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?
truz
Aug 6, 08:51 PM
Longhorn is code name, The product name is Vista you will not see a third name for windows vista. Just like Windows XP I think was called Whistler (code name).
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
skinniezinho
Nov 27, 11:30 AM
I can get it for $65 from Swatch. I'm not sure where else I can buy it in the US. I like it, but I'm not sure how good it looks in person. I'm not sure if I am a fan of those glow in the dark hands either.
It looks better in person than in pics..the size is just "perfect" at least for me...
It looks better in person than in pics..the size is just "perfect" at least for me...
JGruber
May 2, 04:54 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I've been using App Zapper, which is seems is basically the same thing. But I keep downloading the trial :) A free solution is nice.
I've been using this - AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/)
I've been using this - AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/)
Phishin' it
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
TelegraphRoad
Sep 14, 09:24 PM
I subscribed to their magazine for about 10 years. I bought into the whole thing ... raffle, website subscription, donations ... the whole bit. I finally got smart after being burned on riding mowers, washing machines, hotels, hand-held vacuums and most other crap. I religiously purchased their recommendations, except for cars since I worked in that business and they were too biased against some brands. I found their recommendations so unreliable, that I started shopping from the bottom of this. Anyway, I can't recommend them and perhaps we can get publicity for making that statement.
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.
miloblithe
Sep 6, 09:30 AM
Comparing the prices of the new iMacs and the Mac mini is absurd. The killer
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
tedrjr03
Aug 27, 01:11 AM
I hope that this is all true because i plan on picking up a new intelimac or mini.
islanders
Dec 27, 11:35 PM
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
WildPalms
Sep 7, 11:28 AM
There has been a lot said here and elsewhere on what Apple is going to release. But let�s step back and look at the big picture for a moment and think through this process.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
Interesting take.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
Interesting take.
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.
bokdol
Aug 24, 10:02 PM
a bit off topic... does any one know of a comparable pc and cost? the mini seems a bit expensive at 799 for a 1.6 dore duo
wmmk
Jul 13, 11:02 PM
Will I be able to get a reasonably priced apple laptop with merom, 802.11n, blueray burner, possibly HD, and leopard (or whatever 10.6 is called) in late 2007 or early 2008?
Schizoid
Apr 3, 04:38 AM
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
Yeah, I agree... more lasers!
How about a dinosaur with lasers for eyes mounted on a rocket-shark shouting, "queue for the iPad 2" in a metallic, robotic accent... that would be great
Yeah, I agree... more lasers!
How about a dinosaur with lasers for eyes mounted on a rocket-shark shouting, "queue for the iPad 2" in a metallic, robotic accent... that would be great
RaceTripper
Jan 9, 11:52 AM
@hobbyrennfahrer:
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
The 135i will likely be my next car (or a 1-Series M Coupe). It's not really that light though. At 3400 lbs. it weighs about what a E46 3-series weighs (while at 3600 lbs. the new E90/92 3 Series weighs what the E39 5-series weighed). BMWs just keeping getting bigger and heavier. My JCW is light, at 2600 lbs. :)
The 135i is certainly quick though.
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
The 135i will likely be my next car (or a 1-Series M Coupe). It's not really that light though. At 3400 lbs. it weighs about what a E46 3-series weighs (while at 3600 lbs. the new E90/92 3 Series weighs what the E39 5-series weighed). BMWs just keeping getting bigger and heavier. My JCW is light, at 2600 lbs. :)
The 135i is certainly quick though.
Steven1621
Mar 18, 11:09 PM
i question the need for this since apple did make quite a bit of money last quarter.
Icaras
Apr 19, 12:03 PM
Just in time for the back to school promo!
Which is about a month away. I wonder how many buyers on the fence for this refresh will have the patience to wait even longer for the promotion.
Oh, and that's right, Lion should also be out in about 1-2 months after that as well. ;)
Which is about a month away. I wonder how many buyers on the fence for this refresh will have the patience to wait even longer for the promotion.
Oh, and that's right, Lion should also be out in about 1-2 months after that as well. ;)
wizard
Jun 22, 03:39 PM
Let be clear here Touch screens are of limited usefulness in the normal desktop range of activities. You can read about ergonomics for the details or take this Tibit of experience, they are fatiguing to use. I base this on experience in industrial settings where people will often go out of their way to make use of a keyboard, mouse or other entry device instead of the touch screen. Apples quality GUI would have no impact on the negative associated with extensive touch screen usage.
The idea of a layer being used as a replacement for Dashboard has some appeal as currently Dashboard sucks. However this would only work well by emulating an ARM processor which is probably as wasteful as JavaScript. If I was Apple I'd think long and hard about that.
Further I'm not even sure I agree with the premise that a touch facility would be hard to integrate into Mac OS/X. It would seem to me that adding another layer would be more difficult for everybody concerned, especially developers. Their goal maybe an exact emulation of iOS gestures but I'm not even sure that makes sense. You really need a gesture system tailored to the desktop that hives with track pad usage.
So while I can see Apple doing something in this regard I don't think a Touch screen will be there to turn the Mac into an iOS device. Far from it infact. Even if they model the Touch screen interface on the I devices the goals and real usability will be vastly different. Even worst consummer acceptance and use wount be there. Even the geeks will quickly discover that in the vast majority of cases a Touch screen on the desktop sucks.
What will be very interesting is the minority of apps that will benefit from such an interface. It is just that many desktop users will never use such apps so the whole touch screen thing is a bit of a joke. For many users what Apple should be doing is going after voice input/dictation. Put all those cores to work on an AI that can process human language.
Dave
The idea of a layer being used as a replacement for Dashboard has some appeal as currently Dashboard sucks. However this would only work well by emulating an ARM processor which is probably as wasteful as JavaScript. If I was Apple I'd think long and hard about that.
Further I'm not even sure I agree with the premise that a touch facility would be hard to integrate into Mac OS/X. It would seem to me that adding another layer would be more difficult for everybody concerned, especially developers. Their goal maybe an exact emulation of iOS gestures but I'm not even sure that makes sense. You really need a gesture system tailored to the desktop that hives with track pad usage.
So while I can see Apple doing something in this regard I don't think a Touch screen will be there to turn the Mac into an iOS device. Far from it infact. Even if they model the Touch screen interface on the I devices the goals and real usability will be vastly different. Even worst consummer acceptance and use wount be there. Even the geeks will quickly discover that in the vast majority of cases a Touch screen on the desktop sucks.
What will be very interesting is the minority of apps that will benefit from such an interface. It is just that many desktop users will never use such apps so the whole touch screen thing is a bit of a joke. For many users what Apple should be doing is going after voice input/dictation. Put all those cores to work on an AI that can process human language.
Dave
Eraserhead
Mar 19, 05:47 PM
It looks pretty successful to me.
Your forgetting that Pakistan is much less stable now and they have nuclear weapons.
Your forgetting that Pakistan is much less stable now and they have nuclear weapons.
vanzskater272
Aug 24, 06:33 PM
I cant wait for the new macbook to come out! I am gonna get it the first day.
fertilized-egg
Apr 2, 11:08 PM
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
I think so too. The toaster vs oven analogy works better than Jobs' truck vs car analogy. somebody send Jobs an email so he can steal it :D
I think so too. The toaster vs oven analogy works better than Jobs' truck vs car analogy. somebody send Jobs an email so he can steal it :D
PsstGreek
Mar 1, 05:07 PM
http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq302/SneakyGreek/IMG_0097.jpg
My set up.
My set up.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:53 AM
Should this apply to Apple's competitors as well? Or only Apple should not be allowed to approve/disapprove apps?
I see apps like DVDs. There are DVDs made for all age groups, from preschool cartoons to the raunchiest sex and violence that one could stand.
In order to purchase an adult DVD there is some degree of age confirmation. But once that DVD is purchased, any person of any age can pop it in a player to view it. It's up to the parent to secure those DVDs against the curious eyes of minors. Likewise apps should not be censored.
Apple may not want to sell them through their store, just like Blockbuster may not want to sell triple X-rated movies, but if a developer can create an app for the iPhone then I'd prefer to see Apple or Apple's competitors let the market decide what is successful and what is not.
I see apps like DVDs. There are DVDs made for all age groups, from preschool cartoons to the raunchiest sex and violence that one could stand.
In order to purchase an adult DVD there is some degree of age confirmation. But once that DVD is purchased, any person of any age can pop it in a player to view it. It's up to the parent to secure those DVDs against the curious eyes of minors. Likewise apps should not be censored.
Apple may not want to sell them through their store, just like Blockbuster may not want to sell triple X-rated movies, but if a developer can create an app for the iPhone then I'd prefer to see Apple or Apple's competitors let the market decide what is successful and what is not.
