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.
shawnce
Nov 16, 10:57 AM
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
*rolls eyes*
*rolls eyes*
2ndPath
Sep 1, 12:43 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro, unless this iMac comes out to be north of $2500, at which point nobody will buy this.
I don't think an iMac with a larger Display is a competition for a Mac Pro. The biggest advantages of the Mac Pro are the expandability and the CPUs, which both put it into a completely different class than any iMac.
I don't think an iMac with a larger Display is a competition for a Mac Pro. The biggest advantages of the Mac Pro are the expandability and the CPUs, which both put it into a completely different class than any iMac.
chadgroove
Aug 24, 08:45 PM
Its nice to see some rumors finally. Aside from obviously a Core Duo 2, what else do you think is likely? Dedicated video?? Bigger/Faster HD? More Ram?? theres only so much space in it. Theres so way I could see another optical drive being put in unless they really moved things around inside the case, or if they wanted to push it as a media hub.
I bought a Mini last may.. Core Duo w/ 1GB of RAM. I love it! However I just took a new job and I'm being given a Macbook or MacbookPro soon as a perk. Time to sell the mini?
I love the thing but if new ones are coming, I might as well sell it off, right?. The bugger was a bit more expensive then I had planned.. about $900 after all was said and done. (I would have gone for the iMac if I didn't have an Cinema Display.. prolly still should have.). As much as I'd love to have 3 Macs its overkill. Right? (*waiting for people to flame me for claiming you can have too many Macs*).. I was hoping at some point I'd open up the mini and put a memron in there, and upgrade it/mod it for fun.
Chad
-------
Powerbook 15'in, 1.67ghz, 2GB Ram, 100 GB HD, high res screen '5,8' (final rev. 11/2005)
MacMini Core Duo, 1GB Ram (5/2006
Apple Cinema Display 20 in. (6/2005)
I bought a Mini last may.. Core Duo w/ 1GB of RAM. I love it! However I just took a new job and I'm being given a Macbook or MacbookPro soon as a perk. Time to sell the mini?
I love the thing but if new ones are coming, I might as well sell it off, right?. The bugger was a bit more expensive then I had planned.. about $900 after all was said and done. (I would have gone for the iMac if I didn't have an Cinema Display.. prolly still should have.). As much as I'd love to have 3 Macs its overkill. Right? (*waiting for people to flame me for claiming you can have too many Macs*).. I was hoping at some point I'd open up the mini and put a memron in there, and upgrade it/mod it for fun.
Chad
-------
Powerbook 15'in, 1.67ghz, 2GB Ram, 100 GB HD, high res screen '5,8' (final rev. 11/2005)
MacMini Core Duo, 1GB Ram (5/2006
Apple Cinema Display 20 in. (6/2005)
GregA
Dec 30, 12:03 AM
it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. <snip> I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.It's possible to both be quite right here. HD is underestimated, but having greater demand than expected is a separate issue to overall market size.
Anyway, as you say... there are 2 separate markets - the 2 evolutions of PayTV are "on demand", and HD (or both together). People who have invested in a top notch TV will easily pay for HD players (like an iTV-HD). Others may just want to watch what they want, when they want it.
If Apple only releases a HD system, and it costs a premium, I won't end up buying it. I'd be paying for a premium that I couldn't take advantage of. And besides, at the moment the iTS sells 640x480 anyway.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.Really, is that what you're doing in the US?
We've got Digital 576i in Australia as our standard definition, but it's in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Apple can choose whatever combination they want, I'm sure.
Anyway, as you say... there are 2 separate markets - the 2 evolutions of PayTV are "on demand", and HD (or both together). People who have invested in a top notch TV will easily pay for HD players (like an iTV-HD). Others may just want to watch what they want, when they want it.
If Apple only releases a HD system, and it costs a premium, I won't end up buying it. I'd be paying for a premium that I couldn't take advantage of. And besides, at the moment the iTS sells 640x480 anyway.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.Really, is that what you're doing in the US?
We've got Digital 576i in Australia as our standard definition, but it's in the 16:9 aspect ratio. Apple can choose whatever combination they want, I'm sure.
VanNess
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
Didn't read the article yet, but why on earth would Apple announce an iTunes/Movie rental service at the WWDC? With Leopard and the probability of new hardware announcements, it looks like Jobs is already going to be plenty busy giving that slide clicker of his a workout. So unless there is some sort of special tie-in with yet to be disclosed Leopard whiz bang technologies and the Video service, why WWDC?
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
Carguy172
Oct 23, 07:41 PM
I hope this happens I have been waiting for a long time
CaoCao
Mar 23, 12:19 AM
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
This is sexy. Having an iPod as a command centre utilizing airplay would return the iPod to being badass.
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
This is sexy. Having an iPod as a command centre utilizing airplay would return the iPod to being badass.
britishempire
Aug 7, 05:10 AM
Blah. I hate that "Vista 2.0" banner. It's like, saying that Leopard is comparable with Windows.
Also, you can bet that whatever MS release as "Vista 2.0" will be pretty shoddy compared to Leopard.
Mind you, Vista is looking like Tiger 0.6 or something, so maybe they're poking fun at MS for ripping off so much of their stuff.
"Leopard - The final nail in Vista's coffin"
Also, you can bet that whatever MS release as "Vista 2.0" will be pretty shoddy compared to Leopard.
Mind you, Vista is looking like Tiger 0.6 or something, so maybe they're poking fun at MS for ripping off so much of their stuff.
"Leopard - The final nail in Vista's coffin"
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.
I'mAMac
Sep 1, 01:18 PM
What is this chin on the iMac that everybody is talking about?
MattG
Aug 7, 07:40 AM
I was kind of getting tired of Apple updating the iPods so often, but now that we've had all these recent updates to other hardware (laptops, iMacs), I'd be kind of excited now to see something really new and different from the iPod lineup. Here's to hoping for something with a huge screen and better video capabilities.
63dot
Jan 5, 11:21 AM
To the BMW guys, how reliable is the E46 325i?
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
There isn't much out there after the legendary 2002 that has longevity attached to it. Speed, safety, handling, yes all of that, but I am with the rest of the crew on newer BMWs with miles on it.
It's a hard car to pass up if only performance and looks counted, but like Mercedes and Volvos after the 1970s and early 1980s in some cases, you are dealing with repairs all the time.
The last tough Mercedes may have been around 1980 and the Volvos kept up a long lasting car sometime later into that decade.
These days, outside of some 1990s Honda Accords/Civics, it's hard to bet on any car having an unusual amount of longevity attached to it. I wouldn't be surprised if newer Hondas are now built to crap out 10 to 15 years down the line but we won't know in another 10 to 15 years.
The best thing to do is to look at what 20 year old cars are out there. You can get a good deal on them, and they lasted that long for a reason. I am very skeptical of 1990s used cars since many makers went offshore for their production, as well as making things a lot cheaper on the inside and outside of the vehicle.
American cars, as we all know, were the first to build in obsolescence into its overall recipe. How many original late-1970s and later US cars are at shows that haven't had a ton of extra work done to them to simply make them run? Gone are the days of the '57 Chevy and '65 Mustang, many of which are still in shows and on the road.
I have a chance to pick one up for a fairly low cost (Less than $6,000 canadian). It is pretty much mint and VERY well maintained.
Car has a bit higher miles (~125,000 miles/ 205,000km), but I am guessing well maintained they will last quite a while?
I really enjoyed my brothers E36, and I just got rid of my project cars so I figure this would be a nice change.
There isn't much out there after the legendary 2002 that has longevity attached to it. Speed, safety, handling, yes all of that, but I am with the rest of the crew on newer BMWs with miles on it.
It's a hard car to pass up if only performance and looks counted, but like Mercedes and Volvos after the 1970s and early 1980s in some cases, you are dealing with repairs all the time.
The last tough Mercedes may have been around 1980 and the Volvos kept up a long lasting car sometime later into that decade.
These days, outside of some 1990s Honda Accords/Civics, it's hard to bet on any car having an unusual amount of longevity attached to it. I wouldn't be surprised if newer Hondas are now built to crap out 10 to 15 years down the line but we won't know in another 10 to 15 years.
The best thing to do is to look at what 20 year old cars are out there. You can get a good deal on them, and they lasted that long for a reason. I am very skeptical of 1990s used cars since many makers went offshore for their production, as well as making things a lot cheaper on the inside and outside of the vehicle.
American cars, as we all know, were the first to build in obsolescence into its overall recipe. How many original late-1970s and later US cars are at shows that haven't had a ton of extra work done to them to simply make them run? Gone are the days of the '57 Chevy and '65 Mustang, many of which are still in shows and on the road.
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:53 PM
And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
dscuber9000
Apr 3, 12:54 PM
I saw the ad yesterday on TV and I really liked it. It didn't show a bunch of apps I'll never use, it kind of drove home the point that the future of computing will be something like this.
extraextra
Oct 23, 09:14 AM
Starting to feel about as likely as flying saucers...
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
Lol
I hope it comes out this week, for all those who are waiting.
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
Lol
I hope it comes out this week, for all those who are waiting.
faroZ06
Apr 3, 02:15 AM
I just realized how bad "magical" sounded in that!!!
Way to ruin the ad, whoever wrote that into the script :mad:
Anyway I never see Apple ads on TV, and I don't know which channels they are on :confused:
Way to ruin the ad, whoever wrote that into the script :mad:
Anyway I never see Apple ads on TV, and I don't know which channels they are on :confused:
k8to
Sep 6, 04:00 PM
No EMT64, no biscuit.
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
xlii
May 5, 04:10 PM
My neighbor has a 68 Camaro that's in great shape. Hard to believe but this was his first car and he bought it new in... 1968. He's had it ever since.
Dale Campbell
Apr 19, 10:55 AM
Octo-core please + 16GB ram for �999 : ) *joke*... or is it?
chinesechikn
Mar 26, 08:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
lowbatteries
May 2, 06:37 PM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I upload large videos all the time on my iPhone, in the background. This has been built in since multitasking was introduced (if an app you are using doesn't do this, that's the developers fault).
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I upload large videos all the time on my iPhone, in the background. This has been built in since multitasking was introduced (if an app you are using doesn't do this, that's the developers fault).
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
drkstar
Nov 29, 02:54 PM
According to Bob Cringley:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060922_000979.html
"Now what about that USB port on the back of each iTV box? Giving his tour of the gizmo last week, Jobs rushed right past the USB port. What could that port be for? It's not for a USB hard drive, that's for sure, because the key brain in this system is back in your Mac or PC and its very large hard drive. Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. The USB port is clearly intended for an Apple iSight camera, a webcam to go with your HDTV."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060922_000979.html
"Now what about that USB port on the back of each iTV box? Giving his tour of the gizmo last week, Jobs rushed right past the USB port. What could that port be for? It's not for a USB hard drive, that's for sure, because the key brain in this system is back in your Mac or PC and its very large hard drive. Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. The USB port is clearly intended for an Apple iSight camera, a webcam to go with your HDTV."
