SLCentral
Aug 2, 01:30 PM
Wow, I have a 30" monitor and I would not mind to have a 40" + monitor.:eek:
Seriously, I have dual monitors and I think a larger monitor would be welcome. Not maybe for dual monitor set up because it would be too large, but for a single large monitor, it would be great. Plus the use for entertainment display to watch movies and TV would be really cool.
The technology is here. I really expect Apple to come up something bigger for the Pro crowd and WWDC is the perfect event for that. Remember, people never thought the 30" would ever come up.
Regarding the design, I agree that Apple will keep the same enclosure. Is a very nice design and I don't think will change anytime soon.
As for Isight built in, I like the idea, but if you have dual monitors, seems weird to have dual Isight. I rather have the BTO option for an extra price.
I know that everyone thought 30" would be too big before they were released, but still, 40" for a desktop screen? That's bigger then most TV's. Think about cost as well. 42" LCD's (not plasmas) run at least $3K, and are usually 1366x768. There's likely a few 1080p screens, which would be probably around $5K. Considering the 30" is 2560x1600, we're looking at something around 4000x2500 (or whatever the ratio is). That would be WAY too expensive to ever be feasible to anyone except for a SMALL percentage of people/companies.
Seriously, I have dual monitors and I think a larger monitor would be welcome. Not maybe for dual monitor set up because it would be too large, but for a single large monitor, it would be great. Plus the use for entertainment display to watch movies and TV would be really cool.
The technology is here. I really expect Apple to come up something bigger for the Pro crowd and WWDC is the perfect event for that. Remember, people never thought the 30" would ever come up.
Regarding the design, I agree that Apple will keep the same enclosure. Is a very nice design and I don't think will change anytime soon.
As for Isight built in, I like the idea, but if you have dual monitors, seems weird to have dual Isight. I rather have the BTO option for an extra price.
I know that everyone thought 30" would be too big before they were released, but still, 40" for a desktop screen? That's bigger then most TV's. Think about cost as well. 42" LCD's (not plasmas) run at least $3K, and are usually 1366x768. There's likely a few 1080p screens, which would be probably around $5K. Considering the 30" is 2560x1600, we're looking at something around 4000x2500 (or whatever the ratio is). That would be WAY too expensive to ever be feasible to anyone except for a SMALL percentage of people/companies.
callme
Mar 27, 05:28 AM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
Why? Will they do less than they did when you bought them?
Why? Will they do less than they did when you bought them?
bloodycape
Apr 18, 05:10 PM
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
I can't say they sucked, they were just more spartan compare to what we have now. Sure the touch screen aspect of it was crap, but the browser was acceptable, battery life was good, and they keyboard, least on the 650, and 700w where good all the years I used them. From time to time I miss my 700w and WM as it had this nerdy charm to it.
This could out like the RIM v Handspring(Palm bought them later) lawsuit were RIM sued Handspring for copying their keyboard, and something related to emailing on a mobile device. They settled out of court in the end.
I can't say they sucked, they were just more spartan compare to what we have now. Sure the touch screen aspect of it was crap, but the browser was acceptable, battery life was good, and they keyboard, least on the 650, and 700w where good all the years I used them. From time to time I miss my 700w and WM as it had this nerdy charm to it.
This could out like the RIM v Handspring(Palm bought them later) lawsuit were RIM sued Handspring for copying their keyboard, and something related to emailing on a mobile device. They settled out of court in the end.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 09:46 PM
Yeah for common ground! Our relationship just hit an inception point and I think things are looking up. :)
Nothing wrong with a fun disagreement, though! Time to hit the hay, have a good night!
Nothing wrong with a fun disagreement, though! Time to hit the hay, have a good night!
roadbloc
Apr 8, 06:22 PM
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
zac4mac
Jul 21, 02:42 PM
On one hand I'm bummed that new chips are hitting the street so quickly, and my expensive(Read - still paying for it) MBP is no longer top-line. It's still as blindingly fast as it was day1 and winter's just around the corner. Got my lap heater and it'll be paid for by then.
Coolerking
Sep 11, 12:47 PM
Has anybody noticed that the shipping times for all Macbooks have gone up to 5-7 days?
Yep. I ordered mine last week and its not even shipping till the 18th. Many have said that that is the result of the end of the macbook + ipod promo. It could also be something else...
Yep. I ordered mine last week and its not even shipping till the 18th. Many have said that that is the result of the end of the macbook + ipod promo. It could also be something else...
DCJ001
May 6, 07:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
jaxstate
Aug 4, 08:37 AM
After working on my MBP for about two months now, I call BS. Apple says it's 4-5 x faster than the last powerbooks, I couldn't really tell. I think we are in a new era of ********, where they (Apple) are trying to get people to upgrade just because of a slight Mhz boost, and lower power consumption. Bring on the real world test, and post them on their website.
Consultant
Apr 26, 02:51 PM
Too bad Android makers are basically giving them away to gain market share.
And doesn't Nokia still making more money on ovi than Google's android store?
And doesn't Nokia still making more money on ovi than Google's android store?
archurban
May 6, 12:26 AM
if apple believes itself to be too much confident or arrogant because they think market share will continue grow, and people will buy Apple stuff, then they will replace their own processor? then all efforts to be build great company will be fallen. they will go back to where they were struggle (say 1997?). it's what they want, go ahead. I don't care. by the way, remember this. there is no number one forever. Apple will be fallen apart someday. this will drive themselves more faster. if I am wrong, I won't buy apple no more.
joeboy_45101
Jul 29, 10:03 PM
This sounds cool. Initially, though; I was kind of turned off by the idea of Apple doing a cellphone.
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Eidorian
Mar 30, 10:56 PM
I don't know why but my MBP 13 i7 2011 is showing "Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB graphics" on the About this mac screen on Display tab.:eek:
BTW I'm using an External Display.
That's the graphic core onboard the Core i7 die. It doesn't change to ATi graphics when you use something graphically intensive?It is the 13" Macbook Pro. It only has Intel HD graphics.
BTW I'm using an External Display.
That's the graphic core onboard the Core i7 die. It doesn't change to ATi graphics when you use something graphically intensive?It is the 13" Macbook Pro. It only has Intel HD graphics.
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.)
D4F
Apr 20, 07:13 AM
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
Yet they will stay in line for two days to pay premium for it.
Apple has one great thing.... a lot of quarter-brain organisms that pump $$ to their pocket.
Yet they will stay in line for two days to pay premium for it.
Apple has one great thing.... a lot of quarter-brain organisms that pump $$ to their pocket.
kaneda
Aug 3, 11:46 PM
I guess we are not going to get new casing for Intel MAC...
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:03 AM
At least it works on the market leading platform. ;)
RAY BAN WAYFARER SUNGLASSES
Ray Ban Rayban 2140 Wayfarer
gigidey
Mar 26, 10:12 PM
TechCrunch likely doesn't know jack about dates or new features in iOS 5. Just saying.
They have a terrible track record. I think the fact that they're still going with the iPad 3 release this fall completely invalidates anything they're saying.
They have a terrible track record. I think the fact that they're still going with the iPad 3 release this fall completely invalidates anything they're saying.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 5, 01:42 PM
Honestly, I hope Toyota tells Apple to stuff it.
same here.
Apple should look at this as something that clearly shows what people want an add that to iOS and let people theme it.
same here.
Apple should look at this as something that clearly shows what people want an add that to iOS and let people theme it.
LightSpeed1
Apr 22, 12:40 AM
Not gonna happen And I hope it doesn't.
PBF
Mar 30, 08:50 PM
I still can't remove Launchpad on mine >.< Did you update via Software Update or reinstall the new build? I updated via Software Update to build 2.
Not true. You can not update to DP2 via Software Update. You have to re-install the entire OS via App Store. The only thing you download via Software Update is a 2.2MB pre-install patch.
Not true. You can not update to DP2 via Software Update. You have to re-install the entire OS via App Store. The only thing you download via Software Update is a 2.2MB pre-install patch.
Stella
Apr 25, 10:02 AM
Apple could do themselves a lot of favours if they came out with an offical statement, explaining what iOS does in regards of user tracking ( i.e, location database ). Some 1 line email response fired off by SJ doesn't do much good.
Once again, Apple fall down in terms of customer relations / communications. If Apple handled this correctly then all the fuss could go away in a couple days.
Once again, Apple fall down in terms of customer relations / communications. If Apple handled this correctly then all the fuss could go away in a couple days.
wclyffe
Jan 6, 02:47 PM
Mine didn't rattle... but the audio output was dropping out, so I had to return mine. It took ~ 3 weeks to get the replacement.
Thanks for the info. I seem to have a bit of play in the part of the dock that rotates. Just holding the car kit in my hands there is play in this part of the mechanism so when I'm on the road its rattling all the time. You don't have this issue? Everything else seems to work so I'm hesitant to send it back as I might get one that's worse!
Thanks for the info. I seem to have a bit of play in the part of the dock that rotates. Just holding the car kit in my hands there is play in this part of the mechanism so when I'm on the road its rattling all the time. You don't have this issue? Everything else seems to work so I'm hesitant to send it back as I might get one that's worse!
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 09:32 PM
Oh, I can admit when I'm wrong. I used to believe in protecting tenure for teachers. See?
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...