Angra-mainju
Jun 22, 04:07 PM
maybe it's this multitouch peripheral or a macbook air with the touch things, beause I don't want to imagind fingerprints all over the iMac, lol
SaddY
Aug 7, 06:00 AM
Well this is kinda offtopic but I was wondering..
Since AMD took over ATI I think we won't be seeing to many ATI cards in future products of Apple. Since AMD is Intel's biggest competitor I'm afraid we will only see either Nvidia or Intel integrated Graphics from now on. Even if ATI cards are better.. I hope I'm wrong but it is something to think about ..
Since AMD took over ATI I think we won't be seeing to many ATI cards in future products of Apple. Since AMD is Intel's biggest competitor I'm afraid we will only see either Nvidia or Intel integrated Graphics from now on. Even if ATI cards are better.. I hope I'm wrong but it is something to think about ..
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:46 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
milo
Sep 6, 01:45 PM
Terrified to see that my MBP's 1.83 Ghz Core Duo is now in Apple's lowest line of computers... It does what I need it to, but it must be worth half the value it was 6 months ago ($1,999.99). Even more terrified that my ex got a black MB that has a better processor then mine. And she only uses it for papers and chatting! :eek:
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
dmw007
Nov 15, 07:57 AM
8-Core Mac Pro! :eek:
***drool*** :D :cool:
***drool*** :D :cool:
swingerofbirch
Jul 19, 04:55 PM
I've been listening live for a while and they are very tight lipped but they just said that they believe that cell phones are poor MP3 players compared to the iPod (I guess including their own cobranded cell phones?!!?). They said they realize it wont always be the case that iPods are superior to cell phones, and don't think we don't realize that etc, as if to suggest phone iPod integration.
Sony is with Ericsson.
I believe Nokia and Microsoft have some sort of alliance.
And we all know Apple for the second time decided to hitch their wagon to Motorola with the co-branded phone.
Who else is there? LG, Siemens, Samsung? Or would they do it alone? How hard can it be to make a cell phone?
Sony is with Ericsson.
I believe Nokia and Microsoft have some sort of alliance.
And we all know Apple for the second time decided to hitch their wagon to Motorola with the co-branded phone.
Who else is there? LG, Siemens, Samsung? Or would they do it alone? How hard can it be to make a cell phone?
cityathrt
Sep 11, 11:02 PM
Gelaskins has just posted their iPt4 cases, unfortunately, they're not covering the bottom dock area and the top buttons area. :( Invisible shield here I come..
AppleCode
Nov 24, 05:32 PM
http://skincasecover.com/43-84-large/blackberry-curve-8520-8530-silicone-skin-green.jpg
My Fav Colour
My Fav Colour
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?
42streetsdown
Apr 26, 08:38 PM
I think Apple deserves to trademark the word App or App Store. When I see App Store, I think Apple. Companies who effectively steal Apples hard work should be made to change their name because I believe Apple did make mainstream use of the word, I had never heard anyone say App before the App store.
I guess you can argue that "App Store" is something Apple came up with. However, the word "app" has been used in the phase "killer app" since the dawn of personal computing. It's a pretty common abbreviation for Application software
I guess you can argue that "App Store" is something Apple came up with. However, the word "app" has been used in the phase "killer app" since the dawn of personal computing. It's a pretty common abbreviation for Application software
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
Gays freak out over the considered "normal" person rights...
Probably because they are "normal" persons. :rolleyes:
Agreed!
You fell into the "no emoticons" trap as well. LOL. There's sarcasm in the post you just agreed to.
Probably because they are "normal" persons. :rolleyes:
Agreed!
You fell into the "no emoticons" trap as well. LOL. There's sarcasm in the post you just agreed to.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 08:29 AM
You step into your car. The bluetooth receiver in your dashboard automatically detects the presence of your iPod. The finger controls on the steering wheel switch from controlling radio stations to stepping through playlists etc. It "just works". No cables. No need to even take the iPod out of your pocket or bag.
Yea, imagine this scenario if you will. Michael spends $20k on a 2006 Honda Civic EX with supposed iPod integration. He comes to find out that "integration" apparently means a plug that costs $250 + installation fee to play iPod through speakers and does NOT integrate with his CD player that reads mp3 CD ID3 tags. Instead, a crappy synthesized voice "reads" the track titles to him.
God, the sad thing is that that is real life.
Yea, imagine this scenario if you will. Michael spends $20k on a 2006 Honda Civic EX with supposed iPod integration. He comes to find out that "integration" apparently means a plug that costs $250 + installation fee to play iPod through speakers and does NOT integrate with his CD player that reads mp3 CD ID3 tags. Instead, a crappy synthesized voice "reads" the track titles to him.
God, the sad thing is that that is real life.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:01 PM
Apple seems to be moving to the app-store model where you pay less at first but then you pay the same for every upgrade.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
On iOS you pay ONCE and then all upgrades are free.
Is this not the case on the Mac App Store? If I'm going to pay $80 for aperture there, I want to get Aperture 4, 5, 6 and 7 as a download and not be paying an upgrade fee each time.
I thought no upgrade fees was the new model (just pay once.)
Certainly for iOS apps that's the model.
Update: June on the AppStore. Sounding like it will ship with Lion.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
On iOS you pay ONCE and then all upgrades are free.
Is this not the case on the Mac App Store? If I'm going to pay $80 for aperture there, I want to get Aperture 4, 5, 6 and 7 as a download and not be paying an upgrade fee each time.
I thought no upgrade fees was the new model (just pay once.)
Certainly for iOS apps that's the model.
Update: June on the AppStore. Sounding like it will ship with Lion.
pjarvi
Jun 23, 09:17 AM
Since the iMac already has a camera built-in, they might just be jumping on the motion control bandwagon. That way you wouldn't have to physically have to touch the screen, and they wouldn't have to add any new hardware, just a software solution. Unless, they're adding additional sensors similar to Microsoft's Kinect device coming to the Xbox 360.
benjs
Apr 12, 09:50 PM
Definitely. For better or worse...
The audio aligning features are going to be underrated but nice.
Anyone who currently PluralEyes (myself included) will greatly appreciate this integration. PluralEyes, however, will not appreciate it.
The audio aligning features are going to be underrated but nice.
Anyone who currently PluralEyes (myself included) will greatly appreciate this integration. PluralEyes, however, will not appreciate it.
barkins
Nov 28, 02:06 PM
Why are we still talking about the Zune. Does anyone really care? It's just another mp3 player among so many others behind iPod. :rolleyes:
It will never match the iPod's popularity, ever.
It will never match the iPod's popularity, ever.
maclaptop
Apr 21, 12:01 PM
There is a reason that some of us Jailbreak, outside of the desire to add applications outside of the appstore.
Apple hackers develop better jailbreaks now so they can keep up with the superior system Android has.
There's so much more one can do with Android.
After having every iPhone, I tried Android and I'm so amazed at their great capabilities.
Android is awesome.
That said my Iphone 4 is best as an iPod replacement.
I have the best of both worlds.
Apple hackers develop better jailbreaks now so they can keep up with the superior system Android has.
There's so much more one can do with Android.
After having every iPhone, I tried Android and I'm so amazed at their great capabilities.
Android is awesome.
That said my Iphone 4 is best as an iPod replacement.
I have the best of both worlds.
CmdrLaForge
Sep 1, 01:33 PM
That would be really great. Even so my 20" would look small then :eek:
Play Ultimate
Sep 1, 03:00 PM
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Many of the people on this thread are too new to remember the Performa fiascos of the early 90's. More than anything, Steve simplified the computer product line into 4 distinct quadrants. The only aberration to this is the Mac Mini.
re: The iMac being more powerful than the Pro Laptop. IMO, this is a non-issue. Their respective markets are different. If somebody needs laptop, they need a laptop. And the relative processing capability of the iMac will not necesarily change that individuals mind. The true iMac and MacBook Pro competition comes from Dell,HP, etc. Apple's job is to make computers that are competitive to the marketplace and, I feel, they would be ecstatic regardless of which APPLE computer you bought.
Many of the people on this thread are too new to remember the Performa fiascos of the early 90's. More than anything, Steve simplified the computer product line into 4 distinct quadrants. The only aberration to this is the Mac Mini.
re: The iMac being more powerful than the Pro Laptop. IMO, this is a non-issue. Their respective markets are different. If somebody needs laptop, they need a laptop. And the relative processing capability of the iMac will not necesarily change that individuals mind. The true iMac and MacBook Pro competition comes from Dell,HP, etc. Apple's job is to make computers that are competitive to the marketplace and, I feel, they would be ecstatic regardless of which APPLE computer you bought.
kiljoy616
Mar 26, 01:43 AM
That just blows my mind!:)
That is one impressive tablet so much power and so thing. That would mean that the camera makes even less sense now considering the gpu and cpu capacity.
That is one impressive tablet so much power and so thing. That would mean that the camera makes even less sense now considering the gpu and cpu capacity.
SiliconAddict
Aug 24, 11:16 PM
People and their meroms :rolleyes: Anyone would think the messiah is coming :eek:
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
base08
Jan 12, 08:24 AM
Take a look at this:
http://flickr.com/photos/peteryan/2187596838/
Personaly i think it's fake, because of the non-capital letter on the begining of the second sentence... but who knows it could be true the disposition of the this so called macbook air is quite original and not in the tradicional way laptop upside down opened a little...
http://flickr.com/photos/peteryan/2187596838/
Personaly i think it's fake, because of the non-capital letter on the begining of the second sentence... but who knows it could be true the disposition of the this so called macbook air is quite original and not in the tradicional way laptop upside down opened a little...
Earendil
Nov 27, 03:16 PM
I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.
I find what you say quite plausible. However a quick search finds all monitors in that price point to be of the S-PVA panel type, and not SWOP certified (or at least advertised as such). Perhaps a more in depth search would reveal the monitors you are talking about, or perhaps since you are making the claim, you are aware of some?
I fully suspect Apple has a markup on their pro-sumor monitors. However I'm tired of people using Dell monitors as an example for outrageous pricing. No one here, or in any argument I've seen recently, has offered a different comparison. My knowledge of monitors may not be up to date, but when I bought my monitor, Apple's prices were in line.
My apologies if I'm not easily swayed from what my own research has shown to be true, until someone can come up with something besides "you're wrong" :(
I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...
I find what you say quite plausible. However a quick search finds all monitors in that price point to be of the S-PVA panel type, and not SWOP certified (or at least advertised as such). Perhaps a more in depth search would reveal the monitors you are talking about, or perhaps since you are making the claim, you are aware of some?
I fully suspect Apple has a markup on their pro-sumor monitors. However I'm tired of people using Dell monitors as an example for outrageous pricing. No one here, or in any argument I've seen recently, has offered a different comparison. My knowledge of monitors may not be up to date, but when I bought my monitor, Apple's prices were in line.
My apologies if I'm not easily swayed from what my own research has shown to be true, until someone can come up with something besides "you're wrong" :(
I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...
0 comments:
Post a Comment