Obviously this is an important acquisition for the near and longer term. I'm thinking Proximity is profitable, right? That's good for starters. Also, sell Apple's Proximity. It gets your name in the suite. And the underlying tech can branch off in many directions, including better resource handling in the Finder or any app that uses it. You'd see a different window in your open file, maybe. The opportunity is to classify all different kinds of media and to metatag them. That's a good thing.
iPhoto is great for managing Photos but not so good for video.
More and more people are capturing video clips will their digital cameras and mobile phones.
We will probably see a consumer video library app added to iLife '08
Yeah, Apple doesn't manage videos well (yet) and perhaps this purchase is part of that (I don't know the software they bought).
At a consumer level, I assume part of that is that you simply can't store that much video on your machines. Hard disks will get bigger though (and hopefully Apple will someday let us compress our raw video into a high quality h264!). At a professional level, it's not an issue.
I know this is going off topic now...
iPhoto and iMovie are 2 distinct paradigms for how to work with your content (at the moment). iPhoto itself may learn from this software acquisition (assuming it has a great way of finding what you're after). Just one small thing like saving a series of similarly themed photos - or a series of similarly themed video shots - and making it searchable etc, expands the possibilities.
It's interesting that iPhoto & iMovie could actually be almost identical. You could use one program. A slideshow is a series of photos, placed in an order and given some backing music - a movie is a series of video clips placed in an order and given some backing music. It's virtually the same thing - it's just that iMovie then exports that to a movie file, while iPhoto doesn't. I have often wondered why you can't export a slideshow to iMovie.
I was just wondering what this had to do with the enterprise market myself.
They do qualify it "as defined by creative professionals" (or was that a subsequent edit?).
I'm thinking this has a dual objective. On the one hand it ties in neatly with their storage solutions and strengthens FCP. On the other, more importantly, as Apple becomes a bigger player in distribution and further consolidates it's position in production, broadcast may feel a little prone/squeezed (there is a possibility Apple could start to bridge these areas). The product line provides a strategic presence in the broadcast area one which could serve to smooth comms & negotiation as this part of the industry inevitably changes.
Yeah, Apple doesn't manage videos well (yet) and perhaps this purchase is part of that (I don't know the software they bought).
At a consumer level, I assume part of that is that you simply can't store that much video on your machines. Hard disks will get bigger though (and hopefully Apple will someday let us compress our raw video into a high quality h264!). At a professional level, it's not an issue.
I know this is going off topic now...
iPhoto and iMovie are 2 distinct paradigms for how to work with your content (at the moment). iPhoto itself may learn from this software acquisition (assuming it has a great way of finding what you're after). Just one small thing like saving a series of similarly themed photos - or a series of similarly themed video shots - and making it searchable etc, expands the possibilities.
It's interesting that iPhoto & iMovie could actually be almost identical. You could use one program. A slideshow is a series of photos, placed in an order and given some backing music - a movie is a series of video clips placed in an order and given some backing music. It's virtually the same thing - it's just that iMovie then exports that to a movie file, while iPhoto doesn't. I have often wondered why you can't export a slideshow to iMovie.
You can. Make up your slide show in iPhoto, and export it to whatever form you want, then import it into iMovie as a movie. Can't get much simpler.
However, for serious placement and editing, it would be far better to import each still into iMovie, in say, 5 second lengths, and then get down to some really controlled motion and audio.
You can. Make up your slide show in iPhoto, and export it to whatever form you want, then import it into iMovie as a movie. Can't get much simpler.
However, for serious placement and editing, it would be far better to import each still into iMovie, in say, 5 second lengths, and then get down to some really controlled motion and audio.
You are right - either of these are possible. But neither is ideal. I do the second now, if necessary.
iPhoto's slideshows are pretty good though. Automatically adjusting the length of stills to fit the music, fading between stills, ken burns if you like it. It takes a lot of time to make iMovie simulate a slideshow
Why not allow us to drag a slideshow into iMovie, and have iMovie natively show it as a series of stills of whatever length, (including chapter markers?), with fades between them etc. Then allow me to edit that, add some motion clips, perhaps use some themes etc.
You might be right about that for office type enterprise, not creatives obviously. But yeah what would an office use? Minis? iMacs?
Wouldn't get them to use iMacs, they defeat the component paradigm; you have to replace the whole unit of the screen fails but by going with components you increase the chance of failure in the first place. This way IT get to solve the problem they create - everyone keeps their jobs. Also why would an empire-building IT Manager bring on a platform that all but eliminates 1st & 2nd level support through sensible design?
(apologies for the rant but most IT Depts I deal with have become self-serving/perpetuating at the expense of the business productivity they're supposed to enhance )
the minis are too small and too hard change parts in them.
also they still use laptop parts in a desk top.
Geez Joe do you have to bring this into every thread.
I seriously suggest you take a trip to 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino California. And refuse to leave until you've been heard. You would have a much better chance of getting what you want.
Yes! Also key is that Apple provide solutions to compete with Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.
OS X Server has: OpenDirectory, OpenLDAP, Squirrelmail, Postfix, Mailman, Jabber, Apache, Samba, Kerberos, Tomcat, JBoss, WebObjects, QuickTime Streaming Server, IChat Server, Blojsom Weblog Server, Netboot, Cluster capabilities with XGrid etc... Runs Oracle 10g, Sybase, OpenBase but we need: IBM's WebSphere (Developer and Server port to OS X) and BEA's WebLogic to really enter the Enterprise market!
Folks. "Enterprise" in the computer industry has a very specific meaning. It means the huge market of computers for large mainstream businesses.
The creative departments of large media and broadcast organizations is *not* "Enterprise".
This segment is creative professionals, a market where Apple has had a long-held significant presence, and of which FCP is a key strategy.
FCP has NOTHING to do with a push for Enterprise.
The analyst quoted here is either naively or foolishly mixing the two terms, and the iLife reference is also off-base. The analysis is at best confused and at worst incompetent.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
Broadcast television is actually more the business end not so much the creative end. If you ever visit Rockerfeller Center NBC headquaters. Its just as corporate as GM, AT&T, or IBM, you generally see people in business attire. The same with ABC, CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, CNN, Cox Communications, Fox. They all exist in New York corporate towers.
Filmed television is the creative end and most of those companies are the polar opposite. They exist in funky renovated buildings in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Culver City and Santa Monica. It's here you will see people coming to work in T-shirts, ripped jeans, and flip flops.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
Depends on how may workstations and complexity of the infrastructure (media storage infrastructure can be v.complex & far more demanding than regular corporate) but they may even make it to 'enterprise' especially if the Macs bleed out into the corporate networks.
Comments
iPhoto is great for managing Photos but not so good for video.
More and more people are capturing video clips will their digital cameras and mobile phones.
We will probably see a consumer video library app added to iLife '08
Yeah, Apple doesn't manage videos well (yet) and perhaps this purchase is part of that (I don't know the software they bought).
At a consumer level, I assume part of that is that you simply can't store that much video on your machines. Hard disks will get bigger though (and hopefully Apple will someday let us compress our raw video into a high quality h264!). At a professional level, it's not an issue.
I know this is going off topic now...
iPhoto and iMovie are 2 distinct paradigms for how to work with your content (at the moment). iPhoto itself may learn from this software acquisition (assuming it has a great way of finding what you're after). Just one small thing like saving a series of similarly themed photos - or a series of similarly themed video shots - and making it searchable etc, expands the possibilities.
It's interesting that iPhoto & iMovie could actually be almost identical. You could use one program. A slideshow is a series of photos, placed in an order and given some backing music - a movie is a series of video clips placed in an order and given some backing music. It's virtually the same thing - it's just that iMovie then exports that to a movie file, while iPhoto doesn't. I have often wondered why you can't export a slideshow to iMovie.
I was just wondering what this had to do with the enterprise market myself.
They do qualify it "as defined by creative professionals" (or was that a subsequent edit?).
I'm thinking this has a dual objective. On the one hand it ties in neatly with their storage solutions and strengthens FCP. On the other, more importantly, as Apple becomes a bigger player in distribution and further consolidates it's position in production, broadcast may feel a little prone/squeezed (there is a possibility Apple could start to bridge these areas). The product line provides a strategic presence in the broadcast area one which could serve to smooth comms & negotiation as this part of the industry inevitably changes.
Or did I dream it?
McD
Yeah, Apple doesn't manage videos well (yet) and perhaps this purchase is part of that (I don't know the software they bought).
At a consumer level, I assume part of that is that you simply can't store that much video on your machines. Hard disks will get bigger though (and hopefully Apple will someday let us compress our raw video into a high quality h264!). At a professional level, it's not an issue.
I know this is going off topic now...
iPhoto and iMovie are 2 distinct paradigms for how to work with your content (at the moment). iPhoto itself may learn from this software acquisition (assuming it has a great way of finding what you're after). Just one small thing like saving a series of similarly themed photos - or a series of similarly themed video shots - and making it searchable etc, expands the possibilities.
It's interesting that iPhoto & iMovie could actually be almost identical. You could use one program. A slideshow is a series of photos, placed in an order and given some backing music - a movie is a series of video clips placed in an order and given some backing music. It's virtually the same thing - it's just that iMovie then exports that to a movie file, while iPhoto doesn't. I have often wondered why you can't export a slideshow to iMovie.
You can. Make up your slide show in iPhoto, and export it to whatever form you want, then import it into iMovie as a movie. Can't get much simpler.
However, for serious placement and editing, it would be far better to import each still into iMovie, in say, 5 second lengths, and then get down to some really controlled motion and audio.
Head less mid-rage desktops are key to Apple's advance into the enterprise
You might be right about that for office type enterprise, not creatives obviously. But yeah what would an office use? Minis? iMacs?
You can. Make up your slide show in iPhoto, and export it to whatever form you want, then import it into iMovie as a movie. Can't get much simpler.
However, for serious placement and editing, it would be far better to import each still into iMovie, in say, 5 second lengths, and then get down to some really controlled motion and audio.
You are right - either of these are possible. But neither is ideal. I do the second now, if necessary.
iPhoto's slideshows are pretty good though. Automatically adjusting the length of stills to fit the music, fading between stills, ken burns if you like it. It takes a lot of time to make iMovie simulate a slideshow
Why not allow us to drag a slideshow into iMovie, and have iMovie natively show it as a series of stills of whatever length, (including chapter markers?), with fades between them etc. Then allow me to edit that, add some motion clips, perhaps use some themes etc.
You might be right about that for office type enterprise, not creatives obviously. But yeah what would an office use? Minis? iMacs?
Wouldn't get them to use iMacs, they defeat the component paradigm; you have to replace the whole unit of the screen fails but by going with components you increase the chance of failure in the first place. This way IT get to solve the problem they create - everyone keeps their jobs. Also why would an empire-building IT Manager bring on a platform that all but eliminates 1st & 2nd level support through sensible design?
(apologies for the rant but most IT Depts I deal with have become self-serving/perpetuating at the expense of the business productivity they're supposed to enhance
McD
You might be right about that for office type enterprise, not creatives obviously. But yeah what would an office use? Minis? iMacs?
the minis are too small and too hard change parts in them.
also they still use laptop parts in a desk top.
Head less mid-rage desktops are key to Apple's advance into the enterprise
Yes! Also key is that Apple provide solutions to compete with Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.
the minis are too small and too hard change parts in them.
also they still use laptop parts in a desk top.
Geez Joe do you have to bring this into every thread.
I seriously suggest you take a trip to 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino California. And refuse to leave until you've been heard. You would have a much better chance of getting what you want.
Yes! Also key is that Apple provide solutions to compete with Active Directory, Exchange, Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.
OS X Server has: OpenDirectory, OpenLDAP, Squirrelmail, Postfix, Mailman, Jabber, Apache, Samba, Kerberos, Tomcat, JBoss, WebObjects, QuickTime Streaming Server, IChat Server, Blojsom Weblog Server, Netboot, Cluster capabilities with XGrid etc... Runs Oracle 10g, Sybase, OpenBase but we need: IBM's WebSphere (Developer and Server port to OS X) and BEA's WebLogic to really enter the Enterprise market!
Folks. "Enterprise" in the computer industry has a very specific meaning. It means the huge market of computers for large mainstream businesses.
The creative departments of large media and broadcast organizations is *not* "Enterprise".
This segment is creative professionals, a market where Apple has had a long-held significant presence, and of which FCP is a key strategy.
FCP has NOTHING to do with a push for Enterprise.
The analyst quoted here is either naively or foolishly mixing the two terms, and the iLife reference is also off-base. The analysis is at best confused and at worst incompetent.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
Linky to vidi of Proximity integrating with FCP
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
Broadcast television is actually more the business end not so much the creative end. If you ever visit Rockerfeller Center NBC headquaters. Its just as corporate as GM, AT&T, or IBM, you generally see people in business attire. The same with ABC, CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, CNN, Cox Communications, Fox. They all exist in New York corporate towers.
Filmed television is the creative end and most of those companies are the polar opposite. They exist in funky renovated buildings in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Culver City and Santa Monica. It's here you will see people coming to work in T-shirts, ripped jeans, and flip flops.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly (once again). The term 'enterprise' doesn't fit right with me for this particular market sector. They ain't wearing suits!
Depends on how may workstations and complexity of the infrastructure (media storage infrastructure can be v.complex & far more demanding than regular corporate) but they may even make it to 'enterprise' especially if the Macs bleed out into the corporate networks.
Workstations doing work, whatever next?