BC2009
Apr 26, 01:11 PM
First the Verizon iPhone rumors come to fruition. Now comes the long-awaited White iPhone 4......
Now we can all start rumors about if and when "App Store" will become a trademark. Personally, I think Apple should get the trademark given precedents out there, but if they don't, I really don't care. After a decision is rendered in this case it will be old news in 48 hours and nobody will care.
What strikes me is how clear it is that Apple is leading the way and trying to fend off so many folks who are trying to mimic and dilute their brand or copy their every move. Everybody wants to ride the wave that is Apple's success.
Personally, I applaud Microsoft a bit here. Sure they have copied Mac OS X elements in Windows for years, but Windows Phone has its own unique user interface and Kinect is an extremely innovative accomplishment. Would be nice if more companies were innovating and making cool stuff for us to buy, rather than just trying to copy Apple. I'm so tired of Google's "let's make it close enough to iOS and claim it runs Flash and is 'open'" strategy and Samsung's "let's just make it look like an Apple device" strategy.
Now we can all start rumors about if and when "App Store" will become a trademark. Personally, I think Apple should get the trademark given precedents out there, but if they don't, I really don't care. After a decision is rendered in this case it will be old news in 48 hours and nobody will care.
What strikes me is how clear it is that Apple is leading the way and trying to fend off so many folks who are trying to mimic and dilute their brand or copy their every move. Everybody wants to ride the wave that is Apple's success.
Personally, I applaud Microsoft a bit here. Sure they have copied Mac OS X elements in Windows for years, but Windows Phone has its own unique user interface and Kinect is an extremely innovative accomplishment. Would be nice if more companies were innovating and making cool stuff for us to buy, rather than just trying to copy Apple. I'm so tired of Google's "let's make it close enough to iOS and claim it runs Flash and is 'open'" strategy and Samsung's "let's just make it look like an Apple device" strategy.
noservice2001
Oct 23, 07:15 AM
o please red!!!
skunk
Mar 20, 01:39 PM
The mushroom is just a by-product of the explosion. Most explosions form a small mushroom like that - usually, they dissipate quickly though.I assume the mushroom is from the initial warhead explosion, and the rest is the resultant exploding ammunition.
steviem
Apr 25, 08:57 AM
The more publicity on this, the more likely a hack will be developed. I love how many news organizations believe that this open file is some kind of new issue!
There is a reason that some of us Jailbreak, outside of the desire to add applications outside of the appstore.
There are other ways to access data on an iPhone outside of Apple tools. If you think a Passcode is making your phone secure, you are mistaken.
If someone is getting into your iPhone, the least of your worries is a file showing an approximation of where you've been.
There is a reason that some of us Jailbreak, outside of the desire to add applications outside of the appstore.
There are other ways to access data on an iPhone outside of Apple tools. If you think a Passcode is making your phone secure, you are mistaken.
If someone is getting into your iPhone, the least of your worries is a file showing an approximation of where you've been.
~Shard~
Nov 23, 06:34 AM
SideNote: The Madonna Concert in HD on NBC tonight is groundbreaking broadcast television. One of the most amazing telecasts I have ever seen-heard.
The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:
The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:
donlphi
Nov 29, 02:05 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
Krizoitz
Mar 18, 10:43 PM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
This is what my friends and I refer to as a WOMBAT
Waste of Money, Brains and Time
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
This is what my friends and I refer to as a WOMBAT
Waste of Money, Brains and Time
Machead III
Jan 2, 08:41 AM
There WILL be an Apple phone at MWSF
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
If wish this was more than just paper thin speculation, because this is exactly what I want to be the case: there's nothing I want to do less on my phone than play music.
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
If wish this was more than just paper thin speculation, because this is exactly what I want to be the case: there's nothing I want to do less on my phone than play music.
NebulaClash
Sep 24, 09:40 PM
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
MagnusVonMagnum
Oct 20, 03:33 PM
Consumer Reports has always been corrupt and in it to tear down companies.
What a crock of nonsense. :rolleyes:
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
What a crock of nonsense. :rolleyes:
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
Multimedia
Nov 16, 05:50 PM
I'm thinking about my future 8 core Macpro:
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...1. Yes. Lots more heat. Also the PSU may not be sufficient to drive the CPUs, memory, video card. two optical drives, four hard disks, all the gizmos on the main board etc... Effectivly Intel fixed the problem with their CPUs being power hungry heat monsters with the Core 2 Duo - and then they made exactly the same mistake by creating a power hungry heat monster with their Core 2 Quads... All just to beat AMD to the "Quad Core"Not exactly. If they go with an 80 watt 2.33GHz Clovertown then no. If they go with a 120 watt 2.66GHz Clovertown then yes. 3GHz Woodies are 80 watts.
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?I won't. But I will hope so.2. My guess (just a guess mind) is Feb-March next year.That's what I expect as well - with the Stoakley-Seaburg chipset onboard (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1).
I wonder how Handbrake, iDVD encoding, or Quicktime encoding will take advantage of the extra cores?iDVD is not as good an encoder as Toast. If you are encoding DVD images, you should seriously consider using Toast instead. Toast can use up to 4 Mac Pro cores. Handbrake can use up to 3 Mac Pro cores. So they were made for an 8-core Mac Pro, if you, like me, run both DVD encoding and mp4 encoding at the same time in multiples. It is not unusual for me to be creating two DVD images while ripping two different sets of Handbrake batches all at the same time.
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...1. Yes. Lots more heat. Also the PSU may not be sufficient to drive the CPUs, memory, video card. two optical drives, four hard disks, all the gizmos on the main board etc... Effectivly Intel fixed the problem with their CPUs being power hungry heat monsters with the Core 2 Duo - and then they made exactly the same mistake by creating a power hungry heat monster with their Core 2 Quads... All just to beat AMD to the "Quad Core"Not exactly. If they go with an 80 watt 2.33GHz Clovertown then no. If they go with a 120 watt 2.66GHz Clovertown then yes. 3GHz Woodies are 80 watts.
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?I won't. But I will hope so.2. My guess (just a guess mind) is Feb-March next year.That's what I expect as well - with the Stoakley-Seaburg chipset onboard (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1).
I wonder how Handbrake, iDVD encoding, or Quicktime encoding will take advantage of the extra cores?iDVD is not as good an encoder as Toast. If you are encoding DVD images, you should seriously consider using Toast instead. Toast can use up to 4 Mac Pro cores. Handbrake can use up to 3 Mac Pro cores. So they were made for an 8-core Mac Pro, if you, like me, run both DVD encoding and mp4 encoding at the same time in multiples. It is not unusual for me to be creating two DVD images while ripping two different sets of Handbrake batches all at the same time.
cleanup
Nov 28, 10:55 AM
http://img.shoppingnexus.com/products/hamilton-beach-hot-oil-popcorn-popper.jpg
I don't have a microwave anymore but like the occasional bowl of popcorn. :)
I like that concept... not owning a microwave. Encourages you to eat fresh and reheat things the proper way. :)
I don't have a microwave anymore but like the occasional bowl of popcorn. :)
I like that concept... not owning a microwave. Encourages you to eat fresh and reheat things the proper way. :)
Multimedia
Aug 25, 05:37 PM
Bingo! Bring on the iMac Ultra with Conroe, 23" display and a powerful GPU. Now that would be an immediate purchase for me.Span that puppy with a second 23" Apple or 24" Dell Display and you have a fairly ultimate desktop. Better yet have Apple make the DVI Port Dual so you can span to a 30" Screen. Now that would be truly the ultimate iMac - Until they offer a 30" iMac. :p
heffemonkeyman
Sep 6, 07:41 PM
Can people please stop with the whole, I want 1080p resolution download files!
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
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
skottichan
Apr 1, 02:00 AM
I assume Safari 5.1 is in this refresh of Lion Preview?
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:I retract my previous statement; the current build seems just as bad as the last and that's on the aforementioned 8GB toting i7 MBP. Even with Flash disabled and harmful scripts blocked, it's a hog capable of eating a combined 3GB or more on its own; the split processes in Activity Monitor just make it look nicer.
Unrelated: does anyone else have a problem keeping their Google Calendars synced in iCal? I hop in and it shows me the local calendars, but I end up having to go into settings and manually recheck my Delegates to get the server-side calendars to trickle back down.
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:I retract my previous statement; the current build seems just as bad as the last and that's on the aforementioned 8GB toting i7 MBP. Even with Flash disabled and harmful scripts blocked, it's a hog capable of eating a combined 3GB or more on its own; the split processes in Activity Monitor just make it look nicer.
Unrelated: does anyone else have a problem keeping their Google Calendars synced in iCal? I hop in and it shows me the local calendars, but I end up having to go into settings and manually recheck my Delegates to get the server-side calendars to trickle back down.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:32 AM
Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
marksman
Mar 25, 05:57 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
Eidorian
Aug 25, 09:11 AM
Merom thread, etc...
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
Detlev
Jul 18, 08:30 PM
Only way this works is if Apple makes the movie available for download/rental a week or two before DVD release (or earlier, like hotel PPV).
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
ZipZap
May 3, 04:48 AM
It seems like any time there's even a slight implication of any software being tuned to be easier to use, there's a barrage of negative comments lamenting how it's been "watered down."
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
I dont think this is elitism...
Perhaps we can just say that Lion will offer a new level of refinement for a Mac OS.
Lets hope the iOS uninstall is implemented as a real uninstall...otherwise what's the point.
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
I dont think this is elitism...
Perhaps we can just say that Lion will offer a new level of refinement for a Mac OS.
Lets hope the iOS uninstall is implemented as a real uninstall...otherwise what's the point.
bigandy
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
i think it's a good move - all dual core. nuff said.
Mac Fly (film)
Nov 30, 05:51 AM
My guess would be too much cost for such a small market. There's not a lot of 1080p content out there and even less 1080p displays. For a first gen device, I think 720p would be good enough. Maybe even 480p if it's cheap enough.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]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
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 back lighting and change in color 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/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor 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.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]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
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 back lighting and change in color 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/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor 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.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
No comments:
Post a Comment