Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[IntelliUser]

Except in 3d animation, game development, and hi-definition blu-ray disc creation. I love my mac, but let's be honest. The creative and technical tools, aside from FCP, are more numerous and/or often better implemented on Windows.

I agree on the 3D, it's more widely used on PCs (because of the graphic cards and the lack of software on OS X). But 3D is nothing without Photoshops. Textures and other details are done on Photoshops, and almost always on Macs. As well as the special effects in 3D animations. Look at the Avatar production video as an example.

Can't speak about gaming.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't FCS3 output to Blu Ray if you have an external burner?

As far as implementation goes, only 3D apps are better implemented on PCs. And that's a generalization too, apps like Cinema4D, Houdini or Modo run equally, that means that they run better on Macs.

In the world of graphics, the "if" factor comes into play quite often. zBrush is not at parity in Mac OS X.

I think it is as of right now. It seems like one year it's the Mac year, one year it's the PC years for their devs.

Maya is finally coming to 64-bit on the mac, but for the past 4 years, what have people used for 64-bit Maya? Not OSX. ILM in particular said that some shots in Transformers would have been impossible before the 64-bit versions of Maya.

You're still talking about 3D apps, and a particular 3D app too. anyway, Maya will be 64 bit for OS X too now.

Photoshop is not 64-bit, and Apple is doing a good job of making Adobe feel unwelcome.

Ps will be 64 in CS5. It's not like 64 bit is the only important thing though, Ps for Windows could be 128 bit but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot iPole.

The actions of Steve Jobs in particular would suggest that he does not really care about the pro market.

He's focusing on the new market they've entered. But the professional market hasn't been left, Mac Pros are still made, The FC, Aperture and Logic teams are still working there, and I think that the pro market can keep up by itself from there on.

What great thread and filled with a lot of nonsense. (which is to be expected here)

I purchased the overpriced Quad 09 MacPro only because I had a friend who was willing to buy my 2008 iMac at near cost. If I hadn't done that I would have kept the iMac or just built a Windows box. Why? Adobe CS4 is the same on both platforms.

Yeah, except it runs like crap on Windows.

To the person who said designing in Windows would be like "painting with my hair" obviously has never used an Adobe program because they run equally painful on either platform.

No, I never have

As far as I'm concerned, Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash (but especially Photoshop) are much more stable on OS X than on Windows. On OS X, CMD-S every minute is a choice, on Windows it's a must.

At this point in the game unless you rely soley on FCP for your workflow it doesn't make a bit of difference on Windows 7 x64 vs Snow Leopard. It's all about preference now. The only difference between a MacPro and a Dell workstation (or build your own) is about $1000 in savings for something else later.

No, it's about being able to put up with Windows or not. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are very different.

 

[macuserx86]

I can see it now... Damn!!! CS20 is only able to utilize 16,000,000,000 GB of RAM... when will Adobe get on board with 128-bit!!!

Actually, I'm not sure Adobe's full suite doesn't already require 16 Exabytes of memory to run!

It requires at least 10 Exabytes to load the splash screen.

it will be nice when CS5 can access more than 4GB of RAM though. Maybe that will give me an excuse to fill my last 2 DIMM slots

 

[CCK]

That has had to do with the software available though. Users have been told for years that they only need 32bit, but software bloat has pushed the need for 64bit applications in some areas (non professional that didn't need it for the addressing from the get-go). Others haven't been affected to that degree just yet. But with 64bit OS's becoming more popular, and software bloat continuing unabated, it's only a matter of time.

Next we'll be in a 64/128 bit world.

I think that one of the main issues in how things are developing has to do with %'s. The vast majority of users have more concern about their internet speed than the speed of their comp, as they hardly ever have much need for the increased power of newer comps, unless they're gamers.

Heck if I were just working with PS and playing around with video, my G5 would be just fine. Most of my time spent in PS is spent on tasks like cut-outs and other non processor intensive tasks.

Just 20 years ago it was all darkroom.

32-64-128 (those aren't the LOST numbers are they?) ((do they have anything to do with facebook?))

 

[nanofrog]

I can see it now... Damn!!! CS20 is only able to utilize 16,000,000,000 GB of RAM... when will Adobe get on board with 128-bit!!!

Actually, I'm not sure Adobe's full suite doesn't already require 16 Exabytes of memory to run!

I'd hate to see the scratch system needed for that.

I think that one of the main issues in how things are developing has to do with %'s. The vast majority of users have more concern about their internet speed than the speed of their comp, as they hardly ever have much need for the increased power of newer comps, unless they're gamers.

This is another reason for the push behind cloud computing IMO. There's more money in it.

Really, the only thing lacking is Internet throughputs, as Intel is moving towards high core count servers for clusters.

That'll just leave gamers and workstation users needing real power on the desktop.

 

[RebootD]

Yeah, except it runs like crap on Windows.

Thank you for reminding me of why I don't visit here nearly as often as I used to. Let try logic your way:

Unicorns are faster than horses so that means unicorns exist because I just stated that they are faster than something that DOES exist therefore I win!

Wow this IS fun!

 

[IntelliUser]

Thank you for reminding me of why I don't visit here nearly as often as I used to. Let try logic your way:

Unicorns are faster than horses so that means unicorns exist because I just stated that they are faster than something that DOES exist therefore I win!

Wow this IS fun!

Wow, great analogy, you should write porn movie scripts.

 

[CCK]

I know some guy's that still use 35mm film (for stills), I think it's crazy, but if that's what inspires them, so be it.

It's not the hardware, it's what you do with it.

 

[Dozer_Zaibatsu]

It's not the hardware, it's what you do with it.

Yeah, except this is a forum about hardware, not about technique. What was your point again?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't FCS3 output to Blu Ray if you have an external burner?

You can create a file that will be burned to a disc but there is no way to 'author' a disc (menus, chapters, etc.,) and if you actually want to check your work you can't do that on the Mac. I've heard a lot of complaints about the Easy Export/Share feature though so I don't know how well it works.


Lethal

 

[TheStrudel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't FCS3 output to Blu Ray if you have an external burner?

Or an internal burner. And you don't even need FCS to do it, necessarily. Menus and all that can be done on Toast or Encore.

With respect to the rest of back-and-forthing, fewer insults and more data or reasoned observations, please? You're not proving anything one way or the other or saying anything worth storing on the MR servers when you trade insults and rhetoric.

 

[CCK]

Yeah, except this is a forum about hardware, not about technique. What was your point again?

Actually I was referring to the SOFTWARE debate, and what it mostly comes down to is preference. Which one you feel more comfortable with and inspired by is what you should use. Then let your work speak for itself.

 

[coupdetat]

I agree on the 3D, it's more widely used on PCs (because of the graphic cards and the lack of software on OS X). But 3D is nothing without Photoshops. Textures and other details are done on Photoshops, and almost always on Macs. As well as the special effects in 3D animations. Look at the Avatar production video as an example.

Can't speak about gaming.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't FCS3 output to Blu Ray if you have an external burner?

As far as implementation goes, only 3D apps are better implemented on PCs. And that's a generalization too, apps like Cinema4D, Houdini or Modo run equally, that means that they run better on Macs.



I think it is as of right now. It seems like one year it's the Mac year, one year it's the PC years for their devs.



You're still talking about 3D apps, and a particular 3D app too. anyway, Maya will be 64 bit for OS X too now.



Ps will be 64 in CS5. It's not like 64 bit is the only important thing though, Ps for Windows could be 128 bit but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot iPole.

He's focusing on the new market they've entered. But the professional market hasn't been left, Mac Pros are still made, The FC, Aperture and Logic teams are still working there, and I think that the pro market can keep up by itself from there on.




Yeah, except it runs like crap on Windows.


No, I never have

As far as I'm concerned, Photoshop, Illustrator and Flash (but especially Photoshop) are much more stable on OS X than on Windows. On OS X, CMD-S every minute is a choice, on Windows it's a must.




No, it's about being able to put up with Windows or not. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are very different.

COHERENT ARGUMENT FAIL.

 

[RebootD]

Thank you for reminding me of why I don't visit here nearly as often as I used to. Let try logic your way:

Unicorns are faster than horses so that means unicorns exist because I just stated that they are faster than something that DOES exist therefore I win!

Wow this IS fun!

Wow, great analogy, you should write porn movie scripts.

What? What does that have to do with your inability to put together factual and coherent responses to anything in this thread? Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[frash]

That must be according to you. Because for me, doing any kind of creative work on Windows would be like painting with my hair.

Doing art in a professional capacity is not the same thing as "creative work". As to how your OS would change how "creative" you were is beyond me, but you're confident and sound like you know wha-

I'm speaking as someone who uses his computer all day long

But hey, my research is not professional of course.

..Oh

..Well in that case if you ever do, in the future, want to experience professional work like this outside of your bedroom, then please, on your resume, don't say "Can only work in OSX, Windows is not good enough for CREATIVE WORK, ITS HARDER, I CANT WORK IN THESE CONDITIONS". In fact just don't bring it up at all, like I'm imagining you will.

I agree on the 3D, it's more widely used on PCs (because of the graphic cards and the lack of software on OS X). But 3D is nothing without Photoshops. Textures and other details are done on Photoshops, and almost always on Macs. As well as the special effects in 3D animations. Look at the Avatar production video as an example.

More like almost never on Macs, its not like studios will buy 2 computers for each seat, one linux, one OSX, just to use Photoshops [sic]. Photoshop is used massively with 3D, obviously, but the main concern is the lack of Photoshop on Linux, not a desire to use it on OSX.

Yes, look at the Avatar production video as an example, what a perfect way to completely miss the point. Our studio even worked on Avatar and managed to use Photoshop without a Mac! In fact we used a 5 year old OS because its impossible to change an entire pipeline every year.

As far as implementation goes, only 3D apps are better implemented on PCs. And that's a generalization too, apps like Cinema4D, Houdini or Modo run equally, that means that they run better on Macs.

I'm guessing you've not actually used all of these applications. Because haha.

No, I never have

"All the gear, no idea"

 

[P2 Shooter]

my two cents...

I've been canvassing the opinions of colleagues/clients I work for on a freelance basis as well as browsing the internet for the last 8 months or so, to research which computer/software package would best expand upon my current skills (I'm a lighting cameraman) into post production.

The assertion that Apple is on the verge of abandoning the professional market (in broadcast video only- I have zero knowledge within other industries) is just something, other than on this forum, that just hasn't figured in any form whatsoever (and i have asked a few guys around town!)

1st point: I know of guys working for major companies in the UK broadcast industry (Sky, Editec among others), as well as a number of production houses here in Oz that are currently fitting out or are dependent upon, FCS as one of a number of tools at their disposal. Another editor has just got back from Vancouver to cut exclusively on a FCS for a foreign broadcaster. So point no.1: Macs are still being bought by big companies, to work exclusively on, or alongside PC's, in a workflow that makes them money. ie. macs are profitable for companies.

Next point: you could compare Apple to other companies from a similar mould that straddle the consumer, prosumer, and professional markets. Sony make high end HDCameras like the Cine Alta F23/35's, through the XDCAM, DigiBeta and DVCAM formats, down through the Prosumer EX3's et-al and right the way down to consumer cameras that most people shoot their kids playing football on. Panasonic do the same. I shoot OB's on a long lens with Canon emblazoned all over the side, and get home and take happy snaps of my daughter with a point and shoot digital camera, also with Canon written on it. So, point no. 2: All of these companies (including Apple) happily exist in a multi end user environment, and their business thrives because of it, not in spite of it.

If any of the above companies were to begin neglecting the pro end of the market, pretty soon the trickle down of technology from one tier to the next would dry up. The middle range would become the top end of their market, and the design of their products would start at a lower level than before. Quality and market perceptions would change, and with it sales would decline. Also, you'd think that costs would rise amongst the prosumer level, as this would now be the starting point for all new tech being designed and built, without first having been tested, released and feedback received (along with profits!) from the professional end of the market. Point no.3- neglecting the pro end of any market would be corporate suicide.

It is, however, within the mid range that I reckon apple do have a problem. A mid ranged "prosumer" tower that has expandability (ie. easily upgradable RAM or gpu's and more than 1 or 2 FW800 ports). From some from people's posts here (Toronto Mike etal...), this certainly does seem to be needed, and is missing from the current line up. Maybe Apple are just trying to protect the Mac Pro's from the natural drift away in numbers from this model, to any "mid" tower. Who knows (apart from a certain Mr Jobs!)

But as for the pro's, My colleagues are happy, my clients are happy, and as soon as the darned Mac Pro's are updated, I think I'll be happy too! (or maybe I'm just trying to justify the A$15000 im about to unload on Apple and a few other companies!!!)

 

[TheStrudel]

All of these companies (including Apple) happily exist in a multi end user environment, and their business thrives because of it, not in spite of it.

This.

Finally, a perspective that doesn't embrace a false dichotomy. It's not a question of either-or, people. They can, in fact, have it both ways. Making more mobile products doesn't mean they're about to torpedo the profitable desktop lines.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The assertion that Apple is on the verge of abandoning the professional market (in broadcast video only- I have zero knowledge within other industries) is just something, other than on this forum, that just hasn't figured in any form whatsoever (and i have asked a few guys around town!)

If you check out DVXUser.com, REDUser.net, Creative COW, DVinfo.net, etc., you'll find that this topic has been brought 2-3 times over the past year and a half or so. No one there is asserting anything, but there is a lot of speculation and trepidation that Apple is going to keep the higher end products on the back burner because they are making bank in the consumer electronics world.

This.

Finally, a perspective that doesn't embrace a false dichotomy. It's not a question of either-or, people. They can, in fact, have it both ways. Making more mobile products doesn't mean they're about to torpedo the profitable desktop lines.

Canon pro gear trickling down into Canon prosumer gear trickling down into Canon consumer gear makes sense. Final Cut Pro trickling down into an iPad or a Mac Pro trickling down into a iPhone does not. The question isn't whether or not they can do it but whether or not they will do it. Or, better yet, to what degree will they do it.

I'm not saying that Apple is going to dump FCP out right tomorrow. What I am saying is that Apple doesn't seem to have the same vigor for the pro market as they've had in the past while companies like Adobe and Avid seemingly have regrouped and are pushing hard to get back the thunder that Apple stole from them.

I'm not really worried about Apple dumping the Pro Apps but I am worried about them keeping up w/the Jones's, so to speak.


Lethal

 

[P2 Shooter]

If you check out DVXUser.com, REDUser.net, Creative COW, DVinfo.net, etc., you'll find that this topic has been brought 2-3 times over the past year and a half or so. No one there is asserting anything, but there is a lot of speculation and trepidation that Apple is going to keep the higher end products on the back burner because they are making bank in the consumer electronics world.


Canon pro gear trickling down into Canon prosumer gear trickling down into Canon consumer gear makes sense. Final Cut Pro trickling down into an iPad or a Mac Pro trickling down into a iPhone does not. The question isn't whether or not they can do it but whether or not they will do it. Or, better yet, to what degree will they do it.

I'm not saying that Apple is going to dump FCP out right tomorrow. What I am saying is that Apple doesn't seem to have the same vigor for the pro market as they've had in the past while companies like Adobe and Avid seemingly have regrouped and are pushing hard to get back the thunder that Apple stole from them.


I'm not really worried about Apple dumping the Pro Apps but I am worried about them keeping up w/the Jones's, so to speak.


Lethal

Mmmm, Maybe I'm not quite as well researched for my impending purchase as I thought! Ive been on the Cow, and Reduser, but not the other two! Thanks for the tip!!

Just why is there so much speculation and trepidation towards Apples intentions though? As my point made, Sony make a hell of a lot of money out of their consumer electronics range, but noone makes the assumption that they will under resource the Pro sector because of it. Im not sure, but is it possible that this could be more about some sections of Apple users being over anxious?

Also, wouldn't FCP trickle in some ways through FCE into iMovie? Mac Pros, down through the imacs and minis of the range (and maybe one day the mid ranged tower)?

I'm glad to hear your statement on the future of FCP though. And maybe Avid and Adobe are gaining back some of the ground lost, but surely this is a situation that can only be of benefit to us, the end user. I'd much rather have three competing companies vying for my hard earned dollar and pushing the technology along. Especially as in a couple of years I expect to be running Apps from all three of these companies, much like I shoot with both Sony and Panasonic cameras, across varying formats today.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Just why is there so much speculation and trepidation towards Apples intentions though? As my point made, Sony make a hell of a lot of money out of their consumer electronics range, but noone makes the assumption that they will under resource the Pro sector because of it. Im not sure, but is it possible that this could be more about some sections of Apple users being over anxious?

Part of it probably is people being over anxious, but Sony keeps cranking things out like the F35, F350, EX1 and 3, the new NXCAM, etc.,. If you look at what Apple has done w/the Pro Apps over the past few years vs what they did in the early and mid part of the decade there is a noticeable difference, IMO. Final Cut Server? Not much going on there. DVD Studio Pro 4? Released almost 5 years ago. Shake? Short stint under Apple's ownership before being end-of-lifed and a lead dev of the original Shake team goes to work on Nuke at The Foundry. Apple Color? After two years we get a .5 update that's little more than bug fixes. FCE 4? Released Nov of 07. Where's the Apple that helped usher in desktop publishing, editing, and DVD authoring? I think that fire is still at Apple, but it's being pointed in a different direction right now. I mean, Apple did delay the development of Leopard so they could get the iPhone out the door in '07.

What I'm wondering is how much deeper down the post production rabbit hole is Apple willing to go. They decided they didn't want to go as deep as Shake went so they killed it (even though it was a leading high-end compositing app at the time). Have they reached their plateau? Are the Pro Apps 'good enough' now and destined to just receive relatively minor bumps and improvements here and there? I use Color a lot and I'm worried it's going to end up the same a Shake.

Also, wouldn't FCP trickle in some ways through FCE into iMovie? Mac Pros, down through the imacs and minis of the range (and maybe one day the mid ranged tower)?

iMovie's image stabilization was probably pilfered from Shake, but I don't think there is much trickle down from FCP to iMovie. Two very different apps w/very different approaches to editing. FCE is a stripped down FCP but I don't know how many features FCE has inherited from FCP over the years. And some things (like support for HDV cameras) appear first on the consumer apps.

I'm glad to hear your statement on the future of FCP though. And maybe Avid and Adobe are gaining back some of the ground lost, but surely this is a situation that can only be of benefit to us, the end user. I'd much rather have three competing companies vying for my hard earned dollar and pushing the technology along. Especially as in a couple of years I expect to be running Apps from all three of these companies, much like I shoot with both Sony and Panasonic cameras, across varying formats today.

For the end user competition is great, of course, and I would like to see continued competition from Apple. What I'm hoping is that the lull w/the Final Cut Studio apps is because Apple is rewriting FCP from the ground up and is going to spring a brand new version of it on us this year. I have absolutely nothing to base that on but that sounds better to me than Apple just being disinterested in the Pro Apps.


Lethal

 

[hosko]

What I'm hoping is that the lull w/the Final Cut Studio apps is because Apple is rewriting FCP from the ground up and is going to spring a brand new version of it on us this year. I have absolutely nothing to base that on but that sounds better to me than Apple just being disinterested in the Pro Apps.

For Apple to release a new version they are going to have to write it from the ground up to get it running in 64bit and to get multi-processor support. These are the key things that the current FCS is missing.

Do this and fix some bugs and we get a package that will absolutely scream.

 

[toke lahti]

Same at my workplace. All the oldish Avid's are being replaced with FCP and the editors are loving it.

So 2009 MP & FCS3 runs hd better than avid from 2004?
Oh really?

 

[toke lahti]

Apple releases one rev of MP, of which one model (the single proc) is considered a poor value, and all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Ever thought about why they did it?
Or why there's no mid-tower Mac?
Why they neglect eSata, matte screens, blu-ray, expandability, express cards, usb3, GPU's, etc.?
Why MBP today has less features than 3 years ago?
If you wanted to put more memory than 4 sticks to your MP in 2006, you didn't have choose the more expensive model?
Why a computer with 2 firewire ports or 2 sata ports for HDD must cost $3k? In pc's that's 50 bucks more for basic model...

These things doesn't happen by accident or because Apple has a lot of very bad designers and engineers who make a lot of mistakes.
This is done in purpose.

I think they are testing how far pro users can be pushed. How much features they can take away or neglect IT advancement and at the same time raise the prices with nice names like "unibody".

By this style they raise their profits to the maximum and when they hit the critical point, they just slowly start bringing the old & new features back (and because of age of these features they will be very cheap at that time) and the loyal pro user crowd start once again the never ending cheer.

If you look at what Apple has done w/the Pro Apps over the past few years vs what they did in the early and mid part of the decade there is a noticeable difference, IMO. Final Cut Server? Not much going on there. DVD Studio Pro 4? Released almost 5 years ago. Shake? Short stint under Apple's ownership before being end-of-lifed and a lead dev of the original Shake team goes to work on Nuke at The Foundry. Apple Color? After two years we get a .5 update that's little more than bug fixes. FCE 4? Released Nov of 07...
...What I'm wondering is how much deeper down the post production rabbit hole is Apple willing to go. They decided they didn't want to go as deep as Shake went so they killed it (even though it was a leading high-end compositing app at the time). Have they reached their plateau? Are the Pro Apps 'good enough' now and destined to just receive relatively minor bumps and improvements here and there? I use Color a lot and I'm worried it's going to end up the same a Shake.

Yup, how many years and Color still doesn't support 10/12-bit colors with nVIDIA?

And when you add this non-existing (video) software development to these recent hardware "reformations", I'm actually scared every time there's new Mac coming.
What do they take away this time?
Pretty sad when video pros are chasing 2-3 year old MBP's to get their work done like they want and are used to.

 

[grue]

Why they neglect eSata, matte screens, blu-ray, expandability, express cards, usb3, GPU's, etc.?

How long have you been a Mac user? Apparently not long enough to see how long it took Apple to adopt DVI, USB2, CD-R, DVD, DVD-R, or any other standard that they didn't invent.

 

[disconap]

How long have you been a Mac user? Apparently not long enough to see how long it took Apple to adopt DVI, USB2, CD-R, DVD, DVD-R, or any other standard that they didn't invent.

Exactly. But to be fair, USB3 is just starting to become a standard for new machines, so I'd expect Apple will adopt it sometime this year. Or at least, start adopting it.

As for eSata (and SATA3), I think they'll likely never support them, LightPeak isn't far off and they're one of the funding developers of that technology (along with Intel and, I think, Sony). I read a while back that they're looking to release it this year sometime, so I'd expect it to either run alongside or replace SATA2 entirely. I doubt we'll see Macs with SATA3, but I suppose it's possible.

 

[toke lahti]

How long have you been a Mac user? Apparently not long enough to see how long it took Apple to adopt DVI, USB2, CD-R, DVD, DVD-R, or any other standard that they didn't invent.

Long enough to remember that Apple was first in business to support dvd-r and even Apple branded dvd-r disks were cheapest in the market.
They really wanted it to succeed.
How about you?
About DVI, it came to pc's in 2001 and to Macs 2003.
Usb2 came to Macs 2003, bit more than one year later than to pc's.

Blu-ray is now 4 years late,
eSata 5 years late.
GPU's are lagging 2-3 years late depending what you need.
Doesn't look good.
Considering that Apple sells 10 times more Macs than a few years before, they could use their economics of scale and bring out all new tech with much less expense than those old days.

Doesn't look good...