ingenious
Apr 8, 10:50 AM
did anyone noticce that imac_japan didnt respond to my comment about how HE should listen to the "other" side of the story? LOL somebody's a sore loser. no offense, but its a little obvious. i may get flamed for this, so i apologize in advance! :D
Linito
Sep 6, 09:20 AM
so no sub 500� macmini yet?... :( although the core 2 duo line is a nice touch :cool:
Zadillo
Oct 23, 06:51 AM
At this point does anyone even need a "source" for one of these rumors? It seems like at this point anyone can say "MBP updates coming as early as THIS WEEK!!" and it is eventually going to be true, as Abstract says.
budugu
Sep 6, 11:28 PM
Is the 160GB BTO HD perpendicular?
yup!
yup!
antster94
Apr 19, 10:57 AM
Fairly predictable, still good to hear though. Heres hoping for an i7-2600!
Lukeit
Mar 31, 02:43 AM
Regarding the launchpad... I can't remove applications anymore...
When I click "option" the icons get to "shake" but there is not X sign to click to delete the app... they just wiggle and can't be deleted.
Any of you the same?
Also very difficult to move them around...
In my experience launchpad was working better on preview 1!
Ideas?
When I click "option" the icons get to "shake" but there is not X sign to click to delete the app... they just wiggle and can't be deleted.
Any of you the same?
Also very difficult to move them around...
In my experience launchpad was working better on preview 1!
Ideas?
Dont Hurt Me
Mar 19, 05:52 PM
I agree with your enterprise and gaming post. Apple is missing that market jxyama. consumer machines are simply poor gaming machines yet on the otherside gaming has been driving the market and that is why everyone is coming out with gaming machines. even Dell and gateway are getting into the act but those are the ugliest things I have ever seen. to many years on a mac i guess. Alienware's Aurora is a very interesting machine to say the least.
Pictures of 1962 Blue Ford
1961 AND 1962 FORD THUNDERBIRD
1962 Ford Thunderbird
1962 Ford Thunderbird
Model Ford Thunderbird
1962 FORD Thunderbird SHOP
1962 Ford Thunderbird with
1962 Ford Thunderbird with
1962. Ford Thunderbird
local pick up. For
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 09:34 AM
Yup.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
phht...I'm pretty sure the reason why there is "international action" this time is because it's not only easy to justify, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the US "going in" will result in victory. And this is a tiny weak nation too. At least Iraq was able to off a decent amount of "coalition forces" even though it's still a pin prick. And since Lybia has a lot of oil, "other nations" will be really easy to be persuaded to "save lives of rebels" or whatever. Heck, even the "French" are throwing on the gloves. Which I'm sure many ppl feel we should just shoot them out of the air ourselves. :p I mean, the Frence aren't going to miss out on this one, especially since it's like a given victory with "air support".
I mean, this "cease fire" that's going on. Why is there no ceasfire? Because the West doesn't want it. It's already in motion. Whether it be jamming communications or "rebels staging attacks on themselves for show", it's clear that we've made the decision to go for blood...civilians or not in harms way...to put the regime WE want, into power. They aren't "peaceful"...they look just like those in that picture above in the truck. They struck a deal. Oil for help. And the Frence sadly are apparently in on it too.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
phht...I'm pretty sure the reason why there is "international action" this time is because it's not only easy to justify, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the US "going in" will result in victory. And this is a tiny weak nation too. At least Iraq was able to off a decent amount of "coalition forces" even though it's still a pin prick. And since Lybia has a lot of oil, "other nations" will be really easy to be persuaded to "save lives of rebels" or whatever. Heck, even the "French" are throwing on the gloves. Which I'm sure many ppl feel we should just shoot them out of the air ourselves. :p I mean, the Frence aren't going to miss out on this one, especially since it's like a given victory with "air support".
I mean, this "cease fire" that's going on. Why is there no ceasfire? Because the West doesn't want it. It's already in motion. Whether it be jamming communications or "rebels staging attacks on themselves for show", it's clear that we've made the decision to go for blood...civilians or not in harms way...to put the regime WE want, into power. They aren't "peaceful"...they look just like those in that picture above in the truck. They struck a deal. Oil for help. And the Frence sadly are apparently in on it too.
mi5moav
Sep 7, 12:19 PM
I really believe that Itunes will not be housing the ITMS, I think IMOV or another app will be used for the video store. So, if someone works hard as hell 80 hours a week and only makes $5.00 and hour so he can support his family and then you have a plumber who just graduated highschool making $95 bucks every 1/2 hour to support his crack habit, that's the kinda of society you are looking for. Most Docs and Lawyers make about 2x to 3x a normal living wage in Europe, and they get along with the so called comon folks just fine. If a fry cook where to ask a Dr. to come to his house for some beer the Doc would probably sue the guy. Anyway... new "IMOVIE STORE" .APP
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?
Lepton
Jul 18, 04:52 PM
Apple wants to sell movies for $9.99, the studios say no, because they are greedy. Let's rent them for (I'll guess) $1.99 per view! Or (I'll guess) unlimited movies for $19.99 per month! That way, we get big bucks!
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 03:35 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
Link2999
Sep 24, 01:47 PM
Something I noticed about my Grip Vue today. The back seems to be collecting quite a bit of germs (dirt, etc.). For those of you who use a Mighty Mouse, think about how that collects dirt, but on a case.
QuarterSwede
Apr 9, 11:51 PM
I've never owned an automatic. I'm addicted to driving a sports car with a manual gearbox.
After owning several I simply cannot imagine anything else. I enjoy driving too much to drive an automatic sedan.
You probably aren't carting around kids.
After owning several I simply cannot imagine anything else. I enjoy driving too much to drive an automatic sedan.
You probably aren't carting around kids.
daneoni
Mar 24, 01:08 PM
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.
rmitchell248
Feb 28, 12:23 PM
here is my mess sorry i didnt clean up first
BRLawyer
Apr 19, 03:31 PM
This is What I Wanna See:
iMac 27" (Quad Core)
$1,999.99 (Base)
Mac OS X 10.7 Lion
1962 Ford Thunderbird Station
1962 Thunderbird Convertible
iMac 27" (Quad Core)
$1,999.99 (Base)
Mac OS X 10.7 Lion
3N16MA
Mar 25, 03:53 PM
Looks better than any racing sim on the Wii.
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:13 PM
these prices seem a lot more like what I was thinking. Wishful? maybe, but this would be aggressive pricing, not keeping the current 17" and 20" where they are and throwing the 23" way over their marks.
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
kashimo
Aug 16, 08:02 PM
Apple's headquarters has begun dispatching its staff to its major markets in Asia, to teach local sales how to demonstrate the new products, the sources noted.
Something about this statement means iPhone and not new iPod. Reason? The MP3 playing phones are selling very very well and Apple will have to break into a market currently dominated by Sony, Toshiba, Samsung and other Asian makers that are producing MP3 playing phones. The current Toshiba models have 2+ GB space for music. My phone can hold 250MB of music (old).
Softbank of Japan (recently bought Vodafone Japan) has been tooting the upcoming technology that they want to present to the market to take a bigger bite out of DoCoMo.
There was a rumore a few months back that the iPhone would be released first in Japan and then other places. Reason? iPod sales are falling as more Japanese want to have just one item to do phone and music. If the iPhone can do all the functions of a nano and a phone, you bet it would be a huge hit in Japan. Therefore Apple would have to dispatch lots of tech people to help get it understood not to Apple staff (like all of us...it would be a no brainer of a product) but to Softbank staff (mostly young minimally educated girls in cute uniforms).
Something about this statement means iPhone and not new iPod. Reason? The MP3 playing phones are selling very very well and Apple will have to break into a market currently dominated by Sony, Toshiba, Samsung and other Asian makers that are producing MP3 playing phones. The current Toshiba models have 2+ GB space for music. My phone can hold 250MB of music (old).
Softbank of Japan (recently bought Vodafone Japan) has been tooting the upcoming technology that they want to present to the market to take a bigger bite out of DoCoMo.
There was a rumore a few months back that the iPhone would be released first in Japan and then other places. Reason? iPod sales are falling as more Japanese want to have just one item to do phone and music. If the iPhone can do all the functions of a nano and a phone, you bet it would be a huge hit in Japan. Therefore Apple would have to dispatch lots of tech people to help get it understood not to Apple staff (like all of us...it would be a no brainer of a product) but to Softbank staff (mostly young minimally educated girls in cute uniforms).
hdsalinas
Sep 1, 12:25 PM
I am planning on getting a mac for Christmas as a "you were a good boy this year" present to myself.
My budget only allowed for a core duo mac mini. I then realized that for my needs I needed some thing with more meat so I had to renegotiate my budget with my wife and she finally agree to get an Imac 17".
But then when I saw the 17", the screen actually looked smaller than my current 17" LCD, so after weeks of negotiating I managed to convince her on getting a imac 20".
So I have been waiting patiently for the release of the new C2D chips to get one, until this new rumor of a 23" imac. :eek: I just hope they drop the 17" model, offer the imac 20 @ $1333 and sell the new imac 23" for $1700.
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
My budget only allowed for a core duo mac mini. I then realized that for my needs I needed some thing with more meat so I had to renegotiate my budget with my wife and she finally agree to get an Imac 17".
But then when I saw the 17", the screen actually looked smaller than my current 17" LCD, so after weeks of negotiating I managed to convince her on getting a imac 20".
So I have been waiting patiently for the release of the new C2D chips to get one, until this new rumor of a 23" imac. :eek: I just hope they drop the 17" model, offer the imac 20 @ $1333 and sell the new imac 23" for $1700.
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
Flowbee
Sep 6, 06:18 PM
Yes. I want rentals. I almost never want to see the same movie again, so I won't want to store it.
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
I'm with you on that one. A decent rental download or on-demand service is the only thing that will get me to give up Netflix. I'm just not buying any more movies. In fact, I'm currently selling my DVD collection (http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdz-2000QQhtZ-1).
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
I'm with you on that one. A decent rental download or on-demand service is the only thing that will get me to give up Netflix. I'm just not buying any more movies. In fact, I'm currently selling my DVD collection (http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdz-2000QQhtZ-1).
pagansoul
Sep 7, 06:12 PM
For the prices they are asking $14/15 for a new movie that can only be viewed on 2 computers and a portable doesn't cut it for me as it would be better to just buy the DVD. The TV shows at $2 is like iTunes and I have only used that to download free pilots and some of Surface I just had to see. :D With HD and BRay coming out I find the price of a simple DVD drop so if I want something I tend to get it, usually used for $5-10. Still, I do see people renting off the site for 2 to 4 dollars if they have the time and bandwidth.
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 08:24 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment