orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
iAlan
Nov 28, 08:16 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
notjustjay
Apr 27, 10:28 AM
"Calculating a phone's location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes."
Then how is car-navigation working?
The same thing - it can take up to a few minutes to establish a solid GPS lock. I own a Garmin GPSMAP 60csx (a hiking/geocaching GPS) which is getting a bit long in the tooth now (purchased in 2006) but at the time, the SiRFstar III chip that powers it was able to establish a location WAY faster than the previous GPS units I owned -- but even that meant a minute, maybe two. All of the Garmin and TomTom traffic GPS's I've used take a similar amount of time to acquire a signal lock.
Then how is car-navigation working?
The same thing - it can take up to a few minutes to establish a solid GPS lock. I own a Garmin GPSMAP 60csx (a hiking/geocaching GPS) which is getting a bit long in the tooth now (purchased in 2006) but at the time, the SiRFstar III chip that powers it was able to establish a location WAY faster than the previous GPS units I owned -- but even that meant a minute, maybe two. All of the Garmin and TomTom traffic GPS's I've used take a similar amount of time to acquire a signal lock.
THX1139
Aug 19, 07:34 PM
... For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
I agree. I'm noticing a trend. People who are looking at the Macpro in a negative way come in three flavors. The first type are invested in G5 (especially quad) and are desperately trying justify that their investment is sound, when they actually desire a Macpro. They can feel better about their old machines by making the new ones seem bad. The are almost "smug" about waiting until a better one comes out. The second flavor are people who hate the Mac culture and are pissed that the Mac is catching up to the windows workstation sector. The third type are people who can't afford a Macpro and go out of their way to publicly discredit the machine so that they can feel good about their iMacs or Minis. There are others, but you get the point.
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.
Jeeshh!!
I agree. I'm noticing a trend. People who are looking at the Macpro in a negative way come in three flavors. The first type are invested in G5 (especially quad) and are desperately trying justify that their investment is sound, when they actually desire a Macpro. They can feel better about their old machines by making the new ones seem bad. The are almost "smug" about waiting until a better one comes out. The second flavor are people who hate the Mac culture and are pissed that the Mac is catching up to the windows workstation sector. The third type are people who can't afford a Macpro and go out of their way to publicly discredit the machine so that they can feel good about their iMacs or Minis. There are others, but you get the point.
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.
28monkeys
Apr 7, 10:32 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
Obviously you know nothing about retail.
shawnce
Aug 6, 02:28 PM
So, you're comparing a mature product (Tiger) to one that's still in beta and which by all accounts has plenty of outstanding issues before it's ever released (Vista)? Ok soon lets compare Leopard and Vista.
The fact of the matter is that Vista has to be functionally complete now (or else they are going to miss shipping dates by a large margin)... so the functionality you see is basically what you are going to get. Put aside the crashes, performance issues, bugs and you can get a good sense for how it will operate when it is released.
Really MS has taken the transparency and visual effect so far that they are distracting and degrade usability (thank fully you can adjust them to some extent)... they are doing just like Apple did in Mac OS X 10.0 (transparent window title bars when in background, overly transparent menus, etc.) but thankfully Apple has been refining it for the last few years for looks and usability.
Also the new user security mode is going to be a big nightmare for folks until 3rd party software catches up with it... currently in my average usage it is always bouncing to out the full screen overlay with security confirmation dialog... I am at the point I don't read them any more since the disrupt what I am trying to do. (We have several developers in house struggling to keep up with changes and bugs in the beta, making it hard to get ready for Vista).
In the end Vista will be a good OS but it is going to be a little painful for the Windows world for the next year or so (into 2008).
The fact of the matter is that Vista has to be functionally complete now (or else they are going to miss shipping dates by a large margin)... so the functionality you see is basically what you are going to get. Put aside the crashes, performance issues, bugs and you can get a good sense for how it will operate when it is released.
Really MS has taken the transparency and visual effect so far that they are distracting and degrade usability (thank fully you can adjust them to some extent)... they are doing just like Apple did in Mac OS X 10.0 (transparent window title bars when in background, overly transparent menus, etc.) but thankfully Apple has been refining it for the last few years for looks and usability.
Also the new user security mode is going to be a big nightmare for folks until 3rd party software catches up with it... currently in my average usage it is always bouncing to out the full screen overlay with security confirmation dialog... I am at the point I don't read them any more since the disrupt what I am trying to do. (We have several developers in house struggling to keep up with changes and bugs in the beta, making it hard to get ready for Vista).
In the end Vista will be a good OS but it is going to be a little painful for the Windows world for the next year or so (into 2008).
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
gnasher729
Aug 7, 12:03 PM
Admittedly trademark law isn't my specialty, but I suspect Apple has a trademark on the word "Mac," and adding a generic word like "Pro" to it does not seem like something you could claim any originality with. Especially since it's based on their trademarked word in the first place. Is there something I'm missing?
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
Apple has actually filed for the trademark "Mac Pro" _before_ this guy filed.
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
Apple has actually filed for the trademark "Mac Pro" _before_ this guy filed.
.jpg "volkswagen beetle convertible")
rtdunham
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues...
Did you know dumb phones record every call you make? That they record who you call, and how long you talk to them? That when landlines are involved, nubmers are recorded that pinpoint the location? That your phone transmits that information to your phone company? Look at your next phone bill. Your standard flip phone even records who calls YOU and tells THAT to your phone company, too. AND if you lose your phone bill--as is the case if you lose your phone--all that data's available, in unencrypted form, to anyone and everyone!
My take: Yeah, the data should've been encrypted, and prudence would have had it deleted after a short time. They're fixing that now. But it serves a purpose we all value, facilitating calling and optimizing location services when we want them. It's a glitch, nothing more, exaggerated by media attention (and i'm part of the media, so I'm not unfairly finger-pointing) just as happened with antenna-gate and the fuss over Toyotas accelerating out of control (where almost always the conclusion is someone put their foot on the accelerator instead of the brake, by mistake). Ten years from now someone will write an entertaining book about the gap between public hysteria and reality on these issues and many others (birtherism, anyone? or if your political views swing in a different way, government spending way beyond its means?)
I'm not saying the location database is operator error. Clearly not. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. (It's not time-stamped? It's accurate sometimes only to 50 or 81 miles, as in cases reported in this thread? My phone, using the data that's recorded, consistently puts me five miles from my home, in a different county, across a river, four or five cities away, due to some oddity of cell tower location).
Look, your credit cards not only keep track of where you've been, but how much you spent there, and when, with precise geographic accuracy. Sometimes they even tell what you've bought. Just look at your next bill. Did you know your bank keeps track of every check you write, and to whom, and sends that information to you unencrypted via the mail? Did you know...
I think we should keep this situation in perspective. Too many people here see the privacy sky falling on them, when they're really swimming in it. (Did you know the device you're using to read this doesn't protect you from being victimized by horrible unencrypted metaphors...?)
Did you know dumb phones record every call you make? That they record who you call, and how long you talk to them? That when landlines are involved, nubmers are recorded that pinpoint the location? That your phone transmits that information to your phone company? Look at your next phone bill. Your standard flip phone even records who calls YOU and tells THAT to your phone company, too. AND if you lose your phone bill--as is the case if you lose your phone--all that data's available, in unencrypted form, to anyone and everyone!
My take: Yeah, the data should've been encrypted, and prudence would have had it deleted after a short time. They're fixing that now. But it serves a purpose we all value, facilitating calling and optimizing location services when we want them. It's a glitch, nothing more, exaggerated by media attention (and i'm part of the media, so I'm not unfairly finger-pointing) just as happened with antenna-gate and the fuss over Toyotas accelerating out of control (where almost always the conclusion is someone put their foot on the accelerator instead of the brake, by mistake). Ten years from now someone will write an entertaining book about the gap between public hysteria and reality on these issues and many others (birtherism, anyone? or if your political views swing in a different way, government spending way beyond its means?)
I'm not saying the location database is operator error. Clearly not. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. (It's not time-stamped? It's accurate sometimes only to 50 or 81 miles, as in cases reported in this thread? My phone, using the data that's recorded, consistently puts me five miles from my home, in a different county, across a river, four or five cities away, due to some oddity of cell tower location).
Look, your credit cards not only keep track of where you've been, but how much you spent there, and when, with precise geographic accuracy. Sometimes they even tell what you've bought. Just look at your next bill. Did you know your bank keeps track of every check you write, and to whom, and sends that information to you unencrypted via the mail? Did you know...
I think we should keep this situation in perspective. Too many people here see the privacy sky falling on them, when they're really swimming in it. (Did you know the device you're using to read this doesn't protect you from being victimized by horrible unencrypted metaphors...?)
akdj
Apr 6, 11:01 AM
Have any of you been able to use Sandy Bridge hardware h.264 on the MBP for your AVC files?
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
e�Studios
Dec 9, 05:12 PM
I love racing my VW Bus. I also love racing the Vauxhall Tigra, which has about 96hp iirc. If all you want to do it buy an F1 and drive as quickly as possible dont even bother looking in GT5's direction. I get bored when i get to the faster races because you get stuck with the same dull cars every game. Woohoo, lets all buy a 458 Italia, F1, or Murcielago... :rolleyes:
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
+1, as a car enthusiast I love GT and how its laid out. If all I wanted were the fastest cars I would play an arcade racer, its the fun in getting a car and tuning it the way you want it tuned and for how you drive it that appeals to me in GT. The car list comes secondary in my opinion, while yes it does matter to a certain degree its not the end all be all to a simulation game.
I am having a great time with GT5, overall its the game I expected and the game I have loved for so many years. The only one gripe I have is they took away the brake mods. You can fine tune the brake balance controller which is great, but it would have been nice to have upgrades in that category.
I like the early races where i can tune up a Cappucino and get at most 200hp out of it.
GT5 is a game for people who love cars. Not people who only love fast cars. People who love all cars.
I'm sure you'd be happy if everyone started with a Zonda in their garage, but for people who like to drive something fresh and fun the exhaustive list in GT5 is perfect.
+1, as a car enthusiast I love GT and how its laid out. If all I wanted were the fastest cars I would play an arcade racer, its the fun in getting a car and tuning it the way you want it tuned and for how you drive it that appeals to me in GT. The car list comes secondary in my opinion, while yes it does matter to a certain degree its not the end all be all to a simulation game.
I am having a great time with GT5, overall its the game I expected and the game I have loved for so many years. The only one gripe I have is they took away the brake mods. You can fine tune the brake balance controller which is great, but it would have been nice to have upgrades in that category.
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 05:09 PM
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Ok, except for that
Ok, except for that
Bubba Satori
Mar 26, 12:05 PM
Great news.
Hopefully there will be a big computer oriented media event when it's released
along with new Minis, iMacs, Mac Pros and finally some affordable xMacs. :D
No, I won't put the bong down. :cool:
http://boxothoughts.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bongcat.jpg
Hopefully there will be a big computer oriented media event when it's released
along with new Minis, iMacs, Mac Pros and finally some affordable xMacs. :D
No, I won't put the bong down. :cool:
http://boxothoughts.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bongcat.jpg
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Its none of your business what things I'm involved in and want hidden. Its my right to privacy so back off.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
severe
Jun 15, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it doesn't match my experience at BB this morning...
Likewise. The GF and I stopped by our local BB just after opening this morning as well. As much as I don't particularly like BB, our location made it as painless a procedure as it could be. One iPhone each. In and out in a few minutes, with a 10am appointment made for pickup on the 24th. And a promise of a call for confirmation before then.
BTW, the GF used a gift certificate for the preorder and will use the remainder when she picks up the phone. Absolute zero out-of-pocket for her. I'm glad I tagged along today, having heard of the disaster elsewhere.
Good luck to those of you still looking to preorder.
Likewise. The GF and I stopped by our local BB just after opening this morning as well. As much as I don't particularly like BB, our location made it as painless a procedure as it could be. One iPhone each. In and out in a few minutes, with a 10am appointment made for pickup on the 24th. And a promise of a call for confirmation before then.
BTW, the GF used a gift certificate for the preorder and will use the remainder when she picks up the phone. Absolute zero out-of-pocket for her. I'm glad I tagged along today, having heard of the disaster elsewhere.
Good luck to those of you still looking to preorder.
Bubba Satori
Mar 26, 12:23 PM
Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:18 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:53 PM
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level....
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:01 AM
Something I'd like to see is the framerate on Doom 3 if I played it on an 8-core Mac Pro w/ 2 of the fastest videocards in SLI/crossfire mode and one of those physics coprocessors (saying Doom 3 was optimized for it).
rmwebs
Mar 26, 04:43 AM
Looks like they are going for another Snow Leopard (aka disappointingly small) release.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
bigjohn
Jul 15, 12:06 PM
Really, Apple has always been truly at the back of the back when it comes to optical drives. My money says that if there are two optical drive - one is a CD-R and one is a DVD-RAM.
Also, 1GB of RAM, who are they kidding? More like Mac Amateur
Also, 1GB of RAM, who are they kidding? More like Mac Amateur
Joshuarocks
Apr 8, 12:17 AM
retail sucks dookey.. and Best Buy or Worst Buy can go out of business for all I care
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:02 PM
they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.
What if I don't use my iPod for their crap? What if everything on my iPod was made by independents or music labels independent of the RIAA/MPAA fascists?
What if I don't use my iPod for their crap? What if everything on my iPod was made by independents or music labels independent of the RIAA/MPAA fascists?
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 10:14 AM
We always have "next tuesday"
No comments:
Post a Comment