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.)
Apple always likes to Shake things up a bit.
I'm sure Apple will make this availible on Mac OS X soon, like how Final Cut Pro came about (Apple bought the app from Macromedia and retitled it). Apple Cinema tools is the same idea, just happened recently.
Kind of like how Microsoft was about to terminate office for the mac a few years ago, if Apple didn't agree to bundle IE as the default browser for their OS?
In short, no. There's a difference between terminating a supported platform for a valid business reason, and threatening to terminate a supported platform unless the company developing it does what you say.
Hippies smell.
Porsche does control the production of Porsche cars, just as Apple controls the production of Mac computers and Microsoft controls the development of the MS Windows operating system. And, in a broad sense, you can call those situations 'monopolies'. But that's not the point.
The point is using their position in the market (and their customer's dependency on them) to impose unfair restrictions on their competitors and clients. I didn't say it was illegal (though, in some cases, it might be), I just said that there's no fundamental difference between the way Apple behaves and the way Microsoft behaves. The only difference is the scale.
And if, with PCs, you can still pick the hardware you want (despite Microsoft's control of the OS and software market), with Macs you are bound not only to Apple's OS (and software), but also to their hardware.
How many people will spend money on a new graphics card after being forced to pay for the card that came on their iMac? How many people will buy other editing programs after being forced to pay for Apple's Final Cut Pro? Apple is using its position as sole supplier of Mac OS systems to force people to pay for their software (even if later they decide not to use it, or to buy a competing program), while at the same time putting competitors at a disadvantage.
It's probably not illegal, but personally I don't like it, regardless of who does it (Microsoft, Apple, or any other company or individual).
RMN
~~~