Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:51 PM
You know I originally thought that, but I kind of like the way it works now. I would much rather have a few codecs that work very well. Then play everything under the sun just not very well.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Deathlok2001
Mar 25, 07:40 PM
Jesus! :eek: As Mac Addict use to say, freaking awesome! (does that mag still exist?) This just SOLD me on an iPad 2! :D
spencers
Feb 23, 02:41 PM
Fantastic setup, would love to get those speakers, I'm in the UK also, what make/model of speakers ?
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
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
Agaetis Byrjun
Feb 21, 05:30 PM
It's finally all finished. Put the Craftsman tool chest in this weekend. It mostly hold cable and repair tools for guitars.
The white box on the front right leg of the desk is actually a Belkin remote. I've wired the desk so that when I hit that switch the 3 displays, audio monitors and all USB controllers will turn on.
I hate wires showing so I went to great lengths to hide them.
The white box on the front right leg of the desk is actually a Belkin remote. I've wired the desk so that when I hit that switch the 3 displays, audio monitors and all USB controllers will turn on.
I hate wires showing so I went to great lengths to hide them.
babul
Feb 25, 10:08 PM
Here i'll show you my mac setup and my bedroom studio setup
Nothin much, iPad on the left. JBL iPod Dock, Crappy speakers
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac1-1.jpg
This tower connected to the TV, so i can make beats on the big screen
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac2.jpg
17" Samsung Monitor, Macbook Pro 17" (First Model), Macbook Pro 13" Unibody, iTouch 1st Gen and 2nd Gen plugged on the right.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac3.jpg
Another Towers with Dual 17" Samsung
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac4.jpg
My Main Workstation, 27" iMac. iPhone 3GS plugged on the right
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac5.jpg
And I just got this 15" Macbook Pro Unibody
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac6.jpg
I love to work in low ambient light. So here is how it looks
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac7.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac8.jpg
Nothin much, iPad on the left. JBL iPod Dock, Crappy speakers
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac1-1.jpg
This tower connected to the TV, so i can make beats on the big screen
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac2.jpg
17" Samsung Monitor, Macbook Pro 17" (First Model), Macbook Pro 13" Unibody, iTouch 1st Gen and 2nd Gen plugged on the right.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac3.jpg
Another Towers with Dual 17" Samsung
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac4.jpg
My Main Workstation, 27" iMac. iPhone 3GS plugged on the right
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac5.jpg
And I just got this 15" Macbook Pro Unibody
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac6.jpg
I love to work in low ambient light. So here is how it looks
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac7.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/kitiks/mac8.jpg
Surely
Jan 12, 05:25 PM
I just want them to get the thickness and weight down.
That's what she said.
Anyway....
All this speculation about the name of a hypothetical new sub-notebook- it's just not 'wow'. Usually at MW Apple announces some new, exciting product. I just don't see that 'wow' product being a new sub-notebook. I don't think that the over-analyzed banner is referring to a sub-notebook.
While they are probably going to announce a new sub-notebook, I think that something else will be the product (or service) with the 'wow' factor that Steve Jobs announces as the 'one more thing...' thing. And I don't think that it will be called Nike MacBook Air.
That's what she said.
Anyway....
All this speculation about the name of a hypothetical new sub-notebook- it's just not 'wow'. Usually at MW Apple announces some new, exciting product. I just don't see that 'wow' product being a new sub-notebook. I don't think that the over-analyzed banner is referring to a sub-notebook.
While they are probably going to announce a new sub-notebook, I think that something else will be the product (or service) with the 'wow' factor that Steve Jobs announces as the 'one more thing...' thing. And I don't think that it will be called Nike MacBook Air.
MacRumors
Sep 6, 05:52 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
With the new iMac updates ("]Mac mini[/url] and [url=") released today, it appears Apple will focus on their Movie initiative during their September 12th media event. Variety provides (http://www.variety.com/VR1117949519.html) some details of the upcoming announcement.
As reported elsewhere, Variety expects Apple to provide movies for $9.99/download for older movies and $14.99 for new releases. This price range is reportedly a concession to movie studios who want variable pricing. Apple has long been a proponent of a one-price model. As a result, only Disney is said to be definitely on board with the initial launch with the other studios potentially joining in the next year.
In contrast, Amazon is also launching a movie store later this week, and they are expected to have all major movie studios signed on. Amazon's pricing will be in line with current movie download services ($9.99-$19.99).
An Associated Press report (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060906/apple_online_movies.html?.v=1) offers a similar perspective on the ongoing negotiations between Apple and the movie studios:
...substantial disagreements between studios and Apple remain to be resolved and Apple's movie service could launch with a limited number of films, according to two studio executives who asked to remain anonymous because talks were still ongoing.
With the new iMac updates ("]Mac mini[/url] and [url=") released today, it appears Apple will focus on their Movie initiative during their September 12th media event. Variety provides (http://www.variety.com/VR1117949519.html) some details of the upcoming announcement.
As reported elsewhere, Variety expects Apple to provide movies for $9.99/download for older movies and $14.99 for new releases. This price range is reportedly a concession to movie studios who want variable pricing. Apple has long been a proponent of a one-price model. As a result, only Disney is said to be definitely on board with the initial launch with the other studios potentially joining in the next year.
In contrast, Amazon is also launching a movie store later this week, and they are expected to have all major movie studios signed on. Amazon's pricing will be in line with current movie download services ($9.99-$19.99).
An Associated Press report (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060906/apple_online_movies.html?.v=1) offers a similar perspective on the ongoing negotiations between Apple and the movie studios:
...substantial disagreements between studios and Apple remain to be resolved and Apple's movie service could launch with a limited number of films, according to two studio executives who asked to remain anonymous because talks were still ongoing.
wkhahn
Sep 7, 12:48 PM
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 09:15 PM
Here is a map of the Sirius satellite orbits. You can get a signal pretty far south, at least as far as southern Mexico. But to conserve power, Sirius shuts the power down once the bird goes "below" the equator. XM does have a owership in WorldSpace which does broadcast around the globe through a network of various satellites.
http://www.mts.net/~jwt/sirius-xmorbitanim.gif
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
http://www.mts.net/~jwt/sirius-xmorbitanim.gif
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
islanders
Dec 27, 09:35 PM
I�m waiting on buying a HD DVD or BlueRay until the price comes down, so I could see iTV offering a HD alternative, and filling that niche.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Photics
Mar 26, 07:43 AM
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
I don't think the problem here is cost. Lots of people want an iPad, so this is like a fringe benefit. It's more about logistics. I don't think it makes sense to run two screens, and tether an iPad to the TV.
Heh, true, I use my iPhone as a Netflix player. Yet, I don't have to hold the iPhone to do it. I just set it up and enjoy the movie. An iPad is a nice tablet, but not a great controller.
I think a USB controller, going to the iPad 2 - that's connected to a TV - makes more sense. Then, it's like a real gaming console. Another possibility... the iPad 2 camera could be used for motion detection. Then, the gaming can be like the Wii or XBOX 360 Kinect.
My problem here is the cable — HDMI cables are usually short.
This is progress though.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
I'm not bashing the iPad. I think it's cool. It's clearly the leader in the tablet market. Yet, I don't think this is the direction to go for gaming. I think the Apple TV makes more sense.
Apple TV — With a Camera — and that changes things.
FaceTime, Games, Apps on the TV.
But again, the controller is the problem. Apple is not leading here. It should set the standard, not let developers create Frankenstein gaming consoles. This isn't the Pipen. Apple has a strong opportunity to enter the game console space. I don't see a reason to delay.
I don't think the problem here is cost. Lots of people want an iPad, so this is like a fringe benefit. It's more about logistics. I don't think it makes sense to run two screens, and tether an iPad to the TV.
Heh, true, I use my iPhone as a Netflix player. Yet, I don't have to hold the iPhone to do it. I just set it up and enjoy the movie. An iPad is a nice tablet, but not a great controller.
I think a USB controller, going to the iPad 2 - that's connected to a TV - makes more sense. Then, it's like a real gaming console. Another possibility... the iPad 2 camera could be used for motion detection. Then, the gaming can be like the Wii or XBOX 360 Kinect.
My problem here is the cable — HDMI cables are usually short.
This is progress though.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
I'm not bashing the iPad. I think it's cool. It's clearly the leader in the tablet market. Yet, I don't think this is the direction to go for gaming. I think the Apple TV makes more sense.
Apple TV — With a Camera — and that changes things.
FaceTime, Games, Apps on the TV.
But again, the controller is the problem. Apple is not leading here. It should set the standard, not let developers create Frankenstein gaming consoles. This isn't the Pipen. Apple has a strong opportunity to enter the game console space. I don't see a reason to delay.
Lord Blackadder
Feb 24, 07:18 PM
regarding japanese cars they somehow again managed to hit 2 homeruns in the stupid name department
the Mitsubishi iMiEV which in german is spoken out (translated) "iStink"
and the suzuki Kizashi which in austrian dialekt german sounds pretty close to " kiss...'lower backside' "
That is brilliant! :D
true that .. regarding german benchmark cars i would mention the Golf TDI, the Mercedes E250 Blu Efficiency CDI, the BMW M3 .. in their markets they are simply the best there is for different reasons:
the Golf TDI is defining a whole vehicle class for most of europe: "Golf Klasse", every new vehicle roughly the same size and hatchback layout gets compared to it
the E250 BE CDI: showing that a fuel saving vehicle doesn't need to be hideous and still can be a big saloon car driving from Barcelona to Stuttgart on a single tank
the M3: the sporty 4 door saloon car benchmark
The Golf GTD sounds like the perfect car to me: practical, efficient, yet with good performance. Sadly, we Americans will probably never get to buy one. :(
The M3 remains a great car, especially the 4-door versions.
It's got to be turbocharged for that amount of power and torque. There hasn't been a common rail non-turbo diesel made that I'm aware of.
I thought the same, the power and torque numbers are definitely turbodiesel territory, but I have been unable to find any official description of the engine (it's called the RA 420) that mentiones a turbo. VM. Motori's own web page (http://www.vmmotori.it/en/01/01/index.jsp) unhelpfully fails to even list the Cruze as an application or even the engine itself! Their automotive engine brochure (http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1695.pdf) does list the RA 420 but doesn't label any of the engines as turbodiesels either.
EDIT: Automobile Magazine calls it a turbodiesel in their news article (http://rumors.automobilemag.com/diesel-rumor-2013-chevrolet-cruze-turbo-diesel-4-20279.html) about the diesel Cruze rumor, as does this (http://autoblog.com.ar/2011/02/lanzamiento-chevrolet-cruze-ampliacion-de-gama/) more descriptive Argentinian press release (in Spanish) so I have to assume it's just a case of VM Motori not being fully descriptive on their webpage. I hadn't heard of a common rail non-turbo diesel engine either, so I thought it a bit weird but without confirmation I had to assume non-turbo till proven otherwise.
the Mitsubishi iMiEV which in german is spoken out (translated) "iStink"
and the suzuki Kizashi which in austrian dialekt german sounds pretty close to " kiss...'lower backside' "
That is brilliant! :D
true that .. regarding german benchmark cars i would mention the Golf TDI, the Mercedes E250 Blu Efficiency CDI, the BMW M3 .. in their markets they are simply the best there is for different reasons:
the Golf TDI is defining a whole vehicle class for most of europe: "Golf Klasse", every new vehicle roughly the same size and hatchback layout gets compared to it
the E250 BE CDI: showing that a fuel saving vehicle doesn't need to be hideous and still can be a big saloon car driving from Barcelona to Stuttgart on a single tank
the M3: the sporty 4 door saloon car benchmark
The Golf GTD sounds like the perfect car to me: practical, efficient, yet with good performance. Sadly, we Americans will probably never get to buy one. :(
The M3 remains a great car, especially the 4-door versions.
It's got to be turbocharged for that amount of power and torque. There hasn't been a common rail non-turbo diesel made that I'm aware of.
I thought the same, the power and torque numbers are definitely turbodiesel territory, but I have been unable to find any official description of the engine (it's called the RA 420) that mentiones a turbo. VM. Motori's own web page (http://www.vmmotori.it/en/01/01/index.jsp) unhelpfully fails to even list the Cruze as an application or even the engine itself! Their automotive engine brochure (http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1695.pdf) does list the RA 420 but doesn't label any of the engines as turbodiesels either.
EDIT: Automobile Magazine calls it a turbodiesel in their news article (http://rumors.automobilemag.com/diesel-rumor-2013-chevrolet-cruze-turbo-diesel-4-20279.html) about the diesel Cruze rumor, as does this (http://autoblog.com.ar/2011/02/lanzamiento-chevrolet-cruze-ampliacion-de-gama/) more descriptive Argentinian press release (in Spanish) so I have to assume it's just a case of VM Motori not being fully descriptive on their webpage. I hadn't heard of a common rail non-turbo diesel engine either, so I thought it a bit weird but without confirmation I had to assume non-turbo till proven otherwise.
JGowan
May 3, 01:32 AM
i think this is the wrong way to go!
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between ios and mac os!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac ios/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we have to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!f u d !
Its pulling apart mac os into a waterd down version of itself they will continue to add this stuff untill there is no difference between ios and mac os!
What we'll be left with is a powerfull but waterd down mac ios/hybrid platform with downloads through the app store like the iphone and ipad killing the powerfull features we have but running on every apple device!
I personally think apple will kill the ability to download any content through safari in the future in mac os!
So all apps will be vetted by apple and all music/films we have to be made through itunes no popping on to amazon or whever to make a purchase through a browser on your imac or macbook!
I hate the direction this is going they are building a walled garden around mac os slowly and dont be supprised the ports start disapearing on the macbook soon for a 30pin dock!
Bad move apple!f u d !
twoodcc
Dec 17, 04:27 AM
well i'm finally in the top 10 for our team. just gotta keep it goin
sluthy
Jan 3, 07:31 PM
The C2D upgrade happened in November. The 17s actually shipped toward the last part of November. I can't understand why anyone would think that an improvement is needed in the displays on the MBP line. Some of you must have extaordinary vision if you could expect the video to be crisper or any more HD than it is. When I am viewing HD TV on this MBP, it actually blows the picture that we get on our HDTV set. And movies are really realistic looking on this screen. I perceive that anyone wanting a major upgrade to what I am seeing right here is going after "bragging rights" .... But that is just MHO
I also own a bad A$$ custom built notebook with a kick butt video card and super duper display and I actually like this Mac better. Again ... MHO
:cool:
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
I also own a bad A$$ custom built notebook with a kick butt video card and super duper display and I actually like this Mac better. Again ... MHO
:cool:
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
SDub90
Apr 17, 08:51 AM
Manual (stick) shift cars are rare today and I'm wondering how many people still know how to drive them. How did you learn and do you have a desire to own one?
I think they're only rare in the US. The few times I went to italy the closest thing to an automatic that I saw was a smart car with tiptronic.
Anyway, I drive stick mostly, when I drive automatic sedans I get a little nauseous. I think for me it's the same effect as motion sickness - instead of not being able to make sense of the motionless surroundings and quickly moving background, I don't know what to do with my right hand and left foot.
I think they're only rare in the US. The few times I went to italy the closest thing to an automatic that I saw was a smart car with tiptronic.
Anyway, I drive stick mostly, when I drive automatic sedans I get a little nauseous. I think for me it's the same effect as motion sickness - instead of not being able to make sense of the motionless surroundings and quickly moving background, I don't know what to do with my right hand and left foot.
ftaok
Mar 25, 05:12 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
turbineseaplane
Jun 22, 02:08 PM
Exactly. When did the keyboard and mouse become public enemy number 1? These technologies have been perfected over years and years of real use.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Yeah. This story does absolutely nothing for me.
My interest in "touch screen desktops" is so low I can't even describe it.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Yeah. This story does absolutely nothing for me.
My interest in "touch screen desktops" is so low I can't even describe it.
stripedsnake
Feb 8, 03:44 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4705439388_f0fef97f94.jpg
Loving every second I drive her.
Loving every second I drive her.
Farns514
Jan 11, 07:00 PM
I love these cars, i looked at the SRT8 model with the Hemi but UK + V8 = Bankrupt lol
Matt
The Chrysler 300C SRT is a fantastic car, i think it was the summer before I headed into freshman year of college, when my buddy and i took his SRT to his lake-house. We got up to 167mph in his car on back roads, craziest/scariest/most fun experience ever. He traded that 300 in about a year ago for the Jeep SRT and man is that thing fun to drive....... Wish i could afford an SRT.:D
Matt
The Chrysler 300C SRT is a fantastic car, i think it was the summer before I headed into freshman year of college, when my buddy and i took his SRT to his lake-house. We got up to 167mph in his car on back roads, craziest/scariest/most fun experience ever. He traded that 300 in about a year ago for the Jeep SRT and man is that thing fun to drive....... Wish i could afford an SRT.:D
gmcalpin
Jun 23, 08:29 AM
One thing I'd like to see is a stylus that can be used with this & an iPad. Before I get flamed, hear me out. It wouldn't be just stylus only. It'll work just the way it is with your fingers, but also use a stylus for fine work like a painting/drawing program. Some people have bulky fingers that are too imprecise for drawing.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
PODshady
Oct 23, 08:24 PM
I really hope that the MacBook Pro gets updated tomorrow becuase my 3 year old iBook G4 just died over the weekend and I have had my eye on a 17-inch MacBook Pro ever since they came out. I am still undecided though if I want to buy one (if they are updated tomorrow) or if I will just wait for Leopard to be released.
rezenclowd3
Jan 28, 01:07 PM
I like the idea of a pop-up navigation system!
Less chance of theft or break-in
And one more motor/slider mechanism to fail. I will stick with vehicles that don't have fancy shmancy electronics. Besides....its more weight ;-)
Less chance of theft or break-in
And one more motor/slider mechanism to fail. I will stick with vehicles that don't have fancy shmancy electronics. Besides....its more weight ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment