Chupa Chupa
Apr 3, 09:19 AM
I feel like Apple could be saving some money here. Supplies are strained and there is a several week wait to get one. Do you really need more commercials right now?
Of course they are making billions of dollars, so I am sure they know what they are doing. :D
That is precisely why you have to run ads like this now... to remind people they want the iPad, even if they have to wait a few weeks, versus buying some other readily available tablet, which, on paper, looks as good or better than the iPad.
It's the old adage... out of sight, out of mind. With supplies constrained gotta keep the iPad2 in people's heads.
Of course they are making billions of dollars, so I am sure they know what they are doing. :D
That is precisely why you have to run ads like this now... to remind people they want the iPad, even if they have to wait a few weeks, versus buying some other readily available tablet, which, on paper, looks as good or better than the iPad.
It's the old adage... out of sight, out of mind. With supplies constrained gotta keep the iPad2 in people's heads.
rdowns
Apr 12, 05:51 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
The more I read the stuff you post, the more I shake my head.
-Don
The more I read the stuff you post, the more I shake my head.
macidiot
Jul 19, 03:59 PM
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Barnzee
Apr 12, 10:22 PM
only 300? sold
~Shard~
Nov 15, 08:51 AM
This is very cool, however I think the article says it all:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
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 :)
BeefUK
Aug 29, 09:23 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Merom?
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
I agree, if the mac mini is dropped in price but keeps the Core Duo, I think that is a logical step. I think one of the original ideas of the mini was to tempt switchers, who already have a PC, but want to try a mac for cheap. I was nearly tempted last year, but held off for the Intel Update, and then decided I wanted a laptop instead.
However if they keep prices the same, then that seems a strange decision.
I have to say though I hope u are wrong with regard to the Macbooks, i'm hoping for a Core 2 Duo update so I can purchase my first mac. Maybe if they don't i'll just save up some more money and buy and Core 2 Duo MBP when they're released!!
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
I agree, if the mac mini is dropped in price but keeps the Core Duo, I think that is a logical step. I think one of the original ideas of the mini was to tempt switchers, who already have a PC, but want to try a mac for cheap. I was nearly tempted last year, but held off for the Intel Update, and then decided I wanted a laptop instead.
However if they keep prices the same, then that seems a strange decision.
I have to say though I hope u are wrong with regard to the Macbooks, i'm hoping for a Core 2 Duo update so I can purchase my first mac. Maybe if they don't i'll just save up some more money and buy and Core 2 Duo MBP when they're released!!
blevins321
Mar 22, 04:32 PM
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.
Not just songs. Could be used with a media dock for movies and TV shows too. And don't say Apple TV2. I mean away from your home.
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.
Not just songs. Could be used with a media dock for movies and TV shows too. And don't say Apple TV2. I mean away from your home.
AlphaDogg
Feb 20, 07:18 PM
Ok, So I moved the Mini back to the corner where it sat before, and added my wireless trackpad and keyboard to the desk. I'm still not sure on the keyboard. it feels different than the one built into the MBP. I think it might feel mushy... I need to put something on top of my desk so that things don't slid around... The trackpad will slide as I move it as will the MBP if it's sitting on the desk surface...
New display?
New display?
joemama
Nov 27, 03:30 PM
The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.
Sorry, I meant "monitors" - I just made the edit. thanks for the catch.
Sorry, I meant "monitors" - I just made the edit. thanks for the catch.
bwintx
Jul 20, 06:58 AM
I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.
You are correct. Existing PCs will run Vista but without the Aqua-ripoff pretty interface. For the Aqua-ripoff (I refuse to call it anything else), that's where much more RAM and newer video cards come into play by necessity. So, essentially, you get two classes of Vista users (imagine having to write the "requirements" text for Windows software in the near-future; ugh), and a giant opportunity for the memory and video card companies, which are probably buying their magazine and Web banner ad space right now -- not that anybody should alert the media for such info.
You are correct. Existing PCs will run Vista but without the Aqua-ripoff pretty interface. For the Aqua-ripoff (I refuse to call it anything else), that's where much more RAM and newer video cards come into play by necessity. So, essentially, you get two classes of Vista users (imagine having to write the "requirements" text for Windows software in the near-future; ugh), and a giant opportunity for the memory and video card companies, which are probably buying their magazine and Web banner ad space right now -- not that anybody should alert the media for such info.
rasmasyean
Mar 18, 08:59 AM
I don't think it (or any of the other times) really had to do much with "democracy" unless it serves the end goal. Secure the oil.
Lets put it this way.
If we let Quadafi "win" which he would, by slaughtering or not...heck it's civil war right? They have a right to kill eachother in war and then the loser will face crimes for it as usual.
If we support the "rebel government", we will get oil favors theoretically from the new regime AND, since we destroyed all Quadafi's high value military assets, we can sell "new and improved" weapons to the new regime.
As always, I think there's a deep economic angle...but this time, it's almost like it's a "wow...cool, someone is fighting again so lets try to maximize our potential future weapons sales by saying saying only ONE side is not allowed to kill ppl! ". It's almost hilarious if you think about it.
Lets put it this way.
If we let Quadafi "win" which he would, by slaughtering or not...heck it's civil war right? They have a right to kill eachother in war and then the loser will face crimes for it as usual.
If we support the "rebel government", we will get oil favors theoretically from the new regime AND, since we destroyed all Quadafi's high value military assets, we can sell "new and improved" weapons to the new regime.
As always, I think there's a deep economic angle...but this time, it's almost like it's a "wow...cool, someone is fighting again so lets try to maximize our potential future weapons sales by saying saying only ONE side is not allowed to kill ppl! ". It's almost hilarious if you think about it.
firestarter
Mar 20, 01:04 PM
It's not my place and my time has long past to be "volunteered" for such duties.
So, apparently you're old...
US will use Lybia as aerial target practice
Hey, check out this mini mushroom fireball thingie. What kind of bomb is this? It looks kind of big. Edpecially the fact that it's in the backgorund and the camera naturally makes it small. If you were up close, it's gotta be HUGE!
Yet you come across with all the maturity of an 11 year old.
:confused:
So, apparently you're old...
US will use Lybia as aerial target practice
Hey, check out this mini mushroom fireball thingie. What kind of bomb is this? It looks kind of big. Edpecially the fact that it's in the backgorund and the camera naturally makes it small. If you were up close, it's gotta be HUGE!
Yet you come across with all the maturity of an 11 year old.
:confused:
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
Fine. You all go and apply to work at a post house and put "iMovie" on your resume. See how long it takes for them to laugh you out the door.
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
Snowcat001
Jun 22, 12:13 PM
Then what was the point in the iPad?
have fun carrying an iMac :)
have fun carrying an iMac :)
Chundles
Sep 6, 10:39 AM
I love my mini. I would have bought the former top end mini (1.66ghz Duo, 80gb HDD, SD) to replace my mini if it came down to $599 refurb/$699 new. I like my monitor just fine. I prefer the form factor of the mini over the iMac is what it comes down to, I suppose.
I'm not a fan of the iMac design... mostly because of my bad experience with a Rev A iMac G5 being so freaking loud. If Apple had kept the Core Solo and dropped it's price $100 or more (Apple needs a $399 mini more than it needs a $799 model) lots of people would have bought it.
As it stands, though, the mini kinda sucks.
The Intel iMacs are almost silent - truly, you can barely hear them if at all.
I'm not a fan of the iMac design... mostly because of my bad experience with a Rev A iMac G5 being so freaking loud. If Apple had kept the Core Solo and dropped it's price $100 or more (Apple needs a $399 mini more than it needs a $799 model) lots of people would have bought it.
As it stands, though, the mini kinda sucks.
The Intel iMacs are almost silent - truly, you can barely hear them if at all.
furious
Nov 29, 07:55 PM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
that would be nice
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
that would be nice
kepner
Apr 4, 02:14 PM
That's true, but even in iOS the address bar hides when you scroll down to save space for content.
Not on the iPad.
Not on the iPad.
thejadedmonkey
Aug 7, 06:11 AM
For the sake of those who want to remain surprised until we see the video, there should be a page on MacRumors that says "will post link when video available" - so I can just check that page for the video to be uploaded later in the day. I plan to completely avoid all news until I see the video.
Can somebody do this?
This should help..
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
Can somebody do this?
This should help..
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
deputy_doofy
Jul 19, 04:42 PM
This is actually the general trend in the computer market since the rise of
portables against desktop machines. Portables are becoming increasingly
powerful (computational-wise) up to the point that the line between them
and Desktops is blurred.
Agreed. I love my dual-proc G5, but a little more than a year later, I still find myself using my PB G4 more simply because it's with me almost all the time. That said, I'll be buying a nice, little portable monster (MPB w/C2D) to rival my G5. :D
portables against desktop machines. Portables are becoming increasingly
powerful (computational-wise) up to the point that the line between them
and Desktops is blurred.
Agreed. I love my dual-proc G5, but a little more than a year later, I still find myself using my PB G4 more simply because it's with me almost all the time. That said, I'll be buying a nice, little portable monster (MPB w/C2D) to rival my G5. :D
durvivor
Oct 23, 01:19 PM
In my opinion, there is a VERY good possibility of the Macbook Pros being updated tomorrow. Here's Why:
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Awesome, this means there will be further Macbook and Macbook Pro updates on April 24th (a Tuesday). I'm guessing that will be too early for Santa Rosa w/ Robsin caching technology. But, I bet there will be speed increases, graphics and hd increases.
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Awesome, this means there will be further Macbook and Macbook Pro updates on April 24th (a Tuesday). I'm guessing that will be too early for Santa Rosa w/ Robsin caching technology. But, I bet there will be speed increases, graphics and hd increases.
chameleon81
May 2, 04:33 PM
you people like to discuss about everything.
motulist
Aug 7, 03:54 AM
Only 100 songs max I suppose ;)
Dude, it's even better than that! Its song capacity is only limited by how many cassette tapes you can carry!
Dude, it's even better than that! Its song capacity is only limited by how many cassette tapes you can carry!
No comments:
Post a Comment