miloblithe
Aug 29, 10:36 AM
That's the same line of thought prior to the MacBook release - everyone thought they would run core solo's in the base model. The Mini could be Merom but like most here I think it will have a Yonah and hopefully go back to the $499 US price point. Personally I'm hoping they will do a MacPro and only have one model with various processor optical drive configs. Say a 1.66GHz Core Duo 512MB RAM 80GB HDD Combo BT AP etc. Then optional 1.83/2.0 Yonah 100/120GB HDD Superdrive etc. That's just me though.
That would be interesting if Apple does go to a more BTO strategy rather than the good, better, best strategy. But I imagine BTO makes the most sense for pros, who know what they want, and good, better, best makes sense for consumers who don't necessarily understand, for instance, the difference between RAM and HD space.
That would be interesting if Apple does go to a more BTO strategy rather than the good, better, best strategy. But I imagine BTO makes the most sense for pros, who know what they want, and good, better, best makes sense for consumers who don't necessarily understand, for instance, the difference between RAM and HD space.
BillyShears
Jan 13, 02:33 AM
GreenPeace will go Ape Shite if the MacBookAir is charged through induction. It will not be near as efficient in power transfer as a direct connection would be. (nothing transfers with 100% efficiency)
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
"There's CO2 in the air."
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
"There's CO2 in the air."
likemyorbs
Mar 22, 11:52 AM
Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity.
The US isn't, was never, and will never be a christian nation. And if you had asked that jewish guy that you're quoting in your signature, he would have confirmed that. And so would the founding fathers if you ever had a chance to meet them. Here's one of my favorite quotes...
Lighthouses are more useful than churches -Benjamin Franklin
Justin Bieber Collage
i love justin bieber collage.
Justin Bieber wallpaper #12
justin bieber collage 2011.
i love justin bieber wallpaper
justin bieber collage
Justin Bieber Collage
cool justin bieber backgrounds
Bieber Collage
JUSTIN BIEBER PICTURE COLLAGE
Justin Bieber Bieber Collage
Justin Bieber Myspace
justin bieber collage
justin bieber collage
justin bieber collage
justin bieber collage
The US isn't, was never, and will never be a christian nation. And if you had asked that jewish guy that you're quoting in your signature, he would have confirmed that. And so would the founding fathers if you ever had a chance to meet them. Here's one of my favorite quotes...
Lighthouses are more useful than churches -Benjamin Franklin
apb3
Aug 16, 03:33 PM
FORGET SIRIUS... Its not gonna happen. Why implement somthing that can ony be used in the USA. There are more countries in the world thaty buy ipods. If you want sirius buy a device with sirius, dont put this crap which only you people can use on ipods.
iPods were pretty popular and quite a money maker when only US customers could get them and, later, when only US customers could buy online if memory serves...
iPods were pretty popular and quite a money maker when only US customers could get them and, later, when only US customers could buy online if memory serves...
mysteria
Apr 3, 03:20 AM
Fullscreen flash videos in Safari are finally without menu bar bug.
Umbongo
Nov 16, 11:44 AM
either way, its both a win-win situation
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
DavidLeblond
Apr 21, 11:35 AM
So...this guy Levinson...he spends all his time breaking down all the data and info in iOS...and then writes a book about all the locations of these files and how to manipulate them?....and he complains how people may easily get hacked?
Hmm... I'm missing something here...
Yeah, you are.
Levinson wasn't the guy complaining about that, he was the forensics guy.
Hmm... I'm missing something here...
Yeah, you are.
Levinson wasn't the guy complaining about that, he was the forensics guy.
dguisinger
Jul 14, 02:27 AM
I personally would love to see both formats fall flat on their asses. Both sides are way too stubborn to standardize and are expecting consumers to waste money on one side or the other, just to have their super-expensive players become paperweights when a standard is picked.
Not to mention, the DRM is so restrictive its not even funny. Especially on Blueray. It is rediculous that if you use an analog connection or a non-secured digital connection that blueray down-samples and then up-samples the video to distort it so you cannot somehow make a digital copy. Thats not how the professional pirates duplicate discs! Morons, all they are doing is once again hurting consumers. Blueray players even phone home to tell Sony what you've been watching and download new encryption keys incase someone broke the keys like they did with CSS. Sony has assumed way too much control with Blueray, so if I'd have to pick either format I'd go with HD-DVD. Lets not forget Microsoft is backing HD-DVD on the X-Box 360. Last week when I was at the game store, they said the add-on drive would be coming soon for around $100. Thats alot less than a blueray player. Heck, when combined with this fall's xbox price cuts (we all know its going to happen with the ps3 release), it will be significantly less than buying a PS3 for a blueray player.
We've seen it with Betamax, MiniDisc, MemoryStick, etc. Sony doesn't play well with others, they like their own formats. Heck, take a look at the Sony DRM fiasco from last year with the rootkit CDs. Do you really trust Sony to be checking in on what Blueray discs you are playing and verifying your encryption keys on a dailybasis? There are very few features in Blueray which are consumer friendly.
Like I said, HD-DVD and Blueray both suck in my opinion, too many DRM controls, too expensive, not enough difference really over DVD for most people....
So.......back to the main topic, what do I want Apple to do?
Nothing, don't include either. I knew someone who felt very betrayed when he purchased a PowerMac with DVD-RAM drive. He was convinced because Apple chose that drive that it was where the industry was headed. A year later he could barely find media for it and he couldn't use the discs on anyone elses machines. He actually has always been a pro-mac person, preaching to everyone, but that absolutely infuriated him.
Until there is a standard, Apple should stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if they put it in the highend mac or not, people say people spending that much don't care.........thats not true. They do care, they usually spend that much extra to get a job done with extra features they need. Compatibility and future proofing is a BIG DEAL to these people.
So......apple should not put Blueray in anytime soon. BTO option? MAYBE....BUT......they should put lengthy and wordy warnings when selected informing users that it may be a paperweight in a year.
Not to mention, the DRM is so restrictive its not even funny. Especially on Blueray. It is rediculous that if you use an analog connection or a non-secured digital connection that blueray down-samples and then up-samples the video to distort it so you cannot somehow make a digital copy. Thats not how the professional pirates duplicate discs! Morons, all they are doing is once again hurting consumers. Blueray players even phone home to tell Sony what you've been watching and download new encryption keys incase someone broke the keys like they did with CSS. Sony has assumed way too much control with Blueray, so if I'd have to pick either format I'd go with HD-DVD. Lets not forget Microsoft is backing HD-DVD on the X-Box 360. Last week when I was at the game store, they said the add-on drive would be coming soon for around $100. Thats alot less than a blueray player. Heck, when combined with this fall's xbox price cuts (we all know its going to happen with the ps3 release), it will be significantly less than buying a PS3 for a blueray player.
We've seen it with Betamax, MiniDisc, MemoryStick, etc. Sony doesn't play well with others, they like their own formats. Heck, take a look at the Sony DRM fiasco from last year with the rootkit CDs. Do you really trust Sony to be checking in on what Blueray discs you are playing and verifying your encryption keys on a dailybasis? There are very few features in Blueray which are consumer friendly.
Like I said, HD-DVD and Blueray both suck in my opinion, too many DRM controls, too expensive, not enough difference really over DVD for most people....
So.......back to the main topic, what do I want Apple to do?
Nothing, don't include either. I knew someone who felt very betrayed when he purchased a PowerMac with DVD-RAM drive. He was convinced because Apple chose that drive that it was where the industry was headed. A year later he could barely find media for it and he couldn't use the discs on anyone elses machines. He actually has always been a pro-mac person, preaching to everyone, but that absolutely infuriated him.
Until there is a standard, Apple should stay out of the way. It doesn't matter if they put it in the highend mac or not, people say people spending that much don't care.........thats not true. They do care, they usually spend that much extra to get a job done with extra features they need. Compatibility and future proofing is a BIG DEAL to these people.
So......apple should not put Blueray in anytime soon. BTO option? MAYBE....BUT......they should put lengthy and wordy warnings when selected informing users that it may be a paperweight in a year.
entatlrg
Feb 27, 11:35 PM
^^^^^
@vader
SO what is carrying all your lovely gear? :)
Looks like a 13" STM bag.
@vader
SO what is carrying all your lovely gear? :)
Looks like a 13" STM bag.
Unspeaked
Aug 16, 02:40 PM
If Apple does an "unlocked" phone (meaning, the kind of phone that used to be the rule, not the exception, which wasn't locked to a specific service provider) you'll be able to use it on Verizon (of course, assuming it supports Verizon's connection mechanism, which is different from Sprint or Cingular, but most of the phone manufacturers out there have no problem with this).
I thought Verizon and Sprint used the same network type (CDMA)...?
I thought Verizon and Sprint used the same network type (CDMA)...?
Zwhaler
Aug 24, 06:39 PM
All I can say is thank god...
KnightWRX
Apr 11, 12:47 PM
I'd be interested in a more complete explanation. CVT is what the particular manufacturer I'm considering calls their transmission. And, yes, you can get paddle shifters if you want.
A CVT is simply a transmission with no fixed gear ratios. It can have any gear ratio between a set minimum and maximum, it has no "steps" like "1st gear, 2nd gear". In other words, it's a transmission type where you could theoretically have the engine spin where it produces the most power (let's say at 5000 rpm) all the time while accelerating. In reality, car CVTs do still have gears, like the Honda Fit which is a 7 gear automatic CVT transmission.
CVT, DSG or the traditional fluid type are all automatics. They just differ in their inner workings. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the inner-working, the paddle like shifters or + - gates on the shifter is simply an interface that lets you override any of the automatic transmissions and select your own gear.
A distinction to make. You could technically have a CVT transmission that you put in "drive" and drive off and you could have a traditional automatic with paddle shifters. Both are unrelated in their function.
A CVT is simply a transmission with no fixed gear ratios. It can have any gear ratio between a set minimum and maximum, it has no "steps" like "1st gear, 2nd gear". In other words, it's a transmission type where you could theoretically have the engine spin where it produces the most power (let's say at 5000 rpm) all the time while accelerating. In reality, car CVTs do still have gears, like the Honda Fit which is a 7 gear automatic CVT transmission.
CVT, DSG or the traditional fluid type are all automatics. They just differ in their inner workings. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the inner-working, the paddle like shifters or + - gates on the shifter is simply an interface that lets you override any of the automatic transmissions and select your own gear.
A distinction to make. You could technically have a CVT transmission that you put in "drive" and drive off and you could have a traditional automatic with paddle shifters. Both are unrelated in their function.
MrFrankly
Aug 29, 09:05 AM
I think it's ridiculous to not put a Core 2 Duo chip into the Mini. While I'm not waiting for Merom, to upgrade one of your machines with a faster version of the same soon-to-be-out-of-date chip is silly.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
MatthewCobb
Jan 2, 10:50 AM
Or basically all rumors are messed up. No one knows whats coming except iLife and OS X preview. Talk about all the time wasted on these rumors :(
What's this site called again? Oh.
What's this site called again? Oh.
obeygiant
Mar 22, 12:46 PM
Wasn't sure, so had to ask. :)
It's such a weird notion, that people can choose their sexual orientation. But then, I don't believe that's what many really believe when they say it... instead, I get the vibe that what they mean to say is 'why can't you just closet yourself and act straight?'.
Its also a weird notion that sexual orientation is a black and white issue. People gay or straight have sex with others contrary to their orientation all the time. Skin is skin, and the brain, the biggest sex organ in the human body, can be trained and retrained in a million different ways. Whatever turns you on is what turns you on.
It's such a weird notion, that people can choose their sexual orientation. But then, I don't believe that's what many really believe when they say it... instead, I get the vibe that what they mean to say is 'why can't you just closet yourself and act straight?'.
Its also a weird notion that sexual orientation is a black and white issue. People gay or straight have sex with others contrary to their orientation all the time. Skin is skin, and the brain, the biggest sex organ in the human body, can be trained and retrained in a million different ways. Whatever turns you on is what turns you on.
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
vrillusions
Mar 25, 04:38 PM
That looks really impressive, makes me want to buy an iPad 2 (or a playstation :D).
Actually a lot of the games for the ps3 or xbox 360 have a native resolution of 720p and they'll upscale to 1080p. Gran Turismo and such probably do 1080p because that's one of their things is hyper-realistic graphics.
Actually a lot of the games for the ps3 or xbox 360 have a native resolution of 720p and they'll upscale to 1080p. Gran Turismo and such probably do 1080p because that's one of their things is hyper-realistic graphics.
Herdfan
Apr 19, 04:08 PM
i wish they could wait and roll out the new imacs w/ Lion in June. im trying to hold out...its hard...lol
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
Belly-laughs
Nov 29, 03:56 PM
Don�t know if it�s been posted earlier, but apparently Zune sales in it�s first week were pretty good�
http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/newsanalysis/techgames/10324945.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/newsanalysis/techgames/10324945.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
GregA
Dec 31, 11:08 PM
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.True, as long as there is a payment model that works too (for stuff like HBO On Demand). I would prefer to have a single bill for all subscriptions, but if I'm only watching a couple then I could pay them directly.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
bluebomberman
Nov 29, 01:38 PM
Where else can they go? The brain, I guess?
Blakeco123
Apr 12, 08:25 PM
I really hope this update is as good as they say. If it is I'll switch from FCE to FCP
joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 10:12 AM
We probably won't see a Core 2 Mini until but that just fine for me because that's when the Intel GMA X3000 will be ready.
UPDATE:
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
UPDATE:
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
appleboy
Mar 21, 08:32 AM
Apple actually did have a plan to enter the low end market but jobs scrapped it. They were going to make a deal with ibm a make atx form factor motherboard with no expansion slots and a soldered in g3 cpu that could support ps2 keyboards and mice. The idea was to sell it with osx 10.2 no ilife or apple works for 100 bucks so people could build there own low end mac compatible computer and when they upgraded to 10.3 and bought ilife apple would make a great deal of profit on them. Jobs decided if they did this it would cheapen the apple name and hurt the companies image.