gorgeousninja
Apr 2, 07:58 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean you need to show that ignorance to everyone else...
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean you need to show that ignorance to everyone else...
Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
plumbingandtech
Jan 13, 02:15 PM
"Macbook Air" was just reregistered on 01.11.08 as a .com
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
Bzzzzzzzzzzz...
Read the other thread you posted this comment to, to find out why you are wrong.
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
Bzzzzzzzzzzz...
Read the other thread you posted this comment to, to find out why you are wrong.
JaSuS
Sep 21, 03:13 PM
Antenna gate was blown out of proportion :rolleyes:
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
+1 I enjoy everything :)
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
+1 I enjoy everything :)
Yakuza
Nov 24, 10:08 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not sure
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not sure
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 05:27 AM
6hrs 33 minutes.
what is it about 3 am in the states. I wonder what steve would be dreaming about
what is it about 3 am in the states. I wonder what steve would be dreaming about
Barnzee
Apr 12, 10:22 PM
only 300? sold
iSee
Sep 1, 01:17 PM
not gonna happen
Well, I guess this could be part of a special media event, but it wouldn't be the reason they held a special media event.
Now, a Media Center Mac... that would be a reason to hold an event :D. Although that's just wishful thinking on my part...
Well, I guess this could be part of a special media event, but it wouldn't be the reason they held a special media event.
Now, a Media Center Mac... that would be a reason to hold an event :D. Although that's just wishful thinking on my part...
macnerdiac
Sep 8, 11:18 AM
Does anyone know of any companies making new cases to fit the size of the new ipod touch 4G?:confused:
apb3
Aug 16, 10:06 AM
This would entail an entire re-think on the part of apple and how the iPod is used. Now they do not want you to be able to transfer both ways between your iPod and your iTunes lib (you can but they don't want you to...).
If they were to add the ability to download on the fly, you'd need to sync both ways and that would HAVE to be a supported Apple way of using the iPod and iTunes. I've a feeling this might also upset the music companies as I'm sure the one-way sync was one feel-good/selling point for anti-piracy concerns.
For that reason (and the fact that I cannot remember digitimes ever being correct), I just don't see this unless the wireless is just to sync with your computer which makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis.
edit:
and making it basically an iPod w/ airtunes makes no sense as it would cannibalize the sales thereof.
If they were to add the ability to download on the fly, you'd need to sync both ways and that would HAVE to be a supported Apple way of using the iPod and iTunes. I've a feeling this might also upset the music companies as I'm sure the one-way sync was one feel-good/selling point for anti-piracy concerns.
For that reason (and the fact that I cannot remember digitimes ever being correct), I just don't see this unless the wireless is just to sync with your computer which makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis.
edit:
and making it basically an iPod w/ airtunes makes no sense as it would cannibalize the sales thereof.
Cybix
Aug 25, 03:14 AM
http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
do it.
and there's other sites with loads of detail, and additional hardware you can buy to make life easier. like DC-DC power supplies that will turn on/off/sleep your mac mini as you operate the car's ignition, etc.
touchscreens, remote power buttons, etc, etc... Hell even an old ppc mini would work a treat as a media player in a car :) and think about GPS, etc.. loads of ideas! :)
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
do it.
and there's other sites with loads of detail, and additional hardware you can buy to make life easier. like DC-DC power supplies that will turn on/off/sleep your mac mini as you operate the car's ignition, etc.
touchscreens, remote power buttons, etc, etc... Hell even an old ppc mini would work a treat as a media player in a car :) and think about GPS, etc.. loads of ideas! :)
iSee
Oct 23, 11:17 AM
Hey, if there's a rumor every single week that upgraded macbooks/mbps, it will eventually be true! :D :D :D
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
When it finally does come true, MR will announce it snidely: "Apple announces upgraded notebooks today, as predicted..." and link back to the one rumor (of dozens, I think) that was accurate.
hollerz
Feb 18, 11:38 AM
It just gets better when the OP insists on quoting images after starting a thread with that very rule written in it!
And posts the same picture of his setup that's in the last thread, in this one, despite telling everyone not to :rolleyes:
And posts the same picture of his setup that's in the last thread, in this one, despite telling everyone not to :rolleyes:
dornoforpyros
Nov 29, 08:15 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
mac4lifenyc
Apr 19, 11:23 AM
I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.
iBorg20181
Aug 17, 06:34 PM
Because they introduced video playback capability, that's why. I travel and this iPod has meant that I don't have to drag around countless dvds to while away hotel room evenings. I love it, but ultimately, the screen is ever so slightly too small (not by much, I'm not asking plasma screen here!) and I need more storage. I know I could go and buy an Archos or some such other brand but I really don't want to do that, and I'm very sure that Apple don't want me to either.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
Add to this the fact that the iPod's storage capacity has remain unchanged for, perhaps, the longest time in iPod history. With video capability, 60GB just isn't that big anymore. Hasn't Seagate had an 80GB 1.8" drive available for several months?
We need to have a new, improved, (and thinner?) form factor, with larger capacity, at the current price point.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
Add to this the fact that the iPod's storage capacity has remain unchanged for, perhaps, the longest time in iPod history. With video capability, 60GB just isn't that big anymore. Hasn't Seagate had an 80GB 1.8" drive available for several months?
We need to have a new, improved, (and thinner?) form factor, with larger capacity, at the current price point.
TheMadCow
Mar 25, 03:32 PM
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.
Not. Even. Close.
You probably don't work in the 3D world if you're saying that. ATI blows for Maya currently. There's also the issue of GPU support. While OpenCL is promising for agnostic GPU support, the CUDA offering from Nvidia is showing real world support. DaVinci can use the Nvidia 4000 in multiple cards to dramatically speed up the application.
I'd be more impressed to see Apple support the off the shelf offerings of Nvidia, too. That way we'd have a choice and further the adoption of OpenCL in a variety of applications.
Not. Even. Close.
You probably don't work in the 3D world if you're saying that. ATI blows for Maya currently. There's also the issue of GPU support. While OpenCL is promising for agnostic GPU support, the CUDA offering from Nvidia is showing real world support. DaVinci can use the Nvidia 4000 in multiple cards to dramatically speed up the application.
I'd be more impressed to see Apple support the off the shelf offerings of Nvidia, too. That way we'd have a choice and further the adoption of OpenCL in a variety of applications.
Built
Apr 2, 07:44 PM
what the **** are you talking about?!!!
you are getting false information, I would dare say 99% of ipad 2s have absolutely no hardware problem.
You're deluding yourself.
you are getting false information, I would dare say 99% of ipad 2s have absolutely no hardware problem.
You're deluding yourself.
Warbrain
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Looks like I'll be taking my lunch break at 1PM tomorrow:p
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
arkmannj
Apr 12, 09:50 PM
I wonder if they'll update the whole studio suite
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
hollerz
Feb 18, 11:38 AM
It just gets better when the OP insists on quoting images after starting a thread with that very rule written in it!
And posts the same picture of his setup that's in the last thread, in this one, despite telling everyone not to :rolleyes:
And posts the same picture of his setup that's in the last thread, in this one, despite telling everyone not to :rolleyes:
macenforcer
Nov 15, 04:22 PM
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
Yes, and apple can start with QUICKTIME... for heaven's sake.
Yes, and apple can start with QUICKTIME... for heaven's sake.
Danksi
Dec 31, 10:59 PM
I guess the problem with a subscription model is, for now, the cost of bandwidth to Apple. A bittorrent-like sharing system might solve that.
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.
No comments:
Post a Comment