Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:18 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
Dunepilot
Aug 21, 09:51 AM
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
There's been controversy on Apple's forums over the last few days about the fact that Apple has optimised Logic for quad-core Intel but has never properly utilised the quad G5. Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians (reverbs etc have historically been heavily optimised for velocity engine). Apple has removed the threads on the topic, which either points to a smokescreen, or to the fact that they may have software engineers working on rectifying it.
Whatever the case, this is not the way to please your professional customers.
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
There's been controversy on Apple's forums over the last few days about the fact that Apple has optimised Logic for quad-core Intel but has never properly utilised the quad G5. Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians (reverbs etc have historically been heavily optimised for velocity engine). Apple has removed the threads on the topic, which either points to a smokescreen, or to the fact that they may have software engineers working on rectifying it.
Whatever the case, this is not the way to please your professional customers.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 6, 04:18 PM
1. Fluid Interface-Apple Kills
2. Battery life-Apple wins
3. Ecosystem-Apple wins
4. Apps-Apple Kills
5. Games and Graphics-Apple kills
1. Have you seen honeycomb? Its a work of art.
2. Apple only has better battery life to do the tight control over the way multitasking is done.
3. Not sure what you mean
4. Got to agree apple does have more games.
5. PAUSE. Games apple does not have more games then Android. Android has Emulators which allow it to play NES, GBA, and countless others. Do to this android has tons more games.
For anyone to choose any other tablet over the iPad means they care nothing about these five things and had might as well buy a NETBOOK. It would save them a ton of money.
EDIT: Just noticed non of these things have anything to do with Hardware. Its all USER EXPERIENCE, definitely something only APPLE understands right now.
P.S. U can add all the hardware features u want(8mp rear camera, 3mp front camera, USB ports, etc) but ID STILL CHOOSE THAT BEAUTIFUL ALUMINUM FRAME OF TABLET over all that any day.
The thing about android is you will get tablets that will cost what a tablet should cost and not being overcharged. All of the current tablets are horribly over priced now. There is not one even the Ipad worth over 250$ USD.
2. Battery life-Apple wins
3. Ecosystem-Apple wins
4. Apps-Apple Kills
5. Games and Graphics-Apple kills
1. Have you seen honeycomb? Its a work of art.
2. Apple only has better battery life to do the tight control over the way multitasking is done.
3. Not sure what you mean
4. Got to agree apple does have more games.
5. PAUSE. Games apple does not have more games then Android. Android has Emulators which allow it to play NES, GBA, and countless others. Do to this android has tons more games.
For anyone to choose any other tablet over the iPad means they care nothing about these five things and had might as well buy a NETBOOK. It would save them a ton of money.
EDIT: Just noticed non of these things have anything to do with Hardware. Its all USER EXPERIENCE, definitely something only APPLE understands right now.
P.S. U can add all the hardware features u want(8mp rear camera, 3mp front camera, USB ports, etc) but ID STILL CHOOSE THAT BEAUTIFUL ALUMINUM FRAME OF TABLET over all that any day.
The thing about android is you will get tablets that will cost what a tablet should cost and not being overcharged. All of the current tablets are horribly over priced now. There is not one even the Ipad worth over 250$ USD.
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 03:07 PM
What's the UK time?
Max on Macs
Aug 5, 05:27 PM
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:28 PM
I see where you're coming from.
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
Hey, you never know.... ;)
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
Hey, you never know.... ;)
Matthew Yohe
Apr 7, 10:23 PM
Quota? Are these guys idiots?
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
j_maddison
Jul 20, 11:53 AM
How fast do you want mail to go?
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
11thIndian
Apr 11, 11:14 PM
So you really think it's just a handful of people on Macrumors?
Oh, and people I know.
So, how many do you think? Less than 10? Less than 100? What is your definition of "a lot"? Also please note I never said it was any kind of majority of FCP users or anything like that. I never said it was an industry-wide pandemic, although you'd like to put those words into my mouth as well. You'd also like to paint my claim that "a lot of pros are leaving FCP" as "combative", even though it's not. It's just an observation. I don't know why you're taking it so personally.
I'd say 25% of the current user base would be a lot.
Oh, and people I know.
So, how many do you think? Less than 10? Less than 100? What is your definition of "a lot"? Also please note I never said it was any kind of majority of FCP users or anything like that. I never said it was an industry-wide pandemic, although you'd like to put those words into my mouth as well. You'd also like to paint my claim that "a lot of pros are leaving FCP" as "combative", even though it's not. It's just an observation. I don't know why you're taking it so personally.
I'd say 25% of the current user base would be a lot.
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
Apple's solution is fine by me. They wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't so much press about it, but I guess that's a good reason (one of the only ones) for the press to exist.
Interestingly, this behavior of waiting for things to blow up in the press before they are addressed will only lead to MORE things getting blown up in the press. Maybe Apple likes that? I dunno.
Interestingly, this behavior of waiting for things to blow up in the press before they are addressed will only lead to MORE things getting blown up in the press. Maybe Apple likes that? I dunno.
tk421
Nov 29, 11:11 AM
Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).
Ain't that the truth!! Here's quite a few recommendations (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=126692).
Ain't that the truth!! Here's quite a few recommendations (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=126692).
wmmk
Aug 20, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 06:22 AM
Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Captainobvvious
Apr 8, 06:52 AM
I don't know if anyone has explained Best Buy's actions at all and why they would hold back on selling stock the have yet.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
wonderspark
Apr 27, 10:08 AM
Depends.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
Ever been to NTTC Corry?
Oops, you deleted your PS.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
Ever been to NTTC Corry?
Oops, you deleted your PS.
Sodner
Apr 8, 07:19 AM
Isn't this hypocritical since Apple has been known to do this in their retail stores too?
Apple has been holding their stock to the next day and opening early if they have any. I think thats a pretty good way to do it rather than having people check in every half hour with a "You get any yet?" This way its simple.
Perhaps BB did something completely different? Kept them for days or weeks. Who knows?!
Believe me Apple WANTS Best Buy to sell iPads. The more places the better. So they must have done something pretty stupid to have pissed off Apple enough to pull their stock.
I say good job Apple!! Beisdes I freakin hate BB.
Apple has been holding their stock to the next day and opening early if they have any. I think thats a pretty good way to do it rather than having people check in every half hour with a "You get any yet?" This way its simple.
Perhaps BB did something completely different? Kept them for days or weeks. Who knows?!
Believe me Apple WANTS Best Buy to sell iPads. The more places the better. So they must have done something pretty stupid to have pissed off Apple enough to pull their stock.
I say good job Apple!! Beisdes I freakin hate BB.
fivepoint
Apr 28, 09:50 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
severe
Jun 22, 01:00 AM
Yeah I thought about that... But I'd rather not go through the hassle of craigs list and eBay...
Just a suggestion. Don't blame ya. eBay is a disaster. And Craigs wasn't far off, with all the inquiries and little follow through. I let it go for less than I would have liked, just to be done with it.
Still glad I did.
Just a suggestion. Don't blame ya. eBay is a disaster. And Craigs wasn't far off, with all the inquiries and little follow through. I let it go for less than I would have liked, just to be done with it.
Still glad I did.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
bigandy
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
It's going to happen, it'll happen when it happens, and the only thing we can be sure of is that people will still be complaining about them when they've arrived. :rolleyes:
twoodcc
Nov 12, 06:09 PM
Here's the official release notice from Sony.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only, and not surprised there's no Porsches, since I believe the license to use Porsches are exclusive to EA, no other game from any company really has them. But, I am hoping that GT5 will be released on the 24th, for real this time, instead of being pushed back for the 40,000,001st time.
thanks for the links! now i gotta decide if i wanna preorder or not
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only, and not surprised there's no Porsches, since I believe the license to use Porsches are exclusive to EA, no other game from any company really has them. But, I am hoping that GT5 will be released on the 24th, for real this time, instead of being pushed back for the 40,000,001st time.
thanks for the links! now i gotta decide if i wanna preorder or not
bigwig
Nov 28, 07:37 PM
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
My bet is that artist's contracts only pay out on music sales, not hardware royalties. Thus the cdrom tax and ipod royalties are profits they don't have to share with artists despite their pious rhetoric about how they need these revenues because piracy hurts recording artists.
My bet is that artist's contracts only pay out on music sales, not hardware royalties. Thus the cdrom tax and ipod royalties are profits they don't have to share with artists despite their pious rhetoric about how they need these revenues because piracy hurts recording artists.
notabadname
Mar 31, 06:35 PM
What a concept, Apple should consider this concept, for a more consistent and stable OS . . .
oh, they do
oh, they do
No comments:
Post a Comment