Stella
Mar 19, 04:31 PM
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
NATO
Aug 16, 10:47 AM
Apple has apparently denied this rumour... unusual for them, but I reckon it's probably something they're working on
The Register - Apple Wireless iPod Denial (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/)
The Register - Apple Wireless iPod Denial (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/)
Object-X
Nov 27, 08:26 PM
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
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.
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
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.
corywoolf
Sep 6, 03:23 PM
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
Apple's cheapest computer= Mac Mini. Also, I was comparing that to my less then 6 month old 1.83 Ghz MBP.
Apple's cheapest computer= Mac Mini. Also, I was comparing that to my less then 6 month old 1.83 Ghz MBP.
Queso
Jul 19, 03:54 PM
Nice to see the mothership sailing smoothly. What do you reckon for the Christmas quarter? Is 2 million Macs possible?
lordonuthin
Apr 13, 10:21 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 13 million points!
Thanks.
That is about 11-12 days per 1 million points, which would mean about 2.5 million points per month. If I can keep that up for the rest of the year that would put me at around 34 million points or therabouts. The big question is can I afford to keep it up! and also if nothing breaks, catches fire, melts or runs away! :eek:
Thanks.
That is about 11-12 days per 1 million points, which would mean about 2.5 million points per month. If I can keep that up for the rest of the year that would put me at around 34 million points or therabouts. The big question is can I afford to keep it up! and also if nothing breaks, catches fire, melts or runs away! :eek:
WeegieMac
Apr 2, 02:39 AM
As far as I know, Snow Leopard "fixed" what Leopard started. Mac OS X Lion is a completely new OS with new features, most of which are not present in Snow Leopard.
See, I would have to disagree with that.
All of the framework, the underlaying core system changes, were done in Leopard and then refined in Snow Leopard.
All Lion is adding, from what I've seen, is interface changes and some new features that, lets be honest, not every user is going to bother with. Sure, Launchpad looks nice, even in it's frame rate lacking beta form, and Mission Control is a new take on Expose, but other than that it's iOS inspired UI changes, a new version of Safari, and some application interface changes (Mail & iCal come to mind).
I don't think Lion will be a �29/$29 upgrade, but I think given that it'll launch on the Mac App Store, it will follow the example of iLife and Aperture and be cheaper to purchase online than it is off the shelf in a box.
See, I would have to disagree with that.
All of the framework, the underlaying core system changes, were done in Leopard and then refined in Snow Leopard.
All Lion is adding, from what I've seen, is interface changes and some new features that, lets be honest, not every user is going to bother with. Sure, Launchpad looks nice, even in it's frame rate lacking beta form, and Mission Control is a new take on Expose, but other than that it's iOS inspired UI changes, a new version of Safari, and some application interface changes (Mail & iCal come to mind).
I don't think Lion will be a �29/$29 upgrade, but I think given that it'll launch on the Mac App Store, it will follow the example of iLife and Aperture and be cheaper to purchase online than it is off the shelf in a box.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:53 PM
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.Intel has had years developing graphics as well. That statement by itself really doesn't say anything.
Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge? Your whole argument is based on how Llano is supposedly going to be faster than Sandy Bridge. You have yet to state any OpenCL applications that you are using or plan on using in the future yet suddenly you need it NOW because you saw some AMD propaganda video on their YouTube channel. The fact of the matter is, Llano has a VERY slim chance of coming to Macs so it's high time you get over that video and just enjoy Sandy Bridge if you are only buying computers from Apple. If you really needed that extra power then you wouldn't be buying a machine with only an IGP to begin with.
Right.
Like running the new FF 4 (which appears to trigger the dGPU now for no apparent reason). Or when Safari needs to update its thumbnails and the dGPU kicks on.
:p
Hopefully Apple will improve the switchover to make it more frugal.
Yeah, that's why I said generally, lol.
Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge? Your whole argument is based on how Llano is supposedly going to be faster than Sandy Bridge. You have yet to state any OpenCL applications that you are using or plan on using in the future yet suddenly you need it NOW because you saw some AMD propaganda video on their YouTube channel. The fact of the matter is, Llano has a VERY slim chance of coming to Macs so it's high time you get over that video and just enjoy Sandy Bridge if you are only buying computers from Apple. If you really needed that extra power then you wouldn't be buying a machine with only an IGP to begin with.
Right.
Like running the new FF 4 (which appears to trigger the dGPU now for no apparent reason). Or when Safari needs to update its thumbnails and the dGPU kicks on.
:p
Hopefully Apple will improve the switchover to make it more frugal.
Yeah, that's why I said generally, lol.
rxse7en
Oct 23, 11:33 AM
New MacBook Pro's and video iPods for some, abortions and miniature American flags for others
Sacrilicious!
Sacrilicious!
Austin M.
Nov 23, 02:08 PM
The SwitchEasy TRIM case (lime color) for iPhone 4.
kresh
Jan 13, 01:59 AM
GreenPeace will go Ape Shite if the MacBookAir is charged through induction. It will not be near as efficient in power transfer as a direct connection would be. (nothing transfers with 100% efficiency)
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
kingtj
Nov 15, 11:42 AM
To be fair, Apple has been generally "above average" in building computers that handled large amounts of RAM. I was amazed when I realized a couple years ago I could take an old PowerMac 7300 desktop and stuff 1GB of RAM in it. Couple that with a G4 upgrade and PCI card to give it Ultra ATA 100/133 hard disk support, and you had a pretty viable machine for running OS X (using XPostFacto to force it to install on something that outdated).
The biggest "problem" is probably just that people tend to use their older Macs a lot longer than people use their old Windows PCs. So they end up wanting to upgrade them far further than anyone anticipated.
Apple has always had memory crippled computers on the low end. If they could do ONE thing in the coming 64 bit world, I would ask them to make the motherboards at least be able to address FUTURE RAM options as the cost always drops rapidly and the requirements always seem to be predominantly ram based.
Rocketman
The biggest "problem" is probably just that people tend to use their older Macs a lot longer than people use their old Windows PCs. So they end up wanting to upgrade them far further than anyone anticipated.
Apple has always had memory crippled computers on the low end. If they could do ONE thing in the coming 64 bit world, I would ask them to make the motherboards at least be able to address FUTURE RAM options as the cost always drops rapidly and the requirements always seem to be predominantly ram based.
Rocketman
kepner
Mar 31, 01:30 AM
Are you able to download System Voices in DP2?
No, unfortunately.
No, unfortunately.
Stewie
Sep 7, 02:15 PM
Sorry for the nasty long URL (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9OrBsXYjfxgJ:www.amazon.com/b/%3Fie%3DUTF8%26node%3D16263011+unbox+site:amazon.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a), but this is a cache page from a google search where you can see what Amazons offerings our for their new download service.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 09:48 PM
This is all so yummy! I'm quite excited. I've been preparing for WWDC big time....i've got the MR Live site as my homepage, the MR contributors' updates coming to my mobile, i've been watching all the old Stevenotes just to get all psyched up!
.png "selena gomez and demi lovato")
Mattsasa
Mar 24, 02:36 PM
All of those 5xxx cards were already supported!!! I have had 5870s running natively for a long time, and so have the other 5xxx cards.
If apple is planning on supporting off the shelf graphics cards it would only be beneficial for hacking sheds not real macs. The only Mac where a user can upgrade the gpu is the Mac pro, which is really only sold to businesses, which don't really need to upgrade the graphics, especially since the Mac pro comes with 5870s now
If apple is planning on supporting off the shelf graphics cards it would only be beneficial for hacking sheds not real macs. The only Mac where a user can upgrade the gpu is the Mac pro, which is really only sold to businesses, which don't really need to upgrade the graphics, especially since the Mac pro comes with 5870s now
picklescott
Jul 19, 12:20 AM
An article regarding this is now front page on Netscape's home page.
http://www.netscape.com/
http://www.netscape.com/
OdduWon
Jan 1, 09:33 PM
i hope this year apple takes a wider stance on how they support the artists used in there iTMS collection. More web links and a way of getting straight to their upcoming show list would be a nice start, as some were lost when iT 7 came out.
With iTv you could have a "front row" seat for live streamed concerts and events. This would be like pay-per view but with a apple tie in.
And if you had a camera setup YOU could be the event. A sort of iCast ;)
With iTv you could have a "front row" seat for live streamed concerts and events. This would be like pay-per view but with a apple tie in.
And if you had a camera setup YOU could be the event. A sort of iCast ;)
3N16MA
Mar 25, 03:53 PM
Looks better than any racing sim on the Wii.
MacMan86
Apr 23, 11:44 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
Well that's easy - it seems the purpose of this file is to help you find your location quickly. Without this cache you'd waste bandwidth, time and battery power to look up information that was fixed (cell tower locations). It also means your phone can find your location when you don't have GPS signal, or simply not bother to turn GPS on, which is a win because it consumes so much power. Seems like a pretty compelling use to me. Read this for more info: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
Well that's easy - it seems the purpose of this file is to help you find your location quickly. Without this cache you'd waste bandwidth, time and battery power to look up information that was fixed (cell tower locations). It also means your phone can find your location when you don't have GPS signal, or simply not bother to turn GPS on, which is a win because it consumes so much power. Seems like a pretty compelling use to me. Read this for more info: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
N10248
Mar 24, 01:28 PM
Well, that's because all of Apple's other products are constrained by power and/or space requirements.
Mac Pro's have big power supplies but thats mainly for the CPU and Ram, adding a 6970 would be pushing its limits, especially for gaming.
Mac Pro's have big power supplies but thats mainly for the CPU and Ram, adding a 6970 would be pushing its limits, especially for gaming.
MacRumors
Mar 25, 03:34 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/25/real-racing-2-hd-for-ipad-2-to-gain-1080p-video-out-with-dual-displays/)
wovel
Apr 3, 12:18 AM
Which part, the stock information, typing an email, or working on a spreadsheet? ;)
It was the brain scans..
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
It was the brain scans..
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.
No comments:
Post a Comment