Slashdot Mirror
Apple Announces New Pro Software
yroJJory writes "Apparently, Apple has just announced new pro software today. First off is the new app Motion, which is a new motion graphics program with real-time previews, procedural behavior animation and Final Cut Pro HD integration. Second, is Final Cut Pro HD, boasting the beauty of HD with the simplicity of DV. Capture DVCPRO HD over FireWire, edit using camera-native footage and output over FireWire with no generational quality loss. RT Extreme, now for HD, can deliver multiple HD streams, effects, filters and transitions in real-time to an attached Apple Cinema Display. Last, but most important to me, is DVD Studio Pro 3, which has slick new transitions, superb HD to MPEG-2 encoding, Graphical View, support for all professional audio formats -- including DTS -- (FINALLY!!), and integration with Final Cut Pro HD and Motion. Motion will be available this summer for $299. The Final Cut Pro HD update is available now for FCP 4 users. DVD Studio Pro 3 is expected to ship in mid-May." Reader green pizza writes "Apple today introduced Xsan, a clustered filesystem for Mac OS X systems."
The most impressive thing about the Mac world is that Apple puts so much effort into building a complete software environment for their customers. With (compared to the Windows world) 3rd party software houses effectively shunning Apple because of the lack of users (again comparatively speaking), Apple would no doubt be dead if not for Apple's heavy investment in writing these pro-level tools that have become absolutely essential to the media cartels.
However, I wonder how long Apple can continue with such heavy investment in this excellent software. The return on investment of this kind of thing can't be that great considering the low low price of the software. Granted, it moves Mac G5 boxes, but I wonder if the markup on the Apple hardware can compensate for the loss leading of the Apple software.
I have been pwned because my
People don't write software for MacOS because Apple will compete with them.
Why do you think the likes of Adobe are scaling down their Mac product line? Apple are trying to have their lunch. Why bother writing software to bolster your enemy?
Has to be the XSan .. this combined with the XServe and XServe RAID really does have to worry companies like Sun and SGI a little.
Funtage Factor: Purple
I'm not even a big video user but this is amazing stuff. From start to finish they've got everything almost anyone could want to make high end productions and the cost and hardware is stupidly cheap. Real time HD over FireWire on a $3000 computer? Just to get that to work is amazing, but to have a purpose built SAN to handle all the files, and it all works together with amazing fit and finish. I can't see anyone in the industry not going for this. Apple's been saying that having the hardware and the software let's them do all sorts of unique things, but this is the first time it's going to completely change a whole industry. Linux companies take note and make sure you've got a hardware side to your operations.
FCP doesn't seem to be supporting uncompressed HD. Apparently, it's only for the Panasonic DVCPRO HD codec.
And before the iMac, there were probably less than 10 companies producing USB products. It's all about pushing people forward into the new world.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Both Xsan and CXFS are cross-platform: you can attach heterogenous (Windows, Linux, Irix, Solaris, Mac OS X, possibly others) systems to the one filesystem, and have it all work. The interesting part is that CXFS needs an SGI Irix box at the centre to deal with the metadata updates (as I understand it). Xsan also needs a metadata server, but it's unclear whether it needs to be an OS X box, or if it'll work with other operating systems at its core. If the former, it's understandable. If the latter, it'll be a good chance to make it into the enterprise in a big way.
Either way, it looks like Apple is making some serious, steady steps towards the enterprise market. They're very much the underdogs; people looking at this sort of thing like to see a track record before buying; but still... interesting times, indeed.
The Linux world is a bazaar. The Windows world is a cathedral, albeit an incompetently-run one. It's disingenuous at best to talk about "The PC World" without making this distinction. Not to mention that the Apple cathedral has a pretty good relationship with the Linux bazaar these days.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"Hardware sinking ship?" I have to disagree with you there. With the release of the G5 bringing the Mac hardware platform on par with, if not ahead of its PC counterparts, Apple is by no means hurting. This is without counting the 64-bit capabilities of the processor that are, as yet, still largely under-utilized. They also have a good price point for their workstation systems, that easily compete with what the other guys have to offer.
Apple is far better off than it was a year ago, or even five years ago, when things were really ugly.
There's a strange (and, IMHO, unrealistic) trend of opinion lately that says that Apple should stop making great hardware and concentrate on making great software that only runs on that great hardware. If you think the software is that damn great, then buy a Mac. That's what Apple's trying to get you to do, but people seem to be missing the point.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Apple releases some great looking new software, and it's inexpensive for what it is. I wonder what particular anti-Apple axe the slashdotters will have to grind today. Surely this can't be good news!
"Kudos to Apple" is appropriate. This is one company that has worked hard and managed to stay focused over a long period. They deserve recognition for it.
Funny how people who only look on the positive side of Linux aren't modded as flamebait.
Well, it's not so much WINE-like, but for Linux PPC users, there's Mac-on-Linux, which has worked very well for most commonly used apps (in my opinion).
This was only coincidence. The development cycle for USB devices was much too long for the iMac to have possibly influenced any product development. It may be true that iMac owners were the first with serious interest in USB but that's not the same as saying that the iMac *made* USB.
Vendors were most definitely making USB devices before the iMac was introduced. In my job I saw and worked with plenty of them. Intel saw to it.
I might remind you that Apple has very small market share and I doubt many USB device vendors concern themselves with whether their products work with macs. That's Apple's job if they care to do it.
How do those Pioneer DVDR drives work with macs? You know the ones that you change the firmware id string and call them superdrives? The OEM version doesn't work so well, does it?
Point the blame squarely on Adobe for not getting off its ass and investing in some in-house Cocoa Developers. Now that Apple DOESN'T NEED ADOBE and Adobe never forsaw that happening. So now they are bowing out because they realize it would take 18 months of in-house revamping (time well spent) to offer Cocoa-ized/Objective-C versions of their Apps.
Adobe has had SEVEN YEARS to build an in-house Cocoa Team, along-side their Carbon Team(s).
Tough Titty to all companies in the OS X space who don't get off their asses and learn Cocoa/Objective-C.
Hell it has been pointed out several times already that Cocoa doesn't have to be written just in Objective-C. You can mix your C/ObjC++/Python, etc... There are no technical hurdles to be had. It is all B.S.
Any company that doesn't reinvest in technical skillsets for their staff deserve to go Bankrupt.
They haven't sold the original-style iMacs for at least 3 years. I'd say 3 years on a hard drive is pretty good - most HD manufacturers don't have warranties beyond 1 year. Fried network cards, i can't account for, other than the general statement that computers in schools are abused severely, and often under-maintained. And if they aren't in a well ventilated room, iMacs have overheating troubles - they're fanless.
As far as the eMacs, i don't know what to say. Might have been a bad batch.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
I've seen a lot of messages saying, is Apple killing the market for apps b/c they create them, themselves? To answer that I quote Hillel "If not now when? If not me who?" Apple answers to itself quite nicely.
"Apple simply can't compete on PC hardware. Not at the volume they deliver. They have two long term options: 1, increase their volume. 2, get out of hardware."
Why do you say that Apple can't compete on hardware? They're doing great right now. Do you expect that to change? And if you do, are you also one of those people who said back in '90 that they've be out of business in just a couple years?
Apple's business is great now. Never better. Never.
I don't think Steve Jobs gives a shit what you think as long as he's making billions.
You make billions and then maybe he'll listen to you.
--Richard
I have a half-dozen of the more recent blueberry iMacs...
Oops. Stop right there. There's your problem. You've only recently awakened, Rip VanWinkle-like, from 1999.
I'll try to get you up-to-date. OSX!!! OMFG! Flat-panel iMacs! OMFG! G5s! OMFG! iLife! OMFG!
OK. Just giving you a hard time. But bitching about 5 year old hardware failures just makes you look silly.
Apple doesn't HAVE to "compete" on hardware. This is ridiculous. It's like saying that that the Four Seasons will have to match prices with McDonalds, or get out of food.
Apple has made a decision to use a non-standard platform as the vector for their OS. In a lot of ways, that has simplified the task of creating a reliable operating system. So WHAT if they're doomed to charge more than HP for an entry level system...they aren't trying to create a monopoly. So long as enough people buy their computers, devices and software to turn a profit every quarter, they're far better off than the hundreds of other PC manufacturers who can't see past the concept of hardware as a commodity.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I don't know how they can get away with calling it motion
In light of the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox/Fire--- browser, and the mobilix.org forced name changes
it should be noted that "Motion" is a well known motion detection software.
http://motion.sourceforge.net/
If there was some confusion, I might see the point. But there's no way Apple's Motion will ever be confused with motion detection software.
It's like saying Apple can't use "Logic" because there's a computer quiz game called "Logic!"
They really have to compete in the same space. And no, "software" isn't a space.
If you looked at their earnings reports from last quarter (or indeed most of the previous quarters from the past years) you'll see that Apple's hardware offerings haven't been profitable at all. Most of the quarters that Apple reported profits were because of their portfolio (sale of ARM stock for instance).
46 million of profit on 1.9 billion isn't too good (2.35 percent). In fact were it not for the AMAZING sales of the iPod I don't think Apple would have reported a profit. If Apple hadn't been deversifying away from computer sales they'd be in big trouble right now. I find it odd that a computer hardware company is relying on a music player to make them profitable. It would be one thing if Apple were profitable on Mac sales and the iPod was icing, but for Apple to be dependent on the iPod is a little frightning.
For comparison, Adobe also had a good quarter. They generated a profit of 123 million on revenues of 423 million (29 percent)
Other packages offer educational discounts as well.
It will be hard to have this conversation with you since I doubt you'll agree that there's anything comparable to FCP. On the PC side, Vegas and Premiere would be considered competition and each is considerably less expensive on the street. Each does titling and comes with compression suites. Adobe bundles Premiere with audio software as you describe but Vegas doesn't AFAIK (they offer one). Adobe's bundle includes two other packages (AE and DVD authoring) so you aren't going to get very far with the comparision. I bought the Adobe bundle of 4 apps and paid considerably less than $999 without an educational discount.
Don't know who you're calling a troll but who's the one bragging about FCP being a steal at $999? At that price it's one of the more expensive packages. As far as special discounts, they may give it to you if you ask nicely but it doesn't alter the retail price. Adobe's best pricing is generally found in bundles with hardware. I paid under $500 for the Vegas bundle (long ago) and could easily buy the SF app for soundtrack creation if I had the interest. SF has been doing that a lot longer than Apple has.
A) Intel starts shipping USB hardware in 1996 or so.
B) Microsoft is readying "Windows 97"/"Memphis" with full USB support (remember the demo crashing on Gates?)
C) Manufacturers start gearing up for the anticipated USB demand
D) Windows 98 is delayed again in early 1998
E) Apple introduces the iMac
F) All those USB products in the pipeline quickly get Mac drivers and blue plastic, because otherwise nobody was buying them.
G) Every Apple customer upgrading to the imac has to throw out his/her peripherals and buy new ones
F) Mac products sales shoot thorough the roof, saving several key retailers for Apple
G) Jobs looks like a genius, when it was at least 50% luck.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Unix is a smart and straightforward platform. The APIs Apple builds on top of Unix are also very well thought-out, refined to a huge degree during their evolution on NeXT. And Apple has an advantage over Microsoft because they have far fewer legacy issues. They have learned that rebuilding everything with a whole new foundation is what you often have to do to remain streamlined.
-- thinkyhead software and media
But when you compare Apple and Adobe you are, um, comparing apples and oranges. Compared to other _hardware_ manufacturers, Apple has consistantly been one of the few that has maintained healthy profit margins. The only other PC manufacturer that I know of that has kept it's profit margins on hardware as healthy as Apple is Sony, which like apple has been successful in distinguishing its products in an increasingly comoditized market. So au contraire, Apple CAN compete on hardware, and it IS profitable.
Apple simply can't compete on PC hardware. Not at the volume they deliver.
Why must every company have impossible sales numbers to "compete?" Why isn't it possible to simply continue making money on lower volume? (which is precisely what Apple is doing, and doing better than any other company)
I'm saying their hardware isn't profitable.
It's probably more profitable than the $599 machines from Dell.
Apple has some great consumer and professional applications. They have the potential to deliver more.
So why do they need to drop their entire hardware line?
Who would you rather be, Adobe or Apple.
Apple. Adobe doesn't have iPods. Adobe doesn't have Cinema displays. Adobe doesn't have Powerbooks.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Talking 'bout lacking hardware...
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." - Steve Jobs on Bill Gates
Astroturfing implies that the company is putting people up to it. I can guarantee you that they don't have to do that.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra