Cobrien
Jul 14, 06:29 AM
The winner will be nintendo if they get it all done in time the ds has wiped the floor with the psp here in europe .. As for all this blue ray bussines i like the idea of it but not as a main feature of any computer system not just apple ... i am still getting my head around dvd rw -/ what ever format ... Blue ray will just cause more chaos to the public plus at the current prices they can sod off...
I hope the ninitendo will win as it means that for once he innovative ideas will win rather than the companies who try to make it look better and more powerful. It would be wonderfully refreshing. I'm from Scotland by the way an I knwo about four people with a ds and everyone has a psp. Its a shame beause it may not look as good people immediately think its worse.
I hope the ninitendo will win as it means that for once he innovative ideas will win rather than the companies who try to make it look better and more powerful. It would be wonderfully refreshing. I'm from Scotland by the way an I knwo about four people with a ds and everyone has a psp. Its a shame beause it may not look as good people immediately think its worse.
FearNo1
Apr 23, 01:39 AM
Using your example, couldn't they do that with the GPS tech in most fones today simply by saving your location info in a server side database? I wouldn't put anything pass these companies and govt today.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
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.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
macfan70
Nov 27, 01:43 PM
This Asus LCD is great but even at 500 bucks very few people will buy it.
The rotating feature would be great for reading threads. ;)
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
The rotating feature would be great for reading threads. ;)
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
bokdol
Sep 1, 01:05 PM
Really? I heard that you can connect and external monitor using a hack software for dual screen support . But it does not support the cinema displays.
I hope I am wrong.:)
the imac now can do screen spaning up to a 23 inch monitor. it's only in the last revision.
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
check near bottom
I hope I am wrong.:)
the imac now can do screen spaning up to a 23 inch monitor. it's only in the last revision.
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
check near bottom
darkfiber
Apr 2, 08:09 PM
Is this the same Narrator that does the Ken Burns films?
That is actor Peter Coyote. Probably most famous for his role of the federal agent in E.T. Along with many acting roles he has done tons of narration as well. Not sure about Ken Burns films, but he has narrated something like 50 plus documentaries. He was also the voice for Oracle commercials. He did the first iPad commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2BvVcSkNkA)as well. Here is his IMDb page...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001075/
and Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coyote
That is actor Peter Coyote. Probably most famous for his role of the federal agent in E.T. Along with many acting roles he has done tons of narration as well. Not sure about Ken Burns films, but he has narrated something like 50 plus documentaries. He was also the voice for Oracle commercials. He did the first iPad commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2BvVcSkNkA)as well. Here is his IMDb page...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001075/
and Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coyote
motulist
Aug 7, 04:56 AM
Boy, we are a quite a multinational group. If only the rest of the people in the nations of the world could come together through Macness the way that we all have, then there would be no more wars. Actually, it'd probably just mean we'd have different kinds of wars, like the Nano vs. Video iPod war. :p
lapeno
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
Great news:D:D
cozmot
Apr 24, 01:07 PM
When senators weigh in on privacy issues like this, they betray their foolishness. A litlle study by their aides would reveal what a non-issue this is. Sen. Franken would do better by investigating our own government's spying on its own citizens under the cover of the Patriot Act.
jwa276
Nov 15, 09:12 AM
Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
bokdol
Aug 24, 11:15 PM
If you check CNET.com they acctually have a few... In about 15 minutes I can try to find some links for you, but if you want to do some quick searching yourself they have a few PC mini-like comps.
i was looking at dell and could not make one comparable.
thanks i'll check cnet
i was looking at dell and could not make one comparable.
thanks i'll check cnet
Fukui
Mar 24, 10:57 AM
Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable.
Marc
Amazon.com anyone?
Marc
Amazon.com anyone?
JimEJr
Apr 21, 02:10 PM
Yea, we're all safe now...Al's come to the rescue!!!
GekiRed
Oct 2, 02:06 PM
I got a Gear4 protective shell for the iPod Touch that I'm waiting to be delivered by my friend in the US today from John Lewis in Liverpool as the Apple Store which is a few seconds walk away didn't have any 4G accessories in stock!
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
sparksinspace
Sep 6, 11:23 AM
just bought a core solo mac mini a week ago.. kind of weird I did the same when the iBooks were moved go G4 a while back, a couple of weeks earlier I had bought a G3 model..
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac. :D! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.
And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
fishkorp
Jul 14, 10:10 AM
I also don't want microsoft handling my video codec, anybody remember the wonderous creation of WMV/WMA? The one that like none of us can use on macs? HD-DVD's codec is a derivation of the WMV-HD codec. Welcome to the Microsoft reality. They really like controlling proprietary codecs. Also...MPEG was created by a group of companies and people working together, Microsoft created WMV, so they've got almost complete say in how that plays out.
MS is using the ATI H.264 codec for HD content on the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, so they're not using their own crazy codecs.
ATI Technologies today announced that Microsoft Corp. has chosen ATI's H.264 decoder for the Xbox 360 HD DVD player, bringing users sharper, more true-to-life visuals and smoother playback of high-definition content. HD DVDs encoded using one of three approved codecs deliver up to six times the resolution of traditional DVDs all on a single disc. Built on ATI's Avivo technology, the decoder used for the Xbox 360 HD DVD player brings to bear ATI's considerable multimedia know-how to ensure gamers, home theatre buffs, and casual viewers alike get a more perfect picture from the H.264 format.
"The Xbox 360 gives consumers access to a world of high-definition games and video content through Xbox Live Marketplace. With the new Xbox 360 HD DVD player using ATI's decoder technology, we're giving consumers the choice to playback the latest in high-definition movies," said Todd Holmdahl, corporate vice president of Xbox 360 hardware development. "HD DVD brings new meaning to the term home theater. When people see the visual clarity and realism that Microsoft and ATI are delivering through the Xbox 360 this holiday, they will be blown away."
To enable the smoothest H.264 video playback possible, the ATI decoder technology makes use of the Xbox 360's graphics processing unit (GPU) to accelerate video processing. The unified shader design of the GPU enables high-end processing techniques such as comb filtering and automatic gain control to ensure that video artifacts such as blockiness or color bands don't disrupt playback.
"With the Xbox 360 HD DVD player, Microsoft and ATI are pushing the boundaries of high-definition multimedia content," said Rick Bergman, senior vice president and general manager, PC Business Unit, ATI. "The decoder technology used in the new drive provides high fidelity visuals unlike anything ever seen before. This is another example of the close cooperation between our two companies, and the commitment we both share to delivering the most immersive experience possible for audiences around the world."
MS is using the ATI H.264 codec for HD content on the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, so they're not using their own crazy codecs.
ATI Technologies today announced that Microsoft Corp. has chosen ATI's H.264 decoder for the Xbox 360 HD DVD player, bringing users sharper, more true-to-life visuals and smoother playback of high-definition content. HD DVDs encoded using one of three approved codecs deliver up to six times the resolution of traditional DVDs all on a single disc. Built on ATI's Avivo technology, the decoder used for the Xbox 360 HD DVD player brings to bear ATI's considerable multimedia know-how to ensure gamers, home theatre buffs, and casual viewers alike get a more perfect picture from the H.264 format.
"The Xbox 360 gives consumers access to a world of high-definition games and video content through Xbox Live Marketplace. With the new Xbox 360 HD DVD player using ATI's decoder technology, we're giving consumers the choice to playback the latest in high-definition movies," said Todd Holmdahl, corporate vice president of Xbox 360 hardware development. "HD DVD brings new meaning to the term home theater. When people see the visual clarity and realism that Microsoft and ATI are delivering through the Xbox 360 this holiday, they will be blown away."
To enable the smoothest H.264 video playback possible, the ATI decoder technology makes use of the Xbox 360's graphics processing unit (GPU) to accelerate video processing. The unified shader design of the GPU enables high-end processing techniques such as comb filtering and automatic gain control to ensure that video artifacts such as blockiness or color bands don't disrupt playback.
"With the Xbox 360 HD DVD player, Microsoft and ATI are pushing the boundaries of high-definition multimedia content," said Rick Bergman, senior vice president and general manager, PC Business Unit, ATI. "The decoder technology used in the new drive provides high fidelity visuals unlike anything ever seen before. This is another example of the close cooperation between our two companies, and the commitment we both share to delivering the most immersive experience possible for audiences around the world."
evilgEEk
Sep 8, 08:01 PM
Number of posts in this thread seem to indicate that this update has been underwhelming
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
thejadedmonkey
Jul 18, 09:03 AM
[Fast downloads] would only be viable via streaming, and that won't happen because you can't stream to an iPod.
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. . .
Not ture. Apple could do a movie stream per rental, and let the CPU capture and convert it into a high-res iPod playable file. This way, after an hour or so you'll have a file playable on your iPod's lower res screen, or you can choose to watch it on the computer with a higher quality right away.
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. . .
Not ture. Apple could do a movie stream per rental, and let the CPU capture and convert it into a high-res iPod playable file. This way, after an hour or so you'll have a file playable on your iPod's lower res screen, or you can choose to watch it on the computer with a higher quality right away.
dmaxdmax
Nov 28, 10:41 AM
I was in a Best Buy the day before Thanksgiving and an employee told me they sold 4 Zunes that morning because they were out of stock on iPods. More were to be delivered that afternoon so he expected iPods to rule Friday. (as well they should)
For MS the Zune is as much about strategy as anything. If they believe it's a necessary product it will be easy to justify extraordinary marketing spending. Apple has shown them there is no shame in a 5% market share if you believe in your product and have patience.
MS hasn't bet the farm on anything. It bought into the game with a moderately high ante and has many many chips in its stack. Just because they aren't usually smart doesn't mean they will always be stupid. It could come down to Gates' successor's vision which won't be known til he's sitting in the big chair.
For MS the Zune is as much about strategy as anything. If they believe it's a necessary product it will be easy to justify extraordinary marketing spending. Apple has shown them there is no shame in a 5% market share if you believe in your product and have patience.
MS hasn't bet the farm on anything. It bought into the game with a moderately high ante and has many many chips in its stack. Just because they aren't usually smart doesn't mean they will always be stupid. It could come down to Gates' successor's vision which won't be known til he's sitting in the big chair.
dongmin
Aug 6, 11:41 PM
Hey, since we're all posting picts, a blast from the past:
http://www.macminute.com/images/db/tiger1
http://www.macminute.com/images/db/tiger2
http://www.macminute.com/images/db/tiger1
http://www.macminute.com/images/db/tiger2
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 10:50 AM
I'm not smart enough to know what the right thing to do is in Libya. But it does make me roll my eyes to hear the CNN anchor talk about how Qaddafi is "thumbing his nose at America".
The propoganda machine is cranked-up and running. :rolleyes:
Let's go kill some badguys!
It's "the World", but American media pretend that the U.S. IS the World.
I actually think having troops is better.
Can we count on you to volunteer?
The propoganda machine is cranked-up and running. :rolleyes:
Let's go kill some badguys!
It's "the World", but American media pretend that the U.S. IS the World.
I actually think having troops is better.
Can we count on you to volunteer?
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
pyramid6
Apr 26, 02:28 PM
...
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
