IJ Reilly
Oct 18, 06:21 PM
I think this is different. Our company is not buying any Intel-based macs until Adobe releases Universal CS, and I don't know why anyone would spend $$ on new hardwre now only to take a performance hit, vs. a performance increase and better hardware bang for the buck by waiting 6-9 months.
Because not everyone uses Adobe CS, and because you're always going to get better bang for your buck by waiting?
Because not everyone uses Adobe CS, and because you're always going to get better bang for your buck by waiting?
Popeye206
Apr 24, 04:22 PM
There is a difference between sales and market share. Without a doubt, part of the appeal of android is cost - it's just cheaper to buy. However, it's not as simple as you suggest
Some people buy it so they can have a larger screen, some because they want a keyboard, some because they have specific hardware needs (e.g. The US Army), some because they do not want to live under of the heel of Steve Jobs twisted moral code. I could go on, but it's become the proverbial dead horse. Sure, Android has pitfalls in that it can run almost anything, but I would rather have the freedom to make a bad app choice than to live in the walled garden that iOS is becoming.
In short, the freedom to make choices, even bad ones, is superior to being spoon fed like a baby as Apple tends to do.
Then too each their own. Obviously, you don't care for Apple's way of doing it and we could argue the pluses and minuses, but I don't think Apple's way is the wrong way. It's different and seems to be working fairly well too given they are company to beat in many categories right now. And as much as you love all the freedom with the Android based phones, I also think that is one of their problems. But again, we could debate forever.
Either way, you consistently feel your point of view is the only point of view. I don't feel "spoon fed like a baby" by using the iPhone. It does everything I want a smart phone to do plus some and there seems to be a ton of consumers out there that agree.
You know, you'd be much more respected here on this forum if you'd stop with the back-handed comments and ridiculous statements. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you can do it in a constructive manner and not a childish and shallow way. For someone that does seem to have some intelligence from time to time, you have a habit of totally destroying any credibility you might have.
Some people buy it so they can have a larger screen, some because they want a keyboard, some because they have specific hardware needs (e.g. The US Army), some because they do not want to live under of the heel of Steve Jobs twisted moral code. I could go on, but it's become the proverbial dead horse. Sure, Android has pitfalls in that it can run almost anything, but I would rather have the freedom to make a bad app choice than to live in the walled garden that iOS is becoming.
In short, the freedom to make choices, even bad ones, is superior to being spoon fed like a baby as Apple tends to do.
Then too each their own. Obviously, you don't care for Apple's way of doing it and we could argue the pluses and minuses, but I don't think Apple's way is the wrong way. It's different and seems to be working fairly well too given they are company to beat in many categories right now. And as much as you love all the freedom with the Android based phones, I also think that is one of their problems. But again, we could debate forever.
Either way, you consistently feel your point of view is the only point of view. I don't feel "spoon fed like a baby" by using the iPhone. It does everything I want a smart phone to do plus some and there seems to be a ton of consumers out there that agree.
You know, you'd be much more respected here on this forum if you'd stop with the back-handed comments and ridiculous statements. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you can do it in a constructive manner and not a childish and shallow way. For someone that does seem to have some intelligence from time to time, you have a habit of totally destroying any credibility you might have.
Don't panic
Apr 29, 03:38 PM
Lastly, I'm kinda bummed that I haven't made the narration yet.:(
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
playaj82
Jul 26, 01:20 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings?
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
ToTem.M@cinPosh
Jul 25, 02:01 PM
Its cool apple is making it so shut up
iRobo
Oct 24, 08:50 AM
Just for the record...
Originally Posted by iRobo
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Just a note. If you look at the average of the average time between updates you discover that there are, amongst all the products, a 192 days period between updates.
Currently only 177 days have passed since the last update to the MBP. Oct 26 would be Mac Expo in the UK. If they anounced then (185 days) and shipped one week later they would be at the average (192 exactly).
Also noting that major US and Euro retailers are out of stock or low on stock is also a fairly good indicator.
Finally, I think it would be pretty damn sad if after 192 days of updating they merely give us a .16 processor upgrade...
/4 cents and counting
Originally Posted by iRobo
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Just a note. If you look at the average of the average time between updates you discover that there are, amongst all the products, a 192 days period between updates.
Currently only 177 days have passed since the last update to the MBP. Oct 26 would be Mac Expo in the UK. If they anounced then (185 days) and shipped one week later they would be at the average (192 exactly).
Also noting that major US and Euro retailers are out of stock or low on stock is also a fairly good indicator.
Finally, I think it would be pretty damn sad if after 192 days of updating they merely give us a .16 processor upgrade...
/4 cents and counting
Stellarola
Mar 31, 06:46 PM
265 negatives. 95 positives.
Wow, tough crowd.
IMO it doesn't look THAT bad. You all have to understand Apple is really pushing hard to get (iOS) iPad users to switch to OS X for their desktop needs as opposed to Windows switches. There are so many iOS features that are being built-in, I guess Apple figures they'll add the same visual cues in their applications to make it a simpler transition.
It's funny though, the OS itself is more monochrome this time around, but their applications are much more...."festive". :|
-Stell
Wow, tough crowd.
IMO it doesn't look THAT bad. You all have to understand Apple is really pushing hard to get (iOS) iPad users to switch to OS X for their desktop needs as opposed to Windows switches. There are so many iOS features that are being built-in, I guess Apple figures they'll add the same visual cues in their applications to make it a simpler transition.
It's funny though, the OS itself is more monochrome this time around, but their applications are much more...."festive". :|
-Stell
Kurgan
May 3, 07:59 AM
To bad there was no mini. I have been warming up my shop finger all morning...
Willis
Oct 23, 08:22 AM
What a load of crap. People always make out Apple try and get your hard earned cash, but it seems nowadays its everyone else!
Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.
Pointless!
Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.
Pointless!
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
Hmmm. I was fully convinced that dethmaShine was being totally sarcastic with his posts. Seemed obvious to me.
But I see that 5 other posters don't think so. Those are some pretty big odds...5/1...am I really right?
Yeah, I still think I am. :p
Edit: 7 now!
But I see that 5 other posters don't think so. Those are some pretty big odds...5/1...am I really right?
Yeah, I still think I am. :p
Edit: 7 now!
lannim
Apr 11, 02:04 PM
Could this be the eventual end of usb altogether?
kirk26
Apr 14, 10:48 AM
Looks like a bar of soap. Which I guess is OK. It IS different, 'fresh', and will make a fashion statement for those who care about such things.
I guess that not many people on here remember the white iPods and white iBooks back in the day. Man, I miss that white finish. I might just buy the white iPhone at full price.
I guess that not many people on here remember the white iPods and white iBooks back in the day. Man, I miss that white finish. I might just buy the white iPhone at full price.
MacVixen
Mar 2, 10:28 AM
Emilio? Isn't he still at home waiting for a script for Breakfast Club 2?
:mad: Emiilo is busy being a director and winegrower, thank you very much :mad: :p
As to Charlie - I'm of two minds - I do think that part of this is definitely publicity. He probably hasn't had so many requests for interviews in years! On the other hand, even though that drug test he took was supposedly negative - I think that's probably a temporary thing and he will back to hitting the crack pipe pretty darn soon if he hasn't started up again already.
As to losing his children - yes it's sad for him, but definitely good for them. although with a drug-addicted mom - perhaps there is a well meaning relative that could step in for the boys? Charlie has 5 kids. His oldest is married I think, so don't know what she has had to deal with. But Denise always had custody of the 2 girls and I think for while there he wasn't even allowed visitation, so sadly, I don't think losing visitation rights is going to change anything for Charlie.
:mad: Emiilo is busy being a director and winegrower, thank you very much :mad: :p
As to Charlie - I'm of two minds - I do think that part of this is definitely publicity. He probably hasn't had so many requests for interviews in years! On the other hand, even though that drug test he took was supposedly negative - I think that's probably a temporary thing and he will back to hitting the crack pipe pretty darn soon if he hasn't started up again already.
As to losing his children - yes it's sad for him, but definitely good for them. although with a drug-addicted mom - perhaps there is a well meaning relative that could step in for the boys? Charlie has 5 kids. His oldest is married I think, so don't know what she has had to deal with. But Denise always had custody of the 2 girls and I think for while there he wasn't even allowed visitation, so sadly, I don't think losing visitation rights is going to change anything for Charlie.
benhollberg
Apr 6, 10:28 AM
Has anybody bought any tickets off eBay?
ViViDboarder
Jun 6, 11:29 AM
Proof?
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
I always wonder why people decide to respond to the post below mine which says the same thing but with less proof...
Above I said the same thing with a specific example. It's not as fun to argue with someone who makes a good argument though, is it?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
I always wonder why people decide to respond to the post below mine which says the same thing but with less proof...
Above I said the same thing with a specific example. It's not as fun to argue with someone who makes a good argument though, is it?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/
robeddie
Apr 21, 10:22 AM
Or Apple realized most people don't need a backlit keyboard? I honestly don't see a need for one, and I'm guessing most users don't need it. So it was probably a easy option to axe for either space or battery life. Don't expect it to return.
I don't know, it's been on all aluminum models since 2003. After all these years Apple decided no one really wanted it? (A lot of people on these forums obviously wouldn't agree with that).
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
I don't know, it's been on all aluminum models since 2003. After all these years Apple decided no one really wanted it? (A lot of people on these forums obviously wouldn't agree with that).
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
iStefmac
Jan 30, 09:10 AM
I'm betting the tax rebate checks will bump Apple sales...
People with extra cash + unusually low priced popular stock. I believe your betting correctly ;)
I say, buy now. Because by April, Apple will have rolled out several new products and generated lots of buzz once again. This low price will waiver a bit and won't last through February.
People with extra cash + unusually low priced popular stock. I believe your betting correctly ;)
I say, buy now. Because by April, Apple will have rolled out several new products and generated lots of buzz once again. This low price will waiver a bit and won't last through February.
iApples
May 1, 11:11 PM
Twitter is the best news organization.
I agree. That's where I found out about it.
To be honest, as much as it may be a good thing, I have a feeling something bad is going to happen.
The only sad part is that it took the US this long to find him. Osama should of been dead 10 years ago.
I agree. That's where I found out about it.
To be honest, as much as it may be a good thing, I have a feeling something bad is going to happen.
The only sad part is that it took the US this long to find him. Osama should of been dead 10 years ago.
Fearless Leader
Oct 24, 07:59 AM
well i'm still happy with my core duo mbp. the three months i had it v.s. the supposed "39%" speed bump should even out by the time i need a new one.
side note: if i was crazy, could i put one of those dvd drives in my mbp also the new 200gb HD will it fit? anyone know?
side note: if i was crazy, could i put one of those dvd drives in my mbp also the new 200gb HD will it fit? anyone know?
csimmons
Oct 19, 04:22 AM
Yes, thank you. At least someone else out there is emotionally distanced enough from the iPod and the Apple entertainment sector to be a bit objective.
Innovation: just what happened to Apple's innovative spirit when it comes to computers? The latest Mac Pro was fitted into the existing (and way oversized) G5 case. The MacBook was disappointing in that - proportionally - Apple did not shrink it at all or make it lighter than its predecessor (a design which had been in existence for about four years). There are more things, but I really don't want to sound like a troll here...
Apple needs to come out with new computer models that are unlike anything else out there. What about a tiny, thin ultraportable? What about a smaller tower, so those of us that want a pro computer don't have to invest in an oversized monster (which is larger than any PCs in the market that I am aware of). Aren't computers supposed to get SMALLER as the technology advances? Why is Apple obsessed with making the iPod smaller and smaller, but does not care as much about its laptops and desktops?
The answer: profit, or course. The iPod is Apple's cash cow. And this, my friends, is what I mean when I say that Apple needs to be partitioning off a little of its innovative energy that it is putting into its entertainment sector and bring it back to the computer line.
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :)
Apple surely does it's homework, otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are currently. Perhaps their market research has shown them that there's no "real" market for an ultra-portable, pda, prosumer tower, or the other things that you and a few other have requested? the MP3 player market was a different animal, since the market was there already, albeit heavily segmented.
Insisting over and over again that the iPod is Apple's cash cow when the facts state differently doesn't make sense. It's clearly a large part of Apple business, but it's CORE business is still computers. The numbers clearly show that.
Innovation: just what happened to Apple's innovative spirit when it comes to computers? The latest Mac Pro was fitted into the existing (and way oversized) G5 case. The MacBook was disappointing in that - proportionally - Apple did not shrink it at all or make it lighter than its predecessor (a design which had been in existence for about four years). There are more things, but I really don't want to sound like a troll here...
Apple needs to come out with new computer models that are unlike anything else out there. What about a tiny, thin ultraportable? What about a smaller tower, so those of us that want a pro computer don't have to invest in an oversized monster (which is larger than any PCs in the market that I am aware of). Aren't computers supposed to get SMALLER as the technology advances? Why is Apple obsessed with making the iPod smaller and smaller, but does not care as much about its laptops and desktops?
The answer: profit, or course. The iPod is Apple's cash cow. And this, my friends, is what I mean when I say that Apple needs to be partitioning off a little of its innovative energy that it is putting into its entertainment sector and bring it back to the computer line.
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :)
Apple surely does it's homework, otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are currently. Perhaps their market research has shown them that there's no "real" market for an ultra-portable, pda, prosumer tower, or the other things that you and a few other have requested? the MP3 player market was a different animal, since the market was there already, albeit heavily segmented.
Insisting over and over again that the iPod is Apple's cash cow when the facts state differently doesn't make sense. It's clearly a large part of Apple business, but it's CORE business is still computers. The numbers clearly show that.
NATO
Jul 25, 09:51 AM
In the UK edu prices:
£31 for Mighty Mouse and £35 for the Bluetooth version.
Not too bad I guess. I'll be holding out for the black version though :)
I've been checking the UK store (Higher Ed + Normal) since the announcement, the Wireless Mighty Mouse is still not up there. Are you sure you're not confusing the Mighty Mouse with the wired one? ( The Wired Mighty Mouse is is £31.73 H.E, £35.00 Retail)
Plus, I think we've already had a link to MacWorld showing the price at £49.99
£31 for Mighty Mouse and £35 for the Bluetooth version.
Not too bad I guess. I'll be holding out for the black version though :)
I've been checking the UK store (Higher Ed + Normal) since the announcement, the Wireless Mighty Mouse is still not up there. Are you sure you're not confusing the Mighty Mouse with the wired one? ( The Wired Mighty Mouse is is £31.73 H.E, £35.00 Retail)
Plus, I think we've already had a link to MacWorld showing the price at £49.99
Evangelion
Jul 25, 11:50 AM
Then good for him, but if he's that much of a power user, he's looking at a redesign of the PowerMac case, not a mini-tower.
Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?
There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs?
No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?
Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result.
Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.
Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?
Coming up maybe?
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.
Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?
But only SOME of you.
And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?
Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower?
Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".
As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.
Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.
MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.
Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.
What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.
Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?
There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs?
No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?
Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result.
Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.
Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?
Coming up maybe?
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.
Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?
But only SOME of you.
And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?
Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower?
Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".
As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.
Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.
MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.
Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.
What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.
Longey Nowze
Jun 6, 11:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
I don't get what is the fuss about - many times I wasn't happy with purchased app, album, or downloaded something by mistake - and never had problems getting refunds from apple...
How do you request a refund? Who do you contact?
I don't get what is the fuss about - many times I wasn't happy with purchased app, album, or downloaded something by mistake - and never had problems getting refunds from apple...
How do you request a refund? Who do you contact?
0 comments:
Post a Comment