0815
Apr 19, 01:14 PM
I fancy a bit of a redesign (nothing wild, maybe a bit thinner and change of colour? a bit bored of them now, but probably just me).
But yeah, good stuff :)
Since my iMac is one of the white iMacs (1st gen Intel) I'm fine with silver - but I agree, the design, as beautiful as it is, could be updated. I would love thinner (no practical use, just looks so much nicer than ... and the apple trend seems to 'thinner is better')
But yeah, good stuff :)
Since my iMac is one of the white iMacs (1st gen Intel) I'm fine with silver - but I agree, the design, as beautiful as it is, could be updated. I would love thinner (no practical use, just looks so much nicer than ... and the apple trend seems to 'thinner is better')
furi0usbee
Jun 23, 09:12 AM
Touch screen iMacs would be the stupidest idea. First, to keep reaching up over the keyboard and having to touch the screen would get tiring about a minute in. Second, I keep my screen spotless, and now I'm going to introduce greasy fingerprints?
Right now, there is NO WAY to get bits in a computer and interact with your computer faster than a mouse/keyboard. Sorry, but that's the fastest way. Touch works perfectly for the iPad and iPhone. Put that in an iMac, besides a gimmick, it sucks hard.
Why not just release a 15" iPad then? Touch needs an OS to be built from the ground up, like iOS. Touch in OS X sounds pretty silly.
EDIT: Also, the finger is not nearly precise as a mouse pointer or stylus, and we know Apple hates those. So I give the finger to this idea. I thought it was April 1st when reading this.
Right now, there is NO WAY to get bits in a computer and interact with your computer faster than a mouse/keyboard. Sorry, but that's the fastest way. Touch works perfectly for the iPad and iPhone. Put that in an iMac, besides a gimmick, it sucks hard.
Why not just release a 15" iPad then? Touch needs an OS to be built from the ground up, like iOS. Touch in OS X sounds pretty silly.
EDIT: Also, the finger is not nearly precise as a mouse pointer or stylus, and we know Apple hates those. So I give the finger to this idea. I thought it was April 1st when reading this.
kiensoy
Mar 25, 05:58 PM
30fps with no motion blur? That's gotta suck. It looks good here because youtube plays at 30fps with motion blur captured by the camera.
Kreamy
Oct 23, 07:15 PM
errr...how about the fact that I've been enjoying my MBP for months now while you've been waiting and replying on this board for those same months on whatever ancient machine you currently own? I dunno about you, but I've enjoyed these months of screaming performance while on the road. But hopefully for you, the months of checking this website on a daily basis wishing you had a MBP pays off this week.
If there wasn't some truth to his comment, you wouldn't even gander at this thread.
Resistance is futile.
If there wasn't some truth to his comment, you wouldn't even gander at this thread.
Resistance is futile.
0815
May 2, 04:19 PM
I'm afraid this might be confusing for some users - Launch Pad and iOS like behavior for MAS applications and 'old' way of doing things for none MAS applications ... doesn't sound very consistent - I hope they clean that inconsistency up for the final version.
legacyb4
Aug 29, 11:49 AM
Agreed. They need to get that bottom end of the price range covered so that there are options for everyone including students.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
DeathChill
Apr 3, 01:50 AM
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Where are they not competing on specs here? The CPU is almost identical and the iPad 2's GPU is much better. I guess you can take better camera's over thickness and weight.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
They are useful for FaceTime, which is what they were designed for. What are the purpose of the Xoom camera's, besides to say that they have them?
Where are they not competing on specs here? The CPU is almost identical and the iPad 2's GPU is much better. I guess you can take better camera's over thickness and weight.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
They are useful for FaceTime, which is what they were designed for. What are the purpose of the Xoom camera's, besides to say that they have them?
ssdeg7
May 2, 05:15 PM
If you click on Show Content on any app and replace the first three files from an app downloaded from the app store it will happen with any app you want.
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
steviem
Mar 18, 07:46 AM
The only way to impose a no fly zone is to have your fighter jets and bombers in the region. Also they have to destroy/disarm Libya's SAMs and possibly destroy/disable Libyan Air Force air fields.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
slicecom
Sep 14, 08:56 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
I clicked on this story on the top left of the main page.
I clicked on this story on the top left of the main page.
reyesmac
Aug 6, 09:29 PM
I will be surprised if Vista comes out with most features in leopard, even if they are hacked wanna be copies. They have done it before and with the preview Apple will just give them one more chance to do it. What I don't think they will be able to copy is the features in the iApps that will come out or core video effects. Well, not without raising the requirements to run vista yet again.
MacFly123
Mar 25, 05:03 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
The Future of video games? This looks awesome, and works great with a racing game that can show you the course on the iPad. Just wish I could run this on my Original Ipad :(
Will this work over Airplay with the Apple TV, obviously in 720p?
Once they enable the use of other iOS devices as wireless controllers then i'll be interested.
And just like that, Apple has snuck itself into the living room game console biz.
AMEN! :D Get this on all iOS devices with the A5 and integrated with the new Apple TV with the A5 and AirPlay and WOW!!! Not just games either, I think apps on the AppleTV will be some sort of hybrid between devices and you will be able to AirPlay the apps to your TV!
This is going to change everything, AGAIN! :cool:
Vision, people. Vision.
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
The Future of video games? This looks awesome, and works great with a racing game that can show you the course on the iPad. Just wish I could run this on my Original Ipad :(
Will this work over Airplay with the Apple TV, obviously in 720p?
Once they enable the use of other iOS devices as wireless controllers then i'll be interested.
And just like that, Apple has snuck itself into the living room game console biz.
AMEN! :D Get this on all iOS devices with the A5 and integrated with the new Apple TV with the A5 and AirPlay and WOW!!! Not just games either, I think apps on the AppleTV will be some sort of hybrid between devices and you will be able to AirPlay the apps to your TV!
This is going to change everything, AGAIN! :cool:
appleguy123
Mar 20, 06:15 PM
But like homeopathy religion can achieve positive things too.
What does homeopathy achieve?
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
What does homeopathy achieve?
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
kelving525
Sep 19, 02:47 PM
ok sounds great. post a link I'll buy that for 99c until I find something I really like.
BTW What camera did you use to take the shot ? Makes it look much more than 99c
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silicone-Case-Cover-Skin-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4th-Gen-/360297195747?pt=PDA_Accessories&hash=item53e362e8e3
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
BTW What camera did you use to take the shot ? Makes it look much more than 99c
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silicone-Case-Cover-Skin-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4th-Gen-/360297195747?pt=PDA_Accessories&hash=item53e362e8e3
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
bobsentell
May 2, 06:00 PM
I doubt that the Mac is getting the type of multi tasking that you see with the iPhone, more likely it's getting the option to suspend something in the background, but for everything else, life goes on as normal (eg I can batch stuff in an application whilst I continue surfing, reading mail, watching porn etc).
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
I wasn't saying there's not justification for single task oparation on a phone. I just think it would be a bad move to bring that type of thinking to an admittedly more powerful machine.
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
I wasn't saying there's not justification for single task oparation on a phone. I just think it would be a bad move to bring that type of thinking to an admittedly more powerful machine.
nagromme
Sep 1, 12:22 PM
Getting rid of the chin would require an external power supply like the ACDs unless you want a power supply sized blank space on the screen :p
Not to mention, lots of displays (not even computers!) have had a big space below the screen. But I guess because they put VISIBLE speaker grilles and cluttery lines down there, it's OK :)
Not to mention, lots of displays (not even computers!) have had a big space below the screen. But I guess because they put VISIBLE speaker grilles and cluttery lines down there, it's OK :)
jwp1964
Sep 7, 09:09 AM
A good idea, just poorly executed.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
nemaslov
Mar 23, 01:36 PM
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
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.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
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.
Eraserhead
Mar 19, 05:47 PM
It looks pretty successful to me.
Your forgetting that Pakistan is much less stable now and they have nuclear weapons.
Your forgetting that Pakistan is much less stable now and they have nuclear weapons.
Yahgo
Sep 7, 10:13 AM
There has been a lot said here and elsewhere on what Apple is going to release. But let�s step back and look at the big picture for a moment and think through this process.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
appleboy
Mar 21, 08:32 AM
Apple actually did have a plan to enter the low end market but jobs scrapped it. They were going to make a deal with ibm a make atx form factor motherboard with no expansion slots and a soldered in g3 cpu that could support ps2 keyboards and mice. The idea was to sell it with osx 10.2 no ilife or apple works for 100 bucks so people could build there own low end mac compatible computer and when they upgraded to 10.3 and bought ilife apple would make a great deal of profit on them. Jobs decided if they did this it would cheapen the apple name and hurt the companies image.
thinkband
Jan 13, 04:38 PM
Actually, I think 'Macbook Air' has a ring to it. Especially if everyone knows what its all about. I.E.thin and small, slick and wireless.
Personally, I would only buy a revised MBP. 15" is a pretty good size for me but a 13" would be nice if they made a new slim macbook pro.
My prediction is that something introduced in MW will have heads turn. Whether it is a rental service (probable), slim notebook of some sort, or this touch book, people will be excited. I doubt there will be more than one big thing happening though. We'll see
Personally, I would only buy a revised MBP. 15" is a pretty good size for me but a 13" would be nice if they made a new slim macbook pro.
My prediction is that something introduced in MW will have heads turn. Whether it is a rental service (probable), slim notebook of some sort, or this touch book, people will be excited. I doubt there will be more than one big thing happening though. We'll see
0 comments:
Post a Comment