Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[snouter]

Yeah, if you like constant crashing, multiple programs to get things done, etc..

Argh.

Here are things I NEVER want to hear again because they are NOT true.

Windows crashes constantly.

Artists have to use Macs.

People seem to forget OS 7.5.3, the end of OS 9, and how crap OS X was until at least 10.1 and really a little bit longer than that. Windows 2000, XP and 7 are all solid operating systems, and Vista was not a total failure, just a half baked mess which M$ should get some credit for abandoning and getting a decent Windows 7 out as soon as they could.

Artists have been drifting to PC since Windows 2000.

FCP and Studio Max are really the only platform dependent things people have to worry about.

My last Mac Pro was a dual 2.0 G5. Until Apple gets their hardware together, which it does not look likely to happen, I think I see myself limited to Apple laptops. I tried so hard to buy an '09 and could just not let myself pull the trigger on one, and I can usually trick myself into a purchase.

The real clue to Apple's commitment to the pro Market is what they do with FCP Studio. It needs a rewrite badly. Compressor is just TRASH. They bought Shake, but really, they've had so much focus on iThis and iThat that their resources are just not dedicated to the pro market. Where is Quicktime 64-bit? Think about it - recently they pulled resources to make an iPhone OS and an iPad OS. No such innovation in the pro space. Apple needs to come out and declare 2010 the year of the pro, just like they did with laptops a few years ago, but it's not likely to happen. They've gone Sony on us.

I guess that's why I'm running CS4 Production Premium on a home built bucket of bolts and not a Mac Pro - without regret.

 

[snouter]

The entire Pro line is a joke. The cost, the spec .. it's pathetic. But I'm pissing in the wind .. profits up by 50%

Pro line is not a joke, there is a very specific group of people who buy them. I see them in studios and rich suburban kids get them to impress their friends.

It's just not a growth market like the iGadgets are. The Pro line does not have universal appeal. Desktops in general don't have universal appeal.

Profits up by 50% or whatever? Mac Pro has little to do with that.

 

[Topper]

Where is Quicktime 64-bit?

I think you mean where is 64-bit QuickTime Pro.
Nothing, absolutely nothing gets me angrier than that.
As you say, Apple puts their resources into iPhone and iPad but they can't come out with 64-bit QuickTime Pro.
They come up with the excuse that QT is one of the oldest, largest (and bloated) carbon frameworks that OS X contains.
The long and short of it is don't hold your breath because it will be a long time.
Ars Technica says, "And surely by Mac OS X 10.8, QuickTime X will have complete video editing support."
OS X v10.8. Thank you, Apple!

 

[TheStrudel]

Quicktime X is 64-bit Quicktime Pro. If you needed to do serious editing in the Quicktime player application, get over yourself and download MPEG Streamclip.

The reason FCP still sucks is because it's based on the quicktime framework, which is in the middle of a total rewrite from the ground up, and QT X is the intermediate step there.

If you think that updating the quicktime framework was something they could do easily and quickly, think again. They made a compromise to do as much as they could with the time allotted (they use smaller teams). Yes, it sucks that we have a long wait until fully 64-bit Final Cut. I hate this as much as anybody and compressor IS frustrating. But I'd rather they took the time to get it right than half-ass it.

As regards the frequent comments about stability, I have had almost no complaints about stability or speed on my machine. And I make it work.

As regards 's drift away from the pro market, I can't help but think that they put less effort into it now because Intel develops all the chipsets. They make far more money for less effort sitting on autopilot and reconfiguring Intel designs for their revisions.

There is a worrying rise of vitriol on these forums that sounds more and more like a knee-jerk consumer reaction of "It's not nearly as good as I think it should be!" Kind of like with the iPad. Some of that is warranted, but I think some of the people spouting it just aren't in the target market and resent that it doesn't do what they want it to, just what  has designed it for.

 

[snouter]

Quicktime X is 64-bit Quicktime Pro.

Adobe After Effects CS5 will be 64-bit on Windows and there will not be a 64-bit Quicktime for it.

get over yourself

What is it with snarky comments like this in this forum?

edit: I took the Quicktime comment out above precisely for this reason, then put it back in after dude above you replied to that topic as well.

 

[littledigger]

Quicktime X is 64-bit Quicktime Pro. If you needed to do serious editing in the Quicktime player application, get over yourself and download MPEG Streamclip.

The reason FCP still sucks is because it's based on the quicktime framework, which is in the middle of a total rewrite from the ground up, and QT X is the intermediate step there.

If you think that updating the quicktime framework was something they could do easily and quickly, think again. They made a compromise to do as much as they could with the time allotted (they use smaller teams). Yes, it sucks that we have a long wait until fully 64-bit Final Cut. I hate this as much as anybody and compressor IS frustrating. But I'd rather they took the time to get it right than half-ass it.

As regards the frequent comments about stability, I have had almost no complaints about stability or speed on my machine. And I make it work.

As regards 's drift away from the pro market, I can't help but think that they put less effort into it now because Intel develops all the chipsets. They make far more money for less effort sitting on autopilot and reconfiguring Intel designs for their revisions.

There is a worrying rise of vitriol on these forums that sounds more and more like a knee-jerk consumer reaction of "It's not nearly as good as I think it should be!" Kind of like with the iPad. Some of that is warranted, but I think some of the people spouting it just aren't in the target market and resent that it doesn't do what they want it to, just what  has designed it for.

Your points are very valid and i agree in total. I am one of those people who hates the current iPad, because apple don't give us enough info on the lead up to launch, we all hope the next product will be what we want it to be, and when its not, its disappointing. I hope apple makes an iPad Pro, something as portable and thin as the Air but without the clamshell design, and some grunt. i here you can get your MBP converted into an iPad, but they are expensive i believe?

 

[Topper]

Quicktime X is 64-bit Quicktime Pro.

That is a stupid, stupid statement.
QuickTime X can't come close to doing the things that QuickTime 7 Pro can.
If you go to Apple's web site, only QuickTime 7 is referenced as having Pro capabilities, not QuickTime X.
Do a Google search for QuickTime X Pro. Let me know when you find it.

If you think that updating the quicktime framework was something they could do easily and quickly, think again. They made a compromise to do as much as they could with the time allotted (they use smaller teams).

Drink the Apple Kool-Aid.

 

[TheStrudel]

It exports, it trims, it does things they used to expect you to pay for and some things the old app couldn't do at all (screen capture). Like I said, you have some issues if you're taking the Quicktime player application seriously as an editor in its own right. MPEG streamclip is available, compatible, free and it does the same things better with more granular control. Also, you can install Quicktime 7 Pro from the Snow Leopard install disc, no fuss. Works as it did before. Hence, complaining about the new Quicktime Player app as though it's a problem reveals more about the user than the software.

Just because they're not making Quicktime Player available in two different forms doesn't mean that it doesn't have a lot of the same functionality. The big one missing is extended compatibility via plug-ins, which is not possible at this time.

As for rewriting a whole framework from carbon to cocoa easily, quickly, and effectively with all the same functionality and flexibility, go ahead, do it yourself. We'll be waiting.

These are stupid things to argue over. What I don't get is why you're raising these issues having read the Ars Technica article, which explained it pretty well.

Quicktime dates back to 1991, and maintained full backwards compatibility the whole way. I guess it has to be trivial to rewrite it all in cocoa and fix all of the longstanding problems with it in the same go. I really don't see why you're complaining about something  let you opt out of...

 

[TennisandMusic]

Pro line is not a joke, there is a very specific group of people who buy them. I see them in studios and rich suburban kids get them to impress their friends.

It's just not a growth market like the iGadgets are. The Pro line does not have universal appeal. Desktops in general don't have universal appeal.

Profits up by 50% or whatever? Mac Pro has little to do with that.

It's a sad day when users defend Apple's neglecting of their needs because the users are more satisfied with Apple pulling in higher profits.

 

[TennisandMusic]

There is a worrying rise of vitriol on these forums that sounds more and more like a knee-jerk consumer reaction of "It's not nearly as good as I think it should be!" Kind of like with the iPad. Some of that is warranted, but I think some of the people spouting it just aren't in the target market and resent that it doesn't do what they want it to, just what  has designed it for.

No, I really think the problems are that Apple's machines are really really underpowered for what you pay, and are devoid of features. The current Mac Pro is a stunning example of this, and as much as I would want one, it's really hard to pay 2500 (or more) for a PC that is literally under 1000 dollars retail. Actually the machines you buy for under 1000 are better. It's really a shameful shameful situation for Apple. And extremely frustrating for people like myself. I REALLY need a good updated desktop, but ...I just can't bring myself to buy something from Apple right now, and whenever I fool around on Windows I just go...argh. Not that I think Windows 7 is bad at all, I just get on better with OSX.

What in the heck can we do? Apple should be showing just a LITTLE more care to their desktop and OSX line and all would be well. It really shouldn't be that difficult, especially with the reams of money they are pulling in.

 

[Topper]

It exports, it trims, it does things they used to expect you to pay for and some things the old app couldn't do at all (screen capture). Like I said, you have some issues if you're taking the Quicktime player application seriously as an editor in its own right. MPEG streamclip is available, compatible, free and it does the same things better with more granular control. Also, you can install Quicktime 7 Pro from the Snow Leopard install disc, no fuss. Works as it did before. Hence, complaining about the new Quicktime Player app as though it's a problem reveals more about the user than the software.

Just because they're not making Quicktime Player available in two different forms doesn't mean that it doesn't have a lot of the same functionality. The big one missing is extended compatibility via plug-ins, which is not possible at this time.

As for rewriting a whole framework from carbon to cocoa easily, quickly, and effectively with all the same functionality and flexibility, go ahead, do it yourself. We'll be waiting.

These are stupid things to argue over. What I don't get is why you're raising these issues having read the Ars Technica article, which explained it pretty well.

Quicktime dates back to 1991, and maintained full backwards compatibility the whole way. I guess it has to be trivial to rewrite it all in cocoa and fix all of the longstanding problems with it in the same go. I really don't see why you're complaining about something  let you opt out of...

I looked forward to the day Snow Leopard came out.
I have a very powerful Mac Pro with a very powerful video card.
Snow Leopard does not make good use of either.
I figured that if nothing else, at least i would have would have a 64-bit QuickTime Pro application.
No, I was wrong. Apple couldn't even do that much.
I've used Apple computers since 1992.
IMO, Apple cared more about computers back then.
I guess I should have been scared when Apple took "Computer" out of it's name.
I sort of like the idea of Apple getting rich with iPods and iPhones and iPads.
At least Apple keeps afloat and can put some of that wealth into computers.
But I don't see that happening.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

Thanks Umbongo. Sadly I can rarely tell what young uns are on about these days! LOL:.

 

[TheStrudel]

By ignoring my valid and accurate comments and fixating on something you don't actually need (Why do you need 64-bit Quicktime Pro? You need to access more than 3 GB of RAM with it? Quicktime X is 64-bit and has much of the same functionality...), you're doing an excellent job of painting yourself as not in the target market for a Mac Pro.

I've edited 4+ GB photos for a print size greater than 50"x120" at high quality. I had an actual genuine use for 64-bit Photoshop and no longer having a 3 GB RAM limit.

I want hardware acceleration on editing multitrack 1080p videos in Final Cut Pro (and one day, 3K if RED ever finishes the scarlet).

You want shinier Quicktime unnecessarily. I have a hard time seeing your complaints as valid.

Snouter's complaints about FCP needing a rewrite and Compressor being buggy are far more valid and useful for nuanced discussion here.

 

[nanofrog]

I'm not getting into the Quicktime arguments, but in general, OS X could use additional polishing/bug fixes. The '09's issues come to mind.

Apple has the funds to hire on additional code developers for both OS X bug fixes and firmware fixes when you consider their income and cash reserves.

Say 12 - 14 people wouldn't add much to the cost/system. Even if all the desktop sales were only 100k units and the salaries ($85k*12), that only works out to an additional cost of $10.20 per system to have the customer support the desktop systems deserve. Rather cheap IMO to keep their customers happy = image untarnished.

 

[TheStrudel]

That's something I can agree with. While there's room for debate as to whether or not they're still serious about the professional market at all, it's pretty obvious that they're focusing far more time, energy, and money on the consumer market. Economic reasoning, really.

 

[snouter]

It's a sad day when users defend Apple's neglecting of their needs because the users are more satisfied with Apple pulling in higher profits.

I'm not defending Apple.

I was more implying that it's a small, niche market and Apple is content to coast. Intel does the heavy R&D lifting now. Apple puts little marketing behind the Pro lineup, rarely updates it, makes kitting a proper one out crazy expensive.

 

[nanofrog]

That's something I can agree with. While there's room for debate as to whether or not they're still serious about the professional market at all, it's pretty obvious that they're focusing far more time, energy, and money on the consumer market. Economic reasoning, really.

Purely economics from my POV, and it's very short-sighted at that.

They're not taking into consideration the fact that desktop users will buy other Apple products so long as they're happy, and as they age, replace them with newer models (for new features, whatever). Long term relationships are valuable to a company, as it means they have an income base, even in periods of little market growth (saturation, extreme competition,...).

But if they get yanked around, that will change. Then there's the word-of-mouth cost as well. When happy with their purchases, they're likely going to convince others to give Apple's products a go. But peeved, NIH. Don't bother,.... is what they'll pass on, which will result in lost potential sales.

All in all, shaving every cent possible now will cost them more in the long term. It does make a difference from what I've seen (and heard, even within corporations). Hence my view it's really short-sighted = stupid.

I'm not defending Apple.

I was more implying that it's a small, niche market and Apple is content to coast. Intel does the heavy R&D lifting now. Apple puts little marketing behind the Pro lineup, rarely updates it, makes kitting a proper one out crazy expensive.

That's been working for them on the hardware (actually all of Apple's products are developed by ODM's - actual circuit work and manufacturing, as Apple, specifically Jony Ives, does the enclosure design work and makes a spec sheet for the device).

But Apple still develops OS X themselves, and needs to do it properly for their entire line-up, not just the portable systems and devices (laptops, iPhones, iPods and iPads), leaving desktop users left high and dry. It's likely going to come back and bite them in the @ss in lost sales, and not just for desktop systems, as such users do buy other Apple products.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I'm not defending Apple.

I was more implying that it's a small, niche market and Apple is content to coast. Intel does the heavy R&D lifting now. Apple puts little marketing behind the Pro lineup, rarely updates it, makes kitting a proper one out crazy expensive.

Some apologies, my comment wasn't entirely directed at you but more of a general comment on a sentiment I see all too often. Anytime people say "Hey Apple is really falling behind here" many many defenders point to their profits.

That to me is part of the problem.

Apple is reaping massive profits, but not taking care of little issues that seriously hamper users. Such as

1. 4 slots for ram on the base mac pro instead of 6, like ANY other x58 based chipset board you can buy at fry's. Triple channel ram anyone? Why would they gimp it with 4?

2. Busted iMac's. Yellow screens, flickering screens, machines that are dying etc.

3. Cannot install SATA II drives on the mid 09 Macbook Pro's (except for the 17) without rendering the machine useless for real work.

These are bad bad problems and Apple clearly has the means to fix them. They simply don't give a $#*% about their users is all that we can derive from their actions since, of course, actions speak louder than words.

Imagine an Apple that did all it is doing now EXCEPT, offered:

1. Mac Pros that all had at least six ram slots, and did not overheat when playing mp3s (and come on, it looks like a high school teenager has fixed this but not Apple!). Also, what if Apple offered just a few more up to date video cards. They wouldn't even have to lower prices necessarily.

2. Apple offered iMac's with solid screens, slightly better graphics, and simply had a door to slide the internal hard drive in and out, and added USB3, a port available in many many PC's now, with peripherals already available. Also give the option for a matte screen on all iMac models. User choice.

3. Would let you properly replace the hard drives in their laptops, and offered slightly higher resolution screens on the 13 and 15".

4. Fixed Snow Leopard bugs so that it actually felt like a speedy OS, compared to Windows 7 it really DOES kind of drag.

Apple wouldn't have to drop prices at all. Just look at the SIMPLE things I have listed. If I were in charge of Apple these things would have been taken care of AGES ago, because I care about USERS. Users want these things, and the fact that some of the issues are essentially breaking the few choices that they have, the only conclusion that can be drawn is Apple really does not care about users whatsoever.

They only care about their bottom line.

Honestly I am personally in a hard place as I really want to use OSX and continue working on iPhone (and perhaps iPad) software, as well as taking advantage of some of their other features, but...they are producing crap machines right now...it is incredibly disheartening to see the direction they are going.

 

[Topper]

By ignoring my valid and accurate comments and fixating on something you don't actually need (Why do you need 64-bit Quicktime Pro? You need to access more than 3 GB of RAM with it? Quicktime X is 64-bit and has much of the same functionality...), you're doing an excellent job of painting yourself as not in the target market for a Mac Pro

How do you know what I need and what I don't?
I have thousands of dollars worth of video editing software. Do you need to know what software I have?
I have huge HD video files. Do you need to know how big they are?
Do you think they would render faster with 64-bit software? Do you need to know that?

 

[soLoredd]

Time will tell whether or not the direction Apple is going will affect the company as a whole. In my opinion, it will. Apple decided to spread itself thin with all these hardware releases and then put all their eggs into one basket with the mobile roadmap. All it will take is one other company to come along and give them a run in the mobile market and then what will they fall back on?

It's funny how Apple and Microsoft have switched personalities. Apple used to be the little guy who knew their customers turned them into a viable company. Microsoft was the big bad ass company who couldn't do any wrong. I don't see it that way anymore. Microsoft is constantly out there asking what people want, what they will benefit from. Apple is out there TELLING us what we want and what we need.

 

[mabaker]

I wasn't aware that Apple has undergone any kind of "switching personalities". As far as I am concerned they're the same company that they always wanted to be ever since the beginning. MS and Apple both have their ways, their brilliant way of making money - and that is what's all about. I went for Apple's way of making money cuzz it's nicer and more productive to me. Hence I got no problem with it.

 

[iDisk]

The iPad clearly shows where the journey with Apple is headed.

OS X 10.7 will introduce an AppStore for Mac OS X. In OS X 10.8 or 10.9, you will no longer be able to install software that was not bought in the AppStore. The Macs will finally be there where Steve Jobs already wanted them back in 1984.

Where did he want them????????? I'm curious...seriously

How many professional users and developers of professional software do you guys think will follow Apple down this road?

ME! I just Love Apple and will go down with the ship with Steve proudly, but if Steve Jumps ship then I will do the following also.

More than 2/3 of Adobe's applications ONLY run on Windows. So much for "all professionals in the graphics and audio business out there are using Macs". That time is LONG over, and I think here in Europe that time actually never even existed. Adobe probably had some very good reasons not to port so much of their stuff to OS X at all. The user base is too small and the costs are too high.

The Mac Pro will disappear. It's an expandable PC that can run OS X - I'm sure Jobs hates it with all his guts, as he always hated the idea of open computer platforms.

Apple is all about control - especially about control over their customers. They want to -own- their customers.

I don't know about you guys, but I know for certain that my days in Apple land are counted. When the time is ripe for the next upgrade cycle of my equipment, I will jump ship.

You seriously would go to Windows?? no more Apple Script, no more automator, come one buddy ubuntu

Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 are both awesome platforms, and especially Ubuntu has evolved - and improved - at an incredible speed. I will miss the one or the other application for Mac OS X, but I certainly won't miss OS X itself. Compared to Linux, OS X feels unstable, bloated and slow. It even feels unstable, buggy and slow when compared to Windows 7.

OS X looks pretty, yes. But you should not never forget that it is just a pretty looking prison for its user.

WOW MAN GOOD POST.... but lets wait for WWDC X

 

[Inconsequential]

There is some utter, utter rubbish in this thread, but I really can't be bothered to quote any of it.

I use Windows 7 x64 and Snow Leopard on a DAILY BASIS. And 10.6 is more stable, better to use and generally more polished.

If it wasn't for this bloody Mac Pro 2009 bug it would be perfect, if a little expensive.

I could have built a PC for half the money and more speed but the amount of time i'd have to spend messing around bug fixing I couldn't care less*.

* People will probably disagree with me on this, but i'll let you in on something. I've used Macs and PCs SIDE BY SIDE ON A DAILY BASIS for 10+ years now. I STILL use Windows 7 and 10.6 side by side. Mac OS is SO much more pleasant to work on its silly. W7 looks very pretty but other than that the networking is hopeless the printer setup honks back to XP days and its just generally XP with some pretty features, some improvements but no real strides forward in terms of usability. I find myself in XP more than I do W7 sometimes... (And I use both!)

But this is another Windows OS X debate, you use what you want and if others disagree so what, your money, do what the hell you like with it...

 

[soLoredd]

There is some utter, utter rubbish in this thread, but I really can't be bothered to quote any of it.

I use Windows 7 x64 and Snow Leopard on a DAILY BASIS. And 10.6 is more stable, better to use and generally more polished.

If it wasn't for this bloody Mac Pro 2009 bug it would be perfect, if a little expensive.

I could have built a PC for half the money and more speed but the amount of time i'd have to spend messing around bug fixing I couldn't care less*.

* People will probably disagree with me on this, but i'll let you in on something. I've used Macs and PCs SIDE BY SIDE ON A DAILY BASIS for 10+ years now. I STILL use Windows 7 and 10.6 side by side. Mac OS is SO much more pleasant to work on its silly. W7 looks very pretty but other than that the networking is hopeless the printer setup honks back to XP days and its just generally XP with some pretty features, some improvements but no real strides forward in terms of usability. I find myself in XP more than I do W7 sometimes... (And I use both!)

But this is another Windows OS X debate, you use what you want and if others disagree so what, your money, do what the hell you like with it...

Your whole post is rubbish. Nobody is talking about Windows vs. Mac yet your whole post was exactly that. We are talking about Apple's buisness practices and direction. I only mentioned Microsoft because, as a buisness discussion, that Apple's competitor.

 

[soLoredd]

I wasn't aware that Apple has undergone any kind of "switching personalities". As far as I am concerned they're the same company that they always wanted to be ever since the beginning. MS and Apple both have their ways, their brilliant way of making money - and that is what's all about. I went for Apple's way of making money cuzz it's nicer and more productive to me. Hence I got no problem with it.

Really?? I would say going from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc. is definitely a personality switch and directly related to my post about Apple moving from computers to the mobile roadmap. Apple has changed personalities a lot since their introduction - if companies stayed stagnant they would be blown out of the water. No way in hell Apple is the same that they were in 1984.

And I don't really understand your comment about "Apple's way of making money is nicer..." What does that even mean?