PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

3 – Very little software was available at the time

This isn't true at all, back in the early nineties (and far on) a pc as a DAW hardly existed.
Terratec and Rebirth gave the start, but Protools was already market leader for years.
Photoshop started on mac, etc. etc.
---------------

Yet I remember you once being absolutely desperate about your pc.
Your exclamation at some point hit the problem exactly on his head:
'how can I even know if I have a software or a hardware problem??'...
a better description of the fundamental disadvantage of a pc can hardly be given.

Now you built a new pc system, this time you're knowledge payed off
But what would you have done at the time if you were in DTP business like you are now?
Thát is the question...

I still keep on saying that the choice for mac or pc is a matter of priorities (which is what you're saying also ).
Mony, satisfaction from building and selfcontroll to every inch, personal aversion against an OS or a company, whatever.
But of course I will also keep on saying the mac is the best solution for quality-ou-of-the-box and has the much better OS.

But you're still free to run Windows on a mac, even parallel to OSX...exactly, Windows as a window...

wayne wrote:hubird is my strongest connection to the Apple range of products

at least you didn't qualify for an absolute zero result

erminardi wrote:I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate MACs!!!
I must use it for my job but really hate it!!!

With my (several) PCs I can do anything and plus I have 3 mouse buttons + wheel

just wanting to know, what is your problem with the macs on your job exactly?
I really would like to know, I'm not teasing you
Is it more than not feeling as home on OSX as you are on XP?
The mouse thing is something from the long past.
I prefer a pencil btw

Fanboys are unnecessary and tedious on both sides.

Most arguments against a Mac (or a PC for that matter) can easily be seen as arguments *for* if you value certain things. To imply that this is a mark of stupidity, nerdiness or superficial attitude is a little fascist, no?

I use a Mac with a Microsoft mouse... best of both worlds?

And by the way, I scored 8% but I really like Macs (a computer that is made by Apple). Weird test

stardust wrote:Even our strongest Apple supporters are not fanboy enough to think big enough with apple corp's foreseen mindset....

well, you can do a very simple test yourself to find some background about this 'strange' finding.
Enter 'Steven Jobs' as search in YouTube and compare his performance in clips before 1990 and (say) after 2002
25 years ago he had a vision 'for the rest of us' and for sure he was a blessed motivator to push those projects - today he's a boring old fart multiplying shareholder value (imho).

Nevertheless he still made Apple the first company to establish a profitable businessmodel for new ways of music distribution.
Even more stunningly they are the first to receive a part of telcom fees if the providers supply their (Apple's) phone.

Unfortunately his visionary talents seem to have moved entirely towards the business side of things, while it originally focussed on the usability of technology...

The people Jobs won with his (original) Mac idea have never been considered 'fan boys' at all...
like it or leave it, but it remains a fact that the majority was in a leading role in their respective business position - often defending their decision against 'corporate rules'

cheers, Tom

this site is interesting...

http://www.justsayhi.com/bb/files/count ... 01&yr=2008

-greetings, markus-

0.1% only because sometimes i am FORCED to use quicktime.

astroman wrote:Nevertheless he still made Apple the first company to establish a profitable businessmodel for new ways of music distribution.

I disagree with this. Imo the model Apple established was using music sales to further drive very profitable hardware sales which predated iTunes as a music store even. Look up the margins that it's believed the store itself runs under, and you'll see why Apple doesn't hesitate to reveal when labels try to push for even better deals. Also why Apple resisted lowering prices in the UK & Eu (because it would mean renegotiating with labels who are already unhappy giving up the minor cut they give to Apple).

Neutron wrote:0.1% only because sometimes i am FORCED to use quicktime.

nah, use quicktime alternative. it works great.....

All you need to know about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwy4R8DfOT4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WrhmWkRfyAI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o24e5poG9Gg

valis wrote:

astroman wrote:Nevertheless he still made Apple the first company to establish a profitable businessmodel for new ways of music distribution.

I disagree with this. Imo the model Apple established was using music sales to further drive very profitable hardware sales which predated iTunes as a music store even. ...

well, before iTunes any commercial 'online music exchange' was considered a no-go due to filesharing and people's sheer unwillingness to 'pay' for anything online.
Apple established a brand with the iPod and an online music store that generated (at least) remarkable sales figures, when nobody would have given a sh*t on this.

They didn't invent the GUI either, but pioneered the (mass) market.
You certainly remember that IBM slogan ...power users don't need a pointing device... and employees of that same corporation theatened to be sacked if they used the word 'mouse' in public speak

cheers, Tom

oops, now it's up to me to write

What an irony

cheers, Tom

astroman wrote: well, before iTunes any commercial 'online music exchange' was considered a no-go due to filesharing and people's sheer unwillingness to 'pay' for anything online.
Apple established a brand with the iPod and an online music store that generated (at least) remarkable sales figures, when nobody would have given a sh*t on this.

Again though, the online store came later. Certainly I'd agree that Jobs/Apple managed to be the first non-label run business to negotiate the ability to 'sell' music in a protected format. The distinction I was making though was that the iTunes store isn't wildly profitable, and in fact its margins are so close that normally the business model wouldn't go far in a publicly or privately traded company (lack of dividends is a problem when looking for financing). Put Apple/Jobs's reputation behind it and attach it to iPod hardware sales and of course it worked out great.

I bitch about this because as a musician I think that Jobs still pandered to the major labels too much. Online delivery has the benefit of improving the margins on delivering music as a product since the distribution model is vastly simplified. With iTunes music store the labels get an even better chunk of the profits than they did off of cd sales, which is exactly how Jobs got them to go for the deal. Are they passing the additional profits on to the artists?

The corollary here is that major labels are now only be interested in the best-buys of the online world. Their own crappy attempts at putting up label-owned storefronts (so they could rake in all the profits) failed due to fractured DRM in the market and quite often a poor selection from even their own catalogs.

So now that precedent has been set by iTunes of selling music at close to loss-leader prices (and giving the labels most of what they wanted anyway), the focus is on amazon, yahoo etc, as the other outlets for music sales. These are the only other online entities that can offer the margins they want. In fact the major labels are currently using Amazon.com as leverage against iTunes, by moving their catalogs on Amazon.com into drm-free mp3 formats.

It occured to me that it might appear I'm railing against major labels or iTunes like an angry teenager full of conviction, when that wasn't my intention. I just think that as 'landmark' as iTunes seems to be it's only because when it came along it was in a vacuum as far as commercial entities go, and it being popularized by the mythos that Apple uses to insure its offerings makes it perhaps seem more 'blessed' by the tech gods than it really 'is'.

I also think that Apple's new Mac Pro is extremely agressively priced when you compare it to similar Xeon based offerings from Dell and HP. Neither Dell nor HP are yet offering the 800mhz fsb parts and both are also at least $1000 or more pricier than the base price on the Apple (especially since you'll wind up with a low level Quadro card you may not even need with the Dell or HP offerings). Apple has even caught up by offering the 8800GT, arguably the best 3d card out right now on a price:performance basis. The 2600XT is a bit of a joke but it's certainly still a lot better than the 7300GT they had on offering as a base model before.

The laptops are also extremely aggressively priced, and have the top of the line parts. Apple must be getting great deals from Intel, that's for sure.