Tweet
I say it's time for ALL record stores to go, save for vinyls for the hardest of the hardcore.
esp. since retail get's almost half of each CD's price.
-
esp. since retail get's almost half of each CD's price.
-
As it should be- they need it to survive.
I say it's time for the major labels to become pure distribution/marketting networks for the products of smaller labels.Världsstad - Dom lokala genrenas vän
Mick102, 102,3 Umeå, Måndagar 20-21Comment
-
to survive my ass. I don't need no fricking CD shops. for the same money, I could probably have the CDs brought straight up to my house. They're not needed. Why should they survive?Comment
-
to give indie kids jobs, of course...
"mono has crazy flow and can rhyme words that shouldn't, like Eminem"
Drake Tungsten
"get contacts, get a haircut, get better clothes, and lose some weight"
Albert SpeerComment
-
-
actually they can rot in hell for all i care"I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburgerComment
-
I've deleted a lot of posts...
If you want to talk about software theft, do it at another site... because if you continue to so here, you will be restricted.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
The clones weren't seriously going to destroy the company. Apple makes most of its money by selling hardware not software so it was really hurting them. Where would the clones have been if there was no Apple to write the OS?Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The only anti-competitive practice Apple ever engaged in was stopping Apple clones, which it needed to do or it would have gone out of business (as would the clone makers without the OS software) .
Um... that's pretty anti-competitive. Could you imagine IBM stomping out IBM clones? There would be no HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. That isn't anti-competitive?
The reason why Apple is not a monopoly is the reason I stated earlier. Apple isn't likely to be the sole supplier of computers and software to everyone because it doesn't compete in all markets. MS is a virtual monopoly and will probably remain so, because the only benefit to using their shoddy product is that everyone else is using it.
People can slag off Apple all they like, but I'd never go back to Windows after my last experience with it. If I had use a non Power PC machine I'd use RedHat.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
there was an article at osnews, i believe, that suggested that if microsoft rewrote windows to be built atop a unix chassis, we'd have a much more interesting competitive environment...
think of it: linux distros competing against windows competing against mac... all built atop a unix base... a lot would be interchangeable, software wise.
'course, that would also probably kill things like wine...B♭3Comment
-
Q Cubed: On my computer, NPTL already killed Wine
. (actually just a recompile will probably fix that, but still, it got killed...)
Anyway, IMO making Windows UNIX-based is a wonderfully inane idea. I can see one reason why MS would want to do it: Embrace and Extend. Yah, that would make a really nice competitive environment. "MSNFS v5 provides features that no other NFS version has yet provided, such as WindowsiX printer sharing, the kitchen sink, and random incompatibilities with all other versions!" "Of course you can port software from Linux to WindowsiX, our software is simply better? The other way around? Why would you even want to do that?"Last edited by Ari Rahikkala; April 14, 2003, 02:48.This is Shireroth, and Giant Squid will brutally murder me if I ever remove this link from my signature | In the end it won't be love that saves us, it will be mathematics | So many people have this concept of God the Avenger. I see God as the ultimate sense of humor -- SlowwHandComment
-
-
Comment