antmarobel
Mar 30, 06:57 PM
...waiting...waiting...waiting...I know I'm in Brasilia, but the download "waiting" is ridiculous!!!:mad:
ticman
Nov 7, 03:04 PM
thanks for the utube link. It definitely looks like a sturdy mount even on the dash which tends to not be perfectly smooth.
I am surprised it appears in the middle of the dash in the video. I am hoping to use it closer to left of center on a sloping part of the dash for even easier reachability while driving.
You mentioned your dock is shipping midweek. Did you buy from BottomLine Telecommunications for $90?? Says out of stock and on backorder.
Thanks again.
I am surprised it appears in the middle of the dash in the video. I am hoping to use it closer to left of center on a sloping part of the dash for even easier reachability while driving.
You mentioned your dock is shipping midweek. Did you buy from BottomLine Telecommunications for $90?? Says out of stock and on backorder.
Thanks again.
jholzner
Aug 11, 09:48 AM
Wait a second...if they release it in Paris, won't it no longer qualify for the free ipod?!? :(
It still will qualify. The promo runs through the 16th of September and the Expo ends on the 16th. You'll just have to order it ASAP once it's announced.
It still will qualify. The promo runs through the 16th of September and the Expo ends on the 16th. You'll just have to order it ASAP once it's announced.
Littleodie914
Mar 29, 09:04 AM
The price is actually amazing. MobileMe is $100/year for 20GB. Amazon is $20/year for the same storage plus Amazon is running a promotion through the end of the year where if you buy a digital album from Amazon, you get 1 free year of 20GB of storage.You can't even begin to compare this service to MobileMe's current offerings. This is just space. (And a music player.) MobileMe offers address book, calendar, photo browsing, and other features.
Dropbox is $100/year for 50GB or $200/year for 100GB. Amazon is now offering storage for half those prices. This is going to be devastating for Dropbox since they actually run their entire system off of Amazon Web Services.I do agree here - compared to Dropbox the prices are nice.
...Cloud storage includes redundancy, bandwidth, and syncing tools that add a lot of value. Plus of course the electricity and servers processing power necessary to access the hard drives.Huh? :confused: I think redundancy is the only valid argument here. What do you mean by bandwidth? Transfer speeds uploading to the cloud are hideous compared to USB 2.0. Syncing tools are also readily available for any external drive. External drives barely use any power, 20W during access. Processing power? You're not compressing or analyzing data. Just transferring and storing it. :confused:
Dropbox is $100/year for 50GB or $200/year for 100GB. Amazon is now offering storage for half those prices. This is going to be devastating for Dropbox since they actually run their entire system off of Amazon Web Services.I do agree here - compared to Dropbox the prices are nice.
...Cloud storage includes redundancy, bandwidth, and syncing tools that add a lot of value. Plus of course the electricity and servers processing power necessary to access the hard drives.Huh? :confused: I think redundancy is the only valid argument here. What do you mean by bandwidth? Transfer speeds uploading to the cloud are hideous compared to USB 2.0. Syncing tools are also readily available for any external drive. External drives barely use any power, 20W during access. Processing power? You're not compressing or analyzing data. Just transferring and storing it. :confused:
shelterpaw
Aug 7, 08:15 PM
Apple's $400 price for 500GB HDs is Absurd. Fry's $99 for 400GB Maxtor SATA/300 on Memorial Day is more reasonable wouldn't you say?
.
It is quite a hight price, but when looking into hard drives keep in mind how loud they are. Apple tends to choose quiet drives and Maxtor tends to make really loud drives. Would be a shame to buy such a lovely machine only to put a bunch of loud and whinig drives in it. silentpcreview.com is a good place to go to see which drives are the best. http://www.silentpcreview.com/
Seagate tends to do a good job of keeping the noise down.
.
It is quite a hight price, but when looking into hard drives keep in mind how loud they are. Apple tends to choose quiet drives and Maxtor tends to make really loud drives. Would be a shame to buy such a lovely machine only to put a bunch of loud and whinig drives in it. silentpcreview.com is a good place to go to see which drives are the best. http://www.silentpcreview.com/
Seagate tends to do a good job of keeping the noise down.
logandzwon
Mar 29, 09:46 AM
I seem to remember the "backing up your library" to the "cloud" was tried by someone before. They had software that scanned the CD in your drive and then either ripped it to their servers, or just unlocked access to that album in your account. RIAA brought them down. This seems a little different, and highly wasteful of space. If 500 people upload a copy of "whatever," Amazon has to store 500x the space of "whatever," rather then just unlocking one copy for 500x people. Keep in mind 1 meg of cloud space is easily over 10 megs of physical storage. (RAID, redundancy, geographical peers, backups, etc...)
Amazon... not sure what to make them. They seem to be doing things which obviously will get them sued. I guess they figure if any ONE takes off they will make bank. Either way, I'm excited about this because Apple is great at being the best. The better the competition, the better the Apple product.
Amazon... not sure what to make them. They seem to be doing things which obviously will get them sued. I guess they figure if any ONE takes off they will make bank. Either way, I'm excited about this because Apple is great at being the best. The better the competition, the better the Apple product.
pmz
Apr 25, 10:12 AM
News Flash:
He's a Liar.
He's a Liar.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
maddonkey
Sep 11, 12:45 PM
Has anybody noticed that the shipping times for all Macbooks have gone up to 5-7 days?
Noodlefarmer
Apr 26, 02:47 PM
But if Apple had gotten on board with Verizon a year earlier, those numbers would probably be reversed.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
AT&T gave Apple what they wanted on the iPhone. Verizon wouldn't. And Apple couldn't sell to Verizon until contract expired. Would it have been better to have been on both? Of course. But I don't think even Apple knew how well the iPhone would do. And while many Verizon customers opted for an Android rather than wait, I think it may be interesting to see what happens when they are eligible for new phone. Things could change again.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
AT&T gave Apple what they wanted on the iPhone. Verizon wouldn't. And Apple couldn't sell to Verizon until contract expired. Would it have been better to have been on both? Of course. But I don't think even Apple knew how well the iPhone would do. And while many Verizon customers opted for an Android rather than wait, I think it may be interesting to see what happens when they are eligible for new phone. Things could change again.
ugahairydawgs
Apr 25, 09:42 AM
"We don't track anyone."
Sent from your backyard.
Well done
Sent from your backyard.
Well done
dukebound85
May 4, 05:22 PM
It is the international system, and it does adopt the metric units, and yes the military time is less confusing also.
Not if you are not use to it
I can register 7pm alot faster than 1900
Not if you are not use to it
I can register 7pm alot faster than 1900
BlizzardBomb
Aug 7, 02:37 PM
I'll wait for that until Paris, and if it isn't available then, I'll buy a PC with Core 2 Duo E6600 and GeForce 7900 GT.
Mac OS X not do anything for you? :) I do agree that there is space for a Mid-range desktop.
I think if Apple just made the Mac Mini a bit bigger. They could fit in a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) inside along with a 3.5" Hard Drive and GMA X3000. The 1.86 GHz Conroe kills the Yonah Core Solo in everything and costs less than the Core Solo. A 3.5" Hard Drive is also much better in the value department. Couple this with an option for a Single-Woodcrest Mac Pro and it completely eliminates the need for a mid-range tower.
Mac OS X not do anything for you? :) I do agree that there is space for a Mid-range desktop.
I think if Apple just made the Mac Mini a bit bigger. They could fit in a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) inside along with a 3.5" Hard Drive and GMA X3000. The 1.86 GHz Conroe kills the Yonah Core Solo in everything and costs less than the Core Solo. A 3.5" Hard Drive is also much better in the value department. Couple this with an option for a Single-Woodcrest Mac Pro and it completely eliminates the need for a mid-range tower.
rez7777777
Mar 29, 02:20 PM
Why use Japanese companies over American Companies. If they are made in China by a Japanese company why would that be cheaper than an American company being made in China? Also if the plants are in Japan they are just as expensive or more to produce in Japan as it is in the U.S. Have you seen any cameras or t.v's made in Japan for the U.S? Japanese people will not buy a t.v or camera etc if it's made outside of Japan, that why they pay much more for products made in Japan. If they are not going to make them in their U.S. make them in China for the lowest cost.
Nuvi
Nov 6, 02:23 PM
Bought TomTom car kit and although I still think its too expensive its handy if you travel a lot by air, rent cars and try to keep everything compact. If you don't have a need to switch you GPS from car to car a stand alone unit would be better due to bigger screen and more features.
Regarding the software Navigon works perfectly with the car kit. The features are close to those you could find in high end stand alone unit meaning its light years a ahead of TomTom's iPhone app, which is just as basic as you can get. In some way its funny how TomTom has a "high end" car dock but their iPhone app is more basic then in their entry level stand alone unit.
Regarding the software Navigon works perfectly with the car kit. The features are close to those you could find in high end stand alone unit meaning its light years a ahead of TomTom's iPhone app, which is just as basic as you can get. In some way its funny how TomTom has a "high end" car dock but their iPhone app is more basic then in their entry level stand alone unit.
toddybody
Apr 7, 09:37 AM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
cactus33
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Although I'd absolutely love this, I highly doubt it'll be here for a while.
I think the first step would be increasing displays to like 1800x1080 on the 13", and 1900x1200 on the 15" and 2400x1440 on the 17" - while keeping the same user interface size. That would be awesome.
Then in the next 5-10 years, I'd expect full retina.
I doubt it would be a full jump from 1440x900 --> 3200x2000 on a 15" or something like that.
I think the first step would be increasing displays to like 1800x1080 on the 13", and 1900x1200 on the 15" and 2400x1440 on the 17" - while keeping the same user interface size. That would be awesome.
Then in the next 5-10 years, I'd expect full retina.
I doubt it would be a full jump from 1440x900 --> 3200x2000 on a 15" or something like that.
MacFly123
Mar 30, 04:06 AM
No offense taken, but seriously how is the web interface to my digital locker so offensive?
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:51 PM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06
Popeye206
Apr 20, 05:42 AM
What will you do if Apple do make it bigger?
Well... of course I'll bail on Apple and get an Android or MS based phone!
NOT! :p
Personally, I don't think they will. I think they are more concerned about all their customers - men and woman. Large and small. They know overall feel in the hand for all their customers is important and that it's important that it slips easily in your pocket. I don't think anyone here can argue that Apple is one of the best, if not the best out there right now, at product design. This does not happen by accident... I'm sure they test and try many variations to get where they're at.
There are more important things they can do than mess with the best smart phone screen on the market.
No matter what, there's always going to be competitors with something that's bigger or more. But again, it's not about any single thing that makes the overall product. It's the overall product that makes the iPhone so great.
Well... of course I'll bail on Apple and get an Android or MS based phone!
NOT! :p
Personally, I don't think they will. I think they are more concerned about all their customers - men and woman. Large and small. They know overall feel in the hand for all their customers is important and that it's important that it slips easily in your pocket. I don't think anyone here can argue that Apple is one of the best, if not the best out there right now, at product design. This does not happen by accident... I'm sure they test and try many variations to get where they're at.
There are more important things they can do than mess with the best smart phone screen on the market.
No matter what, there's always going to be competitors with something that's bigger or more. But again, it's not about any single thing that makes the overall product. It's the overall product that makes the iPhone so great.
VicMacs
Apr 25, 09:21 AM
Genius, I say.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 11, 09:41 AM
Mac Pro and Xserve have the Xeon (Woodcrest).
MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac will be upgraded to the Core 2 Duo (Merom).
Mac Mini will probably keep the Core Duo (Yonah).
I agree except I think they will put Conroe in the iMac.
MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac will be upgraded to the Core 2 Duo (Merom).
Mac Mini will probably keep the Core Duo (Yonah).
I agree except I think they will put Conroe in the iMac.
iLilana
Apr 23, 08:51 PM
we wont see it in macs until mid 2012
dba7dba
Apr 26, 03:13 PM
They will activate it for you in store so that shouldn't have been an issue.
what about updates?
what about updates?