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, or just that this is the time frame that they are committing to these platforms right now? Stupid question maybe, but I think it's an important one to ask.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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.
Woah, now if Microsoft did something like that, Mac users would be screaming bloody murder!
You are correct, and if Apple controlled 90%+ of multiple markets we would scream at them as well. There has been and will be different standards of conduct between smaller companies and large monopolies.
Personally, I think it is unwise to cancel the Windows version. They should offer a low-end Windows version and offer the "premium" features only on the Unix versions to pull more users to their platform.
Interesting point of view. I tend to agree with you but if Microsoft bought Quark and cancelled XPress for Mac, for no reason other than to attract users to windows, then would it be fair game?
I think it would be by your arguments, but Mac users (and Apple) would still be hurting a lot.
-- SilentTristero
You mean like Bungie's game Halo? The one that was presented in Macworld Expo keynotes? The one that was going to be out on Mac, PC, and PS2?
Because after MS bought Bungie, it wound up shipping for X-Box, and, so far, nothing else. (Though Bungie continues to assert "There WILL be Mac and PC versions of Halo." -- I'll believe it when it ships.)
I'd say yes, if Microsoft hadn't been convicted of abusing monopoly power. Since they've been convicted, the rules are different for them.
-beme
1971
There is a double standard, and that's because of the monopolistic power that MS has. The fact that MS, by not porting "key" software to other platforms uses the synergy of their application and OS market-share to exploit their pseudo-monopoly and re-inforce their entrenched market position. This is bad for the market. Apple, by doing this, does not have the same effect, and thus, should not warrant the same concern.
Apple showed a technology demo of the OS-X port at NAB (Las Vegas, 100k visitors) in April. It seemed pretty stable to me.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
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."
If you would read a bit more carefully, they aren't implementing nothing, they are more like de-plementing some already implemented software.
Strange, not long after their deal with Microsoft has ended, they already have decided to play hardball (with everybody who has helped them gain a DTP market), a game that usually ends with consequences. First Sorensen, now deplementing Windows version, if they make another move in that direction, that would be probably swaping IE for Mozilla.
It's nothing than another try to make (straith edge - gain to Apple) competition loss, but real question is who will gain and who will loss. They will keep Linux and Irix versions for one reason only, not to loose complete movie market clientelle, but on the other hand that means that Apple version will be the only one evolving and other will evolve only to be abandoned.
Apple is either suffering from..... some financial needs we don't know, or some hopes that this is their time to breaktrough. But as it's concerning me they just wanna be second Microsoft.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
But I still want to know, will they offer the Shamrock Shake?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Apple makes Shake
Shake runs on linux
Shake does video
Quicktime is video
Quicktime for linux?
I hope so.
Yeah, we're just awful people for holding a monopoly up to different standards than we hold any other business to. My guilt is killing me
Well, you are holding Apple to different standards than you hold any other business to.
Don't forget; if you use Judge Pennfield Jackson's criteria for determining Microsoft to be a monopoly, Apple is one as well.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
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
Linux, I can understand. But Mac? Why? So you're stuck with their hardware, as well as their OS?
RMN
~~~
Isn't shake like $20000 software? The hardware is not exactly the pricey part here. :)
This point has fascinated me for a while. How is Microsoft's monopoly different than the one Apple seems to have?
One thing that does occur to me is that Microsoft's monopoly OS gives them the ability to pressure and control harware OEMs into doing thier bidding. Who does Apple get to pressure in that scenario? Themselves?
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Apple is going to charge so much less for Shake than Nothing Real did that it will cost less to get a G4 + Shake than it would to buy Shake before the takeover.
I'm looking forward to being able to try Shake on my G4.
I wonder what kind of price they'll charge to Irix and Linux users? I would assume it would be more expensive for non-Apple systems.
Curiously enough, this is exactly what I expected (and hoped) they would do. I think you can even look it up somewhere in my earlier messages.
D
Breakfast served all day!
(I think by "deplementing" you mean "end-of-lifing.")
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
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!" Are you going to be mad at them for not producing Appleworks for Windows? Are you going to be mad at them for not making the iPod, iMovie, etc. available for Windows? These are features added to their product to make it more competitive against a court-confirmed monopoly, and they have every right to do this.
Apple is, quite simply, not to be held to the same standards as Microsoft. Get over it.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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?
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.
Woah, now if Microsoft did something like that, Mac users would be screaming bloody murder!
Microsoft has already done this several times in the past with both products it developed internally, and products it acquired by buying other companies.
I disagree.
If we had shake in house instead of composer, we would have a studio of 50+ linux desktops and 250+ linux render boxes.
We have a few macs for photoshop and an NT box for 3D painting. We would have two Avids for editing. We would have some Suns for file serving.
No SGIs would be needed.
Infact, that is our current setup, minus the SGIS we keep to do our composites. And we are producing a 3D feature film. Even our DDR is a linux system.
We could get rid of our Macs for photoshop and use gimp for almost all of the digital painting that is being done. Gimp is almost there. It is not laughed at by the pros. We use it all the time for paint fixes and other quick solutions.
There are still a few, small niche markets for non Linux boxes in the studio. They do have an important roll. But when comparing the amount of systems and the price, they don't compare to the amount that is invested into a Linux solution.
-Tim
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
In less than 6 months.....
How many other games that cost $350 sold so fast?
(Because it was a release game, you have to factor in that there wasn't really an Installed base of customers)
Apple didn't force the (clone) OEMs into doing anything in particular. They just ceased licensing to them. Nothing was required in return. There was no "pressure" or "blackmail" type of deal going on.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
You keep using that word [monopoly].
;-)
I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means exclusive control (of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service). Apple is the only supplier of Mac computers, and effectively controls who can and who can't make hardware for the Mac. They also control the software their clients use (in the same way that Microsoft does).
Which wouldn't be such a big probem, if it wasn't for the ludicrous prices they charge. I work regularly with some old Mac-based Avid editing workstations, and the SCSI AV drives they use cost 4 times as much as the PC models. The drives are exactly the same; the difference is they're not oficially 'certified'. It's not just Apple / Avid doing this, some PC manufacturers do (or are planning to do) the same. I find it very hard to understand why some people scream bloody murder when Microsoft does something, but then applaud when someone else does exactly the same. It's not who, it's what.
As to DVD authoring, I was lucky enough to buy Spruce's DVD Maestro. It does everything that DVD Studio Pro or Scenarist do, and comes with much better documentation (IMO). Plus I get to pick my own MPEG-2 and AC3 encoders and my own DVD recorder, not to mention the rest of the system: Dual Athlon XP 1800+ with 1 GB DDR ECC RAM, 160 GB RAID, real-time Canopus DV editing card, a Pioneer DVR-A03 recorder and a dual-monitor card with fast OpenGL (Radeon 8500). It's about 50% faster than a Dual G4 (depending on the task - for 3D rendering and MPEG encoding it's nearly twice as fast) and cost about the same (but I get faster drives, real-time DV editing, better graphics, a much broader choice of software and the ability to upgrade each component independently). Oh, and I have a floppy drive, too.
I think Apple makes some nice products, but they are overpriced and bind the consumers to Apple's decisions. When I buy a PC I can select each component independently and I don't have to pay for "features" that I don't really need or want. It's kind of like Windows brought to the hardware level. The reason why I would like Windows to come without IExplorer (for example) isn't to "give other companies a chance". It's because I'm not planning to use IE, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
RMN
~~~
Wrong. Linux USED to be a render-only platform, now it is taking over the workstations as well. Check out this Slashdot link titled DreamWorks Switches to Linux for only the most recent convert. Many major post houses use a lot of home-grown tools, and Linux is a godsend for them. Porting those tools from Irix to Linux is much easier than to Windows or even Mac -- since they have the source code for many items.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Seems to me like Apple is simply trying to draw people away from Microsoft. Remember, if you can convince them that Microsoft is not the only way (or the Way Out ) you can then convince them to buy alternative software. I don't think Apple is keeping the Linux and Irix versions because they don't want to loose the market (since when has apple cared about lossing markets by killing programs?) I think they're keeping them because it makes a statement that they aren't supporting M$.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
No, it's not. Macs are big-endian, x86 is little-endian. Most PC cards will not work on Macs. And I'm not blaming it on anyone. I'm simply stating a fact. In fact, the PowerPC can run in little-endian mode, so Apple could have made the Mac's PCI perfectly compatible with PC PCI. It was a conscious decision to make it different. Not better, not worse. Just different.
RMN
~~~
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
Microsoft can't keep saying GPL spells doom for the industry while at the same time profiting from software written for a GPL'd OS.
;-)
I wouldn't be (too) surprised to see Microsoft porting some software for FreeBSD, for example, if the user base gets a bit larger (if only to claim that there are alternatives to Windows, etc., etc.). In fact, I'm pretty sure they even have Linux ports of some of their programs hidden in some basement just in case they feel the (commercial) benefits suddenly outweigh the (moral) damage.
Unlike Intel, Microsoft doesn't suffer from the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. They don't care about anything half as much as they care about making money. And if there's money to be made somewhere, they'll go there to make it. They can't do it now because of the legal mess they're into and the strategy they're adopting, but if Linux ever manages to grab a relevant market share, do you have any doubt that MS will start selling Linux software? Or even selling Linux itself (bundled with their software, of course). I can see it now... the Red Mond distro, with Ballmux the monkey instead of Tux penguin...
RMN
~~~
So the PS2 version of Halo would have sold well, if it hadn't been axed to make Halo an X-Box exclusive? Perhaps it would have even sold better as a PS2 title rather than being used as an X-Box draw? (Hmm...using one product to drive sales of another. Why does this idea sound so familiar, especially in the context of Microsoft?)
They're saying it; they're not shipping it. No deeds, just words. By your own logic ("only be on the shelfs [sic] for a month or so on PC [...] hardly make any money at all on the Mac") they apparently don't have any real incentive to ever ship PC or Mac versions!
you have to remember that if you wanted to, you could manufacture your own
PPC motherboard and generic box and throw Linux on it. There just isn't a market
for these things so no one is doing it. On x86 on the other hand, we've got
every single OEM being forced to put Windows on every single PC, or face being
priced out of the business by Microsoft.
Hm... slightly confusing. First, Windows does not come on every single PC; you can buy PCs without any software, or with Linux (at least where I live you can). Even if it did you could always build your own system (which is easy to do with a PC, and lots of people do just that), and pick your own OS. Macs, on the other hand, always come with Mac OS and, as you said, it's not viable to build a PPC system from scratch.
So the way I see it, hardware-wise, Apple has a much bigger influence over their platform than Microsoft does (although MS also has a big influence over Apple, so in the end they play for both teams).
RMN
~~~
When are you morons going to learn that you don't get anywhere in life trying to please everyone, you get there by saying my way or the highway. Even though I hate microsoft, they had the right idea for being succesful, us or nothing, except they went wrong when they started supporting everything. That's what makes Windows so unstable, they tried to please everyone. When Appple was screwing up in 96 they were doing the same thing, hundreds of possible configurations for everything you could want.
Apple's policy is very simple, we release what we think is right, and it's what you will use. If you want things to change, complain to us and if we get enough complaints, change it. But if not, too bad. Yes, Apple pisses some people off by being restricting, but because they insist on one way of doing things, they also remain succesful. Yes, you are being told what you can have. And if you don't want it, you don't have to take it.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
You say that as if Microsoft had any obligation to port software to Linux. Microsoft cares only about money. If they can profit from Linux versions, they'll make them. The two reasons why they don't are simple: a) the user base (and thus the market share) still isn't attractive enough and b) they've been telling everyone what a terrible thing the GPL and OSS are, so now they can't start developing for a GPL'd, open-source OS without losing face.
RMN
~~~
Is it possible that Apple might actualy be doing things to the market again? Like it or not, Apple is here and they are influencing again. Unix as a viable OS, not just for servers but for everyone, external products that seamlessly integrate with the machine, pushing new and better products (USB, Firewire, even to an extent LCD). Yes, Apple is becoming a real company again, a computer that you are no longe afraid to say you own.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If they bundled shake with the G4s would it justify the 3,000+ price tag in the eyes of PC users
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Did it occur to you that Apple might not want to make $$$ they may be happy with $? Think about it, if Apple can turn a business sustaining profit with a small number of people, and make those people happy, what need to they have of getting a larger and more diverse market? It's easier to win in Niches than it is to win in the general public. Besides, since they only make $, Apple doesn't get viewed with the same resentment that M$ does.
The other possibility is that Apple just enjoys what it does, hence, in the 90's when they tried to go to a PC business model they almost killed themselves and so they returned to the "hacker model". That is, doing what you do because you enjoy it. Apple likes making new, odd and niche computers, M$ does not.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Could someone tell me which PCI card for PCs has a mac counterpar that costs 3 times as much and runs 5 times slower?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Apple announced the fate of Shake, but declined to comment on the fate of Rattle and Roll.
Halo for Xbox is supposed to sell 5 million copies at least? Even if it was bundled with every Xbox (which it isn't), the Xbox is a bomb, it may not sell 5 million in its first year.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Did it occur to you that Apple might not want to make $$$ they may
be happy with $? [...]
So what need do they have to buy other companies simply to kill their products, and eliminate the competition?
Sorry but I can't understand what's so good about Apple killing Shake on the PC (it'll start with Windows but other versions will follow).
It it because it "hurts" Microsoft? Does that make it a good thing? In fact it doesn't hurt Microsoft at all. High-end workstations are small business for the OS maker (Microsoft makes about the same money off a high-end workstation as it makes off a home PC). The only people this will hurt is Shake's users. They'll be forced to switch to a different, more expensive, less versatile platform, just to keep using the same program. So they lose.
And a lot of them won't switch (because they rely on other programs, that don't exist for the Mac), so they'll just stop using Shake and move to Combustion or Digital Fusion or some competing product that still runs on Windows. So Shake loses, too.
Besides, since they only make $, Apple doesn't
get viewed with the same resentment that M$ does.
I think you have a point, there. Most people dislike Microsoft not because they are dishonest but because they are successful. For me it's not the amount of money that counts, or who is making it. It's how they make it.
RMN
~~~
Tonight I went to CompUSA. there was not one person looking at the PC's, but there were five guys freaking on a Cinema display attached to a 1gig dual G4. Nothing near as exciting is going on at HP and eMachine. I didn't see them drooling over a Vaio either.
Is there any other product outside Linux/UNIX/OSX that is even remotely interesting now? Slashdot is going to reflect what they are interested in at this time.
photosMy Photostream
And as a result of that... do you prefer a traditional timeline or a node-based render queue?
RMN
~~~
That's not a monopoly. a Mac is a computer and they don't have a monopoly over it. MacOS is an OS and they don't have the monopoly either.
Thy just have a brand of computer/software that is kind of sucessfull and below 15% market share.
Please read some basic economy introduction to microecomics (or better yet, common sense) and you'll see.
unfinished: (adj.)
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.
Do you have an example of Macs being used on movies by a major company? I am not doubting you, but I haven't even heard of it and am pretty curious.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Take a look at my parent post again. I think I made a pretty good point. I don't understand why my response was considered flame bait, but when somebody calls me stupid in the same thread and in the same topic, offering very little information to back up his claim isn't considered flame bait.
I took the time to put together a rebuttal to a point of view. There's a large difference between writing that and writing a post intended to make people fight with me about it.
Please reconsider your moderations of the parent post to my reply here.
"Derp de derp."
It will perpetually sell, provided it's not kicked out of it's roost for being the 'must have' game.
Consider: Nearly All Super Mario Games, Sonic the Hedgehog 1 and 2, Twisted Metal and Demolition Derby (I think that was the name, both for Playstation), Tetris, any Zelda game, any Final Fantasy game, any game made by Rare, and so on...
It's not so easy to find PC games that have sold near as much as the console games I have mentioned. The main reason is that console games stay on the shelf a hell of a lot longer. Halo could easily hit 5 million units if the XBOX is reasonably successful. The only thing that'd prevent that is if a new game comes along that generates a hell of a lot of buzz.
"Derp de derp."
You can build yourself a Mac if you'd like. There are no motherboards for PPC available, as far as I know, but that's because the market for it just isn't there. But barring that, it's all standard PC components from off the shelf, thrown in to a pretty case. If you think there's a great market for building PPC motherboards for mass consumption, I challenge you to start a company to do just that. But as it stands, there's no way to make money off a generic "Mac" without the OS, because it's just not necessary. Apple adds real value to the hardware with their OS, making it more than just a pretty box. If you want an empty box, then buy an x86 machine. The performance difference won't be so great that you'll really care, I can assure you.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
How different is the Mac platform than the PC platform? Processor different, Ok. Memory? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Available for both. Hard drives? Same. USB? Both. Firewire? Available on both. 3D accelerator cards? ATI and NVidia duke it out on both. Mice? USB-driven works fine on both. Keyboards? Same. Printers/Scanners? Same. Am I missing something?
Aside from the PPC vs. x86 comparison, the Mac and Wintel platform is essentially the exact same thing. Sure, Apple's hardware might look nicer, but the underlying stuff is identical.
So, then what is it that specifically makes you want to buy a Macintosh? The look? The platform is the same, processor aside, so what real features do you get out of running on Mac hardware vs. PC hardware? None, really. So, then why are you so concerned with buying a "Mac" with no OS on it? So you can run Linux or BSD? Why not buy an x86 box, given that everything else in the box is essentially the same thing, you lose nothing.
If there really was so much to gain from buying a PPC platform with no OS on it, the product would be there. After all, all that's missing is a PPC motherboard, and someone would make it if it were profitable to do so. But it's not, and if you think it would be profitable to do so, I challenge you to start a PPC motherboard company and see how far you get.
The reality of the situation is that the hardware no longer dictates, on the desktop, what the platform is. The x86 and PPC platforms are identical, except for the chip itself, and this is indicative of the fact the the actual platform people are worried about is the OS itself. Apple is not stopping anyone from producing a blanked PPC box, they are simply unwilling to license their OS out to anyone, because the OS is where the money is. Apple might control what goes in to the default configuration of every single box, but that doesn't make them any sort of monopoly, because you can get, for all intents and purposes, the same hardware platform elsewhere. You won't get the software platform you might want, but that's the value Apple adds to their system (the value is not in PPC vs x86, that I can tell you). And personally, I don't think you can argue that Apple has the right to add value to the machines that they sell. If they didn't, they wouldn't be competitive against the Microsoft monopoly.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Sorry for going off on you man, but you have no idea what it's like being a Mac-using slashdotter. No idea.
Amen, brother. For instance, I can't understand why some people don't get the fact that OS X is a full-fledged, no-shit Unix operating system that makes the combination of Linux and KDE or Gnome look pretty damn pale in comparison. And then, inevitably, somebody trots out the PowerPC-versus-Pentium thing, as if it mattered which CPU were faster! Don't they get it?
I don't care how fast my computer is. I care how productive and happy I am when I use my computer. And I get more done on my Macs-- from graphic design to video editing to (what I was doing this week) writing Java servlet code-- than I could on any other platform. If I had a n.m GHz Pentium on my desk, it would just spend more time waiting on me.
You know what I think the problem is? I know I'm headed for flame (or flame-bait) country here, but I think it all revolves around territorial alpha-geeks not wanting to admit that they don't understand something.
If I had spent the past five years learning all about Linux-- by reading the source code itself, I guess, 'cause there ain't that much in the way of documentation-- I'd feel pretty good about myself. Pretty cool.
If I then started using OS X-- because it's a better desktop, or because somebody gave me a free Mac, or whatever-- I would have to put myself in a situation where I didn't know more than everybody else. I'd have to do things like reading again, and asking questions. It'd be a severe insult to my pride to have to admit, publicly and openly, that I am not the smartest guy in the world.
Therefore, I would actively avoid OS X, even to the point of publicly ridiculing it. I would continue to advocate using the stuff that I understand to do things that OS X can clearly do better. Because it's just too damaging to my self-esteem to swallow my pride and learn something new.
I'm sorry, how is this insightful? Because it bashes Miscrosoft? Halo hadn't even been released for the Mac (or any other platform). Microsoft didn't kill it, they simply released the X-Box version first to give it some leverage against Nintendo and Sony in the console market.
Of course there will be Windows and Mac versions of Halo. Microsoft likes money too much not to make them (and they have an investment in Windows and Apple too, remember?).
And Shake isn't a game. Large studios depend on it. And most of all they depend on its speed. Even the fastest PowerMac can't compete with a quad Xeon (Dual G4s barely manage to edge out a single-CPU Athlon, and are crushed by the much cheaper Athlon MPs). If Apple kills Shake on the fastest platforms, it kills Shake completely. Studios have deadlines to meet and they certainly aren't going to meet them if they're forced to use Macs for their render nodes. It's not a matter of price or even bang for the buck. It's a matter of bang, period.
I work in animation and post-production and I know what I'm talking about. Half the artists don't even know which OS they are running, and the other half doesn't care. They just want the thing to render as fast as possible. And if you don't believe me (it seems that I'm a troll for not applauding Apple's scorched earth tactics), check out this post.
Discreet, Eyeon and Silicon Grail probably can't belive their luck right now.
RMN
~~~
Yup. It will be OK for Apple to attempt to become a monopoly, until such time as they actually do. Then, all of these such actions will retroactively become evil. See, that's the US of A for you; punishing success at every turn.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You missed what I said. I said that the windows platform was not known for it's graphics and video design, I did not say that it didn't have programs for it. There is a difference.
And as I tell every PC zealot who complains that the numbers on the mac are slow and that the macs are behind the tech curve, go out, buy one and use it for a while. Do reall work on it. Use it as your primary machine for a few weeks, then tell me what you think. If you don't like the mahcine, sell it, you'll get back most of your money because the resale value of a mac is huge.
And before you ask me if I've done that with a PC, I have. I used a Win2k box as my primary machine for about a month. The only thing I discovered that the PC (1.2 Ghz, 512M, 30G, 32M, DVD) could do that my iBook (300 Mhz, 192M, 6G, 4M[?], CD-ROM) could not do, or not do well was:
a) Play DVDs
b) Play Unreal Tournament and RTCW well.
I was expecting a whole lot more from the PC, and I got very little out of it. And when I got the iBook back. I went back to using that as my primary machine and now my W2K box is a Hotline server remotely administered by the iBook.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Not to mention, in every single article, somebody has to post something about OSX for Intel.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I'll give you audio, that is what I have heard (pun), but for video and graphics it is not so. Macs do take a larger percentage there than they do in the overall market, but there are other options like SGI, Linux, and Win2k for graphics work that work just as well (with Linux being more cost effective, faster and more stable on the very high end and windows being just more cost effective on the middle and low end). Macs are used by a large group of people who think 'Macs are better for artists' and don't know any better. Lots of people use Photoshop and After Effects on Macs and on Windows, but that doesn't make Mac the standard.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
SGI is no longer the top dog and are fading quickly. Large studios are moving to Linux in droves for 3D, PDI has support from Red Hat and anyone else could do the same. Accountability is no longer an issue, expecially because large companie like that don't have to sit and whine when something breaks, they have programmers to fix for them. If they just wanted someone to complain to, they wouldn't have so much in house software in the first place, which is one reason they are moving to Linux. Macs, Windows, SGI and now Linux are all in the mix. It is obvious you are spouting cliches. I think Macs kick ass, but they are not the standard, there are too many players out there all doing a great job. And Macs certainly are used by a large group of artists who don't know any better (and by that I mean they don't consider other options, not that the Mac isn't the best, because for some things, it certainly is). Not that this is who they are only used by, but it is an identifyable group.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
It is really a shame, especially when Shake was becoming so common and was really kicking butt on the Linux side. It seems that Apple has signed the death warrant for serious compositing in Shake and now we are just left with iShake for Final Cut Pro enthusiasts.
I'm curious, how do you think FinalCut Pro would be recieved by the lower-end more budget conscious segment of the market if a substantial portion of shakes functionality was folded into it? Or perhaps as (relatively) inexpensive expansion module/plug-in for FinalCut Pro?
In case you're interested, Monday, May 6th, Apple has preannounced Apple rackmount hardware, more info to be released May 14th or so.
This was from Job's keynote at the WWDC, which you can find in plenty of places.
GPL Deconstructed