Has apple officially neglected the "Professionals"?

[Time Clock]

When did firewire become a "pro" feature? If I recall correctly, wasn't Apple the first computer company to include firewire on sub $1,000 computers? Wasn't the iMac originally targeted at the consumer? Why has firewire magically become a pro port? I use firewire for my external disk and less than three year-old camcorder and I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination.

I also find it aggravating that Apple took a port away without adding something in its place. On the MB and MBP, they could have at least added another USB port in the place of the missing firewire port.

 

[clyde2801]

It'll be interesting to see if Apple updates the 17" at Macworld to the unibody design. If it does, I wonder if Apple will include more ports on the machine and give a matte option on it.

That may be Apple's unofficial take on professional needs: if you're a graphics professional, you'll buy the 17" MBP or the MacPro.

 

[AdeFowler]

I'm a professional and have been using Macs since 1994. I love OSX and can't imagine using anything else. I'm more than happy with Apple's current direction and situation, probably because their future was in the balance so often in the nineties.

 

[alFR]

I'm still flabbergasted when I see the iPod and iPhone sections of an apple forum above the hardware discussions, as it is here and at Apple ...

Not on the front page of MR they're not (see attachment).

If, however, the ACDs go glossy, it is in my opinion not possible to calibrate them for a proper display-print workflow.

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

All digital camera backs depend on it for tethered shooting.

Maybe, but I would wager that the majority of pro photographers are using a DSLR for most of their work - with a USB interface. Anyway, that's kind of academic because as you say:

With my last photography equipment purchase, an MBP and a 20" ACD came for free, just too sweeten the deal.
Point being, if one can't afford decent tools, he's not in the business yet.

So basically you're saying a pro will buy decent tools, i.e. the MBP, which has firewire, which means your point about the backs is irrelevant.

 

[inigel]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

+1.

I haven't met a professional (photography profession) who has complained about the new glossy approach Apple has taken. Some of my colleagues are considering the new MBP, and as someone pointed out earlier, it is fine for field work to get the general idea of the image and they use high quality external displays for there post processing before sending them to the lab for printing.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

The majority of CRT displays I used for work had effective anti-reflective coatings, the current crop of glossy displays from Apple do not.

 

[sushi]

I agree 100% with your points. They have been discussed to death - but I believe that Apple should be aware of these issues so that they do something about them.

I strongly encourage all individuals to leave polite and specific feedback on Apple's web site.

Tell them what you think.

 

[Demosthenes X]

I'd be interested to know what percentage of MacBook Pros were sold with glossy vs. matte screens. I'll wager the percentage of orders with matte screens was very, very low. If it was 50% of their sales, Apple would not have dropped it. If it was only 10% of their sales, then dropping it is not such a big deal.

Yeah, there's lots of people complaining about the glossy screens, but I'll wager they're a very vocal minority of consumers, not a majority.

And FYI, Apple not producing a machine to fit your exact specifications does not mean they are neglecting Pro buyers. They have some excellent offerings that can handle a wide variety of professional tasks. Can they handle yours in particular? Maybe not. But they can handle the majority of the Professional tasks you throw at them, I bet.

 

[Horst]

Just out of interest, what did you do back when all you could get was CRT displays that all had a glossy glass front?

As it was already mentioned, my CRTs had an anti-reflective coating.
I had one Sony, that I cleaned agressively and often enough to remove a lot of that coating, never became glossy.

Maybe, but I would wager that the majority of pro photographers are using a DSLR for most of their work - with a USB interface.

That's correct - also, tethered shooting via USB , in particular when using the latest high-res/ high-fps cameras, can be a real pita due to USB speed issues, as Ive been told and read on some fora. No first-hand experience here , though.

So basically you're saying a pro will buy decent tools, i.e. the MBP, which has firewire, which means your point about the backs is irrelevant.

I should have been more clear; a MacBook, an MBA, maybe even a future Netbook, could be perfectly fine for a lot of low-volume shooting on location - if it wasn't for the lack of connectivity .
Smaller size and less weight can come in handy in a lot of situations I can think of.

Apart from the (few) digital backs - daisy-chaining Firewire HDDs, keeping an FW system drive around for emergencies, fast backups of large files, even working off a Firewire drive, etc etc, it's almost fool-proof , reliable and flexible. USB just isn't there yet.

What's next, the iMac w/o firewire ?
You'd be suprised how many photographers carry around an iMac - fast enough in many cases, the size and weight beats shlepping the MacPro plus display, decent display - unless it's glossy, then you'll need to redo all your raw exposure settings later to make sure your shadow details and basic color balance is usable for the retoucher.

Apple delivering fewer and fewer products that can be used by all of their clientele - that's just so not MacIntosh .

 

[Topher15]

As it was already mentioned, my CRTs had an anti-reflective coating.
I had one Sony, that I cleaned agressively and often enough to remove a lot of that coating, never became glossy.





That's correct - also, tethered shooting via USB , in particular when using the latest high-res/ high-fps cameras, can be a real pita due to USB speed issues, as Ive been told and read on some fora. No first-hand experience here , though.



I should have been more clear; a MacBook, an MBA, maybe even a future Netbook, could be perfectly fine for a lot of low-volume shooting on location - if it wasn't for the lack of connectivity .
Smaller size and less weight can come in handy in a lot of situations I can think of.

Apart from the (few) digital backs - daisy-chaining Firewire HDDs, keeping an FW system drive around for emergencies, fast backups of large files, even working off a Firewire drive, etc etc, it's almost fool-proof , reliable and flexible. USB just isn't there yet.

What's next, the iMac w/o firewire ?
You'd be suprised how many photographers carry around an iMac - fast enough in many cases, the size and weight beats shlepping the MacPro plus display, decent display - unless it's glossy, then you'll need to redo all your raw exposure settings later to make sure your shadow details and basic color balance is usable for the retoucher.

Apple delivering fewer and fewer products that can be used by all of their clientele - that's just so not MacIntosh .

All of that might be true, but the point is whether there is enough demand/reason that makes it a good business decision. Like someone said above, if matte displays were pulling in a lot of sales then Apple would not most likely have dropped them.

Most pros will most likely have the pro machines, while most owners of the consumers products will most likely not need, use or even care about things like FW or matte, etc. That doesn't mean there are not a small number of MB/MBA owners who do need/use/want those thing, but in the end Apple's limited product range means they tend to cater their machines to the majority within each area.

 

[mrtrilby]

I haven't met a professional (photography profession) who has complained about the new glossy approach Apple has taken.

I have. And I know for a fact that they're holding off on purchasing because of it.

And it is amusing that people seem to assume that the "Pro" badge on a laptop is some kind of hint over the kind of person that must buy that machine. Consumers must buy MacBooks, and professionals must by MBPs and Mac Pros? You don't think that it might just be a marketing term, intended to persuade as many people as possible to part with more money than they otherwise needed/wanted to? Land Rover produce a car called the "Range Rover Sport", but despite the name, I don't think they're intended for use by motorsport professionals in races. It's the marketing of badges and labels, pandering to the image that people want to be associated with.

 

[shaunymac]

I agree with most all of the OP's comments.

To those saying that apple is right for dropping firewire from mb and that the 17" is going to be the only "real" pro notebook out there because of the real estate, I have this for you.

Have you ever been on a plane, or do you have another mac at home along with your laptop as your secondary mac. I had a 12" ibook and a 12" powerbook that I used to carry around and loved the portability due to size. Oh, and guess what, matte screens. Oh, FIREWIRE too! OH, and if I wanted a bigger screen than that I had it at home, not in a notebook.

After all, isn't a notebook for portability? That means having the tools needed to complete the job.

It seems like with the influx of all of these ipod/iphone users, things have change in the past couple of years.

 

[Topher15]

I have. And I know for a fact that they're holding off on purchasing because of it.

And it is amusing that people seem to assume that the "Pro" badge on a laptop is some kind of hint over the kind of person that must buy that machine. Consumers must buy MacBooks, and professionals must by MBPs and Mac Pros? You don't think that it might just be a marketing term, intended to persuade as many people as possible to part with more money than they otherwise needed/wanted to? Land Rover produce a car called the "Range Rover Sport", but despite the name, I don't think they're intended for use by motorsport professionals in races. It's the marketing of badges and labels, pandering to the image that people want to be associated with.

No not at all, they don't have to buy it, however it makes more business sense to target the majority of users within that product range, and the majority of Apple consumer level buyers probably don't are about the things under discussion here.

I'm sure there are non professional who buy the so-called 'Pro' products, and I'm sure there are professionals who buy the so-called 'Consumer' products, however these are probably not the majority of users within each product range, and from Apple's perspective, it makes little sense to include a hardware feature in a laptop range which may not be getting much use, or a display option which not a lot of people are choosing. I'm not saying I agree with it, as I said, for the cost of the MB I think it should be standard, but I understand why they may have done so.

 

[DesignerOnMac]

Matte VS Glossy Has been Beaten to DEATH!!!!

Apple is a business, their goal is to make money. At the end of the day they can do what they want.

The only legitimate point you have it matte screen option. They ideally should give give a choice.

About the new in-ear headphones... apparently they do work with the iPhone.

I am a professional designer and photographer and I have a 24" Alum iMac. This 'debate' about glossy should be buried!!!!!!

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!! No one bitched about them? Now we have glossy LCD or LED monitors.

Designers and photographers had no issues with a CRT. Give it up people!
Learn to move on.

And Apple has not given up on the professionals either. People complain because Apple isn't giving them what they prefer.

 

[Blue Velvet]

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!!

Read the thread. This nonsensical point which gets beaten like a dead donkey has already been addressed ad nauseam.

 

[Horst]

In the 80s, 90s, and early 2000, us professionals used a CRT! The CRT had a GLOSSY SCREEN!!!!! No one bitched about them? Now we have glossy LCD or LED monitors.

So now going back to 90's standards is supposed to be a good thing ?
My CRTs did not have glossy screens, not the ones I used.
They sucked nonetheless.
So did my printers, scanners and calibration hardware.

Affordable, premium quality pro hardware , as well as high-tier digital photography simply didn't exist in the 90s.
The bar has been raised by a lot in just the past few years.

Before that, it was the Wild Wild West out there, re. digital.

Designers and photographers had no issues with a CRT. Give it up people!
Learn to move on.

Things have moved on, I have moved on, Apple is taking a step back; nowadays, 5-6k buy you a very good desktop machine, a couple of decent displays, an excellent 11x14 printer and proper calibration hardware.
But Apple expects you to use all that with a display that has the same properties as the ones 20 yrs ago, only brighter and with a funny profile for flashy looks ?
Things have changed, my friend, the non-issue of back then is unacceptable today !

And Apple has not given up on the professionals either.

As mentioned above several times, Apple is mainly interested in making money - nothing wrong with that.
But while Apple used to be about form and function, and eagerly catered to media professionals, they seem to be about the 'i' factor only now.

They sell tons of iPods, iPhones, and iWhatever - more power to them !
Just let a tiny bit of the money made and effort spent trickle down to products for serious users, Apple, will you ?

They have the bucks, they have the skills, and it's not like they have to do it for free, is it ?
In return Steve J. can claim the logo isn't just featured on silly gadgets.

People complain because Apple isn't giving them what they prefer.

Well, that sort of is the point, when their product line is discussed, no ?

 

[xparaparafreakx]

This forum is very useful for educating me as to how I should be operating as a professional. I'm glad to hear that if I were a 'real' professional, I would have no need of lightweight portable kit and could happily cart a MBP and external CRT everywhere. It's also heartening to hear that 'real' professionals don't need to worry about budgets and are more than happy to splash out on a Mac Pro and matte monitor rather than have to put up with a glossy iMac.

Fortunately I'm not a 'professional', but just happen to make money from photography.

So if I may ask, what camera do you use? Do you have different lens for that camera? What kind of CF or SD cards do you have? Do you have a light kit for taking studio pictures?

Or is it okay to buy a camera from wal-mart for you?

 

[dal20402]

This nonsensical point which gets beaten like a dead donkey has already been addressed ad nauseam.

The real dead donkey here is the idea that glossy is incompatible with pro use. I'm frankly tired of it, because it's just not true. People are either 1) afraid of change, or 2) vastly overblowing a personal preference.

First, the way to compensate for the difference between print and display color is not to artificially limit the range of color your display can produce. That is really what people who complain glossy is "oversaturated" for print work are asking for. Better calibration and more intelligent use of your editing software will address this problem, and get you a wider range of usable colors for non-print work.

Second, any location in which the reflections from a glossy display are going to significantly interfere with your work will also affect a matte display. You won't see sharp discrete reflections. But the same light that would produce those reflections will wash out a matte display, distorting the color.

In any case, no MBP display, glossy or matte, is suitable for color-sensitive work, so there is no point in people pretending that it needs to be.

The lack of clarity and direction on the high-speed storage front (what's next? FW3200? USB3? eSATA? Anything?) is a much worse affront to pros than a crap TN display changing from matte to glossy.

 

[mrtrilby]

So if I may ask, what camera do you use? Do you have different lens for that camera? What kind of CF or SD cards do you have? Do you have a light kit for taking studio pictures?

Or is it okay to buy a camera from wal-mart for you?

A pair of Nikon D200s with three lenses between them, of which the usage is approximately 80%, 15%, 5%. I use Sandisk and Lexar cards. I have 3 Nikon SB800s and 1 SB600 for lighting kit.

We don't have Wal-Mart in the UK, but assuming they sell Nikon kit, why wouldn't it be ok?

 

[xhambonex]

i like the idea that apple is simplifying the consumers shopping experience by giving less options and a product that fits a wide range of people, but at the price they sell the MBP's at, the simple choice between matte and glossy couldn't have been that much of a burden to them. As a customer you hate to have something this simple hinder you from buying their products, and on top of that, the people on this thread aren't the mindless consumers apple seems to be targeting with their computers now. The people who are complaining are the people who care, the people who have made the matte screens a "minority" group in their sales are generally the people who just buy the computer without realizing there was even an option.

 

[Horst]

Better calibration and more intelligent use of your editing software will address this problem, and get you a wider range of usable colors for non-print work.

Calibration sensitive non-print work , what would that be ? Web design doesn't need it, for obvious reasons, what else is there ?

There is not one single non-print utilisation that could benefit from any sort of display properties, much less proper calibration.
The alleged advantages of glossy screens are for consumers only, to make that movie and those snapshots look better on the screen.

Glossy doesn't have a wider range of colors, rather a different one.

In any case, no MBP display, glossy or matte, is suitable for color-sensitive work, so there is no point in people pretending that it needs to be.

Of course the MBP screens, past and present, are aweful, but was has that got to do with this topic ?

The lack of clarity and direction on the high-speed storage front (what's next? FW3200? USB3? eSATA? Anything?) is a much worse affront to pros than a crap TN display changing from matte to glossy.

Agreed.

 

[UTclassof89]

The real dead donkey here is the idea that glossy is incompatible with pro use. I'm frankly tired of it, because it's just not true. People are either 1) afraid of change, or 2) vastly overblowing a personal preference.

No; the issue is not one of color calibration--it's an issue of being able to see the screen. Sure you can connect to another monitor (except when you're using the laptop like a laptop: around any office with bright fluorescent lighting, or near windows in the daytime).

If Apple would put 50 cents worth of anti-glare coating on some of these laptops, they could sell it as a $10 option, and we'd all be happy.
(I walked into the Apple store with $2000 in my pocket ready to by a MBP, but walked right out when I saw the screens under the bright lights; it's horrible--the colors might be brighter, but 1/4 of the screen is covered by glare most of the time)