lorin schultz

wonkothesane said:

[...] I remember how I longed for my first Mac, which at the original price was far out of reach (> 10k more than 30 years ago for a Mac 512ke including a line printer and a few other things) which eventually went over the table for half price. That was however, a game changing device at the time. And for me: I never regretted the hefty price tag for owning one of those marvels.

The difference between then and now is that the Mac of that time did things that simply weren't possible with a PC at any price. It was a few years before WYSIWYG layout became possible with Windows, and even then it wasn't as easy or reliable as what we got from the Mac.

Now there isn't much you can do with a Mac that you can't accomplish with less expensive tools. There are perks associated with using a Mac, but when we come right down to it they're not really deal breakers. While I may enjoy iTunes Match, AirPlay, iCloud Keychain, etc., none of them contribute much to my income earning potential. I used Adobe and Avid products with Windows for years, and when I switched to Mac the only notable difference was the window buttons were on the other side.

The higher cost was justified when the machines could do things the competition could not. These days it's more about the Apple experience than genuine, tangible, quantifiable advantages. That has value, and I expect to pay more to get it, but the question is HOW MUCH more? Mac prices now exceed what I can justify. My wife is using a seven-year-old machine because we just can't afford a current replacement (mostly due to the high cost of internal storage upgrades). I understand that Apple is prepared to sell fewer machines at high margins than a buttload at low profit, but I can't imagine the increasing number of broken camel backs being good for its bottom line.

mindwaves said:

I make a lot more money now than what I did a few years ago, but cannot stomach seeing a $129 wireless keyboard when I can buy the same thing for $40 at some other place.

I was really excited that Apple FINALLY offered a full-size wireless keyboard (i.e. with number pad), but like you, did a double-take when I saw the price. Still, that wasn't the part that led me to accuse Apple of a foul. It was Apple charging an extra 20% -- on top of the already very high price -- to get it in Space Grey. That gives the appearance of opportunistic gouging.

amos2000 said:

Yeah, in terms of control-level data connection, you can do a lot wirelessly and people do. As you say they can insert their own stagebox before my stagebox, and do a lot of the EQ, compression etc at that stage, and control that off a tablet. That's what Cara Dillon's accompanist was doing last Friday for instance. They can do their own monitor mix off their own tablet too. But that's control data, with a far lower amount of data than travelling the pure audio for every channel (and video for that matter; imagine the amount of data involved in all the 4k (or more) cameras in a TV studio).

I neither advocate nor protest the use of wireless in general (though I still fail to understand why some people use wireless mics in situations where wire is not an obstacle), but just to expound on the concept: Why does the audio need to travel through the computer? If the I/O, processing, and storage can all be made outboard, the computer only needs to provide control functions. The scenario I'm thinking of would involve creating what is essentially a task-specific computer in an outboard unit, so whether it would offer any advantage is questionable. I'm just saying it's easily done, and might offer some minor advantages in terms of not having to worry about traditional computer housekeeping and software conflicts.

amos2000 said:

It has resonances with the thing that happened with Final Cut X maybe ten years ago, where the new version removed the option to connect an external reference monitor, which means it flatly could not be used in a professional context. A lot of video editors (independent professional level, people whose small businesses completely depended on the combination of equiment and software they'd invested all their money back into) were really angry about that too. I know that a lot of them just stopped using Final Cut. (Don't know whether that situation still persists, admittedly).

At the risk of further angering mdriftmeyer, I mentioned in another thread that none of the clients for whom I provide audio post are using Final Cut.

That surprises me because it's now a quite capable editor. I don't know if they use something else because of a resentment hangover from when Apple crippled it in the transition from 7 to X or some other reason, but at least one editor told me he just doesn't like the interface, particularly with respect to how it presents audio. Maybe editors just prefer the old tried and true timeline over the new-and-improved Apple approach.

Which, as you said, is a recurring theme. I happen to like Final Cut and the new ports. I see lots of advantages to Apple's approach. However, it's pretty obvious that many other people do not. That brings up a philosophical question: If a computer on the shelf adds a feature but there's no one there to use it, is it still a move forward? If no one buys the computer, the benefit of the new feature is never realized. And that's assuming the new feature really is an improvement in the first place and not an obstacle to productivity.

AppleInsider said:

[...] Apple advised to the report it requires apps to acquire "prior user consent" in order to collect data

Sounds good, but that doesn't really offer much in the way of protection. The developer simply includes some line, written in Legalese, buried in the middle of a paragraph, in it's Terms and Conditions that says you grant them permission to install a camera in your bathroom. As soon as we click "accept" the developer has satisfied Apple's consent requirement.

xgman said:

I would have to agree it's time to move past usb 2 audio, but it should work regardless.

What is it about audio over USB2 you want to move past? What doesn't it do? What production scenario is under provisioned with 32 channels of input and another 32 out?

I've got no objection to more bandwidth, but I'm not losing any sleep over being restricted by USB2.