Apple destroying it's base of hardcore customers?

[Chaos123x]

I think Apple is destroying it's base, the creative artist crowd.

These are the people that supported apple through it's hard times, and went out to the streets and evangelized for Steve Jobs.

What do we get? No matte screens? No Firewire?

Now that Apple is ignoring the creative artists they will no longer recommend mac to every man, women, and child.

But once this whole iPod, iPhone fad dies down Apple will not have their new found consumers and their base will be all but gone.



Same thing with Nintendo...

Hardcore gamers that like Mario, Metroid, and Zelda supported them through the hard times, but now they have great success with casual gamers, they are ignoring the base, when the Wii fad is over so is Nintendo, because their hardcore base will be gone.



Why can't companies serve their base and their new found casual consumers at the same time???

 

[iMacmatician]

I think Apple is targeting the Mac Pro to this creative crowd.

Unless the Mac Pro gets a downgrade with Nehalem.

On the same token, Apple may give only the 17" MacBook Pro a matte option, so those who want matte will have to pay for the 17".

 

[Fast Shadow]

I'll reiterate what I posted before: I'm getting the feeling that Apple is preparing to jettison creative professionals and focus entirely on consumer PCs and gadgets. I anticipate they're going to sell off the rights to FCS, Shake (technically Shake's already dead), and Logic and discontinue the Mac Pro by 2010.

 

[Consultant]

OP, check your grammer, it's is way different than its

I'll reiterate what I posted before: I'm getting the feeling that Apple is preparing to jettison creative professionals and focus entirely on consumer PCs and gadgets. I anticipate they're going to sell off the rights to FCS, Shake (technically Shake's already dead), and Logic and discontinue the Mac Pro by 2010.

That's some pretty far off speculation there.

When was the last time Apple sold off rights to anything?

 

[Fast Shadow]

OP, check your grammer, it's is way different than its



That's some pretty far off speculation there.

When was the last time Apple sold off rights to anything?

Well I guess the other option is they discontinue them, which would be a nightmare.

Apple doesn't even participate at NAB anymore.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Apple doesn't even participate at NAB anymore.

Neither did Avid and they just released a very impressive version of Media Composer.


Lethal

 

[~Wibble~]

I disagree completely

They are yes getting more friendly for the everyday user, but thats a great thing. in the ideal world everyone would have macs, and making them more friendly for everyone is getting closer to that perfect world. the more users, the more apps, the more apps, the more possibilities.

this whole thing is mac on the up with popularity

~

 

[cube]

In the ideal world everyone would have Solaris and pay Sun for it.

 

[wheelhot]

Okay, just a question, with most notebooks these days and some PC displays going to glossy screen, will it matter much between the designer matte or glossy screen? Cause the consumer will watch it in gloss anyway.

Just my thoughts.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Okay, just a question, with most notebooks these days and some PC displays going to glossy screen, will it matter much between the designer matte or glossy screen? Cause the consumer will watch it in gloss anyway.

Just my thoughts.

Judging by your question, I believe you do not actually understand the problem. The question isn't of creating on glossy to view on glossy. Laptop presentation is but a portion of final viewing possibilities. Color calibration is most important for monitor to print situations. Designers (photographers, editors, etc etc) want to work in an environment that is consistent. After that, external variables take hold on how content looks, but at least the starting point is a predictable and replicable surrounding.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Matte screens and FW are gone for good, sorry, if you need too move on, buy a UGH DELL, or get a refurb,(while they last) swat I did

 

[Chaos123x]

Matte screens and FW are gone for good, sorry, if you need too move on, buy a UGH DELL, or get a refurb,(while they last) swat I did

I switched to mac because I am a video editor, working with Windows is like pulling teeth when your doing video projects.

But without firewire I can't use a Mac at all, it would just be a toy for internet and e-mail.... like a oversized iphone I already have that.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Color calibration is most important for monitor to print situations. Designers (photographers, editors, etc etc) want to work in an environment that is consistent. After that, external variables take hold on how content looks, but at least the starting point is a predictable and replicable surrounding.

It's actually just the glare problem. Color calibration should be a no brainer no matter what screen you are using. In fact (when you go to school anyway) you learn color correction and output by the numbers, and some of the good professors will challenge their students to do it with a screen turned negative or with increased contrast.

The whole glossy screen = bad color thing is an over-hyped myth started by photogs and gfx designers that learned from the internet and "______ for dummies books."

The glare however, is another story.

I switched to mac because I am a video editor, working with Windows is like pulling teeth when your doing video projects.

But without firewire I can't use a Mac at all, it would just be a toy for internet and e-mail.... like a oversized iphone I already have that.

With Adobe Production CS4 there may not be a need to even cut on the Mac exclusively anymore. I haven't touched Premier in about four years, but if I can move to it and hop on Encore DVD and After Effects, (both of which blow their Apple counterparts out of the water) I'd grab a slim 17" PC with dual HDDs and 1GB GFX cards in a heart beat.

Not to mention the HP Blackbird 002 which may not be a workstation but kicks @$$.

 

[ChrisA]

Okay, just a question, with most notebooks these days and some PC displays going to glossy screen, will it matter much between the designer matte or glossy screen? Cause the consumer will watch it in gloss anyway.

Just my thoughts.

Most products are NOT websites. Most are real objects like the boxes cereal comes in and the dust jackets that wrap most books and so on. People want to be able to get a good preview of the final product

 

[Chaos123x]

I was refering to premiere it's like pulling teeth. Totally unstable with huge projects.

 

[sigismundspikul]

I think Apple is destroying it's base, the creative artist crowd.

believe me, i've done my far share of bitching about this latest firewire fiasco, but I think that saying that apple is abandoning the creative customer base is pretty out there. To be honest, if by next year apple completely did away with firewire everyone would be very very pissed off, but the world would go on and most likely there would be another better format to step in. I doubt anything this drastic would happen but sometimes you do need to have a forest fire to grow something new.

I mean, according to everyone "creative professionals" wouldn't even really need to be using tape by next year, even if red doesn't come out with scarlet next year it's still widely accepted that everything is moving to extremely cheap, high capacity, notoriously indestructible CF cards.

As far as the screen thing goes, I can't really recall ever trying to work in front of a glossy screen, but its inconsequential. Once again, any "creative professional" isn't monitoring on a laptop screen, they have either a ridiculously expensive high caliber display that costs more than you dad's new benz, or they are running a maxtor mxo type device with an ACD for monitoring.


In short, "professionals" aren't being affected by this atall, which is the real girth of this backbone of diehard apple customers everyone talks about, but then again most "professionals" aren't editing on laptops their editing on mac pros.

What this is more about is the cheap indie professional, apple may be signaling that they don't care as much about the person who edits HDV video on a consumer level laptop. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know, but I'm pretty disappointed in that attitude because I've always thought the might of the apple brand was about empowering the average person.

EDIT: PS:: As far as the software goes, its very unlikely apple is getting out of the pro video game. As far as shake goes I don't have any first hand knowledge about what is going on with an update, but the few times it's come up in a conversation I've been lead to believe that it is undergoing a major overhaul and that 5.0 is going the be the ****. Regardless if that is true, shake is an amazingly powerful program that is very well put together, is there anything you can really think of that the current version can't do?

And FCP just got a huge injection of steroids, remember the latest release not to long ago that apple so generously purchased Final Touch HD for us, totally reworked it and made improvements, rebranded it as "Apple's Color" and threw in a truly groundbreaking $100,000 style Color Correction program for FREE?

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

It's actually just the glare problem. Color calibration should be a no brainer no matter what screen you are using. In fact (when you go to school anyway) you learn color correction and output by the numbers, and some of the good professors will challenge their students to do it with a screen turned negative or with increased contrast.

Oh, excuse me. I guess my MFA in photography is rather meaningless, then. Or the fact that I do teach college-level photography courses, or have helped instruct numerous photography workshops.

There is a level of image quality that is not simply "by the numbers." It's good to know what those numbers are when you get them, but photography is not simply objective measures. There is a subjective quality which comes from literally looking at your work. It's a visual medium. The math involved allows for precise replication. But it is not the absolute way to obtain a result. If you choose to edit only by the numbers, then your images will only look by the numbers.

The glossy monitors ARE a problem for color calibration.

 

[ChemiosMurphy]

I find that the glossy screens over-saturate images and gives whacky black/grey levels. But hey, that's just me.

Apple is just out to make a quick buck. No FW means MBP. Period. More $$$. And heck, while we're at it, lets charge them more for a Mini-Display port to DVI adapter. And lets not update our Cinema Displays so that they have DVI. It's absolutely absurd.

Compatibility with the Matrox MXO has been jeopardized since they moved to mini display port as well. They just really screwed so many people here with that switch.

If apple really did give a crap about their pro market, they would have at least put a mini 4-4 pin FW port on there or something. Nothing stopped them from doing that. Even an eSata port for HDDs

Now Pro Tools users with the M box are screwed...

If they continue this "MAKE IT SMALL and pretty" attitude they're going to have cocky businessmen left. There comes a point when form goes too far over function, and this is it. If I want small I'll get a touch or an Air.

They put form way to high over function this time. If they cannibalize it furthermore and ruin the Mac Pros, Avid is going to make a studio package and windows is going to rule the roost once again.

I'll have no problem buying a machine with Windows 7 and an Avid suite if the price is right. What do you think?

 

[CaptainChunk]

The glossy monitors ARE a problem for color calibration.

I think you're missing the point that is trying to be made here. As a video professional, I too prefer matte LCD screens if I had a choice, BUT...

You also have yet another problem with a laptop screen, even if it is matte. The panel itself isn't that good, either. Most laptops (including my Early 2008 MBP) have cheap 6-bit TN panels. Just how color accurate do you expect those to be? It can't reproduce proper IRE black levels (monumentally important for video color correction) no matter how hard it tries. It won't achieve anything close to a full NTSC or Adobe RGB color gamut (perhaps 75% at best). So, it's still not the same as that nice S-IPS panel you get in an ACD, let alone a professional broadcast or graphics monitor.

This fact alone is a far more critical problem than worrying about whether your screen is matte or glossy. Another example: Plasma televisions notoriously have more accurate color reproduction than LCD televisions, yet plasmas have glass screens that are well....glossy. Come to think of it, CRTs are nothing but big pieces of glass. Yet, the most color accurate displays in the world are CRT-based.

So, long story short: I wouldn't trust a laptop screen do any serious color correction work anyway. That's why I own a broadcast monitor.

So with all due respect, I call shenanigans.

Now Pro Tools users with the M box are screwed...

Not necessarily. FW800-FW400 cables and adapters do exist. While having both ports was a convenience I too enjoyed, it's not quite the end yet.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

I think you're missing the point that is trying to be made here. As a video professional, I too prefer matte LCD screens if I had a choice, BUT...

You also have yet another problem with a laptop screen, even if it is matte.

.......

I understand that quite well. But I'm speaking from experience in dealing with desktop monitors, not laptops.

 

[jodelli]

Come to think of it, CRTs are nothing but big pieces of glass. Yet, the most color accurate displays in the world are CRT-based.

Just chiming in. I still use a calibrated CRT for PS with many pictures I'm going to export.

 

[tri3limited]

Anyone planning to edit a feature length film on a MacBook or even using miniDV should probably start to think a tad more realistically.

My company currently use miniDV as our prefered standard but are looking to move over to EX1's once the price point drops a little, not to mention that the primary Pro base is already in transition over to flash or harddrive based solutions.

Yes i have a 13.3" white macbook which is great for the odd bits and bobs on but realistically there is no way i would cut anything longer than 10 mins on it. I'm in the market for a MacBook Pro soon as i need something a little more flexible but even then it's not an editing solution.

As for dissing Premiere, the CS3 (i'd guess CS4 is similar) is great for projects long or short and is remarkably similar to final cut as they have both learnt from each other. When you say running it on Windows, my Vista Ultimate machine with 16gb RAM and quatro graphics seem to make it a pretty easy solution.

Apple haven't removed firewire as the market is shrinking alone, otherwise the pro wouldn't have an 800 slot, its pretty much a reminder to all that the base MacBook is that and nothing more. If you want fast external drives, the option of DV, expandable card slots etc. then you are probably in the market for the pro model.

As for the glossy vs matt argument its down to preference. The design company we use uses glossy only and they work in well lit rooms etc. but its clear apple is leading us all down one avenue. Oh and if you are doing software based colour correction, then why the hell are you doing it on a laptop!!

Laptops are what they say they are... for me that means the odd short roughcut and downsampled editing is allowed and nothing more.

 

[wheelhot]

tri3limited, good points.

Hmm, yea, forgot about printing and etc. but ain't printing colors will usually look different then the image seen on a notebook?

Laptops are what they say they are... for me that means the odd short roughcut and downsampled editing is allowed and nothing more.

I like this statement

 

[chilipie]

Anyone planning to edit a feature length film on a MacBook or even using miniDV should probably start to think a tad more realistically.

I agree with your point about the MacBook, but 28 Days Later was mostly shot on miniDV. That was a few years ago now, admittedly, but I can understand why people with high-end miniDV cameras or newer HDV ones would be a bit hacked off.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Oh, excuse me. I guess my MFA in photography is rather meaningless, then. Or the fact that I do teach college-level photography courses, or have helped instruct numerous photography workshops.

There is a level of image quality that is not simply "by the numbers." It's good to know what those numbers are when you get them, but photography is not simply objective measures. There is a subjective quality which comes from literally looking at your work. It's a visual medium. The math involved allows for precise replication. But it is not the absolute way to obtain a result. If you choose to edit only by the numbers, then your images will only look by the numbers.

The glossy monitors ARE a problem for color calibration.

It doesn't matter what you claim to be, doesn't work for me or any of the other pro shooters on this forum. It's the internet and anonymity is at 99%. I could say I am some pulitzer winning photojournalist for the Washington Post, but I am not (seriously).

Fact is, you don't need a color accurate monitor to tone your images correctly. It helps A LOT but it's not needed. And the second fact is that the glossy screen's that were in the previous MBPs and especially the current ones don't hinder color accuracy as much as people whine about it.

And yes, the monitors in laptops are the bottom of the barrel anyway. To the video guys, I too want to give Premier another try this go round on a Windows box. Avid and Boris FX even, and when it comes to accurate color on those guys things change a bit, you'll need a pro broadcast reference monitor or suffer poor color quality.