lizard79
Dec 3, 03:40 AM
one thing i was wondering about the iTV is: why hasn't it got an iPod dock on top of it?!
peharri
Aug 19, 08:24 AM
You step into your car. The bluetooth receiver in your dashboard automatically detects the presence of your iPod. The finger controls on the steering wheel switch from controlling radio stations to stepping through playlists etc. It "just works". No cables. No need to even take the iPod out of your pocket or bag.
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
boncellis
Sep 6, 01:47 PM
...Works great on my hdtv bc i have vga input on it. so i store all my music and play dvds through it to the tv.....
I sure hope you mistook the VGA input for the DVI input, otherwise you're crippling that gorgeous TV. Or you can get a DVI to HDMI cable to connect the Mini.
Sounds like a cool setup, the kind of thing I want to do too. ;)
I sure hope you mistook the VGA input for the DVI input, otherwise you're crippling that gorgeous TV. Or you can get a DVI to HDMI cable to connect the Mini.
Sounds like a cool setup, the kind of thing I want to do too. ;)
Bacong
Oct 22, 12:46 PM
Not sure who mentioned the Switcheasy cases first but thank you. I ordered two color cases on Monday night, they shipped from San Francisco on Tuesday and I received them in Maryland today.
Fit is nice and the screen guard looks and feels great.
not to give myself credit...but I did :P and yes, agreed! Love the case, and the screen protector is nice!
Fit is nice and the screen guard looks and feels great.
not to give myself credit...but I did :P and yes, agreed! Love the case, and the screen protector is nice!
calderone
Apr 3, 08:40 PM
It should be an option, at least. You can hide the toolbar in windowed mode, so you should be able to in fullscreen; I can't see Apple leaving it in its current implementation.
I can. Full screen is in large part based on the iOS, if that holds true the address bar is staying.
I can. Full screen is in large part based on the iOS, if that holds true the address bar is staying.
LimeiBook86
Nov 27, 03:56 PM
A 17" LCD screen made by Apple would be a good deal for people buying Mac Minis but, the price would have to be just right in order for people to actually thing of buying an Apple LCD rather than another brand LCD that they can get cheaper. Also I don't think Apple would want to cannibalize their sales for the iMac. The Mac Mini with a 17" LCD screen (maybe a built-in iSight, although that would raise the price) is roughly the same specs as a 17" iMac ($1,199 model). Except the iMac has a dedicated ATI Graphics Chipset, a larger Hard Drive, and a few more add-ons (Keyboard, Mouse etc)
If Apple were to do this they would have to be pretty careful. I can't see Apple doing this in the near future, although I do agree a 20" LCD screen as a starting size is a bit high, and so is the price. But, don't get me wrong, I love the 20" LCD panel in my iMac. I just think Apple might see a demand for a smaller size, cheaper LCD screen. :)
If Apple were to do this they would have to be pretty careful. I can't see Apple doing this in the near future, although I do agree a 20" LCD screen as a starting size is a bit high, and so is the price. But, don't get me wrong, I love the 20" LCD panel in my iMac. I just think Apple might see a demand for a smaller size, cheaper LCD screen. :)
SwiftLives
Jun 22, 12:33 PM
Just from a pragmatic standpoint...
Fingerprints on the screen would be difficult to get around - even with Apple's "oleophobicc" display. Fingerprints still show.
Secondly - why? Is taking your hand off of a mouse to touch the safari icon on the screen somehow easier than just clicking on it with the cursor? Is there some advantage to typing by touching the screen rather than a keyboard?
Personally, I don't see much advantage to having a touch interface on any device that isn't portable.
Fingerprints on the screen would be difficult to get around - even with Apple's "oleophobicc" display. Fingerprints still show.
Secondly - why? Is taking your hand off of a mouse to touch the safari icon on the screen somehow easier than just clicking on it with the cursor? Is there some advantage to typing by touching the screen rather than a keyboard?
Personally, I don't see much advantage to having a touch interface on any device that isn't portable.
BJMRamage
Mar 25, 03:54 PM
what I thought would/could happen with iPhone/iPads/iPodTouches. With Airplay this would be even better. pretty much how i had envisioned it with teh iDevice as teh Gyro-scopic motion joystick
plokoonpma
Apr 12, 09:59 PM
This is a huge change! Dam.. on the sheet looks awesome. Will make editing in all environments more friendly and scalable.
jakemikey
Aug 25, 11:59 AM
Sadly, I've tried to make cheaper VIA based mini-ITX systems. I usually end up getting a better buy from a Mac Mini.
Not if you're going for an embedded system that doesn't need a heavy duty CPU and graphics. I built a fanless home server/internet filter/firewall box for less than $200 (and this is in the mini form factor - mini-ITX). A mini would be overkill for that and almost all of the other above listed embedded applications. Get the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I would never use a VIA system for a desktop, but for almost every embedded application they're fantastic.
Not if you're going for an embedded system that doesn't need a heavy duty CPU and graphics. I built a fanless home server/internet filter/firewall box for less than $200 (and this is in the mini form factor - mini-ITX). A mini would be overkill for that and almost all of the other above listed embedded applications. Get the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I would never use a VIA system for a desktop, but for almost every embedded application they're fantastic.
macidiot
Jul 19, 03:59 PM
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 08:53 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if they put Steve in jail?
random47
Feb 21, 04:45 PM
Hi, can anyone explain me how is the Cinema Display 30" "flying" in Transporteur's 2007 setup (page 79, Part 13)? :confused:
Is he using a VESA wall mount?
Thanks!
I don't think it is flying. I think is it leaning towards the wall.
Is he using a VESA wall mount?
Thanks!
I don't think it is flying. I think is it leaning towards the wall.
CRAZYBUBBA
Jan 12, 02:40 PM
thinking back how many people called the iPod, mac mini and macbook name stupid it's very likely already confirmed
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
I love the 'i' idea its like saying 'my' mymac=imac, etc
the macbook however is a name that pales in comparision to the powerbook.
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
I love the 'i' idea its like saying 'my' mymac=imac, etc
the macbook however is a name that pales in comparision to the powerbook.
jake4ever
Apr 6, 01:44 AM
Totally legal, unfortunately. And no, not Jewish, at all.:)
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
arn
Jan 11, 07:55 PM
added a line to the article...
"- It will be called the MacBook Air"
arn
"- It will be called the MacBook Air"
arn
mc68k
Jan 7, 04:19 PM
yeah it was between super sprint, eisenmann, and remus. the shop wanted to do remus so i wasn't gonna argue. turned out real nice, a lot better than the stock look. quiet on the highway. loud but not obnoxious around town
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/IMG_0160.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/IMG_0160.JPG
skunk
Mar 27, 08:59 AM
He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral.Really? How shocking! Imagine, the US European Command, headed by an American! Next you'll be telling us that the US President is an American, too.
Lollypop
Aug 7, 04:48 AM
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
South Africa here, leave work-> go to gym and work up a sweat -> macrumors -> have dinner during keynote -> go to bed and have sweet dreams about new iphone! :D :D Life is good! LOL
South Africa here, leave work-> go to gym and work up a sweat -> macrumors -> have dinner during keynote -> go to bed and have sweet dreams about new iphone! :D :D Life is good! LOL
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:37 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.
nagromme
Nov 29, 04:27 PM
Living room, car, blah blah blah.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
~Shard~
Nov 25, 12:38 AM
Certainly not the most expensive mac ever sold. The 40 Mhz II fx was shipping while the II ci sported an MSRP of over $8,000 at 25Mhz. Cheapest the ci sold for even at developer discount at the end of its amazingly long 4+ year run was over $3,300, and those were late 80's dollars.
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
Couldn't agree more. After all, this used to be a bargain as well as the aforementioned machines... :cool:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215//tandypricetp6.png (http://imageshack.us)
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
Couldn't agree more. After all, this used to be a bargain as well as the aforementioned machines... :cool:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215//tandypricetp6.png (http://imageshack.us)
jholzner
Nov 15, 08:21 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I noticed that too. Wonder how Vista will do. XP is 5 years old while Apple has had multiple OS updates since then which were probably optimized for this sort of thing.
I noticed that too. Wonder how Vista will do. XP is 5 years old while Apple has had multiple OS updates since then which were probably optimized for this sort of thing.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét