Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 01:50 PM
I could also ask why the rest of the world doesn't get with the program and move to better technology with CDMA2000 like the US and parts of Asia have?
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
longofest
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
*cough* TOP SECRET *cough* :rolleyes:
It would definitely appear as though rumors of a re-vamped Finder could have some merit...
JohnnyQuest
Apr 7, 11:09 PM
I really hate Best Buy. But unfortunately, there's no Apple Store in my town.
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
uv23
Jul 31, 12:07 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:47 AM
I use ProRes for almost everything, so this doesn't bother me.
At the Victoria Beckham show
Victoria Beckham Pixie Hairut
Victoria Beckham Short sleek
Victoria Beckham Sedu angled
David amp; Victoria Beckham
201009 Victoria Beckham NYFW
The edgy short hairstyle is a
victoria beckham short hair
and sexy hairstyle 2011
Victoria Beckham is on the
Victoria Beckham Stylish Bob
Victoria Beckham - Entertainer
Stylish Short Hairstyle Trends
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
Super Dave
Aug 6, 01:43 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Admittedly trademark law isn't my specialty, but I suspect Apple has a trademark on the word "Mac," and adding a generic word like "Pro" to it does not seem like something you could claim any originality with. Especially since it's based on their trademarked word in the first place. Is there something I'm missing?
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Admittedly trademark law isn't my specialty, but I suspect Apple has a trademark on the word "Mac," and adding a generic word like "Pro" to it does not seem like something you could claim any originality with. Especially since it's based on their trademarked word in the first place. Is there something I'm missing?
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it, a story that gets reported months ago and then it forgotten, a new story that appears and blows it way out of proportion, news articles that imply Apple is SPYING ON YOU (even though Apple does not get this information), and lots of ignorance spewed all over the Web.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
ryanx27
Aug 27, 10:37 AM
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Yeah, I agree. I don't see MacBooks breaking 2.00, but I can def. see a base MBP with a 2.13 and a premium MBP with a 2.33 ... (in fact, I can see it on my desk in 3 weeks :D )
So obviously Merom is coming to the MBP -- what I really want to know is if it will get a better video card and maybe some neat little form factor improvements....:rolleyes:
Yeah, I agree. I don't see MacBooks breaking 2.00, but I can def. see a base MBP with a 2.13 and a premium MBP with a 2.33 ... (in fact, I can see it on my desk in 3 weeks :D )
So obviously Merom is coming to the MBP -- what I really want to know is if it will get a better video card and maybe some neat little form factor improvements....:rolleyes:
Dan==
Jul 27, 02:43 PM
A second slot is overkill for a midline model. And Apple has obviously made the decision that FW800 is a pro feature only, if it's not in the 15 inch MBP. Not to mention that it's not included in the standard intel chipsets, so adding it is extra work for Apple.
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Ah. That last point could be the most important aspect for inclusion of FW800.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:40 PM
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Well, I dont know where to begin... I work in science and you have to trust me when I say that you can't deduct anything from the "facts" you have. You are guessing.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Well, I dont know where to begin... I work in science and you have to trust me when I say that you can't deduct anything from the "facts" you have. You are guessing.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
fblack
Nov 28, 07:29 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 04:02 PM
There is no way in the world Apple will be putting iSights in the Cinema Displays.
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
gekko513
Jul 14, 10:08 PM
The pricing seems reasonable compared to the current models.
I agree that it would be nice to have a cheaper upgradable model, but unless they introduce a new middle range with a different and cheaper design all around, I don't see it happening.
I agree that it would be nice to have a cheaper upgradable model, but unless they introduce a new middle range with a different and cheaper design all around, I don't see it happening.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:17 AM
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
MacRumors
Aug 25, 02:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Over the past month or so, there appears to have been an uptick in user dissatisfaction with Apple's handling of support incidents. While overall satisfaction is extremely hard to gauge due to the fact that typically only disgruntled users notify sites of issues and the uptick could also simply represent Apple's increased marketshare, it does come amongst reports of Apple firing its online forum moderator staff (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/28.10.shtml) and an Indian support center (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060604190322.shtml) that was shut down as quickly as it was opened. Similarly, many people felt that Apple was ill-prepared for yesterday's 1.8 million battery recall (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml), as Apple's support site was quickly overloaded with requests and there was a lot of confusion as to what batteries were affected.
This all could, of course be coincidental. Of note, Apple has consistently been a market leader in surveys on customer support (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006497,00.asp).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Having_Support_Problems)
Over the past month or so, there appears to have been an uptick in user dissatisfaction with Apple's handling of support incidents. While overall satisfaction is extremely hard to gauge due to the fact that typically only disgruntled users notify sites of issues and the uptick could also simply represent Apple's increased marketshare, it does come amongst reports of Apple firing its online forum moderator staff (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/28.10.shtml) and an Indian support center (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060604190322.shtml) that was shut down as quickly as it was opened. Similarly, many people felt that Apple was ill-prepared for yesterday's 1.8 million battery recall (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824134647.shtml), as Apple's support site was quickly overloaded with requests and there was a lot of confusion as to what batteries were affected.
This all could, of course be coincidental. Of note, Apple has consistently been a market leader in surveys on customer support (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006497,00.asp).
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Having_Support_Problems)
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
leekohler
Mar 17, 11:00 AM
While I might agree with some of things you said, I do have to take exception to this point. How did Obama sell himself as a "military dove"?
He campaigned on getting out of Iraq, while escalating our campaign in Afghanistan. And promises to close Gitmo had more to do with due process than it did pacifism.
So please 5P, provide some evidence on how Obama sold himself as a "dove".
And please, let's dispense with your ridiculous "both parties are the same line". Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see Newt Gingrich?
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these sensational, histrionic and downright dishonest threads.
He campaigned on getting out of Iraq, while escalating our campaign in Afghanistan. And promises to close Gitmo had more to do with due process than it did pacifism.
So please 5P, provide some evidence on how Obama sold himself as a "dove".
And please, let's dispense with your ridiculous "both parties are the same line". Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see Newt Gingrich?
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these sensational, histrionic and downright dishonest threads.
MrCrowbar
Aug 27, 10:03 AM
This is what we NEED:
1. Computer with no fan. Quiet. Silent. CRITICAL.
2. Modular computer to add a gorgeous Apple Cinema Display.
3. At lesat two FireWire 800 ports.
Then all the rest (power, etc).
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
1. Computer with no fan. Quiet. Silent. CRITICAL.
2. Modular computer to add a gorgeous Apple Cinema Display.
3. At lesat two FireWire 800 ports.
Then all the rest (power, etc).
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
NebulaClash
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
This can't be right. MR posters have assured me that the Xoom is better than the iPad. I mean, if you can't trust MR posters, whom can you trust?
DisMyMac
Apr 5, 07:11 PM
Is there any hope for good subtitle support? OCR, etc.?
fastlane1588
Aug 5, 05:35 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.