techweenie
Apr 3, 10:43 AM
This ad is as great as the new iPhone ads are awful.
Interesting that both "voices" can come from the same company.
Interesting that both "voices" can come from the same company.
Surely
Nov 27, 01:59 AM
Fix'd
Replacing my quote with a cliche picture...... how witty.
Oh, I think you missed an 'e'.
/been a member for over three years, never been called that before:rolleyes:
---------
Anyway.....
I bought two more iPad apps. Both are pool games..... I couldn't figure out which to buy, so I bought them both. So far, Pool Bar > Pool Pro Online 3
http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/018/Purple/90/60/ab/mzl.qihqavai.480x480-75.jpg http://theportablegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/photo-13.png
Replacing my quote with a cliche picture...... how witty.
Oh, I think you missed an 'e'.
/been a member for over three years, never been called that before:rolleyes:
---------
Anyway.....
I bought two more iPad apps. Both are pool games..... I couldn't figure out which to buy, so I bought them both. So far, Pool Bar > Pool Pro Online 3
http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/018/Purple/90/60/ab/mzl.qihqavai.480x480-75.jpg http://theportablegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/photo-13.png
donlphi
Sep 6, 07:26 PM
CAN YOU SAY, "HERBIE FULLY LOADED IS THE #1 DOWNLOAD ON ITUNES MOVIE STORE"?
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:18 AM
The bold part is wrong. In the field of reference, you can't use the trademark even if you're using it generically or descriptively if it has been granted. You will get sued and maybe even lose if the mark is not rescinded. You can even get sued preemptively as is the case here (Amazon appstore).
Windows OS vs GUI windows is not the same field. One is an Operating System, the other is a GUI element of different computer systems. Microsoft never sued MIT over the X Window System because that's not an OS. They did sue the guys behind the Lindows OS though.
Hahaha! I didn't have time to edit that before you replied. I'll be clear -- that portion of what you quoted is in relation to what, say, the layperson says vs. two companies. It's okay for you and I to call other digital/electronic store-fronts, etc. as "app store," but another company can't. I may be off here, but for some reason I'm thinking I have to be super-duper specific and clear in replying on this thread versus relying on implied understanding. Again, we're saying the same thing, but I'm just not being as clear as I should be.
Windows OS vs GUI windows is not the same field. One is an Operating System, the other is a GUI element of different computer systems. Microsoft never sued MIT over the X Window System because that's not an OS. They did sue the guys behind the Lindows OS though.
Hahaha! I didn't have time to edit that before you replied. I'll be clear -- that portion of what you quoted is in relation to what, say, the layperson says vs. two companies. It's okay for you and I to call other digital/electronic store-fronts, etc. as "app store," but another company can't. I may be off here, but for some reason I'm thinking I have to be super-duper specific and clear in replying on this thread versus relying on implied understanding. Again, we're saying the same thing, but I'm just not being as clear as I should be.
FearNo1
Apr 23, 10:42 AM
No, I did not mean the traditional GPS. I was referring to the one that the 911 system uses. I don't think that can be turned off. IOW, if you have any modern cell phone, you can be tracked. The difference is that with the iphone, the info is stored on the phone itself.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
scottgroovez
Apr 3, 05:36 AM
Ironically the use of "magical" breaks the illusion. As soon as I hear that, it makes me think that's just clever tech rather than the experience they're selling.
EagerDragon
Aug 25, 04:56 AM
I hope they add a second Ethernet and Firewire to it.
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:37 PM
Isn't this utterly fantastic? These are the kinds of updates we used to get before Apple went all iPhone and iPad crazy. Glad to see they are finally giving such love to their Pro customers. Although i imagine this has been in the pipeline for a very long time!
Remember when Apple had to delay Leopard in order to finish iOS? They are such a tight ship that they had to shift people from one major OS project to another.
Apple hasn't been neglecting final cut. Many of these technologies have been in development for the past 4 years, and a major software project like this-- a ground up rewrite, remember-- should take about 4 years to produce.
Remember when Apple had to delay Leopard in order to finish iOS? They are such a tight ship that they had to shift people from one major OS project to another.
Apple hasn't been neglecting final cut. Many of these technologies have been in development for the past 4 years, and a major software project like this-- a ground up rewrite, remember-- should take about 4 years to produce.
milo
Aug 29, 09:45 AM
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
It's not so bad on the low end, but that's a pretty piddly update for the pricier model, especially when you consider what the competition is using. The only way it would be forgivable would be if they had a pretty sizable price drop on the high end.
It's not so bad on the low end, but that's a pretty piddly update for the pricier model, especially when you consider what the competition is using. The only way it would be forgivable would be if they had a pretty sizable price drop on the high end.
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:40 PM
They will either skip it altogether or perhaps replace all USB 2 ports with USB 3 ones (thus keeping TB as the "advanced" FW equivalent)...
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
cbnsoul
Apr 19, 11:40 AM
What are these "Macs" you speak of?
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
likemyorbs
Mar 24, 04:03 PM
:::Raises left hand::: I can honestly say school messed me up. I am mostly left handed, but when it comes to writing I write with my right.
So you're not gay, you're bi. :D
So you're not gay, you're bi. :D
neko girl
Mar 20, 11:38 AM
Several court rulings have placed the rights of Gay people above the rights of people holding religious beliefs.
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
LeeTom
Mar 22, 04:11 PM
October 23rd, 2011 is the iPod's 10th birthday. I bet they will release a version this fall to commemorate it, if not a special edition of some kind. Maybe they'll let Jony do what he did with the 20th anniversary macintosh and make an $8,000 iPod with an OLED display and graphine processor just because they can.
SubaruNation555
Jan 19, 02:52 PM
Some pics of my Impreza after a night of freezing rain:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5366971777_ce8b11c76d_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5366971673_6d6ab4f12e_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5366971777_ce8b11c76d_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5366971673_6d6ab4f12e_b.jpg
inkswamp
Apr 3, 02:45 PM
Isn't that a Verizon ad, not a Mototrola one?
People keep whining about the "Droid" commercials but that is Verizon's branding and line and has nothing to do with the manufacturers. Look at this Droid Incredible commercial by HTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNz1qfJc9z4U) (this one too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZkcODD6Zaw)) and then see what Verizon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwzKFDkb0MI) did to it.
I'm not so much questioning who's behind the Droid and Xoom ads, but mainly pointing out that Apple is going 180-degrees with their ads by contrast, de-geeking things and making them more accessible. Sure, the Xoom ads are really freaking cool looking but that's mainly for geeks. But for the average consumer, the ones who aren't turned on by flashy, sci-fi imagery where tablets become hovering ships and users turn into robots, which do you think is more inviting?
People keep whining about the "Droid" commercials but that is Verizon's branding and line and has nothing to do with the manufacturers. Look at this Droid Incredible commercial by HTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNz1qfJc9z4U) (this one too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZkcODD6Zaw)) and then see what Verizon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwzKFDkb0MI) did to it.
I'm not so much questioning who's behind the Droid and Xoom ads, but mainly pointing out that Apple is going 180-degrees with their ads by contrast, de-geeking things and making them more accessible. Sure, the Xoom ads are really freaking cool looking but that's mainly for geeks. But for the average consumer, the ones who aren't turned on by flashy, sci-fi imagery where tablets become hovering ships and users turn into robots, which do you think is more inviting?
guzhogi
Jul 14, 11:23 AM
Does anyone know whether the regular BluRay & HD-DVD players have HDMI connectors? Also, when is HDMI going to become more common on video cards?
Josias
Aug 7, 03:32 AM
Anyone got any ideas of when the keynote starts in the good ol UK?, i'm guessing 6pm ish?
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
gugy
Nov 15, 10:35 AM
cool
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
jxyama
Mar 19, 05:17 PM
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
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
rasmasyean
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
All I'm saying is that behind the scenes when you look at the facts, there's a different story and you can't take everything at face value...and you should know that about politicians too. I think some of you are "glad" that it's finally not purely lead by the US and this is like some "dream team" thing. But I'm just afraid that you are just in denial. :cool:
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
All I'm saying is that behind the scenes when you look at the facts, there's a different story and you can't take everything at face value...and you should know that about politicians too. I think some of you are "glad" that it's finally not purely lead by the US and this is like some "dream team" thing. But I'm just afraid that you are just in denial. :cool:
Evangelion
Aug 31, 07:19 AM
Grah. I hope this rumour proves incorrect. A processor that can't do x86-64 is planned obsolescence. I don't want to buy a computer that will be unable to run software in a few years!
What makes you think that it "can't run software"? Current 32bit CPU's will be usable for years to come.
What makes you think that it "can't run software"? Current 32bit CPU's will be usable for years to come.
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét