twoodcc
May 11, 10:23 AM
got a big one going now.
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
Clive At Five
Oct 2, 04:14 PM
You're exactly right. To me, the refusal to license FairPlay is the single most puzzling thing about Apple right now. With one move, they could have potentially hundreds of content providers wrapped around their finger in the same way MS had so many PC vendors wrapped around theirs in the past two decades. They could lock down the market for many, many years if they did it right. (BTW, I don't advocate that kind of thing, but they could do it and most companies would jump at the chance.) The iTunes music store would probably disappear or gradually fade away but then, Apple doesn't make the bulk of their money off that anyway and perhaps the FairPlay licensing money would cover that loss. Think of the iPod with hundreds of licensed content providers out there trying to outdo each other. I can't imagine why Apple hasn't done it yet.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
-Clive
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
-Clive
TeppefallGuy
Aug 1, 08:40 PM
I spent 15 minutes registering for an account only to find out that The Daily Show is off limits for Norwegian buyers. I then tried to buy a DVD - only to discover that the DVD is US zone only. The Apple DVD player will not play it without a zone switch. And max is 4 times per OS install.
The only way I can get The Daily Show is:
1 - $$$ porn package from cable company
2 - YouTube
3 - Piracy
I'm not 12 years old.. I don't have the time to pirate anything. So the only TDS for me is on YouTube. Quail hunting with the VP !!
iTunes+DRM == Avis. You don't own ****. So... in Norway... DRM ! It's a crime !!
Also.. The default M4A bit rate used by iTunes is a joke. You have to be 80 years old not to notice the huge difference between a CD and a standard iTunes M4A track.
The only way I can get The Daily Show is:
1 - $$$ porn package from cable company
2 - YouTube
3 - Piracy
I'm not 12 years old.. I don't have the time to pirate anything. So the only TDS for me is on YouTube. Quail hunting with the VP !!
iTunes+DRM == Avis. You don't own ****. So... in Norway... DRM ! It's a crime !!
Also.. The default M4A bit rate used by iTunes is a joke. You have to be 80 years old not to notice the huge difference between a CD and a standard iTunes M4A track.
Matt-M
Apr 15, 02:26 PM
LOL at the perspective on the text in the 3rd photo.
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
TomCondon
Apr 5, 03:08 PM
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
bikertwin
Sep 25, 03:47 PM
Yes, a very good point. And it makes me wonder if Adobe will ever charge for it. In fact, now they have rebranded it Adobe "Photoshop" Darkroom, it leads me to believe it will be included as part of Photoshop and not as a seperate product. This might also be why they haven't released it yet, since the next version of Photoshop isn't finished. This strategy would undercut Apple since most photography professionals undoubtedly already own Photoshop and will upgrade.
No, Adobe is claiming Lightroom will be released in late early a good 3 months before PS CS3.
I think with this rebranding, they're positioning Lightroom between PS Elements and PS CS, hence PS Lightroom.
No, Adobe is claiming Lightroom will be released in late early a good 3 months before PS CS3.
I think with this rebranding, they're positioning Lightroom between PS Elements and PS CS, hence PS Lightroom.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 08:59 AM
Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it. ... But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. ... If Jobs wanted a modern building ... then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
weazle1098
Oct 11, 11:50 AM
I'd like to see this thing come out soon, but I'm not in the market for anything of the sort, unless it's more like a PDA than the current iPods. But, for now, let's all let it go, the prophecy will come true. Besides who's actaully going to buy that brick of a MP3 player anyway, it looks thicker than my Powerbook. Micro$oft hasn't gotten the whole elegance thing down yet, so no worries.
ssk2
Apr 16, 07:19 AM
I don't know why Google is bothering. The Amazon cloud system *should be*/is great and competition enough for iTunes - both in terms of pricing (certainly) and usability (more debatable).
The fact that Android doesn't need an iTunes-esque system to compete with Apple means that they should probably give it up now.
Note: For the fanboys out there, please don't get too excited by this. Amazon's cloud is going to present new and interesting challenges for Apple, I don't think Google's failure to negotiate with the jumped up music industry is necessarily a bad thing, all things considered!
The fact that Android doesn't need an iTunes-esque system to compete with Apple means that they should probably give it up now.
Note: For the fanboys out there, please don't get too excited by this. Amazon's cloud is going to present new and interesting challenges for Apple, I don't think Google's failure to negotiate with the jumped up music industry is necessarily a bad thing, all things considered!
helix21
Apr 29, 03:55 PM
I much preferred the older builds.
iOS scrollbar's and the reversed scrolling was one of my favourite little things about Lion.
Slider was much better too than boring buttons.
iOS scrollbar's and the reversed scrolling was one of my favourite little things about Lion.
Slider was much better too than boring buttons.
sevimli
May 3, 09:33 PM
Well done apple! :apple:
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:16 PM
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE.
Yep. And you can tell when Apple is selling software for profit like any of the Final Cut Suite app's. Not only do they require a HUGE key to be entered at install/first run, it also locks it with unique info to the machine where it was installed. (Just try migrating a Final Cut Pro installation from one machine to another.)
Yep. And you can tell when Apple is selling software for profit like any of the Final Cut Suite app's. Not only do they require a HUGE key to be entered at install/first run, it also locks it with unique info to the machine where it was installed. (Just try migrating a Final Cut Pro installation from one machine to another.)
jbennardo
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
Any chance we could have a App to showcase all the best Flash Banner adverts?
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
tristangage
Apr 21, 02:35 PM
I still think the "thanks" system like at RedFlagDeals.com is a better representation of what a good "point" system looks like. Certain people are very helpful in answering other people's questions or providing useful information. When someone answers your question or provides a technical explanation (or even a snappy comeback or an informed opinion) that people find insightful, they can "thank" the user for the post. Everyone who sees the post then can quickly see that this post has been helpful to others ("6 people thanked Mad Mac Maniac for this post"). And the cumulative total stays with the user, so you can also see at a quick glance that this user has a reputation for being helpful ("Mad Mac Maniac has been thanked 4,134 times.")
I prefer this idea too. I would rate your post positively if it hadn't been disabled :p
I prefer this idea too. I would rate your post positively if it hadn't been disabled :p
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:26 AM
LOL Chundles, looks like your the ring leader for the evening. :p
God I wish I could be.
Yes, Apple are probably going to release full length movies tomorrow morning but there's nothing out there that proves it yet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of aaaaalllll aaageeesssss.....
Come the incredible hyperactive inattentive Apple Special Event thread!!!
God I wish I could be.
Yes, Apple are probably going to release full length movies tomorrow morning but there's nothing out there that proves it yet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of aaaaalllll aaageeesssss.....
Come the incredible hyperactive inattentive Apple Special Event thread!!!
nate13
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
tdhurst
Jan 10, 05:10 PM
Wow...and the world wonders why the tech blogger crowd is having a hard time being taken seriously as journalists.
KnightWRX
Mar 6, 11:40 AM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something...
Apple doesn't invent. Apple refines.
Apple didn't invent anything with the iPhone as an example, it had all been there in the industry, sometimes for years before Apple came to market. They simply packaged it up and marketed it. App stores, SDKs, touch screens, Internet browsers, wifi, etc.. name it and we can find another device/company that did it before Apple.
That's what Apple does, they tie existing concepts and features together and put them through the marketing grinder to sell it. They are successful at this, sometimes where the pioneers of a particular technology failed.
Apple doesn't invent. Apple refines.
Apple didn't invent anything with the iPhone as an example, it had all been there in the industry, sometimes for years before Apple came to market. They simply packaged it up and marketed it. App stores, SDKs, touch screens, Internet browsers, wifi, etc.. name it and we can find another device/company that did it before Apple.
That's what Apple does, they tie existing concepts and features together and put them through the marketing grinder to sell it. They are successful at this, sometimes where the pioneers of a particular technology failed.
ciTiger
May 3, 03:22 PM
This is a major setback IMHO...
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 26, 09:09 AM
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, don't post. Your act is wearing thin.
I did have something to add, my opinion, which I am more than entitled to state just as much as you do.
This guy had arms and legs. He could've at least tried to defend himself, but he chose not too, which I dont understand why...
If I were attacked, my first instinct would be to fight back or run.
I did have something to add, my opinion, which I am more than entitled to state just as much as you do.
This guy had arms and legs. He could've at least tried to defend himself, but he chose not too, which I dont understand why...
If I were attacked, my first instinct would be to fight back or run.
AbyssImpact
May 3, 11:25 PM
If I could only find a personal use beyond web browsing.
The reason why I didn't buy an Ipad yet. I would only browse on Safari and play games. Something that is available on my Macbook Pro.
The reason why I didn't buy an Ipad yet. I would only browse on Safari and play games. Something that is available on my Macbook Pro.
altecXP
Apr 29, 07:36 PM
Is this a second 1GB+ update after the last 1GB update?
linux2mac
Mar 25, 10:25 AM
I was there at the beginning - in & out 3 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
OS X you've been the Apple of my eye since the beginning!
:apple:
Thanks for posting. Sadly back then I was in a Windows world working at a Fortune 100 Microsoft shop as a MS trained applications developer. I remember telling my college friend (that was responsible for my Mac conversion) that Macs weren't good for business when he asked me why I didn't use a Mac. Wow, did I ever drink the Windows Kool Aid! I should have switched back in 2000 instead of nine years later (Linux in '07' and Mac in '09').
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
OS X you've been the Apple of my eye since the beginning!
:apple:
Thanks for posting. Sadly back then I was in a Windows world working at a Fortune 100 Microsoft shop as a MS trained applications developer. I remember telling my college friend (that was responsible for my Mac conversion) that Macs weren't good for business when he asked me why I didn't use a Mac. Wow, did I ever drink the Windows Kool Aid! I should have switched back in 2000 instead of nine years later (Linux in '07' and Mac in '09').
No comments:
Post a Comment