Apple poised for special event this September

11011131516

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 311
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jouster View Post


    Yes please. I've seen the LED displays and they're way nicer than my fluorescent MacBook screen.



    After thinking about it, I looked up the current specs of the MacBook Pro and to my sort of surprise, the 15" model already comes with an LED backlit display standard. Oops.



    The 17" model has an optional high res 1920x1200 LED backlit display for a rather reasonable $100 extra. They'll probably make LED backlighting standard on the 17", but they may make the high res version optional as Leopard doesn't fully support resolution independence (which Snow Leopard is likely to address).



    So, the 13" MacBook is the only one that really needs to move to LED backlighting and considering there's already a 13" LED backlit screen in the Air, it's likely to be adopted by the MacBook.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jouster View Post


    I also much prefer the darker keyboard the Air sports. I was a TiBook owner back in the day and would like a move back in that direction in Apple's designs. I never took to the aluminum laptops.



    Yeah, with the debut of the Air and its slick black backlit keyboard that mimics the MacBook's in the shape of keys and the indention of the entire keyboard (in contrast to the current Pro's flush keyboard of concave silver keys), I think it's almost a given the redesigned Pro's will get those black keys. Not only would it match the style of Apple's other laptops, but last year's aluminum iMac keyboard as well (in terms of shape, not color, obviously).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jouster View Post


    Well, my Macbook is the worst-constructed computer I've ever bought from Apple, and I've bought a few. The Bezel is falling off and there are thin pieces of plastic missing along the latch end of the base. Very disappointing, especially since I am not exactly throwing it around. My wife's is showing signs of the same issues and she hardly ever moves it. So that redesign sounds good, as long as it addresses these issues. *Many* people have reported them since the iBook morphed into the MacBook.



    Hmm, I thought were more durable than that.



    Hopefully whatever the new MacBook case turns out to look like, they'll make it more resistant to wear and tear.
  • Reply 242 of 311
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,001member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jouster View Post


    Ya gotta use a differnet abbreviation! Ti works. "Tit" combined with "stiff" is just.....wrong. Or right. Just saying'....



    I know, it's what we call it though. In the next post I wrote, I realized that I couldn't abbreviate it at all because of what I had said. If you look back on that one, you'll see what I mean.



    Quote:

    Okay, so the fascinating shape-fight is over? So, what tearwedge-shaped goodies might we see at the proposed event?



    I hope so, it's become tiring.
  • Reply 243 of 311
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,001member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    ha, wait now you have convinced me. good point.....



    You were too annoying in that post to be wide awake when you wrote it.
  • Reply 244 of 311
    Apple won't split AAPL anytime soon. It did so in the past because the company needed to raise fresh cash to help save itself. Now that it's back on top, Apple wants to filter the short-time profit-takers out of its stock, so AAPL can strengthen and cruise high (think GOOG or, in another ten years, Berkshire Hathaway $$$$).
  • Reply 245 of 311
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DOSbox-gamer View Post


    Apple won't split AAPL anytime soon. It did so in the past because the company needed to raise fresh cash to help save itself. Now that it's back on top, Apple wants to filter the short-time profit-takers out of its stock, so AAPL can strengthen and cruise high (think GOOG or, in another ten years, Berkshire Hathaway $$$$).





    I don't recall "raising cash" to be a reason for a stock split. Last I've heard, stock splits are just to make the price seem reasonable. No actual value is generated in doing so except for a possible psychological boost to make the stock seem affordable.
  • Reply 246 of 311
    aapleaaple Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't recall "raising cash" to be a reason for a stock split. Last I've heard, stock splits are just to make the price seem reasonable. No actual value is generated in doing so except for a possible psychological boost to make the stock seem affordable.



    This is correct. A stock split raises no additional cash. Only a seasoned equity offering (throwing more shares out there) or additional leverage (debt) would raise more cash. Stock splits are seen as positive because it usually means the price has risen enough that it looks very expensive...thus they double the number of shares each shareholder has which cuts the price in half.
  • Reply 247 of 311
    hey is the mbp update guaranteed to happen before the end of september?
  • Reply 248 of 311
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    hey is the mbp update guaranteed to happen before the end of september?



    [emphasis added by me]



    No.
  • Reply 249 of 311
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    [emphasis added by me]



    No.



    is it really likely to be otu by te end of september?
  • Reply 250 of 311
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    is it really likely to be otu by te end of september?



    Little dyslexic are we?



    I'd say it's extremely likely we'll see the new MacBook Pros by the end of September at the latest. We've got two more Tuesdays in August and a total of five in September, so if they're going to do something this month, we'll hear about it very soon as they always send out invites to the press a few days in advance.



    If Apple decides to announce these new, redesigned laptops alongside updated iPods, which seems likely, they'll probably wait until after their Back to School deal ends on Monday, September 15th, as nowayout11 suggested earlier, to avoid confusion. By then, three Tuesdays will be left, so they'll either release the Pros and iPods the very next day, Tuesday the 16th, or the following Tuesday, the 23rd. I doubt they'd release them on the last Tuesday because that would also be the last day of the month.
  • Reply 251 of 311
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    is it really likely to be otu by te end of september?



    If that's meant to be "Is it really likely to be out by the end of September?", I'd say: yes, all signs point to new MacBook Pros by the end of September.
  • Reply 252 of 311
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,001member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    is it really likely to be otu by te end of september?



    I think that most of would agree that it is very likely to be out by the end of September, barring any unexpected problems.



    {My Mac Pro too, please!)
  • Reply 253 of 311
    ...I don't think so, since that is the "sweet spot" for iPod sales in terms of volume.



    I do think Apple may drop the 1 GB shuffle in favor of the 2 GB model, to start with.



    As for the nano, in my opinion it will become the "3.5G" model, which looks and functions exactly like the current model but with new internal circuitry. Apple will offer two models, a 16 GB version (with cases in up to ten different colors) selling for US$199 or a 32 GB version (in black and Product Red colors only) selling for US$249. It will not offer Wi-Fi connectivity, since that requires too much extra circuitry and could severely affect battery life.
  • Reply 254 of 311
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SactoMan01 View Post


    ...I don't think so, since that is the "sweet spot" for iPod sales in terms of volume.



    I do think Apple may drop the 1 GB shuffle in favor of the 2 GB model, to start with.



    As for the nano, in my opinion it will become the "3.5G" model, which looks and functions exactly like the current model but with new internal circuitry. Apple will offer two models, a 16 GB version (with cases in up to ten different colors) selling for US$199 or a 32 GB version (in black and Product Red colors only) selling for US$249. It will not offer Wi-Fi connectivity, since that requires too much extra circuitry and could severely affect battery life.



    A 32GB nano is highly unlikely at this point because that would eat into iPod touch sales. The touch just got a 32GB option for $500 earlier this year, so a price drop there to $400, or $300 will keep the touch competitive with the $200 subsidized iPhone 3G; obviously the 8GB (and maybe even the 16GB) touch would then be retired and a $500 or $400 64GB touch could debut.



    I do agree about the 2GB shuffle replacing the 1GB at $50 and maybe a 4GB model for $70, as has been rumored. If that happens, a 16GB nano for $200 seems reasonable.



    With all these changes, I'm betting on them retiring the niche iPod classic, especially if there's a 64GB touch available. Not only that, they could drop touch from the iPod touch's name, making it the new iPod, simplifying the lineup so it's just the iPhone, iPod, iPod nano, and iPod shuffle.
  • Reply 255 of 311
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    A 32GB nano is highly unlikely at this point because that would eat into iPod touch sales. The touch just got a 32GB option for $500 earlier this year, so a price drop there to $400, or $300 will keep the touch competitive with the $200 subsidized iPhone 3G; obviously the 8GB (and maybe even the 16GB) touch would then be retired and a $500 or $400 64GB touch could debut.



    I do agree about the 2GB shuffle replacing the 1GB at $50 and maybe a 4GB model for $70, as has been rumored. If that happens, a 16GB nano for $200 seems reasonable.



    With all these changes, I'm betting on them retiring the niche iPod classic, especially if there's a 64GB touch available. Not only that, they could drop touch from the iPod touch's name, making it the new iPod, simplifying the lineup so it's just the iPhone, iPod, iPod nano, and iPod shuffle.



    i sure hope they don't get rid of the ipod classic. its so.... classic. i love the design and if the 32gb touch is 400 bucks like you say i cant afford that after i buy my new ipod touch. and would be getting the classic. on the other hand its a good opportunity to buy a refurb or one of the leftover models.
  • Reply 256 of 311
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zerfman View Post


    i sure hope they don't get rid of the ipod classic. its so.... classic. i love the design and if the 32gb touch is 400 bucks like you say i cant afford that after i buy my new ipod touch. and would be getting the classic. on the other hand its a good opportunity to buy a refurb or one of the leftover models.



    Yeah, I ended up buying a 5.5gen 80GB iPod video about a year and a half ago before the classic was introduced after my 4GB iPod mini (my first iPod) could no longer hold my ever expanding library, which I've recently been trimming down; I have about 23GB of music now, so I plan on buying some new stuff soon.



    The full-size iPod may have started it all, but even though the classic is the best iteration, it's also the most outdated iPod currently available in many respects. The interface, while improved over my iPod video, is largely the same, the click-wheel is alright, but nowhere near as responsive and intuitive as the iPod touch's Multi-Touch display, it lacks WiFi access, and it's the only iPod using a hard drive, which results in a good amount of lag while browsing.



    To retire the classic, I think Apple has to get the 32GB touch down to $300 and introduce a 64GB touch for $400. Will they do this soon? That's hard to tell, but once they do so, the $250 low-end 80GB classic will only be a stone's throw from the $300 low-end 32G touch, both in price and capacity. Thanks to formatting, only about 40GB will separate the two, which isn't much, and with a $400 64GB model, there's almost no difference at all. I doubt Apple has made much from the $350 160GB classic and by this time next year, we'll probably have a 128GB touch, so the minority of people who missed out on the high-end classic will have a much more compelling alternative.
  • Reply 257 of 311
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    so the minority of people who missed out on the high-end classic will have a much more compelling alternative.



    Where this logic falls apart is the fact that the iPod touch is much better suited for video than the iPod classic because its screen has double the resolution. Yet video is the one usage where every GB counts.



    I cannot see where a 128GB iPod touch would even be closely comparable to a 160GB iPod classic. If anything it needs to have more storage space than the classic as videos on the iPod touch can be of higher resolution.



    IMHO only a 256GB iPod touch is a true successor to a 160GB iPod classic.

    Yet this is at least another 2 years off.
  • Reply 258 of 311
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    Where this logic falls apart is the fact that the iPod touch is much better suited for video than the iPod classic because its screen has double the resolution. Yet video is the one usage where every GB counts.



    I cannot see where a 128GB iPod touch would even be closely comparable to a 160GB iPod classic. If anything it needs to have more storage space than the classic as videos on the iPod touch can be of higher resolution.



    IMHO only a 256GB iPod touch is a true successor to a 160GB iPod classic.

    Yet this is at least another 2 years off.



    Well said. I agree 100%. I still think a touch with HDD storage is technically feasible, so we might see one of those (1.8" HDDs with >160 GB capacity are probably available now).
  • Reply 259 of 311
    I still think Apple will introduce a 32 GB "3.5G" nano because of the direct competition from both Creative and Sandisk for the similar class of players. And there may be a good reason for this: Apple may be preparing to retire the iPod classic in favor of flash-based models, which will rapidly increase in storage capacity over the next few years as solid-state memory storage technology improves.
  • Reply 260 of 311
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    Where this logic falls apart is the fact that the iPod touch is much better suited for video than the iPod classic because its screen has double the resolution. Yet video is the one usage where every GB counts.



    I cannot see where a 128GB iPod touch would even be closely comparable to a 160GB iPod classic. If anything it needs to have more storage space than the classic as videos on the iPod touch can be of higher resolution.



    IMHO only a 256GB iPod touch is a true successor to a 160GB iPod classic.

    Yet this is at least another 2 years off.



    That's all well and good, but I wasn't making the argument that a 128GB iPod touch would be a feature for feature replacement of the 160GB classic. It would be, however, a compelling alternative that offered more than what the classic can, including WiFI, a Multi-Touch display, and as you mentioned, a larger, high resolution screen. So you lose 30GB, probably closer to 20GB due to formatting. In return, you get the valuable features I listed, in a smaller package, without the interface latency and increased power usage that comes with a hard drive based device.



    With all that said, you're ignoring the fact that the iPod classic appeals to a niche audience that's smaller than the shuffle, nano, and touch. In Apple's recent Q3 '08 earnings, it was noted that most of their revenue was made off shuffles and touches. The year before, I believe at Macworld '07, their best selling iPod was...the nano (this was before the touch and nano "fatty" were launched in the fall). Most people have no use for the iPod classic's large capacity storage, which is why the iPod touch and especially, the iPhone are selling so well.



    Another thing worth remembering is that while Apple always announces different milestones for song downloads off iTunes, I don't believe I've ever heard how well their music videos are doing and they didn't brag much about their movies until rentals came along (which I don't believe they've talked about either). While there are certainly people who download a lot of videos, there's likely a much greater number who simply stream videos off YouTube, which the iPod touch does quite well. There are of course people who buy up TV shows on iTunes, but after seeing an episode once or twice, people will likely not sync it to their iPod if they're running low on space and a new episode comes out.



    A 128GB touch would be more than enough for a great many users. 256GB would be awesome. But people are gonna have a hell of a time filling up a 32GB or 64GB touch in the meantime. I consider myself a pretty avid music listener and bought an 80GB 5.5gen iPod video because my music collection at the time couldn't fit on the 30GB iPod video and I wanted room to grow. Since then I've dropped to 23GB as my interests have changed, as many people's do. If I had kept acquiring music at the rate I had been, I'd probably only have 40GB at this point. I have 50 videos, mostly ripped from YouTube, that take up 1GB, around the same amount of music videos that take up 1.6GB, and around 3.5GB of podcasts (which most consumers know nothing about). I have 47GB remaining.



    So I agree with you on pretty much everything you said.
Sign In or Register to comment.