SchneiderMan
Sep 9, 07:47 PM
Incipio is now shipping DermaSHOT cases
http://www.gadgetmac.com/news/2010/9/9/incipio-dermashot-case-for-ipod-touch-4g-now-available.html
http://www.gadgetmac.com/news/2010/9/9/incipio-dermashot-case-for-ipod-touch-4g-now-available.html
Rt&Dzine
Mar 22, 01:47 PM
Yes, it's a company that makes it's own decisions and it's own products. They choose what they will allow and won't allow. If you are a car company you choose to make a mini van or not. Apple chooses what they want, we accept what they give us. If you don't, dont download it or get it, no one is forcing you to have it!
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
dubAdub
Apr 19, 01:25 PM
the 27 imac is a beast!!!!!
God I wish I had the money to get it.
I called my 2007 C2D Extreme iMac "the hombre" when I first got it.
When the Ivy Bridge iMac is released I'll feel that it's time to get a new computer worthy of naming.
God I wish I had the money to get it.
I called my 2007 C2D Extreme iMac "the hombre" when I first got it.
When the Ivy Bridge iMac is released I'll feel that it's time to get a new computer worthy of naming.
johnnyham
Jun 24, 10:52 AM
As is the norm for most rumored Apple products... it's been done before to some extent. In this case, a company in Valencia, CA, humorously called Troll Touch (http://www.trolltouch.com) (wonder if they hang out on forums much?) performs touchscreen upgrades to virtually any Mac product. As I understand it, the majority of their customers are businesses (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/macworld-touchscreen-mac,news-417.html) that use touchscreen iMacs as point of sale machines, equipped with the [/url="http://www.xsilva.com"]Lightspeed POS[/url] software. And no, POS does not stand for what you call your '79 Ford Pinto.
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
mattcube64
Feb 7, 06:03 PM
For something creeping up on 15 years old, that thing is in fantastic shape. Mustangs are an odd car for me. I never seem to like them each time a new one is released, but then the older they get, the more I start to like them. A buddy of mine has a '93 Cobra with just a couple thousand miles on it, and I absolutely love it.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
I completely agree with the whole "liking what you enjoyed as a youngster forever" theory.
Back when I was six or seven, my dad bought a brand new red '95 Camaro Z28. Quite a few mods were added to it, including a 150hp shot of nitrous and more. I was too young to realize why everyone thought the car was "cool." After some family car purchases, my dad eventually traded the Z28 in for a 2002 SS, again, right off the lot. After all the mods, that car pushed out almost 600HP. He's since moved onto cars much nicer than a Camaro; but for as long as I live, the Camaro will probably be my favorite car on the road. I hope to get a new '11 SS here in the next six months or so.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
I completely agree with the whole "liking what you enjoyed as a youngster forever" theory.
Back when I was six or seven, my dad bought a brand new red '95 Camaro Z28. Quite a few mods were added to it, including a 150hp shot of nitrous and more. I was too young to realize why everyone thought the car was "cool." After some family car purchases, my dad eventually traded the Z28 in for a 2002 SS, again, right off the lot. After all the mods, that car pushed out almost 600HP. He's since moved onto cars much nicer than a Camaro; but for as long as I live, the Camaro will probably be my favorite car on the road. I hope to get a new '11 SS here in the next six months or so.
ethernet76
Sep 6, 10:47 AM
i agree. i would never buy a computer that didn't have a dvd burner....and i'd never advise someone else to either
Remind me to never ask you for computer advice.
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
Remind me to never ask you for computer advice.
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
BillyShears
Jan 2, 03:19 PM
On a hunch I'm calling updated MacBook Pros.
LostPacket
Nov 29, 03:50 PM
With HDMI, they'd have to be shooting higher than 480p. I'd say they'd go all out with 1080p, why not?
My guess would be too much cost for such a small market. There's not a lot of 1080p content out there and even less 1080p displays. For a first gen device, I think 720p would be good enough. Maybe even 480p if it's cheap enough.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
My guess would be too much cost for such a small market. There's not a lot of 1080p content out there and even less 1080p displays. For a first gen device, I think 720p would be good enough. Maybe even 480p if it's cheap enough.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
charlituna
May 2, 10:33 PM
TO ALL FANBOYS:
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
The best part is that it is an option. You don't have to use this or Launchpad if you don't want to. The whole Finder thing is still there for all the geeks and such
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
The best part is that it is an option. You don't have to use this or Launchpad if you don't want to. The whole Finder thing is still there for all the geeks and such
leekohler
Mar 22, 11:45 AM
I love how "gays" freak out when non-homosexual people do something. But yet when "gays" want to do something extreme it's because we don't accept them, so when they get in trouble it's a huge ordeal.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Oh hell yes, you have a problem with gays. You just basically told us to shut up. Just because things are worse in other countries does not mean we don't work to make things better here. And you don't make things better by keeping quiet.
The United States was also NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. There is not national religion in this country and it is expressly forbidden to do so in our Constitution.
You don't like hearing gay people scream for our rights? Well then, give us our rights. We'll shut up. Until then, expect to hear it a lot more.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Oh hell yes, you have a problem with gays. You just basically told us to shut up. Just because things are worse in other countries does not mean we don't work to make things better here. And you don't make things better by keeping quiet.
The United States was also NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. There is not national religion in this country and it is expressly forbidden to do so in our Constitution.
You don't like hearing gay people scream for our rights? Well then, give us our rights. We'll shut up. Until then, expect to hear it a lot more.
macthetiger85
Apr 26, 04:35 PM
Windows and Amazon are not a generic names. If Microsoft would have named it "Operating System" then that would be generic. If Amazon were named "Online Store" then that would be generic. I'm sure Amazon could have named App Store something else, but then again, it's such a known term now that instantly helps customers identify what they are looking at.
I like Apple products, but they're beginning to be one of the most anal companies out there.
Actually windows is generic - a windows OS is an operating system with a GUI that uses a desktop and windows (such as finder, word processors etc) developed by XEROX and first mass produced for the Apple Lisa. The generic term for that type of OS among others was windows OS - then Microsoft came out with a windowing OS and called it Windows and trademarked it. Microsoft is actually arguing against Apple exactly what they did years ago. Back on topic though - it doesn't matter - Amazon is using it while Apple has already filed for the mark. The courts will settle this and if it goes to Apple, Amazon will pay big and have to change their name. Would have been simpler to just change their name to begin with.
I like Apple products, but they're beginning to be one of the most anal companies out there.
Actually windows is generic - a windows OS is an operating system with a GUI that uses a desktop and windows (such as finder, word processors etc) developed by XEROX and first mass produced for the Apple Lisa. The generic term for that type of OS among others was windows OS - then Microsoft came out with a windowing OS and called it Windows and trademarked it. Microsoft is actually arguing against Apple exactly what they did years ago. Back on topic though - it doesn't matter - Amazon is using it while Apple has already filed for the mark. The courts will settle this and if it goes to Apple, Amazon will pay big and have to change their name. Would have been simpler to just change their name to begin with.
ohaithar
Nov 27, 12:48 AM
This poster
http://images5.cpcache.com/product/71837185v4_350x350_Front.jpg
http://images5.cpcache.com/product/71837185v4_350x350_Front.jpg
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
No, and I just googled it and it appears to be just a product review site?
To what are you referring?
Sorry, failed to include a :rolleyes: , and just happened to hit on something that actually exists.
I could have easily used LoseFaceBook, but I thought the other rolled off the tongue better. :o
To what are you referring?
Sorry, failed to include a :rolleyes: , and just happened to hit on something that actually exists.
I could have easily used LoseFaceBook, but I thought the other rolled off the tongue better. :o
imac_japan
Apr 8, 09:05 AM
maybe thats because its not true and most mac articles are written by very wintel biased writers.
Well....then Is this the Mac-files ?
Is there a conspiracy ???
Well....then Is this the Mac-files ?
Is there a conspiracy ???
nyprospect
Apr 2, 09:56 PM
Makes me want to buy one.Go figure.
Sailorloco
Nov 24, 08:48 AM
Crystal Head Vodka for turkey day.
Mando
Mando
shawnce
Jul 19, 04:23 PM
I see a little confusion on numbers, for the straight facts review the two PDFs provided by Apple (data summary is a good one to understand unit volumes)...
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
ham_man
Jul 13, 10:38 PM
If they do decide to add it, it better be BTO only. I don't wanna buy a computer that's $500 more because of a Blu-Ray drive I don't want...
AaronMT
Nov 23, 02:52 PM
A month renew of World of Warcraft. Haven't played in three years, and just installed the mac client.
nospeed411
Jan 11, 09:43 PM
The beater in winter mode....rockin a fresh new set of OEM mudflaps just for winter:D I love winter mode, my car sports the goth look. Plus I am prolly the only one around who winds DOWN the coilovers so it has the right stance on the steelies.
http://gallery.me.com/cdwmk3/100144/IMG_1081/web.jpg?ver=12948035980001
http://gallery.me.com/cdwmk3/100144/IMG_1081/web.jpg?ver=12948035980001
Tomorrow
Mar 1, 02:36 PM
I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
Diesel is no less refined than gasoline - it's a product of the exact same refinement process.
Different carbon chains are gently boiled off by gradually raising the temperature of the crude. The smaller molecules are the first to burn off. Typically carbon chains 5-8 (pentane through octane) are sold as "gasoline." The next four or so are sold as "kerosene," or jet fuel. After that comes what we call "diesel." Each is as pure as the others, but diesel is made of larger, more complex carbon chains.
I can see both sides of the diesel engine argument. It's hard to deny that diesel engines are, other things being equal, more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines. The higher compression ratio equals greater power output per gallon and greater torque. In the larger sizes that we usually see in trucks, they seem to last longer than gasoline engines, too. But the damn things are noisy, and the exhaust smells really bad.
Diesel is no less refined than gasoline - it's a product of the exact same refinement process.
Different carbon chains are gently boiled off by gradually raising the temperature of the crude. The smaller molecules are the first to burn off. Typically carbon chains 5-8 (pentane through octane) are sold as "gasoline." The next four or so are sold as "kerosene," or jet fuel. After that comes what we call "diesel." Each is as pure as the others, but diesel is made of larger, more complex carbon chains.
I can see both sides of the diesel engine argument. It's hard to deny that diesel engines are, other things being equal, more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines. The higher compression ratio equals greater power output per gallon and greater torque. In the larger sizes that we usually see in trucks, they seem to last longer than gasoline engines, too. But the damn things are noisy, and the exhaust smells really bad.
HecubusPro
Sep 5, 08:29 AM
Well something is happening since the store is down that should be good newz for at least today !!!! we should see some upgrade of a kind, probably the mini with some shiny new MBP C2D !!!
GO APPLE !!! :D :) ;)
I'll say let's see a mac mini refresh since this thread is about the mac mini (but what I really want is the MBP C2D as well. Here's hoping :D )
GO APPLE !!! :D :) ;)
I'll say let's see a mac mini refresh since this thread is about the mac mini (but what I really want is the MBP C2D as well. Here's hoping :D )
Built
Apr 2, 07:37 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.