Actually, it is apple who has held out the longest on the 4:3 aspect ratio. Every other PC manufacurer in 12in through 17in is using wide screen exclusively on all current models (there are still a couple phase out's on 4:3 though leftover in warehouses)
The point is that now, all the laptops and desktops are going to be playing HD video content at a better size. You may not care about this but it is where the industry is going with computers, and laptops: media. You also get the added bonus that the keyboards on the laptops don't have to be as cramped because it makes the laptop wider, but balances itself out by being smaller for easier transportation.
In the end, you might not like the wider aspect ratio for actually looking at it, but for all other uses(portability, keyboard, video content, hinge durability) the wider screen is superior. And since it gives me extra room to put photoshop panneling on the side without taking up precious 4:3 screen space, it is a benefit for anyone doing high end applications on the road. If you look at it in the sence that you are losing the top part of your screen, your looking at it incorrectly. Prices didn't stay the same with this transition, they went down (whether or not it has anything to do with the screens is irrelevant). Weight did not increase, it went down. Keyboard size didn't decrease, it stayed the same or got better (model dependant). The way you should be looking at it is that a 13in wide laptop is like a 12in 4:3 with extra space on the side. a 12in wide is like a 10in 4:3 with extra space on the side. Current pricing structures, weights, and physical dimensions, when compared with 4:3 counterparts, agree with this type of analysis.
I think the fact that your web browser expands all the way across the page and leaves extra blank space is a marginal inconvenience when weighted with all the benefits.
You offer no argument even granting that "a lot of people" will be using it at some point. In fact, my argument has nothing to do with how far and wide MP3 has gone. It is all about the fact that you cannot use AAC or WMA when using multiple devices to play your music because neither has penetrated the market enough to be accepted on most players. Even the iPod doesn't account for most players out there. And WMA as you said is only on 20% of the portable market (but with more penetration on fixed devices).
Your argument is non-existant. These codecs are not currently in widespread use, and will not be for some time. Making a claim that they are and will doesn't change the facts.
I don't think you understand my point: AAC and WMA are nowhere near as rare as you make them out to be, even if MP3 is dominant.
Yes AAC and WMA are. Anybody using more than one device from different vendors are using MP3. The whole point of compressed music is to use it in many places. That is the benefit of digital music over legacy formats like CD's and tapes. It is even what iTune's biggest feature is, share your mp3's on up to X number of iPods (what is it like 5 ipods per itunes account?)
But what about EVERYthing else? What about all the other devices out there. If you aren't licensing firmware from apple then your device doesn't work with iTunes. That is 20% of the portable market. It is 100% of the rest of the market which includes the stuff I posted about earlier (100% of honda civics and accords, next year's toyotas, other cars come with it, 90% of aftermarket in-dash players, dvd players which don't support mpeg4, etc etc.. the list goes on.) The market for these integrated devices is much much larger than the market for iPods and other portable mp3 players. When you factor cellphones which support mp3 ringtones, it gets even worse. Now you are talking about deploying mp3 ability to the masses, something even the ipod can't claim to be doing.
You can't expect people to use only one device when accessing their digital music. Anybody who is isn't a heavy or average user, as the whole point of it is to make it portable and convenient. Something that doesn't happen when you are stuck with a collection full of AAC's or WMA's, DRM or not.
Did you read the article? It specifically says it is comparing the most common format MP3 on an MP3 player and then they load up a DRM song (the only kind available to them being WMA or AAC versions) and then they get 8-25% less battery life.
I don't know what you read, but the article is clear. You may think it would be appropriate to measure every codec against eachother without DRM, and then with DRM, but that would be impossible. Because NOBODY makeas a DRM mp3. When you use DRM music, you are FORCED TO USE WMA and AAC. When you use non-drm music, you automatically use MP3 because 1) that is the default 2) it is the most compatible and 3) it is the most common file format (by a significant majority).
You can argue all day your points. It doesn't change the fact that if you are an average joe user who is playing MP3's, and then one day you download a DRM file, the battery life goes down. Period.
No, it doesn't mean everyone has one. It just means that 80% of people have one, which is not to be scoffed at.
Excuse me? 80% of people have the iPod? MAYBE 80% of the portable mp3 player market. But if you look at the numbers this is a very very small fraction of all people in the united states.
The facts are that there are 5 years or more worth of mainstream installed base that was out BEFORE the ipod became popular. Even today, the ipod doesn't outweigh all mp3 devices out there. There are just too many which existed before the ipod. Not to mention that the iPod is ONE market where mp3's are used.
Just because you didn't see mp3 players in dashboards doesn't mean they aren't out there. The honda civic comes with it BY DEFAULT. Every single one. There are other brands which do this as well. At walmart, all but the cheapest in-dash player has mp3 support. At bestbuy, the same is true. the 07 toyotas all will come with it BY DEFAULT. And yes, they don't support AAC (maybe firmwar will let them? I doubt it). I didn't read the specs to them all, but most don't support AAC. Some support WMA though.
Do you really think that people would rather listen to their iPod over a FM transmitter than to have a cdr with all their favorite music on it built in? Not to mention the additional cost it takes to buy a 50-80$ fm transmitter for the ipod, the extra wires to hook up, the extra cupholder holder for the ipod, and the extra hassel of carrying your ipod with you each time you use your car.
Go back to home stero systems and you will see the same trend. Look at both CD players and DVD players which play CD's. They all support mp3's. Most newer ones support WMA (but no older ones). Not many support AAC except those which support MPEG4.
The facts are there are more legacy MP3 devices out there than there are iPods. And iPod is the only device which supports AAC across the board 100%. And even it only controls 80% of its own market. That leaves 20% and RISING of the rest of the ipod's market which does not support AAC. Even when everyone who wants a portable player buys one, there will still be more every day people using mp3's on fixed devices than people who use the iPod exclusively. Remember, if you use the iPod, AND another device, you are basically forced to the MP3 sector for your collection. So you can't count those people as AAC.
I agree with you that AAC is a popular format. I would probably also agree that there are more AAC files being used than WMA files simply because of the iPod. But one thing I do NOT agree with you is that AAC is a supported format on most of the devices. It isn't. In fact WMA is probably supported on more devices than AAC, it just isn't used as much because MP3 is superior to it and more compatible. This may change with HD-DVD and BlueRay coming out with MPEG4. But there is no reasn or incentive for the industry to change while they already have a huge installed base for MP3 (and somewhat for WMA) and whild standard MPEG2 dvd players and disks are coming out. Even today most do not support AAC.
Sure they would. AAC is the default in iTunes and WMA is the default in Windows Media Player. What percentage would you suppose buys an iPod, installs the software from the CD it comes with, and uses the defaults to rip their CD collection?
I think you are bending the meaning of "in their right mind" a bit don't you think? It would be hard to say anybody who is locking their music collection into proprietary formats which are not compatible with eachother for no reason other than it being the default to be in their right mind. In the case of windows media player, using only devices which licensed WMA, and in the case of iTunes, using only iPods are possible when ripping using the default method. In other words, if you go to the store and buy one device, then the other, your entire music collection isn't compatible with either when using the default ripping method.
While I agree AAC is gaining popularity, it isn't everywhere. It isn't even on a majority of players which can play compressed music. This is why it doesn't undermine my points.
If AAC were more popular, or on equal ground, or even close, to mp3 in this respect, I would be wrong. However, AAC still isn't mainstream on any device other than the iPod. And the iPod is on TV. That doesn't mean everyone has one. And it doesn't mean everyone is going to get one. In fact, MOST people who use compressed music don't have an iPod. They have in dasn mp3 players. They have computers. They have DVD or CD players which support MP3. There are 5 years worth of installed base on mp3 devices that are still out there which support nothing other than MP3. These factors, and others I'm sure, are reasons the article chooses MP3's as the default file format to compare against.
Your notion of methodology is oddly familiar. Do you work for a nutritional supplements company by any chance? Or maybe a purveyor of hi-fi equipment?
No.
Funny, the article I read claimed "It takes extra processing power to ensure that the licenses making the tracks work are still valid and match up to the device itself. Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them."
Yes. And this is what they did. They took an MP3 player and loaded it with MP3's. They took the same player and loaded it with the only available DRM files they could find from online music stores: Fairplay-AAC and Plays4Sure-WMA.
They found that when you do this to an MP3 player, the battery life goes down by 8%-25%.
And if you're going to make a claim like that, you need a control group that actually tests the claim.
Which is exactly what they did. They played MP3's in an MP3 player. They measured the battery life. They then loaded that MP3 player with DRM files off the internet. They measured the battery life. If they could have found MP3's which were sold on the internet with DRM, I'm sure they would have done it. There aren't any so they were forced into using WMA and AAC files. The whole point of the article wen't completely over your head if you do not understand this. The action of using DRM files means you are using CPU power to not only decode the DRM encrpytion, but also to decode a less efficient CODEC. Both of these things cause the files drain your battery life faster. How that is distributed between the CODEC and the DRM scheme is irrelevant in this study.
1) If you want to claim that it is DRM, and not the codec, that is draining battery life...
I never made this claim. I claimed that DRM files from music stores use more battery life than standard MP3 audio (which is covered on 100% of portable, and other compressed audio devices. Something you cannot say for AAC and WMA)
..if you want to claim, instead, that it is the codec that is draining battery life (which is what I believe), then you need to test the song encoded in 128kbps MP3 vs 128kbps WMA vs 128kbps AAC, without any DRM.
I am not making this claim either. Though it MAY be true, and another study could prove it or disprove it, it is irrelevant to the claim of the origional article. That claim being that DRM music downloaded from music stores use between 8%-25% more battery life than standard mp3 music files. Even if you proved that the codec is what is causing the battery life, it makes no difference because with DRM you are FORCED TO USE THAT CODEC. With nonDRM you can use mp3 which is accepted on every device out there and according to the test, uses less battery life than the others.
This is regardless of the social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available.
The social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available, and what actually WORKS IN EVERY PLAYER is the most important part of this study. Why would you do a study on a file format which isn't even supported on most device out there? You claimed that ipods were 80% of the market and they support AAC. Well, that is 80% of the PORTABLE PLAYER market. Not the entire market where compressed music is used. What about in dash mp3 playerS? My dvd player doesn't support AAC. Most 3rd party portable players don't support AAC. Almost NO in dash players support it. Who cares if its ISO MPEG4?? Does that make it automatically compatible with most in the world? No.
It is purely and only to measure the performance hit of DRM.
Again, no it isn't. The point is to measure the battery hit when going from the most popular format (MP3) to a DRM file downloaded from a music store (only available in WMA and AAC DRM)
If DRM really is what sucks the battery life, then we should find that all WMA, AAC, and MP3 of the same kbps and of the same song should hit the battery equally.
Incorrect. DRM could suck battery life ON TOP of any extra power the different codecs use. There are 2 layers here, the codec can determine battery life, and the DRM can affect battery life. Combined, they might affect battery life differently with all the different combinations. Though this would be up to a seperate study which compared each vanila codec to each DRM codec in every combination. Something this study OBVIOUSLY didn't do. And didn't need to.
We would also see that the same AAC file from the iTMS would take more battery with DRM than without.
You might find this, you might not. It isn't covered in this study because this study compares the battery life between the most common file format (MP3) to the only available DRM formats from online music stores (DRM-WMA and DRM-AAC). It found that the battery hit is 8%-25% when using these formats over standard MP3.
2) Second you claim no one in their right mind would use AAC or WMA. Excuse me?
I apologise for exaggerating.
That is like saying no one in their right mind would use MP3.
Now you are exaggerating.
..here are several reasons to use AAC or WMA:
a) An MP3 encoded at 225kbs is roughly equivalent in quality to an AAC encoded at 160kbps...
This is a myth. LAME encoded MP3's are pretty equivilent to AAC files when used at higher bitrates. AAC is better at lower bitrates than MP3, I will give you that. But at higher bitrates over 128-192, LAME and OGG are still considered the gold standards. You may have an opinion on this different than everyone else. So might I. And both of us could argu
Anyway their "study" is deeply flawed, and while it could be argued that DRM does actually cause your player to consume more battery life than it otherwise would, DRM is not making the power impact they claim and anyone giving the problem more than even five seconds of rational thought would realize this.
That depends, when you say rational thought, would you consider the scientific method to be rational?
The codec is the problem. It takes more power to decode WMA (DRM or not) than it does to decode MP3. Ditto for AAC... the MP3 codec is still likely going to be the most power efficient.
I agree this is probably true. Yet still supports my below points.
A proper study would have compared identical tracks with identical compression with and without DRM such as an iTunes track played on repeat vs the same track with DRM stripped out played the same way.
Incorrect.
In any scientific process you must have a control group. In this case, they picked the most popular format which is the most widely compatible, most used, and has been out the longest: MP3 CBR. Why should the control group be forced to use a proprietary format which is not readilly available for use and is not going to be used in the real world? If you set the control group to be WMA or AAC files in the same bitrate which you download off music stores, you would be covering likely less than 1% of all music being used on portable players (because you won't find many people using non-drm WMA or AAC files on ipods and mp3 players)
You missed the point of the article completely. It doesn't matter if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same. What matters is that when you are listening to an MP3 in the control group (which covers somewhere around 99% of all nonDRM music on portable players), and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes or walmart.com, and the battery life goes to 8%-25% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86/PPC operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
Sure, you could make a control group which uses WMA files and then compare it to the variant group which uses DRM WMA files, but then you would be focusing your study on about.01% of the population rather than pretty much everyone who is already using MP3's.
A way to think of it more objectively is to consider that the DRM files force you to use this specific codec (either WMA or AAC) at this specific bitrate. You have no choice in the matter if you are going to use these files. Whereas, if you use regular mp3 files (or another format of your choosing, mp3 happening to be the most popular therefore most benchmarked against) then you get a better battery life. The article is comparing regular files which are readilly available and the most popular vs. DRM'd files which you have no choice in bitrate or format. Since nobody would be encoding their music using AAC or WMA when not forced to use DRM, then why should the control group (by definition, the group using no-DRM MP3 files) be forced to use a proprietary format which is not readilly available for use and is not going to be used in the real world?
You missed the point of the article completely. It doesn't matter if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same. What matters is that when you are listening to an MP3, and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes or walmart.com, and the battery life is 8%-25% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86 operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
Sure, you could make a control group which uses WMA files and then compare it to the variant group which uses DRM WMA files, but then you would be focusing your study on about.01% of the population rather than pretty much everyone who is already using MP3's.
You missed the point of the article completely. I don't care if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same, i couldn't care less. What Matters the most is that when you are listening to an MP3, and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes, and the battery life is 8% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86 operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
While it might be interesting to see the actual battery life on a nonDRM vs DRM WMA or AAC file, it has nothing to do with every day usage and it has nothing to do with practical real world use. It is simply a benchmark that would never be reflected in the real world. So the article stands correct, legitimate, and honest. I suppose they could have used VBR mp3's, or 192kbps mp3's, but we all know that the outcome would be the same (192 doesn't make much diff over 128).
Why must you keep this argument going when you KNOW YOU ARE W R O N G?
Gateway Limited Warranty Statement"1. Technical Support. During the Limited Warranty Period, Gateway will provide product technical support..." options in this section include telephone or online support for the life of the warranty. IBM (lenovo) Limited Warranty Statement and contact tech support page "An initial diagnosis of your problem can be made either by a technician over the telephone or electronically by access to a support website." Options for warranty support include online and telephone. "If you are not in warranty, you may be billed for the call."
Why is it such a problem for you to understand this? You obviously have absolutely NO experience in supporting, buying, or using non-apple computers. You have no clue that the industry wide standard is more than what Apple offers.. You have no clue that Apple is the exception to the rule by offering 90 days. They are THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
Read that again: Apple is THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
Do you want me to repeat it again? Apple is THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
When are you going to realize that your entire argument from the beginig of this thread was based on this FALSE ASSUMPTION? How are you going to say things like:
Well, they prove to me that you don't care whether you're right or not.
Gateway does not mention it -- and guess what, they don't offer Dial-A-Geek at all, unless you pay for it.
And, if you're really that paranoid about needing a human voice for the life of your warranty, drop two bills and buy some AppleCare. And this is any different from dropping MAYBE ONE bill on an extended or premium plan with any other brand?
Apple customers get complimentary phone support from Apple for 90 days for all hardware. ROFL. Complementary support. That is like saying you get complementary electricity for 90 minutes each day when you rent a hotel room. Give me a break.
Every single one of your posts in this thread are rooted on baseless accusations. No evidence. Complete lack of respect, and total rejection, for the truth. Since you don't know what this means at the end of the day I will tell you: It means you are a hypocrite. It could also mean you are a liar, or ignorant. Or ou are inexperienced. Or you are a Troll.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you claim your aren't a troll. You claim you have experience in the industry (dropping your fake resume). You claim you aren't a liar. So I will believe you and just chalk it up to plain old every day hypocrisy.
You didn't do anything to debunk me except say prove it. Your links prove nothing. The facts are you DO get a tech support number for as long as your warranty is valid across the industry (except apple). If you can't accept that it is not my problem..
Where on earth do you think this loyalty comes from? Do you think that people are loyal Apple customers just because the boxes are shiny and fun to use?
That is exactly where the loyalty comes from. But you forgot the word trendy. That is another one.
The iBook machine was out of the warranty and no Applecare had been purchased, but Apple's web site acknowledged a logic board flaw which could cause display problems. A short call to Apple and the next day a prepaid shipping carton shows up. After about a week, the iBook is shipped back (overnight delivery).
It is convenient that this is the incident you had and are now reporting on Slashdot to debunk his post. But you probably don't know about the history of the iBook logic board problem.
Apple has had several recalls on parts in specific models of their products in the past few years. All (except the laptop battery recalls) were the direct result of a settlement in class action lawsuits brought on apple because they initially refused to fix this problem on a large scale (we are not talking fractions of a percent of people here) The specific problem you had with your laptop was so widespread that it has been estimated that over half of the ibooks of that revision had failed motherboards which caused loss of video.
There are several other problems with apple products which are known issues in the industry (but posts removed from apple's forums) which apple denies exist and refuses to correct. But since no legal action has taken place there has been no recall on the product. This is the way many PC vendors work, and Apple is one of the most inflexible companies when it comes to this practice.
I realize you are just offering your own experiences in your post, but I can state for certainty that the level of service you recieved far exceeds the norm for apple.
So, you wanna give me an example of one of the Big Three that offers a dial-a-geek phone service STANDARD after 90 days?
Well, Dell, Gateway, and IBM certaintly do. Unless you buy a 90 day warranty on a special promotional model number, you get tech support for the life of your warranty. Which for all 3 of those companies is 1 year. (3 years standard on business class models). I don't know why you tried to argue this because you are just flat out WRONG. It really discredits any valid points you might have made in the rest of your post.
Okay. Quack conspiracy theory. What web forums? Macintouch? MacAddict? apple.com?
Are you serioius dude? Maybe you are just too out of touch with reality to know any better. It could be that you don't keep up with the apple tech support sector if you make these claims. There are several documented cases of apple removing posts on their official forums if they say anything bad about their policies.
Posts including (but not limited to) any of the following are not appropriate:
* Discussions of Apple policies and procedures (including pricing and repair policies) * etc.. etc etc..
There are literally hundreds of reported removed posts which are legitimate problems with people's hardware have been removed. Apple is KNOWN throughout the industry to rewrite their support/return policy history.(ask pretty much anybody who has been in the retail or support industry for a few years or more) I have and everyone I know who has delt with Apple in a capacity more than just a user know this is true. Apple technicians know this is true. Apple dealers know this is true. But why would they tell normal users this? This kind of stuff is known and solved problem. People in the know accept it and try to sheild their customers from it and people not in the know deny it (like you). It really surprises me to hear someone like you to be making the outrageous claims you have made here. And calling the parent a Quack is just plain trolling.
Re: * 14 days, blah, blah...
This one's not even true. I received my iBook G4, which I'm typing this to you on, via UPS Ground. Took two weeks. The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store. Fixed on the premises, no charge. While the genius was looking it over, he said, "Wow, this is a bummer. Do you know that the new model just came out?" No, I didn't. He notified the store manager, and I walked out with the new model. No Charge.
Not even true? Dude when is the last time you have delt with Apple? The way you claim to be treated has NEVER been a policy with apple. And the way you were treated is only happening on an exception-only basis. Both with Apple direct and with Apple dealers and service providers. If you were offered a new notebook you can consider yourself lucky. I have seen this situation happen with EVERY SINGLE major Apple release since the death of the colored imacs/ibooks and the ONLY people who recieve this type of treatment are those which work themselves up the chain to apple coporate and talk to supervisors and managers and demand new systems. I suppose the manager of the store you went to MIGHT have offered to return your laptop to Apple if he was already in the middle of a return with other products he was processing and knew he was going to get credit for it. But what you are saying about Apple are simply not true. Not even close. And don't even THINK about getting this sort of service out of a 3rd party dealer who has a 5%/quarter maximum return quota to stay under. 2 or 3 returned laptops on most independant dealers means no returns for the rest of the quarter.
I've gotten two sets of replacement feet for my iBook (you know, the one I'm typing this to you on), mostly because the one time that I lost a foot, I flipped out and wanted LOTS of spares. Went to an Apple
So a customer with a legitimate problem is just a liar? Sounds more like your a mac troll. It is idiots like you who ruin every mac forum ever started. Spouting off stupid crap about how wonderful apple is to their customers just because they were treated out of the ordinary one time.
Get a life man. The guy has a real problem with his computer. Apple refused to correct it. It was not very old. If this offends you then you need to stop getting on the internet.
what actually links the performance of a company to the value of the stock?
Marketing to individuals that they need to invest their entire life savings into the stock market, and perception from these ignorant individuals that stock X will increase Y amount in Z years. And perception from these ignorant individuals that stock X is a good stock to buy because other's perception of stock X is also good and thus more ignorant individuals will buy stock X and thus you gain from buying stock X before other ignorant individuals buy stock X. Whichever company is better at exploiting this circular perception gets an increased stock value due to the above factors.
How the stock market and government regulation of it works in a nutshell.
Please, don't let them force you to put your tax dollars into the stock market by investing SS into the market. The government doesn't exist to make money via investments. That would make the government larger and creat a huge new inefficient sector of the government to account for the investments. The government is there to spend your tax dollars for the good of the people. Nothing else. Don't allow the government to become your stock broker. Please.
If they only pay their 15% social security tax on $1 instead of the required $80,000 by law, it is really a scam on the public (and the system).
I read somewhere that the IRS can audit you and claim that the first 80,000$ in dividends count as sallary for tax purposes if your normal income does not approach 80,000. I wonder how they are filing their papers. And I wonder if what I read is true.
If they are getting away with paying social security tax on the $1, they are really shafting all those middle and lower class americans who pony up $12,000 per year on medicaid/SS taxes. Not to mention that these middle class americans, on top of the 15% SS/Medicaid tax, pay in a tax bracket higher than 15%. That is a combined tax of over 30% plus most of their money spent on products and services which carry another 5-10% sales/income tax to the state and local government. Combine it all up and middle and lower america pays a hefty 40% in taxes. While S and C corp business owners pay a flat 15%.
The 15% capitol gains tax is a joke and always will be. If you are a professional stock investor and that is your income, paying 15% taxes while middle class americans pay a higher rate is just plain fucking ridiculous. Likewise for anybody who is claiming their 15% gains tax instead of income. Anyone who makes money from capitol gains at that tax bracket is simply leeching off the public. If people paid their share of taxes then overall tax rates would be lower for everyone. Having a substantially lower tax bracket for these people is ignorance at its finest.
I am replying to you twice only because I wanted to answer all of your questions, but the one I felt deserved more than a one liner is posted above.
Of course. Having 80% of the market you're competing in is completely insignificant.
I never said it was completely insignificant. I said it didn't matter (see my previous post).
Yes, when you have 80% of the market, a vast gulf still lies between you and being the standard.
I agree. That 20% would be like a vast gulf. Especially if you didn't even ATTEMPT to be compatible with it.
Out of curiosity, what kind of dominance would you require to say that they are the standard, and how does this compare to other markets with established standards?
Being delivered by more than one vendor is one requirement to being a "de-facto" standard. Being in common usage is not enough. To be a de-facto standard AND being delivered by only one vendor, you must pretty much be a monopoly. 80% of an EMERGING market is certaintly nowhere near a monopoly.
Being adopted by any standards body with the ability to be licensed or used by 3rd parties would be a qualification to being a standard perhaps. But I don't really think this would happen unless the RIAA decided to vote on a standard and call themselves a standards body.
As far as comparing this to a market with established standards, I don't think this space justifies a lengthy answer. If you were to look at any market with established standards, they were put in place so more than one party could be compatible with eachother. See my previous post as to why this would eliminate apple's percieved "de-facto" standard.
What has that got to do with what the DRM standard is? Most people drive their cars to work, but that doesn't mean we don't know the standard number of wheels on bikes that are ridden to work.
Now that doesn't even compare Apples to oranges (pun intended heh;) does it? Assuming you are talking about the United States in non metropolitian areas, you could hardly argue that driving a car is an emerging market.
Assuming you are talking about another country, or the global market, driving cars (or trucks) to work is hardly "most" people.
I don't recall Apple breaking any compatibility. New songs work with old iPods and old songs work with new ones. Where did they break compatibility?
I never said they did with FairPlay. But if you had read the article, it talks about people buying the iPod or other FairPlay device SPECIFICALLY because it is backward compatible with their already purchased FairPlay songs. Read this quote:
"The players that license FairPlay would have access to the iTunes store, backwards compatibility with the songs consumers have already purchased..."
The point I'm making here is that in the realm of Apple, compatability doesn't mean anything. Being "Compatible" with fairplay doesn't mean anything because it is still not compatible with players in a competative market, which is always what matters when one exists.
It doesn't matter that the current competative market is "only" 20% of the market. If Apple ever licensed FairPlay on a large scale, it would be yet another DRM package,with larger marketshare, and Apple would have to compete on price (for licensing) with microsoft and anybody else who decided to license their version of DRM for music. This would immediately remove any significant value that FairPlay has and thus make the whole argument insignificant. This is because the iPod repeat sales would not stand on their own without the iTunes lockin. If Fairplay stores poped up everywhere, and Fairplay players poped up everywhere, do you REALLY believe that the iPod hardware would REALLY sustain the majority of its current marketshare?
The beauty of the iPod from a business standpoint is that if your household owns one, then anybody in your household who wants a player must buy it as well. If your boyfriend buys one, then you must get one too if you want to buy music together. Otherwise you cannot buy online music at all, or you must re-buy your music (ie, because of INcompatability)
PlaysForSure isn't a significant value specifically because it has been licensed to everyone. It's only value to microsoft is that it is currently the only licenseable DRM available. DRM schemes have no significant value without data lockin. And if Apple licensed FairPlay, there would be no data lockin because you could go to wallgreens and buy joe cheap mp3 player and it would work with iTunes, and you could go to joecheapmusic.com and download fiarplay music for that cheap player, and apple would make their measly 20 cents of revenue off you. And you would have never heard the Apple name, You would have never gone to the apple website, and you would have never purchased an apple product. And since microsoft is also licensing PlaysForSure to device makers, you would be able to play napster and walmart.com music store songs on it as well. Who is to say that you would even be using a (probably more expensive!) music store which uses FairPlay when you could use a cheaper plays4sure store? If you don't know the difference (since you are joe user you don't) why do you have any incentive to even USE fairplay stores or the fairplay feature of your player unless you are plugging that thing into your girlfriends iTunes computer? And if that is the case, why would your girlfriend have any incentive to buy an iPod if she is not going to be be able to use the music that YOU bought on your PlaysForSure store?
You see, it is more complex than just "breaking" compatability with apple. They didn't break compatability with themselves. They broke compatability with the REST of the world by NOT licensing FairPlay. That is the point. And if they ever changed it so that iPod were compatible with 3rd party music, or 3rd party players were compatible with iTunes, the market would commoditize, and the iPod fad would be over.
Don't worry though man. What I have described is inevitable (so long as apple wants to stay a player in the music downloading and player market) DRM schemes aren't something that people get used to like they do desktop operating systems. The
20% of the MUSIC BUYING market? I highly doubt that PlaysForSure is 20% of the music market. I hardly belive that iTunes even makes a 20% dent in the music buying market.
The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter. That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.
The market doesn't have any clear winner YET for a DRM for music. Until it does it is pretty lame of anybody to say that FairPlay is the standard (it isn't. not even close)
As of today, the standard and vast majority of music which is being played on mp3 players (including ipods) are DRM free ripped music from CD's. Period.
This is also the case in Arkansas. Sales tax can ONLY be charged on the final price the consumer pays on the product. It is actually illegal to charge taxes on the full price before mail in rebates here which are fulfilled by the retailer (ie, a bestbuy rebate). But manufacturer rebates are fair game to charge tax on full price.
Bottom line, discounts are not taxable.
Play the rat race. Mail in rebates are a fucking scam. If you do them you are playing their game and encouraging them to make more. At the end of the day it is you who pays the price, not them.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is apple who has held out the longest on the 4:3 aspect ratio. Every other PC manufacurer in 12in through 17in is using wide screen exclusively on all current models (there are still a couple phase out's on 4:3 though leftover in warehouses)
The point is that now, all the laptops and desktops are going to be playing HD video content at a better size. You may not care about this but it is where the industry is going with computers, and laptops: media. You also get the added bonus that the keyboards on the laptops don't have to be as cramped because it makes the laptop wider, but balances itself out by being smaller for easier transportation.
In the end, you might not like the wider aspect ratio for actually looking at it, but for all other uses(portability, keyboard, video content, hinge durability) the wider screen is superior. And since it gives me extra room to put photoshop panneling on the side without taking up precious 4:3 screen space, it is a benefit for anyone doing high end applications on the road. If you look at it in the sence that you are losing the top part of your screen, your looking at it incorrectly. Prices didn't stay the same with this transition, they went down (whether or not it has anything to do with the screens is irrelevant). Weight did not increase, it went down. Keyboard size didn't decrease, it stayed the same or got better (model dependant). The way you should be looking at it is that a 13in wide laptop is like a 12in 4:3 with extra space on the side. a 12in wide is like a 10in 4:3 with extra space on the side. Current pricing structures, weights, and physical dimensions, when compared with 4:3 counterparts, agree with this type of analysis.
I think the fact that your web browser expands all the way across the page and leaves extra blank space is a marginal inconvenience when weighted with all the benefits.
You offer no argument even granting that "a lot of people" will be using it at some point. In fact, my argument has nothing to do with how far and wide MP3 has gone. It is all about the fact that you cannot use AAC or WMA when using multiple devices to play your music because neither has penetrated the market enough to be accepted on most players. Even the iPod doesn't account for most players out there. And WMA as you said is only on 20% of the portable market (but with more penetration on fixed devices).
Your argument is non-existant. These codecs are not currently in widespread use, and will not be for some time. Making a claim that they are and will doesn't change the facts.
I don't think you understand my point: AAC and WMA are nowhere near as rare as you make them out to be, even if MP3 is dominant.
Yes AAC and WMA are. Anybody using more than one device from different vendors are using MP3. The whole point of compressed music is to use it in many places. That is the benefit of digital music over legacy formats like CD's and tapes. It is even what iTune's biggest feature is, share your mp3's on up to X number of iPods (what is it like 5 ipods per itunes account?)
But what about EVERYthing else? What about all the other devices out there. If you aren't licensing firmware from apple then your device doesn't work with iTunes. That is 20% of the portable market. It is 100% of the rest of the market which includes the stuff I posted about earlier (100% of honda civics and accords, next year's toyotas, other cars come with it, 90% of aftermarket in-dash players, dvd players which don't support mpeg4, etc etc.. the list goes on.) The market for these integrated devices is much much larger than the market for iPods and other portable mp3 players. When you factor cellphones which support mp3 ringtones, it gets even worse. Now you are talking about deploying mp3 ability to the masses, something even the ipod can't claim to be doing.
You can't expect people to use only one device when accessing their digital music. Anybody who is isn't a heavy or average user, as the whole point of it is to make it portable and convenient. Something that doesn't happen when you are stuck with a collection full of AAC's or WMA's, DRM or not.
Did you read the article? It specifically says it is comparing the most common format MP3 on an MP3 player and then they load up a DRM song (the only kind available to them being WMA or AAC versions) and then they get 8-25% less battery life.
I don't know what you read, but the article is clear. You may think it would be appropriate to measure every codec against eachother without DRM, and then with DRM, but that would be impossible. Because NOBODY makeas a DRM mp3. When you use DRM music, you are FORCED TO USE WMA and AAC. When you use non-drm music, you automatically use MP3 because 1) that is the default 2) it is the most compatible and 3) it is the most common file format (by a significant majority).
You can argue all day your points. It doesn't change the fact that if you are an average joe user who is playing MP3's, and then one day you download a DRM file, the battery life goes down. Period.
No, it doesn't mean everyone has one. It just means that 80% of people have one, which is not to be scoffed at.
Excuse me? 80% of people have the iPod? MAYBE 80% of the portable mp3 player market. But if you look at the numbers this is a very very small fraction of all people in the united states.
The facts are that there are 5 years or more worth of mainstream installed base that was out BEFORE the ipod became popular. Even today, the ipod doesn't outweigh all mp3 devices out there. There are just too many which existed before the ipod. Not to mention that the iPod is ONE market where mp3's are used.
Just because you didn't see mp3 players in dashboards doesn't mean they aren't out there. The honda civic comes with it BY DEFAULT. Every single one. There are other brands which do this as well. At walmart, all but the cheapest in-dash player has mp3 support. At bestbuy, the same is true. the 07 toyotas all will come with it BY DEFAULT. And yes, they don't support AAC (maybe firmwar will let them? I doubt it). I didn't read the specs to them all, but most don't support AAC. Some support WMA though.
Do you really think that people would rather listen to their iPod over a FM transmitter than to have a cdr with all their favorite music on it built in? Not to mention the additional cost it takes to buy a 50-80$ fm transmitter for the ipod, the extra wires to hook up, the extra cupholder holder for the ipod, and the extra hassel of carrying your ipod with you each time you use your car.
Go back to home stero systems and you will see the same trend. Look at both CD players and DVD players which play CD's. They all support mp3's. Most newer ones support WMA (but no older ones). Not many support AAC except those which support MPEG4.
The facts are there are more legacy MP3 devices out there than there are iPods. And iPod is the only device which supports AAC across the board 100%. And even it only controls 80% of its own market. That leaves 20% and RISING of the rest of the ipod's market which does not support AAC. Even when everyone who wants a portable player buys one, there will still be more every day people using mp3's on fixed devices than people who use the iPod exclusively. Remember, if you use the iPod, AND another device, you are basically forced to the MP3 sector for your collection. So you can't count those people as AAC.
I agree with you that AAC is a popular format. I would probably also agree that there are more AAC files being used than WMA files simply because of the iPod. But one thing I do NOT agree with you is that AAC is a supported format on most of the devices. It isn't. In fact WMA is probably supported on more devices than AAC, it just isn't used as much because MP3 is superior to it and more compatible. This may change with HD-DVD and BlueRay coming out with MPEG4. But there is no reasn or incentive for the industry to change while they already have a huge installed base for MP3 (and somewhat for WMA) and whild standard MPEG2 dvd players and disks are coming out. Even today most do not support AAC.
Sure they would. AAC is the default in iTunes and WMA is the default in Windows Media Player. What percentage would you suppose buys an iPod, installs the software from the CD it comes with, and uses the defaults to rip their CD collection?
I think you are bending the meaning of "in their right mind" a bit don't you think? It would be hard to say anybody who is locking their music collection into proprietary formats which are not compatible with eachother for no reason other than it being the default to be in their right mind. In the case of windows media player, using only devices which licensed WMA, and in the case of iTunes, using only iPods are possible when ripping using the default method. In other words, if you go to the store and buy one device, then the other, your entire music collection isn't compatible with either when using the default ripping method.
While I agree AAC is gaining popularity, it isn't everywhere. It isn't even on a majority of players which can play compressed music. This is why it doesn't undermine my points.
If AAC were more popular, or on equal ground, or even close, to mp3 in this respect, I would be wrong. However, AAC still isn't mainstream on any device other than the iPod. And the iPod is on TV. That doesn't mean everyone has one. And it doesn't mean everyone is going to get one. In fact, MOST people who use compressed music don't have an iPod. They have in dasn mp3 players. They have computers. They have DVD or CD players which support MP3. There are 5 years worth of installed base on mp3 devices that are still out there which support nothing other than MP3. These factors, and others I'm sure, are reasons the article chooses MP3's as the default file format to compare against.
Your notion of methodology is oddly familiar. Do you work for a nutritional supplements company by any chance? Or maybe a purveyor of hi-fi equipment?
No.
Funny, the article I read claimed "It takes extra processing power to ensure that the licenses making the tracks work are still valid and match up to the device itself. Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them."
Yes. And this is what they did. They took an MP3 player and loaded it with MP3's. They took the same player and loaded it with the only available DRM files they could find from online music stores: Fairplay-AAC and Plays4Sure-WMA.
They found that when you do this to an MP3 player, the battery life goes down by 8%-25%.
And if you're going to make a claim like that, you need a control group that actually tests the claim.
Which is exactly what they did. They played MP3's in an MP3 player. They measured the battery life. They then loaded that MP3 player with DRM files off the internet. They measured the battery life. If they could have found MP3's which were sold on the internet with DRM, I'm sure they would have done it. There aren't any so they were forced into using WMA and AAC files. The whole point of the article wen't completely over your head if you do not understand this. The action of using DRM files means you are using CPU power to not only decode the DRM encrpytion, but also to decode a less efficient CODEC. Both of these things cause the files drain your battery life faster. How that is distributed between the CODEC and the DRM scheme is irrelevant in this study.
1) If you want to claim that it is DRM, and not the codec, that is draining battery life...
..if you want to claim, instead, that it is the codec that is draining battery life (which is what I believe), then you need to test the song encoded in 128kbps MP3 vs 128kbps WMA vs 128kbps AAC, without any DRM.
..here are several reasons to use AAC or WMA:
I never made this claim. I claimed that DRM files from music stores use more battery life than standard MP3 audio (which is covered on 100% of portable, and other compressed audio devices. Something you cannot say for AAC and WMA)
I am not making this claim either. Though it MAY be true, and another study could prove it or disprove it, it is irrelevant to the claim of the origional article. That claim being that DRM music downloaded from music stores use between 8%-25% more battery life than standard mp3 music files. Even if you proved that the codec is what is causing the battery life, it makes no difference because with DRM you are FORCED TO USE THAT CODEC. With nonDRM you can use mp3 which is accepted on every device out there and according to the test, uses less battery life than the others.
This is regardless of the social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available.
The social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available, and what actually WORKS IN EVERY PLAYER is the most important part of this study. Why would you do a study on a file format which isn't even supported on most device out there? You claimed that ipods were 80% of the market and they support AAC. Well, that is 80% of the PORTABLE PLAYER market. Not the entire market where compressed music is used. What about in dash mp3 playerS? My dvd player doesn't support AAC. Most 3rd party portable players don't support AAC. Almost NO in dash players support it. Who cares if its ISO MPEG4?? Does that make it automatically compatible with most in the world? No.
It is purely and only to measure the performance hit of DRM.
Again, no it isn't. The point is to measure the battery hit when going from the most popular format (MP3) to a DRM file downloaded from a music store (only available in WMA and AAC DRM)
If DRM really is what sucks the battery life, then we should find that all WMA, AAC, and MP3 of the same kbps and of the same song should hit the battery equally.
Incorrect. DRM could suck battery life ON TOP of any extra power the different codecs use. There are 2 layers here, the codec can determine battery life, and the DRM can affect battery life. Combined, they might affect battery life differently with all the different combinations. Though this would be up to a seperate study which compared each vanila codec to each DRM codec in every combination. Something this study OBVIOUSLY didn't do. And didn't need to.
We would also see that the same AAC file from the iTMS would take more battery with DRM than without.
You might find this, you might not. It isn't covered in this study because this study compares the battery life between the most common file format (MP3) to the only available DRM formats from online music stores (DRM-WMA and DRM-AAC). It found that the battery hit is 8%-25% when using these formats over standard MP3.
2) Second you claim no one in their right mind would use AAC or WMA. Excuse me?
I apologise for exaggerating.
That is like saying no one in their right mind would use MP3.
Now you are exaggerating.
a) An MP3 encoded at 225kbs is roughly equivalent in quality to an AAC encoded at 160kbps...
This is a myth. LAME encoded MP3's are pretty equivilent to AAC files when used at higher bitrates. AAC is better at lower bitrates than MP3, I will give you that. But at higher bitrates over 128-192, LAME and OGG are still considered the gold standards. You may have an opinion on this different than everyone else. So might I. And both of us could argu
Anyway their "study" is deeply flawed, and while it could be argued that DRM does actually cause your player to consume more battery life than it otherwise would, DRM is not making the power impact they claim and anyone giving the problem more than even five seconds of rational thought would realize this.
... the MP3 codec is still likely going to be the most power efficient.
.01% of the population rather than pretty much everyone who is already using MP3's.
That depends, when you say rational thought, would you consider the scientific method to be rational?
The codec is the problem. It takes more power to decode WMA (DRM or not) than it does to decode MP3. Ditto for AAC
I agree this is probably true. Yet still supports my below points.
A proper study would have compared identical tracks with identical compression with and without DRM such as an iTunes track played on repeat vs the same track with DRM stripped out played the same way.
Incorrect.
In any scientific process you must have a control group. In this case, they picked the most popular format which is the most widely compatible, most used, and has been out the longest: MP3 CBR. Why should the control group be forced to use a proprietary format which is not readilly available for use and is not going to be used in the real world? If you set the control group to be WMA or AAC files in the same bitrate which you download off music stores, you would be covering likely less than 1% of all music being used on portable players (because you won't find many people using non-drm WMA or AAC files on ipods and mp3 players)
You missed the point of the article completely. It doesn't matter if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same. What matters is that when you are listening to an MP3 in the control group (which covers somewhere around 99% of all nonDRM music on portable players), and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes or walmart.com, and the battery life goes to 8%-25% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86/PPC operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
Sure, you could make a control group which uses WMA files and then compare it to the variant group which uses DRM WMA files, but then you would be focusing your study on about
A way to think of it more objectively is to consider that the DRM files force you to use this specific codec (either WMA or AAC) at this specific bitrate. You have no choice in the matter if you are going to use these files. Whereas, if you use regular mp3 files (or another format of your choosing, mp3 happening to be the most popular therefore most benchmarked against) then you get a better battery life. The article is comparing regular files which are readilly available and the most popular vs. DRM'd files which you have no choice in bitrate or format. Since nobody would be encoding their music using AAC or WMA when not forced to use DRM, then why should the control group (by definition, the group using no-DRM MP3 files) be forced to use a proprietary format which is not readilly available for use and is not going to be used in the real world?
.01% of the population rather than pretty much everyone who is already using MP3's.
You missed the point of the article completely. It doesn't matter if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same. What matters is that when you are listening to an MP3, and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes or walmart.com, and the battery life is 8%-25% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86 operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
Sure, you could make a control group which uses WMA files and then compare it to the variant group which uses DRM WMA files, but then you would be focusing your study on about
You missed the point of the article completely. I don't care if the AAC or WMA DRM encryption takes up more processor power than non DRM AAC or WMA files. Or if they use the same, i couldn't care less. What Matters the most is that when you are listening to an MP3, and then you downlaod the same song on iTunes, and the battery life is 8% less.
Nobody in their right mind would use AAC or WMA for non-encrpyted files, so why would that be the only fair comparrison? WMA/AAC files do not work in most DVD players. WMA/AAC files do not work in most in-dash mp3 players in cars. WMA/AAC files do not work on most portable devices such as phones and PDA's. WMA/AAC files do not work on almost ANYTHING other than their respective x86 operating system/applications combinations and their respective portable players (Sandisk/Creative -> plays4sure and ipod -> Fairplay)
While it might be interesting to see the actual battery life on a nonDRM vs DRM WMA or AAC file, it has nothing to do with every day usage and it has nothing to do with practical real world use. It is simply a benchmark that would never be reflected in the real world. So the article stands correct, legitimate, and honest. I suppose they could have used VBR mp3's, or 192kbps mp3's, but we all know that the outcome would be the same (192 doesn't make much diff over 128).
Why must you keep this argument going when you KNOW YOU ARE W R O N G?
Gateway Limited Warranty Statement"1. Technical Support. During the Limited Warranty Period, Gateway will provide product technical support..." options in this section include telephone or online support for the life of the warranty.
IBM (lenovo) Limited Warranty Statement and contact tech support page "An initial
diagnosis of your problem can be made either by a technician over the telephone or electronically by access to a support website." Options for warranty support include online and telephone. "If you are not in warranty, you may be billed for the call."
Why is it such a problem for you to understand this? You obviously have absolutely NO experience in supporting, buying, or using non-apple computers. You have no clue that the industry wide standard is more than what Apple offers.. You have no clue that Apple is the exception to the rule by offering 90 days. They are THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
Read that again: Apple is THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
Do you want me to repeat it again? Apple is THE ONLY MAJOR COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER BUILT IN TELEPHONE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFE OF THE WARRANTY.
When are you going to realize that your entire argument from the beginig of this thread was based on this FALSE ASSUMPTION? How are you going to say things like:
Well, they prove to me that you don't care whether you're right or not.
Gateway does not mention it -- and guess what, they don't offer Dial-A-Geek at all, unless you pay for it.
And, if you're really that paranoid about needing a human voice for the life of your warranty, drop two bills and buy some AppleCare.
And this is any different from dropping MAYBE ONE bill on an extended or premium plan with any other brand?
Apple customers get complimentary phone support from Apple for 90 days for all hardware.
ROFL. Complementary support. That is like saying you get complementary electricity for 90 minutes each day when you rent a hotel room. Give me a break.
Every single one of your posts in this thread are rooted on baseless accusations. No evidence. Complete lack of respect, and total rejection, for the truth. Since you don't know what this means at the end of the day I will tell you: It means you are a hypocrite. It could also mean you are a liar, or ignorant. Or ou are inexperienced. Or you are a Troll.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you claim your aren't a troll. You claim you have experience in the industry (dropping your fake resume). You claim you aren't a liar. So I will believe you and just chalk it up to plain old every day hypocrisy.
You didn't do anything to debunk me except say prove it. Your links prove nothing. The facts are you DO get a tech support number for as long as your warranty is valid across the industry (except apple). If you can't accept that it is not my problem..
Where on earth do you think this loyalty comes from? Do you think that people are loyal Apple customers just because the boxes are shiny and fun to use?
That is exactly where the loyalty comes from. But you forgot the word trendy. That is another one.
The iBook machine was out of the warranty and no Applecare had been purchased, but Apple's web site acknowledged a logic board flaw which could cause display problems. A short call to Apple and the next day a prepaid shipping carton shows up. After about a week, the iBook is shipped back (overnight delivery).
It is convenient that this is the incident you had and are now reporting on Slashdot to debunk his post. But you probably don't know about the history of the iBook logic board problem.
Apple has had several recalls on parts in specific models of their products in the past few years. All (except the laptop battery recalls) were the direct result of a settlement in class action lawsuits brought on apple because they initially refused to fix this problem on a large scale (we are not talking fractions of a percent of people here) The specific problem you had with your laptop was so widespread that it has been estimated that over half of the ibooks of that revision had failed motherboards which caused loss of video.
There are several other problems with apple products which are known issues in the industry (but posts removed from apple's forums) which apple denies exist and refuses to correct. But since no legal action has taken place there has been no recall on the product. This is the way many PC vendors work, and Apple is one of the most inflexible companies when it comes to this practice.
I realize you are just offering your own experiences in your post, but I can state for certainty that the level of service you recieved far exceeds the norm for apple.
Well, Dell, Gateway, and IBM certaintly do. Unless you buy a 90 day warranty on a special promotional model number, you get tech support for the life of your warranty. Which for all 3 of those companies is 1 year. (3 years standard on business class models). I don't know why you tried to argue this because you are just flat out WRONG. It really discredits any valid points you might have made in the rest of your post.
Okay. Quack conspiracy theory. What web forums? Macintouch? MacAddict? apple.com?
Are you serioius dude? Maybe you are just too out of touch with reality to know any better. It could be that you don't keep up with the apple tech support sector if you make these claims. There are several documented cases of apple removing posts on their official forums if they say anything bad about their policies.
A quote from Apple's forum post removal policy states that:
There are literally hundreds of reported removed posts which are legitimate problems with people's hardware have been removed. Apple is KNOWN throughout the industry to rewrite their support/return policy history.(ask pretty much anybody who has been in the retail or support industry for a few years or more) I have and everyone I know who has delt with Apple in a capacity more than just a user know this is true. Apple technicians know this is true. Apple dealers know this is true. But why would they tell normal users this? This kind of stuff is known and solved problem. People in the know accept it and try to sheild their customers from it and people not in the know deny it (like you). It really surprises me to hear someone like you to be making the outrageous claims you have made here. And calling the parent a Quack is just plain trolling.
Re: * 14 days, blah, blah...
This one's not even true. I received my iBook G4, which I'm typing this to you on, via UPS Ground. Took two weeks. The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store. Fixed on the premises, no charge. While the genius was looking it over, he said, "Wow, this is a bummer. Do you know that the new model just came out?" No, I didn't. He notified the store manager, and I walked out with the new model. No Charge.
Not even true? Dude when is the last time you have delt with Apple? The way you claim to be treated has NEVER been a policy with apple. And the way you were treated is only happening on an exception-only basis. Both with Apple direct and with Apple dealers and service providers. If you were offered a new notebook you can consider yourself lucky. I have seen this situation happen with EVERY SINGLE major Apple release since the death of the colored imacs/ibooks and the ONLY people who recieve this type of treatment are those which work themselves up the chain to apple coporate and talk to supervisors and managers and demand new systems. I suppose the manager of the store you went to MIGHT have offered to return your laptop to Apple if he was already in the middle of a return with other products he was processing and knew he was going to get credit for it. But what you are saying about Apple are simply not true. Not even close. And don't even THINK about getting this sort of service out of a 3rd party dealer who has a 5%/quarter maximum return quota to stay under. 2 or 3 returned laptops on most independant dealers means no returns for the rest of the quarter.
I've gotten two sets of replacement feet for my iBook (you know, the one I'm typing this to you on), mostly because the one time that I lost a foot, I flipped out and wanted LOTS of spares. Went to an Apple
So a customer with a legitimate problem is just a liar? Sounds more like your a mac troll. It is idiots like you who ruin every mac forum ever started. Spouting off stupid crap about how wonderful apple is to their customers just because they were treated out of the ordinary one time.
Get a life man. The guy has a real problem with his computer. Apple refused to correct it. It was not very old. If this offends you then you need to stop getting on the internet.
what actually links the performance of a company to the value of the stock?
Marketing to individuals that they need to invest their entire life savings into the stock market, and perception from these ignorant individuals that stock X will increase Y amount in Z years. And perception from these ignorant individuals that stock X is a good stock to buy because other's perception of stock X is also good and thus more ignorant individuals will buy stock X and thus you gain from buying stock X before other ignorant individuals buy stock X. Whichever company is better at exploiting this circular perception gets an increased stock value due to the above factors.
How the stock market and government regulation of it works in a nutshell.
Please, don't let them force you to put your tax dollars into the stock market by investing SS into the market. The government doesn't exist to make money via investments. That would make the government larger and creat a huge new inefficient sector of the government to account for the investments. The government is there to spend your tax dollars for the good of the people. Nothing else. Don't allow the government to become your stock broker. Please.
I think it is wrong:
If they only pay their 15% social security tax on $1 instead of the required $80,000 by law, it is really a scam on the public (and the system).
I read somewhere that the IRS can audit you and claim that the first 80,000$ in dividends count as sallary for tax purposes if your normal income does not approach 80,000. I wonder how they are filing their papers. And I wonder if what I read is true.
If they are getting away with paying social security tax on the $1, they are really shafting all those middle and lower class americans who pony up $12,000 per year on medicaid/SS taxes. Not to mention that these middle class americans, on top of the 15% SS/Medicaid tax, pay in a tax bracket higher than 15%. That is a combined tax of over 30% plus most of their money spent on products and services which carry another 5-10% sales/income tax to the state and local government. Combine it all up and middle and lower america pays a hefty 40% in taxes. While S and C corp business owners pay a flat 15%.
The 15% capitol gains tax is a joke and always will be. If you are a professional stock investor and that is your income, paying 15% taxes while middle class americans pay a higher rate is just plain fucking ridiculous. Likewise for anybody who is claiming their 15% gains tax instead of income. Anyone who makes money from capitol gains at that tax bracket is simply leeching off the public. If people paid their share of taxes then overall tax rates would be lower for everyone. Having a substantially lower tax bracket for these people is ignorance at its finest.
I am replying to you twice only because I wanted to answer all of your questions, but the one I felt deserved more than a one liner is posted above.
;) does it? Assuming you are talking about the United States in non metropolitian areas, you could hardly argue that driving a car is an emerging market.
Of course. Having 80% of the market you're competing in is completely insignificant.
I never said it was completely insignificant. I said it didn't matter (see my previous post).
Yes, when you have 80% of the market, a vast gulf still lies between you and being the standard.
I agree. That 20% would be like a vast gulf. Especially if you didn't even ATTEMPT to be compatible with it.
Out of curiosity, what kind of dominance would you require to say that they are the standard, and how does this compare to other markets with established standards?
Being delivered by more than one vendor is one requirement to being a "de-facto" standard. Being in common usage is not enough. To be a de-facto standard AND being delivered by only one vendor, you must pretty much be a monopoly. 80% of an EMERGING market is certaintly nowhere near a monopoly.
Being adopted by any standards body with the ability to be licensed or used by 3rd parties would be a qualification to being a standard perhaps. But I don't really think this would happen unless the RIAA decided to vote on a standard and call themselves a standards body.
As far as comparing this to a market with established standards, I don't think this space justifies a lengthy answer. If you were to look at any market with established standards, they were put in place so more than one party could be compatible with eachother. See my previous post as to why this would eliminate apple's percieved "de-facto" standard.
What has that got to do with what the DRM standard is? Most people drive their cars to work, but that doesn't mean we don't know the standard number of wheels on bikes that are ridden to work.
Now that doesn't even compare Apples to oranges (pun intended heh
Assuming you are talking about another country, or the global market, driving cars (or trucks) to work is hardly "most" people.
I never said they did with FairPlay. But if you had read the article, it talks about people buying the iPod or other FairPlay device SPECIFICALLY because it is backward compatible with their already purchased FairPlay songs. Read this quote:
The point I'm making here is that in the realm of Apple, compatability doesn't mean anything. Being "Compatible" with fairplay doesn't mean anything because it is still not compatible with players in a competative market, which is always what matters when one exists.
It doesn't matter that the current competative market is "only" 20% of the market. If Apple ever licensed FairPlay on a large scale, it would be yet another DRM package,with larger marketshare, and Apple would have to compete on price (for licensing) with microsoft and anybody else who decided to license their version of DRM for music. This would immediately remove any significant value that FairPlay has and thus make the whole argument insignificant. This is because the iPod repeat sales would not stand on their own without the iTunes lockin. If Fairplay stores poped up everywhere, and Fairplay players poped up everywhere, do you REALLY believe that the iPod hardware would REALLY sustain the majority of its current marketshare?
The beauty of the iPod from a business standpoint is that if your household owns one, then anybody in your household who wants a player must buy it as well. If your boyfriend buys one, then you must get one too if you want to buy music together. Otherwise you cannot buy online music at all, or you must re-buy your music (ie, because of INcompatability)
PlaysForSure isn't a significant value specifically because it has been licensed to everyone. It's only value to microsoft is that it is currently the only licenseable DRM available. DRM schemes have no significant value without data lockin. And if Apple licensed FairPlay, there would be no data lockin because you could go to wallgreens and buy joe cheap mp3 player and it would work with iTunes, and you could go to joecheapmusic.com and download fiarplay music for that cheap player, and apple would make their measly 20 cents of revenue off you. And you would have never heard the Apple name, You would have never gone to the apple website, and you would have never purchased an apple product. And since microsoft is also licensing PlaysForSure to device makers, you would be able to play napster and walmart.com music store songs on it as well. Who is to say that you would even be using a (probably more expensive!) music store which uses FairPlay when you could use a cheaper plays4sure store? If you don't know the difference (since you are joe user you don't) why do you have any incentive to even USE fairplay stores or the fairplay feature of your player unless you are plugging that thing into your girlfriends iTunes computer? And if that is the case, why would your girlfriend have any incentive to buy an iPod if she is not going to be be able to use the music that YOU bought on your PlaysForSure store?
You see, it is more complex than just "breaking" compatability with apple. They didn't break compatability with themselves. They broke compatability with the REST of the world by NOT licensing FairPlay. That is the point. And if they ever changed it so that iPod were compatible with 3rd party music, or 3rd party players were compatible with iTunes, the market would commoditize, and the iPod fad would be over.
Don't worry though man. What I have described is inevitable (so long as apple wants to stay a player in the music downloading and player market) DRM schemes aren't something that people get used to like they do desktop operating systems. The
20% of the MUSIC BUYING market? I highly doubt that PlaysForSure is 20% of the music market. I hardly belive that iTunes even makes a 20% dent in the music buying market.
The facts are that iTunes might be 80% of the online market but it doesn't matter. That is a tiny segment of the market. Most people who are buying MP3 players are ripping music from their new CD's, their old CD's, and their friend's CD's. Backwards compatible doesn't mean crap with apple. They break it every other year anyway. So will MS's DRM.
The market doesn't have any clear winner YET for a DRM for music. Until it does it is pretty lame of anybody to say that FairPlay is the standard (it isn't. not even close)
As of today, the standard and vast majority of music which is being played on mp3 players (including ipods) are DRM free ripped music from CD's. Period.
Bush's reign of terror is over. Lame duck president. No patriot act. Good for us all.
I believe this is the best outcome you can expect after the past 4 years of horrible mismanagement.
This is also the case in Arkansas. Sales tax can ONLY be charged on the final price the consumer pays on the product. It is actually illegal to charge taxes on the full price before mail in rebates here which are fulfilled by the retailer (ie, a bestbuy rebate). But manufacturer rebates are fair game to charge tax on full price.
Bottom line, discounts are not taxable.
Play the rat race. Mail in rebates are a fucking scam. If you do them you are playing their game and encouraging them to make more. At the end of the day it is you who pays the price, not them.
The Inquirer showes that they cant proofreaed and that they shouldn publish without edting, it's called bad writing.
Wow, nice writing!
WTF does that even mean? How can I even take your post seriously?!?