iMikeT
Aug 26, 07:11 PM
Oh man.... I sure these new processors make their way into the PowerMac G5.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:27 AM
Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P
I did say that it was WILD speculation. Maybe I should get a job at ThinkSecret?! :rolleyes:
I did say that it was WILD speculation. Maybe I should get a job at ThinkSecret?! :rolleyes:
ctachme
Sep 18, 11:07 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
emotion
Jul 20, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
koobcamuk
Apr 7, 11:50 PM
BestBuy are some of the most notorious criminals in this country and Apple should pull out completely from their worthless trash retail stores.
How are they criminals?
Are they as notorious as Al Capone yet?
How are they criminals?
Are they as notorious as Al Capone yet?
notjustjay
Sep 19, 08:38 AM
All you people who keep whining about "But I want 64 bit!!!" need to step back and think about what possible benefit a 64-bit system will give you. Those of you who need to address more than 4 gigs of RAM are excused. The rest of you, tell me WHY you need 64-bit computing.
When they go Merom I want the MBP's and MB's to have useful, practical features. More ports, user-removable hard drive, better battery life, better video card, stuff like that. I'm waiting just as impatiently as everyone else, but the hype needs to be toned way down.
When they go Merom I want the MBP's and MB's to have useful, practical features. More ports, user-removable hard drive, better battery life, better video card, stuff like that. I'm waiting just as impatiently as everyone else, but the hype needs to be toned way down.
videomaven
Apr 6, 06:08 AM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
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.
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
Apple's not spiteful at all. Nah. /sarcasm
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 04:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Are you sure you understand what is happening here? Apple is presenting at the FCP Users Group Supermeet, no one is getting booted from the NAB show!
Booted from NAB? No. Booted from the SuperMeet? Yes. Like I said before, I hope that those who signed up before the 'Apple take over' will still have a chance to see the presentations that have been displaced.
Now step back for a minute and THINK what are the members of this group interested in?
Obviously they are interested in more than just FCP because the SuperMeet was a successful event prior to Apple's take over.
Lethal
Are you sure you understand what is happening here? Apple is presenting at the FCP Users Group Supermeet, no one is getting booted from the NAB show!
Booted from NAB? No. Booted from the SuperMeet? Yes. Like I said before, I hope that those who signed up before the 'Apple take over' will still have a chance to see the presentations that have been displaced.
Now step back for a minute and THINK what are the members of this group interested in?
Obviously they are interested in more than just FCP because the SuperMeet was a successful event prior to Apple's take over.
Lethal
pkson
Apr 5, 11:43 PM
I wonder if they're gonna add (slightly useless) stuff from iMovie like face recognition (It's a great idea, but it takes too long to go through all the clips..)
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
I hope FCP is just awesome beyond comprehension.
leekohler
Apr 28, 04:43 PM
Obama's too smart. :)
Oh snap! :D
Oh snap! :D
�algiris
Apr 6, 03:53 PM
What you and every other non-informed are missing is the Xoom lack of apps is a not really a con for 2 reason.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
1. Have you seen how those apps "scale" on XOOM? That doesn't make them optimized for tablets, just fit more screen space and even that doesn't work that well.
2. Bull.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
1. Have you seen how those apps "scale" on XOOM? That doesn't make them optimized for tablets, just fit more screen space and even that doesn't work that well.
2. Bull.
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 02:13 PM
1. You opened it in Illustrator, not InDesign.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6643/picture1hz.png (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/picture1hz.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I am fairly confident that rather than pointing to a conspiracy, this simply shows that when scanned, the operator had enabled some sort of "auto-text" option that attempted to read and convert then embed the raw text info in the PDF, as to make the text "selectable" in preview programs.
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6643/picture1hz.png (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/picture1hz.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I am fairly confident that rather than pointing to a conspiracy, this simply shows that when scanned, the operator had enabled some sort of "auto-text" option that attempted to read and convert then embed the raw text info in the PDF, as to make the text "selectable" in preview programs.
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
aswitcher
Aug 11, 09:11 PM
Apple can really lead the way with GPS if they start putting it in iPods and iPhones, as well as the next generation of portable Macs.
Even a Mac wrist watch with GPS and BT like the Suunto range would rock - and I am sure sell well.
Even a Mac wrist watch with GPS and BT like the Suunto range would rock - and I am sure sell well.
rezenclowd3
Sep 1, 03:42 PM
I imagine most of the standard cars will be skipped over for multiplayer. Anyone up for a Volvo 240DL race?? I doubt it ;)
I will reserve judgment for the reviews and when I put my dirty paws on it.
I will reserve judgment for the reviews and when I put my dirty paws on it.
CyberPrey
Aug 15, 12:19 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
Flowbee
Mar 22, 12:56 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.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
Chupa Chupa
Apr 10, 07:41 PM
There is a part of me that hopes Apple screws up and dumbs down FCS. This is the only remaining software that keeps me buying expensive Macs. If they turn FCS into a glorified iApp, then I'm dumping my Mac's and moving on to a build your own PC where I can run Linux and all of the industry standard professional apps.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
adjuster
Mar 26, 06:06 PM
There is one feature I really need--the ability to run TimeMachine on an encrypted disk. Does the full disk encryption in Lion allow Time Machine to run in real time. With Snow Leopard, Time Machine will operate only after the system is shut down.
gugy
Aug 11, 02:47 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
boshii
Apr 11, 11:32 AM
If it's been pushed that far back, LTE better be included.
I can't imagine we see our first LTE iPhone in 2013.
I can't imagine we see our first LTE iPhone in 2013.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
No comments:
Post a Comment