LOL...so Apple is supposed to be the only provider of music now? WOW
And for all those who love to quote Jobs on that "We didn't enter the search business" crap...
Google bought Android in 2005...Jobs knew damn well years before he made that stupid ass statement that Google was entering the phone market (a mere YEAR after Apple entered the phone market).
He wasn't shocked...and his anger was late.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
I agree, Apple just does most things better. I just don't think google & MS consider the "consumer experience" the way Apple does.
This is mostly true, due to the fact that their customer is not the end user. Make it good enough for other companies to use their software and services to hawk their own hardware.
Apple makes the whole widget and as such, the end user is their customer, so it is very important that the experience be insanely great.
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
Then I guess you can wait until later today/tomorrow for the "official" version. Personally, I'm satisfied with the Bloomberg news article.
Man, Google is getting really silly with so much copying.
Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Come on with the promotion. The only time I used iTunes was when Amex paid me $7 per credit card to d/l just one damn application. Come on Google!
But I guess there is a market for lossy sound and 720p video that's marketed as HD. Some people just don't want DTS-HD but cassettes like Dinosaur Jr.
720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.
The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.
Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"
I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,
720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.
Not to mention that 99% probably can't tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p.
Hell, just turn on the TV and go from FOX to ABC to CBS to NBC to ESPN to CNN and you will see a variety of different sources being sent in 1080 and 720.
I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.
I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...
"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...
would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).
Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.
What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...
Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).
How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?
Who would pay money for something that others will rip off (causing loss of the investment)?
What you propose would result in only content that is created:
-- by dilettantes
-- by people to further an agenda (fame, political office, etc.)
Even Michelangelo, Leonardo, Gutenberg, Bell, Edison, Ford, James Patterson, Michael Sparks, Bill O'Reilley... deserve to get paid for their creativity.
How much of a loss would it have been to the human race never to have had the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Mona Lisa, the printing press, the voice recorder, the Model T....
We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content
Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.
FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Does the world need another digital music store? Then you mention Amazon as an alternative to iTunes, you do realise that Amazon is very geographically limited for their music store?
Comments
LOL...so Apple is supposed to be the only provider of music now? WOW
And for all those who love to quote Jobs on that "We didn't enter the search business" crap...
Google bought Android in 2005...Jobs knew damn well years before he made that stupid ass statement that Google was entering the phone market (a mere YEAR after Apple entered the phone market).
He wasn't shocked...and his anger was late.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
AdBlock + Ghostery means you never see ads on YouTube. Not even in-video ads nor the ones preceding videos.
I've never seen the latter. Ever. I only heard that they exist from other people complaining about them. Never have I seen a single ad on YouTube.
Sounds good, Skil...I have Ghostery, will check out Adblock!
Ps. Always appreciate suggestions on apps, etc!
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
Well said!
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store?
Yes..
I have seen official press releases stating that they exist. Have you seen any official evidence that Google has licensed music?
Yup.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...wins-tech.html
Yup.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...wins-tech.html
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
I agree, Apple just does most things better. I just don't think google & MS consider the "consumer experience" the way Apple does.
This is mostly true, due to the fact that their customer is not the end user. Make it good enough for other companies to use their software and services to hawk their own hardware.
Apple makes the whole widget and as such, the end user is their customer, so it is very important that the experience be insanely great.
But I guess there is a market for lossy sound and 720p video that's marketed as HD. Some people just don't want DTS-HD but cassettes like Dinosaur Jr.
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
Then I guess you can wait until later today/tomorrow for the "official" version. Personally, I'm satisfied with the Bloomberg news article.
Man, Google is getting really silly with so much copying.
Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Come on with the promotion. The only time I used iTunes was when Amex paid me $7 per credit card to d/l just one damn application. Come on Google!
But I guess there is a market for lossy sound and 720p video that's marketed as HD. Some people just don't want DTS-HD but cassettes like Dinosaur Jr.
720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.
The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.
Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"
I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,
Sig: I wish the iPad had arrow keys for moving the curser.
I can think of several ways that they could do that very effectively -- especially beneficial when Siri comes to the iPad.
In this case they're really getting licenses from the music companies. At least give them cred for doing it the "proper" way.
Yeah... But...
I still get the feeling that Google's motivation is:
If all else fails... do it ethically!
I really don't get what direction that company is going.
720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.
Not to mention that 99% probably can't tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p.
Hell, just turn on the TV and go from FOX to ABC to CBS to NBC to ESPN to CNN and you will see a variety of different sources being sent in 1080 and 720.
I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.
I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...
"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...
would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).
Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.
What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...
Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).
How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?
Who would pay money for something that others will rip off (causing loss of the investment)?
What you propose would result in only content that is created:
-- by dilettantes
-- by people to further an agenda (fame, political office, etc.)
Even Michelangelo, Leonardo, Gutenberg, Bell, Edison, Ford, James Patterson, Michael Sparks, Bill O'Reilley... deserve to get paid for their creativity.
How much of a loss would it have been to the human race never to have had the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Mona Lisa, the printing press, the voice recorder, the Model T....
We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content
Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.
FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.
...and leave Google holding their "dangly, Wobblies!"
Now That's a mental image...
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Does the world need another digital music store? Then you mention Amazon as an alternative to iTunes, you do realise that Amazon is very geographically limited for their music store?