ucfgrad93
Apr 9, 04:41 PM
I learned how to drive on a stick shift. It has been awhile since I have driven one, but I'm sure I still could.
x86isslow
Nov 29, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by longofest View Post
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing
Apple to design a car?
http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/various/sponsorcourse.jpg
Originally Posted by longofest View Post
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing
Apple to design a car?
http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/various/sponsorcourse.jpg
bommai
Nov 30, 12:02 AM
I think iTV will have the feature of showing your Keynote presentations right right there, how easy and cool would that be. Never have to sit at a Mac again to show that presentation, just a few click by with the Apple remote. By the way I am surprised I never heard of this on the internet, it just seems logical to me to be added as a feature.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
The hard drive is most likely for caching large media files, whether locally or from the internet so that when the user does a rewind or fast forward, the hard drive cache can be used. Flash memory can be used also but it would be better with a hard drive since there is a lot of data and hard drive is still cheaper and also more robust for multiple writes.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
The hard drive is most likely for caching large media files, whether locally or from the internet so that when the user does a rewind or fast forward, the hard drive cache can be used. Flash memory can be used also but it would be better with a hard drive since there is a lot of data and hard drive is still cheaper and also more robust for multiple writes.
ffakr
Nov 25, 05:32 PM
Dell is setting the pricing. It's not about the vendor costs.. it's all about what vendors think customers will pay.
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
boncellis
Jul 18, 02:51 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. The only way I see this really becoming big is if Apple releases a Mac Mini media center. By so doing, Apple will catch a huge market of people who say, "What do you want to watch tonight?" How many times have you been in this situation. You've looked at all your movies, which you've seen at least three times each, and decide that you don't have anything you want to watch. Would if, from your remote, you had a whole movie store IN YOUR HOME? That's right. Who needs to go to Blockbuster or wait for NetFlix. Just point, click, and...hello, movie. You get to keep it for a few days.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
lordonuthin
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
haha, thanks. yeah i think i moved into 3rd yesterday or the day before. yeah looking forward to 3 digits. i just gotta get this other system up and running. i really need to rearrange my gpus again, but just haven't had the time
According to the official stats (http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=3446&username=twoodcc) you already are at 3 digits for overall rank, congrats!
According to the official stats (http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=3446&username=twoodcc) you already are at 3 digits for overall rank, congrats!
akkkmed
Jan 8, 10:42 AM
2008 Pontiac G6. Lease is up soon...
(Not my picture)
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3048/3101/32619050002_large.jpg
(Not my picture)
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3048/3101/32619050002_large.jpg
henrikrox
Mar 25, 05:49 PM
Wow amazing I just hope more debs gets creative with this.
I love people say that this is the future of gaming. I agree with that.
Then stupid people say we have ps2 graphics. They said future of gaming. Not now. Just look at the jump from iPad 1 to 2. Think 3 years from now when we have CPUs with quad cores and even better graphics.
Amazing by the devs that created real racing 2. Looks fantastic
I love people say that this is the future of gaming. I agree with that.
Then stupid people say we have ps2 graphics. They said future of gaming. Not now. Just look at the jump from iPad 1 to 2. Think 3 years from now when we have CPUs with quad cores and even better graphics.
Amazing by the devs that created real racing 2. Looks fantastic
Peace
Jul 19, 04:57 PM
Apple pretty much confirmed an iPhone in this call..
He said that cell phones dont play music very well.iPods do and they were doing something about that.
He said that cell phones dont play music very well.iPods do and they were doing something about that.
Lurchdubious
Nov 24, 11:13 AM
Finally ordered a programmer for my truck!
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=250&uid=1880993794
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=250&uid=1880993794
HecubusPro
Sep 7, 01:17 PM
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
AppliedVisual
Nov 18, 02:28 PM
As I mentioned before about the lower spec FB-DIMMs only using one of the onboard buffers to improve latency (single gate / single rank), there are quite a few of these out there - especially in the 512MB capacity!
Here's the technical overview from Intel (http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/Fully-buffered-DIMM-0305.htm).
Anandtech had this little tidbit (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=1) about single vs. dual rank modules.
While single rank FB-DIMMs are somewhat discouraged, they are quite common on the market. Kingston ships single rank FB-DIMM parts that are nearly 30% cheaper than their dual rank parts. Some of their products are labeled as such, some aren't and who knows what you're getting when buying from a third-party vendor without specifically comparing part numbers, etc.. I am under the impression that the 512MB (as well as the 1 and 2 GB) modules from Apple are all dual rank. However, how do we tell for sure about modules from the cheaper vendors like 1-800-4MEMORY, or RAM4LESS, etc.. I guess we can try to ask for more detailed specs, but I've tried that before from RAM4LESS and all I could get is that "our modules are guaranteed compatible..."
Here's the technical overview from Intel (http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/Fully-buffered-DIMM-0305.htm).
Anandtech had this little tidbit (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=1) about single vs. dual rank modules.
While single rank FB-DIMMs are somewhat discouraged, they are quite common on the market. Kingston ships single rank FB-DIMM parts that are nearly 30% cheaper than their dual rank parts. Some of their products are labeled as such, some aren't and who knows what you're getting when buying from a third-party vendor without specifically comparing part numbers, etc.. I am under the impression that the 512MB (as well as the 1 and 2 GB) modules from Apple are all dual rank. However, how do we tell for sure about modules from the cheaper vendors like 1-800-4MEMORY, or RAM4LESS, etc.. I guess we can try to ask for more detailed specs, but I've tried that before from RAM4LESS and all I could get is that "our modules are guaranteed compatible..."
apb3
Aug 16, 11:47 AM
Not hard for Apple to stop this with something like a digital signature allowing your pod to only sync with your library
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:12 PM
A 23" Merom iMac. Really nice! But I was hoping for Conroe to power the next iMac series. A bit underwhelming. Isn't the Conroe supposed to have a solid performance edge over the Merom? A faster FSB and higher clockspeeds?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
javabear90
Mar 18, 10:20 PM
hmmm...... this is a head scratcher....
kingtj
Mar 22, 04:56 PM
For starters, current models of iPods can also hold podcasts, photo collections and other video! If you have a good sized music collection and/or any of this other stuff? Yes, filling 220GB is VERY possible!
Beyond that, though? I'm in the camp of people who really like the iPod Classic. The "touch" models are less appropriate to leave in a car, attached to a stereo system. My 120GB Classic spends 90% of its time in my car, inside the glove-box, attached to an interface cable. I usually only pull it out when I want to update it in some manner, or when I'm actually headed out someplace like a park where I might want to stick a pair of headphones in it and use it. The iPod Touch is more of an all-purpose "pocket computer" that you can play games on and everything else. Fine, but sometimes you just want a good device with plenty of storage space that plays your media.
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Beyond that, though? I'm in the camp of people who really like the iPod Classic. The "touch" models are less appropriate to leave in a car, attached to a stereo system. My 120GB Classic spends 90% of its time in my car, inside the glove-box, attached to an interface cable. I usually only pull it out when I want to update it in some manner, or when I'm actually headed out someplace like a park where I might want to stick a pair of headphones in it and use it. The iPod Touch is more of an all-purpose "pocket computer" that you can play games on and everything else. Fine, but sometimes you just want a good device with plenty of storage space that plays your media.
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
sappy1
Sep 14, 12:35 PM
I'm glad CR is taking its stand.
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
gugy
Nov 29, 04:27 PM
There is a huge interest by content providers (cable, networks, movie distributors, etc.) in utilizing the iTV(Front Row) interface to bring content to viewers.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
ezekielrage_99
Oct 23, 09:58 AM
So Macbooks next tuesday :confused:
banjomamo
Jul 19, 06:01 PM
I bought 3 macs in this last quarter, so I accounted for 0.00023% of their revenue. Rock on Apple. Don't ever stop.
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
Kenso
Mar 22, 03:48 PM
They should make brief questions to Steve Jobs the same way he answers:
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
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
HecubusPro
Sep 1, 12:29 PM
AppleInsider is also now reporting (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2011) there will be a 23" iMac released.
Now Appleinsider I do have more faith in. Looks like Conroe is being left behind.
Now Appleinsider I do have more faith in. Looks like Conroe is being left behind.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar