mark28
Apr 20, 05:47 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
chasemac
Aug 7, 04:40 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
thedarkhorse
Apr 12, 06:09 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/fcpsupermeet
There's supposed to be live updates on that twitter feed.
There's supposed to be live updates on that twitter feed.
Burnsey
Mar 19, 12:59 PM
When will you people realize that Obama is not in charge? You're not in charge either. Corporate interest rules the USA, Libya has 2% of the world's oil supply and a lot of companies have interests there. No one intervened militarily in Rwanda or East Timor. You guys can continue to have your little left vs right, conservative vs. liberal distraction of a debate, meanwhile the real people running the show don't give a rat's ass about any of it.
CrackedButter
Aug 26, 04:41 AM
If you haven't been reading the comments, it would appear MOST people are complaining about the more recent models. I would agree with most that the Powermac G5's have had serious issues and now recent macbook's... Apple needs to do one of the following ... Higher Quality Assurance testing OR better support cause right now they're missing both.
Maybe so about the recent models but...
G3 iBooks suffered greatly from logic board problems, I didn't have any, AluBooks when they came out had loads of troubles with their screens and the palm rests and eMac's had their fair share of issues as well. I didn't suffer either on either of those issues.
My point is: It doesn't matter if it is intel or PPC designs. Hardware is going to fail and its potluck on how when and why.
Maybe so about the recent models but...
G3 iBooks suffered greatly from logic board problems, I didn't have any, AluBooks when they came out had loads of troubles with their screens and the palm rests and eMac's had their fair share of issues as well. I didn't suffer either on either of those issues.
My point is: It doesn't matter if it is intel or PPC designs. Hardware is going to fail and its potluck on how when and why.
marksman
Mar 22, 03:14 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
LOL
http://i54.tinypic.com/dma9nn.png
LOL
http://i54.tinypic.com/dma9nn.png
EagerDragon
Aug 25, 07:36 PM
Kind of a rude reply to someone who is just posting their experience with Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
100% agree, there are manufactoring mistakes, the man should have a right to complain, lets not be rude. Sorry about that, people should not treat you like that.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
100% agree, there are manufactoring mistakes, the man should have a right to complain, lets not be rude. Sorry about that, people should not treat you like that.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:51 PM
I used to have a friend who would spend days tweaking the LINUX OS code so that his browser would look super duper cool.
How many people like that do you know?
Really? I would have thought he would have tweaked the code to the actual browser.
How many people like that do you know?
Really? I would have thought he would have tweaked the code to the actual browser.
cheekyspanky
Aug 11, 06:47 PM
wooooo
yea! i was gonna buy the Sony K800 but now i'll wait a bit longer if the iPhone is really coming out casue i want one!
The K800 battery life is rubbish I've found, I wouldn't particularly recommend one, same with the K610i.
I guess this phone will be sold directly though Apple, as it would take months for the mobile phone networks to take a new handset through all the internal testing stages.
I've never paid for a phone up til now (as is the case with most UK residents I'd assume) so it would be an impressive feat if Apple can persuade people in this type of marketplace to actually put their hands in their pockets for a phone.
yea! i was gonna buy the Sony K800 but now i'll wait a bit longer if the iPhone is really coming out casue i want one!
The K800 battery life is rubbish I've found, I wouldn't particularly recommend one, same with the K610i.
I guess this phone will be sold directly though Apple, as it would take months for the mobile phone networks to take a new handset through all the internal testing stages.
I've never paid for a phone up til now (as is the case with most UK residents I'd assume) so it would be an impressive feat if Apple can persuade people in this type of marketplace to actually put their hands in their pockets for a phone.
bkj216
Apr 6, 10:10 AM
And THAT's why I didn't jump the gun on a MBA yet. Now give me the new processors, and a backlit keyboard, and Apple's got my $.
(Be nice if they could bump up the battery life on the 11 too)
(Be nice if they could bump up the battery life on the 11 too)
dongmin
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
milo
Jul 14, 03:22 PM
A new Mac Pro for $1799? Not bad people!!!! In essence Apple is cutting the price of the current Dual Core 2 GHz G5 PowerMac by $200..... The same price as it is on the EDU store.
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 02:53 PM
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
They kind of cant do more detailed damage to standard cars. Premium cars are modeled exactly right their real counterpart. Each body part is completely separate from the rest and can be torn off in a collision. Standard cars are one big mesh that can be dented, but not broken apart. In order to give the same level of damage to a standard car they'd have to update it to a premium model.
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
They kind of cant do more detailed damage to standard cars. Premium cars are modeled exactly right their real counterpart. Each body part is completely separate from the rest and can be torn off in a collision. Standard cars are one big mesh that can be dented, but not broken apart. In order to give the same level of damage to a standard car they'd have to update it to a premium model.
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
leekohler
Mar 4, 04:08 PM
Except I was responding to a post that suggested heterosexuals stop having sex...
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
relimw
Sep 12, 11:36 AM
I could do with multiple cores. I render HDV in the background, render projects in After Effects, compress videos in Compressor for DVDs, burn Toast images, download with BitTorrent, while surfing the web and watching 1080i H.264 material. Those extra cores would come in real handy. :)
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
iGary
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:01 PM
I remember when the ipad 2 was announced. A samsung CEO said "we're going to have to rethink our copy of the ipad." Very innovative.
Macaroony
Mar 4, 03:53 AM
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Multimedia
Aug 6, 07:20 PM
I have satellite internet and have not been able to see keynote streams since getting it. Quicktime just opens up and says "Connecting" but never does.
Is there some other source that I can expect to show the keynote (in its entirety, please)... Living in the country is a love/hate thing these days.
Thanks.It won't be a live video stream. In the afternoon Apple will begin streaming a compressed HD recording of it. I guess you'll have to go to a terrestrial caf� system. Have you complained to your Satellite provider?
Final Eagles 10 Raiders 16 :p
Is there some other source that I can expect to show the keynote (in its entirety, please)... Living in the country is a love/hate thing these days.
Thanks.It won't be a live video stream. In the afternoon Apple will begin streaming a compressed HD recording of it. I guess you'll have to go to a terrestrial caf� system. Have you complained to your Satellite provider?
Final Eagles 10 Raiders 16 :p
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 01:59 PM
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
ivladster
Mar 22, 01:40 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
rdowns
Mar 22, 01:50 PM
Where are our strict constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans? They haven't had anything to say about this. ****ing hypocrites.
DocNo
Apr 11, 10:00 AM
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
I find this line of "reasoning" fascinating.
If Apple was really intent of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and totally re-defining the way FCP works then why, pray tell, are they bothering to (presumably) announce the new FCP to industry and film editing heavyweights?
That seems rather daft - if Apple is no longer catering to them, why announce to them?
How can Apple simultaneously be a marketing genius (it is the only reason people buy iPods, iPhones and iPads after all!) and stupid enough to target people they are getting ready to diss?
I'll have the popcorn ready for tomorrow as well as my running shoes so I can sidestep all the backpedaling that will be happening :rolleyes:
I find this line of "reasoning" fascinating.
If Apple was really intent of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and totally re-defining the way FCP works then why, pray tell, are they bothering to (presumably) announce the new FCP to industry and film editing heavyweights?
That seems rather daft - if Apple is no longer catering to them, why announce to them?
How can Apple simultaneously be a marketing genius (it is the only reason people buy iPods, iPhones and iPads after all!) and stupid enough to target people they are getting ready to diss?
I'll have the popcorn ready for tomorrow as well as my running shoes so I can sidestep all the backpedaling that will be happening :rolleyes: