Marco Arment, creator of InstaPaper, called the tiny update a “good way to clear out parts and keep selling to a few desperate buyers for a bit longer without any real investment” on his blog. We called it a “kiss-off” update in our WWDC coverage.
But apparently it was neither, and after a disgruntled Mac Pro fan sent an email to the big man himself (Tim Cook), the unthinkable happened. Not only did Tim Cook respond, but he leaked previously unknown information. This is not Apple’s way, but we’re hardly complaining.
It doesn't seem like they do, does it? I'm also troubled by their arrogant attitude towards slower selling products, which seems to be "if it's not selling well, then it must be the market's fault". Apple needs to consider that maybe a slow selling computer line needs to be improved rather than axed. Furthermore, Apple needs to understand that while elite high end gear may have lower sales, it still adds to Apple's reputation and influences sales of other lines. The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.
Take a car like the Dodge Viper: it isn't supposed to be a huge revenue stream, it's designed to showcase Dodge's engineering chops and build their reputation. With computers this is even more important, because the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions. They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer. This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments. Apple just doesn't seem to get it anymore. They can coast on their success for years, but if they don't take care of the high end pro market, Mac will once again lose regard among serious computer users, and when Joe Sixpack asks his smart brother in law what computer to get, he'll be told "don't get a Mac if you want to do anything besides email and pr0n surfing."
There are certainly multiple successful marketing strategies.
Apple's seems to be to create products that dominate in their category. If in Apple's estimation, their product isn't the absolute best in a category, then Apple will discontinue the product.
The Mac Pro is not the best tower computer around. In Apple's opinion, there is no longer a need for a mainstream consumer tower computer.
Yes, Apple will make a machine targeted at the high end of the market. The issue is that Apple will decide what they consider the high end to be. It sure looks like Apple doesn't think the high end needs optical drives, PCI expansion ports, wired ethernet, FireWire, or even a traditional hard drive.
Of course, I could be wrong. The new high end might be a home media server with a 3TB hard drive that's built into the back of a 46" TV. Imagine how much of a marketing boost they will get with a flagship 46" 3,840 x 2,400 pixel display? All of your home movies and photographs ready for display in your living room, with streaming to your iPhone, iPads, and Apple TVs.
Apple isn't targeting the thousands of professional content creators. They are targeting the millions of consumers who think they are content creators.
Ah, it pretty much has been my experience that whatever the rich guys and video snobs are buying today I'll end up having in my living room in some form or another.
When the display technology allows for $2000 direct view (vs projected) 100" 4K TVs folks will buy them because it will really be like in a theater vs a large TV.
And for sports...well...it's pretty bad ass and a boatload of huge TVs are sold every year around the super bowl. Never underestimate the sell value of a bigger e-peen especially when you get to watch football on it.
It requires the whole eco-system to upgrade though and for little benefit.
- TV producers have to upgrade their equipment and content delivery networks to handle 4K
- Consumers have to buy new TVs, get new decoder boxes, maybe new DVRs
- Consumers have to buy new Blu-Ray discs and new players
The majority of people will see zero benefit on a 60" TV or less (unless they walk right up to the screen) and the upgrade from SD to HD was arduous enough that HD to UHD will take forever to happen, if it even happens at all in the mainstream.
I think 1080p is a suitable end because giant cinema screens are only showing 4K and consumer walls are much smaller than 1/4 that size. I don't hear people complain about how poor quality cinema projection is and likewise, I think the difference in sharpness between 1080p and 4K on any consumer TV will not be compelling enough for the upgrade. If the industry wants it to happen, they will push it but I think consumers will feel shafted at having to buy another Star Wars box set.
the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions. They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer. This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments.
I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.
Regarding the concept of normal mapping and limited polygon counts in games, what makes you think that has changed?
Render-time tessellation, same as the industry standard for post-production:
[VIDEO]
There will always be some constraints but there are constraints on what humans can create in a period of time too. When computers can perform at a level faster than the human constraints then the upgrades aren't compelling and for a computer business, it's time for them to cull their lineup to only the models that are compelling.
Suggesting that they can't improve further is silly. If that was the case, NVidia's discrete gpu business would be bankrupt. I would expect discrete gpus to disappear before you hit hard limits there.
There's a limit to how much they can improve before it's not worth doing as people don't see the difference. You can see this happening with the games consoles already. We're at a point where visual quality doesn't really matter any more, just content quality.
Take the example of books, that's a medium that hasn't really changed much over the years, just the delivery method. This will happen with video.
Many of Apple's original core of graphic artists and photographers have already moved on because of the delay in getting a 64-bit Creative Suite on the Apple platform.
You'd think Adobe might have indicated this was the case. It sounds more like what you want to believe has happened. Adobe only took 1.5 years to get a 64-bit version for the Mac and the alternative was switching to 64-bit Vista - I'm sure that happened in droves.
Apple's neglect and fights with Adobe have resulted in the loss of what was once an important customer base. I am aware of a fair number of technical useers in the scientific and medical community who, if forced will leave the platform
They will leave under what circumstances? That there's no Mac Pro that they most likely wouldn't buy anyway? And I assume they'll go on to use an Ubuntu desktop with little to no commercial apps and write their theses in LaTeX or vi, edit their images in GIMP, edit their footage in *insert usable linux NLE*. Oh there's Windows 7 running on a 16-core Xeon workstation but if they are getting by with a current MP, next year's MBP will do just fine and they can take it anywhere, even next to their patients or science experiments and any hard-core computation can get thrown onto a bank of 4P servers.
All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.
All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.
You miss several points. First, Apple's neglect and fights with Adobe have resulted in the loss of what was once an important customer base.
What fights did Apple pick with Adobe? They made a decission to go to 64 Cocoa, which was not a change directed at anyone company. It was done because it was the right thing to do. It prevent Apple from having to support legacy software forever. The impact wasn't unique to Adobe. This idea that Apple singled out Adobe is plain BS.
I am aware of a fair number of technical useers in the scientific and medical community who, if forced will leave the platform, but would much prefer to remain. They would have to find a solution elsewhere...a unix or linux box most likely.
You fail to explain why here. However a fair number of technical users do prefer Linux.
I don't take Tim's statement as meaning anything in particular. If forced to guess, I would say that it means there will be one more Mac Pro.
Oh that is nice you dismiss out of hand a public statement made by the man running the company and then you GUESS at what will happen in the future. Now answer this question who is in a position to know?
Apple's commitment to the continuation of the Mac Pro lineup is still in question. I don't think it has much of a future because it is following in the footsteps of the X-Serve in terms of not being kept up-to-date and declining sales. Apple has failed to step up and give assurances that there will be Mac Pros in the future. The fact of the matter is that Apple have dropped enough hints about the lack of sales to lead to a conclusion that there is not much of a future for it.
I really don't know whoe is dropping hints as I've seen nothing official from Apple. The fact of the matter though is that the current Mac Pro is a bit of a Joke as far as professional machines go. This is why I believe it will be replaced with something different.
If the machine that Apple releases as the next Mac Pro is not substantially better than the existing one, who would want it. The current one is outdated and has been for some time.
Well that is obvious, but don't you think that an all new computer to replace the Mac Pro would be substantially different? The current one is technically out dated but it is still a very good performer.
Look I'm not saying the current behavior with respect to the Mac Pro is a good thing with respect to the using community. However it may very well make sense if Apple sees it as the end of the line. Now one has a choice here they can think that Apple will say screw it or they can think a new generation of machine is coming. I really don't see Apple saying screw it.
All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.
Much love
Larry
I brought this up awhile back. Knights Corner is just one approach that Intel is pursuing with respect to high performance computing chips which they have now branded as Zeon Phi.
I actually believe that this has a strong potential to fit into Apples future and also explains Apples hold off to early next year. It is the only architecture that I know of that is coming due in that time frame from Intel. Xeon Phi however is a family of technologies from what I understand. One can not be certain that what we know as Knights Corner is what Apple has planned for the Mac Pro replacement. One vector that Intel is working on is a high performance computing chip with Infiniband built in. This would be very interesting and could lead to the low cost compute modules often discussed and rumored in these forums.
Combine these advancements with other technologies Intel is working on such as 3D RAM and you can see a huge potential for a new generation of machine from Apple. Considering Apples behavior here I would suspect a new generation of machine, it is just hard pinpoint exactly what that machine will look like.
You again miss most points. You seem to be good at that. Try reading and thinking for a change.
For example, your "Well that is obvious" remark after you proclaim how wonderful the new one will be...bla, bla, bla. The Mac Pro has been neglected in a major way.
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
Oh, by the way, you are the promoter of used oats. If you can't get it straight, just go into a read only mode for some time while you figure it out.
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
Why? HP nearly dumped their entire PC business. "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.
Quote:
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem. It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out. The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion. Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis. Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.
Why? HP nearly dumped their entire PC business. "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.
Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem. It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out. The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion. Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis. Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.
The issue is whether one outpaces the other, and whether that power is harnessed by software. There is something to be said for the ability to perform basic service on site too. Overall it's important not to view computing technology as an area with static goalposts. They will always look for a way to make you buy something. Using HP as a business example seems like a bad idea. They've taken some good ideas and just destroyed them. They also had no intention of spinning off all PCs. They wanted to spin off the least profitable division, which was consumer products. The high margin workstations were never on the chopping block, so the reference is counter to your argument. Go to their site and look at how much a Z workstation costs. They mark up any configuration changes by a large amount, so they have volume driven base configurations, and a very high margin on any upgrades. It's the consumer towers and laptops that are getting thrashed. Sadly they've seen many problems in recent years. They started off as a company that made decent computers, so just remember, this could happen to Apple too.
You again miss most points. You seem to be good at that. Try reading and thinking for a change.
I'm doing fine! Really I'm trying to take a positive slant on what might be happening. You on the other hand are a boat load of negativity.
Now some of that is justified, the last Mac Pro micro update was very much an insult to Mac Pro users. More so Apples attitidue towards the desktop does suck so I understand the negative perspective.
For example, your "Well that is obvious" remark after you proclaim how wonderful the new one will be...bla, bla, bla. The Mac Pro has been neglected in a major way.
Has anyone here disagreed with the idea that the Mac Pro has been neglected? The fact is I've been very vocal about the neglect to the entire desktop line up.
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
Even Ford won't guarantee that the F150 will be in production ten years from now. It is totally asinine for you or anybody else on this forum to expect Cook to layout product plans for the coming years. If you can't deal with that then you have real issues to address.
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
So the go to a server manufacture for the same sort of hardware.
Oh, by the way, you are the promoter of used oats. If you can't get it straight, just go into a read only mode for some time while you figure it out.
You really need to get a grip and think positive! Sure it is a little harder but you will be far less miserable.
I think it's safe to say that Apple and Adobe had a strong disagreement about how Adobe's "Flash" products should fit into the future of the web, with particular emphasis on how it should fit into the mobile web browsing.
I think it's fair to say that Apple has moved away from Abobe's proprietary "Type 1" font format, and now prefers True Type and Open Type.
I think it's fair to say that Apple and Adobe are in direct competition with their Lightroom and Aperture products. Apple reduced the price on Lightroom forcing Adobe to reduce the price on Lightroom.
In the old days, Apple and Adobe were best friends. Adobe's main revenue source was licensing the PostScript page description language for use in Laser Printers. Apple's LaserWriter was the first commercial product to use PostScript. Today, they are no longer best friends, and they clearly butt heads, and/or directly compete on a number of fronts.
I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.
So you think Macs would have the market share they have today if Apple had just kept improving the classic Mac OS and forgot about Mac OS X?
So it's just the iPhone? IT geeks would adopt an inferior OS as long as the same company made a cool phone? Really?
It sounds like you're just apologizing for Apple's decisions rather than analyzing them. Or maybe you weren't a Mac user prior to OS X and don't remember what horrid junk Mac OS 9 was in comparison.
I've always seen it as a pet project for Apple. Adobe put a lot of work/effort into Lightroom. It's one of their better success stories.
Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably. It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is. Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom. It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.
Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably. It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is. Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom. It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.
I so disagree with you. Aperture is such a flawed piece of software in how its designed. It imports all of the files, creates a huge bloated library, and hides the originals. Aperture uses a relatively lean amount of metadata stored as a set of instructions either within the same folder or at a specified location. It adds very little weight to the archive for the amount of information that can be assigned within it, and they maintain a reasonable amount of backward compatibility with legacy profiles to match the look you got from them several years ago on a prior version. They include the .DNG format. While I wouldn't use it for most things, it would be a useful conversion if we're talking about legacy file formats. It gives you some kind of migration path while support remains in effect. Aperture is just a big clunky mess if you're sorting thousands of images, and the raw profiles it uses are vastly inferior even if I don't like Adobe's use of prophoto internally on such things. Aperture did very little in terms of lighting a fire there. The two came out around the same time. Adobe just did a better job. They lag on some things, but they're quite responsive with things of extreme mass market appeal, much like Apple. Even with delays due to Apple's change in plans, they still released a 64 bit creative suite before Apple's internally developed software made the same migration, and lightroom has always scaled better than aperture.
By the way, I still prefer the way capture one handles colors.
I don't disagree on your comparison, but I do think you exagerrate the difference between the two at their release. Aperture's GUI has some benefits over Lightrooms, in that one isn't forced to constantly switch between modules. Personally I prefer Lightroom's approach, but others disagree.
I think it's safe to say that Apple and Adobe had a strong disagreement about how Adobe's "Flash" products should fit into the future of the web, with particular emphasis on how it should fit into the mobile web browsing.
This is the closest thing to what might be described as a fight. Interestingly Steve left an opening for Flash, it just required Adobe to fix its many outstanding issues. In any event Steve's interest here wasn't to fight Adobe but rather to keep a known problem child off iOS, there is a big difference.
I think it's fair to say that Apple has moved away from Abobe's proprietary "Type 1" font format, and now prefers True Type and Open Type.
Yes and rightfully so. Proprietary isn't good here at all. But again this isn't a fight with Adobe, it is rather doing the right thing for Apples customers.
I think it's fair to say that Apple and Adobe are in direct competition with their Lightroom and Aperture products. Apple reduced the price on Lightroom forcing Adobe to reduce the price on Lightroom.
I think you mean Aperture above, but non the less this is competition not a fight. Further more Apples products offer a unique take on the need here. Also Apple has Agressively been reducing the cost to users for software which in many cases is priced extremely high for what you get. Apple isn't targeting Adobe here as much as they are going after the entire industry that basically charges rip off prices. This again is competition not a fight and it is certainly not targetted at Adobe.
In the old days, Apple and Adobe were best friends. Adobe's main revenue source was licensing the PostScript page description language for use in Laser Printers. Apple's LaserWriter was the first commercial product to use PostScript. Today, they are no longer best friends, and they clearly butt heads, and/or directly compete on a number of fronts.
Doing what is right for Apple isn't fighting with Adobe. I'm not sure where this comes from. Apple has done a better job with PDF and Postscript technologies than Adobe did. Their code is fast. Further it is integrated into Mac OS in a way that Adobe could never do as a contractor. Apple really had no choice here but to pull much of this development in house, but that does not imply that there was hostility towards Adobe.
I so disagree with you. Aperture is such a flawed piece of software in how its designed. It imports all of the files, creates a huge bloated library, and hides the originals.
Being an amateur I was extremely frustrated with this approach. It is almost as if Apple designed Aperture to be an archiving platform for pictures. While such a system might be useful in conjunction with other software, it does not work well as a stand alone system. It's fatal mistakes being the idea that it can organize things better than you can in a directory and the idea that a user doesn't need quick access to images from other apps.
Aperture uses a relatively lean amount of metadata stored as a set of instructions either within the same folder or at a specified location. It adds very little weight to the archive for the amount of information that can be assigned within it, and they maintain a reasonable amount of backward compatibility with legacy profiles to match the look you got from them several years ago on a prior version. They include the .DNG format. While I wouldn't use it for most things, it would be a useful conversion if we're talking about legacy file formats. It gives you some kind of migration path while support remains in effect. Aperture is just a big clunky mess if you're sorting thousands of images,
In a nut shell it is a mess. Slow too. I'm not sure how Apple came to the conclusion that the storage of pictures in one big file makes sense. It really doesn't have the database capabilities to even remotely make it worthwhile to do so. Even then it would likely be smarter fo the database to simply link to files on disk in a defined directory structure.
and the raw profiles it uses are vastly inferior even if I don't like Adobe's use of prophoto internally on such things. Aperture did very little in terms of lighting a fire there. The two came out around the same time. Adobe just did a better job. They lag on some things, but they're quite responsive with things of extreme mass market appeal, much like Apple. Even with delays due to Apple's change in plans, they still released a 64 bit creative suite before Apple's internally developed software made the same migration, and lightroom has always scaled better than aperture.
By the way, I still prefer the way capture one handles colors.
Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.
Comments
Marco Arment, creator of InstaPaper, called the tiny update a “good way to clear out parts and keep selling to a few desperate buyers for a bit longer without any real investment” on his blog. We called it a “kiss-off” update in our WWDC coverage.
But apparently it was neither, and after a disgruntled Mac Pro fan sent an email to the big man himself (Tim Cook), the unthinkable happened. Not only did Tim Cook respond, but he leaked previously unknown information. This is not Apple’s way, but we’re hardly complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
It doesn't seem like they do, does it? I'm also troubled by their arrogant attitude towards slower selling products, which seems to be "if it's not selling well, then it must be the market's fault". Apple needs to consider that maybe a slow selling computer line needs to be improved rather than axed. Furthermore, Apple needs to understand that while elite high end gear may have lower sales, it still adds to Apple's reputation and influences sales of other lines. The 17" MacBook may not have shifted many units, but I'll bet the attention it garners in cafes leads to more sales of the 15" MacBooks.
Take a car like the Dodge Viper: it isn't supposed to be a huge revenue stream, it's designed to showcase Dodge's engineering chops and build their reputation. With computers this is even more important, because the "power users" who buy Mac Pros and 17" MacBooks have a lot of influence over other people's buying decisions. They're the one's people go to for help when it comes time to get a new computer. This was the genius behind Mac OS X: it put Macs in the hands of hardcore Unix geeks, and instantly boosted Apple's street cred in serious computing environments. Apple just doesn't seem to get it anymore. They can coast on their success for years, but if they don't take care of the high end pro market, Mac will once again lose regard among serious computer users, and when Joe Sixpack asks his smart brother in law what computer to get, he'll be told "don't get a Mac if you want to do anything besides email and pr0n surfing."
There are certainly multiple successful marketing strategies.
Apple's seems to be to create products that dominate in their category. If in Apple's estimation, their product isn't the absolute best in a category, then Apple will discontinue the product.
The Mac Pro is not the best tower computer around. In Apple's opinion, there is no longer a need for a mainstream consumer tower computer.
Yes, Apple will make a machine targeted at the high end of the market. The issue is that Apple will decide what they consider the high end to be. It sure looks like Apple doesn't think the high end needs optical drives, PCI expansion ports, wired ethernet, FireWire, or even a traditional hard drive.
Of course, I could be wrong. The new high end might be a home media server with a 3TB hard drive that's built into the back of a 46" TV. Imagine how much of a marketing boost they will get with a flagship 46" 3,840 x 2,400 pixel display? All of your home movies and photographs ready for display in your living room, with streaming to your iPhone, iPads, and Apple TVs.
Apple isn't targeting the thousands of professional content creators. They are targeting the millions of consumers who think they are content creators.
It requires the whole eco-system to upgrade though and for little benefit.
- TV producers have to upgrade their equipment and content delivery networks to handle 4K
- Consumers have to buy new TVs, get new decoder boxes, maybe new DVRs
- Consumers have to buy new Blu-Ray discs and new players
The majority of people will see zero benefit on a 60" TV or less (unless they walk right up to the screen) and the upgrade from SD to HD was arduous enough that HD to UHD will take forever to happen, if it even happens at all in the mainstream.
I think 1080p is a suitable end because giant cinema screens are only showing 4K and consumer walls are much smaller than 1/4 that size. I don't hear people complain about how poor quality cinema projection is and likewise, I think the difference in sharpness between 1080p and 4K on any consumer TV will not be compelling enough for the upgrade. If the industry wants it to happen, they will push it but I think consumers will feel shafted at having to buy another Star Wars box set.
So would the 15" model though, especially now that it looks even more stunning (near perfect symmetry).
I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.
Render-time tessellation, same as the industry standard for post-production:
[VIDEO]
There will always be some constraints but there are constraints on what humans can create in a period of time too. When computers can perform at a level faster than the human constraints then the upgrades aren't compelling and for a computer business, it's time for them to cull their lineup to only the models that are compelling.
There's a limit to how much they can improve before it's not worth doing as people don't see the difference. You can see this happening with the games consoles already. We're at a point where visual quality doesn't really matter any more, just content quality.
Take the example of books, that's a medium that hasn't really changed much over the years, just the delivery method. This will happen with video.
You'd think Adobe might have indicated this was the case. It sounds more like what you want to believe has happened. Adobe only took 1.5 years to get a 64-bit version for the Mac and the alternative was switching to 64-bit Vista - I'm sure that happened in droves.
They will leave under what circumstances? That there's no Mac Pro that they most likely wouldn't buy anyway? And I assume they'll go on to use an Ubuntu desktop with little to no commercial apps and write their theses in LaTeX or vi, edit their images in GIMP, edit their footage in *insert usable linux NLE*. Oh there's Windows 7 running on a 16-core Xeon workstation but if they are getting by with a current MP, next year's MBP will do just fine and they can take it anywhere, even next to their patients or science experiments and any hard-core computation can get thrown onto a bank of 4P servers.
All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.
Much love
Larry
That was covered on page 4.
What fights did Apple pick with Adobe? They made a decission to go to 64 Cocoa, which was not a change directed at anyone company. It was done because it was the right thing to do. It prevent Apple from having to support legacy software forever. The impact wasn't unique to Adobe. This idea that Apple singled out Adobe is plain BS. You fail to explain why here. However a fair number of technical users do prefer Linux. Oh that is nice you dismiss out of hand a public statement made by the man running the company and then you GUESS at what will happen in the future. Now answer this question who is in a position to know? I really don't know whoe is dropping hints as I've seen nothing official from Apple. The fact of the matter though is that the current Mac Pro is a bit of a Joke as far as professional machines go. This is why I believe it will be replaced with something different. Well that is obvious, but don't you think that an all new computer to replace the Mac Pro would be substantially different? The current one is technically out dated but it is still a very good performer.
Look I'm not saying the current behavior with respect to the Mac Pro is a good thing with respect to the using community. However it may very well make sense if Apple sees it as the end of the line. Now one has a choice here they can think that Apple will say screw it or they can think a new generation of machine is coming. I really don't see Apple saying screw it.
I brought this up awhile back. Knights Corner is just one approach that Intel is pursuing with respect to high performance computing chips which they have now branded as Zeon Phi.
I actually believe that this has a strong potential to fit into Apples future and also explains Apples hold off to early next year. It is the only architecture that I know of that is coming due in that time frame from Intel. Xeon Phi however is a family of technologies from what I understand. One can not be certain that what we know as Knights Corner is what Apple has planned for the Mac Pro replacement. One vector that Intel is working on is a high performance computing chip with Infiniband built in. This would be very interesting and could lead to the low cost compute modules often discussed and rumored in these forums.
Combine these advancements with other technologies Intel is working on such as 3D RAM and you can see a huge potential for a new generation of machine from Apple. Considering Apples behavior here I would suspect a new generation of machine, it is just hard pinpoint exactly what that machine will look like.
Wizard69,
You again miss most points. You seem to be good at that. Try reading and thinking for a change.
For example, your "Well that is obvious" remark after you proclaim how wonderful the new one will be...bla, bla, bla. The Mac Pro has been neglected in a major way.
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
Oh, by the way, you are the promoter of used oats. If you can't get it straight, just go into a read only mode for some time while you figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
Why? HP nearly dumped their entire PC business. "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.
Quote:
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem. It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out. The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion. Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis. Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Why? HP nearly dumped their entire PC business. "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.
Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem. It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out. The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion. Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis. Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.
The issue is whether one outpaces the other, and whether that power is harnessed by software. There is something to be said for the ability to perform basic service on site too. Overall it's important not to view computing technology as an area with static goalposts. They will always look for a way to make you buy something. Using HP as a business example seems like a bad idea. They've taken some good ideas and just destroyed them. They also had no intention of spinning off all PCs. They wanted to spin off the least profitable division, which was consumer products. The high margin workstations were never on the chopping block, so the reference is counter to your argument. Go to their site and look at how much a Z workstation costs. They mark up any configuration changes by a large amount, so they have volume driven base configurations, and a very high margin on any upgrades. It's the consumer towers and laptops that are getting thrashed. Sadly they've seen many problems in recent years. They started off as a company that made decent computers, so just remember, this could happen to Apple too.
Now some of that is justified, the last Mac Pro micro update was very much an insult to Mac Pro users. More so Apples attitidue towards the desktop does suck so I understand the negative perspective. Has anyone here disagreed with the idea that the Mac Pro has been neglected? The fact is I've been very vocal about the neglect to the entire desktop line up. Even Ford won't guarantee that the F150 will be in production ten years from now. It is totally asinine for you or anybody else on this forum to expect Cook to layout product plans for the coming years. If you can't deal with that then you have real issues to address. So the go to a server manufacture for the same sort of hardware.
You really need to get a grip and think positive! Sure it is a little harder but you will be far less miserable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
...
What fights did Apple pick with Adobe?
...
I think it's safe to say that Apple and Adobe had a strong disagreement about how Adobe's "Flash" products should fit into the future of the web, with particular emphasis on how it should fit into the mobile web browsing.
I think it's fair to say that Apple has moved away from Abobe's proprietary "Type 1" font format, and now prefers True Type and Open Type.
I think it's fair to say that Apple and Adobe are in direct competition with their Lightroom and Aperture products. Apple reduced the price on Lightroom forcing Adobe to reduce the price on Lightroom.
In the old days, Apple and Adobe were best friends. Adobe's main revenue source was licensing the PostScript page description language for use in Laser Printers. Apple's LaserWriter was the first commercial product to use PostScript. Today, they are no longer best friends, and they clearly butt heads, and/or directly compete on a number of fronts.
Aperture isn't doing so well relative to Lightroom. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed it soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Aperture isn't doing so well relative to Lightroom. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed it soon.
I've always seen it as a pet project for Apple. Adobe put a lot of work/effort into Lightroom. It's one of their better success stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.
So you think Macs would have the market share they have today if Apple had just kept improving the classic Mac OS and forgot about Mac OS X?
So it's just the iPhone? IT geeks would adopt an inferior OS as long as the same company made a cool phone? Really?
It sounds like you're just apologizing for Apple's decisions rather than analyzing them. Or maybe you weren't a Mac user prior to OS X and don't remember what horrid junk Mac OS 9 was in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I've always seen it as a pet project for Apple. Adobe put a lot of work/effort into Lightroom. It's one of their better success stories.
Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably. It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is. Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom. It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably. It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is. Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom. It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.
I so disagree with you. Aperture is such a flawed piece of software in how its designed. It imports all of the files, creates a huge bloated library, and hides the originals. Aperture uses a relatively lean amount of metadata stored as a set of instructions either within the same folder or at a specified location. It adds very little weight to the archive for the amount of information that can be assigned within it, and they maintain a reasonable amount of backward compatibility with legacy profiles to match the look you got from them several years ago on a prior version. They include the .DNG format. While I wouldn't use it for most things, it would be a useful conversion if we're talking about legacy file formats. It gives you some kind of migration path while support remains in effect. Aperture is just a big clunky mess if you're sorting thousands of images, and the raw profiles it uses are vastly inferior even if I don't like Adobe's use of prophoto internally on such things. Aperture did very little in terms of lighting a fire there. The two came out around the same time. Adobe just did a better job. They lag on some things, but they're quite responsive with things of extreme mass market appeal, much like Apple. Even with delays due to Apple's change in plans, they still released a 64 bit creative suite before Apple's internally developed software made the same migration, and lightroom has always scaled better than aperture.
By the way, I still prefer the way capture one handles colors.
I don't disagree on your comparison, but I do think you exagerrate the difference between the two at their release. Aperture's GUI has some benefits over Lightrooms, in that one isn't forced to constantly switch between modules. Personally I prefer Lightroom's approach, but others disagree.
Doing what is right for Apple isn't fighting with Adobe. I'm not sure where this comes from. Apple has done a better job with PDF and Postscript technologies than Adobe did. Their code is fast. Further it is integrated into Mac OS in a way that Adobe could never do as a contractor. Apple really had no choice here but to pull much of this development in house, but that does not imply that there was hostility towards Adobe.
Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.