Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it. Make you quotation at least as direct as this one from caddisfly:
He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.
Your "original assertion" is nothing like the whole point. You've stated further up this thread that "the whole point" is something completely different. Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't. The only person that said it was made of straw.
How ironic that you think he kept ignoring you, and yet you think the two of you were unable to get to the point because you continuingly ignored him.
Also note there is more dignity in realising you're arguing with a complete idiot and stopping banging your head against a brick wall than there is in carrying on posting straw men and failing to address the argument.
We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.
I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.
Anyway, where does this "THREE TIMES" figure come from? I suspect you pulled it out of somewhere the sun doesn't shine. Your argument is based rather too heavily on the word "if".
The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary.
You think anyone is under the impression that Jobs's salaray has anything to do with charity, or altruism? Of course not. There's another straw man you've created.
Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.
You've got a right little straw crowd coming on. No, being unprofitable is not the same as being charitable. Go away and look up "loss-leader".
My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.
Just stating that you're right doesn't make it so. It seems you need to look up "straw man" too.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about AllOfMP3, I very much doubt it's losing money.
However, caddisfly's position is that even if AllOfMP3 can make money at 4 cents a song, that doesn't mean to say that it's possible for Apple to make 31+ cents a song when their revenue is 35c.
caddisfly didn't say that AllOfMP3 are either losing money or not making money. He/she just said that being in business for three years is no guarantee of making money. That is true. Again, though, I agree with you, the simplest explanation is the best: AllOfMP3 is likely turning some sort of profit.
However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue. There, I've stated it again just so you can't pretend you've missed it again:P
Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man!
User956, caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now. The burden is upon you to demonstrate that Apple's operating costs are as low as AllOfMP3.com's. Until you can do that I suggest you shut up, as you are making a real idiot of yourself.
The very reason you like using iTunes is because Apple haven't put every single bit of functionality that every fool requests who can't work out that what he needs to do is use party shuffle mode and then stop the music manually when he's finished exercising.
- I can append songs to really easily, preferably by double-clicking
I find "Party Shuffle" a pain to use - adding stuff to it and clearing it is fiddly.
You want exactly what I want, and I really hope Apple catch on to how good this would be: Party Shuffle Lock, in which any action which would usually cause a song to be played immediately (e.g., double-clicking) instead causes it to be added to the front of the party shuffle queue.
I'm not holding my breath, though... I'm still waiting for Apple to implement gapless crossover. Grrr, it's hardly rocket science, Apple, is it?!
The party mode is also, I think, quite a good idea, although I have to figure out how to prevent certain tunes from ending up in there.
Place certain tunes in playlist P; create smart playlist Q with rule "anything not in playlist P"; source party shuffle from playlist Q. Playlist P can of course itself be a smart playlist with contents sourced according to artist, genre etc.
In general, if you don't want to delete songs from your music library but you don't want to listen to them at all, simply uncheck them.
Okay, I understand you properly now, and you make a good point.
But FairPlay AAC *is* some format that can be easily translated to the native format supported by any MP3 (or, better, AAC) player. HYMn represents the real threat. Whilst projects like HYMn exist (i.e., forever), Apple is better off concentrating on making the iPod better -- and the iPod is better if Real's music store files can play on it.
Incidentally, when I say function, I probably mean usability -- by which I mean that something is functionally useless if it is too difficult to use for its intended purpose.
Unless Apple wants to be a different company (which is another debate), they will be more concerned about selling iPods than about owning the content market. All they need to do is make sure the iTMS is big enough, just like they need to make sure there are Mac alternatives for all the Windows software people want to use. It suits Apple down to the ground if other content providers make their tunes play on the iPod, because it makes it the One Box To Play Them All. Apple don't even need to ensure that FairPlay tunes can never be played on other machines. It's just not how they compete!
No, the Libertarian approach would be to give companies like Apple the go-ahead to shoot Real's engineers for trespassing on their intellectual property.
That was a joke, by the way; but then, so was your post. You should really read up on Green social justice policy sometime.
I'd have thought that this Real hack would be good news for Apple. They're a hardware company, and the iTMS is, if not a loss-leader, nothing like as profitable to Apple as the iPod is. I'd imagine that Apple would have added support for Real's format themselves if it wouldn't have meant reciprocal licensing.
Having said that, I don't really understand how this hack might work other than effectively removing Real's DRM and adding Apple's, using a key retrieval technique similar to that of the HYMn project. So I guess Apple's lawyers will be compelled to stamp it out in order to avoid legal precedent.
By "in a sufficiently modern society", do you mean "in a society in which patent offices fail to enforce the non-obviousness of patents"? And by "Thus", do you mean "In a market in which no company can exist except through monopoly"?
Oh, come now. The logical conclusion of your "fewer connections to your monitor" argument is the iMac. There's a trade-off, and the ADC is on the wrong side of that trade-off for many people, especially those with Powerbooks. Really, what the back of your computer looks like is of fairly minimal importance (if you don't have cables plugged in, look at all those ugly ports!)
BTW the power comes from a separate brick (which will presumably be incorporated into the back of future PowerMacs). It's one of the smaller connectors.
I don't know but here are a couple of solutions which spring to mind:
1) Build a lexicon containing all substrings of indexed words in addition to the words themselves 2) Have N B-trees (or whatever), where N is the length of the longest word you're indexing.
The engine automatically takes all the metadata inside files and enabled applications and puts the data into a high-performance index. This process occurs transparently and in the background, so you never experience lag times or slow downs during normal operation. When you make a change, such as adding a new file, receiving an email or entering a new contact, the metadata engine updates its index automatically. Results of search requests are displayed virtually as fast as you can type your query.
If they've used kqueue in Spotlight, surely they've put it in the Finder?!
But you're not talking about the same law as determines 'natural rights' such as property here, are you? It's not as straightforward as you seem to think. Does homesteading count as 'labor'? Can I then take oil from 'my' land? Can I send the smoke into 'your' air?
People aren't be property. No person can claim ownership of another person.
So, it's not as simple as that something becomes your property when you have applied labor to it? What other 'special cases' are there?
1) Let's say my trade is burglary. Are the fruits of my labour my property? Some burglaries are not easy, you know. You don't think burglary is a trade? What about those burglaries the government organises, that it chooses not to call by name?
2) If the fruits of my labour are my property, then my child is my property, and indeed you and I are both the property of the same individual if you go far enough back. Does this property right cease upon death? If so, what do you make of inheritance of more 'tangible' property?
1) Create your smart playlist for 'recently added' or whatever. 2) Add new constraint: 'Playlist', 'is', and your size-limited playlist. 3) There is no step 3.
Your ears are a fair bit more sensitive than your eyes. Flashes need to be 25 milliseconds apart for your eye to distinguish between them, but clicks need only be 2 milliseconds apart for your ears to tell the difference.
Now, I'm guessing you're wanting to try to detect changes in the static, time-domain waveform, rather than a waveform moving across an oscilloscope in real time. But if you don't, you're not comparing like with like.
Of course the waveform degrades. Otherwise the compression wouldn't be so good, would it? The question is, can you (someone with human hearing) sense the degradation?
Try this. Use your favourite lossy encoder to encode a track and decode it again. Use your favourite audio editor to invert the sound, and then add it to (merge it with) the original track. The bits left over are the differences. Maybe you can see them in the waveform editor. But can you hear them played in real time?
Slashdot Mirror
Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it. Make you quotation at least as direct as this one from caddisfly:
He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.
Or this one:
"......and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? ..."
Never said that, I said it was revenue. I don't know how much is cost
Good luck, strawboy!
Your "original assertion" is nothing like the whole point. You've stated further up this thread that "the whole point" is something completely different. Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't. The only person that said it was made of straw.
How ironic that you think he kept ignoring you, and yet you think the two of you were unable to get to the point because you continuingly ignored him.
Also note there is more dignity in realising you're arguing with a complete idiot and stopping banging your head against a brick wall than there is in carrying on posting straw men and failing to address the argument.
We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.
I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.
Anyway, where does this "THREE TIMES" figure come from? I suspect you pulled it out of somewhere the sun doesn't shine. Your argument is based rather too heavily on the word "if".
The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary.
You think anyone is under the impression that Jobs's salaray has anything to do with charity, or altruism? Of course not. There's another straw man you've created.
Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.
You've got a right little straw crowd coming on. No, being unprofitable is not the same as being charitable. Go away and look up "loss-leader".
My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.
Just stating that you're right doesn't make it so. It seems you need to look up "straw man" too.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about AllOfMP3, I very much doubt it's losing money.
:P
However, caddisfly's position is that even if AllOfMP3 can make money at 4 cents a song, that doesn't mean to say that it's possible for Apple to make 31+ cents a song when their revenue is 35c.
caddisfly didn't say that AllOfMP3 are either losing money or not making money. He/she just said that being in business for three years is no guarantee of making money. That is true. Again, though, I agree with you, the simplest explanation is the best: AllOfMP3 is likely turning some sort of profit.
However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue. There, I've stated it again just so you can't pretend you've missed it again
Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man!
User956, caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now. The burden is upon you to demonstrate that Apple's operating costs are as low as AllOfMP3.com's. Until you can do that I suggest you shut up, as you are making a real idiot of yourself.
Sorry, you're the idiot.
The very reason you like using iTunes is because Apple haven't put every single bit of functionality that every fool requests who can't work out that what he needs to do is use party shuffle mode and then stop the music manually when he's finished exercising.
- I can append songs to really easily, preferably by double-clicking
I find "Party Shuffle" a pain to use - adding stuff to it and clearing it is fiddly.
You want exactly what I want, and I really hope Apple catch on to how good this would be: Party Shuffle Lock, in which any action which would usually cause a song to be played immediately (e.g., double-clicking) instead causes it to be added to the front of the party shuffle queue.
I'm not holding my breath, though... I'm still waiting for Apple to implement gapless crossover. Grrr, it's hardly rocket science, Apple, is it?!
Place certain tunes in playlist P; create smart playlist Q with rule "anything not in playlist P"; source party shuffle from playlist Q. Playlist P can of course itself be a smart playlist with contents sourced according to artist, genre etc.
In general, if you don't want to delete songs from your music library but you don't want to listen to them at all, simply uncheck them.
Okay, I understand you properly now, and you make a good point.
But FairPlay AAC *is* some format that can be easily translated to the native format supported by any MP3 (or, better, AAC) player. HYMn represents the real threat. Whilst projects like HYMn exist (i.e., forever), Apple is better off concentrating on making the iPod better -- and the iPod is better if Real's music store files can play on it.
Incidentally, when I say function, I probably mean usability -- by which I mean that something is functionally useless if it is too difficult to use for its intended purpose.
Sales of iPod will continue to have everything to do with function.
Unless Apple wants to be a different company (which is another debate), they will be more concerned about selling iPods than about owning the content market. All they need to do is make sure the iTMS is big enough, just like they need to make sure there are Mac alternatives for all the Windows software people want to use. It suits Apple down to the ground if other content providers make their tunes play on the iPod, because it makes it the One Box To Play Them All. Apple don't even need to ensure that FairPlay tunes can never be played on other machines. It's just not how they compete!
Perhaps Real will perform the death throe of giving the open source community an albatross round its neck, just like Netscape did.
No, the Libertarian approach would be to give companies like Apple the go-ahead to shoot Real's engineers for trespassing on their intellectual property.
That was a joke, by the way; but then, so was your post. You should really read up on Green social justice policy sometime.
I'd have thought that this Real hack would be good news for Apple. They're a hardware company, and the iTMS is, if not a loss-leader, nothing like as profitable to Apple as the iPod is. I'd imagine that Apple would have added support for Real's format themselves if it wouldn't have meant reciprocal licensing.
Having said that, I don't really understand how this hack might work other than effectively removing Real's DRM and adding Apple's, using a key retrieval technique similar to that of the HYMn project. So I guess Apple's lawyers will be compelled to stamp it out in order to avoid legal precedent.
By "in a sufficiently modern society", do you mean "in a society in which patent offices fail to enforce the non-obviousness of patents"? And by "Thus", do you mean "In a market in which no company can exist except through monopoly"?
Oh, come now. The logical conclusion of your "fewer connections to your monitor" argument is the iMac. There's a trade-off, and the ADC is on the wrong side of that trade-off for many people, especially those with Powerbooks. Really, what the back of your computer looks like is of fairly minimal importance (if you don't have cables plugged in, look at all those ugly ports!)
BTW the power comes from a separate brick (which will presumably be incorporated into the back of future PowerMacs). It's one of the smaller connectors.
I don't know but here are a couple of solutions which spring to mind:
1) Build a lexicon containing all substrings of indexed words in addition to the words themselves
2) Have N B-trees (or whatever), where N is the length of the longest word you're indexing.
Guess what? Apple are smarter than you think.
But presumably only the high-class ones that charge upwards of $1000 a night?
No, because your trade is unlawful.
But you're not talking about the same law as determines 'natural rights' such as property here, are you? It's not as straightforward as you seem to think. Does homesteading count as 'labor'? Can I then take oil from 'my' land? Can I send the smoke into 'your' air?
People aren't be property. No person can claim ownership of another person.
So, it's not as simple as that something becomes your property when you have applied labor to it? What other 'special cases' are there?
1) Let's say my trade is burglary. Are the fruits of my labour my property? Some burglaries are not easy, you know. You don't think burglary is a trade? What about those burglaries the government organises, that it chooses not to call by name?
2) If the fruits of my labour are my property, then my child is my property, and indeed you and I are both the property of the same individual if you go far enough back. Does this property right cease upon death? If so, what do you make of inheritance of more 'tangible' property?
What the hell are you talking about? Yellow Dog beats OS X on PDF rendering, on low-latency audio? I don't think so.
Why am I even biting? You can't even spell ITS.
1) Create your smart playlist for 'recently added' or whatever.
2) Add new constraint: 'Playlist', 'is', and your size-limited playlist.
3) There is no step 3.
Your ears are a fair bit more sensitive than your eyes. Flashes need to be 25 milliseconds apart for your eye to distinguish between them, but clicks need only be 2 milliseconds apart for your ears to tell the difference.
Now, I'm guessing you're wanting to try to detect changes in the static, time-domain waveform, rather than a waveform moving across an oscilloscope in real time. But if you don't, you're not comparing like with like.
Of course the waveform degrades. Otherwise the compression wouldn't be so good, would it? The question is, can you (someone with human hearing) sense the degradation?
Try this. Use your favourite lossy encoder to encode a track and decode it again. Use your favourite audio editor to invert the sound, and then add it to (merge it with) the original track. The bits left over are the differences. Maybe you can see them in the waveform editor. But can you hear them played in real time?