NebulaClash
May 4, 08:56 AM
Finally... They realized the word "Magic" is childish.
"Magic" appeals to children as well as those of us who can still look at the world in child-like wonder. That's a gift, not a curse, and I'm glad Apple still markets the iPad as magical. It is.
"Magic" appeals to children as well as those of us who can still look at the world in child-like wonder. That's a gift, not a curse, and I'm glad Apple still markets the iPad as magical. It is.
SuperJudge
Apr 12, 09:04 PM
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
I almost didn't recognize him without his skullet! :eek:
I almost didn't recognize him without his skullet! :eek:
Edge100
Oct 23, 12:26 PM
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
mac-er
Jan 12, 08:46 AM
Steve wasn't smug. He's a good salesman.
Plus, what you were seeing was his RDF...apparently you are impervious to it.
Plus, what you were seeing was his RDF...apparently you are impervious to it.
morespce54
May 4, 10:15 AM
...One of the main promotional points of Android as its popularity has soared has been the unregulated nature of the app marketplaces for the platform. As opposed to Apple's belief that customers are better served by a marketplace in which Apple serves as the gatekeeper to ensure that apps meet certain standards, Android has been much more of a free-for-all with developers free to release nearly any type of application for use on compatible devices....
Users can of course work around carrier restrictions with methods known as "sideloading" that allow users to install apps through unapproved sources, but most casual users are undoubtedly sticking to mainstream, authorized marketplaces such as the Android Market for their needs.
That's funny...
Users can of course work around carrier restrictions with methods known as "sideloading" that allow users to install apps through unapproved sources, but most casual users are undoubtedly sticking to mainstream, authorized marketplaces such as the Android Market for their needs.
That's funny...
lbro
Apr 22, 06:28 PM
I think everybody should be able to see how many positives and negatives specific posters have given. e.g. I gave a few +1s today and no -1s so somewhere on my profile or under my username it should say 3 +1s given, 0 -1s given or something like that.
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:26 AM
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
Oh, we broke it alright. Hey, I used to play Quake against a mate on a 33.6k dial-up connection and it did just fine....
At least my dial-up connection isn't all snobby like your high-speed connection. Mine's got it's feet firmly planted on the ground. Well, it's up to it's hips in mud really. I hate dial-up.
Oh, we broke it alright. Hey, I used to play Quake against a mate on a 33.6k dial-up connection and it did just fine....
At least my dial-up connection isn't all snobby like your high-speed connection. Mine's got it's feet firmly planted on the ground. Well, it's up to it's hips in mud really. I hate dial-up.
err404
May 2, 09:47 AM
I kinda liked the fact i could look at where I've been with my phone.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:46 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
You need to indicate where you fit in NT, me, 95, 98 and any other versions that might exist. You haven't included all the versions.
Look through the thread. There are other various arguments about how the versions are grouped.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
You need to indicate where you fit in NT, me, 95, 98 and any other versions that might exist. You haven't included all the versions.
Look through the thread. There are other various arguments about how the versions are grouped.
jonharris200
Jan 5, 04:23 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
-aggie-
Jul 21, 10:56 AM
Well, if they treat their customers this way then what do they expect?
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
I know. Damn you, Apple, for giving me a better phone than my 3G!! Damn you!!!
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
I know. Damn you, Apple, for giving me a better phone than my 3G!! Damn you!!!
balamw
Oct 4, 05:11 PM
The decryption key is top secret, not the encryption key.
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
Jasonbot
Mar 21, 09:29 AM
Well now you have an escuse to go out and buy an Elite xbox 360 in black :D
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Asia Argento hat jetzt auch
ASIA ARGENTO:La actriz Asia
is Asia Argento as the
See All Asia Argento Pics »
ASIA ARGENTO
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 10:33 AM
...I know the media invite says "It's Showtime" and we know what the connotation is for that. But I find it interesting that the theater where the event is being held is done up with huge silhouette iPod ads, which doesn't really fit the "It's Showtime" theme, unless the new true video iPod is also going to be announced in conjunction with the movie download service. :confused: :confused: :confused:
Prom1
Sep 8, 12:30 PM
So much complaints about Kanye West.
If you've never listened to different artists in the HipHop/Rap world since 1979; you shouldnt comment about a) attitude of a performer (on stage) b) whether or not their performance was appropriate for a musical announcement of a product or service.
b) is just self explanatory! Musical engagement that announces big artist contractual aggreements of their wares for sale on the iTMS service. Also announcing products that has worldwide appeal to all walks of people and their choices of music!
a) Hip-Hop arrived in the 1990's, but Rap was around since 1979 (just before RUNDMC) - as a pure content not mixed with funk (Whodini).
RAP - is a definition of a lifestyle, highly competive, never succumbing to your competition, and always making moves. Somebody mentioned that the audience didnt appreciate nor is West's listenership; of course but them being shocked is mostly at the cursing; which has been around in music since day one - Rap included but not alone.
I've passed by Lawyers, Doctors, even a Judge (I know because as a youth I got schooled by her) listening to Kanye West, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah. Why? Because it gives them a motivative sense of power, a sense of "I'm above the rest" that most other genre's of music doesnt provide. Rock N Roll comes really close, but from what I've heard, I cannot pick 10 artists/groups in all their albums that brings it like Rap/Hip-Hop.
Apple has been, well fighting the power since day one! Most people forget that. Think Different may not be Apple's slogan anymore, but its still part of their existence. They dont follow the status quo.
I enjoyed the first GarageBand announcement, even though I dont prefer the music of god I forgot his name. Still all music artists are creative; except those 1 hit wonders.
If you've never listened to different artists in the HipHop/Rap world since 1979; you shouldnt comment about a) attitude of a performer (on stage) b) whether or not their performance was appropriate for a musical announcement of a product or service.
b) is just self explanatory! Musical engagement that announces big artist contractual aggreements of their wares for sale on the iTMS service. Also announcing products that has worldwide appeal to all walks of people and their choices of music!
a) Hip-Hop arrived in the 1990's, but Rap was around since 1979 (just before RUNDMC) - as a pure content not mixed with funk (Whodini).
RAP - is a definition of a lifestyle, highly competive, never succumbing to your competition, and always making moves. Somebody mentioned that the audience didnt appreciate nor is West's listenership; of course but them being shocked is mostly at the cursing; which has been around in music since day one - Rap included but not alone.
I've passed by Lawyers, Doctors, even a Judge (I know because as a youth I got schooled by her) listening to Kanye West, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah. Why? Because it gives them a motivative sense of power, a sense of "I'm above the rest" that most other genre's of music doesnt provide. Rock N Roll comes really close, but from what I've heard, I cannot pick 10 artists/groups in all their albums that brings it like Rap/Hip-Hop.
Apple has been, well fighting the power since day one! Most people forget that. Think Different may not be Apple's slogan anymore, but its still part of their existence. They dont follow the status quo.
I enjoyed the first GarageBand announcement, even though I dont prefer the music of god I forgot his name. Still all music artists are creative; except those 1 hit wonders.
lordonuthin
May 10, 08:13 PM
Seing your "adventures", no way I would ever try to do anything on a custom rig...
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
SMM
Jan 12, 07:09 PM
I consider your post to spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
Actually, I find your post to be spot off. I find your portrayal of Mac owners to be shallow, self-serving, stereotyping and weak. I did notice you used the term 'some' in an attempt to mitigate your attack.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
Actually, I find your post to be spot off. I find your portrayal of Mac owners to be shallow, self-serving, stereotyping and weak. I did notice you used the term 'some' in an attempt to mitigate your attack.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
japanime
Mar 25, 03:46 AM
the release in retrospect was a milestone in Apple's transformation from a struggling computer company into the major technology behemoth it is today.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 04:57 PM
Not going to happen. You realise that Apple doesn't give a crap about the 100 nerds out there that want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards? [...]
Your arguments contradict each other, specifically this sentence:
Its a small market segment that will cannibalise both iMac and Mac Pro sales if introduced.
If it's a small market segment then "cannibalize" is completely the wrong term to use. More like "nibble into." That's besides the point, because I completely diasgree with your first premise (that it's a small market segment). I think it's a HUGE market segment. I agree with you that it won't happen, though. Why, you might ask?
Read on...
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them.
Unfortunately this is EXACTLY why Apple ISN'T producing a headless mid-range Mac. They will lose out tremendously on display sales. They either want to sell you a display within the unit (iMac, MacBooks) or sell you a display with the unit (Mini, Pro). Mini users will buy one because A. they're in the store and B. don't know any better. Pro users will buy one because they are top-of-the line, beautiful screens and they, generally, have money to burn. Mid-range users (and prosumers) know well enough that they can get a cheap, good-enough monitor for $200 from NewEgg or eBay (for the daring). Instead, we prosumers either have to settle for the iMac or splurge on the Mac Pro.
Apple is losing sales because of it.
Just the opposite, my friend, just the opposite. Sometimes by blocking out a certain range of products, a company can make more money.
-Clive
Your arguments contradict each other, specifically this sentence:
Its a small market segment that will cannibalise both iMac and Mac Pro sales if introduced.
If it's a small market segment then "cannibalize" is completely the wrong term to use. More like "nibble into." That's besides the point, because I completely diasgree with your first premise (that it's a small market segment). I think it's a HUGE market segment. I agree with you that it won't happen, though. Why, you might ask?
Read on...
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them.
Unfortunately this is EXACTLY why Apple ISN'T producing a headless mid-range Mac. They will lose out tremendously on display sales. They either want to sell you a display within the unit (iMac, MacBooks) or sell you a display with the unit (Mini, Pro). Mini users will buy one because A. they're in the store and B. don't know any better. Pro users will buy one because they are top-of-the line, beautiful screens and they, generally, have money to burn. Mid-range users (and prosumers) know well enough that they can get a cheap, good-enough monitor for $200 from NewEgg or eBay (for the daring). Instead, we prosumers either have to settle for the iMac or splurge on the Mac Pro.
Apple is losing sales because of it.
Just the opposite, my friend, just the opposite. Sometimes by blocking out a certain range of products, a company can make more money.
-Clive
MartiNZ
May 4, 05:40 AM
If you ask Hastings101, he might call it cheesy.
Fantastic, from so early in the thread and it should really have been /thread right there :). And yet no one got on board!
The ad is definitely that, but that's not to say it doesn't do a great marketing job.
Personally (redundant word, I know), I'm still holding back from the device for having no idea for what I would use it. Small World not having been downsized to the iPhone really just doesn't seem like enough of a use case! Maybe when the sequel comes out lol.
Fantastic, from so early in the thread and it should really have been /thread right there :). And yet no one got on board!
The ad is definitely that, but that's not to say it doesn't do a great marketing job.
Personally (redundant word, I know), I'm still holding back from the device for having no idea for what I would use it. Small World not having been downsized to the iPhone really just doesn't seem like enough of a use case! Maybe when the sequel comes out lol.
Swift
Apr 15, 07:20 PM
Notice? They're "open." They have "principles." They're renegades, and they don't have anybody to negotiate, hard-nose, one-to-one, with the old-line companies. They really look down on them anyway. Google Books? They just went ahead and copied millions of them, and then looked around like little angels when the Authors and Publishers said, "No way!" Google TV? Nice idea, but very poor execution -- and no deals with networks or movie companies. So you have to search, a la Google, for previews of movies only. No Hulu. It seems like there's no licensing at all, except maybe Netflix, but then, Netflix goes everywhere.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
zwida
Nov 24, 09:10 AM
Just saved $101 on a BTO 24" iMac and $11 on Parallels. Bought some other random stuff, but no savings.
Now I've got that waiting-for-the-new-computer-to-ship itchiness.
:)
Now I've got that waiting-for-the-new-computer-to-ship itchiness.
:)
Passante
Sep 12, 05:50 AM
i must be truly sad..
i had dreams of ipods and apple store online with new products.. and then i couldn't remember my credit card details.. ahhhh.. it was strange..
i swear, if this whole event flops... i'm gonna throw all of my apple gear out!! lol..
there's so much hype.. the press is all over it today.. got it on bbc news, sky news reports.. IN YOUR FACE everywhere you go..
Please throw you iMac in my direction. :D
i had dreams of ipods and apple store online with new products.. and then i couldn't remember my credit card details.. ahhhh.. it was strange..
i swear, if this whole event flops... i'm gonna throw all of my apple gear out!! lol..
there's so much hype.. the press is all over it today.. got it on bbc news, sky news reports.. IN YOUR FACE everywhere you go..
Please throw you iMac in my direction. :D