Well, the current Mac Pro already hides it if you're looking at the front and not the sides.
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.
Steve Jobs Once Considered Killing Apple's Pro Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, the current Mac Pro already hides it if you're looking at the front and not the sides.
In a market sense, cannibalization doesn't refer to the act of killing off the product segment. It refers to when a new product eats into your own products rather than those of the competition. An example is what we saw with the iPhone. While it created a new market, the fact that it could do what just about any iPod could do (except for storing as many songs in earlier models) lead consumers to buy it instead of having both a phone and an iPod. So, while Apple entered the phone market, they did so at the expense of iPod sales. Sure, there is still a market for iPods, but many who were in that market are not anymore.
So, in a sense you could say that the higher quality of the consumer machines has cannibalized some of the Pro market, but the decision to kill off the Pro segment would not have been cannibalization.
Segall goes on to argue that Apple is pushing 'pros' in a new direction, saying that making software powerful and easy-to-use for more customers is more important than making software that is simply powerful.
Such a shame. He has it wrong. All software has a learning curve. Making it easy gets you to the point of competence more quickly. But once you're there, you don't need 'easy' anymore. You need 'optimal.' The problem is that with FCPX et al, optimal is sacrificed at the altar of easy. So whereas in FCP7 - where the feature set is deep but not necessarily intuitive - you can eventually build up almost unlimited speed, in FCPX you are forced through a series of inconvenient GUI devices that only exist for 'easy' and will quickly bog down the better editors.
Such a shame. He has it wrong. All software has a learning curve. Making it easy gets you to the point of competence more quickly. But once you're there, you don't need 'easy' anymore. You need 'optimal.' The problem is that with FCPX et al, optimal is sacrificed at the altar of easy. So whereas in FCP7 - where the feature set is deep but not necessarily intuitive - you can eventually build up almost unlimited speed, in FCPX you are forced through a series of inconvenient GUI devices that only exist for 'easy' and will quickly bog down the better editors.
Nope.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/horrors-linus-torvalds-calls-hfs-utter-crap/1278
----------
No, no it doesn't.
What is it about "*nix" that you like? Usually when I see users talking about this, they have no idea what the real or perceived benefits (or lack thereof) would be.
Do you know what UNIX really is, without Googling it? And if so, do you like that OS X is basically a weird version of it?
Apple does plenty of things that we don't like, and we combat them with mods and hacks instead of following along like the sheep you portray us as. Thanks for the dose of condescension, but you'll need to try harder.
I don't portray Apple users as sheep. If you read my posts historically you would see that I am an enthusiastic Apple user, and I was just having fun.
Seems to me....
a creible and real rationale coming from the late Mr. Jobs. And I agree, power per se dont make better software. And you have to make it easy to appeal to a broader base of consumers....
But still, it dont justify the delaying in the new Mac Pro. And "Pro" items normally cost more and you can guess, are used by "pro" users to make a living or accomplish more advanced tasks than, by example, see one Facebook or Twitter account, listen music, see a movie and so on (not saying these things are bad, just are hobbies or entertaining ones, nothing bad about them)....
a creible and real rationale coming from the late Mr. Jobs. And I agree, power per se dont make better software. And you have to make it easy to appeal to a broader base of consumers....
But still, it dont justify the delaying in the new Mac Pro. And "Pro" items normally cost more and you can guess, are used by "pro" users to make a living or accomplish more advanced tasks than, by example, see one Facebook or Twitter account, listen music, see a movie and so on (not saying these things are bad, just are hobbies or entertaining ones, nothing bad about them)....
This is not much of a revelation. It's evident in how pros have been treated over the past several years. Steve had a lot of conflicting ideas. No surprise there.
If his opinion really matters, what did he call NTFS? NTFS wasn't mentioned anywhere.
I'd rate it above that!
But then, I don't rate such an appearance highly, unless it was to fix up the mess he caused the first time.
every 6 months, there is always a damn idiot to release a so-called secret about what Jobs could have done just to get some news about him in the media
this time Ken Segall, next time another guy who knew a small detail about Jobs
My thoughts exactly.
Its link bait for his blog, he knows the Apple loyal will come in droves to read his unprovable accusations.
I find the design pretentious....
In the 1980s a friend of mine was complaining that his cleaning lady had thrown out his "Andy Warhol Brillo Box". She considered it trash he paid $50.000 for it
He will probably love the design....
The more I look at this design, the more I'm convinced it's taken from the G4 iMac era. Perhaps an early option gor the G4 cube. Not that it's a bad thing, but are Apple looking back to their past eras to formulate a new design direction for the coming decade? - There's only so many ways you can design an aluminium rectangle.
On topic, as many have said, a good businessman would always consider all market options taking the company forward. Rightly they/he knew that the pro community are some of the companies most for fervent supporters with decades of legacy.
On topic, as many have said, a good businessman would always consider all market options taking the company forward. Rightly they/he knew that the pro community are some of the companies most for fervent supporters with decades of legacy.
I am definitely blown away by this new Mac Pro and think that Apple have moved in the right direction in making powerful editing software more affordable, even if digital DRM does have its drawbacks over previous resalable serial-number approaches.
These days it's possible to shoot and edit a movie on a phone. Though hardly considered Pro, there's every chance that I'd find such a movie as interesting or more so than most of the crap Hollywood pumps out. Just cause you're a Pro and use "Pro" equipment doesn't mean what you make is any good.
It's not about the tools but the content and Apple are giving people decent tools they can afford to show off their ideas for content. Personally I couldn't care less if the Pro video market jumps ship since it's a bland soulless industry for the most part anyway.
These days it's possible to shoot and edit a movie on a phone. Though hardly considered Pro, there's every chance that I'd find such a movie as interesting or more so than most of the crap Hollywood pumps out. Just cause you're a Pro and use "Pro" equipment doesn't mean what you make is any good.
It's not about the tools but the content and Apple are giving people decent tools they can afford to show off their ideas for content. Personally I couldn't care less if the Pro video market jumps ship since it's a bland soulless industry for the most part anyway.
lol. good point
----------
why? so people can hook up another gpu and usb3?
It's very important to reconsider and question every product line you offer.
I don't know what the fuss is about.
Tho I am very curious about the reason why he kept the pro line
I don't know what the fuss is about.
Tho I am very curious about the reason why he kept the pro line
to me, at least, a computer looks like this display i'm looking at with a keyboard in front of it..
sarcasm aside, why does a computer look like a box? there's no real reason for it to look like a box and it's sole purpose was to hide 30 years worth of frankensteining computer components together.. in the past 15-20 years, the box was a given then you arrange your stuff accordingly..
with this computer, if you really try to understand what the designers did, it looks more like they designed/refined/optimized a computer and the shape/size is the result.. the look that we're now seeing probably didn't start being solidified until halfway (or so) through the design phases..
that is a good thing
Apple lost the education market a long time ago. Mostly because Dell practically gives their computers away to institutions.
Steve Jobs considered a lot of things that he never ended up doing. That's part of innovation; it's part of business - it's a CEO's job to consider many things and then help direct the ones worth doing.
It's because motherboards and other chips as well as hard drives are all rectangles... without rounded corners
. Apple had to really try hard to get this into a cylinder shape by arranging everything in a triangle-like fashion and cutting out things like 3.5" hard drives (not needed anymore) and PCI slots (still think these are very useful).It would have been much easier to throw it into another cheese grater box and try to cool everything with a lot of power as usual, but they're trying to advance.