poppe
Sep 1, 01:16 PM
Computer lines (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME. It seems like all of you are afraid of the iMac outselling the Mac Pro. The smart thing to do is, yes, to make the iMac super-upgradeable but more expensive to do so, something which is probably intuitive anyway. People will then make the choice of an all-in-one or a tower. There is no such thing as a "too powerful" iMac. Apple sets the price, consumers buy.
No, now that I think about it, I dont think i'm worried about iMacs out selling a Mac Pro.
I'm acctually thinking how Apple tends to keep its computers seperated in some way so that the people that want a Mac Pro get a Mac Pro even if they have to resort to payments just to have it; that way people don't think they could settle for an iMac at 2399 and say "well I wanted a Mac Pro, but this should be ok too i guess"
Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.
No, now that I think about it, I dont think i'm worried about iMacs out selling a Mac Pro.
I'm acctually thinking how Apple tends to keep its computers seperated in some way so that the people that want a Mac Pro get a Mac Pro even if they have to resort to payments just to have it; that way people don't think they could settle for an iMac at 2399 and say "well I wanted a Mac Pro, but this should be ok too i guess"
Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.
mattster16
Nov 28, 02:51 AM
I think this is a good move. I would never buy a monitor that small personally, but it would match up perfectly with the Mini. Right now there really isn't a good option; the 20" is just too expensive.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
Built
Apr 2, 07:44 PM
what the **** are you talking about?!!!
you are getting false information, I would dare say 99% of ipad 2s have absolutely no hardware problem.
You're deluding yourself.
you are getting false information, I would dare say 99% of ipad 2s have absolutely no hardware problem.
You're deluding yourself.
NeuralControl
Apr 2, 07:17 PM
I think this is an exceptional ad. Nicely done.
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
gnasher729
Jun 24, 11:47 AM
Imagine you lived in the 1500s and someone showed you two computers. If you had zero prior computer experience, would you pick a touch based computer... or would you pick one where you move some arrow shaped icon with a 2nd device called the mouse.
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
The "natural" way to move a car would be to push it, or maybe attach two horses at the front. The method that we use is quite unnatural. :D
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
The "natural" way to move a car would be to push it, or maybe attach two horses at the front. The method that we use is quite unnatural. :D
whatsleep
Jan 4, 12:12 PM
Here are the things I expect to happen:
life quotes for facebook
life quotes and sayings for
quotes and sayings about life
cute quotes and sayings about
life quotes and sayings for
love quotes for facebook
life quotes and sayings for
.jpg "life quotes and sayings")
life quotes and sayings
life quotes and sayings
Your Heart - Quotes On Life,
love quotes and sayings
quotes and sayings about
Sky Blue
Jan 1, 06:58 PM
The only console that's actually moving at the moment is the Wii, and the low power of the thing means it might only have a year of marketability in it.
No.
i'm hoping really surprising...
http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/welcome2007_20070101.jpg
This year better be good!
No.
i'm hoping really surprising...
http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/welcome2007_20070101.jpg
This year better be good!
Will_reed
Jul 18, 02:21 AM
Rental is such a dumb idea Maybe purchase but I've seen the quality of the video on the music store and personally I don't think it's worth the money.
quagmire
Mar 7, 09:57 AM
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
So far this generation of world cars are going fairly well. The Buick Regal is selling in China and in the US fairly well( with the Regal being the Opel Insignia). The Cruze isn't doing too badly either. I don't know the exact number of Cruze sales in Europe, but I heard it was decent. They just sold 18,000 units in February in the US. Holden survives as it is today due to its export business. World cars can be done. They just have to be implemented correctly.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
So far this generation of world cars are going fairly well. The Buick Regal is selling in China and in the US fairly well( with the Regal being the Opel Insignia). The Cruze isn't doing too badly either. I don't know the exact number of Cruze sales in Europe, but I heard it was decent. They just sold 18,000 units in February in the US. Holden survives as it is today due to its export business. World cars can be done. They just have to be implemented correctly.
cohen777
Apr 12, 10:20 PM
and compressor?
Stella
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
Why do you continue to link to DigiTimes? Its not worth the time and effort, they are highly inaccurate - 100% wrong.
Roy Hobbs
Jan 2, 01:36 PM
The shown device was the "breakout box".
iTV is YA Apple "ecosystem" comprising of software like OSX, Front Row, and super DVR. It has a ($299) breakout box to hook to existing computers and TV's. It has a new iMac, which if you buy it, replaces 2-3 separate elements. It will have a supersize display screen with iTV enabled features.
Of course this is all speculation, but it is based on a wide ranging discussion of media experts since the pre-release of iTV.
Rocketman
If I had to bet on it I am willing to bet that what was already shown is all we are going to get. A "break-out" box that streams media from a mac to the TV
iTV is YA Apple "ecosystem" comprising of software like OSX, Front Row, and super DVR. It has a ($299) breakout box to hook to existing computers and TV's. It has a new iMac, which if you buy it, replaces 2-3 separate elements. It will have a supersize display screen with iTV enabled features.
Of course this is all speculation, but it is based on a wide ranging discussion of media experts since the pre-release of iTV.
Rocketman
If I had to bet on it I am willing to bet that what was already shown is all we are going to get. A "break-out" box that streams media from a mac to the TV
Mr. Gates
Mar 23, 04:53 AM
I would need a 2.4 TB iPod to store all of my Music.
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
Rodimus Prime
Apr 10, 10:56 AM
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
damienvfx
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is pure speculation here, but remember a month back when there was talk of a cinema display with a built in camera? What if those rumors started from someone who saw the new iMac and didn't even know that it was so much more than just an update to the cinema displays?
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
emotion
Nov 27, 05:25 PM
The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run.
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
Dagless
Jun 22, 07:47 PM
Ah yes. A porn free, tightly censored, code controlled desktop machine. That's what everyone wants right? :rolleyes:
If that becomes the future (it is starting to feel that way a bit), then I'll be switching back to Windows full time.
If that becomes the future (it is starting to feel that way a bit), then I'll be switching back to Windows full time.
robbieduncan
Apr 9, 04:39 PM
Maybe they are rare where you live. In the UK and the rest of Europe they are more common that automatics.
TangoCharlie
Aug 25, 05:47 AM
Both are pro-features, so it will be VERY unlikely that we will see them in the Mini.
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
macnews
Jul 20, 02:33 AM
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
mscriv
Mar 24, 01:44 PM
This thread reminds me of a show I saw recently about this topic and one of it's segments featured Exodus International. It was an interesting program.
http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Our-America-with-Lisa-Ling-Pray-the-Gay-Away-FULL-EPISODE
I'm not familiar with the Exodus International, but in the interview the current president says they make no claims about "curing" homosexuality, that they just provide support for those who have similar views. One of the founders who left the movement was interviewed as well. It seems their program has gone through many changes since it's founding over 30 years ago.
There were similar programs with differing beliefs profiled as well.
As far as the app goes, Apple as a business has the right to do what they please, but I imagine it's difficult to apply criteria based on what might be "offensive" to large groups of people. That doesn't really sound like much of a measurable criteria to me. But, that plays right into Apple's status quo of keeping a tight rein on their own ecosystem. With non-specific and unmeasureable criteria they can do what they want without violating their own "rules".
http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Our-America-with-Lisa-Ling-Pray-the-Gay-Away-FULL-EPISODE
I'm not familiar with the Exodus International, but in the interview the current president says they make no claims about "curing" homosexuality, that they just provide support for those who have similar views. One of the founders who left the movement was interviewed as well. It seems their program has gone through many changes since it's founding over 30 years ago.
There were similar programs with differing beliefs profiled as well.
As far as the app goes, Apple as a business has the right to do what they please, but I imagine it's difficult to apply criteria based on what might be "offensive" to large groups of people. That doesn't really sound like much of a measurable criteria to me. But, that plays right into Apple's status quo of keeping a tight rein on their own ecosystem. With non-specific and unmeasureable criteria they can do what they want without violating their own "rules".
Decker
Mar 22, 05:56 PM
Oh, wait, I see. Voyager.
Yes with a Whiplash Audio Elite SCSCag Viablue LOD.
Yes with a Whiplash Audio Elite SCSCag Viablue LOD.
No comments:
Post a Comment