I'm actually a bit pissed about this aquisition. Apple blows a wad of cash on Emagic (a company that ALREADY supports Macs, and very well), and yet my Soundblaster Live still doesn't work with OS X.
Creative begged Apple to make the SB Live a BTO option, but Apple refused.
Now if Apple truly cared about sound on Macs, they would have creamed their pants at the chance for a BTO PCI sound card at the consumer level. It would have opened up new possibilities in gaming, DVD, hell even iMovie could have used it for 5.1 surround sound, something that's standard on PCs. But no, Apple didn't care about that.
Now they buy Emagic, and KILL the windows version! It wreaks of bad business practices. Are we to believe that Apple cannot compete with windows on the merits of hardware/software, so instead they are buying up creative apps and killing the PC version?
Also, this strategy is far too aggressive. If M$ even FEELS like it, they can pull Mac support for ALL of their apps, and kill Apple with one swift stroke. It COULD happen if Gates is pissed off enough, and it WILL happen if Apple keeps taunting the overlord.
Don't count on it.....Office for Mac is one of Micorsoft bigger cash cows as far as apps go. I live in Seattle and have talked with many people who work at Microsoft. Regardless of what people think Microsoft loves Mac people, and the money we spend on product.
Comparing Sound blaster to Logic is like comparing Macs to PC's .....one is so much better than the other and Apple made the correct choice.
Creative's soundcards are the most overatted pieces of crap that ever existed in the computer industry. The drivers are just godawful. There are plenty of better cards for cheaper (Phillips, Turtle Beach, Hercules, etc.)
Heck, Apple would be better off including a 5.1 sound chip (C-media makes nice ones) and including it in the motherboard.
Plenty of Pc mobos have them and if you did a blind test, you wouldn't tell the difference between integrated audio vs. SoundBlaster or even Audigy.
If MS needs the cash from Office for Mac, then why did they let it languish for so long? How were they able to use it as leverage to get Explorer as the default browser?
A Windows monopoly is far more valuable than the profits from Office for Mac.
[quote] Comparing Sound blaster to Logic is like comparing Macs to PC's .....one is so much better than the other and Apple made the correct choice.
<hr></blockquote>
There isn't a choice involved! Apple could have supported the SB Live, and STILL have bought Emagic. Part of the reason that SB LIve drivers are so bad for Mac (and nonexistant for OS X) is that Apple refused to support the SB Live by making it a BTO option.
As for the alternatives to SB Live, they all cost much more. The SB Live is a consumer solution for someone who records as a hobby, not as a professional. It's also key to many games, and with the proper drives, Apple could load sound processing off the CPU and gain significant performance over Wintels.
If Apple ever puts an audio DSP on their mobo I will be VERY surprised. It's just not going to happen, and even then a SB Live is a better solution because it can be upgraded over the life of the comptuer.
Read Cinder's post. MS doesn't just make Office-Mac for the money, though they like the money too.
Analogue Bubblebath-
Agreed about Creative sound cards being overrated.
JD-
How is this "far too aggressive?" Apple buys a company, the company becomes Apple's property. Do you think Bill Gates is really gnashing his teeth over Apple announcing that Logic Audio Windows is going away?
I still think this is perfectly fine. LA Windows users will either switch to Cubase or Nuendo (in which case, who cares -- they weren't Mac users to start with) or they'll try to get Pro Tools working under Windows and snuff themselves in frustration.... or maybe some of them will try out a Mac.
A great many Windows users in the Pro Audio world have a different attitude than the smug attitude of Windows users in the general computing populace. Many Pro Audio users of Windows know they're using the "second choice" solution and they explain it by saying "Well, I needed a machine I could also use to open Excel files from work... I know, I need to get a Mac eventually." I have several friends like that. They acknowledge that most "real pros" and high-end studios are Mac-based, and there's a reason for that. The great majority of serious, intensive Pro Tools users are already on Mac, and if Apple could facilitate a professional audio/midi sequencer that clearly stood above its peers (Cubase and Digital Performer especially), it would unquestionably convince some people to give Macs a try.
Plus one more thing -- Logic is more closely integrated with Pro Tools than any other non-Digidesign application. It's the only multi-track app (Spark does it too but it's a 2-track editor only) that integrates with Pro Tools TDM hardware. What if Apple DOES end up buying Avid/Digidesign as people have speculated? Then they'd have a lock on the top TWO tiers of both audio/midi & video solutions, with a great degree of integration and interoperability between many (perhaps eventually all) of the four apps (Logic/Pro Tools/Avid/FCP).
One more clarification for JD. I agree that Apple should support all "standard" stuff like Creative's soundcards, in OSX. Who's to say it won't be supported in Jaguar? But support of a gaming/home theater sound card has absolutely zilch to do with Logic Audio. Creative is not a player in even the most minor sense in the pro & semi-pro audio market.
But as far as OS X support for the SB Live, the problem is that Creative has an extremely anti-Mac corporate culture. They put out some horribly buggy OS 9 drivers for the SB Live almost a year late, and now a few guys who USED to work at Creative (they were fired) are taking on the responsibility of writing OS X drivers for the SB Live. Creative management simply couldn't see any reason to develop good drivers, because the SB LIve sold poorly.....well, duh, if the drivers stink then of course it won't sell well. But really Creative management was looking for any excuse they could to kill the Mac program.
However, If Apple had agreed to offer the SB Live as a BTO option, then Creative management would have devoted the appropriate resources for solid driver development.
I suspect part of the problem here is that Creative doesn't understand that Mac users are more demanding when it comes to drivers. For Windows Creative can just chuck in any old BS and call it a driver, and if it doesn't work, they blame Windows, or your hardware config. May the buyer beware. But Mac users are used to having things WORK on their computers without having to spend weeks troubleshooting and honing just the right extension set to work with the crapware SB Live drivers. BTW, those SB Live drivers are so horrible, that unless I use a minimal extension set, my Powermac crashes every 15" or so. Turn off the SB Live drivers, and suddenly it only crashes once a day or so. Clearly Creative is not up to the task of writing quality OS X drivers, but at least they wouldn't bring down the system, and the fault would be placed squarely on the shoulders of Creative where it belongs.
All I'm saying is that Apple should have show more interest in cooperating with Creative so that Mac users would have the option to buy a consumer level sound card. Apparently Apple wanted to have nothing to do with Creative.
Heh, it would be funny if Apple bought Creative and KILLED Windows support, fired all the management (Creative is known for being top-heavy in management, as in there are like 3 managers for every working employee).
I didn't mean to sound like a jerk JYD, just really can't blame apple for not supporting SBlaster. Like you said yourself they tend to have bad driver support for their own products. Like you also said we Mac users don't usually support bad software or hardware, as far as not working right.
So why would Apple support a company with a poor track record? If my comments in my earlier post sounded personal they weren't meant that way. i just prefer having less to choose from, but know that it's going to just work. Imagine the backlash Apple would have gotten if they had made them a BTO option....it would have been bad business IMO.
Actually if Apple was to underwrite drivers for a Creative product, the Extigy would prolly be a better strategic choice, since it could be be used with *books and *Macs. WHat I think would be a better choice would be in the next major product revision for each line to include better sound support in the chipset (perhaps use a single ASIC for the whole line and then implement features acc to model, one set of drivers does it all, and one chip to order). This keeps slots free and keeps control in Apple's hands, so when OS XI comes along they don't have to wait for someone else to update drivers so users will upgrade.
If Apple can't/won't dropping a bit of cash into matching funds for product development might not be a bad idea.
<strong>Actually if Apple was to underwrite drivers for a Creative product, the Extigy would prolly be a better strategic choice, since it could be be used with *books and *Macs. WHat I think would be a better choice would be in the next major product revision for each line to include better sound support in the chipset (perhaps use a single ASIC for the whole line and then implement features acc to model, one set of drivers does it all, and one chip to order). This keeps slots free and keeps control in Apple's hands, so when OS XI comes along they don't have to wait for someone else to update drivers so users will upgrade.
If Apple can't/won't dropping a bit of cash into matching funds for product development might not be a bad idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, this would be cool. I don't see it every happening, but if it did Apple would suddenly have some bitchin' sound systems on their computers. Much better than their current set ups.
[quote]If Apple ever puts an audio DSP on their mobo I will be VERY surprised. It's just not going to happen, and even then a SB Live is a better solution because it can be upgraded over the life of the comptuer. <hr></blockquote>
How about the old 7100 and 8100 AV models?
Matthew
P.S. - I set up a PC for a user and it had a soundblaster in it. It crashed with complete freezes all the time. It took me like 2-3 months to find a bios configuration that would allow it to run. Then one day he hooked up a USB printer. Everything died again. I think the final solution to the problem was installing Windows XP... and things work ok for now, as long as he doesn't install any more USB devices. Did I mention that when installing Windows XP, it hit some kind of error and it claimed that it couldn't finish the installation, and it also wouldn't let me cancel the installation. I had to put the HD into another machine, back up the files I could get to, reformat it, and reinstall everything from scratch. I hate PCs! And I definitely wouldn't want a soundsmasher in my Mac either.
<strong>P.S. - I set up a PC for a user and it had a soundblaster in it. It crashed with complete freezes all the time. It took me like 2-3 months to find a bios configuration that would allow it to run. Then one day he hooked up a USB printer. Everything died again. I think the final solution to the problem was installing Windows XP... and things work ok for now, as long as he doesn't install any more USB devices. Did I mention that when installing Windows XP, it hit some kind of error and it claimed that it couldn't finish the installation, and it also wouldn't let me cancel the installation. I had to put the HD into another machine, back up the files I could get to, reformat it, and reinstall everything from scratch. I hate PCs! And I definitely wouldn't want a soundsmasher in my Mac either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WoW .. this is REALLY bad indeed.
But I think Apple buying eMacgic is more focused on the Pro not the consumer. Basicaly what they sell is something I'll never use in my whole life, so I guess apple is really going full speed to Hollywood now
They'll probably figure out a way with harman/kardon to make some USB 5.1, 4.1 speakers or maybe even apple miniplug speakers.
JYD -- I was thinking that apples refusal to have the sound blaster as a BTO option might indicate that they are planing to add a 5.1 sound chip to the next motherboard revision.
Apple needs to do something to improve the Mac's sound capabilities.
We might get improved audio hardware into Macs now but the thing of it is that no matter what Apple adds on, it won't be correct. I don't need digital out but others will. I need MIDI I/O ports, others won't. An audio in jack is worthless to me, others will want it. I'd love it if Apple were to make a modern day version of the SID chip and stick it in the PowerMacs but it's completely worthless to others. Would they put in RCA, 1/8", 1/4" or XLR jacks? What level? Would they be balanced or unbalanced? I don't think we'll see much more built in to the Macs than that an audio in jack though I could well be wrong.
Since everyone else is so happy about this purchase, I'm going to be one to point out the bad aspects of this move by Apple. First, the audio market is much different than the video market. In video, generally speaking your hardware is outside of the Mac, connected via firewire. It is also made by a separate manufacturer than video software - Adobe doesn't make cameras, Canon, Panasonic and Sony don't make advanced video editors, at least not for the Mac AFAIK. In audio, the software companies are also the hardware companies, with a few exceptions. So even an audio company with better hardware (Digidesign) or better software (MOTU) is going to be threatened in the other field, if not in both of them. Unless there are some private agreements, no one has any assurance Apple won't have Emagic move heavily into pro audio hardware or expand Emagic's software line.
Considering MOTU's lack of any announcements related to releasing OS X software, one can assume they are not finished porting Digital Performer. MOTU sees what Apple is doing to the video market on the Mac (how long until they release a compositing app that undercuts After Effects?), sees this acquisition of Emagic and they may well say "Do we invest in a Mac market where Apple is probably going to take over or do we go with a larger PC market where it's an open competition?" Avid has already been hurt by Apple in the video market so now they see this and perhaps they think the same thing. Whether it's XP, Linux or OS X, a port is a port and it makes little difference to a well designed application given the completely different audio APIs for OS X compared with OS 9 as well as the other changes involved in Carbonizing an app.
Also, consider this - Linux has become a huge platform for render farms and audio applications have very similar requirements as graphics rendering apps. Why not have Digidesign sell packaged Linux pro studio systems composed of the hardware, the OS and the digidesign software? Between the trouble of porting to OS X and Apple obviously getting ramped up to take over the Mac audio market, why not go with a solution that is convenient, on an open platform, inexpensive, not reliant on any single hardware source and especially not reliant on a single hardware source that also makes competing audio solutions? It's not that likely but if it were to happen, it would make the most sense to happen now. It's even possible that the migration away from Apple has already begun - Apple obviously shopped around and when other vendors realized that Apple was moving into the audio market and they weren't going to be the ones bought out, perhaps they decided it was time to move on.
I think it's possible that Apple will look at this as a mistake. They'll make more profits through Emagic but they're going to risk losing overall share in the audio market. If Pro Tools leaves the Mac then professional digital audio leaves the Mac. Apple cannot control it and Avid wouldn't sell Digidesign separately from itself - which makes me wonder why Apple didn't just buy Avid. Avid have to be bitter towards Apple concerning FCP and this did not help one bit. If MOTU leaves it won't be the death of pro audio on the Mac however it will remove most of the best audio hardware and software available in the under $2000 market. The worst thing is that Apple isn't just going to unnerve the people making sequencers and audio interfaces but everyone involved in making audio applications for OS X. Apple has a OS X only plug-in format and are already releasing effects, so plug-in makers cannot feel safe. They have a DLS synth in OS X and hired James McCartney from <a href="http://www.audiosynth.com"; target="_blank">SuperCollider</a> so one can imagine them getting into making serious software synthesizers, thus threatening M-Audio/Propellerhead in hardware and software and BitHeadz as well. So, essentially, no audio manufacturer other the Emagic can be confident in developing for the Mac platform because no area is safe from Apple's grasp. Hopefully everything will work out okay but from what I can see, Apple's is taking a big risk.
Since everyone else is so happy about this purchase, I'm going to be one to point out the bad aspects of this move by Apple. First, the audio market is much different than the video market. In video, generally speaking your hardware is outside of the Mac, connected via firewire.
...
So, essentially, no audio manufacturer other the Emagic can be confident in developing for the Mac platform because no area is safe from Apple's grasp. Hopefully everything will work out okay but from what I can see, Apple's is taking a big risk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are all excellent points, and I agree that this acquisition carries some risk with it. However, there are two things that you may not have considered:
1) You mention Firewire. Are you sure that Apple doesn't have something like this in mind for audio? I'll confess that I know virtually nothing about the audio market, but couldn't Apple be preparing to move the audio world in the same way that they moved the video world? Clearly the audio world won't succumb to something like firewire at this stage - digital video barely existed when firewire was created, so there was no inertia to fight, but audio is far different. Certainly, a long-term strategy could be developed. Apple is in a position to add something to the audio community that could benefit all.
2) You also underestimate the odd impact of competition. No vendor will create a product or line of products that meet all needs. But a solid, stable, forward-looking company can pull a lot of others along. It can trigger innovation from smaller companies, and integration from larger ones. Provided that Apple doesn't try to raze the audio market, if they stick to some key products and their core markets (education, consumer, and certain pro products) and really push the envelope there, it should leave plenty of room for others, ensure that they stay on the top of their game, AND possibly bring new customers to the market as a whole.
It's a delicate balance, but Apple's done pretty well here. They've dipped into Adobe's market without going too far, as well as other markets. I think they've got the execution working so well these days that they won't blow it.
M$ Office is crap. I wish people would start using Adobe Acrobat instead of Word. Filemaker instead of excel. And Macromedia director or flash instead of powerpoint.
And there is no doubt in my mind that if needed apple could make their own webbrowser.
You have some good points, Percolate, but I would respond to a few things you said.
First, hardware. I don't know of any audio pros or semi-pros advocating on-board I/O solutions built into every Mac. Adding these features is expensive, especially since (as you say, and as I said elsewhere) every user has different needs. The Macs have Firewire ports, USB, and PCI, and that's all they need on the hardware side to deal with audio I/O and midi interfacing. What we really need is DRIVERS for existing interfaces.
Next, software companies with big, complicated apps can't strategically flip-flop their resources around at the snap of a finger. MOTU cannot become a 100% Windows shop overnight. Same with Digidesign. Switching either of these companies over to Linux (where they have zero experience) would be an endeavor even more dangerous for them than going 100% Windows all at once. These companies have already invested very heavily in the Mac market and cannot simply walk away because there is new/different competition. Certainly Emagic allied with Apple represents a different level of competition on the Mac audio/midi side, for Steinberg/MOTU/Digi, than Emagic did alone. That doesn't mean a company like MOTU, which is very nearly Mac-only, can readily change themselves from a 99% Mac software developer, to a primarily Windows developer, at least not soon.
Lastly, one reason I don't see the Linux solution working in digital audio, is the same reason BeOS didn't work in digital audio. Digital audio isn't just about software -- it's about software and hardware interfacing. Even if Logic 5.x for OSX came out tomorrow, it would be useless to me because I can't get my audio into or out of my Powermac under OSX. Not everybody wants to use the same interface, as we have already established, so smooth, stable and reliable hardware support is key. This is a big reason why people buy Digital Performer, for example -- they presume it will "work better" with MOTU's interfaces. Getting drivers for semi-obscure audio hardware under Linux, and getting the hardware & drivers to work reliably for most users, just doesn't seem to be happening. It's just how it went on BeOS -- people said "If developers ever worked this, it would be fantastic for audio!" But without drivers for hardware interfaces, software developers didn't see the point, and without any software available, why should MOTU/Midiman/Digidesign write BeOS (or Linux) drivers for their interfaces?
I feel that if the audio/midi market is presented with an alternative that is as strong, effective, and reasonably-priced as FCP, it will have a strong influence on the market. People doing this kind of work, just want it to work! If you're in a recording studio full of a million bucks worth of gear, with expensive talent waiting to record/mix, you can't be screwing around with a hack-job Linux solution. Even if you're someone like me, working on a smaller scale, your time is valuable and in short supply, and you want something stable, reliable, tried & tested.
By the way, I've already talked to two different Windows users today (a musician who records himself, and a freelance tracking/mixing engineer) who have both basically said that when they FIRST heard the news, they were really pissed at Apple and swore they'd never be strong-armed into switching to Mac... but after they thought about it, they started to consider that maybe it could be an exciting time for them, and a reason to change.
just got one question, did iPod stop other companies from making mp3 players for Mac??
And anyways, if apple makes the best damn hardware and software why worry about other companies not supporting Mac ? if I am going to shop for my PRO Audio equipment, I'll probably be more tempted towards a oe company solution, just to make sure that there won't be some nasty hardware conflict.
Yeah there's always risk, but that's what you do when you want to double your market share. Yeah you'll risk losing some more users, but if apple doesn't do this maybe they are risking not gaining some more users.
And after seeing those great Xserve benchmarks, I must say that apple got the best damn hardware engineers on earth, how could they get so much performace without a SCSI HD ... Only God knows ...
Comments
Creative begged Apple to make the SB Live a BTO option, but Apple refused.
Now if Apple truly cared about sound on Macs, they would have creamed their pants at the chance for a BTO PCI sound card at the consumer level. It would have opened up new possibilities in gaming, DVD, hell even iMovie could have used it for 5.1 surround sound, something that's standard on PCs. But no, Apple didn't care about that.
Now they buy Emagic, and KILL the windows version! It wreaks of bad business practices. Are we to believe that Apple cannot compete with windows on the merits of hardware/software, so instead they are buying up creative apps and killing the PC version?
Also, this strategy is far too aggressive. If M$ even FEELS like it, they can pull Mac support for ALL of their apps, and kill Apple with one swift stroke. It COULD happen if Gates is pissed off enough, and it WILL happen if Apple keeps taunting the overlord.
Comparing Sound blaster to Logic is like comparing Macs to PC's .....one is so much better than the other and Apple made the correct choice.
M$ needs Apple around just as much as Apple needs Office.
Edit:
Oh, and I don't think Emagic makes hardware. So, no.
But yes to Apple Branded audio software.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: cinder ]</p>
Heck, Apple would be better off including a 5.1 sound chip (C-media makes nice ones) and including it in the motherboard.
Plenty of Pc mobos have them and if you did a blind test, you wouldn't tell the difference between integrated audio vs. SoundBlaster or even Audigy.
A Windows monopoly is far more valuable than the profits from Office for Mac.
<hr></blockquote>
There isn't a choice involved! Apple could have supported the SB Live, and STILL have bought Emagic. Part of the reason that SB LIve drivers are so bad for Mac (and nonexistant for OS X) is that Apple refused to support the SB Live by making it a BTO option.
As for the alternatives to SB Live, they all cost much more. The SB Live is a consumer solution for someone who records as a hobby, not as a professional. It's also key to many games, and with the proper drives, Apple could load sound processing off the CPU and gain significant performance over Wintels.
If Apple ever puts an audio DSP on their mobo I will be VERY surprised. It's just not going to happen, and even then a SB Live is a better solution because it can be upgraded over the life of the comptuer.
Read Cinder's post. MS doesn't just make Office-Mac for the money, though they like the money too.
Analogue Bubblebath-
Agreed about Creative sound cards being overrated.
JD-
How is this "far too aggressive?" Apple buys a company, the company becomes Apple's property. Do you think Bill Gates is really gnashing his teeth over Apple announcing that Logic Audio Windows is going away?
I still think this is perfectly fine. LA Windows users will either switch to Cubase or Nuendo (in which case, who cares -- they weren't Mac users to start with) or they'll try to get Pro Tools working under Windows and snuff themselves in frustration.... or maybe some of them will try out a Mac.
A great many Windows users in the Pro Audio world have a different attitude than the smug attitude of Windows users in the general computing populace. Many Pro Audio users of Windows know they're using the "second choice" solution and they explain it by saying "Well, I needed a machine I could also use to open Excel files from work... I know, I need to get a Mac eventually." I have several friends like that. They acknowledge that most "real pros" and high-end studios are Mac-based, and there's a reason for that. The great majority of serious, intensive Pro Tools users are already on Mac, and if Apple could facilitate a professional audio/midi sequencer that clearly stood above its peers (Cubase and Digital Performer especially), it would unquestionably convince some people to give Macs a try.
Plus one more thing -- Logic is more closely integrated with Pro Tools than any other non-Digidesign application. It's the only multi-track app (Spark does it too but it's a 2-track editor only) that integrates with Pro Tools TDM hardware. What if Apple DOES end up buying Avid/Digidesign as people have speculated? Then they'd have a lock on the top TWO tiers of both audio/midi & video solutions, with a great degree of integration and interoperability between many (perhaps eventually all) of the four apps (Logic/Pro Tools/Avid/FCP).
But as far as OS X support for the SB Live, the problem is that Creative has an extremely anti-Mac corporate culture. They put out some horribly buggy OS 9 drivers for the SB Live almost a year late, and now a few guys who USED to work at Creative (they were fired) are taking on the responsibility of writing OS X drivers for the SB Live. Creative management simply couldn't see any reason to develop good drivers, because the SB LIve sold poorly.....well, duh, if the drivers stink then of course it won't sell well. But really Creative management was looking for any excuse they could to kill the Mac program.
However, If Apple had agreed to offer the SB Live as a BTO option, then Creative management would have devoted the appropriate resources for solid driver development.
I suspect part of the problem here is that Creative doesn't understand that Mac users are more demanding when it comes to drivers. For Windows Creative can just chuck in any old BS and call it a driver, and if it doesn't work, they blame Windows, or your hardware config. May the buyer beware. But Mac users are used to having things WORK on their computers without having to spend weeks troubleshooting and honing just the right extension set to work with the crapware SB Live drivers. BTW, those SB Live drivers are so horrible, that unless I use a minimal extension set, my Powermac crashes every 15" or so. Turn off the SB Live drivers, and suddenly it only crashes once a day or so. Clearly Creative is not up to the task of writing quality OS X drivers, but at least they wouldn't bring down the system, and the fault would be placed squarely on the shoulders of Creative where it belongs.
All I'm saying is that Apple should have show more interest in cooperating with Creative so that Mac users would have the option to buy a consumer level sound card. Apparently Apple wanted to have nothing to do with Creative.
Heh, it would be funny if Apple bought Creative and KILLED Windows support, fired all the management (Creative is known for being top-heavy in management, as in there are like 3 managers for every working employee).
So why would Apple support a company with a poor track record? If my comments in my earlier post sounded personal they weren't meant that way. i just prefer having less to choose from, but know that it's going to just work. Imagine the backlash Apple would have gotten if they had made them a BTO option....it would have been bad business IMO.
If Apple can't/won't dropping a bit of cash into matching funds for product development might not be a bad idea.
<strong>Actually if Apple was to underwrite drivers for a Creative product, the Extigy would prolly be a better strategic choice, since it could be be used with *books and *Macs. WHat I think would be a better choice would be in the next major product revision for each line to include better sound support in the chipset (perhaps use a single ASIC for the whole line and then implement features acc to model, one set of drivers does it all, and one chip to order). This keeps slots free and keeps control in Apple's hands, so when OS XI comes along they don't have to wait for someone else to update drivers so users will upgrade.
If Apple can't/won't dropping a bit of cash into matching funds for product development might not be a bad idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, this would be cool. I don't see it every happening, but if it did Apple would suddenly have some bitchin' sound systems on their computers. Much better than their current set ups.
How about the old 7100 and 8100 AV models?
Matthew
P.S. - I set up a PC for a user and it had a soundblaster in it. It crashed with complete freezes all the time. It took me like 2-3 months to find a bios configuration that would allow it to run. Then one day he hooked up a USB printer. Everything died again. I think the final solution to the problem was installing Windows XP... and things work ok for now, as long as he doesn't install any more USB devices. Did I mention that when installing Windows XP, it hit some kind of error and it claimed that it couldn't finish the installation, and it also wouldn't let me cancel the installation. I had to put the HD into another machine, back up the files I could get to, reformat it, and reinstall everything from scratch. I hate PCs! And I definitely wouldn't want a soundsmasher in my Mac either.
<strong>P.S. - I set up a PC for a user and it had a soundblaster in it. It crashed with complete freezes all the time. It took me like 2-3 months to find a bios configuration that would allow it to run. Then one day he hooked up a USB printer. Everything died again. I think the final solution to the problem was installing Windows XP... and things work ok for now, as long as he doesn't install any more USB devices. Did I mention that when installing Windows XP, it hit some kind of error and it claimed that it couldn't finish the installation, and it also wouldn't let me cancel the installation. I had to put the HD into another machine, back up the files I could get to, reformat it, and reinstall everything from scratch. I hate PCs! And I definitely wouldn't want a soundsmasher in my Mac either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WoW .. this is REALLY bad indeed.
But I think Apple buying eMacgic is more focused on the Pro not the consumer. Basicaly what they sell is something I'll never use in my whole life, so I guess apple is really going full speed to Hollywood now
They'll probably figure out a way with harman/kardon to make some USB 5.1, 4.1 speakers or maybe even apple miniplug speakers.
Apple needs to do something to improve the Mac's sound capabilities.
Since everyone else is so happy about this purchase, I'm going to be one to point out the bad aspects of this move by Apple. First, the audio market is much different than the video market. In video, generally speaking your hardware is outside of the Mac, connected via firewire. It is also made by a separate manufacturer than video software - Adobe doesn't make cameras, Canon, Panasonic and Sony don't make advanced video editors, at least not for the Mac AFAIK. In audio, the software companies are also the hardware companies, with a few exceptions. So even an audio company with better hardware (Digidesign) or better software (MOTU) is going to be threatened in the other field, if not in both of them. Unless there are some private agreements, no one has any assurance Apple won't have Emagic move heavily into pro audio hardware or expand Emagic's software line.
Considering MOTU's lack of any announcements related to releasing OS X software, one can assume they are not finished porting Digital Performer. MOTU sees what Apple is doing to the video market on the Mac (how long until they release a compositing app that undercuts After Effects?), sees this acquisition of Emagic and they may well say "Do we invest in a Mac market where Apple is probably going to take over or do we go with a larger PC market where it's an open competition?" Avid has already been hurt by Apple in the video market so now they see this and perhaps they think the same thing. Whether it's XP, Linux or OS X, a port is a port and it makes little difference to a well designed application given the completely different audio APIs for OS X compared with OS 9 as well as the other changes involved in Carbonizing an app.
Also, consider this - Linux has become a huge platform for render farms and audio applications have very similar requirements as graphics rendering apps. Why not have Digidesign sell packaged Linux pro studio systems composed of the hardware, the OS and the digidesign software? Between the trouble of porting to OS X and Apple obviously getting ramped up to take over the Mac audio market, why not go with a solution that is convenient, on an open platform, inexpensive, not reliant on any single hardware source and especially not reliant on a single hardware source that also makes competing audio solutions? It's not that likely but if it were to happen, it would make the most sense to happen now. It's even possible that the migration away from Apple has already begun - Apple obviously shopped around and when other vendors realized that Apple was moving into the audio market and they weren't going to be the ones bought out, perhaps they decided it was time to move on.
I think it's possible that Apple will look at this as a mistake. They'll make more profits through Emagic but they're going to risk losing overall share in the audio market. If Pro Tools leaves the Mac then professional digital audio leaves the Mac. Apple cannot control it and Avid wouldn't sell Digidesign separately from itself - which makes me wonder why Apple didn't just buy Avid. Avid have to be bitter towards Apple concerning FCP and this did not help one bit. If MOTU leaves it won't be the death of pro audio on the Mac however it will remove most of the best audio hardware and software available in the under $2000 market. The worst thing is that Apple isn't just going to unnerve the people making sequencers and audio interfaces but everyone involved in making audio applications for OS X. Apple has a OS X only plug-in format and are already releasing effects, so plug-in makers cannot feel safe. They have a DLS synth in OS X and hired James McCartney from <a href="http://www.audiosynth.com"; target="_blank">SuperCollider</a> so one can imagine them getting into making serious software synthesizers, thus threatening M-Audio/Propellerhead in hardware and software and BitHeadz as well. So, essentially, no audio manufacturer other the Emagic can be confident in developing for the Mac platform because no area is safe from Apple's grasp. Hopefully everything will work out okay but from what I can see, Apple's is taking a big risk.
<strong>
Since everyone else is so happy about this purchase, I'm going to be one to point out the bad aspects of this move by Apple. First, the audio market is much different than the video market. In video, generally speaking your hardware is outside of the Mac, connected via firewire.
...
So, essentially, no audio manufacturer other the Emagic can be confident in developing for the Mac platform because no area is safe from Apple's grasp. Hopefully everything will work out okay but from what I can see, Apple's is taking a big risk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are all excellent points, and I agree that this acquisition carries some risk with it. However, there are two things that you may not have considered:
1) You mention Firewire. Are you sure that Apple doesn't have something like this in mind for audio? I'll confess that I know virtually nothing about the audio market, but couldn't Apple be preparing to move the audio world in the same way that they moved the video world? Clearly the audio world won't succumb to something like firewire at this stage - digital video barely existed when firewire was created, so there was no inertia to fight, but audio is far different. Certainly, a long-term strategy could be developed. Apple is in a position to add something to the audio community that could benefit all.
2) You also underestimate the odd impact of competition. No vendor will create a product or line of products that meet all needs. But a solid, stable, forward-looking company can pull a lot of others along. It can trigger innovation from smaller companies, and integration from larger ones. Provided that Apple doesn't try to raze the audio market, if they stick to some key products and their core markets (education, consumer, and certain pro products) and really push the envelope there, it should leave plenty of room for others, ensure that they stay on the top of their game, AND possibly bring new customers to the market as a whole.
It's a delicate balance, but Apple's done pretty well here. They've dipped into Adobe's market without going too far, as well as other markets. I think they've got the execution working so well these days that they won't blow it.
And there is no doubt in my mind that if needed apple could make their own webbrowser.
M$ is not needed.
First, hardware. I don't know of any audio pros or semi-pros advocating on-board I/O solutions built into every Mac. Adding these features is expensive, especially since (as you say, and as I said elsewhere) every user has different needs. The Macs have Firewire ports, USB, and PCI, and that's all they need on the hardware side to deal with audio I/O and midi interfacing. What we really need is DRIVERS for existing interfaces.
Next, software companies with big, complicated apps can't strategically flip-flop their resources around at the snap of a finger. MOTU cannot become a 100% Windows shop overnight. Same with Digidesign. Switching either of these companies over to Linux (where they have zero experience) would be an endeavor even more dangerous for them than going 100% Windows all at once. These companies have already invested very heavily in the Mac market and cannot simply walk away because there is new/different competition. Certainly Emagic allied with Apple represents a different level of competition on the Mac audio/midi side, for Steinberg/MOTU/Digi, than Emagic did alone. That doesn't mean a company like MOTU, which is very nearly Mac-only, can readily change themselves from a 99% Mac software developer, to a primarily Windows developer, at least not soon.
Lastly, one reason I don't see the Linux solution working in digital audio, is the same reason BeOS didn't work in digital audio. Digital audio isn't just about software -- it's about software and hardware interfacing. Even if Logic 5.x for OSX came out tomorrow, it would be useless to me because I can't get my audio into or out of my Powermac under OSX. Not everybody wants to use the same interface, as we have already established, so smooth, stable and reliable hardware support is key. This is a big reason why people buy Digital Performer, for example -- they presume it will "work better" with MOTU's interfaces. Getting drivers for semi-obscure audio hardware under Linux, and getting the hardware & drivers to work reliably for most users, just doesn't seem to be happening. It's just how it went on BeOS -- people said "If developers ever worked this, it would be fantastic for audio!" But without drivers for hardware interfaces, software developers didn't see the point, and without any software available, why should MOTU/Midiman/Digidesign write BeOS (or Linux) drivers for their interfaces?
I feel that if the audio/midi market is presented with an alternative that is as strong, effective, and reasonably-priced as FCP, it will have a strong influence on the market. People doing this kind of work, just want it to work! If you're in a recording studio full of a million bucks worth of gear, with expensive talent waiting to record/mix, you can't be screwing around with a hack-job Linux solution. Even if you're someone like me, working on a smaller scale, your time is valuable and in short supply, and you want something stable, reliable, tried & tested.
By the way, I've already talked to two different Windows users today (a musician who records himself, and a freelance tracking/mixing engineer) who have both basically said that when they FIRST heard the news, they were really pissed at Apple and swore they'd never be strong-armed into switching to Mac... but after they thought about it, they started to consider that maybe it could be an exciting time for them, and a reason to change.
And anyways, if apple makes the best damn hardware and software why worry about other companies not supporting Mac ? if I am going to shop for my PRO Audio equipment, I'll probably be more tempted towards a oe company solution, just to make sure that there won't be some nasty hardware conflict.
Yeah there's always risk, but that's what you do when you want to double your market share. Yeah you'll risk losing some more users, but if apple doesn't do this maybe they are risking not gaining some more users.
And after seeing those great Xserve benchmarks, I must say that apple got the best damn hardware engineers on earth, how could they get so much performace without a SCSI HD ... Only God knows ...