illa romza

are there any sleeves yet?

has anyone actually used the app in question? The data is so wildly inaccurate as to make it pointless. Even recompiling it with a 1000 times more accuracy has me placed in locations I haven't been to since I go an iPhone. So the question is not one of data, per se, but data accuracy: law enforcement have known about this for ages. If my iPhone says I was near a scene of crime, but I disagree, I bet I know which side the police would go with. That is the trouble with this data.

The data may not be accurate, as it's main purpose is to track cell towers, not the user.

The original iPad is only just hitting 1 year old. At least put in the article the status of the game for the iPad 1...does it work...doesnt it?

MAS? The Muslim American Society? The Municipal Art Society of NY? Malaysia Airlines? Monetary Authority of Singapore?

Confused :confused::confused::confused:

Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)

I think putting the map on the ipad is actually pretty poor idea. You would have to look away from the tv to see a map. This seems more like a last minute idea to put something, ANYTHING on the ipad's screen.

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.

I'm mixed to disappointed on this one.

The solo to duo upgrade on the low end is nice, but I would rather have seen a price drop.

On the high end, that's barely an upgrade at all. Before, the high end model was way more appealing, after the upgrade the high end model is really unappealing compared with the macbook and the iMac.

I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.

In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.

Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.

Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:

The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)

and

The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).

As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.

I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.

With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?

IMAGINED?

Let's look at the facts.

20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499

Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.

What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.

You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.

I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.

I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!

So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.

Didn't you read this post and the article attached?

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.

(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)

Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.

Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.

Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:

Now, back on topic :)

I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:


That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.

It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...

Thanks. That looks like a great case there too!

I hope it's nice in person. I have a cheapo $2 gel case in smokey black I got on Ebay. Looks nice, but tons of watermarking, and the fit is so-so. Hard to get on right. And the volume button cover on that cheapo case sucks. Hopefully this will be a good compromise.

- remove the click wheel
- extend the screen to fill up the front face
- slap in a multi touch display
- 220GB for movie watching & games, lotsa games
;)

This is an iPod Tocuh, I like that Apple keep the Classic. Arguably it's the product which helped them become the company they are today. Would be a shame to see it die. Also I know a few people who are die hard Classic fans. They dont want games, touch screens and all that nonsense.

Whats wrong with just having a simple mp3 Player?

But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.

It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.

In addition, Core 2 Duo vs Core Duo performance increase really isn't all that dramatic:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808

Certainly not worth buying one to upgrade your current Yonah machine, assuming that really would be possible without some sort of EFI update.

While Merom isn't much faster than Yonah, Conroe in an iMac would be superb with the faster clock and bus speeds.

Actually, it's quite dramatic. From those benchmarks, Intel's claims are correct; at the SAME CLOCK SPEED, Merom is 20% faster than Yonah, however, Merom comes at a higher clock speed at the same price as Yonah, making the difference even more dramatic. A 2.33 Merom is the price of a 2.16 Yonah.

And it's 64-bit.

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

ell amp; nikki running scared

---

---

---

---

Comments:

There are 0 comments for ell & nikki running scared