M87
Jun 7, 01:20 AM
Isn't there a pop up that asks you if you're sure you want to buy the app after you click buy? Maybe I'm thinking of iTunes... Either way, I blame the child.
appleguy123
May 1, 08:32 PM
I think me and jav6454 are tied at one vote each.
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
wmk461
Jan 30, 02:08 PM
Save your liberal banter, chicken little.
Liberal banter = common sense and simple logic for the intelligent.... Too many people are so caught up in their lives that they forget the trauma of the past. History repeats itself and the market is like a roller coaster... remember the 1980's? Or even worse the 1930's.... Tech Stock is not going to hold. I am betting on Gold to hit at least 1500.00 in the next coming months and then upwards to the 2000.00 range.
Liberal banter = common sense and simple logic for the intelligent.... Too many people are so caught up in their lives that they forget the trauma of the past. History repeats itself and the market is like a roller coaster... remember the 1980's? Or even worse the 1930's.... Tech Stock is not going to hold. I am betting on Gold to hit at least 1500.00 in the next coming months and then upwards to the 2000.00 range.
AHDuke99
Apr 14, 03:32 PM
That animation crap only started with 4.3. The previous releases were all fine.
Doctor Q
Jun 6, 01:25 PM
I believe that there has to be a "cooling off period" - at least here in the UK - after making a purchase at which point you are entitled by law to return the product. Normally that period is 7-14 days but individual stores may be even more lenient than that.
That would be a problem for the iPod touch apps that tell you the secret for doing a magic trick. More seriously, there are a lot of apps you might use on a vacation, e.g. finding restaurants or transportation or people in another city. It wouldn't be fair to their developers if you could buy their app, take it on vacation, then return it when you get home in a week or two.
Perhaps return policies should be based on how many times you launch the app, not on elapsed time. You could return any unused or one-launched app for a full refund within a certain number of days, assuming the iPod touch could keep track of that.
That would be a problem for the iPod touch apps that tell you the secret for doing a magic trick. More seriously, there are a lot of apps you might use on a vacation, e.g. finding restaurants or transportation or people in another city. It wouldn't be fair to their developers if you could buy their app, take it on vacation, then return it when you get home in a week or two.
Perhaps return policies should be based on how many times you launch the app, not on elapsed time. You could return any unused or one-launched app for a full refund within a certain number of days, assuming the iPod touch could keep track of that.
Moonjumper
Apr 14, 11:04 AM
It has gone now, but I found it interesting that it was listing this for my Universal iOS game TiltStorm. It has touch and accelerometer control options, so it wouldn't be suitable as is for a touch control Mac. It is also a portrait orientated game, so isn't going to fill a widescreen monitor.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
mrsir2009
Mar 31, 01:33 PM
Apple, we all know the mouse is dead... stop wasting time coding mac apps to look like iPad apps and coding mac os to operate like iOS, just do the obvious: ditch the mac platform all together! Make larger iOS devices that allow for the manipulation of iOS apps in windowed form and there you go, desktop operating environment with iOS.
touch input > mouse input
What the hell are you smoking?:eek:
touch input > mouse input
What the hell are you smoking?:eek:
SchneiderMan
Sep 12, 10:38 PM
You bought a shirt from Israel? And you live in the states? :confused:
bilbo--baggins
Jul 24, 04:35 PM
Bah, these things are rubbish. The scroll wheel clogs up with dirt, just as scroll ball mice did in days gone by - except there is no user access to clean it thoroughly. Apple need to re-think the design on this one before updating it.
Why fix this problem now? Surely they will make more money if they bring out a bluetooth version with all the flaws of the wired version, and then next year bring out the new improved version with a solid state scroll pad, independent side buttons, ability to press the middle button while holding down the left button (ie. to drag an object between applications, with my old M$ mouse I would click and hold on a picture, press the scroll wheel to change applications, then drop the picture into iTunes - can't be done with the Mighty mouses single click mechanism).
Why fix this problem now? Surely they will make more money if they bring out a bluetooth version with all the flaws of the wired version, and then next year bring out the new improved version with a solid state scroll pad, independent side buttons, ability to press the middle button while holding down the left button (ie. to drag an object between applications, with my old M$ mouse I would click and hold on a picture, press the scroll wheel to change applications, then drop the picture into iTunes - can't be done with the Mighty mouses single click mechanism).
pale9
Oct 23, 04:00 PM
ms ist collapsing under its own weight. my god, they cant even get a decent os together after how many years? so, the marketing goons in redmond think that if they manage to stem piracy, that could make up for the losses to osx and linux they are sure to incurr. because lets just face the facts: vista in all its incarnations is not even worth half of what the asking prices are.....
rhett7660
Jan 31, 09:59 AM
So we have...
-A few porn stars
-A Ferrari
-A briefcase of cocaine
-Excessive alcohol consumption
-A $30,000 check to a porn star
...how is this any different than 'Two and a Half Men'?
I love this man.
Classic... Now he is reportedly checking into rehab. Anybody else catch some of the pictures of him. Kind of reminds me of his Ferris Bueller character!
-A few porn stars
-A Ferrari
-A briefcase of cocaine
-Excessive alcohol consumption
-A $30,000 check to a porn star
...how is this any different than 'Two and a Half Men'?
I love this man.
Classic... Now he is reportedly checking into rehab. Anybody else catch some of the pictures of him. Kind of reminds me of his Ferris Bueller character!
mscriv
Mar 2, 09:53 AM
^^ Yep, losing his children could be the catalyst that takes things to a whole new level. If he's faking any of this it will come to an end pretty quickly, at least for his children's sake I would hope so. If he's genuinely lost touch with reality, then getting his children out of that environment might be a good thing.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 30, 10:48 AM
The Xbox 360 has an updateable operating system so they can add new formats over time. The 360 plays formats now that it didn't support when it first came out in including AAC. Support for it was added after it was released. You can't update a car head unit's firmware.
And my car is a 2009 and doesn't support AAC, so until I have a car that does play AAC, I refuse to spend a penny on AAC files.
add to that AAC is not exactly a free. It has licencing cost to it. Mp3 is complete free and open.
And my car is a 2009 and doesn't support AAC, so until I have a car that does play AAC, I refuse to spend a penny on AAC files.
add to that AAC is not exactly a free. It has licencing cost to it. Mp3 is complete free and open.
AlanAudio
Aug 15, 06:02 PM
You're crazy. :) But one thing I would like to see is a free upgrade to iLife for everyone who upgrades Leopard. Or else some kind of Leopard / iLife buy-together discount. That would be most welcome.
rjf
Obviously we'd all like to get something for nothing, but as the newest OS and the newest iApps both come for free with every new Mac, the boxed versions are effectively upgrades and Apple would feel that they're offering them at reduced prices anyway compared to their full value.
But I'd love to be wrong on this.
Which reminds me. Every time I've bought an OS upgrade ( for as long as I can remember - probably back to OS 7 ) there has been a set of coupons included to prove that I purchased it. Has there ever been a scheme where customers actually get something in exchange for those coupons ?
rjf
Obviously we'd all like to get something for nothing, but as the newest OS and the newest iApps both come for free with every new Mac, the boxed versions are effectively upgrades and Apple would feel that they're offering them at reduced prices anyway compared to their full value.
But I'd love to be wrong on this.
Which reminds me. Every time I've bought an OS upgrade ( for as long as I can remember - probably back to OS 7 ) there has been a set of coupons included to prove that I purchased it. Has there ever been a scheme where customers actually get something in exchange for those coupons ?
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 19, 05:05 PM
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
roar08
Mar 11, 11:22 PM
Got mine at Target today. No waiting. They had 10 16's and 5 64's, all black. A Target 10 minutes away had 5 16's - all white.
kwarren
Sep 15, 03:16 AM
Holy mother of god!! A question though, do they charge shipping seperately for each tee, or if you have a giant-ass order does it get billed per box? (crate)
I'm considering a mega tee order myself, but the international shipping rates are making me think twice.
Hey, when a sale like that comes along, you gotta go for it ;) I figure 20 is enough to last me a while.
They charge a collective shipping total. I think that for 20 shirts, it was like $15USD. For orders of just a few shirts, they send it in a nice bubble mailer with the Threadless logo slapped all over it, but since I ordered so many, it just came in a plain brown box.
This month, if you order a hoodie, you get free shipping. Details are on their site!
Hope that helps,
I'm considering a mega tee order myself, but the international shipping rates are making me think twice.
Hey, when a sale like that comes along, you gotta go for it ;) I figure 20 is enough to last me a while.
They charge a collective shipping total. I think that for 20 shirts, it was like $15USD. For orders of just a few shirts, they send it in a nice bubble mailer with the Threadless logo slapped all over it, but since I ordered so many, it just came in a plain brown box.
This month, if you order a hoodie, you get free shipping. Details are on their site!
Hope that helps,
steadysignal
May 3, 08:44 AM
nice new specs on these. miss my imac!
Edge100
Nov 3, 11:44 AM
Multiprocessor support is way way cool. That could make me throw away my work machine and just keep working with my Mac Pro :-)
Well... another thing that stops me from working with virtual machines is the lack of support for multi-monitor setups... I can't return to developing software with just one... so let's hope VMWare addresses this sometime, hopefully soon. I would really love to have my Mac with 3 monitors instead of my Pc with 2 and my mac with one... :-)
Now I'm just waiting to get my invitation email... if it happens... :rolleyes:
Agreed. Multiprocessor support is critical. I do audio production, and this would be a nice way of incorporating Windows-only software into my rig (for compatibility with others). But in Parallels, having access to only one core means my iMac is too slow to handle complex projects.
Well... another thing that stops me from working with virtual machines is the lack of support for multi-monitor setups... I can't return to developing software with just one... so let's hope VMWare addresses this sometime, hopefully soon. I would really love to have my Mac with 3 monitors instead of my Pc with 2 and my mac with one... :-)
Now I'm just waiting to get my invitation email... if it happens... :rolleyes:
Agreed. Multiprocessor support is critical. I do audio production, and this would be a nice way of incorporating Windows-only software into my rig (for compatibility with others). But in Parallels, having access to only one core means my iMac is too slow to handle complex projects.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:22 AM
was that a future episode of Jersey Shore ... I swear I saw that Snooki Trash chirping in?:cool:
I hardly consider that ... "nearly killing a customer"
I hardly consider that ... "nearly killing a customer"
nilk
Apr 13, 02:29 PM
man how much would this thing cost? the 27" display is already 1000 bucks, and this would have to be at lease 42" for people to put it in their living rooms.
Apple 27" display is 2560x1440 resolution. A 1080P TV is 1920x1080. There is a big difference in cost of the panel. Any 2560x1440 display is going to cost in the ball park that Apple's 27" is in. I paid about $1150 for my Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) and I am perfectly happy having paid that for the number of pixels I get. 1080P panels are a lot cheaper due to being easier to manufacturer and the fact that they sell much higher quantities than high-res panels like those in the Apple 27" or a 2560x1600 30" (economies of scale).
Though I don't think Apple is making a TV, but if they do, it better be a plasma (better picture quality than LCD).
Apple 27" display is 2560x1440 resolution. A 1080P TV is 1920x1080. There is a big difference in cost of the panel. Any 2560x1440 display is going to cost in the ball park that Apple's 27" is in. I paid about $1150 for my Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600) and I am perfectly happy having paid that for the number of pixels I get. 1080P panels are a lot cheaper due to being easier to manufacturer and the fact that they sell much higher quantities than high-res panels like those in the Apple 27" or a 2560x1600 30" (economies of scale).
Though I don't think Apple is making a TV, but if they do, it better be a plasma (better picture quality than LCD).
b_scott
Apr 15, 12:52 PM
It came out yesterday. Not a couple of hours ago. I stream Sirius radio on the weekdays at work and I notice a difference in the battery usage.
yeah, but your post was still less than 24 hours since release, and unless you got it the second it came out, probably much less than that for you. Just saying give it time.
yeah, but your post was still less than 24 hours since release, and unless you got it the second it came out, probably much less than that for you. Just saying give it time.
Don't panic
Apr 27, 08:59 PM
maybe i should just vote myself huh?
you wouldn't be the first, nor the second, nor the third...
never helped before.
you wouldn't be the first, nor the second, nor the third...
never helped before.
No comments:
Post a Comment