Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IF AMD IS SO GREAT THEN WHY....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 2, 2005 4:10:34 PM

DID APPLE GO WITH INTEL???

answer: because it's the OS/optimized programs that make the computer efficient, not the cpu clock speed.

so while Amd fanbois run test after test and spend hours downloading porn/warez, Apple user's are just busy creating stuff.

More about : amd great

December 2, 2005 4:13:26 PM

**checks troll lines**
no bites yet.
December 2, 2005 4:31:39 PM

*pulls up chair*

Mike.
Related resources
December 2, 2005 5:03:23 PM

The only reason AMD still exists is due to Intel's bad decision to lock their multipliers :D 
December 2, 2005 5:17:05 PM

Didn't I tell you to seek help the other day? Why haven't you done so?

-mpjesse
December 2, 2005 5:25:49 PM

I'm not sure whether to :lol:  or to :cry:  or to :evil: ...

:?




8O



:oops: 




I mean seriously, he's got a point, but it isn't the one that he was trying to make. :roll:

Yonah is proving that Intel really is doing well on shifting to a new low energy theme. Which, along with dual core (something else Yonah does well) is what Apple wanted. And then there's Intel's higher production capacities than AMD, which is also nice for major OEMs like Apple. So AmdMeltdown really is right that Apple chose Intel over AMD for a reason.

He's just totally wrong on what that reason is. :?

I'm so confused. How can I possibly even partially agree with Melty and not suck on the barrel of a 10-gauge? It might be :lol:  if it wasn't so :cry: .

And I think I'm addicted to these new :)  way too much! :D  Whatever happened to my preference for good old-fashioned ASCII smilies? Melty is a virus! He's rewritten my programming! Aaaaaaaaaargh!

:|
December 2, 2005 5:33:26 PM

Why should we care about what CPU those two crazy Brits decide to plop into their Fisher-Price "computers" ?
December 2, 2005 5:38:51 PM

I still want a Mac OS X for x86 install. :o  (On a dual-boot mind you. I can't live without Windows. :lol: )
December 2, 2005 6:18:16 PM

That's the most smiley faces I've ever seen in a post. Oh, wait... no this post has the most ever. :twisted:

8O :? 8) :lol:  :cry:  :oops:  :p  :x :evil:  :twisted: :roll: :twisted: :evil:  :wink: :?: 8O :D  :oops: 

:)  :lol:  :cry:  :oops:  :?: :idea: :arrow: :p  :x :lol:  8) :)  8) :x :x 8O 8O :D  :)  :(  :lol:  :cry:  :oops:  :p  8) :wink: :twisted: :evil:  :evil:  :x 8O 8O :)  :(  :o  :lol:  :roll: :roll: :twisted: :p  :? 8) :lol:  :lol:  :wink: :twisted: :x 8O :(  :(  :o  :? 8O 8O :D  :wink: :idea: :idea: :?: :p  :? 8)
December 2, 2005 7:31:24 PM

Quote:
DID APPLE GO WITH INTEL???

answer: because it's the OS/optimized programs that make the computer efficient, not the cpu clock speed.

so while Amd fanbois run test after test and spend hours downloading porn/warez, Apple user's are just busy creating stuff.


Who cares about apple? :wink:
December 2, 2005 8:23:08 PM

Steve Jobs.

-mpjesse
December 2, 2005 8:44:27 PM

And a few Apple users, but there aren't many of them. Oh, and maybe a few Intel fanboys....
December 2, 2005 8:52:25 PM

No I think it Intel wants to Save Apple from going under. But I have a feeling it going to make Intel look bad for Mirosoft.
December 2, 2005 8:58:38 PM

Interesting observation. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
December 2, 2005 9:52:40 PM

Quote:
No I think it Intel wants to Save Apple from going under. But I have a feeling it going to make Intel look bad for Mirosoft.


Are you mad??? Have you seen Apple's revenues? Or profits? They don't need help from anyone. As far as I'm concerned, they're the industry leaders in every aspect when it comes to digital music and content creation.

There's just one simple reason Apple switched to Intel: price points. Apple wanted more steps in their PowerPC's so they could price iMac's more competitively. IBM balked. Apple said fine, we'll switch to intel; which has 1 billion versions of the Pentium 4 and Celeron. There motivation is simple: more money. Apple is finally operating in "let's make more money and jack up margins on everything" mode. That's how you make money. They no longer tailor crap to Apple fan boys.

At risk of sounding like an Apple fan boy, Apple is here to stay. Steve learned his lessons and did his time in exile. He's back in full force. So long as he's at the helm, Apple ain't going nowhere.

Just my opinion. :wink:

-mpjesse
December 2, 2005 10:22:32 PM

I have to agree. When it comes to innovation and setting the pace of the industry, few companies if any can compete with Apple.

People may call the computers "fisher price", but if it wasn't for the iMac all the computers today would still be the same standard beige box. Now at least they are more compact and are black or silver. Whether thats an improvement depends on your tastes of course.

Then of course there's iMovie which completely changed people's views on multimedia and forced Microsoft to create Movie Maker. Now home digital video creation is commonplace to consumers.

This isn't even mentioning the iPod and iTunes which evolutionized the music industry.

In any case, the Apple-Intel relationship is nearly a perfect relationship. Apple gets the stable supply of processors they need, which are looking more and more decent with Yonah, Merom, and Conroe. At the same time, Intel gets a receptive ear for their plans to steer the industry. Intel has been trying for years to introduce small form factor PCs like the Mac Mini, and introduce home entertainment centres. These strategies coincide perfectly with Apple's visions. I'm sure the new Intel Apples will all be based on BTX which has been slow to pick up in the PC industry but certainly offers many benefits.
December 2, 2005 11:03:40 PM

Quote:
DID APPLE GO WITH INTEL???
so while Amd fanbois run test after test and spend hours downloading porn/warez, Apple user's are just busy creating stuff.


I’ll be posting a pic of the AMD I’m building in about a week. Let me just say it's enough to make you cream in your pants. And actually my AMD will be run games ONLY! My P4 will be for collecting spyware and porn.
December 2, 2005 11:32:33 PM

No it mainly due to the Ipod. Apple stock started going up after the release of the Ipod.
December 2, 2005 11:44:36 PM

Quote:

My P4 will be for collecting spyware and porn.


Exactly.

But since when does anyone care about apples on a hardware forum for CPUs? I mean unless they are putting $1000 P4 EE, why would a even care? Oh, and none of those AMD users are making stuff. Please, I saved my game serval times yesterday.
December 3, 2005 2:03:12 AM

I don't understand why everybody keeps feeding the troll. :?
December 3, 2005 2:07:27 AM

Quote:
My P4 will be for collecting spyware and porn.


LOL.

-mpjesse
December 3, 2005 2:12:09 AM

Who cares about stocks? They don't mean crap. It's just a way for companies to spend capital- that's IT. I'm talking about revenues and profits- that's what matters. Wal-Mart stock is down but they're making more money than ever before. Stocks have little to do with a companies actual performance. They can go up and down on a whim.

Anyways, true- apple is doing so well because of the iPod. But the iPod is pumping a butt load of cash into Apple. A company with a butt load of cash is dangerous. Like M$ for example. They've got so much cash the can afford to stick their neck out on stuff like the Xbox and Xbox 360. Same w/ oil companies.

All I'm saying is beware... Apple is going to get dangerous for a lot of companies- they just don't know it yet.

-mpjesse
December 3, 2005 3:44:20 AM

OS X will never OVERTAKE home OS choice. Dream on.
December 4, 2005 1:53:09 AM

Quote:
I don't understand why everybody keeps feeding the troll. :?


good troll are facing extinction.. they keep it alive to bash him more..
December 4, 2005 5:43:31 AM

Quote:
Who cares about stocks? They don't mean crap. It's just a way for companies to spend capital- that's IT. I'm talking about revenues and profits- that's what matters. Wal-Mart stock is down but they're making more money than ever before. Stocks have little to do with a companies actual performance. They can go up and down on a whim.

Anyways, true- apple is doing so well because of the iPod. But the iPod is pumping a butt load of cash into Apple. A company with a butt load of cash is dangerous. Like M$ for example. They've got so much cash the can afford to stick their neck out on stuff like the Xbox and Xbox 360. Same w/ oil companies.

All I'm saying is beware... Apple is going to get dangerous for a lot of companies- they just don't know it yet.

-mpjesse


Apple makes money. They might not have the market share that AMD or Intel have but they are to be respected. The Ipod and iTunes succeeded where everyone else failed. iPod is synonymous with portable digital music players much like the Walkman was for cassette/radio players.
December 5, 2005 5:33:16 PM

Quote:
I have to agree. When it comes to innovation and setting the pace of the industry, few companies if any can compete with Apple.
You mean when it comes to brainwashing children and reaping the benefits of it decades later, no one does it better than Apple. :lol: 

Quote:
People may call the computers "fisher price", but if it wasn't for the iMac all the computers today would still be the same standard beige box.
Except for the fact that stylish computer cases were starting to come into fashion notably before Apple introduced their funny looking iMacs. Apple may have helped set the trend, but they certainly didn't start it, and it would have most definately come along without them.

Quote:
Then of course there's iMovie which completely changed people's views on multimedia and forced Microsoft to create Movie Maker. Now home digital video creation is commonplace to consumers.
You make it sound as though almost every video capture hardware didn't come with it's own bundled movie making software for years before Apple even had any.

Quote:
This isn't even mentioning the iPod and iTunes which evolutionized the music industry.
If you meant de-evolutionized then I agree. Otherwise, again reaping the harvest of prior brain washing combined with following on the long-trodden heels of those who had actually beaten the path into existence in the first place. That seems to be all that Apple is good at actually. I'm not sure that they've truly come up with an original concept ... ever.

Quote:
In any case, the Apple-Intel relationship is nearly a perfect relationship. Apple gets the stable supply of processors they need, which are looking more and more decent with Yonah, Merom, and Conroe.
Well you finally got something right anway...

Quote:
At the same time, Intel gets a receptive ear for their plans to steer the industry. Intel has been trying for years to introduce small form factor PCs like the Mac Mini, and introduce home entertainment centres.
...but I knew it wouldn't last. Intel? Dude. Seriously. You're describing Via, not Intel.

Quote:
I'm sure the new Intel Apples will all be based on BTX which has been slow to pick up in the PC industry but certainly offers many benefits.
I'm not. The new Intel Apples are starting out as laptops. And even then, BTX only makes sense for Prescott. (And even then it's a joke to gamers as it puts even more heat load onto the graphics cards.) BTX sucks as a form factor. That's why it's been slow to pick up. :lol:  Stick a low power CPU into the mix and BTX doesn't even make sense anymore. I doubt that Apple will be interested.
December 5, 2005 8:50:04 PM

Now stop picking on the iPod. It really is a nice piece of hardware.

:p 
December 5, 2005 8:54:58 PM

MacIntel was about what Intel could afford.
Intel could not afford to have anyone else make those chips, so they could afford to give Jobs a deal he couldn't refuse. Oh no it's an ala-dell.
December 5, 2005 11:43:39 PM

Pffft... intel is doing just fine in the revenue and profit lines. Apple accounted for less than 25% of all PowerPC sales. Quantify that to all desktop microprocessor sales and you probably get less than 1% globally. All intel is getting out of this is good PR and press, which is valuble.

EDIT: i got curious and googled Apple's market share. Read below:

Quote:
Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.


So 1.8% worldwide. Hardly a significant gain. Still valuable none-the-less I guess.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel...

-mpjesse
December 6, 2005 1:51:02 AM

It's not about a few milion chips. I'm sure Paul would rather see Steve rot in hades.
Problem arises if Jobs moves to Amd. Not only does Amd's market share go up almost 2% (tell that to the stockholders Paul) but rather the big press headlines." APPLE GOES TO AMD" spread across every tech journal, and mainsteam rag in the country, may start some ripples in the board room.
December 6, 2005 4:13:39 AM

True. And 1.8% market share would sure help AMD. Not to mention that if Apple starts selling more Macs, AMD would benefit. Only time will tell...

I think Apple's smartest move would be to allow dual boot. If I could use Tiger I would- but I play too many damn games. If there was a dual boot option, I'd buy Tiger for internet, work, apps, etc and leave WinXP to gaming.

-mpjesse
December 6, 2005 2:59:24 PM

Quote:
Now stop picking on the iPod. It really is a nice piece of hardware.

:p 
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I didn't think I did. I picked on Apple for being so late to the market with an MP3 player. I picked on Apple for brainwashing children into thinking Apple from a very early age by repeatedly targetting schools. But I didn't really pick on the MP3 player itself.

But, since you bring that up, lets. :wink:

First off, white brick? How is that stylish? I don't get it. Black was better, but still, where's the chrome? Where's the color? :? It's just plain ugly.

Next, price. Come on. For someone with that much of a market lead by now, you'd think they could compete a little better on price.

The iPod Nano's screen durability. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Big oops there.

But most of all, way more than anything else, is software. First is the Apple-o-matic iTunes DRM. No me gusta. But hey, some don't seem to mind/care/even-remotely-understand. But worse, to force every file to be converted to Apple-tastic file format in the process of loading it onto the iPod? F that. As a power user, I encode files to my needs. Space, being a need, especially on something with the storage space of a Nano, means that I'll be choosing file size over quality. So when I encode my files to my needs, to squeeze them into exactly the storage space available, only to have Apple re-encode them in their own format with different file sizes so that things no longer fit? Hell no, Apple must go.

There. Now that is picking on the iPod. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
December 6, 2005 3:19:38 PM

Re-encode?

I'm not noticing any re-encoding going on as I add files to my iPod. I use the ACC encoder with 192Kbps bitrate... *Shrug*

File size isn't as important to me... I've got a 20GB model. Since a good chunk of my CDs were stolen just after I left for vacation this summer... I'm quite happy I had a lot of my music stored on my iPod. I can't remember the exact numbers... but around 2000 songs with only half of the unit's capacity used up seems pretty good to me.

Oh... and I've got a more stylish "brick". The U2 Special Edition iPod looks very snazzy compared to the others.

:) 

Now stop picking on the iPod.

:p 
December 6, 2005 3:30:14 PM

Quote:
But worse, to force every file to be converted to Apple-tastic file format in the process of loading it onto the iPod? F that.


I own 4 iPods (I know, I'm an idiot). I've the first generation, 3rd generation, 4th generation, and an iPod Nano. My wife has the nano and 3rd gen iPod. Anyways, I too used to hate iTunes. I used xplay to transfer my music. But then one day I sat down and decided to really give it a try. I haven't used another solution since.

iTunes does not convert MP3 encoded music to AAC. It will ask you if you want to when you install it, but all you have to do is say no. From then on you can freely transfer music to your iPod without hassle.

Additionally, I don't care what anyone says; with the exception of FLAC or Apple Lossless, apple's 64/128/192kbps AAC is superior to any codec out there. MP3 Pro is almost as good. People like to bust on iTunes about DRM, but what they don't bother to mention is you can download and rip songs using the MP3 codec. Downloaded songs has DRM but ripping doesn't. And you don't have to rip songs using AAC... you can still use MP3 or MP3 Pro.

You guy have to understand that Apple is stuck between a rock and hard place. Here they are trying to sell legitimate music and at the same time they have record companies breathing down their neck about DRM. Apple doesn't have a choice. No one does!

Quit blaming Apple for DRM and start blaming record companies. Apple is just the messenger. And a reluctant one at that. If Apple truly bought into the whole DRM crap they wouldn't allow non-DRM music (i.e., MP3's) to be transfered to their iPods.

-mpjesse

EDIT: as for the iPod Nano and it's scratchy screen- only a moron wouldn't protect his investment. My wife has the Nano- she kept the plastic cover that came with it on it until I bought a customized cover for $10. And if you think it's a "flaw" look at cell phone screens, the PSP, Gameboy, etc. They do the same farking thing! Give me a break! All my crap (cell phones, PSP, ipods) have screen protectors. It's not feasible to create a screen that won't scatch unless it's made of diamonds.
December 6, 2005 3:58:06 PM

Quote:
Re-encode?

I'm not noticing any re-encoding going on as I add files to my iPod. I use the ACC encoder with 192Kbps bitrate... *Shrug*
Well if you use Apple's format to begin with, obviously then it doesn't need to re-encode. :lol: 

Quote:
File size isn't as important to me... I've got a 20GB model.
I'd fill 20GB in no time if file size weren't important to me. :roll:

Quote:
Oh... and I've got a more stylish "brick". The U2 Special Edition iPod looks very snazzy compared to the others.
Yeah, but how many white bricks are there floating around out there? That ain't style.

Quote:
Now stop picking on the iPod.

:p 
But it's so easy. :twisted:
December 6, 2005 4:35:32 PM

Quote:
Additionally, I don't care what anyone says; with the exception of FLAC or Apple Lossless, apple's 64/128/192kbps AAC is superior to any codec out there. MP3 Pro is almost as good.

Ogg Vorbis is the best, not AAC.
December 6, 2005 4:43:32 PM

Quote:
Anyways, I too used to hate iTunes. I used xplay to transfer my music. But then one day I sat down and decided to really give it a try. I haven't used another solution since.
Two words: Windows Explorer. If the device can't be used by something that simple, then it's badly designed. There's no reason why any USB/Firewire/whatever external storage device, regardless of it's primary function, cannot also serve as an external storage device within the primary functionality of the OS itself. Added layers of obfuscation and complexity are not good design IMHO.

Quote:
iTunes does not convert MP3 encoded music to AAC.
Yes, it does. The iPod internally uses AAC only. Oh, sure, it'll let you copy an MP3 or whatever format you prefer onto it, but before it stores the file it re-encodes it. Your files no longer have the exact same quality/file size properties.

If you don't care, then it's fine. If you actually like AAC, who cares? I just happen to be a more descriminating customer than that. So are an awful lot of other people.

Quote:
Additionally, I don't care what anyone says; with the exception of FLAC or Apple Lossless, apple's 64/128/192kbps AAC is superior to any codec out there.
1) That depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish with the encoding.
2) That's still your opinion, and an awful lot of people in the world will disagree with you on that.

Quote:
People like to bust on iTunes about DRM
And with good reason. DRM by all legal interpretation is illegal by US law. It completely trods upon Fair Use law. It's only the massive fistfulls of cash that the RIAssA use to buy off legistaltion that it exists. Almost no customers would actually choose DRM if they had a choice. (Or at least realized that they had a choice.)

Quote:
You guy have to understand that Apple is stuck between a rock and hard place. Here they are trying to sell legitimate music and at the same time they have record companies breathing down their neck about DRM. Apple doesn't have a choice. No one does!
1) Funny, even the US courts ruled that P2P software itself is by its nature perfectly legal. It was only the questionable ethics of the companies involved that warranted legal action beause they (allegedly) promoted illegal use. Had they only promoted legal uses, there'd have been nothing the RIAssA could have done. Fair Use laws grant plenty of rights that DRM steps all over. Even the Sony/Betamax case sets legal precedent against what the RIAssA is doing. By law there is no rock and hard place situation at all.

2) There are plenty of other companies (hell, nearly all of them) selling MP3 players without pushing DRM and without forcing a proprietary format. So if Apple is so stuck, why is no one else?

Quote:
Quit blaming Apple for DRM and start blaming record companies. Apple is just the messenger.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I blame record companies far more. :lol:  I just also blame Apple for bowing down without even remotely putting up a fight. Hence why I don't own any iPods. But even DRM aside, I still wouldn't own any iPods because there are plenty of better options out there.

Quote:
If Apple truly bought into the whole DRM crap they wouldn't allow non-DRM music (i.e., MP3's) to be transfered to their iPods.
Are you kidding? They'd have no business whatsoever if they didn't allow people to port their existing MP3 collections or rip their CDs. **ROFL so hard it hurts** Could you imagine how much freaking money it'd cost to fill up even a 2GB Nano if you had to pay iTunes prices for each and every song? Now imagine a 20GB iPod! Come on. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you want to defend Apple, fine. That's your opinion and right. But you don't have to be troll-level stupid about it. Just because you're (obviously) an Apple fanboy doesn't mean you have to be completely lost. You're much smarter than that. Apple doesn't force DRM because they'd hardly sell a single brick if they did.

Quote:
EDIT: as for the iPod Nano and it's scratchy screen- only a moron wouldn't protect his investment.
So then scratch-resistant paint jobs and dent redistant-panels are completely useless on cars. Same for vinyl siding on houses. Same for polycarbonate lenses with scratch-resistant coatings for glasses. Need I go on? Only a moron would design such a high-tech device, sell it at such a high price, and not engineer it to be durable. This is especially true when it's a flash-based player intended to be more durable than its mechanical counterparts.

Quote:
And if you think it's a "flaw" look at cell phone screens, the PSP, Gameboy, etc. They do the same farking thing!
Funny, I've mistreated the hell out of my GBA, and it's barely scratched. Gee, I wonder why that is. Maybe because it was designed to be more durable? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Quote:
Give me a break!
A break is exactly what you'll be getting if you bought a Nano. :tongue:

Quote:
It's not feasible to create a screen that won't scatch unless it's made of diamonds.
Who ever said that it was?* But there's still a huge difference between an easily scratched soft plastic screen and a scratch-resistant one, and that's where Apple royally screwed up.

* = Although, synthetic diamond technologies aren't all that far away from being able to compete there. There's a new carbon plasma brick method that's really impressive, and it becomes more efficient with each use because the brick created gets its lattice from a slice of the previous brick, and each new brick is slightly larger. So each time the slice used to make the next brick grows, allowing the next brick to be a bit bigger. So the more it gets used, the more efficient it becomes. The weight properties of diamond aren't exactly stunning, and it should be interesting to see how the diamond cartel fights such a pure and cost-effective synthetic solution, but synthetic diamond production tehcnology is getting really close to commercially effective.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
December 6, 2005 5:32:43 PM

Quote:
Are you kidding? They'd have no business whatsoever if they didn't allow people to port their existing MP3 collections or rip their CDs. **ROFL so hard it hurts** Could you imagine how much freaking money it'd cost to fill up even a 2GB Nano if you had to pay iTunes prices for each and every song? Now imagine a 20GB iPod! Come on. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you want to defend Apple, fine. That's your opinion and right. But you don't have to be troll-level stupid about it. Just because you're (obviously) an Apple fanboy doesn't mean you have to be completely lost. You're much smarter than that. Apple doesn't force DRM because they'd hardly sell a single brick if they did.


Look. Take a pill and go eat a cinnabon. Almost everything I said was my opinion- not fact. You're trying to make my post look like something it isn't: a comprehensive study into DRM and Apple.

I'm the troll? LOL. I'm not the one getting personal and resorting to name calling. Was it necessary to imply that I am ignorant?

Quote:
Are you kidding? They'd have no business whatsoever if they didn't allow people to port their existing MP3 collections or rip their CDs.


Well duh! But you make apple out to be some lap dog of record companies. What I'm saying is if they were, they wouldn't allow non-DRM'ized music on their iPods. And in case you've missed all the news articles, record companies have tried tried tried to get Apple to do this.

Quote:
2) There are plenty of other companies (hell, nearly all of them) selling MP3 players without pushing DRM and without forcing a proprietary format. So if Apple is so stuck, why is no one else?


Why can't apple get away with not putting DRM in music? Because they sell more music than any other online service. Come on now! They've got a huge target on their back.

Quote:
Yes, it does. The iPod internally uses AAC only. Oh, sure, it'll let you copy an MP3 or whatever format you prefer onto it, but before it stores the file it re-encodes it.


PLEASE post an article from somewhere that iTunes or the iPod converts MP3's to ACC internally without telling you. I'd really like to believe you but when I use xplay to transfer music OFF my iPod that was originally an MP3- it comes out an MP3 on my hard drive.

Quote:
I just also blame Apple for bowing down without even remotely putting up a fight.


Had they put up a fight, do you really think they would have won? Uh no. And before you say "that's not the point" it is the point. Apple has to walk a fine line with record companies and the general music listening public. And so far they have. If you disagree with that statement- then ask yourself this: Why is iTunes and the iPod the number one selling solution? Marketing? Maybe. I venture to say that it's engineering and product superiority. Am I a fan boy of apple? Maybe. But i've tried other MP3 products out there (including the Creative Zen)... and in my opinion the iPod is the best. Show me a 4GB MP3 player as small and slim as the iPod Nano. Show me one that can view photos, album covers, and has a 15hr battery life. Show me!!! Show me the money! :wink:

Finally, let us not forget that Apple has yet to turn a profit on iTunes. They're actually losing money. iTunes is simply a way to get people to buy iPods- nothing else. Apple doesn't have any hidden conspiracies to take over the world and DRMize the general public. That's RIAA's plan.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of the stuff you posted because 1. I gotta go take a crap and 2. it's purely subjective and it doesn't matter what you and I really think anyways. :wink:

-mpjesse
December 6, 2005 6:54:51 PM

Quote:
Look. Take a pill and go eat a cinnabon. Almost everything I said was my opinion- not fact. You're trying to make my post look like something it isn't: a comprehensive study into DRM and Apple.
**ROFL** As if. It was your own post that did that. You're the one trying to defend Apple by claiming something as ludicrous as that they chose to allow non-DRMed usage because they don't fully support DRM. :roll: You're the one trying to defend Apple using super-soft plastic instead of something hard and/or coated for the screen on such an expensive device. You went uber-fanboy, and troll.

I mean have you even read that post of yours? You start out sane enough, but by the end of it you've turned into a raving loon. You're shouting all over the place with exclamation marks everywhere.

Meanwhile I'm laughing my asterisk off.

So maybe you should stop projecting, take your own advice, and chill.

Quote:
I'm the troll? LOL. I'm not the one getting personal and resorting to name calling. Was it necessary to imply that I am ignorant?
Man, now you can't even tell the difference between constructive criticism and trolling. Geeze. Stop being so defensive and wake up. You've gone troll and your brain has majorly switched off here. Telling you that you're acting like an idiot is no where near the same thing as calling you an idiot. Dude, you're smarter than that.

Quote:
Well duh! But you make apple out to be some lap dog of record companies.
That's because they are. **shrug** No other company has kissed RIAssA's asterisk like Apple has. None.

Quote:
What I'm saying is if they were, they wouldn't allow non-DRM'ized music on their iPods.
And what I'm saying is that's completely ludicrous. If Apple were to force DRM-only music on an iPod they'd be out of the MP3-player business in less time than it takes to sneeze. Have you even calculated how much it would cost to fill a 20GB iPod with DRM from iTunes only? Enough said.

Quote:
And in case you've missed all the news articles, record companies have tried tried tried to get Apple to do this.
Duh. They're trying to get everyone to do it. Look at how much any other MP3-player manu cowtows to RIAssA. Now look at Apple. It's painfully clear who's up RIAssA's bung and who isn't.

Quote:
Why can't apple get away with not putting DRM in music? Because they sell more music than any other online service. Come on now! They've got a huge target on their back.
**ROFL** Yeah, with logic like that, how can you not be a fanboy. Never mind that plenty of other companies went to market without DRM. Some of them have changed to DRM since. Yet Apple started out the gate with DRM, even when they had no market share whatsoever.

Besides which, a huge target means nothing when the law upholds that P2P technology itself is legal. Apple could have legally pushed a free P2P service. Instead they pushed a per-file DRMed store. If anyone had enough revenue as a startup to survive the visits to court to defend P2P, it's Apple. Instead they sold in from day one. Apple doesn't give a flaming fairy fart about DRM, one way or the other. They only care about profits. Which is why they are the most proprietary-software DRMed solution out there.

Quote:
PLEASE post an article from somewhere that iTunes or the iPod converts MP3's to ACC internally without telling you. I'd really like to believe you but when I use xplay to transfer music OFF my iPod that was originally an MP3- it comes out an MP3 on my hard drive.
Hmm ... I can't seem to find anything now. It's been ages since I've even given Apple a second glance. Maybe it was only the first iPods and they fixed it since then. Or maybe I'm totally mistaken and it was someone else that did that. **shrug** Beats me. It's been too long to remember and hell if I can find anything in a ten second googling. So maybe I'm wrong on that one. Hell if I know.

Quote:
Had they put up a fight, do you really think they would have won? Uh no.
Actually, uh yes! The US courts have ruled that P2P itself is legal. Apple could have done it had they wanted to. They clearly never even wanted to.

Quote:
Why is iTunes and the iPod the number one selling solution? Marketing? Maybe. I venture to say that it's engineering and product superiority.
**ROFL** Product superiority. Honestly, do you really believe that tripe? Please. The navigation is about the only thing that they actually have going for them in product superiority. No, Apple got their market for two simple reasons:
1) They've been brainwashing students to use Apple for decades. Do you know how many schools had Apple-only computer departments in the 80s? In the 90s? Even while the PC was totally sucking up the market share and no respectable IT department outside of a school would touch anything Apple? It was the smartest move that Apple ever did, and that was started waaaay in their past.

2) Macs have been expensive inferior PoS for decades. The only reason that Mac users clung to their babies was pure fanboyism. (Well, maybe there was a 5% of them that actually had a good reason.) So when Apple released the iPod, they had an entire market of loyal fanboys with more money than brains already etched out to buy their bricks. Okay, maybe that is a slightly harsh generalization, but not an entirely unwarranted one, as it actually fits frighteningly well.

Quote:
Am I a fan boy of apple? Maybe.
Dude, there's no 'maybe' about it. You went rabid to defend Apple.

Quote:
But i've tried other MP3 products out there (including the Creative Zen)... and in my opinion the iPod is the best.
Specifying Creative Zen is like saying you tried a Geo Metro when you decided that Ferrari is better than Porsche and Lamborghini. Creative sucks.

Quote:
Show me a 4GB MP3 player as small and slim as the iPod Nano. Show me one that can view photos, album covers, and has a 15hr battery life. Show me!!! Show me the money! :wink:
**ROFL** First, you make it sound as if the Nano is the ultimate device, which some actually find too bulky for it's storage capacity, and others find the screen to be too small, etc. The whole point is that the MP3 player market is flooded with all sorts of neato-keen devices to fit everyone's needs. But if you really want, I can pull things like these out with hardly an effort:
http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/x5/
http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/u3/
http://www.iriveramerica.com/prod/ultra/u10/U10-1GB.asp...
http://www.iriveramerica.com/prod/hd/h10_char.aspx

I'm sure if I actually cared I could find more.

Quote:
Finally, let us not forget that Apple has yet to turn a profit on iTunes.
Proof please.

Quote:
I'm not going to reply to the rest of the stuff you posted because 1. I gotta go take a crap and 2. it's purely subjective and it doesn't matter what you and I really think anyways. :wink:
Right fair enough. :lol:  Speaking of which, it's time to head home. That's enough for one day.
December 6, 2005 11:11:40 PM

If the ipod sucks so much, then why is it the the best-selling mp3 player out there?
December 7, 2005 2:38:34 AM

Quote:
why is it the the best-selling mp3 player out there?

Because it's the best selling mp3 player out there.
Mostly it caught on because it has mac in it's name. Now everybody has one, so everybody wants a newer one.
December 7, 2005 2:15:24 PM

Quote:
If the ipod sucks so much, then why is it the the best-selling mp3 player out there?
I take it that you're incapable of reading then, since I already went over that.
December 7, 2005 2:53:57 PM

Cause Apple sucks as Bad as Intel!
December 7, 2005 3:37:25 PM

Quote:
mpjesse wrote:
Why is iTunes and the iPod the number one selling solution? Marketing? Maybe. I venture to say that it's engineering and product superiority.

**ROFL** Product superiority. Honestly, do you really believe that tripe? Please. The navigation is about the only thing that they actually have going for them in product superiority. No, Apple got their market for two simple reasons:
1) They've been brainwashing students to use Apple for decades. Do you know how many schools had Apple-only computer departments in the 80s? In the 90s? Even while the PC was totally sucking up the market share and no respectable IT department outside of a school would touch anything Apple? It was the smartest move that Apple ever did, and that was started waaaay in their past.

2) Macs have been expensive inferior PoS for decades. The only reason that Mac users clung to their babies was pure fanboyism. (Well, maybe there was a 5% of them that actually had a good reason.) So when Apple released the iPod, they had an entire market of loyal fanboys with more money than brains already etched out to buy their bricks. Okay, maybe that is a slightly harsh generalization, but not an entirely unwarranted one, as it actually fits frighteningly well.


If that's the case, then how is it that the first Apple product I've ever owned is an iPod? Same goes for almost everyone else I know who owns an iPod. You can argue all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the iPod is the most highly reviewed MP3 player out there. Show me an article from a major source that disses the iPod. You won't find one.


Quote:
**ROFL** First, you make it sound as if the Nano is the ultimate device, which some actually find too bulky for it's storage capacity, and others find the screen to be too small, etc. The whole point is that the MP3 player market is flooded with all sorts of neato-keen devices to fit everyone's needs. But if you really want, I can pull things like these out with hardly an effort:
http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/x5/
http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/u3/
http://www.iriveramerica.com/prod/ultra/u10/U10-1GB.asp...
http://www.iriveramerica.com/prod/hd/h10_char.aspx

I'm sure if I actually cared I could find more.


Well then you better start looking harder. :wink:

The first one you posted doen't go past 1GB and it costs as much as the Nano 2GB. The 2nd one you posted costs a fortune, nearly $400 for a 20GB model. As for iRiver 1GB- are you kidding??? The iRiver 5GB comes close, but it's a hard drive based MP3 player. Nano is flash based. And have you actually HELD a nano? In no way is the thing bulky. Even after reading a million good reviews on it, i was still surprised at how small it was once I got it.

Quote:
mpjesse wrote:
Finally, let us not forget that Apple has yet to turn a profit on iTunes.

Proof please.


http://news.com.com/Will+iTunes+make+Apple+shine/2100-1...

Quote:
"The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't," Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller told CNET News.com in an interview Thursday after the launch of the Windows version of the store.

Schiller said the music store is close to profitability but is still losing money. Apple doesn't see the business as having much long-term profit potential either.


http://www.inluminent.com/2003/10/21/itunes-for-windows...

Quote:
Consider the economics of the iTunes store. Apple charges 99 cents per song that is downloaded by a consumer. Of that 99 cents, Apple pays the record label about 65 cents for licensing rights to the song, estimates Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co. Other analysts come up with similar figures. In addition, Apple incurs costs such as credit-card fees, which typically amount to 25 cents a transaction (which can include several songs), plus 2% to 3% of the amount charged. The result: On average, Apple earns less than a dime for each song it sells from the store.


Factor in the cost of bandwidth, operating costs such as programmers, equipment such as NAS storage, servers, rippers, etc, advertising and whatnot, I doubt that 10 cents goes to the profit line. There's almost no way to make a profit off selling songs. And what little profit anyone makes is a joke. The RIAA has made sure of that. Take Napster for example. Here's their Q3 2005 earnings results:

http://www.earningscast.com/index.php?cat=60

Quote:
Net revenue from continuing operations for the second quarter of fiscal 2006 grew to $23.4 million, 151% over the prior year quarter and an 11% increase from $21.0 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2006. Net loss from continuing operations, after income taxes, was ($13.6) million for the second quarter of fiscal 2006, or ($0.32) per basic and diluted share, compared to net loss from continuing operations, after income taxes, of ($19.9) million or ($0.46) per basic and diluted share in the first quarter of fiscal 2006 and ($16.1) million or ($0.46) per basic and diluted share in the second quarter of fiscal 2005.


They had a net LOSS of $13.6 million. So they didn't make a red cent. Even after a huge jump in revenue. It's hard to get a good read on how iTunes and Rhapsody is doing right now because both Real and Apple have other revenue sources. And they're not required to report where they made their money- just how much. So I think it's safe to say if Napster can't turn a profit- iTunes can't either.

So you say I am an Apple fan boy. Maybe. I think I'm more of an iPod fan boy because I don't any other apple products and never have. But you are obviously anti-apple. So how is that you are objective about this topic? If you don't claim to be, fine- but stop telling me to be objective.

-mpjesse
December 7, 2005 3:40:16 PM

**cries an iRiver**
December 7, 2005 3:46:31 PM

lol
December 7, 2005 4:29:47 PM

Quote:
If that's the case, then how is it that the first Apple product I've ever owned is an iPod?
I don't know. Because you have no taste? :tongue:

No, seriously though, what I described is the explanation of how Apple got such a market share so quickly. Following the bandwagon afterwords and/or simply making a choice to purchase one obviously has it's place in the percentages as well.

Quote:
Same goes for almost everyone else I know who owns an iPod.
Which is funny, because none of my friends or family members that own an mp3 player bought an iPod. None.

Quote:
You can argue all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the iPod is the most highly reviewed MP3 player out there. Show me an article from a major source that disses the iPod. You won't find one.
Which isn't a surprise since most review sites don't do negative reviews of major advertisers for some strange reason... :lol: 

Seriously though, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipod+sucks

Quote:
Well then you better start looking harder. :wink:
Meh. I'm far too lazy for that. The point is simple, MP3 players come in all shapes, sizes, and with arrays of features. The market is beyond flooded. It's ridiculous. But yet Apple has been pretty consistant in making bricks, even if some of those bricks are pretty slim.

Quote:
And have you actually HELD a nano? In no way is the thing bulky. Even after reading a million good reviews on it, i was still surprised at how small it was once I got it.
Held? No. Seen under glass? Yes. Personally, for a flash-based player, I prefer the ultra-small USB stick styles that I could drop on my keychain. I don't give a flying fairy fart about a screen for a flash version. With those storage capacities it's all about portability IMHO. Only with a 10+ GB model do I even start caring about extra space-wasting features like a color LCD screen.

Extremely dated. Over two years old for crying out loud. :lol: 

Ditto. :lol: 

What does Napster have to do with anything? Napster sucks arse.

However, if you put Apple into that search, you get this:
Quote:
For fiscal 2005, the Company generated revenue of $13.93 billion and a net profit of $1.335 billion, reflecting annual growth of 68 percent and 384 percent, respectively, and representing the highest annual revenue and net profit in the Company’s history.

“We’re thrilled to have concluded the best year in Apple’s history, with 68 percent year-over-year revenue growth and 384 percent net profit growth,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “This is the direct result of our focus on innovation and the immense talent and creativity at Apple. We could not be more excited about the new products we’re working on for 2006.”
Apple is most obviously making quite a profit. True, we don't know if iTunes is making a profit because those numbers aren't released, but using two year old articles with statistics before iTunes could even run on Windows is hardly a convincing argument. I asked for proof, and you give me vague conjectures.

Quote:
So you say I am an Apple fan boy. Maybe. I think I'm more of an iPod fan boy because I don't any other apple products and never have. But you are obviously anti-apple. So how is that you are objective about this topic? If you don't claim to be, fine- but stop telling me to be objective.
I'm anti-anyone who kisses RIAssA's behind. I'm not against Apple as a company. Hell, they're a great investment. They're making money again. They used to even make interesting computers. I own two Macs. (Though I don't use them anymore.) I'm not against any company based on the company name alone.

And that's where we differ. Maybe you're not an Apple fanboy, but you're definately an iPod fanboy. You're not even remotely willing to hold Apple up to any of their wrongs, you get uber defensive when someone else does, and you scoff anything that isn't Apple. You can't get more fanboy than that.

Where as I analyze each situation as it is. I don't give a fig newton what name is on anything. I weigh the specifics. If Apple suddenly turned around, made an iPod I actually like the design of, allowed Windows Explorer to access the thing like any other external storage device, stopped pushing their own proprietary codec so hard, ensured that the player's design was durable, and sold this player at a decent price, I'd probably buy one. Hell, I might even buy one if they only did half of those things. You never know. But be sure that when I look at buying a new anything I look at the facts and balance what suits me best for the most affordable price. I don't inanely defend brand names just because.

(Though some companies will sufficiently piss me off that I will blacklist them. Take VIA for example. Apple however has not made my blacklist yet.)
December 7, 2005 4:55:42 PM

Without the huge paragraphs...

I like my iPod. It does what I want it to do. It does it well. That's all I ask.

I give exactly 2 sh!ts if I can access it with Windows Explorer or not. If it will play the music I want it to play with minimim hassle (which it does), that's all I care about. Plus, I LOVE the click wheel... that is one of the best things about the iPod. It may be a brick, but I don't see a lot of MP3 players out there I'd consider "sexy".
December 7, 2005 5:22:04 PM

And hey, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. It was just when things moved past opinion into fanboy-defensive troll slap-happy that I objected.

But I do have to wonder how you can call it a minimum hassle to play your music when it doesn't get easier than copying files over with Windows Explorer. :? I respect your opinion, but I don't even remotely comprehend the logic. Can you explain it for me?
December 7, 2005 5:31:19 PM

Once you get iTunes sync'd with your iPod and music library, you don't even have to copy over the music. iTunes will figure it out and do it automatically as soon as you connect your iPod. It will even update tag information. It's a true syncing process. The same goes for album covers. Within literally 15 seconds, iTunes copied over approximately 50 new album covers that I found on the net to my wife's nano.

I'm not exaggerating on any of this. I don't have to hit a single button for ANY of that to happen. Only thing I have to do is connect my iPod to the USB port.

Tell me how windows explorer can do that?

-mpjesse
!