AidenShaw
Sep 6, 08:52 PM
$19.99 for a downloaded movie, that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way I would ever pay that much when I can go buy a new release DVD for $12-14.99. Amazon's service will fail, especially if Apple does indeed release a Movie Store.
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
Agree - $19.99 to $24.99 is the price for pristine 1080p Blu-ray discs at Fry's or Best Buy.
Ever watched a YouTube video full-screen on a 40" Samsung 1920x1080 LCD television...
If you have, did you manage to stick it out for the whole 30 seconds before stopping it?
HD or DOA. Two options. (At that $19.99 price - for $3.99/movie I might do some VHS quality stuff for a plane trip.)
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
Agree - $19.99 to $24.99 is the price for pristine 1080p Blu-ray discs at Fry's or Best Buy.
Ever watched a YouTube video full-screen on a 40" Samsung 1920x1080 LCD television...
If you have, did you manage to stick it out for the whole 30 seconds before stopping it?
HD or DOA. Two options. (At that $19.99 price - for $3.99/movie I might do some VHS quality stuff for a plane trip.)
Surely
Nov 25, 12:33 AM
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Check the image URL..........
Check the image URL..........
Funkymonk
Apr 2, 11:06 PM
loved the ad. one of apple's best yet and speaks the truth!
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
tangerineyum
Jul 13, 10:38 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
all going to be standard ? how long did it take for wireless g and dvd burners to become standard? :rolleyes:
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
all going to be standard ? how long did it take for wireless g and dvd burners to become standard? :rolleyes:
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
La Porta
Mar 25, 08:35 PM
At the very least, the "It doesn't have 1GB RAM=FAIL/512MB RAM isn't good enough" crowd maybe can keep quiet now. Apparently, this thing can do some amazing things even while "crippled" by your expectations. Apparently, numbers aren't everything.
TMay
Apr 19, 10:56 AM
Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)
kelving525
Sep 18, 09:46 PM
Is that an actual Belkin Silicon case ?
Nope, it's those 99 cents silicone case from HK!
Nope, it's those 99 cents silicone case from HK!
mo-ca
Nov 24, 11:51 AM
Props if anyone knows who used that bag. i do :D
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
Rodimus Prime
Feb 26, 11:14 PM
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
mltaylor
Mar 22, 10:03 AM
Can't please everybody. Someone will always be upset over something. This time people are upset, next time maybe I will be upset with something on the App Store. Deal with things people and move on.
1984
Aug 29, 10:35 AM
Since they are pin compatible why not use a Core Duo in the entry-level model to get the price down to $499 and use Core 2 Duo in the remaining models? Let's keep in mind this is being reported by ThinkSecret which is about as reliable as MacOSRumors or O'Grady's PowerPage these days. When Appleinsider reports on it I'll start to worry.
indigoflowAS
Oct 23, 10:22 AM
This update had best show up w/ an updated GPU (256 X1600 standard at least), otherwise the ~10% performance increase and other oddball tidbits is hardly worth it.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
As seen on one of the pics, there is also a bottle of water on the stage. A Steve Jobs trademark :) Any chance he could turn up?
dornoforpyros
Nov 29, 08:15 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
the20pointmay
Apr 2, 08:20 PM
I wasn't sure this was an iPad commercial at first when I saw it during the Butler game; to me it seemed more serious than any other Apple ad that has been released before. But in that sense, you can feel similar emotions to the video they showed during the iPad 2 introduction that went through the year of the first iPad. That's not just selling a product, that's loving a product.
cube
Mar 24, 04:26 PM
Which is not even out yet. Brazos/Zacate and Ontario are the ones I'm referring. Let me edit that out.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
MacSA
Aug 31, 02:24 PM
I really think it's about time the Superdrive came standard on all Apple computers, it 2006 not 1996. Hopefully the MacBook will also get Superdrive in both models.
Pillar
Nov 26, 11:36 PM
used my $5 off coupon on this
poppe
Jul 14, 12:25 PM
It was originally made by Philips, but the CD we know today is a Philips/Sony Co-Op.
And, regarding the BetaMax... It was actually quite succesfull. Yes, it failed in consumer-space, but it's still being used in television-productions.
Is it REALLY that bad? BetaMax wasn 't really a failure, since it's widely used even today. It's just not used by consumers. Sony was very important in creating the CD. They do have to misses that can't be denied: Memory Stick and MiniDisk.
Other companies might have less misses in these things, but we must acknowledge that none of them has been as active in coming up with alternatives. I haven't really seen Matsushita (for example) try to come up with new stuff. Sony has tried to come up with new stuff. Some of the succeeded, some of them failed.
On betamax. Your very right it is very succesful in a production studios for broadcasting and what not. But now even those are being replaced by DVC Pro (which I think is sony is it not?).
But I was more talking about the format war that keeps getting mentioned. It was one vs. the other in the consumer market. Who won? VHS. Thats all I meant.
And, regarding the BetaMax... It was actually quite succesfull. Yes, it failed in consumer-space, but it's still being used in television-productions.
Is it REALLY that bad? BetaMax wasn 't really a failure, since it's widely used even today. It's just not used by consumers. Sony was very important in creating the CD. They do have to misses that can't be denied: Memory Stick and MiniDisk.
Other companies might have less misses in these things, but we must acknowledge that none of them has been as active in coming up with alternatives. I haven't really seen Matsushita (for example) try to come up with new stuff. Sony has tried to come up with new stuff. Some of the succeeded, some of them failed.
On betamax. Your very right it is very succesful in a production studios for broadcasting and what not. But now even those are being replaced by DVC Pro (which I think is sony is it not?).
But I was more talking about the format war that keeps getting mentioned. It was one vs. the other in the consumer market. Who won? VHS. Thats all I meant.
Jason Beck
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
They could even put the wireless chip for the controllers in the dock. Id like to see that.
guzhogi
Jul 18, 09:58 AM
I like to know that I can listen to (or view) my music on my schedule, at my convenience, on my time. If someone's telling me that I've got to hew to THEIR schedule, then it's just ceased being convenient.
It's not supposed to be convenient, it's supposed to make the movie companies money. ;)
It's not supposed to be convenient, it's supposed to make the movie companies money. ;)
jxyama
Mar 21, 06:14 PM
sorry to say, bud, but it won't matter much even if 100,000 signs an online petition...
apple is one of the healthier computer hardware companies out there and probably needs no "saving"...
and people aren't signing it for a reason... perhaps they don't agree with the petition to begin with?
apple is one of the healthier computer hardware companies out there and probably needs no "saving"...
and people aren't signing it for a reason... perhaps they don't agree with the petition to begin with?
iSax1234
Mar 24, 12:13 PM
So someone who is sterile due to medical reasons shouldn't be allowed to marry either? There's no natural way for them to reproduce.
You're twisting the argument. Guy + Girl have the possibility to make baby (if they're sterile that's an isolated case). Guy + Guy or Girl + Girl will never be able to have sexual intercourse and have children. Marriage today to most people is nothing more than a loosely binded formal contract, since it can be terminated at any time with little to no repercussions.
You're twisting the argument. Guy + Girl have the possibility to make baby (if they're sterile that's an isolated case). Guy + Guy or Girl + Girl will never be able to have sexual intercourse and have children. Marriage today to most people is nothing more than a loosely binded formal contract, since it can be terminated at any time with little to no repercussions.
