Another Apple page briefly mentioned mysterious 'mid-2014' 27-inch iMac

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    4K iMac here we come?

     

    Nope. Just tiny speed bumps like the "new" MBPs.

  • Reply 42 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

     

    This would be a great way to combine to products into one (Mac mini and AppleTV). I'm not sure how many people though would use the Mac mini side of this with the TV as their display. I guess more people than we think do this? I for one tried and it just doesn't look all that great. Still though, I think its a great way to combine 2 products into one. Maybe this could also be the first iteration of an ARM based Mac with the entire thing running on something like an A8X chip?


    Sigh.   you guys don't get it... Apple is not building your snakes on a plane designed merge of a Mini/AppleTV.  At least not in a way that anyone here would want. (I'm sure everyone  of us would have wanted a 'Mac Touch Screen Tablet' and not an iPad.)

  • Reply 43 of 52
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,194member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    4K iMac here we come?








    This obviously the small screen version. image



    Is this the new iMac Pro? This may be a reason to go back to the desk lamp screen mount, cause I want a 40" 4K display -- how many video "cards" do you think it will support? Just Imagine all that resolution and not a drop of content - Yeah Baby¡

     

    Edit: Sorry I did not read the rest of the posts before putting this up -- so the other version is sort of a Segway/iRobot Mac?

  • Reply 44 of 52
    ted13ted13 Posts: 65member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

    Not exactly, right?  Aereo was ruled against because it was, effectively, rebroadcasting the signal from it's magic warehouse & antenna.   If my device, in my home, records to my personal cloud, then it should be legal.  Otherwise, I'd argue that Slingbox, Hopper, etc are illegal.  Dropbox as well.


    First, in my opinion they should all be legal, including Aereo.  That said: what you describe sounds legal, but it wouldn't work technically unless you have amazing upstream Internet bandwidth.  The average AppleTV customer does not have high enough upstream bandwidth to record an OTA (or clear QAM) HD (1080i) MPEG 2 transport stream.  There is just no way.  Never mind multiple streams if there are more than one tuner in action. 

    So, the recording itself would have to happen in the cloud, and we are right back in Aereo territory.  

     

    (For anyone asking "what about Slingbox" - the video stream gets transcoded and recompressed to within an inch of its life for it to work.  Basically the video quality gets killed dead.  Not a big deal if you want to catch with something on your phone on the go -- but not how you want to watch on you large HDTV at home).

  • Reply 45 of 52
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member

    iBuy  -  Retina iMac

    iPass -  No Retina

  • Reply 46 of 52
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,194member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    Apple last year made 180Million in Gross Profit a DAY.

     


     

    This always reminds me of George Carlin's "jumbo shrimp, semi-boneless ham..." ;-)

  • Reply 47 of 52
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ted13 View Post

     

    First, in my opinion they should all be legal, including Aereo.  


     

    We agree completely on that.  I was pretty disappointed with the SC ruling.

  • Reply 48 of 52
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member

    Is this the new iMac Pro? This may be a reason to go back to the desk lamp screen mount, cause I want a 40" 4K display -- how many video "cards" do you think it will support? Just Imagine all that resolution and not a drop of content - Yeah Baby¡

    Edit: Sorry I did not read the rest of the posts before putting this up -- so the other version is sort of a Segway/iRobot Mac?

    That's a good description. :D

    Imagine with Siri and that with various add on attachments like arms and mechanical fingers .... "Bring me a G & T Siri!"

    And people think only Google are planning an entry into robotics!
  • Reply 49 of 52
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,709member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

    ... the mass market doesn't want a compute platform, it wants an 'App Accelerator,'  Which will be a local caching server for content. It will be an amalgam of a TimeCapsule and AppleTV, and all your podcasts, shows, etc, will have at least the first XX minutes pre-cached for instant startup on your local 'ac' wifi network.  The magic will be the DVR programming of it.

     

    OTA/Cable collection... that's the magic.   Can't predict how it will happen, but I can predict it WON'T happen on an OSX device.  It's either built into ATV, or something else.  And an iOS app will manage it.

     

    :)     This is exactly what I predicted when there was talk of a new iOS powered TimeCapsule a year or two ago. It makes sense to me but with the speed of connections these days I think it is already an outdated model. The 'home server' now resides with Apple.
  • Reply 50 of 52
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member

    Looking at the MBP situation there was a clear reason why Apple continued to ship 2.0GHz and 2.3GHz machines instead of adopting the identically priced 2.1 and 2.4GHz parts: the top end was stuck at 2.6GHz. Without a new top end chip Apple didn't want to upgrade the bottom and middle machines. Intel then produced not only a 2.8GHz top end, but also replaced the 2.1 and 2.4 with faster 2.2 and 2.5GHz parts. When Apple could move the entire line up by 200MHz they acted.

     

    Over on the desktop things are a little different. The entire line of iMac chips moved up 100MHz earlier this year, but Apple chose not to use them. At the top end the i7 4790 is actually less expensive than the 4771 it effectively replaces. Still Apple has chosen not to act. Perhaps they are waiting for Intel to move the bar 200MHz like they did on the notebook side.

     

    Last year when Haswell first shipped it was clear that any replacement Mac mini CPU would cost Apple more than the Ivy Bridge CPUs they're currently using. I also had a look at performance benchmarks for the quad core mini and compared those to the contemporary iMac. The results didn't cast the more expensive model in a particularly good light so I expected the Mac mini update to be delayed. I expected the mini to finally move to Haswell when Apple could get attractively priced CPUs that provided a nice boost over the current model without encroaching too much on iMac performance. Has that day finally arrived? I think we'll all know soon.

  • Reply 51 of 52
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member

    I was a bit puzzled about the timing of the MacBook Pro upgrade, since I don't recall Apple doing a spec update of the 'Books on a random summer week before.

     

    However the rumoured iMac and Mini updates do make sense, since Apple often does a product update in the first week of August. In fact, they almost always announce something on the first Tuesday or Wednesday in August.

     

    It's easy for a Torontonian to keep track of. You get back from the Simcoe Day long weekend, and there's Apple news the next day!

  • Reply 52 of 52

    When does "mid-2014" end?

     

    Me want new iMac.

     

    8-)

Sign In or Register to comment.