GeeYouEye
Jan 2, 06:15 PM
Guaranteed, or almost guaranteed:
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
JackSYi
Jul 13, 11:03 PM
I bet it will be BTO when it is introduced at WWDC.
showtunes
Jan 12, 12:47 AM
Everyone,
Let's just keep it simple. Here are the two things that are in the air:
1. WIMAX type wireless for MacBook Pros
2. The ability to sync your iPod and iPhone without a cable
Let's just keep it simple. Here are the two things that are in the air:
1. WIMAX type wireless for MacBook Pros
2. The ability to sync your iPod and iPhone without a cable
wordoflife
Feb 19, 09:44 PM
crapy iphone pics
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo-1.jpg
Beautiful view!
Holy crap! That is a nice view!
I'm jealous!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo-1.jpg
Beautiful view!
Holy crap! That is a nice view!
I'm jealous!
Laslo Panaflex
Mar 18, 09:17 AM
I read your petition, and I didn't sign it. I really don't think that a mac that hooks up to a TV is a good idea, look at webtv, it failed miserably. I agree with you that they need to get it down to 500 - 600 dollar price range, and maybe they will soon since the iPod is bringing in the dough. But really, apple is not going to overtake M$ and x86 computers, not anytime soon at least. Plus apple has always made there money on hardware, they pretty much give there software away, where as M$ makes money on software.
Squire
Jan 12, 11:35 AM
From 9to5Mac:
EDIT: Commenter Jon Cotton (below) found Adium usage stats page that lists a machine model type as "MacBook Air". While not definitive proof, it does add a big fat log to the fire.
I don't know how much attention this should be given. Anyone know anything about the ability to fake model types on an Adium usage stats page?
-Squire
[edit: Brianstorm beat me to it by a few seconds.]
EDIT: Commenter Jon Cotton (below) found Adium usage stats page that lists a machine model type as "MacBook Air". While not definitive proof, it does add a big fat log to the fire.
I don't know how much attention this should be given. Anyone know anything about the ability to fake model types on an Adium usage stats page?
-Squire
[edit: Brianstorm beat me to it by a few seconds.]
milo
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
rockthecasbah
Aug 16, 09:01 AM
Wireless iPod? I just don't see the point. Given how energy dense batteries are today syncing with iTunes would drain the battery in no time.
Wireless headsets? Big cluncky things that needs to be charged too.
The only rational for a wireless iPod would be if it became more of a PDA with GPS, or if went iPhone.
That is what i don't get, what is really going to be included in a wireless iPod? The only thing i could see is that it gets the ability to purchase music from iTunes or you stream internet radio or something. Also, the waste of wireless syncing to a computer. Am i missing something bigger?
Wireless headsets? Big cluncky things that needs to be charged too.
The only rational for a wireless iPod would be if it became more of a PDA with GPS, or if went iPhone.
That is what i don't get, what is really going to be included in a wireless iPod? The only thing i could see is that it gets the ability to purchase music from iTunes or you stream internet radio or something. Also, the waste of wireless syncing to a computer. Am i missing something bigger?
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:39 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.
No Yonah and Merom are pin-compatible. Conroe isn't. Need a whole new motherboard.
No Yonah and Merom are pin-compatible. Conroe isn't. Need a whole new motherboard.
benjayman2
Mar 1, 01:01 AM
Thanks for all the nice words. As far as the window bay being slightly girlish I have to agree lol. I wanted something a little more custom looking. Although I do share the quarters with my wife to be it will change and pictures will come soon after :p I'm surprised no one mentioned the pillow pet :D
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 11:37 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
It's a good feature because Apple has it, otherwise he would be in an uproar.
It's a good feature because Apple has it, otherwise he would be in an uproar.
Tubby The Bull
Oct 23, 08:49 AM
Hi folks!
I've read Macrumors every day for years, so I figure I may as well start participating :)
Last Friday, we took our Nov'05 PowerBook into the local Apple dealer to trade it in for a MBP. We've been with particular dealer for over 10 years, so there is a good trust/freindship thing going on. Anyhow, the dealer told us he expects new MBP models within 10 days, so he is holding our order until Halloween.
He's been right before, so we have a pretty good feeling about October 31st.
Obviously, it can't be verified... I'm just relaying the info I've been given.
Don't flame me - I'm a friendly Canuk :p
Tubby
I've read Macrumors every day for years, so I figure I may as well start participating :)
Last Friday, we took our Nov'05 PowerBook into the local Apple dealer to trade it in for a MBP. We've been with particular dealer for over 10 years, so there is a good trust/freindship thing going on. Anyhow, the dealer told us he expects new MBP models within 10 days, so he is holding our order until Halloween.
He's been right before, so we have a pretty good feeling about October 31st.
Obviously, it can't be verified... I'm just relaying the info I've been given.
Don't flame me - I'm a friendly Canuk :p
Tubby
iW00t
Jan 2, 11:44 PM
Anyway do you guys think a ultra portable Apple laptop is in the works?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
takao
Jan 12, 02:33 PM
thinking back how many people called the iPod, mac mini and macbook name stupid it's very likely already confirmed
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
Kiwi Jones
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
Cool story bro, would read again. If you want the fusion so badly then buy a PC. No one's forcing you to buy from Apple.
Why should you care about the IGP in your 2010 15" MBP? You have a discrete GPU alongside it that should automatically switch to while under heavy load (NVIDIA 330M).
Would it be possible to switch out the NVIDIA 330M then..? I't cant even handle Starcraft2 at medium settings without low fps..
Why should you care about the IGP in your 2010 15" MBP? You have a discrete GPU alongside it that should automatically switch to while under heavy load (NVIDIA 330M).
Would it be possible to switch out the NVIDIA 330M then..? I't cant even handle Starcraft2 at medium settings without low fps..
iStudentUK
Mar 27, 10:58 AM
Oh? He chose to leave those two significant letters out of his post. :confused:
Some more cynical than me (impossible) might consider that disinformation. :rolleyes:
That guy in the MSN video rasmasyean linked is a bit of a douche. Especially when he says "if we take our toys home this is all over ... its pretty much us [USA]". This isn't a game and these aren't toys. A little under half the forces are US, Britain and France are next, but there are over a dozen countries that have committed forces.
Many of the countries in this coalition could do this alone- US, France and Britain all have airbases within range, attack subs/ships to fire missiles, reconnaissance planes, special forces to gain intelligence and easily enough fighters to attack ground targets and what is left of the Libyan airforce. However, it just looks like everyone is trying to make sure that no single country dominates.
With Iraq and Afghanistan the West need to be careful not to make this look like another invasion, but instead helping repressed people succeed in their revolution. Contributions and support from some Middle Eastern states (Qatar and the UAE have both sent fighters) help reinforce this. Making sure the UN and NATO are involved keeps this from becoming one country attacking another and hopefully avoids more hatred targeted towards the West.
Some more cynical than me (impossible) might consider that disinformation. :rolleyes:
That guy in the MSN video rasmasyean linked is a bit of a douche. Especially when he says "if we take our toys home this is all over ... its pretty much us [USA]". This isn't a game and these aren't toys. A little under half the forces are US, Britain and France are next, but there are over a dozen countries that have committed forces.
Many of the countries in this coalition could do this alone- US, France and Britain all have airbases within range, attack subs/ships to fire missiles, reconnaissance planes, special forces to gain intelligence and easily enough fighters to attack ground targets and what is left of the Libyan airforce. However, it just looks like everyone is trying to make sure that no single country dominates.
With Iraq and Afghanistan the West need to be careful not to make this look like another invasion, but instead helping repressed people succeed in their revolution. Contributions and support from some Middle Eastern states (Qatar and the UAE have both sent fighters) help reinforce this. Making sure the UN and NATO are involved keeps this from becoming one country attacking another and hopefully avoids more hatred targeted towards the West.
wkhahn
Sep 7, 12:48 PM
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...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
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...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
TheBobcat
Nov 28, 09:40 PM
in five years neither the iPod nor the Zune will have any significance. The hardware market will be dominated by Samsung and distribution by walmart.
Samsung is becoming the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world: from LCD TVs to cell phones, to camcorders, to MP3 players. in 2006 they will have sold 150 million phones, growing much faster than Nokia and Motorola. Their camcorder business is just picking off with megapixel camcorders priced below $300. They are just now getting to be serious about the MP3 market. The YP-Z5 would have been one of the top players, had they decided to be agressive on pricing, however for some reason it's held very high selling prices throut the world. Now watch for the YP-T9, it will outsell iPod nano in 2007. It is ridiculously loaded with features and is much better priced than the Z5s.
Walmart controls 40% of DVD distribution. If the DVD goes the way of the music CD, they are not going to let this market slip away from them. They have just started selling digital downloads and have much more clout with content companies than either Microsoft or Apple.
Amazon.com rankings offer extremely limited view of the world. They are only USA, plus research shows that it is the preferred vendor for highly sophisticated users. The world is much bigger. Creative Zen Nano is #1 electronics seller at Amazon.fr and Amazon.de (France and Germany) you can check it out. Creative is not a powerhouse, though. Watch out for Samsung to start ramping up the YP-T9s next year and blow everyone out of the water. As it is now, they are on backorder and sold out at many outlets... Plus Samsung's music phones will far outsell the Iphone...
Which cost more, your device for predicting the future or your Samsung stock?
Samsung is becoming the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world: from LCD TVs to cell phones, to camcorders, to MP3 players. in 2006 they will have sold 150 million phones, growing much faster than Nokia and Motorola. Their camcorder business is just picking off with megapixel camcorders priced below $300. They are just now getting to be serious about the MP3 market. The YP-Z5 would have been one of the top players, had they decided to be agressive on pricing, however for some reason it's held very high selling prices throut the world. Now watch for the YP-T9, it will outsell iPod nano in 2007. It is ridiculously loaded with features and is much better priced than the Z5s.
Walmart controls 40% of DVD distribution. If the DVD goes the way of the music CD, they are not going to let this market slip away from them. They have just started selling digital downloads and have much more clout with content companies than either Microsoft or Apple.
Amazon.com rankings offer extremely limited view of the world. They are only USA, plus research shows that it is the preferred vendor for highly sophisticated users. The world is much bigger. Creative Zen Nano is #1 electronics seller at Amazon.fr and Amazon.de (France and Germany) you can check it out. Creative is not a powerhouse, though. Watch out for Samsung to start ramping up the YP-T9s next year and blow everyone out of the water. As it is now, they are on backorder and sold out at many outlets... Plus Samsung's music phones will far outsell the Iphone...
Which cost more, your device for predicting the future or your Samsung stock?
kadajawi
Aug 30, 04:06 PM
Your prices really hurt. A very basic Core Solo is around $750 here.
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
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
Fubar1977
Apr 17, 10:46 AM
The German and Japanese stuff seems to be the best from a quality point of view.
My Mitsubishi had a really nice old-school auto box in it.
My Mitsubishi had a really nice old-school auto box in it.
Gatesbasher
Apr 3, 01:23 PM
Are you kidding me?!
The 'pathology of people like me'? Who do you think you are? Facts are that I've neither held, or used either device, so I'll wait until I have until I make my decision. What's so controversial about that? How am I talking about the iPad in any kind of disadvantageous way? I'm just saying I want to try both and have not made up my mind yet. Rational.
The Playbook does exist too, no matter how much you say it doesn't. What on earth are you basing you assumption on? Where did I ever promote the Playbook over the iPad? Please retract your comments.
The Playbook does NOT exist, until people can buy it and compare it with an existing product. You "Haven't made up your mind yet?" On what conceivable basis could you make up your mind between an actual shipping product and pie-in-the-sky vaporware? How is that rational? It used to be Apple products were only sneered at in comparison with existing competitors. Now they have to compete with every imaginary device anybody can dream up, from the HP Slate to next years "100 x as fast" Tegra 3 barn-burner.
The 'pathology of people like me'? Who do you think you are? Facts are that I've neither held, or used either device, so I'll wait until I have until I make my decision. What's so controversial about that? How am I talking about the iPad in any kind of disadvantageous way? I'm just saying I want to try both and have not made up my mind yet. Rational.
The Playbook does exist too, no matter how much you say it doesn't. What on earth are you basing you assumption on? Where did I ever promote the Playbook over the iPad? Please retract your comments.
The Playbook does NOT exist, until people can buy it and compare it with an existing product. You "Haven't made up your mind yet?" On what conceivable basis could you make up your mind between an actual shipping product and pie-in-the-sky vaporware? How is that rational? It used to be Apple products were only sneered at in comparison with existing competitors. Now they have to compete with every imaginary device anybody can dream up, from the HP Slate to next years "100 x as fast" Tegra 3 barn-burner.
cube
Mar 24, 04:26 PM
Which is not even out yet. Brazos/Zacate and Ontario are the ones I'm referring. Let me edit that out.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
CFreymarc
Apr 2, 08:21 PM
I really like this ad. Maybe this will be the new direction of Apple's marketing?
Apple was one of the first to proclaim that technology is a means to your jobs and not the job itself. The world uses tools that engineers make for a purpose and not having the hotted box out there.
To use the automotive analogy, we are out of the muscle car era and moving into a market where functionality overrides hardcore specs. This also makes the jobs of an engineer much more difficult since customer demands are now more intangible.
Apple was one of the first to proclaim that technology is a means to your jobs and not the job itself. The world uses tools that engineers make for a purpose and not having the hotted box out there.
To use the automotive analogy, we are out of the muscle car era and moving into a market where functionality overrides hardcore specs. This also makes the jobs of an engineer much more difficult since customer demands are now more intangible.