VyseTheLegend
Sep 11, 06:24 PM
Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmI98mNZEM
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
Any idea if they have the Grip Ergo?
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
Any idea if they have the Grip Ergo?
axu539
Mar 31, 10:21 PM
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.
It seems that once the address bar starts glitching, spaces starts acting up too.
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.
It seems that once the address bar starts glitching, spaces starts acting up too.
swingerofbirch
Sep 6, 11:30 PM
I think fixed pricing for movie purchases would encourage better movie production. There are crappy movies that quickly become $7 on DVD after they are released. And there are ones that stay around $17-19.
I have one sort of off topic question: has anyone ever bought a DVD at 7-11 or Eckerd for $24.99? Why would anyone do that? It makes me sad to think people might not know they are paying three times more than they have to. Maybe I'm just too jaded.
I have one sort of off topic question: has anyone ever bought a DVD at 7-11 or Eckerd for $24.99? Why would anyone do that? It makes me sad to think people might not know they are paying three times more than they have to. Maybe I'm just too jaded.
MasonH
Apr 2, 11:04 PM
When Apple has their Quarterly press conference expect the iPad 2 to list 4+ million or more sales with back orders in the millions.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
Ummm - the reason probably is shown on the 1400 post "light bleed" thread. People WANT the thing bad so they don't "return" it... they get it "swapped". Quite a few people over there are on their 4th to 5th swap
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
Ummm - the reason probably is shown on the 1400 post "light bleed" thread. People WANT the thing bad so they don't "return" it... they get it "swapped". Quite a few people over there are on their 4th to 5th swap
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
aznguyen316
Sep 12, 08:39 PM
I got Night Sky (very dark blue).
do you have a picture? I assumed it would be dark blue but the pictures look like violet.
do you have a picture? I assumed it would be dark blue but the pictures look like violet.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:27 PM
I love my 20" iMac, so I can only imagine that with 3 more inches to love!
I detect some "latent tendecies."
I detect some "latent tendecies."
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 08:03 AM
Don't taunt him too much, he might kill you once he finds out they are now 64-bit and higher speed!
what about when steve says they have a new case and the 17" has an optional blu-ray drive. and they all have hdmi output. x1800 256/512
he will kill us all
what about when steve says they have a new case and the 17" has an optional blu-ray drive. and they all have hdmi output. x1800 256/512
he will kill us all
MacRumors
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/24/mac-os-x-10-6-7-adds-support-for-new-amd-graphics-cards/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
Garrett Hedlund, Jeff Bridges
Garrett Hedlund
Garrett Hedlund
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
p0intblank
Aug 6, 09:23 PM
Hahaha, I love Apple and their humorous banners! They always think of something funny. I can't wait to hear Steve's random cracks on Windows while giving his keynote. The crowd always gets a kick out of them. :p
TerryJ
Jul 14, 08:25 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
aggri1
May 2, 06:16 PM
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
Garrett Hedlund smoking
Garrett Hedlund (L-R) Actors
Hedlund @ Comic-Con 2010
2010 actor Garrett Hedlund
garrett hedlund girlfriend
that Garrett Hedlund was
garrett hedlund 2010. vincenz
garrett hedlund 2010. garrett
Do you understand what I mean?
aswitcher
Sep 4, 10:40 PM
Would something in this realm be feasible for the mini updates? Just wondering while waiting for updates. Of course this is very vague on my part.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:09 PM
Final Cut X and 64bit whoo hoo.
MasterJediDan
Jan 2, 10:51 PM
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
:D
LOL!! Nice :D. Very funny, and very true.
:D
LOL!! Nice :D. Very funny, and very true.
boncellis
Sep 6, 09:34 AM
My first instinct was that Apple stuck with Yonah in the Mini because of something they're about to introduce next week. The "streaming video" device could very well fill the set-top box niche that the Mini does, only at a lower price for the same remote media functions.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
ipodG8TR
Aug 16, 12:31 PM
Thats far too complicated for Apple.
Couldn't the option to listen to Sirius be just another menu item?
Bookmarking a song could be as simple as hitting one of the buttons on the click wheel.
Satellite radio is just beginning. Why not partner up now and set the standard. Sirius subscribers would consider buying an ipod, current ipod owners like myself would want to upgrade...
Couldn't the option to listen to Sirius be just another menu item?
Bookmarking a song could be as simple as hitting one of the buttons on the click wheel.
Satellite radio is just beginning. Why not partner up now and set the standard. Sirius subscribers would consider buying an ipod, current ipod owners like myself would want to upgrade...
Blasphemic
Jan 7, 05:26 AM
Yes, it's a Vauxhall Corsa. Brilliant car to start in, never broken down either. Except I did brake the hand-break once :D Pulled it to hard I think, had to park the car in gear over night.
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
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
rumz
Apr 12, 10:34 PM
That price tag doesn't seem so ridiculous.
When was the last time final cut pro was available as a stand-alone app? Seems like last time I considered getting it, it was only available as part of the $1k suite. So $299 easily seems like a more reasonable entry fee than buying Final Cut Studio.
When was the last time final cut pro was available as a stand-alone app? Seems like last time I considered getting it, it was only available as part of the $1k suite. So $299 easily seems like a more reasonable entry fee than buying Final Cut Studio.
jbyun04
Jun 23, 01:37 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/211502142_db3000b150.jpg?v=0
If anybody's seen that Date Night movie with Tina Fey and Steve Carrell, Mark Wahlberg uses custom touch screen Macs (well you can tell it's iMacs and ACDs but they made it look like a typical Spy style touch screen) in the movie and it looks a lot like that. If that's what Apple releases, I would be blown away.
If anybody's seen that Date Night movie with Tina Fey and Steve Carrell, Mark Wahlberg uses custom touch screen Macs (well you can tell it's iMacs and ACDs but they made it look like a typical Spy style touch screen) in the movie and it looks a lot like that. If that's what Apple releases, I would be blown away.
Benguitar
Nov 27, 12:08 AM
People on the internet use blatant trolling and flaming so easily, but I can tell you that they would never do it in actual person given the chance. It's easy to act badass on the internet. They're pathetic and still talking about it pages later.
Hold your head high and be proud of your case; most of these morons treat their gadgets/etc like they're toys with no regard.
Don't loose faith in the internet, some of us are decent people.
Glad to hear, I am still very proud of my purchase, I've always respected Pelican, Even though I've decided to use it for a camera body+lens, I still think it was a great buy and still don't believe I deserved any of the "poking fun at/making fun of" comments.
But it ain't the end of the world, It's just another day at MacRumors.
:apple:
Hold your head high and be proud of your case; most of these morons treat their gadgets/etc like they're toys with no regard.
Don't loose faith in the internet, some of us are decent people.
Glad to hear, I am still very proud of my purchase, I've always respected Pelican, Even though I've decided to use it for a camera body+lens, I still think it was a great buy and still don't believe I deserved any of the "poking fun at/making fun of" comments.
But it ain't the end of the world, It's just another day at MacRumors.
:apple:
woodbine
Apr 21, 11:39 AM
WTF are bad actors? I can think of several, nay hundreds of bad actors...but I wouldn't necessarily put them in the same sentence with criminals.
Is this an "american thang"
Me British :cool:
Is this an "american thang"
Me British :cool:
ghostface147
Apr 2, 08:27 PM
nice...
islanders
Dec 29, 08:04 PM
I entirely DISagree :)
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
No comments:
Post a Comment