PDA

View Full Version : Apple Acquires Video Asset Management Software




MacRumors
Dec 4, 2006, 01:08 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has acquired Proximity's (http://www.proximitygroup.com/index.php) technology and intellectual property. Proximity is the maker of Artbox workgroup (http://www.proximitygroup.com/page.php?pg=products_artbox_workgroup) and Artbox enterprise (http://www.proximitygroup.com/page.php?pg=products_artbox_enterprise) video asset management software.

We are pleased to announce that all Proximity technology and intellectual property, including artbox workgroup and artbox enterprise, was recently acquired by Apple.

Both pieces of software feature integration with Final Cut Pro and can work with Apple's high-end storage area network XSan. Whether Apple will simply re-brand the solutions and market them as a self-contained product or bundle them as part of a forthcoming version of Final Cut Pro remains to be seen.



Asar
Dec 4, 2006, 01:12 PM
nice. this is a good thing.

daveyjokes
Dec 4, 2006, 01:14 PM
indeed this is a good thing, especially for pro users i would imagine?

spicyapple
Dec 4, 2006, 01:14 PM
Apple is going after Avid marketshare. Oh, this will be interesting for NAB 2007. :)

Will it be integrated into Final Cut Pro itself? Tune back tomorrow for all the latest developments...

Previous stories included the Silicon Touch acquisition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=243129) and rumours of FCP Extreme (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=170765) that didn't quite materialize this year.

P-Worm
Dec 4, 2006, 01:16 PM
It seems like a growing trend for Apple to purchase 'features' to Final Cut Pro or to buy entire programs altogether. If I remember correctly, Shake was a standalone program and then Apple bought it and made it integrate tighter with Final Cut Pro.

I guess the biggest question here is if this is going to be a tighter integration or a new feature. I'm not familiar with artbox. I'll have to look into what makes sense.

P-Worm

longofest
Dec 4, 2006, 01:24 PM
It seems like a growing trend for Apple to purchase 'features' to Final Cut Pro or to buy entire programs altogether. If I remember correctly, Shake was a standalone program and then Apple bought it and made it integrate tighter with Final Cut Pro.

I guess the biggest question here is if this is going to be a tighter integration or a new feature. I'm not familiar with artbox. I'll have to look into what makes sense.

P-Worm

buying code is something that happens all the time. You are correct about Shake, and remember that Coverflow from iTunes was bought off of someone else. And of course, Final Cut Pro itself was originally a Macromedia product, although that was so long ago that I don't know if it counts...

Logic too... remember eMagic?

unsunder
Dec 4, 2006, 01:27 PM
It seems like a growing trend for Apple to purchase 'features' to Final Cut Pro or to buy entire programs altogether. If I remember correctly, Shake was a standalone program and then Apple bought it and made it integrate tighter with Final Cut Pro.

I guess the biggest question here is if this is going to be a tighter integration or a new feature. I'm not familiar with artbox. I'll have to look into what makes sense.

P-Worm

This is true. Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iDvd and Dvd Studio Pro were all purchased and rebranded from other developers. Possibly iTunes and Iphoto too.

jholzner
Dec 4, 2006, 01:27 PM
I have a feeling the next version of FCP is going to be huge and the Avid killer people have been waiting for. Between this purchase and the color correction company they purchased a few months back it's already set to be big.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/10/16/apple.buys.silicon.color/

BlueRevolution
Dec 4, 2006, 01:34 PM
buying code is something that happens all the time. You are correct about Shake, and remember that Coverflow from iTunes was bought off of someone else. And of course, Final Cut Pro itself was originally a Macromedia product, although that was so long ago that I don't know if it counts...

Logic too... remember eMagic?


Yeah, except Coverflow worked better before Apple made it part of iTunes. Oh well, I won't be using either until it becomes part of Front Row.

As for Artbox, are we talking about Aperture for videos here? If so, I'd say it would probably be standalone, but don't quote me on that. Either way, it'll be bundled with FCS, so it's a moot point.

Kirkmedia
Dec 4, 2006, 01:43 PM
I have a feeling the next version of FCP is going to be huge and the Avid killer people have been waiting for. Between this purchase and the color correction company they purchased a few months back it's already set to be big.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/10/16/apple.buys.silicon.color/

I am definitly a Mac Fanboy, and FCP booster. However, I still see mostly
avids at the big studios and large TV networks. Whether, Media Composer, Adrenalin, or DV, Avids are everywhere.
FCP has a long way to go.

And with the arrival of the intel processors, I think avid will migrate back to
the mac from pc. FCP will gain ground, but if Avid migrates back to the Mac
all bets are off.

darwen
Dec 4, 2006, 01:50 PM
Yay for more free stuff in Final Cut 6! Does anyone know what this software actually does? I am to lazy to look it up.

lyzardking
Dec 4, 2006, 01:51 PM
Looks like a high end cataloging SW, their site is painfully slow. A light version would be welcomed (kinda like iPhoto), Portfolio is a PIA and I'd drop it in a minute for something works well.

This is true. Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iDvd and Dvd Studio Pro were all purchased and rebranded from other developers. Possibly iTunes and Iphoto too.

iTunes was bought from Casady & Greene (SoundJam MP)

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 4, 2006, 01:53 PM
Possibly iTunes and Iphoto too.

iTunes is the rebranded version of SoundJam. Apple originally went after Audion (the superior mp3 player at the time), but it didn't work out so they bought the competitor, SoundJam.

darwen
Dec 4, 2006, 01:58 PM
And of course, Final Cut Pro itself was originally a Macromedia product, although that was so long ago that I don't know if it counts...

Really? I had no idea. Well that is a little ironic now. I never really understood why macromedia was missing the whole video application. Although, I typically do not enjoy their software layout and figured any video application they created would be difficult to use (which is a personal discrepancy and totally off topic). I am a little shocked to hear they designed Final Cut!

Anyway, that is a little ironic as they were bought out by Adobe. In my opinion Adobe has been Final Cut's biggest competitor for years. As far as price points, I believe they are the closest. In my mind I see Avid as a bigger target for Apple but to the average prosumer it is Final Cut or Premier (I think that is the wrong spelling, I can never get the right version of the word... whatever).

EDIT: On second thought, I realize I have a lot of generalizations here but I think my point is still valid.

Multimedia
Dec 4, 2006, 02:18 PM
Video Asset Management Software is a great addition to the mix for NAB 2007.

Apple bought the entire FCP development team from Macromedia just months before Macromedia was going to release it including a $1 Million check to the original inventor of FCP on that team who still leads it today as an Apple employee.

twoodcc
Dec 4, 2006, 02:19 PM
nice. this is a good thing.

i think so also. Go Apple!

bigandy
Dec 4, 2006, 02:26 PM
Yay for more free stuff in Final Cut 6! Does anyone know what this software actually does? I am to lazy to look it up.
Ummm, 'free stuff'? You realise how much FCS costs?


i think this is a very good thing. i hope it comes with FCS 6, but depending on the cost of the IP & Tech to Apple, it may well be a separate application... :rolleyes:

bigbossbmb
Dec 4, 2006, 02:58 PM
This will hopefully fix one of the biggest gripes that major editors have with FCP. Asset Management is always at the top concern of reviewers when comparing FCP to Avid.

Moof1904
Dec 4, 2006, 03:56 PM
Really? I had no idea. Well that is a little ironic now. I never really understood why macromedia was missing the whole video application. Although, I typically do not enjoy their software layout and figured any video application they created would be difficult to use (which is a personal discrepancy and totally off topic). I am a little shocked to hear they designed Final Cut!

Not to hijack the thread too badly...

I was a Macromedia employee during the entire Final Cut development cycle (though I was on a different team). It was code named "Key Grip" during the development. The team working on Key Grip was very dedicated and wanted to create a 1.0 that was a serions contender in the marketplace. This desire for a quality product and perhaps some other factors that I wan't privvy to, caused the product to keep slipping and miss release date after release date. There was considerable good-natured ribbing within Macromedia's ranks about the Key Grip team's inability to deliver the product on time.

About this time, the new president of Macromedia, Rob Burgess, was refining the focus of the company away from the "we're a multimedia company" and was driving it straight into the "Macromedia is a web company" direction. As a result of this refocusing, Macromedia products that weren't strongly web-centric were either feature enhanced to be more so, killed, or sold. (For example, a bunch of features were shoveled into FreeHand to make it play nicer with Flash and there was a tepid effort to market FreeHand as a "author once; publish anywhere" tool for a web designer.) This refocusing all dovetailed nicely with Apple's desire to move into video and I don't recall exactly when, but the entire Key Grip code base (and virtually all of the development team) was sold to Apple.

NaMo4184
Dec 4, 2006, 04:04 PM
All the software that Apple buys usually comes with engineers too. If you think about it, it makes sense. The guys who make these kinds of projects are specialized in their skill sets. So by buying these engineers they are actually expanding Apple capability. Very good idea indeed.

darwen
Dec 4, 2006, 04:08 PM
Not to hijack the thread too badly...

I was a Macromedia employee during the entire Final Cut development cycle (though I was on a different team). It was code named "Key Grip" during the development. The team working on Key Grip was very dedicated and wanted to create a 1.0 that was a serions contender in the marketplace. This desire for a quality product and perhaps some other factors that I wan't privvy to, caused the product to keep slipping and miss release date after release date. There was considerable good-natured ribbing within Macromedia's ranks about the Key Grip team's inability to deliver the product on time.

About this time, the new president of Macromedia, Rob Burgess, was refining the focus of the company away from the "we're a multimedia company" and was driving it straight into the "Macromedia is a web company" direction. As a result of this refocusing, Macromedia products that weren't strongly web-centric were either feature enhanced to be more so, killed, or sold. (For example, a bunch of features were shoveled into FreeHand to make it play nicer with Flash and there was a tepid effort to market FreeHand as a "author once; publish anywhere" tool for a web designer.) This refocusing all dovetailed nicely with Apple's desire to move into video and I don't recall exactly when, but the entire Key Grip code base (and virtually all of the development team) was sold to Apple.

Wow. Also very interesting. I think that is why I have never really liked Macromedia, most of the software revolves around creating elements for flash or creating content for the internet. I create graphics and video for broadcast/DVD portfolio, and not necessarily web content. I have found the software restricting in many aspects when it comes to creating 'art' on my computer. For example, fireworks does not adequately replace photoshop. I understand the programs have different purposes but I believe at heart they are driven on the same concept. I guess it is local broadcast vs internet broadcast that is tripping me up. Apparently the new CEO did not make all of this obvious enough.

Now that we have completely hijacked this topic I should probably stop discussing this. Sorry to go off topic, I just found all of this very interesting.

darwen
Dec 4, 2006, 04:19 PM
Ummm, 'free stuff'? You realise how much FCS costs?


i think this is a very good thing. i hope it comes with FCS 6, but depending on the cost of the IP & Tech to Apple, it may well be a separate application... :rolleyes:

If you remember back when Cinema Tools was thrown in with Final Cut, the price did not go up as a result. I would consider that free stuff. Sure, Final Cut Studio is expensive but I doubt very much Apple will raise the cost of FCS because of this addition. Things like Peak Audio and Boris are thrown in at a no additional cost. I am pretty sure this will be a similar case. Maybe not in the stand alone FC 6 version (if they make one), but FCS 6 will probably have these elements embedded for the same price as the current FCS.

xtbfx
Dec 4, 2006, 04:24 PM
iTunes is the rebranded version of SoundJam. Apple originally went after Audion (the superior mp3 player at the time), but it didn't work out so they bought the competitor, SoundJam.

I still have the box and CD for SoundJam. That sure was a while back. lol

sartinsauce
Dec 4, 2006, 04:46 PM
I am definitly a Mac Fanboy, and FCP booster. However, I still see mostly
avids at the big studios and large TV networks. Whether, Media Composer, Adrenalin, or DV, Avids are everywhere.
FCP has a long way to go.

True, for now. Apple has placed itself in a position to really come up over the next several years. Their strategy has beeen to make a powerful and inexpensive product, then make it readily available for the education sector. These days, the kids coming up look at Avids as their father's toy. They think it's rigid and 'old school' to use the vernacular. All these kids started cutting on FCP in junior high or high school. Five years from now, when these kids are a large part of the workforce, where will Avid be?

with the arrival of the intel processors, I think avid will migrate back to
the mac from pc. FCP will gain ground, but if Avid migrates back to the Mac
all bets are off.

Is Avid even offfering a Universal version of any of their software yet? I haven't been able to find anything. The closest I've found is a quote that says something vague like: "coming soon."

sivancotel
Dec 4, 2006, 04:54 PM
Looks like a high end cataloging SW, their site is painfully slow.

probably slow because of insane web traffic due to apple's announcement! (awesome.)

sivancotel
Dec 4, 2006, 05:00 PM
All the software that Apple buys usually comes with engineers too. If you think about it, it makes sense. The guys who make these kinds of projects are specialized in their skill sets. So by buying these engineers they are actually expanding Apple capability. Very good idea indeed.

and of course the guys who originally designed the software will be able to continue working on it with familiarity of the code, vs. new hires who'd have to spend lots of time getting up to speed.

Rocketman
Dec 4, 2006, 05:57 PM
I have a friend that uses FCP as well as a suite of tools for VFX. He is looking forward to FC-extreme so 4k content can be manipulated for theatrical release. Aparantly they "save to film" for release after an all digital caputure and editing process. Makes them compatible with common legacy projection systems. Reminds me of saving digital QT videos to VHS tape!

Shake was price reduced dramatically.

I suspect this content asset management software will be separately priced as it is now, and a service plan offered comensurate with TV stations and movie studios. That way if you are a guy or a small team using it you need not pay a king's randsom, but if you are an enterprise who needs assistance, with real-time problem solving, and management of huge mountains of content, that service is also available. This is enterprise level software, after all.

There has been a FCP update since the last NAB, and this one wil likely really work toward the market Avid holds. The technology for image capture at theatrical resolution is sufficiently mature and cost reduced through CMOS pickup, mass-media capture, and high speed local storage network, it is nearing microcomputer practicality.

4520x2540 dpi at 60-120 fps is considerable data or 1,377,696,000 bits per second. About 200 megabytes per second. You need a modern leading edge RAID to do that.

ONE camera (www.red.com).

The speculation is Apple will offer an end to end solution with a 4K 4520x2540 display, a bundled Red brand camera, a couple of RAID's and a couple of X-serve's. FC-extreme suite, content management software, and a couple of third party utilities and equipment elements.

I for one hope the speculation is correct.

Rocketman

Peel
Dec 4, 2006, 06:27 PM
The speculation is Apple will offer an end to end solution with a 4K 4520x2540 display, a bundled Red brand camera, a couple of RAID's and a couple of X-serve's. FC-extreme suite, content management software, and a couple of third party utilities and equipment elements.


They're going to have to get out their Blu-Ray drives too. Preferably ones that can write to multiple layers, in order to take advantage of TDK's 200BG 6-layer discs (if they ever materialize in the retail market), or you're still going to have problems with digital format distribution. Anyone know off-hand what the size of a 90 min 4K movie w/ H.264 compression would be?

Rocketman
Dec 4, 2006, 06:44 PM
They're going to have to get out their Blu-Ray drives too. Preferably ones that can write to multiple layers, in order to take advantage of TDK's 200BG 6-layer discs (if they ever materialize in the retail market), or you're still going to have problems with digital format distribution. Anyone know off-hand what the size of a 90 min 4K movie w/ H.264 compression would be?

Superman is out on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (and DVD) now.

I might have misstated the needed bandwidth.

I said: "4520x2540 dpi at 60-120 fps is considerable data or 1,377,696,000 bits per second. About 200 megabytes per second. You need a modern leading edge RAID to do that."

But it may require 1,377,696,000 BYTES per second being color or 1.4GBytes/s throughput. I know Red uses a solid state drive to capture 60-120GBytes of data but as you can see, that is only a few seconds of capture. If you have to capture MINUTES of content you need a really awesome RAID to capture RAW 4K.

From there you can save as H.264 or 1080p or 720p or whatever.

Rocketman

Peel
Dec 4, 2006, 06:48 PM
Superman is out on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (and DVD) now.

I might have misstated the needed bandwidth.

I said: "4520x2540 dpi at 60-120 fps is considerable data or 1,377,696,000 bits per second. About 200 megabytes per second. You need a modern leading edge RAID to do that."

But it may require 1,377,696,000 BYTES per second being color or 1.4GBytes/s throughput. I know Red uses a solid state drive to capture 60-120GBytes of data but as you can see, that is only a few seconds of capture. If you have to capture MINUTES of content you need a really awesome RAID to capture RAW 4K.

From there you can save as H.264 or 1080p or 720p or whatever.

Rocketman

I was actually thinking you were talking about outputing at full 4k for theater projection (not HDTV 1080i/p or 720p). From what I understand there are currently two theatrical 4k formats:

Digital Cinema 4K
4096x1714 (2.39:1 aspect ratio)
3996x2160 (1.85:1 aspect ratio)

Academy 4K
3656x2664 (1.37:1 aspect ratio)

If these are being shown full size, and not down sampled, the bitrate and file size go up exponentialy.

Rocketman
Dec 4, 2006, 07:08 PM
I was actually thinking you were talking about outputing at full 4k for theater projection (not HDTV 1080i/p or 720p). From what I understand there are currently two theatrical 4k formats:

Digital Cinema 4K
4096x1714 (2.39:1 aspect ratio)
3996x2160 (1.85:1 aspect ratio)

Academy 4K
3656x2664 (1.37:1 aspect ratio)

If these are being shown full size, and not down sampled, the bitrate and file size go up exponentialy.

Point.

And from Apple's Fibre Channel website:

"400MB/s throughput
Each 2Gb Fibre Channel port offers 200MB/s bandwidth for a total throughput of up to 400MB/s. Fibre Channel is the only storage connectivity technology that provides guaranteed bandwidth, so the host computer receives data at the same high speed as the RAID system sends it out."

Not fast enough! Not even dual channel FC!

The red camera actually captures something like 4.2K so tags can be put on the edges for editing.

This is an application that needs some Apple-ification!

Rocketman

SMM
Dec 4, 2006, 07:12 PM
Apple is going after Avid marketshare. Oh, this will be interesting for NAB 2007. :)

Will it be integrated into Final Cut Pro itself? Tune back tomorrow for all the latest developments...

Previous stories included the Silicon Touch acquisition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=243129) and rumours of FCP Extreme (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=170765) that didn't quite materialize this year.

Do you ever hear any inklings about FCP6, or Extreme? I am a video hobbyist and not part of the professional circle. Other than the thread you linked to, I have not heard a thing in nearly a year.

bonehead
Dec 4, 2006, 07:18 PM
A cursory glance at the artbox web page gives me hope that Apple will improve FCPs multi-user experience.

MacVault
Dec 4, 2006, 08:44 PM
This sounds great! Now if Apple would only just get into the "enterprise" market and take on Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, etc. Currently OS X can't begin to touch the enterprise market because it doesn't have answers to these Microsoft technologies. Not only does Apple not have the solutions to compete in this area, but OS X can't even integrate very well with Microsoft's solutions, which is a huge reason Apple needs to play catch up in this area.

Oh, one more thing... a polished and unified GUI for OS X! The current UI is very lacking.

I'm a long-time Apple fan.

mullet
Dec 4, 2006, 10:39 PM
It seems like a growing trend for Apple to purchase 'features' to Final Cut Pro or to buy entire programs altogether. If I remember correctly, Shake was a standalone program and then Apple bought it and made it integrate tighter with Final Cut Pro.

Shake was a standalone program and still is. It has never been a part of Final Cut Pro. In fact, it's rumored that Shake is being dropped for Phenomenon, which apparently will use Motion's engine and Shake's interface.

I find it interesting that Apple bought artbox and artbox enterprise. I agree that the shared project experience is a hack and doesn't always work as expected. Utilizing Xsan is not enough. Problems arise when copy and pasting sequences from project to project. There are other weird bugs too. Apple really needs to take a page from Avid and make projects bin based. This is one of the beauties of Avid and its shared storage, Avid Unity MediaNetwork. You can have the same project open, but not the same bin open at the same time. It'll be interesting to see how Apple uses this product. I'm hoping it makes it easier to share projects amongst several users. Furthermore, it looks like this software is very similar to a product that Avid just came out with -- Interplay, which looks to be even more powerful than Artbox. I'm going to hazard a guess that Apple's price of admission will be a lot cheaper though. So we'll see what happens.

~Mullet

ChrisA
Dec 4, 2006, 10:50 PM
I was actually thinking you were talking about outputing at full 4k for theater projection (not HDTV 1080i/p or 720p). From what I understand there are currently two theatrical 4k formats:

Digital Cinema 4K
4096x1714 (2.39:1 aspect ratio)
3996x2160 (1.85:1 aspect ratio).....
.

Just take the fist format 4096x1714 is 7 megapixels. At 24 FPS this is 168 MP per second. But each frame is compressed using JPG 2000. So you can have almost any data rate you want. JPG 2000 is nicer than JPG. The compression artifacts don't look as bad and the files are smaller. I'm thinking about 1.5 megabytes per frame or about 36 megabytes per second. Maybe I'm wrong and it is 100MB/sec or 24MB/sec but either way any reasonably high end RAID could handle 4K Digital Cinema

Another way to think about these data rates is to look at how the movie is distributed. They are typically shipped on a hard drive. They don't ship a four foot tall fiber channel SAN system, just a disk drive.

ChrisA
Dec 4, 2006, 11:04 PM
I find it interesting that Apple bought artbox and artbox enterprise. .



What if Apple needed to hire 20 or so software engineers who know about digital cinema and they needed office space for them? Buy the company and you get not only the people and equipment but a product that will cover their salaries. It's a way to grow Apple's capabilities and have the growth pay for itself.

It is actually cheaper then hiring new people to make a new product because you have to pay them, their management, rent on the building, and someone to clean the carpet and answer the phones while they work for a year or so before they have anything to sell. Buy a company that already has the product pipeline filled and you can use the product already on the market to pay the engineers to build what you really want.

We see the same exact thing happen in the aerospace business. A couple years ago Northrop bought TRW. Do you think they wanted some TRW product? No way. They wanted the people and the facility. Buying TRW was the cheapest way to grow the company buy abut 7,000 people. It would have taken years and years to hire them or just write a check and you have them now. AND they come with contracts to cover the cost for the first year you own these new people

akac
Dec 4, 2006, 11:09 PM
This sounds great! Now if Apple would only just get into the "enterprise" market and take on Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, etc. Currently OS X can't begin to touch the enterprise market because it doesn't have answers to these Microsoft technologies. Not only does Apple not have the solutions to compete in this area, but OS X can't even integrate very well with Microsoft's solutions, which is a huge reason Apple needs to play catch up in this area.

Oh, one more thing... a polished and unified GUI for OS X! The current UI is very lacking.

I'm a long-time Apple fan.

Apple has answers to all that - every Server version has had something like Active Directory. Leopard Server has something like Exchange. Office - that's a client app that Microsoft makes for Mac so we're good there. Same with Outlook. Sharepoint - yep, Leopard has that too.

The fact is that a lot of things OS X Server has had or will have in Leopard, but Apple does not want to compete against MS in that space.

dontmatter
Dec 5, 2006, 12:34 AM
They think it's rigid and 'old school' to use the vernacular.

"old school" is becoming old school, I might add.

cptzbug
Dec 5, 2006, 03:37 AM
This sounds great! Now if Apple would only just get into the "enterprise" market and take on Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, etc. Currently OS X can't begin to touch the enterprise market because it doesn't have answers to these Microsoft technologies. Not only does Apple not have the solutions to compete in this area, but OS X can't even integrate very well with Microsoft's solutions, which is a huge reason Apple needs to play catch up in this area.

Oh, one more thing... a polished and unified GUI for OS X! The current UI is very lacking.

I'm a long-time Apple fan.


100000000% agreed, ive been trying to push apples in our bank here ( Kuwait ) so far 3 macs in the bank and im trying hard to push more. but there are alot of problems with Active Directory and way things and security policies and what not. cant wait till them 100% compatible

MacVault
Dec 5, 2006, 06:31 AM
Apple has answers to all that - every Server version has had something like Active Directory. Leopard Server has something like Exchange. Office - that's a client app that Microsoft makes for Mac so we're good there. Same with Outlook. Sharepoint - yep, Leopard has that too.

The fact is that a lot of things OS X Server has had or will have in Leopard, but Apple does not want to compete against MS in that space.

I know we're getting off topic, but Have you ever administered or used a Windows XP with Active Directory environment, or Exchange, or Sharepoint? Apple's answers to these technologies don't even come close! Oh, and Office for Mac... it's a good product but doesn't come close to the features and UI of the Windows version.

Poff
Dec 5, 2006, 09:20 AM
I know we're getting off topic, but Have you ever administered or used a Windows XP with Active Directory environment, or Exchange, or Sharepoint? Apple's answers to these technologies don't even come close! Oh, and Office for Mac... it's a good product but doesn't come close to the features and UI of the Windows version.


I agree with you when it comes to Active Directory, even though I personally dislike AD a lot. But what features do you specifically miss in office for Mac?

sartinsauce
Dec 5, 2006, 10:18 AM
"old school" is becoming old school, I might add.

Touche! I wasn't hip to that.

I'm officially old now; I turned 30 this year. I've become one of 'them'.

shamino
Dec 5, 2006, 03:53 PM
iTunes was bought from Casady & Greene (SoundJam MP)
Of course, it has grown quite a bit since version 1.0.

It would be interesting to know how much SoundJam code still exists in iTunes 7. (But I'm sure this is something we'll never know....)