Billy K's Profile

  • Aug 26, 2005
  • 10
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Billy K

  • Why is it no one on the internets knows the difference between "lose" and "loose?"
    Billy K had this to say on May 08, 2006 Posts: 10
    Steve Jobs Broke Hollywood's Back with iTunes
  • What would I do? I'd get the patch (and there would be a patch pretty quickly, I bet), and move on. What I wouldn't do is freak out. I wouldn't run out and buy some new virus software. I might install Clam AV, but probably not. It'll eventually happen, but it'll never be as common as Windows virii. If I got one virus every five years or so, I wouldn't change my habits one bit.
    Billy K had this to say on Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 10
    Your Mac Has a Virus
  • Good points, DR2000 and Hadley (esp. the "value" of A&R guys). I think we're seeing the beginnings of this "next revolution" in MP3 blogging. That's where I get 99% of my new music information now. Add in RSS capabilities, and it may be the bginnings of a new music discovery/distribution system. Also, I recall reading about the "first CD ever recorded in GarageBand' like a year ago. Couldn't tell you the name - some unknown. P.S. Was that an obtuse "Joe's Garage" reference, DR2000?
    Billy K had this to say on Aug 23, 2005 Posts: 10
    Could Apple Be The Next Sony?
  • I agree that Apple may soon become more involved in working directly with artists, but your theory is flawed because it's based on misinformation. Artists do not sign with major labels for a recording studio or for distribution. Perhaps back in the 50s, but those two things are moot today. First, the label has nothing to do with the studio. Yeah, some labels have, or have had, their own in-house studios, but this is pretty rare today. Recording studios are a dime a dozen. If the label does anything of this sort, it's hooking up an artist with a producer. The producer is more likely to pick a studio, unless the artist is well-established and fairly knowledgeable. Second, yes, artists can get distribution from a label, but that's not the reason they sign. They sign because they need money to get off the ground. They sign for the advance (and that's usually what kills them, too). They also sign with a major for connections. Major labels (and good indies) know how to get songs to the right people. That's different from distribution. "...even if they made the album themselves they still had no way of advertising or distributing their new music." Absolutely not true. Hasn't been true for decades. Anybody can distribute a record nowadays. It's not hard. Selling it is hard. It takes money - which is what the labels have. Again, it comes back to the advance. Also, "...the software has been a problem until GarageBand..." That's a wildly uninformed statement that bears no relation to reality. GarageBand is just Logic stripped down with a simpler GUI. ProTools, Nuendo, Logic, Deck all operate in a similar manner, and have for some time. Yeah, they're more complicated, but that's what's required to make a professional recording. GarageBand has no relevance here. This will probably sound smug, but I think it should be said: you're writing about something here you don't really understand. I think you should do a little more research before you construct a whole article based on misunderstandings.
    Billy K had this to say on Aug 22, 2005 Posts: 10
    Could Apple Be The Next Sony?
  • Ain't gonna happen. I mean, Apple will likely finally do the vPod/iPod Video, but it's not gonna be a smash like the iPod. Steve enumerated all the reasons before, but it basically comes down to: listening is a passive activity; watching is active. Still, Apple has to do this - if for nothing else, just to prevent Sony or Creative or whoever from stealing away the all-important "glow of cool." Right now, Apple can do no wrong. That "glow" is selling them more product than the actual product specs/capabilities. They can't relinquish the "glow." As long as they don't lose money on this, or lose some of their glow by releasing a complete dog of a product, everything will be fine. But the portable viewer will never be as big as the music player. We've had portable viewers for a long time now. You may know them as "The Notebook Computer," or even "The PSP." (And please, for the love of humanity - no videocasting. It's bad enough LISTENING to someone drone on between hems and haws.)
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 10
    The Video iPod: Watchman 2005?
  • I'm a Zealot (sometimes supercilious) at home, and a Power User at work. I think you should add another category: The Lifer. The first computer I ever saw was an Apple II+. First computer I ever owned was an Apple IIe. I've never owned anything but Apple. I used to actually have trouble sleeping some nights, back in the 90s, when it looked like Apple was going under. I've turned down otherwise good jobs because I'd have to work on a Windows machine. (I'm not saying I'm smart...just...stubborn.)
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 10
    What type of Mac-Head are you?
  • Jeez, from some of your reactions, you'd think it's against the law to use a mouse with more than one button. If you want another button, but another damn mouse. It's really that simple. Like I said before, I keep thinking I would like a two-button mouse. I would use it. I really would. But every time I get close to buying one, I think of something else I'd rather spend $30-$50 on. The two-button mouse is just not that important. I get along just fine with one button. I am in no way hindered or hampered. I'm now an EXPERT at holding down ctrl as I click. It really works. REALLY! I mean, it partially interrupts my vegetative state to have to hold down a button to pull up a contextual menu, but perhaps this is not such abad thing... And now...I swear, on Steve Jobs' grave that this is the last time I *ever* comment on a mouse button debate.
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 10
    What OS X Could Learn From Windows
  • My first thought after reading this article was, "is that it?" I mean, if that's all, then that ain't much. None of this stuff is a major deal. 1) Compatible control keys. As someone above said, Apple got this right. The Command key can be used in a one-hand stretch. The...WHATEVER IT IS key (Alt? Ctrl?) on a Wintel keyboard requires two hands for many key commands. And I do love me some key commands. 2) Save button on toolbars. Pointless. Cmd-S is easier than mousing to a button. It's the first key command most folks learn. It's up to the developers to put save buttons in anyway. 3) A multi-button mouse. No thank you. Funny, I've been using a one-button mouse for 20 years and never felt I needed more buttons. I keep telling myself I'm gonna go drop $30 and see if I like two buttons, but it's just not worth it. And for computer illiterates, two buttons is just twice as confusing. Again, Apple has this right. Why cave in to retarded group-think now? 4) Only show relevant file types in open and save dialogs. No, no, no. I often need to see everything in my folder, in order to name something correctly. 5) Sort folders to top of directory listings Who cares? 6) More context sensitive help. Huh?
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 10
    What OS X Could Learn From Windows
  • Sorry, but I agree with Chris. The move to Power PC was AGONIZING. The shop I worked in was very tight with the money. They might upgrade some hardware, but software was too much to ask. I don't want to relive those days. The Classic OS9 "fix" is much more functional (though still frustrating) than the suppsoed solutions to moving to a Power PC architecture at the time. It was brutal - and this coming from someone who fought tooth and nail to keep my Apple IIe...thinking the Mac would go away...
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 14, 2005 Posts: 10
    Apple Wants Too Much From Long Time Users
  • With all due respect, you're daft. The iPod has way too many features and way too much capacity to be able to control it as simply as a Shuffle. Your biggest argument seems to be you hate using the hold slider. So don't use it. Two steps eliminated immediately. Adding other functions (holding X button while standing on your head for 3 seconds chanting will disable the hold function) just makes it even more complex - which I thought was your complaint to begin with. "Radio Shuffle?" Huh? You want a simpler interface, but your answer is just to add feature bloat. I'm sure Creative or Dell will be doing something like this very soon. Don't fret. This article strikes me as "I'm not sure what to write about, so I'll turn some conventional wisdom on its head and attempt to justify my position." Message to Apple: Don't listen. I like the interface just as it is. I think most of us do. P.S. There are waterproof iPod cases available now.
    Billy K had this to say on Jul 13, 2005 Posts: 10
    Shuffle Better Than iPod?