It's not in Apple's DNA to do truly high end software...
Quote:
Originally Posted by beneditor
...If Apple has discontinued it (it's still listed in the UK store) I'm not suprised,..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I suppose they had to take Motion back to basics in order to build it the way they wanted but deleting Shake from memory isn't the way to make Motion better.
Fine! Then why did Apple buy Shake only to kill it, that is so Quark like.
Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me with this comment.
Unless you meant FCS4.
No - I meant CS4 - I guess I'll just have to live without your trammeled support.
There are many things in this world, and on this forum, I am not qualified to talk about - which is why I have never posted before. This, however, I can talk about, and not just my own experience of 15 years as a broadcast editor, but the experiences of the many professionals I work with.
I've seen FCP come in and change the industry, which I love - it was full of over-expensive and unreliable equipment and software. I've been using FCP and FCS since 2001. The broadcaster I work most with only adopted FCP last year, as they had so much invested in AVID.
In the mean time, FCS has had a dramatic effect on Adobe's products. The interface is better and cleaner, and the suite is now integrated in the way FCS is - in fact the hand-off between apps is often smoother in CS4. What Adobe have not had to do, however, is play catch up with FCS features, except in the case of Premiere Pro, which although much improved, will never have the support that FCP has industrywide - so it's a non-starter, however good a product. I suppose you might make the same argument for Soundtrack Pro/Soundbooth, but they're just peripheral products. Color is an extraordinary addition for the money - amazing with RED footage. I think both products have made each other better in many ways - I use both daily.
On the other hand, EVERYONE uses Photoshop and After Effects, and Illustrator in many cases. They're better featured and better functioning software than anything else out there - just compare the keying in AE to FCP or Motion - no contest. I look forward to playing with Motion 4 - I've always used Motion for quick quick gfx - but revert to AE when I need a good result because, well, it's just BETTER at everything - keying, compositing, blending, speed changes, etc. etc.
So why was Shake doomed, and what has the above got to do with it? Well, the pro compositing market has diverged: AE now allows people (along with some 3d software maybe) to achieve amazing things for TV budgets - incredible considering where we were 5 years ago. If you want to work in features, Nuke et al are blazing an increasingly narrow and expensive trail. There is simply no middle ground any more for the likes of Shake to fill. I think that's why there was never a follow-up, and Shake was allowed to slowly die - the ground was swept from under it, and it didn't sell, even at £500, because it was overkill for the AE crowd, and underkill for the Pros - and there ain't nobody left in the middle any more.
Motion is not even the equal, yet, of After Effects
Motion 3 yes, can't judge Motion 4 yet but in its defense, it is fast at rendering some things. After Effects doesn't use hardware acceleration at render-time. Plus Motion was always 32-bit float. AE only since version 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally007
AE has its own problems but at least figuring them out will hand you great powerful app. Motion will just leave you saying ... " is that it ? ".
Can't deny that though.
I get the impression that despite the differences in Shake and Motion and target markets that Motion was conceived from Shake - you can see this from the common parts that crop up in new versions of Motion. The original Shake devs left because they disagreed with the direction Apple wanted to take Shake and given what we're left with, you can see why.
I don't want to be hasty and assume that Motion will never be what Shake was though. GPU rendering is the way forward for image processing. It may be years before they reach Shake's level but that's what making money is about - keeping a development roadmap open.
This is Apple's focus, not excelling in any given field but falling short in a way that people buy it and then keep upgrading. I don't support that motive though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
to me what is more shocking than Apple cutting Shake, is that anyone seems surprised. they forewarned this 3 years ago.
Sure but we thought they'd give us a better replacement - a bit naive perhaps as Apple always give consumers what Apple wants and tells them to like it. As good as Shake was, it was far from perfect and needed fixing up. Their biggest addition was the MultiPlane node so I guess you could see where their focus was but still, they could have done so much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
Fine! Then why did Apple buy Shake only to kill it.
It seems to me they bought it for the same reason they bought Final Cut. They worked closely with people in the field (Pixar etc) and saw the apps that were popular. Popular apps make money and by locking them in to their hardware, make even more money - they discontinued the Windows version of Shake at 2.5.
As they developed the code and patched minor things here and there, they will have eventually moved into the GPU acceleration developments. After reviewing the code, they probably realized it was best to just start over and build it back from the ground up.
Right now, it's clear to see that Motion is not a better, faster Shake. It is more correctly described as a faster, worse AE but it has room to develop.
Motion 3 yes, can't judge Motion 4 yet but in its defense, it is fast at rendering some things. After Effects doesn't use hardware acceleration at render-time. Plus Motion was always 32-bit float. AE only since version 7.
See my comment above - quicker, yes, better, no. Also, that hardware acceleration can lead to frame glitches in renders, when the gfx card hiccups - one of the reasons I stopped using it for anything longer. As far as bit depths go, I think that's just another example of the two suites forcing advances on each other - better for us!
Maybe FCS will catch CS4 and stop me having to purchase both in the future. I think that's unlikely, as Apple seem disinterested in game-changing pro software. With Adobe back on the Mac, is that really so suprising - Apple make money on hardware, not software.
Until then, I will edit in FCP and composite in AE - not so bad really.
As the Operations/IT Manager and former editor at a Mac based post house I can say that no one here would ever use Motion for anything. All my editors and designers have FCS and AE at their disposal. We also have Nuke, Shake and several 3D apps. We also have an Inferno. Motion never enters the conversation - not ever. The skilled AE artists have all evaluated Motion (3) and found it lacking for their needs. The Final Cut people who are less skilled at AE still chose it over Motion. Maybe Motion 4 will be different, but I doubt it. The high end compositor people started with Shake and loved it, but now have gladly moved to Nuke which is a dramatic improvement. Shake is done.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
So why was Shake doomed, and what has the above got to do with it? Well, the pro compositing market has diverged: AE now allows people (along with some 3d software maybe) to achieve amazing things for TV budgets - incredible considering where we were 5 years ago. If you want to work in features, Nuke et al are blazing an increasingly narrow and expensive trail. There is simply no middle ground any more for the likes of Shake to fill. I think that's why there was never a follow-up, and Shake was allowed to slowly die - the ground was swept from under it, and it didn't sell, even at £500, because it was overkill for the AE crowd, and underkill for the Pros - and there ain't nobody left in the middle any more.
You still assume Shake is gone for good. I wouldn't make that mistake unless you have first-hand knowledge that it has been discontinued or sold to another company, instead of it being dovetailed into other products.
Apple employees maintain that Motion is superior to Shake. I find Shake's interface to be much more efficient and intuitive.
This sentence is comparable to many I have seen in the not too distant past.
Apple employees maintain that PPC is far superior to Inte/AMD and ther x64 spec
Apple employees maintain that the PPC G5 laptop is coming soon
Apple employees maintain that no one wants to watch video on an ipod
Apple employees maintain that lack of firewire on the unibody macbook isn't that big a deal, only uber pros need it
and of course,
Apple employees maintain that Apple is never gonna make a phone!
the fact that an Apple employee is saying this means that a Shake replacment is in the pipeline now:look for it to be the show stopper at the next A/V or Cinematography trade show.
As the Operations/IT Manager and former editor at a Mac based post house I can say that no one here would ever use Motion for anything. All my editors and designers have FCS and AE at their disposal. We also have Nuke, Shake and several 3D apps. We also have an Inferno. Motion never enters the conversation - not ever. The skilled AE artists have all evaluated Motion (3) and found it lacking for their needs. The Final Cut people who are less skilled at AE still chose it over Motion. Maybe Motion 4 will be different, but I doubt it. The high end compositor people started with Shake and loved it, but now have gladly moved to Nuke which is a dramatic improvement. Shake is done.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
You still assume Shake is gone for good. I wouldn't make that mistake unless you have first-hand knowledge that it has been discontinued or sold to another company, instead of it being dovetailed into other products.
Apple discontinued development on Shake a couple of years ago, when they dropped the price (which also coincided with them stopping pro support on the product) - this was public knowledge. As I said above, I've no proof it's been withdrawn from sale - in fact I said it's still on the UK Apple store.
However, being for sale, and being a current and relevent product are not the same thing. Apple keep Shake around because it costs them next to nothing to ship a few boxes - until people stop bothering buying it. Sooner or later, that will happen.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists.
Not sure what you mean, but a quick look at the Pixel Corps site I do not see them or Alex recommending Motion. In fact Pixel Corp members use AE among other things. I even found an Alex Lindsay review where he said Motion doesn't replace AE or anything else, but that it was great for throwing things together. People don't pay us $350 plus an hour to throw things together.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
Achieving fast and effective motion graphics in AE requires no more work time and precious little more render time these days. It contains many of the presets etc. that Motion does. AE has changed to embrace Motion's better ideas, and does them all better. Only a few hours of AE tutorials would seperate the average Motion user from creating better results. Fortunately, the layers based workflow makes the transition very easy.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
Yeah they have the cash but it's not a good deal. Apple only buys small companies that do one or a few things really well. Then they spruce up what they were doing, lower the price and sell a lot more copies in an attempt to transform an industry. Sometimes it works (FCP, iTunes) and sometimes it doesn't (Shake).
Adobe is huge and established. They have their own culture and their own problems. Apple wouldn't see a huge upside in profits from doing that kind of deal outside of firing duplicative staff (and you only one shot at that savings). I would imagine that a deal like that would get the attention of regulators. And Apple doesn't believe in Flash at all.
Bottom line? Apple doesn't do Oracle-like acquisitions.
Yeah they have the cash but it's not a good deal. Apple only buys small companies that do one or a few things really well. Then they spruce up what they were doing, lower the price and sell a lot more copies in an attempt to transform an industry. Sometimes it works (FCP, iTunes) and sometimes it doesn't (Shake).
Maybe shake didn't workout, I don't know if we will know for sure. We don't know what they're getting out of the purchase vs. what they wanted. Sometimes it seems Apple only wanted a company for technologies they have and not their products, and they appropriate the technology towards a different use. I think someone mentioned that Apple got PixelFlow from that purchase, as well as the image stabilization tech they have in FCS and iMovie.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
I thought he was orgasmic over node-based products. Last I heard, Shake was node-based, Motion was not. I'm not saying he doesn't also like Motion, I don't know.
I thought he was orgasmic over node-based products. Last I heard, Shake was node-based, Motion was not.
He uses the tools that are appropriate to the task. Maybe one day we'll convince him to comment directly on this subject, but there are plenty of MacBreak video podcasts with him and his guest presenter Mark Spencer showing simple, fast, billable-level work with Motion 3.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
Try finding a Motion freelancer. The fact that on a weekly basis a post house may be bringing in an extra hand for a particular project means that there needs to be a high degree of interoperability. What happens when a really big project lands in your lap and you need 3-5 animators?
I can't find a single case study of a major feature or commercial production that used Motion. Apple's own FCS "In Action" web page doesn't seem to have a case study highlighting Motion. In fact, one article highlighting Scripps Networks using Macs says: "The teams use Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator to create storyboards, and After Effects to build visual animatics. Then they use Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, Cinema 4D and Final Cut Pro to make the final graphics." Why wouldn't they use Motion since it comes with every FCS package? Because it doesn't meet the needs of pros.
Achieving fast and effective motion graphics in AE requires no more work time and precious little more render time these days. It contains many of the presets etc. that Motion does. AE has changed to embrace Motion's better ideas, and does them all better. Only a few hours of AE tutorials would seperate the average Motion user from creating better results. Fortunately, the layers based workflow makes the transition very easy.
AE must have been drastically improved since I last used it, because it has a very steep learning curve. With Motion 3 or 4, it's possible to very quickly get in and out of Motion to complete the task. To someone who has used AE for years, this may be a different story thanks to close familiarity with the program.
Try finding a Motion freelancer. The fact that on a weekly basis a post house may be bringing in an extra hand for a particular project means that there needs to be a high degree of interoperability. What happens when a really big project lands in your lap and you need 3-5 animators?
I can't find a single case study of a major feature or commercial production that used Motion. Apple's own FCS "In Action" web page doesn't seem to have a case study highlighting Motion. In fact, one article highlighting Scripps Networks using Macs says: "The teams use Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator to create storyboards, and After Effects to build visual animatics. Then they use Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, Cinema 4D and Final Cut Pro to make the final graphics." Why wouldn't they use Motion since it comes with every FCS package? Because it doesn't meet the needs of pros.
That is interesting that even they cite no examples of pros using Motion. That's interesting, but not damning evidence. Perhaps the very sophisticated motion graphics work remains AE, and Motion is being used for quick comps? I don't know... Let's hear from more working motion graphics pros.
He uses the tools that are appropriate to the task. Maybe one day we'll convince him to comment directly on this subject, but there are plenty of MacBreak video podcasts with him and his guest presenter Mark Spencer showing simple, fast, billable-level work with Motion 3.
That makes sense. I wasn't saying anything bad about it, though I seem to recall him talking more about all things nodes than Motion.
Comments
It's not in Apple's DNA to do truly high end software...
...If Apple has discontinued it (it's still listed in the UK store) I'm not suprised,..
I suppose they had to take Motion back to basics in order to build it the way they wanted but deleting Shake from memory isn't the way to make Motion better.
Fine! Then why did Apple buy Shake only to kill it, that is so Quark like.
Fine! Then why did Apple buy Shake only to kill it, that is so Quark like.
Why would you insist Apple "killed" Shake, when you have no knowledge of upcoming products?
Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me with this comment.
Unless you meant FCS4.
No - I meant CS4 - I guess I'll just have to live without your trammeled support.
There are many things in this world, and on this forum, I am not qualified to talk about - which is why I have never posted before. This, however, I can talk about, and not just my own experience of 15 years as a broadcast editor, but the experiences of the many professionals I work with.
I've seen FCP come in and change the industry, which I love - it was full of over-expensive and unreliable equipment and software. I've been using FCP and FCS since 2001. The broadcaster I work most with only adopted FCP last year, as they had so much invested in AVID.
In the mean time, FCS has had a dramatic effect on Adobe's products. The interface is better and cleaner, and the suite is now integrated in the way FCS is - in fact the hand-off between apps is often smoother in CS4. What Adobe have not had to do, however, is play catch up with FCS features, except in the case of Premiere Pro, which although much improved, will never have the support that FCP has industrywide - so it's a non-starter, however good a product. I suppose you might make the same argument for Soundtrack Pro/Soundbooth, but they're just peripheral products. Color is an extraordinary addition for the money - amazing with RED footage. I think both products have made each other better in many ways - I use both daily.
On the other hand, EVERYONE uses Photoshop and After Effects, and Illustrator in many cases. They're better featured and better functioning software than anything else out there - just compare the keying in AE to FCP or Motion - no contest. I look forward to playing with Motion 4 - I've always used Motion for quick quick gfx - but revert to AE when I need a good result because, well, it's just BETTER at everything - keying, compositing, blending, speed changes, etc. etc.
So why was Shake doomed, and what has the above got to do with it? Well, the pro compositing market has diverged: AE now allows people (along with some 3d software maybe) to achieve amazing things for TV budgets - incredible considering where we were 5 years ago. If you want to work in features, Nuke et al are blazing an increasingly narrow and expensive trail. There is simply no middle ground any more for the likes of Shake to fill. I think that's why there was never a follow-up, and Shake was allowed to slowly die - the ground was swept from under it, and it didn't sell, even at £500, because it was overkill for the AE crowd, and underkill for the Pros - and there ain't nobody left in the middle any more.
Motion is not even the equal, yet, of After Effects
Motion 3 yes, can't judge Motion 4 yet but in its defense, it is fast at rendering some things. After Effects doesn't use hardware acceleration at render-time. Plus Motion was always 32-bit float. AE only since version 7.
AE has its own problems but at least figuring them out will hand you great powerful app. Motion will just leave you saying ... " is that it ? ".
I get the impression that despite the differences in Shake and Motion and target markets that Motion was conceived from Shake - you can see this from the common parts that crop up in new versions of Motion. The original Shake devs left because they disagreed with the direction Apple wanted to take Shake and given what we're left with, you can see why.
I don't want to be hasty and assume that Motion will never be what Shake was though. GPU rendering is the way forward for image processing. It may be years before they reach Shake's level but that's what making money is about - keeping a development roadmap open.
This is Apple's focus, not excelling in any given field but falling short in a way that people buy it and then keep upgrading. I don't support that motive though.
to me what is more shocking than Apple cutting Shake, is that anyone seems surprised. they forewarned this 3 years ago.
Sure but we thought they'd give us a better replacement - a bit naive perhaps as Apple always give consumers what Apple wants and tells them to like it. As good as Shake was, it was far from perfect and needed fixing up. Their biggest addition was the MultiPlane node so I guess you could see where their focus was but still, they could have done so much more.
Fine! Then why did Apple buy Shake only to kill it.
It seems to me they bought it for the same reason they bought Final Cut. They worked closely with people in the field (Pixar etc) and saw the apps that were popular. Popular apps make money and by locking them in to their hardware, make even more money - they discontinued the Windows version of Shake at 2.5.
As they developed the code and patched minor things here and there, they will have eventually moved into the GPU acceleration developments. After reviewing the code, they probably realized it was best to just start over and build it back from the ground up.
Right now, it's clear to see that Motion is not a better, faster Shake. It is more correctly described as a faster, worse AE but it has room to develop.
Motion 3 yes, can't judge Motion 4 yet but in its defense, it is fast at rendering some things. After Effects doesn't use hardware acceleration at render-time. Plus Motion was always 32-bit float. AE only since version 7.
See my comment above - quicker, yes, better, no. Also, that hardware acceleration can lead to frame glitches in renders, when the gfx card hiccups - one of the reasons I stopped using it for anything longer. As far as bit depths go, I think that's just another example of the two suites forcing advances on each other - better for us!
Maybe FCS will catch CS4 and stop me having to purchase both in the future. I think that's unlikely, as Apple seem disinterested in game-changing pro software. With Adobe back on the Mac, is that really so suprising - Apple make money on hardware, not software.
Until then, I will edit in FCP and composite in AE - not so bad really.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
So why was Shake doomed, and what has the above got to do with it? Well, the pro compositing market has diverged: AE now allows people (along with some 3d software maybe) to achieve amazing things for TV budgets - incredible considering where we were 5 years ago. If you want to work in features, Nuke et al are blazing an increasingly narrow and expensive trail. There is simply no middle ground any more for the likes of Shake to fill. I think that's why there was never a follow-up, and Shake was allowed to slowly die - the ground was swept from under it, and it didn't sell, even at £500, because it was overkill for the AE crowd, and underkill for the Pros - and there ain't nobody left in the middle any more.
You still assume Shake is gone for good. I wouldn't make that mistake unless you have first-hand knowledge that it has been discontinued or sold to another company, instead of it being dovetailed into other products.
Apple employees maintain that Motion is superior to Shake. I find Shake's interface to be much more efficient and intuitive.
This sentence is comparable to many I have seen in the not too distant past.
Apple employees maintain that PPC is far superior to Inte/AMD and ther x64 spec
Apple employees maintain that the PPC G5 laptop is coming soon
Apple employees maintain that no one wants to watch video on an ipod
Apple employees maintain that lack of firewire on the unibody macbook isn't that big a deal, only uber pros need it
and of course,
Apple employees maintain that Apple is never gonna make a phone!
the fact that an Apple employee is saying this means that a Shake replacment is in the pipeline now:look for it to be the show stopper at the next A/V or Cinematography trade show.
As the Operations/IT Manager and former editor at a Mac based post house I can say that no one here would ever use Motion for anything. All my editors and designers have FCS and AE at their disposal. We also have Nuke, Shake and several 3D apps. We also have an Inferno. Motion never enters the conversation - not ever. The skilled AE artists have all evaluated Motion (3) and found it lacking for their needs. The Final Cut people who are less skilled at AE still chose it over Motion. Maybe Motion 4 will be different, but I doubt it. The high end compositor people started with Shake and loved it, but now have gladly moved to Nuke which is a dramatic improvement. Shake is done.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
You still assume Shake is gone for good. I wouldn't make that mistake unless you have first-hand knowledge that it has been discontinued or sold to another company, instead of it being dovetailed into other products.
Apple discontinued development on Shake a couple of years ago, when they dropped the price (which also coincided with them stopping pro support on the product) - this was public knowledge. As I said above, I've no proof it's been withdrawn from sale - in fact I said it's still on the UK Apple store.
However, being for sale, and being a current and relevent product are not the same thing. Apple keep Shake around because it costs them next to nothing to ship a few boxes - until people stop bothering buying it. Sooner or later, that will happen.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists.
Not sure what you mean, but a quick look at the Pixel Corps site I do not see them or Alex recommending Motion. In fact Pixel Corp members use AE among other things. I even found an Alex Lindsay review where he said Motion doesn't replace AE or anything else, but that it was great for throwing things together. People don't pay us $350 plus an hour to throw things together.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
Achieving fast and effective motion graphics in AE requires no more work time and precious little more render time these days. It contains many of the presets etc. that Motion does. AE has changed to embrace Motion's better ideas, and does them all better. Only a few hours of AE tutorials would seperate the average Motion user from creating better results. Fortunately, the layers based workflow makes the transition very easy.
This is just the way it is. If Apple wants to change the game they need to buy Adobe, something suggested on AI many many times. I really don't understand why they don't - they have the cash.
Yeah they have the cash but it's not a good deal. Apple only buys small companies that do one or a few things really well. Then they spruce up what they were doing, lower the price and sell a lot more copies in an attempt to transform an industry. Sometimes it works (FCP, iTunes) and sometimes it doesn't (Shake).
Adobe is huge and established. They have their own culture and their own problems. Apple wouldn't see a huge upside in profits from doing that kind of deal outside of firing duplicative staff (and you only one shot at that savings). I would imagine that a deal like that would get the attention of regulators. And Apple doesn't believe in Flash at all.
Bottom line? Apple doesn't do Oracle-like acquisitions.
Yeah they have the cash but it's not a good deal. Apple only buys small companies that do one or a few things really well. Then they spruce up what they were doing, lower the price and sell a lot more copies in an attempt to transform an industry. Sometimes it works (FCP, iTunes) and sometimes it doesn't (Shake).
Maybe shake didn't workout, I don't know if we will know for sure. We don't know what they're getting out of the purchase vs. what they wanted. Sometimes it seems Apple only wanted a company for technologies they have and not their products, and they appropriate the technology towards a different use. I think someone mentioned that Apple got PixelFlow from that purchase, as well as the image stabilization tech they have in FCS and iMovie.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
I thought he was orgasmic over node-based products. Last I heard, Shake was node-based, Motion was not. I'm not saying he doesn't also like Motion, I don't know.
I thought he was orgasmic over node-based products. Last I heard, Shake was node-based, Motion was not.
If Motion is good enough for Alex Lindsay, it's good enough for many tasks that would allow small studios to perform fast motion graphics that make money, versus allowing AE to monopolize the time of "serious" animators and motion graphics artists. Remember the saying by Mark Twain, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Use the tools to achieve your ends.
Try finding a Motion freelancer. The fact that on a weekly basis a post house may be bringing in an extra hand for a particular project means that there needs to be a high degree of interoperability. What happens when a really big project lands in your lap and you need 3-5 animators?
I can't find a single case study of a major feature or commercial production that used Motion. Apple's own FCS "In Action" web page doesn't seem to have a case study highlighting Motion. In fact, one article highlighting Scripps Networks using Macs says: "The teams use Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator to create storyboards, and After Effects to build visual animatics. Then they use Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, Cinema 4D and Final Cut Pro to make the final graphics." Why wouldn't they use Motion since it comes with every FCS package? Because it doesn't meet the needs of pros.
Achieving fast and effective motion graphics in AE requires no more work time and precious little more render time these days. It contains many of the presets etc. that Motion does. AE has changed to embrace Motion's better ideas, and does them all better. Only a few hours of AE tutorials would seperate the average Motion user from creating better results. Fortunately, the layers based workflow makes the transition very easy.
AE must have been drastically improved since I last used it, because it has a very steep learning curve. With Motion 3 or 4, it's possible to very quickly get in and out of Motion to complete the task. To someone who has used AE for years, this may be a different story thanks to close familiarity with the program.
Try finding a Motion freelancer. The fact that on a weekly basis a post house may be bringing in an extra hand for a particular project means that there needs to be a high degree of interoperability. What happens when a really big project lands in your lap and you need 3-5 animators?
I can't find a single case study of a major feature or commercial production that used Motion. Apple's own FCS "In Action" web page doesn't seem to have a case study highlighting Motion. In fact, one article highlighting Scripps Networks using Macs says: "The teams use Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator to create storyboards, and After Effects to build visual animatics. Then they use Adobe After Effects, Photoshop, Cinema 4D and Final Cut Pro to make the final graphics." Why wouldn't they use Motion since it comes with every FCS package? Because it doesn't meet the needs of pros.
That is interesting that even they cite no examples of pros using Motion. That's interesting, but not damning evidence. Perhaps the very sophisticated motion graphics work remains AE, and Motion is being used for quick comps? I don't know... Let's hear from more working motion graphics pros.
That makes sense. I wasn't saying anything bad about it, though I seem to recall him talking more about all things nodes than Motion.