Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Sao_Bento

Apple to drop Pro apps

Recommended Posts

I think that rumor is crazy talk. Well except the Britney part. What would be their motivation?

 

Besides, I never REALLY considered them 'Pro'. More like Prosumer. If all you need is a cut (EDL) then FCP is pro. Beyond that it's terrible. Motion is a novelty. Shake is non-existent soon. Soundtrack is a prosumer ProTools. Logic is Pro for what it is though (IMO).

 

The only thing I can think of is that the names "FCP", "Motion", and "Shake" will no longer exist and they are combined into one DS-Like super system called something else.

 

no offense Chris, all due respect, but thats ridiculous. if FCP is prosumer than why is the AVID market ever shrinking like their stock? I agree w/ you about motion, soundtrack clearly can't compete with pro tools in a pure audio enviorment thats clear. I got an 8 core macPro w/ a kona 3 running FCP and have had no issues what so ever, can even do a couple of things AVID can't do. IMO FCP handles XD P2, & progressive media much better than an AVID. I'm not going to stack my system up against a DS, but to say that a system that doesn't range in the 6 figures isn't professional is a bit off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if FCP is prosumer than why is the AVID market ever shrinking like their stock?

 

Apples and oranges... Avid is in a crunch because of

 

a) Their still somewhat ridiculous price policy (Are Avid harddisks really made of gold and platinum?).

 

B) Unwillingness or incapability to adapt to open, standardized formats and workflows not originating from Avid themselves.

 

c) Severe deficiencies in their distribution system (different product ranges are sold thru different channels, i.e. one Reseller for Media Composer stuff, another for Unity, a third for DS, a fourth for Newscutter... and so on).

 

d) Conflicts in their internal management structure.

 

e) Misjudgements and wrong handling in terms of the prosumer/ consumer market. (Avid taking over Pinnacle has literally killed the Liquid product line)

 

All of the above are completely different failings than the alleged professional product line not cutting it compared to FCP or whatever. FCP may be strong and may still gain more users in the professional area in years to come, but on the other hand there are simply markets where it will never get a foothold. In the area where I live FCP is litterally non-existing for "serious" editing and everyone uses Avid. We are just getting new Avid systems this year...

 

Mylenium

Edited by Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apples and oranges... Avid is in a crunch because of

 

a) Their still somewhat ridiculous price policy (Are Avid harddisks really made of gold and platinum?).

 

B) Unwillingness or incapability to adapt to open, standardized formats and workflows not originating from Avid themselves.

 

c) Severe deficiencies in their distribution system (different product ranges are sold thru different channels, i.e. one Reseller for Media Composer stuff, another for Unity, a third for DS, a fourth for Newscutter... and so on).

 

d) Conflicts in their internal management structure.

 

e) Misjudgements and wrong handling in terms of the prosumer/ consumer market. (Avid taking over Pinnacle has literally killed the Liquid product line)

 

All of the above are completely different failings than the alleged professional product line not cutting it compared to FCP or whatever. FCP may be strong and may still gain more users in the professional area in years to come, but on the other hand there are simply markets where it will never get a foothold. In the area where I live FCP is litterally non-existing for "serious" editing and everyone uses Avid. We are just getting new Avid systems this year...

 

Mylenium

 

Where I'm at FCP is being us to cut everything from :30 second spots to full legnth features. I've yet to see a market where FCP hasn't broken in. I'm not trying to start an AVID VS FCP battle here. there will always be shops that think you're not an editor unless you're on an AVID, and than there's those that don't. We have 2 AVID media composer adrenaline bays here that don't book nearly as much time as our FCP suites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really believe it would happen either, but I thought it was an interesting idea and it would make for an interesting thread. The one thing that seems apparent is that Apple is going through a period of change right now, trying to position themselves to pursue their new vision of the future. Whatever comes from it, I'm sure it's going to be unexpected.

 

 

Yes dude, I think the thread is great and I think we gonna have a lot of surprises with Apple.

Let's wait!!!

 

Guera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've yet to see a market where FCP hasn't broken in.

 

Well, I don't doubt that, but when your local biggest TV station has 800 or so Avid seats and all other small shops around it use Avid, then there's no point in trying to be a hero and build on FCP. It would completely break interchangeability of personnell, project files and stuff and make all those TV people rather nervous if they don't see purple Avid buttons while torturing editors with their wishes. ;O) There are of course other regions here in Germany where FCP is being used more widely (Cologne seems to be rather strong in that, but then again they have multiple TV stations to serve), but it will take a while until something similar will materialize in these parts here... ;-)

 

Mylenium

Edited by Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I don't doubt that, but when your local biggest TV station has 800 or so Avid seats and all other small shops around it use Avid, then there's no point in trying to be a hero and build on FCP. It would completely break interchangeability of personnell, project files and stuff and make all those TV people rather nervous if they don't see purple Avid buttons while torturing editors with their wishes. ;O) There are of course other regions here in Germany where FCP is being used more widely (Cologne seems to be rather strong in that, but then again they have multiple TV stations to serve), but it will take a while until something similar will materialize in these parts here... ;-)

 

Mylenium

 

true enough, I concede. networks are the same all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I don't doubt that, but when your local biggest TV station has 800 or so Avid seats and all other small shops around it use Avid, then there's no point in trying to be a hero and build on FCP. It would completely break interchangeability of personnell, project files and stuff and make all those TV people rather nervous if they don't see purple Avid buttons while torturing editors with their wishes. ;O) There are of course other regions here in Germany where FCP is being used more widely (Cologne seems to be rather strong in that, but then again they have multiple TV stations to serve), but it will take a while until something similar will materialize in these parts here... ;-)

 

Mylenium

 

 

 

This is certainly not the case here, Lutz.

Most Media Composer and Symphony systems in this city are late 90s things that won't be upgraded, ever.

I personally watched most TV stations here migrate to FCP or PPro. They also use Avid's lower end stuff. The software-based version of Media Composer could also be counted, I guess.

 

I believe there were three defining moments: affordable 10-bit uncompressed hardware around 2001-2002, multi-cam editing in 2005 and especially workgroup solutions like xSAN. Unity was the main reason why many large stations and studios were sticking with Avid.

 

Particularly the last two were holding the migration. When they were addressed, TV stations ran their way. I have trained lots and lots of them.

 

I know entire networks running FCP, and entire networks running Premiere Pro. They all use BlackMagic hardware.

Every HD post house I know has a Nitris system somewhere, so that clients feel the expensive iron is there, but do most of the stuff on FCP and PPro.

 

I imagine that mainstream film editing must still be an Avid fortress, but here many, many independent films (ie, all films!) are cut with FCP/Cinema Tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too lazy to do the research, but am I the only one that doubts The Foundry would have enough coin to buy Apple's pro apps without some serious "assistance" from Apple?

 

Being an Apple Pro user means always being a bit disappointed with Apple's Pro efforts. Those of us who stayed with them through the dark days of the mid to late 90's always looked forward to the next advance that would REALLY put Apple over the top for pro work, but the next big thing (Power Express AltiVec Firewire PowerPC G3 G4 G5 etc.) never seemed to reach its full potential. I've always been waiting for the pro equivalent of the iPod or iPhone; a ground up rethink of what a pro machine could be that would offer something more compelling then simply the latest processor. If you look at how Apple's pro machines compare to the competition, they are far less differentiated than say the iPod or iPhone are from their competition. I've always felt Jobs owed the pro users who restarted OS7 ten times a day something revolutionary, but I think I should be prepared for disappointment. I don't know how much validity there is to these rumors, but Apple abandoning the pro market would seem to fit in fairly well with the pattern, and this comes from a guy who has used Apple's pro offerings almost exclusively his whole career (which may imply that I need to stop bitching.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
I'm too lazy to do the research, but am I the only one that doubts The Foundry would have enough coin to buy Apple's pro apps without some serious "assistance" from Apple?

 

Being an Apple Pro user means always being a bit disappointed with Apple's Pro efforts. Those of us who stayed with them through the dark days of the mid to late 90's always looked forward to the next advance that would REALLY put Apple over the top for pro work, but the next big thing (Power Express AltiVec Firewire PowerPC G3 G4 G5 etc.) never seemed to reach its full potential. I've always been waiting for the pro equivalent of the iPod or iPhone; a ground up rethink of what a pro machine could be that would offer something more compelling then simply the latest processor. If you look at how Apple's pro machines compare to the competition, they are far less differentiated than say the iPod or iPhone are from their competition. I've always felt Jobs owed the pro users who restarted OS7 ten times a day something revolutionary, but I think I should be prepared for disappointment. I don't know how much validity there is to these rumors, but Apple abandoning the pro market would seem to fit in fairly well with the pattern, and this comes from a guy who has used Apple's pro offerings almost exclusively his whole career (which may imply that I need to stop bitching.)

On many levels, the whole OS is the new Altivec processor. If you're not developing in XCode, you're going to see the full advantages of the OS. Most larger software companies aren't going to stop development and completely change the way they do things for one platform that makes up such a small market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On many levels, the whole OS is the new Altivec processor. If you're not developing in XCode, you're going to see the full advantages of the OS. Most larger software companies aren't going to stop development and completely change the way they do things for one platform that makes up such a small market share.

 

Ah yes, it's that asterisk next to the stratospheric performance figures that stands for "When applications are specially written for xyz technology." While it's understandable why companies don't take advantage of this sort of thing, it's still maddening knowing you have so much wasted potential under the hood of your machine.

 

I may just be jaded, but if I transported myself and my main work machine back in time and did a demo of the "state of the mograph art in 2008" to my past self in 1994, I can't help but think my past self would be disappointed. I can hear the questions now: "You're still using mice?" "Your Mac Pro Towers are BIGGER than this Quadra 840av?" "You have access to time travel and still have to build a RAM preview of one layer in AE with no effects applied?"

Edited by scott frizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes, it's that asterisk next to the stratospheric performance figures that stands for "When applications are specially written for xyz technology." While it's understandable why companies don't take advantage of this sort of thing, it's still maddening knowing you have so much wasted potential under the hood of your machine.

 

I may just be jaded, but if I transported myself and my main work machine back in time and did a demo of the "state of the mograph art in 2008" to my past self in 1994, I can't help but think my past self would be disappointed. I can hear the questions now: "You're still using mice?" "Your Mac Pro Towers are BIGGER than this Quadra 840av?" "You have access to time travel and still have to build a RAM preview of one layer in AE with no effects applied?"

 

 

You have access to time travel? My old self would be saying "let's get paid". :D

Edited by jazman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most larger software companies aren't going to stop development and completely change the way they do things for one platform that makes up such a small market share.

True, but then companies have created universal binaries of their software, including Adobe with behemoths such as Photoshop, and Alias with Maya, which suggests that Apple's market share, although small, is important enough to them to go through the rigmarole of moving projects across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
True, but then companies have created universal binaries of their software, including Adobe with behemoths such as Photoshop, and Alias with Maya, which suggests that Apple's market share, although small, is important enough to them to go through the rigmarole of moving projects across.

But, as was pointed out, UB is not the same as Xcode and does not take advantage of all the Mac OS specific bells and whistles like the Apple apps do (or try to). They are making Apple compatible stuff, but none of them are drinking the cool-aid to the X Code extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, as was pointed out, UB is not the same as Xcode and does not take advantage of all the Mac OS specific bells and whistles like the Apple apps do (or try to). They are making Apple compatible stuff, but none of them are drinking the cool-aid to the X Code extent.

 

You'd hope there would be an opportunity here for smaller/ newer companies to exploit, but it seems we're past the days when an upstart is going to give any real competition to the Adobes of the world. I always end up saying this in these conversations, but I'd love it if the next update too all my apps added no features at all, but instead all of the development efforts went to optimizing the bejesus out of everything. Unfortunately it's easier to market new whiz bang features even if few people really need them. I think the tagline: "Adobe After Effects CS4: Same Thing, Three Times Faster" might have some legs though. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, media handling is order of magnitudes faster. Did you notice that most video formats play back in RT or near RT?

It appears to me that this is the kind of comment people make out of historic notions. I mean, besides wishing it would be faster, did you care to check if it's faster? :)

 

Typical in Photoshop forums:

User: "Stop adding features that add bloat and make it slower (etc, etc,)".

PS engineer: "The features you mention are not loaded until you use them. If you don't use them, they don't exist".

Edited by Adolfo Rozenfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, media handling is order of magnitudes faster. Did you notice that most video formats play back in RT or near RT?

It appears to me that this is the kind of comment people make out of historic notions. I mean, besides wishing it would be faster, did you care to check if it's faster? :)

 

Typical in Photoshop forums:

User: "Stop adding features that add bloat and make it slower (etc, etc,)".

PS engineer: "The features you mention are not loaded until you use them. If you don't use them, they don't exist".

 

Oh don't worry, I get it, it's never as easy as we users make it out to be.

 

I suppose you're referring to AE CS3's multiprocessing feature when you say "3 times faster"? Yeah, for certain multi-frame renders I'll grant 3 times faster... having used Nucleo for quite a while before CS3, this wasn't really on my radar. I haven't noticed the "magnitudes faster" media handling, which leads me to believe maybe it's not magnitudes faster, but now you're making me have to go back and test it... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I honestly expected to get my lunch handed to me on this one, but I just did a few tests, and needless to say, I'm not feeling the magnitudes. This is by no means and exhaustive test of After Effects' media handling capabilities, but I thought these results were interesting:

 

These were done on a Mac G5 Quad running OS 10.4.11 with 6.5 gigs of RAM with all media residing on an external 4 disk SATA RAID.

 

The test consisted of one 15 second lossless QT and one 6.5 second PSD sequence just randomly grabbed off the RAID. I made a comp for each file the same size and duration as the source file, and timed how long it took to build a RAM preview. I did every file twice and took the average time for each version of After Effects.

 

AE CS3 Lossless quicktime preview: 16.2 sec. PSD sequence preview: 9.4 seconds

 

AE 6.5 Lossless quicktime preview: 14.3 sec PSD sequence preview: 8.4 seconds

 

As you can see, AE 6.5 is rendering faster previews than AE CS3 with these media formats. Again, this is far from an exhaustive scientific test of AE's media handling. Obviously a lot can influence this stuff, and I suspect things might be different on an intel based box, but I must say I didn't expect AE CS3 to be SLOWER than AE 6.5; I just figured it wouldn't be much faster. Anyone care to try a couple of tests to verify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott:

MediaCore, the high performance media handling layer in Adobe apps, is Intel-only (please note that some new media formats supported recently by Final Cut Studio are also Intel-only).

 

On PowerPC, things that were historically handled by Quicktime still are.

It's also for a range of media formats supported by MediaCore (2vuy uncompressed as Apple and BMD, all DV/50/100 flavors, all MPEG flavors, etc). Things like QT Animation or PSD sequences won't decode any faster.

 

In any case, you shouldn't have to benchmark anything. On an Intel Mac or Win, open a video file (DV25/50/100, uncompressed, HDV a few more) and just play the space bar. Most will play in RT or near RT, others will simply show a higher frame rate in the info panel. Audio preview is always RT, which wasn't the case before CS3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
Typical in Photoshop forums:

User: "Stop adding features that add bloat and make it slower (etc, etc,)".

PS engineer: "The features you mention are not loaded until you use them. If you don't use them, they don't exist".

 

It's kind of a funny thing to cite considering how often software companies present everything as prioritizing the allocation of resources. According to the usual defense, if that guy wasn't making a killer polygonal lasso tool he could have spent some time doing something else, like making the core app even faster - perhaps so fast that people would stop assuming that it's gotten slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of a funny thing to cite considering how often software companies present everything as prioritizing the allocation of resources. According to the usual defense, if that guy wasn't making a killer polygonal lasso tool he could have spent some time doing something else, like making the core app even faster - perhaps so fast that people would stop assuming that it's gotten slower.

 

I wouldn't know what to say, Sao. Just that I don't agree with Steve's view is shared by many people: "Stop doing anything but improve performance or fix bugs". There are a number of features I want very badly, and I would actually prefer those over just turning it into a racing engine.

 

You know, in the specific case of Photoshop they have kind of a team inside the team working on nothing but performance. So, hopefully, they don't have to stop developing interesting things to improve performance. It's not necessarily one or the other.

A member of that team has a blog at Adobe (one of those "all blogs" that are not listed by default). It's very interesting.

I imagine most teams are starting to have such groups. In the case of AE, the foundations in CS3 (in multiprocessing and media decode) show that performance definitely is on the radar. Not as much on the radar as Steve wants, because many of us wouldn't want that.

 

I believe performance it's just one aspect of time savings. The existence of shape layers, 3D text or smart objects save me way more time than a 10 per cent decrease in processing times. But that's just me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...