So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
However... I can imagine that this could turn out to be legit, especially for the 15" model. To the extent that SSD speed is an important bottleneck, these new MBPs are extremely powerful. To the extent that the CPU is a bottleneck, they're meh. The GPU is more complicated -- overall, there are better GPUs out there from Nvidia, but if Apple is able to really exploit these AMD GPUs with OpenCL or Metal, then Apple's software advantages might offset the hardware disadvantages of using AMD.
So I think this review could potentially hold up for others. we will just have to wait and see.
No, not a fair point. A point, to be sure, heavily biased, as are many others. But 'fair'? Not hardly. You want to see 'fair point'? Read rob53's post.
Ok, so a guy gets an advance review MBP for a hands-on. So it follows in some minds, not that there's a possibility of QPQ, but a necessity. Further, his observations could turn out to be legit. It could happen, right? And this guy is obviously a hack, because his blog appeared in Huff Post, and a shill because he may have been given an MBP for free! For fuck's sake. There's no fair point in any of that.
I actually read the article linked in rob53's post. The author made what looks to me to be many fair points, based on his observations and how he uses the Mac. They won't hold true for other professionals, but his article was about how he uses it.
For now, I'll take his actual hands on for what it is— one data point, from someone who's actually used the gear for their work. It may turn out that he wasn't telling the truth, that in fact those observations weren't legit. Since I didn't see any overt lies, I have no problem affording the article and author the benefit of the doubt.
Editing 5K footage? At what bit rate? We aren't talking about uncompressed video here, I can guarantee that. I can edit 5K on allot of edit suites too so long as it's not over 100 mb/s. An editor for an online magazine like HufPo is barely an editor IMO. He outputs to 1920 most likely and his whole workflow is light duty at best.
Now go back and actually read the referred-to article for content this time.
Trim Editing, where Thomas Carter works (not Huffington Post as you seem to think), is based in Whitechapel, East London, where they have been cutting commercials, music videos and films since 2004.
this is a start, but grossly understated. the GPU is literally on par with windows laptops 4 years old. i love bsd, i love OSX, i love mac hardware, but seriously -- they ALWAYS do this with GPUs. I don't know why they insist on going so freaking cheap on GPU.
I've come to expect this on the 13" MBPs. But there should at least be one top tier 15" MBP that has all the bells and whistles, including 'legacy' ports. Make it/leave it a half-pound heavier and 3-5mm thicker for respectable battery life. And give it a great GPU. With the OS leaning on GPU, it's a shame to cheap out.
Meanwhile, a 2016 13" MBP is otherwise fine for me, but I want a better GPU.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
Anyone can buy a shill. This isn't journalism, it's just a dressed up retweet from some guy who likes his free demo laptop. When these things are in regular use, then we'll see legitimate reviews.
Your head is in Uranus. He has advance access to a Mac. So he's been given a free MBP?Should he have paid to demo it? Would you? No, I didn't think so. Are you saying he doesn't have to return it?
It isn't journalism? No shit, Sherlock. You have a keen grasp of the obvious. He's a video editor, not a journalist. He blogged. You know that that is, right? Not a news story, not a review. He's a paid video editor posting about "One Professional's Look" and "my 'Professional' opinion".
His opinion is one data point. What he wrote raises no red flags for me, but if it needs a grain of salt, most of what I've read here is well beyond the help of Morton or even C&H, for that matter.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
A lot of hyperventilation but not a single significant point. Who said that Apple abandoned Aperture? It still works. It even works with the iCloud. So, what's your point? Ah, that is: It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time. Nicely put and you welcome. Then why so much bold statements? We have learned that re-writing a software from scratch takes at least a couple of versions until reaching the maturity level of the previous one. If the previous one is not made unusable, what is your problem with that? No update? They write a brand new one instead of incremental updates, then what else do you want?
Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that...
No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line. Software license agreements stipulate plenty of disclaimers about such issues. But considering that this may be true concern for you, I'd just emphasize that that issue has been resolved more than a decade ago with enterprise level software called data warehouse. This is beyond the reach of PC users but PC users benefit from some commercial services for such data conversion. So, no obsolete file format is left orphan in any way. None of the Apple file formats are extinct, neither. I can open all my iWorks 09 documents. Determining the end of life of documents is the responsibility of the user who created them.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
Can you name any tech company that has never dropped a product?
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
Can you name any tech company that has never dropped a product?
Aperturegate is more popular for being cited as an example than people who actually bought it.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
Can you name any tech company that has never dropped a product?
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
A lot of hyperventilation but not a single significant point. Who said that Apple abandoned Aperture? It still works. It even works with the iCloud. So, what's your point? Ah, that is: It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time. Nicely put and you welcome. Then why so much bold statements? We have learned that re-writing a software from scratch takes at least a couple of versions until reaching the maturity level of the previous one. If the previous one is not made unusable, what is your problem with that? No update? They write a brand new one instead of incremental updates, then what else do you want?
Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that...
No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line. Software license agreements stipulate plenty of disclaimers about such issues. But considering that this may be true concern for you, I'd just emphasize that that issue has been resolved more than a decade ago with enterprise level software called data warehouse. This is beyond the reach of PC users but PC users benefit from some commercial services for such data conversion. So, no obsolete file format is left orphan in any way. None of the Apple file formats are extinct, neither. I can open all my iWorks 09 documents. Determining the end of life of documents is the responsibility of the user who created them.
My main point was about Phil Schiller retweeting the article. For me that was a significant point. The rest was secondary in this context but not less important or significant.
"Who said that Apple Abandoned Aperture?" I have no idea. You didn't hear it from me.
Aperture: Discontinued. Removed from sale. Last update more than two years ago. Users have reported bugs with Sierra. No news from Apple - par for the course.
Photos: Aperture 'replacement' of a kind. Lacking features of Aperture. You propose setting up a VM to get around this? Pretty extreme solution but you missed the point so that is insignificant. This isn't about Aperture, it's about Apple.
It would have been better for Apple not to have released it in the first place if a long term commitment couldn't be guaranteed. At last count Apple had something like 200 billion dollars in cash laying around. That could buy a lot of commitment. Especially given the original investment required by users to buy into the idea. We are told that when you buy a Mac you buy into a platform. The hardware and software work as one. that obviously isn't limited to the OS. iTunes still plays an important part on the local software front.
I don't have a problem with software being cancelled. I have a problem with the way Apple does it. That is a very significant point. More so to the users of the cancelled (or 'reworked') products. Quicktime for Windows has (or at least had) a couple of very nasty holes in it. As far as I know it has now been abandoned. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple actually closed the holes or sent out a message over auto update offering to uninstall it? Especially as it's the kind of software that 'sits under the surface' for many users.
Clearly Apple got a lot wrong with the changes in those applications. Especially as all of the backlash could have been avoided in the first place.
Logic is more than 25 years old. Final Cut, more than 15. Aperture got less than 10 of active development which was probably less than five in 'real' development. Now, if you want to make a go of professional software at pro prices, you should at least put some effort and commitment into it. Aperture, in spite of being one of the top earners on the App store wasn't really pushed forward like a pro application should be. No doubt due to internal decisions and that is the problem. Whenever you buy into anything Apple (hardware or software) you should be very careful.
Should OS X still cost $129 or be 'free' as it is now? Should Aperture have seen such a big price drop? Was 'Photos' really the right substitute for pro users? Was it transitioned at the best time. Is iCloud really where we want out photos? It is notoriously dangerous, after all. Apple definitely has problems when it comes to managing pro applications and there is a case for making them independent of Apple (like Filemaker or something similar).
Fact: Filemaker is Apple. Apple owns Filemaker. Filemaker, while structurally independent of Apple, can do nothing that goes against the instructions of the mothership.
Fact: Claris was Apple. Apple owned Claris. Claris, while structurally independent of Apple could do nothing that went against the grain of instructions of the mothership.
Filemaker was born out of the ashes of Claris.
Claris, at its peak, had around 20 million users and was profitable. Apple screwed up on one of its most successful products ever.
"Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that..."
No. Apart from it being a stupid comment, there isn't much to say about it.
"No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line" No. You are right. But should that be the end of the story? It doesn't matter if there is a disclaimer or not. This is an issue that is being debated on many fronts, from government through to education, universities, libraries, science etc. The issue of file format extinction wasn't resolved a decade a ago. The foundations were laid in some areas and there was a push for open standards and even open source. From the server down in many areas of education for example, in my part of the world (Linux on the server and on the desktop). Then from the cloud down with government run data centres looking to cut costs and future proof themselves. In my line of work, I see people pushing things like Open Nebula for cloud or intercloud operations in science and education. For proprietary file formats we need to learn from the past. Legislation always trails technology and only now are certain problems being 'resolved' or tackled. Independently of what the terms of sale might say or any disclaimer in the software licence, should people be allowed to inherit the digital collections of deceased owners? Should any user created file belong to the user and the user have sufficient guarantees to be able to open those files long into the future? Even if the creating application no longer exists? Should such files carry an advertised expiration date? There are many, many significant issues be resolved.
The EU ruling on Google (right to be forgotten) was a milestone ruling, if imperfect. The EU position on data protection and the recent data protection reform was also a key moment. Should user access to user created files be a fundamental right in the Digital Age?
These may be 'boring' issues to many. Insignificant to others but they have to be tackled one way or the other.
But as I said, my post was really about Schiller re-tweeting the article. He didn't do himself any favours and I still think he made a mistake.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
A lot of hyperventilation but not a single significant point. Who said that Apple abandoned Aperture? It still works. It even works with the iCloud. So, what's your point? Ah, that is: It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time. Nicely put and you welcome. Then why so much bold statements? We have learned that re-writing a software from scratch takes at least a couple of versions until reaching the maturity level of the previous one. If the previous one is not made unusable, what is your problem with that? No update? They write a brand new one instead of incremental updates, then what else do you want?
Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that...
No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line. Software license agreements stipulate plenty of disclaimers about such issues. But considering that this may be true concern for you, I'd just emphasize that that issue has been resolved more than a decade ago with enterprise level software called data warehouse. This is beyond the reach of PC users but PC users benefit from some commercial services for such data conversion. So, no obsolete file format is left orphan in any way. None of the Apple file formats are extinct, neither. I can open all my iWorks 09 documents. Determining the end of life of documents is the responsibility of the user who created them.
Filemaker was born out of the ashes of Claris.
Wrong. Filemaker was existing before even Claris. That was a totally independent product outside Apple of its early days. It became Claris Filemaker for some time and after the dissolution of Claris, Filemaker has been incorporated again, as a new company or returned to the previous company, I don't remember right now.
Sorry, in your long exposé the only falsifiable claim was that one. The rest is your metaphysics and beyond falsification and any other rational testing.
How about get the impressions of Walter Murch, arguably one of the biggest names in film editing? He was an early ardent user of Final Cut Pro, but he famously gave it up because of issues he had with updates to the software in 2011. I'd really like to see what he has to say. He currently uses Avid and Premiere Pro. Here is a 2015 interview that is quite illuminating:
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
FCP was absolutely decrepit code. It needed to be rebuilt from the ground up and modernized to gain any performance benefits, which it has in spades. As for Aperture, most people moved to Lightroom, or a similar third party application, and Apple folded what they could into Photos.
And Quicktake files? I had a Quicktake 150, all of the models were 640 by 480 resolution, maybe Apple sold some few thousands of them, and they are all more than 20 years old if they even exist at all with some collectors.
One would think that those files would be either migrated to .jpg or tossed because the images were so foul compared even to early 2000's digital cameras.
How about get the impressions of Walter Murch, arguably one of the biggest names in film editing? He was an early ardent user of Final Cut Pro, but he famously gave it up because of issues he had with updates to the software in 2011. I'd really like to see what he has to say. He currently uses Avid and Premiere Pro. Here is a 2015 interview that is quite illuminating:
Quite an interesting discussion. Walter has not used FCX, but seemed to have a great awareness of why Apple had made the change so abruptly from FCP 7 to FCX.
Apple could have made a better transition to FCX, but even Walter agreed that Apple wanted out of the professional market, and at the end, speculated that FCX would service the professional market through third party plugins. He also implied that Apple wanted to make an easier to use product for the consumer market.
Interesting that he is a Premiere Pro user, and was quite taken with Adobe's product managers and the interaction that they had with professional editors.
My question would be whether Premiere Pro is a better experience on an MBP versus a comparable Windows notebook, such as the Surface Book. That would give professionals the option to continue using Apple hardware, or if they needed more performance, portable workstations and traditional workstations running Premiere Pro under Windows.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better.
Um...no.
Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
A lot of hyperventilation but not a single significant point. Who said that Apple abandoned Aperture? It still works. It even works with the iCloud. So, what's your point? Ah, that is: It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time. Nicely put and you welcome. Then why so much bold statements? We have learned that re-writing a software from scratch takes at least a couple of versions until reaching the maturity level of the previous one. If the previous one is not made unusable, what is your problem with that? No update? They write a brand new one instead of incremental updates, then what else do you want?
Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that...
No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line. Software license agreements stipulate plenty of disclaimers about such issues. But considering that this may be true concern for you, I'd just emphasize that that issue has been resolved more than a decade ago with enterprise level software called data warehouse. This is beyond the reach of PC users but PC users benefit from some commercial services for such data conversion. So, no obsolete file format is left orphan in any way. None of the Apple file formats are extinct, neither. I can open all my iWorks 09 documents. Determining the end of life of documents is the responsibility of the user who created them.
Filemaker was born out of the ashes of Claris.
Wrong. Filemaker was existing before even Claris. That was a totally independent product outside Apple of its early days. It became Claris Filemaker for some time and after the dissolution of Claris, Filemaker has been incorporated again, as a new company or returned to the previous company, I don't remember right now.
Sorry, in your long exposé the only falsifiable claim was that one. The rest is your metaphysics and beyond falsification and any other rational testing.
I was referring to Filemaker, the company, not the product.
So someone who received a product from a company (possibly for free) before the product is even shipping is spouting high praise. Isn't that par for the course...business as usual...you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? I'm sure the new MBP is a great machine, but I'll take this particular review with a grain of salt.
The fact that it got re-tweeted by Schiller is quite lame, too. Given the backlash it would have ben better to come out and speak directly to the press (like he did the other day, at least to some extent) or just refrain from pointing us in the direction of someone who could be one of the 'favoured'. Did he explain how exactly he got his hands on this machine before anyone else?
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Aperture, OK. Old style Adobe like user interface from 2000s with plenty of floating windows. Photos application is much better. Some users may miss some dismissed Aperture features but Aperture still works until those users complete their transition to another cataloging application. They don't need to, they may stay with Aperture. If the OS no longer runs it then they may build a VM solution for a compatible OS X etc...
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
How's that for missing the point! It wasn't what those applications did or didn't do. It wasn't even about how they did it.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
FCP was absolutely decrepit code. It needed to be rebuilt from the ground up and modernized to gain any performance benefits, which it has in spades. As for Aperture, most people moved to Lightroom, or a similar third party application, and Apple folded what they could into Photos.
And Quicktake files? I had a Quicktake 150, all of the models were 640 by 480 resolution, maybe Apple sold some few thousands of them, and they are all more than 20 years old if they even exist at all with some collectors.
One would think that those files would be either migrated to .jpg or tossed because the images were so foul compared even to early 2000's digital cameras.
How bad the code of Final Cut was is besides the point. The point is that Apple handled every aspect of the transition in the worst possible way and it was all so unnecessary.
You say most people moved to Lightroom or similar third party application. The point is they didn't move voluntarily and had invested hundreds of dollars in Aperture and then more still in the move to the alternative a application.
As for QuickTake files, it doesn't matter how foul the images were. If those files are of your baby or the last of your grandmother, you will want them. They are in a proprietary format. In reality a kind of PICT file. Preview should be able to open these and every other old Apple file format in the blink of an eye. If you create a file format you should support it. If you discontinue the creating app it would be nice if you made the format specification freely available if you don't support it in newer apps. There are many possible solutions.
Comments
I wonder if this guy also knew beforehand that FCP was going to get butchered for the release of FCX. There you have another problem with Apple. You invest thousands in the platform and never know what might happen next. They could pull the rug right out from under your feet.
Aperture, anyone? Even for consumers (Bento, Final Cut Express, etc). Please don't tell me Bento wasn't Apple.
Ok, so a guy gets an advance review MBP for a hands-on. So it follows in some minds, not that there's a possibility of QPQ, but a necessity. Further, his observations could turn out to be legit. It could happen, right? And this guy is obviously a hack, because his blog appeared in Huff Post, and a shill because he may have been given an MBP for free! For fuck's sake. There's no fair point in any of that.
I actually read the article linked in rob53's post. The author made what looks to me to be many fair points, based on his observations and how he uses the Mac. They won't hold true for other professionals, but his article was about how he uses it.
For now, I'll take his actual hands on for what it is— one data point, from someone who's actually used the gear for their work. It may turn out that he wasn't telling the truth, that in fact those observations weren't legit. Since I didn't see any overt lies, I have no problem affording the article and author the benefit of the doubt.
Trim Editing, where Thomas Carter works (not Huffington Post as you seem to think), is based in Whitechapel, East London, where they have been cutting commercials, music videos and films since 2004.
I've come to expect this on the 13" MBPs. But there should at least be one top tier 15" MBP that has all the bells and whistles, including 'legacy' ports. Make it/leave it a half-pound heavier and 3-5mm thicker for respectable battery life. And give it a great GPU. With the OS leaning on GPU, it's a shame to cheap out.
Meanwhile, a 2016 13" MBP is otherwise fine for me, but I want a better GPU.
Bento. Not officially from Apple but from its spin-off Filemaker. Filemaker is totally independent in its operations, sales channels etc... Apple doesn't even sell any Filemaker product like FCP. Bento was an experiment from the early days of iOS. It was conceptually difficult to use, and consequently a wrong project. One cannot bring "database" to the masses, because database thing is an expert's job, not casual users'. Proven decades ago with Microsoft File for the Macintosh. Remember, anyone? So, Bento was too much of a database. The closest thing to a casual user's database is Microsoft OneNote and that is the correct product. Filemaker instead focused on Filemaker Go, which is much better. One can build half of the iOS AppStore with Filemaker Pro + Filemaker Go.
So the rug is absolutely not pulled from under anyone's feet...
Your head is in Uranus. He has advance access to a Mac. So he's been given a free MBP? Should he have paid to demo it? Would you? No, I didn't think so. Are you saying he doesn't have to return it?
It isn't journalism? No shit, Sherlock. You have a keen grasp of the obvious. He's a video editor, not a journalist. He blogged. You know that that is, right? Not a news story, not a review. He's a paid video editor posting about "One Professional's Look" and "my 'Professional' opinion".
His opinion is one data point. What he wrote raises no red flags for me, but if it needs a grain of salt, most of what I've read here is well beyond the help of Morton or even C&H, for that matter.
The point was that users invested in software from a multibillion dollar company in the hope that that company would actually have the resources to commit to the software. It's about commitment. If Apple wanted to 'make it work' and have something for its platform. Something that users could believe in - long term, then it should stand by that product and if they decide to throw in the towel, do it in the best way possible. If they decide a product is EOL they should be open about it. In the case of Aperture, from 2010 through to 2014 (when it was removed from the App Store), it received no major updates. It was then 'replaced by a new (immature) application that lacked features from Aperture. This is the kind of action that makes people angry. It would have been much better for Apple to maintain Aperture until the 'substitute' was really ready for prime time.
They've pulled similar tricks with both iMovie and Final Cut Pro, essentially creating 'new' applications (completely without warning) which lack many of the features cherished by users. In both cases, public relations NIGHTMARES and totally unnecessary.
As for Filemaker being independent of Apple. Remember Claris Inc? Not Apple either but Apple shut it down and took ClarisWorks in house. Call Filemaker a spin off or whatever you like but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. That means Filemaker is independent until Apple decides otherwise.
Should users be creating documents in Numbers and Pages in the hope of being able to open them years down the line? It would be nice if Apple actually showed some respect for its own applications and more importantly, its extinct file formats. Digital Expiration is a huge problem and only now are the effects starting to be studied seriously. Even as far back as 2007 we had problems of considerable dimensions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6265976.stm).
One example. Quicktake files. Should Finder open these natively? Yes. Does it? No.
Anyway, that's OT. The point was that this guy somehow got his hands on hardware before it was officially available and Schiller retweeted his comments. Legit? possibly, but only possibly. Let us suspect something is 'not quite' as it should be because of those two points. I read the article hours ago via MacSurfer and don't remember full disclosure on how he got the machine before regular buyers.
Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that...
No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line. Software license agreements stipulate plenty of disclaimers about such issues. But considering that this may be true concern for you, I'd just emphasize that that issue has been resolved more than a decade ago with enterprise level software called data warehouse. This is beyond the reach of PC users but PC users benefit from some commercial services for such data conversion. So, no obsolete file format is left orphan in any way. None of the Apple file formats are extinct, neither. I can open all my iWorks 09 documents. Determining the end of life of documents is the responsibility of the user who created them.
My main point was about Phil Schiller retweeting the article. For me that was a significant point. The rest was secondary in this context but not less important or significant.
"Who said that Apple Abandoned Aperture?" I have no idea. You didn't hear it from me.
Aperture: Discontinued. Removed from sale. Last update more than two years ago. Users have reported bugs with Sierra. No news from Apple - par for the course.
Photos: Aperture 'replacement' of a kind. Lacking features of Aperture. You propose setting up a VM to get around this? Pretty extreme solution but you missed the point so that is insignificant. This isn't about Aperture, it's about Apple.
It would have been better for Apple not to have released it in the first place if a long term commitment couldn't be guaranteed. At last count Apple had something like 200 billion dollars in cash laying around. That could buy a lot of commitment. Especially given the original investment required by users to buy into the idea. We are told that when you buy a Mac you buy into a platform. The hardware and software work as one. that obviously isn't limited to the OS. iTunes still plays an important part on the local software front.
I don't have a problem with software being cancelled. I have a problem with the way Apple does it. That is a very significant point. More so to the users of the cancelled (or 'reworked') products. Quicktime for Windows has (or at least had) a couple of very nasty holes in it. As far as I know it has now been abandoned. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple actually closed the holes or sent out a message over auto update offering to uninstall it? Especially as it's the kind of software that 'sits under the surface' for many users.
iTunes - backlash
iMovie X - backlash
FCX - backlash
Aperture - price reduction: unhappy users
etc
Clearly Apple got a lot wrong with the changes in those applications. Especially as all of the backlash could have been avoided in the first place.
Logic is more than 25 years old. Final Cut, more than 15. Aperture got less than 10 of active development which was probably less than five in 'real' development. Now, if you want to make a go of professional software at pro prices, you should at least put some effort and commitment into it. Aperture, in spite of being one of the top earners on the App store wasn't really pushed forward like a pro application should be. No doubt due to internal decisions and that is the problem. Whenever you buy into anything Apple (hardware or software) you should be very careful.
Should OS X still cost $129 or be 'free' as it is now? Should Aperture have seen such a big price drop? Was 'Photos' really the right substitute for pro users? Was it transitioned at the best time. Is iCloud really where we want out photos? It is notoriously dangerous, after all. Apple definitely has problems when it comes to managing pro applications and there is a case for making them independent of Apple (like Filemaker or something similar).
Fact: Filemaker is Apple. Apple owns Filemaker. Filemaker, while structurally independent of Apple, can do nothing that goes against the instructions of the mothership.
Fact: Claris was Apple. Apple owned Claris. Claris, while structurally independent of Apple could do nothing that went against the grain of instructions of the mothership.
Filemaker was born out of the ashes of Claris.
Claris, at its peak, had around 20 million users and was profitable. Apple screwed up on one of its most successful products ever.
"Filemaker cancelled Bento -> Filemaker is Apple -> See how Apple is evil !... Not much to say about that..."
No. Apart from it being a stupid comment, there isn't much to say about it.
"No software developer guarantees the capability of opening your documents years down the line"
No. You are right. But should that be the end of the story? It doesn't matter if there is a disclaimer or not. This is an issue that is being debated on many fronts, from government through to education, universities, libraries, science etc. The issue of file format extinction wasn't resolved a decade a ago. The foundations were laid in some areas and there was a push for open standards and even open source. From the server down in many areas of education for example, in my part of the world (Linux on the server and on the desktop). Then from the cloud down with government run data centres looking to cut costs and future proof themselves. In my line of work, I see people pushing things like Open Nebula for cloud or intercloud operations in science and education. For proprietary file formats we need to learn from the past. Legislation always trails technology and only now are certain problems being 'resolved' or tackled. Independently of what the terms of sale might say or any disclaimer in the software licence, should people be allowed to inherit the digital collections of deceased owners? Should any user created file belong to the user and the user have sufficient guarantees to be able to open those files long into the future? Even if the creating application no longer exists? Should such files carry an advertised expiration date? There are many, many significant issues be resolved.
The EU ruling on Google (right to be forgotten) was a milestone ruling, if imperfect. The EU position on data protection and the recent data protection reform was also a key moment. Should user access to user created files be a fundamental right in the Digital Age?
These may be 'boring' issues to many. Insignificant to others but they have to be tackled one way or the other.
But as I said, my post was really about Schiller re-tweeting the article. He didn't do himself any favours and I still think he made a mistake.
Sorry, in your long exposé the only falsifiable claim was that one. The rest is your metaphysics and beyond falsification and any other rational testing.
And Quicktake files? I had a Quicktake 150, all of the models were 640 by 480 resolution, maybe Apple sold some few thousands of them, and they are all more than 20 years old if they even exist at all with some collectors.
One would think that those files would be either migrated to .jpg or tossed because the images were so foul compared even to early 2000's digital cameras.
Apple could have made a better transition to FCX, but even Walter agreed that Apple wanted out of the professional market, and at the end, speculated that FCX would service the professional market through third party plugins. He also implied that Apple wanted to make an easier to use product for the consumer market.
Interesting that he is a Premiere Pro user, and was quite taken with Adobe's product managers and the interaction that they had with professional editors.
My question would be whether Premiere Pro is a better experience on an MBP versus a comparable Windows notebook, such as the Surface Book. That would give professionals the option to continue using Apple hardware, or if they needed more performance, portable workstations and traditional workstations running Premiere Pro under Windows.
You say most people moved to Lightroom or similar third party application. The point is they didn't move voluntarily and had invested hundreds of dollars in Aperture and then more still in the move to the alternative a application.
As for QuickTake files, it doesn't matter how foul the images were. If those files are of your baby or the last of your grandmother, you will want them. They are in a proprietary format. In reality a kind of PICT file. Preview should be able to open these and every other old Apple file format in the blink of an eye. If you create a file format you should support it. If you discontinue the creating app it would be nice if you made the format specification freely available if you don't support it in newer apps. There are many possible solutions.