It's the exact same thing Apple did with phones. Completely new device, zero compatibility with old ringtone files, contact files, etc.
Don't take my word for it, take a look at Apple's financials.
Apple is not a computer company. It is the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world. It is primarily a Phone company and a tablet company. The Mac portion of Apple's revenue is rapidly decreasing.
If you think otherwise, you haven't looked at their latest reports.
As to phones, it's not quite the same. The iPhone is compatible with iPod music and video. Also, Apple didn't have a previous phone they wanted to be compatible with.
One thing people can be sure about is that Apple is unlikely to say for certain that they are switching from x86 to ARM until/if they actually do it. There may be rumours and indeed many signs do point that way, but until iSteve says "Oh, and one more thing; this was using ARM all along...." we just don't know.
However x86 is very yester-decade technology. It is extremely power hungry and intel have utterly failed to compete with ARM thus far on a performance per watt category. Even at the high end, many of the world's top ten super computers are all GPGPU based; and the x86 chips are just there to marshall the GPUs and pass data between them.
Large amounts of programming effort these days goes in to speeding up and solving embarrassingly parallell problems. For that, x86 has nothing against the GPU markets which, powered by the huge gaming industry, have developed state of the art hardware to do just that.
Many companies (again like Nvidia) are looking seriously at ARM for cpus (final evolution of GPGPU); e.g. their announced `project denver' so as to do the house keeping for their GPU; since x86 is an overkill for this (especially TDP-wise).
Anyway, should Apple switch to ARM?
Given Apple's propensity for small and shiny; ARM makes far more sense than x86.
Given Apple's propensity for wanting complete control, ARM makes far more sense than x86.
Given Apple's propensity for not wanting to pay more than they have to, ARM's combined cost of licensing and royalties are almost certainly lower.
Given even in the high end and server area, the propensity for massive parallelism of small simple cores that can be turned off completely when not used (unlike most intel cpus which take up more power in stand-by mode than many arm cores running full speed), again, ARM or at least GPU is the way to go, not x86.
Looking at market caps, Apple could buy ARM for pocket change if it were that way inclined. Although it is debatable as to whether ARM would hold value if no longer independent.
The reason Intel are trying to make inroads in to ARM's mobile space recently (apart from it being a massively bigger market; ARM `ships' (well, it's licensees anyway), what[?], 1Bn chips a quarter these days[?] (think about it, that's 4bn a year, i.e. over 120 a second [!])) is because they know that if ARM can push up in to the desktop/server market, they are in deep trouble. Apple probably would jump; and Microsoft have announced and even demoed Windows (and Office) for ARM.
So... why would Apple stay with x86, when they could make ARM based laptops with far longer battery life? To appease current desktop users, and their developers? We know Apple isn't terribly bothered about that; and they've managed several architecture transitions in the past.
Will it happen next year? No way. Well, just maybe in the AIR, but I doubt it otherwise. Will we see x86/ARM hybrids? Maybe; there have been a few windows/linux based ones already; and I doubt iSteve would find those `Apple' enough.
Apple like tiny, shiny, and blimey, look, at that battery life...
Will Apple transition over (say) the next five years? Who knows; but if I were a betting person; I'd have money on it.
Don't take my word for it, take a look at Apple's financials.
Apple is not a computer company. It is the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world. It is primarily a Phone company and a tablet company. The Mac portion of Apple's revenue is rapidly decreasing.
If you think otherwise, you haven't looked at their latest reports.
As to phones, it's not quite the same. The iPhone is compatible with iPod music and video. Also, Apple didn't have a previous phone they wanted to be compatible with.
Much of what you say is valid...
Except, the entire iDevice ecosystem and much of the infrastructure depends upon computers -- Macs and PCs.
Until this changes, Apple will not be able to abandon the pc as we know it.
Also, I disagree that Apple is not interested in the high-end video post production -- rather they have revisualized the needs of the industry for the next 10-20 years -- then have redesigned/repurposed their apps to address those needs. That was the same thing Apple did a decade ago with FCP 1.0.
BTW, I just got a maxed-out iMac 27. FC7 shows a minor improvement -- FCPX runs circles around it -- and does things that are just not possible without a ground-up rethink and reimplementation. And, that'ls not just exploiting 64-bit, RAM/CPU/GPU.
Apple is moving the Mac platform from Intel to the ARM architecture found in the A6.
All signs are pointing this way.
The Mac OS user interface is moving towards iOS.
When the Mac does move to ARM, you will only be able to run software purchased from one of Apple's App Stores.
It will be a blessing for consumers. No more worrying about viruses or backups. If you manage to get a virus (unlikely as the Mac will only run signed code) or have disk corruption, just erase the hard drive and restore from iCloud. iCloud stores all your data, and you can just re-download the OS and your Apps. The only people with problems will be those who have 'jail broken' their Macs in order to run unapproved software.
This is likely the real reason why Rosetta is not present in Lion. Apple didn't want the loss of PPC software to be associated with the move to the ARM architecture. Therefore, they needed to discontinue Rosetta prematurely, so it's loss is not seen as related to the ARM transition.
Actually it's more likely that Apple is making room for the inevitable ARM cores that are suitable for Netbook class notebooks. While the Mac OS will share common interface elements both the Mobile platforms and Desktop (if you will) platforms will keep their distinctive difference.
iOS -
Touch Input
Full Screen apps
Little legacy software
Mac OS
KB/Mouse input
Windowed GUI
Legacy software
Talk of merging the two OS is interesting but fruitless as this would mean Apple's employing the same strategy that Microsoft is which is trying to cram the same OS across mobile and desktop platforms.
Mac apps will always be available from multiple sources . Apple isn't looking to reduce choice. If more of the Mac OS hits ARM processing developers will simply target ARM within Xcode using LLVM and compile their app that way. There's no need for unified store for Mac OS based devices.
Except, the entire iDevice ecosystem and much of the infrastructure depends upon computers -- Macs and PCs.
Until this changes, Apple will not be able to abandon the pc as we know it.
Also, I disagree that Apple is not interested in the high-end video post production -- rather they have revisualized the needs of the industry for the next 10-20 years -- then have redesigned/repurposed their apps to address those needs. That was the same thing Apple did a decade ago with FCP 1.0.
BTW, I just got a maxed-out iMac 27. FC7 shows a minor improvement -- FCPX runs circles around it -- and does things that are just not possible without a ground-up rethink and reimplementation. And, that'ls not just exploiting 64-bit, RAM/CPU/GPU.
The iDevice ecosystem currently depends upon traditional computers. That changes once iCloud is up and running. Your data is stored in Apple's cloud. Applications, music, video and software updates all come directly from the cloud. Once iOS 5 is released, Apple no longer needs computers.
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
Actually it's more likely that Apple is making room for the inevitable ARM cores that are suitable for Netbook class notebooks. While the Mac OS will share common interface elements both the Mobile platforms and Desktop (if you will) platforms will keep their distinctive difference.
iOS -
Touch Input
Full Screen apps
Little legacy software
Mac OS
KB/Mouse input
Windowed GUI
Legacy software
Talk of merging the two OS is interesting but fruitless as this would mean Apple's employing the same strategy that Microsoft is which is trying to cram the same OS across mobile and desktop platforms.
Mac apps will always be available from multiple sources . Apple isn't looking to reduce choice. If more of the Mac OS hits ARM processing developers will simply target ARM within Xcode using LLVM and compile their app that way. There's no need for unified store for Mac OS based devices.
You have listed a Mouse under Mac OS. Lion already has features that are trackpad only. A mouse is not necessary, and a multi touch Trackpad is strongly recommended. Do you see Apple reversing direction and going back to mice?
As to Apple not looking to reduce choice, we clearly have different views. If Apple was in favor of choice, they would not be adverse to jail breaking. If Apple liked choice, Lion would allow one to choose between the traditional Save on command model and Lion's new autosave. If Apple liked choice, then users would have the option of running old and outdated PPC software.
Let's not get into choices for hardware. Dell gives users choices, Apple has three models of desktop: Mac Mini iMac, and Mac Pro. If Apple liked giving people choices there would be a few more.
Now it may be true that Apple has limited the field to only those things that people really need, or really should have. But that's not giving people choice. When Apple decides that iOS is better than Mac OS, then Mac OS will go away.
The iDevice ecosystem currently depends upon traditional computers. That changes once iCloud is up and running. Your data is stored in Apple's cloud. Applications, music, video and software updates all come directly from the cloud. Once iOS 5 is released, Apple no longer needs computers.
Not quite accurate! We have about 4TB of media content stored among 5 computers. Much of it is home movies and photos, songs ripped from CDs and LP, Video ripped from purchased VHS Tapes, DVDs. We have about 5% of our content of 10,000 songs and 1,000 movies that were purchased from iTunes, and can be served from iCloud.
Today, I use a Mac Mini with 4 LaCie 2 TB external drives to house content and backup on the main media library -- then each Mac user (5) has their own collection.
My 3 grandkids play soccer. with 6 practices and 3 games per week that introduces about 540 GB per week of new AVCHD content that must be stored and manipulated locally.
Just got a Promise Pegasas 12 TB RAID to repackage this more conveniently... iCloud solution, no way!
Quote:
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
Professionals can (and will) bitch and moan about everything -- but they still can use what they have, FCP 7... It still works!
Many of these very same "establishment" pros of today are the ones who were able to get into the business because FCP 1.0 in 1990 cost about 1/150 of the then "establishment" NLE systems...
They took the risk without any road map or any assurance of follow-on product updates,
Not quite accurate! We have about 4TB of media content stored among 5 computers. Much of it is home movies and photos, songs ripped from CDs and LP, Video ripped from purchased VHS Tapes, DVDs. We have about 5% of our content of 10,000 songs and 1,000 movies that were purchased from iTunes, and can be served from iCloud.
Today, I use a Mac Mini with 4 LaCie 2 TB external drives to house content and backup on the main media library -- then each Mac user (5) has their own collection.
My 3 grandkids play soccer. with 6 practices and 3 games per week that introduces about 540 GB per week of new AVCHD content that must be stored and manipulated locally.
Just got a Promise Pegasas 12 TB RAID to repackage this more conveniently... iCloud solution, no way!
[QUOTE}
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
[/QUOTE]
Professionals can (and will) bitch and moan about everything -- but they still can use what they have, FCP 7... It still works!
Many of these very same "establishment" pros of today are the ones who were able to get into the business because FCP 1.0 in 1990 cost about 1/150 of the then "establishment" NLE systems...
They took the risk without any road map or any assurance of follow-on product updates,[/QUOTE]
Your music isn't an issue. Apple has already announced that if you have music you have ripped yourself, you will be able to access Apple's copy from iCloud. The music companies are probably on board because any music you get form Apple has your Apple ID embedded in it. If you redistribute those tracks, it's easy for the record companies to track you down as the source of the music.
As to Final Cut Pro still working, yes that much is true.
Yes, professionals do moan about a lot, and sometimes they have a point.
Any projects underway with FCP 7, can't be grown by adding new people.
When the next release of the OS breaks FCP 7, there will be no recourse.
The reason that Rosetta existed in the first place was that Apple needed to provide a transition strategy or risk losing their existing customer base. Apple has not provided a transition path for FCP 7 to FCP X because they don't need to keep the existing customer base.
Apple is running a business. They are making smart business decisions. They are focusing on profitable areas (like mass market consumers) and are abandoning small specialty markets (like video professionals).
It's a big win for mass market consumers, and a big loss for the small market that depended on Apple.
There is something wrong when the only full version of Quicken that runs on a new Mac requires Windows.
Yes, there are some people who don't fit Apple's iCloud model. These people are simply not in Apple's target market.
Comments
You just keep thinking that.
It's the exact same thing Apple did with phones. Completely new device, zero compatibility with old ringtone files, contact files, etc.
Don't take my word for it, take a look at Apple's financials.
Apple is not a computer company. It is the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world. It is primarily a Phone company and a tablet company. The Mac portion of Apple's revenue is rapidly decreasing.
If you think otherwise, you haven't looked at their latest reports.
As to phones, it's not quite the same. The iPhone is compatible with iPod music and video. Also, Apple didn't have a previous phone they wanted to be compatible with.
One thing people can be sure about is that Apple is unlikely to say for certain that they are switching from x86 to ARM until/if they actually do it. There may be rumours and indeed many signs do point that way, but until iSteve says "Oh, and one more thing; this was using ARM all along...." we just don't know.
However x86 is very yester-decade technology. It is extremely power hungry and intel have utterly failed to compete with ARM thus far on a performance per watt category. Even at the high end, many of the world's top ten super computers are all GPGPU based; and the x86 chips are just there to marshall the GPUs and pass data between them.
Large amounts of programming effort these days goes in to speeding up and solving embarrassingly parallell problems. For that, x86 has nothing against the GPU markets which, powered by the huge gaming industry, have developed state of the art hardware to do just that.
Many companies (again like Nvidia) are looking seriously at ARM for cpus (final evolution of GPGPU); e.g. their announced `project denver' so as to do the house keeping for their GPU; since x86 is an overkill for this (especially TDP-wise).
Anyway, should Apple switch to ARM?
- Given Apple's propensity for small and shiny; ARM makes far more sense than x86.
- Given Apple's propensity for wanting complete control, ARM makes far more sense than x86.
- Given Apple's propensity for not wanting to pay more than they have to, ARM's combined cost of licensing and royalties are almost certainly lower.
- Given even in the high end and server area, the propensity for massive parallelism of small simple cores that can be turned off completely when not used (unlike most intel cpus which take up more power in stand-by mode than many arm cores running full speed), again, ARM or at least GPU is the way to go, not x86.
- Looking at market caps, Apple could buy ARM for pocket change if it were that way inclined. Although it is debatable as to whether ARM would hold value if no longer independent.
The reason Intel are trying to make inroads in to ARM's mobile space recently (apart from it being a massively bigger market; ARM `ships' (well, it's licensees anyway), what[?], 1Bn chips a quarter these days[?] (think about it, that's 4bn a year, i.e. over 120 a second [!])) is because they know that if ARM can push up in to the desktop/server market, they are in deep trouble. Apple probably would jump; and Microsoft have announced and even demoed Windows (and Office) for ARM.So... why would Apple stay with x86, when they could make ARM based laptops with far longer battery life? To appease current desktop users, and their developers? We know Apple isn't terribly bothered about that; and they've managed several architecture transitions in the past.
Will it happen next year? No way. Well, just maybe in the AIR, but I doubt it otherwise. Will we see x86/ARM hybrids? Maybe; there have been a few windows/linux based ones already; and I doubt iSteve would find those `Apple' enough.
Apple like tiny, shiny, and blimey, look, at that battery life...
Will Apple transition over (say) the next five years? Who knows; but if I were a betting person; I'd have money on it.
mfryd vs Tallest Skil: Someone on the internet is wrong?
Eh, you're thinking of cloudgazer. Think me but posting more and on more varied topics. And he's a touch nicer about it.
Don't take my word for it, take a look at Apple's financials.
Apple is not a computer company. It is the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world. It is primarily a Phone company and a tablet company. The Mac portion of Apple's revenue is rapidly decreasing.
If you think otherwise, you haven't looked at their latest reports.
As to phones, it's not quite the same. The iPhone is compatible with iPod music and video. Also, Apple didn't have a previous phone they wanted to be compatible with.
Much of what you say is valid...
Except, the entire iDevice ecosystem and much of the infrastructure depends upon computers -- Macs and PCs.
Until this changes, Apple will not be able to abandon the pc as we know it.
Also, I disagree that Apple is not interested in the high-end video post production -- rather they have revisualized the needs of the industry for the next 10-20 years -- then have redesigned/repurposed their apps to address those needs. That was the same thing Apple did a decade ago with FCP 1.0.
BTW, I just got a maxed-out iMac 27. FC7 shows a minor improvement -- FCPX runs circles around it -- and does things that are just not possible without a ground-up rethink and reimplementation. And, that'ls not just exploiting 64-bit, RAM/CPU/GPU.
I think people are missing the obvious.
Apple is moving the Mac platform from Intel to the ARM architecture found in the A6.
All signs are pointing this way.
The Mac OS user interface is moving towards iOS.
When the Mac does move to ARM, you will only be able to run software purchased from one of Apple's App Stores.
It will be a blessing for consumers. No more worrying about viruses or backups. If you manage to get a virus (unlikely as the Mac will only run signed code) or have disk corruption, just erase the hard drive and restore from iCloud. iCloud stores all your data, and you can just re-download the OS and your Apps. The only people with problems will be those who have 'jail broken' their Macs in order to run unapproved software.
This is likely the real reason why Rosetta is not present in Lion. Apple didn't want the loss of PPC software to be associated with the move to the ARM architecture. Therefore, they needed to discontinue Rosetta prematurely, so it's loss is not seen as related to the ARM transition.
Actually it's more likely that Apple is making room for the inevitable ARM cores that are suitable for Netbook class notebooks. While the Mac OS will share common interface elements both the Mobile platforms and Desktop (if you will) platforms will keep their distinctive difference.
iOS -
Touch Input
Full Screen apps
Little legacy software
Mac OS
KB/Mouse input
Windowed GUI
Legacy software
Talk of merging the two OS is interesting but fruitless as this would mean Apple's employing the same strategy that Microsoft is which is trying to cram the same OS across mobile and desktop platforms.
Mac apps will always be available from multiple sources . Apple isn't looking to reduce choice. If more of the Mac OS hits ARM processing developers will simply target ARM within Xcode using LLVM and compile their app that way. There's no need for unified store for Mac OS based devices.
Much of what you say is valid...
Except, the entire iDevice ecosystem and much of the infrastructure depends upon computers -- Macs and PCs.
Until this changes, Apple will not be able to abandon the pc as we know it.
Also, I disagree that Apple is not interested in the high-end video post production -- rather they have revisualized the needs of the industry for the next 10-20 years -- then have redesigned/repurposed their apps to address those needs. That was the same thing Apple did a decade ago with FCP 1.0.
BTW, I just got a maxed-out iMac 27. FC7 shows a minor improvement -- FCPX runs circles around it -- and does things that are just not possible without a ground-up rethink and reimplementation. And, that'ls not just exploiting 64-bit, RAM/CPU/GPU.
The iDevice ecosystem currently depends upon traditional computers. That changes once iCloud is up and running. Your data is stored in Apple's cloud. Applications, music, video and software updates all come directly from the cloud. Once iOS 5 is released, Apple no longer needs computers.
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
Actually it's more likely that Apple is making room for the inevitable ARM cores that are suitable for Netbook class notebooks. While the Mac OS will share common interface elements both the Mobile platforms and Desktop (if you will) platforms will keep their distinctive difference.
iOS -
Touch Input
Full Screen apps
Little legacy software
Mac OS
KB/Mouse input
Windowed GUI
Legacy software
Talk of merging the two OS is interesting but fruitless as this would mean Apple's employing the same strategy that Microsoft is which is trying to cram the same OS across mobile and desktop platforms.
Mac apps will always be available from multiple sources . Apple isn't looking to reduce choice. If more of the Mac OS hits ARM processing developers will simply target ARM within Xcode using LLVM and compile their app that way. There's no need for unified store for Mac OS based devices.
You have listed a Mouse under Mac OS. Lion already has features that are trackpad only. A mouse is not necessary, and a multi touch Trackpad is strongly recommended. Do you see Apple reversing direction and going back to mice?
As to Apple not looking to reduce choice, we clearly have different views. If Apple was in favor of choice, they would not be adverse to jail breaking. If Apple liked choice, Lion would allow one to choose between the traditional Save on command model and Lion's new autosave. If Apple liked choice, then users would have the option of running old and outdated PPC software.
Let's not get into choices for hardware. Dell gives users choices, Apple has three models of desktop: Mac Mini iMac, and Mac Pro. If Apple liked giving people choices there would be a few more.
Now it may be true that Apple has limited the field to only those things that people really need, or really should have. But that's not giving people choice. When Apple decides that iOS is better than Mac OS, then Mac OS will go away.
The iDevice ecosystem currently depends upon traditional computers. That changes once iCloud is up and running. Your data is stored in Apple's cloud. Applications, music, video and software updates all come directly from the cloud. Once iOS 5 is released, Apple no longer needs computers.
Not quite accurate! We have about 4TB of media content stored among 5 computers. Much of it is home movies and photos, songs ripped from CDs and LP, Video ripped from purchased VHS Tapes, DVDs. We have about 5% of our content of 10,000 songs and 1,000 movies that were purchased from iTunes, and can be served from iCloud.
Today, I use a Mac Mini with 4 LaCie 2 TB external drives to house content and backup on the main media library -- then each Mac user (5) has their own collection.
My 3 grandkids play soccer. with 6 practices and 3 games per week that introduces about 540 GB per week of new AVCHD content that must be stored and manipulated locally.
Just got a Promise Pegasas 12 TB RAID to repackage this more conveniently... iCloud solution, no way!
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
Professionals can (and will) bitch and moan about everything -- but they still can use what they have, FCP 7... It still works!
Many of these very same "establishment" pros of today are the ones who were able to get into the business because FCP 1.0 in 1990 cost about 1/150 of the then "establishment" NLE systems...
They took the risk without any road map or any assurance of follow-on product updates,
Not quite accurate! We have about 4TB of media content stored among 5 computers. Much of it is home movies and photos, songs ripped from CDs and LP, Video ripped from purchased VHS Tapes, DVDs. We have about 5% of our content of 10,000 songs and 1,000 movies that were purchased from iTunes, and can be served from iCloud.
Today, I use a Mac Mini with 4 LaCie 2 TB external drives to house content and backup on the main media library -- then each Mac user (5) has their own collection.
My 3 grandkids play soccer. with 6 practices and 3 games per week that introduces about 540 GB per week of new AVCHD content that must be stored and manipulated locally.
Just got a Promise Pegasas 12 TB RAID to repackage this more conveniently... iCloud solution, no way!
[QUOTE}
As to FCPX being better than FCP, that isn't the point. The point is that professionals need an orderly transition. Professionals need to plan, they need a road map of what's coming. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the transition that Apple chose indicates that they are not concerned with professionals.
[/QUOTE]
Professionals can (and will) bitch and moan about everything -- but they still can use what they have, FCP 7... It still works!
Many of these very same "establishment" pros of today are the ones who were able to get into the business because FCP 1.0 in 1990 cost about 1/150 of the then "establishment" NLE systems...
They took the risk without any road map or any assurance of follow-on product updates,[/QUOTE]
Your music isn't an issue. Apple has already announced that if you have music you have ripped yourself, you will be able to access Apple's copy from iCloud. The music companies are probably on board because any music you get form Apple has your Apple ID embedded in it. If you redistribute those tracks, it's easy for the record companies to track you down as the source of the music.
As to Final Cut Pro still working, yes that much is true.
Yes, professionals do moan about a lot, and sometimes they have a point.
Any projects underway with FCP 7, can't be grown by adding new people.
When the next release of the OS breaks FCP 7, there will be no recourse.
The reason that Rosetta existed in the first place was that Apple needed to provide a transition strategy or risk losing their existing customer base. Apple has not provided a transition path for FCP 7 to FCP X because they don't need to keep the existing customer base.
Apple is running a business. They are making smart business decisions. They are focusing on profitable areas (like mass market consumers) and are abandoning small specialty markets (like video professionals).
It's a big win for mass market consumers, and a big loss for the small market that depended on Apple.
There is something wrong when the only full version of Quicken that runs on a new Mac requires Windows.
Yes, there are some people who don't fit Apple's iCloud model. These people are simply not in Apple's target market.