I would think the exact opposite of that! If it was online all the time, webmail would be a viable alternative (but still not a good one). But since the touch is not online all the time, that is the exact reason you need an e-mail client that can download your e-mail for offline viewing and composing. Give me an e-mail client with IMAP and you'd have a winner!
Sorry Mel - I can't disagree more with your last sentence or the general gist of your post.
It's not a phone. But it IS an internet device. So except to be mean-spirited, Apple has no reason to exclude these NON-PHONE functions.
It is a pretty good iPod - I agree there. But why provide internet or text entry functions if the capabilities (applications) are half-assed?
Even if there was no iPhone for comparison, people would be saying 'hey, why can't I store files locally, why can't i install a third party app to do XX?'. This is the gist of the problem many of us have.
It's not up to Apple to tell us what we want out of our iPods. And to sell a wonderful device with many capabilities that are untapped (and no legit way to tap them -YET ) really makes no sense.
BTW, I don't want the iPHONE because GSM is inadequate and the iPhone will never appear in JAPAN (where I live) until it uses a modern radio.
Just because you are happy with the Touch and everything Apple, doesn't mean the rest of us are.
I'm rarely impressed with the "People always want more".
Sure they do! I want my Canon 5D camera to be a 1DsMIII, but it isn't.
Apple gave this some great functionality over and above what a player has ever had before. But, people will always want more. That doesn't mean that they should get it.
You have to realize that Apple, like every other company, is in business to sell product, and make a profit. If they put every feature of the iPhone on this, other than the basic phone itself, there might be little reason to buy the phone. I can understand that. That's the way it should be. Products must have a well differentiated cut-off.
This is a player, with extras. It's not a communications device with extras.
You may not be happy about that, but that's what it is.
If you want more, wait until the SDK arrives. It's possible that third parties will come up with what you want. But, Apple is not obligated to blur the lines more than they think is good for them, and that's how it should be.
They have an obligation to both their customers, and to their stockholders. I'm both, and try to see it from both ends.
Your term "to be mean" is just plain silly. Talk about business.
Most people who buy this won't be concerned about what techies care about. We've seen the same thing for years now about the regular iPods with the tuner question. There is always that small, but very vocal, group who insists that the iPod MUST have a tuner, or sales will suffer. BS!
The same thing is true here. A few people will care about this, but most won't. Most who do care about this will buy it anyway, and continue to complain. A very few won't buy it at all.
if you want your 5D to be as close to Canon 1DsMarkIII - get a 40D (sold my 5D to get it and saved$$)
That's a funny one!
I'll stay with the higher quality, thank you. When the replacement comes out in March (most likely), I'll upgrade to that. No reason to go down two steps to the 40D.
Maxink is right. As far as I know, all ISP's have their own version of Web Mail. It may not be as convenient, but it does work well.
The logic of that statement totally escapes me. If "it may no be as convenient" by definition it doesn't work well.
Given all of that my Yahoo mail account got a lot better with the latest rev. Even then I'm thinking of signing up so that I can get access via my E-Mail clients. There are a number of issues to contend with when dealing with web interfaces to mail systems that simply vanish with the use of a rel mail client.
Sorry folks.. companies differentiate their products lines, so they can make the most money possible off of a particular segment of the population.
Toyota Scion's Coupes Retail for 17,000 or so.. and you can equip it with some luxury features like a navigation system.. but they don't have leather options, a backup camera, heated seats.
If you want those features/options you gotta dish out another 10-15 grand for an entry level Lexus.
If they gave you all the features of a Lexus in a Scion coupe... the price would start approaching closer to the price of a Lexus... and you might as well just buy a Lexus for the cachet that comes with being a luxury car owner.
Anyway.. it's not a perfect analogy.. and their are probably better.. but you get the point.
I'll stay with the higher quality, thank you. When the replacement comes out in March (most likely), I'll upgrade to that. No reason to go down two steps to the 40D.
there is no comparison in the noise dept. from the 5D to the 40D... try one if you get a chance. No buffer problems either. I hope it is March and less than $3k.
I'm rarely impressed with the "People always want more".
Sure they do! I want my Canon 5D camera to be a 1DsMIII, but it isn't.
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
Quote:
Apple gave this some great functionality over and above what a player has ever had before. But, people will always want more. That doesn't mean that they should get it.
That assumes that you swallow the idea that the Touch is a iPod and nothing more. Obviously it isn't!
In any event do understand that if people gave up wanting more our economy would collapse. There is nothing wrong with the quest for more, such desires lead directly to Apple in the first place.
Quote:
You have to realize that Apple, like every other company, is in business to sell product, and make a profit. If they put every feature of the iPhone on this, other than the basic phone itself, there might be little reason to buy the phone. I can understand that. That's the way it should be. Products must have a well differentiated cut-off.
This is unfortunately a bit of ignorance that gets repeated far to often to let go. The "CELL" feature of the iPhone is what distinguishes it form the rest of the iPod line up and most MP3 players for that matter.
Quote:
This is a player, with extras. It's not a communications device with extras.
Err NO it is a computer running Mac OS/X that happens to be optimized for music playing. If Apple wanted its iPods to be just players it would have kept the feature set simple years ago. Instead even the old players have a feature set that goes far beyond what is needed to support playing music.
Quote:
You may not be happy about that, but that's what it is.
A Rose Colored Dream.
Quote:
If you want more, wait until the SDK arrives. It's possible that third parties will come up with what you want. But, Apple is not obligated to blur the lines more than they think is good for them, and that's how it should be.
While Apple can do just about anything it wants to that should not be construed to be good for them or the customer. Further Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to be responsive to the consumers wants and needs.
Quote:
They have an obligation to both their customers, and to their stockholders. I'm both, and try to see it from both ends.
Step back a bit and look at your posts, you are no seeing any thing from more than one perspective. All I can detect is a lopsided attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Quote:
Your term "to be mean" is just plain silly. Talk about business.
If you think that the average CEO or corporation doesn't have the capacity for meanness then you need to get out a bit more. Many a corporate leader would willing sell his mother in to sexual slavery if it meant another percentage point in sales. There is nothing silly about focusing on the darker side of the corporate world.
Quote:
Most people who buy this won't be concerned about what techies care about. We've seen the same thing for years now about the regular iPods with the tuner question. There is always that small, but very vocal, group who insists that the iPod MUST have a tuner, or sales will suffer. BS!
Ah but sales have suffered. I know this because I haven't purchased one yet! Frankly though the tuner isn't high on my priority list but it is something that makes the device more attractive.
Quote:
The same thing is true here. A few people will care about this, but most won't. Most who do care about this will buy it anyway, and continue to complain. A very few won't buy it at all.
I'm dismayed that you seem to think that the majority of consumers in this country have no backbone and are so in love with Apple products that they can not resist buying. Apparently they are compelled to buy Apple products through some mysterious force that diminished their ability to make informed decisions. To this I say bunk. Apple will get my dollar when they make something I want to buy and no sooner.
Quote:
I'm sure that Apple has figured this out.
I'm sure Apple has plans. Unfortunately those plans don't coincide with mind nor a growing number of others. But plans are plans and no better than the paper they are drawn up on. The big question is how adaptable is Apple to the demands of the market place.
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
He says, coming from the distant 2nd brand.
Quote:
That assumes that you swallow the idea that the Touch is a iPod and nothing more. Obviously it isn't!
Obviously, it isn't what? It isn't more, or is isn't isn't more?
Quote:
In any event do understand that if people gave up wanting more our economy would collapse. There is nothing wrong with the quest for more, such desires lead directly to Apple in the first place.
The point I brought up with the camera reference was that while some desires are equitable, some aren't. I'm not saying that we shouldn't want more, but there is a line that is usually drawn. Apple has to keep products differentiated. That's what they are doing here.
Quote:
This is unfortunately a bit of ignorance that gets repeated far to often to let go. The "CELL" feature of the iPhone is what distinguishes it form the rest of the iPod line up and most MP3 players for that matter.
That's what I said. You don't have to use the word "cell" to mean phone, we know what was meant.
Quote:
Err NO it is a computer running Mac OS/X that happens to be optimized for music playing. If Apple wanted its iPods to be just players it would have kept the feature set simple years ago. Instead even the old players have a feature set that goes far beyond what is needed to support playing music.
Err NO. This is a product of Apple, not you. Jobs said that this is an iPod. He said that the iPhone was a phone, NOT a computer. It's the company's right to define their own products. The fact that it can do more is great, but you seem to think that Apple is obligated to YOU. They are not. If a product disappoints, don't buy it. Or, in this case, as I said, wait for the SDK, and see what happens.
Quote:
A Rose Colored Dream.
It's usually described in terms of glasses, but fine. If that's what you're having, go for it!
Quote:
While Apple can do just about anything it wants to that should not be construed to be good for them or the customer. Further Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to be responsive to the consumers wants and needs.
While I basicly agree, what is good for their customers is not always good for the shareholders.
If Apple is making far more money off the iPhone, because of revenue sharing, then every iTouch that is sold instead of an iPhone, can decrease Apple's revenues, and profits, by a good deal. Not shareholder friendly.
Quote:
Step back a bit and look at your posts, you are no seeing any thing from more than one perspective. All I can detect is a lopsided attempt to explain the unexplainable.
That's because it's my perspective. you are doing the same thing, because it's your perspective. Please don't pretend otherwise.
Quote:
If you think that the average CEO or corporation doesn't have the capacity for meanness then you need to get out a bit more. Many a corporate leader would willing sell his mother in to sexual slavery if it meant another percentage point in sales. There is nothing silly about focusing on the darker side of the corporate world.
Again, that's silly. Business is the name of the game. While it's certainly true that executives may make decisions that are blinded by their own prejudices, just as ours are, they don't withhold features because they think that it will serve their customers right. Wow! What a perspective. I owned two companies, how many have you led?
Quote:
Ah but sales have suffered. I know this because I haven't purchased one yet! Frankly though the tuner isn't high on my priority list but it is something that makes the device more attractive.
Ah yourself. Not impressed. Apple sold, what, over 50 million iPods this financial year? How many sales did they lose? 50 thousand? A few more? The cost of putting the tuner into the devices will cost more than all of the sales that were lost. How much would that tuner have cost Apple, per device, when the R&D was finished, and all of the design, parts procurement, and manufacturing was added up? $2, $3, $4, $5? Multiply the number you like by the number of sales, and wonder if the lost sales would have more than made up for it. I doubt it.
Quote:
I'm dismayed that you seem to think that the majority of consumers in this country have no backbone and are so in love with Apple products that they can not resist buying. Apparently they are compelled to buy Apple products through some mysterious force that diminished their ability to make informed decisions. To this I say bunk. Apple will get my dollar when they make something I want to buy and no sooner.
Be dismayed all you want to. It has nothing to do with backbone. Most people simply don't CARE.
Quote:
I'm sure Apple has plans. Unfortunately those plans don't coincide with mind nor a growing number of others. But plans are plans and no better than the paper they are drawn up on. The big question is how adaptable is Apple to the demands of the market place.
Dave
I'm sure they have plans as well, but unlike what you think, they coincide with a growing number of consumers. The number of those whose opinions don't coincide are not growing, they are shrinking, which can easily be seen from Apple's rapidly growing sales.
If you were right, apple's sales would be shrinking.
The logic of that statement totally escapes me. If "it may no be as convenient" by definition it doesn't work well.
Given all of that my Yahoo mail account got a lot better with the latest rev. Even then I'm thinking of signing up so that I can get access via my E-Mail clients. There are a number of issues to contend with when dealing with web interfaces to mail systems that simply vanish with the use of a rel mail client.
DAVE
No, it's logical. One has to understand that the iTouch simply wasn't designed to be a mail monster. That's not its purpose. If it were, then Apple would have included Mail. But, they didn't.
What I'm saying, is that web mail works fine, even if it's not as convenient. The fact is, it does work.
If someone really needs push mail, and all of the rest of it, then they should perhaps get a Blackberry.
I'm talking to those who would like to get their mail, but for whom it's not such a priority.
there is no comparison in the noise dept. from the 5D to the 40D... try one if you get a chance. No buffer problems either. I hope it is March and less than $3k.
I own the 5D, and I've shot about 1,000 frames with the 40D.
The only thing I use the "motor" for is for auto bracketing.
Guys , If I am not mistaken , the Nikon D3 is not out yet so comparing it with an existing product using just the D3's specs is not an honest evaluation . Honestly , as a Nikon user , I like to have the D3 with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR lens but I guess I have to wait .
As for the iPod Touch , I agree with Melgross , ordinary users could care less what techies want on the iPod and contrary to what some tech posters are implying , I and the vast majority of us don't swallow the marketing hype of Apple . We make informed decisions by going to the Apple store and check the devices ourselves and see if the thing works for us , if it does we may buy it or if not , they will either wait or buy another product from a competing company that may be superior or equal to the iPod . The only thing that prevents me from buying the Touch is it's storage capacity .
[QUOTE=Wil;1170800]Guys , If I am not mistaken , the Nikon D3 is not out yet so comparing it with an existing product using just the D3's specs is not an honest evaluation . Honestly , as a Nikon user , I like to have the D3 with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR lens but I guess I have to wait .
When at the PhotoExpo here in October, I had a good amount of time with the camera, taking pictures with my own 4 GB San Disk Extreme IV card.
I've processed those images in Camera Raw, using a beta of the Nikon plug-in. The pictures are pretty good. The noise is about the same as my 5D up to 400. At 800, and above, they are a bit better. At 3200 they are noticably better in terms of total noise, but, Canon's noise has always been more filmlike, and more easily correctable. That's still true.
The thing about digital camera noise is that most of it can be gotten rid of. Camera Raw (preferably ver 4) does an excellent job of eliminating chroma noise at even the standard setting of 25%. Luminance noise is much less annoying, and can actually be desirable, if not too prominent. Programs such as Noise Ninja, and DXO can eliminate most all of the noise without damaging the image, if applied carefully.
But, Nikon certainly have a high (though not normally usable) ISO.
Guys , If I am not mistaken , the Nikon D3 is not out yet so comparing it with an existing product using just the D3's specs is not an honest evaluation . Honestly , as a Nikon user , I like to have the D3 with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR lens but I guess I have to wait .
When at the PhotoExpo here in October, I had a good amount of time with the camera, taking pictures with my own 4 GB San Disk Extreme IV card.
I've processed those images in Camera Raw, using a beta of the Nikon plug-in. The pictures are pretty good. The noise is about the same as my 5D up to 400. At 800, and above, they are a bit better. At 3200 they are noticably better in terms of total noise, but, Canon's noise has always been more filmlike, and more easily correctable. That's still true.
The thing about digital camera noise is that most of it can be gotten rid of. Camera Raw (preferably ver 4) does an excellent job of eliminating chroma noise at even the standard setting of 25%. Luminance noise is much less annoying, and can actually be desirable, if not too prominent. Programs such as Noise Ninja, and DXO can eliminate most all of the noise without damaging the image, if applied carefully.
But, Nikon certainly have a high (though not normally usable) ISO.
How heavy is the thing anyway ? My D200 with the 18-200 VR lens is heavy enough after a while of carrying it inside my backpack .
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
Did Nikon back off on encrypting part of their RAW files in some models? I don't care if the particular model I'm looking at doesn't have it, I'd rather not support a maker that thinks it's OK to pull stunts like that.
2.7 pounds without the battery or memory card. The 70-200 2.8 weighs 51.9 ounces.
I don't usually recommend pro level equipment unless the person is a pro, because of size and weight.
Why would you want this camera model instead of the fine D300?
That why I posted that I will wait . You are correct though , the D3 is for the pros and advance amateurs and for that price point , the camera should and must be able to pay for itself overtime . One of the reasons why I wanted the D3 is that it is a full frame camera and I always wanted to use wide angle lenses for panoramic shots . But for that price , I am willing to wait for the Full Frame prosumer camera and just get the 70-200 lens .
Comments
I would think the exact opposite of that! If it was online all the time, webmail would be a viable alternative (but still not a good one). But since the touch is not online all the time, that is the exact reason you need an e-mail client that can download your e-mail for offline viewing and composing. Give me an e-mail client with IMAP and you'd have a winner!
I use Covad, and I can download my webmail.
Sorry Mel - I can't disagree more with your last sentence or the general gist of your post.
It's not a phone. But it IS an internet device. So except to be mean-spirited, Apple has no reason to exclude these NON-PHONE functions.
It is a pretty good iPod - I agree there. But why provide internet or text entry functions if the capabilities (applications) are half-assed?
Even if there was no iPhone for comparison, people would be saying 'hey, why can't I store files locally, why can't i install a third party app to do XX?'. This is the gist of the problem many of us have.
It's not up to Apple to tell us what we want out of our iPods. And to sell a wonderful device with many capabilities that are untapped (and no legit way to tap them -YET ) really makes no sense.
BTW, I don't want the iPHONE because GSM is inadequate and the iPhone will never appear in JAPAN (where I live) until it uses a modern radio.
Just because you are happy with the Touch and everything Apple, doesn't mean the rest of us are.
I'm rarely impressed with the "People always want more".
Sure they do! I want my Canon 5D camera to be a 1DsMIII, but it isn't.
Apple gave this some great functionality over and above what a player has ever had before. But, people will always want more. That doesn't mean that they should get it.
You have to realize that Apple, like every other company, is in business to sell product, and make a profit. If they put every feature of the iPhone on this, other than the basic phone itself, there might be little reason to buy the phone. I can understand that. That's the way it should be. Products must have a well differentiated cut-off.
This is a player, with extras. It's not a communications device with extras.
You may not be happy about that, but that's what it is.
If you want more, wait until the SDK arrives. It's possible that third parties will come up with what you want. But, Apple is not obligated to blur the lines more than they think is good for them, and that's how it should be.
They have an obligation to both their customers, and to their stockholders. I'm both, and try to see it from both ends.
Your term "to be mean" is just plain silly. Talk about business.
Most people who buy this won't be concerned about what techies care about. We've seen the same thing for years now about the regular iPods with the tuner question. There is always that small, but very vocal, group who insists that the iPod MUST have a tuner, or sales will suffer. BS!
The same thing is true here. A few people will care about this, but most won't. Most who do care about this will buy it anyway, and continue to complain. A very few won't buy it at all.
I'm sure that Apple has figured this out.
Do i get the touch....which i was waiting for the calendar feature to occur......or... do i wait for the Newton in Jan/Feb/Mar?
if you want your 5D to be as close to Canon 1DsMarkIII - get a 40D (sold my 5D to get it and saved$$)
That's a funny one!
I'll stay with the higher quality, thank you. When the replacement comes out in March (most likely), I'll upgrade to that. No reason to go down two steps to the 40D.
Maxink is right. As far as I know, all ISP's have their own version of Web Mail. It may not be as convenient, but it does work well.
The logic of that statement totally escapes me. If "it may no be as convenient" by definition it doesn't work well.
Given all of that my Yahoo mail account got a lot better with the latest rev. Even then I'm thinking of signing up so that I can get access via my E-Mail clients. There are a number of issues to contend with when dealing with web interfaces to mail systems that simply vanish with the use of a rel mail client.
DAVE
Sorry folks.. companies differentiate their products lines, so they can make the most money possible off of a particular segment of the population.
Toyota Scion's Coupes Retail for 17,000 or so.. and you can equip it with some luxury features like a navigation system.. but they don't have leather options, a backup camera, heated seats.
If you want those features/options you gotta dish out another 10-15 grand for an entry level Lexus.
If they gave you all the features of a Lexus in a Scion coupe... the price would start approaching closer to the price of a Lexus... and you might as well just buy a Lexus for the cachet that comes with being a luxury car owner.
Anyway.. it's not a perfect analogy.. and their are probably better.. but you get the point.
That's a funny one!
I'll stay with the higher quality, thank you. When the replacement comes out in March (most likely), I'll upgrade to that. No reason to go down two steps to the 40D.
there is no comparison in the noise dept. from the 5D to the 40D... try one if you get a chance. No buffer problems either. I hope it is March and less than $3k.
I'm rarely impressed with the "People always want more".
Sure they do! I want my Canon 5D camera to be a 1DsMIII, but it isn't.
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
Apple gave this some great functionality over and above what a player has ever had before. But, people will always want more. That doesn't mean that they should get it.
That assumes that you swallow the idea that the Touch is a iPod and nothing more. Obviously it isn't!
In any event do understand that if people gave up wanting more our economy would collapse. There is nothing wrong with the quest for more, such desires lead directly to Apple in the first place.
You have to realize that Apple, like every other company, is in business to sell product, and make a profit. If they put every feature of the iPhone on this, other than the basic phone itself, there might be little reason to buy the phone. I can understand that. That's the way it should be. Products must have a well differentiated cut-off.
This is unfortunately a bit of ignorance that gets repeated far to often to let go. The "CELL" feature of the iPhone is what distinguishes it form the rest of the iPod line up and most MP3 players for that matter.
This is a player, with extras. It's not a communications device with extras.
Err NO it is a computer running Mac OS/X that happens to be optimized for music playing. If Apple wanted its iPods to be just players it would have kept the feature set simple years ago. Instead even the old players have a feature set that goes far beyond what is needed to support playing music.
You may not be happy about that, but that's what it is.
A Rose Colored Dream.
If you want more, wait until the SDK arrives. It's possible that third parties will come up with what you want. But, Apple is not obligated to blur the lines more than they think is good for them, and that's how it should be.
While Apple can do just about anything it wants to that should not be construed to be good for them or the customer. Further Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to be responsive to the consumers wants and needs.
They have an obligation to both their customers, and to their stockholders. I'm both, and try to see it from both ends.
Step back a bit and look at your posts, you are no seeing any thing from more than one perspective. All I can detect is a lopsided attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Your term "to be mean" is just plain silly. Talk about business.
If you think that the average CEO or corporation doesn't have the capacity for meanness then you need to get out a bit more. Many a corporate leader would willing sell his mother in to sexual slavery if it meant another percentage point in sales. There is nothing silly about focusing on the darker side of the corporate world.
Most people who buy this won't be concerned about what techies care about. We've seen the same thing for years now about the regular iPods with the tuner question. There is always that small, but very vocal, group who insists that the iPod MUST have a tuner, or sales will suffer. BS!
Ah but sales have suffered. I know this because I haven't purchased one yet! Frankly though the tuner isn't high on my priority list but it is something that makes the device more attractive.
The same thing is true here. A few people will care about this, but most won't. Most who do care about this will buy it anyway, and continue to complain. A very few won't buy it at all.
I'm dismayed that you seem to think that the majority of consumers in this country have no backbone and are so in love with Apple products that they can not resist buying. Apparently they are compelled to buy Apple products through some mysterious force that diminished their ability to make informed decisions. To this I say bunk. Apple will get my dollar when they make something I want to buy and no sooner.
I'm sure that Apple has figured this out.
I'm sure Apple has plans. Unfortunately those plans don't coincide with mind nor a growing number of others. But plans are plans and no better than the paper they are drawn up on. The big question is how adaptable is Apple to the demands of the market place.
Dave
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
He says, coming from the distant 2nd brand.
That assumes that you swallow the idea that the Touch is a iPod and nothing more. Obviously it isn't!
Obviously, it isn't what? It isn't more, or is isn't isn't more?
In any event do understand that if people gave up wanting more our economy would collapse. There is nothing wrong with the quest for more, such desires lead directly to Apple in the first place.
The point I brought up with the camera reference was that while some desires are equitable, some aren't. I'm not saying that we shouldn't want more, but there is a line that is usually drawn. Apple has to keep products differentiated. That's what they are doing here.
This is unfortunately a bit of ignorance that gets repeated far to often to let go. The "CELL" feature of the iPhone is what distinguishes it form the rest of the iPod line up and most MP3 players for that matter.
That's what I said. You don't have to use the word "cell" to mean phone, we know what was meant.
Err NO it is a computer running Mac OS/X that happens to be optimized for music playing. If Apple wanted its iPods to be just players it would have kept the feature set simple years ago. Instead even the old players have a feature set that goes far beyond what is needed to support playing music.
Err NO. This is a product of Apple, not you. Jobs said that this is an iPod. He said that the iPhone was a phone, NOT a computer. It's the company's right to define their own products. The fact that it can do more is great, but you seem to think that Apple is obligated to YOU. They are not. If a product disappoints, don't buy it. Or, in this case, as I said, wait for the SDK, and see what happens.
A Rose Colored Dream.
It's usually described in terms of glasses, but fine. If that's what you're having, go for it!
While Apple can do just about anything it wants to that should not be construed to be good for them or the customer. Further Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to be responsive to the consumers wants and needs.
While I basicly agree, what is good for their customers is not always good for the shareholders.
If Apple is making far more money off the iPhone, because of revenue sharing, then every iTouch that is sold instead of an iPhone, can decrease Apple's revenues, and profits, by a good deal. Not shareholder friendly.
Step back a bit and look at your posts, you are no seeing any thing from more than one perspective. All I can detect is a lopsided attempt to explain the unexplainable.
That's because it's my perspective. you are doing the same thing, because it's your perspective. Please don't pretend otherwise.
If you think that the average CEO or corporation doesn't have the capacity for meanness then you need to get out a bit more. Many a corporate leader would willing sell his mother in to sexual slavery if it meant another percentage point in sales. There is nothing silly about focusing on the darker side of the corporate world.
Again, that's silly. Business is the name of the game. While it's certainly true that executives may make decisions that are blinded by their own prejudices, just as ours are, they don't withhold features because they think that it will serve their customers right. Wow! What a perspective. I owned two companies, how many have you led?
Ah but sales have suffered. I know this because I haven't purchased one yet! Frankly though the tuner isn't high on my priority list but it is something that makes the device more attractive.
Ah yourself. Not impressed. Apple sold, what, over 50 million iPods this financial year? How many sales did they lose? 50 thousand? A few more? The cost of putting the tuner into the devices will cost more than all of the sales that were lost. How much would that tuner have cost Apple, per device, when the R&D was finished, and all of the design, parts procurement, and manufacturing was added up? $2, $3, $4, $5? Multiply the number you like by the number of sales, and wonder if the lost sales would have more than made up for it. I doubt it.
I'm dismayed that you seem to think that the majority of consumers in this country have no backbone and are so in love with Apple products that they can not resist buying. Apparently they are compelled to buy Apple products through some mysterious force that diminished their ability to make informed decisions. To this I say bunk. Apple will get my dollar when they make something I want to buy and no sooner.
Be dismayed all you want to. It has nothing to do with backbone. Most people simply don't CARE.
I'm sure Apple has plans. Unfortunately those plans don't coincide with mind nor a growing number of others. But plans are plans and no better than the paper they are drawn up on. The big question is how adaptable is Apple to the demands of the market place.
Dave
I'm sure they have plans as well, but unlike what you think, they coincide with a growing number of consumers. The number of those whose opinions don't coincide are not growing, they are shrinking, which can easily be seen from Apple's rapidly growing sales.
If you were right, apple's sales would be shrinking.
The logic of that statement totally escapes me. If "it may no be as convenient" by definition it doesn't work well.
Given all of that my Yahoo mail account got a lot better with the latest rev. Even then I'm thinking of signing up so that I can get access via my E-Mail clients. There are a number of issues to contend with when dealing with web interfaces to mail systems that simply vanish with the use of a rel mail client.
DAVE
No, it's logical. One has to understand that the iTouch simply wasn't designed to be a mail monster. That's not its purpose. If it were, then Apple would have included Mail. But, they didn't.
What I'm saying, is that web mail works fine, even if it's not as convenient. The fact is, it does work.
If someone really needs push mail, and all of the rest of it, then they should perhaps get a Blackberry.
I'm talking to those who would like to get their mail, but for whom it's not such a priority.
there is no comparison in the noise dept. from the 5D to the 40D... try one if you get a chance. No buffer problems either. I hope it is March and less than $3k.
I own the 5D, and I've shot about 1,000 frames with the 40D.
The only thing I use the "motor" for is for auto bracketing.
I'll stick with the 5D.
As for the iPod Touch , I agree with Melgross , ordinary users could care less what techies want on the iPod and contrary to what some tech posters are implying , I and the vast majority of us don't swallow the marketing hype of Apple . We make informed decisions by going to the Apple store and check the devices ourselves and see if the thing works for us , if it does we may buy it or if not , they will either wait or buy another product from a competing company that may be superior or equal to the iPod . The only thing that prevents me from buying the Touch is it's storage capacity .
When at the PhotoExpo here in October, I had a good amount of time with the camera, taking pictures with my own 4 GB San Disk Extreme IV card.
I've processed those images in Camera Raw, using a beta of the Nikon plug-in. The pictures are pretty good. The noise is about the same as my 5D up to 400. At 800, and above, they are a bit better. At 3200 they are noticably better in terms of total noise, but, Canon's noise has always been more filmlike, and more easily correctable. That's still true.
The thing about digital camera noise is that most of it can be gotten rid of. Camera Raw (preferably ver 4) does an excellent job of eliminating chroma noise at even the standard setting of 25%. Luminance noise is much less annoying, and can actually be desirable, if not too prominent. Programs such as Noise Ninja, and DXO can eliminate most all of the noise without damaging the image, if applied carefully.
But, Nikon certainly have a high (though not normally usable) ISO.
Guys , If I am not mistaken , the Nikon D3 is not out yet so comparing it with an existing product using just the D3's specs is not an honest evaluation . Honestly , as a Nikon user , I like to have the D3 with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR lens but I guess I have to wait .
When at the PhotoExpo here in October, I had a good amount of time with the camera, taking pictures with my own 4 GB San Disk Extreme IV card.
I've processed those images in Camera Raw, using a beta of the Nikon plug-in. The pictures are pretty good. The noise is about the same as my 5D up to 400. At 800, and above, they are a bit better. At 3200 they are noticably better in terms of total noise, but, Canon's noise has always been more filmlike, and more easily correctable. That's still true.
The thing about digital camera noise is that most of it can be gotten rid of. Camera Raw (preferably ver 4) does an excellent job of eliminating chroma noise at even the standard setting of 25%. Luminance noise is much less annoying, and can actually be desirable, if not too prominent. Programs such as Noise Ninja, and DXO can eliminate most all of the noise without damaging the image, if applied carefully.
But, Nikon certainly have a high (though not normally usable) ISO.
How heavy is the thing anyway ? My D200 with the 18-200 VR lens is heavy enough after a while of carrying it inside my backpack .
How heavy is the thing anyway ? My D200 with the 18-200 VR lens is heavy enough after a while of carrying it inside my backpack .
2.7 pounds without the battery or memory card. The 70-200 2.8 weighs 51.9 ounces.
I don't usually recommend pro level equipment unless the person is a pro, because of size and weight.
Why would you want this camera model instead of the fine D300?
Its good to see Apple give the touch calendar editing, another box ticked for me to be getting one (not there yet though).
Yes and all you Canon users would be far better off with a Nikon D3
Did Nikon back off on encrypting part of their RAW files in some models? I don't care if the particular model I'm looking at doesn't have it, I'd rather not support a maker that thinks it's OK to pull stunts like that.
Just where is the 64GB version now?
Unless you're willing to actually pay for it, don't ask for it. Flash looks to be maybe $10/GB in retail pricing, so that's another $500.
2.7 pounds without the battery or memory card. The 70-200 2.8 weighs 51.9 ounces.
I don't usually recommend pro level equipment unless the person is a pro, because of size and weight.
Why would you want this camera model instead of the fine D300?
That why I posted that I will wait . You are correct though , the D3 is for the pros and advance amateurs and for that price point , the camera should and must be able to pay for itself overtime . One of the reasons why I wanted the D3 is that it is a full frame camera and I always wanted to use wide angle lenses for panoramic shots . But for that price , I am willing to wait for the Full Frame prosumer camera and just get the 70-200 lens .