or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Cory Bauer

No. Based on cloudgazer's interpretation, this patent like most of the patents Apple gets accused of infringing is total bullshit. What Personal Audio did was somehow get the government to grant them a patent solely for the idea that a device could store and utilize a playlist. Which is absurd. It's like patenting the idea of pouring coffee into a cup. Personal Audio did not invent the playlist; sixteen year old girls making mix tapes for their boyfriends did. Personal...
Could someone be so kind as to explain exactly what feature on my iPhone and iPad it is that Personal Audio thinks they invented? Thanks.
$999 is where the Macbook Air always belonged, as half a machine should cost half as much money. It never made sense at $1,799 and its great to see Apple took the steps necessary to ensure the Air did not become Cube 2.0. These are now great little machines. However, killing the white MacBook was a boneheaded move. Yes, Apple's laptop offerings are now much more straightforward, but they're only reasonable in a world without competitors (which is of course an imaginary...
I'm pretty sure the've had my soul in a jar for over a decade now You're implying that, based on their huge financial success, Apple knows best? I'll agree that Apple knows whats best for themselves, but not always their customers. And I don't think it's a gear head request; any smart shopper could compare the high-end Mac Mini and the entry-level iMac and realize that for a few-hundred more they get about four times the computer. I believe the Mac Mini still exists almost...
Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
I'd be very interested to see how the dual-core 2.7Ghz i7 Mac Mini stacks up against the entry-level quad-core 2.5Ghz i5 iMac in real world tasks. I use a lot of programs that theoretically take full advantage of all cores available (After Effects, Aperture, Compressor, Final Cut Pro) but that doesn't mean that they really do. You may be right that the extra 700Mhz per core make up the difference.
Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?
I agree, if the $999 MacBook Air had 128GB SSD and 4GB of RAM, killing the MacBook would have made partial sense. But as it is they just upped the price for a standalone portable Mac by $200. The $999 MacBook Air is hardly passable as a person's sole computer.
Really dumb. So unless 64GB of hard drive space, 2GB of RAM, no optical drive and an 11" screen suits a person's needs, Apple has no laptop under $1200. The white MacBook should have seen the same processor and graphic updates as the Mac Mini, and been priced at $899 or less.
Just another omission that makes the entry-level iMac look like a killer deal compared to the Mac Mini. In fact I'm pretty sure that's the only reason the Mac Mini exists at all. While it is great that the (more expensive) Mac Mini finally has dedicated graphics, why does it only have a dual-core 2.5Ghz instead of the quad-core 2.5Ghz chip found in the cheapest iMac? By the time you add a superdrive, 7200rpm hard drive and magic trackpad you're only $100 away from the cost...
New Posts  All Forums: