Mulyahnto
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
MacGadget.de who?
Doraemon
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
Its killing them
Geez. How many more people do you need to see that you're wrong. :rolleyes:
Geez. How many more people do you need to see that you're wrong. :rolleyes:
cgc
Mar 24, 02:38 PM
I;m going to go out on a limb and preemptively complain my MacPro 1.1 isn't supported :( and is only as configurable as an iMac...the irony...
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:09 PM
Final Cut X - 64 Bit, full re-write! YES!
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
iJawn108
Aug 7, 03:51 AM
*hopes for 802.11n airports!*;)
PlipPlop
Mar 25, 05:18 AM
Do the macpros have a powersuppy with about an extra 500w for a 6970? And the 8 pin and 6 pci-e power ports?
timerollson
Nov 27, 05:04 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5212127859_f4913c6267.jpg
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 02:19 AM
Using your example, couldn't they do that with the GPS tech in most fones today simply by saving your location info in a server side database? I wouldn't put anything pass these companies and govt today.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
KnightWRX
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
Not if they redesign the Macbooks so the video signal goes back the other way down the thunderbolt cable and directly to the display.
So wait, you'd have to dongle a video card to the thunderbolt port to get a decent GPU for the internal monitor, if the signal can travel both ways (going out the port to get processed by this external GPU and then come back to get displayed on the internal screen).
No, just no. That's a terrible idea.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings ?
So wait, you'd have to dongle a video card to the thunderbolt port to get a decent GPU for the internal monitor, if the signal can travel both ways (going out the port to get processed by this external GPU and then come back to get displayed on the internal screen).
No, just no. That's a terrible idea.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings ?
MacQuest
Nov 29, 09:31 PM
He has a point about the XBox... It did start out slower but now is surely considered a predominant player in the market (no pun intended;) ).
Yeah, out of all 3 major options. [Sony, Nintendo, and miCrapsoft] :rolleyes:
Real hard. :p
I bet even I could have whipped up a console one night a few years back and kicked them out of the top 3. ;)
I remember reading sales figures in '04 between PS3 and XSUX. It was something like 74+ million PS3's to 13.x million XSUX's.:D
As has been mentioned several times throughout this thread, there are WAY more manufacturers AND models to contend with in the digital audio player market.
Yeah, out of all 3 major options. [Sony, Nintendo, and miCrapsoft] :rolleyes:
Real hard. :p
I bet even I could have whipped up a console one night a few years back and kicked them out of the top 3. ;)
I remember reading sales figures in '04 between PS3 and XSUX. It was something like 74+ million PS3's to 13.x million XSUX's.:D
As has been mentioned several times throughout this thread, there are WAY more manufacturers AND models to contend with in the digital audio player market.
milo
Aug 16, 01:18 PM
Well, it sounds like the next iPod's going to be a rather large update if half the rumors are to be believed.
I'm not inclined to believe even half of the rumors. And the *next* ipod will probably just be a subtle tweak to the nano in the next six weeks. Video ipods or ones with wireless would be after that.
I don't think wireless will be practical for a while. It's a cool idea, but horrible for battery life.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
What's your complaint about sound quality in the iPod? I think it sounds pretty good, especially if you encode music at higher bitrates.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ...
It wouldn't necessarily require ANY extra DRM, they'd just build it in to the update of the ipod and itunes software. Buy a song directly on the iPod, it only gets transferred to computers with your itunes shopping account. That's pretty much how it works already.
I'm not inclined to believe even half of the rumors. And the *next* ipod will probably just be a subtle tweak to the nano in the next six weeks. Video ipods or ones with wireless would be after that.
I don't think wireless will be practical for a while. It's a cool idea, but horrible for battery life.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
What's your complaint about sound quality in the iPod? I think it sounds pretty good, especially if you encode music at higher bitrates.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ...
It wouldn't necessarily require ANY extra DRM, they'd just build it in to the update of the ipod and itunes software. Buy a song directly on the iPod, it only gets transferred to computers with your itunes shopping account. That's pretty much how it works already.
adam1185
Aug 7, 01:33 AM
Here's the best "Hasta La Vista, Vista." picture so far from MacNN
http://images.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc06/CIMG0473.jpg
http://images.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc06/CIMG0473.jpg
Built
Apr 3, 12:08 AM
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
Wedding Hairstyle For Long
.jpg "up-styles One for woman")
up-styles One for woman
Scrapbook with wedding, formal
Passion Upstyles amp; Wedding
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
theBB
Jul 19, 08:30 PM
Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
But, look at it from the other angle. If Vista and Leopard does not look all that different, why switch to a Mac? Tiger would be a bit more user friendly to maintain, iLife might end up being less buggy, but you gotta balance that againts the "fear of the unknown", repurchasing some of your software and lack of close friends etc. to "borrow" software from. I am not that upbeat about 2007 for OSX.
But, look at it from the other angle. If Vista and Leopard does not look all that different, why switch to a Mac? Tiger would be a bit more user friendly to maintain, iLife might end up being less buggy, but you gotta balance that againts the "fear of the unknown", repurchasing some of your software and lack of close friends etc. to "borrow" software from. I am not that upbeat about 2007 for OSX.
dornoforpyros
Nov 29, 08:15 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
bdkennedy1
Apr 19, 11:02 AM
FINALLY! I've been holding off for over a year upgrading my 2007 iMac because of the ancient ports. Give me my Thunderbolt!
imac_japan
Apr 16, 05:46 AM
Very interesting point but I want Apple's share to grow ! The whole point of this thread is to get Apple into every home - right now, its being done by the Ipod but sales can't continue this good forever so they must push the Macintosh into more homes and business.
vincenz
Feb 26, 05:34 PM
Ha man you really did your research, how'd you find the lamp though?
Thanks, just a bit of sleuthing (googling) on the internet :p
Just looked up "robot lamp" and luckily it came up.
Thanks, just a bit of sleuthing (googling) on the internet :p
Just looked up "robot lamp" and luckily it came up.
B. Hunter
Apr 12, 10:51 PM
Well?????????
I wonder if the next FCE will cost $99.00 now.
Or
is FCP X the new FCE?
Jeeebers! FCP X is the Glee version of video editing.
Yep times are changing.
I wonder if the next FCE will cost $99.00 now.
Or
is FCP X the new FCE?
Jeeebers! FCP X is the Glee version of video editing.
Yep times are changing.
aricher
Nov 27, 01:10 PM
meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.
saxon48
Mar 22, 04:08 PM
Phew. Killing the Classic would be a terrible mistake. The death of an icon right there.
lPHONE
Mar 19, 09:05 PM
Apple comes under fire because App Store is highly regulated and censored. This is the backlash and there's more to come. "If you reject this app, why didn't you reject this app?"- and this is nothing new to us...
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.