Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro

1282931333466

Comments

  • Reply 601 of 1320
    jag_warriorjag_warrior Posts: 177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    Well, one reason "why not" is that putting rectangular devices in a cylindrical enclosure is not a particularly efficient use of space.



     


    No, but why would the housing surrounding a *round* optical disc need to be rectangular anyway? And of what geometric shape are many of the components that will be within the upcoming MacPro? Even in situations where a component case needs to be more rectangular than round, applying radiused corners can largely address the concern of space efficiency.


     


    My question about possible design solutions in housing components is more about aesthetics than form following function. Maybe more for those who don't really need such a beast, but elect to get one for bragging rights or whatever (like the guy who owns a Porsche 911 GT3, but has never been on a race track a day in his life), I suspect there will be a number of accessory manufacturers who copy the basic MacPro design for their enclosures or accessories in some form or fashion.


     


    Even if/when my BTO iMac craps out, I certainly can't see that I would need one of these things - but I find myself lusting after if nonetheless. Oh baby, come to daddy!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 602 of 1320
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    drblank wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    There's a page here with some feature film audio examples:

    http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/Avatar

    "The orchestra is recorded on one Pro Tools|HD rig at 96 kHz, with the synths on a second rig at 48 kHz. We then mix to a third Pro Tools|HD rig, which is recording all the stems for film. We end up with more than 96 tracks of stems, as well as the original multitrack.

    With three Pro Tools machines locked using Satellite Link and synced to picture through Video Satellite LE, Rhodes mixes the project in 5.1 surround on an ICON D-Command® console.

    The sheer complexity of the project would be impossible to handle without Pro Tools|HD, says Franglen. “One of the biggest breakthroughs for me is the fact that we no longer worry about file sizes or track counts. On one nine-minute cue, for example, we’ve got close to 450 tracks and a file size of around 56 GB.”

    “It’s really quite astounding how the technology has evolved,” Franglen continues. “On Titanic, I carried two tons of equipment with me. On Avatar, I used a Mac Pro, Pro Tools|HD, 16 GB of RAM, and 6 TB of hard disk space. Everything was done inside the box, without a single outside synth. Whereas Titanic involved a huge process of simply setting up from session to session, now it takes just 10 minutes to hook up a display — it’s all just down to Pro Tools|HD.”

    An ex-Avid employee tests out the Thunderbolt chassis here with two HDX cards:

    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/783953-magma-vs-sonnet-thunderbolt-chassis-comparison-w-photos.html

    "I saw 905 Channel strips cranking for two hours on a retina MBP. That means my HDX rig is now as portable as my laptop, and as powerful as my Mac Pro."

    In the Avid video, they demo the same HDX2 with an Intensity video card in the 3rd slot:



    Someone here has it working with their MBP:

    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-10-hdx/706237-magma-expressbox-3t-hdx-working.html

    "Just got it working today with a new 15" Retina Display Macbook Pro and Pro Tools 10.3.2
    Haven't had a chance to do an exact comparison to the Mac Pro towers we're using yet but in general performance seems very close. A quad orchestral mix running with lots of RTAS plugs and 235 voices."

    Fan noise is probably a bigger concern than performance. Someone here has a portable setup with a Red Rocket and you can hear the fan kicking in:


    [VIDEO]


    Still easier than hauling a Mac Pro around in that scenario. Someone on the above page with the HDX2 replaced the fan in the Sonnet chassis with a quieter one. With a long enough cable, the boxes can sit in a ventilated cupboard somewhere.

    One plus with the new Mac Pro is that there's no having to decide between fast GPUs and extra cards. The Radeon 5870 needed both power plugs in the Pro but the HDX cards needed one of them and then each card had connectors to each other (up to 3 cards). Now you can get dual FirePro W9000s plus 3 HDX cards in a chassis and you can buy multiple chassis for other cards. If people already paid 3x $5k for HDX cards or other, $1-2k for a box or two is not that much.

    You wouldn't need one box per card. The Avatar audio above was 56GB for 9 minutes - that's just 104MB/s, which is well below TB1 bandwidth so it's processor-limited and not bandwidth-limited.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 603 of 1320
    Details are wrong in several places about the ports.

    There are zero Firewire 800 ports, not two as stated in the article.
    There are four USB 3 ports; the article forgot to mention them.
    There are two Ethernet ports; the article is vague on this.

    There are 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports which are backwards compatible with FireWire.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 604 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    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?


     


    Because it's supposed to be a *PRO* app, not a consumer product. The rewrite was a plus and I commend them for it, but it's not acceptable to sacrifice critical workflow features to do it. Avid just completed a rewrite of the Pro Tools engine and it didn't become a prosumer product as a result.


     


    Yes, Apple did eventually finish the app, but it took them two years to do it.


     


    The only thing I don't understand is why those who rely on certain features of the "old" FCP didn't just stay with it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 605 of 1320
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    There's a page here with some feature film audio examples:



    http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/Avatar



    "The orchestra is recorded on one Pro Tools|HD rig at 96 kHz, with the synths on a second rig at 48 kHz. We then mix to a third Pro Tools|HD rig, which is recording all the stems for film. We end up with more than 96 tracks of stems, as well as the original multitrack.



    With three Pro Tools machines locked using Satellite Link and synced to picture through Video Satellite LE, Rhodes mixes the project in 5.1 surround on an ICON D-Command® console.



    The sheer complexity of the project would be impossible to handle without Pro Tools|HD, says Franglen. “One of the biggest breakthroughs for me is the fact that we no longer worry about file sizes or track counts. On one nine-minute cue, for example, we’ve got close to 450 tracks and a file size of around 56 GB.”



    “It’s really quite astounding how the technology has evolved,” Franglen continues. “On Titanic, I carried two tons of equipment with me. On Avatar, I used a Mac Pro, Pro Tools|HD, 16 GB of RAM, and 6 TB of hard disk space. Everything was done inside the box, without a single outside synth. Whereas Titanic involved a huge process of simply setting up from session to session, now it takes just 10 minutes to hook up a display — it’s all just down to Pro Tools|HD.”



    An ex-Avid employee tests out the Thunderbolt chassis here with two HDX cards:



    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/783953-magma-vs-sonnet-thunderbolt-chassis-comparison-w-photos.html



    "I saw 905 Channel strips cranking for two hours on a retina MBP. That means my HDX rig is now as portable as my laptop, and as powerful as my Mac Pro."



    In the Avid video, they demo the same HDX2 with an Intensity video card in the 3rd slot:







    Someone here has it working with their MBP:



    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-10-hdx/706237-magma-expressbox-3t-hdx-working.html



    "Just got it working today with a new 15" Retina Display Macbook Pro and Pro Tools 10.3.2

    Haven't had a chance to do an exact comparison to the Mac Pro towers we're using yet but in general performance seems very close. A quad orchestral mix running with lots of RTAS plugs and 235 voices."



    Fan noise is probably a bigger concern than performance. Someone here has a portable setup with a Red Rocket and you can hear the fan kicking in:







    Still easier than hauling a Mac Pro around in that scenario. Someone on the above page with the HDX2 replaced the fan in the Sonnet chassis with a quieter one. With a long enough cable, the boxes can sit in a ventilated cupboard somewhere.



    One plus with the new Mac Pro is that there's no having to decide between fast GPUs and extra cards. The Radeon 5870 needed both power plugs in the Pro but the HDX cards needed one of them and then each card had connectors to each other (up to 3 cards). Now you can get dual FirePro W9000s plus 3 HDX cards in a chassis and you can buy multiple chassis for other cards. If people already paid 3x $5k for HDX cards or other, $1-2k for a box or two is not that much.



    You wouldn't need one box per card. The Avatar audio above was 56GB for 9 minutes - that's just 104MB/s, which is well below TB1 bandwidth so it's processor-limited and not bandwidth-limited.


    I know that there are scenarios and trends for portability. That's something I always thought about.  Let me pose a scenario I envision for something I think would be cool.


     


    Having some background in certain industries, they like to use expensive road cases as to not damage a product when do road work.



    I've seen a lot of people in the video production and audio production where they have stuff in road cases.


     


    I think maybe if a MacPro was rack mountable, they could protect it that way.  Magma Cases has a rack mountable solution, as does Promise for RAID arrays, etc.


     


    I always thought a MacPro should be able to be rack mountable for studios since most of their gear is rack mountable,or to throw in a road case for touring or dragging around to other studios, locations, etc.


     


    That's what I always thought would make a great solution for the high end market.  Also Pro Tools using HD HDX cards don't really tax the GPU nor the CPU.  But they do require PCI cards.  Some use MADI cards, some use other PCI cards that aren't mentioned in addition to the HD HDX cards.  I know Fiber Channel used to be more popular, but I think Thunderbolt will replace that.  Universal Audio has a PCI card for processing plug-ins.  All kinds of stuff.  One almost has to go through every scenario to see what the low end, mobile, high end, ultra high, and where they are going.    ProTools 11 just got announced so it will take a while to see how far they are going to push those systems and what limitations it will or won't have using the new MacPro vs a traditional Tower solution.


     


    Yeah, the biggest complaint was fan noise for external chassis. And they have a point.  They HAVE to make them quiet to attract the audio/video crowd since they are in rooms where ambient noise is a problem.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 606 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    v5v wrote: »
    Because it's supposed to be a *PRO* app, not a consumer product.
    That is a very narrow minded view of the concept of a Pro App. Features come and go and as such users need to adapt. I mean really how far back in history should developers go to support every little feature on a rewrite.
    The rewrite was a plus and I commend them for it, but it's not acceptable to sacrifice critical workflow features to do it.
    The point here is critical to whom, many users didn't have a problem with the initial release.
    Avid just completed a rewrite of the Pro Tools engine and it didn't become a prosumer product as a result.
    This is complete non sense, just because a pet feature is missing FOR YOU doesn't mean the product is any less suitable for professional work. Frankly your attitude in this respect is pretty terrible. Do you throw a fit when a feature ends up missing in other apps or a bug works its way into a new revision of a software package? The world changes and frankly it is the mark of a professional to change with it. I'm really hoping you aren't recording your fine works to wax cylinders.
    Yes, Apple did eventually finish the app, but it took them two years to do it.
    This highlights that you don't grasp the issues involved in software development. The first point is that apps are never really done. Apple may have had to scramble to cover some of the noise being offered up over the upgrade but I'm completely sure they have long term plans to further enhance FCPx.

    The second point is that features take time two years might sound like a lot to you but this is a major app filled with a lot of technology that all has to go through QC checks.
    The only thing I don't understand is why those who rely on certain features of the "old" FCP didn't just stay with it.

    Well that is a good question. Seriously I don't know why so many professionals required an instant update, it isn't the way of a professional in my mind. At work new software or even updates, get tested before being put into production. Sometimes long validations are required!

    In any event, for the most part I think the reaction to FCP was completely overblown. In many cases it really looked like guys looking for trivial things to complain about.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 607 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post







    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.



    Yes. Earlier on you also offered one of the most complete descriptions, suggesting pci slots that could also directly accommodate drives. I'm not sure how they would handle the mechanical/electrical thing. I guess some could be higher.


     


     


    Quote:


    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.




    I tend to find better stability from something plugged directly into a PCI or SATA bus than something run through whatever host protocol then through a port multiplier into a SATA backplane. There are some things that simply aren't supported with those. As an example, many won't support SMART status. I find that interesting primarily for the metadata, not so much predicting absolute drive failure.


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    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.



    That does sound like a weird business. I'm not a fan of earbuds. I have owned iPods. The sound wasn't great. I bought a nano as I liked the armband for jogging. I used a pair of Sennheisers (best budget headphones I know of) with it. My biggest issue with those stupid devices was dead batteries just outside of warranty.


     


    Quote:


    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.


     




    I wonder about these things. I mean first I have to assume that this music is played back in a number of formats. Typically when authoring something, you want as much of a known target as possible. You may know those cheap speakers are a mile off, but it does little to indicate direction. The higher end equipment should have a better signal to noise ratio and predictable behavior. Am I wrong there? I get that some of it is to impress clients. A lot of industries have things like that.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 608 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    That is a very narrow minded view of the concept of a Pro App.


     


    Not at all. Avid and Adobe know I make my living with their products and have shown respect for that. Both have managed major revisions WITHOUT leaving the upper end of their market in a bad situation. In fact, they actually managed to improve their products support for collaboration and multi-level workflows as part of the rewrite.


     


    Of course, Adobe and Avid don't build computers and smartphones -- they have a much more limited focus which is perhaps why they were able to effectively accomplish what Apple could not. That doesn't excuse Apple though, it just tells me that it is not prudent for me to base my ability to do business on their software.


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    That is a very narrow minded view of the concept of a Pro App. Features come and go and as such users need to adapt. I mean really how far back in history should developers go to support every little feature on a rewrite.


     


    The FCPX debacle wasn't a case of retiring obsolete features. Obviously everyone expects and understands that. They dropped functions that are important to a CURRENT production workflow. Casually dropping support for the XDCAM format is NOT what I'd call sweeping out dusty old features. Sure, Apple promised they'd add it later and eventually did, but that's not much help to those whose primary acquisition format was not supported in the meantime. Should they just not shoot for a year or two?


     





    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    The point here is critical to whom, many users didn't have a problem with the initial release.


     


    Many users were perfectly satisfied with Final Cut Express. What's your point?


     


    The existence of satisfied users does not invalidate the validity of other users' complaints. The issue here is that Apple actively pursued the professional editing community and promised a product that fit their needs. Until X they did that. With X they dropped things those pros considered important. Those with more modest needs may be happy with it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for those who use and need the more advanced capabilities. So, the "whom" is the advanced users Apple wooed and then screwed.


     


     


     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    This is complete non sense, just because a pet feature is missing FOR YOU doesn't mean the product is any less suitable for professional work. 



     


     


    That's not fair. From reading my posts you know very well that I make a clear distinction between my limited corner of the universe and the bigger picture. Things like multicam, splits, codecs et al are NOT "pet features." They're fundamental core requirements. What was dropped absolutely DID make it "less suitable for professional work."


     





    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Frankly your attitude in this respect is pretty terrible. Do you throw a fit when a feature ends up missing in other apps or a bug works its way into a new revision of a software package? The world changes and frankly it is the mark of a professional to change with it. I'm really hoping you aren't recording your fine works to wax cylinders.


     


    Now you're being insulting, and unfairly so.


     


    If that "missing feature" was something like the ability to import a file type that is rarely used outside pro facilities but commonly used within them, damn straight I'd raise a stink. Stuff like that is the difference between "pro" software and consumer titles. We've covered this. It's why I pay $900 for Photoshop instead of $30 for Pixelmator. It's why I pay $800 for Pro Tools instead of Sound Forge for $65. What Apple did was take their "pro" app and make it "prosumer," essentially a better version of FCE.


     


    I don't know why you're surprised that pros would complain. I'm not. What DOES surprise me is that they felt the need to carry on about it and bitch to Apple. I just stayed with the old version for now, and it/when I need something more capable, I'll look to the suppliers that have supported me.


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    This highlights that you don't grasp the issues involved in software development.


     



     


    Very true. That's not my job. I don't expect my clients to know about, understand or give a damn about what I do, how I do it, or what's involved in getting it done. That's all MY problem, not theirs. All they want is a finished product that meets their needs. I either deliver that or I don't. If I do, I get paid and I get more work in the future. If I don't, that's the end of that revenue stream.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    The first point is that apps are never really done. Apple may have had to scramble to cover some of the noise being offered up over the upgrade but I'm completely sure they have long term plans to further enhance FCPx.


     


    "Hello, Mr. Producer? V5V here. I just want to let you know that I've completed three-quarters of the project you hired me to do. I know you wanted narration but I'm not supporting that anymore. I plan to offer it again in the future. Don't worry though, I've reduced your bill."


     


    Do you think that client cares WHY his project doesn't have a voice-over? Should he just be patient and hope I add it soon? Or should he say "screw this" and go to someone else? I know what I'd do, and you would, too.


     


    Apple's long term plans are Apple's problem. I need to get work done NOW. If they don't produce a product that will do it, I'll go to someone who does.


     


    Now it's two years later and Apple has finally included the stuff I need to do my work. Sure, NOW I'll give it a look. I might be a little leery about Apple as a supplier though.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    The second point is that features take time two years might sound like a lot to you but this is a major app filled with a lot of technology that all has to go through QC checks.


     


    Not my problem. That's THEIR problem. If they want me to buy it, they need to deliver, period.


     


    Besides, as I've pointed out before, Avid and Adobe can do it. Why can't Apple?


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    In any event, for the most part I think the reaction to FCP was completely overblown. In many cases it really looked like guys looking for trivial things to complain about.


     


    I completely disagree. I think the objections were perfectly valid. That said, I think the response was bizarre. If I used dumptrucks in my work and my regular supplier converted their line to only pickups, I'd just start buying my trucks from someone else. I really don't understand all the people standing out in front of the truck dealership bitching and moaning...



     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 609 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Typically when authoring something, you want as much of a known target as possible. You may know those cheap speakers are a mile off, but it does little to indicate direction. The higher end equipment should have a better signal to noise ratio and predictable behavior. Am I wrong there? I get that some of it is to impress clients. A lot of industries have things like that.



     


    Two factors affect the outcome of the behaviour drblank described:


     


    1. The finished mix goes to mastering before distribution, so many of the deficiencies in balance caused by the inferior monitoring is corrected there.


     


    2. Lots and lots of released material sounds like crap but consumers don't care. As long as they buy it, there's little incentive to strive for better.


     


    The music business is not like the medical profession -- doing it for a living doesn't necessarily mean the practitioner has a good understanding of the theory or best practices.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 610 of 1320
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    v5v wrote: »

    The music business is not like the medical profession -- doing it for a living doesn't necessarily mean the practitioner has a good understanding of the theory or best practices.

    No but you can't fake it either, let it be a producer or technician if you don't know your equipment or have a good ear for music you're not going to last very long.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 611 of 1320
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    In any event, for the most part I think the reaction to FCP was completely overblown. In many cases it really looked like guys looking for trivial things to complain about.


     


     


    It was stunning to watch.  Only politicians could have done it better.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 612 of 1320
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post




    Now it's two years later and Apple has finally included the stuff I need to do my work. Sure, NOW I'll give it a look. I might be a little leery about Apple as a supplier though.




     


    Why?  The only bad move they made was stopping FCP 7 sales which they fixed quickly.  FCPX still needs another round or two of improvements but it's no longer Final Cut Express.


     


    You act as if Adobe and Avid never screwed the pooch ever as suppliers.  If that were the case FCP never would have gained any foothold.  Avid was pretty bad about pushing around their customers and still is.  I mean seriously tell me the CPTK removal in PT isn't a screw move and they don't have some pissed off customers.  And the whole HD with or without hardware and who can upgrade with used HD licenses is simply a cluster of Avid's own devising.  Wanna bet that folks taking the PT10+CPTK to PT11HD upgrade get shafted when Avid decides that PT12 upgrades from PT11 are only for actual hardware owners?


     


    Meh.  Don't try to sell the concept that somehow Avid is a trustworthy supplier while Apple isn't.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 613 of 1320
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member


    Or Adobe for that matter.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 614 of 1320
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    I mean seriously tell me the CPTK removal in PT isn't a screw move and they don't have some pissed off customers.



     


    Oh, I know. As a CPTK user myself I'm one of them, and I voiced my objection earlier in the thread. In my comparison of that to the FCPX situation I noted that the difference is that Avid only dropped ONE major feature, not several, and it affects only a very small group of mid-range users, not the entire upper end of the market. The other difference is that at least with Pro Tools I can get that capability back just by throwing money at it. FCPX users had no recourse at all.


     


    There's also the fact that the loss of CPTK is one downgrade after two generations of really significant, important, useful improvements. While a handful of us middle-of-the-road users lost the ability to work in surround, EVERYONE gained support for time code, interleaved files, hardware independence, offline bounce and radically improved processing to name just a few features off the top of my head. Before X, FCP had just kinda languished, and even X only offered one really significant workflow improvement (background rendering).


     


    You're probably right that I painted Avid and Adobe with too favourable a brush, but the point still stands that they have never left their users unable to work at all the way Apple did. "Unable to work" of course meaning "the new version doesn't do what you require." For the life of me I can't understand all the bitching and whining instead of just finding something else or staying with an existing setup. I really like what PT11 offers and would like to upgrade, but since surround production is an absolute requirement for my work and I don't wanna buy their hardware, I'll just stay with what I have until I can't.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    Meh.  Don't try to sell the concept that somehow Avid is a trustworthy supplier while Apple isn't.



     


    I just don't trust Apple. Not in an "they're evil" way, but in a "I never know what they're gonna do" way. Their love of surprises makes me nervous. Combine that with their trend to limiting hardware choices and they become a risky source on which to wager your income. Avid at least warns users that they're about to be screwed: "This is the last version that will support your $30K hardware investment before we force you to replace it just because we can."


     


    I continue to use Apple products because I really like OSX and all the peripheral benefits that come with their ecosystem, but the way they handle hardware drives me to distraction sometimes.


     


    Anyway, I'm coming off sounding like an Apple hater and an Avid fanboy. Since I'm actually neither I should probably drop this. I just thought some of the comments here about FCPX users were unfair.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 615 of 1320
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Or Adobe for that matter.

    Someone here even suggests moving to Adobe instead of paying Avid:

    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-11/828139-avid-pro-tools-11-dumps-cptk-1650-get-what.html

    "Hell, I can even get a year subscription of Adobe's FULL Creative Suite 7 for $360 which includes Audio and Video Editing, so WTF am I getting from AVID?

    To me, this is an overt blatant money grab from desperate cash strung management..."

    Avid has enough cash for now but isn't doing so well on revenue. You can see this from their earnings:

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AVID/2430874091x0x609402/5dcaa01e-b311-47a8-9e83-eed1d39883cb/Q3_2012_Earnings_Press_Release.pdf

    "GAAP revenues of $127.2 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2012, compared to $164.7 million for the same period in 2011. The GAAP net loss for the third quarter was $17.4 million, or $0.45 per share, compared to a GAAP net loss of $7.6 million, or $0.20 per share, in the third quarter of 2011."

    In their 10k, they state:

    "Sales of digital audio software and workstation products accounted for approximately 14%, 16% and 15% of our consolidated net revenues in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively."

    Net revenue in 2011 was $678m so $95m for pro audio. If this was all $5k HDX cards, that's 19,000 units in an entire year. Say that around half are Mac users so 10,000. I had estimated Mac Pro users to be no more than 1m per year. This would put Apple's Pro Tools userbase using PCI products around 1% of Mac Pro users. It's even lower revenue for their video products:

    "Sales of professional video-editing products accounted for approximately 11%, 13% and 13% of our consolidated net revenues for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively."

    It's easy to forget the relative incomes of companies when you just see the brands and products. Q3 2012:

    Revenue.... Avid: $127m, Adobe: $1b, Apple: $35b
    Net Profit.... Avid: -$17m, Adobe: $200m, Apple: $8.8b

    http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/03/22/avid-receives-warning-letter-from-nasdaq-needs-to-fix-accounting/

    "Avid says that its primary focus has been to determine whether certain Software Updates previously thought to be only bug fixes met the definition of post-contract customer support under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles."

    If they went the same route as Adobe with subscriptions, that would give them more determinable sustained revenue so they could manage their outgoings for marketing etc and could alleviate some of their accounting issues. It might be an idea for Adobe to come in and buy them out. They'd instantly get the high-end film and audio production crowd into their customer group. It wouldn't even matter if they had apps competing with each other because they'd just have them in the same bundle anyway.

    Adobe Pro Tools to replace Soundbooth. Adobe typically doesn't do hardware but they started recently:

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/6/4305712/adobe-announces-first-hardware-the-project-mighty-smart-stylus

    They could build special Thunderbolt devices for their video and audio software, such as an NVidia product for CUDA compute or a box with multiple HDX processors and they would work in every Thunderbolt machine. For products that use low enough power like the HDX, they can even have optional batteries for truly mobile workflows.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 616 of 1320
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    Someone here even suggests moving to Adobe instead of paying Avid:



    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-11/828139-avid-pro-tools-11-dumps-cptk-1650-get-what.html



    "Hell, I can even get a year subscription of Adobe's FULL Creative Suite 7 for $360 which includes Audio and Video Editing, so WTF am I getting from AVID?



    To me, this is an overt blatant money grab from desperate cash strung management..."



    Avid has enough cash for now but isn't doing so well on revenue. You can see this from their earnings:



    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AVID/2430874091x0x609402/5dcaa01e-b311-47a8-9e83-eed1d39883cb/Q3_2012_Earnings_Press_Release.pdf



    "GAAP revenues of $127.2 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2012, compared to $164.7 million for the same period in 2011. The GAAP net loss for the third quarter was $17.4 million, or $0.45 per share, compared to a GAAP net loss of $7.6 million, or $0.20 per share, in the third quarter of 2011."



    In their 10k, they state:



    "Sales of digital audio software and workstation products accounted for approximately 14%, 16% and 15% of our consolidated net revenues in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively."



    Net revenue in 2011 was $678m so $95m for pro audio. If this was all $5k HDX cards, that's 19,000 units in an entire year. Say that around half are Mac users so 10,000. I had estimated Mac Pro users to be no more than 1m per year. This would put Apple's Pro Tools userbase using PCI products around 1% of Mac Pro users. It's even lower revenue for their video products:



    "Sales of professional video-editing products accounted for approximately 11%, 13% and 13% of our consolidated net revenues for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively."



    It's easy to forget the relative incomes of companies when you just see the brands and products. Q3 2012:



    Revenue.... Avid: $127m, Adobe: $1b, Apple: $35b

    Net Profit.... Avid: -$17m, Adobe: $200m, Apple: $8.8b



    http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/03/22/avid-receives-warning-letter-from-nasdaq-needs-to-fix-accounting/



    "Avid says that its primary focus has been to determine whether certain Software Updates previously thought to be only bug fixes met the definition of post-contract customer support under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles."



    If they went the same route as Adobe with subscriptions, that would give them more determinable sustained revenue so they could manage their outgoings for marketing etc and could alleviate some of their accounting issues. It might be an idea for Adobe to come in and buy them out. They'd instantly get the high-end film and audio production crowd into their customer group. It wouldn't even matter if they had apps competing with each other because they'd just have them in the same bundle anyway.



    Adobe Pro Tools to replace Soundbooth. Adobe typically doesn't do hardware but they started recently:



    http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/6/4305712/adobe-announces-first-hardware-the-project-mighty-smart-stylus



    They could build special Thunderbolt devices for their video and audio software, such as an NVidia product for CUDA compute or a box with multiple HDX processors and they would work in every Thunderbolt machine. For products that use low enough power like the HDX, they can even have optional batteries for truly mobile workflows.


     


    Avid is ripe for a take over,  Harmon would probably be my first guess.  But what I don't know about Avid are specifics on what's selling in terms of trends in various products they make.


     


    I also think that the days of internal PCI slots is over and Apple is just taking the bold step in letting people know that if you REALLY need PCI slots, buy an external Thunderbolt (or maybe Thunderbolt 2?) chassis and always keep your investment which helps keep the costs of a new box with CPU/GPU inside will be smaller and cheaper because of it. What's funny is that when it comes to PC towers, they've gone the smaller is better, the bigger the better, etc. and now it's, the NO SLOTS is better and no DRIVE is better and I have a funny feeling it might actually work.  I always have to shake my head at how small the MacPro is.  Less than 10inch x 7inch. We just don't know much it is.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 617 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    drblank wrote: »
    Avid is ripe for a take over,  Harmon would probably be my first guess.  But what I don't know about Avid are specifics on what's selling in terms of trends in various products they make.

    I also think that the days of internal PCI slots is over and Apple is just taking the bold step in letting people know that if you REALLY need PCI slots, buy an external Thunderbolt (or maybe Thunderbolt 2?) chassis and always keep your investment which helps keep the costs of a new box with CPU/GPU inside will be smaller and cheaper because of it. What's funny is that when it comes to PC towers, they've gone the smaller is better, the bigger the better, etc. and now it's, the NO SLOTS is better and no DRIVE is better and I have a funny feeling it might actually work.  I always have to shake my head at how small the MacPro is.  Less than 10inch x 7inch. We just don't know much it is.

    That price tag will make or break this machine more than anything else. Priced right an external box would be a trivial cost. That external box could be what ever the user needs, a disk array, a slot box or a combination of several features.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 618 of 1320
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    It was stunning to watch.  Only politicians could have done it better.

    I'm not to happy with current world politics and one reason is just this, everything get overblown in their minds justifying things like the NSA spying. In any event I have to agree.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 619 of 1320
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    I'm not to happy with current world politics and one reason is just this, everything get overblown in their minds justifying things like the NSA spying. In any event I have to agree.




    I suspect a better transition would have quelled much of this as opposed to a move to pull old licenses from the store and try to push the new thing with a 1.0 version. I would agree regarding world politics, although it has gone this way for a very long time. I've begun to wonder if anyone reads about McCarthyism in their history courses. New day different boogieman.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 620 of 1320
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    That price tag will make or break this machine more than anything else. Priced right an external box would be a trivial cost. That external box could be what ever the user needs, a disk array, a slot box or a combination of several features.


    For some people it might.  I would look at it this way.  If someone is going to spend $30K or so on ProTools PCI cards to stuff them, I would think that it might be better to have an expansion chassis to always keep the cards plugged in or be able to transport them elsewhere, and when the main box needs to be replaced, it's a simple unplugging process that would take literally a few seconds.  Same goes for the storage system.  In some ways, I do think that if they bring out TB or TB2 expansion chassis for these PCI slots, get what you need and then you keep that investment.


     


    I think this box maybe priced less than a current MacPro with similar CPUS because the new one doesn't have a more powerful, expensive power supply, it does't have a TON of fans, PCI slots, cage, etc. etc. so they might be able to bring the cost down enough to afford an external TB or TB 2 based expansion chassis for PCI boards if you need it, and then an external storage system.  Both of which can be used when the time comes to upgrade.




    Apple has a history of replacing existing systems for the same price or even less. Only once in a while have they ever increased the price of the unit.  But, as you said, we'll have to wait until we know the actual cost and configurations.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.