OK, thanks. I could see how these would work as improvements on my MacBook. But on my 27" iMac none of these are going to be improvements at all, AFAIC. Oh well. I'll get used to them eventually, I suppose. Thanks again.
I've only vaguely been following this. What exactly does a "better Mission Control" imply? I use it constantly and couldn't imagine living without it. I wonder if the changes are going to be significant enough that I'll have to re-learn a bit?
Well, it seems like this is what they are talking about, if these rumors are even true, that is (emphasis mine): I've been looking to update my iMac for a while now. I could see a significantly improved display to be the final straw for me. It would definitely make Lara Croft look better when I kill her every few minutes in the new game (I actually had to take a break -- I was feeling guilty! LOL). :)
There might be some of that. But this just seems like another "build up our ecosystem and services structure to make our hardware (where our bread is buttered) more attractive and interesting to potential buyers" move. If they can sell a few more iPhones and Macs by creating Apple Music, then they've already made a profitable move. Having T-Swizzle certainly doesn't hurt, of course.
I didn't say that she had been doing fine without digital sales. Obviously that's not true. But if Apple had never created iTunes, someone else would be the industry leader, and Taylor would have been selling most of her music through them.
No, I mean that no one buys CDs anymore. Hell, in the last quarter vinyl sales outnumbered CD sales! Your typical teenage Taylor Swift fan probably doesn't own a single CD. She wants a new song or album, say Swift's "1989" she goes to iTunes (or another digital provider) and buys it. Physical media, while it will never disappear altogether, is very much on the way out. In some areas (such as music) it's almost out completely now.
Honestly? I don't think either of them needs it. Apple is trying something to expand their ecosystem and lure people in, like a gateway drug. And T-Swizzle, like I said before, is a complete hardass when it comes to business. But Apple has been doing just fine without the Music service, and Taylor's been doing just fine without Apple.
Was it the company with $200B cash and a Market Cap of nearly $750B that needed the marketing ploy, or was it the singer/songwriter/performer who basically is keeping her entire industry afloat by herself, and is worth over $200M (soon to be $300M) at age 25 who needed it? Just curious.