fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
iJohnHenry
Mar 11, 07:20 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
Inhale420
Oct 11, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by j763
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
you gotta be ****ing kidding me. it's so amusing to witness the brainwashed and ignorant roam the earth. yes, i use the latest version of ie and browse these forums 10x faster than whatever mac browser you're using. i only have the default ie on my mac, because there's no point in installing other browsers when you have a pc.
i also have a hell of an easier time developing for the web using the tabbeb-based version of dreamweaver and coldfusion studio. i export 3ds artwork to flash, and the performance of my 2 year old 1ghz athlon is amazing. and when i'm done with work, I USE MY PC AS A GAME MACHINE. the only reason i have a mac, is because i really want to use them for 2d graphics, but apple really ****ing do something brilliant if they expect me to upgrade.
so can you explain what you mean by 'not recognizing' windows? that statement made absolutely NO sense. don't be such a bigot.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:36 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
deus_ex_machina
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
deannnnn
May 5, 10:23 AM
I'm wondering what the specifics about dropped calls in New York City would look like.
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
My roommate on Verizon has had one dropped call in the year that we have lived together.
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
My roommate on Verizon has had one dropped call in the year that we have lived together.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
Multimedia
Oct 25, 11:09 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?What planet do you live on? Apple not only aggressively adopted C2D into the iMac radically faster than anyone expected, they now ship top speed 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros in quantity as well only less than 2 months later.If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)You are out of touch with reality parenthesis. Certain professions can't get enough cores soon enough. These are industries with workflows known in the business as Multi-Threaded Workloads. It was discussed in depth at the Intel Developers Forum in September. Demand is pent-up for the 8-core Mac Pro and Apple knows it.I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think the major difference here is volume. The C2D was a VERY high-demand item, and Apple wanted to wait until there was sufficient supply to handle the orders they would receive. The 8-core MacPro is a pretty specialized item, so the quanitites are nowhere near as big an issue.Zactly. But they are still going to be in the tens of thousands and demand will begin very high. This is going to happen before Black Friday - November 24.
peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
space2go
Mar 20, 07:12 PM
Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
Actually if i were an evil MI exectutive i'd developed (or rather have made my techs develop) DRM for mp3 and just sold it as mp3(with some explanation in tiny fontsize).
With the mp3 format it would even be simple to have some explaining sound as normal audio content and the actual "protected" content in another frame so normal players tell you why you're wrong ;).
Marketed as mp3, supported mp3 players play it and once people notice they got suckered it's too late.
Of course a generic DRM system for arbitrary content is just as easy to do but selling it piece by piece sure is the better business strategy.
Of course as no DRM system actually can work you'll never get out of business selling updates.
�algiris
May 2, 09:28 AM
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
When things a blown out of proportions.
When things a blown out of proportions.
DavidCar
Sep 12, 05:49 PM
So what is this thing, anyway? Is it a MacMini with a Merom chip and a different set of I/O ports running a special version of OSX? Can I plug an ElGato Hybrid into the USB port, download some ElGato software to it, and use it to watch TV? Can I telnet into it? I've seen no indication if it does or does not have a hard drive.
ATD
Sep 26, 03:52 PM
Intel has a prototype CPU with 80 [yes Eighty] cores that they claim will be in production systems in 5 years (eighty cores each at 3.16 GHz)
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
:D Now that's a render farm!!
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
:D Now that's a render farm!!
100Teraflops
Apr 21, 05:09 PM
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
This is the device I've been waiting for 2+ years for Apple to come out with. Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans. This hasn't just killed the current Tivo, this has killed the gen4 Tivo that isn't even out yet. It's stolen its thunder by at least a year if not much more.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
You're crazy! Jobs just demoed a wireless replacement for a $5.00 cable that connects your computer to your TV. If you think this will change everything you're nuts!
First off Apple still has not managed to get much video content for their iTunes store.
Second, Apple has yet to supply any HD content.
Third, one of the biggest sources for high-speed broadband in the US is cable. So Apple isn't putting any cable company out of business anytime soon.
Fourth, Content providers like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. will not make the content available to Apple until after it has been released to cable or over the air. Otherwise they will loose significant money from advertisers for exclusive airing rights content.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
You're crazy! Jobs just demoed a wireless replacement for a $5.00 cable that connects your computer to your TV. If you think this will change everything you're nuts!
First off Apple still has not managed to get much video content for their iTunes store.
Second, Apple has yet to supply any HD content.
Third, one of the biggest sources for high-speed broadband in the US is cable. So Apple isn't putting any cable company out of business anytime soon.
Fourth, Content providers like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. will not make the content available to Apple until after it has been released to cable or over the air. Otherwise they will loose significant money from advertisers for exclusive airing rights content.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
Your profile name/avatar/signature shows how unbias you are...shame on these crazy Android users who can't see the merit of a different OS :rolleyes:
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 05:04 PM
You're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
nbs2
Aug 29, 12:06 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:29 AM
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
Nintendo has a truly formidable IP stable, I can't think of any stronger in gaming. I also agree (and as an Apple guy you shouldn't find this surprising) that it's OK to pay �25 for a quality experience (which Nintendo games so often deliver) regardless of the cheaper alternatives. I suspect there is room in the market for both.
There is just one more point to make... how many more copies could Nintendo have shifted if they had released on the iOS platform too?
My personal opinion is that Nintendo understand a certain kind of gaming in a way that even Sony and Microsoft don't truly appreciate. I happen to think that kind of gaming (the Nintendo flavour if you like) would translate wonderfully to the iOS platform and would be well received. I would pay �25 for Mario on my iPhone, and I think others would too.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
Nintendo has a truly formidable IP stable, I can't think of any stronger in gaming. I also agree (and as an Apple guy you shouldn't find this surprising) that it's OK to pay �25 for a quality experience (which Nintendo games so often deliver) regardless of the cheaper alternatives. I suspect there is room in the market for both.
There is just one more point to make... how many more copies could Nintendo have shifted if they had released on the iOS platform too?
My personal opinion is that Nintendo understand a certain kind of gaming in a way that even Sony and Microsoft don't truly appreciate. I happen to think that kind of gaming (the Nintendo flavour if you like) would translate wonderfully to the iOS platform and would be well received. I would pay �25 for Mario on my iPhone, and I think others would too.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:12 AM
The deal with religious people is founded in human nature; it's the need to have faith in something bigger than oneself. For some reason, the Church of Scientology comes to my mind when I'm writing this. Oh yes, here is my question: how many religions are founded on somebody's desire to exploit that need?
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
Diavilo1
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
Definately has piqued my interest. I may have missed this but does it have a TV Tuner?
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
No comments:
Post a Comment