That 10% number is bent out of shape by the iTunes Music Store, which has ridiculously thin margins associated with it; if you take out the $3 billion+ that it contributed to income, then the 10% number would be a lot higher, more likely over 20% (too lazy to do the math, and it's hard to be accurate given that Apple's margin on music is unknown, but estimated to be low single digits).
oh cmon, the cables are 7 and 9 *inches* long. That's soooo gonna add to the rats nest out back.
Perhaps you mistook " for ' ?
rigid clips are great if the relative positions of the mini and the mate are fixed, but what if you want to put the mate next to, rather than on top of, the mini?
They've both been developing for Macs forever, Adobe was born writing software for the Mac platform, Macromedia (as Macromind) arrived on the scene several years later AFAIK. Either way, that experience probably counts for jack shit in developing for MacOS X.
FCPro, when released was not competition for Premiere. At the time, it was concieved as a broadcast video and film editing product, competing in the market with Avid and other specialist vendors. Permiere may have come a way since then, but back then, Adobe decided that rather than spend to bring it to X, and have to compete against / bring it to the standard of the OS vendor's own offerings (FCPro) that it would withdraw from the Mac market in video editing. There is approximately zero-chance that Adobe will be developing another Mac video product. The only product that they make for Mac, After Effects, is the only one with a strong competitive advantage. Another example would be Album, it will never be coming to Mac while Apple make iPhoto.
Tho the article itself is thin on detail, it does try to pose a possible reasoning to the takeover, taht has everyone shaking their heads. People who make their livings using Macromedia's products are understandably nervous... with so many competing products, this sort of thing is bound to result in less choice for users, unless, as suggested on Ars Technica, some sort of two tiered approach to the design product lines is taken, with Macormedia's offerings on the lower tier. It's easy enough, especially in the snobby world of design, to say that everyone uses Photoshop and Illustrator, but Freehand and Fireworks have their fans. And they're agressively bundled with Macromedia's current flagship product, Flash.
In the drive to cut costs after Adobe has dug deep to make this purchase, I'd be more concerned for some of Macromedia's lesser products such as Director & Authorware... that they made money for their precvious owner might not save them, as the bar for acceptable performance may well be raised, given the 2 company's price:earnings ratios. Although having very few competitors in their respective niche markets might count for something...
* I know that Wikipaedia != facts, but i don't think there's much in that particular entry that's opinion
one important thing to many of us is that Firewire drives are bootable on any Mac with a Firewire port. AFAIK you can't boot from USB devices on a Mac.
That is just laziness on Apple's part, the BIOSes of most PCs support USB(2) booting, it's a feature Apple could build into OpenFirmware if they could be arsed.
I'm not too bright most days, but even I can state with certainty that this Slashdot article is pure, unadulterated F.U.D. Total bullshit. etc etc etc
Someone needs a hug.... really, such bile! The article (or rather the link to an article that SlashDot provides) can be seen as a starting point for a discussion, not a satement of fact. Like the YRO article about LokiTorrent, which is not held up by facts, the initial post just starts the discussion... sounds like you should go elsewhere for relevant opinions etc, if it gets your goat so much.
What the article should have been titled was "Apple shafts earlier Mac owners" because they are the only people that are losing out in this. The bottom line about this move on Apple's part, as others have stated, is to protect margins while reducing prices.
I would assume in that case that GLSL is the basis for Apple's new CoreImage technology that's in Tiger.
One interesting aspect of it is that it appears to be designed not only for processing images for output to screen (ie realtime visual effects), but also for use elsewhere (ie application of video / photo filters, output to RAM / disk). Nice to see someone thinking of all that mostly unused GPU grunt, and putting it to use.
Judging by the list of cards that support it (on a PC they'd be called "DX9 capable"), it is very much a pixel-and-vertex-shader reliant API. It's been glossed over in reports of Tiger, did anyone learn anything interesting about it @ WWDC?
As a Mac user, I find this comment quite amusing. The transition from the old spatial Finder to the new, "improved" browser interface of MacOS X, was just as big a piss-off to many Mac users, for exactly the opposite reason.
Someone @ Apple decided "spatial is passé, browsers are the way forward" and that was that. I haven't used Nautilus, but what people are bitching about here is a similar phenomenon, GNOME 2.6 gets Nautilus for its default file manager, and for some reason the onus is put on the user to get used to it. Luckily for linux users, you get a choice of GUI / file browser system to bolt on over your OS. With the Mac, we were just told this was how it was going to be, like it or lump it.
My feelings about he Finder were best summaried by Ars Technica a while back. The author of the OS News piece seems to have drawn from the same sources of reasoning. (Some of the Nautilus designers were from Apple too, as I recall).
Having an ADC connector is not the kiss of death (unless it happens to be on your monitor;-). Adaptors for ADC-DVI are common, hell Dr Bott sells an ADC-VGA. With a DVI-VGA adapter on the other port, this allows you to run 2 standard VGA monitors off a single card. That's the arrangement I use with my MDD G4.
"holding off on the G5 for a few weeks" based on what a rumours site's saying? Oh puuu-lease.
I have always seen HyperCard as a great opportunity lost by Apple.
I had my first development job in 1993 producing university teaching materials using Hypercard & Quicktime. Back in those days developing using a Mac only product wasn't a problem, as the majority of our labs were Mac anyway. As Apple as a platform slumped in the mid-90's people's expectations changed- they wanted things to run on PC too.
All that needed to happen was to produce a Windows runtime, and Apple could have maintained a stranglehold on straightforward multimedia creation. No-one's saying it was a great tool, but as a simple mechanism to convey rich content to users, it couldn't be beaten.
Why Apple never dedicated the resources required to do this I will never know- perhaps it was so tied to Quickdraw that a port would have amounted to a complete rewrite... there were rumours too that playback was going to be built into QuickTime, but perhaps that was just wishful thinking.
Anyway, it never happened, and it was pretty obviously after a few years of point upgrades that it was never going to.... the lame way that colour was bolted onto the original 1 bit code (using a plugin or XCMD) didn't bode well for where the product stood in Apple's priorities.
I tried SuperCard, which at least natively supported colour and multiple windows, but the end result could still only be run on a Mac. The product changed owners so many times, it never boded well, and a Windows player or, better still a plug-in (Roadster, anyone?) were always just around the corner.....
So I, and many others I imagine, moved to MacroMind Director v4. It was clunky as hell back then, interactivity strapped onto an animation package. But it has got better;-). Coming from a Mac-dominated environment, we also discovered that you could use these tools on PCs too- perhaps not as elegantly, UI-wise, but with the price differentials in hardware, many grew up creating content on PCs for PCs. That can't have helped Apple at all.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL and this comment gets +1 insightful vs the original's score of 1, troll ?
That 10% number is bent out of shape by the iTunes Music Store, which has ridiculously thin margins associated with it; if you take out the $3 billion+ that it contributed to income, then the 10% number would be a lot higher, more likely over 20% (too lazy to do the math, and it's hard to be accurate given that Apple's margin on music is unknown, but estimated to be low single digits).
oh cmon, the cables are 7 and 9 *inches* long. That's soooo gonna add to the rats nest out back.
Perhaps you mistook " for ' ?
rigid clips are great if the relative positions of the mini and the mate are fixed, but what if you want to put the mate next to, rather than on top of, the mini?
What BS!
They've both been developing for Macs forever, Adobe was born writing software for the Mac platform, Macromedia (as Macromind) arrived on the scene several years later AFAIK. Either way, that experience probably counts for jack shit in developing for MacOS X.
Check your facts* before posting please....
FCPro, when released was not competition for Premiere. At the time, it was concieved as a broadcast video and film editing product, competing in the market with Avid and other specialist vendors. Permiere may have come a way since then, but back then, Adobe decided that rather than spend to bring it to X, and have to compete against / bring it to the standard of the OS vendor's own offerings (FCPro) that it would withdraw from the Mac market in video editing. There is approximately zero-chance that Adobe will be developing another Mac video product. The only product that they make for Mac, After Effects, is the only one with a strong competitive advantage. Another example would be Album, it will never be coming to Mac while Apple make iPhoto.
Tho the article itself is thin on detail, it does try to pose a possible reasoning to the takeover, taht has everyone shaking their heads. People who make their livings using Macromedia's products are understandably nervous... with so many competing products, this sort of thing is bound to result in less choice for users, unless, as suggested on Ars Technica, some sort of two tiered approach to the design product lines is taken, with Macormedia's offerings on the lower tier. It's easy enough, especially in the snobby world of design, to say that everyone uses Photoshop and Illustrator, but Freehand and Fireworks have their fans. And they're agressively bundled with Macromedia's current flagship product, Flash.
In the drive to cut costs after Adobe has dug deep to make this purchase, I'd be more concerned for some of Macromedia's lesser products such as Director & Authorware... that they made money for their precvious owner might not save them, as the bar for acceptable performance may well be raised, given the 2 company's price:earnings ratios. Although having very few competitors in their respective niche markets might count for something...
* I know that Wikipaedia != facts, but i don't think there's much in that particular entry that's opinion
What the article should have been titled was "Apple shafts earlier Mac owners" because they are the only people that are losing out in this. The bottom line about this move on Apple's part, as others have stated, is to protect margins while reducing prices.
I would assume in that case that GLSL is the basis for Apple's new CoreImage technology that's in Tiger.
One interesting aspect of it is that it appears to be designed not only for processing images for output to screen (ie realtime visual effects), but also for use elsewhere (ie application of video / photo filters, output to RAM / disk). Nice to see someone thinking of all that mostly unused GPU grunt, and putting it to use.
Judging by the list of cards that support it (on a PC they'd be called "DX9 capable"), it is very much a pixel-and-vertex-shader reliant API. It's been glossed over in reports of Tiger, did anyone learn anything interesting about it @ WWDC?
As a Mac user, I find this comment quite amusing. The transition from the old spatial Finder to the new, "improved" browser interface of MacOS X, was just as big a piss-off to many Mac users, for exactly the opposite reason.
Someone @ Apple decided "spatial is passé, browsers are the way forward" and that was that. I haven't used Nautilus, but what people are bitching about here is a similar phenomenon, GNOME 2.6 gets Nautilus for its default file manager, and for some reason the onus is put on the user to get used to it. Luckily for linux users, you get a choice of GUI / file browser system to bolt on over your OS. With the Mac, we were just told this was how it was going to be, like it or lump it.
My feelings about he Finder were best summaried by Ars Technica a while back. The author of the OS News piece seems to have drawn from the same sources of reasoning. (Some of the Nautilus designers were from Apple too, as I recall).
Having an ADC connector is not the kiss of death (unless it happens to be on your monitor ;-). Adaptors for ADC-DVI are common, hell Dr Bott sells an ADC-VGA. With a DVI-VGA adapter on the other port, this allows you to run 2 standard VGA monitors off a single card. That's the arrangement I use with my MDD G4.
"holding off on the G5 for a few weeks" based on what a rumours site's saying? Oh puuu-lease.
I have always seen HyperCard as a great opportunity lost by Apple.
;-). Coming from a Mac-dominated environment, we also discovered that you could use these tools on PCs too- perhaps not as elegantly, UI-wise, but with the price differentials in hardware, many grew up creating content on PCs for PCs. That can't have helped Apple at all.
I had my first development job in 1993 producing university teaching materials using Hypercard & Quicktime. Back in those days developing using a Mac only product wasn't a problem, as the majority of our labs were Mac anyway. As Apple as a platform slumped in the mid-90's people's expectations changed- they wanted things to run on PC too.
All that needed to happen was to produce a Windows runtime, and Apple could have maintained a stranglehold on straightforward multimedia creation. No-one's saying it was a great tool, but as a simple mechanism to convey rich content to users, it couldn't be beaten.
Why Apple never dedicated the resources required to do this I will never know- perhaps it was so tied to Quickdraw that a port would have amounted to a complete rewrite... there were rumours too that playback was going to be built into QuickTime, but perhaps that was just wishful thinking.
Anyway, it never happened, and it was pretty obviously after a few years of point upgrades that it was never going to.... the lame way that colour was bolted onto the original 1 bit code (using a plugin or XCMD) didn't bode well for where the product stood in Apple's priorities.
I tried SuperCard, which at least natively supported colour and multiple windows, but the end result could still only be run on a Mac. The product changed owners so many times, it never boded well, and a Windows player or, better still a plug-in (Roadster, anyone?) were always just around the corner.....
So I, and many others I imagine, moved to MacroMind Director v4. It was clunky as hell back then, interactivity strapped onto an animation package. But it has got better