gauriemma
Jul 18, 04:17 PM
Apple are allowed to change their minds about the purpose of iPod / iTunes ( just like a woman , as we keep on being reminded! ) :-)
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Which is exactly why I don't rent movies from Blockbuster, etc...
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Which is exactly why I don't rent movies from Blockbuster, etc...
jgould
Feb 19, 06:18 PM
Not much I can do with my dorm.
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
scottsjack
May 2, 05:25 PM
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!
Although love my iPhone its OS, including the jiggling icons for deletion selection, seems more like a toy's OS. When I sit down at my MP the OS seems like an one made for actual grown-up, serious adults.
Although love my iPhone its OS, including the jiggling icons for deletion selection, seems more like a toy's OS. When I sit down at my MP the OS seems like an one made for actual grown-up, serious adults.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 21, 12:21 PM
has anyone actually used the app in question? The data is so wildly inaccurate as to make it pointless. Even recompiling it with a 1000 times more accuracy has me placed in locations I haven't been to since I go an iPhone. So the question is not one of data, per se, but data accuracy: law enforcement have known about this for ages. If my iPhone says I was near a scene of crime, but I disagree, I bet I know which side the police would go with. That is the trouble with this data.
The data may not be accurate, as it's main purpose is to track cell towers, not the user.
The data may not be accurate, as it's main purpose is to track cell towers, not the user.
thejadedmonkey
Nov 28, 07:46 AM
Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?
Maybe he got an apple one first and didn't like it (but who's going to trash it), or one was a gift, or perhaps he wanted to go with the whole apple-theme.. Maybe he has TWO computers.
Why are you looking for a fight? I happen to have two different lava lamps. why? Because I can. thank you, don't bite my head off because I have two.
Maybe he got an apple one first and didn't like it (but who's going to trash it), or one was a gift, or perhaps he wanted to go with the whole apple-theme.. Maybe he has TWO computers.
Why are you looking for a fight? I happen to have two different lava lamps. why? Because I can. thank you, don't bite my head off because I have two.
Shorties
Jun 22, 08:49 PM
Ever since they made the name the iPad, and making it an exclusive iOS device, I have been predicting a MacPad, with a hybrid OS. But this makes way more sense for a first hybrid OS product.
Old Smuggler
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
twoodcc
Mar 5, 11:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
EJR
Sep 14, 09:04 PM
I caved and decided to just go ahead and order the Incipio dermaSHOT case today. I'm really waiting for Otterbox to release their new case, but apparently they haven't even made a final decision on it yet and I'm going to need something to hold me over till they do, so this seemed to be the best choice for me right now. I'm pretty sure a screen protector would have cost me about 5 bucks after shipping, so 19.99 for both the case/screen protector/stand looked like a pretty good deal to me. I'll put pics up whenever I do receive it.
Thanks guys.
Thanks guys.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
Lol, OK BRO. They were designed to make the Intel GPU look good? That's pretty hilarious. Then you post a video of you comparing the 320M and Intel 3000 under OS X playing Starcraft 2 and tell me your results that prove those benchmarks wrong.
With only a couple months difference in release date, Sandy Bridge is a bad purchase.
Yeah, because we all know how lovely AMD's desktop processors have been. :rolleyes: Let alone their mobile processors. The only thing they have going for them is their price. If you want a better processor, buy Sandy Bridge. If you want a better GPU, buy Llano. Or just buy a Sandy Bridge machine with a discrete GPU that take a crap all over both the Llano and Intel's IGP. Stop with your unreleased AMD propaganda.
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
Lol, OK BRO. They were designed to make the Intel GPU look good? That's pretty hilarious. Then you post a video of you comparing the 320M and Intel 3000 under OS X playing Starcraft 2 and tell me your results that prove those benchmarks wrong.
With only a couple months difference in release date, Sandy Bridge is a bad purchase.
Yeah, because we all know how lovely AMD's desktop processors have been. :rolleyes: Let alone their mobile processors. The only thing they have going for them is their price. If you want a better processor, buy Sandy Bridge. If you want a better GPU, buy Llano. Or just buy a Sandy Bridge machine with a discrete GPU that take a crap all over both the Llano and Intel's IGP. Stop with your unreleased AMD propaganda.
hynke
Apr 27, 06:17 AM
As far as I know the "App Store" trademark hasn't been granted to Apple yet, therefore Amazon can use it for now. On the other hand Apple just cannot sit there and do nothing about it, they must deffend the trademark they are trying to register even if it hasn't been registered yet.
I also have to admit that it surely is a very good publicity stunt by Amazon. Their new "Appstore" is now all over the web.
I also have to admit that it surely is a very good publicity stunt by Amazon. Their new "Appstore" is now all over the web.
spiffyfitz
Aug 16, 12:30 PM
I sure hope they announce something about an Apple phone soon. Im sooooooo tempted to get the LG Chocolate.
It's a shame there's almost no way Verizon will carry an Apple branded phone. I just don't see it happening. Looks like I'll have to get an LG Chocolate for music on the go...
It's a shame there's almost no way Verizon will carry an Apple branded phone. I just don't see it happening. Looks like I'll have to get an LG Chocolate for music on the go...
The.316
Nov 27, 08:41 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
ErikGrim
Mar 31, 07:15 PM
Is Safari still buggy as feck? Can you drag images out and not have them be .weblocs? Is google maps working properly without tile distortions/not loading?
QuantumLo0p
Mar 7, 12:41 PM
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
Eraserhead
Nov 27, 01:30 PM
I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.
retrospek
Jan 2, 04:58 PM
I really hope the iTV will stream internet radio as well as iTunes stuff..
I can then replace my Roku with it...
I can then replace my Roku with it...
Daremo
Mar 25, 04:05 PM
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
Incorrect. With the new HDMI adapter, the original iPad DOES support HDMI out.
Incorrect. With the new HDMI adapter, the original iPad DOES support HDMI out.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:36 PM
Wow, looks like the rumours WERE true after all! Apple killed the Pro of Final Cut Pro. That guy who turned the much admired iMovie into garbage has done it again. All they had to do was rewrite the engine with 64 bit support, had proper file handling, rendering titling tools amongst other necessary pro features and keep the same F*&$#@*&& interface as pro users of ANY pro software don't want to re-learn an interface for no reason! It takes YEARS before you really know a software under the hood.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
Oh, they'll all switch to Avid to avoid learning a new interface, but of course, they won't have to learn a new interface to use Avid instead of FCP :rolleyes: . Not everyone who is a video editor has been around since the time of the dinosaurs. You're complaining that an automobile isn't a horse, so it must be inferior to the horse. If we always continue to do things in exactly the same way, we will never make any progress.
We'll now see FCPx turn into a hit with amateurs and will be completely abandoned by pro users who will all return to avid.
Oh, they'll all switch to Avid to avoid learning a new interface, but of course, they won't have to learn a new interface to use Avid instead of FCP :rolleyes: . Not everyone who is a video editor has been around since the time of the dinosaurs. You're complaining that an automobile isn't a horse, so it must be inferior to the horse. If we always continue to do things in exactly the same way, we will never make any progress.
MickyJ10
Sep 14, 06:25 PM
I've had no trouble with my phone. I'd recommend it to anyone. But CR will have a credibility issue if it backs down. If I were CR I'd not back down either.
phlavor
Apr 19, 01:35 PM
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
Chris Bangle
Sep 1, 12:10 PM
Why not make a 30inch macbook pro.:cool: how hard can it be.
Doctor Q
Nov 27, 02:03 PM
The advantage for Apple in having a 17" widescreen monitor would be that nobody (well, almost nobody in the market for a monitor) would be priced out of the choice to buy an Apple-branded one.
There will also be competing monitors at lower prices from other companies, but many people will opt to buy an Apple monitor to go with their Mac, from Mac mini to Mac Pro.
There will also be competing monitors at lower prices from other companies, but many people will opt to buy an Apple monitor to go with their Mac, from Mac mini to Mac Pro.
No comments:
Post a Comment