SuperMacMan
Oct 4, 01:48 AM
Does anybody know how it will fit in a last gen case?
I have the new iPod Touch, but I am looking for a temporary solution until stores recieve the new cases.
No dice. I have a 1st & 2nd gen touch, tried the cases I have for them on my new one, no way jos�! The new iPod touch is a good 0.5cm narrower, a good bit thinner and shorter than the older models. Old cases just let the iPod slide around in it.
I too am having the problem with a lack of retail stores selling cases. The only store that has them only have a Belkin one I don't like, and it's $35 AUD!! I managed to find a Chinese shopping centre stall that had one for $10, so I got that for in the mean time. It fits, but the volume & sleep/wake buttons don't line up correctly, but I'll deal with it until I get a good one.
I have the new iPod Touch, but I am looking for a temporary solution until stores recieve the new cases.
No dice. I have a 1st & 2nd gen touch, tried the cases I have for them on my new one, no way jos�! The new iPod touch is a good 0.5cm narrower, a good bit thinner and shorter than the older models. Old cases just let the iPod slide around in it.
I too am having the problem with a lack of retail stores selling cases. The only store that has them only have a Belkin one I don't like, and it's $35 AUD!! I managed to find a Chinese shopping centre stall that had one for $10, so I got that for in the mean time. It fits, but the volume & sleep/wake buttons don't line up correctly, but I'll deal with it until I get a good one.
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 06:52 PM
And two-seaters?? :eek: Well, let's not go there.
Hey, my Street Bob is a 2 seater. :mad:
Hey, my Street Bob is a 2 seater. :mad:
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
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.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
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.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
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,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
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.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
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.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
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.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
risc
Nov 29, 01:36 PM
and hinted that that theme gave a "little idea of where [Apple] is going."
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
techpr
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
$299!
JurgenWigg
Nov 15, 01:04 PM
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Right after the G5 powermac!
(joking)
Right after the G5 powermac!
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
For most passenger cars in the U.S., an automatic transmission is standard - indeed, a manual transmission isn't even available for many (if not most) cars here.
As for being "not that bad," you might not think so; for many of us, there's a noticeable difference, one we can appreciate.
People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
I used to think driving was fun, but that was many years ago. I absolutely loathe driving now. Whenever I go somewhere with my wife, she drives.
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
~Shard~
Sep 7, 12:25 PM
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the exterior, not the chipset.
"G5" is processor branding which refers to the 970 chipset, not the design of the machine itself, so you are using that terminology incorrectly. Do people go around saying, "Gee, that new Pentium Dell sure is nice!" :p :D It's the equivalent of saying that you like the design of the V10 BMW when in fact you mean the M5. If the current iMac design only housed G5 chips, and was changed when the Intel transition occurred, then fine, that model could be associated with the G5 chip, however this is obviously not the case.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
"G5" is processor branding which refers to the 970 chipset, not the design of the machine itself, so you are using that terminology incorrectly. Do people go around saying, "Gee, that new Pentium Dell sure is nice!" :p :D It's the equivalent of saying that you like the design of the V10 BMW when in fact you mean the M5. If the current iMac design only housed G5 chips, and was changed when the Intel transition occurred, then fine, that model could be associated with the G5 chip, however this is obviously not the case.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
Unspeaked
Sep 1, 01:58 PM
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks.
Agreed.
It'd be almost as bad as calling their music player a Pod.
The iMac name is gold.
Agreed.
It'd be almost as bad as calling their music player a Pod.
The iMac name is gold.
Multimedia
Aug 26, 11:47 PM
It's not that I know anything - it's just that it's so bloody obvious that nothing in Apple's current lineup is even remotely suitable for a home theater PC....
However, a Conroe in a DVD-player sized case, with 2 or 3 500GB or 750GB drives, a couple of TV tuners (SD and HD), FrontRow on steroids - then you'd have something.
Take a peek at what available in Windows for the Home Theatre space - like: http://www.acedigitalhome.com/limited.htm
Conroes with quad TV tuners, RAID, touch-screen controls....Holy Molly! That look fantastic! How much money are they?
However, a Conroe in a DVD-player sized case, with 2 or 3 500GB or 750GB drives, a couple of TV tuners (SD and HD), FrontRow on steroids - then you'd have something.
Take a peek at what available in Windows for the Home Theatre space - like: http://www.acedigitalhome.com/limited.htm
Conroes with quad TV tuners, RAID, touch-screen controls....Holy Molly! That look fantastic! How much money are they?
jdbr
Apr 3, 09:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just wish they had stock
Just wish they had stock
slackpacker
Mar 24, 02:32 PM
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
dirty londe hair highlights.
Orange Hair Highlights and
londe hair highlights and
londe hair with highlights
londe hair with highlights
londe hair colours
londe hair highlights and
NebulaClash
Sep 15, 09:00 AM
No, you are missing the point. Yes auto manufactures have recalls all the time and yes the customer has to come in to get it fixed on previous purchases. HOWEVER, they also fix all NEW automobiles before continue to sell to new customers. Apple isn't doing that, and that is CR's complaint.
If it was a safety issue, as with cars, Apple would do the same thing. But it's not, so it's silly to to conflate the two. That was not the intent of my analogy, and that's being missed by those focusing on the trees.
If it was a safety issue, as with cars, Apple would do the same thing. But it's not, so it's silly to to conflate the two. That was not the intent of my analogy, and that's being missed by those focusing on the trees.
lOUDsCREAMEr
Jul 19, 06:41 PM
Here are historical Mac sales by quarter.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 771,000
4Q2004 - 787,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 771,000
4Q2004 - 787,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
roland.g
Sep 1, 12:49 PM
23" Imac is a great size. Add HD resolution then that's great.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
You can already do that. The current iMacs support dual display, just not the 30"
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
You can already do that. The current iMacs support dual display, just not the 30"
BoyBach
Nov 29, 02:28 PM
Andy Neff also writes "Apple noted that it has a number of products currently in development that are likely to be introduced over several years."
I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
kingtj
Jul 18, 01:19 PM
Ick! Absolutely not! Streaming video is unreliable and inconsistent. It may work well for shorter movies, where the computer can download enough of the movie ahead of time in the buffer to ride out any brief slowdowns or halts in traffic .... but there's little chance a 2 hour + movie would stream to you without any hiccups at all. I've got 6mbit DSL at home, and I run into these problems just because of other computers on my LAN trying to download updates or what-not while I'm watching a movie stream. It's got to be much worse for people with 1.5mbit DSL or even 3mbit, which are much more common.
Not only that, but where there's the ability to actually download content (protected or not), there's the possibility of it being saved permanently. Regardless of "legality" - I like leaving as many options open as possible. Projects like JHymn allowed removal of DRM on iTunes music ... so something similar could allow it for downloaded movies.
I'd rather them just be streamed if it is indeed going to be rentals.
Not only that, but where there's the ability to actually download content (protected or not), there's the possibility of it being saved permanently. Regardless of "legality" - I like leaving as many options open as possible. Projects like JHymn allowed removal of DRM on iTunes music ... so something similar could allow it for downloaded movies.
I'd rather them just be streamed if it is indeed going to be rentals.
aricher
Nov 28, 10:11 AM
I was in FYE last night, and out of curiosity, asked the sales assistant how they were selling. They hadn't sold a single one.
I was in a very busy SuperTarget on Black Friday and their electronics employee said they haven't sold any since the release. He also had an iPod Nano clipped to his belt and said that he's been steering people towards iPods. The Best Buy near where I live has only sold 9 Zunes since the release. Poor numbers for a holiday season.
I was in a very busy SuperTarget on Black Friday and their electronics employee said they haven't sold any since the release. He also had an iPod Nano clipped to his belt and said that he's been steering people towards iPods. The Best Buy near where I live has only sold 9 Zunes since the release. Poor numbers for a holiday season.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 05:56 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
anim8or
Sep 6, 08:52 AM
Does anyone think that as we have seen the Mac Mini's update was just a speed bump, that the MacBook will only see a speed bump too.
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
kelving525
Oct 6, 11:16 PM
The volume buttons are a little stiff, though the sleep/wake button is perfect. I'm hoping the volume buttons will loosen up a bit over time. I can adjust them pretty easily with my pointer finger when held in my right hand, but I can't do it very well with my thumb when holding in my left hand.
I completely agree with you on this, the sleep/wake button is fine using either left or right, BUT the volume rocker is not convenient when using left hand, but right hand is ok.
I completely agree with you on this, the sleep/wake button is fine using either left or right, BUT the volume rocker is not convenient when using left hand, but right hand is ok.
SactoGuy18
Apr 12, 09:46 PM
charlesdjones1, I think the picture you showed is a very likely new "look" for the iPod classic--the "7G" model. It will get a smaller click wheel but larger display for better viewing of video, and will up the storage capacity from 160 GB to 220 GB with the new 1.8" hard drive.
Though I'm sure Apple wants to ditch the iPod Classic in favor of a 128 GB iPod touch, the current tight constraint on flash memory production may conspire against doing this.
Though I'm sure Apple wants to ditch the iPod Classic in favor of a 128 GB iPod touch, the current tight constraint on flash memory production may conspire against doing this.
bommai
Jul 18, 04:06 PM
You cannot rent an HD movie from Blockbuster or Netflix, so what makes you think "Apple has to offer HD quality". There is no need to have better quality than competitors while also providing more convenience.
What is so wrong about stereo sound? A lot of people use the speakers of their TVs for the sound of a movie. Most movie do not really take advantage of sourround sound that much, where you feel like the sound is coming from the left or from behind etc. You might as well use your 5 speakers in stereo mode.
First, couple of corrections. Netflix is already offering both HD-DVD and Bluray Disk rentals of available movies. So, technically high definition movie is for rent. I have not rented any yet because I am waiting for the prices to come down a little bit and also a victor to emerge.
Second, while it might be true that the majority of people in the general population might still be watching movies on a 4x3 non-progressive scan TV with mono/stereo sound, the distribution is quite different in the specific population that might be interested in trendy things like online downloads of movies.
In the middle to upper-middle class segment of tech-savvy market, the presence of 16x9 HD-capable displays and 5.1 surround systems are almost ubiquitous. I have several friends that all have such systems and they are also in the similar tech/economic bracket as me.
Also, it is not that expensive to own a 5.1 surround system anymore. Even though I have a system that cost several thousand dollars, you can pickup a decent Onkyo 5.1 system for $400 from the bigbox retailers. Walmart has even $99 low end systems.
About your claim that movies down take advantage of surround sound, you cannot be more wrong. Are you still watching VHS? Almost all DVDs using Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding and some better ones use DTS (which I love). These make a huge difference. Again, looking at the tech savvy customers that are early adopters, you have to think about movies like iRobot, Star Wars, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Spider Man 1 and 2, Bourne Supremacy, etc. These DVDs have impressive sound that cannot be expressed in stereo.
I agree that Apple's download service does not need to be HD, but it has to offer surround sound and original theatrical aspect ratio. You can probably accomplish this feat with a file size of approximately 1.5 to 2 GB per movie using H.264 encoding.
What is so wrong about stereo sound? A lot of people use the speakers of their TVs for the sound of a movie. Most movie do not really take advantage of sourround sound that much, where you feel like the sound is coming from the left or from behind etc. You might as well use your 5 speakers in stereo mode.
First, couple of corrections. Netflix is already offering both HD-DVD and Bluray Disk rentals of available movies. So, technically high definition movie is for rent. I have not rented any yet because I am waiting for the prices to come down a little bit and also a victor to emerge.
Second, while it might be true that the majority of people in the general population might still be watching movies on a 4x3 non-progressive scan TV with mono/stereo sound, the distribution is quite different in the specific population that might be interested in trendy things like online downloads of movies.
In the middle to upper-middle class segment of tech-savvy market, the presence of 16x9 HD-capable displays and 5.1 surround systems are almost ubiquitous. I have several friends that all have such systems and they are also in the similar tech/economic bracket as me.
Also, it is not that expensive to own a 5.1 surround system anymore. Even though I have a system that cost several thousand dollars, you can pickup a decent Onkyo 5.1 system for $400 from the bigbox retailers. Walmart has even $99 low end systems.
About your claim that movies down take advantage of surround sound, you cannot be more wrong. Are you still watching VHS? Almost all DVDs using Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding and some better ones use DTS (which I love). These make a huge difference. Again, looking at the tech savvy customers that are early adopters, you have to think about movies like iRobot, Star Wars, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, Spider Man 1 and 2, Bourne Supremacy, etc. These DVDs have impressive sound that cannot be expressed in stereo.
I agree that Apple's download service does not need to be HD, but it has to offer surround sound and original theatrical aspect ratio. You can probably accomplish this feat with a file size of approximately 1.5 to 2 GB per movie using H.264 encoding.
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
This ad makes me want to buy one...
so magical!!!
so magical!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment