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."
Motion capture is completely different from motion graphics. And yes, Motion capture is too expensive to be done at the consumer level.
Not to be an ass, but this could have been cleared up by simply clicking the link in the article and reading the first sentence in the product description...
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
The XSan just sounds like network mount points. Like I can mount NFS mounts at /usr, another at /usr/local, and make it behavie like it all one system. To do it, it would just require renaming /usr, and then modify the startup scripts to use the new paths. Is XSan different or is it basically a GUI to mount points ?
This signature was left intentionally blank.
Simply, they are the trend setters. Best computer company period!
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
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?
Xsan is a typical SAN filesystem, not just "network mount points". It allows storage to be pooled and aggregated, and for multiple machines to concurrently mount the same filesystem(s) simultaneously. The keys in a SAN are things like storage monitoring, management, centralization, and performance.
Just look at Apple's Xsan home page and Xsan press release.
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.
Apple also introduced Shake 3.5 for Mac OS X, Linux, and IRIX...
Click the links first, functionality of the software is explained there. Motion capture needs points of reference on the target. Its also usually done in a high contrast environment (similar to blue/greenscreen but not as fancy) and the reference points have to be highly visible on the target (i.e. white tufts on all movement points, black suit underneath). Most ppl wouldnt want to bother with this even if they had hardware/software capable of doing it....
How do they plan to run 1080i HDTV (1Gbps if its YUV, 1.5Gbps if its RGB) over 800Mbps IEEE1394? Are they going to require users to buy a optical IEEE1394 (1600Mbps/3200Mbps) card? How many devices out there support IEEE1394 over an optical medium?
As the original poster mentioned, DSP 3 finally supports muxing DTS audio streams.
This has been a requested feature since 1.0. Noce to see they finally got DTS support into the product.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Apple putting out complete and all-encompassing software packages like this make me want to invest in Apple hardware, but I'm lacking enough funds to make the switch...
To me, Apple seems a much better development house than Microsoft (not really necessary to state), and their products seem much more reliable/functional than Microsoft's efforts. Maybe it's the extra time spent in development, maybe it's the extra attention spent on details, or perhaps it's just the hardware.
Even though I don't currently use Apple hardware, I still appreciate what they are doing for the computing community in general with products like these that show what great design teams are really capable of.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
Of all of these updates, XSan is really at the top of them all. Products like Shake that are meant for using massive render farms, and Final Cut which, on a large enough project, would involve many many editors, will be wonderfully served by giving the users a nice way of accessing a production house's gigantic RAID.
XSan should receive more noteriety for this.
That is not something Apple does much if at all for its products. While silence until shipping is a good move (I would say) in the consumer space. It's bad for the Enterprise space. Apple has been criticized and justifiably so for not pre-announcing key technology so developers and enterprises can plan accordingly.
Now I agree that it's probably better to err on the side of less pre-announcement, but Apple took this to too much of an extreme.
I think this is an indication that Apple is 'getting it' more and more regarding Enterprise/Pro markets.
You have to ask yourself: is Apple chasing away developers because of their great software? Or is Apple filling a gaping whole that windows-centric developers are leaving open.
It is true that Adobe is scaling back some of their Mac operations. But apps like Premier and FrameMaker have been seriously neglected (four or more year w/o and update). So if these are the applications Apple risks losing because of their great software then so be it.
Avid/ProTools treats the Mac like a second class citizen so thankfully Apple has helped give them some competition. If it hadn't been for Apple who would have provide quality compositing, audio, video editing, DVD-authoring and now motion graphics software? Was Apple supposed to wait and hope that someone would come to the plate?
If anything, Apple is capable of producing great software. They will always be reliant on third parties with limited resources (or interest) for supporting great Mac hardware. Their strength is their software. It'd be great if Apple could get out their hardware sinkig ship and concentrate on bring great softare to different platforms.
It does not require optical. It works over normal FireWire. It supports Panasonic's 100 Mbps DV-HD (DVCPRO HD) codec.
1080i HD content can be moved between a Panasonic HD VTR and a computer via FireWire with no generation loss:
"With Panasonic's new, compact AJ-HD1200A DVCPRO HD VTR, 24fps or 60fps progressive scan material shot by Panasonic's AJ-HDC27 VariCam HD Cinema camera or 1080i studio / sports truck footage recorded by DVCPRO HD VTRs can be transferred via the VTR's IEEE 1394 interface directly into Final Cut Pro HD without generation loss. Once transferred, the material is instantly available for real-time editing operations. All footage maintains its camera-original quality, because the IEEE 1394 FireWire interface transfers the native DV-HD high definition files, as originally recorded on tape in the VTR or Varicam, directly to the Power Mac G4 or Power Mac G5 host computer's internal hard drive."
Read the joint Apple/Panasonic press release
Uh, this is awesome and all, but what are you going to view it on? As far as I know there is no DVD that supports HD, and by the origional poster, it sounds like you can only watch it on attached displays at full resolution.
This also brings up something with the Panisonic HD DV camcorder simply because it is the only major minidv HD camcorder being pushed.
Good job apple.
Apple seems to have remade itself into a premium software developer. I used to think of Apple as the cool hardware manufacturer but now they are bringing that same innovation, simplicity, and style to software. No wonder Adobe has been wary recently. They must be wondering when Apple will be competing with them across their entire product line.
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.
I'm glad Apple has taken the lead in giving what would have been 3rd party apps (they bought the foundations of the iTunes music app, FinalCut, etc. all from other companies) and polishing them up to get new customers. When companies start going cross-platform (ie, from a pure-mac stance to a Mac/PC one), it's almost inevitable that one of them (the Mac side) gets short-changed. Some manager or number cruncher decides that there's more money on the Windows side, the Windows side eats up more than it's share of the allocated programmer budget, Mac programmers leave and are replaced, not by Mac programmers, but by Windows programmers, they decide to unify the code base but end up with all of the Windows bugs on the Mac side because their compiler tools are all Windows-based now, etc.
The other advantage in having Apple take these types of software under their wing is that they can strategically coordinate releases of both software and hardware. Looking at the Xserves, the XSAN, the software tools, OS X, etc., you can clearly see that they're targeting high-end, corporate users of media software (ie, entertainment). The scientific community is already sold on the Unix underlayer of OS X - X11 make is possible to port a lot of apps.
"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
Things like these tools are something that's really missing from Linux. Is there a project similar to WINE that reimplements the OS X API under Linux?
I updated to FCP HD today (which is a free upgrade). So far looks the same. I don't have an HD camera so I can't try that out. No problems with the update so far. We're looking at Xsan at work. We are implementing a huge multi-XServe LDAP system and have a multi-terrabyte XServe RAID to back it up. Originally we would have had to partition the XServe RAID, but Xsan would solve that problem. Motion has caused the biggest stir among my creative-type friends,
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/
It seems worth mentioning that apple also updated Final Cut Express to a new patch. The patch corrects several severe issues with the program, specifically the 'blank frame' issue which has plagued virtually every user of the program. It also corrects problems with dropped frames and timecode breaks.
Now that these problems are fixed, I can safely say that Final Cut Express is the perfect entry-level video editing solution. At $299, it's a steal compared to the competition (Final Cut Pro is already a steal!). Plus, if you decide to upgrade to pro, Apple only charges the difference in the price, meaning you lose no money.
Talk about a company that's nice to their customers. Apple definitely sees the pro market as an area to capitalize - it has always been their strong point in the past. You can tell that apple's trying to capitalize on their strong points as they attempt to regain the Education market with the $799 1.25ghz eMac. The pro markets are faithful to apple, and can easily afford their hardware and software - compared to the 'real' pro-level stuff, Apple's a bargin (SGI workstations used to cost upward of $10k without software)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Apple didn't buy a company that developed FCP, but rather bought an unfinished product called Key Grip from Macromedia. Here is a brief history of how the product came to be.
p os tid=108142367318278&forumid=126
;o)
==========
http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post.php?
Kathlyn and I remember when FCP was being developed on WindowsNT (at Macromedia and was known as Key Grip) and Media 100 had signed on with the Key Grip team to make it their front-end of choice for M100's soon-to-be Windows system. (It was Q3-1996 at the time.) At the Macromedia World Developers Conference in September 1996, we were guests of John Molinari (founder of Media 100) and he introduced us to Bud Colligan of Macromedia, Lauren Herr of Truevision (later Pinnacle), Peter Hoddie of the Quicktime team and many members of the Key Grip team.
Later on in October of 1996, I was asked to appear on a TV show as one of the panelists discussing digital video. The other panelists were Randy Ubillos (lead engineer of both Premiere and Key Grip (FCP)), Steve Whitney (then of M100 but later of Puffin Designs and then Pinnacle), and one of the key people from MicroNet (who then were key drive manufacturers in this marketspace).
I also quite well remember when Apple bought Key Grip and later rechristened it Final Cut Pro. I remember the chagrin it gave Avid and how that also intensified when Apple announced that they were dropping the six-slot PCI architecture of the old 9500/9600 design base.
I worked for Avid for 18 months under contract as a consultant to help reposition the marketing message of Avid after they made the ill-fated "We're going to be PC-only" at NAB and set their predominantly Mac-only user base on fire.
Apple did NOT develop FCP as an answer to Avid's announcement -- it was quite the opposite, really. Avid saw the writing on the wall and determined that they stood a better chance on the Windows-side of the aisle -- a move that would later prove a lapse in judgment and would require "a repositioning of the reposition."
Just to set the record straight,
Ron Lindeboom
creativecow.net
Gee, none of this has ever been done before... I'm CERTAIN Apple didn't bump this announcement early to deflate the rumored debut of Vegas 5 tomorrow. What have they to fear? {/sarcasm}
If you are looking to buy a notebook, looks like Apple is going to introduce some updated models tomorrow.
m l
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/aprillaptops.ht
This is kind of odd, they usually announce new products on Tuesdays.
Um...could they complain that this new software only requires a one-button mouse?
If so...Those bastards!
Not being a creative type, this article is almost entirely Greek to me. Like that Farside cartoon about dogs (or was it cats?)...
What slashdot wrote: (see above)
What I hear:
Apparently, Apple has just announced new pro software today. First off is the new app Motion, which is blah blah blah blah blah. Second, is Final Cut Pro HD, boasting blah blah blah. Capture blah blah over FireWire, edit blah blah blah. Blah blah, now for blah, can deliver blah blah blah to an attached Apple Cinema Display. Last, but most important to me, is DVD Studio Pro 3, which has slick new transitions, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, 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.
Apple today introduced Xsan, a blah blah for Mac OS X systems.
You're missing the whole point of SAN...
Yes, Xsan lets several Macs and Xserves share files, but it does so through Fibrechannel, not through a LAN. Several machines can share files and/or cluster their storage together without having to rely on a fileserver. Each machine has direct access to the storage via the fibrechannel switch. No filesharing or networking protocols to get in the way of good perforamnce. Now without some sort of controls in place, this could quickly become a huge mess, that's where the Xsan software comes in. It handles things like connect/disconnect and access privleges.
$999 per machine sounds steep, until you compare that to similar software offered by Veritas and SGI (SGI InfiniteStorage CXFS). Apple's is a bargain.
Apple's basically replacing the now-defunct SGI Workstations.
And doing it very well.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Other companies offer SAN control software as well, such as SGI and their CXFS filesystem, part of their InfiniteStorage suite. CXFS supports many different platforms as well as many different models of fibrechannel cards and swtiches. The only catch is that the metadata server must be an SGI Origin 300 or Origin 350. Veritas also makes SAN software and is popular on Solaris and Windows.
If you do the math, Apple's hardware RAID setups and per-seat SAN software prices are the lowest in the industry for now. BUT, the others have much longer feature lists and have many years of market experience. Basiclly, I wouldn't want to be the first one to trust my data to a new Apple SAN. Remeber, on a SAN each machine has direct access to the data via fibrechannel. There is no fileserver involved, just the SAN "traffic cop" management software. When things go bad on a SAN, very bad things can happen.
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 have a half-dozen of the more recent blueberry iMacs in my school that have crashed hard drives and fried network cards
WTF ? The blueberry iMacs are hardly 'new' machines. They were made a few years ago, which completely unravels your whole argument.
I have switched to plain-brown-wrapper computers for my school.
Good for you. I wish you all the best with the viruses, spyware, OS troubles, security updates etc etc.
the Apples and Dells of the world offer no advantages in reliability, and I have the machines to prove it.
As always. You != the rest of the world. The problems you are facing are not endemic of a wider quality control issue. It may be. It may be not. But you need a bigger sample size than just your piddly experience.
Funtage Factor: Purple
I'm saying their hardware isn't profitable.
Their recent earnings report says otherwise.
But you're right. They should go commodity. Cause, y'know. Dell. See. Money. They have some. A lot. Commodity. That's where the big bucks are. All those companies raking it in, hand over fist. Like Dell. And... Dell. Oh, and Gatew... wait, no. Compa... no, they got absorbed. HP!! Yes! HP! They make their dime on commodity boxes, don't they! Oh, no, they don't. It's their servers.
I'm sure I'll think of some other company that has billions in revenue and millions and millions in profits from white boxes.
You just hang on. I'm sure I'll be back soon.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
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.
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.
Actually, judging from list time i was out there, Adobe has lots of Cinema displays, Powerbooks, and iPods.
Mod point free since 2001
Talking 'bout lacking hardware...
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Look on Ebay for an iMac from 2000 or 2001. You can probably buy a iMac DV SE with a 400 or 500 MHz G3 processor for under $400. Load Panther up on that and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Most people can save up that kind of scratch in a few months.
I think the real reason why Apple isn't selling lots of new computers is this:
1) Their stuff is built to last. Except for one bad hard-drive on a iBook (My bad, I dropped it), I haven't had a hardware glitch on any of the 9 macs I've had since 1988 (that is not a typo).
2) Mac OS X is acceptably fast on legacy hardware (aka old sh*t). The apps take a hit on slower machines (I don't even bother using iMovie anymore and games? fuggedaboudit) But it's still plenty fast for what I do at home: surf, email, iTunes, hack python code.
My father is a blogger.
Seriously!
:D
Microsoft--grungy Seattle, gray overcast days all the time, endless rain, boring and monotonous. And so we get Windows 95 and its ugly, drab gray, it's squares and lines, it's awful linear mindset to doing things. All the way up until Windows XP, and they just make everything blue and green, which looks like an attempt to be the pretty thing that OS X is without really "getting it."
Apple--beautiful, sunny Cupertino. Pleasant weather, lovely parks, lots of color. And so we get iMacs, OS X, pleasant colors with curves and sleek designs...seriously, who else makes hardware that you could actually describe as "sexy" with a straight face? I admit it, I see a PowerBook or a desktop G5 and I think, "Man, that's enough to make me drool!" And their usability factor is through the roof. OS X is a breath of fresh air when all you've used is Windows (and KDE/GNOME).
Just a theory on these two ways of thinking!
It's not free, and it's not open source--it's always the same complaints leveled at almost every single commercial solution.
People, that money people use to pay for things actually goes back to the company and gives employees an incentive to sit there hacking away for 12 hours producing quality code and designing amazing new hardware. Volunteer work won't give you that kind of motivation (admit it, it won't), and it also won't let you quit your day job to devote all your time and energy to it.
Apple has the perfect balance--the kernel and rest of the OS is open source, but the stuff that really matters like their GUI and other software is proprietary closed. Ya have to buy it.
"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
But Apple is a bunch cut-throat-DMCA-loving-money-grabbing capitalists like Microsoft, just without the monopoly, and Steve Jobs eats his chocolate one bite at a time, just like everyone else.
:-) Tongue firmly in cheek, but it does seem a strange coincidence.
You know, if you really want people to take your comments seriously, you might cut out the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist rhetoric. Just because Apple makes a profit doesn't make them an "evil company". You know, Steve Jobs has to put food on the table too, and I happen to think that Apple makes the world a slightly better place by taking some of my computing headaches away.
Ever notice how the same posters that make anti-capitalist comments are always the ones bitching about lack of Ogg support in $VENDOR product? I think it's a communist conspiracy to replace all of our "encumbered" formats with a more communist friendly and free format like Ogg.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Yes, but the licence fee talked about here is for Shake, not the OS.
Render nodes are free for Shake on OS X, but not for Linux.
convince suppliers like IBM and ATI keep them competitive, etc. Which is very expensive.
Is it? Maybe. But outside of the clonebox PC market, that's exactly what every electronics manufacturer has to do. There is no chip with the ubiquity and appeal of the "x86" chip in, say, the PVR market, or the car stereo media decoder market. Sure, there are market leaders, but very rarely do you see one that has 97% of the market.
Which is, I think, the POINT to Apple's dogged insistance to keep running with their own chips. They want to be an alternative and they want to assert the 1980s idea that a computer is not an abstract concept that separates OS from hardware.
Hey freaks: now you're ju