chutch15
Sep 20, 07:48 AM
ah, thanks clarifying that. it was kind of hard to tell from some of the pictures. their website said something about "direct access". is it hard to get to the buttons? especially the sleep button?
There is direct access (i.e. no flaps, etc.) to the charging port, headphone jack and speaker (all on the bottom of the device). The buttons are all covered. Love this case.
There is direct access (i.e. no flaps, etc.) to the charging port, headphone jack and speaker (all on the bottom of the device). The buttons are all covered. Love this case.
bristleworm
Mar 24, 02:11 PM
Interestingly, the broad range of cards apparently fully supported under Mac OS X 10.6.7 is leading to speculation that Apple may be looking to support more off-the-shelf GPU options as opposed to the Mac-specific cards that have been used to date.
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
mrfoof82
Apr 19, 11:00 AM
Octo-core please + 16GB ram for �999 : ) *joke*... or is it?
We won't see octo-core until Ivy Bridge. IIRC, for desktop processors, Ivy Bridge will be the first CPU where quad-cores are the bottom rung. And the iMac has been using desktop CPUs for a while (though still SO-DIMMs and mobile GPUs).
That's what I'm waiting for. Not so much the hyperthreaded octo-cores, but for SSD$/GB to continue their downward trend. 27", 8-core, top-tier GPU, 16GB of memory to start, with the 512GB SSD / largest 3.5" HDD they offer. Then hooking up my 27" LED Cinema Display to that for 5120x1440 goodness.
We won't see octo-core until Ivy Bridge. IIRC, for desktop processors, Ivy Bridge will be the first CPU where quad-cores are the bottom rung. And the iMac has been using desktop CPUs for a while (though still SO-DIMMs and mobile GPUs).
That's what I'm waiting for. Not so much the hyperthreaded octo-cores, but for SSD$/GB to continue their downward trend. 27", 8-core, top-tier GPU, 16GB of memory to start, with the 512GB SSD / largest 3.5" HDD they offer. Then hooking up my 27" LED Cinema Display to that for 5120x1440 goodness.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 01:51 PM
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
I've got hard facts to back up my claim. Do you have any for yours? :)
I've got hard facts to back up my claim. Do you have any for yours? :)
Steve W
Mar 23, 04:07 PM
You reckon he actually responds to fan mails on his iPhone? :D
YES! I imagine that if Steve Jobs did not like using the iPhone to respond to fan mails, then the iPhone would be re-designed until he did like it.
YES! I imagine that if Steve Jobs did not like using the iPhone to respond to fan mails, then the iPhone would be re-designed until he did like it.
person135
Oct 30, 01:08 PM
I need a case too :(
I'm looking for a case that can protect from drops/falls and shocks. Screen cover is not necessary, because if the case doesn't come with one I can always buy a separate screen protector.
right now I'm looking at stuff like this case listed on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Touch-MiniSuit-Diamond-Generation-Chain/dp/B0043L2LRW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top#productPromotions)
but I don't feel safe with just some random generic case, so does anyone have any recommendations? I've heard otterbox offers good cases with drop/shock protection, but there are none for the itouch 4g right now.
For price, as low as possible, but I would be willing to shell out 30 for a good case (like otterbox!)
oh and did I mention that drop/shock protection is important? :D
any recommendations are good
thx guys
I'm looking for a case that can protect from drops/falls and shocks. Screen cover is not necessary, because if the case doesn't come with one I can always buy a separate screen protector.
right now I'm looking at stuff like this case listed on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Touch-MiniSuit-Diamond-Generation-Chain/dp/B0043L2LRW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top#productPromotions)
but I don't feel safe with just some random generic case, so does anyone have any recommendations? I've heard otterbox offers good cases with drop/shock protection, but there are none for the itouch 4g right now.
For price, as low as possible, but I would be willing to shell out 30 for a good case (like otterbox!)
oh and did I mention that drop/shock protection is important? :D
any recommendations are good
thx guys
tychay
Nov 28, 08:09 PM
I have no idea where you got that one from. The original Xbox never made a profit. Microsoft is deliberately selling the Xbox 360 at a loss to capture marketshare. However, the PS3 and Ninetindo Wii are selling like hotcakes, are latest big things, and have the buzz. The best laid plans ...
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
imac_japan
Mar 28, 08:04 AM
reasons your wrong
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
I'm not getting into a "your right and Im wrong" discussion. The whole point of this thread is to get Apple to make a cheap Mac so they can tackle the cheap $500 market. Its killing them
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
I'm not getting into a "your right and Im wrong" discussion. The whole point of this thread is to get Apple to make a cheap Mac so they can tackle the cheap $500 market. Its killing them
ingenious
Apr 8, 12:53 PM
I think he did. He said something like "okay, I've read the other side. Now can we go back to talking about my half baked misguided ideas?"
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
karsten
Mar 24, 01:18 PM
pleasegodpleasegodpleasegod
Sailorloco
Nov 24, 08:48 AM
Crystal Head Vodka for turkey day.
Mando
Mando
rKunda
Sep 20, 11:19 PM
I also still don't get how CR can give it the highest overall rating and not recommend it.
IMO, it's down to their perception of their rep. and pride. They can't just come out and say "we were wrong" so they have to dig in.
IMO, it's down to their perception of their rep. and pride. They can't just come out and say "we were wrong" so they have to dig in.
ojwk
Jan 12, 07:29 AM
People here seem to want to condone ANY decision Apple may wish to make. Already people seem to be defensive on the "MacBook Air" name which is probably just a rumor and also seem to be defensive of Apple's decision to remove the optical drive - something we don't even know will happen! People are defensive of Apple's decision to ship the new Mac Pros with the 8800GT and not something of higher spec, people are defensive of Apple's decision not to release a mid-tower.
I'm a big Apple fan myself but sometimes I do see the point many anti-Mac people make that many Apple 'fanboys' will simply defend any decision Apple may or may not make! It doesn't show loyalty or devotion to the brand but a sheep like quality that really isn't desirable.
If you can't formulate your own opinions on stuff then that really doesn't corroborate with the Apple marketing and ethos. "Think Different" etc..
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
Very good point.
Plastic is incredibly hard to recycle as there are many different types that need to be sorted and lots of those can't even be recycled. An example of this is the caps on plastic bottles of Coke etc. This material cannot be recycled - at least my local refuse authority refuses to deal with it.
Aluminum on the other hand is definitely one of the most recyclable materials out there. It is a simple process of melting it down, purification and formation into ingots of aluminum.
I'm a big Apple fan myself but sometimes I do see the point many anti-Mac people make that many Apple 'fanboys' will simply defend any decision Apple may or may not make! It doesn't show loyalty or devotion to the brand but a sheep like quality that really isn't desirable.
If you can't formulate your own opinions on stuff then that really doesn't corroborate with the Apple marketing and ethos. "Think Different" etc..
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
Very good point.
Plastic is incredibly hard to recycle as there are many different types that need to be sorted and lots of those can't even be recycled. An example of this is the caps on plastic bottles of Coke etc. This material cannot be recycled - at least my local refuse authority refuses to deal with it.
Aluminum on the other hand is definitely one of the most recyclable materials out there. It is a simple process of melting it down, purification and formation into ingots of aluminum.
mrfoof82
Apr 19, 11:00 AM
Octo-core please + 16GB ram for �999 : ) *joke*... or is it?
We won't see octo-core until Ivy Bridge. IIRC, for desktop processors, Ivy Bridge will be the first CPU where quad-cores are the bottom rung. And the iMac has been using desktop CPUs for a while (though still SO-DIMMs and mobile GPUs).
That's what I'm waiting for. Not so much the hyperthreaded octo-cores, but for SSD$/GB to continue their downward trend. 27", 8-core, top-tier GPU, 16GB of memory to start, with the 512GB SSD / largest 3.5" HDD they offer. Then hooking up my 27" LED Cinema Display to that for 5120x1440 goodness.
We won't see octo-core until Ivy Bridge. IIRC, for desktop processors, Ivy Bridge will be the first CPU where quad-cores are the bottom rung. And the iMac has been using desktop CPUs for a while (though still SO-DIMMs and mobile GPUs).
That's what I'm waiting for. Not so much the hyperthreaded octo-cores, but for SSD$/GB to continue their downward trend. 27", 8-core, top-tier GPU, 16GB of memory to start, with the 512GB SSD / largest 3.5" HDD they offer. Then hooking up my 27" LED Cinema Display to that for 5120x1440 goodness.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 10, 10:53 AM
Maybe they are rare where you live. In the UK and the rest of Europe they are more common that automatics.
lol, exactly
the vast majority of drivers i know own and prefer manual cars
i learnt in a manual, but my folks have am automatic so lost the skills a little, but i do miss driving manual cars
lol, exactly
the vast majority of drivers i know own and prefer manual cars
i learnt in a manual, but my folks have am automatic so lost the skills a little, but i do miss driving manual cars
DPazdanISU
Aug 16, 07:35 AM
meh
give me an iphone pda type device with that deflatable mouse that can slide into a slot when not needed and gestures :confused: :D
give me an iphone pda type device with that deflatable mouse that can slide into a slot when not needed and gestures :confused: :D
batmccoy
Jun 24, 01:03 PM
I think people are getting confused with an iMac and "workhorse". The iMac was always intended to be a consumer-level device and the consumer desktop segment may be evolving to apps that are touch-friendly (kitchen/TV). Essentially an even larger screen iPad. It also makes sense that the touch capability would help characterize/define the iMac line as different from the Pro line. Even though I'm a professional designer, choosing an iMac over a Pro has been a somewhat confusing decision. Making all the iMacs touch-enabled, would clarify that.
Pro users/developers who generally don't use iMacs, would still make use of a non-touch desktop system.
Pro users/developers who generally don't use iMacs, would still make use of a non-touch desktop system.
twoodcc
Nov 9, 04:03 AM
Well it is not supported, same as running GPU on Linux... Only difference is that they are so many doing so that they figured it out...
it's not supported?
it's not supported?
andiwm2003
Jul 19, 03:52 PM
Where are all you "Apple is doomed" sayers now?:p :D
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
So ADOBE, release those f#$%ing universal binaries NOW!!!!
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
So ADOBE, release those f#$%ing universal binaries NOW!!!!
ErikGrim
Mar 31, 07:15 PM
Is Safari still buggy as feck? Can you drag images out and not have them be .weblocs? Is google maps working properly without tile distortions/not loading?
Earendil
Nov 27, 06:02 PM
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
yac_moda
Jul 19, 07:00 PM
No - they are actually losing market share.
"-- 50% of buyers are new to Mac."
The way to compare is not from one quarter to the next, but 3rd quarter with 3rd quarter (Very seasonal buying by education scews all comp companies number this way.) -- SO THEY HAVE HAD A HUGE JUMP :eek:
But we will have to wait to see exactly how much.
"-- 50% of buyers are new to Mac."
The way to compare is not from one quarter to the next, but 3rd quarter with 3rd quarter (Very seasonal buying by education scews all comp companies number this way.) -- SO THEY HAVE HAD A HUGE JUMP :eek:
But we will have to wait to see exactly how much.
hdsalinas
Sep 1, 12:25 PM
I am planning on getting a mac for Christmas as a "you were a good boy this year" present to myself.
My budget only allowed for a core duo mac mini. I then realized that for my needs I needed some thing with more meat so I had to renegotiate my budget with my wife and she finally agree to get an Imac 17".
But then when I saw the 17", the screen actually looked smaller than my current 17" LCD, so after weeks of negotiating I managed to convince her on getting a imac 20".
So I have been waiting patiently for the release of the new C2D chips to get one, until this new rumor of a 23" imac. :eek: I just hope they drop the 17" model, offer the imac 20 @ $1333 and sell the new imac 23" for $1700.
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
My budget only allowed for a core duo mac mini. I then realized that for my needs I needed some thing with more meat so I had to renegotiate my budget with my wife and she finally agree to get an Imac 17".
But then when I saw the 17", the screen actually looked smaller than my current 17" LCD, so after weeks of negotiating I managed to convince her on getting a imac 20".
So I have been waiting patiently for the release of the new C2D chips to get one, until this new rumor of a 23" imac. :eek: I just hope they drop the 17" model, offer the imac 20 @ $1333 and sell the new imac 23" for $1700.
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
Tmelon
Apr 2, 02:12 PM
You feel like it�s a new experience? So much better?
Well it's still Mac OS X so I can't call it a completely new experience. There's still a menu bar, still a dock, etc. But they've definitely made some improvements. And there's most likely still more to come in terms of speed and stability.
Well it's still Mac OS X so I can't call it a completely new experience. There's still a menu bar, still a dock, etc. But they've definitely made some improvements. And there's most likely still more to come in terms of speed and stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment