Posted 11/14/2009 at 03:59:01pm

Conrgatulations on taking something too literally.

On it's opening weekend A Christmas Carol took 30 million in the US alone. That's at a loose average of $10 a ticket equating to about 3 million buyers just in the US. So more people paid to see that movie in the US than bought MW2. This just in : A Christmas Carol outsold MW2!

Not quite as buzzworthy news now is it? 

So I'll reiterate the point for the hard of understanding. Comparing two different forms of media in terms of dollars when they have massively different price points is a useless comparison. if something is inherently cheaper it will earn less revenue even when it's sales numbers are higher.

That's what you get for listening to marketing PR spin.

Posted 11/14/2009 at 11:45:47am

if movies cost $60 a ticket I expect they would make quite a bit more money than MW2.

It's stupid to compare such radically different entertainment areas in monetary terms when the price gap is so massive.

Posted 10/27/2009 at 05:54:04pm

there's a pretty simple way to upgrade software that many other software retailers use but MS didn't. Just don't supply new registration numbers with upgrade packs and get the user to enter the existing serial number for their previous OS.

MS could even have used the disk check method during install and that would have saved time.

Posted 10/22/2009 at 11:09:03pm

The cost of a magazine itself is largely irrelevant to subscribers. Magazines throw away subs at dirt cheap prices to raise their circulation rate. That in turn increases the amount they can charge advertisers for slots.

More subscribers = higher ad rates, regardless of how much each subscriber pays for it. It's a guarantee of audience reach and the total "reader" numbers are more valuable than how much they pay per issue. The sub price doesn't finance the magazine. Your eyes do.

Posted 10/22/2009 at 10:58:51pm

You don't get it?

You pay for a magazine and then the same content is given away free three days later. It's not that hard to comprehend. Why pay for something that is given away free?

Because it's on paper? You can print this site and you can have the same thing.

People don't care that an article is posted when an issue is taken off newstands but when the same content is sent to you a day before and then it goes live, the magazine content isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.

This point has been brought up numerous times and the answer given is always the same. It's to keep the articles relevant because otherwise they would be out of date by the time they hit the site. Which is ironic considering most of the news posted has already been around the internet 8 or 9 times before it gets picked up to run here.

The question that needs to be asked is "Is glossy paper worth $6 an issue or a $20 subscription?" because right now that's the only difference between the site and the magazine.

I only paid $7 for my sub and I don't even bother to read it now. I'm in front of a computer most of the day, so clicking on a link during downtime is easier than finding the magazine to read the exact same content.

Posted 10/21/2009 at 12:10:57pm

You think the price gap in this range makes any difference?

If you're buying a new body in the $5K region you are buying it to fit your existing lenses or will be spending twice as much on some new quality glass.

The feature comparison is again, irrelevant. This isn't about which is better it's about the fact MPC should be covering all cameras. Especially when the entire subject of this blog is treated as some radical new feature, when it was pre-dated by a week on another camera which MPC didn't bother to report.

Posted 10/21/2009 at 11:57:15am

You see that?

No?

The was the point you just missed.

Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Sony etc. makes no difference to me. I've used many and know pros who have favorites from all corners.

What does matter to me is if you want to talk about cameras, you talk about all cameras. If you want to talk about fanboys you are on the right site, because MPC only cover Canon under the guise of talking about "digital cameras."

So if this is your source for "general information"  then consider your knowledge of digital cameras non-existent, because MPC don't even come close to being general.

Posted 10/20/2009 at 05:30:32pm

Slightly less impressive by the fact the Nikon D3S did the same thing last week, but MPC didn't mention it. The D3S has ISO equivalents from 200 - 102,400.

And this is why MPC shouldn't be talking about digital cameras. Either be comprehensive or don't bother. Just because you favor Canon doesn't mean you shouldn't be talking about every other manfufacturer. The fact MPC don't is probably an indicator of how much MPC isn't qualified to talk about cameras in the first place.

Posted 10/14/2009 at 11:54:27am

Answer:

Last week. When Microsoft data centers wiped the information of every single user on the Sidekick network.

Posted 10/10/2009 at 04:15:44am

IF you're interested in computers you should read Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, Bit-Tech, Tweaktown ... even ExtremeTech is still more up to date and has more new PC content than MPC.com.

If you're lucky MPC might feaure an article from the magazine but usually the only thing MPC features now is quickly written blog entries based on news that other sites reported three days earlier.