yertle-the-turtle
ONE love, blood, life
tennispunk said:
I was. I love the Clash, as everyone should.
U2 Aren't Complete Sellouts...But Maybe Just A Little Bit
- Thread starter namkcuR
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I was. I love the Clash, as everyone should.
caylan said:
your lovely daddy can buy you all that stuff, isn´t he ?
you still don´t know any shit about other countries situation
I´m not defending myself, I´m defending situation for South America and other regions you don´t care a shit, because you or your parents can buy you all that iPod, Collector´s editions, itunes, DVD´s, Books, etc and all that stuff people here simply can´t
I´m not denigrate U2 as a band, they´re fantastic. I´m in love with all 1980 - 1998 era. What I don´t respect is all that commercial attitude just for people from the first world they´ve been doing recently.
so please do yourself a favor. Stop being so selfish and try to see poorer people way. I know if you were been U2, you wouldn´t performed any Live Aid concert, because you´re blind and don´t care anything about poorer regions, that´s clear. Shameful
Last edited:
Stryker395
The Fly
I don't remember anyone saying that U2 doesn't love the music #1. I'm just glad that they don't have the attitude that they are Gods like they kind of had in the Rattle and Hum video.
There are so many different ideas for what is being a sell out and what is not. Personally, I think that if you are going to call a band a "sell out" you might as well say it the moment they have their first single on the radio. I know bands that could be on the radio if they wanted to but don't desire to use that form of advertisement for their music.
I believe that a band has truly become corporate when they start changing their music entirely for the masses. Some of you are gonna say that they have done that with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but I would beg to differ. Ah, in the end does it really matter. If I enjoyed and loved a band and their music, I wouldn't really give a flying load of elephant crap if someone called them a sell out. Why is everyone so quick to label things these days?
There are so many different ideas for what is being a sell out and what is not. Personally, I think that if you are going to call a band a "sell out" you might as well say it the moment they have their first single on the radio. I know bands that could be on the radio if they wanted to but don't desire to use that form of advertisement for their music.
I believe that a band has truly become corporate when they start changing their music entirely for the masses. Some of you are gonna say that they have done that with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but I would beg to differ. Ah, in the end does it really matter. If I enjoyed and loved a band and their music, I wouldn't really give a flying load of elephant crap if someone called them a sell out. Why is everyone so quick to label things these days?
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
MrBrau1 said:
as i was scrolling through this discussion that song totally came to mind and i was about to post it...good one
You know what they say about assuming don't you??
When you are able to comprehend what I wrote maybe you will not write your imbecile diatribe.
Learn to fish...it's a better feeling than receiving the fish.
When you are able to comprehend what I wrote maybe you will not write your imbecile diatribe.
Learn to fish...it's a better feeling than receiving the fish.
ponkine said:
your lovely daddy can buy you all that stuff, isn´t he ?
you still don´t know any shit about other countries situation
I´m not defending myself, I´m defending situation for South America and other regions you don´t care a shit, because you or your parents can buy you all that iPod, Collector´s editions, itunes, DVD´s, Books, etc and all that stuff people here simply can´t
I´m not denigrate U2 as a band, they´re fantastic. I´m in love with all 1980 - 1998 era. What I don´t respect is all that commercial attitude just for people from the first world they´ve been doing recently.
so please do yourself a favor. Stop being so selfish and try to see poorer people way. I know if you were been U2, you wouldn´t performed any Live Aid concert, because you´re blind and don´t care anything about poorer regions, that´s clear. Shameful
Last edited:
tennispunk
Acrobat
true
except i always piss off most of their fans by saying that "London Calling" is the most over-rated album of alltime. their s/t album and "Give 'Em Enough Rope" are far superior. IMO, LC is so famous b/c of the album cover.
except i always piss off most of their fans by saying that "London Calling" is the most over-rated album of alltime. their s/t album and "Give 'Em Enough Rope" are far superior. IMO, LC is so famous b/c of the album cover.
yertle-the-turtle said:
I was. I love the Clash, as everyone should.
roy
Refugee
Does it need to be evolutionary for an album to be brilliant? Music history proves that this is not the case. HTDAAB is brilliant.
yertle-the-turtle
ONE love, blood, life
tennispunk said:true
except i always piss off most of their fans by saying that "London Calling" is the most over-rated album of alltime. their s/t album and "Give 'Em Enough Rope" are far superior. IMO, LC is so famous b/c of the album cover.
I disagree. While there is a bit of utter toss like 'Lover's Rock' and 'The Right Profile', 'London Calling', 'Train in Vain', 'Guns of Brixton', 'Revolution Rock', Brand New Cadillac', and especially 'Death or Glory' more than make up for it.
But yes, great album cover.
starsforu2
Refugee
I want to defend the $40 price tag for U2.com for fans...
Do you know how expensive it is to host a website? My meager little website with low traffic and little content costs me a flat fee every month.
Do you know how expensive it is to keep programmers and web developers around to update content, fix technical issues and redesign a website of this size? I don't know the answer off hand, but I would say that it would cost several hundred thousand dollars for the just the staff salaries involved.
So what do we get when the band does this? Is it worth $40? Well, I think it is for one reason and one reason alone... tickets.
If advance tickets were available to anyone who registered (without paying a fee) , scalpers who aren't fans would just register for free and then just send in their requests for tickets by the boatload thus beating all of us just want to get enough tickets for family and friends. The $40 price tag will help prohibit scalpers from taking the ticket risk (they may still pay it, but it's less appealing than free) which should free up more tickets for the rest of us who really want to be there. For me, this was always the best part of Propaganda. The magazines were nice, and the web content is nice, but the real thing is where I want to be and $40 is less than a new xbox game and a U2 concert is much more satisfying.
The whole sell-out label is a canard. When was U2 rich enough to quit making money? When they were worth a million? Do you suppose that Bono would have been able to free up the kind of money for Africa if U2 were selling 100,000 records instead of 4 or 5 million?
It's ridiculous to separate U2's success (commercially and critically) with their impact on the world (spiritually, economically and socially) Big money is required to do big things and fortunately U2 have done a lot with the money they have brought in. Lives have changed, and I'm happy to contribute to it and to be entertained by it.
Oh, and envy is ugly. I know that I've been blessed by living where I do, but Mommy and Daddy didn't give me all of this. I did work for it in a system that rewards what I do. I'm grateful, but not ashamed. As a US citizen, I think "Stop knocking our economic system and start emulating it." A rising tide raises all boats, and our poor in this country have cable television and are overweight.
Do you know how expensive it is to host a website? My meager little website with low traffic and little content costs me a flat fee every month.
Do you know how expensive it is to keep programmers and web developers around to update content, fix technical issues and redesign a website of this size? I don't know the answer off hand, but I would say that it would cost several hundred thousand dollars for the just the staff salaries involved.
So what do we get when the band does this? Is it worth $40? Well, I think it is for one reason and one reason alone... tickets.
If advance tickets were available to anyone who registered (without paying a fee) , scalpers who aren't fans would just register for free and then just send in their requests for tickets by the boatload thus beating all of us just want to get enough tickets for family and friends. The $40 price tag will help prohibit scalpers from taking the ticket risk (they may still pay it, but it's less appealing than free) which should free up more tickets for the rest of us who really want to be there. For me, this was always the best part of Propaganda. The magazines were nice, and the web content is nice, but the real thing is where I want to be and $40 is less than a new xbox game and a U2 concert is much more satisfying.
The whole sell-out label is a canard. When was U2 rich enough to quit making money? When they were worth a million? Do you suppose that Bono would have been able to free up the kind of money for Africa if U2 were selling 100,000 records instead of 4 or 5 million?
It's ridiculous to separate U2's success (commercially and critically) with their impact on the world (spiritually, economically and socially) Big money is required to do big things and fortunately U2 have done a lot with the money they have brought in. Lives have changed, and I'm happy to contribute to it and to be entertained by it.
Oh, and envy is ugly. I know that I've been blessed by living where I do, but Mommy and Daddy didn't give me all of this. I did work for it in a system that rewards what I do. I'm grateful, but not ashamed. As a US citizen, I think "Stop knocking our economic system and start emulating it." A rising tide raises all boats, and our poor in this country have cable television and are overweight.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
ponkine said:I don´t know if they´re 100 % sell out, but one thing I´m sure of: This is the most commercial intended U2 era ever
I think many fans forget something: many of us we don´t live according to U.S nor U.K rules, I mean, we don´t have that need to have a credit card, even many people here don´t have a CHANCE to have one, because it´s so expensive
also here at least 90 % of people don´t use any new fashion like iPod. Still people here ( including me ) love to listen real CD´s instead
So maybe for you U2 isn´t so sell out, but for me...
with all that iPod, Apple Tunes, "Collector´s Edition", pay per view internet, expensive tickets, short and commercial albums, etc, etc it seems the band don´t care at all simple fans like me, and they really care about ones who have credit card and a lot of golden cash $$$$$
that´s really an insult for people like me, try to see my way, if you just live here in Chile or another poorer country
I really believe this is the worst U2 face ever, shameful.
Wow! I may live in the U.S., but I simply cannot disagree with this sentiment more.
First, U2 is still selling CD's. They still sell CD singles. What? You don't have access to this any more? You said you're a simple fan that just wants CD's. As far as I know, you got it!
Now, I don't know anything about the popular music that plays in Chile, but here in the U.S., the charts are dominated by R&B artists and rap. Sadly, these artists have so emulated each other, each trying to be successful, that they now all sound the same.
Along comes U2. They produce a brilliant album. No, it's not as innovative as past U2 albums, but it has moments of experimentation and is wonderfully written. How many artists would put a song they sang at their own father's funeral on an album? Does this scream of a band trying to "cash in"? How many artists would put a song entitled "Yahweh" on an album? Is this "selling out"? In other words, as far as I'm concerned, U2 are - once again - a breath of fresh air on the music charts.
Now, what about these iPods and iTunes and special CD's? Doesn't this make U2 a "sell out"?
All U2 are doing is offering an ALTERNATIVE to other fans in certain countries. If you want a "collector's edition" - there it is. If you want an iPod, there it is. You don't have to buy anything. These days, most artists have special editions and collector's items. You'll find this all the time for DVD's. And these items are only meant for the die-hard fans, so that they can have just a little bit more. It's a CHOICE to buy it - and you have every right to say "no". Just because it's presented to you, does it mean someone is "selling out"?
I happen to have the U2 iPod - and let me tell you, I'm THRILLED U2 did this. For years now, I fooled around burning CD after CD trying to make compilations - but never quite getting all the songs I wanted. For years, I would buy an entire CD just to get one or two songs. Now, with iTunes and the iPod, I can LEGALLY get all the music I want and I can now arrange huge playlists. Even better, I have music anywhere I want at any time. And I thank U2 for doing this - because even though I heard of an iPod before, I never really paid much attention to them until the U2 collaboration with Apple. Now I love it! This is clearly the way music will be distributed in the future. I can still buy a CD if I want, but most likely, my iPod is how I'll be listening to most music.
If you still see this as "selling out" or U2 "cashing in" - oh well. I won't argue further. To me, this was U2 using media to advertise its product. They spent 2 years working on this album. If they don't advertise, no one would buy it.
People keep asking if the 1987 or 1991 U2 would do this? I say, "yes" - but that they didn't have to then. U2 were able to get radio air time. U2 got MTV exposure.
However, as they aged things changed. Sting and Moby had to use car commercials just to get their music heard in some fashion as radio ignored it completely. And that was a real shame as they produced brilliant albums All U2 did was collaborate with a way to distribute music. No corporate promotion or exchanging of $$. No car commercials. No Gap jeans. No Pepsi. Seems to me that if U2 were really about selling out, they'd be doing all sorts of commercials, not helping advertise their OWN music on a new music distribution site.
You say this is the most commercial period for U2 and you hate it. Aahhh, selective memory must be fantastic. If only I could live in your world. For you see, I recall U2 on TIME magazine. I recall U2 doing Harley commercials. I recall U2 collaborating with Best Buy and Target. I recall U2 doing ABC specials. I recall U2 doing a Hollywood movie with a premiere. I recall U2 condoms, t-shirts, cubes, snow globes, tour programs, key chains, army dog-tags, etc. And all of this occurred in the past - including the "glorious 80's".
What makes U2 different is that while they advertise themselves and are happy to make money, they also use that money to crusade for charity (often making huge donations). They use that money to even open charities (DATA). And, most importantly, they use that money to help produce outstanding albums. U2 take their time between albums because they want things just right. If U2 were really about "selling out", don't you think we'd have an album per year, ala Jay-Z? Don't you think we'd have remixed albums with no new material making "debuts" (ala Jay-Z, Linkin Park and J-Lo)?
Perhaps it is egotistical to want to have a broad audience - but trust me, this is NOT unique to U2 of 2004. Otherwise, fault the 1984 U2 for making what they called their most "pop-like tune ever" with "Pride". Fault the 1981 Bono for saying how it was their goal to be the biggest band in the world.
Again, selective memory is what's hurting so many of you. As a long time fan, all I see is more of the same. U2 may have expanded their "toys", but they've always had them. U2 are using the media to help advertise themselves. They gave free concerts in 1987. They have free concerts in 2004. It's the same gimmick - but sadly, so many of you have forgotten your history.
The main difference between 2004 and 1984 is the internet and media. In 1984, we didn't have instant access to info. We couldn't instantly see and hear everything about U2. Now we can - and it seems this advantage is making some of you realize that this band you idolized isn't quite as perfect as you thought. Trouble is, they never were. They were just as much "sell-outs" in 1981 as they are now - we just hear about it a LOT faster.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
starsforu2 said:
Uhmmmm... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it $40 a year for the membership to U2.com? So, if another tour comes around or if there is 2nd leg that starts up in 2005... shell out another $40 for U2.com just to get an "advantage" in pre-sale of tickets?
As for running a website and the cost incurred with it. My GOD!!! U2 is the freakin' biggest band in the world if not one of the biggest bands around. They have the full power of Interscope/ Universal backing them as well as having tons of cash in their own accounts or cash backing up their group that they call U2.
You don't think the record company wouldn't be willing to shell out big bucks for a competent official website in order to sell goods or promote the band. This is the 21st century. Its almost unheard of for a huge band or celebrity to not USE the internet or have web site. Any costs incurred at this point are "neccesary" and would be part of the "promotion" of U2. The idea that U2 NEEDS that $40 for their freakin official website is ridiculous to me (not inconceivable though). Hell, Interference (which happens to be better than u2.com) is basically run out of the pockets of Elvis and monthly donations/ memberships who don't have the wealth or power of Interscope or U2.
That $40 is U2 trying to pad its wallet and nothing more... cost of website.... LOL... Oh, yeah I feel bad for Interscope/ Universal
(who by the way are hampering true fan websites who contribute a lot to U2 fans and the group's popularity for free. These fans sites doing much more than u2.com ever really did).
Last edited:
doctorwho said:
Wow! I may live in the U.S., but I simply cannot disagree with this sentiment more.
...
The main difference between 2004 and 1984 is the internet and media. In 1984, we didn't have instant access to info. We couldn't instantly see and hear everything about U2. Now we can - and it seems this advantage is making some of you realize that this band you idolized isn't quite as perfect as you thought. Trouble is, they never were. They were just as much "sell-outs" in 1981 as they are now - we just hear about it a LOT faster.
Thank you.
starsforu2
Refugee
Flying FuManchu said:
Uhmmmm... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it $40 a year for the membership to U2.com? So, if another tour comes around or if there is 2nd leg that starts up in 2005... shell out another $40 for U2.com just to get an "advantage" in pre-sale of tickets?
As for running a website and the cost incurred with it. My GOD!!! U2 is the freakin' biggest band in the world if not one of the biggest bands around. They have the full power of Interscope/ Universal backing them as well as having tons of cash in their own accounts or cash backing up their group that they call U2.
You don't think the record company wouldn't be willing to shell out big bucks for a competent official website in order to sell goods or promote the band. This is the 21st century. Its almost unheard of for a huge band or celebrity to not USE the internet or have web site. Any costs incurred at this point are "neccesary" and would be part of the "promotion" of U2. The idea that U2 NEEDS that $40 for their freakin official website is ridiculous to me (not inconceivable though). Hell, Interference (which happens to be better than u2.com) is basically run out of the pockets of Elvis and monthly donations/ memberships who don't have the wealth or power of Interscope or U2.
That $40 is U2 trying to pad its wallet and nothing more... cost of website.... LOL... Oh, yeah I feel bad for Interscope/ Universal
Many good points, and I could even concede that the price point is too high (maybe $20 would be about right, same as the old Prop subscription) But I don't expect the band to provide this kind of content for free. Some of it is free, and some of it is not and without knowing how much bandwith they eat up every month, I can't say how much it costs. I haven't been to every band site out there, but U2 do have a great deal of video to offer and that costs money to host. They did the big website for 3 years for free. My guess is that they looked at the cost of the thing and did the math, then decided to gouge us for an extra $20 a year, per person. ** Sarcasm on that last line **
Even if they do make money on the website, I can't imagine that it would be a hell of a lot. I guess it would all depend on how many users are willing to pay the cost. If more people pay for it, the band will probably end up making money, if no one registers, they may end up losing money. But they have to price it based on what they expect. Had they known that Joshua Tree would sell 20 million copies, they could have sliced the price from the very beginning to $5 so that everyone can get it cheaply, but no one knows in advance how things will sell and you have to price it at a place that you think will rescue you from taking a bath if it fails. This is a lesson that they learned on Zoo TV. A wildly popular tour that netted them nearly nothing. To say that U2 already has enough is just jealously, they earned it, it's theirs and not yours to decide what to do with it. It is your right to not pay into it, and you can criticize the price, but there are simply too many unknows at play in terms of cost to agree with you wholely.
Although U2 have the full power of Universal, it seems to me that U2 use Universal when they HAVE to, not simply because they can. Their deal with Universal is a necessary evil for distributing CDs, but U2 seems to be doing everything else outside of Universal. I.E. iPod and iTunes, concert and website. I would rather give my money directly to U2 then to give it to Universal and have them give over only some of it to U2.
Inteference is a great site, but only because of the people who participate in it. They can't provide video and mp3's without significantly upping the price of admission. The bandwith costs would be too high.
I also think you misspoke on the tour. I think you meant 2006 not 2005. Membership will cover 2005, probably not 2006. If they tour or sell tickets at all for that year.
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
Yeah I meant... 2006...
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
starsforu2 said:
No, he meant that if another tour started in 2006 (or if the current tour extended through then), we'd all have to pay another $40 to remain members of U2.com. And that's where it starts getting a bit high.
This is one area I think is a bit much. The price should be $20 annually. I can only imagine the $40 cost was given to deter people from getting multiple subscriptions to eat up all the concert tickets (i.e. scalpers).
bonnevoix02
The Fly
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 53
While I found agree that U2 has more than enough money and doesn't really need to make a profit, there's also hundreds, if not thousands, of people who depend on them for their jobs. These people have families just like anyone else. And I imagine when U2 makes decisions--business or otherwise--they think about their organization and the people whose livelihood depends on them.
Miggy D
War Child
Agreed. The ticket prices do not just pay for U2, they pay for every person who works for them during a tour. That's dozens of people.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
bonnevoix02 said:
Wow then every other act who puts on shows in arenas and stuff but don't charge the exorbitant Madonna fees must be in the poorhouse or their tours must not make any money at all. Hell everyone in those camps must work for free. Dave Mathews, Weezer, John Mayer, etc...
If U2 wants to charge $20 a year for special memberships to u2.com... its fine by me. That's close to Propaganda price range and maybe a little more content makes it more interesting (but that is a big if on whether or not they will provide the content). $40... ugh...
I think what turns me off about this is that it is essentially seat licensing and I hate seat licensing. But this is America and we live in a capitalist world so...
Last edited:
Selling your thoughts and ideas, whether as a musician, a writer, a painter, or whatever is prostitution, plain and simple. So how can any of that really be "selling out"? You put your creativity out there for a price, if people buy it - well, what's the difference?
I really don't give a flying goat if U2 are "sell-outs" or not. I'm still pretty amazed that my favorite band for more than two decades is STILL making new music - music that has kept them my favorite band all this time! (Aaaagh, WOW, really? This is sooo fucking cool! and other thoughts...) I feel like a little kid every time I play one of their older albums, and that's not a feeling I'll give up for anything. If Bono & Co. want to plaster McDonald's stickers over their clothes when they're up on stage to make a few extra bucks, that'd be fine with me. My feeling is, if part of the reason they're still going is because they're still making good money, then PLEASE MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN GUYS!!!!!!
Still find it hard to believe they've got MILLIONS of fans... it's actually kind of cool to see that (really) there are NOT that many people (when you think about it) who regularly make their presence known on internet websites... keeps a bit of the 'magic' of 'my band' a little bit easier to maintain.
Guess what I'm trying to say is that U2's got to reach their audience in any way they can... the internet is just ONE way that they do. If commercialism brings them new fans or reawakens the casual fan, then what's the problem with that? Hell, when my older sister buys their new album because she liked the Vertigo iPod commercial, I know they're doing the right thing. Why knock it?
just my thoughts...
goat
}: )~
I really don't give a flying goat if U2 are "sell-outs" or not. I'm still pretty amazed that my favorite band for more than two decades is STILL making new music - music that has kept them my favorite band all this time! (Aaaagh, WOW, really? This is sooo fucking cool! and other thoughts...) I feel like a little kid every time I play one of their older albums, and that's not a feeling I'll give up for anything. If Bono & Co. want to plaster McDonald's stickers over their clothes when they're up on stage to make a few extra bucks, that'd be fine with me. My feeling is, if part of the reason they're still going is because they're still making good money, then PLEASE MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN GUYS!!!!!!
Still find it hard to believe they've got MILLIONS of fans... it's actually kind of cool to see that (really) there are NOT that many people (when you think about it) who regularly make their presence known on internet websites... keeps a bit of the 'magic' of 'my band' a little bit easier to maintain.
Guess what I'm trying to say is that U2's got to reach their audience in any way they can... the internet is just ONE way that they do. If commercialism brings them new fans or reawakens the casual fan, then what's the problem with that? Hell, when my older sister buys their new album because she liked the Vertigo iPod commercial, I know they're doing the right thing. Why knock it?
just my thoughts...
goat
}: )~
Did anyone read the article in, I think, "Spin" or some similar mag, where Bono explains why he doesn't think the Apple promotions don't constitute "selling out." His basic argument is that selling out is when you go against your principles for the sake of money. He says that he's passionate about Apple, the iPod, and iTunes and that he's a big fan of Steve Jobs, just as Steve Jobs is a fan of his. In other words, he's doing this because he wants to do this and the money is just a bonus. Bono also said there are good businesses and bad businesses, and there's nothing wrong with being associated wtih good businesses.
Last edited:
blueyedpoet
Refugee
U2 is still my favorite band....i still think they make better music than just about any other band....nevertheless, the money they're taking from Intel for their tour is kinda disturbing.
I know Aerosmith fans don't seem to complain about Aerosmith and selling-out, so why do U2 fans?
I have always held U2 up higher than Aerosmith. It was mind-boggling to hear Dream On on a stupid car commercial the other day.
I've heard bono say it's amazing that they get paid so much to do something they'd do for free - now I love Bono, he's one of my hero's, and I mean the sincerely - but is he really honest?
The i-pod/i-tunes commercial was a brilliant move. They got free publicity, they turned on people in the high school age, and they didn't have to accept any cash - that move was definetly not selling-out.
But this tour thing is really bothering me. Yes, I know they're going to tour places they haven't in awhile, but why accept so much money from f*cking Intel? I feel it's dodgy.
Obviously this isn't a up-yours U2, this reply is just a "why?"
I know Aerosmith fans don't seem to complain about Aerosmith and selling-out, so why do U2 fans?
I have always held U2 up higher than Aerosmith. It was mind-boggling to hear Dream On on a stupid car commercial the other day.
I've heard bono say it's amazing that they get paid so much to do something they'd do for free - now I love Bono, he's one of my hero's, and I mean the sincerely - but is he really honest?
The i-pod/i-tunes commercial was a brilliant move. They got free publicity, they turned on people in the high school age, and they didn't have to accept any cash - that move was definetly not selling-out.
But this tour thing is really bothering me. Yes, I know they're going to tour places they haven't in awhile, but why accept so much money from f*cking Intel? I feel it's dodgy.
Obviously this isn't a up-yours U2, this reply is just a "why?"
Similar threads
