OdduWon
Oct 23, 09:44 AM
look there they are... oh no, wait those are irish books professionals
jxyama
Mar 19, 11:11 AM
You take the low end model, subtract the cost for the monitor and you have a computer that is sitting in the $500.00 - $600.00 range. Many people already have monitors and if not, you can find a decent one for relatively low cost.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:23 PM
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
You must have missed my post on doing the price comparison a la the Mac Pro. I feel they should have to prove the "more expensive" myth wrong CLEAR across the board.
You must have missed my post on doing the price comparison a la the Mac Pro. I feel they should have to prove the "more expensive" myth wrong CLEAR across the board.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 19, 11:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Exactly what I always think in news posts like this :D
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Exactly what I always think in news posts like this :D
shackleb
Apr 27, 07:41 PM
Here is a snapshot of the website 'portableapps.com' from Christmas of 2005:
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
Ichneumon
Mar 24, 03:14 AM
I've never had an iPod, only an iPhone and iPad, but can the iPod classic be used as a hard drive for storage? I didn't know that. How does that work?
If it would allow that, I think I might buy a classic, if it updates in september. I could use more space for my videos and music and if it also functions as a portable hard drive, I can justify buying it even more.
If it would allow that, I think I might buy a classic, if it updates in september. I could use more space for my videos and music and if it also functions as a portable hard drive, I can justify buying it even more.
rickdollar
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
They will either skip it altogether or perhaps replace all USB 2 ports with USB 3 ones (thus keeping TB as the "advanced" FW equivalent)...
I could see them replacing USB 2 with 3 (in Ivy Bridge) as they did with 1 and 2.
It will be interesting to see what they do as far as iPhone and iPad connectivity when both USB 3 and TB available. My guess would be to use USB 3 and be backwards compatible with USB 2. I doubt they would use TB as I think there would be very few Windows machines and Macs out there with it.
If that turns out to be the case, hopefully there will be a TB to USB 3 adapter to take advantage of the highest speeds the device is capable of.
But then again, none of this stuff is really THAT important:)
We'll see what happens.
I could see them replacing USB 2 with 3 (in Ivy Bridge) as they did with 1 and 2.
It will be interesting to see what they do as far as iPhone and iPad connectivity when both USB 3 and TB available. My guess would be to use USB 3 and be backwards compatible with USB 2. I doubt they would use TB as I think there would be very few Windows machines and Macs out there with it.
If that turns out to be the case, hopefully there will be a TB to USB 3 adapter to take advantage of the highest speeds the device is capable of.
But then again, none of this stuff is really THAT important:)
We'll see what happens.
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
JFreak
Jul 20, 05:05 AM
Reading this thread I realized that technical issues are not deal-breaker for many people -- it's still price that matters the most. If download-to-own costs $10, then everyone keeps demanding better specs for the material and it never ends. But if rental costs a buck a piece, then it's fun to watch and quality feels acceptable.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
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 :)
VanNess
Jul 19, 11:43 PM
Slashdot posted an article today (http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/hollywood-agrees-to-burning-dvd-issue/2006/07/19/1153166455537.html) that announces the studios have struck a deal with an outfit called CinemaNow (never heard of them) in which the studios have finally agreed to allow users to burn a downloaded movie to a blank DVD. Here's what it says about Apple:
The announcement also previews a likely agreement between the major studios and Apple Computer, which is expected to expand the offerings on its popular iTunes online store to include big-studio movies.
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Instead of jumping the gun, someone needs to think a little harder about all of this in order to make it work in such as way that it's irresistible to the average consumer/movie buff, like iTunes is for music fans now. Hopefully, that someone is Apple.
The announcement also previews a likely agreement between the major studios and Apple Computer, which is expected to expand the offerings on its popular iTunes online store to include big-studio movies.
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Instead of jumping the gun, someone needs to think a little harder about all of this in order to make it work in such as way that it's irresistible to the average consumer/movie buff, like iTunes is for music fans now. Hopefully, that someone is Apple.
codymac
Jan 8, 12:22 PM
my 2003 540i M Wagon. upgraded w afe intake and remus exhaust. custom catback piping + resonator delete. stock 290HP/320torque :) 92K miles. next mod is prob full aluminum radiator + electric fan. i heard the cooling system starts degrading around 100K. got the water pump (replaced OEM plastic w metal impeller) and hoses done when i first bought it
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
Great looking wagon!
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
Great looking wagon!
Apple 26.2
Apr 21, 08:07 PM
:apple: apologists unite!
Metatron
Jan 1, 05:46 PM
Whatever happend to the thin macbook? That is all I wanted this year.
asears08
Mar 24, 08:45 PM
Oh man, 27" iMac + Sandy Bridge + AMD 6970
I Cant wait.
I Cant wait.
Cubert
Jul 19, 03:46 PM
Boooo-Yahhhh!
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Quoth Jim Cramer.
firewood
Mar 25, 07:31 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv.
Clear plastic with cut-outs would enable a player to feel for touch controls without having to look. Attach by suction or something. Some company makes a variation already. I expect more to.
Clear plastic with cut-outs would enable a player to feel for touch controls without having to look. Attach by suction or something. Some company makes a variation already. I expect more to.
Photics
Mar 25, 06:08 PM
This is cool to look at, but it's just a workaround for what should be happening... the Apple TV should run apps / play games. It's an iOS device. There's no need to get crazy with wires hanging off the side of an iPad.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
daveporter
Nov 18, 08:27 PM
Multiple cores are useful for more then improving the processing of multiple threaded applicaitons individually.
Multiple cores are very useful when you run more then one application at a time as long as the operating system is able to allocate core use to more than one application at a time (as OSX does quite nicely). Therefore, with multiple cores, you will get better performance for each application when more then one applicaiton is run at the same time.
When Intel multicore processors are used (as in the Mac Pro) which support hardware virtualization, you can run software (such as Parrallels Desktop) that lets your run additional operating systems (such as Windows, Solaris, and Linux) concurrently with OSX at near full native speeds since one or more cores are used for OSX and one is used for each of the virtual operating systems.
Therefore, multiple cores are still useful even if many of the applications you use are not highly multithreaded.
Dave
Multiple cores are very useful when you run more then one application at a time as long as the operating system is able to allocate core use to more than one application at a time (as OSX does quite nicely). Therefore, with multiple cores, you will get better performance for each application when more then one applicaiton is run at the same time.
When Intel multicore processors are used (as in the Mac Pro) which support hardware virtualization, you can run software (such as Parrallels Desktop) that lets your run additional operating systems (such as Windows, Solaris, and Linux) concurrently with OSX at near full native speeds since one or more cores are used for OSX and one is used for each of the virtual operating systems.
Therefore, multiple cores are still useful even if many of the applications you use are not highly multithreaded.
Dave
pedidoc
Jan 11, 11:28 PM
Its a hydrogen fuel-cell powered notebook!
AppliedVisual
Nov 29, 09:03 PM
I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
TangoCharlie
Sep 1, 11:59 AM
Wow. That would be great news. I'd think about one of those instead of a mac pro.... please make it have fw800. Then I really would take it over a pro.
That's exactly why Apple differentiates its product lines. They want you to fork out for a Pro :)
Equally, they DON'T want you to buy a Dell..... which is why I think they will introduce a "desktop" Mac.... But hey, it might not come with FW800 :(
That's exactly why Apple differentiates its product lines. They want you to fork out for a Pro :)
Equally, they DON'T want you to buy a Dell..... which is why I think they will introduce a "desktop" Mac.... But hey, it might not come with FW800 :(
Doctor Q
Sep 1, 02:03 PM
How big and small an iMac would consumers actually want? 50"? 10"?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
Josias
Nov 27, 01:49 PM
Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)
Yes, they also make an iMac.
No way people get a MacMini and a MacBook Pro. Pull out the display, hack it in a dell casing etc...:confused:
BTW, with the intro of the low end iMac, I find this to be bogus.
Yes, they also make an iMac.
No way people get a MacMini and a MacBook Pro. Pull out the display, hack it in a dell casing etc...:confused:
BTW, with the intro of the low end iMac, I find this to be bogus.
