Apple to Upgrade iApps in the Coming Months

[lazyrighteye]

Ooh, Ooh!

I'm all about this Emagic acqusition. I think there could be 2 great apps come from this within the next year (simple speculation - based solely on my dreams). I know no one, I read nothing, but what do you think?

"iMix" - a stereo capturing/editing app. Much like the iApp family, comes bundled with the OS (10.3 maybe). Has basic editing features, marks tracks, exports .aif, .wav, .mp3, .aac, .ogg, .shn, etc. This would be great for iMovie and iTunes users, as well as FCP folk. I could also see this app working it's way into a record enabled iPod (the ultimate - for me). Yeah, I realize that would require either a hardware tweak (to allow for audio I/O) or the creation of some nifty firewire audio I/O dongle. But recording 24/96 stereo audio on a 20G (or larger) iPod that's the size of a deck of cards... well that's just too sick to discuss.

"Mix Mastr Pro" - the audio equivalent of FCP. A multitrack audio capturing/editing app. Besides the obvious target market of audio Pros, this would be great for FCP users and even iMovie users too. I use Pro Tools LE and a Digi001 on a G4/500 daily, and wold love to see Apple do for audio (with "Mix Master Pro") what they have done for video (with FCP).

Would anyone else out there like to see these apps and/or a record enabled iPod? If so, pester Apple. The more we ask, the more we shal receive (in theory at least).

Thanks for your time,
lazyrighteye

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Blackcat


Why?

Cocoa offers a different API, not a better API than Carbon. Rewriting perfectly good apps in Cocoa is a bit pointless really. Also, judging by apps like Mail, iCal and Fern run noticeably slower than ones done with Carbon.

I'd beg to differ with you. I've never coded in Carbon (or Classic for that matter) but I would take a guess that the reason you see Carbon app's running faster is because they are written in C or C++ and compiled directly to machine language. Cocoa app's are, 99% of the time, written in Objective C which requires a run-time environment. This extra layer of abstraction provides for it's robust, run-time, dynamic linking. (Which makes Objective C such a kick-butt environment for OO development - a lot like Java.)

You are correct about the API's just being different too - one not being better that the other. Although, I'd venture to bet that anyone who has developed in both would prefer Cocoa - once they learned Objective C that is.

 

[SPG]

Apple's bought a few companies lately that haven't had products directly ported to the Apple brand. They may have bought eMagic for the talent, not the product. I don't know too much about this case but it's common enough in business. Spruce hasn't been ported, but their guys are working on DVDSP instead.

 

[guifa]

Originally posted by Blackcat


Why?

Cocoa offers a different API, not a better API than Carbon. Rewriting perfectly good apps in Cocoa is a bit pointless really. Also, judging by apps like Mail, iCal and Fern run noticeably slower than ones done with Carbon.

Have you used Fire/Proteus/Adium before? They use SIGNIFICANTLY less CPU than just AOL's official client (and Fire/Proteus manage to run 6 protocols at once and still run faster). Also, in my experience, OmniWeb has been much faster (Cocoa) than Internet Explorer (Carbon).

It's less the environment they're using and more of the actual code being written. Recall finder was one of the slowest apps in OSX history--it was Carbon. iCal is extremely slow--Cocoa. It just depends on many different things. And, if I'm not mistaken, "Carbon" apps can still make use of several Cocoa calls, and vice versa, but as soon as they use a single Cocoa call, they can no longer run on OS9 (please correct if I'm wrong, probably am though)

 

[TheInevitable]

Resurrecting an old thread

Isn't Mix Master Pro already a PC audio editing program?

I'd like to see iWorks. A new Appleworks that seemlessly integrates with the other iApps (including a new web browser). Will open and save as any .doc or .xls files (I know it already does). And make it good enough, that no one would have any reason to purchase expensive M$ programs.

I don't think there is much need for a consumer level audio editor, especially since Apple removed the audio-in from most of their computers. However, I would like to see them do something with the Logic software with some real nifty hardware.

That's what I would like to see.