SamEllens
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
If you're a novice and start with FCE you won't really find it lacking. When I did a project on FCE after using FCP for 4 years I was constantly irritated by things I use frequently just not being there. I can't remember the specifics - must've blocked it out as a bad dream haha.
If you're a novice and start with FCE you won't really find it lacking. When I did a project on FCE after using FCP for 4 years I was constantly irritated by things I use frequently just not being there. I can't remember the specifics - must've blocked it out as a bad dream haha.
xlii
May 5, 04:10 PM
My neighbor has a 68 Camaro that's in great shape. Hard to believe but this was his first car and he bought it new in... 1968. He's had it ever since.
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 03:06 PM
You people are incorrigible. I do hope people start reading the thread or doing some research before anyone else makes a fool of themselves.
I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.
I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.
the-ep
Mar 24, 01:04 PM
This sounds interesting. Now I'm anticipating the iMac/MP refresh even more....
The possibility of off-the-shelf options looks even better, though. Potential expansion of MP life span?
The possibility of off-the-shelf options looks even better, though. Potential expansion of MP life span?
hyperpasta
Jul 18, 10:23 AM
World Wide DEVELOPER Conference.
This is great news, but if you look at the TS article, it says that they expect not only a movie rental service but also a new iPod nano at WWDC.
WWDC is big enough with Leopard and the Mac Pro... two groundbreaking new products of interest to developers. These iPod announcements would be perfect for a press event in September or October... cheaper or capacity-upgraded full-size iPods, new iPod nanos, iTunes 7 with movie rentals, and maybe new MacBook Pro's and iMacs using Merom and Conroe.
That would make a kickass special event. Or maybe use Apple Expo Paris for that. But please, I don't think they'll totally overload WWDC and turn it into a circus... its a developer conference!
This is great news, but if you look at the TS article, it says that they expect not only a movie rental service but also a new iPod nano at WWDC.
WWDC is big enough with Leopard and the Mac Pro... two groundbreaking new products of interest to developers. These iPod announcements would be perfect for a press event in September or October... cheaper or capacity-upgraded full-size iPods, new iPod nanos, iTunes 7 with movie rentals, and maybe new MacBook Pro's and iMacs using Merom and Conroe.
That would make a kickass special event. Or maybe use Apple Expo Paris for that. But please, I don't think they'll totally overload WWDC and turn it into a circus... its a developer conference!
Edge100
Sep 1, 12:47 PM
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
Object-X
Nov 27, 08:26 PM
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
boncellis
Sep 6, 07:35 PM
There has to be something in the cards that Apple plans to implement that will trump Amazon. I just don't think it will be the iPod this time. What's in store, I wonder...
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 03:35 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
SactoGuy18
Jan 2, 04:41 PM
I personally think we'll see this:
1) 2G iPod nano available in 16 GB edition. Apple drops the 2 GB edition and lowers the price of the 4 GB to $175 and 8 GB to $225.
2) 30 GB 5.5G iPod dropped, replaced by new 40 GB model. 80 GB model has no changes.
3) "True" video iPod (about the size of the Samsung Q1 handheld computer) arrives with 16:9 aspect ratio screen with full touchscreen functions. Will offer either 80 GB or 120 GB hard disk drive capacities.
1) 2G iPod nano available in 16 GB edition. Apple drops the 2 GB edition and lowers the price of the 4 GB to $175 and 8 GB to $225.
2) 30 GB 5.5G iPod dropped, replaced by new 40 GB model. 80 GB model has no changes.
3) "True" video iPod (about the size of the Samsung Q1 handheld computer) arrives with 16:9 aspect ratio screen with full touchscreen functions. Will offer either 80 GB or 120 GB hard disk drive capacities.
ipadder
Oct 15, 10:20 PM
heres a couple of pics of the ebay case i bought for 5 bucks from the USA:
http://imgur.com/kA5eM.jpg
http://imgur.com/Mu3FK.jpg
lots of other colors too, got blue as well.
i didn't have my ipod w me at the time but i can confirm it fits as good as my other 15+ dollar cases
http://imgur.com/kA5eM.jpg
http://imgur.com/Mu3FK.jpg
lots of other colors too, got blue as well.
i didn't have my ipod w me at the time but i can confirm it fits as good as my other 15+ dollar cases
Erwin-Br
May 2, 05:28 PM
No, Microsoft have not got it right. There should be no need for a specific tool to uninstall applications. applications should be self-contained and be deletable with the press of a button�
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
Uhm, not every app can be self-contained, and it's even in Apple's documentation that you need to store your plists OUTSIDE of the App container and in the Library folder instead.
And that makes sense, because for example, there are apps that need to save settings. If you store these settings inside the app, the next time your user updates it the settings are overwritten.
I hate it how dragging a Mac App to the trashcan leaves plists and other files scattered around.
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
Uhm, not every app can be self-contained, and it's even in Apple's documentation that you need to store your plists OUTSIDE of the App container and in the Library folder instead.
And that makes sense, because for example, there are apps that need to save settings. If you store these settings inside the app, the next time your user updates it the settings are overwritten.
I hate it how dragging a Mac App to the trashcan leaves plists and other files scattered around.
iTim314
Apr 2, 02:25 PM
Was like that in DP1 too.
Didn't think to look in DP1. It just hit me to look since that was always peculiar about SL.
Didn't think to look in DP1. It just hit me to look since that was always peculiar about SL.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 10:32 AM
So what are your thoughts? Should Apple have rejected the app?
I don't think that apple should be in the business of approving apps.
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
I don't think that apple should be in the business of approving apps.
I think they should do their best to categorize them and create methods to protect certain age groups from accessing inappropriate apps.
But otherwise get out of the business of approving 'this' while denying 'that'.
milo
Aug 29, 12:31 PM
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
jxyama
Mar 19, 04:44 PM
well for just once I would like the fastest single cpu in one of the consumer models and give it a good video card. thats all not asking for the world.
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
rasmasyean
Mar 18, 08:59 AM
I don't think it (or any of the other times) really had to do much with "democracy" unless it serves the end goal. Secure the oil.
Lets put it this way.
If we let Quadafi "win" which he would, by slaughtering or not...heck it's civil war right? They have a right to kill eachother in war and then the loser will face crimes for it as usual.
If we support the "rebel government", we will get oil favors theoretically from the new regime AND, since we destroyed all Quadafi's high value military assets, we can sell "new and improved" weapons to the new regime.
As always, I think there's a deep economic angle...but this time, it's almost like it's a "wow...cool, someone is fighting again so lets try to maximize our potential future weapons sales by saying saying only ONE side is not allowed to kill ppl! ". It's almost hilarious if you think about it.
Lets put it this way.
If we let Quadafi "win" which he would, by slaughtering or not...heck it's civil war right? They have a right to kill eachother in war and then the loser will face crimes for it as usual.
If we support the "rebel government", we will get oil favors theoretically from the new regime AND, since we destroyed all Quadafi's high value military assets, we can sell "new and improved" weapons to the new regime.
As always, I think there's a deep economic angle...but this time, it's almost like it's a "wow...cool, someone is fighting again so lets try to maximize our potential future weapons sales by saying saying only ONE side is not allowed to kill ppl! ". It's almost hilarious if you think about it.
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 14, 04:16 PM
Consumer Reports says "we still think the same thing" for the third time and that's first page news? Sounds more like they're fishing for free publicity.
Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.
My personal opinion is that you and anyone else like you on here that thinks it's NOT a good idea for Consumer Reports to look out for the best interests of the CONSUMER instead of Apple's bottom line doesn't deserve the time of day, in my humble opinion. You seem to believe that Consumer Reports should simply be an automatic blessing to Apple's profits as if they were acting solely on advertising dollars (like a certain magazine called "Stereo Review" used to do all the time) and shouldn't inform their readers of potential problems. All I can say is THANK GOD that YOU don't work for them!!!! :p
Consumer reports gave a fair and HONEST report on the iPhone giving its highest score based on its merits but gave an honest reason WHY they could not recommend it and let the consumer decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. In short, they are doing their job properly.
So I'll reiterate AGAIN that I do not comprehend how someone like yourself could find fault with that line of reasoning other than to admit that you are a Steve Jobs drone. :rolleyes:
Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.
My personal opinion is that you and anyone else like you on here that thinks it's NOT a good idea for Consumer Reports to look out for the best interests of the CONSUMER instead of Apple's bottom line doesn't deserve the time of day, in my humble opinion. You seem to believe that Consumer Reports should simply be an automatic blessing to Apple's profits as if they were acting solely on advertising dollars (like a certain magazine called "Stereo Review" used to do all the time) and shouldn't inform their readers of potential problems. All I can say is THANK GOD that YOU don't work for them!!!! :p
Consumer reports gave a fair and HONEST report on the iPhone giving its highest score based on its merits but gave an honest reason WHY they could not recommend it and let the consumer decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. In short, they are doing their job properly.
So I'll reiterate AGAIN that I do not comprehend how someone like yourself could find fault with that line of reasoning other than to admit that you are a Steve Jobs drone. :rolleyes:
Bevz
Mar 25, 04:09 PM
This is exactly the kind of stuff I hoped they'd be doing with the TV output :)
One of the many reasons I bought an iPad 2... Which hopefully I'm picking up on Monday :) it's gonna be a good summer :)
One of the many reasons I bought an iPad 2... Which hopefully I'm picking up on Monday :) it's gonna be a good summer :)
MacFan782040
Jul 19, 11:45 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/IPod_sales_quarterly.png
kazmac
Apr 19, 01:31 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing the new iMacs (and eventually Mac Minis).
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
chutch15
Sep 12, 08:30 PM
I really like it. It fits well and I like the material. It provides a good grip, slides nicely into my pocket, but doesn't slide around in my car when I place it on my center console.
I searched for the Belkin case on BestBuy.com then clicked Find in Store. The Concord Pike store was the only one within 30 min of me that showed it as in stock. However, I just did it again and it says differently. I was there at 3:30pm today and I'm sure they didn't have a rush on them this afternoon. There were a lot there of each color. I'd suggest running over there tomorrow. They are on the iPod Accessory rack near the front of the store on the far right side.
I searched for the Belkin case on BestBuy.com then clicked Find in Store. The Concord Pike store was the only one within 30 min of me that showed it as in stock. However, I just did it again and it says differently. I was there at 3:30pm today and I'm sure they didn't have a rush on them this afternoon. There were a lot there of each color. I'd suggest running over there tomorrow. They are on the iPod Accessory rack near the front of the store on the far right side.
macrumors12345
Apr 19, 12:30 PM
Please to have Thunderbolt.
solvs
Aug 7, 06:04 PM
So, yeah... apparently no.