viperguy
Aug 29, 01:55 PM
LoL
The discussion in thinksecret is so fun at the moment, you can't even imagine how.
Basically everyone was talkin about it's video card, how it should be upgraded and things like that
But then these messages came into topic
User1
I think the Mac mini has a future as long as they can get a better video output and a DVR.
User2
It'd be great if they added a nuclear reactor.
User3
Will it include a pony?
Coments? Mine: LOL
The discussion in thinksecret is so fun at the moment, you can't even imagine how.
Basically everyone was talkin about it's video card, how it should be upgraded and things like that
But then these messages came into topic
User1
I think the Mac mini has a future as long as they can get a better video output and a DVR.
User2
It'd be great if they added a nuclear reactor.
User3
Will it include a pony?
Coments? Mine: LOL
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 12:38 AM
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
Reventon
Nov 24, 04:40 PM
http://www.cloverleaf.ca/images/products/448/CloverLeafSmokedOysters.jpg
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
Mmm... I like oysters. :)
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
Mmm... I like oysters. :)
cube
Mar 24, 02:44 PM
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
OpenCL are COMPUTE tasks. If you can't do them on the GPU, you would need a HUGELY powerful CPU. That's why having true OpenCL means you have a better "CPU".
In one or two months after Bobcat Fusion was introduced there are already 50 Fusion-oriented Windows apps.
I'm not taking about DirectX 11 concerning games, but concerning OpenCL.
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
OpenCL are COMPUTE tasks. If you can't do them on the GPU, you would need a HUGELY powerful CPU. That's why having true OpenCL means you have a better "CPU".
In one or two months after Bobcat Fusion was introduced there are already 50 Fusion-oriented Windows apps.
I'm not taking about DirectX 11 concerning games, but concerning OpenCL.
daneoni
Mar 24, 01:08 PM
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.
tablo13
Sep 17, 08:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Do you suggest any cheap good quality silicon cases on eBay other than the one above?
Do you suggest any cheap good quality silicon cases on eBay other than the one above?
corywoolf
Sep 6, 03:26 PM
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
chrismacguy
Feb 27, 05:21 AM
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
tristangage
Nov 26, 05:26 PM
http://www.radphone.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/d4125f3e4ezlynrx.jpg.jpg
Wanna know something awesome? (if that game is the same as the one released for xbox/ps3/other consoles,) My brother did the voiceover 'sounds' for Harry Potter in that game :D
.. I say sounds, as there isn't actually any speech, but noises made when jumping, or pushing, or being hit by spells etc were all my brother :)
Wanna know something awesome? (if that game is the same as the one released for xbox/ps3/other consoles,) My brother did the voiceover 'sounds' for Harry Potter in that game :D
.. I say sounds, as there isn't actually any speech, but noises made when jumping, or pushing, or being hit by spells etc were all my brother :)
Porchland
Sep 8, 03:51 PM
This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
notjustjay
Apr 21, 11:57 AM
One way they could alleviate the "issue" is to simply report the (anonymous) data more frequently, and then dump the cache. I wouldn't care as much about a week's worth of location data as opposed to months' worth.
(Incidentally: we have like/dislike buttons on a per-post basis now? :confused: )
(Incidentally: we have like/dislike buttons on a per-post basis now? :confused: )
Creative One
Mar 6, 06:35 AM
I'm almost there! 50k left to go!
robbieduncan
Apr 20, 10:57 AM
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
kelving525
Sep 16, 09:05 PM
Got these from eBay for $1 each, good quality.
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
Did you cracked your screen?:eek:
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
Did you cracked your screen?:eek:
Hattig
Nov 27, 02:32 PM
Maybe they should drop the price of the 20" Cinema Display to something more reasonable, such as $499 - $699 is far too much. In the UK it is �529!
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:59 PM
I hope they don't consider this a all new program and not offer upgrades.
But then again it might be offered for cheap on the App Store anyway.
It will be interesting if they sell it stand alone and drop motion/livetype etc.
But then again it might be offered for cheap on the App Store anyway.
It will be interesting if they sell it stand alone and drop motion/livetype etc.
MacRumors
Nov 27, 01:08 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Digitimes claims (http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061127PD208.html) that Apple is planning on launching a 17" Widescreen LCD" monitor "by year-end or the first quarter of 2007".
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June when it revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040628150739.shtml) their monitor line to what it stands today:
� 20" Cinema (1680x1050) - $699
� 23" Cinema HD (1920x1200) - $999
� 30" Cinema HD (2560x1600) - $1999
A 17" Widescreen LCD would fall in the bottom end of the monitor line. While intriguing, the report comes from Digitimes whose rumor reports have been historically inaccurate.
Digitimes claims (http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061127PD208.html) that Apple is planning on launching a 17" Widescreen LCD" monitor "by year-end or the first quarter of 2007".
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June when it revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040628150739.shtml) their monitor line to what it stands today:
� 20" Cinema (1680x1050) - $699
� 23" Cinema HD (1920x1200) - $999
� 30" Cinema HD (2560x1600) - $1999
A 17" Widescreen LCD would fall in the bottom end of the monitor line. While intriguing, the report comes from Digitimes whose rumor reports have been historically inaccurate.
Doctor Q
Nov 29, 05:18 PM
Living room, car, blah blah blah.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:I get good satellite reception in mine.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:I get good satellite reception in mine.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 11, 10:56 PM
It's interesting that Europeans embrace manuals, while Americans don't. Also, Europeans favor driving experience over comfort. Is this somehow related to gasoline prices?
more it used to be manuals would get much better gas mileage over automatics and gas prices there have always been a lot higher in then in the US. This pushed manuals to become very popular over there.
Now days there is no gain in mpg of going manual or automatic. Hell autos are starting to get better gas mileage than manuals because of computer controlled shifted and CVT. That combo is pretty much making the biggest reason why manuals took off there a non issue any more.
Also back to the gas milage thing. Small cars/ engines also suffered a lot of power going automatic as it took way to much power over head to run it so the cars were sluggest getting off the line and picking up speed. Again that is becoming less and less of an issue. In large cars there is no big power loss in going automatic and the engines have so much to spare that is a none issue.
So again with today automatic transmitions that take less power to run than old ones and engines that can produce more power it is less of an issue.
Those facts above is one huge reason why autos took off here in the states. Gas prices were a lot lower and our cars were larger and had bigger engines here in the states. WHich again was because gas prices were lower.
Manual trannies are going to be a dieing bread world wide as time goes on.
more it used to be manuals would get much better gas mileage over automatics and gas prices there have always been a lot higher in then in the US. This pushed manuals to become very popular over there.
Now days there is no gain in mpg of going manual or automatic. Hell autos are starting to get better gas mileage than manuals because of computer controlled shifted and CVT. That combo is pretty much making the biggest reason why manuals took off there a non issue any more.
Also back to the gas milage thing. Small cars/ engines also suffered a lot of power going automatic as it took way to much power over head to run it so the cars were sluggest getting off the line and picking up speed. Again that is becoming less and less of an issue. In large cars there is no big power loss in going automatic and the engines have so much to spare that is a none issue.
So again with today automatic transmitions that take less power to run than old ones and engines that can produce more power it is less of an issue.
Those facts above is one huge reason why autos took off here in the states. Gas prices were a lot lower and our cars were larger and had bigger engines here in the states. WHich again was because gas prices were lower.
Manual trannies are going to be a dieing bread world wide as time goes on.
Psychic Shopper
Jul 18, 11:18 AM
I must have watched 20 different video clips from the Daily Show on You Tube, streaming in almost real time. Why would I want to buy that content on the Itunes store?
KingYaba
Jul 18, 01:53 PM
This rental thing sounds stupid. Secondly, whats to stop some of us from figureing away out to kill the timed life of hte movie files so we can keep it forever. (seeing if we are downloading them)
There will be more pirates than ever if apple does movies. I can think of so many ways.
Even if they are streamed, I know ways to keep the movie.
There will be more pirates than ever if apple does movies. I can think of so many ways.
Even if they are streamed, I know ways to keep the movie.
Xero910
Apr 7, 03:14 PM
The spotlight index bug is because a decimal point is in the wrong place.
Days = Hours
Hours = Minutes
Minutes = Seconds
Works fine, but displays incorrect format.
Days = Hours
Hours = Minutes
Minutes = Seconds
Works fine, but displays incorrect format.
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...
