m4rc
Mar 24, 03:02 AM
But Apple's market is shrinking.....
What you are possibly forgetting is that although, yes, Apple's market share may be shrinking, the market it self - the number of units actualy shifted - is growing at massive rates. I don't really have to explain percentages now do I, it is obvious that 1.7% or whatever it is of 10,000,000 (a figure pulled from the air, I have NO idea how many units are shifted :)) is a much higher number than say 5% of 1,000,000. Apple is shifting more units - may not be computers, iPods are obviously helping Apple to succeed, and do remember that some of these iPod users are going to like the thing so much that they start taking a healthy interest in the rest of Apple's product range.
Apple may be many things, but the way they have turned there fortunes around, going from the brink to billions in the bank and zero debt, shows the one thing they are not is stupid. They realise what the market is doing, and are releasing the products that make the most profit. It is all about profit, as in pretty much any bussiness. I started my business doing I.T Support, Servicing, Installations etc. I found a market niche where I could make some serious profit, and have completely remodelled the company to that, even though what we as a company always wanted to do was I.T Services. You have to go where the money is. And I obviouslly don't know the numbers, but I would bet that the profit does not come with shifting units that make you a few dollars just to increase your market share a little.
I like the references people have made to other iconic brands - BMW, Ferrari, Tiffany's, there are many. These companies could all increase their market share massively by selling cheaper stripped down products, and to some extent BMW is doing just this, but to go for a car that aims at the bottom end of the market, that would hurt BMW too much. More likely, they would aquire a low end car manufacturer and improve the organisation, a little like VAG and Seat and Skoda - may not have all of those brands in the states though.
I would like to see Apple increasing it's market share too, but not at any cost. It would be very easy to just chuck out a budget box and lose money on it, what would thay gain? Lower profits possibley, and an increased market share, but to what end? Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable. Apple know's it's business, and it will do whatever it has to do to succeed and profit. I do agree however, that they have current issues over product quality and service support, but again, these will be sorted over time.
Marc
What you are possibly forgetting is that although, yes, Apple's market share may be shrinking, the market it self - the number of units actualy shifted - is growing at massive rates. I don't really have to explain percentages now do I, it is obvious that 1.7% or whatever it is of 10,000,000 (a figure pulled from the air, I have NO idea how many units are shifted :)) is a much higher number than say 5% of 1,000,000. Apple is shifting more units - may not be computers, iPods are obviously helping Apple to succeed, and do remember that some of these iPod users are going to like the thing so much that they start taking a healthy interest in the rest of Apple's product range.
Apple may be many things, but the way they have turned there fortunes around, going from the brink to billions in the bank and zero debt, shows the one thing they are not is stupid. They realise what the market is doing, and are releasing the products that make the most profit. It is all about profit, as in pretty much any bussiness. I started my business doing I.T Support, Servicing, Installations etc. I found a market niche where I could make some serious profit, and have completely remodelled the company to that, even though what we as a company always wanted to do was I.T Services. You have to go where the money is. And I obviouslly don't know the numbers, but I would bet that the profit does not come with shifting units that make you a few dollars just to increase your market share a little.
I like the references people have made to other iconic brands - BMW, Ferrari, Tiffany's, there are many. These companies could all increase their market share massively by selling cheaper stripped down products, and to some extent BMW is doing just this, but to go for a car that aims at the bottom end of the market, that would hurt BMW too much. More likely, they would aquire a low end car manufacturer and improve the organisation, a little like VAG and Seat and Skoda - may not have all of those brands in the states though.
I would like to see Apple increasing it's market share too, but not at any cost. It would be very easy to just chuck out a budget box and lose money on it, what would thay gain? Lower profits possibley, and an increased market share, but to what end? Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable. Apple know's it's business, and it will do whatever it has to do to succeed and profit. I do agree however, that they have current issues over product quality and service support, but again, these will be sorted over time.
Marc
chelsel
Mar 24, 02:19 PM
I currently have the nVidia GT 120. The only upgrade option I've found for my Early 2009 Mac Pro is the ATI Radeon 5870. Are there other options available now?
yellow
Jan 4, 07:59 AM
Not mounted, but they are in the toolbox, along with a M2 that someone can operate while standing in the bed. :D
Mah-Duce! :cool:
Wow, a lota rich folks with fancy cars in this thread! :)
Mah-Duce! :cool:
Wow, a lota rich folks with fancy cars in this thread! :)
kristoffer4
May 4, 10:21 AM
But this will become confusing to some. Some will ask why can I delete some apps this way and others I have to move manually to the trash?
My girlfriend complained the other day that installing new programs is a bit of a pain. I showed her the app store and her response was but what if the programs I want is not in the app store? In this case VLC.
My girlfriend complained the other day that installing new programs is a bit of a pain. I showed her the app store and her response was but what if the programs I want is not in the app store? In this case VLC.
chutch15
Sep 13, 07:04 AM
It does not. With this new glass, I don't feel I need one. A screen protector is far softer and would take more damage in dents and scratches, not to mention expensive (and a pain) to replace.
~Shard~
Sep 7, 11:47 PM
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
Surely
Nov 25, 11:12 PM
^^^^^Could I recommend a case for that?
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_qOspc7lt4co/SphSBsZ2uPI/AAAAAAAAAOA/Ll7qyPM-Fgo/IMG_2784.JPG
:D
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_qOspc7lt4co/SphSBsZ2uPI/AAAAAAAAAOA/Ll7qyPM-Fgo/IMG_2784.JPG
:D
Plymouthbreezer
Aug 7, 12:55 AM
Tis great. Can't wait.
strabes
Apr 2, 07:15 PM
"Technology gets out of the way"
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
apb3
Aug 19, 10:38 AM
If Apple do that then iPod sales will die whenever their competitors are offer all the other services along with an MP3 player. Apple isn't about conservatisim and playing it safe, the reason the iPod was a success was precisely the opposite: innovation.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Eidorian
Aug 25, 12:09 PM
CPU temp is a result of how efficient the heat dissipation is relative to the heat generated by the CPU... so without knowing how the heat dissipation capabilities varied between the two systems you cannot make much of a judgement on the CPU itself.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 03:06 PM
ooooh. the rare red-crested triple-post!
That's an infraction-and-a-half!
In my early, more naive days here at MR I got dinged for just putting two in a row.
Personally, I thought it was a little draconian.
But I learned my lesson. :D
That's an infraction-and-a-half!
In my early, more naive days here at MR I got dinged for just putting two in a row.
Personally, I thought it was a little draconian.
But I learned my lesson. :D
KnightWRX
Mar 24, 01:36 PM
Unless Apple gets clever and uses ThunderBolt for connecting external graphics cards, after all it is a PCI-E based connector.
That's not clever at all. You'd still be stuck with the Intel GPU on the internal screen.
That's not clever at all. You'd still be stuck with the Intel GPU on the internal screen.
BenRoethig
Nov 28, 07:59 AM
Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?
Might have something to do with the fact that it matches the computer. However, the vast majority of Apple vs Dell display battles, even in the Mac community go to Dell. By the way, of the 23" displays tested last year, the one recommended by Macworld wasn't the Cinema Display, it only got 3.5 mice. The winner was actually an HP, which also by the way, was roughly the same price as the ACD at the time. It's 24" successor is about the same price as the dell. Same of their 20" Give all the "professional quality" justifications you want, the price of the components went down. Apple's making a ton off of giant margins because they know there are some who want that Apple logo so badly they'll pay twice as much to get it.
Might have something to do with the fact that it matches the computer. However, the vast majority of Apple vs Dell display battles, even in the Mac community go to Dell. By the way, of the 23" displays tested last year, the one recommended by Macworld wasn't the Cinema Display, it only got 3.5 mice. The winner was actually an HP, which also by the way, was roughly the same price as the ACD at the time. It's 24" successor is about the same price as the dell. Same of their 20" Give all the "professional quality" justifications you want, the price of the components went down. Apple's making a ton off of giant margins because they know there are some who want that Apple logo so badly they'll pay twice as much to get it.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 04:40 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
Stella
Jun 22, 01:13 PM
Sounds OK - run the apps on your apple mobile as your desktop.
As long as iOS didn't replace OSX.... many people would be pissed if desktop apps were controlled by Apple.
As long as iOS didn't replace OSX.... many people would be pissed if desktop apps were controlled by Apple.
jeff303
Jul 20, 05:45 PM
Stock-price is irrelevant, what matter is the market-capitalization. Quite often I see people comparing two companies and saying stuff like "Company A has a shareprice of $50, whereas Company B has a shareprice of $60. Therefore Company B is better".
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
Not quite. The main thing that makes a stock attractive is consistent growth and strong financials (increasing profits, increasing tax liability, decreasing percentage of operating costs, etc.) This is the reason Apple's stock looks so good right now; today's announcement shows strong growth this quarter and suggests the trend will continue.
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
Not quite. The main thing that makes a stock attractive is consistent growth and strong financials (increasing profits, increasing tax liability, decreasing percentage of operating costs, etc.) This is the reason Apple's stock looks so good right now; today's announcement shows strong growth this quarter and suggests the trend will continue.
rezenclowd3
Nov 24, 04:50 PM
Gran Turismo 5: Collector's Edition (PSN: copenmind, if you wanna race :D ).
I am just bummed that the game part of it blows. Of course the sim part is pretty damn good. Damage....eh...blows. AI....blows. Still, its all about the online for me. I'll hit you up for some online play. I don't remember my PSN identity atm...
I am just bummed that the game part of it blows. Of course the sim part is pretty damn good. Damage....eh...blows. AI....blows. Still, its all about the online for me. I'll hit you up for some online play. I don't remember my PSN identity atm...
Jason Beck
Mar 25, 04:49 PM
Wireless controllers for iPad and TV dock or something please.
Multimedia
Aug 29, 10:25 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608macmini.html) to have information on the rumored revision (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml) to the Mac Mini. According to the site, Apple will replace the existing Core Solo model with the existing 1.66 GHz Core Duo model, and add a 1.83 GHz Core Duo model, effectively eliminating all single-core CPUs from Apple's computer product line.
The new systems are said to be "ready for production." Think Secret believes the models will be introduced in a few weeks time with little fanfare, although not totally under the radar like the last Mac Mini update (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050930023909.shtml).Not Core 2 Duo??!! :eek: :confused: :( I can't beleive they are not going to go Core 2 Duo in the mini before Thanksgiving.Only if they don't drop prices. Just depends what they charge, if they had core solo for $399 sales would go through the roof.And Apple would be losing money with every sale. :rolleyes:
And for all you Yonah FanBoys out there I say you are completely out of touch with reality living in some sort of parallel dimension where old obsolete stopgap technology prevails beyond it's short useful lifespan. :) It makes no sense to me why would a laptop be more powerful than a desktop. If you're gonna stay with core duo why not just make the mini a 1.83 & 2.00 GHz Core Duo machine like the macbooks. 1.66 & 1.83 on a core duo is pathetic in my opinions and solidifies my believe that the mini and i will never get along....at least for now. Thats just too much crippling to handle.Here here. I totally agree. Staying with Core Duo is insane, rude and greedy.
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608macmini.html) to have information on the rumored revision (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml) to the Mac Mini. According to the site, Apple will replace the existing Core Solo model with the existing 1.66 GHz Core Duo model, and add a 1.83 GHz Core Duo model, effectively eliminating all single-core CPUs from Apple's computer product line.
The new systems are said to be "ready for production." Think Secret believes the models will be introduced in a few weeks time with little fanfare, although not totally under the radar like the last Mac Mini update (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050930023909.shtml).Not Core 2 Duo??!! :eek: :confused: :( I can't beleive they are not going to go Core 2 Duo in the mini before Thanksgiving.Only if they don't drop prices. Just depends what they charge, if they had core solo for $399 sales would go through the roof.And Apple would be losing money with every sale. :rolleyes:
And for all you Yonah FanBoys out there I say you are completely out of touch with reality living in some sort of parallel dimension where old obsolete stopgap technology prevails beyond it's short useful lifespan. :) It makes no sense to me why would a laptop be more powerful than a desktop. If you're gonna stay with core duo why not just make the mini a 1.83 & 2.00 GHz Core Duo machine like the macbooks. 1.66 & 1.83 on a core duo is pathetic in my opinions and solidifies my believe that the mini and i will never get along....at least for now. Thats just too much crippling to handle.Here here. I totally agree. Staying with Core Duo is insane, rude and greedy.
jbomber
Jan 13, 06:03 PM
am i the only one who doesn't think the name is as awful as people think? :D
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
Fisse
Apr 2, 10:52 PM
Running an ad for a product they don't have in stock in their own stores?
slu
Jul 18, 10:07 AM
Good. I want to be able to rent TV shows as well. You can really only watch The Daily Show once.
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
rasmasyean
Apr 8, 12:22 AM
Off Topic from Lybia. In some way I think WWII (or parts of it) has become a bit too mythological. Oh, and I am personally getting tired of hearing "The Greatest Generation" line getting used all the time by prominent figures in the country.
Back On Topic.
I don't really know what you mean by "mythological", but I guess you might be talking about how WWII is in a lot of movies and such. But I think that's just because of the timeline of TV/Video advancements to rapidly spread stories about psuedo-history.
If anything, the Cold War is more "mythological". Although not many ppl (of the belligerants themselves) actually fought and died, the existance of the Cold War gave rise to such advanced technology that has made the US "mythological". Rocketry, intercontinental filght, stealth, precision bombing, spacecraft, digital imaging, computers, the INTERNET.
Before WWII I don't think you can call the US a dominant world power. If anything the British were better...and especially the Royal Navy (although today is like a pale shadow of the US Navy) was the sheet...next to the Germans some may argue, of course. The US was just "protected" by geography and was an industrial revolution giant able to covert impregnable factories into war machines. Not that the highly capitalistic nature of US business moguls didn't help, naturally.
I mean, maybe the Nuclear Age was ushered by the US, but even that wasn't because of ppl who grew up in the US. It's more credited to ppl who like fled other parts of the world to be "safe" in the US. And of course, after WWII, many more "mythological minds" were "captured" and/or "found a haven" in the land of the last man standing...to give rise to Cold War toys.
Back On Topic.
I don't really know what you mean by "mythological", but I guess you might be talking about how WWII is in a lot of movies and such. But I think that's just because of the timeline of TV/Video advancements to rapidly spread stories about psuedo-history.
If anything, the Cold War is more "mythological". Although not many ppl (of the belligerants themselves) actually fought and died, the existance of the Cold War gave rise to such advanced technology that has made the US "mythological". Rocketry, intercontinental filght, stealth, precision bombing, spacecraft, digital imaging, computers, the INTERNET.
Before WWII I don't think you can call the US a dominant world power. If anything the British were better...and especially the Royal Navy (although today is like a pale shadow of the US Navy) was the sheet...next to the Germans some may argue, of course. The US was just "protected" by geography and was an industrial revolution giant able to covert impregnable factories into war machines. Not that the highly capitalistic nature of US business moguls didn't help, naturally.
I mean, maybe the Nuclear Age was ushered by the US, but even that wasn't because of ppl who grew up in the US. It's more credited to ppl who like fled other parts of the world to be "safe" in the US. And of course, after WWII, many more "mythological minds" were "captured" and/or "found a haven" in the land of the last man standing...to give rise to Cold War toys.