Even the enterprise level is scaling back/freezing tech equipment purchases to hold onto as much cash as possible these days, so you're not alone.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Apple still serious about the professional market?
- Thread starter Onigiri
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm just the operator. All the gear belongs to my employer. Maybe when I win the lottery...Holy crap, you are running some wicked toys. Throw some of that money my way, uncle money bags!
Lethal
Apple's policy of (generally) maintaining constant prices as the machines age also bugs me. But in fairness to them, I've been monitoring Dell's website for a T3500 (a lower end workstation) and those "nominal" prices also haven't changed a whole lot in about 9 months (occasionally they run a sale for a few days).
I think the "workstation" market is a bit different than the general "consumer" market. So Apple's business model aligns with their competitors'. We're talking "professional" machines here, so we can avoid puzzling over why Apple keeps steady prices on their consumer products.
You get better pricing if you pick up the phone and call vendors such as Dell and HP. Others such as Sun, don't even have a web based configuration tool, so you have to call or request a quote by email.
If it is, it's really sad that OsX turns to consumer entertainment platform.
OsX is much better os than windows in pro enviroment as all studies tell us.
Much cheaper to maintain.
Nobody still have long experience about win7, but if it's same than before, active use of windows needs it to be re-installed every year or even more often.
This means dozens of hours of additional backups and notes about how apps were configured, formatting system disk, re-installing os & apps, downloading gigabytes of updates to os & apps, booting the computer in every step and the most tedious part: re-configuring all settings in all applications.
I wonder if the 27" display will be as useless for professional use as the 24" display is.
I wish there will be a great 30" display upgrade (probably to 32"?)
I wish there will be a great 30" display upgrade (probably to 32"?)
In the next month you doubters will be eating your negative words! An iMac is hardly a machine for anything pro audio. No PCIE, no storage... It's more for Photoshop and creatives. But anyway, mark my word, the new mac pros are going to be right on the bleeding edge of what's available and then some. Just because they don't come out with a new software release everytime you turn around doesn't mean squat! It means that the current tools are still being used (and VERY) effectively) and there's no reason to update till everythings a complete package. I crack up when I come here and read this stuff... such uninformed and biased opinions he he.
Yeah, well the other professional software packages are outpacing Apple in terms of development and are taking better advantage of Apple's own hardware and software. So while we may be biased (who isn't?), many of us are well informed in the areas we work in.
You know the tools that you mention are "being used very effectively" with no updates from Apple? That's the people in this thread using those tools!
No, Apple is not serious about the professional market anymore.
And I believe that any professional who demands high-end computer hardware but who also purchases one of the itoys that ruined Apple Computer is doing a disservice to the pro community at large.
Boycott ipod, boycot iphone, boycott ipad, boycott imac. If it starts in the letter I, it's a consumer grade scourge that is rotting Apple from the inside out in the name of profits.
And I believe that any professional who demands high-end computer hardware but who also purchases one of the itoys that ruined Apple Computer is doing a disservice to the pro community at large.
Boycott ipod, boycot iphone, boycott ipad, boycott imac. If it starts in the letter I, it's a consumer grade scourge that is rotting Apple from the inside out in the name of profits.
Bitter, frustrated, angry. I could throttle Steve Jobs and his "mobile device company".
If they'd just sell Final Cut Pro to work on a different OS I'd be satisfied.
Would you be satisfied w/the hefty price increase as well? Not every company relies on hardware sales to subsidize their software development like Apple does.
Lethal
That could be seen as an acceptable trade-off by some though, as they'd get the ability to run hardware that they currently are unable to.
So long as Apple kept the pricing in line with competing products, then professionals would still buy it (assuming it's the right software solution for what they're doing).
Does any company rely on hardware sales to subsidize software like does? Seems like a pretty unique model in the computer world, mainly because almost nobody makes hardware and software.
Unless you count the increasingly computer-like games consoles.
Unless you count the increasingly computer-like games consoles.
Uhmmm... yes, on the enterprise level, one of the big players, SUN (Now part of Oracle) has always been a hardware and software vendor. I would even go so far as to say that SUN's platform is even more stable than Apple's... and I LOVE my Mac.
I don't see them the same way though. Yes, they sell both. But I don't recall the software being significantly discounted as a result of the hardware sales (but it's been a good while since I've seen their software price sheets).
I still like their systems though (not sure what's going to happen with Oracle at the helm in regard to the hardware/system offerings).
Something else to think about as we see more cores. Most desktop Operating Systems just are plain not tuned very well for more CPU's. It's really in the server market, and really more in the Unix area that you see good scaling as the number of CPU's increase.
As we see core counts increase, there's going to have to be a lot of under-the-hood improvements for the operating system and applications to really be able to use these effectively and in some cases, there can be performance loses if the software cannot deal with the hardware.
At some point, Apple, MS, and the Linux world are all going to have to go through the pain that IBM and Sun already have in the Unix server market. Until those issues are sorted out, I'm not sure I'm real turned on yet simply by more cores. Mind you, all OS's should benefit from other architectural improvements (pipelines, caching, out of order execution, etc.)
Since server applications far out number those on the workstation side as far as multi-threaded applications (as well as frequency used), it's no wonder the Server versions of OS's are better equiped for such applications. There's a need, and the enterprise market is willing to pay for it. It's as simple as that IMO.
So that market gets the development necessary to make it happen.
IMO the 'sticker shock' would knock the wind out of most people and a huge key to the success of Apple's ProApps would be gone.
How many people would choose FCP over Premiere or Avid if FCP cost $2-2.5k (heck, even when FCP alone cost $999 it was seen as a steal)? What if Color still cost $25k or Shake, which I know is dead, never got reduced from $15k? DVD SP and SoundTrack used to sell for $500 dollars each, IIRC, and, at least for DVD SP, that's still a deep discount from what the app used to sell for before Apple purchased it.
Lethal
I'm used to high prices for the initial purchase (professional, but not graphics related software, such as Electronic Design Automation packages), and then an annual maintenance fee (keeps the software updated, as well as continual product support; so long as payment doesn't lapse).
So maybe it's just me, as I'm not looking at the graphics world the same way as those in it.
Many people on the higher end of the production spectrum are used to high prices (cameras that cost six figures and million dollar color correction suites) but that's not really the world that the ProApps live in. FCP's dominance is primarily in the prosumer space where an expensive camera is $10k and $15k for an offline edit suite is big chunk of change. FCP, compared to it's main competitor the Avid Media Composer, was 'good enough' and significantly cheaper (not to long ago Avid MC plus the required Avid hardware started at $25k). If you take away the 'significantly cheaper' aspect then FCP becomes a much harder sell and people will be less forgiving of it's short comings, IMO.
Lethal
I didn't see FCP as a prosumer application given the number of users on MR that indicate they earn a living with it (never used it or any of the others myself to know the difference), but it makes sense. The lower cost is really what it has going for it then.
I get cranky whenever I read "imacs are for photoshop creative types" because I'm one of them who owns an expensive, hardware calibrated LCD, and doesn't want/need a shinebox imac.
Sure the CPU is powerful enough for what I do but there are still major drawbacks:
1. No RAID options
2. No 2nd Scratch Disk
3. Cannot open up without voiding warranty
4. Mirror like shine that I can't "get used to" or "stop noticing"
That said I run a business so I deduct my hardware/software over time so it isn't a big deal but I would love for official gfx card upgrades that aren't marked up 1500% of actual retail value.
Sure the CPU is powerful enough for what I do but there are still major drawbacks:
1. No RAID options
2. No 2nd Scratch Disk
3. Cannot open up without voiding warranty
4. Mirror like shine that I can't "get used to" or "stop noticing"
That said I run a business so I deduct my hardware/software over time so it isn't a big deal but I would love for official gfx card upgrades that aren't marked up 1500% of actual retail value.
FCP is a pro level app, IMO, but the price point put it in the prosumer market first. It gained market share and popularity there and when people/companies using $60k Avids saw that a $1k app could do 90% of what they needed that's when FCP really started moving upstream. Apple, because they use hardware sales to subsidize their software, has really been able to push the market into offering better, less expensive options which means the end user is getting access to quality tools at a price point that would've been unbelievable just 5 or 6 years ago.
Lethal