Mostly "maturity." The product has been around a long time, so the interface and the processing have evolved to where they're really good. The results of applying a process in Pro Tools often sounds better than performing the same function in a "consumer" app. Kinda like 3ds Max vs. Cheetah3D.
Maturity does have a lot going for it.
Pro Tools also includes some more esoteric, "only pros need 'em" features like the ability to open the audio portion of a video edit session directly, link multiple machines for complex sessions, lock to external hardware... stuff that doesn't matter to one person working in isolation, but are essential in collaborative environments. FCPX is an excellent example of what happens when you're forced to go without workflow stuff like that -- pissed off users.
Some users get pissed off for the littlest of things though. In the case of FCPX the reaction really didn't seem to be justified from somebody looking in from the outside. Really with FCPX being a complete rewrite there was simply no way that it would reproduce the old environment completely. It is a software engineering thing, sometimes you have to rework a product completely in order to be able to migrate it to new technologies in the future. It is interesting because I keep hearing of stories where people are moving back to FCPX.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think that FCPX was to remain completely tactic, to never improve after release. Really it is a reboot of the infrastructure which will evolve just like the original FCP did. We are pulling this thread a little off track with the talk of FCPX but I think it is important in this context because software can evolve rapidly especially with new hardware support for things like AVX.
Finally there's "habit." Since almost every pro facility uses it, that's what operators know well. During a recent edit session a producer called me a "Pro Tools ninja." Through years of use I've become familiar with a broad range of features, and become both good at it and fast. Starting from scratch with a new app means throwing away all that experience and expertise.
I can certainly understand the fear and doubt that comes with a software infrastructure change but sometime you just have no choice as companies loose their way. I've seen this in the automation field where once bleeding edge companies die off in the face of new competition or simply revitalized competition. In the end you have no choice but to learn a new software package. Now I don't know if Avid is in this situation yet, but it is surprising how fast companies can fail that we're once considered to be leaders in their fields.
Maybe, but probably not because the only really significant feature they've clawed back is the ability to work in surround. Since it's only a small minority of us that do, and most are in facilities that are used to paying for production hardware, it'll only be small-time freelancers like me that get burned. We're not a big enough market to generate a migration.
I still see great weakness in a company that is tying software features to compute acceleration hardware. All it really will take to have the rug pulled out from under them is for one or two really smart programmers, that can leverage the latest CPU or GPU technologies, to draw customers away. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that one of the reasons Apple deleted the PCI Express slots is because they fully expect the combination of a new series of XEONs and the option of GPU compute to replace the need for acceleration hardware. The only time I might see compute acceleration as still being required is when precise realtime control is required. It might not happen instantly but new computing hardware offers programmers a chance to really innovate via software. Maybe Avid is agressive enough to realize this and is working on software robustness. It is hard to tell as I've said, I've seen many a company loose its credibility real fast in the marketplace.
I know that it the past I've mentioned the importance of OpenCL and its wide adoptance but often have not had good references to software that leverages OpenCL. Here is one example of an interesting app and its use of OpenCL: http://www.brainvoyager.com/bvqx/doc/UsersGuide/AdditionalDocu/ExploitingThePowerOfGPGPUs.html. The site http://www.brainvoyager.com is a time sink in and of itself, but the subject matter is interesting. At times the use of OpenCL in apps is down right boring or the app generates a who cares response. This is an example that isn't boring.
In any event I posted in this thread because this is an example of software that could potentially leverage the new Mac Pros that isn't AV related. Well if you discount MRI videos of the brain as not being AV related. This is just one example of a market where the new Mac Pro might be considered a very good fit.
I know that it the past I've mentioned the importance of OpenCL and its wide adoptance but often have not had good references to software that leverages OpenCL. Here is one example of an interesting app and its use of OpenCL: http://www.brainvoyager.com/bvqx/doc/UsersGuide/AdditionalDocu/ExploitingThePowerOfGPGPUs.html. The site http://www.brainvoyager.com is a time sink in and of itself, but the subject matter is interesting. At times the use of OpenCL in apps is down right boring or the app generates a who cares response. This is an example that isn't boring.
In any event I posted in this thread because this is an example of software that could potentially leverage the new Mac Pros that isn't AV related. Well if you discount MRI videos of the brain as not being AV related. This is just one example of a market where the new Mac Pro might be considered a very good fit.
Thanks for the link. I posed the question on another site that discusses audio recording workstations on whether they might be able to use the GPUs for audio related apps due to Open CL since it's supposed to help with non-graphics related functionality. The problem others have raised is that the new MacPro has too much GPU horsepower that audio guys simply don't use. Your average DAW system doesn't need 4K displays, let alone 3 of them. SO the need to have this much GPU horsepower isn't needed, so they would rather have a more slimed down model that maybe had slots so they can put a variety of PCI cards they already have or plan on purchasing that are directly related to their DAW system.
One response was that Open CL didn't appear to be useful in assisting audio related apps, so if this is something Apple may address in future releases, that remains to be seen.
One market that Apple has had a tremendous amount of success is in professional audio workstations and most of the well known and respected recording studios generally have a MacPro with Pro Tools cards installed and some of them work on movie and game sound tracks where they might have several hundred audio tracks and God knows how many plug-ins. I know of one person that has worked at SkyWalker ranch on projects as well as with some of the bigger games out there and he uses Pro Tools cards in a MacPro system. He's another die hard Apple user that might be affected by the lack of PCI slots. Those Pro Tools PCI cards are NOT cheap. Someone can easily spend more money on PCI cards and interfaces from Avid than a MacPro computer stuffed with RAM and harddrives. They don't like having to ditch their serious investment so quickly. The expansion chassis I know about have lots of fan noise or don't handle more than two PCI cards, when some of these guys have three or more PCI cards. Believe it or not, Magma has been making 13 and 16 PCI card slot chassis for MacPros that typically sell to the ProTools and other markets, but it requires a PCI card to interface to it. I'm wondering if they may have to come out with a TB or TB2 version which may be the best solution. But that might be another $5000 just to add 3 cards. It will be intersting to see what happens.
I always thought the Mac Pro should be a unit that could transform from a tower to a rack mounted unit with a simple user installable kit as the best solution for that market. That's why I'm still a little apprehensive on this unit for certain people. For others, I think it's slick.
They certainly lost a few but I suspect lots of that was mass hysteria. There are indications that some users that left in a huff have switched back. The Mac Pro will likely suffer like FCPx did at first with people not grasping the significance of the advancement and dwelling too long in what is missing. Many of the so called professionals displayed just how far they are from being "professional". In some cases guys made complete asses of them selves, if not an ass the displayed all the evolution of a child that has yet to leave preschool. I'd be most interested to find out just how badly sales really have been hurt by the transition to FCPX.
I know there was a lot of disdain when FCPX came out. I looked at it from both sides, sometimes these high end professionals don't look at it from both sides, but they did have a right to scream about it to a certain extent, but Apple proved that they were going to make good on their vision for it and some came back with a love for the new App. It was a shock to them as these guys spend more money on one computer than most users and they have seriously stressful jobs to begin with. They have projects they are responsible for that are EXPENSIVE and time is money in their industry. They don't mind spending the money if it does what they need. You would not believe what some of these guys in the audio and video world will do. How would you like to be in a position where they plunk down a $1 Million mixing console for you to evaluate and you just have it lying around the recording studio sitting there collecting dust for months because you don't have time to evaluate it. Spend some time in their environment and you'll see their point. I will back them up to a certain extent because many of them have spend years learning and perfecting their work flow on a software product and they saw it going in a direction which lacked some serious features they rely on day in and day out and that interface change was a significant change. Biggest change they've seen in years and it was not what they were expecting. But Apple wanted to get the more consumer friendly version out of the gate first as they continued to develop it for the high end pros. Combine that with Apple not releasing anything anything that special to the MacPro as they were slow coming in bringing TB and seriously more powerful CPUs. Yeah, some of it is to blame on Intel, dealing with cooling issues. But I understand their view points and why they got upset.
I can always look back on when I worked in the reseller environment dealing with various users, IT admin people, C-level people in the midst of a large, visable, expensive project.
They don't like having to ditch their serious investment so quickly. The expansion chassis I know about have lots of fan noise or don't handle more than two PCI cards, when some of these guys have three or more PCI cards. Believe it or not, Magma has been making 13 and 16 PCI card slot chassis for MacPros that typically sell to the ProTools and other markets, but it requires a PCI card to interface to it. I'm wondering if they may have to come out with a TB or TB2 version which may be the best solution. But that might be another $5000 just to add 3 cards. It will be intersting to see what happens.
I always thought the Mac Pro should be a unit that could transform from a tower to a rack mounted unit with a simple user installable kit as the best solution for that market. That's why I'm still a little apprehensive on this unit for certain people. For others, I think it's slick.
It comes down to how many electrical lanes are required and whether the drivers are suitable. Sonnet tests some cards and reports results, even if they are not certified thunderbolt solutions. In terms of PCI cards, it should be possible in upcoming years to add slot based storage via SATA express. I did expect Apple to retain something internally, as it shrunk the internal expansion to a point that is below both the mini and imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
How would you like to be in a position where they plunk down a $1 Million mixing console for you to evaluate and you just have it lying around the recording studio sitting there collecting dust for months because you don't have time to evaluate it. Spend some time in their environment and you'll see their point. I will back them up to a certain extent because many of them have spend years learning and perfecting their work flow on a software product and they saw it going in a direction which lacked some serious features they rely on day in and day out and that interface change was a significant change.
That ties into what I previously mentioned about the most demanding users often being fairly conservative on purchases. They need time to evaluate, and require everything to be in place. Without that the new machine is less productive than the old one. I'm somewhat surprised to hear of something that expensive being sidelined. I think whatever outrage was a combination of things. The old version had languished for a while. When the new one came out, they initially pulled the ability to obtain further licenses of the old FCP, and support seems to have dropped off rather quickly. No one is going to change software in the middle of a job, especially if the new program can't read the old data.
Thanks for the link. I posed the question on another site that discusses audio recording workstations on whether they might be able to use the GPUs for audio related apps due to Open CL since it's supposed to help with non-graphics related functionality. The problem others have raised is that the new MacPro has too much GPU horsepower that audio guys simply don't use. Your average DAW system doesn't need 4K displays, let alone 3 of them. SO the need to have this much GPU horsepower isn't needed, so they would rather have a more slimed down model that maybe had slots so they can put a variety of PCI cards they already have or plan on purchasing that are directly related to their DAW system.
While it seems like it has been around forever GPU computing is really just getting off the ground! Both NVidia and AMD have "adjusted" thier GPU chips over the last couple of years to better support usage for compute applications. For audio work the real question is this, are there algorithms that can exploit the GPUs nature. That is parallel processing of data. I'm not an expert at such signal processing so I can't say if the problem domain fits today's GPUs however in the past DSP chips where used for such applications.
What I'm really trying to say here is that just because it hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. The real trick with GPU compute is having a problem that maps well to the GPU. One of the reasons I don't like the term GPGPU is that the first GP (General Purpose) isn't really true, The problem really has to fit the GPU architecture to get the performance scaling people always crow about.
One response was that Open CL didn't appear to be useful in assisting audio related apps, so if this is something Apple may address in future releases, that remains to be seen.
Well I can't say what that response was referencing but I don't see a simple yah or nay being the right approach here. It really depends upon your algorithms and how wide your data is. On top of that new instructions in Intel processors like AVX can adjust the tripping point where GPU compute is worthwhile.
One market that Apple has had a tremendous amount of success is in professional audio workstations and most of the well known and respected recording studios generally have a MacPro with Pro Tools cards installed and some of them work on movie and game sound tracks where they might have several hundred audio tracks and God knows how many plug-ins. I know of one person that has worked at SkyWalker ranch on projects as well as with some of the bigger games out there and he uses Pro Tools cards in a MacPro system. He's another die hard Apple user that might be affected by the lack of PCI slots.
The lack of PCI Express slots is a real problem. Further thereis no metric to say how fast the professional work station market will switch over if the do at all. Even one slot would have went a very long way in the new Mac Pro.
Those Pro Tools PCI cards are NOT cheap. Someone can easily spend more money on PCI cards and interfaces from Avid than a MacPro computer stuffed with RAM and harddrives. They don't like having to ditch their serious investment so quickly. The expansion chassis I know about have lots of fan noise or don't handle more than two PCI cards, when some of these guys have three or more PCI cards. Believe it or not, Magma has been making 13 and 16 PCI card slot chassis for MacPros that typically sell to the ProTools and other markets, but it requires a PCI card to interface to it. I'm wondering if they may have to come out with a TB or TB2 version which may be the best solution. But that might be another $5000 just to add 3 cards. It will be intersting to see what happens.
I always thought the Mac Pro should be a unit that could transform from a tower to a rack mounted unit with a simple user installable kit as the best solution for that market. That's why I'm still a little apprehensive on this unit for certain people. For others, I think it's slick.
It did seem like a better approach, that is a machine that could easily convert to rack mount.
As to the coming Mac Pro design and the over abundance of performance for some users, with a little tweaking this machine would be real close to what I have imagined an XMac would be. Drop one GPU card and put a disk drive in its place along with a nice Haswell desktop and there you go - XMac.
In any event Apple used the "up to" phrase many times in their online debut, I really suspect what we have seen at this point is the maxed out model. As such I really think there will be a less powerful entry level model.
In any event Apple used the "up to" phrase many times in their online debut, I really suspect what we have seen at this point is the maxed out model. As such I really think there will be a less powerful entry level model.
The entry and mid level models are always the ones that interest me. I lose interest once it goes way beyond what is feasible in my case, given that the base tower prior to adding stuff to it is no more than 40% of total spending to get a workable solution. In Drblank's case I suspect the percentage may be even lower. $800 pci housings are still expensive even then. It's partly that I dislike things that aren't designed to be a unit or on a very specific standard, partly that I dislike new costs, and partly that I dislike additional hardware links.
It comes down to how many electrical lanes are required and whether the drivers are suitable. Sonnet tests some cards and reports results, even if they are not certified thunderbolt solutions. In terms of PCI cards, it should be possible in upcoming years to add slot based storage via SATA express. I did expect Apple to retain something internally, as it shrunk the internal expansion to a point that is below both the mini and imac.
That ties into what I previously mentioned about the most demanding users often being fairly conservative on purchases. They need time to evaluate, and require everything to be in place. Without that the new machine is less productive than the old one. I'm somewhat surprised to hear of something that expensive being sidelined. I think whatever outrage was a combination of things. The old version had languished for a while. When the new one came out, they initially pulled the ability to obtain further licenses of the old FCP, and support seems to have dropped off rather quickly. No one is going to change software in the middle of a job, especially if the new program can't read the old data.
Yeah, one thing I've learned about the high end video and audio production people is that some of them money isn't an issue, for some it is. What's hilarious is that some ultra high end studios have rigs just to say they have them to attract the Top producers, but that doesn't mean they actually use it in production. It's a strange world these guys live in. It's kind of funny when a high end recording studio might some outrageous ultra custom monitor system in the control room, million dollar consoles, etc. Imagine that probably a vast amount of pop music these days might be using microphones costing several thousand a piece for a vocalist, it then gets routed through a million dollar console, through another vast amount of other equipment worth tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet they monitors they use to actually hear everything is a pair of cheap $200 bookshelf speakers that literally sound like crap to someone that's an audiophile trained ear and then it gets ripped down to a compressed MP3 which further destroys the sonic quality on a pair of $10 earbuds. It's just a weird industry... I've known guys that will pay through the nose for one thing and then turn around and be completely cheap about some thing else in the audio chain that's actually more important. Sometimes things just don't make sense.
I forgot to add. They could have done the SAME quality production using a $50 app called Auria on a iPad and using a decent pair of headphones to record some vocalist because the rest of the tracks were created on a laptop using a $400 software package. Go figure.
Some users get pissed off for the littlest of things though. In the case of FCPX the reaction really didn't seem to be justified from somebody looking in from the outside.
The "littlest thing" can sometimes be a really, really big thing. Losing just one codec or breaking one link can bring down a production workflow. Our system is completely dependant on a feature that most users don't even know about or understand. If Avid suddenly dropped it because most users will never need it we'd be screwed. The availability of features like that are part of the reason we use a "pro" app and not a consumer "equivalent." Avid gets that. Apple didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Really with FCPX being a complete rewrite there was simply no way that it would reproduce the old environment completely.
That's EXACTLY what Avid is doing with the next version of Pro Tools. The "engine" needed a rewrite, so they've sacrificed compatibility with every plug-in ever written for Pro Tools in order to do it. But, unlike Apple, they HAVE reproduced the entire environment. The issue that's got me upset appears to be a marketing decision, not a missing feature. That is, the one middle-tier capability they dropped can still be had just by throwing more money at it. FCPX users didn't have that option. Things that were not included could not be added just by paying more.
Further, it's disingenuous to promote a system as a "professional" solution then say users are whiners when they object to it being dumbed down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is interesting because I keep hearing of stories where people are moving back to FCPX.
Sure, because the features that should have been there in the first place are now finally available!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I can certainly understand the fear and doubt that comes with a software infrastructure change but sometime you just have no choice as companies loose their way. [...] In the end you have no choice but to learn a new software package
That was certainly true for FCP users. They had no choice. Even if they DIDN'T change suppliers and stayed with FCP, it meant learning not just new controls but a completely new operating paradigm. That probably would have been met with grumbles but acceptance if users could still do the work they did before the rewrite. The fact that they couldn't is what escalated the grumbling to growling (and rightly so).
The "littlest thing" can sometimes be a really, really big thing. Losing just one codec or breaking one link can bring down a production workflow. Our system is completely dependant on a feature that most users don't even know about or understand. If Avid suddenly dropped it because most users will never need it we'd be screwed. The availability of features like that are part of the reason we use a "pro" app and not a consumer "equivalent." Avid gets that. Apple didn't.
That's EXACTLY what Avid is doing with the next version of Pro Tools. The "engine" needed a rewrite, so they've sacrificed compatibility with every plug-in ever written for Pro Tools in order to do it. But, unlike Apple, they HAVE reproduced the entire environment. The issue that's got me upset appears to be a marketing decision, not a missing feature. That is, the one middle-tier capability they dropped can still be had just by throwing more money at it. FCPX users didn't have that option. Things that were not included could not be added just by paying more.
Further, it's disingenuous to promote a system as a "professional" solution then say users are whiners when they object to it being dumbed down.
Sure, because the features that should have been there in the first place are now finally available!
That was certainly true for FCP users. They had no choice. Even if they DIDN'T change suppliers and stayed with FCP, it meant learning not just new controls but a completely new operating paradigm. That probably would have been met with grumbles but acceptance if users could still do the work they did before the rewrite. The fact that they couldn't is what escalated the grumbling to growling (and rightly so).
Apple took a chance with FCPX to release what was more of a replacement to FCP Express, but what they did was to repackage it and they released something to get FCP Express users taken care of first because that represents a bigger crowd of people to get used to the new GUI and work flow, etc., the features they pulled out that were add-ons were done because not everyone used them and they figured to sell what the majority of people use, and then add-on extras. They also weren't finished with the more high end features which they DID add after a few updates just like they said. They took out Soundtrack because most people were using either Logic, ProTools and other DAWs and they are far more comprehensive than Soundtack Pro plus Apple reduced the over all price drastically to make it less expensive. Yeah, the Pros got bent out of shape because it didn't multi cam which was added and improved, and other important features that have been added, but the end result for most is a better product. There was also dirt cheap third party app to transfer older projects over.
Well, you can always submit feedback to Apple on features you want and maybe they'll add it later. Apple DOES do that. So don't think that they won't. It doesn't cost you anything to submit feedback through their website. It's there for you to vent, voice your concerns, ideas, suggestions for enhancements, bugs, etc. etc. I use it all of the time and I can say that they do get around to addressing MOST of the requests I've made. I also try to submit professional submissions rather than just being hot headed about it. But I can say that I've had great success in getting things that I've requested added. I'd say that so far, I'm getting about 75 to 80% of what I submit added at some point in time. That's not bad, so far. Some things I suggested, I found out 10 minutes after I pressed the submit button that the feature was actually there, which was even better! I just didn't dig deep enough to realize it. That happens. But they actually do get around to doing it. I think it depends on how high on the importance list it is, how easy it is to do, etc. etc. At least they have the balls to put a feedback site that does get routed to the right group of people and they DO READ IT and do listen. But you or I aren't the only people submitting ideas, they probably get a TON of submissions daily.
Professional? A LOT of Professionals that were whining in the beginning with FCPX later got the enhancements they were waiting for, actually took the time to get used to it, and later came back and said it was worth it. They love it more than the previous version. I've seen people submit reviews where they actually apologized on the app store reviews. Apple just did what they did, but they addressed 99.99% of the issues, but then again, it's not like it's never going to have future updates. So it is now a PROFESSIONAL grade app, it's just giving non-professionals, students the same app to use so when they become professional, they don't have to relearn a different app. Meanwhile, iMovie got better for the non-professional and it believe it or not has been used to create movies that were shown in movie theaters. I think some of the documentaries Michael Moore did were done using an older version of iMovie on an older iMac. So there is proof that even a free video editor that comes with the computer IS capable to create something that has been viewed and I think Moore got Acedemy Awards. Go figure. It's all what the user does with the software that makes it professional or not. Heck, there are some people that will do something professional on Garage Band. It may not be what you or I would use, but if the user can do something using free software bundled with the computer and charge money for their work, then they using it in a professional capacity.
I saw an in depth comparison back when FCPX was first being changed and the person was a college professor that teaches NLP in a reputable college and he was giving his review on the FCPX and Premier and overall, FCPX won and was suggested to be the main focus of future instruction. The areas that Premier won were things he felt Apple would address in future versions and there were things about both that were pretty much equal. But there were aspects that FCPX was far superior to Premier.
Now, obviously these companies are ALWAYS going to be making enhancements,etc. and I think for a professional that's doing serious work, there are some things that each app is better at. one thing that the professor mentioned is that in large work flows, they'll have many people doing different aspects of the total process and it's common for one person to use one app over another, but use all three at some point in time. It's all what you do and need. But not everyone abandoned FCPX. There is a whole new crop of kids getting out of college knowing these apps and they'll use whatever they feel comfortable with and FCPX is one of them.
From my experience dealing with high end professionals, they usually spend time with a new app before they actually put it in a work flow, unless it's a minor update. These apps are NOT always simple updates that just add a couple of features. I would NEVER suggest to anyone in the middle of a large project to upgrade an important application or even the OS right in the middle until it's been given some time to find out what bugs exist, etc.. The main reasons are there are always some minor bugs that have to surface and get fixed first before they become stable enough for production work. Even Avid takes a while when there is new version of OS X before they tell users to use it with ProTools. It's similar to how large corporations upgrade WIndows. Most will NOT upgrade Windows on their employees computers as soon as a new version is released and they sometimes have to wait until Service Pack 1 or sometimes 2 comes out, which can take a year or two. Why? They wait until it's stable enough and they've tested all of their internal apps, know how to train the users, drivers, etc. etc. and they know there will be a minimal amount of issues to deal with.
I know there was a lot of disdain when FCPX came out. I looked at it from both sides, sometimes these high end professionals don't look at it from both sides, but they did have a right to scream about it to a certain extent, but Apple proved that they were going to make good on their vision for it and some came back with a love for the new App.
The problem I have with this is that it was well known that FCP was going through a major overhaul. Knowing that the user base should have realized that the software would change a bit.
It was a shock to them as these guys spend more money on one computer than most users and they have seriously stressful jobs to begin with. They have projects they are responsible for that are EXPENSIVE and time is money in their industry. They don't mind spending the money if it does what they need. You would not believe what some of these guys in the audio and video world will do. How would you like to be in a position where they plunk down a $1 Million mixing console for you to evaluate and you just have it lying around the recording studio sitting there collecting dust for months because you don't have time to evaluate it.
I've seen similar examples of stuff hanging around for months, even years in some cases waiting to be put into production, evaluated or applied to an R&D effort. This is not uncommon at all in a variety of industries.
In any event the two big problems I had with the overwhelming noise when FCPX came out where the snap decisions cooled with not understanding software development. The second problem was the price complaints. Its a strange situation when a company lowers the price on something causing the users to complain.
Spend some time in their environment and you'll see their point.
Some of them maybe but the majority of the crap I saw posted back when FCPX was released would have gotten many of these jokers fired in other industries. Nobody likes a a bully that can't work with the tools available to them.
I will back them up to a certain extent because many of them have spend years learning and perfecting their work flow on a software product and they saw it going in a direction which lacked some serious features they rely on day in and day out and that interface change was a significant change.
Missing features are a legitimate complaint but again this is a complete refactoring of FCP, so why would you expect the first version out of the gate to have everything you want?
Biggest change they've seen in years and it was not what they were expecting. But Apple wanted to get the more consumer friendly version out of the gate first as they continued to develop it for the high end pros.
You see that is baloney, nothing they did with the debut of this product indicated that they where targeting consumers. They lowered the price but why that gets confused with targeting consumers is beyond me. The reality is it is software. As such the profits are pretty huge.
Combine that with Apple not releasing anything anything that special to the MacPro as they were slow coming in bringing TB and seriously more powerful CPUs. Yeah, some of it is to blame on Intel, dealing with cooling issues. But I understand their view points and why they got upset.
Frankly I was not at all pleased with the way they have handled the Mac Pro over the last few years. I really don't have the intention of buying one of the old big box machines, but rather see it as a lack of direction or commitment on Apples part. It isn't even clear to me that Apple can recover from the damage they did to themselves. I agree some blame rests on Intels shoulders but Apple shamelessly bungle the old Mac Pro for almost four years.
I can always look back on when I worked in the reseller environment dealing with various users, IT admin people, C-level people in the midst of a large, visable, expensive project.
The entry and mid level models are always the ones that interest me.
Which Apple never really had in a desktop form factor. As you know being an XMac advocate for years now a more feasibly priced Mac Pro is something I'm hoping for.
I lose interest once it goes way beyond what is feasible in my case, given that the base tower prior to adding stuff to it is no more than 40% of total spending to get a workable solution. In Drblank's case I suspect the percentage may be even lower. $800 pci housings are still expensive even then. It's partly that I dislike things that aren't designed to be a unit or on a very specific standard, partly that I dislike new costs, and partly that I dislike additional hardware links.
Hardware links are an interesting discussion as there are so many use cases. For many new Mac Pro users the number of cable would likely be the same. If remote I/O solutions are used you might actually cut back own cable density at the back of the PC. As for card racks, PCI-Express cards are really terrible for the types of I/O that many professionals use these days.
What you describe below is why I don't give the whiners complaining about FCPx much credit. If you are going to whine at least make sense to us mortals.
Yeah, one thing I've learned about the high end video and audio production people is that some of them money isn't an issue, for some it is. What's hilarious is that some ultra high end studios have rigs just to say they have them to attract the Top producers, but that doesn't mean they actually use it in production. It's a strange world these guys live in. It's kind of funny when a high end recording studio might some outrageous ultra custom monitor system in the control room, million dollar consoles, etc.
For some of this stuff the price tags aren't unreasonable. These companies are likely selling these consoles at a few per year.
Imagine that probably a vast amount of pop music these days might be using microphones costing several thousand a piece for a vocalist, it then gets routed through a million dollar console, through another vast amount of other equipment worth tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet they monitors they use to actually hear everything is a pair of cheap $200 bookshelf speakers that literally sound like crap to someone that's an audiophile trained ear and then it gets ripped down to a compressed MP3 which further destroys the sonic quality on a pair of $10 earbuds. It's just a weird industry... I've known guys that will pay through the nose for one thing and then turn around and be completely cheap about some thing else in the audio chain that's actually more important. Sometimes things just don't make sense.
Ten dollar earbuds that don't fit right and sound significantly worst if the buds are slightly out of place. It is a strange business no doubt.
I forgot to add. They could have done the SAME quality production using a $50 app called Auria on a iPad and using a decent pair of headphones to record some vocalist because the rest of the tracks were created on a laptop using a $400 software package. Go figure.
Sometimes running a business is all about the show. Make the customer feel good and your profits will go up. Wheeling and dealing and all that jazz.
The problem I have with this is that it was well known that FCP was going through a major overhaul. Knowing that the user base should have realized that the software would change a bit.
I've seen similar examples of stuff hanging around for months, even years in some cases waiting to be put into production, evaluated or applied to an R&D effort. This is not uncommon at all in a variety of industries.
In any event the two big problems I had with the overwhelming noise when FCPX came out where the snap decisions cooled with not understanding software development. The second problem was the price complaints. Its a strange situation when a company lowers the price on something causing the users to complain.
Some of them maybe but the majority of the crap I saw posted back when FCPX was released would have gotten many of these jokers fired in other industries. Nobody likes a a bully that can't work with the tools available to them.
Missing features are a legitimate complaint but again this is a complete refactoring of FCP, so why would you expect the first version out of the gate to have everything you want?
You see that is baloney, nothing they did with the debut of this product indicated that they where targeting consumers. They lowered the price but why that gets confused with targeting consumers is beyond me. The reality is it is software. As such the profits are pretty huge.
Frankly I was not at all pleased with the way they have handled the Mac Pro over the last few years. I really don't have the intention of buying one of the old big box machines, but rather see it as a lack of direction or commitment on Apples part. It isn't even clear to me that Apple can recover from the damage they did to themselves. I agree some blame rests on Intels shoulders but Apple shamelessly bungle the old Mac Pro for almost four years.
I don't know why users complain when the price for something goes down. Look at what Avid and Premier, they have to lower the price of their product to compete, isn't that a good thing? I would welcome a price decrease. It certainly makes it more affordable to use all three.
most users only look at this from their perspective, they didn't 'LISTEN" to what Apple said about the features they were requesting were going to be added. Sometimes they CAN'T make formal announcements about until they have a firm answer or they are ready to make a formal announcement. They mentioned multicam support was going to be added, but they wanted to keep certain things a secret to make it a bigger surprise. Apple likes surprises, hopefully good ones.
They were obviously waiting for INTEL to release new processors, TB2 chip sets, they are probably still mulling over the finished design, cooling system, etc, etc. How else are they supposed to handle it? They can't produce something out of thin air when they are relying on other companies to make their announcements and releasing their components.. Apple was at the mercy of Intel in a lot of ways. What could they do? Apple had made an announcement about how they were working on a new MacPro and they wanted to release a new product that had a lot of compelling features and speed increases to make it worthwhile. What would you have done? Apple doesn't design X86 chips, that's Intel. Apple doesn't design these GPUs, other do, Apple doesn't design Thunderbolt, Intel does. Then they are still dealing with faster SSD, memory, and obviously the cooling issue, which is a big one. There really isn't anything else they could have done. Companies like to keep things secret until announcement date because they want to be able to show something and talk about speeds and feeds, if they aren't ready to show something, then why talk about it, other than "we're working on it". HP and others don't talk about something until they are ready to announce something. So what's different about them?
I think calling Apple bundling shamelessy is a little harsh and unwarranted. They can't show anything until they have something that is working and they can't talk about a future spec if Intel hasn't made their announcements. Intel didn't release anything on Thunderbolt 2 until shortly before Apple's sneak peak.. A lot of time Apple can't discuss it because they have NDA's with their component vendors, so Apple can't really do much with the big box MacPro except do what upgrades they have available. Apple's in a tough position, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. it's part of being a Computer maker. Some industries give sneak peaks at new products, some don't. The computer industry has typically always liked secrecy because of what happened with Osborne computers. A lot of people don't remember that or were old enough. Osborne had a popular luggable CP/M computer and they opened their mouth on a new product TOO EARLY. What happened? People stopped buying the current model. OOOOPS. it forced the company into bankruptcy. Why? to talk about a future product.
What happens in the smartphone industry with Apple? They make an announcement, sales skyrocket, and then after about 3 months, the rumors start to surface because some people want to know what the NEXT product is out of being impatient. Then people start speculating, and then what happens to sales? They start to drop off before a product announcement. Apple doesn't do 6 month product refreshes on smartphones. They do it, OBVIOUSLY, on a yearly basis. So they have what they have to sell in the mean time. People, the media, analysts think they are always entitled to know about what a company is working on before it's released. Guess what? Companies like to wait until they are ready to show something that SHIPPABLE. We all have to just sit back and wait and if you have something you want in terms or hardware or software features, etc. submit feedback, maybe your wants and desires will get fulfilled.
They left the Mac Pro to languish on the vine. You can certainly take the view above. Sure.
But in four years, how did Apple make the Pro more attractive?
A price cut?
Up the ram?
Bigger hard drive?
Better GPU?
All things within their control.
They could have even created a 'Pro' line based upon the i7 processors and SLI'd the gpu (ironic...) and given the range a price cut to get it back to sane levels last seen with the Blue and White G3. It could have been priced like the current iMac...and you'd still have to get the Studio display.
You'd have a mainstream workstation with a great price adding more desktop sales. Sure, some cannibilisation...but it would be their own product. A sale is a sale.
But.
They didn't.
They let it rot.
We didn't need fancy (and expensive) Xeon cpus back in the day...
They did it to themselves.
£2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core Xeon with ancient gpu, stingy ram...'modest' hard drive...then you have to pay for a near £1000 display?
They left the Mac Pro to languish on the vine. You can certainly take the view above. Sure.
But in four years, how did Apple make the Pro more attractive?
A price cut?
Up the ram?
Bigger hard drive?
Better GPU?
All things within their control.
They could have even created a 'Pro' line based upon the i7 processors and SLI'd the gpu (ironic...) and given the range a price cut to get it back to sane levels last seen with the Blue and White G3. It could have been priced like the current iMac...and you'd still have to get the Studio display.
You'd have a mainstream workstation with a great price adding more desktop sales. Sure, some cannibilisation...but it would be their own product. A sale is a sale.
But.
They didn't.
They let it rot.
We didn't need fancy (and expensive) Xeon cpus back in the day...
They did it to themselves.
£2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core Xeon with ancient gpu, stingy ram...'modest' hard drive...then you have to pay for a near £1000 display?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
The problem is they don't have enough sales to make a drastic enough change to the system where they have to change the case and the boards inside, that costs lots of money to do it, and if the sales aren't enough to warrant it and they don't see that they can make ENOUGH compelling changes, then it's leave it as is and do only the minimal CPU change if they can just plug in a little faster CPU. I hear you, but also know the profits side of things. Sometimes they can't make enough changes to make it worth while doing. It's a shame, but the high end market they are in is seeing the same thing from other PC mfg. I don't see a lot of changes either.
I think you're right on the i7 based tower. I agree to make a lower cost single processor. I put a request in for that.
I also think Apple should make a Mac MIni Pro, where they stick the guts of the higher end iMac in a slightly larger case similar to the Mac Mini, I think that would sell like hot cakes.
I remember people whining about the iMac Bondi without floppy, the iPod, OS X etc.
Apple are still here. Still challenging and being challenging.
I'll give them that. That's why I buy their kit and they have the best OS in the business.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're right about people struggling with change, but the biggest potential problem I see with the MacPro is lack of internal PCI slots for the ProTools and other PCI card guys where they have a SERIOUS investment in PCI cards. For ProTools guys, they have invested more money in their PCI cards that they may not be able to find a suitable solution moving forward. That's where it remains to be seen if this new MacPro is going to have a cost effective solution for those that have or want/need to buy lots of ProTools and other PCI cards. Right now, Magma has PCI chassis that have13 or more slots, but it requires a PCI card to interface with it. and there are those that have those external PCI chassis filled up with various cards because ProTools or whatever else requires it to do the things that the CPU just can't do. With ProTools HDX 11, I think with 3 cards, they can do up to 768 tracks. Yeah, that's overkill for a LOT of people, but for those doing movie sound tracks, apparently Avid thinks there is enough people requiring that much to handle 768 tracks with tons of AAX plugs ins. And buying a bunch of those cards are probably more expensive than a fully stuffed MacPro, and they'll gladly pay the money to do it.
I'm just observing a potential problem for some, that's all. I do hope it gets worked out for all parties concerned. I hate seeing someone not buy what they really wanted because of a silly limitation.
They left the Mac Pro to languish on the vine. You can certainly take the view above. Sure.
But in four years, how did Apple make the Pro more attractive?
A price cut?
Up the ram?
Bigger hard drive?
Better GPU?
All things within their control.
Exactly! Some of these things would have been so simple as to allow a burger flipper to do the upgrade. More RAM or better hard drive options being big considerations. Even if Intel is partially responsible for the lack of a CPU upgrade that doesn't justify the ancient GPU card still shipping with the machine.
They could have even created a 'Pro' line based upon the i7 processors and SLI'd the gpu (ironic...) and given the range a price cut to get it back to sane levels last seen with the Blue and White G3. It could have been priced like the current iMac...and you'd still have to get the Studio display.
My greates concern with the new Mac Pro is pricing and market positioning. I see great potential for a far lower price but tht doesn't mean that Apple will follow through. They really need an entry level machine below $2000, actually well below that proce point.
You'd have a mainstream workstation with a great price adding more desktop sales. Sure, some cannibilisation...but it would be their own product. A sale is a sale.
In many ways he new Mac Pro is so close to being an XMac that it hurts. They could get 90% of the way to an XMac simply by deleteing one GPU card and offering a Haswell desktop processor. Sell it for $1200 and rake in the profits.
But.
They didn't.
They let it rot.
We didn't need fancy (and expensive) Xeon cpus back in the day...
They did it to themselves.
All three points above are completely valid. Lately I've begun to wonder if the old machine was left to rot to make the new machine look better.
£2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core Xeon with ancient gpu, stingy ram...'modest' hard drive...then you have to pay for a near £1000 display?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lets hope that the success of the Air line up has taught them a thing or two about pricing.
The struggle with change is a real issue. Sometimes it is unavoidable, sometimes it is ill advised.
For me the biggest short coming with this new machine is the lack of PCI Express expansion slots. That missing feature is ill advised for a desktop machine. Especially in a machine targeting advanced users.
Comments
Frankly I'm not sure why people think that FCPX was to remain completely tactic, to never improve after release. Really it is a reboot of the infrastructure which will evolve just like the original FCP did. We are pulling this thread a little off track with the talk of FCPX but I think it is important in this context because software can evolve rapidly especially with new hardware support for things like AVX. I can certainly understand the fear and doubt that comes with a software infrastructure change but sometime you just have no choice as companies loose their way. I've seen this in the automation field where once bleeding edge companies die off in the face of new competition or simply revitalized competition. In the end you have no choice but to learn a new software package. Now I don't know if Avid is in this situation yet, but it is surprising how fast companies can fail that we're once considered to be leaders in their fields.
I still see great weakness in a company that is tying software features to compute acceleration hardware. All it really will take to have the rug pulled out from under them is for one or two really smart programmers, that can leverage the latest CPU or GPU technologies, to draw customers away. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that one of the reasons Apple deleted the PCI Express slots is because they fully expect the combination of a new series of XEONs and the option of GPU compute to replace the need for acceleration hardware. The only time I might see compute acceleration as still being required is when precise realtime control is required. It might not happen instantly but new computing hardware offers programmers a chance to really innovate via software. Maybe Avid is agressive enough to realize this and is working on software robustness. It is hard to tell as I've said, I've seen many a company loose its credibility real fast in the marketplace.
I know that it the past I've mentioned the importance of OpenCL and its wide adoptance but often have not had good references to software that leverages OpenCL. Here is one example of an interesting app and its use of OpenCL: http://www.brainvoyager.com/bvqx/doc/UsersGuide/AdditionalDocu/ExploitingThePowerOfGPGPUs.html. The site http://www.brainvoyager.com is a time sink in and of itself, but the subject matter is interesting. At times the use of OpenCL in apps is down right boring or the app generates a who cares response. This is an example that isn't boring.
In any event I posted in this thread because this is an example of software that could potentially leverage the new Mac Pros that isn't AV related. Well if you discount MRI videos of the brain as not being AV related. This is just one example of a market where the new Mac Pro might be considered a very good fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
OpenCL and its importance.
I know that it the past I've mentioned the importance of OpenCL and its wide adoptance but often have not had good references to software that leverages OpenCL. Here is one example of an interesting app and its use of OpenCL: http://www.brainvoyager.com/bvqx/doc/UsersGuide/AdditionalDocu/ExploitingThePowerOfGPGPUs.html. The site http://www.brainvoyager.com is a time sink in and of itself, but the subject matter is interesting. At times the use of OpenCL in apps is down right boring or the app generates a who cares response. This is an example that isn't boring.
In any event I posted in this thread because this is an example of software that could potentially leverage the new Mac Pros that isn't AV related. Well if you discount MRI videos of the brain as not being AV related. This is just one example of a market where the new Mac Pro might be considered a very good fit.
Thanks for the link. I posed the question on another site that discusses audio recording workstations on whether they might be able to use the GPUs for audio related apps due to Open CL since it's supposed to help with non-graphics related functionality. The problem others have raised is that the new MacPro has too much GPU horsepower that audio guys simply don't use. Your average DAW system doesn't need 4K displays, let alone 3 of them. SO the need to have this much GPU horsepower isn't needed, so they would rather have a more slimed down model that maybe had slots so they can put a variety of PCI cards they already have or plan on purchasing that are directly related to their DAW system.
One response was that Open CL didn't appear to be useful in assisting audio related apps, so if this is something Apple may address in future releases, that remains to be seen.
One market that Apple has had a tremendous amount of success is in professional audio workstations and most of the well known and respected recording studios generally have a MacPro with Pro Tools cards installed and some of them work on movie and game sound tracks where they might have several hundred audio tracks and God knows how many plug-ins. I know of one person that has worked at SkyWalker ranch on projects as well as with some of the bigger games out there and he uses Pro Tools cards in a MacPro system. He's another die hard Apple user that might be affected by the lack of PCI slots. Those Pro Tools PCI cards are NOT cheap. Someone can easily spend more money on PCI cards and interfaces from Avid than a MacPro computer stuffed with RAM and harddrives. They don't like having to ditch their serious investment so quickly. The expansion chassis I know about have lots of fan noise or don't handle more than two PCI cards, when some of these guys have three or more PCI cards. Believe it or not, Magma has been making 13 and 16 PCI card slot chassis for MacPros that typically sell to the ProTools and other markets, but it requires a PCI card to interface to it. I'm wondering if they may have to come out with a TB or TB2 version which may be the best solution. But that might be another $5000 just to add 3 cards. It will be intersting to see what happens.
I always thought the Mac Pro should be a unit that could transform from a tower to a rack mounted unit with a simple user installable kit as the best solution for that market. That's why I'm still a little apprehensive on this unit for certain people. For others, I think it's slick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
They certainly lost a few but I suspect lots of that was mass hysteria. There are indications that some users that left in a huff have switched back. The Mac Pro will likely suffer like FCPx did at first with people not grasping the significance of the advancement and dwelling too long in what is missing. Many of the so called professionals displayed just how far they are from being "professional". In some cases guys made complete asses of them selves, if not an ass the displayed all the evolution of a child that has yet to leave preschool. I'd be most interested to find out just how badly sales really have been hurt by the transition to FCPX.
I know there was a lot of disdain when FCPX came out. I looked at it from both sides, sometimes these high end professionals don't look at it from both sides, but they did have a right to scream about it to a certain extent, but Apple proved that they were going to make good on their vision for it and some came back with a love for the new App. It was a shock to them as these guys spend more money on one computer than most users and they have seriously stressful jobs to begin with. They have projects they are responsible for that are EXPENSIVE and time is money in their industry. They don't mind spending the money if it does what they need. You would not believe what some of these guys in the audio and video world will do. How would you like to be in a position where they plunk down a $1 Million mixing console for you to evaluate and you just have it lying around the recording studio sitting there collecting dust for months because you don't have time to evaluate it. Spend some time in their environment and you'll see their point. I will back them up to a certain extent because many of them have spend years learning and perfecting their work flow on a software product and they saw it going in a direction which lacked some serious features they rely on day in and day out and that interface change was a significant change. Biggest change they've seen in years and it was not what they were expecting. But Apple wanted to get the more consumer friendly version out of the gate first as they continued to develop it for the high end pros. Combine that with Apple not releasing anything anything that special to the MacPro as they were slow coming in bringing TB and seriously more powerful CPUs. Yeah, some of it is to blame on Intel, dealing with cooling issues. But I understand their view points and why they got upset.
I can always look back on when I worked in the reseller environment dealing with various users, IT admin people, C-level people in the midst of a large, visable, expensive project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
They don't like having to ditch their serious investment so quickly. The expansion chassis I know about have lots of fan noise or don't handle more than two PCI cards, when some of these guys have three or more PCI cards. Believe it or not, Magma has been making 13 and 16 PCI card slot chassis for MacPros that typically sell to the ProTools and other markets, but it requires a PCI card to interface to it. I'm wondering if they may have to come out with a TB or TB2 version which may be the best solution. But that might be another $5000 just to add 3 cards. It will be intersting to see what happens.
I always thought the Mac Pro should be a unit that could transform from a tower to a rack mounted unit with a simple user installable kit as the best solution for that market. That's why I'm still a little apprehensive on this unit for certain people. For others, I think it's slick.
It comes down to how many electrical lanes are required and whether the drivers are suitable. Sonnet tests some cards and reports results, even if they are not certified thunderbolt solutions. In terms of PCI cards, it should be possible in upcoming years to add slot based storage via SATA express. I did expect Apple to retain something internally, as it shrunk the internal expansion to a point that is below both the mini and imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
How would you like to be in a position where they plunk down a $1 Million mixing console for you to evaluate and you just have it lying around the recording studio sitting there collecting dust for months because you don't have time to evaluate it. Spend some time in their environment and you'll see their point. I will back them up to a certain extent because many of them have spend years learning and perfecting their work flow on a software product and they saw it going in a direction which lacked some serious features they rely on day in and day out and that interface change was a significant change.
That ties into what I previously mentioned about the most demanding users often being fairly conservative on purchases. They need time to evaluate, and require everything to be in place. Without that the new machine is less productive than the old one. I'm somewhat surprised to hear of something that expensive being sidelined. I think whatever outrage was a combination of things. The old version had languished for a while. When the new one came out, they initially pulled the ability to obtain further licenses of the old FCP, and support seems to have dropped off rather quickly. No one is going to change software in the middle of a job, especially if the new program can't read the old data.
What I'm really trying to say here is that just because it hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. The real trick with GPU compute is having a problem that maps well to the GPU. One of the reasons I don't like the term GPGPU is that the first GP (General Purpose) isn't really true, The problem really has to fit the GPU architecture to get the performance scaling people always crow about. Well I can't say what that response was referencing but I don't see a simple yah or nay being the right approach here. It really depends upon your algorithms and how wide your data is. On top of that new instructions in Intel processors like AVX can adjust the tripping point where GPU compute is worthwhile. The lack of PCI Express slots is a real problem. Further thereis no metric to say how fast the professional work station market will switch over if the do at all. Even one slot would have went a very long way in the new Mac Pro.
It did seem like a better approach, that is a machine that could easily convert to rack mount.
As to the coming Mac Pro design and the over abundance of performance for some users, with a little tweaking this machine would be real close to what I have imagined an XMac would be. Drop one GPU card and put a disk drive in its place along with a nice Haswell desktop and there you go - XMac.
In any event Apple used the "up to" phrase many times in their online debut, I really suspect what we have seen at this point is the maxed out model. As such I really think there will be a less powerful entry level model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event Apple used the "up to" phrase many times in their online debut, I really suspect what we have seen at this point is the maxed out model. As such I really think there will be a less powerful entry level model.
The entry and mid level models are always the ones that interest me. I lose interest once it goes way beyond what is feasible in my case, given that the base tower prior to adding stuff to it is no more than 40% of total spending to get a workable solution. In Drblank's case I suspect the percentage may be even lower. $800 pci housings are still expensive even then. It's partly that I dislike things that aren't designed to be a unit or on a very specific standard, partly that I dislike new costs, and partly that I dislike additional hardware links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
It comes down to how many electrical lanes are required and whether the drivers are suitable. Sonnet tests some cards and reports results, even if they are not certified thunderbolt solutions. In terms of PCI cards, it should be possible in upcoming years to add slot based storage via SATA express. I did expect Apple to retain something internally, as it shrunk the internal expansion to a point that is below both the mini and imac.
That ties into what I previously mentioned about the most demanding users often being fairly conservative on purchases. They need time to evaluate, and require everything to be in place. Without that the new machine is less productive than the old one. I'm somewhat surprised to hear of something that expensive being sidelined. I think whatever outrage was a combination of things. The old version had languished for a while. When the new one came out, they initially pulled the ability to obtain further licenses of the old FCP, and support seems to have dropped off rather quickly. No one is going to change software in the middle of a job, especially if the new program can't read the old data.
Yeah, one thing I've learned about the high end video and audio production people is that some of them money isn't an issue, for some it is. What's hilarious is that some ultra high end studios have rigs just to say they have them to attract the Top producers, but that doesn't mean they actually use it in production. It's a strange world these guys live in. It's kind of funny when a high end recording studio might some outrageous ultra custom monitor system in the control room, million dollar consoles, etc. Imagine that probably a vast amount of pop music these days might be using microphones costing several thousand a piece for a vocalist, it then gets routed through a million dollar console, through another vast amount of other equipment worth tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet they monitors they use to actually hear everything is a pair of cheap $200 bookshelf speakers that literally sound like crap to someone that's an audiophile trained ear and then it gets ripped down to a compressed MP3 which further destroys the sonic quality on a pair of $10 earbuds. It's just a weird industry... I've known guys that will pay through the nose for one thing and then turn around and be completely cheap about some thing else in the audio chain that's actually more important. Sometimes things just don't make sense.
I forgot to add. They could have done the SAME quality production using a $50 app called Auria on a iPad and using a decent pair of headphones to record some vocalist because the rest of the tracks were created on a laptop using a $400 software package. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Some users get pissed off for the littlest of things though. In the case of FCPX the reaction really didn't seem to be justified from somebody looking in from the outside.
The "littlest thing" can sometimes be a really, really big thing. Losing just one codec or breaking one link can bring down a production workflow. Our system is completely dependant on a feature that most users don't even know about or understand. If Avid suddenly dropped it because most users will never need it we'd be screwed. The availability of features like that are part of the reason we use a "pro" app and not a consumer "equivalent." Avid gets that. Apple didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Really with FCPX being a complete rewrite there was simply no way that it would reproduce the old environment completely.
That's EXACTLY what Avid is doing with the next version of Pro Tools. The "engine" needed a rewrite, so they've sacrificed compatibility with every plug-in ever written for Pro Tools in order to do it. But, unlike Apple, they HAVE reproduced the entire environment. The issue that's got me upset appears to be a marketing decision, not a missing feature. That is, the one middle-tier capability they dropped can still be had just by throwing more money at it. FCPX users didn't have that option. Things that were not included could not be added just by paying more.
Further, it's disingenuous to promote a system as a "professional" solution then say users are whiners when they object to it being dumbed down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is interesting because I keep hearing of stories where people are moving back to FCPX.
Sure, because the features that should have been there in the first place are now finally available!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I can certainly understand the fear and doubt that comes with a software infrastructure change but sometime you just have no choice as companies loose their way. [...] In the end you have no choice but to learn a new software package
That was certainly true for FCP users. They had no choice. Even if they DIDN'T change suppliers and stayed with FCP, it meant learning not just new controls but a completely new operating paradigm. That probably would have been met with grumbles but acceptance if users could still do the work they did before the rewrite. The fact that they couldn't is what escalated the grumbling to growling (and rightly so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
The "littlest thing" can sometimes be a really, really big thing. Losing just one codec or breaking one link can bring down a production workflow. Our system is completely dependant on a feature that most users don't even know about or understand. If Avid suddenly dropped it because most users will never need it we'd be screwed. The availability of features like that are part of the reason we use a "pro" app and not a consumer "equivalent." Avid gets that. Apple didn't.
That's EXACTLY what Avid is doing with the next version of Pro Tools. The "engine" needed a rewrite, so they've sacrificed compatibility with every plug-in ever written for Pro Tools in order to do it. But, unlike Apple, they HAVE reproduced the entire environment. The issue that's got me upset appears to be a marketing decision, not a missing feature. That is, the one middle-tier capability they dropped can still be had just by throwing more money at it. FCPX users didn't have that option. Things that were not included could not be added just by paying more.
Further, it's disingenuous to promote a system as a "professional" solution then say users are whiners when they object to it being dumbed down.
Sure, because the features that should have been there in the first place are now finally available!
That was certainly true for FCP users. They had no choice. Even if they DIDN'T change suppliers and stayed with FCP, it meant learning not just new controls but a completely new operating paradigm. That probably would have been met with grumbles but acceptance if users could still do the work they did before the rewrite. The fact that they couldn't is what escalated the grumbling to growling (and rightly so).
Apple took a chance with FCPX to release what was more of a replacement to FCP Express, but what they did was to repackage it and they released something to get FCP Express users taken care of first because that represents a bigger crowd of people to get used to the new GUI and work flow, etc., the features they pulled out that were add-ons were done because not everyone used them and they figured to sell what the majority of people use, and then add-on extras. They also weren't finished with the more high end features which they DID add after a few updates just like they said. They took out Soundtrack because most people were using either Logic, ProTools and other DAWs and they are far more comprehensive than Soundtack Pro plus Apple reduced the over all price drastically to make it less expensive. Yeah, the Pros got bent out of shape because it didn't multi cam which was added and improved, and other important features that have been added, but the end result for most is a better product. There was also dirt cheap third party app to transfer older projects over.
Well, you can always submit feedback to Apple on features you want and maybe they'll add it later. Apple DOES do that. So don't think that they won't. It doesn't cost you anything to submit feedback through their website. It's there for you to vent, voice your concerns, ideas, suggestions for enhancements, bugs, etc. etc. I use it all of the time and I can say that they do get around to addressing MOST of the requests I've made. I also try to submit professional submissions rather than just being hot headed about it. But I can say that I've had great success in getting things that I've requested added. I'd say that so far, I'm getting about 75 to 80% of what I submit added at some point in time. That's not bad, so far. Some things I suggested, I found out 10 minutes after I pressed the submit button that the feature was actually there, which was even better! I just didn't dig deep enough to realize it. That happens. But they actually do get around to doing it. I think it depends on how high on the importance list it is, how easy it is to do, etc. etc. At least they have the balls to put a feedback site that does get routed to the right group of people and they DO READ IT and do listen. But you or I aren't the only people submitting ideas, they probably get a TON of submissions daily.
Professional? A LOT of Professionals that were whining in the beginning with FCPX later got the enhancements they were waiting for, actually took the time to get used to it, and later came back and said it was worth it. They love it more than the previous version. I've seen people submit reviews where they actually apologized on the app store reviews. Apple just did what they did, but they addressed 99.99% of the issues, but then again, it's not like it's never going to have future updates. So it is now a PROFESSIONAL grade app, it's just giving non-professionals, students the same app to use so when they become professional, they don't have to relearn a different app. Meanwhile, iMovie got better for the non-professional and it believe it or not has been used to create movies that were shown in movie theaters. I think some of the documentaries Michael Moore did were done using an older version of iMovie on an older iMac. So there is proof that even a free video editor that comes with the computer IS capable to create something that has been viewed and I think Moore got Acedemy Awards. Go figure. It's all what the user does with the software that makes it professional or not. Heck, there are some people that will do something professional on Garage Band. It may not be what you or I would use, but if the user can do something using free software bundled with the computer and charge money for their work, then they using it in a professional capacity.
I saw an in depth comparison back when FCPX was first being changed and the person was a college professor that teaches NLP in a reputable college and he was giving his review on the FCPX and Premier and overall, FCPX won and was suggested to be the main focus of future instruction. The areas that Premier won were things he felt Apple would address in future versions and there were things about both that were pretty much equal. But there were aspects that FCPX was far superior to Premier.
Now, obviously these companies are ALWAYS going to be making enhancements,etc. and I think for a professional that's doing serious work, there are some things that each app is better at. one thing that the professor mentioned is that in large work flows, they'll have many people doing different aspects of the total process and it's common for one person to use one app over another, but use all three at some point in time. It's all what you do and need. But not everyone abandoned FCPX. There is a whole new crop of kids getting out of college knowing these apps and they'll use whatever they feel comfortable with and FCPX is one of them.
From my experience dealing with high end professionals, they usually spend time with a new app before they actually put it in a work flow, unless it's a minor update. These apps are NOT always simple updates that just add a couple of features. I would NEVER suggest to anyone in the middle of a large project to upgrade an important application or even the OS right in the middle until it's been given some time to find out what bugs exist, etc.. The main reasons are there are always some minor bugs that have to surface and get fixed first before they become stable enough for production work. Even Avid takes a while when there is new version of OS X before they tell users to use it with ProTools. It's similar to how large corporations upgrade WIndows. Most will NOT upgrade Windows on their employees computers as soon as a new version is released and they sometimes have to wait until Service Pack 1 or sometimes 2 comes out, which can take a year or two. Why? They wait until it's stable enough and they've tested all of their internal apps, know how to train the users, drivers, etc. etc. and they know there will be a minimal amount of issues to deal with.
In any event the two big problems I had with the overwhelming noise when FCPX came out where the snap decisions cooled with not understanding software development. The second problem was the price complaints. Its a strange situation when a company lowers the price on something causing the users to complain. Some of them maybe but the majority of the crap I saw posted back when FCPX was released would have gotten many of these jokers fired in other industries. Nobody likes a a bully that can't work with the tools available to them. Missing features are a legitimate complaint but again this is a complete refactoring of FCP, so why would you expect the first version out of the gate to have everything you want? You see that is baloney, nothing they did with the debut of this product indicated that they where targeting consumers. They lowered the price but why that gets confused with targeting consumers is beyond me. The reality is it is software. As such the profits are pretty huge. Frankly I was not at all pleased with the way they have handled the Mac Pro over the last few years. I really don't have the intention of buying one of the old big box machines, but rather see it as a lack of direction or commitment on Apples part. It isn't even clear to me that Apple can recover from the damage they did to themselves. I agree some blame rests on Intels shoulders but Apple shamelessly bungle the old Mac Pro for almost four years.
For some of this stuff the price tags aren't unreasonable. These companies are likely selling these consoles at a few per year. Ten dollar earbuds that don't fit right and sound significantly worst if the buds are slightly out of place. It is a strange business no doubt.
Sometimes running a business is all about the show. Make the customer feel good and your profits will go up. Wheeling and dealing and all that jazz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem I have with this is that it was well known that FCP was going through a major overhaul. Knowing that the user base should have realized that the software would change a bit.
I've seen similar examples of stuff hanging around for months, even years in some cases waiting to be put into production, evaluated or applied to an R&D effort. This is not uncommon at all in a variety of industries.
In any event the two big problems I had with the overwhelming noise when FCPX came out where the snap decisions cooled with not understanding software development. The second problem was the price complaints. Its a strange situation when a company lowers the price on something causing the users to complain.
Some of them maybe but the majority of the crap I saw posted back when FCPX was released would have gotten many of these jokers fired in other industries. Nobody likes a a bully that can't work with the tools available to them.
Missing features are a legitimate complaint but again this is a complete refactoring of FCP, so why would you expect the first version out of the gate to have everything you want?
You see that is baloney, nothing they did with the debut of this product indicated that they where targeting consumers. They lowered the price but why that gets confused with targeting consumers is beyond me. The reality is it is software. As such the profits are pretty huge.
Frankly I was not at all pleased with the way they have handled the Mac Pro over the last few years. I really don't have the intention of buying one of the old big box machines, but rather see it as a lack of direction or commitment on Apples part. It isn't even clear to me that Apple can recover from the damage they did to themselves. I agree some blame rests on Intels shoulders but Apple shamelessly bungle the old Mac Pro for almost four years.
I don't know why users complain when the price for something goes down. Look at what Avid and Premier, they have to lower the price of their product to compete, isn't that a good thing? I would welcome a price decrease. It certainly makes it more affordable to use all three.
most users only look at this from their perspective, they didn't 'LISTEN" to what Apple said about the features they were requesting were going to be added. Sometimes they CAN'T make formal announcements about until they have a firm answer or they are ready to make a formal announcement. They mentioned multicam support was going to be added, but they wanted to keep certain things a secret to make it a bigger surprise. Apple likes surprises, hopefully good ones.
They were obviously waiting for INTEL to release new processors, TB2 chip sets, they are probably still mulling over the finished design, cooling system, etc, etc. How else are they supposed to handle it? They can't produce something out of thin air when they are relying on other companies to make their announcements and releasing their components.. Apple was at the mercy of Intel in a lot of ways. What could they do? Apple had made an announcement about how they were working on a new MacPro and they wanted to release a new product that had a lot of compelling features and speed increases to make it worthwhile. What would you have done? Apple doesn't design X86 chips, that's Intel. Apple doesn't design these GPUs, other do, Apple doesn't design Thunderbolt, Intel does. Then they are still dealing with faster SSD, memory, and obviously the cooling issue, which is a big one. There really isn't anything else they could have done. Companies like to keep things secret until announcement date because they want to be able to show something and talk about speeds and feeds, if they aren't ready to show something, then why talk about it, other than "we're working on it". HP and others don't talk about something until they are ready to announce something. So what's different about them?
I think calling Apple bundling shamelessy is a little harsh and unwarranted. They can't show anything until they have something that is working and they can't talk about a future spec if Intel hasn't made their announcements. Intel didn't release anything on Thunderbolt 2 until shortly before Apple's sneak peak.. A lot of time Apple can't discuss it because they have NDA's with their component vendors, so Apple can't really do much with the big box MacPro except do what upgrades they have available. Apple's in a tough position, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. it's part of being a Computer maker. Some industries give sneak peaks at new products, some don't. The computer industry has typically always liked secrecy because of what happened with Osborne computers. A lot of people don't remember that or were old enough. Osborne had a popular luggable CP/M computer and they opened their mouth on a new product TOO EARLY. What happened? People stopped buying the current model. OOOOPS. it forced the company into bankruptcy. Why? to talk about a future product.
What happens in the smartphone industry with Apple? They make an announcement, sales skyrocket, and then after about 3 months, the rumors start to surface because some people want to know what the NEXT product is out of being impatient. Then people start speculating, and then what happens to sales? They start to drop off before a product announcement. Apple doesn't do 6 month product refreshes on smartphones. They do it, OBVIOUSLY, on a yearly basis. So they have what they have to sell in the mean time. People, the media, analysts think they are always entitled to know about what a company is working on before it's released. Guess what? Companies like to wait until they are ready to show something that SHIPPABLE. We all have to just sit back and wait and if you have something you want in terms or hardware or software features, etc. submit feedback, maybe your wants and desires will get fulfilled.
I'm with Wizard on this one.
They left the Mac Pro to languish on the vine. You can certainly take the view above. Sure.
But in four years, how did Apple make the Pro more attractive?
A price cut?
Up the ram?
Bigger hard drive?
Better GPU?
All things within their control.
They could have even created a 'Pro' line based upon the i7 processors and SLI'd the gpu (ironic...) and given the range a price cut to get it back to sane levels last seen with the Blue and White G3. It could have been priced like the current iMac...and you'd still have to get the Studio display.
You'd have a mainstream workstation with a great price adding more desktop sales. Sure, some cannibilisation...but it would be their own product. A sale is a sale.
But.
They didn't.
They let it rot.
We didn't need fancy (and expensive) Xeon cpus back in the day...
They did it to themselves.
£2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core Xeon with ancient gpu, stingy ram...'modest' hard drive...then you have to pay for a near £1000 display?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
As for FCPX?
People struggle with change.
As for the new Pro?
People struggle with change.
I remember people whining about the iMac Bondi without floppy, the iPod, OS X etc.
Apple are still here. Still challenging and being challenging.
I'll give them that. That's why I buy their kit and they have the best OS in the business.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm with Wizard on this one.
They left the Mac Pro to languish on the vine. You can certainly take the view above. Sure.
But in four years, how did Apple make the Pro more attractive?
A price cut?
Up the ram?
Bigger hard drive?
Better GPU?
All things within their control.
They could have even created a 'Pro' line based upon the i7 processors and SLI'd the gpu (ironic...) and given the range a price cut to get it back to sane levels last seen with the Blue and White G3. It could have been priced like the current iMac...and you'd still have to get the Studio display.
You'd have a mainstream workstation with a great price adding more desktop sales. Sure, some cannibilisation...but it would be their own product. A sale is a sale.
But.
They didn't.
They let it rot.
We didn't need fancy (and expensive) Xeon cpus back in the day...
They did it to themselves.
£2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core Xeon with ancient gpu, stingy ram...'modest' hard drive...then you have to pay for a near £1000 display?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
The problem is they don't have enough sales to make a drastic enough change to the system where they have to change the case and the boards inside, that costs lots of money to do it, and if the sales aren't enough to warrant it and they don't see that they can make ENOUGH compelling changes, then it's leave it as is and do only the minimal CPU change if they can just plug in a little faster CPU. I hear you, but also know the profits side of things. Sometimes they can't make enough changes to make it worth while doing. It's a shame, but the high end market they are in is seeing the same thing from other PC mfg. I don't see a lot of changes either.
I think you're right on the i7 based tower. I agree to make a lower cost single processor. I put a request in for that.
I also think Apple should make a Mac MIni Pro, where they stick the guts of the higher end iMac in a slightly larger case similar to the Mac Mini, I think that would sell like hot cakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
As for FCPX?
People struggle with change.
As for the new Pro?
People struggle with change.
I remember people whining about the iMac Bondi without floppy, the iPod, OS X etc.
Apple are still here. Still challenging and being challenging.
I'll give them that. That's why I buy their kit and they have the best OS in the business.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're right about people struggling with change, but the biggest potential problem I see with the MacPro is lack of internal PCI slots for the ProTools and other PCI card guys where they have a SERIOUS investment in PCI cards. For ProTools guys, they have invested more money in their PCI cards that they may not be able to find a suitable solution moving forward. That's where it remains to be seen if this new MacPro is going to have a cost effective solution for those that have or want/need to buy lots of ProTools and other PCI cards. Right now, Magma has PCI chassis that have13 or more slots, but it requires a PCI card to interface with it. and there are those that have those external PCI chassis filled up with various cards because ProTools or whatever else requires it to do the things that the CPU just can't do. With ProTools HDX 11, I think with 3 cards, they can do up to 768 tracks. Yeah, that's overkill for a LOT of people, but for those doing movie sound tracks, apparently Avid thinks there is enough people requiring that much to handle 768 tracks with tons of AAX plugs ins. And buying a bunch of those cards are probably more expensive than a fully stuffed MacPro, and they'll gladly pay the money to do it.
I'm just observing a potential problem for some, that's all. I do hope it gets worked out for all parties concerned. I hate seeing someone not buy what they really wanted because of a silly limitation.
Lets hope that the success of the Air line up has taught them a thing or two about pricing.
For me the biggest short coming with this new machine is the lack of PCI Express expansion slots. That missing feature is ill advised for a desktop machine. Especially in a machine targeting advanced users.