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.
dr Dunkel
Apr 21, 09:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I guess the "pro" in the notebook world weighs a little less than in the world of racing :-)
I guess the "pro" in the notebook world weighs a little less than in the world of racing :-)
gugy
Nov 29, 09:20 PM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
I am with you but I believe Apple will offer that trough Elgato with Front Row and some sort of DVR functionality via EyeTV. That way Apple's offers DVR without compromising themselves with the whole DRM thing and pissing off the networks.
Mark my words. Plus, I think the Elgato's founder is on Apple's board of directors.
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
I am with you but I believe Apple will offer that trough Elgato with Front Row and some sort of DVR functionality via EyeTV. That way Apple's offers DVR without compromising themselves with the whole DRM thing and pissing off the networks.
Mark my words. Plus, I think the Elgato's founder is on Apple's board of directors.
lannim
Apr 9, 09:29 PM
Of course I can, first thing I learned. How did I learn? My dad threw me the keys in two feet of snow and told me to go to the store. I'd love to still own one but my wife refuses to learn it, or doesn't have the mental capacity to so im stuck with automatics
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:54 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
You're right and that sucks. :(
You're right and that sucks. :(
Goldfinger
Aug 31, 12:12 PM
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-08-31/#5869
What about this ? :)
What about this ? :)
twoodcc
Aug 29, 10:06 AM
well at least they are upgrading them. but i agree, the mini needs merom
marcre3363
Apr 12, 08:42 PM
I received an email from Avid yesterday offering FCP owners an opportunity to buy Media Composer for $995. If I had the cash, I'd probably jump on it.
smileyborg
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
I really like this ad. Maybe this will be the new direction of Apple's marketing?
brianus
Sep 1, 01:22 PM
these prices seem a lot more like what I was thinking. Wishful? maybe, but this would be aggressive pricing, not keeping the current 17" and 20" where they are and throwing the 23" way over their marks.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. It's not so much that they're growing the iMac line and reaching towards the Mac Pro; rather, 23" is the new 20" and 20" is the new 17". Just the natural progression of things. And 17" definitely needs to be relegated to Education Only (I could see them being sold to some businesses too, perhaps), lest it either cannibalize the Mac mini at its too-reduced price, or seem like way too little for the money.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. It's not so much that they're growing the iMac line and reaching towards the Mac Pro; rather, 23" is the new 20" and 20" is the new 17". Just the natural progression of things. And 17" definitely needs to be relegated to Education Only (I could see them being sold to some businesses too, perhaps), lest it either cannibalize the Mac mini at its too-reduced price, or seem like way too little for the money.
frankie
Aug 25, 10:41 AM
I thought Yonah and Merom are basically the same cost-wise. That's why everyone thinks including merom in new systems won't raise the price of those systems.
Exactly so. For everyone's reference, here's a current Intel price chart (per CPU in lots of 1000): http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html
It makes certain options quite clear. For example:
Trending: Selena Gomez, Taylor
Teen Model Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez
miley cyrus or selena gomez?
selena gomez on barney and
Selena Gomez playing fairy on
Selena gomez albums
Exactly so. For everyone's reference, here's a current Intel price chart (per CPU in lots of 1000): http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html
It makes certain options quite clear. For example:
jwa276
Nov 15, 09:12 AM
Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
kalun
Oct 23, 11:00 PM
Meanwhile, product checks (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2163) indicate that several European hardware distributers "ran dry" of MacBook and MacBook Pro inventory several weeks ago.
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
ipedro
Apr 12, 10:26 PM
You're not taking into account that the price is for FCP X alone, not the whole suite of app's
In fact I was. I said Final Cut Pro should sell for around $300, not Final Cut Studio.
- iMovie for the general public.
- Final Cut Pro for those who want more control ranging from the semi-pro to the big movie studio.
I'm guessing that the other apps will be announced as part of Final Cut Studio before FCP comes out of beta or you'll be able to buy those apps as standalone in the app store.
In fact I was. I said Final Cut Pro should sell for around $300, not Final Cut Studio.
- iMovie for the general public.
- Final Cut Pro for those who want more control ranging from the semi-pro to the big movie studio.
I'm guessing that the other apps will be announced as part of Final Cut Studio before FCP comes out of beta or you'll be able to buy those apps as standalone in the app store.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:26 AM
It says Vista 2.0, not 2...
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Macopotamus
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
an email from SEPTEMBER of last year is relevant now? maybe they didn't have plans then but are killing it now? things change
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
kind of strange to mention a 9 month old email dont you think?
Nameci
Feb 27, 07:04 PM
now not to start a ppc vs intel flame war. but if it serves his purposes just fine why would he switch? for example my MDD works amazingly well and if it had a better graphics card it would be my main machine; why? because when you run software that is optimized for ppc (and most pro apps still are) they are blazing fast. as far as i can recall i could run fcp at a speed that rivaled my 13 mbp (before its gfx card died). anyway don't take this personally :P just pointing out a fact.
(if this starts a flame war i will seriously smack myself XD :p)
No offense taken anyway... I am more mature, I am not into Intel Mac stuff yet. Still find the challenge to keep this old machines working. And they worked fine with minimum upkeep.
If ever apple will decide to switch to another processor I might find the interest to take on Intel Macs and collect... :D
And it is not the only PPC machine that I have...
(if this starts a flame war i will seriously smack myself XD :p)
No offense taken anyway... I am more mature, I am not into Intel Mac stuff yet. Still find the challenge to keep this old machines working. And they worked fine with minimum upkeep.
If ever apple will decide to switch to another processor I might find the interest to take on Intel Macs and collect... :D
And it is not the only PPC machine that I have...
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 12:50 PM
Just thinking... Perhaps the MacBook Air IS the tablet Mac!
AlphaDogg
Feb 24, 07:00 PM
Here's my mbp setup.
Do I see a white iPhone 3G/3GS peeking in there?
Do I see a white iPhone 3G/3GS peeking in there?
Multimedia
Aug 25, 03:27 AM
I dont think they will go core 2 yet, the mini is entry level, they will rather upgrade the macbook and the imac first before they go for the core 2 in the mini. That sayd, why not keep the solo and lower the price (3 mini models maybe), for many the reason why they arent switching is because of price, and with a lot of people only doing light office/home stuff the solo is good enough.
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
kelving525
Sep 14, 11:29 PM
Thanks!
Says it's available, but from working in retail in the past in a store with online checking of stock I know that what is listed as "available" is not always accurate. But I will walk over there tomorrow and check it out, not far to go anyhow. :)
I haven't noticed that case today, they were all Griffin. They may have it there tmr, so who knows? :)
Says it's available, but from working in retail in the past in a store with online checking of stock I know that what is listed as "available" is not always accurate. But I will walk over there tomorrow and check it out, not far to go anyhow. :)
I haven't noticed that case today, they were all Griffin. They may have it there tmr, so who knows? :)
Takuro
Apr 3, 02:04 AM
Not sure if this is new to DP2, but if you go to System Preferences -> Appearance -> Sidebar icon size
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
islanders
Dec 30, 11:25 AM
People would complain about not being able to drive it in hot weather and having to buy expensive Apple iWax.
no it would run on methane gas, would only be able to turn to the left, and you couldn't roll down the windows :eek:
no it would run on methane gas, would only be able to turn to the left, and you couldn't roll down the windows :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment