Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[LethalWolfe]

Hmm,
maybe, I have used Shake for very little, but I liked it and wished that I would have more time to play with it.
But why Apple doesn't bundle it with FCS? Too many support calls?

My guess is Shake was too much effort for too little reward and that's why they killed it. And I'm worried they might do the same thing to Color (or strip it down for parts and create something in the vein of Motion but for color correction). I'm also guess that they didn't bundle it w/FCP for free because they didn't want to devalue it in the eyes of Shake users. Final Touch was so relatively unknown that I don't think Apple had to worry about that.

If I have calibrated and profiled computer monitor to look rec709, what's the difference in colors comparing to broadcast monitor, which should have color space of rec709?

A good place to start might be here.

I think tha MXO is for use with MBP or people who don't know color management. Adjustments for picture are pretty crude in that box and you still need internal LUT in monitor to avoid 8-bit bottleneck.

Color management for print is very, very different than color management for video. Basically, color management for video is sending a proper video signal out via a proper I/O device and looking at it on calibrated broadcast monitor. People who don't know color management for video use computer monitors connected to their GFX card and incorrectly assume that because it works for Photoshop it will work for video. The adjustments you get w/the MXO mimic those you'll use on a broadcast monitor for calibration so, yeah, I think they can get the job done (it's actually a popular selling point of the MXO series).

Yep, I don't use those apps for color correction.

You use Color, right? You use FCP, right? Then you use apps that are subject to Apple's inability to properly, and uniformly, handle gamma. Ever checked the "FCP compatibility" box in QuickTime? Now things might start looking a little more uniform, but uniform doesn't necessarily mean correct. So who do you trust? QT (which can be changed at the touch of a button)? FCP (which assumes you are using a monitor set to 1.8 gamma and automatically does an adjustment to mimic 2.2 gamma)? Color? What about the gamma bug w/rending out of After Effects? Which gamma is right? The only way to know is to send a proper video signal to a proper monitor.

But when you connect MXO (or Declink's box) to computer monitor, the magic happens and it turns to broadcast monitor?

Nope. The drivers for the MXO allow it to 'grab' the video signal before it gets improperly process by the GFX card and run it into the MXO box which does the proper processing and spits out a standard, broadcast video signal. That is the difference between the MXO and just a 'dumb' box that hangs of the DVI port.

I'll just check sd-converted and believe that nobody has interlaced hd screens anymore...

I don't know the typical standards are on your side of the pond but in the US 1080i60 is very common so we still have to keep an eye out for field issues (not to mention Color can do nasty things to interlaced footage if you aren't careful).

Anyway, if you still don't believe me feel free to search around the Color forums on CreativeCOW or Apple's Official forum to see why computer monitors hooked up to your GFX card aren't up to snuff. You could also grab one of Steve Hullfish's books.


Lethal

 

[P2 Shooter]

Heres a little nugget that is cause to give me a bit of hope that hopefully I haven't jumped up the wrong tree to tie my flag to (just picked up a refurb macpro to edit from home).

Might be old news to some of you so apologies there, but still, it's worth sharing:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mcurtis/story/arri_alexa_look_out_red/
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/04/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss/

A company like Arri recording straight to ProRes is definitely a step in the right direction at least and this should (hopefully!) enable FCP to further gain ground into feature films and high end TVC's.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I don't think they are really neglecting the professional market, just simply expanding their product line.

The analogy I use is are you going to work at McDonald's all your life? Or are you going to find a better and higher paying job?

 

[TennisandMusic]

I don't think they are really neglecting the professional market, just simply expanding their product line.

The analogy I use is are you going to work at McDonald's all your life? Or are you going to find a better and higher paying job?

I'm not sure that analogy works. The iPad is much more akin to a "McDonald's job" while the Mac Pros would be the "better and higher paying job." If you're directly comparing revenue to salaries...well I don't know. That seems more like "selling out" to me.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm not sure that analogy works. The iPad is much more akin to a "McDonald's job" while the Mac Pros would be the "better and higher paying job." If you're directly comparing revenue to salaries...well I don't know. That seems more like "selling out" to me.

Actually it is. If focus in the analogy on the matter of how much money you take home from the job not the social status of the job.

Estimates on the run rates ( and 30% margin on highest selling (entry) unit.)

Job 1 selling Mac Pros : 800,000 * $750 profit/unit = $0.6 B

Job 2 selling iPads : 8,000,000 * $150 profit/unit = $1.2 B


Job 2 has twice as much "take-home" pay. It is a better paying job. The notion that Apple makes more money by selling to smaller numbers of people is bit off base. Not really true. Nor it is particularly challenging to sell the same box every year with minor tweaks the part suppliers pass along.

The runs rate estimates are a bit contrived to make the more round number comparisons, but are in the ball park. Q1 2010 1.2 million desktops sold total. That's ball partk 4.8 million desktops per year. 800K is about 17% of all desktops sold as being Mac Pros. Given iMacs start off at half as much in price and Mac minis around a 1/4 as much, that's a generous percentage.

iPads that is less than 1 million a month which so far looks reasonable too.

It isn't how much the items sell for but the profit margin that counts. If the profit margin is roughly the same the order of magnitude increase in units sold makes up the difference in per unit profit amount.

If the number of Mac Pro units sold year over year stays relatively constant while the other product categories grow each year .... it is a Mc Donalds job.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Actually it is. If focus in the analogy on the matter of how much money you take home from the job not the social status of the job.

Estimates on the run rates ( and 30% margin on highest selling (entry) unit.)

Job 1 selling Mac Pros : 800,000 * $750 profit/unit = $0.6 B

Job 2 selling iPads : 8,000,000 * $150 profit/unit = $1.2 B


Job 2 has twice as much "take-home" pay. It is a better paying job. The notion that Apple makes more money by selling to smaller numbers of people is bit off base. Not really true. Nor it is particularly challenging to sell the same box every year with minor tweaks the part suppliers pass along.

The runs rate estimates are a bit contrived to make the more round number comparisons, but are in the ball park. Q1 2010 1.2 million desktops sold total. That's ball partk 4.8 million desktops per year. 800K is about 17% of all desktops sold as being Mac Pros. Given iMacs start off at half as much in price and Mac minis around a 1/4 as much, that's a generous percentage.

iPads that is less than 1 million a month which so far looks reasonable too.

It isn't how much the items sell for but the profit margin that counts. If the profit margin is roughly the same the order of magnitude increase in units sold makes up the difference in per unit profit amount.

If the number of Mac Pro units sold year over year stays relatively constant while the other product categories grow each year .... it is a Mc Donalds job.

Err...that's why I said it was like "selling out." If all you are concerned about is making money/revenue/profit then Apple has completely sold out their historical base. We are talking decades of history here. I fully understand how the analogy is supposed to work, thanks.

If you want to actually talk "quality", the McDonalds job is obviously the iPad production. And I say that as an owner that is pretty happy with mine.

It is a bad analogy, pure and simple, because the higher paying job generally is associated with a higher skillset, and is harder to find qualified applicants. Equating their pro products with cheap fast food is stupid. The comparison is just too muddled. Apple is selling out, turning to cheap consumer devices instead of professional tools for creation. People cheering them on for this are fools, IMO.

 

[tekboi]

Apple is selling out, turning to cheap consumer devices instead of professional tools for creation. People cheering them on for this are fools, IMO.

^^ I agree.

The fact that apple is turning it's back on the pro market is just disgusting. Isn't the pro market what sustained apple during its time of peril? Apple is turning into the very company that failed in the 90's.

Remember those ipods that were purposely given that "2 year lifespan"? Apple is no different now. They care nothing about consumers and all about profits. They're just milking the current cash cow (which is now the iPad).

At this point there is no way I would consider buying a MacPro from apple. Maybe from ebay or craigslist, but definitely not apple. Why would I foolishly purchase something that's over a year out-of-date for a premium price? I think the least apple could have done was come down on the price of the mac pro since they haven't updated it in FOREVER.

but like I said... all about profits.

 

[TheStrudel]

The factors you're basing your buying decision on are not factors to the actual market for this machine.

They're photo or video people who want a high performance mac with which to edit or create content.

Nothing else matters. They'd like a cheaper or more powerful box, but they're going to buy what there is on the schedule it's available to them or the buying schedule of their company/office.

If they have a three-year refresh, they'll buy a new one in three years, regardless of whether or not updates are just around the corner.

I think  sells far more Mac Pros to offices or organizations than single-machine buyers. A media lab I worked in used to operate on a two year refresh every time (economic reasons has caused this to change), but they still won't factor anything else into the decision - when it's upgrade time, they'll upgrade.

 

[deconstruct60]

Err...that's why I said it was like "selling out." If all you are concerned about is making money/revenue/profit then Apple has completely sold out their historical base. We are talking decades of history here. I fully understand how the analogy is supposed to work, thanks.

The analogy the person put forward was that it is a better paying job. It is better paying job. Therefore the analogy works.

If you want to actually talk "quality", the McDonalds job is obviously the iPad production. And I say that as an owner that is pretty happy with mine.

There is little if any increase quality between a Mac Pro and iPad .
There is more "stuff" in a Mac Pro, but where is the drop off in quality ?
What second rate or inferior materials are used in iPad construction relative to the Mac Pro? Cheaper quality aluminum case? Chessier quality circuit boards and components ?

Number of sockets and slots has nothing to do with quality.

It is a bad analogy, pure and simple, because the higher paying job generally is associated with a higher skillset, and is harder to find qualified applicants. Equating their pro products with cheap fast food is stupid.

Off on numerous dimensions.

1. Pay is tied to numerous factors. For example, factory workers in China get paid less than many US based workers purely based up on location, not skill set.

In the other direction CEO pay inflation has far outpaced that of the vast majority of the workers at most corporations. Are companies really run way better now than decades ago purely based on differences in what is in CEO's heads ?


2. The analogy didn't equate products to food at all. It was equating the job, not the food. The comparison is between job characteristics not the by-products of the job. If you want to get stuck on the non pertinent aspects of the analogy that's on you. If the two elements in the analogies contrast are exactly the same it wouldn't be an analogy.

if you want to argue that many people with get caught up in the superficial aspects of the analogy you might have a point.

The comparison is just too muddled.

If you look at the non relevant aspects, sure any analogy is muddled.

Apple is selling out, turning to cheap consumer devices instead of professional tools for creation. People cheering them on for this are fools, IMO.

Apple's stuff isn't "cheap". Relatively less expensive that other devices with higher sticker prices, but that is inherently true.

Even the stuff at the "lower" end of Apple's product lines have substantive profit margins built into them but generally equal quality of components. The components just cost less so end up with a lower system price.

In one of the other threads in this Mac Pro forum on motherboards there was a suggestion that Apple outsources the motherboard design on Mac Pro to one of the South East Asian contractors. If so the only "design" aspect of the Mac Pro that Apple is doing is the case. I seriously don't think the case is a critical aspect to "professional tools for creation". Even if does do the motherboard are tons of commodity aspects to the Mac Pro.
It is really the legacy form factor and legacy equipment that folks are more primarily riled up about than something unique to the Mac Pro.


Apple is building tools for creation. There is a very narrow definition of what "professional" is suppose to mean that is thrown about on these boards. Commonly "professional" is more so a euphemism for "my profession is more professional than those other ones that don't have much niche legacy equipment requirements". I don't think Apple buys into that. They have a more expansive viewpoint of who are the important content creators.

 

[deconstruct60]

So if Apple stopped selling all their hardware today you think they could still continue the business model of buying other companies and giving away expensive software for free?

When was Apple ever in the business model before or currently ? Additionally, they don't buy that much (relative to their size).

First, Apple generally doesn't sell hardware they sell systems ( software + hardware). Even is some situations where software looks free the costs are bundled with the system price (e.g., iTunes costs can be bundled into both Mac and iPod system sales ).

If Apple sold hardware upon which installed your own software to complete the system then there would be a more clear outline of how the costs are separated.

It may be the case that internally Apple muddles the breakdown and allows the hardware folks to claim the system revenues and then funnel money back to software as some kind of internal "cost" and that gets labeled as a subsidy. But that isn't a subsidy any more than the payments that HP/Dell/etc make to Microsoft for the Windows component costs to their systems.

Could Apple do it if they stopped selling hardware? Sure, as long as the number of systems their software is bundled with is high enough. Or in a model similar to what Oracle does allow expensive software to be used for free until you start making money with it and then charge tons of money.

However, there is fewer and fewer reasons to drop hardware when Apple itself outsources the hardware itself. What is the difference between Apple hiring Foxconn to build their boxes and HP or Dell hiring Foxconn to build the boxes ? Foxconn can slap whatever software you give them (windows, linux, or Mac OS X ) on the box as it comes off the line. No big difference.

 

[deconstruct60]

Along the same lines, why doesn't Apple make all of it's software cross platform?

In part, because to a large extent it doesn't matter if some of it eventually fails because it is single platform. Apple is a product conglomerate. If one of the smaller product lines doesn't cut the mustard profit wise they can just nuke it. Especially if there are 3rd party implementations that are roughly equivalent.

If you are an independent software vendor and you might fail if the platform has a hiccup and becomes less trendy then it may be worthwhile to gamble additional resources on being multiplatform.

The ProApps are more defensive than offensive. When the trendline was for Adobe, Avid , etc all to throw increasing resources at the Windows platform it is useful strategically for Apple to put a few Apps out there in the market.

There are obviously a ton more Windows boxes out there than Mac boxes. Why is iTunes cross platform?

Two reasons.

First, because the vast majority of iPod owners have Windows boxes. iPod didn't explode until they brought the system to Windows. Same reason why the iPod dumped Firewire and uses USB. Windows boxes at the time predominately had USB and no Firewire. ( Ironic that years later Apple dumped Firewire from the 13" laptops while more than every Windows laptops came with it, but understand the call. )

Second, because Apple was still gambling could make Quicktime the dominate proprietary media player. iTunes is also yet another layer to Quicktime. Throwing money at something that has monopoly power payoffs is often worth the investment if not a large of amount of money have to gamble/invest with.

Is the difference that FCP for Windows won't sell Mac hardware but iTunes for Windows will?

Nope, not a primary effect.

Why did Apple quickly kill the Windows version of Shake and discount the Mac price much lower than the Linux price?

In part perhaps because didn't really matter strategically if it died off or not. It is dead now isn't it ? Apple is making tons more money then they were then. Sure they get some benefit in locking a few folks in, but others are going to balk and buy an alternative. Or more simply because the Windows code base sucked. Yet another reason to kill off a port. Again the product is dead now. That doesn't particularly suggest that the code base was conducive to long term evolution and maintenance.


Additionally, development for a single platform is also cheaper. If not sure Shake has a large enough target market to be sustainable one track is to cut the development costs. Not porting to multiple platforms will leave less of a crater if tank and crash. There are also just straight up return on investment issues. Having paid some multiple for the company, Apple needs to make the money back. One Scrooge Mc Duck approach to that is to just slash costs in the easiest way possible.


The problem with going single platform is how do you expand the market. For several of the other apps Apple has cut the costs to expand the market (in part getting the software off the small subset of Mac Pro class machines and onto the wider set of the Mac hardware platforms). The other way of expanding the market it to say multiplatform (For example, Safari. If Safari didn't have Windows numbers propping up its browser footprint it would be a smaller player and fewer websites would code for it. ) The multiplatform works better if have very limited audience who are committed to making various hardware choices. You have to chase them across platforms. The last way to growth is just to ride a fast growing platform. The higher priced range of the Mac product line have little evidence of being fast growing.

 

[toke lahti]

A good place to start might be here.

Care to explain how that article explain why you can't profile wide gamut monitor to look like a rec709 monitor?

So who do you trust? QT (which can be changed at the touch of a button)? FCP (which assumes you are using a monitor set to 1.8 gamma and automatically does an adjustment to mimic 2.2 gamma)? Color? What about the gamma bug w/rending out of After Effects? Which gamma is right? The only way to know is to send a proper video signal to a proper monitor.

I thought FCP these days knows if monitor is already set for 2.2 gamma.
It really doesn't? Strange that the video windows look so close to at least rec601.
So when monitor is set to 2.2 FCP really shows the video with gamma 2.7?
(2.2/1.8*2.2)

You are so right in that how frustrating it is that Apple doesn't get its own apps color managed. I was very interested about CM 5 years ago. To me it looked like "we're almost there", just have to wait next version (of app/os).
And now 5 years later: zero advancement.
Maybe QtX will offer something in the future?
Windows7 handles 30-bit colors now, OsX does not.
Since then I've lost most of interest in subject, since people only seem to care in high-end work and I'm doing cheaper stuff.

Of course it's better to have broadcast monitor.
And to trust that, you have to keep it calibrated.
It gets complex to calibrate/profile computer monitor for different apps, but if you use only one app for final color correction, you can adjust the monitor to this and just remember that other apps can show colors wrong.
I have made this years ago and verified this with broadcast monitor (although it was sd-monitor).
Only critical thing was to use monitor that uses internal LUT for gamma conversion so the gradients look nice even when you're dropping tones away with profiling.
It's not a perfect solution, but hey, what in this world is?

That is the difference between the MXO and just a 'dumb' box that hangs of the DVI port.

So are Decklinks boxes dumber than MXO?
Or BlueThing's?

Anyway, if you look Apple by its OS, apps or hardware, neither of these shows much of advancement for pro use. I'm not optimistic that in near future there will be a change.
Color management is a good example: years of problems and kludges, but seems to be that for most of "pros" it is "good enough"...

 

[LethalWolfe]

It may be the case that internally Apple muddles the breakdown and allows the hardware folks to claim the system revenues and then funnel money back to software as some kind of internal "cost" and that gets labeled as a subsidy. But that isn't a subsidy any more than the payments that HP/Dell/etc make to Microsoft for the Windows component costs to their systems.

I think you are taking my use of the term "subsidy" more literally than I intended it to be. Maybe I should've referred to it as being more akin to the razor and blades business model or a loss leading business model. Similar to how printer manufacturers, for example, have incredibly thing margins on the printers themselves but have a massive markup on the ink they sell. Or Walmart, as another example, typically sells DVDs very near, or below, cost to generate foot traffic in hopes that people will come for the cheap DVDs and buy a bunch of other stuff, higher margin stuff, while they are there. Gas stations make money selling soda and smokes not gas and movie theaters make money selling bags of popcorn not tickets, etc.,.

In part perhaps because didn't really matter strategically if it died off or not. It is dead now isn't it ? Apple is making tons more money then they were then. Sure they get some benefit in locking a few folks in, but others are going to balk and buy an alternative. Or more simply because the Windows code base sucked. Yet another reason to kill off a port. Again the product is dead now. That doesn't particularly suggest that the code base was conducive to long term evolution and maintenance.

Considering that Shake was EOL'd by Apple in 2006 yet it is still being used today for big productions, and that Apple made the source code available via licensing, I don't think deficiencies in the code base led to Apple killing Shake development while the program was still in it's prime. A member of the Shake team who stayed on for a few years after Apple purchased Nothing Real (the original Shake developer) said he left Apple to go work on Nuke (a competing product) because he didn't like the direction Apple had decided to take. Also, Shake was originally available for OS X, Windows, Linux and Irix, are you sure OS X was the 'original' version and everything else was port from that?

Care to explain how that article explain why you can't profile wide gamut monitor to look like a rec709 monitor?

It states it pretty clearly in the bullet points labeled "Wide Gamut", "Calibration" and "Non Color Managed Applications". Again, the monitor is only one link in the chain. Even if you were using a broadcast monitor but had it connected to the GFX card via a DVI-to-SDI converter you'd still run into accuracy issues because of the nature of the quality of the image displayed by FCP and Color and because of the nature of the video card that's designed to display video in the computer world and not video in the broadcast world.

I thought FCP these days knows if monitor is already set for 2.2 gamma.
It really doesn't? Strange that the video windows look so close to at least rec601.
So when monitor is set to 2.2 FCP really shows the video with gamma 2.7?
(2.2/1.8*2.2)

AFAIK this is still true, but maybe it's different under Snow Leopard and FCP 7. If it's not, hopefully it will be fixed w/the next big update since right now there are still some kinks w/SL and FCS from what I've read. Growing pains I guess.

It's not a perfect solution, but hey, what in this world is?

I guess it just comes down to what each user considers 'good enough' accuracy for their needs and their client's needs.

So are Decklinks boxes dumber than MXO?
Or BlueThing's?

Yes, if you are talking about converter boxes that just hang off the DVI port (ex. Blackmagic's DVI to SDI converter box). The original MXO, AFAIK, is the only product that does what it does and that's why the MXO only works w/certain cards because the drivers don't work w/every card.

Anyway, if you look Apple by its OS, apps or hardware, neither of these shows much of advancement for pro use. I'm not optimistic that in near future there will be a change.
Color management is a good example: years of problems and kludges, but seems to be that for most of "pros" it is "good enough"...

For the price, it is. Someone can buy the Final Cut suite for a grand and find work-arounds as needed or they can spend a hell of a lot more than that for an Avid or a DaVinci. Bang-for-your-buck has always been a big key, maybe the biggest key, to the success Apple has seen w/it's ProApps, IMO.


Lethal

 

[linuxcooldude]

My analogy was mean more to compare the consumer with the manufacturer. I'm quite sure the consumer would be more then happy with making more money if the opportunity presented itself by getting himself a better paying job.

But why is it bad when Apple has a chance at making more money by selling a new product a consumer wants?!?

In other words:

Average joe makes more money=good

Apple makes more money=bad

Apple is selling out, turning to cheap consumer devices instead of professional tools for creation. People cheering them on for this are fools, IMO.

Why can't Apple do both? As long as its a high quality product. That way its products appeals to all levels of consumers.

Not all of Apples consumer products are cheap....an $499 ipad is not exactly chump change.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why can't Apple do both? As long as its a high quality product. That way its products appeals to all levels of consumers.

I think the point, or at least the original point, of this thread though is that some (many?) people think that Apple is compromising a 20+ year involvement w/professional users in order to get deep into the consumer electronics and media distribution business. If everyone felt Apple could do both equally well I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist but there are people that feel that Apple can't do both equally well and is favoring the 'i' users over the 'pro' users.


Lethal

 

[Nostromo]

I think the point, or at least the original point, of this thread though is that some (many?) people think that Apple is compromising a 20+ year involvement w/professional users in order to get deep into the consumer electronics and media distribution business. If everyone felt Apple could do both equally well I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist but there are people that feel that Apple can't do both equally well and is favoring the 'i' users over the 'pro' users.


Lethal

I just wonder why.

One reason could be a power struggle inside the corporation. And no matter how much you like the products, Apple is a corporation that runs, like any other corporation, on power and money making first.

So, if there would be an i-Gadget fraction and a pro-fraction fighting over control, the i-fraction would be much stronger now, based on the successes of their consumer products.

Problem is, such fractions are never satisfied with just domination. They always try to wipe out the opposition. Which could lead to a lopsided Apple corporation, deep into easy-deviced, and with outdated, overpriced pro rigs.

News like the firing of 30 software engineers working on the Final Cut Studio suite fit into this image.

I just wonder how long pro users will take this kind of abuse.

Once their is a switching campaign going on (this time to Windows) Apple will have trouble to get those pro users back.

Apple without its high end computers is just another company. It's that high quality reputation that Apple still has from their workstations and the operating system that backs up their iGadget sales.

Once the pro side is gone, Apple's cool will fade.

I hope this is just a phase as I don't really want to buy a Windows machine and work on the ugly interfaces of the Windows applications.

 

[nanofrog]

I think the point, or at least the original point, of this thread though is that some (many?) people think that Apple is compromising a 20+ year involvement w/professional users in order to get deep into the consumer electronics and media distribution business. If everyone felt Apple could do both equally well I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist but there are people that feel that Apple can't do both equally well and is favoring the 'i' users over the 'pro' users.

This is how I see it as well. And unfortunately, there's merit in this perspective (pro market suffering do to the "i" market focus).

Their resources are very lean (personel), so it makes sense from Apple's POV, as they're in business to make money, and as much of it as possible in the shortest period of time. The pro market isn't where the money is any longer, but the consumer portable device market is (comparitively speaking by sales volume). And since they're not willing to bring in the additional people to keep up with the pro market, they're following the latter.

 

[toke lahti]

It states it pretty clearly in the bullet points labeled "Wide Gamut", "Calibration" and "Non Color Managed Applications". Again, the monitor is only one link in the chain. Even if you were using a broadcast monitor but had it connected to the GFX card via a DVI-to-SDI converter you'd still run into accuracy issues because of the nature of the quality of the image displayed by FCP and Color and because of the nature of the video card that's designed to display video in the computer world and not video in the broadcast world.

Whole idea of color management is that one display can imitate some other.
Although CM came from print media where crt's imitated paper, same thing goes with electronic/digital picture.
That article you linked totally ignores that there are many good lcd's that have hardware calibration possibility. Even cheaper Eizo's like FlexScan line have adjustments for 6 subcolors for hue, saturation, gain and gamma.
Even if your app is not color managed, you can limit these monitors' color space with hardware calibration to the space you need.
If the monitor does not have internal adjustable LUT, this can lead to banding, but if the monitor has at least internal gamma correction, the picture can be pretty acceptable. FlexScan has internal 16-bit color handling and 12-bit gamma LUT, so there's plenty of "theoretical" (I think the panel is still at most 10-bit) colors to drop and you're still getting the full 8-bit palette from GPU.

Today you may need to cc something to rec601, rec709, xvYCC or DCI.
It doesn't sound very economical that you'll have to buy own monitor to every color space.

I haven't playd around with CM for a while, so I'm not sure if you could limit non-color-managed app's picture just with software profile, but even that should be possible logically. If the signal route from app to screen goes through OS's CM which changes the color to appropriate in GPU's LUT, that should mean that "oversaturated" red (255,0,0) changes to proper one using ICC-profile in GPU, which sends something like (220,0,0) to monitor. This will of course lead to banding since you're dropping lots of tones away from 8-bit palette. (And win7 does not suffer this 8-bit bottleneck any more...)

Somebody with recent experience with latest OS's & quality monitors can correct me.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The pro market isn't where the money is any longer, but the consumer portable device market is (comparitively speaking by sales volume). And since they're not willing to bring in the additional people to keep up with the pro market, they're following the latter.

If Apple primarily concentrated on just the professional market, I think over the long run it could hurt them. Having to compete with other manufactures, who are now entering the workstation market, higher prices, bad economy, ect. At least sales from other products they sell will help fund their other professional products and software & for research and development for them.

They will always out sell their other products as there is more of a demand for them and less demand for professional software & systems that run them. But I think they can still survive hand in hand. As these are multimedia apps that can be produced by their workstations & software to be used on their ipods, iphones or ipads. As I believe these development apps for these products so far can only run on Mac OS X. So It can fuel the need for their professional products.

 

[nanofrog]

If Apple primarily concentrated on just the professional market, I think over the long run it could hurt them. Having to compete with other manufactures, who are now entering the workstation market, higher prices, bad economy, ect. At least sales from other products they sell will help fund their other professional products and software & for research and development for them.

They will always out sell their other products as there is more of a demand for them and less demand for professional software & systems that run them. But I think they can still survive hand in hand. As these are multimedia apps that can be produced by their workstations & software to be used on their ipods, iphones or ipads. As I believe these development apps for these products so far can only run on Mac OS X. So It can fuel the need for their professional products.

What gets me, is it doesn't have to be an A vs. B mentality. They can do both quite easily, as they have the financial resources. It does however, mean they'd have to bring in more people IMO for proper validation testing to prevent problems such as the audio bug that plagued the '09 systems for so long. That should have been caught prior to shipping, or at worst, solved much faster than it happened.

But as it currently stands, their personel are spread too thin, and products are suffering. Such actions are unacceptable in the pro market. And in the case of Apple's pricing, isn't for pretty much most of their lines, as that's what the premium pricing warrants IMO. Not bug-laden products you'd expect from budget brands (the compromise made for that super low price).

The problem lies in their marketshare though. They don't have enough to make it worth their while and maintain the margins they expect to earn. It's possible they could turn this around, but that doesn't seem likely.

 

[TennisandMusic]

What gets me, is it doesn't have to be an A vs. B mentality. They can do both quite easily, as they have the financial resources. It does however, mean they'd have to bring in more people IMO for proper validation testing to prevent problems such as the audio bug that plagued the '09 systems for so long. That should have been caught prior to shipping, or at worst, solved much faster than it happened.

But as it currently stands, their personel are spread too thin, and products are suffering. Such actions are unacceptable in the pro market. And in the case of Apple's pricing, isn't for pretty much most of their lines, as that's what the premium pricing warrants IMO. Not bug-laden products you'd expect from budget brands (the compromise made for that super low price).

The problem lies in their marketshare though. They don't have enough to make it worth their while and maintain the margins they expect to earn. It's possible they could turn this around, but that doesn't seem likely.

What's funny is that you need OSX to develop for these new devices. If the "pro" products suck the people developing for these things will drop over time, and quality will drop as well...

 

[Nostromo]

I think the point, or at least the original point, of this thread though is that some (many?) people think that Apple is compromising a 20+ year involvement w/professional users in order to get deep into the consumer electronics and media distribution business. If everyone felt Apple could do both equally well I'm sure this thread wouldn't exist but there are people that feel that Apple can't do both equally well and is favoring the 'i' users over the 'pro' users.


Lethal

And I wonder what Apple will look like once the pro users are gone.

If will definitely impact the image of Apple.

Does Apple want to become the Web 2.0 version of Sony?

 

[TheStrudel]

For what it's worth, Sony still sells a ton of pro level gear and they're loved in the video world. Nobody's looking to them as the bringers of the future like RED or ARRI, but many, many people buy, use, and love their advanced video cameras, decks, switchers, broadcast monitors, etc.

I have a feeling this mass-market perception everybody is harping on about is a lot less important than you think it is.

It may very well be possible for  to maintain a healthy pro market without being seen as the market leader.

 

[nanofrog]

It may very well be possible for  to maintain a healthy pro market without being seen as the market leader.

I agree it's possible, but not that likely, unless they suddenly bring in more people (for thorough validation testing at a minumum).

I don't recall articles/posts on Sony's pro gear as bug ladden as is becomming more common on the MP's. If they do exist and you're aware of them, please post some links for comparitive purposes.

 

[Topper]

.
I love the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.
I don't have any of them but they are the big money makers for Apple.
As long as Apple gadgets are making the big bucks, I think Apple will keep making the computers that we want/need including the Mac Pro.
.