freeny
Sep 6, 09:49 AM
Just as others, I am waiting on the merom MBP. People are ansy about this because the current MBP is known to those who knew about the merom as a "place holder" until the actual install of the merom. the merom was built for laptops and of course the laptops will be the last machines to actually recieve it. The order in which apple is updating their computers with this new chip is not logical to the consumer but may very well be logical to apple $$$.
Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
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?
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?
PBF
Apr 7, 04:57 AM
Very minor one: instead of the spinning wheel, now it actually says "Updating..." when, um, updating. :D
http://cl.ly/5pct/img.png
http://cl.ly/5pct/img.png
DStaal
Sep 7, 11:34 AM
On the rental vs. purchase argument...
I'm not going to touch which one is 'better' for videos at the moment. I have opinions, but nevermind.
Let's work on the technolocial aspects for a moment, shall we?
Rental requires working DRM. Period. Absolutely. Otherwise there is no way for it to be just rental: you have the file, you can watch it whenever.
Purchase doesn't. You get the file, you can use forever, because you own it.
There is no unbreakable DRM scheme. It doesn't exist today, it probably never will. This is because you, the consumer, are required to be able to decrypt the files sometimes but not others. Which means you have all the info needed to decrypt it. Which means, sooner or later, that someone will figure out how to access that info when they want to, not when the software wants to.
So, Apple requiring a purchase model is just recognizing the limitations of the technology. They have nothing they can 'take back' at the end of a rental period, and it is no cheaper (it's actually more expensive) for them to rent something to you.
There is an apparent temporary advantage to the rental model to the movie studios, since they can charge you multiple times for the same movie. It costs Apple just as much to 'rent' you a movie or sell it to you, so Apple has no advantage, and you get the same file either way.
If you don't want to keep it, just throw it out. Same difference. The rest is pricing games.
I'm not going to touch which one is 'better' for videos at the moment. I have opinions, but nevermind.
Let's work on the technolocial aspects for a moment, shall we?
Rental requires working DRM. Period. Absolutely. Otherwise there is no way for it to be just rental: you have the file, you can watch it whenever.
Purchase doesn't. You get the file, you can use forever, because you own it.
There is no unbreakable DRM scheme. It doesn't exist today, it probably never will. This is because you, the consumer, are required to be able to decrypt the files sometimes but not others. Which means you have all the info needed to decrypt it. Which means, sooner or later, that someone will figure out how to access that info when they want to, not when the software wants to.
So, Apple requiring a purchase model is just recognizing the limitations of the technology. They have nothing they can 'take back' at the end of a rental period, and it is no cheaper (it's actually more expensive) for them to rent something to you.
There is an apparent temporary advantage to the rental model to the movie studios, since they can charge you multiple times for the same movie. It costs Apple just as much to 'rent' you a movie or sell it to you, so Apple has no advantage, and you get the same file either way.
If you don't want to keep it, just throw it out. Same difference. The rest is pricing games.
theBB
Jul 18, 12:18 PM
You cannot rent an HD movie from Blockbuster or Netflix, so what makes you think "Apple has to offer HD quality". There is no need to have better quality than competitors while also providing more convenience.
What is so wrong about stereo sound? A lot of people use the speakers of their TVs for the sound of a movie. Most movie do not really take advantage of sourround sound that much, where you feel like the sound is coming from the left or from behind etc. You might as well use your 5 speakers in stereo mode.
$2 per rental ain't gonna happen. That's a pipedream. If movie indutry is licensing movies to Movielink for $4-5, it is not gonna let Apple do this for much lower prices. At that price it would be much more expensive than Netflix and with a much smaller library, so my subscription will have to stay. I can only use Apple's service as an add-on, when I really want to watch a movie, but Netflix DVD is still in the mail. Besides, I would have to get a Mac mini for the living room. Well, the cost just keeps adding up.
What is so wrong about stereo sound? A lot of people use the speakers of their TVs for the sound of a movie. Most movie do not really take advantage of sourround sound that much, where you feel like the sound is coming from the left or from behind etc. You might as well use your 5 speakers in stereo mode.
$2 per rental ain't gonna happen. That's a pipedream. If movie indutry is licensing movies to Movielink for $4-5, it is not gonna let Apple do this for much lower prices. At that price it would be much more expensive than Netflix and with a much smaller library, so my subscription will have to stay. I can only use Apple's service as an add-on, when I really want to watch a movie, but Netflix DVD is still in the mail. Besides, I would have to get a Mac mini for the living room. Well, the cost just keeps adding up.
marksman
Mar 25, 05:57 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
MonkeyClaw
Oct 23, 08:56 AM
This news just in....
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
ROFL!!!!
I dunno, I really have a gut feeling that tomorrow will be the day, but in the end, my PowerBook G4 is still gettin the job done :D
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
ROFL!!!!
I dunno, I really have a gut feeling that tomorrow will be the day, but in the end, my PowerBook G4 is still gettin the job done :D
sluthy
Jan 2, 06:35 PM
Did that not just happen ... :cool:
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
...
Less likely:
....
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
...
Unlikely:
...
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
...
:( How long ago were the MBPs updated? Because I'm looking to buy Jan/Feb and I'm not confident that the current spec is competitive. It at least needs a HD screen.
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
...
Less likely:
....
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
...
Unlikely:
...
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
...
:( How long ago were the MBPs updated? Because I'm looking to buy Jan/Feb and I'm not confident that the current spec is competitive. It at least needs a HD screen.
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?
im_to_hyper
Jul 19, 03:47 PM
Other than recently, how often have Mac sales been in the million+ a quarter? Didn't 2002 or something only see that many shipped the entire year?
skellener
Mar 22, 07:44 PM
As long as it still sells, might as well keep making it.
leekohler
Mar 24, 12:15 PM
This is kinda funny actually.
"Our country wasn't founded on a "God" principle. well lets see
July 4, 1776:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Creator.....not god then who was it? Those atoms that just happened to bond together gave us rights?
Oh and again.
"he separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
So you'll argue. Separation of Church & State.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Respecting: admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements
Congress shall make no law in favor of one religion, or prohibiting one. Lets see Christianity isn't the only belief system that frowns upon homosexuality so that kills your one religion statement.
There's so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin. So let's start here- there are also religions supportive of homosexuality, such as Buddhism and Wicca. So there goes your argument. There are even many branches of Christianity that are supportive as well.
Now to the app. I don't see how its offensive. Would an anti-smoker app be offensive? Diligent smokers sign a petition with a minority of iOS users because it discriminates again their lifestyle.
This app is offensive because of what Exodus does- uses junk science to try to "cure" people who are not sick in the first place. They have done serious harm to many people. If you'd like sources and data, I'll be glad to provide it.
Apple holds the right to take it down, but I don't think it should have been.
They can do what they want.
No trying to substitute facts and history with your own beliefs. Homosexuality is not natural, there is no natural way for reproduction which is the whole purpose of sex or the "reproduction system" as it may be classified.
Oh- there's one in every bunch. :rolleyes:
Homosexuality is indeed natural. It's found in every animal species on the planet. There are good reasons for it- population control being one of them. Don't know if you've noticed, but humans are hardly at risk of dying out. We could do with less people. It's nature's birth control.
"Our country wasn't founded on a "God" principle. well lets see
July 4, 1776:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Creator.....not god then who was it? Those atoms that just happened to bond together gave us rights?
Oh and again.
"he separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
So you'll argue. Separation of Church & State.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Respecting: admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements
Congress shall make no law in favor of one religion, or prohibiting one. Lets see Christianity isn't the only belief system that frowns upon homosexuality so that kills your one religion statement.
There's so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin. So let's start here- there are also religions supportive of homosexuality, such as Buddhism and Wicca. So there goes your argument. There are even many branches of Christianity that are supportive as well.
Now to the app. I don't see how its offensive. Would an anti-smoker app be offensive? Diligent smokers sign a petition with a minority of iOS users because it discriminates again their lifestyle.
This app is offensive because of what Exodus does- uses junk science to try to "cure" people who are not sick in the first place. They have done serious harm to many people. If you'd like sources and data, I'll be glad to provide it.
Apple holds the right to take it down, but I don't think it should have been.
They can do what they want.
No trying to substitute facts and history with your own beliefs. Homosexuality is not natural, there is no natural way for reproduction which is the whole purpose of sex or the "reproduction system" as it may be classified.
Oh- there's one in every bunch. :rolleyes:
Homosexuality is indeed natural. It's found in every animal species on the planet. There are good reasons for it- population control being one of them. Don't know if you've noticed, but humans are hardly at risk of dying out. We could do with less people. It's nature's birth control.
Blue Velvet
Nov 28, 01:22 PM
Honestly, why does M$ keeps trying to "innovate" on each and every market, instead of just focusing on the PC platform?
Because they fear the iPod and what it — and its ecosystem — may potentially evolve into; becoming a platform in its own right, particularly with the convergence of multimedia in the home.
Because they fear the iPod and what it — and its ecosystem — may potentially evolve into; becoming a platform in its own right, particularly with the convergence of multimedia in the home.
MusicMacPro
Aug 6, 10:54 PM
Notice in the banner picture how the PowerMac G5 Tower is showing only it's side?!
Anyone think it's maybe actually a MacPro's side...therefore they wouldn't show its front or back (dual optical drives, reconfigured back)?
Anyone think it's maybe actually a MacPro's side...therefore they wouldn't show its front or back (dual optical drives, reconfigured back)?
roland.g
Sep 1, 12:48 PM
17" iMac - EDU only or $1099
20" iMac - 2.16 $1,499
23" iMac - 2.33 $1,799 or $1,899 no way they put a $1,999 or higher price tag on an iMac, not even if they call it iMac Pro
20" iMac - 2.16 $1,499
23" iMac - 2.33 $1,799 or $1,899 no way they put a $1,999 or higher price tag on an iMac, not even if they call it iMac Pro
kalun
Oct 23, 11:00 PM
Meanwhile, product checks (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2163) indicate that several European hardware distributers "ran dry" of MacBook and MacBook Pro inventory several weeks ago.
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
.jpg "quotes for mom. happy irthday")
Detlev
Jul 18, 08:42 PM
- People don't watch movies over and over like they do songs
Ah, I must not be people then and kids must not be either. How many times have you seen [pick your favorite movie] on DVD?
- Renting is cheaper than buying
Actually, that is not true UNLESS you are one of the people you mentioned above and then it would still depend on where or how you are getting rentals. Then you would have to state whether you mean per viewing or per title.
The rest I agree with.
Ah, I must not be people then and kids must not be either. How many times have you seen [pick your favorite movie] on DVD?
- Renting is cheaper than buying
Actually, that is not true UNLESS you are one of the people you mentioned above and then it would still depend on where or how you are getting rentals. Then you would have to state whether you mean per viewing or per title.
The rest I agree with.
TBi
Nov 21, 01:14 PM
Mainstream? I doubt any 8+ core users will be mainstream outside of commercial use.
Just like everything, 8 cores will become main stream sooner rather than later. If the PS3 gets popular then 7-core will be very mainstream soon enough.
As programs get more and more multithreaded the speed increases from multiple cores will get bigger and bigger. Even if you think about a browser. The browser can itself have multiple threads, for different tabs, the display area, downloading new pages, downloading in the back ground. Then think about java, flash, pdf's in browser and all this web 2.0 stuff. They can all run in separate threads. I know none of these are particularly processor intensive (yet...) but you can see where there could be a use for multi processor in the future.
In less than ten years i can see us with MMP computers, Massively multi-processor.
Just like everything, 8 cores will become main stream sooner rather than later. If the PS3 gets popular then 7-core will be very mainstream soon enough.
As programs get more and more multithreaded the speed increases from multiple cores will get bigger and bigger. Even if you think about a browser. The browser can itself have multiple threads, for different tabs, the display area, downloading new pages, downloading in the back ground. Then think about java, flash, pdf's in browser and all this web 2.0 stuff. They can all run in separate threads. I know none of these are particularly processor intensive (yet...) but you can see where there could be a use for multi processor in the future.
In less than ten years i can see us with MMP computers, Massively multi-processor.
Spongebobk
Apr 19, 12:18 PM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and even moreso portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
You can't beat the real estate that the iMac offers!:)
You can't beat the real estate that the iMac offers!:)
spencers
Nov 26, 07:11 PM
I just bought a mazda 3 to on Monday, I love it, its fun to drive to.
To where?
To where?
cwerdna
Dec 5, 01:55 AM
According to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6140649.html "SanDisk tied Apple Computer, with 39 percent of all MP3 players sold for the week, but the similarities end there. iPods led all manufacturers with 66 percent of dollars spent in the category, while SanDisk had 18 percent...
Those figures do not include iPods sold directly from Apple, which does not release sales figures from Apple.com or Apple stores...
Microsoft's much-ballyhooed MP3 player, the Zune, captured 2.1 percent of units sold, tying with Disney and coming in behind Apple, SanDisk, Creative and Memorex."
Those figures do not include iPods sold directly from Apple, which does not release sales figures from Apple.com or Apple stores...
Microsoft's much-ballyhooed MP3 player, the Zune, captured 2.1 percent of units sold, tying with Disney and coming in behind Apple, SanDisk, Creative and Memorex."
BornAgainMac
Sep 6, 09:14 AM
These new Mac Mini's don't seem like a great deal anymore. I think it was done on purpose to get people to upscale to a higher model.
Alistair.nz
Apr 21, 08:51 PM
Hi, i'm probably pushing my luck by asking this but, i was wondering if anyone knew how long after the U.S. release the rest of the world gets the imac released?
I realise there is no set U.S release date at the moment, but judging from past releases will it be staggered like the iPad 2 or will it be released simultaneously across the world?
Cheers
I realise there is no set U.S release date at the moment, but judging from past releases will it be staggered like the iPad 2 or will it be released simultaneously across the world?
Cheers
AppliedVisual
Nov 25, 06:50 PM
I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
The quad core CPUs in Xserve definitely make sense. However, I'm not sure what you're saying.. Apple started shipping Xserve on Nov. 1st with the dual-core Xeon CPUs and they're currently listed with 24hour shipping times.
ffakr
The quad core CPUs in Xserve definitely make sense. However, I'm not sure what you're saying.. Apple started shipping Xserve on Nov. 1st with the dual-core Xeon CPUs and they're currently listed with 24hour shipping times.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario