Oh come on. Adobe is so deeply entrenched in their market with a bevvy of world class apps, that even Microsoft won't be able to put a dent in it. No one at Microsoft cares about or understands the need of graphic artists and content creators. They just don't care. The only reason they are attempting to get into this space is because they see a potential for profit. They'll find the fastest and cheapest way to get into the market and they'll inundate the market with a load of crap software that will only make Flash, Illustrator and Photoshop look even better by comparison.
Will this stuff run on a Mac? Where the vast majority of creative work is done? Of course not.... except through Boot Camp or Paralells. They're starting off handicapped from the get-go. This whole suite of apps and delivery methods is still born. They are only trying to make some cash and that is not a good motivating factor for making software. Having a good idea that meets the needs of your customers and then building the tool for them and pricing it accordingly to make a profit is the far better approach.
Man am I ever tired of the use of Apple Cultists. I'm a 23 year Mac user... which means I've been using a Mac longer than many of you have even been alive! The reasons I use Apple hardware and software:
a) I'm not a hacker/programmer/developer
b) I (me personally) find using a Mac to be far easier and more useful to use than any other OS out there
c) Final Cut Pro! (I'm a video editor by trade)
The fact that Apple products tend to look cool is just a bonus these days. I've used all the beige varieties that they manufactured pre 1998 and the coming of the iMac. I'm loyal to Apple because they have consistently created tools that I can use efficiently and effectively for the tasks I need to accomplish. (Granted the early generations of PPC Mac's was a bit of a blemish on their track record.) Brand loyalty is not cultish in and of itself. Just because Apple's products do not appeal to you or meet the needs of the tasks you need to accomplish, doesn't mean that everyone who does enjoy Apple products is a fanboy or cultist.
Be careful with your rhetoric... you yourself come off as a zealot by pointing out other zealots.
Seriously, this argument that you can dial while you drive is ludicrous. People talking on cell phones while driving are a hazard. Plain and simple. Shut up, put the phone down and drive. If you need to talk that badly, pull over, stop the car and dial.
Maybe, but sometimes I like an app that has no bells and whistles and just renders a web page and provides me with the most basic functionality. Safari does just this. When I need more out of my web browser, I open up Firefox. Choice in browsers is actually a good thing if you ask me.
I implied DRM because why would anyone get a video iPod other than to "buy" movies from iTunes?
Um... 2 words... video podcasts. Watching movies on an iPod is an unbearable scenario. Screen is too small to enjoy good cinematography and acting in anything other than a medium shot or a closeup.
Television is good because it doesn't rely heavily on wide shots and is very dialogue heavy... perfectly suited to a smaller screen like an iPod. LOTR or Spiderman on an iPod is a waste of 1's and 0's.
Unless it can play 1080i or 720p it's not really playing HD. It may be playing HD source material that has been H.264, DivX or MPEG compressed. It's not really HD. HD has become such a horribly misused buzzword.
Wow! This is the greatest flamebait I have ever read! Thank you!
But seriously. The choice to go over to Intel was more one of necessity because Apple's partners in IBM and Motorola were never very dedicated to the PPC platform in the PC space. They were always more focused on embedded devices, mainframes and gaming consoles. IBM basically blew off Apple with the G5 and never really had any plans to create a version of the G5 that would run cool enough to fit inside an ultra slim laptop. So, Apple was stuck with the G4 in the PowerBooks with nowhere to go. Intel had a line of much faster processors and a roadmap that allowed Apple to grow their laptop business again and it accounts for a large portion of their income. As a result, rather than deal with a mixed architecture, Apple decided to go all Intel. Windows dominance of the marketplace had very little to do with the decision. The ability to run XP on top of of Mac... well, same chips.... you do the math. Makes the Mac much more attractive now.
Thing is, I don't want to carry two laptops around. I need to be able to view the video footage I edit on both platforms. Since they both have different default gammas I have to find a middle ground between the two in addition to making the footage look acceptable for broadcast!
When oh when will everything go HD and have a common gamma?
" I can see Britney Spears, Metallica and Dave Matthews with whips, as they force the laborers to make their new albums."
If Metallilca hired a new drummer they could only get better! I don't know how Lars did it, but you'd think 20 some odd years of touring would have made him a better (NOT WORSE) player.
"I've concluded that the problems people are experiencing with Windows boxes are due to a lack of basic computer skills and not necessarily problems with windows itself."
Actually, this is a software design flaw at the very core. Windows and OS X should be designed to run with a minimal amount of knowledge about the computers themselves. Linux and UNIX are different stories because those are power user OS's. The very core of the user bases for these OS's tend to be very savvy and computer knowledgeable people.
99 times out of 100, Windows and OS X users are people who want the OS abstracted from the machine. They want an environment in which they can get their work done (not programming or web development or anything like that), i.e. word processing, spreadsheets, email, etc. Stuff that people can (and should be able to) do without a vast array of knowledge about computer hardware and OS system design.
Apple has always made the user experience priority #1. Which is why I always preferred OS 9 and earlier so much more than any version of Windows at the time. But OS 9 was based off of tired old technology and was essentially dead, but at the very least I could get my work done without having to worry about the computer itself very often. Windows at the same time became easier (easier being a relative term of course) to use, but also became a sinkhole for viruses, adware, spyware you name it. The user HAD to be more technically savvy than your average Mac user just to keep the system running... let alone getting any work done or entertaining one's self.
OS X comes along. A HUGE learning curve had to be overcome, but most people now think OS X is easier to use and a much better experience than previous version sof the Mac OS. I maintain our 3 OS X boxes at my company and basically I run TechTool Pro about twice a month on them and that's about it. Our business manager is learning how to use the Mac for the first time having been a long time Windows user. He claims to be a VERY SAVVY computer user, but he's just your average spreadsheet, email and flowchart user. (I keep telling him that EPS files are NOT Mac only and that he simply doesn't have the proper tools to work with EPS files on his Windows machine. He keeps sending me artwork in Visio format... stuff I could knock out in moments in Illustrator for Mac or Win)
Anyway, as he's using the machine more and more he's noticing that he doesn't have to work as hard to get his work done. He's so used to the Windows paradigm that he's actually surprised and a little confused that getting simple tasks done doesn't HAVE TO BE A CHORE and require all sorts of computer knowledge unrelated to the task at hand.
Apple has always been good at abstracting the OS from the hardware and creating a user-centric environment that promotes getting stuff done over "working on a machine". They've made the Mac into a true tool/toy. Windows is still working on that. To hear Bill Gates say in 2005 that MS should START focusing on usability is a really bad sign. They have years and years of legacy code to deal with and they should have put basic usability into the software spec when they first started developing Windows... not bolting it on later as if it were a "feature" that marketing had decided that users wanted.
Usability is what every user wants out of an OS. Different users have different needs hence the existence of OS X, Linux, UNIX and Windows. In a shoot out of basical usability at an end user level for simply getting work done, the Mac is almost always going to rank higher. People enjoy using the Mac OS because it is easy to use, easy to look at (when you look at a screen for 8+ hours a day 5 days a week, this is important) and it keeps the messy details of the computer hidden to the end user... but those details are available to you if you are a power user.
Think about it. That iBook you bought for your grandma has PHP, PERL, a whole slough of open source tools and APACHE built in and chances are she will never know as she reads her email and watches home movies sent in by her kids. THAT is what a computer should do at the most fundamental level for a cconsumer audience.
Until Final Cut Pro, Pro Tools, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, InDesign, AfterEffects and Acrobat Pro are running on Linux... thank you, but no. I'll stick with OS X running on a Mac.
I want a computer that runs Final Cut Pro. Well, that will only ver happen on a Mac. The G5 is a GOOFY looking machine. The school I teach at we always refer to the G5 as the "cheese grater". Despite it's goofy looks, it works like a champ.
The G4 iMac? Come on! It looked like a damn table lamp or a sunflower. Sure, it looked different than other ocmputers and that increased it's appeal, but hardly high on the "cool" factor.
Now the iPod, the iMac G5 and the PowerBook G4's? Those are elegant looking pieces of industrial design! I drooled the first time I saw a TiBook, but I bought a clamshell (translated toilet seat) iBook because of the price and the fact that what I was using it for didn't require a G4 processor... word processing. I couldn't justify the expense of the insanely cool looking TiBook.
So, yes, while aesthetics do matter to your average Mac user, it's not the primary selling point. Performance, stability, Apple's "lifetsyle" and Pro Apps. Photoshop under Tiger is just sickeningly fast. No viruses to speak of. No malware. Very few crashes.
We aren't all about how it looks, we want it to simply work and perform. And that's what Apple excels at. Getting the computer out of the way of the user and allowing them to work or entertain themselves.
H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats
MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats
It's clearly defined on the tech spec page of the product. So yes, re-encode your video as either mpeg-4 or H.264 encoded mp4, m4v or mov files. The information is there if you actually look for it.
Well, that's where 60 MInutes, 48 Hours and all the investigative shows come in. That's what NPR is for. That's what newspapers are for. In depth reporting still exists, it's just the video iPod is not the proper medium for it.
Yup! It's lousy for movies and television. However, for getting information on your way to work... much like a news program ornews paper it's great! I run a website called http://www.storypipe.com/StoryPIPE. that is all about short-form narrative and music content. We're hoping that peoples' time constraints and short attention spans will play into this new device.
We will be setting up a "video blog"... I know I hate the term too, but we will have an RSS feed shortly that will be updated with new content daily that is perfect for your morning commute or a "sanity break".
I've been going on for months that this device would come out and they kind of hamstringed us by getting it out so early. I'm busy scrambling to re-encode everything to play on it right this very second.
Until an audience larger than the/. crowd starts screaming for it, that functionality will not be built into iTunes or the iPod. Get over it. It may seem like a large number of people want OGG support if you only read/. If you go outside of the/. bubble, you will quickly realize that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL OGG IS! Get used to it!
If you read sites other than/. you might be able to find ways to get it to work.
That's a much better argument than what you originally posted. I still don't agree on most of it, but at least it's more than a kneejerk reaction which the original post was.
The signal to noise ration on/. is so high that the only way to make reading it bearable is to read intelligently written stuff rather than the old "Mac's suck, they're too expensive, they're abusing they're "monopoly" to inflate prices (which is patently wrong by the way. economies of scale is all I have to say)... yada yada yada." Go ahead, dislike Apple all you want. If you're going to post how much you hate them, at least put some thought into it like you did this last time.
I love it when execs start talking about comeptition and a free market and all that fun stuff when they are part of an oligopoly. In a truly capitalist, free-market society there should be no barriers to entry in the market place. But the US is all about creating giant monopolies and oligopolies to allow price fixing, market-entering barriers (M$ vs Netscape anyone?) and basic intimidation of any small business entering into another comapny's space.
The iTunes music store is a great way to help bust up this RIAA tyrrany. Apple is VERY friendly to the indie labels. I have friends in about 6 bands that are on TINY and I mean TINY labels that have seen a sudden surge in popularity due to their music being available on iTunes. They're selling more online than they are through traditional distribution channels.
Musicians today are more technically savvy than ever before and with the cost of computer audio editing dropping so rapidly their recording and mastering costs have gone way down and they don't owe as much money to the labels as a result. Add in the lack of physical media that a distributor has to pay for and, well, the bands make more money and more people are exposed to their music.
Because of iTunes and other online distributors we're seeing a very high tech rebirth of the DIY punk movement from the 70's where the artists own the means of production and did almost all their own marketing. It's pretty amazing. It's not going to happen overnight, but the traditional business model of music distribution will come to an end or it will adapt to the new market conditions brought on by the technology of today.
What I forgot to point out is that yes, Apple does get to determine the pricing of the songs that they are reselling. That's what a business does in order to make sure they are covering their costs and turning a profit. If people stop buying from them, then they will institute price changes.
Consumers influence pricing but do not determine it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. Adobe is so deeply entrenched in their market with a bevvy of world class apps, that even Microsoft won't be able to put a dent in it. No one at Microsoft cares about or understands the need of graphic artists and content creators. They just don't care. The only reason they are attempting to get into this space is because they see a potential for profit. They'll find the fastest and cheapest way to get into the market and they'll inundate the market with a load of crap software that will only make Flash, Illustrator and Photoshop look even better by comparison.
Will this stuff run on a Mac? Where the vast majority of creative work is done? Of course not.... except through Boot Camp or Paralells. They're starting off handicapped from the get-go. This whole suite of apps and delivery methods is still born. They are only trying to make some cash and that is not a good motivating factor for making software. Having a good idea that meets the needs of your customers and then building the tool for them and pricing it accordingly to make a profit is the far better approach.
Just go into your dashboard and expose preferences and unmap all the f-key mappings.
Easy.
My gawd, man?! What the hell are you posting on the your web servers? (I suspect lots of illegal files of one type or another)
And once again, a Mac user has no idea what a PC is or how it's different from Windows.
Oh trust me... we know the what a PC is. Why do you think we own Mac's?
Man am I ever tired of the use of Apple Cultists. I'm a 23 year Mac user... which means I've been using a Mac longer than many of you have even been alive! The reasons I use Apple hardware and software:
a) I'm not a hacker/programmer/developer
b) I (me personally) find using a Mac to be far easier and more useful to use than any other OS out there
c) Final Cut Pro! (I'm a video editor by trade)
The fact that Apple products tend to look cool is just a bonus these days. I've used all the beige varieties that they manufactured pre 1998 and the coming of the iMac. I'm loyal to Apple because they have consistently created tools that I can use efficiently and effectively for the tasks I need to accomplish. (Granted the early generations of PPC Mac's was a bit of a blemish on their track record.) Brand loyalty is not cultish in and of itself. Just because Apple's products do not appeal to you or meet the needs of the tasks you need to accomplish, doesn't mean that everyone who does enjoy Apple products is a fanboy or cultist.
Be careful with your rhetoric... you yourself come off as a zealot by pointing out other zealots.
Seriously, this argument that you can dial while you drive is ludicrous. People talking on cell phones while driving are a hazard. Plain and simple. Shut up, put the phone down and drive. If you need to talk that badly, pull over, stop the car and dial.
Maybe, but sometimes I like an app that has no bells and whistles and just renders a web page and provides me with the most basic functionality. Safari does just this. When I need more out of my web browser, I open up Firefox. Choice in browsers is actually a good thing if you ask me.
I implied DRM because why would anyone get a video iPod other than to "buy" movies from iTunes?
Um... 2 words... video podcasts. Watching movies on an iPod is an unbearable scenario. Screen is too small to enjoy good cinematography and acting in anything other than a medium shot or a closeup.
Television is good because it doesn't rely heavily on wide shots and is very dialogue heavy... perfectly suited to a smaller screen like an iPod. LOTR or Spiderman on an iPod is a waste of 1's and 0's.
Unless it can play 1080i or 720p it's not really playing HD. It may be playing HD source material that has been H.264, DivX or MPEG compressed. It's not really HD. HD has become such a horribly misused buzzword.
Wow! This is the greatest flamebait I have ever read! Thank you!
But seriously. The choice to go over to Intel was more one of necessity because Apple's partners in IBM and Motorola were never very dedicated to the PPC platform in the PC space. They were always more focused on embedded devices, mainframes and gaming consoles. IBM basically blew off Apple with the G5 and never really had any plans to create a version of the G5 that would run cool enough to fit inside an ultra slim laptop. So, Apple was stuck with the G4 in the PowerBooks with nowhere to go. Intel had a line of much faster processors and a roadmap that allowed Apple to grow their laptop business again and it accounts for a large portion of their income. As a result, rather than deal with a mixed architecture, Apple decided to go all Intel. Windows dominance of the marketplace had very little to do with the decision. The ability to run XP on top of of Mac... well, same chips.... you do the math. Makes the Mac much more attractive now.
Thing is, I don't want to carry two laptops around. I need to be able to view the video footage I edit on both platforms. Since they both have different default gammas I have to find a middle ground between the two in addition to making the footage look acceptable for broadcast!
When oh when will everything go HD and have a common gamma?
" I can see Britney Spears, Metallica and Dave Matthews with whips, as they force the laborers to make their new albums."
If Metallilca hired a new drummer they could only get better! I don't know how Lars did it, but you'd think 20 some odd years of touring would have made him a better (NOT WORSE) player.
"I've concluded that the problems people are experiencing with Windows boxes are due to a lack of basic computer skills and not necessarily problems with windows itself."
Actually, this is a software design flaw at the very core. Windows and OS X should be designed to run with a minimal amount of knowledge about the computers themselves. Linux and UNIX are different stories because those are power user OS's. The very core of the user bases for these OS's tend to be very savvy and computer knowledgeable people.
99 times out of 100, Windows and OS X users are people who want the OS abstracted from the machine. They want an environment in which they can get their work done (not programming or web development or anything like that), i.e. word processing, spreadsheets, email, etc. Stuff that people can (and should be able to) do without a vast array of knowledge about computer hardware and OS system design.
Apple has always made the user experience priority #1. Which is why I always preferred OS 9 and earlier so much more than any version of Windows at the time. But OS 9 was based off of tired old technology and was essentially dead, but at the very least I could get my work done without having to worry about the computer itself very often. Windows at the same time became easier (easier being a relative term of course) to use, but also became a sinkhole for viruses, adware, spyware you name it. The user HAD to be more technically savvy than your average Mac user just to keep the system running... let alone getting any work done or entertaining one's self.
OS X comes along. A HUGE learning curve had to be overcome, but most people now think OS X is easier to use and a much better experience than previous version sof the Mac OS. I maintain our 3 OS X boxes at my company and basically I run TechTool Pro about twice a month on them and that's about it. Our business manager is learning how to use the Mac for the first time having been a long time Windows user. He claims to be a VERY SAVVY computer user, but he's just your average spreadsheet, email and flowchart user. (I keep telling him that EPS files are NOT Mac only and that he simply doesn't have the proper tools to work with EPS files on his Windows machine. He keeps sending me artwork in Visio format... stuff I could knock out in moments in Illustrator for Mac or Win)
Anyway, as he's using the machine more and more he's noticing that he doesn't have to work as hard to get his work done. He's so used to the Windows paradigm that he's actually surprised and a little confused that getting simple tasks done doesn't HAVE TO BE A CHORE and require all sorts of computer knowledge unrelated to the task at hand.
Apple has always been good at abstracting the OS from the hardware and creating a user-centric environment that promotes getting stuff done over "working on a machine". They've made the Mac into a true tool/toy. Windows is still working on that. To hear Bill Gates say in 2005 that MS should START focusing on usability is a really bad sign. They have years and years of legacy code to deal with and they should have put basic usability into the software spec when they first started developing Windows... not bolting it on later as if it were a "feature" that marketing had decided that users wanted.
Usability is what every user wants out of an OS. Different users have different needs hence the existence of OS X, Linux, UNIX and Windows. In a shoot out of basical usability at an end user level for simply getting work done, the Mac is almost always going to rank higher. People enjoy using the Mac OS because it is easy to use, easy to look at (when you look at a screen for 8+ hours a day 5 days a week, this is important) and it keeps the messy details of the computer hidden to the end user... but those details are available to you if you are a power user.
Think about it. That iBook you bought for your grandma has PHP, PERL, a whole slough of open source tools and APACHE built in and chances are she will never know as she reads her email and watches home movies sent in by her kids. THAT is what a computer should do at the most fundamental level for a cconsumer audience.
Until Final Cut Pro, Pro Tools, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, InDesign, AfterEffects and Acrobat Pro are running on Linux... thank you, but no. I'll stick with OS X running on a Mac.
potato en francais is "pomme de terre". apple of the earth
Mac users don't only care about aesthetics!
I want a computer that runs Final Cut Pro. Well, that will only ver happen on a Mac. The G5 is a GOOFY looking machine. The school I teach at we always refer to the G5 as the "cheese grater". Despite it's goofy looks, it works like a champ.
The G4 iMac? Come on! It looked like a damn table lamp or a sunflower. Sure, it looked different than other ocmputers and that increased it's appeal, but hardly high on the "cool" factor.
Now the iPod, the iMac G5 and the PowerBook G4's? Those are elegant looking pieces of industrial design! I drooled the first time I saw a TiBook, but I bought a clamshell (translated toilet seat) iBook because of the price and the fact that what I was using it for didn't require a G4 processor... word processing. I couldn't justify the expense of the insanely cool looking TiBook.
So, yes, while aesthetics do matter to your average Mac user, it's not the primary selling point. Performance, stability, Apple's "lifetsyle" and Pro Apps. Photoshop under Tiger is just sickeningly fast. No viruses to speak of. No malware. Very few crashes.
We aren't all about how it looks, we want it to simply work and perform. And that's what Apple excels at. Getting the computer out of the way of the user and allowing them to work or entertain themselves.
H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
.m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in
It's clearly defined on the tech spec page of the product. So yes, re-encode your video as either mpeg-4 or H.264 encoded mp4, m4v or mov files. The information is there if you actually look for it.
Well, that's where 60 MInutes, 48 Hours and all the investigative shows come in. That's what NPR is for. That's what newspapers are for. In depth reporting still exists, it's just the video iPod is not the proper medium for it.
Yup! It's lousy for movies and television. However, for getting information on your way to work... much like a news program ornews paper it's great! I run a website called http://www.storypipe.com/StoryPIPE. that is all about short-form narrative and music content. We're hoping that peoples' time constraints and short attention spans will play into this new device.
We will be setting up a "video blog"... I know I hate the term too, but we will have an RSS feed shortly that will be updated with new content daily that is perfect for your morning commute or a "sanity break".
I've been going on for months that this device would come out and they kind of hamstringed us by getting it out so early. I'm busy scrambling to re-encode everything to play on it right this very second.
Until an audience larger than the /. crowd starts screaming for it, that functionality will not be built into iTunes or the iPod. Get over it. It may seem like a large number of people want OGG support if you only read /. If you go outside of the /. bubble, you will quickly realize that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL OGG IS! Get used to it!
/. you might be able to find ways to get it to work.
1 005112822984&lsrc=osxh
If you read sites other than
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005
That's a much better argument than what you originally posted. I still don't agree on most of it, but at least it's more than a kneejerk reaction which the original post was.
/. is so high that the only way to make reading it bearable is to read intelligently written stuff rather than the old "Mac's suck, they're too expensive, they're abusing they're "monopoly" to inflate prices (which is patently wrong by the way. economies of scale is all I have to say)... yada yada yada." Go ahead, dislike Apple all you want. If you're going to post how much you hate them, at least put some thought into it like you did this last time.
The signal to noise ration on
If you're going to make statements like this, please back it up with facts and not opinion.
But these things look like the Mini's and not the Nano's.
I love it when execs start talking about comeptition and a free market and all that fun stuff when they are part of an oligopoly. In a truly capitalist, free-market society there should be no barriers to entry in the market place. But the US is all about creating giant monopolies and oligopolies to allow price fixing, market-entering barriers (M$ vs Netscape anyone?) and basic intimidation of any small business entering into another comapny's space.
The iTunes music store is a great way to help bust up this RIAA tyrrany. Apple is VERY friendly to the indie labels. I have friends in about 6 bands that are on TINY and I mean TINY labels that have seen a sudden surge in popularity due to their music being available on iTunes. They're selling more online than they are through traditional distribution channels.
Musicians today are more technically savvy than ever before and with the cost of computer audio editing dropping so rapidly their recording and mastering costs have gone way down and they don't owe as much money to the labels as a result. Add in the lack of physical media that a distributor has to pay for and, well, the bands make more money and more people are exposed to their music.
Because of iTunes and other online distributors we're seeing a very high tech rebirth of the DIY punk movement from the 70's where the artists own the means of production and did almost all their own marketing. It's pretty amazing. It's not going to happen overnight, but the traditional business model of music distribution will come to an end or it will adapt to the new market conditions brought on by the technology of today.
What I forgot to point out is that yes, Apple does get to determine the pricing of the songs that they are reselling. That's what a business does in order to make sure they are covering their costs and turning a profit. If people stop buying from them, then they will institute price changes.
Consumers influence pricing but do not determine it.