Shagrat
Nov 15, 11:18 AM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
PC Trolls??
PC Trolls??
MisterK
Apr 3, 11:25 AM
I loved this ad. The voiceover reminds me of old Hal Riney commercials, where there is a reverence for the product � a person with quiet confidence telling you a "truth". When the message is a simple one, it's easier to tell a compelling story. Here's the message: when you don't notice the tech the experience feels magical.
There's nothing wrong with this. Magic is what tech is at its finest. Engineers and developers become mired in the details of how to make it work and think that's the important part, and then we get awful commercials boasting specs. When we lift abstractions and technological explanations, the things we do become more fantastic. We don't visit websites, but can see all the knowledge of the world. We don't Skype; we talk face-to-face with distant loved ones. We don't use Photoshop brushes; we create images with our fingers. Why are the details of how that happens the important part?
TBWA are the marketing geniuses that have always done Apple's stuff and I'm glad they saw this nugget of truth in Apple's iPad message. This is what we have to do in the advertising business (yes, I'm in it). I've been lucky enough to work with TBWA and can say that they are the real deal. They are true MadMen who honestly look for the most beautiful truth in the products they are asked to sell and then speak that truth more eloquently than everyone else.
People who identify this as "simply advertising" are missing the point. You're not the smartest kid in the playground when you tell everyone that Santa doesn't exist. The smart ones are the kids enjoying Christmas.
There's nothing wrong with this. Magic is what tech is at its finest. Engineers and developers become mired in the details of how to make it work and think that's the important part, and then we get awful commercials boasting specs. When we lift abstractions and technological explanations, the things we do become more fantastic. We don't visit websites, but can see all the knowledge of the world. We don't Skype; we talk face-to-face with distant loved ones. We don't use Photoshop brushes; we create images with our fingers. Why are the details of how that happens the important part?
TBWA are the marketing geniuses that have always done Apple's stuff and I'm glad they saw this nugget of truth in Apple's iPad message. This is what we have to do in the advertising business (yes, I'm in it). I've been lucky enough to work with TBWA and can say that they are the real deal. They are true MadMen who honestly look for the most beautiful truth in the products they are asked to sell and then speak that truth more eloquently than everyone else.
People who identify this as "simply advertising" are missing the point. You're not the smartest kid in the playground when you tell everyone that Santa doesn't exist. The smart ones are the kids enjoying Christmas.
Tonsko
Jan 7, 01:51 PM
That a Remus I spy there? I remember choosing between that and SuperSprint for my old Edition 1 G60. I went for SS in the end as the steel was different and gave a different note.
Josias
Nov 27, 01:55 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:
See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
pope
Jan 13, 09:28 AM
introducing...MacBook Error
TerryJ
Jul 14, 10:28 AM
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
ThaDoggg
Apr 2, 07:41 PM
Great ad! Glad to see something new from Apple.
Apple OC
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
It's just the last time I remember a UN action it was 98% US in Iraq.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19�May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19�May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.
BabyFaceMagee
Jan 13, 01:34 PM
Apple dosent registor domain names like that...
Apple doesn't purchase individual sites for its products. They put everything under the www.apple.com site. go try looking for www.macbook.com or www.powerbook.com and you'll see they just go to individual user's sites. So no MacbookAir.com site registered to Apple doesn't mean anything.
Apple doesn't purchase individual sites for its products. They put everything under the www.apple.com site. go try looking for www.macbook.com or www.powerbook.com and you'll see they just go to individual user's sites. So no MacbookAir.com site registered to Apple doesn't mean anything.
gusapple
Apr 12, 09:22 PM
I believe that this is the first update since FCP 6 that I feel like I can venture a few thousand on. I absolutely detest the rendering dialogue, which can sometimes take 6 hours for a simple 20 minute piece of media. The autorender and integration with Grand Central Dispatch will be helpful, especially because this is where it is absolutely necessary. Thank goodness. I am not sure if I like the UI, but that might be because I hate iMovie.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 24, 05:43 PM
I hope it happens soon......that new iMac is sounding nice!!! I think it is obviously coming "VERY SOON." What happened to September 5th? Is that the tuesday after labor day, I think it is....
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
M-Life
Aug 29, 12:45 PM
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago? Have mini sales been all that great to warrant holding off on a simple update? Or could they possibly have been waiting for other products to move to merom so the mini doesn't infringe? I just don't understand why this has taken so long.
zivilist
Apr 19, 01:36 PM
Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)
Not possible: the iMac is not a workstation. Hopefully a big HD6xxx and a big hexa and quadcore are included.
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
Agreed. 64 GB and 128 GB SSD option would be nice (already posted this feedback to apple).
Not possible: the iMac is not a workstation. Hopefully a big HD6xxx and a big hexa and quadcore are included.
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
Agreed. 64 GB and 128 GB SSD option would be nice (already posted this feedback to apple).
medazinol
Nov 29, 04:36 PM
Like everyone else, I've seen the pictures of the back of the iTV (no video in ports) but I'd really like to able to record on this puppy.
I'll still buy one because I have tons of video I'd rather watch on my plasma pulled from my iMac rather than wasting CDs and DVDs. Sorry but my XBOX 360 limitation to WMV streaming via Conenect360 just doesn't cut it...
I'll still buy one because I have tons of video I'd rather watch on my plasma pulled from my iMac rather than wasting CDs and DVDs. Sorry but my XBOX 360 limitation to WMV streaming via Conenect360 just doesn't cut it...
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 04:48 PM
It's totally 'legal', so if you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't stop others from doing so.
NAG
Jan 12, 05:03 PM
Like the iPod nano or the Airport Extreme says what the product does.
PBF
Apr 10, 04:27 PM
I'm sorry, but unless you, guys, are suffering from some kinda severe form of ADHD, iCal's very orangey toolbar shouldn't be a distraction at all. Seriously.
AdeFowler
Apr 2, 08:35 PM
Nice ad. Really like it.
All the Nokia/Samsung ads that I've seen recently look like they were made during a task in The Apprentice.
All the Nokia/Samsung ads that I've seen recently look like they were made during a task in The Apprentice.
SactoGuy18
Mar 5, 07:55 AM
Dear god I hope that Golf GTD shows up stateside.
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
reel2reel
Apr 12, 09:55 PM
Here's hoping too. :)
Yeah, very interested to see how color correction workflow changes (or stays the same).
Yeah, very interested to see how color correction workflow changes (or stays the same).
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
AhmedFaisal
Apr 12, 05:56 PM
The more I read the stuff you post, the more I shake my head.
He's young. 16 if I read his other post correctly about the wedding. So his attitude towards driving is expected. I used to streetrace after I got my license and held similar disdain for autos and people driving autos (including my dad). Experience and age mellows attitudes..... sometimes.... hehe.....
He's young. 16 if I read his other post correctly about the wedding. So his attitude towards driving is expected. I used to streetrace after I got my license and held similar disdain for autos and people driving autos (including my dad). Experience and age mellows attitudes..... sometimes.... hehe.....
emotion
Nov 27, 05:25 PM
The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run.
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
EagerDragon
Jul 19, 08:42 PM
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
No comments:
Post a Comment