lmalave
Oct 16, 10:53 PM
Am I the only one who plugs my phone in at night? All this worry over the battery life seems kind of silly. As long as it lasts the day...
Hmm...well it needs to be a lot better than the 1st generation of music phones. My Sony Ericsson probably only gets 2 or 3 hours of music playback, and I don't think Apple would even launch such a crippled music phone. Since Apple has their iPod nanos up to 24 hours of music playback, I'm hoping they can get the iPhone to at least 8 to 10 hours of music playback. The concerns about battery life mentioned aren't encouraging, though. Maybe they were only able to get the music playing up to 6 or 8 hours max. I would still buy it though, since I only need at most 2 or 3 hours a day of playback anyway (for the gym and for the commute).
Hmm...well it needs to be a lot better than the 1st generation of music phones. My Sony Ericsson probably only gets 2 or 3 hours of music playback, and I don't think Apple would even launch such a crippled music phone. Since Apple has their iPod nanos up to 24 hours of music playback, I'm hoping they can get the iPhone to at least 8 to 10 hours of music playback. The concerns about battery life mentioned aren't encouraging, though. Maybe they were only able to get the music playing up to 6 or 8 hours max. I would still buy it though, since I only need at most 2 or 3 hours a day of playback anyway (for the gym and for the commute).
innominato5090
May 5, 11:01 AM
Take a look at the light bleeding in the lower right. I'm thinking of returning it, and getting another unit. Thought I'd post first to see if this is normal with all units.
yup, go to apple and ask for a replacement.
yup, go to apple and ask for a replacement.
snberk103
Mar 22, 11:13 AM
Great thread for all of us green thumbs out there! Of all the specialized forums I have belonged to, none of the folks are as helpful as the photographers. IMHO
... Although, one can look to the future too! This is the beauty of photography! There are no rules, limits, or boundaries, hence zero gravity! :)
Two Thumbs Up on photographers are the nicest people!
I have the good fortune to live in a small community that is crawling with photographers. The entire island is 10,000 people and we have close to a dozen internationally recognized/award winning shooters. We have one camera club, plus two and half informal groups of photographers (roughly grouped from amateurs to retired pros (with lots of overlap in the groups) that mount between 2 to 4 annual group shows in the local community art's complex. The longest running show hangs close to a 100 photos each year, and we have a waiting list of people trying to get into the group. One of the rules is that the images shown have to be "New" to island.
Most of the other non-media specific art groups/guilds accept photographers as full members (rare!) so in fact one can come and visit my little island just about anytime, and see some photography hanging in show somewhere. Just like a big city, eh?
And - almost without exception - the nicest people on this island of ours are photographers. We socialize together. We bump into each other on the street. We have dinner and beers together. We are constantly thinking up new shows we should be doing. Sigh. Sometimes (just occasionally!) I wish I could go out and not talk shop. "Too many d*mn photographers!" I've been heard to say....
Any way.... yes.... photographers are good people....
... Although, one can look to the future too! This is the beauty of photography! There are no rules, limits, or boundaries, hence zero gravity! :)
Two Thumbs Up on photographers are the nicest people!
I have the good fortune to live in a small community that is crawling with photographers. The entire island is 10,000 people and we have close to a dozen internationally recognized/award winning shooters. We have one camera club, plus two and half informal groups of photographers (roughly grouped from amateurs to retired pros (with lots of overlap in the groups) that mount between 2 to 4 annual group shows in the local community art's complex. The longest running show hangs close to a 100 photos each year, and we have a waiting list of people trying to get into the group. One of the rules is that the images shown have to be "New" to island.
Most of the other non-media specific art groups/guilds accept photographers as full members (rare!) so in fact one can come and visit my little island just about anytime, and see some photography hanging in show somewhere. Just like a big city, eh?
And - almost without exception - the nicest people on this island of ours are photographers. We socialize together. We bump into each other on the street. We have dinner and beers together. We are constantly thinking up new shows we should be doing. Sigh. Sometimes (just occasionally!) I wish I could go out and not talk shop. "Too many d*mn photographers!" I've been heard to say....
Any way.... yes.... photographers are good people....
cupcakes2000
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
No. Lens focal length is a function of the lens, not the body. I can take a lens with a focal length of 17mm from a full frame camera and put it on a crop camera, and the lens will keep the same focal length of 17 mm. Now, the amount of the imgae circle recorded on the crop camera vs. the full frame camera will be different. However, this has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens.
In short. LENS FOCAL LENGHT DOES NOT VARY WITH SENSOR SIZE.
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
In short. LENS FOCAL LENGHT DOES NOT VARY WITH SENSOR SIZE.
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
MacRumorUser
Mar 10, 04:09 AM
Does anybody else beside me think the launch titles suck?
I was gonna pre-order the 3DS but I don't like any of the games. I'd be buying some random game just to try out a $250 piece of hardware.
Yes... They do.
If it wasn't for the fact that the store is offering a trade up policy for my dsi xl for €110 as opposed to €260 then I would not be getting one at this time.
But with the reduction in price / trade up for me it makes better sense to get one now whilst this offer is open than wait 6 mnths for more games and have to pay full price for the 3ds hardware.
I was gonna pre-order the 3DS but I don't like any of the games. I'd be buying some random game just to try out a $250 piece of hardware.
Yes... They do.
If it wasn't for the fact that the store is offering a trade up policy for my dsi xl for €110 as opposed to €260 then I would not be getting one at this time.
But with the reduction in price / trade up for me it makes better sense to get one now whilst this offer is open than wait 6 mnths for more games and have to pay full price for the 3ds hardware.
BornAgainMac
Apr 1, 09:20 AM
2011. People are still watching TV? Scary.
I remember Spock from Star Trek basically made a comment about TV like that. I believe the episode was called "Bread and Circuses". Spock didn't say Scary but since he is half human he probably thought that.
I remember Spock from Star Trek basically made a comment about TV like that. I believe the episode was called "Bread and Circuses". Spock didn't say Scary but since he is half human he probably thought that.
rdowns
Apr 23, 07:35 AM
Take it from a New Yorker, he's a ****ing windbag who lies about everything and I mean everything. Just do a bit of Googling.
Would you want Donald Trump as our president? I am really on the fence for this one.
What could possibly have you on the fence? Was it the birther issue? Him taking his casinos into bankruptcy 3 times? His Iraq solution to just "take all the oil"? His China solution to renegotiate? His general I'm a dumb, rich, ****ing American badass attitude? His public feuds with Rosie O'Donnell?
This is the first time I am allowed to vote so I am paying attention to politics more than ever. I mean it would be good to have a completely loaded president so he "can" spend some of his money for the economy, which Trump says he will do.
LOLz. His wealth is way over-estimated. He couldn't pay for our military for more than a week or two before going broke, if that.
We all know that all politicians are liars though. Trump has changed his mind about a lot of things such as abortion, socialism, and Obama's health care plan. A little while back Trump voted for the three previous things I said but has recently changed his mind. This makes me think he will be unstable when it comes to decisions as a president. Also I don't take him seriously. So what do you think about Trump for president?
Trump is on record having an opposite position on every issue that he has weighed in on. Pathetic.
So how can you be on the fence and not take him seriously?
Would you want Donald Trump as our president? I am really on the fence for this one.
What could possibly have you on the fence? Was it the birther issue? Him taking his casinos into bankruptcy 3 times? His Iraq solution to just "take all the oil"? His China solution to renegotiate? His general I'm a dumb, rich, ****ing American badass attitude? His public feuds with Rosie O'Donnell?
This is the first time I am allowed to vote so I am paying attention to politics more than ever. I mean it would be good to have a completely loaded president so he "can" spend some of his money for the economy, which Trump says he will do.
LOLz. His wealth is way over-estimated. He couldn't pay for our military for more than a week or two before going broke, if that.
We all know that all politicians are liars though. Trump has changed his mind about a lot of things such as abortion, socialism, and Obama's health care plan. A little while back Trump voted for the three previous things I said but has recently changed his mind. This makes me think he will be unstable when it comes to decisions as a president. Also I don't take him seriously. So what do you think about Trump for president?
Trump is on record having an opposite position on every issue that he has weighed in on. Pathetic.
So how can you be on the fence and not take him seriously?
WannaGoMac
Apr 5, 05:14 PM
this is on the new macbook? Weird.
This is all they have now
MagSafe power port
Gigabit Ethernet port
Mini DisplayPort
Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)
Audio in/out
Kensington lock slot
This is all they have now
MagSafe power port
Gigabit Ethernet port
Mini DisplayPort
Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)
Audio in/out
Kensington lock slot
sheepopo39
Mar 31, 05:18 PM
For me, it's currently at around 120.9�/Litre
Grimace
Sep 19, 04:25 PM
I'm a bit confused, because, I can't update the EFI ... I strictly followed the instructions. Poweron while holding the power button... then some secondes after speed flashs of the led (I mean stroboscopic) and then just a long BIIIIIP and normal boot after that ...
Tried many times, any hints ?
Thx a lot
I'm in the same boat. It beeps, I see the update bar but the DVD drive pops open and then shuts -- then normal boot. Ugh!
Tried many times, any hints ?
Thx a lot
I'm in the same boat. It beeps, I see the update bar but the DVD drive pops open and then shuts -- then normal boot. Ugh!
TMRaven
May 10, 01:51 PM
Choosing to run it in osx over windows is just stubborness if you ask me. When all's said and done, you're getting the exact same experience on windows side while in-game, except higher performance.
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)
Sensamic
Apr 7, 04:55 PM
This dock means that the future iPhones will sync throught thunderbolt with macs and with usb 3.0 for pcs!!! I guess thins means macs wont come with usb 3.0, so maybe an adapter would come out sometime...
I repeat: sync to macs with thunderbolt and sync to pcs with usb 3.0!!
I repeat: sync to macs with thunderbolt and sync to pcs with usb 3.0!!
wilburpan
Sep 20, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
...head to head, single cpu to single cpu th3y got us beat.
Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.
This was a real eye opener for me.
...head to head, single cpu to single cpu th3y got us beat.
Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.
This was a real eye opener for me.
NewGenAdam
Apr 12, 06:08 PM
All mah customers is scared of you ... you bein' black and all ... so they'all stand in the other line and make my other checker do all the work.
So's I gots to fire you and hire me more white checkers.
Yeah. Let's bring back those days ... when America was great. :rolleyes:
Haha your golden age?
Really though.
We can choose not to employ someone born stupid because they'd do a worse job so why can we not also choose not to employ somebody born of a particular ethnicity if they'd do a worse job because of it?
To clarify, I don't think we should practise racism. Please never quote me out of context. I'm just amused by the logical inconsistency if we accept that ethnicity may play a part in ability (which it probably doesn't, but it's an interesting thought path to follow): then can we choose against someone for it in the same way we choose against somebody born stupid?
I propose that we should be able to choose who to employ (and everything else) by how well they'd do the job, with one qualification: we cannot choose against them if our reason for doing so would be because discrimination against them would compromise their ability to do a job. Because ethnicity is not an absolute disadvantage; at most it can be argued as a social disadvantage in intolerant, racist countries.
Not having the 'disadvantage by social discrimination' clause would be implicitly condoning society's discrimination in allowing others to act by its harmful consequences.
Sorry if my words fell onto the thread all jumbled. I think this makes some sense.
So's I gots to fire you and hire me more white checkers.
Yeah. Let's bring back those days ... when America was great. :rolleyes:
Haha your golden age?
Really though.
We can choose not to employ someone born stupid because they'd do a worse job so why can we not also choose not to employ somebody born of a particular ethnicity if they'd do a worse job because of it?
To clarify, I don't think we should practise racism. Please never quote me out of context. I'm just amused by the logical inconsistency if we accept that ethnicity may play a part in ability (which it probably doesn't, but it's an interesting thought path to follow): then can we choose against someone for it in the same way we choose against somebody born stupid?
I propose that we should be able to choose who to employ (and everything else) by how well they'd do the job, with one qualification: we cannot choose against them if our reason for doing so would be because discrimination against them would compromise their ability to do a job. Because ethnicity is not an absolute disadvantage; at most it can be argued as a social disadvantage in intolerant, racist countries.
Not having the 'disadvantage by social discrimination' clause would be implicitly condoning society's discrimination in allowing others to act by its harmful consequences.
Sorry if my words fell onto the thread all jumbled. I think this makes some sense.
strabes
Apr 5, 05:20 PM
Headset jack was removed, so had to buy a USB headset for example.
I think you're misinformed. The current models simply combined the 1/8" in and out jacks into one port (TRRS), just like the port on the iPhone. For example, you can plug your iPhone headphones into your Mac for use as a headset.
It also supports optical via mini-TOSlink: http://www.amazon.com/6ft-Toslink-Mini-Cable/dp/B000FMXKC8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302041837&sr=8-2
I think you're misinformed. The current models simply combined the 1/8" in and out jacks into one port (TRRS), just like the port on the iPhone. For example, you can plug your iPhone headphones into your Mac for use as a headset.
It also supports optical via mini-TOSlink: http://www.amazon.com/6ft-Toslink-Mini-Cable/dp/B000FMXKC8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302041837&sr=8-2
cpbrown
Oct 24, 03:28 PM
going to get there at about 1730; coming to london from uni by train, lectures finish at 4ish, just want to get a tshirt; already ordered lepoard online.
doubt there's going to be a massive queue, and its closed between 4 and 6pm, so 5:30 sounds like a sensible time to me.
how about meet by the computer with macrumors up on the screen?? preferably on the dual 30" ones.
doubt there's going to be a massive queue, and its closed between 4 and 6pm, so 5:30 sounds like a sensible time to me.
how about meet by the computer with macrumors up on the screen?? preferably on the dual 30" ones.
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 14, 01:47 PM
Satan appears as an angel of light and he's got two posters hear on this thread at least, but not the other poster.
Ugg
Apr 29, 11:58 AM
The Economist, that stalwart of conservatism has this to say (http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944) about the state of US transportation.
America is known for its huge highways, but ..... American traffic congestion is worse than western Europe�s. ....More time on lower quality roads also makes for a deadlier transport network. With some 15 deaths a year for every 100,000 people, the road fatality rate in America is 60% above the OECD average; 33,000 Americans were killed on roads in 2010.
America�s economy remains the world�s largest; its citizens are among the world�s richest. The government is not constitutionally opposed to grand public works. The country stitched its continental expanse together through two centuries of ambitious earthmoving. Almost from the beginning of the republic the federal government encouraged the building of critical canals and roadways. In the 19th century Congress provided funding for a transcontinental railway linking the east and west coasts. And between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.
But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America�s spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years. Over that time funds for both capital investments and operations and maintenance have steadily dropped (see chart 2).
Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD�s International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.
America�s petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993 (see chart 3). While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund, with $30 billion since 2008.
Other rich nations avoid these problems. The cost of car ownership in Germany is 50% higher than it is in America, thanks to higher taxes on cars and petrol and higher fees on drivers� licences. The result is a more sustainably funded transport system. In 2006 German road fees brought in 2.6 times the money spent building and maintaining roads. American road taxes collected at the federal, state and local level covered just 72% of the money spent on highways that year, according to the Brookings Institution, a think-tank.
Supporters of a National Infrastructure Bank�Mr Obama among them�believe it offers America just such a shortcut. A bank would use strict cost-benefit analyses as a matter of course, and could make interstate investments easier. A European analogue, the European Investment Bank, has turned out to work well. Co-owned by the member states of the European Union, the EIB holds some $300 billion in capital which it uses to provide loans to deserving projects across the continent. EIB funding may provide up to half the cost for projects that satisfy EU objectives and are judged cost-effective by a panel of experts.
American leaders hungrily eye the private money the EIB attracts, spying a potential solution to their own fiscal dilemma.
The upshot is that we built too much, too fast and are unwilling to pay to maintain it although we continue to build bridges and highways (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/04/28/third-houston-outerbelt-would-turn-prairies-into-texas-toast/) to nowhere.
America is known for its huge highways, but ..... American traffic congestion is worse than western Europe�s. ....More time on lower quality roads also makes for a deadlier transport network. With some 15 deaths a year for every 100,000 people, the road fatality rate in America is 60% above the OECD average; 33,000 Americans were killed on roads in 2010.
America�s economy remains the world�s largest; its citizens are among the world�s richest. The government is not constitutionally opposed to grand public works. The country stitched its continental expanse together through two centuries of ambitious earthmoving. Almost from the beginning of the republic the federal government encouraged the building of critical canals and roadways. In the 19th century Congress provided funding for a transcontinental railway linking the east and west coasts. And between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.
But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America�s spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years. Over that time funds for both capital investments and operations and maintenance have steadily dropped (see chart 2).
Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD�s International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.
America�s petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993 (see chart 3). While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund, with $30 billion since 2008.
Other rich nations avoid these problems. The cost of car ownership in Germany is 50% higher than it is in America, thanks to higher taxes on cars and petrol and higher fees on drivers� licences. The result is a more sustainably funded transport system. In 2006 German road fees brought in 2.6 times the money spent building and maintaining roads. American road taxes collected at the federal, state and local level covered just 72% of the money spent on highways that year, according to the Brookings Institution, a think-tank.
Supporters of a National Infrastructure Bank�Mr Obama among them�believe it offers America just such a shortcut. A bank would use strict cost-benefit analyses as a matter of course, and could make interstate investments easier. A European analogue, the European Investment Bank, has turned out to work well. Co-owned by the member states of the European Union, the EIB holds some $300 billion in capital which it uses to provide loans to deserving projects across the continent. EIB funding may provide up to half the cost for projects that satisfy EU objectives and are judged cost-effective by a panel of experts.
American leaders hungrily eye the private money the EIB attracts, spying a potential solution to their own fiscal dilemma.
The upshot is that we built too much, too fast and are unwilling to pay to maintain it although we continue to build bridges and highways (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/04/28/third-houston-outerbelt-would-turn-prairies-into-texas-toast/) to nowhere.
peharri
Aug 14, 01:22 PM
...if you're selling soap.
If you're selling computer platforms though, it's a major mistake. The days of the Amiga may be long behind us, but people do still feel strongly about their choice of computer, they do become personally attached to what they got, and this isn't like the car industry where there are so many manufacturers you can do a little spoofing of your competitors without anyone feeling it's directed at them.
Car analogies are old hat so if you'll forgive me, I'll use a sports analogy instead. I don't really know sports, except to know that fans of teams tend to be just as irrational as fans of computer platforms. By which I mean the entire spectrum of fandom tends to be represented. But everyone does, in the end, whether it's a team or a computer platform, end up opinionated and either loving or hating it.
Imagine the following. You're Apple's ad agency, and you've been hired by the Reds, the local sports team. A few miles away is the home of the Blues, and in your town, the Reds make up the team affiliation of about 80% of the population, with the Blues making up the other 20%. There's a degree of rivalry between the teams.
The Reds want more people coming to their stadiums. They need increased revenue ticket sales. The only people to attract now are the Blues. The Blues obviously like your sport, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen a team in the first place, but they're not willing to consider, as yet, seeing Red team games. How do you attract Blue supporters?
If you're Apple's ad agency, your ad goes something like:
Blue: "I'm a blue player"
Red: "And I'm a red player"
Blue: "Duh. I can kick this ball, duh, look" (*kicks at ball several times, finally actually hitting it the 7th time*)
Red: *smugly bounces a ball on knee* "Red scored the highest last season, and we're consistantly the best team"
Blue: "Hey! Hey, watch this" *attempts to balance ball on nose, ball consistantly rolling off and away. Blue chases after ball*
Red: *Kicks ball up, bounces on knee, headbutts it, and catches it with one hand behind him* "We have some really skilled players"
(Ad continues ad-nausium. By which I mean it's an ad that makes you nauseous.)
Now, another approach might be to run an ad that consists of a bunch of shots from your stadium. You show some pretty good playing, stuff people will find impressive and will have wished they saw. You show the Reds most often, but, hey, there are two teams in every game. In other words, instead of taking sides based upon the team, you show people that if they come to your stadium, they're going to have a good time. They're going to see some impressive playmanship. Even if it's not their team, there's reason for them to want to go and see the next game.
Which type of ad would sway you? Which type of ad would get you to go to a stadium owned by your team's rival?
The current "I'm a Mac" series doesn't work because it appeals to fanboism, but in doing so, it also ends up being fanboism's victim. It doesn't appeal to PC owners, it just cements existing Mac user's sense of superiority. Except me. I cringe every time I see them.
If you're selling computer platforms though, it's a major mistake. The days of the Amiga may be long behind us, but people do still feel strongly about their choice of computer, they do become personally attached to what they got, and this isn't like the car industry where there are so many manufacturers you can do a little spoofing of your competitors without anyone feeling it's directed at them.
Car analogies are old hat so if you'll forgive me, I'll use a sports analogy instead. I don't really know sports, except to know that fans of teams tend to be just as irrational as fans of computer platforms. By which I mean the entire spectrum of fandom tends to be represented. But everyone does, in the end, whether it's a team or a computer platform, end up opinionated and either loving or hating it.
Imagine the following. You're Apple's ad agency, and you've been hired by the Reds, the local sports team. A few miles away is the home of the Blues, and in your town, the Reds make up the team affiliation of about 80% of the population, with the Blues making up the other 20%. There's a degree of rivalry between the teams.
The Reds want more people coming to their stadiums. They need increased revenue ticket sales. The only people to attract now are the Blues. The Blues obviously like your sport, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen a team in the first place, but they're not willing to consider, as yet, seeing Red team games. How do you attract Blue supporters?
If you're Apple's ad agency, your ad goes something like:
Blue: "I'm a blue player"
Red: "And I'm a red player"
Blue: "Duh. I can kick this ball, duh, look" (*kicks at ball several times, finally actually hitting it the 7th time*)
Red: *smugly bounces a ball on knee* "Red scored the highest last season, and we're consistantly the best team"
Blue: "Hey! Hey, watch this" *attempts to balance ball on nose, ball consistantly rolling off and away. Blue chases after ball*
Red: *Kicks ball up, bounces on knee, headbutts it, and catches it with one hand behind him* "We have some really skilled players"
(Ad continues ad-nausium. By which I mean it's an ad that makes you nauseous.)
Now, another approach might be to run an ad that consists of a bunch of shots from your stadium. You show some pretty good playing, stuff people will find impressive and will have wished they saw. You show the Reds most often, but, hey, there are two teams in every game. In other words, instead of taking sides based upon the team, you show people that if they come to your stadium, they're going to have a good time. They're going to see some impressive playmanship. Even if it's not their team, there's reason for them to want to go and see the next game.
Which type of ad would sway you? Which type of ad would get you to go to a stadium owned by your team's rival?
The current "I'm a Mac" series doesn't work because it appeals to fanboism, but in doing so, it also ends up being fanboism's victim. It doesn't appeal to PC owners, it just cements existing Mac user's sense of superiority. Except me. I cringe every time I see them.
nylonsteel
Mar 25, 05:28 PM
Random thoughts
1) only the lawyers will win
2) Kodak wanting a bite out of aapl cash - what is it now at - 50 something billion
1) only the lawyers will win
2) Kodak wanting a bite out of aapl cash - what is it now at - 50 something billion
herdnerfer
Apr 13, 11:38 AM
The scalpers are buying up all the AT&T versions to sell overseas. The Verizon models are no use to them since they only work in the US. Mystery solved....
randallking
Jan 7, 09:16 AM
I got the 3.1 update yesterday, and I was getting push notifications with badges and alerts but not sound or vibration. I am positive that my silent/ringer switch was set to allow sound.
This morning I got the new 3.1.1 update. Immediately, I noticed that I started getting sound alerts and vibration in addition to the badges and alerts. Yay!
This morning I got the new 3.1.1 update. Immediately, I noticed that I started getting sound alerts and vibration in addition to the badges and alerts. Yay!
applemacdude
Jan 6, 01:42 AM
found one already from this site
www.blockproductions.net/mac/macworld07.jpg
from digg
http://digg.com/apple/MacWorld_2007_Moscone_Center_Apple_Banner
www.blockproductions.net/mac/macworld07.jpg
from digg
http://digg.com/apple/MacWorld_2007_Moscone_Center_Apple_Banner
Lesser Evets
Mar 28, 09:04 AM
I understand why people like iOS, and it is useful for a lot of things. Productivity is far behind novelty/entertainment at this time, but iOS will become far more versatile when the portable hardware ups a few leaps.
iOS 9 + iPad 5 might be worth the hype. IMO
iOS 9 + iPad 5 might be worth the hype. IMO
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario