If I recall correctly from other places that I've read, Apple turns something like 15-20% profit on every machine sold.
So that's $209.85 per every low end iMac at 15% profit. At the same profit margin, that's 59.85 per lowend iPod. So lets do numbers
$209.85 * 1,000= $209,850
$59.85 * 10,000= $598,500
So yes assuming these numbers, Apple would have made more profit. But take other factors into consideration. The iPod is a one time purchace. The iMac is a purchase, then any additional hardware, plus the possibility of an iPod purchase. And also another loyal customer (once you go mac, it's hard to go back). In all, Apple probably would be better off selling their hardware everywhere they can. They're doing that currently. Think about it, now they've sold those 1000 iMacs + iPods, plus with the new drivers (which cost them nothing to produce, and they have to devote no support to, they've just sold the other 9000 iPods. Grand total 10,000 ipods and 1000 iMacs. Apple wins
Only if you believe Apple is selling to the PC market. In my opinion, Apple is selling to their own market. The mac users. If your a PC user and you want to test the Apple waters, you have the iMac, the eMac and the iBooks, all cheap, all powerful and all useable machines. Everything else, all the real perks go to the Apple users. Nothing is cooler than having a computer which seemlesly runs with all it's components. Should SUN have made their rather impressive 21 inch monitors (back when the Sparc 10s were big) compatible with macs and PCs? Maybe they would have had more sales, if they had. But they didn't. They were interested in a product that would run exactly the way they wanted it. Same with Apple. You may not like it, but hey, I don't like the way M$ does business. Oh well.
Because the only product Apple makes for the rest of the world is the iMac and iBook, everything else is for specific users, most of them already mac users. The iPod was created for mac users. All of their products really are made for their users. It's what their users want, not what everyone else wants. Become a mac user and join the ranks of happy users and influence Apple
1) it's reliable 2) no matter how bubblegummy it seems, it's easy 3) it's got plenty of power behind it 4) it's the *NIX that lot's of people have been looking for, power and a usable GUI 5) they actualy like the idea of a computer that's got a sense of personality and isn't just a box on their desk.
When will you learn that the "my way or the high way" approach is what causes the most sucess? You think M$ got where they are by making everyone happy? Not at all, they said you will do things our way (licensing, IE, etc etc) or you will do it no way. And people did it M$s way.
The same applies to Apple. If YOU want APPLE's support, you will in turn have to support APPLE and buy APPLE products. Plain and simple. Thers is nothing which says you can't buy a mac and gut it and install all your own hardware and custom processors, but you won't get Apple's support. Why should the iPod be any different?
So then the problem with the new economy is that the services will be localized arround where they apply. Instead of china town and little italy in NYC we'll have plasticsville and metal-burg? It doesn't seem like such a big problem. Of course, I could be missing the point entirely, (I'm working on less than 5 hours of sleep for the weekend) if so I apologise.
There are actualy quite a few groups that sell their music without heavy marketing. In fact, if you're good, marketing really isn't a big issue as word of mouth will get you places. So the only thing that's really left is the mass production costs, which could technicaly be filled on a bit by bit basis. Who ever decided that you needed to press a thousand copies of an album before you even begin selling? Start small. But regardless, I see your point for a need to have some way of paying for production up front, but I would like to see some numbers on whether an artist would be better off (short and long term) signing a contract, or taking out loans and doing the production themselves.
As a person currently studing the US Government, I feel the need to correct this statement for the public. Only in recent years have we decided that it is the FBI's job to stop terrorists. The original job of the FBI was to invesitgate crimes (most notably organized crime). By nature, in order to investigate a crime, the crime must have already been commited or be in the act of being commited. Now though, we seem to have this idea that it's also the FBI's job to anticipate and stop crimes before they happen. While this would be all well and good for society, the sad truth is it's nearly impossible. In order to stop something before it happens, you need to know exactly what you're looking for. The FBI could have all the clues in the world that a terrorist attack was comming, but not all puzzles are easily solved. Case in point:
It was commisioned and built in the early 1900's
It was one of the largest of it's kind
It was designed to carry large numbers of people large distances
It's maiden launch was a major media event
It was destroyed in a tragic accident
If I asked you what I was describing, most people would answer the Titanic. And indeed it does fit the clues, however I was in fact describing the Hindenberg. You see, just because you have the clues doesn't mean you can see the answer.
But why isn't the artist hiring the record company? Does anyone else see the strangeness of a record company hiring the artist? Isn't that sort of like TDK hiring EA to produce a game so that TDK can sell CDs?
So start making and selling CDs. Or do performances, which will most likely earn you a better chunk of change. The sad thing for people in the manufacturing business is that our economy is moving towards service oriented businesses. That means you get paid as you do the work, so either artists will get paid a set wage for producing a song, and not be earning huge chunks of change off of last years work, or they will start performing and earn money that way. No one is saying you shouldn't get money for your efforts, it's when you get money for everytime your song is heard that people start to get bothered.
You may not realize it, but you just described the current trend of the US economy. We are moving very quickly away from a manufacturing economy (which is where patents, copywrites, and other IP protections come in handy) to a service economy, where payment on a commision is going to become more prevelant. Hence Bowie's statement that performance and touring will be the way to make money on music in the future.
Now he's not entirely off the mark with these comments. Let's face it, good music is hard to write, and when your method of producing "music" is to take sound samples from other songs, mush them together, double-time the tempo, add heavy base drum and scream about how much the world sucks and doing it to your #(*&@#)(*&@(*&)@(*&# bitch till she dies, chances are you're going to create more crap than decent music.
Not so long as you might think. Most musicians that are serious have much of the equipment they would need to make a decent recording. What they need is the skills to mix the music and make it sound CD quality, which is possible with most mid-range computers and about $500 worth of software. Burning the CD's isn't all that bad, most computers can cook a CD in 15 minutes or less, and there are mass burners out there for reasonable prices. Hell, if the bootleggers can do it, so can the musicians.
In the end, it will be the artists hiring the record companies, not the other way arround.
I'd bet you wouldn't be able to hack my C64 without doing a whole lot of research. And since most crackers don't even do their homework (they just runa script), chances are only the most dedicated would get in.
you realize as soon as some stupid moron goes to one of these things get's upset with some kid and beats him up the next day, the parents will scream bloody murder about lettign kids play violent video games and have the whole program shut down. It's a great idea, but it will be a sad day when it dies.
Ah well, no one ever said schools made wise business choices. Case in point, we hired 5 students to help run ethernet last summer. They had to go through some concrete in the walls, instead of investing the money that it would have required to go by a drill bit to go through the wall (we had the drill already) they gave the kids a hammer and chisel and told them to go through the wall that way. Wound up costing them more money to pay the 5 kids for an hour of chisling, plus the money for the spackle since the chisel made the hole too large. Gotta love the powers that be!
The fact of the matter is, the subject of battery is a rather sensitive subject to a lot of people, and to liken it to a Star Wars geek not caring whether the dialouge was bad or not was not in my opinion in good taste.
You missed my point though. The point I was making was you attacked me directly, claiming that I was in need of professional help, and you somehow reached this conclusion by the simple fact that I found (and stated my opinion) that the original post was in poor taste.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about media players (I'm personaly happy with QT) but I do know that there are many (if not more) usable browsers for the mac.
n iWeb
iCab
Opera
Netscape
IE
OmniWeb
Mozilla
Mi
MacLynx (for you *NIX dudes)
Fizilla
CyberDog
and I'm sure a few more.
As for a non Apple OS. Have you tried LinuxPPC? Or YellowDog? both of those run nicely.
he needs to learn french, the term he was looking for is faux, not fax
If I recall correctly from other places that I've read, Apple turns something like 15-20% profit on every machine sold.
So that's $209.85 per every low end iMac at 15% profit. At the same profit margin, that's 59.85 per lowend iPod. So lets do numbers
$209.85 * 1,000= $209,850
$59.85 * 10,000= $598,500
So yes assuming these numbers, Apple would have made more profit. But take other factors into consideration. The iPod is a one time purchace. The iMac is a purchase, then any additional hardware, plus the possibility of an iPod purchase. And also another loyal customer (once you go mac, it's hard to go back). In all, Apple probably would be better off selling their hardware everywhere they can. They're doing that currently. Think about it, now they've sold those 1000 iMacs + iPods, plus with the new drivers (which cost them nothing to produce, and they have to devote no support to, they've just sold the other 9000 iPods. Grand total 10,000 ipods and 1000 iMacs. Apple wins
Only if you believe Apple is selling to the PC market. In my opinion, Apple is selling to their own market. The mac users. If your a PC user and you want to test the Apple waters, you have the iMac, the eMac and the iBooks, all cheap, all powerful and all useable machines. Everything else, all the real perks go to the Apple users. Nothing is cooler than having a computer which seemlesly runs with all it's components. Should SUN have made their rather impressive 21 inch monitors (back when the Sparc 10s were big) compatible with macs and PCs? Maybe they would have had more sales, if they had. But they didn't. They were interested in a product that would run exactly the way they wanted it. Same with Apple. You may not like it, but hey, I don't like the way M$ does business. Oh well.
Because the only product Apple makes for the rest of the world is the iMac and iBook, everything else is for specific users, most of them already mac users. The iPod was created for mac users. All of their products really are made for their users. It's what their users want, not what everyone else wants. Become a mac user and join the ranks of happy users and influence Apple
Ummm, perhaps people buy the mac becasue:
1) it's reliable
2) no matter how bubblegummy it seems, it's easy
3) it's got plenty of power behind it
4) it's the *NIX that lot's of people have been looking for, power and a usable GUI
5) they actualy like the idea of a computer that's got a sense of personality and isn't just a box on their desk.
When will you learn that the "my way or the high way" approach is what causes the most sucess? You think M$ got where they are by making everyone happy? Not at all, they said you will do things our way (licensing, IE, etc etc) or you will do it no way. And people did it M$s way.
The same applies to Apple. If YOU want APPLE's support, you will in turn have to support APPLE and buy APPLE products. Plain and simple. Thers is nothing which says you can't buy a mac and gut it and install all your own hardware and custom processors, but you won't get Apple's support. Why should the iPod be any different?
An episode of Earth: Final Conflict (efc.com). See the thing they have called a global? That's what I want. Without the locator chip of course.
Personaly, I'd rather my money go to the artist themselves. I paid for the music, not the media or the packaging or the advertisement.
So then the problem with the new economy is that the services will be localized arround where they apply. Instead of china town and little italy in NYC we'll have plasticsville and metal-burg? It doesn't seem like such a big problem. Of course, I could be missing the point entirely, (I'm working on less than 5 hours of sleep for the weekend) if so I apologise.
I'm not quite sure what you have a problem with. Could you explain yourself a bit better?
There are actualy quite a few groups that sell their music without heavy marketing. In fact, if you're good, marketing really isn't a big issue as word of mouth will get you places. So the only thing that's really left is the mass production costs, which could technicaly be filled on a bit by bit basis. Who ever decided that you needed to press a thousand copies of an album before you even begin selling? Start small. But regardless, I see your point for a need to have some way of paying for production up front, but I would like to see some numbers on whether an artist would be better off (short and long term) signing a contract, or taking out loans and doing the production themselves.
and the FBI stops terrorists, right?
As a person currently studing the US Government, I feel the need to correct this statement for the public. Only in recent years have we decided that it is the FBI's job to stop terrorists. The original job of the FBI was to invesitgate crimes (most notably organized crime). By nature, in order to investigate a crime, the crime must have already been commited or be in the act of being commited. Now though, we seem to have this idea that it's also the FBI's job to anticipate and stop crimes before they happen. While this would be all well and good for society, the sad truth is it's nearly impossible. In order to stop something before it happens, you need to know exactly what you're looking for. The FBI could have all the clues in the world that a terrorist attack was comming, but not all puzzles are easily solved. Case in point:
It was commisioned and built in the early 1900's
It was one of the largest of it's kind
It was designed to carry large numbers of people large distances
It's maiden launch was a major media event
It was destroyed in a tragic accident
If I asked you what I was describing, most people would answer the Titanic. And indeed it does fit the clues, however I was in fact describing the Hindenberg. You see, just because you have the clues doesn't mean you can see the answer.
But why isn't the artist hiring the record company? Does anyone else see the strangeness of a record company hiring the artist? Isn't that sort of like TDK hiring EA to produce a game so that TDK can sell CDs?
So start making and selling CDs. Or do performances, which will most likely earn you a better chunk of change. The sad thing for people in the manufacturing business is that our economy is moving towards service oriented businesses. That means you get paid as you do the work, so either artists will get paid a set wage for producing a song, and not be earning huge chunks of change off of last years work, or they will start performing and earn money that way. No one is saying you shouldn't get money for your efforts, it's when you get money for everytime your song is heard that people start to get bothered.
You may not realize it, but you just described the current trend of the US economy. We are moving very quickly away from a manufacturing economy (which is where patents, copywrites, and other IP protections come in handy) to a service economy, where payment on a commision is going to become more prevelant. Hence Bowie's statement that performance and touring will be the way to make money on music in the future.
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
if it doesn't work the first time, try again
Now he's not entirely off the mark with these comments. Let's face it, good music is hard to write, and when your method of producing "music" is to take sound samples from other songs, mush them together, double-time the tempo, add heavy base drum and scream about how much the world sucks and doing it to your #(*&@#)(*&@(*&)@(*&# bitch till she dies, chances are you're going to create more crap than decent music.
Plug the addy in again and try again. It works. Remember it's random, some of the registrations may not work any more.
Not so long as you might think. Most musicians that are serious have much of the equipment they would need to make a decent recording. What they need is the skills to mix the music and make it sound CD quality, which is possible with most mid-range computers and about $500 worth of software. Burning the CD's isn't all that bad, most computers can cook a CD in 15 minutes or less, and there are mass burners out there for reasonable prices. Hell, if the bootleggers can do it, so can the musicians.
In the end, it will be the artists hiring the record companies, not the other way arround.
I'd bet you wouldn't be able to hack my C64 without doing a whole lot of research. And since most crackers don't even do their homework (they just runa script), chances are only the most dedicated would get in.
you realize as soon as some stupid moron goes to one of these things get's upset with some kid and beats him up the next day, the parents will scream bloody murder about lettign kids play violent video games and have the whole program shut down. It's a great idea, but it will be a sad day when it dies.
Ah well, no one ever said schools made wise business choices. Case in point, we hired 5 students to help run ethernet last summer. They had to go through some concrete in the walls, instead of investing the money that it would have required to go by a drill bit to go through the wall (we had the drill already) they gave the kids a hammer and chisel and told them to go through the wall that way. Wound up costing them more money to pay the 5 kids for an hour of chisling, plus the money for the spackle since the chisel made the hole too large. Gotta love the powers that be!
or when HDs were 100-200 megs?
a floppy could hold almost anything?
any game that used more than 5 megs of disk space was huge?
there were no such things as pop-up/under ads?
if your os used more than 14 megs of memory it was highway robbery?
those were the days
The fact of the matter is, the subject of battery is a rather sensitive subject to a lot of people, and to liken it to a Star Wars geek not caring whether the dialouge was bad or not was not in my opinion in good taste.
You missed my point though. The point I was making was you attacked me directly, claiming that I was in need of professional help, and you somehow reached this conclusion by the simple fact that I found (and stated my opinion) that the original post was in poor taste.