or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Avid investors prepped for Apple surprises at NAB
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Avid investors prepped for Apple surprises at NAB - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Apple's gotta be working on it now as I write this. Just a hunch.

I can't say they aren't.

But, PS is an entire ecosystem. Much more than Office, which has numerous programs that depend upon it, PS is plugged into a lot of heavy duty production equipment, that works in conjunction with Illustrator, InDesign or Quark, production system programs, plus innumerable plug-ins for these systems. As Adobe upgrades PS more often than Office, and no heavy duty user of the program is talking about "feature glut", Apple would have a hell of a time just trying to match the features of a version two numbers ago. The new features are like an entire program on their own. In fact, several of them were!

Apple would have to develop an entire suite to compete.

Then, Apple would have to make it work in Windows, and possibly Linux as well, to be able to have a universal solution. Would they do that? I doubt it very much. That would have Apple endorse Windows for the very area in which Apple's OS and hardware compete very well.

In addition, Apple would have to make it a "drop-in" replacement for Adobe's products, otherwise no one would be interested.

While it's not impossible, it's close to it.
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium View Post

that one is going to be really really really hard to replace. unless adobe massively drops the ball somewhere down the line, nobody will have a good reason to move. quark and avid are/have both suffered from hubris. adobe seems to be pretty good at keeping the fire lit.


I know and here's how it's going to happen. As we all know now, Adobe is going to deliver two different versions of Photoshop CS3. One aimed at the traditonal market and the other aimed at 3D and Video applications.

I believe that Apple is going to take the work they've done so far on Aperture and begin to move in the direction of a more full featured image editor. They will likely market such a product as a tool for editing Video just as Adobe has.

The reason why I think Apple will do this is

1. Because they can
2. To keep Adobe honest
3. To take advantage of Apple centric innovation.

The big thing for Apple right now in image editing is "Don't save the file...save the recipe"

Now imagine this

Apple starts with the same core as Aperture but begins to develop a robust plugin system. The core of the application is highly threaded and the application breaks down the processes and processes as much as it can with the GPU. Hopefully there would be a way to turn say %70 of what you need in filters, layers and effects into routines that are just applied when you need to view. The display would be Rez Independant and it would be easy to script the application. The memory needed for large photos would not exist.

I would see nothing wrong with Apple wanting to claim %10 of the image editing market. Adobe will do just fine with %90 and Mac users get a image editing app that is, ground up based on Mac API.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I know and here's how it's going to happen. As we all know now, Adobe is going to deliver two different versions of Photoshop CS3. One aimed at the traditonal market and the other aimed at 3D and Video applications.

I believe that Apple is going to take the work they've done so far on Aperture and begin to move in the direction of a more full featured image editor. They will likely market such a product as a tool for editing Video just as Adobe has.

The reason why I think Apple will do this is

1. Because they can
2. To keep Adobe honest
3. To take advantage of Apple centric innovation.

The big thing for Apple right now in image editing is "Don't save the file...save the recipe"

Now imagine this

Apple starts with the same core as Aperture but begins to develop a robust plugin system. The core of the application is highly threaded and the application breaks down the processes and processes as much as it can with the GPU. Hopefully there would be a way to turn say %70 of what you need in filters, layers and effects into routines that are just applied when you need to view. The display would be Rez Independant and it would be easy to script the application. The memory needed for large photos would not exist.

I would see nothing wrong with Apple wanting to claim %10 of the image editing market. Adobe will do just fine with %90 and Mac users get a image editing app that is, ground up based on Mac API.

Nice
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can't say they aren't.

But, PS is an entire ecosystem. Much more than Office, which has numerous programs that depend upon it, PS is plugged into a lot of heavy duty production equipment, that works in conjunction with Illustrator, InDesign or Quark, production system programs, plus innumerable plug-ins for these systems. As Adobe upgrades PS more often than Office, and no heavy duty user of the program is talking about "feature glut", Apple would have a hell of a time just trying to match the features of a version two numbers ago. The new features are like an entire program on their own. In fact, several of them were!

Apple would have to develop an entire suite to compete.

Then, Apple would have to make it work in Windows, and possibly Linux as well, to be able to have a universal solution. Would they do that? I doubt it very much. That would have Apple endorse Windows for the very area in which Apple's OS and hardware compete very well.

In addition, Apple would have to make it a "drop-in" replacement for Adobe's products, otherwise no one would be interested.

While it's not impossible, it's close to it.

While I see everything you are saying here makes sense there is another issue. The MacPro and high end systems have basically been held hostage by Adobe. I am not saying this was deliberate but never the less, Apple's high end sales are locked to Adobe. This is not good for Apple.

Going back to the Mac Plus and LaserWriter there has been a linkage that has connected these two companies inextricably. The snag for Apple is it has always been a one way street as Adobe spread its sales from Mac only to Winblows it has repeatedly done harm to Apple with delays or favoring the dark side and here we are still waiting for CS3. Personally I wish Apple could buy Adobe - now that would be fun

(I have not looked into relative financial states of the two so don't flame me)
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

While I see everything you are saying here makes sense there is another issue. The MacPro and high end systems have basically been held hostage by Adobe. I am not saying this was deliberate but never the less, Apple's high end sales are locked to Adobe. This is not good for Apple.

Going back to the Mac Plus and LaserWriter there has been a linkage that has connected these two companies inextricably. The snag for Apple is it has always been a one way street as Adobe spread its sales from Mac only to Winblows it has repeatedly done harm to Apple with delays or favoring the dark side and here we are still waiting for CS3. Personally I wish Apple could buy Adobe - now that would be fun

(I have not looked into relative financial states of the two so don't flame me)

It's true that if it weren't for Adobe, Hp, MS, and Aldus, Apple might not be here today. But, Apple also screwed Adobe, when, with MS, they developed TrueType, to get around Adobe's Type 1 cash cow. Then, much later, MS and Adobe got together to develop OpenType. Why Apple wasn't involved is something I still don't know.

Apple's reliance on Adobe's products for a large part of their sales is Apple's fault, not Adobe's. Adobe has done the best they could supporting Apple over the years, with Apple's falling sales, and the danger they would go out of business, thus destroying Adobe in the process. That forced Adobe, and Apple's other big developers, to move to the Windows platform, thus destroying the unique position Apple had in those industries.

Apple has to worry about alienating Adobe as well. Remember the disappearance of Premier for several years after FCP came out.

If Apple did come out with a rival to PS, and enough Mac people bought it, Adobe's sales on the Mac could shrink. With most sales of the product on the Windows platform, Adobe might think that the economic thing to do would be to withdraw it from the Mac platform.

That would hurt Apple far more than Adobe, because professionals, and companies that rely on the software would just change platforms to use it.

Apple's program(s) would then be a minority niche product, and wouldn't attract much in the way of add-ons, which are required for this type of platform to survive.

Remember that FCP doesn't do well just because of its own virtues, but because of all of the programs that are there to take advantage of it.

Buying Adobe has been a popular topic of discussion here, but it won't happen. Most of Adobe's products are Windows related, though a large number are also on the Mac.

Most of Adobe's sales come from the Windows side. Apple would thus have to develop Windows products at a good rate. I don't see that happening.

Also, Adobe is a big bite for Apple. It could cost all of Apple's cash to buy it, plus!

Apple should have bought Macromedia when they first announced they were on the block. They could have spent the $4 billion it would have taken.

But Apple has had the chance to buy many programs that would fit perfectly within its content producing purview, cheaply, and they haven't done so. I really don't understand that. If they had, their software portfolio would by far stronger than it is now.

Apple really does have to buy more companies, and products, that would fill out their line, which has many holes.
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

It's true that if it weren't for Adobe, Hp, MS, and Aldus, Apple might not be here today. But, Apple also screwed Adobe, when, with MS, they developed TrueType, to get around Adobe's Type 1 cash cow. Then, much later, MS and Adobe got together to develop OpenType. Why Apple wasn't involved is something I still don't know.

This was in response to Adobe jacking up Postscript licensing fees. Apple was content to feed Adobe the licensing fees and happily co-exist but when Adobe got greedy Appel was like "The hell with you guys we can create True Type and Quickdraw GX" and that's what they did. Apple killed off Quickdraw GX and Adobe is fairly lucky because it was cleaner in structure than Postscript and had some nice features. It could have grown into something nice.

I think Adobe needs competition in a few areas. I'm not afraid that they will get pissed and leave. Look what happned in Digital Video. Adobe leaves the platform...Apple rakes in the cash with Final Cut Pro and friend and looky here. Adobe's coming back. Avid came back. It is Apple's job to create a viable ecosystem for Macs. If they do well...Adobe does well. Imagine that.

At this point in time I don't know of ANY competing product that will be able to match Adobes CS Suite. Back in the day you had Macromedia Xres, TIFFany and Live Picture as Photoshop competitiors. Today you have GIMP

Apple IMO only needs to work on a solid Image Editor ala Photoshop. They need to target %10 of the image vertical market. This keeps the pressure on Adobe and allows Apple to further OS X API in support of ALL image programs. Adobe will never be able to create the perfect Mac application IMO. They have to have a fairly neutral codebase.

Apple's program needs to have a certain new look towards image editing. It should support Core technolgies in OS X. Toss in support for HDRI and wavelet compression. Launch a new painting technology (or buy Painter code). I wish I could articulate what needs to happen so much better. I'm not a graphics pro but I realize one thing.

If you attempt to learn a second language the ceiling to your potential is the point in which you yourself cannot tell where you are saying a word slightly different.

In turn...if Photoshop "feels" like the perfect application to you then you have locked yourself away from the possibility of finding out new ways to edit/create images. That's what is scary to me about monopolies.

Final Cut Pro teaches us slightly different ways to edit and produce video content. I'm glad that for this as Avid's way is Avid's way but there are other ways that may be more suitable.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Careful with the "Poo", you may get sued by Disney.

LOL. Since Steve's on the Disney board now, I can just tell him that it's an extension of his "no DRM" stance. 8)

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoec123 View Post

And the people working in the studios don't want to switch, either. When all of your experience and training is on one system, you're not going to push to make a switch, thus making all of your knowledge and experience irrelevant.

Yes, but switching from Avid to FCP doesn't necessairly make 'all of your knowledge and experience irrelevant'.

Many folks in the vid editing field cut their teeth on something like Premiere or FCP, THEN learned Avid later (often due to cost/access issues). Switching would not put them completely back at square one. \

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

Although I prefer FCP, that's simply not true.


I didn't not soley write that AVID has nothing on FCP... From my point of view, I believe that FCP enables an Editor to cut much more organicly than Avid. Yes, Avid has many great qualities; however, when cutting, it feels a little wonky. When cutting on FCP, I can get into the moment, using my hands as if I was cutting cellulose. Cutting on an Avid feels like programming.
post #50 of 54
I worked at Avid when they tried to dump Macs as the platform they run their systems on. The user base howled like stuck pigs. Intel and MS dumped a bunch of money into Avid to have us develop a real video alternative on Wintel. We ended up with Compaq crap towers running NT 4. Dog meat.The Windows based systems were also closed, not having an Extension Manager meant you couldn't switch the machine over to a Photoshop machine or any other production software. Thus, you could only run MediaComposer or FilmComposer and you were not allowed to install anything else on the Windows machine. This was meant to capture "corporate" clients that would "never" invest in a Mac because they wouldn't be able to integrate it into their company if its usefulness as a video system ran out. Avid was run by idiots, probably still is. The best thing they have going for them is Protools and they are taking a beating there too.

Go Apple, kick them again. Drive Avid right out of business, who needs their over-priced crap anyhow? Anyone want a 9 gig SCSI Avid drive?
post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

This was in response to Adobe jacking up Postscript licensing fees. Apple was content to feed Adobe the licensing fees and happily co-exist but when Adobe got greedy Appel was like "The hell with you guys we can create True Type and Quickdraw GX" and that's what they did. Apple killed off Quickdraw GX and Adobe is fairly lucky because it was cleaner in structure than Postscript and had some nice features. It could have grown into something nice.

The fees were not cheap, but for the professional environment they were intended for, they weren't bad. At any rate, they didn't effect either Apple or MS, they simply wanted to break Adobe's lock.

Quickdraw wasn't a competitor to Postscript, it was a competitor to Open GL. It was much superior to Open GL, but at the time, Apple was rapidly going downhill, and so it received little support anywhere.

Quote:
I think Adobe needs competition in a few areas. I'm not afraid that they will get pissed and leave. Look what happned in Digital Video. Adobe leaves the platform...Apple rakes in the cash with Final Cut Pro and friend and looky here. Adobe's coming back. Avid came back. It is Apple's job to create a viable ecosystem for Macs. If they do well...Adobe does well. Imagine that.

That's partly correct. Adobe came back with Premiere because it now has a product to compete, which it didn't have before, as Premiere was intended for amateurs, and just slid into the pro market by accident.

You are correct to a certain extent about a strong Apple market, but even there, Adobe can be ambivalent. As long as MS doesn't come out with its suite that it's been showing around for almost two years now, Adobe doesn't really need Apple.

If Apple disappeared tomorrow, all of Adobe's customers would go wherever the program is selling. Adobe could move to Linux as well, and take many of its former Apple customers with it, as well as a number of its Windows customers. The ones who wouldn't leave would be those who NEED Office, and some other Windows compatible programs.

Adobe would like Apple to remain around to protect themselves from that possible threat from MS, but that's about all. It would be cheaper for them to not have to develop for OS X as well.

Quote:
At this point in time I don't know of ANY competing product that will be able to match Adobes CS Suite. Back in the day you had Macromedia Xres, TIFFany and Live Picture as Photoshop competitiors. Today you have GIMP

Yes. that's my opinion as well.

Quote:
Apple IMO only needs to work on a solid Image Editor ala Photoshop. They need to target %10 of the image vertical market. This keeps the pressure on Adobe and allows Apple to further OS X API in support of ALL image programs. Adobe will never be able to create the perfect Mac application IMO. They have to have a fairly neutral codebase.

Apple's program needs to have a certain new look towards image editing. It should support Core technolgies in OS X. Toss in support for HDRI and wavelet compression. Launch a new painting technology (or buy Painter code). I wish I could articulate what needs to happen so much better. I'm not a graphics pro but I realize one thing.

Again, you seem to think that it will just take one good program. It's far more than that. PS is no longer just one good program. Any support for its own tech that Apple utilizes can be utilized by Adobe as well, if they find that it has a real advantage.

I agree about Painter. It is one of the various programs that Apple had the opportunity to buy over the years as it was sold, and then again, resold. It's also one of the reasons why I don't think Apple is interested. If Apple had bought all of the programs it could have, it would have had a competitor years ago, when there would have been a better chance. With Adobe now controlling Flash, it will make it even harder. Another thing Apple could have done. With Macromedia, Apple would have been in a much stronger position in graphics, program creation, and in web graphics standards with the ownership of Flash, the most used web graphics standard of all. But, again, Apple chose not to compete.

Quote:
If you attempt to learn a second language the ceiling to your potential is the point in which you yourself cannot tell where you are saying a word slightly different.

In turn...if Photoshop "feels" like the perfect application to you then you have locked yourself away from the possibility of finding out new ways to edit/create images. That's what is scary to me about monopolies.

Final Cut Pro teaches us slightly different ways to edit and produce video content. I'm glad that for this as Avid's way is Avid's way but there are other ways that may be more suitable.

I get what you are saying, I just don't think it's enough. If FCP wasn't such a good program out of the box, when it first came out, it wouldn't have mattered. Now it's a suite.

Having used PS from the beginning, as well as a slew of others, I can say that it isn't the perfect program, but it is by far, the best program (for its purpose).

And despite the meanderings of some detractors we pull in here from time to time, no pro I have known over the years would trade it in for anything else. And the new, useful, and sometimes revolutionary, features, just keep on coming.

The program now is much easier to use for beginners, who will get good results without even trying, than much simpler versions were in the past. Adobe keeps looking at users at both ends of the user curve.
post #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dojunmarn View Post

I worked at Avid when they tried to dump Macs as the platform they run their systems on. The user base howled like stuck pigs. Intel and MS dumped a bunch of money into Avid to have us develop a real video alternative on Wintel. We ended up with Compaq crap towers running NT 4. Dog meat.The Windows based systems were also closed, not having an Extension Manager meant you couldn't switch the machine over to a Photoshop machine or any other production software. Thus, you could only run MediaComposer or FilmComposer and you were not allowed to install anything else on the Windows machine. This was meant to capture "corporate" clients that would "never" invest in a Mac because they wouldn't be able to integrate it into their company if its usefulness as a video system ran out. Avid was run by idiots, probably still is. The best thing they have going for them is Protools and they are taking a beating there too.

Go Apple, kick them again. Drive Avid right out of business, who needs their over-priced crap anyhow? Anyone want a 9 gig SCSI Avid drive?

I do remember those days very well! NT 4 was no competitor to Apple's systems in media back then, and the attempted forced move to it caused many problems. They finally came back to their Mac users with a solution they said would make us very happy—a program that would make it easy for everyone to move their projects to the NT based machines. Feh! That didn't work!

Avid almost went out of business because of that whole fiasco. The reorganized, fired almost their entire top leadership, and moved back into the Mac business.

But, they did learn from that experience.
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by alolkoy View Post

I have been using FCP since film school back in 2000, and recently had to learn AVID for a job. Not only was it a huge pain to even find a place that taught AVID, but it was VERY expensive. I have been using AVID systems for the last couple years, and I must say that from a creative cutting standpoint, AVID has nothing on FCP, and ultimatly, it's not about the program, but the Editor's ability to tell a story. FCP seems so much more organic than AVID, as well as its superior integration with other software. AVID users have this arrogance about their systems, but when are they going to learn that it's strictly business, not personal. Walter Murch has edited 3 films on FCP and is not turning back. The reality is that most of the new generation will be learing FCP, not AVID.

How about media management, AVID smokes FCP. How about motion effects, with FCP you must either do it in the source monitor or or move the video to the end of your timeline to avoid moving shots out of time. I have producers tell me all the time, that shot is great now just add a little slo-mo. AVID allows you to just drop a timewarp effect on and modify the speed with affecting the clips length. Video format setting do not save with the project. If you work in a DVCpro HD format project then need to go work in an uncompressed SD project, you have to reset all your settings. In the AVID this stuff saves with the project. Not to mention resetting scratch disks. Doing a title roll in FCP looks like POOP! I could go on and on about the advantages of AVID. But, if you only work in a DV environment, FCP works ok. Oh, I almost forgot, don't forget to change your audio levels on tone to -20 Db instead of consumer -14 Db. I am happy to spend more money on a functional piece of software than edit with one hand tied behind my back.
post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrenz View Post

How about media management, AVID smokes FCP. How about motion effects, with FCP you must either do it in the source monitor or or move the video to the end of your timeline to avoid moving shots out of time. I have producers tell me all the time, that shot is great now just add a little slo-mo. AVID allows you to just drop a timewarp effect on and modify the speed with affecting the clips length. Video format setting do not save with the project. If you work in a DVCpro HD format project then need to go work in an uncompressed SD project, you have to reset all your settings. In the AVID this stuff saves with the project. Not to mention resetting scratch disks. Doing a title roll in FCP looks like POOP! I could go on and on about the advantages of AVID. But, if you only work in a DV environment, FCP works ok. Oh, I almost forgot, don't forget to change your audio levels on tone to -20 Db instead of consumer -14 Db. I am happy to spend more money on a functional piece of software than edit with one hand tied behind my back.

Some of what you say is minor, and can be set , and often left that way for future use, or for that particular project.

Other things are more serious, and FCP can't duplicate those functions at this time.

But both companies are working to improve their products. You must choose the one that most suits your needs. I have known quite a few film editors that have, at least partly, moved from Avid to FCP Studio. This trend isn't insignificent, and Avid is well aware of it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Avid investors prepped for Apple surprises at NAB