goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:55 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
whooleytoo
Jan 8, 10:54 AM
BTW, I had to laugh when they demoed FMV used as a wallpaper in Vista, and the crowd ooohed and awwed and clapped. :)
I'd be more impressed if Leopard used Core Video, and did translucent effects on your desktop (say, a picture of water, with an occasional ripple flowing across it. Or a picture of leave on a tree, which sway from side to side in the wind). Much less distracting than a video.
I'd be more impressed if Leopard used Core Video, and did translucent effects on your desktop (say, a picture of water, with an occasional ripple flowing across it. Or a picture of leave on a tree, which sway from side to side in the wind). Much less distracting than a video.
bpaluzzi
May 4, 04:26 AM
yes, that would make it more expensive. in fact, what we're essentially talking about here is nothing more than a 'slate' tablet PC, which has been around forever. they're making a comeback thanks to the ipad, and i hope they will become the standard, for the higher end tablets anyways. they are more expensive than ipads, but they're actual computers that run full operating systems. they have touch and they have pen input.
that's a direction Apple should have gone in a long time ago. i hope, hope, hope they will go there in the future.
They've been around for a long time, and noone has bought them. And for good reason: they're awful. They try to do two things (touch and full OS), and the result is that they don't do either well (and that's being generous). And they're not making a comeback in any way. Companies that have traditionally made slates are ditching them for iPad-esque tablets.
that's a direction Apple should have gone in a long time ago. i hope, hope, hope they will go there in the future.
They've been around for a long time, and noone has bought them. And for good reason: they're awful. They try to do two things (touch and full OS), and the result is that they don't do either well (and that's being generous). And they're not making a comeback in any way. Companies that have traditionally made slates are ditching them for iPad-esque tablets.
Ygn
Nov 6, 04:55 PM
I've been using World at War for a bit recently mainly for the zombies so I'm looking forward to the new maps on Black Ops. I've never really been able to get into MW2, but the multiplayer of MW2 is really good so I hope Black ops follows, by trailers and videos I've watched it looks like it will.
likemyorbs
Apr 25, 05:10 PM
I kind of wish I hadn't watched it. It's horrible.
Horrible as in bad movie? Or horrible as in stomach turning to watch?
Horrible as in bad movie? Or horrible as in stomach turning to watch?
twoodcc
Aug 11, 09:59 PM
fair call, added power, costs, fuss etcetc. not worth it i guess
i think it might be worth it on some systems, but not this one. this one has had a rough life
i think it might be worth it on some systems, but not this one. this one has had a rough life
zedsdead
Apr 29, 03:51 PM
Bummer, I really liked the iOS-style scrollbars. My favorite thing about Lion is the inverted scrolling. It feels more natural on a touchpad once you get used to it.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
maclaptop
Apr 17, 07:39 AM
Nice one arsehole. Ruining my industry. I hope you don't get paid for the next few shifts you do at work and then maybe you'll realise how selfish and greedy you're being.
True, that's a huge problem with kids, they have been repeatedly worshiped by their parents, thus and air of entitlement is all they know.
True, that's a huge problem with kids, they have been repeatedly worshiped by their parents, thus and air of entitlement is all they know.
Aperture
Jan 15, 09:51 PM
As others have said, it may have been funny for one time on the big wall of TVs. Definitely not at a live presentation.
SkippyThorson
Apr 15, 12:41 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
DTphonehome
Mar 24, 03:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Amazing longevity. A truly robust platform that brought Apple into the 21st century. Especially when you consider the competition at the time! I seem to remember Mac OS X was touted as Apple's platform "for the next 20 years" when it was introduced. So it's only halfway finished!
Amazing longevity. A truly robust platform that brought Apple into the 21st century. Especially when you consider the competition at the time! I seem to remember Mac OS X was touted as Apple's platform "for the next 20 years" when it was introduced. So it's only halfway finished!
DoFoT9
May 12, 09:08 PM
true, but if it crashes then there's nothing i can do. and usually if it crashes or restarts, to fix the problem i have to get into the BIOS. but remote login would be good if the power flickers (like today)
argh that makes it hard then. change BIOS settings? what on earth is wrong with your computers lol! they should just restart after a blackout (with correct settings of course) - then away it goes.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
argh that makes it hard then. change BIOS settings? what on earth is wrong with your computers lol! they should just restart after a blackout (with correct settings of course) - then away it goes.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
D*I*S_Frontman
Jan 12, 06:28 PM
Look, people--
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 12:20 AM
You can't charge your batteries that way either, at least nowhere near full. ;)
Regenerative braking is a small supplement at best. Yes, every bit helps, but currently the best diesel cars meet or exceed hybrid fuel economy and their carbon footprint is arguably no worse.
My opinion is that parallel hybrids are a technological dead end in the long term. Series hybrids might be part of the long term plan for stretching our fossil fuels but even those are not a -solution- to the problem. The solution is going to be either (in order of probability) biodiesel, hydrogen-powered cars or full electrics backed by a totally renewable power generation infrastructure.
Regenerative braking is a small supplement at best. Yes, every bit helps, but currently the best diesel cars meet or exceed hybrid fuel economy and their carbon footprint is arguably no worse.
My opinion is that parallel hybrids are a technological dead end in the long term. Series hybrids might be part of the long term plan for stretching our fossil fuels but even those are not a -solution- to the problem. The solution is going to be either (in order of probability) biodiesel, hydrogen-powered cars or full electrics backed by a totally renewable power generation infrastructure.
Patrick J
Apr 29, 05:51 PM
Naah. You could click on them like normal and it would slide the button over to where you clicked - or you could slide it manually. It looked slick and operated either way.
A slider like that only makes sense on a touch interface, where you would physically move it. A user would drag it along with a finger. Very "organic".
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
A slider like that only makes sense on a touch interface, where you would physically move it. A user would drag it along with a finger. Very "organic".
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
Rocketman
Oct 11, 09:48 AM
and whenever somebody claims to have a "reliable source" I really doubt it, especially those Chinese sites.
Actually the chinese sites are direct sources. These are trade newspapers reporting the contracts the local factories have received. As such they are accurate and timely for forthcoming products.
Of course it does not addrerss specific features of the device, but if 20 truckloads of iPods leave the factory we KNOW about it, then Steve announces them 2 weeks later, when the boat arrives.
The Foxconn announcement on MacBooks indicates Apple is trying to meet demand by adding another factory for a particularly popular item. Switchers join us!
Rocketman
Actually the chinese sites are direct sources. These are trade newspapers reporting the contracts the local factories have received. As such they are accurate and timely for forthcoming products.
Of course it does not addrerss specific features of the device, but if 20 truckloads of iPods leave the factory we KNOW about it, then Steve announces them 2 weeks later, when the boat arrives.
The Foxconn announcement on MacBooks indicates Apple is trying to meet demand by adding another factory for a particularly popular item. Switchers join us!
Rocketman
steadysignal
Apr 15, 07:35 PM
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
seamless is only good for so much with the DRM.
i buy more and more off Amazon to get the open format.
seamless is only good for so much with the DRM.
i buy more and more off Amazon to get the open format.
Links
Aug 14, 09:37 PM
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
paradox00
Jul 21, 12:00 PM
Why are Apple on a witch hunt?
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
The iPhone's antenna issue has been highlighted by other companies in newspaper, online and TV advertisements. Apple is just returning the favor.
I do think the external antenna makes things worse, but the companies Apple is targeting deserve this getting shoved right back in their faces.
PS: Apple has been working on fixing the issue. For starters, you get a free case, or if you're not satisfied you can return the phone for a full refund. Behind the scenes they are definitely trying to fix or minimize the problem as well. I don't know what more you can ask for, really.
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
The iPhone's antenna issue has been highlighted by other companies in newspaper, online and TV advertisements. Apple is just returning the favor.
I do think the external antenna makes things worse, but the companies Apple is targeting deserve this getting shoved right back in their faces.
PS: Apple has been working on fixing the issue. For starters, you get a free case, or if you're not satisfied you can return the phone for a full refund. Behind the scenes they are definitely trying to fix or minimize the problem as well. I don't know what more you can ask for, really.
skunk
Aug 12, 05:49 AM
would anyone care to explain why the uk price for a 30" cinema display is �1549 whereas in the US it is $1999 (around �1054.71) even with VAT included this still only comes to �1,239.28 - so why the huge margin...I guess it's not called rip-off Britain for nothing eh...Excluding VAT, my edu disc price is �1,213.00. I'm sorely tempted to order.
Platform
Jan 9, 03:12 PM
Where is it...:o
C'mon Apple...put it up on your servers :cool:
C'mon Apple...put it up on your servers :cool:
ironsienna
Apr 30, 04:40 AM
That's interesting. The way you used a capital letter at the start of the sentence reminded me of my new project, available soon etc,,..
Hilarious :p
Now that Im looking on that though, I think that they got the idea from the tea round app site:
http://www.tearoundapp.com/
The slider looks so similar to the older - new ical design
Hilarious :p
Now that Im looking on that though, I think that they got the idea from the tea round app site:
http://www.tearoundapp.com/
The slider looks so similar to the older - new ical design
Swift
Jan 6, 09:23 AM
Don't you guys have that problem over there in the States? Maybe it is because I'm in the EU? It really sucks, I guarantee..
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening. Fewer servers in the way, and the Akamai relays they put in must be awesomely fat in LA. But I think higher def overwhelmed the live feed entirely. Even Google couldn't pay for it.
:(
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening. Fewer servers in the way, and the Akamai relays they put in must be awesomely fat in LA. But I think higher def overwhelmed the live feed entirely. Even Google couldn't pay for it.
:(
No comments:
Post a Comment