It is not about getting an unbiased sample. It is about sample opinion that accurately represents the overall views of designers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why are Macs so dominate in the media creation industry today?
- Thread starter gunraidan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks. So essentially people go with Macs because they are far more stable and interface friendly than PC's? And thinking of it this does make sense, as someone who has used all of these programs.
Video Editing, Music Creation, and Graphic Design doesn't require highend hardware. So even if you buy a Radeon HD or Intel i7 it really won't make much of a difference. It would make much more sense to go with a stable software.
Businesses use Windows because well that's what Window's interface is based on. And animators go with Window's because of the need of the highest end hardware as well as Direct X.
On paper Macs offer stability and a more intuitive interface while Windows offers high-end performance and price.
I think I get it now.
3D animation and modelling is mainly done on PCs because the software needed for that is mainly Windows-only (ex. 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD), or there is a Mac version but is inferior to the Windows part (ex Maya, Zbrush). The price may be a factor too, especially if there's no Linux version of the 3D app. If there isn't, it's normally more intelligent to use a Windows render farm then a Mac one, while if there is, you could (if the needed programs are available) work on Macs and render on Linux machines.
Finally, usually professional GPUs are available first for PCs, and then for Macs (and when they are, they're not always available from the Mac Pro configuration page, like the current Quadro)
Good luck editing 1080p on a G3 iMac then, or rendering 20 x 10k displacement maps on anything with less than 4 cores.
I myself am a "serious amateur" photographer and for the past 6 months now I have flirted with the idea of building a PC desktop to handle the kind of speed requirements I need to load 14.6 megapixal 23 meg raw files in real time. A laptop platform is simply too slow for this. While a mac pro is great its really too expensive for what I need and plus, i don't really need to spend the money and get a Xeon with ECC support (an expensive and mostly useless option for consumers). Apple doesn't really make a platform that supports what I need. So in reality, they are not helping themselves by accommodating the changing times. Not everyone is going to or can afford a mac pro ...
10.6 could also seriously speed up applications on mac and give it some of graphics power it used to have thanks to grand central and greater multithread support and really just better code in Snow Leopard. That being said Adobe has to write their programs to take advantage of this.
10.6 could also seriously speed up applications on mac and give it some of graphics power it used to have thanks to grand central and greater multithread support and really just better code in Snow Leopard. That being said Adobe has to write their programs to take advantage of this.
Yes, because video editors are gonna buy a G3.
Hey - I'm not the one claiming that Video Editing doesn't need high end hardware. You're making my point for me.
Not high end hardware != old hardware
A current generation iMac can be considered middle-end hardware, yet you can do a fair amount of video editing with it.
I am pretty sure that the OP isn't talking about the kind of "media creation" that takes place involving iMovie, and editing the crap that comes off your average low-bitrate AVCHD Canon handycam that is suitable for the hardware found in the iMac.
You are highly underestimating what an iMac can do. Of course for heavy editing you will need lots of power, however you can do quite a lot of stuff with an iMac, it may not take minutes but hours to render (and that's normal if you're compaing a 4(8) or 8(16) core machine with a dual core) , but you can work with HD video without many problems and no, without using iMovie but using Premiere/After Effects or Final Cut etc.
Something not needing to be highend doesn't equal something can do the job by being a dinosaur.
Is there any data? All there really is is personal experiences. Thought I know for a fact that my personal experience ranges through a massive number of video editing studios, graphic design companies, and music producers, both here in Europe and in the USA. I guess it's just down to you and whether you want to believe that or not.
You'd be surprised how much power can be needed for music production. I think all professionals in those areas would need Mac Pro sort of power, but lower-end work won't.
I think there should be a distinction between professional videographers and amateurs. Professionals will need a high-end machine, simply because they can't afford to wait longer for rendering times. But for non-heavy work, you're absolutely right that things can easily be edited quickly on an iMac or MacBook Pro.
Really? I've used programs such as Reason and didn't find much power to be necessary.
Not all musicians are the same, some can work on pretty small setups depending on their music style, but I've known some to use a combination of so many audio samples, instruments, and effects it maxes out their CPUs. Reason is a pretty lite app, but when you get into things like Logic, Cubase, and Pro Tools, they can be very different beasts.
At college (studying media) every machine was a Mac.
At university (design) every machine was a mac.
At my 2nd university (design again) there were 2 labs, one for Windows one for Mac. But every student had some form of portable Mac.
Maybe it stems from there? People just get used to Macs because its what they were brought up with. I guess the ease of use and hardware quality helps too.
And for a college project once I edited a 1080p video on a G4 PowerBook (the 12" one no less, but using an external monitor). It ran well, but the final render took a long time. 12 hours I believe. But it's entirely possible for a G4 to do it.
At university (design) every machine was a mac.
At my 2nd university (design again) there were 2 labs, one for Windows one for Mac. But every student had some form of portable Mac.
Maybe it stems from there? People just get used to Macs because its what they were brought up with. I guess the ease of use and hardware quality helps too.
And for a college project once I edited a 1080p video on a G4 PowerBook (the 12" one no less, but using an external monitor). It ran well, but the final render took a long time. 12 hours I believe. But it's entirely possible for a G4 to do it.
Actually, you saying that reminded me the reason I bought my first Mac (and changed me from an anti-Mac PC-fanboy) was because I got to experience them at college. The only computers in the music department were Macs. So I think to a degree you're right. Although most of those teachers actually say they get students to use Macs because they're standard in that industry, so I guess it's circular.
More Media
I'm thinking that Apple has pushed the Artist aspect of it's products for 20 years.
People look at Mac's and think of Artists and the like.
Yeah, loads of programs for animation editing and so on, have performed better on PC's for many years. But, now after all these years of selling the product as a consumer ready art station .. you got what you got.
Thank about it... All current computers(PC or Mac or other) have the ability do do 95% of all consumer needs. Hardware and OS wise the features are also the same.
So what makes the Mac's seem like they are better at making multi-media files.
Marketing and consistent delivery of consumer ready artistic like products.
It's all about Image.
I'm thinking that Apple has pushed the Artist aspect of it's products for 20 years.
People look at Mac's and think of Artists and the like.
Yeah, loads of programs for animation editing and so on, have performed better on PC's for many years. But, now after all these years of selling the product as a consumer ready art station .. you got what you got.
Thank about it... All current computers(PC or Mac or other) have the ability do do 95% of all consumer needs. Hardware and OS wise the features are also the same.
So what makes the Mac's seem like they are better at making multi-media files.
Marketing and consistent delivery of consumer ready artistic like products.
It's all about Image.
Apple "is" dominant in media. When you take a look at the relative percentage of the platform that is employed in DCC work on PC and Mac you'll find that a higher percentage of Macs are doing Digital Media.
The best reason I can give you is that Apple's design ethos is a part of their DNA. Microsoft's DNA isn't creative it's busines and their cash cow is Windows and Office.
Sure you can buy Adobe on both platforms but Apple has always been strong at supporting core technologies for making excellent creative apps.
Many companies force their designers to move to PC so they have a more homogenous network and not necessarily because PC have some sort of creative or speed advantage.
The best reason I can give you is that Apple's design ethos is a part of their DNA. Microsoft's DNA isn't creative it's busines and their cash cow is Windows and Office.
Sure you can buy Adobe on both platforms but Apple has always been strong at supporting core technologies for making excellent creative apps.
Many companies force their designers to move to PC so they have a more homogenous network and not necessarily because PC have some sort of creative or speed advantage.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think there's any good technical reason at the moment. The reasons for choosing a Mac over a PC in the creative field is the same reason why I'd choose one for using iTunes, writing emails, surfing porn, and updating my FaceBook status. I think of it all in the same way, and that reason is, "Why the feck not?" I feel comfortable using it, and I like how Macs look.
2. Pedigree. There was likely a real advantage once upon a time due to some inherent difference in the software and hardware, but I don't believe those benefits are valid today.
3. Creative people may have some sort of natural affinity towards pretty things that are designed well (aesthetically).
That's it.
I feel comfortable using it, and I like how Macs look.2. Pedigree. There was likely a real advantage once upon a time due to some inherent difference in the software and hardware, but I don't believe those benefits are valid today.
3. Creative people may have some sort of natural affinity towards pretty things that are designed well (aesthetically).
That's it.
exactly. Its not a well-known stereotype for no reason. Most stereotypes are based on some sort of fact. I'm a film major and a budding photographer, and only once in both fields have I run into 'professionals' not running a mac system. And in that video production office, they were churning out sub-par material. Now that could also be the fact of the camera's and the other people working there aren't up to par, but it doesn't help that Adobe Premier doesn't hold a candle to an Avid or Final Cut system.
Lets think of it like this. A computer is a tool for a job. You want the best tool for your job. Now, if I want to be a car mechanic, would I rather a car lift, or a car jack? Both get the job done, but one gets the car out of the way better.
Same thing applies to this. Sure, I can run Avid and Lightroom on a PC. I can run Final Cut and Aperture on a Mac. On the Mac I don't get registry errors and blue screens and shoddy drivers (one can argue that I know) and I don't need a subscription to the anti-virus of your choice to make sure my work files don't get corrupted, as well as I don't need to reformat once or twice a year to keep the machine running as good as the day I turned her on. Which would you choose given that?
And that lies in the answer for why that particular industry runs on Macs.
also : doesn't it tell you something that the advertising company that does a lot of Microsoft ads runs all Macs? If Microsoft can't convince them to switch to Vista, then they probably can't convince the rest of the industry.
editing video doesn't take much, but rendering it does. Try stacking plug-ins on Logic or Pro-Tools and you'll need a ton of CPU. And you try doing graphic design with tons of little files open and rendering out images and the like, and you'll see the need for high end hardware. Whats the difference between my macbook pro and a mac pro for video editing? Hours of rendering time and the ability to do 1:1 editing for HD. Whats it for my aperture library? Wait time loading 14-16mb raw images as well as batch exporting 1000+ jpegs.
do you like waiting? I sure as hell don't and when it comes down to time is money, I best not be waiting.
and for animation, yeah having direct x is a godsend from what I hear. Although I keep seeing a lot of my friends in animation ditching windows for some variant of Linux.
Please explain in more detail. I don't quite get this.
Why is that?
Not to sound like a troll (I'm really not) but why not go PC than since its the exact same components but far cheaper? Is it stability?
Apple has always been at the forefront of design. From teaming with Adobe to usher in Desktop Publishing to delivering MacDraw and MacPaint as some of the earliest apps.
Today people believe that simply slapping Adobe apps on a computer makes for an equivalent experience but that's not really the truth though you find many IT admins pushing for replacing Macs with PC so that their management jobs are easier.
Right now no one is investing in print publishing and the battle is still there. You have Adobe flogging Flash and Apple flogging open standards based on Javascript and HTML5 features.
Microsoft has never "understood" the creative user. They purchased Softimage as some showcase of what Direct X could do and it went nowhere until they sold it off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softimage_(company)
"helping to port" is a euphemism for stripping out the more common OpenGL and inserting crappy Microsoft tech.