ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Vegasman
Apr 27, 11:32 AM
Really? So you're telling me that the location saved, of the cell tower 100 miles away, is actually really MY location?
Wow!
If you believe this is not a problem, the burden of proof is not to show there is at least one instance where the information would not be useful. Instead, the burden of proof is if for you to show there is NO circumstance where this information could be used against someone.
Wow!
If you believe this is not a problem, the burden of proof is not to show there is at least one instance where the information would not be useful. Instead, the burden of proof is if for you to show there is NO circumstance where this information could be used against someone.
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 03:06 PM
Amazing that anyone ever wonders why conservatives never stay around these parts, your level of debate is at rock bottom.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
I saw it on Drudge
Now there's a reliable source. Instead of me taking more time to explain it to someone who hasn't got the slightest idea of what he's talking about, I'll go one better. I'll let a conservative explain it:
We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That�s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they�re being called, aren�t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They�re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
What�s plausible is that somewhere along the way � from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) � these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What�s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama�s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It�s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let�s leave it at that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
Now are we done with this useless nonsense?
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�
donlphi
Nov 28, 11:04 PM
Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
outlawarth
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
Analysts can just shove it. Complete BS all over the place. So.. according to them, we're going to have OSX Lion, iOS5, iPhone5, new iPods AND iPad 3... ALL IN THE FALL?! Complete bull. Oh, and throw in macbook pro updates for the later part of the fall, as usual. Just think about that for a second.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
+1... Thank you.
Now, let me remember, when was the last time they were wrong.. oh wait, that's right, iPad 2. Last I remember, it was, you won't see it till May/June at the earliest. WRONG. And after analysts vs. bloggers report, it seems bloggers are more right than analysts.
Anyways, after the 1st paragraph I wrote, I have no doubt in my mind that this is impossible. Last time Apple tried something like this, if I recall, it was Mobile Me, iPhone 3G + iOS2. It was a mess. Jobs himself said it was a mistake (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10006873-93.html) they'll never make again. So, when thinking about everything that is rumored by analysts to be coming out this fall, yeah, don't think so.:rolleyes:
Edit 2: ipad 2 entered production 1 month b4 apple announcing, so no freak'n 3 months as I've heard around rumor sites.
+1... Thank you.
Nuc
Aug 25, 02:58 PM
Well I wasn't to happy with them yesterday because I got hung up on 5 times. The answering system must have been having problems. I'm on the phone right now with them, waiting..., so that I can get the Nike+ iPod kit replaced. To bad they didn't have more support staff to answer calls...
Nuc
Nuc
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
mkrishnan
Aug 7, 04:35 PM
Well, do you think it's a copy of "Previous versions", which someone posted a link to in this thread?
It's very similar. I'm saying, who cares? It's a simple basic concept and Apple has a nice implementation going. :) And I actually believe that Apple's version will not have glaring security holes. :eek: :p Ahem...I installed Trillian on managed Win2k and XP machines as a standard user, and other users had access to my IM accounts without logging in!!!! :rolleyes:
Anyway, though, a Wiki Server in Leopard Server...mmmm... If only we lived in an Apple world. :D
That guy who made the angry video said it best... using a Mac is not so much using a computer but participating in the Apple experience. :D
It's very similar. I'm saying, who cares? It's a simple basic concept and Apple has a nice implementation going. :) And I actually believe that Apple's version will not have glaring security holes. :eek: :p Ahem...I installed Trillian on managed Win2k and XP machines as a standard user, and other users had access to my IM accounts without logging in!!!! :rolleyes:
Anyway, though, a Wiki Server in Leopard Server...mmmm... If only we lived in an Apple world. :D
That guy who made the angry video said it best... using a Mac is not so much using a computer but participating in the Apple experience. :D
asdf542
Apr 10, 10:39 PM
This is kind of ironic. My brother works in the video editing field and I was just talking about this only 5 minutes ago. He was lucky enough to "NAB" a ticket (pun fully intended) literally seconds before they sold out, and he'll be there for the presentation. He was telling me about this radical new overhaul for FCP, and I thought it was kind of weird that I hadn't seen any mention of it seeing as how I check Apple rumor blogs almost daily, so I logged onto macrumors and sure enough, it was the first story listed.
I guess there's a lot of drama among the industry about Apple's refusal to release any kind of road map for FCP, not unlike their other products, and apparently a lot of people are starting to jump ship to Adobe's offerings. Everyone is pretty worried about this new overhaul because the guy who botched iMovie is the guy now in charge of FCP. I'm not into video editing, and I've never never used FCP or any product like it, but after hearing about all the drama and excitement surrounding this new overhaul I'm pretty stoked to see what happens.
My brother is a diehard Apple guy, but he, along with a lot of other people apparently, are basically giving Apple this final shot to fix a lot of FCP's limitations, or they're going to fully move over to Adobe's offering. (I can't remember the name of heir FCP equivalent, and I'm too lazy to look it up) Tuesday can't come soon enough!The guy who 'botched' iMovie is the same person that created Final Cut and continues to work on Final Cut. Randy Ubillos has been the head of Apple's video editing suites/applications for as long as I can remember.
I guess there's a lot of drama among the industry about Apple's refusal to release any kind of road map for FCP, not unlike their other products, and apparently a lot of people are starting to jump ship to Adobe's offerings. Everyone is pretty worried about this new overhaul because the guy who botched iMovie is the guy now in charge of FCP. I'm not into video editing, and I've never never used FCP or any product like it, but after hearing about all the drama and excitement surrounding this new overhaul I'm pretty stoked to see what happens.
My brother is a diehard Apple guy, but he, along with a lot of other people apparently, are basically giving Apple this final shot to fix a lot of FCP's limitations, or they're going to fully move over to Adobe's offering. (I can't remember the name of heir FCP equivalent, and I'm too lazy to look it up) Tuesday can't come soon enough!The guy who 'botched' iMovie is the same person that created Final Cut and continues to work on Final Cut. Randy Ubillos has been the head of Apple's video editing suites/applications for as long as I can remember.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 10:55 AM
That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test"
Nah, man, you're missing the point of the chart:
http://twoholepunch.com/quad_vs_dual.gif
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
The only way a quad Woodcrest or octo Clovertown is superior is if you're doing exactly what you do: send a bunch of things to be encoded at the same time. Video editing is a small part of the professional market. People who only encode videos day in and out are an even smaller group.
Nah, man, you're missing the point of the chart:
http://twoholepunch.com/quad_vs_dual.gif
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
The only way a quad Woodcrest or octo Clovertown is superior is if you're doing exactly what you do: send a bunch of things to be encoded at the same time. Video editing is a small part of the professional market. People who only encode videos day in and out are an even smaller group.
alent1234
Apr 20, 07:37 AM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:45 PM
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
saving107
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
I purchased a Xoom over the weekend it's a great device, a little heavy, but very awesome for its first pass. I used to own an iPad 1, gave it away, didn't want an iPad 2. Why do I need two devices of the same OS where the UI was designed for the iPhone (smaller device) to begin with?
Layered Hairstyles,
Hairstyle: Long layered
Classy Long Layered Hairstyle
selena gomez haircut layered.
Medium Layered Hairstyles
Bonfire
Apr 25, 03:04 PM
Such a waste of time. If they're really that bothered by the "tracking," someone needs to tell them to put their phones on eBay and they'll get their money back in about 3 days to put towards another phone.
jeanlain
Apr 5, 05:14 PM
Strange, I thought that Apple had decided to ignore such meetings, and that they would showcase new products only during their own events.
sonnys
Jul 15, 05:04 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
Yamcha
Mar 26, 04:00 PM
I'm looking forward to it, but what would be really amazing if on the next major release of Mac OS they add support for running .EXE files. I know there are third party applications out there to do that, but If it could be legally done and done properly where we don't see any major performance hits then it would truly be the end of using Windows for me, and I'm sure for most others..
I think that would be awesome.. But I know probably unlikely..
I think that would be awesome.. But I know probably unlikely..
X2468
Mar 26, 02:10 PM
Ignoring all else what I want is the ability to run my IOS applications on Mac OS. :)
You may get your wish soon. It appears that Lion will be Step 1 in the blending of the two OS's. A bridge. Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS.
There's too much money in the volume sales of iPhones & iPads for Apple to focus on anything else. Other than the lip service they give their long standing computer users, the current obsession at Apple is sheer profits & volume sales of phones & pads for bragging rights and the money that goes with it.
The handwriting's been on the wall for years, ever since the company was renamed, and that fact has been underlined by the official words of Steve Jobs when he said "Post PC ERA". He was not talking about a few years from now, but mere months for Apple.
This represents the zenith of Jobs efforts. Perhaps the last item on his bucket list. To morph Apple into a huge, successful consumer electronics & entertainment business, is the goal & it's nearly complete. It wouldn't surprise me if the book is too.
You may get your wish soon. It appears that Lion will be Step 1 in the blending of the two OS's. A bridge. Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS.
There's too much money in the volume sales of iPhones & iPads for Apple to focus on anything else. Other than the lip service they give their long standing computer users, the current obsession at Apple is sheer profits & volume sales of phones & pads for bragging rights and the money that goes with it.
The handwriting's been on the wall for years, ever since the company was renamed, and that fact has been underlined by the official words of Steve Jobs when he said "Post PC ERA". He was not talking about a few years from now, but mere months for Apple.
This represents the zenith of Jobs efforts. Perhaps the last item on his bucket list. To morph Apple into a huge, successful consumer electronics & entertainment business, is the goal & it's nearly complete. It wouldn't surprise me if the book is too.
mattpol
Nov 28, 10:04 PM
Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=okZwbxi7p0A) video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.
Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
skunk
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.Isn't that an ad feminam?
Thinine
Apr 10, 01:21 AM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
�algiris
Mar 31, 03:27 PM
Android > iOS.
I was blind, but now i see. Oh wait ...
I was blind, but now i see. Oh wait ...
Michael383
Apr 8, 05:34 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
Because the price points at the Apple store and the Best Buy where I bought my MBP were the same.
Because the price points at the Apple store and the Best Buy where I bought my MBP were the same.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий