chutch15
Sep 14, 01:57 PM
The Belkin Grip Vue does not block the speaker.
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.
Hey Jude
Apr 10, 04:25 PM
I currently drive a manual transmission car and I prefer them over automatics, but the traffic situation is pretty bad where I live, so my next car will probably be an automatic.
jon08
May 3, 01:37 AM
Meh. Will it at least delete all the associated files too??
stoid
Mar 18, 06:37 PM
Apple has had a small market share ever since Microsoft and IBM dominated the scene back in the early 90s. Apple cannot and should not try to compete on price. Instead, Apple should just continue to offer the superior computer using experience. Eventually, when people get around to buying their 2nd and 3rd computers, they will try to educate themselves and get something more than 'whatever works'. Then, they with find Apple and fall in love. Have you seen the videos about the Apple Retail Store openings? Name ANY other technology company that has support nearly that big from it's fan base. No, Apple is going to be around for awhile.
bedifferent
May 3, 11:37 AM
I'm not so sure that is true. I was teaching an elderly person how to drag and drop a file into a folder and the whole drag and drop concept did not seem all that easy to her�.
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
AppliedVisual
Oct 23, 11:04 PM
64 bit has to do with memory addressing, not GUI speed. Someone posted they felt it unlikely Santa Rosa (Intel 64 bit memory support chips) would be released early. But doesn't Intel have a 64 bit memory addressing system similar to the ?965? now?
64bit instructions can provide a speed boost for certain computationally-intense applications that are optimized for it. Think scientific / visualization type apps where high precision values are needed and when 64bit values are being used, suddenly on a 64bit platform with 64bit registers, the time for a multiplication operation can effectively be cut in half. That's very simplistic, but not all that far off. Over in PC Land, some 3D rendering softwares have 64bit to 128bit (Lightwave is 96bit) operation pipelines in place for their precision values. Their 64bit optimized versions are showing 15 to 35 % speed ups depending on the various task vs. the 32bit version of the software doing the same thing on a 32bit OS, so there is a boost...
While you won't see the speed advantage in your Tiger or Leopard GUI, you'll notice it if you run any calculation-intense software that's optimized for the 64bit platform. So there's a bit more there than just being able to address more memory....
If you don't need 3+ GB of portable memory NOW, you might as well wait till June 07 or buy whatever is available now and be really happy with it.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record with this one... If you do need more than 3GB of RAM now, then you're out of luck. Intel is not shipping any mobile chipsets capable of addressing anything larger than a 32bit address window (4GB). Factoring in all the memory addresses used by system overhead, BIOS, video memory, etc..., you come up with just a fuzz over 3GB that you can actually address and use, even if you install a full 4GB. This won't change until they ship Crestline -- the updated mobile chipset (i965). The Desktop i965 series has already been shipping for a while now and that works with the desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs (Conroe).
64bit instructions can provide a speed boost for certain computationally-intense applications that are optimized for it. Think scientific / visualization type apps where high precision values are needed and when 64bit values are being used, suddenly on a 64bit platform with 64bit registers, the time for a multiplication operation can effectively be cut in half. That's very simplistic, but not all that far off. Over in PC Land, some 3D rendering softwares have 64bit to 128bit (Lightwave is 96bit) operation pipelines in place for their precision values. Their 64bit optimized versions are showing 15 to 35 % speed ups depending on the various task vs. the 32bit version of the software doing the same thing on a 32bit OS, so there is a boost...
While you won't see the speed advantage in your Tiger or Leopard GUI, you'll notice it if you run any calculation-intense software that's optimized for the 64bit platform. So there's a bit more there than just being able to address more memory....
If you don't need 3+ GB of portable memory NOW, you might as well wait till June 07 or buy whatever is available now and be really happy with it.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record with this one... If you do need more than 3GB of RAM now, then you're out of luck. Intel is not shipping any mobile chipsets capable of addressing anything larger than a 32bit address window (4GB). Factoring in all the memory addresses used by system overhead, BIOS, video memory, etc..., you come up with just a fuzz over 3GB that you can actually address and use, even if you install a full 4GB. This won't change until they ship Crestline -- the updated mobile chipset (i965). The Desktop i965 series has already been shipping for a while now and that works with the desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs (Conroe).
Rocksaurus
Mar 22, 03:57 PM
Either they'll update it so as to keep some distance between it and the inevitable 128GB touch, or they'll discontinue it so that when the touch comes out it won't look too small. ;)
prady16
Oct 23, 08:48 AM
Some users in Germany report that their dealers told them existing MacBook (Pro) orders will be deleted and re-ordered tomorrow due to new releases of these notebooks.
All systems go for tomorrow update. :)
Maybe you forgot the word "reliable" between some and users. :D
All systems go for tomorrow update. :)
Maybe you forgot the word "reliable" between some and users. :D
princealfie
Dec 6, 01:39 PM
The Zune is a disgraceful joke from M$.....who cares, get over it.
I got over but it's still here.
I got over but it's still here.
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
Free Barcode labeling software
free barcode vector.
arcode label software. Free
Yanobox releases free barcode
Free Barcode Creator Barcode
bcTester Barcode Reading and
Sort by : Freeware Shareware
Free Barcode Generator; Free
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
Deechh
Nov 26, 05:28 PM
....or you can, I don't know, check the image's url to determine where he bought those shirts.........
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
Yeah haha, I thought about that after I did it. Everyone has a moment now and then!
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
Yeah haha, I thought about that after I did it. Everyone has a moment now and then!
zombierunner
Apr 21, 04:45 AM
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
dang .. afrwq just got burned lol
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
dang .. afrwq just got burned lol
Chris Bangle
Aug 16, 11:15 AM
I agree to an extent but this is a rumours site.....so as such your going to get this. If it stresses you that much just don't read the ones you think are the same.
I Know but the prospect of a touchscreen ipod seems soooo cool. Its just annoying that you think its going to be launched and then it doesnt, all the hype before the hi-fi launch and 5 months down the line nothiings happened. Im sorry if im whining but I reallly want to spend my birthday money on something worthwhile.
I Know but the prospect of a touchscreen ipod seems soooo cool. Its just annoying that you think its going to be launched and then it doesnt, all the hype before the hi-fi launch and 5 months down the line nothiings happened. Im sorry if im whining but I reallly want to spend my birthday money on something worthwhile.
Manic Mouse
Aug 20, 06:44 AM
But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you?
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
toddybody
Apr 19, 12:23 PM
Check the 'refurbished' section on store.apple.com - There you usually buy many of the previous generation model, thats where the 'stock' often ends up. You also might get good deals on previous generation on macmall.com or similar sides (but as this article points out, many 3rd party resellers are running low in stock - so there might not be many discounted 'old' models). I often buy machines in the refurbished section from apples site - nothing wrong with those and full warranty (but a couple of hunded dollars cheaper - also for current generation models)
Right on. MicroCenter also has some good deals on previous models. My dad bought a Dual Core i3 27inch iMac for 1399.99 brand new there...:)
Right on. MicroCenter also has some good deals on previous models. My dad bought a Dual Core i3 27inch iMac for 1399.99 brand new there...:)
lseven
Nov 27, 02:28 PM
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:54 PM
I think that these two quotes from Tim Cook during the last Apple quarterly call, put the nail in the coffin:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
From Apple's perspective, they have largest app store and it is named "App Store".
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
From Apple's perspective, they have largest app store and it is named "App Store".
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Edge100
Sep 1, 02:27 PM
I don't really know about the ideal price difference, but for some people, it wouldn't matter much. If you want a system with a lot of screen space, then you can get two 1920x1200 monitors. Sure, it will cost you, but if you need the space, then you'll go for the 23-inch. Also, to watch movies, a big screen is better than two small ones. It all depends on what you need the computer for...
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
True enough.
For my work (audio production), dual displays are better, because I can have multiple apps open on the different screens, or place my mixer on one screen and effects/instruments on another.
But I can see people preferring one larger screen to two screens (despite the fact that the two screens give more overall space).
tablo13
Sep 16, 10:11 PM
Got these from eBay for $1 each, good quality.
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
It now says that the seller is away until September 29. :(
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
It now says that the seller is away until September 29. :(
joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 10:02 AM
Apple upgrading the Mini with Yonah processors makes the most sense. The Mini is all about being affordable; I hate it when people use the word cheap, cheap is the crap you buy at Wal-Mart the mini is not cheap. We probably won't see a Core 2 Mini until but that just fine for me because that's when the Intel GMA X3000 will be ready. Coupling a Core 2 Duo processor with a GMA X3000 will give the Mini a lot of punch.
This is how I predict the product lines will look by the end of the year:
Yonah --> Mac Mini & MacBook
Merom --> MacBook Pro
Conroe --> iMac
Xeon --> Mac Pro & Xserve
This is how I predict the product lines will look by the end of the year:
Yonah --> Mac Mini & MacBook
Merom --> MacBook Pro
Conroe --> iMac
Xeon --> Mac Pro & Xserve
lilcosco08
Mar 25, 09:57 PM
Good luck performing multi-touch and gestures with buttons and joysticks. :rolleyes:
/facepalm
/facepalm
Wang Foolio
Mar 25, 04:25 PM
There's a reason why you don't see millions of people snatching up copies of Call of Duty for the Wii or handhelds. As has been mentioned before, there are tons of genres that still require the precision of a controller, or simply buttons. Something like Dragon Age is hard enough without a keyboard.
That being said, underestimating the casual gamer market is a big mistake. I think a lot of analysts enjoyed the taste of foot after the Kinect sold a bajillion units in its first couple of months. The Penny Arcade guys were right, the sales figures are inversely proportional to the nerd rage over the idea of casual gaming on a console. Kinect was subjected to some serious hate, but is making MS a ton of money.
That being said, underestimating the casual gamer market is a big mistake. I think a lot of analysts enjoyed the taste of foot after the Kinect sold a bajillion units in its first couple of months. The Penny Arcade guys were right, the sales figures are inversely proportional to the nerd rage over the idea of casual gaming on a console. Kinect was subjected to some serious hate, but is making MS a ton of money.
