spiffyfitz
Aug 16, 12:30 PM
I sure hope they announce something about an Apple phone soon. Im sooooooo tempted to get the LG Chocolate.
It's a shame there's almost no way Verizon will carry an Apple branded phone. I just don't see it happening. Looks like I'll have to get an LG Chocolate for music on the go...
It's a shame there's almost no way Verizon will carry an Apple branded phone. I just don't see it happening. Looks like I'll have to get an LG Chocolate for music on the go...
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
gugy
Nov 15, 10:35 AM
cool
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
rovex
Apr 19, 11:31 AM
Finally! An iMac rumor!!!!
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and even moreso portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and even moreso portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
dguisinger
Jul 14, 02:27 AM
I personally would love to see both formats fall flat on their asses. Both sides are way too stubborn to standardize and are expecting consumers to waste money on one side or the other, just to have their super-expensive players become paperweights when a standard is picked.
Not to mention, the DRM is so restrictive its not even funny. Especially on Blueray. It is rediculous that if you use an analog connection or a non-secured digital connection that blueray down-samples and then up-samples the video to distort it so you cannot somehow make a digital copy. Thats not how the professional pirates duplicate discs! Morons, all they are doing is once again hurting consumers. Blueray players even phone home to tell Sony what you've been watching and download new encryption keys incase someone broke the keys like they did with CSS. Sony has assumed way too much control with Blueray, so if I'd have to pick either format I'd go with HD-DVD. Lets not forget Microsoft is backing HD-DVD on the X-Box 360. Last week when I was at the game store, they said the add-on drive would be coming soon for around $100. Thats alot less than a blueray player. Heck, when combined with this fall's xbox price cuts (we all know its going to happen with the ps3 release), it will be significantly less than buying a PS3 for a blueray player.
We've seen it with Betamax, MiniDisc, MemoryStick, etc. Sony doesn't play well with others, they like their own formats. Heck, take a look at the Sony DRM fiasco from last year with the rootkit CDs. Do you really trust Sony to be checking in on what Blueray discs you are playing and verifying your encryption keys on a dailybasis? There are very few features in Blueray which are consumer friendly.
Like I said, HD-DVD and Blueray both suck in my opinion, too many DRM controls, too expensive, not enough difference really over DVD for most people....
So.......back to the main topic, what do I want Apple to do?
Nothing, don't include either. I knew someone who felt very betrayed when he purchased a PowerMac with DVD-RAM drive. He was convinced because Apple chose that drive that it was where the industry was headed. A year later he could barely find media for it and he couldn't use the discs on anyone elses machines. He actually has always been a pro-mac person, preaching to everyone, but that absolutely infuriated him.
Until there is a standard, Apple should stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if they put it in the highend mac or not, people say people spending that much don't care.........thats not true. They do care, they usually spend that much extra to get a job done with extra features they need. Compatibility and future proofing is a BIG DEAL to these people.
So......apple should not put Blueray in anytime soon. BTO option? MAYBE....BUT......they should put lengthy and wordy warnings when selected informing users that it may be a paperweight in a year.
Not to mention, the DRM is so restrictive its not even funny. Especially on Blueray. It is rediculous that if you use an analog connection or a non-secured digital connection that blueray down-samples and then up-samples the video to distort it so you cannot somehow make a digital copy. Thats not how the professional pirates duplicate discs! Morons, all they are doing is once again hurting consumers. Blueray players even phone home to tell Sony what you've been watching and download new encryption keys incase someone broke the keys like they did with CSS. Sony has assumed way too much control with Blueray, so if I'd have to pick either format I'd go with HD-DVD. Lets not forget Microsoft is backing HD-DVD on the X-Box 360. Last week when I was at the game store, they said the add-on drive would be coming soon for around $100. Thats alot less than a blueray player. Heck, when combined with this fall's xbox price cuts (we all know its going to happen with the ps3 release), it will be significantly less than buying a PS3 for a blueray player.
We've seen it with Betamax, MiniDisc, MemoryStick, etc. Sony doesn't play well with others, they like their own formats. Heck, take a look at the Sony DRM fiasco from last year with the rootkit CDs. Do you really trust Sony to be checking in on what Blueray discs you are playing and verifying your encryption keys on a dailybasis? There are very few features in Blueray which are consumer friendly.
Like I said, HD-DVD and Blueray both suck in my opinion, too many DRM controls, too expensive, not enough difference really over DVD for most people....
So.......back to the main topic, what do I want Apple to do?
Nothing, don't include either. I knew someone who felt very betrayed when he purchased a PowerMac with DVD-RAM drive. He was convinced because Apple chose that drive that it was where the industry was headed. A year later he could barely find media for it and he couldn't use the discs on anyone elses machines. He actually has always been a pro-mac person, preaching to everyone, but that absolutely infuriated him.
Until there is a standard, Apple should stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if they put it in the highend mac or not, people say people spending that much don't care.........thats not true. They do care, they usually spend that much extra to get a job done with extra features they need. Compatibility and future proofing is a BIG DEAL to these people.
So......apple should not put Blueray in anytime soon. BTO option? MAYBE....BUT......they should put lengthy and wordy warnings when selected informing users that it may be a paperweight in a year.
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 09:08 AM
This is the lowest end machine Apple makes. Let's be realistic. This is a reasonable update for the base model. And it's probably being done in advance of a Core 2 Duo update to the iMac.
Yonah doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Merom is pin-compatible and costs exactly the same amount. Besides, it would be a PR boost for Apple to have the entire lineup 64-bit and "Leopard ready". The Mac Mini is going to use the 5000 series Meroms and the iMac is going to use the 7000s.
Yonah doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Merom is pin-compatible and costs exactly the same amount. Besides, it would be a PR boost for Apple to have the entire lineup 64-bit and "Leopard ready". The Mac Mini is going to use the 5000 series Meroms and the iMac is going to use the 7000s.
Thunderbird
Apr 2, 08:12 PM
Is this the same Narrator that does the Ken Burns films?
Not sure who does the Ken Burns doc narrations. But I'm pretty sure this voice over for the iPad 2 was done by Peter Coyote.
Not sure who does the Ken Burns doc narrations. But I'm pretty sure this voice over for the iPad 2 was done by Peter Coyote.
ppdix
Jan 31, 07:52 PM
:apple: user since 1987... Can't tell? :rolleyes:
joe.cavers
Feb 21, 03:57 PM
Yeh, but for the same price and just a 1-week wait, why wouldn't you hold out unless it was an emergency?
Last time I did that, they took away Firewire. I'm an audio guy, my drives are all Firewire. I was unhappy and bought second hand.
Lesson learned :(
Anyway, on topic, setup. The Macbook is nearing retirement. Bonus points if you know what film that is on the screen (I just did an analysis of the score for my Film Music class at Uni).
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5465812769_8748639c14_b.jpg
Last time I did that, they took away Firewire. I'm an audio guy, my drives are all Firewire. I was unhappy and bought second hand.
Lesson learned :(
Anyway, on topic, setup. The Macbook is nearing retirement. Bonus points if you know what film that is on the screen (I just did an analysis of the score for my Film Music class at Uni).
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5465812769_8748639c14_b.jpg
nporteschaikin
Feb 26, 09:43 AM
http://www.porteschaikin.com/personal/macsetup.jpg
pyroza
Jan 29, 11:53 PM
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1219.snc4/155118_465038268906_557018906_5865631_1332292_n.jpg
Not many times I can put Quattro to good use in CA, but when I can I make sure to have a blast :p
Not many times I can put Quattro to good use in CA, but when I can I make sure to have a blast :p
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 04:41 PM
Does not aerodynamics dictate form, to a large extent?
bretm
Jul 20, 10:11 AM
iPod sales GROWTH is slowing, but iPod sales are still speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
Increasing. Not speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
Increasing. Not speeding up.
regandarcy
Apr 19, 12:14 PM
Considering that a 512gb SSD upgrade on one of the new MacBook pros cost an additional $1,200....I doubt that they will show up in the next MacBook air updates. We still have awhile to wait for the prices of these SSDs to come down. Eventually yes...but for now they'll stay out of the reach of most consumers. When the 512gb SSD upgrade costs what the 256gb SSD currently does - about $600 - THEN we will see more people choosing this upgrade.
Raska
Mar 31, 07:26 PM
Is Safari still buggy as feck? Can you drag images out and not have them be .weblocs? Is google maps working properly without tile distortions/not loading?
Google Maps looks fine, so do dragging images. There is something strange I noticed trying to refresh a page. The best is to just post the pictures to show the bug.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5367/safaribug1.png
The first is the popover that slide into view when I tried to refresh the page.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1071/safaribug2.png
The second is the address bar glitching once the popover is dismissed.
Google Maps looks fine, so do dragging images. There is something strange I noticed trying to refresh a page. The best is to just post the pictures to show the bug.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5367/safaribug1.png
The first is the popover that slide into view when I tried to refresh the page.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1071/safaribug2.png
The second is the address bar glitching once the popover is dismissed.
PurrBall
Apr 1, 11:19 AM
AirDrop shows up on my iMac9,1 now; it was missing in DP1.
Also.. heh. This icon jumped out of Launchpad and won't go back! 279250
Also.. heh. This icon jumped out of Launchpad and won't go back! 279250
gugy
Nov 29, 05:36 PM
Very interesting
Channels and content providers have been struggling for years in how to make an interface and technology that works well.
Apple has a huge momentum on their side. As well as Microsoft if Vista is good and they can come up
with a competitor to iTV.
I am not sure if iTV works on PCs but if Apple can pull that of, it will be even more enticing for those content
providers to jump on iTVs bandwagon.
it's a very exciting time for Apple. if they can make all this work, watch out people, the stock price will sky rocket!
Channels and content providers have been struggling for years in how to make an interface and technology that works well.
Apple has a huge momentum on their side. As well as Microsoft if Vista is good and they can come up
with a competitor to iTV.
I am not sure if iTV works on PCs but if Apple can pull that of, it will be even more enticing for those content
providers to jump on iTVs bandwagon.
it's a very exciting time for Apple. if they can make all this work, watch out people, the stock price will sky rocket!
evilgEEk
Sep 6, 07:44 PM
$19.99 for a downloaded movie, that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way I would ever pay that much when I can go buy a new release DVD for $12-14.99. Amazon's service will fail, especially if Apple does indeed release a Movie Store.
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 06:24 PM
Chinese naval vessel in the Med,to apparently to extract Chinese workers from Libya (I thought they got them all out before the western nations)?
This is interesting, more for what it represents.
The Chinese have naval vessels available, around the World?
Some American's might be somewhat surprised at this revelation.
This is interesting, more for what it represents.
The Chinese have naval vessels available, around the World?
Some American's might be somewhat surprised at this revelation.
kainjow
Apr 10, 01:04 PM
Every car I've owned has been manual, don't see that changing.
1991 Honda Civic Si - no one could drive that as smooth as I could. Kind of wish I still had it, felt like I mastered a rare skill :cool:
1991 Honda Civic Si - no one could drive that as smooth as I could. Kind of wish I still had it, felt like I mastered a rare skill :cool:
Keebler
Jul 18, 08:03 AM
i'm not too surprised if this holds true.
1. renting a movie make sense if it's a good quality. you don't buy the movie when you go to a cinema. for someone like myself, a stay-at-home Dad, i often want to hit the theatre, but with 2 kiddies and a home business....not alot of time....but i could dload a movie while the kids are eating lunch/having a nap and then watch it later :) hey, it just bleeds further into developing an impatient society :) ie. . I want it NOW :)
2. of course the movie execs don't want ppl to buy a dloaded movie b/c dvd sales are insanely massive. dvd sales/marketing are now part of the ENTIRE movie process starting at pre-production. they want us to spend the $20 - $30 per dvd and higher for box sets
3. I believe Jobs doesn't want to push the movie execs. they see how the music biz just fought with jobs over trying to increase prices. they want to hold the upper hand imho.
4. i'm joining the whining about not releasing tv shows/movies in other countries. i'm in canada and would love to dload tv shows which i don't get a chance to see. i understand there are legal implications, but i would think that a lg amount of the groundwork would have been done with the music? (I know there may be different issues, but it's driving me nuts :)
Either way, i hope apple does something. they need to lead the charge. people want it.
cheers,
keebler
1. renting a movie make sense if it's a good quality. you don't buy the movie when you go to a cinema. for someone like myself, a stay-at-home Dad, i often want to hit the theatre, but with 2 kiddies and a home business....not alot of time....but i could dload a movie while the kids are eating lunch/having a nap and then watch it later :) hey, it just bleeds further into developing an impatient society :) ie. . I want it NOW :)
2. of course the movie execs don't want ppl to buy a dloaded movie b/c dvd sales are insanely massive. dvd sales/marketing are now part of the ENTIRE movie process starting at pre-production. they want us to spend the $20 - $30 per dvd and higher for box sets
3. I believe Jobs doesn't want to push the movie execs. they see how the music biz just fought with jobs over trying to increase prices. they want to hold the upper hand imho.
4. i'm joining the whining about not releasing tv shows/movies in other countries. i'm in canada and would love to dload tv shows which i don't get a chance to see. i understand there are legal implications, but i would think that a lg amount of the groundwork would have been done with the music? (I know there may be different issues, but it's driving me nuts :)
Either way, i hope apple does something. they need to lead the charge. people want it.
cheers,
keebler
Edge100
Sep 1, 02:27 PM
I don't really know about the ideal price difference, but for some people, it wouldn't matter much. If you want a system with a lot of screen space, then you can get two 1920x1200 monitors. Sure, it will cost you, but if you need the space, then you'll go for the 23-inch. Also, to watch movies, a big screen is better than two small ones. It all depends on what you need the computer for...
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
SpinThis!
Apr 12, 09:15 PM
I don't want to make video the main part of my business, just a complement.
Please don't become one of those photographers who thinks they can "just add video" to their list of services because their DSLR shoots video. It's a lot more complicated than that.
I'm kinda glad FCP and other tools cost as much as they do. It keeps the professionals serious about their craft. Having been on both sides of the fence, being a photographer doesn't make you a videographer and vice versa.
Please don't become one of those photographers who thinks they can "just add video" to their list of services because their DSLR shoots video. It's a lot more complicated than that.
I'm kinda glad FCP and other tools cost as much as they do. It keeps the professionals serious about their craft. Having been on both sides of the fence, being a photographer doesn't make you a videographer and vice versa.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий