J the Ninja
Apr 12, 08:45 PM
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Consultant
Apr 26, 12:52 PM
Amazon "One Click" not only use generic words but also patents obvious methods.
AppleIntelRock
Dec 30, 12:05 AM
It's possible to both be quite right here. HD is underestimated, but having greater demand than expected is a separate issue to overall market size.
Anyway, as you say... there are 2 separate markets - the 2 evolutions of PayTV are "on demand", and HD (or both together). People who have invested in a top notch TV will easily pay for HD players (like an iTV-HD). Others may just want to watch what they want, when they want it.
If Apple only releases a HD system, and it costs a premium, I won't end up buying it. I'd be paying for a premium that I couldn't take advantage of. And besides, at the moment the iTS sells 640x480 anyway.
Really, is that what you're doing in the US?
We've got Digital 576i in Australia as our standard definition, but it's in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Apple can choose whatever combination they want, I'm sure.
At least our TV's aren't upside down :D :cool: ;)
Anyway, as you say... there are 2 separate markets - the 2 evolutions of PayTV are "on demand", and HD (or both together). People who have invested in a top notch TV will easily pay for HD players (like an iTV-HD). Others may just want to watch what they want, when they want it.
If Apple only releases a HD system, and it costs a premium, I won't end up buying it. I'd be paying for a premium that I couldn't take advantage of. And besides, at the moment the iTS sells 640x480 anyway.
Really, is that what you're doing in the US?
We've got Digital 576i in Australia as our standard definition, but it's in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Apple can choose whatever combination they want, I'm sure.
At least our TV's aren't upside down :D :cool: ;)
supermacdesign
Jul 18, 09:50 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
iphone3gs16gb
Jan 23, 02:34 PM
deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
djejrejk
Jan 11, 08:36 PM
If this notebook has no optical drive and no cables (as 9 to 5 mac suggests), how will customers hook up the optical drive? How will they reload/upgrade os x?
This is not very thought out.
This is not very thought out.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 01:10 PM
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago?
because merom is being releaased now, not two months ago. with merom, yonah will propably get very cheap
because merom is being releaased now, not two months ago. with merom, yonah will propably get very cheap
indiekiduk
Aug 24, 08:27 PM
Is the intel tiger server edition available now?
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 02:57 PM
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.While I agree with your thought process behind your post that Apple is targeting a different audience. That target audience is dwindling very quickly as Apple's prices increase in comparison to the rest of the market.
NakedPaulToast
Apr 26, 01:19 PM
Pet Store was trademarked but later abandoned:
Trademark Electronic Search System (http://tess2.uspto.gov/)
You'll have to search the term pet store. I can't post a link to the specific record.
These things are commonly done. It may be a new concept to you so perhaps you should research the subject a bit.
"The Pet Store" != "Pet Store"
Trademark Electronic Search System (http://tess2.uspto.gov/)
You'll have to search the term pet store. I can't post a link to the specific record.
These things are commonly done. It may be a new concept to you so perhaps you should research the subject a bit.
"The Pet Store" != "Pet Store"
Surely
Nov 24, 03:32 PM
http://img4.realsimple.com/images/0911/chicken-trader-joes_300.jpghttp://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00923/carrots.jpghttp://www.juicingcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/celery2.jpg
http://www.scienceinmotion.co.il/blog/uploaded_images/onion-726176.jpghttp://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/SA/garlic-pf2-lg.jpghttp://visualrecipes.com/images/uploads/recipe_images/91_image7.jpg
http://www.wegmans.com/prodimg/645/200/070227500645.jpg
Nom.
http://www.scienceinmotion.co.il/blog/uploaded_images/onion-726176.jpghttp://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/SA/garlic-pf2-lg.jpghttp://visualrecipes.com/images/uploads/recipe_images/91_image7.jpg
http://www.wegmans.com/prodimg/645/200/070227500645.jpg
Nom.
DNAppleGold
Apr 2, 08:48 PM
from someone who hates the new Iphone (a smug listing of features that most top smartphones have, I love this
moondog190
Feb 24, 02:19 PM
I was able to get the link working but the picture won't show on the forums for some reason
longofest
Nov 29, 01:37 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car ;)
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car ;)
Queso
Jul 21, 08:20 AM
So we are still not back upto Q1 2000 numbers? :eek:
Except of course that Q1 is the Christmas quarter, not April to June :rolleyes:
Except of course that Q1 is the Christmas quarter, not April to June :rolleyes:
mozmac
Jul 14, 02:43 AM
Apple is frequently the first to incorporate new technologies. USB, ditching the floppy drive, airport wireless networking, firewire. I remember when I had my iBook on campus back in 2002. I was one of the ONLY people that had wireless. A few buildings offered it, and I didn't see many other people sitting around on their laptops, unless they had an illuminated Apple shining on their lap.:)
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was one of the first to use Blu-Ray, especially seeing they are a contributing company. They have a tendency to take new technologies and make them mainstream. They did it with the Apple II, the original Mac, and they continue to do it today.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was one of the first to use Blu-Ray, especially seeing they are a contributing company. They have a tendency to take new technologies and make them mainstream. They did it with the Apple II, the original Mac, and they continue to do it today.
yellow
Jan 3, 02:14 PM
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
With or without integrated M249s? :D
2011 Subaru Legacy. Our first Subaru. So impressed we're selling the other cars and buying a 2011 Outback for my wife!
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/legacy/2010/ns/2010_subaru_legacy_prf_ns_51410_717.jpg
It's not a fancy looking car, in fact it looks easily can be mistaken for any other boring sedan from GM/Ford/Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
With or without integrated M249s? :D
2011 Subaru Legacy. Our first Subaru. So impressed we're selling the other cars and buying a 2011 Outback for my wife!
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/legacy/2010/ns/2010_subaru_legacy_prf_ns_51410_717.jpg
It's not a fancy looking car, in fact it looks easily can be mistaken for any other boring sedan from GM/Ford/Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
jrbdmb
Apr 19, 03:33 PM
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.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
TheManOfSilver
Dec 10, 06:43 PM
I posted this a while ago - but I think Jobs was hinting that apple wants to be everywhere. iPod is a lifestyle product, as is the iTv.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
I agree with your line about Apple wanting to be in multiple places. The one place I see them finally going themselves is the car ... not designing a car, but rather replacing the head unit on your car with a true video ipod interface. No onboard HD, just a true 3" video interface that shows your iPod's content just as it would on your iPod, while it's safely stowed in your glovebox, armrest, etc.
No one has done iPod integration right yet, because no one is Apple. Apple could go the route of designing a new iCar head unit itself for aftermarket sales and could sign deals with the automakers to offer it as an optional feature. They could partner with a big name in high quality car audio to get the sound quality right, but they would design the front end.
Perfect opportunity for Apple to fill a need that no one is addressing in an elegant, simple fashion.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
I agree with your line about Apple wanting to be in multiple places. The one place I see them finally going themselves is the car ... not designing a car, but rather replacing the head unit on your car with a true video ipod interface. No onboard HD, just a true 3" video interface that shows your iPod's content just as it would on your iPod, while it's safely stowed in your glovebox, armrest, etc.
No one has done iPod integration right yet, because no one is Apple. Apple could go the route of designing a new iCar head unit itself for aftermarket sales and could sign deals with the automakers to offer it as an optional feature. They could partner with a big name in high quality car audio to get the sound quality right, but they would design the front end.
Perfect opportunity for Apple to fill a need that no one is addressing in an elegant, simple fashion.
RyanNoah
Sep 14, 12:47 PM
I just picked up the Belkin Grip Vue at BestBuy in Wilmington, DE. Very pleased.
It seems like these cases cover up the speaker. Is this true and if so, is the sound muffled?
Thanks!
It seems like these cases cover up the speaker. Is this true and if so, is the sound muffled?
Thanks!
*LTD*
Mar 25, 06:26 PM
This is cool to look at, but it's just a workaround for what should be happening... the Apple TV should run apps / play games. It's an iOS device. There's no need to get crazy with wires hanging off the side of an iPad.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
Blackheart
Aug 6, 10:50 PM
Maybe I'm reading to much into this... but did anyone else notice that Apple has all of their products on that big banner except for the full-size iPod and the Xserve? Could it be that the new iPod will certainly be released then, and that its banner is hidden?
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.
