Slashdot Mirror
Apple Announces the Fate of Shake
Rura Penthe writes "NothingReal, developer of Shake (a high-end video compositing application), was purchased by Apple in February. Until now the fate of Shake on Windows, Irix, and Linux was uncertain at best, but in an email sent out to Shake users, Apple has declared that Irix and Linux versions will be developed at least through 2003. However, the upcoming Windows version will be the last for that platform. Good news for Shake users with Linux render farms like Weta Digital, which used Shake for Lord of the Rings."
(Reminder to Apple users: visit Slashdot's Apple section for more Apple-related news.)
So, does this mean that after 2003 they are planning on killing the product for Irix and Linux...
Hopefully they will continue to support both, since OS-X is also a Unix variant. Even if Linux represents a competitive threat to them, it's better to have Linux succeed (and thus have lots of Linux renderfarms) and then Apple can work on getting people to migrate to OSX from Linux in the years to follow. It's a whole lot easer to migrate from Linux -> OSX than Windows -> OSX.
Hmm... though I hate that they'll eventually limit it to Mac, I'm not sure if it's that bad of thing.
I think Apple is more likely to focus the Mac towards 3D/Animation/Compositing productivity than Intel ever will. If they keep Shake updated for the latest/greatest Mac machines, then we may end up with some really optimized software.
The main difference between Mac vs. Intel/MS is that the company that makes the hardware also makes the OS. That's why we see products like the Titanium from Mac, but Intel doesn't really have a counterpart. I would expect that if I bought a Mac version of Shake, it'd work really well on both a Desktop and Laptop Mac.
Apple will likely make a laptop geared for Shake users (or at least tweak their line to keep them in consideration...), and that's not a bad thing.
Who knows, this may turn out to be a bright spot for the movie industry.
"Derp de derp."
Apple makes Shake
Shake runs on linux
Shake does video
Quicktime is video
Quicktime for linux?
I hope so.
There are a lot of Apple-related things that are posted only to apple.slashdot.org, and don't make it to the front page.
SIGFEH
Isn't shake like $20000 software? The hardware is not exactly the pricey part here. :)
Perhaps it's because Apple is making more "geek news" these days. Just a guess.
Actually it's funny you mention this. I often fume at how Linux-centric these forums are. it's Linux this and Linux that. I see front page articles dealing with the announcement (or mere spec-bumping) of some piece of handheld electronics that nobody has ever heard of simply because it - can you guess? - happens to have the ability to run Linux. The Linux kernel gets a x.x.x.x.x version number rev. The headline with have multiple exclamation points and shameless affection for it whether the individual has ever used it or not.
Mac news? It's gotten somewhat better over the last few months but it still has a way to go. Apple-related news is still too often posted with undeserved snide remarks. I'm thinking back to the day the iPod was announced. it was instantly pronounced "Lame" before the discussion even began. Oh, that and the fact that sometimes a story involving Apple will suddenly be made into a Linux article. I'm serious! Did you catch the one about Apple suing Sorenson over a deal with Macromdia? In spite of the fact that neither of these three are Linux comanies and none of them make Linux products, Pudge just has to make it Linux-related. Then half the resulting discussion ends up being about that.
Sorry for going off on you man, but you have no idea what it's like being a Mac-using slashdotter. No idea.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I was nervous with Apples purcahse of Shake. Between that and Maya being ported to OS X, I was afraid that in the near future, our render farm would have to consist of some really nice desktops, but extremely expensive render boxes.
We currently have 250+ dedicated render machines. They are all dual proc 800 MHZ to 1.8 GHZ and they are running linux. This is a hefty investment. But to get the same power out of a Mac farm would cost us dearly.
We have looked at Shake. We will probably move to it for our next project. Using Composer right now is slowing us down. We have started end of life our octanes in favor for Linux desktops, but we have to keep them arround because our process relies heavily on Composer with Tinderbox to do depth of field and A over B composites. It is a slow and painful process, but at this time it is cheaper and cost less development time than Shake would.
I am still a little nervous I guess. At the core of the software for Shake, I don't imagine that it would take much work for Apple to continue the Linux port. I can see why they would want to edge out the SGI version in the near future. I have a feeling that the places that don't switch from IRIX to Linux in the next few years will have switched to OS X instead.
Another concern of mine is the state of Alias|Wavefront. They are a good company. Unfortunately, them being owned by SGI causes concern because I do not see a pretty future for that company. There machines are being replaced in several industries. Its true that they have some heavy hitters that are dedicated to them in the data visualization and high end server areas, but I feel that even these places will look at the cost savings of a Linux solution, they will port over and they will not look back.
It makes this an exciting yet delicate time in the animation industry. Being tied to a platform is a necesity because of the investment but it can also seem like a potential downfall of a studio. Heading on the wrong platform at the wrong time can cost you more time and money than you can afford.
-Tim
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
the other way to look at this decision is to think "maybe Apple feel that they''ll have the hardware by 2003 that will make the IRIX and possibly even the Linux versions unneccesary". Apple has the ability to build a LOT of optimisation into it's software products - just look at the incredible speed of Apple's Altivec-charged software MPEG2 encoder. This is VERY bad news for SGI's movie business, Apple obviously aren't content to sit back and wait for discreet to develop for the Mac. Apple wants post - and it's going the right way about getting it.
That was classic intercourse!
1) This kind of thing can never happen with free software, because something like Shake probably would not exist in the form of free software. High quality complex (note, complex) software takes money to build, and revenues to support.
Free software is great for simple things, like web, smtp, and other serving daemons. All they have to do is spew out data in accordance with an RFP, and most of them are so mature that they are vastly supperior to commercial alternaitves, simply because they are usually not bloated with useless features.
Case in point, sendmail. (Or qmail, whatever) It's faster then, say, exchange server, more stable, more secure, and just generally works better. Same with Apache vs. say, IIS or iPlanet. In those cases, free software works very, very well.
However, when it comes to complex things like desktop environments, free/open source software generally does not work. Things like non-linear editing suites, 2D manipulation tools like photoshop, and a wrath of other applications that pros use need to be commercial. They need to be protected from their competitors (please don't mention the GPL) and they need to be developed by people who get paid. This is due to the fact that they are very complex, have to deal with proprietary codecs, and provide user interfaces that are easy and intuative to use.
Free software historically does not handle complex apps, proprietary codecs, nor usable interfaces very well at all.
Open-source people do fun stuff that works quickly and doesn't require UI work or licensing or hardware-specific APIs, like servers. They don't do tedious stuff.
2) Apple is denying itself a very tiny market of windows users (don't think they would be doing this if there were 10,000+ users) so they can sell that very tiny market new macs. They are, after all, a hardware company at heart.
Apple may be denying themselves a few bucks in software sales, but they'll make it five times over back in hardware sales, with the bonus of getting a few thousand new users of its platform.
People who make movies are almost never loyal to a given platform (except the mac, ironically). They simply want something that works so they can meet their deadlines.
Hippies smell.
In the mid 90s i was a mac owner -well predominantly a power computing powertower 225 owner- and I thought of Apple Computer as the indispensable alternative and couterweight to msft.
nowadays i see that was an illusion or at least only provisionally true during a certain span of time....
In reality though, behind all the plastic stick-on rainbow colored corporate logos and "computers with a human face" trade dress propaganda designed to make buyers feel their was something inherently liberating about the Mac interface and something more socially progressive about using a mac, some non-tangible quality about the mac that evinced a greater respect for the individual creator, Apple was really winding its users in more tightly than anything this side of IBM in the 60s and 70s.
In reality Apple was just as bad as Microsoft, is still just as bad as Microsoft, only they were SO GREEDY that they screwed themselves out of their leading market position. They just blew it early on by imagining they had more control than they did.
That aside, it's clear that Apple functions as an abusive monopolist in their own "relevant market" that is the consumer market for ppc based desktop systems. They manipulate the market in patently anti-competitive ways.
GO price cpu upgrades for Macs. Observe the steep uniform pricing! Observe that you cannot buy a recent vintage aftermarket PPC for a recent Mac. These aftermarket vendors are able to sell cpu products that bypass the onboard cpu socket with pci card mounted cpus, daughterboards that can carry two cpus and plug into g3 zif sockets. Firmware customizations included. AND YET.
Yet they cannot sell me a moderately recent "g4" CPU for my Yosemite G3, OR EVEN MY G4 ? --only slower cpus despite the pinout compatitbility.
You wanna tell me Motorola and Apple aren't colluding to limit consumer choice on a platform Apple controls even more absoultely than MSFT controls the X86 platform?
You bet your ass they are. All that's missing here is a lawsuit.
(But apparently the remaining Mac users are too passive a lot to do anything about this)
Did it ever occur to you that despite Apple's short commings, people still enjoy usign the platform and the computers? They like what they do and the computer they do it on? The reason people screamed bloody murder over microsoft was because they kept restricting the user (read binding IE to the system), and because they didn't enjoy the Microsoft system. There is nothing wrong with being competative, and no company has the responsibility to promote competition (even M$) however, if you read the lawsuit information at www.beincorporated.com, you will find that M$ has done some rather vicious things to their "partners". Yes, Apple and Microsoft are held to two different standards. The reason is, mac users like Apple (for the most part) Windows users don't like Microsoft (for the most part).
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Monopolist? More like self-preservationist. Linux and Irix versions are still being produced, and by cutting Windows development, there will be more engineering time to work on making Shake a better tool for Mac users.
krmt wrote:
;)
> Yes, these actions are anticompetitive, but because Apple does not hold
> any sort of monopoly power, either in the OS market or the 3d
> rendering market, this move is not the kind of thing that makes one
> scream "monopolist!"
No , they are not anticompetitive, they are competitive as all get out! Apple is trying to compete here. It is the underdog. It is trying to expand its market share in hardware and OS, hence its lack of interest in supporting its major OS competitor (who is an evil monopoly-abuser: Microsoft).
Most importantly, Apple acquired this company in the first place as part of its efforts to take on Hollywood (remember that the head of Pixar is Apple's iCEO). Apple's opponent in this market, a very large opponent with very high prices (they make Apple look cheap), is Avid. Apple has great Unix workstations, Final Cut Pro, now has Shake, and can run Lightwave and Maya (and a whole slew of other 3D programs, as well as Photoshop and other goodies). They have a good chance of making a sizeable splash, especially with Jobs' knowledge gleened from his experience with the industry at the helm of Pixar.
The one thing Apple doesn't have is an inexpensive little rack mount unit for the back end cluster. Unless they plan to build one, supporting Linux on the back end would be the smart move. I imagine they either haven't made up their mind on what they are going to do on the back end, or just don't want to tell us about it yet.
If Microsoft is ever to be taken out, Apple and Linux are going to have to learn to get along and work together. There is no time like the present to learn.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
"Mosura", 1961