Why do you suppose/.ers would sneer at just about anything Apple? Just because?
Habit accounts for almost half I'd say. When the iPod was introduced the front-page comment on slashdot consisted of two sentences. The second of which read simply "Lame." The market has proven that analysis wrong and the iPod is still one of the most hotly discussed (read: relevant) items on slashdot and elsewhere.
tight control of hardware, software, P.R.
Tight control of hardware and software are the very things that keep Apple alive and relevant (even while it keeps them at smaller marketshare and higher prices!) This is what enables Apple to be Apple as opposed to being Dell or Microsoft. P.R.? I don't know that they're a lot different from any company, except that being into actual innovation (as opposed to the Microsoft variety) they have a high interest in keeping their cards close to the chest until each hand is over.
To my mind, slapping a proprietary GUI on top of a free OS running on a (mostly) proprietary hardware architecture, is nothing to cheer
I rather think it is! Even a staunch open source advocate has to admit it's a large step in the right direction for their one-time antithesis!
given the alternatives provided by Open Source
I don't think Linux is providing any meaningful alternative to anyone as far as desktop operating systems are concerned. I hope and pray that this changes, but all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change the fact that no Linux distro that I've ever seen is fit for consumers.
Furthermore, I don't think that the major roadblocks for Linux gaining ground in the desktop arena are technological. The whole "Linux has gotten more usable than it used to be and with more developer time we'll achieve real consumer-friendliness" doesn't ring true to my ears. I think the single most important thing that needs to change is the attitudes of the distro developers. They don't want to ever see a "mom and pop"-friendly distro. And if one was ever created I can predict with certainty that it would be universally hated by the present Linux community.
OS X sure is pretty, but the price is too high
Some would agree, no doubt. But consider - Linux is free and still has virtually no desktop presence. This kind of proves that you literally can't even give it away in it's present form. It doesn't represent a true alternative to anything just yet. Let's all keep hoping.
First, I think Apple / IDG are smoking something funny if they think this is a good idea. I mean, yeah, Apple does have to clamp down on leaks and such. Anyone who doesn't understand Apple's necessity to do this really doesn't understand their business and should shut the hell up. But is this a good way to do it? Shit no.
After having said all that, l have a few comments on the "way to go Apple, shooting themselves in the foot again...This is why Apple will go out of business...The entire world is in chaos because Apple did it again!" crowd that has crawled out of the slashdot woodwork for this one.
Imagine it's, oh, five years ago. I come to the slashdot crowd and ask the following question:
What would Apple have to do to earn some of your business and respect?
Can you imagine? After the flames and guffaws died away I might get some answers like these.
"Sure. Call me when they open source some of their products."..."If they would only use more standard hardware I might think about it"..."If they had one or two killer apps that made everyone stand up and take notice"..."maybe when I can run Apache and Gimp on it. As if."
And let's flash forward to today when all of those ridiculous-sounding ideas have come true. Does the average slashdotter have one iota of additional respect for Apple? I've yet to see it. Frankly I think Apple could make a completely open source, totally off-the-shelf hardware-based, fit-in-your-pocket, fanless, never-crash, artificial intelligence, world changing computer that also levitated, kept your breath fresh and costs $1.99 and most here would sneer at it still.
Parting shot - Libertarians shouldn't use the Internet until they're prepared to discuss how a Libertarian society would have ever created it.
If you read the story, you'll find out the the devices OS is totally secondary to the main idea of the story
My criticism isn't of the story, but rather of the blurb on the front page of slashdot, which I think I made clear. And I did of cours read the article.
Besides, I'm sure that if it were BSD based it would get the same treatment
BSD is open source. Re-write your sentence and replace "BSD" with, say, "Windows" and see if you still agree with it.
Besides, there are few publications that don't show thier political bias from time to time. A smart person learns to sepaprate opinion from fact.
A smart person does indeed do this. But I think Slashdot is beyond the pale when it comes to the OSS/Linux issue. The often unthnking bias towards open source software is the most significant flaw of an otherwise outstanding community web site.
This little tablet can be a useful device to someone who's never seen a computer before.
If you mean it'll revolutionize the world the way the Segway did, then sure. Heh. I hope you'll forgive my - how shall I put this politely? - "wait and see" attitude.
BTW, there are several reasons that it was smart to choose Linux as the OS.
No argument there. I can think of several. Price probably being the most significant. Odd that you don't mention it. But whether it was smart to do Linux or not isn't at all my point.
OK, Mr. Troll, you've been fed. Off with you now - back under your rock.
I'm sure it's comforting to think that I'm some kind of habitual provocotuer who goes around insulting people in online discussion forums just to get noticed. I mean it couldn't be that I am actually a mature, considerate, well-behaved online citizen who's slashdot karma refelcts how valued his comments are...could it? A "troll" you can ignore. A reasonable person with a valid point deserves your consideration. I, sir, am the latter.
Anyone else realise that if this takes off, Linux market share will skyrocket?
That would be very cool indeed. But I don't think this is the device that's going to do it for Linux. Frankly I think the thing holding Linux back on the desktop is it's developers. They don't want to see the kind of Linux that "mom and pop" want. Perhaps - just perhaps - someone will make a Linux distro that is truly suitable for consumers. I predict that if/when that day comes, that distro will be universally hated by the existing Linux community.
Frankly I just don't think the fact that the origins of the site has clear ties to the Linux community doesn't justify the kind of blatant bias I'm describing. In fact I have posted here in the past saying that the tag line on the mastehead should probably read "Slashdot: We Like Linux. Not Much Else" instead of "Slashdot: News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters." I presume you are a Linux-advocating kind of person and as such I would think you'd be interested in the most honest reporting about the subject so that good information and sound discussion could help the platform move forward...honest reporting and discussion as opposed to the empty, biased group-think one finds here often enough when the subject turns to Linux.
And since you asked I've been here a while though not as long as some. I've posted 125 comments and judging by my karma I'd say that the community here finds them useful.
I think you've got me wrong - I cheer every time a Linux company makes good. And I don't love Microsoft.
if you plug "better and free" into a model of our economic system, you either quickly achieve 100% market penetration
That's how I would figure it also. The problem I'm having though is trying to explain why Linux has such insignificant marketshare in the desktop arena. Clearly it is free. I think the ugly truth of the matter is that it's not better. At least not to desktop os users.
Incredible. I call one Linux-related item "stupid" and I get called several impolite names. Chill out man. Switch to decaf or something. Disagreement is fine but save your personal attacks for someplace else.
If this piece of hardware didn't happen to run Linux the headline/summary/comment on the front page would have been dripping with sarcasm, contempt and ridicule. Don't get me wrong, it would be well deserved IMO, but I'm just saying... because it's a Linux story, it was put up with the straightest of faces. That's slashdot for ya. Go figure. Develop an idea that doesn't involve open source software that has even one significant flaw and it's "lame." Develop a stupid joke of an idea that runs linux and it's "pretty cool!"
This thing is stupid by the way. Completely idiotic. I actually thought it was some kind of joke at first.
While that is a valid point, it's equally valid to point out that if the open source community was willing and able to create an audio application that could sucessfully compete with the commercial big boys they haven't done so yet.
Please do not flame me with two dozen sourceforge URLs pointing to unknown or half-finished projects. The key descriptor here being that can sucessfully compete with the commercial big boys. And do please remember that I'm not saying it can't be done...only that it hasn't yet.
Re:Audio iMovie over Final Cut Pro
on
Apple Buys Emagic
·
· Score: 2
Interesting! I was totally unaware of it.
Still, we can safely say that ProTools Free and Logic Fun have totally failed to create the kind of consumer buzz that iMovie has been able to do for video. So in that regard Apple is probably better suited to be offering free audio apps. It would be better for us consumers, I should say, and the audio software market as a whole.
Besides, I downloaded Logic Fun at the URL you gave and it doesn't install or even run in Mac OS X which makes it a dead product and nearly useless in my book.
I would bet there's a large sub-population of musicians that would really appreciate a relatively simple 4-track audio recording/editing/mixing app. Creative people often want to get right into the creating, not knob-twiddling
I must have been unclear in my above statements because I am one of those people! and anything I might have said which leads one to think the contrary is in error:)
My wife bought me a new Martin a few months ago. I bought Deck LE and an iMic hoping to amuse myself doing some recording...but what I really want is iMovie for audio!
Another way to look at it is to ask yourself what iMovie did for all platforms and all video products.
iMovie appeared as the super-easy, free-with-the-box, video editing application. Suddenly everyone thinks they're Stephen freakin' Spielberg. Suddenly college kids are asking what kind of discount they can get on Pro-level video editing software. Suddenly Windows XP gets hip and includes iMovie-esque video editing software.
Seems to me that in some ways the whole industry benefits. Other software makers benefit from the increased awareness and even other platforms get new neat-o stuff so they can keep up with Cupertino.
I realize that's an over simplification...but this kind of news isn't all bad for non-Mac users.
Where are they getting all this money???
Heh. Where are you not realizing that Apple is a huge company that makes a lot of money? I think we get so used to thinking of Apple as "little Apple," and "niche-player Apple" that we forget they are one of the largest and healthiest computer makers around. There is a vast difference between a relatively small marketshare for the platform and the quite respectable sales they do compared to any other single PC maker. Heck, they probably have enough money under the breakroom couch pillows to buy Emagic and three more companies as well.
not to be a troll, but it is stupid business decisions like this that hampers the growth of apple. steve jobs is good for some things, but i don't think long range planning is one of them (he is great for revitalizing the 'look and feel' of things though).
I think what the Big Steve has done over the last few years constitutes quite a bit more than "revitalizing the loook and feel of things." Give the man some credit, for god's sake. His company is not only back from near-death, but by some measures one of the healthiest computer companies around - and this through a tight-belted economy! "Look and feel" my butt. So to speak.
off the windows version is fine with me, but when it is 35% (inferred from statement that macintosh is 65%) of revenues sounds rather stupid.
I think the idea here involves more strategy than a) make software product, b) sell software product for more than it costs to make it, c) make profit.
I think we can count on a consumer and a professional application to come out of such a purchase. "iAudio" would come free on every Mac and would allow pimply teenage wannabes pretend they're DJ's, "Audio Studio Pro" on the other hand would sell for a bit less than it's competitors and have the tight hardware integration and high polish typical of Apple software. With the former, they caputure consumer sales of iMacs and iBooks. With the later they sell pro hardware and potentially capture a large portion of the pro audio software market.
What about iMovie and Final Cut Pro? I forget what Apple bought to get the core guts of these apps going...but whatever it was, if they had cut off the Windows versions to do it, would you still call it stupid after the sucess of the resulting products? I don't see how you can.
Audio iMovie over Final Cut Pro
on
Apple Buys Emagic
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As a Mac user I love this kind of news. I do hope, however, that any ensuing product from Apple using Logic software isn't just "pro" stuff. In other words, I want an audio "iMovie" not just an audio "Final Cut Pro."
A free-with-purchase-of-a-Mac audio application... what would it look like? 8 channel recording, mixing, auido cd burning right from the app...what else? And what about microphone/midi input? I just bought Deck LE 3.0 (waiting for the 3.5 update for OS X!)... perhaps it would be a bit like that?
Digital photos themselves do not fade, only their prints do. All prints fade no matter if the shot was taken digital or analog. That, I think, was the point not understood in the start of this thread.
How exactly does a digital photo "fade"? If you mean a ragged-ass inkjet print, then sure I can see that. But I send my digtals to Kodak and get them back on photo paper just like you'd get giving film to the Walmart processor. See my post above in the "iPhoto" thread.
With iPhoto it's as easy to make an online album as it is to make a coffee table book as it is to get prints from Kodak. And the prints I got back from Kodak were very, very good. I sent 10 images shot with an Epson PhotoPC 3100Z, without cropping, without adjustments of any kind. When they came back they were indistinguishable from film shots. I even ran them by two professional photographers I know who were very impressed as well. (To see some jpgs of the digitals I shot go here. Warning: I'm not a good photographer!)
I paid $0.49 per 4x6. This seemed quite steep to me before I realized that I had the privelage of only sending photos that I already knew were print-worthy. Plus I had a chance to crop and color-correct them if I wished. When you figure it that way, it's not so outrageous. The prices for going from digital to photo paper printed are as follows:
C'mon. They're not going to re-engineer the unit just to add Windows compatiblity, especially since none is required. What they mean is, "buy an iPod in a box with Windows software on a CD inside." That, to me anyway, is what "iPod for Windows" means.
I suppose it's a good idea. Tons of folks have speculated that Apple sells more Macs because people want iPods and need Macs to run them. This may be true, but perhaps the iPod can be the "gateway drug" of PC to Macintosh conversion for some.
We have a disagreement of emphasis, I think. Or, put another way, we see the "bottleneck" in different places. On the goal of making Windows QT the best it can be I see the bottleneck in their ability to do so, largely the fault of microsoft, not themselves. You see the bottleneck in their willingness to put forth sufficient effort.
I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it
I don't agree. I believe Apple would love to make their own player the best one for the Windows platform. If they fail at that it's either because the apple developers messed up, or because the MS engineers put them at a disadvantage with "secret API calls" and the like which the MS player technology gets to have but nobody else does. I understand that some people will put zero credence in that last point while others will be sure it's true automatically. But one thing I think is obvious - Apple has no dis-incentive to making QT the best Windows media player there is.
that many people are perfectly willing to pay for games, having realized that programmers have to make money somehow.
Let's get real here. "Many people" don't give a rats ass about, nor spend two seconds thinking about, whether the programmers who wrote their favorite game gets to eat or not. No, the trend away from pirating game disks has more to do with the rise of internet play and the developers sucess in using this phenomenon to enforce valid licensing. Witness Blizzard and their battle.net service. Everyone on slashdot hates Blizzard for trying to shut down a 3rd party online service for their games. But I don't think anyone fully realized that the only reason Blizzard cared is because 3rd party online services can and do provide online play for unlicensed installations of the game.
I copied Moby's newest CD, and am glad I did.
You sir, are giving the rest of us law-abiding music fans a hard time. I myself only want to be able to rip MP3s of my own legitimately purchased music CDs, not "try before you buy" via illigal downloading. Downloading copyrighted music that you don't own on CD is illigal. In a misguided effort to stop you record companies are now selling CDs that don't play properly in computers and are difficult to rip and get into your MP3 player. Thanks for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you suppose /.ers would sneer at just about anything Apple? Just because?
Habit accounts for almost half I'd say. When the iPod was introduced the front-page comment on slashdot consisted of two sentences. The second of which read simply "Lame." The market has proven that analysis wrong and the iPod is still one of the most hotly discussed (read: relevant) items on slashdot and elsewhere.
tight control of hardware, software, P.R.
Tight control of hardware and software are the very things that keep Apple alive and relevant (even while it keeps them at smaller marketshare and higher prices!) This is what enables Apple to be Apple as opposed to being Dell or Microsoft. P.R.? I don't know that they're a lot different from any company, except that being into actual innovation (as opposed to the Microsoft variety) they have a high interest in keeping their cards close to the chest until each hand is over.
To my mind, slapping a proprietary GUI on top of a free OS running on a (mostly) proprietary hardware architecture, is nothing to cheer
I rather think it is! Even a staunch open source advocate has to admit it's a large step in the right direction for their one-time antithesis!
given the alternatives provided by Open Source
I don't think Linux is providing any meaningful alternative to anyone as far as desktop operating systems are concerned. I hope and pray that this changes, but all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change the fact that no Linux distro that I've ever seen is fit for consumers.
Furthermore, I don't think that the major roadblocks for Linux gaining ground in the desktop arena are technological. The whole "Linux has gotten more usable than it used to be and with more developer time we'll achieve real consumer-friendliness" doesn't ring true to my ears. I think the single most important thing that needs to change is the attitudes of the distro developers. They don't want to ever see a "mom and pop"-friendly distro. And if one was ever created I can predict with certainty that it would be universally hated by the present Linux community.
OS X sure is pretty, but the price is too high
Some would agree, no doubt. But consider - Linux is free and still has virtually no desktop presence. This kind of proves that you literally can't even give it away in it's present form. It doesn't represent a true alternative to anything just yet. Let's all keep hoping.
Dude, didn't you see that movie where she was a Nun?? Total commie. Big time.
First, I think Apple / IDG are smoking something funny if they think this is a good idea. I mean, yeah, Apple does have to clamp down on leaks and such. Anyone who doesn't understand Apple's necessity to do this really doesn't understand their business and should shut the hell up. But is this a good way to do it? Shit no.
After having said all that, l have a few comments on the "way to go Apple, shooting themselves in the foot again...This is why Apple will go out of business...The entire world is in chaos because Apple did it again!" crowd that has crawled out of the slashdot woodwork for this one.
Imagine it's, oh, five years ago. I come to the slashdot crowd and ask the following question:
What would Apple have to do to earn some of your business and respect?
Can you imagine? After the flames and guffaws died away I might get some answers like these.
"Sure. Call me when they open source some of their products."..."If they would only use more standard hardware I might think about it"..."If they had one or two killer apps that made everyone stand up and take notice"..."maybe when I can run Apache and Gimp on it. As if."
And let's flash forward to today when all of those ridiculous-sounding ideas have come true. Does the average slashdotter have one iota of additional respect for Apple? I've yet to see it. Frankly I think Apple could make a completely open source, totally off-the-shelf hardware-based, fit-in-your-pocket, fanless, never-crash, artificial intelligence, world changing computer that also levitated, kept your breath fresh and costs $1.99 and most here would sneer at it still.
Parting shot - Libertarians shouldn't use the Internet until they're prepared to discuss how a Libertarian society would have ever created it.
If you read the story, you'll find out the the devices OS is totally secondary to the main idea of the story
My criticism isn't of the story, but rather of the blurb on the front page of slashdot, which I think I made clear. And I did of cours read the article.
Besides, I'm sure that if it were BSD based it would get the same treatment
BSD is open source. Re-write your sentence and replace "BSD" with, say, "Windows" and see if you still agree with it.
Besides, there are few publications that don't show thier political bias from time to time. A smart person learns to sepaprate opinion from fact.
A smart person does indeed do this. But I think Slashdot is beyond the pale when it comes to the OSS/Linux issue. The often unthnking bias towards open source software is the most significant flaw of an otherwise outstanding community web site.
This little tablet can be a useful device to someone who's never seen a computer before.
If you mean it'll revolutionize the world the way the Segway did, then sure. Heh. I hope you'll forgive my - how shall I put this politely? - "wait and see" attitude.
BTW, there are several reasons that it was smart to choose Linux as the OS.
No argument there. I can think of several. Price probably being the most significant. Odd that you don't mention it. But whether it was smart to do Linux or not isn't at all my point.
OK, Mr. Troll, you've been fed. Off with you now - back under your rock.
I'm sure it's comforting to think that I'm some kind of habitual provocotuer who goes around insulting people in online discussion forums just to get noticed. I mean it couldn't be that I am actually a mature, considerate, well-behaved online citizen who's slashdot karma refelcts how valued his comments are...could it? A "troll" you can ignore. A reasonable person with a valid point deserves your consideration. I, sir, am the latter.
Anyone else realise that if this takes off, Linux market share will skyrocket?
That would be very cool indeed. But I don't think this is the device that's going to do it for Linux. Frankly I think the thing holding Linux back on the desktop is it's developers. They don't want to see the kind of Linux that "mom and pop" want. Perhaps - just perhaps - someone will make a Linux distro that is truly suitable for consumers. I predict that if/when that day comes, that distro will be universally hated by the existing Linux community.
Frankly I just don't think the fact that the origins of the site has clear ties to the Linux community doesn't justify the kind of blatant bias I'm describing. In fact I have posted here in the past saying that the tag line on the mastehead should probably read "Slashdot: We Like Linux. Not Much Else" instead of "Slashdot: News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters." I presume you are a Linux-advocating kind of person and as such I would think you'd be interested in the most honest reporting about the subject so that good information and sound discussion could help the platform move forward...honest reporting and discussion as opposed to the empty, biased group-think one finds here often enough when the subject turns to Linux.
And since you asked I've been here a while though not as long as some. I've posted 125 comments and judging by my karma I'd say that the community here finds them useful.
I think you've got me wrong - I cheer every time a Linux company makes good. And I don't love Microsoft.
if you plug "better and free" into a model of our economic system, you either quickly achieve 100% market penetration
That's how I would figure it also. The problem I'm having though is trying to explain why Linux has such insignificant marketshare in the desktop arena. Clearly it is free. I think the ugly truth of the matter is that it's not better. At least not to desktop os users.
Incredible. I call one Linux-related item "stupid" and I get called several impolite names. Chill out man. Switch to decaf or something. Disagreement is fine but save your personal attacks for someplace else.
If this piece of hardware didn't happen to run Linux the headline/summary/comment on the front page would have been dripping with sarcasm, contempt and ridicule. Don't get me wrong, it would be well deserved IMO, but I'm just saying... because it's a Linux story, it was put up with the straightest of faces. That's slashdot for ya. Go figure. Develop an idea that doesn't involve open source software that has even one significant flaw and it's "lame." Develop a stupid joke of an idea that runs linux and it's "pretty cool!"
This thing is stupid by the way. Completely idiotic. I actually thought it was some kind of joke at first.
I think you need to break the little pills in half tomorrow, mkay? Now just take a deep breath and try to relax.
While that is a valid point, it's equally valid to point out that if the open source community was willing and able to create an audio application that could sucessfully compete with the commercial big boys they haven't done so yet.
Please do not flame me with two dozen sourceforge URLs pointing to unknown or half-finished projects. The key descriptor here being that can sucessfully compete with the commercial big boys. And do please remember that I'm not saying it can't be done...only that it hasn't yet.
Interesting! I was totally unaware of it.
Still, we can safely say that ProTools Free and Logic Fun have totally failed to create the kind of consumer buzz that iMovie has been able to do for video. So in that regard Apple is probably better suited to be offering free audio apps. It would be better for us consumers, I should say, and the audio software market as a whole.
Besides, I downloaded Logic Fun at the URL you gave and it doesn't install or even run in Mac OS X which makes it a dead product and nearly useless in my book.
I would bet there's a large sub-population of musicians that would really appreciate a relatively simple 4-track audio recording/editing/mixing app. Creative people often want to get right into the creating, not knob-twiddling
:)
I must have been unclear in my above statements because I am one of those people! and anything I might have said which leads one to think the contrary is in error
My wife bought me a new Martin a few months ago. I bought Deck LE and an iMic hoping to amuse myself doing some recording...but what I really want is iMovie for audio!
Another way to look at it is to ask yourself what iMovie did for all platforms and all video products.
iMovie appeared as the super-easy, free-with-the-box, video editing application. Suddenly everyone thinks they're Stephen freakin' Spielberg. Suddenly college kids are asking what kind of discount they can get on Pro-level video editing software. Suddenly Windows XP gets hip and includes iMovie-esque video editing software.
Seems to me that in some ways the whole industry benefits. Other software makers benefit from the increased awareness and even other platforms get new neat-o stuff so they can keep up with Cupertino.
I realize that's an over simplification...but this kind of news isn't all bad for non-Mac users.
Where are they getting all this money???
Heh. Where are you not realizing that Apple is a huge company that makes a lot of money? I think we get so used to thinking of Apple as "little Apple," and "niche-player Apple" that we forget they are one of the largest and healthiest computer makers around. There is a vast difference between a relatively small marketshare for the platform and the quite respectable sales they do compared to any other single PC maker. Heck, they probably have enough money under the breakroom couch pillows to buy Emagic and three more companies as well.
not to be a troll, but it is stupid business decisions like this that hampers the growth of apple. steve jobs is good for some things, but i don't think long range planning is one of them (he is great for revitalizing the 'look and feel' of things though).
I think what the Big Steve has done over the last few years constitutes quite a bit more than "revitalizing the loook and feel of things." Give the man some credit, for god's sake. His company is not only back from near-death, but by some measures one of the healthiest computer companies around - and this through a tight-belted economy! "Look and feel" my butt. So to speak.
off the windows version is fine with me, but when it is 35% (inferred from statement that macintosh is 65%) of revenues sounds rather stupid.
I think the idea here involves more strategy than a) make software product, b) sell software product for more than it costs to make it, c) make profit.
I think we can count on a consumer and a professional application to come out of such a purchase. "iAudio" would come free on every Mac and would allow pimply teenage wannabes pretend they're DJ's, "Audio Studio Pro" on the other hand would sell for a bit less than it's competitors and have the tight hardware integration and high polish typical of Apple software. With the former, they caputure consumer sales of iMacs and iBooks. With the later they sell pro hardware and potentially capture a large portion of the pro audio software market.
What about iMovie and Final Cut Pro? I forget what Apple bought to get the core guts of these apps going...but whatever it was, if they had cut off the Windows versions to do it, would you still call it stupid after the sucess of the resulting products? I don't see how you can.
As a Mac user I love this kind of news. I do hope, however, that any ensuing product from Apple using Logic software isn't just "pro" stuff. In other words, I want an audio "iMovie" not just an audio "Final Cut Pro."
A free-with-purchase-of-a-Mac audio application... what would it look like? 8 channel recording, mixing, auido cd burning right from the app...what else? And what about microphone/midi input? I just bought Deck LE 3.0 (waiting for the 3.5 update for OS X!)... perhaps it would be a bit like that?
Digital photos themselves do not fade, only their prints do. All prints fade no matter if the shot was taken digital or analog. That, I think, was the point not understood in the start of this thread.
Holy mother! My mac.com account got slashdotted! Woo! :)
How exactly does a digital photo "fade"? If you mean a ragged-ass inkjet print, then sure I can see that. But I send my digtals to Kodak and get them back on photo paper just like you'd get giving film to the Walmart processor. See my post above in the "iPhoto" thread.
With iPhoto it's as easy to make an online album as it is to make a coffee table book as it is to get prints from Kodak. And the prints I got back from Kodak were very, very good. I sent 10 images shot with an Epson PhotoPC 3100Z, without cropping, without adjustments of any kind. When they came back they were indistinguishable from film shots. I even ran them by two professional photographers I know who were very impressed as well. (To see some jpgs of the digitals I shot go here. Warning: I'm not a good photographer!)
I paid $0.49 per 4x6. This seemed quite steep to me before I realized that I had the privelage of only sending photos that I already knew were print-worthy. Plus I had a chance to crop and color-correct them if I wished. When you figure it that way, it's not so outrageous. The prices for going from digital to photo paper printed are as follows:
4x6 - $0.49
5x7 - $0.99
wallet (4) - $1.79
8x10 - $3.99
16x20 - $14.99
20x30 - $19.99
C'mon. They're not going to re-engineer the unit just to add Windows compatiblity, especially since none is required. What they mean is, "buy an iPod in a box with Windows software on a CD inside." That, to me anyway, is what "iPod for Windows" means.
The word on the street is that Apple is going to release their own Windows iPod software as soon as Macworld July. Remember you heard it here first. Unless you heard it somewhere else already :)
I suppose it's a good idea. Tons of folks have speculated that Apple sells more Macs because people want iPods and need Macs to run them. This may be true, but perhaps the iPod can be the "gateway drug" of PC to Macintosh conversion for some.
We have a disagreement of emphasis, I think. Or, put another way, we see the "bottleneck" in different places. On the goal of making Windows QT the best it can be I see the bottleneck in their ability to do so, largely the fault of microsoft, not themselves. You see the bottleneck in their willingness to put forth sufficient effort.
I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it
I don't agree. I believe Apple would love to make their own player the best one for the Windows platform. If they fail at that it's either because the apple developers messed up, or because the MS engineers put them at a disadvantage with "secret API calls" and the like which the MS player technology gets to have but nobody else does. I understand that some people will put zero credence in that last point while others will be sure it's true automatically. But one thing I think is obvious - Apple has no dis-incentive to making QT the best Windows media player there is.
Apple doesn't need statistics re-worked to get better market share. They have to do very few things.
First, make the player on Windows not suck ass.
Point taken - using it on Windows isn't what it could be. I only wish Microsoft had to do such things in order to gain marketshare. Alas.
that many people are perfectly willing to pay for games, having realized that programmers have to make money somehow.
Let's get real here. "Many people" don't give a rats ass about, nor spend two seconds thinking about, whether the programmers who wrote their favorite game gets to eat or not. No, the trend away from pirating game disks has more to do with the rise of internet play and the developers sucess in using this phenomenon to enforce valid licensing. Witness Blizzard and their battle.net service. Everyone on slashdot hates Blizzard for trying to shut down a 3rd party online service for their games. But I don't think anyone fully realized that the only reason Blizzard cared is because 3rd party online services can and do provide online play for unlicensed installations of the game.
I copied Moby's newest CD, and am glad I did.
You sir, are giving the rest of us law-abiding music fans a hard time. I myself only want to be able to rip MP3s of my own legitimately purchased music CDs, not "try before you buy" via illigal downloading. Downloading copyrighted music that you don't own on CD is illigal. In a misguided effort to stop you record companies are now selling CDs that don't play properly in computers and are difficult to rip and get into your MP3 player. Thanks for nothing.