SP6? Spoken like a true Windows Champion. You should get out more and realize that life doesn't revolve around the next Microsoft Security Pack (is that what SP stands for? Excuse me, for I am a Mac user and this whole SP thing is foreign to me).
I actually think it's quite clever. How is pointing out a glaring price difference in similar products "bashing"? Someone posted there are more OS X users than Vista users, so why not highlight the second worst feature of the competition (the price, first being the performance)? $600 and $129 IS a pretty big price disparity, especially when you take into account that the $129 product is universally considered to be suprior to the $600 product. Have you never seen the "I'm a Mac" commercials? Those seem to be popular AND effective, so why not stick with the theme?
Nah, Apple is just using the language of the taret audience (BonJour users). I've sat through far too many of those crappy corporate video conferences that I actually understood it to be grammatically correct.
Except in your step 2, Universal wins, because not all Amazon songs are.89 cents. I read that some of them can get up beyond $5 per track. This is EXACTLY what the record labels wanted, leading to Step 3 - Consumer loses, record labels get fatter. Step - 4, Record labels threaten to pull Amazon tracks unless Amazon starts selling them for $1.50 / track. Step - 5 Thousands of users go back to iTunes who still sell ALL tracks at.99 cents
Ear-canal musician style headphones have nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with having personal control of monitoring the levels of all the other mics and instruments in the band. As a drummer, I can tell you that the added ear protection is a bonus, but I'd never use my in-ears for an audiophile experience at home.
But to keep this on topic, people aren't going to rebuy their songs if the come out with higher quality, because most people are happy with what they already bought. Some people will start buying higher quality songs, given the choice, but only if the price is right. Car analogy time: I bought a BMW 3 series recently, but feel no desire to rush out and by the 2008 model, even if it were vastly superior at a much lower price. Guess what, I liked what I purchased, and the fact a newer/better/cheaper one is available doesn't affect my original desire to drop $30k+ on the car I have now.
Amazon has now made using a none iPod as easy or easier then an IPod.
Unless, of course, your musical tastes include: Foo Fighters, Dave Matthews Band, Gov't Mule, The White Stripes, Jet, Pantera, Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, Dixie Chicks, Green Day... How is it easier to put songs on your non-iPod from the Amazon store when they DON'T CARRY THE SONGS???
Just for an unscientifc experiment, I randomized my iTunes playlist by artist and got the above sample. Not until "Fall Out Boy" in the 11th spot did I get an artist of my liking that is available from Amazon's mp3 stores. One or two songs would be ok, but 10 out 11 is simply not acceptable. Unless they sign more labels, this model is DOA.
I'm not going ot be downloading from Amazon, because their catalogue sucks. I couldn't find one artist that I currently have in my iTunes playlist after 10 minutes of trying. And I'm talking about major recording artists too, like Foo Fighters and Paul Simon. Maybe it's different now, but no catalogue equals no sale in my book. I want to jump online at a whim and buy that one track that popped into my head. 98% of the time it is on iTunes and 100% of that time it takes about 10 seconds to locate, purchase and download.
just check wvmarle's post about 5 posts up. Somehow Apple's monopoly on the mp3 player market has forced the inclusion of DRM on songs, or some nonesense.
Wow, that is the most anti-apple skewed view of the issue I've ever seen. DRM exists because record labels insist it does. DRM is not going away because Apple has createad a monopoly of DRM files. DRM is going away because people don't like it, and Apple is smart enough to try and persuade as many studios as possible to get rid of it. People buy music IN SPITE of the iTunes DRM. Saying non-drm has forced Apple to lower their prices is stupid. APPLE has forced the industry to accept a set price of.99 cents, against the desires of EVERY recording industry person on the planet. This is a "good thing" and has nothing to do with the inclusion of DRM or the lack thereof.
Seems like iTunes PLUS should now be called iTunes, and the remaining stupid studios that still demand DRM should be put in iTunes PLUS. Afterall, you are getting MORE with a DRM laden file. They should also charge $1.29 for the extra stuff (drm) you get in those songs.
You can buy his "iPhone Summer Heat" guide from his site. Of course his information is horribly biased and unreliable, especially since he is obviously trying to make a quick buck off the iPhone hype. Any aspiring grad student can smell the lack of validity a mile away.
Why did you qualify your statements with Apple "most likely" went with EDGE for 2 reasons? Jobs has been crystal clear on why they chose EDGE. You summed it up nicely. Everything in life is about tradeoffs. In a rare mistep, Apple chose the wrong tradeoff with the iPhone (IMHO). Does anybody really want longer battery time at the expense of slower data transfer? I know I don't (but bought the phone anyway).
Submissions to "articles" like these are making Slashdot look more and more like Digg. I don't know about the rest of you but in my opinion, that's a Bad Thing.
It took me about 2 seconds to navigate to a new browser page. Then about 2 seconds to type "redhat". The page loaded in under 4 seconds. But then again, I'm using 10mbs wireless from my apartment. Which is the whole point of the iPhone offering WiFi.... Edge is a (painfully slow) alternative for those times there is no WiFi signal. Jobs has made it pretty clear that EDGE is not intended to the primary data network.
As for battery life, yes, UMTS/HSDPA takes more power. You also spend less time downloading, because it's faster.
An interesting test would be to have a list of 1,000 websites to visit, then embark with two different phones with similar battery lifespans. Record how many websites on the list you get through before the battery runs completely dead. Even though 3G takes more power, the time you save awaiting downloads probably makes up for it in "real world" usability. But then again, maybe it isn't THAT much faster that it would recoup the lost battery power. In any case, as a user, I'd pick faster network/shorter battery life every day of the week.
why are blog posts of people who don't know what they're talking about ending up on the slashdot front page?
a) because anything about Apple, AT&T and iAnything is guaranteed to create lots of traffic for slashdot
b) "IF" the story claims are true (doubtful), the findings go against common knowledge, which makes for good conversation
c) slow news day?
Ooh, nice analogy! But of course, you have to include a car reference since this is slashdot. The Ford EDGE outperforms all the other Crossover vehicles in it's segment, even though it has no alliance to AT&T or Apple.
I own an iPhone (but don't work for Apple) and EDGE sucks. Does that make me wrong? hehe. But seriously, I've never used 3G, but it can't possibly be any worse than trying to surf the web via the EDGE network in downtown San Antonio (AT&T Corporate Headquarters for cryin' out loud). EDGE is what keeps the iPhone as 4/5 stars instead of 5/5. It "almost" pushes it 3/5, but the phone is so greate inspite of the AT&T limitations, that I can't bring myself to do that. But then again EDGE is THAT bad, so maybe 3/5 is more realistic.
video is out of the question (although you tube has been able to decimate their clips enough for iPhone use).
Well, which is it then? You can't say it isn't possible, then qualify that with saying it is possible as long as it is crappy. For the record, YouTube videos look better on the iPhone, because the limited resolution hides the massive amounts of artificats present on a 20" (and bigger) screens.
Slashdot Mirror
Five words: Your snarky comment lacks evidence.
SP6? Spoken like a true Windows Champion. You should get out more and realize that life doesn't revolve around the next Microsoft Security Pack (is that what SP stands for? Excuse me, for I am a Mac user and this whole SP thing is foreign to me).
I actually think it's quite clever. How is pointing out a glaring price difference in similar products "bashing"? Someone posted there are more OS X users than Vista users, so why not highlight the second worst feature of the competition (the price, first being the performance)? $600 and $129 IS a pretty big price disparity, especially when you take into account that the $129 product is universally considered to be suprior to the $600 product. Have you never seen the "I'm a Mac" commercials? Those seem to be popular AND effective, so why not stick with the theme?
Nah, Apple is just using the language of the taret audience (BonJour users). I've sat through far too many of those crappy corporate video conferences that I actually understood it to be grammatically correct.
Why is the price amazing? $129 is no secret. That's what all their major upgrades always sell for.
Except in your step 2, Universal wins, because not all Amazon songs are .89 cents. I read that some of them can get up beyond $5 per track. This is EXACTLY what the record labels wanted, leading to Step 3 - Consumer loses, record labels get fatter. Step - 4, Record labels threaten to pull Amazon tracks unless Amazon starts selling them for $1.50 / track. Step - 5 Thousands of users go back to iTunes who still sell ALL tracks at .99 cents
But to keep this on topic, people aren't going to rebuy their songs if the come out with higher quality, because most people are happy with what they already bought. Some people will start buying higher quality songs, given the choice, but only if the price is right. Car analogy time: I bought a BMW 3 series recently, but feel no desire to rush out and by the 2008 model, even if it were vastly superior at a much lower price. Guess what, I liked what I purchased, and the fact a newer/better/cheaper one is available doesn't affect my original desire to drop $30k+ on the car I have now.
It is desirable when you have to convert it to something the target device understands. Everything is relative.
You forgot the opening sarcasm tag, so the slashdot crowd missed your joke. What is this drag-and-drop business of importing mp3s into iTunes anyway?
Just for an unscientifc experiment, I randomized my iTunes playlist by artist and got the above sample. Not until "Fall Out Boy" in the 11th spot did I get an artist of my liking that is available from Amazon's mp3 stores. One or two songs would be ok, but 10 out 11 is simply not acceptable. Unless they sign more labels, this model is DOA.
I'm not going ot be downloading from Amazon, because their catalogue sucks. I couldn't find one artist that I currently have in my iTunes playlist after 10 minutes of trying. And I'm talking about major recording artists too, like Foo Fighters and Paul Simon. Maybe it's different now, but no catalogue equals no sale in my book. I want to jump online at a whim and buy that one track that popped into my head. 98% of the time it is on iTunes and 100% of that time it takes about 10 seconds to locate, purchase and download.
Apple invented this juggernaut knows as online music stores. A billion or more song sales don't happen due to lack of innovation.
just check wvmarle's post about 5 posts up. Somehow Apple's monopoly on the mp3 player market has forced the inclusion of DRM on songs, or some nonesense.
Wow, that is the most anti-apple skewed view of the issue I've ever seen. DRM exists because record labels insist it does. DRM is not going away because Apple has createad a monopoly of DRM files. DRM is going away because people don't like it, and Apple is smart enough to try and persuade as many studios as possible to get rid of it. People buy music IN SPITE of the iTunes DRM. Saying non-drm has forced Apple to lower their prices is stupid. APPLE has forced the industry to accept a set price of .99 cents, against the desires of EVERY recording industry person on the planet. This is a "good thing" and has nothing to do with the inclusion of DRM or the lack thereof.
Seems like iTunes PLUS should now be called iTunes, and the remaining stupid studios that still demand DRM should be put in iTunes PLUS. Afterall, you are getting MORE with a DRM laden file. They should also charge $1.29 for the extra stuff (drm) you get in those songs.
You can buy his "iPhone Summer Heat" guide from his site. Of course his information is horribly biased and unreliable, especially since he is obviously trying to make a quick buck off the iPhone hype. Any aspiring grad student can smell the lack of validity a mile away.
Why did you qualify your statements with Apple "most likely" went with EDGE for 2 reasons? Jobs has been crystal clear on why they chose EDGE. You summed it up nicely. Everything in life is about tradeoffs. In a rare mistep, Apple chose the wrong tradeoff with the iPhone (IMHO). Does anybody really want longer battery time at the expense of slower data transfer? I know I don't (but bought the phone anyway).
Me Before (about 10 years ago):
"Why are my fellow Mac users too stupid to use 2 buttons?"
Me Now:
"Why do PC zealots keep bringing up the one-button mouse argument when it hasn't been valid for 10 years now?"
It took me about 2 seconds to navigate to a new browser page. Then about 2 seconds to type "redhat". The page loaded in under 4 seconds. But then again, I'm using 10mbs wireless from my apartment. Which is the whole point of the iPhone offering WiFi.... Edge is a (painfully slow) alternative for those times there is no WiFi signal. Jobs has made it pretty clear that EDGE is not intended to the primary data network.
b) "IF" the story claims are true (doubtful), the findings go against common knowledge, which makes for good conversation
c) slow news day?
Ooh, nice analogy! But of course, you have to include a car reference since this is slashdot. The Ford EDGE outperforms all the other Crossover vehicles in it's segment, even though it has no alliance to AT&T or Apple.
I own an iPhone (but don't work for Apple) and EDGE sucks. Does that make me wrong? hehe. But seriously, I've never used 3G, but it can't possibly be any worse than trying to surf the web via the EDGE network in downtown San Antonio (AT&T Corporate Headquarters for cryin' out loud). EDGE is what keeps the iPhone as 4/5 stars instead of 5/5. It "almost" pushes it 3/5, but the phone is so greate inspite of the AT&T limitations, that I can't bring myself to do that. But then again EDGE is THAT bad, so maybe 3/5 is more realistic.