alphaod
Oct 10, 02:07 AM
I'll help :cool:
You can guess where the money from that 3rd 30" went :D :apple:
I keep most of my books on it...hoping to get another monitor soon.
From the pictures I can conclude you traded a 30" monitor, your Canon 70-200mm, and the orange frog for an iPad. :p
You can guess where the money from that 3rd 30" went :D :apple:
I keep most of my books on it...hoping to get another monitor soon.
From the pictures I can conclude you traded a 30" monitor, your Canon 70-200mm, and the orange frog for an iPad. :p
Sam Yikin
Mar 29, 12:25 AM
This Constitutional issue is something of a moot point... Congress has only declared war FIVE times in the history of the country (the War of 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWs I&II). There are 125 occasions where the President has acted with no approval from Congress. Also, the War Powers Resolution is essentially valid, as it has never been tested by courts.
In my personal view, I'm fine with the president being able to enact a limited amount of military action, as long as there are no long-term liabilities for the country. Congress is so juvenile, inefficient, and bitchy that I'm fine with not having to rely on them every time there is a clear humanitarian need to act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
In my personal view, I'm fine with the president being able to enact a limited amount of military action, as long as there are no long-term liabilities for the country. Congress is so juvenile, inefficient, and bitchy that I'm fine with not having to rely on them every time there is a clear humanitarian need to act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
NintendoFan
Nov 24, 06:58 AM
When you study harmony, who are you going to study the most? Bach
When you study Music History of the Baroque era, who is going to take the biggest part of the semester? Bach.
When you study Harpsichord or organ, who is the biggest composer you are going to study? Bach. Even when you do piano, you are going to study Bach at leas at the beginning before your Liszt and Rachmaninoff.
I know they teach popular music at universities. The course on popular is music is optional. My wife took a course on popular music at Montreal university. They studied the Beatles for about 20 minutes of the whole semester. I did my bachelor's in the USA, my master's in Paris, DEM in Paris and my doctorate at Montreal. I know 20 is minutes is the most the Beatles are going to get. That's how important they are to music history. Perhaps, they are important in popular music.
You think you know about music, but your knowledge is very limited. It is just plain ridiculous to compare them to Bach.
I never said nobody studies Bach when studying music. Of course they do. Even The Beatles did. But you were implying that no one studies The Beatles period, which just isn't true. And as a side note, there is no way to study Music History of the Baroque era in relation to The Beatles considering they weren't alive in the Baroque era. :)
And aren't you just a bit arrogant to assume to know my musical background? Please come off your high horse. You may not like The Beatles but to say they contribute/contributed nothing to music is ridiculous.
When you study Music History of the Baroque era, who is going to take the biggest part of the semester? Bach.
When you study Harpsichord or organ, who is the biggest composer you are going to study? Bach. Even when you do piano, you are going to study Bach at leas at the beginning before your Liszt and Rachmaninoff.
I know they teach popular music at universities. The course on popular is music is optional. My wife took a course on popular music at Montreal university. They studied the Beatles for about 20 minutes of the whole semester. I did my bachelor's in the USA, my master's in Paris, DEM in Paris and my doctorate at Montreal. I know 20 is minutes is the most the Beatles are going to get. That's how important they are to music history. Perhaps, they are important in popular music.
You think you know about music, but your knowledge is very limited. It is just plain ridiculous to compare them to Bach.
I never said nobody studies Bach when studying music. Of course they do. Even The Beatles did. But you were implying that no one studies The Beatles period, which just isn't true. And as a side note, there is no way to study Music History of the Baroque era in relation to The Beatles considering they weren't alive in the Baroque era. :)
And aren't you just a bit arrogant to assume to know my musical background? Please come off your high horse. You may not like The Beatles but to say they contribute/contributed nothing to music is ridiculous.
Anonymous Freak
Aug 4, 02:20 PM
These are some poor quality pictures captured by my camera on my Razor...
Your electric scooter has a built-in camera?!?! :D
Your electric scooter has a built-in camera?!?! :D
BrianKonarsMac
Nov 12, 02:28 PM
Paraphrasing: I don't like being told what I can and can't do. :rolleyes:
does your eye roll imply that you like being told what you can and cannot do? I imagine, strangely, that you do.
He's a developer, who writes applications. If he wants to write applications his own way, he should be allowed to. The approval process should come from the iPhone users themselves.
If he writes an app how he wants, and it sucks (as posters here have implied), then nobody will use it and it will die with or without Apple's involvement. If nobody is using his apps, and that is his means of employment, then he will either 1) adapt and survive or 2) push the unemployment in this country beyond 10%.
does your eye roll imply that you like being told what you can and cannot do? I imagine, strangely, that you do.
He's a developer, who writes applications. If he wants to write applications his own way, he should be allowed to. The approval process should come from the iPhone users themselves.
If he writes an app how he wants, and it sucks (as posters here have implied), then nobody will use it and it will die with or without Apple's involvement. If nobody is using his apps, and that is his means of employment, then he will either 1) adapt and survive or 2) push the unemployment in this country beyond 10%.
TheNerdyNurse
Mar 23, 03:23 PM
Eh, you misunderstood me. The main point I was making is that the wife should not be able to prevent such a purchase IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. In many cases, money itself is not an issue in such a purchase, as the wife would not blink twice in spending that amount on something SHE wants. My point was that sometimes they refuse things simply because they dont see it benefitting THEM- and that is something selfish, and shows a lack of respect. Of course if the guy is blowing $$ on an iPad when they're having trouble putting food on the table, thats an issue. My post wasnt centered on these cases. It made the assumption that it could comfortably be afforded, but which the wife doesnt see the value in it for herself, which is the sole reason of the refusal or the demand that it be returned. And Ive seen this on many, many occasions. I know this guy that brings in 6 figures a yr, yes his wife (who brings in nothing) controls the bank account. The guy has no balls, his wife dictates the purchases, buys whatever the hell she pleases, and gets upset when he spends on anything without consulting her. She doesnt let him buy **** he wants, the cost of which is a drop in the bucket compared to the income he makes, simply because SHE doesnt see the value in it. But like I said, the guy has no balls and takes it, while she spends thousands on shoes, etc without needing to consult him.But hey, some people love that ****. Sometimes you need to do things that give you individual pleasure in a marriage, not always 'pleasure as a unit'.
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
djp2
Mar 25, 08:31 PM
you're that annoying friend that shows up at a party and everyone has to be nice to him, and then as soon as you leave everyone talks about how abrasive you are.
that is the worst kind of friend.
Actually, the people I hang out with have some degree of character and intelligence.
ETA: And also, most of them are gay. The straight people I hang out with probably wouldn't say "that's so gay". For those who did, I would just explain why it bothers me; they would just think about it for a second and realize what they were doing. It's really pretty straightforward.
that is the worst kind of friend.
Actually, the people I hang out with have some degree of character and intelligence.
ETA: And also, most of them are gay. The straight people I hang out with probably wouldn't say "that's so gay". For those who did, I would just explain why it bothers me; they would just think about it for a second and realize what they were doing. It's really pretty straightforward.
dime21
Mar 29, 02:30 PM
Bush was pretty easy to be anti- towards. I personally object to dangerously irresponsible fools who start conflicts.
Yep, poor ole' Saddam, just an innocent bystander. :rolleyes:
Yep, poor ole' Saddam, just an innocent bystander. :rolleyes:
gkarris
Mar 18, 10:09 PM
My favorite:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500
Sounds very revolutionary to me.
hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up?
or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm?
uhhh, yes!
LOL...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500
Sounds very revolutionary to me.
hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up?
or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm?
uhhh, yes!
LOL...
Rocketman
Apr 2, 10:59 AM
Question:
Stringer's discussion of camera production for Apple was confirmed by The Wall Street Journal:
Early on, he raised the irony of Sony supplying camera components for Apple devices. It "always puzzles me," he said. "Why would I make Apple the best camera?"
Answer:
Because you want to sell 20 million units with no marketing risk, minimal inventory cost, large prepayments from the customer, and unusual engineering support from the customer.
That's why.
One order covers your R&D and production ramp costs across all your other products, profitably.
Rocketman
Stringer's discussion of camera production for Apple was confirmed by The Wall Street Journal:
Early on, he raised the irony of Sony supplying camera components for Apple devices. It "always puzzles me," he said. "Why would I make Apple the best camera?"
Answer:
Because you want to sell 20 million units with no marketing risk, minimal inventory cost, large prepayments from the customer, and unusual engineering support from the customer.
That's why.
One order covers your R&D and production ramp costs across all your other products, profitably.
Rocketman
MacSA
Nov 8, 07:47 AM
Sigh, I dont like the way Apple configure models to get you to spend more to get features that should be standard.
512Mb RAM and a Combo Drive which probably costs them 50p
512Mb RAM and a Combo Drive which probably costs them 50p
SactoGuy18
Mar 29, 11:08 PM
I think in the end, if the iPhone 5 arrives around October I expect to have the following features:
1) Will look like an 4G iPod touch but thicker to accommodate larger battery, cellphone circuitry, cellphone antenna and the five-megapixel back image sensor.
2) Display will be 4.0" (diagonal) IPS LCD touchscreen.
3) Will use A5 CPU/GPU with 512 MB of RAM, though 1 GB of RAM is possible.
4) Flash memory storage in 16, 32 and 64 GB capacities.
5) Will use next-generation Qualcomm or Broadcom cellphone chipset that supports GSM, CDMA or LTE. Will include micro SIM slot for GSM usage.
6) Antenna will be completely redesigned to avoid potential "dead spots" when held in a certain manner.
7) Will include for first time near-field communications (NFC) communications capability, and will likely support the Sony-developed FeliCa NFC standard so it can be easily used in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.
8) Will use iOS 5.0, which will come out the same time as the iPhone 5.
1) Will look like an 4G iPod touch but thicker to accommodate larger battery, cellphone circuitry, cellphone antenna and the five-megapixel back image sensor.
2) Display will be 4.0" (diagonal) IPS LCD touchscreen.
3) Will use A5 CPU/GPU with 512 MB of RAM, though 1 GB of RAM is possible.
4) Flash memory storage in 16, 32 and 64 GB capacities.
5) Will use next-generation Qualcomm or Broadcom cellphone chipset that supports GSM, CDMA or LTE. Will include micro SIM slot for GSM usage.
6) Antenna will be completely redesigned to avoid potential "dead spots" when held in a certain manner.
7) Will include for first time near-field communications (NFC) communications capability, and will likely support the Sony-developed FeliCa NFC standard so it can be easily used in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.
8) Will use iOS 5.0, which will come out the same time as the iPhone 5.
cvaldes
Mar 28, 11:03 PM
Ok, but they are only utilizing Moscone West. Why not rent West and North, South or all three. That would allow them to expand without moving.
Perhaps there's something about the North Hall and South Hall facilities that don't meet Apple's approval.
There's also a possibility that Apple is at a human resources limit for staffing the event. Many of the hands-on individual sessions probably scale poorly. Perhaps most of the qualified engineers are there and throwing extra bodies doesn't improve the event. Apple's engineering team is very small for a company of its size.
It's not like Apple can bring aboard the holiday part-time help from the local retail stores to help teach developers how to utilize the CoreLocation API.
Since Apple has participated in large tradeshows before and have been successfully running the WWDC for years, I assume they have looked at various factors before signing these Moscone Center contracts.
Perhaps there's something about the North Hall and South Hall facilities that don't meet Apple's approval.
There's also a possibility that Apple is at a human resources limit for staffing the event. Many of the hands-on individual sessions probably scale poorly. Perhaps most of the qualified engineers are there and throwing extra bodies doesn't improve the event. Apple's engineering team is very small for a company of its size.
It's not like Apple can bring aboard the holiday part-time help from the local retail stores to help teach developers how to utilize the CoreLocation API.
Since Apple has participated in large tradeshows before and have been successfully running the WWDC for years, I assume they have looked at various factors before signing these Moscone Center contracts.
OdduWon
Jul 23, 12:12 AM
i think that since you can create your own pics, movies, podcasts, and text for the i pod know, that they will let you expand your ilife tools to create pdf too without having to buy them.
hazza.jockel
Sep 16, 08:25 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the multiplayer stinks? (team slayer) :o
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
Why can't people shoot you or kill you?
The jet pack is awesome, but you have to use it right.
THe armour lock down now thats crap. Ill just wait there and shoot them as soon as it runs out.
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
Why can't people shoot you or kill you?
The jet pack is awesome, but you have to use it right.
THe armour lock down now thats crap. Ill just wait there and shoot them as soon as it runs out.
mscriv
Apr 7, 04:21 PM
Where does this guidance come from? Who says the Bible must be interpreted in that way? It seems in a book as complex as the Bible there must be 100s of ways to view it.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
iStudentUK, I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it. People do tend to develop their own worldview and then pick and choose external sources (religion, social groups, philosophies, etc.) to support the view they have already decided upon.
However, I can't agree that the Bible is "neutral" or relative in that it can correctly be interpreted in any way someone chooses. The Bible is clear in it's express purpose as God's revelation of himself to mankind. The Bible is judged and interpreted against itself using the literary and textual tools of interpretation that we have available to us.
Like all communication it can only be correctly interpreted in light of the intended meaning of it's original author. This is where faith comes into the process. Followers of Christ hold to the belief that it is God's inspired and inerrant word. The living God is it's author and he inspired men to write within their own historical and literary context to specific audiences at a specific time. All of these contexts become clues that help guide us to His intended meaning.
Is it complex and hard to understand, sure, but it's theme is consistent and without contradiction. That's why I can easily say that Westboro Baptist's Church's interpretation and resulting actions are not biblicaly grounded. God's word calls us to "love one another" and to be servant leaders in bearing one another's burdens. Westboro seeks to judge, spread hate, and cause dissension. Sure they quote scripture and hide behind an illusion of faith, but they take verses out of context and aren't living out God's commands. They remind me of the Pharisees in scripture towards whom Jesus was extremely harsh because of their duplicitous nature.
I know this is hard to grasp. One way I try to simplify it for people is to say that any given portion of scripture has one correct interpretation, but various forms of application. This is why you hear people of faith say it is God's living word. I can read a portion of scripture today and it will impact me in one way. When I reread that section later next month, next year, etc. it might impact me in an entirely different way based on how I apply it to my life at the time. The underlying truth and the intended meaning have not changed, but how I've applied it to my present circumstances has.
As I said before, it's nothing personal, and I didn't think that you believed the Bible was evil. But, the misconceptions you present are common to many and the thought that Scripture is neutral or relative is not only incorrect, but more dangerous as it opens the door wide to allow for further incorrect interpretation and prooftexting.
I'd also have to disagree with the notion that people are inherently good, but we can save that discussion for another time.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
iStudentUK, I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it. People do tend to develop their own worldview and then pick and choose external sources (religion, social groups, philosophies, etc.) to support the view they have already decided upon.
However, I can't agree that the Bible is "neutral" or relative in that it can correctly be interpreted in any way someone chooses. The Bible is clear in it's express purpose as God's revelation of himself to mankind. The Bible is judged and interpreted against itself using the literary and textual tools of interpretation that we have available to us.
Like all communication it can only be correctly interpreted in light of the intended meaning of it's original author. This is where faith comes into the process. Followers of Christ hold to the belief that it is God's inspired and inerrant word. The living God is it's author and he inspired men to write within their own historical and literary context to specific audiences at a specific time. All of these contexts become clues that help guide us to His intended meaning.
Is it complex and hard to understand, sure, but it's theme is consistent and without contradiction. That's why I can easily say that Westboro Baptist's Church's interpretation and resulting actions are not biblicaly grounded. God's word calls us to "love one another" and to be servant leaders in bearing one another's burdens. Westboro seeks to judge, spread hate, and cause dissension. Sure they quote scripture and hide behind an illusion of faith, but they take verses out of context and aren't living out God's commands. They remind me of the Pharisees in scripture towards whom Jesus was extremely harsh because of their duplicitous nature.
I know this is hard to grasp. One way I try to simplify it for people is to say that any given portion of scripture has one correct interpretation, but various forms of application. This is why you hear people of faith say it is God's living word. I can read a portion of scripture today and it will impact me in one way. When I reread that section later next month, next year, etc. it might impact me in an entirely different way based on how I apply it to my life at the time. The underlying truth and the intended meaning have not changed, but how I've applied it to my present circumstances has.
As I said before, it's nothing personal, and I didn't think that you believed the Bible was evil. But, the misconceptions you present are common to many and the thought that Scripture is neutral or relative is not only incorrect, but more dangerous as it opens the door wide to allow for further incorrect interpretation and prooftexting.
I'd also have to disagree with the notion that people are inherently good, but we can save that discussion for another time.
Edge100
Jan 11, 01:28 PM
I am one of the folks who say that. I am not a fan of the band or group. It might mean I don't like what they might stand for, or their individual ideas so I don't buy every thing they do or did. It usually means that I don't like the sound or style of the bulk of their catalog. An example would be not liking a particular genre of music but finding one song I enjoy out of that genre. I don't like country music as a type but I have a few songs in my library that are country tunes. But I might put all that aside and enjoy one or two songs from an artist that I don't particularly like. I have had artists that I liked so much I bought everything they did only to later look back and say wha??? Why did I do that?
You don't have to love the Beatles music. I do, and billions of other people do, but you don't.
But, you do have to recognize that without them, popular music would be an entirely different game right now. People can't remember a time when rock/pop was only ONE type of popular music. The Beatles made it THE type of music, and virtually everything that has come since is a direct result of that change; both musically, and in spirit, in terms of the artistic freedom and experimentation that the Beatles encouraged.
This is not to mention the enormous influence the Beatles had on the recording process itself; the technical advances that went down at Abbey Road in the 60's were mindboggling, and many have become standard studio practice.
So no, you don't have to love the music. But you must grant that without the Beatles, most of the music you DO love would be a whole lot different.
You don't have to love the Beatles music. I do, and billions of other people do, but you don't.
But, you do have to recognize that without them, popular music would be an entirely different game right now. People can't remember a time when rock/pop was only ONE type of popular music. The Beatles made it THE type of music, and virtually everything that has come since is a direct result of that change; both musically, and in spirit, in terms of the artistic freedom and experimentation that the Beatles encouraged.
This is not to mention the enormous influence the Beatles had on the recording process itself; the technical advances that went down at Abbey Road in the 60's were mindboggling, and many have become standard studio practice.
So no, you don't have to love the music. But you must grant that without the Beatles, most of the music you DO love would be a whole lot different.
milkdev
Aug 3, 05:10 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe it was already there.
Here's the iPhone "behind the scenes" video: ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYF3BpbFI9c
Here's the iPhone "behind the scenes" video: ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYF3BpbFI9c
eva01
Aug 24, 03:49 PM
why are two different Apple websites giving slightly DIFFERENT serial numbers? one is 3K***** and the other is 3X*****
here are the two Apple websites:
https://depot.info.apple.com/batteryexchange/
https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html
so one of those is right and one is not. and of course, one of those i have to send my battery back, and one i dont! ahhh, what to do?!
the first one you linked is the recall from 2005 i believe
here are the two Apple websites:
https://depot.info.apple.com/batteryexchange/
https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html
so one of those is right and one is not. and of course, one of those i have to send my battery back, and one i dont! ahhh, what to do?!
the first one you linked is the recall from 2005 i believe
hatunike
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
Interesting discussion.
It seems that many people pirate Adobe products because they want to learn the tools, but don't have a job to pay for it's high prices. Those who are anti-piracy seem to argue that if you have the tools and the know-how than you can easily make enough money to pay for the price.
Do those in the anti-piracy camp have major issues with someone who pirates Adobe products, but doesn't "profit" from them?....i.e doesn't make even enough money to cover the costs of the original products or even makes zero dollars?
Of course it is still illegal, but it seems like everyone's defense revolves around "if you make money off of a product than you should pay for it"..
I personally feel that pirating is wrong in ALL cases. However, I couldn't care less if someone pirated it, and profited in NO way.
Piracy aside, I do think it's interesting to see Adobe going this way, and I don't think it will pay off. At a time when Apple is enabling developers with it's App store to be able to charge less for apps, but earn more money with a higher volume of downloads. Not to mention the customer gets some amazing benefits by using the app store: integration with the os (think Launchpad), easy updates, multiple licenses across a users account, use of itunes account to make purchases, etc
Seems like Adobe is just BEGGING for developers to take away their business. It's already happening with pixelmator, aperature, etc doing 80% of what adobe does, but at fraction of the cost.
I give it one more year, and Adobe's products will be entirely replaceable by App store Apps that will be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. Developers will be making their money, the apps will be cheap enough that piracy won't be as big of an issue, and everyone will be happy (except Adobe....and those heavily invested into their software model, and business).
It seems that many people pirate Adobe products because they want to learn the tools, but don't have a job to pay for it's high prices. Those who are anti-piracy seem to argue that if you have the tools and the know-how than you can easily make enough money to pay for the price.
Do those in the anti-piracy camp have major issues with someone who pirates Adobe products, but doesn't "profit" from them?....i.e doesn't make even enough money to cover the costs of the original products or even makes zero dollars?
Of course it is still illegal, but it seems like everyone's defense revolves around "if you make money off of a product than you should pay for it"..
I personally feel that pirating is wrong in ALL cases. However, I couldn't care less if someone pirated it, and profited in NO way.
Piracy aside, I do think it's interesting to see Adobe going this way, and I don't think it will pay off. At a time when Apple is enabling developers with it's App store to be able to charge less for apps, but earn more money with a higher volume of downloads. Not to mention the customer gets some amazing benefits by using the app store: integration with the os (think Launchpad), easy updates, multiple licenses across a users account, use of itunes account to make purchases, etc
Seems like Adobe is just BEGGING for developers to take away their business. It's already happening with pixelmator, aperature, etc doing 80% of what adobe does, but at fraction of the cost.
I give it one more year, and Adobe's products will be entirely replaceable by App store Apps that will be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. Developers will be making their money, the apps will be cheap enough that piracy won't be as big of an issue, and everyone will be happy (except Adobe....and those heavily invested into their software model, and business).
kingtj
Nov 13, 10:32 AM
If Apple was rejecting applications because they use private APIs, then that's just the sort of thing Hewitt was complaining about in the first place. He wants a "free and open" programming environment, with nobody saying "Hey, you can't put this on our platform unless you code it THIS way!"
Honestly, I think there needs to be a "middle ground" here. I don't see Apple EVER doing things the way Hewitt wants them done. This isn't the world wide web, where essentially, "anything goes" and your content gets viewed on all manner of devices and browsers. This is a proprietary, commercial device, marketed by a company that places a lot of value on being able to control all aspects of the products they sell (from the "opening the box" experience to the software, to the customer service experience years after the sale).
That said, the *review process* itself needs major revamping! Most iPhone developers aren't screaming about wanting everything totally "free and open". They're simply saying, "Hey Apple! If you're going to reject my app or an update to it, be PROMPT about it, and give me DETAILS on exactly what I can change to make it acceptable to you!" Truthfully, with as many apps as are being submitted these days, Apple will probably need to streamline the process. Stop manually reviewing each and every submission. Instead, do some automated code review to make sure certain "off limits" things aren't in the code, and then default to accepting the app. Provide an easy way for people to "flag" an app in the store though, so live humans can review it as requested for violations, and remove it if needed.
Reading some of the posts about this on Twitter, it may (or may not be) about the Three20 project (Objective C library for developing iPhone apps) that was developed by Hewitt. It apparently was using private APIs and may have been getting other people's apps, who were using the code, rejected. Conceivably, the Facebook app could have been using the same private API calls and was continually getting rejected. Supposedly, Apple has some new way to check out if you're using these APIs. Hewitt may have just got fed up with the situation and decided to quit.
Honestly, I think there needs to be a "middle ground" here. I don't see Apple EVER doing things the way Hewitt wants them done. This isn't the world wide web, where essentially, "anything goes" and your content gets viewed on all manner of devices and browsers. This is a proprietary, commercial device, marketed by a company that places a lot of value on being able to control all aspects of the products they sell (from the "opening the box" experience to the software, to the customer service experience years after the sale).
That said, the *review process* itself needs major revamping! Most iPhone developers aren't screaming about wanting everything totally "free and open". They're simply saying, "Hey Apple! If you're going to reject my app or an update to it, be PROMPT about it, and give me DETAILS on exactly what I can change to make it acceptable to you!" Truthfully, with as many apps as are being submitted these days, Apple will probably need to streamline the process. Stop manually reviewing each and every submission. Instead, do some automated code review to make sure certain "off limits" things aren't in the code, and then default to accepting the app. Provide an easy way for people to "flag" an app in the store though, so live humans can review it as requested for violations, and remove it if needed.
Reading some of the posts about this on Twitter, it may (or may not be) about the Three20 project (Objective C library for developing iPhone apps) that was developed by Hewitt. It apparently was using private APIs and may have been getting other people's apps, who were using the code, rejected. Conceivably, the Facebook app could have been using the same private API calls and was continually getting rejected. Supposedly, Apple has some new way to check out if you're using these APIs. Hewitt may have just got fed up with the situation and decided to quit.
mentholiptus
Apr 13, 04:51 PM
My FCS3 install spans 7 DVDs and weighs in around 50gb. FCPX as a stand alone app will be ~300mb, but they'll have to offer it on physical media if they plan on including all the extras that ship with the current suite. I'm sure it'll be $999 full, or $299 upgrade for the full studio. At least I hope so. Here I stand, cash in hand!
I really can't wait to see what happens with Logic.
I really can't wait to see what happens with Logic.
Sol
Nov 7, 02:49 AM
There are many possibilities for the graphics of the Macbook. The GMA950 is at about the end of the road. Maybe we'll see Intel's X3000. If not, one of Nvidia's or ATi's integrated solutions would be nice.
I hope we see the Intel X3000 in the next MacBook. The GMA950 is crippling the MacBook and Mac Mini; it offers mediocre 3D performance, requires a portion of system memory and does not support widescreen resolutions for composite output. The X3000 would not solve the memory issue but it will improve 3D and maybe support widescreen analogue output.
I hope we see the Intel X3000 in the next MacBook. The GMA950 is crippling the MacBook and Mac Mini; it offers mediocre 3D performance, requires a portion of system memory and does not support widescreen resolutions for composite output. The X3000 would not solve the memory issue but it will improve 3D and maybe support widescreen analogue output.
teme
Apr 11, 08:42 AM
Quite greedy strategy. Adobe's prices are so expensive, that you would expect a longer support for your purchase than one year (especially in Dreamweaver and Flash, because they are used in an areas where technology goes forward all the time). And anyway, probably all mid-cycle updates will be so minor that most users won't buy them - Adobe doesn't get money, they just piss off customers with these expensive service pack updates.
No comments:
Post a Comment