ChickenSwartz
Aug 5, 10:11 PM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
SiliconAddict
Jul 27, 03:29 PM
this blog was also written by jason o'grady, aka the PowerPage rumor site. his writing means nothing to me.
++
99.998% of what is posted on POwerPage is garbage. I love the crap about how he's against a buttonless iPOd because touching the screen would scratch it. o.O No Jason....touching the screen would smuge it. Unless you hands are as hard as sandpaper....anyways. PP is pretty much crap.
Nice news from intel, good for WWDC ...
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
ARE PREPARED for the NASTY NEWS THAT COULD COME AT ANY TIME :eek: :eek:
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development :eek: :eek: :eek: :mad:
DON'T YOU GET IT ...
... this is the plan Bill G., the NICE GUY, leaves MS with his CLOD BULLDOG in charge AND YOU GET WHAT YOU GET, Balmer cuts the Mac devision and probably a TON of other jobs too and then they announce their MP3 player and all sorts of services !!!
This way their player looks more credible then Apple, for a while anyway !!
If Apple was smart after all they would have hired me to test their spreadsheet app a long time ago, I am after all, the SPREADSHEET GOD :cool:
Dude. One word.....Decaf. :rolleyes:
++
99.998% of what is posted on POwerPage is garbage. I love the crap about how he's against a buttonless iPOd because touching the screen would scratch it. o.O No Jason....touching the screen would smuge it. Unless you hands are as hard as sandpaper....anyways. PP is pretty much crap.
Nice news from intel, good for WWDC ...
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
ARE PREPARED for the NASTY NEWS THAT COULD COME AT ANY TIME :eek: :eek:
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development :eek: :eek: :eek: :mad:
DON'T YOU GET IT ...
... this is the plan Bill G., the NICE GUY, leaves MS with his CLOD BULLDOG in charge AND YOU GET WHAT YOU GET, Balmer cuts the Mac devision and probably a TON of other jobs too and then they announce their MP3 player and all sorts of services !!!
This way their player looks more credible then Apple, for a while anyway !!
If Apple was smart after all they would have hired me to test their spreadsheet app a long time ago, I am after all, the SPREADSHEET GOD :cool:
Dude. One word.....Decaf. :rolleyes:
toolbox
Mar 26, 06:33 AM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
Same! soon as available for pre order / order
Same! soon as available for pre order / order
hynke
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
And what if I want to keep things how they are right now. If Apple says that they will reduce the size of the database stored in your phone, it also means that iPhone will communicate with Apple's servers more often (instead of finding reference in it's own database it will ask Apple's servers for it). That will cause more data traffic, slower location services and faster battery discharge.
ugp
Jun 10, 07:21 AM
I've always called Wal-Mart Wally World.
JoeC2k6
Jun 14, 10:33 AM
radioshack just offered me 36 cents to $40 for a trade in on a 3GS......really great trade in value at RS...
citizenzen
Mar 17, 01:31 PM
If you need links for the items the 5p listed, you weren't paying attention during the campaign.
Exactly. Citizenzen is just avoiding the obvious truth and he knows it.
If the truth is so obvious, prove it.
If there are "lots" of examples, then show them.
Otherwise, you're engaging in, at best, lazy debate.
I expect better from both of you.
Exactly. Citizenzen is just avoiding the obvious truth and he knows it.
If the truth is so obvious, prove it.
If there are "lots" of examples, then show them.
Otherwise, you're engaging in, at best, lazy debate.
I expect better from both of you.
SWC
Aug 7, 06:35 PM
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
This only restores system files doesn't restore documents, pictures etc.
Apple has never (as far as I am aware) held features back in their presentation before. I think they just weren't ready to be shown off yet which is no biggie it gives them some steam for macworld 07.
Time machine: a fancy front end to the type of backup that people have been doing for years. Mirra with less features?
Mail: hello outlook light
spotlight: Microsoft did it before you, you just had it integrated in the os first.
spaces: virtuedesktops but a tad fancier in presentation
dashboard: konfabulator + active desktop light
64 bit: yawn...xp 64
ical: exchange calendaring
accessibility: bleh nothing revolutionary here
ichat keynote and core animation are the only two truly unique features they introduced.
Sure it�s nice to have them all bundled neatly into the OS but for a company to base almost their entire signage around someone else copying them, there sure is a lot of prior art showing their innovation. I admit they do it in a very well integrated and visually appealing way and they even add tons of nice touches here and there but they aren't always first.
I am a Mac user, but not blind to the real world like some. Apple is like George Clooney in the smug episode of south park.
This only restores system files doesn't restore documents, pictures etc.
Apple has never (as far as I am aware) held features back in their presentation before. I think they just weren't ready to be shown off yet which is no biggie it gives them some steam for macworld 07.
Time machine: a fancy front end to the type of backup that people have been doing for years. Mirra with less features?
Mail: hello outlook light
spotlight: Microsoft did it before you, you just had it integrated in the os first.
spaces: virtuedesktops but a tad fancier in presentation
dashboard: konfabulator + active desktop light
64 bit: yawn...xp 64
ical: exchange calendaring
accessibility: bleh nothing revolutionary here
ichat keynote and core animation are the only two truly unique features they introduced.
Sure it�s nice to have them all bundled neatly into the OS but for a company to base almost their entire signage around someone else copying them, there sure is a lot of prior art showing their innovation. I admit they do it in a very well integrated and visually appealing way and they even add tons of nice touches here and there but they aren't always first.
I am a Mac user, but not blind to the real world like some. Apple is like George Clooney in the smug episode of south park.
maclaptop
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
I wouldn't worry. I have an insider source who assures me Apple is basing its entire iPhone 5 product launch on when your contract ends. Here's a direct quote from Steve Jobs:
"While the antenna issues forced us to accelerate our product cycle in favor of a redesign a year earlier than expected, and while the earthquake/tsunami disaster in Japan has added several of its own complications, rest assured that Apple will take every conceivable measure to ensure that the iPhone 5 ships at a time close to the end of mlmathews' 3Gs contract. We have been quite fortunate with the success of out iOS devices in recent years, but we're not about to start pushing our luck here."
You're right.
I have confirmation that the upcoming iPhone release date is Tuesday January 17, 2012.
"While the antenna issues forced us to accelerate our product cycle in favor of a redesign a year earlier than expected, and while the earthquake/tsunami disaster in Japan has added several of its own complications, rest assured that Apple will take every conceivable measure to ensure that the iPhone 5 ships at a time close to the end of mlmathews' 3Gs contract. We have been quite fortunate with the success of out iOS devices in recent years, but we're not about to start pushing our luck here."
You're right.
I have confirmation that the upcoming iPhone release date is Tuesday January 17, 2012.
shawnce
Aug 18, 10:14 PM
So You are saying 10 seconds from OFF to the Grey Apple then 5 more seconds to the desktop? With 3 GB of New Egg + 2GB RAM? That's still very fast. Quad G5 is almost as fast as that though.
A little random trivia I learned at WWDC 06...
- When you see the Apple symbol on an Intel Mac that means EFI boot loader is active.
- When you see the spinning progress indicator that means the kernel has taken over from EFI boot loader.
- When you see the the switch to blue with progress dialog then the logininwindow is active (launchd has been loading required boot time services by this point).
If you hold down option while booting and get into the traditional boot disk selection screen on a Intel based Mac you can add and remove storage devices and they will appear/disappear automatically (EFI allows for much faster scanning and dynamic add/remove of devices). Additionally they will use the volume icon if one is found and for fun you can use your IR remote to make your boot selection.
A little random trivia I learned at WWDC 06...
- When you see the Apple symbol on an Intel Mac that means EFI boot loader is active.
- When you see the spinning progress indicator that means the kernel has taken over from EFI boot loader.
- When you see the the switch to blue with progress dialog then the logininwindow is active (launchd has been loading required boot time services by this point).
If you hold down option while booting and get into the traditional boot disk selection screen on a Intel based Mac you can add and remove storage devices and they will appear/disappear automatically (EFI allows for much faster scanning and dynamic add/remove of devices). Additionally they will use the volume icon if one is found and for fun you can use your IR remote to make your boot selection.
mcrain
Mar 22, 08:26 AM
Are you suggesting that Obama has gotten comparable treatment from the media as compared to Bush? The double standard is hilariously transparent... Obama justified, Bush not. Obama builds strong coalition, Bush doesn't. Obama trying to save people, Bush going after the oil. Obama savior, Bush satan.
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
iScott428
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "your post was not eloquent".
pwn
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "your post was not eloquent".
pwn
Dan==
Jul 27, 02:43 PM
A second slot is overkill for a midline model. And Apple has obviously made the decision that FW800 is a pro feature only, if it's not in the 15 inch MBP. Not to mention that it's not included in the standard intel chipsets, so adding it is extra work for Apple.
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
thebeans
Apr 27, 10:04 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
When I was in college we got a new professor. He had retired from the Navy. Intelligence division actually. His job during his last years in NI was to monitor email communications. Yea, he read your email. Not literally every one of course and there were (are) many, many working on this but in a nutshell, yes the government does read your email. Do I care? Nope. Got nothing to hide and if they want to read emails of me asking my wife what she wants for supper or telling her how my day went, what do I care?
CaoCao
Feb 28, 06:54 PM
In what case is inclusionism not a good policy? Being consistent in our thinking and morality is a sign of a logical and sound mind.
I can not think of a single case where making arbitrary exceptions is a good practice.
I have no problem being exclusionist to bad ideas like rape and paedophilia
I can not think of a single case where making arbitrary exceptions is a good practice.
I have no problem being exclusionist to bad ideas like rape and paedophilia
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 07:30 PM
The same model applies to the 'church'.
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
cait-sith
Aug 11, 12:44 PM
Doesn't Europe have many many carriers in each country? There's no carrier that spans the entire EU, is there?
Who wants to pay 400$ for a phone that will look like an antique 12 months from now? That's a lot of money to pay for the status of having a brand new phone.
Who wants to pay 400$ for a phone that will look like an antique 12 months from now? That's a lot of money to pay for the status of having a brand new phone.
Gasu E.
Jul 14, 02:43 PM
Did you see my above post? Great minds think a like... ;)
Logically speaking, weak minds would also think "a like".
Logically speaking, weak minds would also think "a like".
MrChurchyard
Apr 6, 11:48 AM
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:28 PM
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
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 :)
Nym
Nov 29, 11:28 AM
I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
AHAHAHAHAHA
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.
Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)
iPoop on Record Labels :D
Moyank24
Apr 27, 12:30 PM
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will.
You suspected what was a copy? Had you just read the article before commenting, you would have known it was a copy.
And you don't trust the President? Shocking.
You suspected what was a copy? Had you just read the article before commenting, you would have known it was a copy.
And you don't trust the President? Shocking.