[...] I think you are much better off with a Studio or a Cintiq and laying out the board at your hands and using it with a UI designed for direct manipulation as opposed to one designed for mouse and keyboard that you poke at.
No question. A "proper" touch solution like you describe would be "better."
You're right, which is why Apple's trackpad is still unmatched, why the trackpad has grown in size, and why it's the best way for interacting with a PC with a vertical display.
You know I respect your opinion, and I have no problem with anyone's preferences differing from my own. It seems you may, though. Have you tried a touch-enabled computer yourself? I have. For over a year now. I like it. Like I keep saying over and over (and over and over), it's not a REPLACEMENT for the keyboard and pointing device, it's IN ADDITION to them. Sometimes it's just an easier or more intuitive way to interact with the software. It also opens up the possibility of doing things you simply can't accomplish with ANY pointing device, even Apple's excellent trackpad, like manipulating more than one control at a time.
Perhaps your world is more black-and-white than mine. I can accept some shades of grey in which there are choices between "ideal" and "nothing." I love the Apple trackpad and Magic Mouse and wouldn't want to give them up, but having a touch screen as well would just enhance the experience even further. Of course a touch screen is not the ideal way to interact with a vertical screen. Neither is a trackpad. There will be specific circumstances in which each will have a distinct advantage. I'd like the option to use a touch screen SOME of the time, even if not ALL the time. Like I said in the part you trimmed -- I think being able to do SOME things with touch control, even if I can't do EVERYTHING that way, is "better than nothing."
I know this sort of thing goes against the Apple way, but they really need to go out and talk to people about what they need in a desktop or tower computer. With the old Mac Pros they had a computer that was dominant in video post proudction (with FCP) and in graphic design. Then they started ignoring that segment of their business and we went years with no update. This was under Jobs BTW. Maybe Steve had decided that workhorse computers didn't fit the Apple future, but Steve is gone and I think this is one example of where he was wrong. It's not a big market, but it is one that is pretty steady. It might even be one that could grow if they committed to it with engineering and marketing resources. In the film and video effects world Apple now has practically zero presence because they don't make machines that kare comparable with the powerful HP and Boxx hardware that is used in this industry. Boxx has built it's entire business around making super fast tower computers. I see no reason why Apple couldn't do the same with their superior OS, but again only if they had the willingness to do so. A lot of people would say "take my money" if Apple released a bleeding edge tower computer. A lot.
I have heard a lot about the cheese grater version of the Mac being far superior to the trashcan Mac as far as expandability. I still have my Mac Pro 2008 (8 core) [with upgraded graphics] and I can tell you that it was less expandable than people seem to pretend. You had a PCIe bus but no thunderbolt and USB-2. First thing I did was put in 2x graphics cards.... which left 1 (yes 1 1 only) PCIe slot with lower bandwidth for anything else - in my case I put in a SAS controller (hobbled a bit by the fact that it PCIe bandwidth.... is less than what I could get from Thunderbolt). Yes - I can put hard drives in it but however many they give you there will never be enough internally... and I know the PC market has been all about putting hard drives in the same case but .... that is not a great design either. Hard drives are old mechanical beasts that whirl and vibrate and shake and give off lots of heat.... this is best dealt with in a case that is designed for that thing rather than in the same case as your computer. I have 4 HD slots and 13 HDs..... I could not give a crap about any new machine having slots for hard drives .... it would be a waste. Yes, it would be useful to be able to upgrade the graphics.... but then if there are better options in the future and I had a Mac Pro from a few years ago.... guess what... I can just disconnect the hard drive array, mirror the SSD drives .... then sell it and buy a newer model with newer graphics capabilities (assuming an upgraded Mac Pro exists).... not really much of a hinderance give that Apple hardware retains better resell values than other companies... and there seems to always be someone out there willing to buy it. Really with the way thunderbolt the way it is the only thing that really is useful for upgrading is the memory onboard..... Trashcan is not that bad of a design.... However I would not be surprised if the new Mac Pro gets a new case again this year (maybe revert to a certain extent). I get the feeling that the US manufacturing of the current Mac Pro had some issues, and given they have not "nudged" the specs.... I get the feeling they did not nudge them because there may be some issue with the current design and they felt that nudging it was not the best solution.... and there is a new design in the works. They should have never moved the manufacturing back to the US
I was the operations manager at a post production facility and we had the 2008 era aluminum Mac Pros all over the place. I had seven of them in a big rack in the machine room with Think Logical fiber extenders to send the video (to dual Cinema Displays), usb, mouse and keyboard to each of the edit suites. They all had Apple RAIDs attached as well as a full load of drives inside. There were also some in other areas for file compression and utility editing. The design of these machines worked perfectly for us, and would still work for people today. One cannot predict very well what your needs will be 6 months after you design a facility. Things change too much and change constantly. What you don't want is your primary hardware and software vendors to change everything overnight. Small change good, big change bad.
Big post facilities are now scarce these days outside of the largest cities, but people still need flexibility in their hardware. Even a one man show operating from a small studio needs power, expandability and flexibility to stay competitive and please clients. Yes, Apple still offers a viable post production solution, but it's not one that has the same desirabliity as the old FCP/Mac Pro systems did 8 six or seven years ago. They utterly changed post production with Final Cut and the Mac Pro and it was pretty amazing. They had the market locked for the most part and then they decided to go off the beaten path with FCPX and the New Mac Pro. That didn't sit well with people who make a living off their edit system and they bailed to Avid or Premiere in droves. Too much change, too fast. Perfect example of Apple not reading the room, even though they had read the room correctly only a few years earlier. I found it weird and fairly stupid of them to do such a thing, but hey, I'm not on their payroll. If Apple has "great desktops" on the way I'll be pretty interested to see what that means exactly.
They have enough money to last 100 years and not release a single product. It's ridiculous that they can't have separate software development teams for iOS and OS X and separate hardware teams for the iPhone and Macs. I thought Apple was buying up their shares so they wouldn't be pressured into appeasing the shareholders which would force their hand with development.
Come on Apple. Get your shit together. I've been using your hardware since 2001. Don't make me switch sides.
They have enough money to last 100 years and not release a single product. It's ridiculous that they can't have separate software development teams for iOS and OS X and separate hardware teams for the iPhone and Macs. I thought Apple was buying up their shares so they wouldn't be pressured into appeasing the shareholders which would force their hand with development.
Come on Apple. Get your shit together. I've been using your hardware since 2001. Don't make me switch sides.
They really do have seperate hardware teams ( although under the same SVP). And at a higher level I bet there are people whose primary tasks are Mac or iOS.
Software is different, if there is a Mac team who build Mail.app on the Mac, thats the same team who build Mail.app on the iOS.
At a lower level, the kernel, much of the foundation code in the SDK, and much else ( tools, compiler teams) it obviously shared. Even the AppKit team and the UIKit team must be the same. Otherwise it would duplicate expertise and find people stepping on each other's toes.
Great stuff in the pipeline is what Tim said about laptops too, but all we got were unupgradable overpriced laptops with the Emo bar and a bad keyboard.
by great desktops, he means an iMac with USB-c and that's it.
How do you figure Ive only cares about thinness (ignoring for the moment that there's an entire team who designs these things)? Especially since he's gone on record many times to state that design is not just about how a thing looks, but how it works...
Proofs in the pudding. Thin is all we get, unless you like the emo bar
There is a frustration when some people are used to computers being upgraded every year, and now they are not always (by Apple). However, these same people will then complain that the improvements of one model over the other make it not worth buying (heck, we hear this in smartphones right now, where there is significantly more change year-over-year in performance). In the iMac 5k example, the performance improvement that could be delivered this year over last is small. So is the 2015 iMac now obsolete, when a theoretical 2016 with next gen Intel would be a small 10%ish (theoretical) improvement, and likely no user experience improvement. Isn't that just playing the "specs game", that Apple has never played.
I know that other PC vendors do, but are very incremental updates helpful?
When I read this thread, I am not sure what would make some happy. They want cheaper, bigger, more ports, customizable towers, no consideration for design. Doesn't seem like they would have ever been happy with Apple.
In the case of desktops, Apple could make people happy.
I think the baseline HD storage for iMacs was stuck at 1TB for six years or more. Apple could have moved with the times and upped the HD baseline storage while they moved over to SSD.
The basic design of the iMac is centred around laptop components and not particularly great ones at that, unless you BTO.
The obsession with thinness has largely brought unwanted compromises and the thinness Apple crows about is at the edges. Few people admire the thinness on their iMacs looking at them from the side.
Price. Yes. They are expensive and when you BTO, your nose bleeds.
Design? It's Apple so design is important, but at what price?
So what to do?
Here are my suggestions.
Keep non Retina quality screens in the lineup and allow decent BTO options from the entry level.
Keep hard disks as an option together with SSD and allow users to make them Fusion Drives or not.
Give users access to the motherboard and especially, easy access to the hard drive, SSD and RAM. Make it user upgradeable.
Add USB-C (TB) and keep the current port spread.
Take all of the above and put it into a screenless configuration.
If they want to go down the new MBP route and make an ultra thin, non-upgradeable, non accesible, ultra high definition, chinless, bezeless USB-C only iMac Pro with a 3,000 dollar starting price, then add one to the line.
Then fill the gaps with regular retina based iMacs and let the users decide how they want to spend their money.
Great stuff in the pipeline is what Tim said about laptops too, but all we got were unupgradable overpriced laptops with the Emo bar and a bad keyboard.
by great desktops, he means an iMac with USB-c and that's it.
It's to be expected that they will eventually eliminate the least popular models from the Mac line. The Mac Pro is there to service high performance demands and the Mini for low price. Lets say that the highest spec Mac Pro that is 12-core Xeon and dual D700 (7TFLOPs) satisfies the current performance demand. It can process 4K video in near real-time. Intel already makes higher than 4-core i7s. The Broadwell ones are here:
The headless form factor produces a few problems. Because the components are all separate, Apple can't easily adjust the margins across all the components. A touchbar Magic keyboard would be more expensive, maybe $199. It's unlikely that someone buying a $499 Mini will buy a $199 keyboard. With the iMac, a standard $99 wireless keyboard already comes with the purchase so it's only $99 to absorb into the price or offer as BTO.
If we compare two possibilities: iMac Pro, 8-core Skylake-X ($1100 CPU), 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 7TFLOP GPU, price would be ~$4k. Mac Pro, 18-core Xeon ($2600 CPU), 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 16-18TFLOP GPU, price would be ~$7k. 4K display = $400, 5K display = $900. KB/mouse = $100/150. (nearly 40% of the Mac Pro purchase price goes to Intel).
The MP there would be 1.5x faster CPU (architecture is different so 18-core Xeon is not over 2x 8-core i7), GPU would be just over 2x. For people who currently own a top Mac Pro and are satisfied with the performance, another $7k+ purchase wouldn't be necessary. A $4k iMac purchase would be sufficient.
This improves inventory for Apple because if they have returns on $4k iMacs, they are a lot easier to shift than $7k Mac Pros. For high performance GPUs for computing, the external route is a better way to go. AMD has a quad Vega GPU cube that runs at ~50TFLOPs FP32 (NVidia 1080 = 9TFLOPs, Vega=12.5TFLOPs):
A cube like that could be hooked up over TB3, data can be sent to its internal HBM memory, processed and sent back. You could hook up one per TB3 port e.g 200TFLOPs on a Macbook Pro. Hardly anyone would ever need to do this but it would be for the heavy computations and graphics processing that need as much performance as possible.
For the lower price points that the Mini covers, Apple can experiment with ARM-based Macs plus emulation. Microsoft recently showed off Windows on ARM with emulation. Bundled apps and the OS can be compiled natively. 3rd party software can be emulated or compiled. For an entry-level machine, this can cut the price by $200-300 so entry ARM iMac at $799-899, entry 12" MB at $999. The Intel chips would still be worth buying in the higher models but the mass audience just needs lower prices.
The Mini and MP could get another revision or two but it doesn't make sense for any business to keep supporting products that people aren't buying. The reason they aren't selling is simply because more convenient form factors are so fast now. Current Macbook Pros are as fast as Mac Pros from a few years ago so you can now get that performance in a portable form factor and at a lower price point and with a Retina display. Internal storage upgrades were useful years ago to get high performance in RAID, this was essential to get some jobs done. Single SSDs are now multiple times faster than RAID HDDs.
The iMacs were actually already updated this year:
Skylake i7-6700K is the latest available chip from Intel and the same architecture in the laptops. They don't have Polaris GPUs but they aren't available yet (AMD M490, also for the Mac Pro http://techfrag.com/2016/08/29/amd-vega-gpu-coming-1h-2017/ ). Kaby Lake CPUs aren't available yet either (i7-7700, due early 2017 too).
There is a frustration when some people are used to computers being upgraded every year, and now they are not always (by Apple). However, these same people will then complain that the improvements of one model over the other make it not worth buying (heck, we hear this in smartphones right now, where there is significantly more change year-over-year in performance). In the iMac 5k example, the performance improvement that could be delivered this year over last is small. So is the 2015 iMac now obsolete, when a theoretical 2016 with next gen Intel would be a small 10%ish (theoretical) improvement, and likely no user experience improvement. Isn't that just playing the "specs game", that Apple has never played.
I know that other PC vendors do, but are very incremental updates helpful?
When I read this thread, I am not sure what would make some happy. They want cheaper, bigger, more ports, customizable towers, no consideration for design. Doesn't seem like they would have ever been happy with Apple.
In the case of desktops, Apple could make people happy.
I think the baseline HD storage for iMacs was stuck at 1TB for six years or more. Apple could have moved with the times and upped the HD baseline storage while they moved over to SSD.
The basic design of the iMac is centred around laptop components and not particularly great ones at that, unless you BTO.
The obsession with thinness has largely brought unwanted compromises and the thinness Apple crows about is at the edges. Few people admire the thinness on their iMacs looking at them from the side.
Price. Yes. They are expensive and when you BTO, your nose bleeds.
Design? It's Apple so design is important, but at what price?
So what to do?
Here are my suggestions.
Keep non Retina quality screens in the lineup and allow decent BTO options from the entry level.
Keep hard disks as an option together with SSD and allow users to make them Fusion Drives or not.
Give users access to the motherboard and especially, easy access to the hard drive, SSD and RAM. Make it user upgradeable.
Add USB-C (TB) and keep the current port spread.
Take all of the above and put it into a screenless configuration.
If they want to go down the new MBP route and make an ultra thin, non-upgradeable, non accesible, ultra high definition, chinless, bezeless USB-C only iMac Pro with a 3,000 dollar starting price, then add one to the line.
Then fill the gaps with regular retina based iMacs and let the users decide how they want to spend their money.
I hate that type of rubbish that Cook is spouting.
How difficult is it to simply come out with a model update regularly that has a faster processor, new graphics card, and maybe new ports (Thunderbolt 3, USB-C, etc).? Apple itself is probably making it harder to do this by inherently making designs non-upgradable.
The main problem is Apple thinks they need to reinvent the wheel every time they come out with a desktop. The cylinder Mac Pro is a perfect example...it's more about visual aesthetic then anything else. They probably spent years refining the cylinder. The Mac mini is the Cube concept refined to it's maximum (minus any thought for upgradability or expandability).
Then to see their laptop line adopt a gimmick like the Touch Bar...and remove all ports except USB-C...it really makes me wonder what they are thinking. I like Apple products, and they will sell millions of units regardless of what I think, but it's still frustrating.
I honestly thought, in 2013, that they will carry over the Mac Pro design to the Mac mini and release it as a smaller cylinder. But the reaction of a photog friend of mine (to the cylinder Mac Pro) was not good. It looks small, but my the time you attach everything else you need, it's like a hydra.
I hate that type of rubbish that Cook is spouting.
How difficult is it to simply come out with a model update regularly that has a faster processor, new graphics card, and maybe new ports (Thunderbolt 3, USB-C, etc).? Apple itself is probably making it harder to do this by inherently making designs non-upgradable.
The main problem is Apple thinks they need to reinvent the wheel every time they come out with a desktop. The cylinder Mac Pro is a perfect example...it's more about visual aesthetic then anything else. They probably spent years refining the cylinder. The Mac mini is the Cube concept refined to it's maximum (minus any thought for upgradability or expandability).
Then to see their laptop line adopt a gimmick like the Touch Bar...and remove all ports except USB-C...it really makes me wonder what they are thinking. I like Apple products, and they will sell millions of units regardless of what I think, but it's still frustrating.
I honestly thought, in 2013, that they will carry over the Mac Pro design to the Mac mini and release it as a smaller cylinder. But the reaction of a photog friend of mine (to the cylinder Mac Pro) was not good. It looks small, but my the time you attach everything else you need, it's like a hydra.
And what is "everything" that you are attaching to the Mac Pro cylinder that you were not attaching to the cheese grater? I can only really think of an array of hard drives in a hard drive chassis, which to be quite honest is better to have external - both failover and vibration/heat from the mechanical beasts? I have only one lower bandwidth PCIe card slot left over after filling up the other slots with graphics cards - and that last slot has an SAS hard drive controller on reduced bandwidth. Now some of the adapters looked unsightly because they were "large" but only in comparison to a much smaller computer chassis..... specifically DVI ones.... but then I have the same thing on my cheese grater graphics cards but it is dwarfed and hidden by a massive computer case blocking the view.... but be assured... they are there.....
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Let businesses create their own secure, corporate clouds, using Apple technology (software and hardware).
I know that these won't be profitable for Apple, but with hundreds of billions in cash, they can afford to do it. And the technologies they develop for enterprise and pro industries can trickle down to their consumer products, which they make their money on.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
A lot of movies are cut at dedicated post houses that are largely Avid so even at its height FCP 7 didn't have that much Hollywood penetration but yes, Apple did stall the momentum they did have with the poorly handled FCPX release.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Not sure I understand about hardware - they don't need a Mac Pro, and MacBook Pro would suffice -- probably even a Mac Mini (at least from the standpoint of the needs of educational users). I see many Universities were Macs are everywhere... maybe they are just a school located in a ghetto where the students can't afford it... but then ... the hardware/software prices would be dwarfed by the actual costs of the educational institutions themselves
Any educational institution would simply tend to select what is predominantly used out in the industry, not guessing about what might be in the future.
My personal opinion is that Apple needs to resurrect their pro-oriented culture: bring back 1U rack servers and RAID systems, but price them competitively with others. By which I don't mean see what the other guys are doing and then do that, but don't give them ridiculously high price schemes. Start servers out at $999 for a base model and work the configurations up from there.
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Focus (2015 Will Smith) was cut on FCPX. So was Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016 Tina Fey) and indie Saved By Grace (2016).
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Not refuting the point, but if I were endorsing FCP I don't know if I'd hold up Whisky Tango Foxtrot as an example. It's not exactly a shining example of cinematic beauty. Obviously I have no idea if the look, which I don't particularly like, is the result of using FCP or if it arose from deliberate artistic choices that don't appeal to my particular tastes, so I'm not saying it's an indictment of FCP. I just don't know if I'd use a picture of an unattractive hair style to promote my scissors!
Didn't see it but evidently Focus wasn't a great success either...but it sure wasn't the NLE selected that made them meh movies.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Not sure I understand about hardware - they don't need a Mac Pro, and MacBook Pro would suffice -- probably even a Mac Mini (at least from the standpoint of the needs of educational users). I see many Universities were Macs are everywhere... maybe they are just a school located in a ghetto where the students can't afford it... but then ... the hardware/software prices would be dwarfed by the actual costs of the educational institutions themselves
Any educational institution would simply tend to select what is predominantly used out in the industry, not guessing about what might be in the future.
In this case we are talking about FCP, not general use computing in the university. Courses that recommended minimum hardware requirements (mostly MBPs). The courses are officially called 'Audio Visual Communication' and covered the entire production and post production process. The courses cover every element of film making. FCP was often a key piece in the process. It is now less visible in my part of the world.
Comments
You know I respect your opinion, and I have no problem with anyone's preferences differing from my own. It seems you may, though. Have you tried a touch-enabled computer yourself? I have. For over a year now. I like it. Like I keep saying over and over (and over and over), it's not a REPLACEMENT for the keyboard and pointing device, it's IN ADDITION to them. Sometimes it's just an easier or more intuitive way to interact with the software. It also opens up the possibility of doing things you simply can't accomplish with ANY pointing device, even Apple's excellent trackpad, like manipulating more than one control at a time.
Perhaps your world is more black-and-white than mine. I can accept some shades of grey in which there are choices between "ideal" and "nothing." I love the Apple trackpad and Magic Mouse and wouldn't want to give them up, but having a touch screen as well would just enhance the experience even further. Of course a touch screen is not the ideal way to interact with a vertical screen. Neither is a trackpad. There will be specific circumstances in which each will have a distinct advantage. I'd like the option to use a touch screen SOME of the time, even if not ALL the time. Like I said in the part you trimmed -- I think being able to do SOME things with touch control, even if I can't do EVERYTHING that way, is "better than nothing."
Big post facilities are now scarce these days outside of the largest cities, but people still need flexibility in their hardware. Even a one man show operating from a small studio needs power, expandability and flexibility to stay competitive and please clients. Yes, Apple still offers a viable post production solution, but it's not one that has the same desirabliity as the old FCP/Mac Pro systems did 8 six or seven years ago. They utterly changed post production with Final Cut and the Mac Pro and it was pretty amazing. They had the market locked for the most part and then they decided to go off the beaten path with FCPX and the New Mac Pro. That didn't sit well with people who make a living off their edit system and they bailed to Avid or Premiere in droves. Too much change, too fast. Perfect example of Apple not reading the room, even though they had read the room correctly only a few years earlier. I found it weird and fairly stupid of them to do such a thing, but hey, I'm not on their payroll. If Apple has "great desktops" on the way I'll be pretty interested to see what that means exactly.
Come on Apple. Get your shit together. I've been using your hardware since 2001. Don't make me switch sides.
Software is different, if there is a Mac team who build Mail.app on the Mac, thats the same team who build Mail.app on the iOS.
At a lower level, the kernel, much of the foundation code in the SDK, and much else ( tools, compiler teams) it obviously shared. Even the AppKit team and the UIKit team must be the same. Otherwise it would duplicate expertise and find people stepping on each other's toes.
by great desktops, he means an iMac with USB-c and that's it.
Proofs in the pudding. Thin is all we get, unless you like the emo bar
I think the baseline HD storage for iMacs was stuck at 1TB for six years or more. Apple could have moved with the times and upped the HD baseline storage while they moved over to SSD.
The basic design of the iMac is centred around laptop components and not particularly great ones at that, unless you BTO.
The obsession with thinness has largely brought unwanted compromises and the thinness Apple crows about is at the edges. Few people admire the thinness on their iMacs looking at them from the side.
Price. Yes. They are expensive and when you BTO, your nose bleeds.
Design? It's Apple so design is important, but at what price?
So what to do?
Here are my suggestions.
Keep non Retina quality screens in the lineup and allow decent BTO options from the entry level.
Keep hard disks as an option together with SSD and allow users to make them Fusion Drives or not.
Give users access to the motherboard and especially, easy access to the hard drive, SSD and RAM. Make it user upgradeable.
Add USB-C (TB) and keep the current port spread.
Take all of the above and put it into a screenless configuration.
If they want to go down the new MBP route and make an ultra thin, non-upgradeable, non accesible, ultra high definition, chinless, bezeless USB-C only iMac Pro with a 3,000 dollar starting price, then add one to the line.
Then fill the gaps with regular retina based iMacs and let the users decide how they want to spend their money.
Something for everyone.
http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/80341/Broadwell-E
http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz
The current iMac uses this:
https://ark.intel.com/products/88195/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz
The performance of the Broadwell 8-core matches the 2013 Xeon 12-core but is much less expensive:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz
Apple charges $3500 for this processor upgrade alone but would only need to charge 1/3 of that for the i7 upgrade.
The latest GPUs are ~50GFLOPs/Watt so a 150W GPU will match the dual D700. This is similar to a single NVidia 1080, which can handle gaming at 4K:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-1080-Desktop-Review-Pascal-has-arrived.165500.0.html
The headless form factor produces a few problems. Because the components are all separate, Apple can't easily adjust the margins across all the components. A touchbar Magic keyboard would be more expensive, maybe $199. It's unlikely that someone buying a $499 Mini will buy a $199 keyboard. With the iMac, a standard $99 wireless keyboard already comes with the purchase so it's only $99 to absorb into the price or offer as BTO.
If we compare two possibilities:
iMac Pro, 8-core Skylake-X ($1100 CPU), 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 7TFLOP GPU, price would be ~$4k.
Mac Pro, 18-core Xeon ($2600 CPU), 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 16-18TFLOP GPU, price would be ~$7k. 4K display = $400, 5K display = $900. KB/mouse = $100/150. (nearly 40% of the Mac Pro purchase price goes to Intel).
The MP there would be 1.5x faster CPU (architecture is different so 18-core Xeon is not over 2x 8-core i7), GPU would be just over 2x. For people who currently own a top Mac Pro and are satisfied with the performance, another $7k+ purchase wouldn't be necessary. A $4k iMac purchase would be sufficient.
This improves inventory for Apple because if they have returns on $4k iMacs, they are a lot easier to shift than $7k Mac Pros. For high performance GPUs for computing, the external route is a better way to go. AMD has a quad Vega GPU cube that runs at ~50TFLOPs FP32 (NVidia 1080 = 9TFLOPs, Vega=12.5TFLOPs):
http://wccftech.com/amd-vega-cube-100-tflops-supercomputer/
A cube like that could be hooked up over TB3, data can be sent to its internal HBM memory, processed and sent back. You could hook up one per TB3 port e.g 200TFLOPs on a Macbook Pro. Hardly anyone would ever need to do this but it would be for the heavy computations and graphics processing that need as much performance as possible.
For the lower price points that the Mini covers, Apple can experiment with ARM-based Macs plus emulation. Microsoft recently showed off Windows on ARM with emulation. Bundled apps and the OS can be compiled natively. 3rd party software can be emulated or compiled. For an entry-level machine, this can cut the price by $200-300 so entry ARM iMac at $799-899, entry 12" MB at $999. The Intel chips would still be worth buying in the higher models but the mass audience just needs lower prices.
The Mini and MP could get another revision or two but it doesn't make sense for any business to keep supporting products that people aren't buying. The reason they aren't selling is simply because more convenient form factors are so fast now. Current Macbook Pros are as fast as Mac Pros from a few years ago so you can now get that performance in a portable form factor and at a lower price point and with a Retina display. Internal storage upgrades were useful years ago to get high performance in RAID, this was essential to get some jobs done. Single SSDs are now multiple times faster than RAID HDDs.
The iMacs were actually already updated this year:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/imac/2015-27-inch-imac-retina-5k-display-review-pricing-update-3627831/
Skylake i7-6700K is the latest available chip from Intel and the same architecture in the laptops. They don't have Polaris GPUs but they aren't available yet (AMD M490, also for the Mac Pro http://techfrag.com/2016/08/29/amd-vega-gpu-coming-1h-2017/ ). Kaby Lake CPUs aren't available yet either (i7-7700, due early 2017 too).
Bring back and take seriously, apps like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. Make FCP robust enough to handle feature film level editing.
Let businesses create their own secure, corporate clouds, using Apple technology (software and hardware).
I know that these won't be profitable for Apple, but with hundreds of billions in cash, they can afford to do it. And the technologies they develop for enterprise and pro industries can trickle down to their consumer products, which they make their money on.
FCPX is robust enough for cutting and even finishing a feature film.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Any educational institution would simply tend to select what is predominantly used out in the industry, not guessing about what might be in the future.