Sounds Good
Apr 14, 10:15 PM
Nah, no feathers were ruffled.
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
SFStateStudent
Oct 7, 11:31 PM
Let me see; was android even considered an "iPhone Killer" or a wannabe? This makes me laugh....:rolleyes:
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by benixau
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
Simply won't happen unless you're happy to shell out a half million dollars for a POWER4 supplied Power Mac.
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
Simply won't happen unless you're happy to shell out a half million dollars for a POWER4 supplied Power Mac.
beaster
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Nail on the head, imo.
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
rdowns
Apr 15, 10:49 AM
Snip a bunch of made up crap from a made up book supposedly written by a made up guy.
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
paulvee
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:08 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
What hateful nonsense.
What hateful nonsense.
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
CaoCao
Mar 24, 07:16 PM
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
Apple OC
Mar 12, 01:42 AM
best of luck with the complications at the nuclear plant ... on top of the best Japanese engineers, I am sure some others from around the world are there to help also.
this will definitely not be like Chernobyl
this will definitely not be like Chernobyl
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:03 PM
Just curious what NFC does in any Android device currently?
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
Of course you can work hard to drain the phones battery but LTE is draining the phones battery without trying. Nothing wrong with that, but Apple focuses on a single model and they have a set of requirements that they wish to achieve (battery life being awesome is one of them!).
If you don't like it, don't buy it, I guess?
Quote: "Google has begun distributing stickers with near field communication (NFC) technology to businesses throughout Austin, Texas as part of its Google Places roll out. The stickers allow users to tap their NFC-equipped phone on the sticker and access content and information relevant to the local business.
The stickers are manufactured by Smartag and measure 80mm x 50mm (3.15 in x 1.97 in) in size. Users who have the Google Places app on their smartphones will be able to see the business' address, phone number, hours of business, types of payment accepted, reviews, and more. The user also has the ability to rate and review the business right from their mobile device. They will then receive personalized recommendations in their search results based on their preferences."
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
I believe so. I am not aware of any other OS but Windows that has this feature.
slu
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Northgrove
Apr 13, 03:21 AM
Wow, from the live coverage this sounds great!
I would never have imagined a price cut like that, with all these new features!
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
I would never have imagined a price cut like that, with all these new features!
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
-010604.jpg "/jessica-simpson-kaptiva-")
citizenzen
Mar 27, 09:50 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
So long as they only change it in one direction. :rolleyes:
So long as they only change it in one direction. :rolleyes:
aswitcher
Jul 12, 07:10 AM
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
And if they back it up fully with software features in Leopard and iLife07, Macs should leap ahead as multimedia machines...dedicated processor for video to avoid any missed frames recordings or playing.
And if they back it up fully with software features in Leopard and iLife07, Macs should leap ahead as multimedia machines...dedicated processor for video to avoid any missed frames recordings or playing.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 10:28 AM
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
davelanger
Apr 28, 11:56 AM
This is because they have continued to put time and money in to iOS and not Mac. They have been lazy and done practically done nothing with desktops and their notebooks. They need to start putting emphasis on to Macs now.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how hydrogen could exlode, not exactly flammable really is it?
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
840quadra
Apr 29, 10:48 PM
First off, attitude aside, my calling the iPod's overall populairity a Fad is personal opinion, not a fact. Don't take it so personally. ;)
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,