or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple the favorite amongst European post production pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple the favorite amongst European post production pros

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
Apple Computer had one of the busier booths at last week's IBC content creation and management forum and is by far the favorite solution provider for the European post production market, according to one research and investment firm.

After attending the Amsterdam-based conference and speaking to 35 post production professionals, PiperJaffray analyst Gene Munster said 83 percent of those pros are expecting to spend the same amount or more on post production tools in 2007 as they did in 2006.

Those pros who expect to spend more in 2007 have budgets that place Apple spending at the top, according to the analyst. The combined budget breakdown from his survey is as follows: Apple (42 percent), Autodesk M&E (33 percent), Avid (21 percent), and other (17 percent).

While Final Cut -- Apple's primary post production video editing software -- is not seen by Munster as a critical part of the Apple Story, he said he does think it is a way for Apple to continue to expand its footprint and entice potential customers into buying a high-end Mac Pro desktop system.

"Of the 60 percent of post pros who use Apple's Final Cut, only 11 percent indicated that they had switched from Avid to Apple," he wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday. "Most (89 percent) Final Cut users started on the product or switched from a non-Avid product to Final Cut."

By his estimates, sales of Final Cut currently account for less than 3 percent of Apple's revenue. (With the company on its way to a $20 billion year, 3 percent would represent roughly $600 million in sales.)

Overall, Munster said spending trends amongst European pros is up from last year's survey when only 53 percent said they were expecting spending to rise or remain flat in 2006. "We believe this is likely the result of demand for HD content intensifying in Europe," he wrote.

The analyst said nearly 70 percent of the pros he spoke with are currently employed in some form of HD editing. Those working with HD said an average of 28 percent of their total projects used the high-definition format.

"At last year's IBC tradeshow, post pros indicated that 22 percent of their work was in HD," Munster wrote. "This is similar to what we heard from U.S. based post pros when we spoke with 20 at the NAB tradeshow in April. Specifically, at NAB, post pros said that 25 percent to 35 percent of their work was being done in HD."

Munster maintains an "Outperform" rating on shares of Apple with a price target of $99.
post #2 of 66
What does that have to do with this article?
post #3 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias789

What does that have to do with this article?

You need to have at least 50 posts before you're allowed to question me, so shut your pie-hole!
post #4 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco

You need to have at least 50 posts before you're allowed to question me, so shut your pie-hole!

Wilco, settle down. He's right -- your post was not very constructive.

-K
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
post #5 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco

You need to have at least 50 posts before you're allowed to question me, so shut your pie-hole!

Whatever, dont get all high and mighty on me. The point is, your post is just as irrelevant as my post count.
post #6 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasper

Wilco, settle down. He's right -- your post was not very constructive.

-K

Since when has "constructive" been a prerequisite for an AI post?

You're choosing now to start moderating on this basis?
post #7 of 66
Forget constructive, how about just being on topic?
post #8 of 66
How about you let the moderators do their job, and you just shut your pie-hole?
post #9 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco

How about you let the moderators do their job, and you just shut your pie-hole?

Clearly you missed Kasper's post, or the fact that he's an administrator.

You need to know when to just shut up. You made a childish, pointless, stupid, irrelevant post, someone criticized you for it, and this is the tenth post in the thread now about this junk. That's just ridiculous. How about we actually discuss the article. Gosh forbid.
post #10 of 66
Quote:
You're choosing now to start moderating on this basis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco

How about you let the moderators do their job, and you just shut your pie-hole?


Contradicting yourself a bit wouldn't you say
post #11 of 66
Clearly I was aware that Kaspar is a moderator, which is why I made the comment "You're choosing now to start moderating on this basis?"

Now, both of you shut your collective pie-holes!
post #12 of 66


I should have used a smilie earlier. I don't care how many posts someone has. I was just making a point that stupid/non-constructive/off-topic posts seem to be the norm around here recently. But the mods are arbitrary in when they choose to do something about it.
post #13 of 66
I'm relatively new here, and I'm a little taken aback by the whole pie-hole discussion! Can we at least agree it's apple pie?

More on topic, I attended IBC, and Apple's booth was definitely one of the busiest. On the software side it was only equaled by Autodesk.

Apple's overall presence wasn't as big or well thought out as it was at NAB, but still, pretty good.
post #14 of 66
I've always been concerned that Apple's moves in to pro software could be reducing the profits of the software-houses we want to be developing software for the platform. I always felt that Apple should develop iApps to encourage users to the platform and enable the average user to do these things whilst avoiding competition with the big name software.

Avid/Adobe/M$ will still exist whether the Mac platform does or not. The Mac Platform may not if Avid/Adobe/M$ cease to write Pro apps for Mac.
post #15 of 66
Now that wilco has deliberately poisoned this thread in order to make a point and do a poor job of it, I suppose there's no point in discussing the article.
post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes

I've always been concerned that Apple's moves in to pro software could be reducing the profits of the software-houses we want to be developing software for the platform. I always felt that Apple should develop iApps to encourage users to the platform and enable the average user to do these things whilst avoiding competition with the big name software.

Avid/Adobe/M$ will still exist whether the Mac platform does or not. The Mac Platform may not if Avid/Adobe/M$ cease to write Pro apps for Mac.

I had the same concerns years ago, but the market has to be big enough to carry more than 2 players in any one segment. Yes, it would be better if Adobe and Avid competed more in the Mac, but I don't think it is any better for Apple to not have FCP and just had Premier.

Apple just needs to do a better job of informing its developers where it is going OS wise and be honest enough to allow Adobe and Avid to compete on a level playing field. If they can't then too bad, FCP is good and it is pushing the others to do better.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #17 of 66
It would be nice if all those posts could be erased and we start anew.

Quote:
I've always been concerned that Apple's moves in to pro software could be reducing the profits of the software-houses we want to be developing software for the platform.

Actually Apple's pro software does not really compete directly with its developer software when it is first released. Developers later release software that competes with Apple's pro software.

When FCP was first released there was really nothing exactly like it. Avid originally sold expensive high end systems that required expensive proprietary hardware. After the success of FCP Avid began to offer cheaper software only solutions. Premiere at the time wasn't very good. FCP version 1 was much better than Premiere from the beginning. So much so that Adobe just quit with Premiere's Mac development.

When Apple released Aperture their really was nothing like it available. Adobe of course soon afterward released similar software.
post #18 of 66
Also, one would hope that Apple moving to Intel processors might entice Adobe to re-enter the Mac market or at least make the bar easier to cross for all competitors.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

It would be nice if all those posts could be erased and we start anew.

Actually Apple's pro software does not really compete directly with its developer software when it is first released. Developers later release software that competes with Apple's pro software.

When FCP was first released there was really nothing exactly like it. Avid originally sold expensive high end systems that required expensive proprietary hardware. After the success of FCP Avid began to offer cheaper software only solutions. Premiere at the time wasn't very good. FCP version 1 was much better than Premiere from the beginning. So much so that Adobe just quit with Premiere's Mac development.

When Apple released Aperture their really was nothing like it available. Adobe of course soon afterward released similar software.

So you agree that FCP killed Premiere which is an example of my concern. Now of course I don't want to say to Apple: don't write good quality software.
post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes

So you agree that FCP killed Premiere

No. What "killed" Premiere was Adobe's unwillingness to compete. They cite decreasing market share, but guess why that is? Because FCP was simply infinitely better. And why was FCP better? Did Apple have a higher budget? No. Did Apple do miracles? No. It was better because Apple was willing to put more effort into creating a good project, rather than rolling out yet another version of the same thing year after year. Eventually, Photoshop, which architecturally is stuck deep down in the last decade, will hopefully suffer the same fate.
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes

So you agree that FCP killed Premiere which is an example of my concern. Now of course I don't want to say to Apple: don't write good quality software.

No, he didn't at all.

Premiere is indescribably awful. Really. And as bad as it is today on Windows, crashing literally every 10 minutes, it was even worse 5-6 years ago when FCP first came out.
post #22 of 66
Really, we're talking about Adobe here. Avid is Avid, it's gonna do what their gonna do, but Adobe is the 300 lb. gorilla.

As far as that goes, FCP is really in a class by itself with regards to Apple competing directly with Adobe.

When released, FCP was far more capable than Premier and much cheaper than Avid (both hardware and software). And Apple took full advantage of the rise of DV formats and their own Firewire interface to create a work flow that was different from anything that had come before. FCP was the right software at the right time.

It didn't so much compete as create a new and different product segment. The fact that Apple has relentlessly improved and extended FCP's functionality has just cemented the deal. If they are competing with Adobe (or Avid) in the video editing space now, it is because the market has come to them, not because they are 'encroaching" on anybody's turf.

Things like Aperture and Motion are a different kettle of fish. Their focus and functionality are different from their Adobe's offerings. Sure Adobe might grumble about it, but Aperture is by no stretch of the imagination a competitor with PhotoShop, nor Motion with After Effects. They serve different markets.

I don't think Apple can let Adobe just unilaterally declare that image processing is rightfully "theirs", because that would preclude coming up with whole new ways to think about how to get things done (like Motion), plus remove any incentive for Adobe to improve their stuff.

Personally I prefer tools like Motion, FCP and Aperture to keeping Adobe happy, although I would hope that's not an either/or proposition.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor

Also, one would hope that Apple moving to Intel processors might entice Adobe to re-enter the Mac market or at least make the bar easier to cross for all competitors.

Adobe has already stated that they are thinking about releasing the Premier Production package for Macs.
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes

So you agree that FCP killed Premiere which is an example of my concern. Now of course I don't want to say to Apple: don't write good quality software.

At the time that Adobe discontinued Premier for the Mac, it was not a pro program by any means. I had abandoned it over two years before. It was never intended to BE a pro program.

When they released ver. 7 for the PC, the turned it into a pro program. If that version had been out on the Mac, it would have sold much better. As it is, Premier's selling price was too close to FCP's to compete sucessfully. The new version is pretty good, and has been well reviewed, and received.
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

No. What "killed" Premiere was Adobe's unwillingness to compete. They cite decreasing market share, but guess why that is? Because FCP was simply infinitely better. And why was FCP better? Did Apple have a higher budget? No. Did Apple do miracles? No. It was better because Apple was willing to put more effort into creating a good project, rather than rolling out yet another version of the same thing year after year. Eventually, Photoshop, which architecturally is stuck deep down in the last decade, will hopefully suffer the same fate.

I disagree about PS.
post #26 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco

Since when has "constructive" been a prerequisite for an AI post?

You're choosing now to start moderating on this basis?

read the posting guideline, section 8 : spamming.
post #27 of 66
I can't believe anyone on either platform still uses Premier.
post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I disagree about PS.

ditto

With the aquisition of macromedia, PS is about to get a huge feature boost.

Personally, I think it's going to kick ass--maybe we'll be able to save as .swf

Direct from illustrator to a web vector graphic! WATAHH
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead

ditto

With the aquisition of macromedia, PS is about to get a huge feature boost.

Oh yeah? Last I checked, Macromedia's X-RES was a failure.
post #30 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Oh yeah? Last I checked, Macromedia's X-RES was a failure.

A program can "fail" But some of its features can succeed.
post #31 of 66
Quote:
So you agree that FCP killed Premiere which is an example of my concern. Now of course I don't want to say to Apple: don't write good quality software.

In two ways Adobe forced Final Cut Pro to become what it is today.

Premiere and Final Cut Pro were both made by the same team of software programmers. FCP was originally made for Macromedia and later bought by Apple.

Apple wanted to work with Adobe to develop a consumer software DV editing app. Essentially iMovie. Adobe turned Apple down, which sent Apple on the hunt to buy its own editing software and bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia.

From what I understand the lead developer of Premiere always wanted Premiere to be what FCP became. But Adobe would not allow him to do it. So he willing went to Macromedia and was later hired by Apple to polish FCP for its initial launch.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

In two ways Adobe forced Final cut Pro to become what it is today.

Premiere and Final Cut Pro were both made by the same team of software programmers. FCP was originally made for Macromedia and later bought by Apple.

Apple wanted to work with Adobe to develop a consumer software DV editing app. Essentially iMovie. Adobe turned Apple down, which sent Apple on the hunt to buy its own editing software and bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia.

From what I understand the lead developer of Premiere always wanted Premiere to be what FCP became. But Adobe would not allow him to do it. So he willing went to Macromedia and was later hired by Apple to polish FCP for its initial launch.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.
post #33 of 66
I'm trying to find links to the stories but they are pretty old.

I think it was two years ago when Steve Jobs told the story about Apple asking Adobe to collaborate and develop iMovie. But Adobe turned them down. Soon afterward Apple bought FCP. In retrospect Steve said it was the much better choice.

I read a story about four years ago that talked about the head developer of Premiere and FCP. How he wanted Premiere to be FCP but was not able to do everything he wanted to do under Adobe. So he left and worked with Macromedia. Macromedia wanted to concentrate more on web apps so they sold FCP.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

I'm trying to find links to the stories but they are pretty old.

I think it was two years ago when Steve Jobs told the story about Apple asking Adobe to collaborate and develop iMovie. But Adobe turned them down. Soon afterward Apple bought FCP. In retrospect Steve said it was the much better choice.

I read a story about four years ago that talked about the head developer of Premiere and FCP. How he wanted Premiere to be FCP but was not able to do everything he wanted to do under Adobe. So he left and worked with Macromedia. Macromedia wanted to concentrate more on web apps so they sold FCP.

I did know about FCP being bought from Macromedia, though I don't remember what the name of the program was then. But the rest Is new to me.
post #35 of 66
That cross-pollintation history is interesting stuff. It paints a picture of Adobe hitting a wall on innovation and having to buy it in the form of Macromedia. Too bad. At least a strong Adobe can keep MS out of that arena for a while, and I hope the market is still fluid enough to keep Adobe, Apple and Avid in business. We don't need any more loss of market diversity.

I continue to hope that parallel to the global move to HD, that small format video will still continue to evolve (animation and home movie stuff) so that Flash and whatever animation that CoreAnimation enables, will improve its presence on the internet (yes, beyond YouTube) and make content for the iPod even more intriguing.

I remember speculating about this a few years ago and wishing that Apple would set up a website and software environment for that kind of innovation that YouTube would later use, except that it would also have more creative tools. They did so with GarageBand and the community that has evolved around it. iMovie gives people some tools, but it also needs something like "Flash for the rest of us" or iAnime.

Wish I was a programmer, there are some markets here to explore!
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor

That cross-pollintation history is interesting stuff. It paints a picture of Adobe hitting a wall on innovation and having to buy it in the form of Macromedia. Too bad. At least a strong Adobe can keep MS out of that arena for a while, and I hope the market is still fluid enough to keep Adobe, Apple and Avid in business. We don't need any more loss of market diversity.

I continue to hope that parallel to the global move to HD, that small format video will still continue to evolve (animation and home movie stuff) so that Flash and whatever animation that CoreAnimation enables, will improve its presence on the internet (yes, beyond YouTube) and make content for the iPod even more intriguing.

I remember speculating about this a few years ago and wishing that Apple would set up a website and software environment for that kind of innovation that YouTube would later use, except that it would also have more creative tools. They did so with GarageBand and the community that has evolved around it. iMovie gives people some tools, but it also needs something like "Flash for the rest of us" or iAnime.

Wish I was a programmer, there are some markets here to explore!

I don't see why that's true.

Apple bought the predecessors to:

DVD Studio
Final Cut Pro
iTunes
Shake
Logic Pro

Plus a couple of others I don't remember right now, and, oh yes,

OS X.

Apple doesn't innovate either, right?
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I don't see why that's true.

Apple bought the predecessors to:

DVD Studio
Final Cut Pro
iTunes
Shake
Logic Pro

Plus a couple of others I don't remember right now, and, oh yes,

OS X.

Apple doesn't innovate either, right?

Yes, but did you actually SoundJam MP? iTunes shares some code, but the interface is thousands of times better.

The same goes for DVD Studio Pro, some of which can be read in http://writersblocklive.com/ . The product Apple bought was pretty terrible.

I'm assuming that Final Cut Pro went through the same process.

Logic and Shake are still dogs of course, but Shake's huge and what was eMagic apparently isn't particularly cooperative.

We'll have to wait and see where Adobe goes in the future (hopefully in the direction of Lightroom), but yeah, until then, it seems Adobe's pretty incapable of meeting basic needs that people have been asking for for years (like making 16-bit editing actually work, getting some more filters live like they are in After Effects, etc...), let alone making a decent interface.
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Yes, but did you actually SoundJam MP? iTunes shares some code, but the interface is thousands of times better.

The same goes for DVD Studio Pro, some of which can be read in http://writersblocklive.com/ . The product Apple bought was pretty terrible.

I'm assuming that Final Cut Pro went through the same process.

Logic and Shake are still dogs of course, but Shake's huge and what was eMagic apparently isn't particularly cooperative.

We'll have to wait and see where Adobe goes in the future (hopefully in the direction of Lightroom), but yeah, until then, it seems Adobe's pretty incapable of meeting basic needs that people have been asking for for years (like making 16-bit editing actually work, getting some more filters live like they are in After Effects, etc...), let alone making a decent interface.

Given all that, is there some reason that buying the foundation of a program and then having to do a lot of improving and changing is better/easier than writing things from the ground up in house?

In other words, is there a huge hump to get over just getting something off the ground, so much so that doing a lot of "fixing" is preferable to starting with your own ideas in the first place?

Is it that the above list represents areas that Apple lacked core expertise, when they first acquired the third party software, and that the programming team came with it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Given all that, is there some reason that buying the foundation of a program and then having to do a lot of improving and changing is better/easier than writing things from the ground up in house?

In other words, is there a huge hump to get over just getting something off the ground, so much so that doing a lot of "fixing" is preferable to starting with your own ideas in the first place?

Is it that the above list represents areas that Apple lacked core expertise, when they first acquired the third party software, and that the programming team came with it?

Buying someone out is easy for a number of reasons.

First off, as you pointed out, most of the people in one are pretty experienced and focused on that particular task. Startups (at least these days) don't have cash to waste, and hire only the best. Apple would have a really hard time just finding people with extensive DVD or audio experience.

Also, in cases like Logic and Shake, they're buying a whole customer base. If Apple just came out with a new compositing tool, no one would buy it. But no Shake user is going to migrate away, probably not even now that Apple is rewriting the code (supposedly).

Finally, to answer your question, I was actually a little unclear: I meant terrible in regards to the interface. Fixing the interface is pretty quick once the functionality is all down. In all of the cases, the code itself was good.
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Yes, but did you actually SoundJam MP? iTunes shares some code, but the interface is thousands of times better.

The same goes for DVD Studio Pro, some of which can be read in http://writersblocklive.com/ . The product Apple bought was pretty terrible.

I'm assuming that Final Cut Pro went through the same process.

Logic and Shake are still dogs of course, but Shake's huge and what was eMagic apparently isn't particularly cooperative.

We'll have to wait and see where Adobe goes in the future (hopefully in the direction of Lightroom), but yeah, until then, it seems Adobe's pretty incapable of meeting basic needs that people have been asking for for years (like making 16-bit editing actually work, getting some more filters live like they are in After Effects, etc...), let alone making a decent interface.

Of course they underwent many changes. This will always happen.

I used the programs when Astarte first brought them over. for the time, they were considered to be fantastic. And were much cheaper than anything else out there.

I don't agree that Shake and Logic are dogs at all. You're just saying that becasue they haven't been changed much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple the favorite amongst European post production pros