SciFrog
Mar 23, 08:11 AM
33 mins per frame with the iMac i7? That seems awfully fast. 25k PPD. That looks like the time of a 3Ghz 8 core previous generation Mac Pro.
balamw
Sep 9, 05:56 PM
because im sure alot of people have a video ipod now or plan on getin one soon and say hey i wanna play movies on there i know i did i mean i like riping my own movies but some times its alot of work to rip a movie and put it on ur ipod this way people can just order there fav movie and put it in on ther ipod in a easy way
If that's the extent of it, I'm going to be very underwhelmed on Tuesday. 320x240 movies. (Maximum supported by the 5G iPod). Meh.
B
If that's the extent of it, I'm going to be very underwhelmed on Tuesday. 320x240 movies. (Maximum supported by the 5G iPod). Meh.
B
09iMac=Fail
Mar 27, 08:44 PM
I assume that's what you meant. Because we've seen touchscreen devices advance by leaps and bounds since June 2007. In two years' time it will very likely be an entirely new ballgame with such devices being a dominant force in tech, including gaming.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
Saying that touch screen devices will be the dominant force in gaming in 2 years is a bold statement. I'd love to see them advance that much in 2 years, but I have a hard time seeing them being superior to traditional systems.
LTD, do you own a PS3 or other similar system? We all know you don't own a 360. :) Just curious if you are much of a gamer or not. And no, gaming on cell phones or similar devices is not what I'm talking about.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
Saying that touch screen devices will be the dominant force in gaming in 2 years is a bold statement. I'd love to see them advance that much in 2 years, but I have a hard time seeing them being superior to traditional systems.
LTD, do you own a PS3 or other similar system? We all know you don't own a 360. :) Just curious if you are much of a gamer or not. And no, gaming on cell phones or similar devices is not what I'm talking about.
sluthy
Jan 3, 07:31 PM
The C2D upgrade happened in November. The 17s actually shipped toward the last part of November. I can't understand why anyone would think that an improvement is needed in the displays on the MBP line. Some of you must have extaordinary vision if you could expect the video to be crisper or any more HD than it is. When I am viewing HD TV on this MBP, it actually blows the picture that we get on our HDTV set. And movies are really realistic looking on this screen. I perceive that anyone wanting a major upgrade to what I am seeing right here is going after "bragging rights" .... But that is just MHO
I also own a bad A$$ custom built notebook with a kick butt video card and super duper display and I actually like this Mac better. Again ... MHO
:cool:
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
I also own a bad A$$ custom built notebook with a kick butt video card and super duper display and I actually like this Mac better. Again ... MHO
:cool:
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
jxyama
Mar 31, 07:01 AM
How about three options....
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
sjp5317
Mar 23, 09:11 AM
I wonder if they'd give a revamped Classic Airplay capabilities... in addition to being the pocket media player we all know and love make it an addition to your other devices as a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc. I'd buy another one then. I mean, I have a terabyte Toshiba drive that i carry in my laptop case, but that requires the USB cable. Who wants to dongle their drive?
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
twoodcc
Mar 5, 11:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
r.j.s
Apr 27, 10:00 AM
"App Store" is a trademarked name of a particular store. "appstore," or "app store" in generic terms and context is a description of a particular thing. How hard is it for these companies to understand that that's possible? Just the same as "Windows" vs. "windows." Actually, I think they do get it, but they don't want "App Store" associated only w/ Apple so they can jump on the bandwagon and (continue to try to) confuse consumers.
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
gnasher729
Apr 26, 04:03 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
Well, last saturday I went to a shopping centre, and they had two computer stores, at least three book stores, a pet store, and exactly zero app stores. Have you ever, ever in your life gone to an app store? You know anyone who works as a sales assistant in an app store? Any app stores offering jobs?
Well, last saturday I went to a shopping centre, and they had two computer stores, at least three book stores, a pet store, and exactly zero app stores. Have you ever, ever in your life gone to an app store? You know anyone who works as a sales assistant in an app store? Any app stores offering jobs?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:11 PM
Try again what ? It's not a word mark, it's a typed drawing, meaning you could trademark Pet Store too if it is a different drawing all together (different font, different shape, different color).
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
Panther71
Oct 21, 04:38 PM
I just received my Proporta aluminum-lined leather case. I got it from Amazon for $29.95 with free shipping. It is exactly what I was looking for in a case that will protect the screen when I have my Ipod Touch in my pocket. It is a quality built case at a very good price for a leather case.
daneoni
Apr 12, 09:23 AM
Learned to drive on a manual car and suffice it to say i haven't forgotten what i learned.
isgoed
Aug 30, 04:50 PM
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon...
[�]
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(Are you looking for a Mac for you or your parents? :rolleyes:
[�]
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(Are you looking for a Mac for you or your parents? :rolleyes:
da_sebsta
Apr 2, 06:09 AM
While i dont agree with imac_Japan that apple needs saving there needs to be changes in its attitude with markets other then US especially in Australia by apple.I live in Aus It is no wonder that apple is struggling in here, other then the ipod there sales arent ne thing to write home about and the main reason this is because of the inflated price of there products over the price in US. When people see other computers in shops for the quater of the price with marketing to make it look faster and better no wander peple arnt buying macs here.
jgould
Feb 21, 06:44 AM
Not concerned with the impending refresh? Or do you plan to return and rebuy post-refresh?
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
PharmD
Aug 6, 09:04 PM
Well, they weren't kidding about Tiger being "long before Longhorn". I'm excited to see what they have cooking. Thankfully I'll be at work until 6 EST so I can come home, boot up MR and read all about it.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
toddybody
Apr 19, 11:22 AM
What is this world coming to when quotes are coming from Brian Tong???
Last month, CNET's Brian Tong claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/) to have received information from a source indicating that updated iMacs should debut by the end of April or the first week in May, a window of time that is just now set to open.
Brian Tong also claims to have dated women and have friends...both statements are so obviously contradicted by his horrible fashion sense and self destructive tendency to embarrass himself with every spoken word. He looks like a Shaolin Monk merged with Amy Winehouse.
Last month, CNET's Brian Tong claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/) to have received information from a source indicating that updated iMacs should debut by the end of April or the first week in May, a window of time that is just now set to open.
Brian Tong also claims to have dated women and have friends...both statements are so obviously contradicted by his horrible fashion sense and self destructive tendency to embarrass himself with every spoken word. He looks like a Shaolin Monk merged with Amy Winehouse.
leekohler
Mar 22, 10:47 AM
This shouldn't be available at all,but are you somehow implying that there aren't gay minors?
No- I'm saying this should not be allowed to screw up gay minors. Adults can do what they want to screw themselves up.
No- I'm saying this should not be allowed to screw up gay minors. Adults can do what they want to screw themselves up.
adrianblaine
Oct 24, 06:13 AM
APPLE STORE IS DOWN,
no joke
at least in Germany
Thumbs up :)
The only stores I found still up were the US and Canada
no joke
at least in Germany
Thumbs up :)
The only stores I found still up were the US and Canada
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
justbuyamac
Sep 15, 07:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.1 Safari/533.17.8)
A non-issue for the 3 iPhones in my account. We have used cases on all iPhones we've had.
Sounds like CR is trolling for free publicity. Antenna and reception issues have been an issue with all cell phones from the very beginning.
A non-issue for the 3 iPhones in my account. We have used cases on all iPhones we've had.
Sounds like CR is trolling for free publicity. Antenna and reception issues have been an issue with all cell phones from the very beginning.
encro
Apr 27, 11:41 AM
I can't be the only one that is sick to death with regards to car analogies. Grrr
Coffee87
Jan 22, 04:01 PM
2006 Lexus GS300
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2900/35140383.jpg
2010 Lexus RX450h and my Polaris 850XP
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8712/dscn0800w.jpg
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2900/35140383.jpg
2010 Lexus RX450h and my Polaris 850XP
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8712/dscn0800w.jpg
0 comments:
Post a Comment