kainjow
Jul 20, 12:29 AM
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Spoony
Apr 26, 02:31 PM
Yes you can... to a certain extent.
Two stores can be named the same if the name is generic in nature.
Apple didn't create the word "App Store". This has been proven in many threads about this very topic.
They popularized it and then went so far as to even give it generic meaning.
Steve did that himself. Now he's trying to lay claim to it after the fact.
Will he win... who knows.
But nothing is as black and white as many claim to believe it is.
Trademark law is complicated.
I've read through everone's comments and thought about it more and now I'm undecided. I see both sides and both points.
I get it "Pet Store" "Computer Store" etc.. "App Store"
Yes app is an old word, yes it is generic.
That being said no one outside computer people used that word. "App" won word of the year for 2010 b/c of apple.
So not sure but... If apple loses this that would be very frustrating for them. They created something, poured millions of dollars into advertising it "there's an app for that" and everyone else just gets to rise with their tide.
I'd say let microsoft and Amazon use the name if they both go on a month long ad blitz saying "we are going to copy apples app store name, although generic they made it famous and we are going to mooch off their success."
Two stores can be named the same if the name is generic in nature.
Apple didn't create the word "App Store". This has been proven in many threads about this very topic.
They popularized it and then went so far as to even give it generic meaning.
Steve did that himself. Now he's trying to lay claim to it after the fact.
Will he win... who knows.
But nothing is as black and white as many claim to believe it is.
Trademark law is complicated.
I've read through everone's comments and thought about it more and now I'm undecided. I see both sides and both points.
I get it "Pet Store" "Computer Store" etc.. "App Store"
Yes app is an old word, yes it is generic.
That being said no one outside computer people used that word. "App" won word of the year for 2010 b/c of apple.
So not sure but... If apple loses this that would be very frustrating for them. They created something, poured millions of dollars into advertising it "there's an app for that" and everyone else just gets to rise with their tide.
I'd say let microsoft and Amazon use the name if they both go on a month long ad blitz saying "we are going to copy apples app store name, although generic they made it famous and we are going to mooch off their success."
OldSkoolNJ
Sep 7, 08:28 AM
The prices in CompUSa will be dropped on Friday for what they may actually have in stock. They have been constraining them for the past couple weeks. All I have is the display core duo and one box stock core solo. Alot of the apple employees who work in the CompUSAs had extra days off this week due to the holiday (much needed) so they may not have been back into CUSA to let the staff know.
Kevin
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
Kevin
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
Manic Mouse
Aug 19, 08:03 AM
PSP interface is so cumbersome, though. Just have a laptop.
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
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
Object-X
Nov 27, 03:20 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course. :p
NicoleRichie
Apr 20, 01:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Only rare in the US. Most rentals I have had in the last year out of the US are stick. Taugt myself how to drive a manual by "borrowing" my friends dads Shelby mustang for let's say joy rides... Don't tell him, only my mates mom knows.
Only rare in the US. Most rentals I have had in the last year out of the US are stick. Taugt myself how to drive a manual by "borrowing" my friends dads Shelby mustang for let's say joy rides... Don't tell him, only my mates mom knows.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 16, 09:26 PM
Just wait and see. I bet the only new thing we'll see is iPod Nano's getting more storage. As for the replacment of the iPod Video. Just a bigger screen.
Sounds pretty likely to happen, like a large percentage of the people here I am waiting for the next updates of the iPods before I buy.
Sounds pretty likely to happen, like a large percentage of the people here I am waiting for the next updates of the iPods before I buy.
ChazUK
Apr 26, 01:58 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/
Thanks for the video Consultant. Looks like my computing knowledge doesn't span back far enough. Are there any more videos or links that discuss the history of widgets at all?
My quick bit of searching has bought me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desk_accessories and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_engine which implies that Apple may have been the precursor to modern desktop widgets.
Interesting stuff.
http://obamapacman.com/2011/04/1984-mac-os-system-1-gui-apps-video/
Thanks for the video Consultant. Looks like my computing knowledge doesn't span back far enough. Are there any more videos or links that discuss the history of widgets at all?
My quick bit of searching has bought me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desk_accessories and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_engine which implies that Apple may have been the precursor to modern desktop widgets.
Interesting stuff.
AppleDroid
Apr 19, 12:58 PM
It be fine if the ACD wasn't a grand. :eek:
True but there are plenty of other manufactures that make monitors with DP...
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
No doubt especially studios (for design anyway) but considering the cost of buying an iMac (for office) plus a MBP (for meetings, on the go) it is getting much more cost efficient to just get the MBP + external keyboard/monitor for the home/office. (Plus some of designers hate glossy but I won't go there!)
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
I think if Apple would allow what most other companies do, swap the optical drive for a 2nd HDD bay, most of us (myself included) would not need a Mac Pro anymore for 90% of what we do. Note: hardcore 3D/editors I understand you will always need your power tower.
True but there are plenty of other manufactures that make monitors with DP...
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
No doubt especially studios (for design anyway) but considering the cost of buying an iMac (for office) plus a MBP (for meetings, on the go) it is getting much more cost efficient to just get the MBP + external keyboard/monitor for the home/office. (Plus some of designers hate glossy but I won't go there!)
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
I think if Apple would allow what most other companies do, swap the optical drive for a 2nd HDD bay, most of us (myself included) would not need a Mac Pro anymore for 90% of what we do. Note: hardcore 3D/editors I understand you will always need your power tower.
Doraemon
Mar 18, 09:35 AM
I didn't sign either.
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
swingerofbirch
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
I think there already are online download rental sites, presumably for WMP a la Windows.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them.
aussie_geek
Oct 23, 08:41 PM
correct. santa rosa will not even be released by intel until april 2007 at the earliest, and i would guess not actually in a buyable system until may/june.
point taken - my bad. but knowing apple - they will announce the new pro and then say it will ship 5 months later...
aussie_geek
point taken - my bad. but knowing apple - they will announce the new pro and then say it will ship 5 months later...
aussie_geek
azentropy
Sep 15, 08:34 AM
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users.
CR disagrees. So if a product works most of the time for most people that is good enough to recommend? They are saying they don't recommend it.
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
Which does not affect this model, so they should change their recommendation based on what future models may or may not fix?
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
In order for them to recommend it, yes. Or at least include the case at time of purchase. They have stated this.
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
No, you are missing the point. Yes auto manufactures have recalls all the time and yes the customer has to come in to get it fixed on previous purchases. HOWEVER, they also fix all NEW automobiles before continue to sell to new customers. Apple isn't doing that, and that is CR's complaint.
CR disagrees. So if a product works most of the time for most people that is good enough to recommend? They are saying they don't recommend it.
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
Which does not affect this model, so they should change their recommendation based on what future models may or may not fix?
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
In order for them to recommend it, yes. Or at least include the case at time of purchase. They have stated this.
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
No, you are missing the point. Yes auto manufactures have recalls all the time and yes the customer has to come in to get it fixed on previous purchases. HOWEVER, they also fix all NEW automobiles before continue to sell to new customers. Apple isn't doing that, and that is CR's complaint.
milbournosphere
Jan 28, 03:28 PM
Here's my entry into this thread. This is my recently purchased WJ out in Death Valley for New Years. This was about 6 miles out on a backroad trail, just as we got to where we were going to pitch the tents. It was cold, but the hiking was great. It looks like a stock photo but I swear it's real :). It's an '04 HO V8 Limited, all the bells and whistles, basically stock. So far it's been great. Previous owner was a firefighter, and I think this is one of the few cars that can actually pull off the red.
Markleshark
Sep 6, 06:48 AM
Wow... Pleaseeeeeee let it be
jxyama
Mar 19, 11:11 AM
You take the low end model, subtract the cost for the monitor and you have a computer that is sitting in the $500.00 - $600.00 range. Many people already have monitors and if not, you can find a decent one for relatively low cost.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
Dont Hurt Me
Aug 31, 03:05 PM
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.Ahh crippling like using inferior Gpu's like in ProMac & Mini? Both GMA950 & 7300 are bottom tier.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.Ahh crippling like using inferior Gpu's like in ProMac & Mini? Both GMA950 & 7300 are bottom tier.
LostPacket
Nov 29, 02:26 PM
I don't care what extra features it has, as long as Apple designs a decent remote for it. Something full-sized with a click-wheel. I'd love to fast-forward through a movie using the click-wheel. The 4X, 8X etc on my current PVR just doesn't do it for me.
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 02:42 PM
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
I wasn't aware of that. I suppose in a car, for example, where there's a high noise floor, reducing the dynamic range might be a good idea—but that should be a knob on your unit, not theirs!
Edit: The frequency thing kind of reminds me of the old days, when the electric utilities used to bitch and moan that: "We're not selling a timekeeping service!" Even so, while there might not be exactly 60 cycles in every second all day, they'd speed up or slow down a little bit towards midnight to make sure there was exactly 5,184,000 cycles in a day. If your TV picture started rolling late at night, that was probably why!
And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
I wasn't aware of that. I suppose in a car, for example, where there's a high noise floor, reducing the dynamic range might be a good idea—but that should be a knob on your unit, not theirs!
Edit: The frequency thing kind of reminds me of the old days, when the electric utilities used to bitch and moan that: "We're not selling a timekeeping service!" Even so, while there might not be exactly 60 cycles in every second all day, they'd speed up or slow down a little bit towards midnight to make sure there was exactly 5,184,000 cycles in a day. If your TV picture started rolling late at night, that was probably why!
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 11:43 PM
Ok - I've been into Macs for a couple years now, so I don't have the history with the company of many of you do.
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
They did they same thing when introducing Tiger...say things like "Redmond we have a problem" or "Introducing Longhorn"
I don't think you'll be seeing Leopard till end of this year to beginning of next year
Edit: Look at the pics above this post :-)
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
They did they same thing when introducing Tiger...say things like "Redmond we have a problem" or "Introducing Longhorn"
I don't think you'll be seeing Leopard till end of this year to beginning of next year
Edit: Look at the pics above this post :-)
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 02:43 PM
yes, as you say this is probably too late to be a knock-out to Gadaffi.......and noting that icons of the international revolutionary left such as Castro, Ortega, Chavez et al were quick to support Gadaffi, it seems likely he'll get some support in rearming as necessary
You'd be surprised how much destruction can test ppl's zealotry. Whoever controls the air, pretty much has a gigantic advantage in pounding the enemy into submission. War is more of a weapons match than a "will of the people match" like Hollywood stories.
And as we speak, US has started pounding them now. Although it's kind of surprising, as one would have thought you'd just one night see another "shock and awe" type of initial onslaught. Maybe this coordination was a little late and not as organized as they would have liked. I don't really see the purpose of taking pot shots here and there, while the real advantage is to take the enemy by surprise and destroy as many assets you can before he tries to hide and hole up.
You'd be surprised how much destruction can test ppl's zealotry. Whoever controls the air, pretty much has a gigantic advantage in pounding the enemy into submission. War is more of a weapons match than a "will of the people match" like Hollywood stories.
And as we speak, US has started pounding them now. Although it's kind of surprising, as one would have thought you'd just one night see another "shock and awe" type of initial onslaught. Maybe this coordination was a little late and not as organized as they would have liked. I don't really see the purpose of taking pot shots here and there, while the real advantage is to take the enemy by surprise and destroy as many assets you can before he tries to hide and hole up.
DewGuy1999
Nov 28, 09:10 AM
and 2 receipts from the Veterinarian Hospital for my female cat - 325.25$
Hope she's doing well.
Hope she's doing well.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 05:18 PM
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost… it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome… lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run, Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
Damning with faint praise! In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars, but I don't expect the Cruze to be anything other than a cheap-n-cheerful small car - solid but unexceptional. It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
And we never got to see it here. :mad:
While I haven't driven the Insignia over in Europe, the Regal drives solid and is very stable. So I don't think they did any modifications to the suspension.
A SPEED TV show went over to Europe to drive a US Spec Buick Regal and drove it on the autobahn and nurburgring.
I haven't had any experience with the new Regal, but on paper it certainly looks like a substantial improvement over the previous iterations.
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome… lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run, Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
Damning with faint praise! In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars, but I don't expect the Cruze to be anything other than a cheap-n-cheerful small car - solid but unexceptional. It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
And we never got to see it here. :mad:
While I haven't driven the Insignia over in Europe, the Regal drives solid and is very stable. So I don't think they did any modifications to the suspension.
A SPEED TV show went over to Europe to drive a US Spec Buick Regal and drove it on the autobahn and nurburgring.
I haven't had any experience with the new Regal, but on paper it certainly looks like a substantial improvement over the previous iterations.
No comments:
Post a Comment