The thing that bothers me is when you say "running optimized code." The thing about the G5 is that it will ALWAYS be running optimized code (ahem, MacOS X in itself), while the Xeons certainly aren't running software nor an operating system optimized specifically for it.
To be honest, I haven't yet trusted even one benchmark. Anyone that buys products because of benchmarks isn't doing their job as a consumer. This is why there are Apple retail stores now; in order for the Mac-haters to really know what they're talking about, I think when it's available to them they should be in the Mac stores playing around with these things and actually finding out for themselves instead of trying to nab us on technicalities (like Apple is the first to dabble in the arts of tweaking their benchmarks).
And finally there comes the "who cares" debate. I'm a Mac user, and this can only mean good things to me. On the PC side of the fence, it may mean bad things and it may not, but honestly whether any of you "switch" or not is not of my concern. Sure, more users might mean more money for Apple which in turn may lead to more money for RD and ultimately better products, but it's nothing for me to be concerned with.
Think about it this way: not any amount of arguing will change the fact that I'll be happier than a fly in shit using my new G5. Not even if you can prove to me that my G5 radiates something that will give me cancer will change the fact that it's only computing platform for me.
I hope this doesn't make me sound naive, but didn't they actually do comparison tests with Photoshop, Mathematica, Logic, and a couple others in front of a live audience? Didn't the G5 cream the competition?
C'mon people, yesterday was a reason for Mac fans to get boners, and today some guy who really thinks Apple and Dell are horrible companies for knocking $1 off their prices is gonna give the PC fans boners? Enough with the boners already, they're just benchmarks and they mean next to nil.
If I remember correctly (but I might not have), he announced that the Music Store itself would be coming to Windows. I don't clearly remember him saying "iTunes is coming to Windows," because if he did, Macrumors.com wouldn't have posted this article about the Monster.com job as a so-called "confirmation."
... that thinks this is a fake? How can it be proven that this is real? I don't even think that email address they provided is exists anymore (I tried emailing it and it was returned).
Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.
"The selection of music, while not great initially, will be expanded. They don't want me to subscribe. It's $1.00 a song - easy impulse buy. I get to choose what to do with my music - I think the copy restrictions are pretty reasonable - of course they fit my usage pattern."
Generally speaking, you're right. But what concerns me is the lack of independent label support, or at least the lack of any related announcement on the subject.
Apple is known, if not just to Mac users themselves, for being different and taking the first step and risk to try something new and exciting. Where, then, is all the independent support? This will allow for not only a larger selection, but for a wide selection of albums at drastically reduced prices.
Which independent labels are chosen would probably be a tough call, but there certainly are labels out there who do enough for themselves to get their bands out there sans-conglomeration... examples: Matador Records (home of Interpol, Steve Malkmus/ex-Pavement, Yo La Tengo), Lookout! Records (Ted Leo and the Pharmacists), and SYR (Sonic Youth and their tons of side-projects).
I'm not sure if these names actually mean anything to anyone here but the fanbase is certainly there, and for every major label there are thousands of labels of this size and popularity.
First of all, what is with the insane amount of trolls on all the Apple-related posts lately? This only further proves that a good chunk of anti-Apple sentiment is just flamebait.
Anywho, here goes my debate on pricing and user appeal:
Why is it so hard for many slashdotters to realize that they represent a relatively SMALL majority in the music consumer industry? Millions upon millions of real albums are still being sold in stores, this offers an alternative to those people (unfortunately now those people that are mac users). It also offers a viable alternative for Mac users that don't have access to full albums with 160kbps+ quality, sans glitches. In terms of the Mac world (albiet small in the grand scheme of things), getting your hands on full albums is for the most part a hassle for your average user. Sure, Direct Connect has made that a bit easier lately, and there's always IRC, but yet again these people make up only a small faction of Mac users (for now) and computer users in general (for later).
When it comes out for Windows, it will offer an alternative to those who use Kazaa... and I'm sure any of you who've used it extensively knows that it's not so easy to find a full album in decent quality without glitches or fakes from the record companies or whatever other quirks you can think of.
As for my ideas to make this MY music service: GIVE ME INDEPENDENT MUSIC! I understand the pricing for the Big Five, but what about letting independent labels sell their tracks for say, $.25 a piece? I would go nuts, I can tell you that much.
There's so much more to say and so many more topics to debate about, but I'm spent already.
Slashdot Mirror
Very very interesting... I'm reading through the PDF now.
The thing that bothers me is when you say "running optimized code." The thing about the G5 is that it will ALWAYS be running optimized code (ahem, MacOS X in itself), while the Xeons certainly aren't running software nor an operating system optimized specifically for it.
To be honest, I haven't yet trusted even one benchmark. Anyone that buys products because of benchmarks isn't doing their job as a consumer. This is why there are Apple retail stores now; in order for the Mac-haters to really know what they're talking about, I think when it's available to them they should be in the Mac stores playing around with these things and actually finding out for themselves instead of trying to nab us on technicalities (like Apple is the first to dabble in the arts of tweaking their benchmarks).
And finally there comes the "who cares" debate. I'm a Mac user, and this can only mean good things to me. On the PC side of the fence, it may mean bad things and it may not, but honestly whether any of you "switch" or not is not of my concern. Sure, more users might mean more money for Apple which in turn may lead to more money for RD and ultimately better products, but it's nothing for me to be concerned with.
Think about it this way: not any amount of arguing will change the fact that I'll be happier than a fly in shit using my new G5. Not even if you can prove to me that my G5 radiates something that will give me cancer will change the fact that it's only computing platform for me.
I hope this doesn't make me sound naive, but didn't they actually do comparison tests with Photoshop, Mathematica, Logic, and a couple others in front of a live audience? Didn't the G5 cream the competition? C'mon people, yesterday was a reason for Mac fans to get boners, and today some guy who really thinks Apple and Dell are horrible companies for knocking $1 off their prices is gonna give the PC fans boners? Enough with the boners already, they're just benchmarks and they mean next to nil.
I'm not sure how much it affected me while/after playing it, but listening to the soundtrack still brings back fuzzy and warm memories.
If I remember correctly (but I might not have), he announced that the Music Store itself would be coming to Windows. I don't clearly remember him saying "iTunes is coming to Windows," because if he did, Macrumors.com wouldn't have posted this article about the Monster.com job as a so-called "confirmation."
... that thinks this is a fake? How can it be proven that this is real? I don't even think that email address they provided is exists anymore (I tried emailing it and it was returned).
Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.
"The selection of music, while not great initially, will be expanded. They don't want me to subscribe. It's $1.00 a song - easy impulse buy. I get to choose what to do with my music - I think the copy restrictions are pretty reasonable - of course they fit my usage pattern."
Generally speaking, you're right. But what concerns me is the lack of independent label support, or at least the lack of any related announcement on the subject.
Apple is known, if not just to Mac users themselves, for being different and taking the first step and risk to try something new and exciting. Where, then, is all the independent support? This will allow for not only a larger selection, but for a wide selection of albums at drastically reduced prices.
Which independent labels are chosen would probably be a tough call, but there certainly are labels out there who do enough for themselves to get their bands out there sans-conglomeration... examples: Matador Records (home of Interpol, Steve Malkmus/ex-Pavement, Yo La Tengo), Lookout! Records (Ted Leo and the Pharmacists), and SYR (Sonic Youth and their tons of side-projects).
I'm not sure if these names actually mean anything to anyone here but the fanbase is certainly there, and for every major label there are thousands of labels of this size and popularity.
First of all, what is with the insane amount of trolls on all the Apple-related posts lately? This only further proves that a good chunk of anti-Apple sentiment is just flamebait. Anywho, here goes my debate on pricing and user appeal: Why is it so hard for many slashdotters to realize that they represent a relatively SMALL majority in the music consumer industry? Millions upon millions of real albums are still being sold in stores, this offers an alternative to those people (unfortunately now those people that are mac users). It also offers a viable alternative for Mac users that don't have access to full albums with 160kbps+ quality, sans glitches. In terms of the Mac world (albiet small in the grand scheme of things), getting your hands on full albums is for the most part a hassle for your average user. Sure, Direct Connect has made that a bit easier lately, and there's always IRC, but yet again these people make up only a small faction of Mac users (for now) and computer users in general (for later). When it comes out for Windows, it will offer an alternative to those who use Kazaa... and I'm sure any of you who've used it extensively knows that it's not so easy to find a full album in decent quality without glitches or fakes from the record companies or whatever other quirks you can think of. As for my ideas to make this MY music service: GIVE ME INDEPENDENT MUSIC! I understand the pricing for the Big Five, but what about letting independent labels sell their tracks for say, $.25 a piece? I would go nuts, I can tell you that much. There's so much more to say and so many more topics to debate about, but I'm spent already.