Full of Win
Jun 22, 05:40 PM
No chance. The ergonomics would be a disaster.
Treat apps like widgets, which have been part of the OS 5-7 years. Allow touch or curser control.
Treat apps like widgets, which have been part of the OS 5-7 years. Allow touch or curser control.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:51 PM
Trademark status of "app store"
The government's site on trademarks lists the status as:
"Current Status: An opposition after publication is pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page. "
It was approved for use by apple:
"2010-07-07 - Opposition instituted for Proceeding
2010-02-04 - Extension Of Time To Oppose Received
2010-01-05 - Notice Of Publication E-Mailed
2010-01-05 - Published for opposition
2009-12-02 - Law Office Publication Review Completed
2009-12-01 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
2009-12-01 - Amendment to Use approved
2009-11-21 - Amendment To Use Processing Complete"
I believe Apple's ability to sue is based on the approval to use the TM even though the final trademark has not been fully granted.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77%2F525433&action=Request+Status
I remember stories claiming "tentative approval" of the app store back in early 2011. But the application history (some of which I posted above) does not have any items in 2011. Perhaps our legal experts can explain the source of these stories claiming "tentative approval early this year". Is that just a delay between legal filings and public announcements?
The government's site on trademarks lists the status as:
"Current Status: An opposition after publication is pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page. "
It was approved for use by apple:
"2010-07-07 - Opposition instituted for Proceeding
2010-02-04 - Extension Of Time To Oppose Received
2010-01-05 - Notice Of Publication E-Mailed
2010-01-05 - Published for opposition
2009-12-02 - Law Office Publication Review Completed
2009-12-01 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
2009-12-01 - Amendment to Use approved
2009-11-21 - Amendment To Use Processing Complete"
I believe Apple's ability to sue is based on the approval to use the TM even though the final trademark has not been fully granted.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77%2F525433&action=Request+Status
I remember stories claiming "tentative approval" of the app store back in early 2011. But the application history (some of which I posted above) does not have any items in 2011. Perhaps our legal experts can explain the source of these stories claiming "tentative approval early this year". Is that just a delay between legal filings and public announcements?
A.Fairhead
Jul 18, 04:11 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
quadgirl
Sep 1, 12:54 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
Erwin-Br
Mar 24, 03:07 PM
Can anyone explain the nVidia hate?
I, for one, miss my old GeForce 8800.
I have a Radeon HD 5770 now, and there are these little annoyances. For instance, when I run my bootcamp partition inside VMWare, the AMD driver software starts complaining. The GeForce didn't give a damn. Speaking of which, I had to install the .Net framework to install the AMD drivers. Kinda cheap. And every now and then I get a slight flicker in the screen. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's the Radeon, but I've never had it before.
Don't get me wrong, the card is performing superbly overall. But the driver side still needs some polish. (And that's a complaint I've been hearing for ages!)
I, for one, miss my old GeForce 8800.
I have a Radeon HD 5770 now, and there are these little annoyances. For instance, when I run my bootcamp partition inside VMWare, the AMD driver software starts complaining. The GeForce didn't give a damn. Speaking of which, I had to install the .Net framework to install the AMD drivers. Kinda cheap. And every now and then I get a slight flicker in the screen. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's the Radeon, but I've never had it before.
Don't get me wrong, the card is performing superbly overall. But the driver side still needs some polish. (And that's a complaint I've been hearing for ages!)
dubAdub
Apr 19, 01:25 PM
the 27 imac is a beast!!!!!
God I wish I had the money to get it.
I called my 2007 C2D Extreme iMac "the hombre" when I first got it.
When the Ivy Bridge iMac is released I'll feel that it's time to get a new computer worthy of naming.
God I wish I had the money to get it.
I called my 2007 C2D Extreme iMac "the hombre" when I first got it.
When the Ivy Bridge iMac is released I'll feel that it's time to get a new computer worthy of naming.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:56 AM
Ah, great to see another person in their 30s who still very much enjoys the freedom and pleasures of the road. :D
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
Jimmy Guphanti
Apr 21, 01:26 PM
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
Will the higher end models having the chance of 6XXX cards, will the lower end models, the $1199 and the $1499 have better graphics like 5XXX with 1GB GDDR5 or do you all think that they will stay the same? I say that the refresh will happen on either May 3 or May 10. If it does not happen on either of these days, it will happen at WWDC.
Will the higher end models having the chance of 6XXX cards, will the lower end models, the $1199 and the $1499 have better graphics like 5XXX with 1GB GDDR5 or do you all think that they will stay the same? I say that the refresh will happen on either May 3 or May 10. If it does not happen on either of these days, it will happen at WWDC.
adamchronister8
Mar 28, 10:22 AM
:D
It's funny because it's true. ;)
Steve Jobs is right on the ball, though. Notice how important OpenCL has been since its introduction. It's blowing the doors off the rest of the Windows world! Now watch as Thunderchicken rules the school with exactly zero products for it! Apple has been doing a good job of being "first" in areas that don't matter one bit and being years and years behind in areas that do matter (e.g. Blu-Ray, USB3, OpenGL, etc.)
Maybe I'm behind with the times, but I have no idea what OpenCL is. Apple has been known for supporting their standards no matter what sometimes.
It's funny because it's true. ;)
Steve Jobs is right on the ball, though. Notice how important OpenCL has been since its introduction. It's blowing the doors off the rest of the Windows world! Now watch as Thunderchicken rules the school with exactly zero products for it! Apple has been doing a good job of being "first" in areas that don't matter one bit and being years and years behind in areas that do matter (e.g. Blu-Ray, USB3, OpenGL, etc.)
Maybe I'm behind with the times, but I have no idea what OpenCL is. Apple has been known for supporting their standards no matter what sometimes.
j-hov
Jan 12, 09:09 AM
The beater in winter mode....rockin a fresh new set of OEM mudflaps just for winter:D I love winter mode, my car sports the goth look. Plus I am prolly the only one around who winds DOWN the coilovers so it has the right stance on the steelies.
http://gallery.me.com/cdwmk3/100144/IMG_1081/web.jpg?ver=12948035980001
Nice V-Dub I want a MK3 as a project
http://gallery.me.com/cdwmk3/100144/IMG_1081/web.jpg?ver=12948035980001
Nice V-Dub I want a MK3 as a project
aibo82
May 2, 07:46 PM
The furture of apple:
No macbooks.
Hybrid mac iOS tablets
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
No macbooks.
Hybrid mac iOS tablets
MacPanda
Nov 29, 02:52 PM
i think you will be able to purchase stuff directly off itv and i am hoping you will be able to use some sort of wifi to sync it to the next generation ipod with wifi - i really want to be able to share songs between iPods and although the zune only lets you do it 3 times wifi needs to happen.
iTV has a small form factor and i hope they will keep it that way too - looks like a neat idea.
Peace - Anthony
iTV has a small form factor and i hope they will keep it that way too - looks like a neat idea.
Peace - Anthony
YS2003
Oct 23, 10:14 PM
I'll grant you some slack on a lot of the points you've made, but I simply can't sit here and read your smug comments about people waiting for the C2D without pointing out at least one thing you are missing. Just exactly how do you expect your Core Duo MBP to support 64-bit instructions when Leopard comes out? Oh, that's right. It won't. You're severely misguided if you think that won't make a difference.
Can someone confirm C2D is what is needed for 64-bit instructions? I thought it has be the combination of C2D and chipset to make 64-bit instructions happen. I heard the current platform for CoreDuo was not made for 64-bit.
Can someone confirm C2D is what is needed for 64-bit instructions? I thought it has be the combination of C2D and chipset to make 64-bit instructions happen. I heard the current platform for CoreDuo was not made for 64-bit.
macidiot
Jul 21, 07:07 PM
Your summation is a leap of faith, check your market history what I said has STRONG historical backing yours does NOT.
The USA President has a HUGE effect day to day ON THE WORLD scene and that effects the value of the dollar and thus everything else especially foreign investment which is THE BIGGEST money flow.
And Jimmy Carter is the BEST EXAMPLE of a disaster of foreign confidence.
I YOU believe THIS then you believe everything else he says and you are not paying any attention to WHAT HE DOES :eek:
Duuu !!
Without any doubt the President can and does, by WHO he appoints to the position of Fed Chairman.
Presidents that have a clue also have HUGE control over the money supply by how they fine tune and enforce immigration law, the demographics of entrepreneurialism is hugely effected in a relatively short time by emigration from europe since the average age of those emigrants is around 35.
The Feds money supply adjustments are diluted by this immigration which has a BIG effect on economic growth and the job market, although I don't expect you to understand this.
��� I AM NOT SURPRISED !!!
You just like to argue !
Your dreaming. The only thing a president can directly do to a market is provide a psychological boost, like when Reagan took office. The president can pass laws that make things favorable for the economy and stock market. However, this takes years to see the effects. And in case you don't know, the president can NOT pass laws by himself.
Again, since you clearly have no idea about government or economics, the market did well during the 80's because the overall economy was doing well. Which was normal, considering the country was in recession during the Carter administration. Oh, and the economy did poorly during the BUsh administration. Then did well during Clinton. It's called the business cycle. Which you obviously have no idea what that is. If you did, you would understand what the Fed does.
WTF does foreign confidence have to due with domestic economy? Carter was a failure economically because he was ineffective. And this was due to Congress. And AGAIN, there is something called the business cycle. You should study your history. The value of the dollar has little effect on day to day matters. Additionally, the foreign investment you speak of is important to debt, in the form of bonds and t-bills. It has far less effect on the stock market. You should study how world markets work.
While the president does appoint reserve board members, again your completely wrong. When Bush came into office, Greenspan was Chairman. So obviously, Bush did not appoint him. In fact, Ronald Reagan appointed him. Additionally, the governers serve for a time long enough to effectively keep them independent (14 years). So tell me, how does the President instruct the Fed to adjust the money supply? Oh that's right, he can't.
Basically, what you are saying is that the President also completely controls the Supreme court since the president also nominates justices? Whatever.
Immigration from Europe? What century are you living in? You think that effects the US economy? Puh-lease. Europe is in decline. Economically, the US pays attention to China and the far east. Not Europe. The money supply is diluted by immigration? WTF. And the President controls the money supply through immigration law? Those statements are absurd. In fact, they have to be some of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
I am guessing your living in Europe. Which would explain your euro-centric, myopic, and ill-informed opinions about how the US government and economy works.
The USA President has a HUGE effect day to day ON THE WORLD scene and that effects the value of the dollar and thus everything else especially foreign investment which is THE BIGGEST money flow.
And Jimmy Carter is the BEST EXAMPLE of a disaster of foreign confidence.
I YOU believe THIS then you believe everything else he says and you are not paying any attention to WHAT HE DOES :eek:
Duuu !!
Without any doubt the President can and does, by WHO he appoints to the position of Fed Chairman.
Presidents that have a clue also have HUGE control over the money supply by how they fine tune and enforce immigration law, the demographics of entrepreneurialism is hugely effected in a relatively short time by emigration from europe since the average age of those emigrants is around 35.
The Feds money supply adjustments are diluted by this immigration which has a BIG effect on economic growth and the job market, although I don't expect you to understand this.
��� I AM NOT SURPRISED !!!
You just like to argue !
Your dreaming. The only thing a president can directly do to a market is provide a psychological boost, like when Reagan took office. The president can pass laws that make things favorable for the economy and stock market. However, this takes years to see the effects. And in case you don't know, the president can NOT pass laws by himself.
Again, since you clearly have no idea about government or economics, the market did well during the 80's because the overall economy was doing well. Which was normal, considering the country was in recession during the Carter administration. Oh, and the economy did poorly during the BUsh administration. Then did well during Clinton. It's called the business cycle. Which you obviously have no idea what that is. If you did, you would understand what the Fed does.
WTF does foreign confidence have to due with domestic economy? Carter was a failure economically because he was ineffective. And this was due to Congress. And AGAIN, there is something called the business cycle. You should study your history. The value of the dollar has little effect on day to day matters. Additionally, the foreign investment you speak of is important to debt, in the form of bonds and t-bills. It has far less effect on the stock market. You should study how world markets work.
While the president does appoint reserve board members, again your completely wrong. When Bush came into office, Greenspan was Chairman. So obviously, Bush did not appoint him. In fact, Ronald Reagan appointed him. Additionally, the governers serve for a time long enough to effectively keep them independent (14 years). So tell me, how does the President instruct the Fed to adjust the money supply? Oh that's right, he can't.
Basically, what you are saying is that the President also completely controls the Supreme court since the president also nominates justices? Whatever.
Immigration from Europe? What century are you living in? You think that effects the US economy? Puh-lease. Europe is in decline. Economically, the US pays attention to China and the far east. Not Europe. The money supply is diluted by immigration? WTF. And the President controls the money supply through immigration law? Those statements are absurd. In fact, they have to be some of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
I am guessing your living in Europe. Which would explain your euro-centric, myopic, and ill-informed opinions about how the US government and economy works.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
brianus
Sep 1, 02:59 PM
This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 02:00 PM
Intel is expected to drop the price in September/October by almost everyone (including most analysts and media outlets), it's extremely likely they will.
Yeah, that's why I said yet :) I'm guessing it'll be about a 10 - 25% drop.
Yeah, that's why I said yet :) I'm guessing it'll be about a 10 - 25% drop.
salvatorereda
Jan 13, 12:50 PM
"Macbook Air" was just reregistered on 01.11.08 as a .com
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
Tonsko
Jan 6, 05:57 AM
http://www.zen11481.zen.co.uk/Pictures/R32/r32_nearside_front_small.jpg
Sorry...didn't realise the pic was so large. thought the forum might resize it. Here's a smaller version. Anyway. My beloved .:R32 :)
Sorry...didn't realise the pic was so large. thought the forum might resize it. Here's a smaller version. Anyway. My beloved .:R32 :)
doo-hik-ee
Jan 3, 09:06 PM
give me an apple clothing line!
HecubusPro
Aug 29, 05:42 PM
Amen to that. I give this about as much credibility as an apple rumor scrawled in sharpie on a gas station toilet stall.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
SciFrog
May 3, 12:10 PM
They are fine on my 07 8 cores Mac Pro. Even light encoding is fine...
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
No comments:
Post a Comment