or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Cory Bauer

I've often wondered why no manufacturer has had a television where the letterboxed portion of the screen simply turns off. This sounds like Apple may be the first to actually do that. Still though, this would do nothing to improve picture quality (despite what the patent suggests); it would just give the illusion that the LCD has better black levels than it actually does. Another trick in a deep bag of tricks used to compensate for the technology's inherent shortcomings.
I'm with you 100%, but you forgot to mention the still superior viewing angles of plasma. I hate the way the color washes out on an LCD TV if you aren't sitting straight up, perfectly centered. I also hate how long an LCD takes to "warm up" to full illuminosity, but I believe that's no longer the case for LED-backlit LCDs. Still, plasma is superior and costs significantly less. I too hope whatever features/content deals the iTV includes find their way to the Apple TV as...
The last "rumors" (if you can even call them that) about price pegged it at two grand. And knowing Apple's fat profit margins that's probably not far from accurate.
With the direction that TVs are headed (and the one Apple would likely take), there's nothing to design hardware-wise because it's nothing but screen.
Ok, but if that's your situation then why opt for a $1,999 50" iTV as opposed to a $999 50" Panasonic Plasma with enough HDMI ports to add a $99 Apple TV?If it's all in the user interface, and the content is still limited to what's available on iTunes (which you know it will be), then again why not just roll that new-and-improved interface into an upgraded Apple TV set-top box?
I point out again, all of this can be achieved with an upgraded Apple TV set-top box, so why sell a full tv at all? What's Apple going to bring to the tv itself that can't be achieved with a box?
I agree entirely. But people are buying $200 7" tablets, thinking they're getting the iPad experience. They are of course very wrong, and haven't used an iPad enough to know any better. But the Kindle Fire shows that this will be a growing problem for Apple. Park a 9.7" iPad model permanently at a sub-$350 pricepoint and I think Apple would see those 7" bottom-feeders die off.It'd bring Apple the customers who are settling for crappy 7" tablets. More importantly, it'd...
Not sure, but last March the 32GB 3G/Wi-Fi iPad 2 had a bill of materials of $326.60. That's the model they sell for $729. The Wi-Fi-only 16GB model would obviously be considerably cheaper, even back in March.What makes it any less useless than an 8GB iPhone, of which Apple sells two? I actually use far less storage on my iPad than I do my phone, because my iPhone allows me to have everything with me. There's no reason for all of my music and photos to be loaded onto a...
Of course not Evidence, no. Deduction yes.1. When the iPad 2 was released, Apple and its resellers were clearing out original iPads at $349 - that means after 12 months of being on the market they could cut the price by $150 and still turn a profit. 2. We know from iSuppli teardown's that Apple is incredibly good at keeping their costs consistent; what the iPhone 4S cost in parts at launch is almost exactly what the iPhone 4 cost in parts when it launched. Knowing that,...
Do you really believe an 12-month old iPad with 1024x768 screen/dual-core A5 chip should only be $100 cheaper than a brand new iPad with 2048x1536 screen/Quad-core A6 chip?
New Posts  All Forums: