I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift.
Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!"
Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started.
And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it.
So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them.
Horray for her.
That's one (narrow) way to loo at it; but those who can actually envision the infinite time that lies beyond this first THREE MONTH period, actually REALIZE that this SHARED "loss leader" (keeping In Mind that Apple still has to pay for the costs of setting up and running Apple Music for those SAME THREE MONTHS), that maybe, just maybe (like 100% probability), those same "artists" (and.Apple) will be enjoying revenue for the foreseeable future, THAT THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE GET!
Jeezus, you people simply don't understand marketing, do you? Greedy little privileged bitches. All of you.
If she wants to protect the little people in the music industry, she should offer to allow Apple to use her music royalty-free for six months if they pay new artists during the three month free period. Or just devote the royalties from her albums to promoting new artists. Keeping her album out while allowing the three month test to move forward makes the project less likely to be successful and more likely for new and upcoming artists to lose their investment from allowing their works to be included.
This. Exactly this.
If the Swiftie was REALLY interested in using her celebrity-status to help less-popular, unsigned (Indie) artists, she would gladly donate her material for the first 3 months for free, so that more may come for her music, and "accidentally" also be exposed to the artists she professes to care for so much.
Keep in mind, Taylor, that in time, you too will be relegated to the cutout bin of music history, and will be THRILLED to hear of ANYONE playing your music. Then, perhaps you will understand the concept of "Penny wise and Pound foolish".
"One, it doesn't cost Apple nothing. The cost of the implementation is carried 100% by Apple. "
The cost of running a store is carried 100% by that store. That doesn't mean they can sell goods without reimbursing their suppliers.
So, stores don't have a "right" to offer discounts, or have promotional campaigns?
And do the (mostly) indie artists, who ought to be tickled-pink that ANYONE is giving their music a listen, rather than the mainstream artists everyone knows about, are choosing to whine incessantly about a ONE-TIME, THREE MONTH period, where a few dozen people may want to LISTEN to their song for free?
They obviously don't understand how radio works (RIP Phil Austin), in that, when people are exposed to new music, some percentage of those people will then seek out other material from that same artist, and a new fan (IOW a repeat, paying customer) is born.
And oh, BTW, with broadcast music over the airwaves, anyone with a tape recorder could "steal" as much music for which they had the tape to record, And almost NOBODY threatened to "boycott" the thousands of radio stations that were aiding and abetting this potentially rampant piracy.
What short-sighted, greedy little simpletons. They DESERVE to have their music ignored into obscurity.
So if Apple offered a 1 year free trial, at no cost to them since they aren't paying royalties...what's stopping them from a 2 year trial? I guess the labels wouldn't have signed on for that. 3 months isn't much, but still not fair to musicians who aren't getting paid.
We all know how Apple likes getting paid.
Three months (from one source of many) certainly isn't much; but if you read the memes of (mostly) indie artists, you'd think Apple was literally reaching into their bank accounts and vacuuming out all if their cash.
Different AC, which btw, your username doesn't have your real name in it, so it's effectively anonymous, pot meet kettle>
Except for the fact that I don't list my real name for Privacy reasons; but YOU and the GP post as AC's simply to protect your precious Slashdot Karma. BIG Difference.
Second, why are you talking about square waves and nyquist sampling?
Um, because the stupid GP AC brought them up first. Did you even bother to read the post to which I was Replying?
I didn't read the rest of your post, your 4 decades of embedded experience has clearly not taught you anything about signal analysis,
Clearly, you didn't read my post, OR the post to which I Responded. I wasn't touting my embedded experience in an attempt to make any claims about my signal-analysis skills (although, in the real-time industrial control world that I have the most experience, "sampling rate" and the Nyquist Criteria comes up more often than you evidently GUESS it would); but the real reason I brought up my technical background was because the GP AC to which I was responding, made several snide remarks about how "Apple Users" wouldn't understand the Nyquist Theorem, blah, blah, woof, woof. Come to think of it, much like YOU are GUESSING that embedded design doesn't expose someone to signal analysis, just because YOUR idea of embedded design begins and ends with buying a pre-built Raspberry Pi board and flashing some LEDs.
And if you're saying is true, then we can assume that Beats has no clue what those details are, because their hardware sounds like shit when compared to similarly priced equipment from other manufactures.
Of course, one man's "sounds like shit" is another man's "that's kickin' ". But I'm really not here to defend Beats. IMHO, it was a stupid acquisition for Apple; but I doubt it would hurt them financially to simply landfill the rest of Beats' inventory and take a writeoff, not by a LONG measure.
What I was saying, or rather trying to say, is that, if you look inside of 99+% of headphones, regardless of brand or price, they will, by and large, look something like the speaker inside of your first portable radio, or the horrid little thing that goes Beep! Inside of nearly every cheapie tower computer case; when in fact, the thing that looks like a cheapie speaker, is in fact a carefully-engineered driver, with a nice surround and an equally well-engineered, and matched, enclosure, which also just looks like a conveniently-sized injection-molded earcup, of no particular acoustically-tuned design.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course; but in general, whether the headband says Sennheiser, Sony, Grado, Koss or Beats, it's usually pretty difficult to guess which one sounds "better" without auditioning them yourselves.
Full disclosure: I have never personally listened to Beats phones; but I figure they are designed with lotsa "thump" in mind, for the "license-plate-rattler" club to use with their iPods/Smartphones, and thus, after the first 20 minutes of "mmmm, that's some nice bass!", I would probably find them too "tubby" and "thick" sounding.
First, ignoring all the ad Hominem attack, Mr. anonymous COWARD, as it so happens, I am an embedded developer with over 4 DECADES of paid experience doing same (and, BTW, often using Apple computers as the development platform), and so DO understand the Nyquist criteria in sampling systems. I also understand that neither the best speaker, nor our own ears, do justice to a square wave, at pretty much any frequency. So what? Very few people listen to music comprised of raw square waves.
Even a modest-frequency square wave will have harmonics well-past the range of human hearing. Here's a pretty good discussion related to what you are saying.
HOWEVER, this does not explain the whole thing. It's not about reproducing square waves; digital is rather good at that; but rather, reproducing SINE waves (in the form of harmonics), that is the REAL goal. While you would think that 44.1 ks/s would be enough for anybody (bit-depth being a WHOLE 'nuther discussion; but suffice it to say, 16 bits ain't enough); BUT that doesn't take into account "aliasing", or frequency-foldback, that occurs in sampling systems. For those who are following along, this is akin to "Heterodyning" in analog radio, where you can consider the sample rate as the "carrier" frequency, and for every frequency in the "program" material, the sum and DIFFERENCE between the carrier and program frequency(ies) are produced. This is managed in digitized playback systems by a (usually digital) "brick wall" filter (a low-pass filter with at least a 24/dBV/octave slope).
For accurate reproduction, You need the sampling high enough that your antialiasing brick-wall filter can be ideally at least an octave above 20 Khz. But you can't get there when all you have is two samples per WAVEFORM for a recorded harmonic approaching or exceeding 20k. This is why things like cymbals, tambourines, bells, and other "metallics" sound so horrible on Red Book CDs.
Don't get me wrong: I LOVE my CD and AAC/ALAC collection; but there are certain instruments, as mentioned above, that simply aren't captured well, even to a casual-listening-criteria, at 44.1/16, period. I don't know about you, but I don't like cymbals that sound like escaping steam, and tambourines that have aliased frequencies so low they reach down into the upper-bass regions!
Those artifacts are completely gone on my Meridian Lossless 24/96 versions (DVD-A) or 1-bit DSD (SACD) versions of those same recordings.
While I agree that 24/96 is a good place to stop, the reason for higher sampling rates and greater bit depths is to allow for DSP manipulation and dithering back down to 24/96 with no loss over the original.
The market *never* cared a about your audiophile bullshit!
All the market has ever wanted is the ability to listen to the songs they want to listen to with enough quality to drone out everything else.
Your both nuts. There has never been a better time to buy high quality, FLACC / AAC non DRM music tracks. No, it's not iTunes. It's a very niche market compared to Taylor, et. all. But it's there and there is even a decent selection. Not cheap but not terribly expensive either - about the same as an old time vinyl album.
So mellow out. Listen to Taylor or whatever and leave us alone.
I'd be more than willing to hear what you're talking about. Care to share a link or two?
And anyone who confuses me for a Taylor fan, or an "audiophile", is sadly mistaken.
Yeah, thats like saying you by software on Floppy Disk.
CDs/DVDs/Blueray are NOT a long term strategy.
No, but for now, DVD-A, Blu-Ray and SACD are the only way to get higher-quality audio than on any CD, streaming or even almost any downloadable format.
Too bad the market doesn't seem to care about high-quality audio anymore.
I just watched a tear down of Beats Solo headphones and its no surprise they are made of crap. I think the parts costs were estimated at around $16 for a retail of $199.
1. You do realize, of course, that Apple didn't design those headphones, right?
2. If you look inside of any (and I do mean any) headphones, you will wonder how anyone could charge so much for so little. But the devil's in the details...
TFA (where the "F" doesn't stand for "Fine") is nothing more than rampant, trollish speculation. There is simply no way that most of the "facts" in the article can be ascertained before launch.
And as for the absence of Taylor Swift, she is on record (no pun) as being very against streaming music, period, and has pulled all of her material from Spotify; so no wonder they don't have her signed...
The fact that this is just happening now illustrates the fact that the app store model just doesn't work to bring you reasonable content. A walled garden is always still a walled garden.
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I'm pretty sure that Collabra, not Apple, decided when to submit LibreOffice to the Mac App Store.
So, how does that make a "Walled Garden" argument?
And besides, the Mac App Store (in stark contrast to the iOS App Store) is not, repeat not a "Walled Garden". it is simply a place to purchase (or in the case of Free software, simply download) OS X Applications that you can be reasonably sure are free from malware, and which comply with certain "best practices" (sandboxing, etc.).
The term "Walled Garden" simply doesn't apply to the Mac App Store.
GPL zealots have filed suit against Apple causing GPL'd apps to be removed. They are upset that the binary downloaded form the Apple App Store can not be redistributed, that it is DRM'd to an account. Having the source code available so anyone could have the app built for their device is not enough for them. They are paying a political game and misrepresenting things as if it is Apple's fault. And if GPL-based app users get hurt that is too bad according to the FSF.
They provide their own crapware and tolerate no competition in that market.
Citaton, please?
I have never seen a piece of software authored or distributed by Apple have any sort of extraneous bullshit, like has nearly ruined the software download world under Windows.
Don't you find Libre Office to be incredibly buggy?
Delete rows, crash, paste a table from the web, crash, click close, wait for save dialogue and it crashes instead!
And conditional formatting was very broken last time I tried to use it a lot. And the charts are very lacking and horrible to work with - a bizarre UI maze mess. And Macros are weird, vague and over complicated.
Maybe Open Office is better?
Personally, I think that this is the first step towards Apple taking over LibreOffice.
This would be a Very Good Thing for everyone.
Apple would most likely keep LibreOffice Libre, and OSS; but, like with so many of the F/OSS Projects they have either adopted, created, or taken-over, they would no doubt rather rapidly start to address the longstanding bugs that you mentioned above, and gradually elevate LibreOffice to being a true MSOffice competitor.
I think Apple has actually been planning this for quite some time, which partially explains why their Office Suite has not been getting any love for quite some time, now.
Even the free one would require that you be on the Mac App store to get it, which requires you to be tracked by having an Apple ID. Far better to bypass the store entirely and get libre office directly.
Paranoid much?
Apple doesn't sell, or give, personal information to anyone.
And seriously, why in the fuck would the NSA be interested in which Office Suite you run?
As for free through the App Store, well, I've had that thruogh my "apt" store (ho ho ho) for as long as LO has existed. Yet another leading innovation from the world of Linux:)
I sincerely hope that the Smiley at the end of your sentence means that your stated "accomplishment" (hosting software on a web/ftp site) is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
What Linux lacks is something similar to what the Android / iOS permission systems attempt to do (but aren't very good at either). All the low level infrastructure is there, but there is support missing at the package and desktop level.
You're lumping iOS and Android Permissions "systems" together, as if they are in ANY way equivalent?
LOL. Of all people, someone named "macs4all" ought to recognize a variation on this ancient Mac troll post. As a couple others have commented in this subthread, I'm amazed and how many people it's hooked.
You attempt to berate me; but at least I had the balls to hang my Karma out, MR. AC.
Unfortunately some people must use PCs for some tasks.
Fortunately there are Macs available for those who would rather not use PCs.
Even better, you can run Windows software on your Mac if you have Windows software that you must use. There are many solutions for doing this that work very well.
Windows is a limited environment that has a lot of problems. The MacOSX a larger environment that solves those and other problems and sub-sets the Windows environment within it.
Life is good.
...and Linux. Don't forget Linux.
In fact, Macs remain the ONLY PCs that can legally run (I think) ANY OS.
Obviously, from my Username, you might guess that I'm no Windows fan; but fair's fair.
How much RAM does your MBA have?
And the IIfx was a BLISTERINGLY-fast machine... in 1990. Quite the impressive architecture. br>
But RAM-starve ANY machine, and it will make you want to claw your brain out, waiting.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift. Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!" Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started. And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it. So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them. Horray for her.
That's one (narrow) way to loo at it; but those who can actually envision the infinite time that lies beyond this first THREE MONTH period, actually REALIZE that this SHARED "loss leader" (keeping In Mind that Apple still has to pay for the costs of setting up and running Apple Music for those SAME THREE MONTHS), that maybe, just maybe (like 100% probability), those same "artists" (and.Apple) will be enjoying revenue for the foreseeable future, THAT THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE GET!
Jeezus, you people simply don't understand marketing, do you? Greedy little privileged bitches. All of you.
If she wants to protect the little people in the music industry, she should offer to allow Apple to use her music royalty-free for six months if they pay new artists during the three month free period. Or just devote the royalties from her albums to promoting new artists. Keeping her album out while allowing the three month test to move forward makes the project less likely to be successful and more likely for new and upcoming artists to lose their investment from allowing their works to be included.
This. Exactly this.
If the Swiftie was REALLY interested in using her celebrity-status to help less-popular, unsigned (Indie) artists, she would gladly donate her material for the first 3 months for free, so that more may come for her music, and "accidentally" also be exposed to the artists she professes to care for so much.
Keep in mind, Taylor, that in time, you too will be relegated to the cutout bin of music history, and will be THRILLED to hear of ANYONE playing your music. Then, perhaps you will understand the concept of "Penny wise and Pound foolish".
I don't like Apple
There. For the benefit of all Slashdot readers, I have edited the irrelevant words for your post.
"One, it doesn't cost Apple nothing. The cost of the implementation is carried 100% by Apple. "
The cost of running a store is carried 100% by that store. That doesn't mean they can sell goods without reimbursing their suppliers.
So, stores don't have a "right" to offer discounts, or have promotional campaigns?
And do the (mostly) indie artists, who ought to be tickled-pink that ANYONE is giving their music a listen, rather than the mainstream artists everyone knows about, are choosing to whine incessantly about a ONE-TIME, THREE MONTH period, where a few dozen people may want to LISTEN to their song for free?
They obviously don't understand how radio works (RIP Phil Austin), in that, when people are exposed to new music, some percentage of those people will then seek out other material from that same artist, and a new fan (IOW a repeat, paying customer) is born.
And oh, BTW, with broadcast music over the airwaves, anyone with a tape recorder could "steal" as much music for which they had the tape to record, And almost NOBODY threatened to "boycott" the thousands of radio stations that were aiding and abetting this potentially rampant piracy.
What short-sighted, greedy little simpletons. They DESERVE to have their music ignored into obscurity.
So if Apple offered a 1 year free trial, at no cost to them since they aren't paying royalties...what's stopping them from a 2 year trial? I guess the labels wouldn't have signed on for that. 3 months isn't much, but still not fair to musicians who aren't getting paid.
We all know how Apple likes getting paid.
Three months (from one source of many) certainly isn't much; but if you read the memes of (mostly) indie artists, you'd think Apple was literally reaching into their bank accounts and vacuuming out all if their cash.
t-swiz is against unpaid streaming music; only 1989 will be unavailable on apple music. she's involved in the hot mess that is tidal as well
...and, either way, nothing of value would be lost.
Different AC, which btw, your username doesn't have your real name in it, so it's effectively anonymous, pot meet kettle>
Except for the fact that I don't list my real name for Privacy reasons; but YOU and the GP post as AC's simply to protect your precious Slashdot Karma. BIG Difference.
Second, why are you talking about square waves and nyquist sampling?
Um, because the stupid GP AC brought them up first. Did you even bother to read the post to which I was Replying?
I didn't read the rest of your post, your 4 decades of embedded experience has clearly not taught you anything about signal analysis,
Clearly, you didn't read my post, OR the post to which I Responded. I wasn't touting my embedded experience in an attempt to make any claims about my signal-analysis skills (although, in the real-time industrial control world that I have the most experience, "sampling rate" and the Nyquist Criteria comes up more often than you evidently GUESS it would); but the real reason I brought up my technical background was because the GP AC to which I was responding, made several snide remarks about how "Apple Users" wouldn't understand the Nyquist Theorem, blah, blah, woof, woof. Come to think of it, much like YOU are GUESSING that embedded design doesn't expose someone to signal analysis, just because YOUR idea of embedded design begins and ends with buying a pre-built Raspberry Pi board and flashing some LEDs.
"But the devil's in the details"
And if you're saying is true, then we can assume that Beats has no clue what those details are, because their hardware sounds like shit when compared to similarly priced equipment from other manufactures.
Of course, one man's "sounds like shit" is another man's "that's kickin' ". But I'm really not here to defend Beats. IMHO, it was a stupid acquisition for Apple; but I doubt it would hurt them financially to simply landfill the rest of Beats' inventory and take a writeoff, not by a LONG measure.
What I was saying, or rather trying to say, is that, if you look inside of 99+% of headphones, regardless of brand or price, they will, by and large, look something like the speaker inside of your first portable radio, or the horrid little thing that goes Beep! Inside of nearly every cheapie tower computer case; when in fact, the thing that looks like a cheapie speaker, is in fact a carefully-engineered driver, with a nice surround and an equally well-engineered, and matched, enclosure, which also just looks like a conveniently-sized injection-molded earcup, of no particular acoustically-tuned design.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course; but in general, whether the headband says Sennheiser, Sony, Grado, Koss or Beats, it's usually pretty difficult to guess which one sounds "better" without auditioning them yourselves.
Full disclosure: I have never personally listened to Beats phones; but I figure they are designed with lotsa "thump" in mind, for the "license-plate-rattler" club to use with their iPods/Smartphones, and thus, after the first 20 minutes of "mmmm, that's some nice bass!", I would probably find them too "tubby" and "thick" sounding.
First, ignoring all the ad Hominem attack, Mr. anonymous COWARD, as it so happens, I am an embedded developer with over 4 DECADES of paid experience doing same (and, BTW, often using Apple computers as the development platform), and so DO understand the Nyquist criteria in sampling systems. I also understand that neither the best speaker, nor our own ears, do justice to a square wave, at pretty much any frequency. So what? Very few people listen to music comprised of raw square waves.
Even a modest-frequency square wave will have harmonics well-past the range of human hearing. Here's a pretty good discussion related to what you are saying.
HOWEVER, this does not explain the whole thing. It's not about reproducing square waves; digital is rather good at that; but rather, reproducing SINE waves (in the form of harmonics), that is the REAL goal. While you would think that 44.1 ks/s would be enough for anybody (bit-depth being a WHOLE 'nuther discussion; but suffice it to say, 16 bits ain't enough); BUT that doesn't take into account "aliasing", or frequency-foldback, that occurs in sampling systems. For those who are following along, this is akin to "Heterodyning" in analog radio, where you can consider the sample rate as the "carrier" frequency, and for every frequency in the "program" material, the sum and DIFFERENCE between the carrier and program frequency(ies) are produced. This is managed in digitized playback systems by a (usually digital) "brick wall" filter (a low-pass filter with at least a 24/dBV/octave slope).
For accurate reproduction, You need the sampling high enough that your antialiasing brick-wall filter can be ideally at least an octave above 20 Khz. But you can't get there when all you have is two samples per WAVEFORM for a recorded harmonic approaching or exceeding 20k. This is why things like cymbals, tambourines, bells, and other "metallics" sound so horrible on Red Book CDs.
Don't get me wrong: I LOVE my CD and AAC/ALAC collection; but there are certain instruments, as mentioned above, that simply aren't captured well, even to a casual-listening-criteria, at 44.1/16, period. I don't know about you, but I don't like cymbals that sound like escaping steam, and tambourines that have aliased frequencies so low they reach down into the upper-bass regions!
Those artifacts are completely gone on my Meridian Lossless 24/96 versions (DVD-A) or 1-bit DSD (SACD) versions of those same recordings.
While I agree that 24/96 is a good place to stop, the reason for higher sampling rates and greater bit depths is to allow for DSP manipulation and dithering back down to 24/96 with no loss over the original.
The market *never* cared a about your audiophile bullshit!
All the market has ever wanted is the ability to listen to the songs they want to listen to with enough quality to drone out everything else.
Your both nuts. There has never been a better time to buy high quality, FLACC / AAC non DRM music tracks. No, it's not iTunes. It's a very niche market compared to Taylor, et. all. But it's there and there is even a decent selection. Not cheap but not terribly expensive either - about the same as an old time vinyl album.
So mellow out. Listen to Taylor or whatever and leave us alone.
I'd be more than willing to hear what you're talking about. Care to share a link or two?
And anyone who confuses me for a Taylor fan, or an "audiophile", is sadly mistaken.
Yeah, thats like saying you by software on Floppy Disk.
CDs/DVDs/Blueray are NOT a long term strategy.
No, but for now, DVD-A, Blu-Ray and SACD are the only way to get higher-quality audio than on any CD, streaming or even almost any downloadable format.
Too bad the market doesn't seem to care about high-quality audio anymore.
I just watched a tear down of Beats Solo headphones and its no surprise they are made of crap. I think the parts costs were estimated at around $16 for a retail of $199.
1. You do realize, of course, that Apple didn't design those headphones, right?
2. If you look inside of any (and I do mean any) headphones, you will wonder how anyone could charge so much for so little. But the devil's in the details...
Just like the rest of the post.
Exactly!
TFA (where the "F" doesn't stand for "Fine") is nothing more than rampant, trollish speculation. There is simply no way that most of the "facts" in the article can be ascertained before launch.
And as for the absence of Taylor Swift, she is on record (no pun) as being very against streaming music, period, and has pulled all of her material from Spotify; so no wonder they don't have her signed...
tl,dr; Nothing to see here, move along.
The fact that this is just happening now illustrates the fact that the app store model just doesn't work to bring you reasonable content. A walled garden is always still a walled garden.
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I'm pretty sure that Collabra, not Apple, decided when to submit LibreOffice to the Mac App Store.
So, how does that make a "Walled Garden" argument?
And besides, the Mac App Store (in stark contrast to the iOS App Store) is not, repeat not a "Walled Garden". it is simply a place to purchase (or in the case of Free software, simply download) OS X Applications that you can be reasonably sure are free from malware, and which comply with certain "best practices" (sandboxing, etc.).
The term "Walled Garden" simply doesn't apply to the Mac App Store.
GPL zealots have filed suit against Apple causing GPL'd apps to be removed. They are upset that the binary downloaded form the Apple App Store can not be redistributed, that it is DRM'd to an account. Having the source code available so anyone could have the app built for their device is not enough for them. They are paying a political game and misrepresenting things as if it is Apple's fault. And if GPL-based app users get hurt that is too bad according to the FSF.
Software wants to be FREEEEEEE!!!!*
*...so long as it's our concept of "free".
They provide their own crapware and tolerate no competition in that market.
Citaton, please?
I have never seen a piece of software authored or distributed by Apple have any sort of extraneous bullshit, like has nearly ruined the software download world under Windows.
Don't you find Libre Office to be incredibly buggy?
Delete rows, crash, paste a table from the web, crash, click close, wait for save dialogue and it crashes instead!
And conditional formatting was very broken last time I tried to use it a lot. And the charts are very lacking and horrible to work with - a bizarre UI maze mess. And Macros are weird, vague and over complicated.
Maybe Open Office is better?
Personally, I think that this is the first step towards Apple taking over LibreOffice.
This would be a Very Good Thing for everyone.
Apple would most likely keep LibreOffice Libre, and OSS; but, like with so many of the F/OSS Projects they have either adopted, created, or taken-over, they would no doubt rather rapidly start to address the longstanding bugs that you mentioned above, and gradually elevate LibreOffice to being a true MSOffice competitor.
I think Apple has actually been planning this for quite some time, which partially explains why their Office Suite has not been getting any love for quite some time, now.
Even the free one would require that you be on the Mac App store to get it, which requires you to be tracked by having an Apple ID. Far better to bypass the store entirely and get libre office directly.
Paranoid much?
Apple doesn't sell, or give, personal information to anyone.
And seriously, why in the fuck would the NSA be interested in which Office Suite you run?
As for free through the App Store, well, I've had that thruogh my "apt" store (ho ho ho) for as long as LO has existed. Yet another leading innovation from the world of Linux :)
I sincerely hope that the Smiley at the end of your sentence means that your stated "accomplishment" (hosting software on a web/ftp site) is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
What Linux lacks is something similar to what the Android / iOS permission systems attempt to do (but aren't very good at either). All the low level infrastructure is there, but there is support missing at the package and desktop level.
You're lumping iOS and Android Permissions "systems" together, as if they are in ANY way equivalent?
That's rich.
You mean the one in the topright of every article that looks like a speech bubble and has the number of comments?
No, he means the "speech bubble" that COVERS OVER the rightmost 4 or 5 characters of each and every Article Title.
Yep. Android for x86, or indeed any other version that someone wishes to build for the Mac hardware.
Who on God's green earth would want to run THAT OS on ANYthing but a mobile device?
LOL. Of all people, someone named "macs4all" ought to recognize a variation on this ancient Mac troll post. As a couple others have commented in this subthread, I'm amazed and how many people it's hooked.
You attempt to berate me; but at least I had the balls to hang my Karma out, MR. AC.
Unfortunately some people must use PCs for some tasks.
Fortunately there are Macs available for those who would rather not use PCs.
Even better, you can run Windows software on your Mac if you have Windows software that you must use. There are many solutions for doing this that work very well.
Windows is a limited environment that has a lot of problems. The MacOSX a larger environment that solves those and other problems and sub-sets the Windows environment within it.
Life is good.
...and Linux. Don't forget Linux.
In fact, Macs remain the ONLY PCs that can legally run (I think) ANY OS.
2 Gigs of RAM
Well, there's your problem, sonny!
Obviously, from my Username, you might guess that I'm no Windows fan; but fair's fair.
How much RAM does your MBA have?
And the IIfx was a BLISTERINGLY-fast machine... in 1990. Quite the impressive architecture.
br> But RAM-starve ANY machine, and it will make you want to claw your brain out, waiting.