pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
bassfingers
Apr 24, 09:08 PM
Simple ignorance?.
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
Teddy's
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
Last week I discovered a magazine based in Toronto (www.digitaljournal.com) They base their reports in the old saying that all tulips must grow the same height. They have been hitting "google's related news" (v.gr. the Sweatshop issue) and getting traffic to their websites. So, maybe the same kind of guru is running Greenpeace.
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
After what I have read about the enviroment friendly policy in Apple's website, I do not trust that Greenpeace report.
They are a lot of really awful companies in the world. Greenpeace: give me a break!
After 3 hours: Still, meh!
charliehustle
Oct 15, 07:10 PM
Some conventions are worth adopting, if only for the reasons they are created. For instance, when writing in the English language, the convention is to begin at the left, with each sentence starting with an upper case letter.
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 09:10 PM
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
Chris here
Sep 29, 07:23 AM
No.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
benpatient
May 2, 09:18 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
HyperX13
Apr 15, 10:43 AM
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
slu
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
Are you serious? Check the front page much? :rolleyes:
Shotglass
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 09:12 AM
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
They offer an unlimited data plan for one device. There's nothing illegal about it. By sharing that data with other devices you are very clearly and very simply breaking the contract.
�algiris
May 2, 09:23 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:23 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
Fads refer to a period of time, not its popularity during that time. For the iPad to be a fad, it will have to lose its popularity over the next year or so.
Fads refer to a period of time, not its popularity during that time. For the iPad to be a fad, it will have to lose its popularity over the next year or so.
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
Panther
Mar 18, 02:26 PM
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
frogger2020
Apr 5, 11:02 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is that Windows Explorer is so much better than Finder.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 05:09 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:46 PM
nixd2001, others:
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
AceCoolie
Mar 18, 11:09 AM
I want to jail break my iphone 4 and install mifi. The reason is to create a mobile router that my iPad and camera can connect to so that images shot my camera will appear on my iPad. This will not involve any data going to the internet. Is this a violation of my ATT agreement? Will then even be able to tell I'm doing it?
