unless they bought accessories and possibly their service plans.
iAlan
Nov 28, 08:16 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
Reach
Sep 19, 09:44 AM
I find your tone very condescending and doesn't encourage open and accepting dialogue between ppl here. I don't understand why you would participate then... If you need to be the oldest forum member (you win) or 100% right (you can win that too).... but I want to engage with ppl here in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
Agreed, he suddenly jump into the thread and started bashing everyone for making time pass until the machine we wait for arrives, quite unnecessary.
And to imply that chances for a RevB being more refined than a RevA is not higher is just plain stupid. Take evolution, things improve, bad stuff gets pulled out! ;)
Well, there are friendly people here, just some dicks needing to vent or something we could do without..
Agreed, he suddenly jump into the thread and started bashing everyone for making time pass until the machine we wait for arrives, quite unnecessary.
And to imply that chances for a RevB being more refined than a RevA is not higher is just plain stupid. Take evolution, things improve, bad stuff gets pulled out! ;)
Well, there are friendly people here, just some dicks needing to vent or something we could do without..
steadysignal
Apr 11, 12:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:35 PM
It's just like kings, innit?
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
No comments:
Post a Comment