applefied
Sep 9, 11:14 PM
Gumdrop has two:
http://www.gumdropcases.com/ipod-touch-4g-cases.html
One of which is reviewed at iLounge:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/gumdrop-cases-moto-skin-for-ipod-touch-4g/
http://www.gumdropcases.com/ipod-touch-4g-cases.html
One of which is reviewed at iLounge:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/gumdrop-cases-moto-skin-for-ipod-touch-4g/
iJimmy
Feb 8, 11:08 AM
http://gallery.me.com/jimmy.nguyen/100033/IMG_3605/web.jpg?ver=12965306720001
kirky29
Jun 22, 01:14 PM
Maybe if they made it a bit like Front Row etc.
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
vastoholic
Feb 21, 06:55 PM
text
nice to see another Sigur Ros fan here. Very nice pics and great set up too.
nice to see another Sigur Ros fan here. Very nice pics and great set up too.
mr.barkan
Sep 6, 07:27 PM
Can people please stop with the whole, I want 1080p resolution download files!
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
HD would be awesome, when the hard drives are big enough and the internet speeds are up to it. But that is a good 4 or 5 years off.
My thoughts are, DVD quality, quite possibly 720p if we're very lucky and Apple have a form of compression that no one is expecting up their sleeves.
I didn't say "I want 1080p" it�s just a matter of (short)time before we all have HD-DVD/Blu-Ray burners and have suficient bandwidth to dowload large stuff quickly...
But until then, I�d like to have my favorite movies on 480p and/or 720p on my EXTERNAL hard drive just for the joy of it.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
I�m not sure on how the movie store could work... especially coming from "fail-safe" Apple.
Maybe "SHOWTIME" stands for Leopard? ;)
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
HD would be awesome, when the hard drives are big enough and the internet speeds are up to it. But that is a good 4 or 5 years off.
My thoughts are, DVD quality, quite possibly 720p if we're very lucky and Apple have a form of compression that no one is expecting up their sleeves.
I didn't say "I want 1080p" it�s just a matter of (short)time before we all have HD-DVD/Blu-Ray burners and have suficient bandwidth to dowload large stuff quickly...
But until then, I�d like to have my favorite movies on 480p and/or 720p on my EXTERNAL hard drive just for the joy of it.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
I�m not sure on how the movie store could work... especially coming from "fail-safe" Apple.
Maybe "SHOWTIME" stands for Leopard? ;)
ccunning
Jul 14, 11:28 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Aeroflux
Mar 28, 06:49 PM
there's a few misconceptions about the lifespan of consoles - Sony for instance - the PS2 had a 10 year lifespan, but it does overlap with the release of the PS3 - that's how it'll go with the PS4. As for the 360 - that won't be the only platform the MS has on the market - in a couple of years there will be another 'next gen' console from MS.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
illian
Jan 13, 08:29 AM
maybe this banner just refers to all the rumors that have been spread throughout the year:D..you could hear/read about apple's new notebook on the internet, tv and there are even some pictures and a name. so there is something in the air and in 2 days we'll find out what it is :rolleyes:
jaxstate
Aug 6, 09:18 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
Josias
Aug 7, 03:32 AM
Anyone got any ideas of when the keynote starts in the good ol UK?, i'm guessing 6pm ish?
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 03:24 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
timmillwood
Nov 27, 03:28 PM
i think the 17" apple monitor will go well with my 17" macbook pro, but only if they are the same resolution
h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
vnle
Feb 19, 10:08 PM
Not much I can do with my dorm.
Do you go to UMD by any chance? :confused: Because that looks almost exactly like my dorm down to the tiny desk they give you.
Do you go to UMD by any chance? :confused: Because that looks almost exactly like my dorm down to the tiny desk they give you.
usptact
Apr 22, 08:30 AM
I would like to look at this file and even better : may be to convert it somehow to Google's KMZ... just fur curiosity to see where i've been :)
gekko513
Jul 18, 04:52 AM
It does make more sense renting movies than renting music. It's not often I like to see the same movie several times.
If the service is cheap enough, I can see that the convenience of getting a movie with just a couple of clicks in iTunes will make this an attractive offer for many. It is a hassle having to rent physical DVDs.
If the service is cheap enough, I can see that the convenience of getting a movie with just a couple of clicks in iTunes will make this an attractive offer for many. It is a hassle having to rent physical DVDs.
dorramide7
Oct 17, 11:48 PM
I don't know of anyone having a problem with the new iphone! I know that it is possible to make the reception problem happen, but I could also "make" reception problems happen on every cell phone I've ever owned.
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:19 PM
Basically: "You Wait While I Render."
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
j-hov
Jan 10, 09:17 AM
My Car:
2007 Honda Civic Si w/ 09+ front end conversion
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/photo.jpg
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/IMG_2477.jpg
^Pics taken w/ My iPhone 4 HDR mode
2007 Honda Civic Si w/ 09+ front end conversion
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/photo.jpg
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/IMG_2477.jpg
^Pics taken w/ My iPhone 4 HDR mode
Josias
Aug 25, 12:11 PM
I remember the rumors of iPod docks in the Mini before the last Mini release (February 28th). I though they were pretty ridicolous.:p
Anway's, a chance of X3000 now? That would rock!;)
Anway's, a chance of X3000 now? That would rock!;)
camelsnot
Apr 2, 08:20 PM
have one but that commercial makes me want to puke. Once you use one and realize it's limitations, it's not so magical. It's a fun consumption device which you can get some work done on, but without real multitasking, it's lack of real technology actually hinders and isn't so magical.
With apple it was never about the hardware technology. They have at least that right in the commercial (the only thing right).
Job$, instead of waxing philosophical with your over-inflated ego in embarrassingly inaccurate commercials, how about trying to innovate. iOS should've had REAL multitasking years ago. Quit pandering cheap to make speed bumps at the same prices, as something magical. DO something magical. You built iOS off a phone, morphed into an ipod touch and now an ipad (yes.. a larger version of the touch, but in a better form factor). That was just smart business. ALWAYS repurpose what you can. BUS101. Now do something magical with the OS.
With apple it was never about the hardware technology. They have at least that right in the commercial (the only thing right).
Job$, instead of waxing philosophical with your over-inflated ego in embarrassingly inaccurate commercials, how about trying to innovate. iOS should've had REAL multitasking years ago. Quit pandering cheap to make speed bumps at the same prices, as something magical. DO something magical. You built iOS off a phone, morphed into an ipod touch and now an ipad (yes.. a larger version of the touch, but in a better form factor). That was just smart business. ALWAYS repurpose what you can. BUS101. Now do something magical with the OS.
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
sporadicMotion
Jan 11, 10:15 PM
My VW is away for the winter :)
A new pic for '11
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz19/sporadicMotion/DSCN0447-1.jpg
A new pic for '11
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz19/sporadicMotion/DSCN0447-1.jpg
Wild-Bill
Jan 12, 02:17 PM
"Macbook Air" is an awful, awful name.
No comments:
Post a Comment