DavieBoy
Jun 22, 12:21 PM
it is the only product now to start with the "i" and not run the "i"OS.
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.
MattyMac
Aug 6, 09:12 PM
It's like Christmas Eve:D
infidel69
Mar 24, 01:13 PM
Awesome news, I recomend the ATI 5870. It can be found for only $200 and it more than holds it's own against the latest and greatest from Nvidia and ATI. It's only 6 percent slower than a 6950. The 6950 on the other hand can be flashed to a 6970 quite easily but it costs abot $260.
remmy
Mar 31, 03:36 PM
Suppose the British fascination with WWII comes from the fact that it was close, we could of easily lost.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 12:38 AM
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
thejadedmonkey
Aug 16, 07:47 AM
Well, it sounds like the next iPod's going to be a rather large update if half the rumors are to be believed.
aafuss1
Aug 29, 06:34 PM
No Blu-Ray, as slot load would not be able to have enough cooling-leave it for next Mac Pro.
Combo drive disappears, and is now EDU only. All retail now have DVD burning as standard-like on the iMac. Core Duo on all 2 configs. Perhaps a air-cooled GPU with dedicated RAM for the best modfel.
Combo drive disappears, and is now EDU only. All retail now have DVD burning as standard-like on the iMac. Core Duo on all 2 configs. Perhaps a air-cooled GPU with dedicated RAM for the best modfel.
macman2790
Nov 27, 01:19 PM
this would be cool. It would even be better if someone other than the digitimes discovered it.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
Lol, OK BRO. They were designed to make the Intel GPU look good? That's pretty hilarious. Then you post a video of you comparing the 320M and Intel 3000 under OS X playing Starcraft 2 and tell me your results that prove those benchmarks wrong.
With only a couple months difference in release date, Sandy Bridge is a bad purchase.
Yeah, because we all know how lovely AMD's desktop processors have been. :rolleyes: Let alone their mobile processors. The only thing they have going for them is their price. If you want a better processor, buy Sandy Bridge. If you want a better GPU, buy Llano. Or just buy a Sandy Bridge machine with a discrete GPU that take a crap all over both the Llano and Intel's IGP. Stop with your unreleased AMD propaganda.
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
Lol, OK BRO. They were designed to make the Intel GPU look good? That's pretty hilarious. Then you post a video of you comparing the 320M and Intel 3000 under OS X playing Starcraft 2 and tell me your results that prove those benchmarks wrong.
With only a couple months difference in release date, Sandy Bridge is a bad purchase.
Yeah, because we all know how lovely AMD's desktop processors have been. :rolleyes: Let alone their mobile processors. The only thing they have going for them is their price. If you want a better processor, buy Sandy Bridge. If you want a better GPU, buy Llano. Or just buy a Sandy Bridge machine with a discrete GPU that take a crap all over both the Llano and Intel's IGP. Stop with your unreleased AMD propaganda.
Link2999
Sep 20, 11:34 AM
I caved and bought a Belkin Grip Vue. It's a pretty nice little case, but it's expensive for what you're getting. $25 for a small piece of rubber. It's hard on the outside and soft on the inside. Green color looks nice though.
lilcosco08
Mar 25, 09:58 PM
Welp, that GPU will be able to power the rumored better display of the iPad 3 :D
mdatwood
Apr 26, 02:02 PM
Matts Macintosh describes 1984 Mac System 1 comes with dash-board like widgets. Video:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/04/1984-mac-os-system-1-gui-apps-video/
Interesting video, although being able to open a calculator seems to be a generous definition of widget.
http://obamapacman.com/2011/04/1984-mac-os-system-1-gui-apps-video/
Interesting video, although being able to open a calculator seems to be a generous definition of widget.
Irishman
May 3, 02:48 PM
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
Well, you got what you wanted on the 2GB 6970m! At least as a BTO option.
Well, you got what you wanted on the 2GB 6970m! At least as a BTO option.
Mac'Mo
Jan 3, 08:49 PM
give me an apple clothing line!
poguemahone
Jan 12, 07:45 AM
Hi
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
dscuber9000
Apr 3, 12:54 PM
I saw the ad yesterday on TV and I really liked it. It didn't show a bunch of apps I'll never use, it kind of drove home the point that the future of computing will be something like this.
.Andy
Aug 19, 08:58 AM
Like I said, an iPod with a touch screen and a slide out QWERTY keyboard (a la MYLO) would be better and more portable than a laptop. As clunky as the PSP's interface is, the feature of surfing the net is still very useful and popular. Imagine how much better a MYLO iPod would be. The media player market is staurated, so if Apple intend to continue to do well they need to make the new iPod much more than a media player. Incorperating WiFi into an music/video player is almost pointless, yet is many time more useful if you can check mail, IM and surf the net. It's a natural evolution of what the iPod is. And other companies are beating Apple to it: http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/itpd/mylo/prod/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQFjKwVFB0
I disagree with pretty much everything you said here Manic Mouse :D.
I really hope the iPod doesn't go down the line of convergence/frankenstein/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. It's a solid music player and it's main priority should be as such. In my experience with work colleagues and parents/in-laws the iPod is almost bordering on being too difficult as it is just with just music and video. Many never bother with video or podcasts or even firmware updates because they perceive it to be too complex. Adding slide-out keyboards, larger/deeper navigation menus, wifi connections, and email configuration would probably push it over the edge as far as being too technologically intimidating for most. Not to mention the size sacrifice.
Apple may bring something else to the market to compete if there really is a decent market for devices like the Mylo (which I'm personally not too sure there is).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQFjKwVFB0
I disagree with pretty much everything you said here Manic Mouse :D.
I really hope the iPod doesn't go down the line of convergence/frankenstein/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. It's a solid music player and it's main priority should be as such. In my experience with work colleagues and parents/in-laws the iPod is almost bordering on being too difficult as it is just with just music and video. Many never bother with video or podcasts or even firmware updates because they perceive it to be too complex. Adding slide-out keyboards, larger/deeper navigation menus, wifi connections, and email configuration would probably push it over the edge as far as being too technologically intimidating for most. Not to mention the size sacrifice.
Apple may bring something else to the market to compete if there really is a decent market for devices like the Mylo (which I'm personally not too sure there is).
asrai
May 3, 07:54 AM
Whatever happened to Command-Delete?
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
Uh, no not much... especially considering deleting an image is NOTHING like deleting an application. :rolleyes:
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
Uh, no not much... especially considering deleting an image is NOTHING like deleting an application. :rolleyes:
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 05:48 PM
I have the same thing happens with my safari in full screen where you hover your mouse over the top and the menubar slide down it is a bug because it the bar serve no function right now -that definitely did happen in DP!
Although Safari has not crashed yet where it crash several time a day in DP1
I don't think it is a bug. It allows more screen to show when using full screen mode. The menubar re-appears when needed. Preview auto hides the menubar as when in full screen mode.
Although Safari has not crashed yet where it crash several time a day in DP1
I don't think it is a bug. It allows more screen to show when using full screen mode. The menubar re-appears when needed. Preview auto hides the menubar as when in full screen mode.
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:53 PM
And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 05:32 PM
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Even if it didn't directly affect the oil trade, I wouldn't be surprised if yet another US base or two somehow gets negotiated into the aftermath. That's also "securing the oil". If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
SamEllens
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
The variety of source formats is going to continue to expand. Sure, some common standards emerge, such as hard drives and flash media, but just because in the past there was only one origination and one output format doesn't mean that this is the way the process has to work, or is somehow intrinsically superior.
By source and output I'm pretty sure he's referring to what you call the Preview/Canvas monitors in FCP, or Source/Record in AVID.
By source and output I'm pretty sure he's referring to what you call the Preview/Canvas monitors in FCP, or Source/Record in AVID.
Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
No comments:
Post a Comment