Yebot
Sep 11, 02:23 AM
I prefer to rent movies. I rarely buy DVD's. That said, I'd like to see a rental option added to Apple's Movie Store.
Music is a different story. I prefer to own music.
Music is a different story. I prefer to own music.
BRLawyer
Nov 27, 04:08 AM
You naysayers are a tiresome lot. I've read so many "tablets are stupid" related comments in the last year or so it's ridiculous. Interestingly, many of the comments don't seem to come from ACTUAL tablet users. Sure, they're not perfect, but then again, all my students want one, quite a few other professors use one, and I see more and more of them being used in class. How many of you have tried to type notes in a meeting where it would just be plain impolite, but you need more than just pen and paper? In fact, the main complaint is NOT that the tablet form factor is limiting - it's the OS. They all want Mac OS X.
Remember that the world didn't want a minivan until Chrysler created it either. Keep THAT in mind. Don't knock what you don't know.
Really? So please find me market share data on Tablets...even better, find me a Tablet that costs less than a small notebook. No, you won't find it, sorry...it's not about having one, it's about wanting to have one...and most people don't these days...that's why Origami flopped.
Remember that the world didn't want a minivan until Chrysler created it either. Keep THAT in mind. Don't knock what you don't know.
Really? So please find me market share data on Tablets...even better, find me a Tablet that costs less than a small notebook. No, you won't find it, sorry...it's not about having one, it's about wanting to have one...and most people don't these days...that's why Origami flopped.
iliketyla
Mar 29, 06:07 PM
The cost of living in Japan is very comparable to that of the United States. VERY. And I speak from experience, having lived both in rural and metro America as well as rural and metro Japan.
And you are the one who brought up "happy" employees. How do you objectively measure "happiness"?
I would ask the same question of you when you say that most Japanese are by in large happy with their jobs. Have you gone around and surveyed thousands of Japanese people who gave that response?
Saying happy employees are good employees is an idiom, like a penny saved is a penny earned.
And you are the one who brought up "happy" employees. How do you objectively measure "happiness"?
I would ask the same question of you when you say that most Japanese are by in large happy with their jobs. Have you gone around and surveyed thousands of Japanese people who gave that response?
Saying happy employees are good employees is an idiom, like a penny saved is a penny earned.
Eidorian
Jul 21, 02:03 PM
Sheesh. This is a 180 from waiting for G5 updates.They're much more predictable with Intel's roadmap.
daneoni
Nov 22, 08:42 AM
I dunno, i dont think buying an iPhone is feasible for at least another year. For me at least, just not excited about it at all. First off, it'll be the first ever Apple phone meaning there will be some niggles, also it'll be a candy bar. The only candy bar phone i can tolerate is a smart phone. Some thing tells me the iPhone WON'T be a smartphone from the ground up. It'll be a phone with *some* smart phone abilities.
Also, like most recent rumored products from Apple, its probably been waaay overhyped and will end up being a dissapointment.
Palm shouldn't be so confident though. Apple is the same company that made Michael Dell eat his words.
People shouldn't discount palm yet either.
Also, like most recent rumored products from Apple, its probably been waaay overhyped and will end up being a dissapointment.
Palm shouldn't be so confident though. Apple is the same company that made Michael Dell eat his words.
People shouldn't discount palm yet either.
appleguy123
May 3, 05:53 PM
I second exploring, because I'm too confused to have any alternate ideas. I'm sure it'll get better as time goes on.
rickster2k
Mar 31, 02:54 AM
So if the final preview is at WWDC, when do you imagine we'll get the release? If if was like Snow Leopard it will be towards the end of August.
Thinking of getting a new MBP this year so does anyone know the the timeframe is for the up-to-date program?
Thinking of getting a new MBP this year so does anyone know the the timeframe is for the up-to-date program?
ucfgrad93
May 4, 10:35 AM
I'm ok with Don't Panic as a leader. Explore the room first though, don't split up.
pkson
Mar 26, 10:45 PM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
norwaypianoman
Mar 31, 03:36 AM
Kill the Lion. I do not want it until 2012.
Jape
Nov 3, 08:57 PM
I just received notice that the tomtom car kit I ordered from Bottom Line Telecommunications has shipped, and should be here in a couple of days. I paid $90 shipped. (Don't know if they have any more in stock.) I expect it will be available elsewhere online for discounted prices soon.
I agree that it would be nice if it were cheaper, but if you add up a separate quality car mount, power cable, hands free kit, and external gps, you're going to be close or over $90 in any case. So maybe it's a luxury, but not a ridiculous one. Everyone with an iphone is paying at least $840 a year for the privilege of using it, and if all you wanted was cell phone service you could pay half that. So if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it; but I don't know why so many feel they have to act so outraged over the cost.
They do have more of these in stock, but I was wondering if you have used their services before. it seems a little weird that they would offer it at such a low price, and they do not use paypal.
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=00000TOMTOMU01_BCA2728P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!
I agree that it would be nice if it were cheaper, but if you add up a separate quality car mount, power cable, hands free kit, and external gps, you're going to be close or over $90 in any case. So maybe it's a luxury, but not a ridiculous one. Everyone with an iphone is paying at least $840 a year for the privilege of using it, and if all you wanted was cell phone service you could pay half that. So if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it; but I don't know why so many feel they have to act so outraged over the cost.
They do have more of these in stock, but I was wondering if you have used their services before. it seems a little weird that they would offer it at such a low price, and they do not use paypal.
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=00000TOMTOMU01_BCA2728P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!
Llewellyn
Nov 28, 02:36 PM
Out of interest - and since you already use a computer near your TV :). If a tablet can do everything you describe EXCEPT be a regular Mac too, would it still be of interest?
ie: If it allows you (as you say) to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or on the TV, Home movies or downloads at your fingertips (no need to cue them in the office)... and if it costs less than half what a MacBook costs... is it still appealing?
What about if it can interface with MacMini to become a remote screen? (ie: do everything you say, but only when in the house)
I would. I could move my iMac out of the living room and/or add a Mini. But that doesn't answer the question "Is Apple going to release a Tablet soon?"
With a tablet mac Apple would only be a small player in a small market. This is why they have never released a tablet mac.
What I'm speculating on is what might drive Apple to enter the market now. If it is a true Tablet Mac then there has to be something that sets it apart from what is being offered now. Since 2007 is going to be "the year of the movie downlod" (iTV and iTunes Movie Store playing very promeniently in Apples product lineup) I tried to come up with an explanation which fit into this focus. A living room orientated tablet seemed to fit.
Of course this so called tablet could be several different things — a true video iPod, a supered up remote, a UMCP based micro mac. I just find it fun to speculate based on the info at hand:)
ie: If it allows you (as you say) to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or on the TV, Home movies or downloads at your fingertips (no need to cue them in the office)... and if it costs less than half what a MacBook costs... is it still appealing?
What about if it can interface with MacMini to become a remote screen? (ie: do everything you say, but only when in the house)
I would. I could move my iMac out of the living room and/or add a Mini. But that doesn't answer the question "Is Apple going to release a Tablet soon?"
With a tablet mac Apple would only be a small player in a small market. This is why they have never released a tablet mac.
What I'm speculating on is what might drive Apple to enter the market now. If it is a true Tablet Mac then there has to be something that sets it apart from what is being offered now. Since 2007 is going to be "the year of the movie downlod" (iTV and iTunes Movie Store playing very promeniently in Apples product lineup) I tried to come up with an explanation which fit into this focus. A living room orientated tablet seemed to fit.
Of course this so called tablet could be several different things — a true video iPod, a supered up remote, a UMCP based micro mac. I just find it fun to speculate based on the info at hand:)
bushido
Apr 20, 06:04 AM
Not if it reduces battery life.
the battery life is bad enough as it is, i don't care if it reduces by half an hour or sth. i have to charge it every night either way. so 4inch bring it on, about time
the battery life is bad enough as it is, i don't care if it reduces by half an hour or sth. i have to charge it every night either way. so 4inch bring it on, about time
QuarterSwede
Apr 24, 05:45 PM
on what basis? has the iPhone and iPad gone higher in price as it progressed?
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
BC2009
Mar 28, 11:02 AM
I'm actually feeling pretty good about delaying the next iPhone and iOS version until September. Not only because it puts it closer to mine and my wife's birthdays (iPhones make good birthday gifts for one another), but I think it increases the chances of:
- Seriously Improved Notification System
- Major Cloud-Based MobileMe Improvements
- Likelihood of an LTE iPhone 5
My wallet just took a hit on the iPad 2 and my iPhone 3GS is still going pretty strong, so I am good with waiting if it means more. I would hate to buy the iPhone 5 to be locked into a 2-year contract on a phone that has no LTE support.
- Seriously Improved Notification System
- Major Cloud-Based MobileMe Improvements
- Likelihood of an LTE iPhone 5
My wallet just took a hit on the iPad 2 and my iPhone 3GS is still going pretty strong, so I am good with waiting if it means more. I would hate to buy the iPhone 5 to be locked into a 2-year contract on a phone that has no LTE support.
netdog
Jul 31, 01:46 AM
but what I am trying to say is, that I disagree about reception of Verizon: it's very good, and especially so outside of the major business cities like NYC and Washington. My wife's T-Mobile often is out of range when we travel, and we have to use my Verizon phone.
That is only because CDMA had such a jump on GSM in the USA, and the GSM carriers in the USA are still smaller. Verizon also has a massive analog network that T-Mobile won't touch as their phones are GSM only.
Unfortunately, the free market approach adopted when installing networks in the USA has led to a number of problems, and while you might think Verizon service is good relative to the other US carriers, it cannot compare to the carriers in Europe who use a shared GSM network that was adopted after much deliberation. Like most of the world, we are GSM-only.
That is only because CDMA had such a jump on GSM in the USA, and the GSM carriers in the USA are still smaller. Verizon also has a massive analog network that T-Mobile won't touch as their phones are GSM only.
Unfortunately, the free market approach adopted when installing networks in the USA has led to a number of problems, and while you might think Verizon service is good relative to the other US carriers, it cannot compare to the carriers in Europe who use a shared GSM network that was adopted after much deliberation. Like most of the world, we are GSM-only.
SBlue1
Apr 5, 03:10 PM
boooo! :mad:
LanPhantom
Apr 7, 11:47 AM
I would imagine we aren't getting the full story here. Companies would jump at the opportunity to produce more products. I don't care how it's done, 24hr operations, add capacity to their facilities, etc.
I think RIM's offer to the companies wasn't as good as Apples and the companies said "Well, thanks for the offer, but we just don't have the room" Considering the longevity of the RIM Playbook is still questionable, why would a company commit to supplying a short term product. At least with Apple, they feel comfortable looking long term and committing to building a TON of them. Knowing they won't be left with a supply line dead in the water.
Again, if the TRUE demand exists, producers will produce. It's all about Money.
-LanPhantom
WOW - BC2009, you hit my nail on the head right before I did!!! Nice job!
I think RIM's offer to the companies wasn't as good as Apples and the companies said "Well, thanks for the offer, but we just don't have the room" Considering the longevity of the RIM Playbook is still questionable, why would a company commit to supplying a short term product. At least with Apple, they feel comfortable looking long term and committing to building a TON of them. Knowing they won't be left with a supply line dead in the water.
Again, if the TRUE demand exists, producers will produce. It's all about Money.
-LanPhantom
WOW - BC2009, you hit my nail on the head right before I did!!! Nice job!
tivoboy
Jul 21, 03:18 PM
I do wish they would update the macbooks, so Ican BUY ONE!
Super Dave
Jul 29, 08:45 PM
If only I wasn't locked in with a stupid CDMA company. I doubt the iPhone will be anything but GSM. My local GSM company's plans suck!
David :cool:
David :cool:
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Multimedia
Jul 23, 02:20 AM
...only if the Macbooks also get a price drop, because the Core Duo chips should get a price drop, if Intel even keeps making them.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).I'm with you MacInDoc. Intel is not going to keep selling Yonah for long before they stop making them. Anyone who does the least amount of research should see that Merom is a much better way to go for all the reasons you mention. If Apple is really trying to stay state-of-the-art, they will lose Yonah as soon as Intel's supply can keep up with Apple's production volume. On the MacBook front, this should be able to happen by October-November, I imagine.
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).I'm with you MacInDoc. Intel is not going to keep selling Yonah for long before they stop making them. Anyone who does the least amount of research should see that Merom is a much better way to go for all the reasons you mention. If Apple is really trying to stay state-of-the-art, they will lose Yonah as soon as Intel's supply can keep up with Apple's production volume. On the MacBook front, this should be able to happen by October-November, I imagine.
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
Frobozz
Aug 7, 04:33 PM
Core 2 Duo (Merom/Conroe) was conspicuosly absent from this Keynote.
I too hope when the consumer lineup gets Core 2 Duo that they'll fill this gap with either a high end consumer machine or a low end pro.
B
It's pretty obvious what they'll be doing now. Core 2 Duo iMacs, Merom MacBook Pro's, MacBook and Mac mini stay the same.
I too hope when the consumer lineup gets Core 2 Duo that they'll fill this gap with either a high end consumer machine or a low end pro.
B
It's pretty obvious what they'll be doing now. Core 2 Duo iMacs, Merom MacBook Pro's, MacBook and Mac mini stay the same.
Blacklabel34
Apr 5, 07:01 PM
soooo weakk...I hope Toyota doesn't give in. (Most likely will *sigh*)