hunkaburningluv
Mar 28, 05:24 PM
I never said it was. You must have me confused with somebody else.
But since you bring it up... What excites me about Apple's current products is where they could be in five years. I've been talking about it since the iPhone was introduced.
Imagine having a device that fits in your pocket yet is powerful enough to handle most people's computing needs. I go to the office and drop it in a dock and my LCD screens light up with my environment. I then go home and again I have access to everything again by simply plugging it in. When I'm on the train I can still use it to do email and what not.
Motorola is partially there with the Atrix but the hardware isn't quite up to the task yet. Give it five years and I think things will be really different.
Now that doesn't mean that a pocket device will replace every PC, console and server out there. It just represents shift in general usage. While I see this as feasible in the next few years I don't see a major migration away from desktops for at least a decade. This is due more to social constraints rather than technological.
More back on the original subject:
So what's to stop somebody making a $20 game pad for iOS? The iPad takes input from the controller and displays info on dual screens.
Or even a controller that an iPhone or iPod slides into to allow use of the accelerometers in addition to the buttons.
I don't see iOS ever replacing the consoles just like PCs didn't destroy that market. I can see a lot of overlap in the markets.
Even so, the number of people that come to these forums just to piss and moan that their OS/phone/PC/console/tablet is better than the iOS device du jour is rather tiring. There is actually an interesting article in the March 2011 issue of Scientific American that talks about this very subject. I highly recommend it.
Totally agree on most fronts mate. I believe my comments were aimed at another that was quoted my post. I am 100% behind the overlap idea - it'll be used by loads for gaming, but IMO it won't be the only method of game playing, especially for the typical 'core' console gamer.
I'd gladly pay $20 for starcraft on an iPad, without doubt, that's where I feel touch gaming can really add to the experience - RTS and Turn Basesd strategy game. BUT I feel that in the wake of the few dollar price point for idevice games and their (relative) simplicity I just don't think that it will do well. That may change over the next few years though.
But since you bring it up... What excites me about Apple's current products is where they could be in five years. I've been talking about it since the iPhone was introduced.
Imagine having a device that fits in your pocket yet is powerful enough to handle most people's computing needs. I go to the office and drop it in a dock and my LCD screens light up with my environment. I then go home and again I have access to everything again by simply plugging it in. When I'm on the train I can still use it to do email and what not.
Motorola is partially there with the Atrix but the hardware isn't quite up to the task yet. Give it five years and I think things will be really different.
Now that doesn't mean that a pocket device will replace every PC, console and server out there. It just represents shift in general usage. While I see this as feasible in the next few years I don't see a major migration away from desktops for at least a decade. This is due more to social constraints rather than technological.
More back on the original subject:
So what's to stop somebody making a $20 game pad for iOS? The iPad takes input from the controller and displays info on dual screens.
Or even a controller that an iPhone or iPod slides into to allow use of the accelerometers in addition to the buttons.
I don't see iOS ever replacing the consoles just like PCs didn't destroy that market. I can see a lot of overlap in the markets.
Even so, the number of people that come to these forums just to piss and moan that their OS/phone/PC/console/tablet is better than the iOS device du jour is rather tiring. There is actually an interesting article in the March 2011 issue of Scientific American that talks about this very subject. I highly recommend it.
Totally agree on most fronts mate. I believe my comments were aimed at another that was quoted my post. I am 100% behind the overlap idea - it'll be used by loads for gaming, but IMO it won't be the only method of game playing, especially for the typical 'core' console gamer.
I'd gladly pay $20 for starcraft on an iPad, without doubt, that's where I feel touch gaming can really add to the experience - RTS and Turn Basesd strategy game. BUT I feel that in the wake of the few dollar price point for idevice games and their (relative) simplicity I just don't think that it will do well. That may change over the next few years though.
Kirbdog
Jan 1, 09:29 PM
I am hoping that movies and TV shows get offered outside the US on the iTunes store. Steve mentioned that this would be happening in 2007 when he previewed the iTV box. I think many would like to see this sooner than later.
A true video iPod would really compliment this announcement:D :D
A true video iPod would really compliment this announcement:D :D
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 03:03 PM
is that why the war in afghanistan ended so successfully years ago? oh wait..... :p
Well, it is somewhat negated when you have a bordering country aiding and abetting the 'enemy'.
Well, it is somewhat negated when you have a bordering country aiding and abetting the 'enemy'.
RayLancer
Oct 2, 10:36 AM
Actually I kind of like my gel case. It perfectly fits and makes the back look great. I intended to wait for the belkin's clear hard case to come out, but now I'm going to order the full set of this gel case and it's still cheaper.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
Where did you get yours from? I ordered one off ebay and it was horribly warped, both of them. It was pretty loose and stretched so it wouldn't fit my iPod at all.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
Where did you get yours from? I ordered one off ebay and it was horribly warped, both of them. It was pretty loose and stretched so it wouldn't fit my iPod at all.
admanimal
Mar 31, 12:16 AM
Can you only get one code per dev account? What if I want to install on multiple computers?
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
richard.mac
Apr 3, 12:26 AM
Recent files now show in the Dock menu of closed and open apps (not sure if this is new), clicking show recents shows them as tiles like as in DP1
279465
Spotlight has smaller icons and Google and Wikipedia (been mentioned), but now has dictionary meanings again and the pronunciation
279468
Directory Utility now has an editor which is like OS X Server's Workgroup Manager. presumably as Server will be included now.
279467
- can press ctrl+up again to close Mission Control, doesnt work with ctrl-down for Expos� app windows though
- the Sites folder in home is gone (Apache and Web Sharing still there though)
overall things just seem a little quicker, animations are smoother and getting less Dock, SystemUIServer & Finder crashes. still a few crashes and UI bugs around the place.
279465
Spotlight has smaller icons and Google and Wikipedia (been mentioned), but now has dictionary meanings again and the pronunciation
279468
Directory Utility now has an editor which is like OS X Server's Workgroup Manager. presumably as Server will be included now.
279467
- can press ctrl+up again to close Mission Control, doesnt work with ctrl-down for Expos� app windows though
- the Sites folder in home is gone (Apache and Web Sharing still there though)
overall things just seem a little quicker, animations are smoother and getting less Dock, SystemUIServer & Finder crashes. still a few crashes and UI bugs around the place.
McBeats
Mar 24, 06:47 PM
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
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.
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 11:38 AM
Does the classic have the tracking software too, or is it just the Touch?
axu539
Mar 31, 10:21 PM
Google Maps looks fine, so do dragging images. There is something strange I noticed trying to refresh a page. The best is to just post the pictures to show the bug.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5367/safaribug1.png
The first is the popover that slide into view when I tried to refresh the page.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1071/safaribug2.png
The second is the address bar glitching once the popover is dismissed.
It seems that once the address bar starts glitching, spaces starts acting up too.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5367/safaribug1.png
The first is the popover that slide into view when I tried to refresh the page.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1071/safaribug2.png
The second is the address bar glitching once the popover is dismissed.
It seems that once the address bar starts glitching, spaces starts acting up too.
mdriftmeyer
Apr 2, 10:47 PM
Since so many of the units purchased in the last two weeks are destined for resale overseas (read the Asian scalper threads) have not even made it into the hands of the end-user, you have no idea how many will be returned.
No need to thank me for pointing out the obvious to you and your fellow apologists.
When Apple has their Quarterly press conference expect the iPad 2 to list 4+ million or more sales with back orders in the millions.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
No need to thank me for pointing out the obvious to you and your fellow apologists.
When Apple has their Quarterly press conference expect the iPad 2 to list 4+ million or more sales with back orders in the millions.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
Jamesta
Oct 17, 09:58 PM
here's a case i bought off of ebay for 2 dollars. pretty plain http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350395819686&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_4233wt_905
http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9982.jpghttp://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9981.jpghttp://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9978.jpg
http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9982.jpghttp://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9981.jpghttp://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a403/Jamesta1234/IMG_9978.jpg
lordonuthin
Nov 18, 07:57 PM
^yeah almost seems unfair to ppl that want to compete but dont have access to high end hardware. i guess if you look at it from an aggregate standpoint then low point crunchers make a bit of a diff.
the amount of power sucked from the wall per unit would be WAY less i would imagine. from an environmental standpoint it wouldnt make sense
That's why I dropped the G5 after I saw how little it was doing against the Mac Pro and even the low end amd's, it just wasn't worth it in terms of the electric bill.
And speaking of electric bills... I'm just kind of guessing here but I think folding is costing me about $50 a month :eek:
the amount of power sucked from the wall per unit would be WAY less i would imagine. from an environmental standpoint it wouldnt make sense
That's why I dropped the G5 after I saw how little it was doing against the Mac Pro and even the low end amd's, it just wasn't worth it in terms of the electric bill.
And speaking of electric bills... I'm just kind of guessing here but I think folding is costing me about $50 a month :eek:
TTarkas
Apr 21, 11:27 AM
Is Al Frankin running for president again? :rolleyes:
At least he's got a birth certificate. Although I think it refers to Stewart Smalley or something like that.
Watch this issue to be linked to net neutrality in a heartbeat, and the logical .. cough: BS cough: .. conclusion that the government should make all rules for consumer devices and electronic signals.
At least he's got a birth certificate. Although I think it refers to Stewart Smalley or something like that.
Watch this issue to be linked to net neutrality in a heartbeat, and the logical .. cough: BS cough: .. conclusion that the government should make all rules for consumer devices and electronic signals.
mjteix
Mar 25, 07:02 PM
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Then why "2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there."?
If the power consumption is less than the TDP, it should be: 2x CPUs 95W rated. So that's 190W max, anyway.
If you want an example of power consumption from a similar computer, go here (http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13277_na/13277_na.HTML). The maximum power consumption is 570W for 2x Xeon X5570 (TDP=2x95W), 12GB RAM, FX4800 gpu (TDP=150W), 2x 1TB HDD, ODD, Ethernet, on a 650W 80PLUS� BRONZE PSU.
If you change the gpu for one with a 300W TDP, and if the power consumption is still less than the TDP, then a 800W PSU would do the trick. No?
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Then why "2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there."?
If the power consumption is less than the TDP, it should be: 2x CPUs 95W rated. So that's 190W max, anyway.
If you want an example of power consumption from a similar computer, go here (http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13277_na/13277_na.HTML). The maximum power consumption is 570W for 2x Xeon X5570 (TDP=2x95W), 12GB RAM, FX4800 gpu (TDP=150W), 2x 1TB HDD, ODD, Ethernet, on a 650W 80PLUS� BRONZE PSU.
If you change the gpu for one with a 300W TDP, and if the power consumption is still less than the TDP, then a 800W PSU would do the trick. No?
applekid
Jul 18, 08:20 AM
Good news and bad news. Movies good, rental bad if not offered with sale. However, if rentals are cheap, I'd probably just as soon rent so i could buy the physical disc which would be much higher quality anyway.
If rentals go for like 99 cents for a given amount of time, I'd probably try the movie with a rental and go out and buy the DVD if I want a high-quality movie with all of the extras that I could always rip. For a lot of the iTunes shows, I might buy an episode, but I usually just rip them from my DVDs to have high quality rips on my computer and a separate rip if I want to transfer them to my Palm (got no video iPod...)
As long as the pricing and rental term is fair, this should be a decent system. It definitely should be close to 99 cents a day. The cheapest physical movie rental service I can think of is RedBox (http://www.redbox.com/) which is $1 a night. Maybe Steve worked out a good deal to do a buck or two for a week.
If rentals go for like 99 cents for a given amount of time, I'd probably try the movie with a rental and go out and buy the DVD if I want a high-quality movie with all of the extras that I could always rip. For a lot of the iTunes shows, I might buy an episode, but I usually just rip them from my DVDs to have high quality rips on my computer and a separate rip if I want to transfer them to my Palm (got no video iPod...)
As long as the pricing and rental term is fair, this should be a decent system. It definitely should be close to 99 cents a day. The cheapest physical movie rental service I can think of is RedBox (http://www.redbox.com/) which is $1 a night. Maybe Steve worked out a good deal to do a buck or two for a week.
tablo13
Sep 16, 04:52 PM
Perhaps, but it's also nearly 20 times as expensive.
But it also includes a stand, screen protector, and seems like most brand cases are around $20. But I do love the blue colour in the picture there. :D
But it also includes a stand, screen protector, and seems like most brand cases are around $20. But I do love the blue colour in the picture there. :D
Miker2k
Jan 12, 11:53 AM
Brrrrr
cube
Mar 24, 03:43 PM
Well then why the hell are you even chanting from the rooftops about how great Fusion is *supposedly* going to be when you KNOW that the chances of Apple using it are slim to none? It's like a kid nagging his parents for the ice cream that has a fancier logo and packaging when they know their parents aren't going to buy it for them because in reality it's all the same and will most likely taste worse then what they bought previously despite what their ads say.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
Stridder44
Apr 19, 01:15 PM
Yay, news that's something other than iOS related.
Now hopefully the Mac Mini will get updated as well.
Now hopefully the Mac Mini will get updated as well.
freeny
Sep 6, 09:49 AM
Just as others, I am waiting on the merom MBP. People are ansy about this because the current MBP is known to those who knew about the merom as a "place holder" until the actual install of the merom. the merom was built for laptops and of course the laptops will be the last machines to actually recieve it. The order in which apple is updating their computers with this new chip is not logical to the consumer but may very well be logical to apple $$$.
Built
Apr 3, 01:05 AM
You did a poll asking hundreds of people if they are waiting for this very reason? Dude you're way wrong. The "many" people you are referring to are probably a very select number of....MacRumors members. Hardly indicative of the general population. I don't know if you heard- but people are going mad trying to get their hands on one. Your "theory" or whatever it is about people waiting to make sure the kinks are worked out is, well....stupid. I've read this whole thread and you seem to be on a kick about the light-bleeding issue. Yet you dont own one? Interesting.
Perhaps if you spent more time educating yourself and less time convincing yourself that a flawed product is acceptable, you would learn something. Try googling the issue.
Based on the way you write, however, I am going to guess that you won't take the time to do so.
Some people are just not interested in facing the truth.
Perhaps if you spent more time educating yourself and less time convincing yourself that a flawed product is acceptable, you would learn something. Try googling the issue.
Based on the way you write, however, I am going to guess that you won't take the time to do so.
Some people are just not interested in facing the truth.
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
dscuber9000
Mar 20, 11:15 PM
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
I saw on CNN that our intention was to cripple the opposition, and if it so happens that Qaddafi is in that building then that is purely coincidental. :rolleyes: :D
Isn't it funny that the world acts like a bunch of 10-year-olds when it comes to war? Did I say funny? I meant sad, dangerous, and catastrophic.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
I saw on CNN that our intention was to cripple the opposition, and if it so happens that Qaddafi is in that building then that is purely coincidental. :rolleyes: :D
Isn't it funny that the world acts like a bunch of 10-year-olds when it comes to war? Did I say funny? I meant sad, dangerous, and catastrophic.
