Of course not, now that Mac's are really generic PC's like any other.
Using x86 CPUs doesn?t make PC ?generic?. All of Apple of Apple?s machine use custom boards and other hardware. I don?t think you justify any notebook or AIO desktop as being ?generic?.
...To be minimally effective, It would require code to be strewn through the entire OS to be effective.
There you go, your catching my drift now!
Quote:
It would be a total rewrite, which would take way to much money, time, and support resources, all to prevent something that a lawsuit can do just as well.
Apple has changed from PPC to Intel, from System 7 or was it 9? (I can't recall) to OS X and they can't change again to save their own skin? Nonsense!
Also a total rewrite to effectively lock OS X to Mac's is a lot cheaper that whacking cloner moles in every country in the world.
Apple has argued that Psystar's continued business will irreparably harm Apple, and that Psystar has also spawned other infringers by "trafficking in circumvention devices."
Schiller's affidavit filed this week attempts to convince the court to side with Apple, based on the logic that it would be a waste for Apple to have to file another suit.
"So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple
Then why doesn't Apple build a machine millions would want? A mid range, headless mac made with i7 and non server parts?
if you have a good, great gaming machine by Apple, you also have a device that will run their Pro Apps and oddly, Apple assumes they will lose money as the Pros, 2~3%, would buy the cheaper alternative, and their right, we would but so woudnt the gamers (who make up more sales then video sales and music sales combined), as well as the millions of ProSumers who don't really have the cash for a server made desktop but do have the talent, not to mention all the studios that had mac pros would also buy these non existent devices for their smaller rooms. In a nutshell, Apple would MAKE money not lose money due to lack of sales but they can't seem to figure that out yet.*
Avid/Digidesing did!!!! They saw people were no longer buying their $$10,000 TDM (processing chips in a card, thus reducing CPU latency which you cannot have in music), and saw computers were getting faster and faster and more core on a single dye were happening, so they purchased M-Audio which relies on the cpu only. In music it's caled native recording vs TDM. In fact, for the mac pro, for those left with the express slot, now only the 17" has it forces yet higher prices on the pro, with an express card, you can purchase something similar that puts all the processing on the card that goes into the express slot. Google. "UAD laptop express" card and you'll see what I mean. Apple could make more money simply by adding an express slot on the iMac. Add in esata and the sales go even higher. *
EDIT. HERE IS JUST ONE DEVICE THAT IS MADE FOR THE EXPRESS SLOT AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT!
And that's just one use. Gamers and enthusiasts would get esata cards for numerous hard drives.
Anyway, Apple can do it but won't as I said earlier great grahics normally mean it can run pro apps and they don't really want that and rather have you buy the mac pro when in fact they would make so much more anyway.*
Check it out. Let's pretend apple released a $1000 i7 core with a great graphics card, 1000 FSB, normal memory, headless and in the future you could swap the CPU out. *
You would have thousands of gamers buy them.*
You would have millions of musicians buy them and buy their own ram after market, similar to gamers.*
You would have everyone that is tired of windows but has nice HDMI DVI diplays buy them.*
You would have the more semi pro photographer buy them. *
You would have most all semi pro video users buy these.*
And ironically, all the pros apple were afraid they would lose sale to, would buy these instead of the pc rendering farms as well as place them in their smaller studios, so it not a matter of how come, it more like their are misguided somehow. I mean they really only care about the iPhone now, example, One to One and Pro C are used to be one program. Now it's seperated and most of the training used to be pro apps, and is now iLife and $99 each. So why not go ahead and build them. *There is a huge market out there. The only problem I would see is people would want their own video card at new egg or Frys pricing and apple would have to start supporting numerous cards but all the companies are gone and there's only nvidia and ati, so that wouldn't be that big of a deal and it would for sure, put a dent in the hacntosh.
There are millions of users waiting. Just take a page from what digidesign did.*
They would have 20% of the marketshare within a year and to top it off, it would increase the sales of iMacs as business and enterprise started off with these mid range machines. 30% in less than 5 years. Is it really so hard to understand Apple?
Then why doesn't Apple build a machine millions would want? A mid range, headless mac made with i7 and non server parts?
I suppose we can ask that question about any company that doesn?t make a product to fit a particular need or makes a product that does fit the low end of the market.
Quote:
They would have 20% of the marketshare within a year and to top it off, it would increase the sales of iMacs as business and enterprise started off with these mid range machines. 30% in less than 5 years. Is it really so hard to understand Apple?
HP has 25% of the market by selling $400 notebooks in the US and likely even cheaper machines in other countries. Unit marketshare is a pointless metric without increased profit.
But you aren?t suggesting cheap notebooks, you are suggesting selling towers for average consumers, not prosumers, that seem to be geared toward tinkers and gamers. This has never been Apple?s business model and i can?t see how they could possibly sell 4x as many of these machines per quarter to give them a 20% marketshare of their current 4%.
When you look at the stats, notebook sales outnumber desktop sales, which have been declined YoY. With over 3M Macs sold last quarter I simply don?t see how Apple selling their wares at their current profit margin, instead of subsidizing costs with preinstalled crapware and cutting corners by offering cheap components and less capable support services. You?re talking over 15M Macs sold per quarter within a year, without even accounting for the natural increase in PC unit sales worldwide. It?s just not possible.
Cain't- still waiting for my precious, my matte iMac.
Apple doesn't want that. Computer is to strong now. Video and photographers (Pros), would buy these instead on server part Mac Pros.
They will never stop osx86. They offer a free script that does the same tying pystar offers. It allows you to install retail osx and updates without needing a hack.
No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!
'Choice and competition', where'd I hear that before? Oh yeah, the government run health care plan. Pass it and we'll have no choice and no competition. Just like we have no matte screen iMacs. The Liberals of the world think they always know what's best for the rest of us but negate suffering from their stupidity themselves. I bet Steve has matte screen 27" i7 Silver & Black iMac at him home even as I type!
Do you have to drag your moronic politics into this discussion? How did talking about Tekstuds matte screen become you bleating and whining about healthcare?
Anyway, as for putting a "mac-chip" in, as previously mentioned, there's already one in there, and it doesn't need to be any more difficult to hack than it already is. I would say it's akin to giving people like Pystar enough rope to hang themselves with. There is no way to do what they do without bypassing, emulating, or decoding the chip, and that process breaks the applicable laws. Making it harder to do so doesn't particularly help Apple unless they can make it *impossible* to do so, which in itself is impossible. The only consumer device I am aware of that has not been cracked in such a sway (so far as I am aware) is the PS3. Why make it hard? Just make it necessary... You can't stop them, so you may as well nail them while they do it.
I resent Pystar for what they are doing....essentially keeping the lawyers busy making money.
I'm all for competition but this is really an infringement on Apple's design/products business.
I would prefer Apple spending the time and resources on making their products better for us than giving a lot of money to lawyers that really don't 'create' anything.
Apple does have to protect itself, but Pystar is a costly and unnecessary distraction.
What I don't really understand is why an injunction against Psystar wasn't part of the summery judgment given how much Judge Alsup sided with Apples arguments.
Actually I was talking about priosumers mire than consumers that's why Avid, a huge music company, bought maudio as they saw the trend of native recording. You said the trend is more toward notebooks, well I agree on that too but this is why you don't see great dedicated graphics on theses machines as they would then run pro apps very well.
I think you missing the point that Apple does not make a comuter for the Prosumer at all. The MacBook pro is to out of reach for a lot of musicians and just starting videograhers, yet even the 15 " no longer has the express slot. That's insane. It's like apple taking a step backwards not forwad. The prosumer, enthusiast, gamer does not have a choice when it comes to Apple computers as the iMac is missing certain hardware upgradable slots such as the express slot or it's missing esata support or it's missing really fast graphic cards, thus the request for a headless mac made up with desktop parts.
In a way, Apples business model has cornered themself as they fear the loss of MacBook pro sale yet the 15 no longer has express and nine have really fast gpu's. and the prosumer market, the creatives especially, the one that apple one time targeted with a lower priced tower, has no machine for them and certainly no laptop as the 17 is the only machine that would come close and even that gas a slow grahic card compared to some pc laptops out there.
Just music alone would generate huge sales but the MacBook is to limited as thetnstill font iffer 4 core as seen in some laptops. Besides, prosumes and enthusiasts want desktops for audio and gaming so they can add on uad cards or the gpu of their choice.
I'm betting more than 75% of the people here didn't know back in the mac clone 1980's, Apple had nearly a 20% marketshare then stopped that and focused on the Pro but ever since the iPhone, Pros have taken a back seat to iPhone users. In addition, you say users want laptops yet Apple sells the iMac really well. How much bigger Di you think it would be if they started offering matte screens, esata, blue Ray, faster gpu's and
made it upgradeabe somehow. No. Apple only has two targets. The consumer. The high end pro user. There's a huge market out there. This is why OSX86 and people like pystar pop up all the time. They target the missing element that Apple refuses to help. Vist osx86 and you'll see them talking about fast benchmarks, rendering times, hacks to use any graphic card available.
Avid got it and they almost where 100 % Aople at one time. I dint see why Apple doesn't get it especially cnsidering the pro user base is no more than 3%.
TYPED ON IPHONE. Apologize for any grammar, spelling mistakes.
Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I suppose we can ask that question about any company that doesn?t make a product to fit a particular need or makes a product that does fit the low end of the market.
HP has 25% of the market by selling $400 notebooks in the US and likely even cheaper machines in other countries. Unit marketshare is a pointless metric without increased profit.
But you aren?t suggesting cheap notebooks, you are suggesting selling towers for average consumers, not prosumers, that seem to be geared toward tinkers and gamers. This has never been Apple?s business model and i can?t see how they could possibly sell 4x as many of these machines per quarter to give them a 20% marketshare of their current 4%.
When you look at the stats, notebook sales outnumber desktop sales, which have been declined YoY. With over 3M Macs sold last quarter I simply don?t see how Apple selling their wares at their current profit margin, instead of subsidizing costs with preinstalled crapware and cutting corners by offering cheap components and less capable support services. You?re talking over 15M Macs sold per quarter within a year, without even accounting for the natural increase in PC unit sales worldwide. It?s just not possible.
I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.
Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?
See where I'm going?
Except that DirectX like OpenGL is not supposed to care what the hardware even is--all that is needed is a driver to take the API instructions and tell the hardware what to do with them. In fact the iMac has used DirectX 10 complied graphic chips all they way back to 2007 and the PS3 while having DirectX graphic chips used a form of open GL for its game. So the idea that DirectX and OpenGL are somehow this incompatible is garbage.
Furthermore given the console market prefers OpenGL in some form or another Microsoft would be cutting it own throat as developers who work on a regular computer would go to the platform that supports OpenGL: the Mac. Watch the already declining PC game marketshare (vs consoles) go into a total tailspin and the Mac get console ports. Even with their current CEO Microsoft is not this stupid.
"Is it really so hard for me to understand Apple?"
There! I fixed it for you.
WRONG.
Do you think Avid is a small company. The leader in TV and feature film editing that FCP that Final Cut has barely scratched the suface in. They would though ig they made more options for Prosumers as they ate the next producers and editors. Yet they saw the writing on the wall and bough M-Audio.
Do you think Adobe is a small company when most of the laptops can hardly run illustator let alone After Rffecta. Even the MacBook pro has trouble with AE yet apple keeps missing the point.It's reasons like this that pystar and osx86 even exist so users can use any gpu they want or so musicians can add pci fx cards. The mac pro is made of server parts mostly to keep margins of profit high.
Apple should release a 2nd model made with non server parts, support more graphic cards and you would see many 3rd party hardware quickly follow but for now, these companies focus on the PC.
I've already listed the market that would by these machines and as unsaid before, gamers outsell music and video combined.
Apple claims 1.3 million licensed Final Cut users, however, this figure includes all Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio licenses since day one, excluding upgrades. One research study pointed to 47% market share for Apple and 22% for Avid a couple of years ago. Recently Apple execs indicated to me that FCP has now passed the 50% mark for all new NLE sales. If the figure of 1.3M licensed users represents nearly 50% of the total market, then this means that Avid must have between 400,000 and 600,000 systems (all products) out in the field worldwide.
Major films edited with Final Cut Pro
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
Full Frontal (2002)
The Ring (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Walter Murch)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Super Size Me (2004)
Corpse Bride (2005)
Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story (2005)
Happy Endings (2005)
Ellie Parker (2005)
Jarhead (2005)
Little Manhattan (2005)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
The Ring Two (2005)
300 (2007)
Black Snake Moan (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Happy Feet (2006)
Zodiac (2007)
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Roderick Jaynes)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Youth Without Youth (2007)
Balls of Fury (2007)
The Tracey Fragments (2008)
Traitor (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
Apple claims 1.3 million licensed Final Cut users, however, this figure includes all Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio licenses since day one, excluding upgrades. One research study pointed to 47% market share for Apple and 22% for Avid a couple of years ago. Recently Apple execs indicated to me that FCP has now passed the 50% mark for all new NLE sales. If the figure of 1.3M licensed users represents nearly 50% of the total market, then this means that Avid must have between 400,000 and 600,000 systems (all products) out in the field worldwide.
Major films edited with Final Cut Pro
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
Full Frontal (2002)
The Ring (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Walter Murch)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Super Size Me (2004)
Corpse Bride (2005)
Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story (2005)
Happy Endings (2005)
Ellie Parker (2005)
Jarhead (2005)
Little Manhattan (2005)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
The Ring Two (2005)
300 (2007)
Black Snake Moan (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Happy Feet (2006)
Zodiac (2007)
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Roderick Jaynes)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Youth Without Youth (2007)
Balls of Fury (2007)
The Tracey Fragments (2008)
Traitor (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
Comments
Of course not, now that Mac's are really generic PC's like any other.
Using x86 CPUs doesn?t make PC ?generic?. All of Apple of Apple?s machine use custom boards and other hardware. I don?t think you justify any notebook or AIO desktop as being ?generic?.
...To be minimally effective, It would require code to be strewn through the entire OS to be effective.
There you go, your catching my drift now!
It would be a total rewrite, which would take way to much money, time, and support resources, all to prevent something that a lawsuit can do just as well.
Apple has changed from PPC to Intel, from System 7 or was it 9? (I can't recall) to OS X and they can't change again to save their own skin? Nonsense!
Also a total rewrite to effectively lock OS X to Mac's is a lot cheaper that whacking cloner moles in every country in the world.
Goodnight all. Sleep tight. zzzzzz
...so what's all the fuss about?
Of course not, now that Mac's are really generic PC's like any other.
.
Apple has argued that Psystar's continued business will irreparably harm Apple, and that Psystar has also spawned other infringers by "trafficking in circumvention devices."
Schiller's affidavit filed this week attempts to convince the court to side with Apple, based on the logic that it would be a waste for Apple to have to file another suit.
"So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple
Then why doesn't Apple build a machine millions would want? A mid range, headless mac made with i7 and non server parts?
if you have a good, great gaming machine by Apple, you also have a device that will run their Pro Apps and oddly, Apple assumes they will lose money as the Pros, 2~3%, would buy the cheaper alternative, and their right, we would but so woudnt the gamers (who make up more sales then video sales and music sales combined), as well as the millions of ProSumers who don't really have the cash for a server made desktop but do have the talent, not to mention all the studios that had mac pros would also buy these non existent devices for their smaller rooms. In a nutshell, Apple would MAKE money not lose money due to lack of sales but they can't seem to figure that out yet.*
Avid/Digidesing did!!!! They saw people were no longer buying their $$10,000 TDM (processing chips in a card, thus reducing CPU latency which you cannot have in music), and saw computers were getting faster and faster and more core on a single dye were happening, so they purchased M-Audio which relies on the cpu only. In music it's caled native recording vs TDM. In fact, for the mac pro, for those left with the express slot, now only the 17" has it forces yet higher prices on the pro, with an express card, you can purchase something similar that puts all the processing on the card that goes into the express slot. Google. "UAD laptop express" card and you'll see what I mean. Apple could make more money simply by adding an express slot on the iMac. Add in esata and the sales go even higher. *
EDIT. HERE IS JUST ONE DEVICE THAT IS MADE FOR THE EXPRESS SLOT AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT!
http://emusician.com/hardware/universal-audio-uad-1209/
And that's just one use. Gamers and enthusiasts would get esata cards for numerous hard drives.
Anyway, Apple can do it but won't as I said earlier great grahics normally mean it can run pro apps and they don't really want that and rather have you buy the mac pro when in fact they would make so much more anyway.*
Check it out. Let's pretend apple released a $1000 i7 core with a great graphics card, 1000 FSB, normal memory, headless and in the future you could swap the CPU out. *
You would have thousands of gamers buy them.*
You would have millions of musicians buy them and buy their own ram after market, similar to gamers.*
You would have everyone that is tired of windows but has nice HDMI DVI diplays buy them.*
You would have the more semi pro photographer buy them. *
You would have most all semi pro video users buy these.*
And ironically, all the pros apple were afraid they would lose sale to, would buy these instead of the pc rendering farms as well as place them in their smaller studios, so it not a matter of how come, it more like their are misguided somehow. I mean they really only care about the iPhone now, example, One to One and Pro C are used to be one program. Now it's seperated and most of the training used to be pro apps, and is now iLife and $99 each. So why not go ahead and build them. *There is a huge market out there. The only problem I would see is people would want their own video card at new egg or Frys pricing and apple would have to start supporting numerous cards but all the companies are gone and there's only nvidia and ati, so that wouldn't be that big of a deal and it would for sure, put a dent in the hacntosh.
There are millions of users waiting. Just take a page from what digidesign did.*
They would have 20% of the marketshare within a year and to top it off, it would increase the sales of iMacs as business and enterprise started off with these mid range machines. 30% in less than 5 years. Is it really so hard to understand Apple?
Peace all.*
Then why doesn't Apple build a machine millions would want? A mid range, headless mac made with i7 and non server parts?
I suppose we can ask that question about any company that doesn?t make a product to fit a particular need or makes a product that does fit the low end of the market.
They would have 20% of the marketshare within a year and to top it off, it would increase the sales of iMacs as business and enterprise started off with these mid range machines. 30% in less than 5 years. Is it really so hard to understand Apple?
HP has 25% of the market by selling $400 notebooks in the US and likely even cheaper machines in other countries. Unit marketshare is a pointless metric without increased profit.
But you aren?t suggesting cheap notebooks, you are suggesting selling towers for average consumers, not prosumers, that seem to be geared toward tinkers and gamers. This has never been Apple?s business model and i can?t see how they could possibly sell 4x as many of these machines per quarter to give them a 20% marketshare of their current 4%.
When you look at the stats, notebook sales outnumber desktop sales, which have been declined YoY. With over 3M Macs sold last quarter I simply don?t see how Apple selling their wares at their current profit margin, instead of subsidizing costs with preinstalled crapware and cutting corners by offering cheap components and less capable support services. You?re talking over 15M Macs sold per quarter within a year, without even accounting for the natural increase in PC unit sales worldwide. It?s just not possible.
Cain't- still waiting for my precious, my matte iMac.
Apple doesn't want that. Computer is to strong now. Video and photographers (Pros), would buy these instead on server part Mac Pros.
They will never stop osx86. They offer a free script that does the same tying pystar offers. It allows you to install retail osx and updates without needing a hack.
Is it really so hard to understand Apple?
"Is it really so hard for me to understand Apple?"
There! I fixed it for you.
No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!
'Choice and competition', where'd I hear that before? Oh yeah, the government run health care plan. Pass it and we'll have no choice and no competition. Just like we have no matte screen iMacs. The Liberals of the world think they always know what's best for the rest of us but negate suffering from their stupidity themselves. I bet Steve has matte screen 27" i7 Silver & Black iMac at him home even as I type!
Do you have to drag your moronic politics into this discussion? How did talking about Tekstuds matte screen become you bleating and whining about healthcare?
Who wants to bet that as a final f-you, Psystar manages to "accidentally" let loose all it's stuff as open source?
They pretty much stole the stuff from open source in the first place.
However, if an injunction is granted then surely doing so would not exactly be the most sensible move from a legal standpoint?
Anyway, as for putting a "mac-chip" in, as previously mentioned, there's already one in there, and it doesn't need to be any more difficult to hack than it already is. I would say it's akin to giving people like Pystar enough rope to hang themselves with. There is no way to do what they do without bypassing, emulating, or decoding the chip, and that process breaks the applicable laws. Making it harder to do so doesn't particularly help Apple unless they can make it *impossible* to do so, which in itself is impossible. The only consumer device I am aware of that has not been cracked in such a sway (so far as I am aware) is the PS3. Why make it hard? Just make it necessary... You can't stop them, so you may as well nail them while they do it.
I'm all for competition but this is really an infringement on Apple's design/products business.
I would prefer Apple spending the time and resources on making their products better for us than giving a lot of money to lawyers that really don't 'create' anything.
Apple does have to protect itself, but Pystar is a costly and unnecessary distraction.
How could Judge Alsup not grant this request?
What I don't really understand is why an injunction against Psystar wasn't part of the summery judgment given how much Judge Alsup sided with Apples arguments.
I think you missing the point that Apple does not make a comuter for the Prosumer at all. The MacBook pro is to out of reach for a lot of musicians and just starting videograhers, yet even the 15 " no longer has the express slot. That's insane. It's like apple taking a step backwards not forwad. The prosumer, enthusiast, gamer does not have a choice when it comes to Apple computers as the iMac is missing certain hardware upgradable slots such as the express slot or it's missing esata support or it's missing really fast graphic cards, thus the request for a headless mac made up with desktop parts.
In a way, Apples business model has cornered themself as they fear the loss of MacBook pro sale yet the 15 no longer has express and nine have really fast gpu's. and the prosumer market, the creatives especially, the one that apple one time targeted with a lower priced tower, has no machine for them and certainly no laptop as the 17 is the only machine that would come close and even that gas a slow grahic card compared to some pc laptops out there.
Just music alone would generate huge sales but the MacBook is to limited as thetnstill font iffer 4 core as seen in some laptops. Besides, prosumes and enthusiasts want desktops for audio and gaming so they can add on uad cards or the gpu of their choice.
I'm betting more than 75% of the people here didn't know back in the mac clone 1980's, Apple had nearly a 20% marketshare then stopped that and focused on the Pro but ever since the iPhone, Pros have taken a back seat to iPhone users. In addition, you say users want laptops yet Apple sells the iMac really well. How much bigger Di you think it would be if they started offering matte screens, esata, blue Ray, faster gpu's and
made it upgradeabe somehow. No. Apple only has two targets. The consumer. The high end pro user. There's a huge market out there. This is why OSX86 and people like pystar pop up all the time. They target the missing element that Apple refuses to help. Vist osx86 and you'll see them talking about fast benchmarks, rendering times, hacks to use any graphic card available.
Avid got it and they almost where 100 % Aople at one time. I dint see why Apple doesn't get it especially cnsidering the pro user base is no more than 3%.
TYPED ON IPHONE. Apologize for any grammar, spelling mistakes.
Cheers.
I suppose we can ask that question about any company that doesn?t make a product to fit a particular need or makes a product that does fit the low end of the market.
HP has 25% of the market by selling $400 notebooks in the US and likely even cheaper machines in other countries. Unit marketshare is a pointless metric without increased profit.
But you aren?t suggesting cheap notebooks, you are suggesting selling towers for average consumers, not prosumers, that seem to be geared toward tinkers and gamers. This has never been Apple?s business model and i can?t see how they could possibly sell 4x as many of these machines per quarter to give them a 20% marketshare of their current 4%.
When you look at the stats, notebook sales outnumber desktop sales, which have been declined YoY. With over 3M Macs sold last quarter I simply don?t see how Apple selling their wares at their current profit margin, instead of subsidizing costs with preinstalled crapware and cutting corners by offering cheap components and less capable support services. You?re talking over 15M Macs sold per quarter within a year, without even accounting for the natural increase in PC unit sales worldwide. It?s just not possible.
Then why doesn't Apple build a machine millions would want?
They do. They're called Macs.
I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.
Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?
See where I'm going?
Except that DirectX like OpenGL is not supposed to care what the hardware even is--all that is needed is a driver to take the API instructions and tell the hardware what to do with them. In fact the iMac has used DirectX 10 complied graphic chips all they way back to 2007 and the PS3 while having DirectX graphic chips used a form of open GL for its game. So the idea that DirectX and OpenGL are somehow this incompatible is garbage.
Furthermore given the console market prefers OpenGL in some form or another Microsoft would be cutting it own throat as developers who work on a regular computer would go to the platform that supports OpenGL: the Mac. Watch the already declining PC game marketshare (vs consoles) go into a total tailspin and the Mac get console ports. Even with their current CEO Microsoft is not this stupid.
"Is it really so hard for me to understand Apple?"
There! I fixed it for you.
WRONG.
Do you think Avid is a small company. The leader in TV and feature film editing that FCP that Final Cut has barely scratched the suface in. They would though ig they made more options for Prosumers as they ate the next producers and editors. Yet they saw the writing on the wall and bough M-Audio.
Do you think Adobe is a small company when most of the laptops can hardly run illustator let alone After Rffecta. Even the MacBook pro has trouble with AE yet apple keeps missing the point.It's reasons like this that pystar and osx86 even exist so users can use any gpu they want or so musicians can add pci fx cards. The mac pro is made of server parts mostly to keep margins of profit high.
Apple should release a 2nd model made with non server parts, support more graphic cards and you would see many 3rd party hardware quickly follow but for now, these companies focus on the PC.
I've already listed the market that would by these machines and as unsaid before, gamers outsell music and video combined.
then why doesn't apple build a machine millions would want?
They do. They're called macs.
they do. They're called macs.
lol
WRONG.
Do you think Avid is a small company. The leader in TV and feature film editing that FCP that Final Cut has barely scratched the suface in.
What? Final Cut *is* the leader.
According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%.
http://tvbeurope.com/index.php?optio...1269&Itemid=46
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/20...vs-avid-redux/
Apple claims 1.3 million licensed Final Cut users, however, this figure includes all Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio licenses since day one, excluding upgrades. One research study pointed to 47% market share for Apple and 22% for Avid a couple of years ago. Recently Apple execs indicated to me that FCP has now passed the 50% mark for all new NLE sales. If the figure of 1.3M licensed users represents nearly 50% of the total market, then this means that Avid must have between 400,000 and 600,000 systems (all products) out in the field worldwide.
Major films edited with Final Cut Pro
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
Full Frontal (2002)
The Ring (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Walter Murch)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Super Size Me (2004)
Corpse Bride (2005)
Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story (2005)
Happy Endings (2005)
Ellie Parker (2005)
Jarhead (2005)
Little Manhattan (2005)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
The Ring Two (2005)
300 (2007)
Black Snake Moan (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Happy Feet (2006)
Zodiac (2007)
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Roderick Jaynes)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Youth Without Youth (2007)
Balls of Fury (2007)
The Tracey Fragments (2008)
Traitor (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing – Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
A Serious Man (2009)
Tetro (2009)
They do. They're called Macs.
What? Final Cut *is* the leader.
According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%.
http://tvbeurope.com/index.php?optio...1269&Itemid=46
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/20...vs-avid-redux/
Apple claims 1.3 million licensed Final Cut users, however, this figure includes all Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio licenses since day one, excluding upgrades. One research study pointed to 47% market share for Apple and 22% for Avid a couple of years ago. Recently Apple execs indicated to me that FCP has now passed the 50% mark for all new NLE sales. If the figure of 1.3M licensed users represents nearly 50% of the total market, then this means that Avid must have between 400,000 and 600,000 systems (all products) out in the field worldwide.
Major films edited with Final Cut Pro
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
Full Frontal (2002)
The Ring (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Walter Murch)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Super Size Me (2004)
Corpse Bride (2005)
Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story (2005)
Happy Endings (2005)
Ellie Parker (2005)
Jarhead (2005)
Little Manhattan (2005)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
The Ring Two (2005)
300 (2007)
Black Snake Moan (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Happy Feet (2006)
Zodiac (2007)
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Roderick Jaynes)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Youth Without Youth (2007)
Balls of Fury (2007)
The Tracey Fragments (2008)
Traitor (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
A Serious Man (2009)
Tetro (2009)
You had me until "X-Files: I Want To Believe"
You had me until "X-Files: I Want To Believe"
I'm still wondering about "Black Snake Moan."