lorductape
Nov 27, 05:08 PM
I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.
I agree, however, you get what you pay for, as has been proven many times before by apple. how many other monitors of the pix. dimensions of the 30' are there on the market? the resolutions are amazing! also, I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.
I agree, however, you get what you pay for, as has been proven many times before by apple. how many other monitors of the pix. dimensions of the 30' are there on the market? the resolutions are amazing! also, I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.
twoodcc
Feb 3, 06:24 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 8 million points!
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 02:22 PM
At the end of the day, I believe this is going to court.
I think the heart of the case will be hinged on proving if "app store" and/or "appstore" was in common use before apple applied for the TM. It does not matter in the least what "app" is short for, or what it means, or who used it for what. Only "appstore" or "app store."
If they were to concede it was unique, but argue that it is NOW generic, I'd think they'd lose, (because Amazon and Microsoft seem to be ones generalizing it.)
Microsoft already made their opposition known in the USPTO's opposition phase for Apple's trademark application. This will go to court sooner than Amazon/Apple does.
I think the heart of the case will be hinged on proving if "app store" and/or "appstore" was in common use before apple applied for the TM. It does not matter in the least what "app" is short for, or what it means, or who used it for what. Only "appstore" or "app store."
If they were to concede it was unique, but argue that it is NOW generic, I'd think they'd lose, (because Amazon and Microsoft seem to be ones generalizing it.)
Microsoft already made their opposition known in the USPTO's opposition phase for Apple's trademark application. This will go to court sooner than Amazon/Apple does.
Eduardo1971
Apr 19, 11:36 AM
Brian Tong also claims to have dated women and have friends...both statements are so obviously contradicted by his horrible fashion sense and self destructive tendency to embarrass himself with every spoken word. He looks like a Shaolin Monk merged with Amy Winehouse.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking water when I read your reply. It is flat out hilarious!
Ace!
One a separate note: who gave this article a negative?:mad: Probably someone wanting more iphone/ipad/ios rumours.:p
I'm glad I wasn't drinking water when I read your reply. It is flat out hilarious!
Ace!
One a separate note: who gave this article a negative?:mad: Probably someone wanting more iphone/ipad/ios rumours.:p
miloblithe
Sep 6, 09:30 AM
Comparing the prices of the new iMacs and the Mac mini is absurd. The killer
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
EagerDragon
Jul 19, 07:28 PM
Nice to see the mothership sailing smoothly. What do you reckon for the Christmas quarter? Is 2 million Macs possible?
Given the popularity of the MacBook, the MacBook pro, the iMac, and soon the Mac Pro, and the ability to hedge your bets by running windows, I would think that 2 mil or maybe 2.2 mil Macs are possible in the Xmas quater.
Care to bet?
Given the popularity of the MacBook, the MacBook pro, the iMac, and soon the Mac Pro, and the ability to hedge your bets by running windows, I would think that 2 mil or maybe 2.2 mil Macs are possible in the Xmas quater.
Care to bet?
RebootD
Apr 12, 08:48 PM
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Good summery. Now they just need to update FCE! It's been what? 4 years?
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Good summery. Now they just need to update FCE! It's been what? 4 years?
Consultant
Mar 22, 03:41 PM
I'll buy a 220GB iPod classic. No compression win, if that happens.
neko girl
Mar 20, 11:38 AM
Several court rulings have placed the rights of Gay people above the rights of people holding religious beliefs.
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
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.
CdnBook
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
Super stoked!! Very much looking forward to this!
rasmasyean
Mar 21, 10:08 PM
The idea is to avoid casualties as much as possible by rapidly degrading Gaddafi's ability to wage war. The focus is on inflicting material damage to the Gaddafi-loyalist military, and to disrupt their operations against rebel-held cities - not killing Gaddafi loyalists.
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
Surely
Jan 12, 10:27 AM
if you look at the codenames for many products, and I'm talking about way back to the apple II days, air seems more like a codename for a product than the product name itself. Maybe they will announce something like they did with the "iTV" and refer to it by its codename, because they don't have a name yet and it's not even out for official release yet.
Stop making sense. It's not welcome here.
You need to be more fanboy-ish. :D
Stop making sense. It's not welcome here.
You need to be more fanboy-ish. :D
SciFrog
Mar 23, 08:11 AM
33 mins per frame with the iMac i7? That seems awfully fast. 25k PPD. That looks like the time of a 3Ghz 8 core previous generation Mac Pro.
lifeinhd
Feb 20, 08:59 AM
Not bad, I have it displaying Twitter feeds, NHL scores and weather mostly. If I hadn't have got it for a discount, I'd say the MSRP isn't worth it for the features it has.
Tried one in the Sony store at the mall, and I couldn't get it to actually _do_ anything. YouTube wouldn't play. Music wouldn't play. It wouldn't go back to the Home screen. Still not sure whether it was a shortcoming in the device or my intelligence, lol.
Tried one in the Sony store at the mall, and I couldn't get it to actually _do_ anything. YouTube wouldn't play. Music wouldn't play. It wouldn't go back to the Home screen. Still not sure whether it was a shortcoming in the device or my intelligence, lol.
Counter
Nov 18, 09:29 AM
iTunes saw much less improvements?
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 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.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
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.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
twoodcc
Nov 21, 11:18 PM
That sounds like a great machine that could do better than my new mac pro according to the front page here at MacRumors :eek:
i know. that's why i want to see how it does
i know. that's why i want to see how it does
lordonuthin
Dec 12, 02:36 AM
Grats! Keep at it.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 05:34 AM
This is all Sony's fault.:mad: If they learned anything from the Betamax, they should know that when ever they try to standardize a technology, they fail.
You mean like when they standardised on CD's?
You mean like when they standardised on CD's?
flyfish29
Mar 26, 04:13 PM
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
Yes, Apple made this browser before M$ IE was pulled, but it was obvious that M$ would be pulling it long before they announced it. With the integratioin of IE into windows it was only a matter of time and if Apple had waited until the announcement they would have been so far behind that the mainstream would have suffered. Safari is just now getting up to speed on its accessability to most web pages- and I even still have major accessability problems with some financial pages and registering at some other types of pages. Most people don't know about the alternative browsers out there such as Mozilla, etc. so it would have proved devestating to Apple had they not been on the ball with Safari. They just know netscape, IE and now safari. I think iMac-Japan's comment on this particular issue is partly true as is your Calebj14.
Yes, Apple made this browser before M$ IE was pulled, but it was obvious that M$ would be pulling it long before they announced it. With the integratioin of IE into windows it was only a matter of time and if Apple had waited until the announcement they would have been so far behind that the mainstream would have suffered. Safari is just now getting up to speed on its accessability to most web pages- and I even still have major accessability problems with some financial pages and registering at some other types of pages. Most people don't know about the alternative browsers out there such as Mozilla, etc. so it would have proved devestating to Apple had they not been on the ball with Safari. They just know netscape, IE and now safari. I think iMac-Japan's comment on this particular issue is partly true as is your Calebj14.
KonaBlend
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
mc68k
Dec 12, 12:51 AM
thanks! the points are coming faster these days. i guess they have to to keep up with you guys!
lordonuthin
Apr 4, 07:25 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 12 million points!
Thanks.
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment