Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
Homy
Jan 4, 06:11 AM
iLife '07 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FApple-Computer-iLife-07-Mac%2Fdp%2FB000B8UOU2%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1167869764%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dsoftware&tag=reality&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) and iWork '07 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FApple-Computer-iWork-07-Mac%2Fdp%2FB000BKE87U%2Fsr%3D1-2%2Fqid%3D1167869786%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dsoftware&tag=reality&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) are out on Amazon.
Lunja
Jan 7, 06:16 PM
Dear Mr Jobs,
All I want for MWSF is a new keyboard, because it's time we had some media buttons. And a paint app so that I don't have to buy Photoshop if I want to doodle something.
Thanks,
Lunja.
All I want for MWSF is a new keyboard, because it's time we had some media buttons. And a paint app so that I don't have to buy Photoshop if I want to doodle something.
Thanks,
Lunja.
theBB
Jul 18, 12:18 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.
$2 per rental ain't gonna happen. That's a pipedream. If movie indutry is licensing movies to Movielink for $4-5, it is not gonna let Apple do this for much lower prices. At that price it would be much more expensive than Netflix and with a much smaller library, so my subscription will have to stay. I can only use Apple's service as an add-on, when I really want to watch a movie, but Netflix DVD is still in the mail. Besides, I would have to get a Mac mini for the living room. Well, the cost just keeps adding up.
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.
$2 per rental ain't gonna happen. That's a pipedream. If movie indutry is licensing movies to Movielink for $4-5, it is not gonna let Apple do this for much lower prices. At that price it would be much more expensive than Netflix and with a much smaller library, so my subscription will have to stay. I can only use Apple's service as an add-on, when I really want to watch a movie, but Netflix DVD is still in the mail. Besides, I would have to get a Mac mini for the living room. Well, the cost just keeps adding up.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 20, 09:23 AM
So close... I'm going to finally upgrade from the dual 867Mhz G4 "Mirrored Door" from and am also running Tiger.
I was using it daily till 2009 when I received a hand me down PC from 2006 in my sig which is getting me buy until the new iMac comes out.
I was using it daily till 2009 when I received a hand me down PC from 2006 in my sig which is getting me buy until the new iMac comes out.
Peterkro
Mar 21, 05:50 PM
Oh dear this is getting serious the French have called up the philosophers including Bernard-Henri Levy.:eek:
In case you don't think Daffy is targeting civilians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfydO-Z-D0M
In case you don't think Daffy is targeting civilians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfydO-Z-D0M
Counter
Nov 18, 09:29 AM
iTunes saw much less improvements?
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
raymondso
Oct 23, 07:44 AM
Hoping not only MBP, but also MP.
I've been waiting too long with my money burning my pocket :(
update: sorry, should be MB instead of MP, typing mistake
I've been waiting too long with my money burning my pocket :(
update: sorry, should be MB instead of MP, typing mistake
*LTD*
Mar 25, 03:50 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Vision, people. Vision.
motulist
Aug 7, 04:00 AM
Is there a car phone version that plugs directly into the tape deck?
No, but 3rd parties sell an adaptor that will let you do it.
No, but 3rd parties sell an adaptor that will let you do it.
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 03:57 PM
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 21, 02:13 PM
The picture remains confused. We know that coalition military units are lobbing precision guided munitions at Gaddafi's air defense network as well as attacking targets of opportunity. But the rebels are not in contact with the rest of the world through any official channels, and media access is poor.
Gaddafi is looking for a stalemate in the short term.
Meanwhile, the BBC struggles with the concept of area versus length.
Gaddafi is looking for a stalemate in the short term.
Meanwhile, the BBC struggles with the concept of area versus length.
Doraemon
Apr 2, 07:24 AM
Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, [...]
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:51 PM
You know I originally thought that, but I kind of like the way it works now. I would much rather have a few codecs that work very well. Then play everything under the sun just not very well.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Reventon
Nov 24, 12:42 PM
Gran Turismo 5: Collector's Edition (PSN: copenmind, if you wanna race :D ).
tigres
Apr 3, 07:38 AM
I don't have one, however I did like this ad.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
twoodcc
Oct 14, 07:14 AM
Thanks! I'll try it on my work computer, its a quad.
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
SoraLimit
Sep 20, 07:58 PM
I have no idea haha.
I was also looking at some 3g Leather Cases (those are my favorite style) is there any reason they wouldn't work with my 4g? For example, this one looks good:
http://www.amazon.com/DLO-HipCase-Leather-Folio-touch/dp/B000WOIFO2
but would my 4g fit in there?
The new iPod touch is more thinner and narrow compared to the 3rd gen. It's just gonna wobble around the cases if you did that.
I was also looking at some 3g Leather Cases (those are my favorite style) is there any reason they wouldn't work with my 4g? For example, this one looks good:
http://www.amazon.com/DLO-HipCase-Leather-Folio-touch/dp/B000WOIFO2
but would my 4g fit in there?
The new iPod touch is more thinner and narrow compared to the 3rd gen. It's just gonna wobble around the cases if you did that.
vvv
Nov 28, 08:25 PM
Which is a big distraction from the point? And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone one to see that the Zune is a bad idea. The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
MS never made a smartphone, they make the windows mobile software that runs on others hardware. The xbox is ms hardware and software, just like the zune. It's a entertainment market, just like the xbox, windows mobile software isn't in the entertainment market. There are far more direct comparisons between zune and xbox than between windows mobile and zune. As for peeing on their partners, what's new, I think we all know they don't play nice, instead they play to win.
MS never made a smartphone, they make the windows mobile software that runs on others hardware. The xbox is ms hardware and software, just like the zune. It's a entertainment market, just like the xbox, windows mobile software isn't in the entertainment market. There are far more direct comparisons between zune and xbox than between windows mobile and zune. As for peeing on their partners, what's new, I think we all know they don't play nice, instead they play to win.
nebo1ss
Mar 20, 12:56 PM
I am very uncomfortable with the intervention in Libya. When you look at what is happening in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. You have to ask the question why Libya. Perhaps its payback time for the PANAM 101.
Not sure I understand the logic of intervention in one conflict but not another. I fear this is going to hurt us in the long term.
Not sure I understand the logic of intervention in one conflict but not another. I fear this is going to hurt us in the long term.
UnreaL
Sep 5, 02:58 AM
Any updates guys?
I mean its the 5th today!
I want a new mac mini! :)
I mean its the 5th today!
I want a new mac mini! :)
ezekielrage_99
Aug 27, 07:33 PM
If they bring out a core2duo mac mini it will be faster than my 18month old power mac.
cant see it happening, they might go for a faster core duo in the mac mini and macbook then core 2 duo in iMac and Macbook pro
I would have said the same about the Mac Mini getting a Core Duo about 10 months ago.
cant see it happening, they might go for a faster core duo in the mac mini and macbook then core 2 duo in iMac and Macbook pro
I would have said the same about the Mac Mini getting a Core Duo about 10 months ago.
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
reflex
Aug 7, 06:04 AM
Since AMD took over ATI I think we won't be seeing to many ATI cards in future products of Apple.
Not letting Intel vendors include ATI products would be the best way for AMD to lose a lot of money.
You can also look at it like this:
ATI products sell well --> AMD makes lots of money --> AMD spends more money on research --> AMD makes better cpus --> AMD sells more cpus --> AMD makes even more money
(and yes I know it's of course a very simple way to look at things that are quite complex)
Not letting Intel vendors include ATI products would be the best way for AMD to lose a lot of money.
You can also look at it like this:
ATI products sell well --> AMD makes lots of money --> AMD spends more money on research --> AMD makes better cpus --> AMD sells more cpus --> AMD makes even more money
(and yes I know it's of course a very simple way to look at things that are quite complex)
