Steve Jobs a Traitor?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
From article: IBM makes play for 'next-generation Pixar'



... Pixar, run by Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs (news - web sites), has reigned as the undisputed king of computer-generated (CG) films.



... Early this year, Pixar dumped its longtime tech supplier Sun Microsystems in favor of Intel-based computers running the Linux (news - web sites) operating system.





If the updated to Intel/Linux earlier this year, that seems to imply that Mr. Jobs doesn't plan to incorporate the G5 in a major way for some time to come. Booo.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    Traitor?



    How about "smart businessman"?



    You use the right tool for the right job. There's no reason to blow a much larger stash of money on brand new, very unoptimized systems like the G5s.



    Pixar *has* been testing G5s for some time, though. It's also worth noting that Renderman now runs on Mac OS X.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    i, fredi, fred Posts: 125member
    If I needed a bazillion computers to sit and do one exact thing over and over again, I'd use Intel/Linux, too. Can't beat the price.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    It just seems that having the biggest 3D Animation house on the planet would be its own advertisement. On the Apple side they could sell the machines at cost and still see benefits from 1) advertising, 2) Economies of scale to Motorola/IBM/etc.



    Just seems strange.. Price must have been MUCH more for him not to consider it.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Pixar is not a department of Apple.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    Just seems strange.. Price must have been MUCH more for him not to consider it.



    Doesn't seem strange to me. I think the only potential Apple product that would have fit the bill would have been a G5 Xserve -- something that doesn't exist yet. Pixar bought what they thought was the best solution available, when they needed to have that solution. They aren't going to put off the release date of their next movie 6-12 months waiting for Apple to have what they need.



    I'm sure Steve's itching to get some heavy-duty Apple hardware into Pixar, but he's got to treat Pixar as an independent entity, and do what's best for Pixar when he's got his Pixar hat on. When the G5 Xserve finally exists, and when it's been given a little time to prove itself, render farms at Pixar consisting of racks full of Apple equipment will be very likely I think.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    It's Business nothing Personal.





    Bottom Line. Intel/Linux combos are the cheapest Renderboxes you can buy/build.



    OSX may get work on the Frontend but the Backend will be dominated by X86 Linux for sometime.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Doesn't seem strange to me. I think the only potential Apple product that would have fit the bill would have been a G5 Xserve -- something that doesn't exist yet. Pixar bought what they thought was the best solution available, when they needed to have that solution. They aren't going to put off the release date of their next movie 6-12 months waiting for Apple to have what they need.



    I'm sure Steve's itching to get some heavy-duty Apple hardware into Pixar, but he's got to treat Pixar as an independent entity, and do what's best for Pixar when he's got his Pixar hat on. When the G5 Xserve finally exists, and when it's been given a little time to prove itself, render farms at Pixar consisting of racks full of Apple equipment will be very likely I think.




    You're right, of course. But that suggests that G4s are out of the question.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    But that suggests that G4s are out of the question.



    Then that suggests correctly.



    I think the G4 Xserves have their place... but demanding render farm duty isn't it, especially when you've got plenty of über-geeks around to handle the less-than-user-friendly aspects of Linux for you.
  • Reply 9 of 29
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Steve pushing Macs on Pixar would be the worst thing he could do for both companies. If Pixar can buy whatever suits them best, then Pixar gets what suits them best, and Steve has an up-close look at what suits a company like Pixar best.



    Steve wants Apple in Pixar's industry, badly, so he's absolutely doing the right thing here. If Pixar doesn't buy Apple products, that means Apple needs new or better products to appeal to that industry, and it means that Steve knows in no uncertain terms what needs to be different or better. If he put the cart before the horse, as so many people are tempted to do, he'd never get where he wanted to go.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    Yeah you got to remember that Steve is CEO of BOTH companies... I bet he works damn hard ad trying to do what is best for both companies.



    Isn't there a appropriate phrase about walking a mile in someone else's shoes before you criticise their actions? or something like that ?



    G
  • Reply 11 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gargoyle

    Yeah you got to remember that Steve is CEO of BOTH companies... I bet he works damn hard ad trying to do what is best for both companies.



    Isn't there a appropriate phrase about walking a mile in someone else's shoes before you criticise their actions? or something like that ?



    G




    I don't think it was a criticizm... or maybe it seemed like it... But I would gladly walk in his shoes for a mile ($$$$$$)
  • Reply 12 of 29
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    ... Early this year, Pixar dumped its longtime tech supplier Sun Microsystems in favor of Intel-based computers running the Linux (news - web sites) operating system.



    Even though CNet wrote about it earlier this year, the installations of Intel based rendering farms happened over a year ago - before the Xserve was shipping.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    So Pixar, whose boss is extremely attached to Apple, doesn't buy Apple computers, why should anyone else? Everyone mentions price is the number one motivating factor here. I thought Apple's big thing was that their product may cost a little more buy you get a lot more quality for that. Pixar not buying their own boss's brand is really a slap in the face for Apple and really negative advertising.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    i, fredi, fred Posts: 125member
    even at price a Linux/Intel box running in-house software is still cheaper per unit than Apple.
  • Reply 15 of 29
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Baron von Smiley

    So Pixar, whose boss is extremely attached to Apple, doesn't buy Apple computers, why should anyone else? Everyone mentions price is the number one motivating factor here. I thought Apple's big thing was that their product may cost a little more buy you get a lot more quality for that. Pixar not buying their own boss's brand is really a slap in the face for Apple and really negative advertising.



    Take a look at an Intel based blade and take a look at a Power Mac G4 which was what Apple had to offer at the time. Notice the difference?
  • Reply 16 of 29
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Baron von Smiley

    So Pixar, whose boss is extremely attached to Apple, doesn't buy Apple computers, why should anyone else?



    Because not everyone else needs a render farm?



    Quote:

    Everyone mentions price is the number one motivating factor here. I thought Apple's big thing was that their product may cost a little more buy you get a lot more quality for that.



    Price is a strongly motivating factor in render farms because all you need is the CPU, RAM, and a fast network connection. All the value-adds Apple stuffs into the PowerMac are irrelevant for this particular use, which is simply to tear through as many computations as possible as quickly as possible.



    Simply put, Apple had nothing whatsoever to offer to address this market when this purchase was made. Not even the Xserve. So Pixar went with the best choice available at the time. Blades are cheap. Linux is cheap (if you have the know-how to install and support it).



    At any rate, this is a technological decision, and it should remain a technological decision. You seem to be suggesting that Steve should saddle his employees with a decidedly non-optimal solution just to keep up appearances, but that always leads to utter disaster. What would happen if, with that decision made, Pixar started falling behind schedule, or running over budget? What would that do for Apple?



    The sky is not falling, here.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    I bet they use Macs for the actual animation/design. At least the Xeons aren't running Windows, eh?
  • Reply 18 of 29
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    I bet they use Macs for the actual animation/design. At least the Xeons aren't running Windows, eh?



    Well, they did make a Mac OS X version of RenderMan that they may or may not release commercially.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    There is a guy from pixar on the G5 promo video.



    Oh and, pixar are looking for MacOS X Systems Administrators.



    Guess that answers part of the questions then
  • Reply 20 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gargoyle

    There is a guy from pixar on the G5 promo video.



    Oh and, pixar are looking for MacOS X Systems Administrators.



    Guess that answers part of the questions then






    Very cool. I want a mac. Someday. As part of that I'm only buying software that has PC/Mac support included on the CD. That way, when the time comes, I've got my software... The tough one is going to be my Digital Audio software.
Sign In or Register to comment.