rfahey
Sep 14, 12:38 PM
It isn't even September 30th. For all we know Apple may need more time to evaluate and extend the program another month. Where's confirmation that the program is canceled that day? I wouldn't go off touting that Apple's canceling a program that hasn't been canceled. What you're upset that Apple's not keeping us in the loop? When has Apple EVER kept us in the loop?
63dot
Nov 25, 01:07 PM
They're just ****ing sunglasses...
That's what I thought, but I have seen some in the $300 to $400 dollar range, more with precious stones (actually, much much more).
These cool ones are $250 to $400 and quite nice, but so not me. I could never get enticed into high end, multi-purpose glasses unless they came bundled with OS X and I could navigate through it using just my mind. :)
That's what I thought, but I have seen some in the $300 to $400 dollar range, more with precious stones (actually, much much more).
These cool ones are $250 to $400 and quite nice, but so not me. I could never get enticed into high end, multi-purpose glasses unless they came bundled with OS X and I could navigate through it using just my mind. :)
Cygnus311
Sep 7, 10:17 AM
Low priced rentals only for me please. Not paying the same price for a movie as I can get the DVD for in stores, not to mention it needs to be playable on people's big HDTV's (which I'm sure they're aware of).
whooleytoo
Sep 7, 10:38 AM
It'll be interesting to see what they mean by "New Releases". Does this mean digital movie downloads are released at the same time as the DVD release, or before/after?
Obviously, the most likely answer is the at the same time as the DVD release, but I really wish the studios would think 'outside the box'. Once setup, digital movie downloads could become an enormously profitable market:
- Impulse buying: want to watch a movie? Just one click in iTMS.
- Very low distribution costs.
- Easy to launch globally: no need for marketing campaigns in different regions, just one global marketing campaign online - cheaper.
- It's the best (arguably, the only) option that stands a chance in the fight against piracy.
In fact, it could potentially be a more profitable market than the cinema, so why relegate the download market to trying to squeeze a few last dollars out of 6 month old movies, why not consider releasing the digital download around the same time as the cinema release, if not even before?
For some reason, every time I think of MPAA (or RIAA, or any of the non-US equivalents) executives, I imagine someone huddled underneath their desks with their eyes closed and ears covered, mumbling a prayer that the big, bad internet will go away and make their lives a lot easier and cushier again. These people are so resistant to change they make the Catholic "Yup, world's still flat" Church seem avant garde.
Obviously, the most likely answer is the at the same time as the DVD release, but I really wish the studios would think 'outside the box'. Once setup, digital movie downloads could become an enormously profitable market:
- Impulse buying: want to watch a movie? Just one click in iTMS.
- Very low distribution costs.
- Easy to launch globally: no need for marketing campaigns in different regions, just one global marketing campaign online - cheaper.
- It's the best (arguably, the only) option that stands a chance in the fight against piracy.
In fact, it could potentially be a more profitable market than the cinema, so why relegate the download market to trying to squeeze a few last dollars out of 6 month old movies, why not consider releasing the digital download around the same time as the cinema release, if not even before?
For some reason, every time I think of MPAA (or RIAA, or any of the non-US equivalents) executives, I imagine someone huddled underneath their desks with their eyes closed and ears covered, mumbling a prayer that the big, bad internet will go away and make their lives a lot easier and cushier again. These people are so resistant to change they make the Catholic "Yup, world's still flat" Church seem avant garde.
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
skunk
Mar 31, 01:43 PM
Yeah, you're right. The UK had their entire coast surrounded by radars because they wanted to predict incomming hurricanes in some historically massive secret weather program.Do yourself a favour and stop digging.
Nameci
Apr 11, 01:41 AM
Easy for a stick shift... I can drive almost anything as long as it has 2 wheels or more...
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 06:31 PM
OK, so apparently you don't have experience with automatics...
But yet you have an opinion on how superior your choice of manuals is.
Yes, obviously the thick sarcasm and the pointing out of P R N D 2 1 means I've never stepped in and driven an automatic ;) I was kidding about not knowing how to drive automatic if it still isn't clear.
Really, is there even someone who doesn't know how to drive an automatic ? It's pretty self-explanatory, not much of a learning curve shifting from Park to Drive and hitting the gas. Of course, if one were to put it in Neutral not much would happen and Reverse is a very bad thing if you're looking to go forward.
I think we have a winner for the "humor impaired post of 2011".
I feel that coupes should be manual and the rest autos, except for 2 door suvs (wrangler, D90). Just my opinion.
Coupes are just awkward. Give me a good hatchback or wagon anytime. The agility of a coupe, the interior room of a light SUV.
Subaru doesn't make coupes, that should tell you something. No need to sacrifice all that interior space to get a sporty feel. Heck, a WRX feels much sportier than a damn Hyundai Tiburon and is much more convenient to boot (god I miss that car... stupid TS wagon I'm stuck driving these days...).
But yet you have an opinion on how superior your choice of manuals is.
Yes, obviously the thick sarcasm and the pointing out of P R N D 2 1 means I've never stepped in and driven an automatic ;) I was kidding about not knowing how to drive automatic if it still isn't clear.
Really, is there even someone who doesn't know how to drive an automatic ? It's pretty self-explanatory, not much of a learning curve shifting from Park to Drive and hitting the gas. Of course, if one were to put it in Neutral not much would happen and Reverse is a very bad thing if you're looking to go forward.
I think we have a winner for the "humor impaired post of 2011".
I feel that coupes should be manual and the rest autos, except for 2 door suvs (wrangler, D90). Just my opinion.
Coupes are just awkward. Give me a good hatchback or wagon anytime. The agility of a coupe, the interior room of a light SUV.
Subaru doesn't make coupes, that should tell you something. No need to sacrifice all that interior space to get a sporty feel. Heck, a WRX feels much sportier than a damn Hyundai Tiburon and is much more convenient to boot (god I miss that car... stupid TS wagon I'm stuck driving these days...).
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
ipadder
Oct 19, 09:50 PM
i found one that matches a case that i bought for my iphone a while back!
http://thmb.inkfrog.com/thumbn/cimo/itouch4_dualgel_blue_01.jpg=800
http://cgi.ebay.com/Blue-DualGel-Gel-Grip-Case-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4G-iTouch-/220685295809?pt=Other_MP3_Player_Accessories&hash=item3361de60c1
snatched it up for 6 bucks! what a deal. i think i might get black next..
http://thmb.inkfrog.com/thumbn/cimo/itouch4_dualgel_blue_01.jpg=800
http://cgi.ebay.com/Blue-DualGel-Gel-Grip-Case-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4G-iTouch-/220685295809?pt=Other_MP3_Player_Accessories&hash=item3361de60c1
snatched it up for 6 bucks! what a deal. i think i might get black next..
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 6, 03:49 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
clj7
Jan 7, 04:20 AM
My Dad also drives a a VW Golf, which has a GTI engine. Can't even imagine how much petrol it must be going through.
Tonsko
Jan 7, 01:51 PM
That a Remus I spy there? I remember choosing between that and SuperSprint for my old Edition 1 G60. I went for SS in the end as the steel was different and gave a different note.
marksman
Mar 26, 04:18 PM
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
Chris Bangle
Jan 12, 11:31 AM
I figured out the secret air message!
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Who do they fall on? ... Newton!
It's the new Newton :apple:
I'd bet nothing on it!
thats quite clever actually... remember apples first logo.
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Who do they fall on? ... Newton!
It's the new Newton :apple:
I'd bet nothing on it!
thats quite clever actually... remember apples first logo.
Kulman
Mar 22, 05:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
windowsblowsass
Mar 27, 11:41 AM
Sorry but I disagree - what you say here is just something you made up !!!! Safari is a good browser and Apple only made it cause MS pulled IE. Think about it. Apple may have money but it needs to do something else to kick start growth....The Ipod doesn't have long to go...Itunes will still do well but it doesn't give Apple enough money !
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
reasons your wrong
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
reasons your wrong
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
bobsentell
May 2, 04:46 PM
I wonder if it is time to drop the "Mac" from MacOS.....
Micjose
Mar 22, 04:52 PM
This is great for large quantities of uncompressed music. Totally would get one if it did have that much more space.
bubba451
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
dalvin200
Oct 23, 09:33 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:
same here..
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:
same here..
coder12
Apr 21, 12:20 PM
Good catch! I just noticed this once you pointed it out.
I will be having fun with this +1 deally...
I will be having fun with this +1 deally...
petsounds
Apr 3, 06:10 AM
I wasn't too stirred. It's not terrible, of course. Nothing Chiat\Day does for Apple is ever terrible. But it lacks the emotion of the iPhone 4 Facetime ad. It's a finger playing with some apps. We've seen this before. The only difference is serious piano music and a voiceover script that is pretty weak. It doesn't really hit you at the end. And they had to throw in "magical" of course. Apple's use of "magical" is as played out as Charlie Sheen's use of "winning".
I think it's an attempt to make people feel some emotional bond with the iPad, but there isn't one. The iPhone, or any phone that people really love, becomes an emotional conduit because it allows you to communicate with the people you care about. The iPad 2 commercial showed useful apps. And that's fine. But it doesn't match up with the gravitas the announcer (and copywriter) were attempting to impart upon it. Maybe it is possible to make this connection, to bubble up these emotions, but not by just showing a finger. You have to show people using it in a compelling manner.
I think it's an attempt to make people feel some emotional bond with the iPad, but there isn't one. The iPhone, or any phone that people really love, becomes an emotional conduit because it allows you to communicate with the people you care about. The iPad 2 commercial showed useful apps. And that's fine. But it doesn't match up with the gravitas the announcer (and copywriter) were attempting to impart upon it. Maybe it is possible to make this connection, to bubble up these emotions, but not by just showing a finger. You have to show people using it in a compelling manner.
iGav
Mar 7, 05:30 AM
We won't see the success of the global Ford Focus until the 2012 Focus. Before the new model, the American and Euro Focus were completely different. Only thing they shared was the name.
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment