I understand most of it.
Though I am a bit confused by this could you please further explain if you don't mind.
Though I am a bit confused by this could you please further explain if you don't mind.
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
One of many factors: to visual people an appealingly designed computer can also be an important factor. There's really not much out there that stacks up to the industrial design of Apple products.
More important, however, is that at the beginning all design and graphics tools were mac-based. The original iterations of Photoshop and Quark Xpress were Mac applications, so the first people to do digital prepress started on Macs, and when their friends and coworkers asked for help finding a computer, they got Macs as well. It has been a long cycle of this...people learn on Macs in school, continue using them and find no reason to switch to a Windows platform.
More important, however, is that at the beginning all design and graphics tools were mac-based. The original iterations of Photoshop and Quark Xpress were Mac applications, so the first people to do digital prepress started on Macs, and when their friends and coworkers asked for help finding a computer, they got Macs as well. It has been a long cycle of this...people learn on Macs in school, continue using them and find no reason to switch to a Windows platform.
I don't know if you misunderstood the question, but what you just did was what you just did was dodge the question.
You're trying to say that there's a good reason why Macs are dominant in (some) creative fields, and rather than explaining why, you put together some incongruent marketing speak. It was like reading a politician's reply. Judging by gunraidan's reaction, I don't think he understands what you're saying, and quite frankly, I don't understand either.
In the most simplistic terms. Apple and more specifically the Macintosh was born for creative types. Design is Apple's core competency. They know it well which is why they find success in media creation fields.
lets think of it like this :
I buy a Dell. Dell picks the parts and puts it together and then slaps Microsofts OS on it. They gotta find drivers or make them and hope it works.
I buy an Apple. Apple puts the hardware together and writes the drivers and software for it, making sure, in painstaking Steve Jobs fashion that it works.
Basically, barring a poorly written piece of software, I have nothing to worry about software wise on the Mac. All I have to worry about is the hardware not failing.
In Windows, I find myself dealing with driver issues, registry problems and poorly written apps more so then in Mac.
last time my Mac kernel panic'd was trying to open up my thesis report in Microsoft word. It was only a 200 page document, made in Word...
I would go PC if Windows, or some brand of Linux provided me the stability, the software and overall user experience I need to get my work done.
And as someone who might be staring at my computer for hours a day, I want it to look good to. There are very few, if any PC's I would want to work on all day for fear of being dulled to death by their lack of aesthetic appeal.
Also, what looks better to a client, pulling out a macbook pro to showcase your work on, or that laptop giampalo from the Laptop hunter commercials got?
for my friends switching to Linux, 3DS Max can run on linux. So why deal with the driver issues and possibility of virus's when you can run Linux and be mostly ok with it.
Also, Linux can look nicer then Vista when you turn Aero and all the nice fluffy animations off. Easier on the eyes = more productivity in my mind. Thats why I can't work on XP.
Romanov its your choice to use Macs but stop spreading the usual Mac FUD about registry and driver issues in Windows. The last time I had a registry or driver issue was in Windows 98. Macs are made from the same parts as PCs, why do you trust Apple to write drivers more than the people who manufacture the parts? Thats assuming Apple do write all the drivers and don't ask the manufacturers to write them for them e.g. nVidia.
If you want your PC to look good you have a far wider range of options on a PC than you do on a Mac too.
What it comes down to is this, media people are a pretentious, cliquey bunch. Macs suit them.
If you want your PC to look good you have a far wider range of options on a PC than you do on a Mac too.
What it comes down to is this, media people are a pretentious, cliquey bunch. Macs suit them.
The Registry and DLLs are the perfect system ever invented!!!
Even Microsoft want to dump the registry for XML like UNIX...
I see what you mean. Earlier this year I was working on XP and was creating a cartoon in Adobe Flash CS4. It always crashed when I really pushed it and I ended up getting a nasty virus that was so bad I had to use DBAN to delete all my files on my primary hard-drive.
Even today there are problems with my build. It seems like once in a while my PC won't recognize my sound card or what not.
I hope Windows 7 fixes these issues.
EDIT - One quick question. Was there a big difference between Power PC architecture and other PC components back in the day? Did Mac use to have a huge edge on other PC's when working with media and it disappeared when they switched to intel?
Regardless of what Windows fanboys may say, I wouldn't bet on it.
PPC pwned Intel at the time.
As others have said, Mac hardware lead the way in the 'desktop revolutions' of publishing/gfx arts, music production, film/tv editing, and DVD authoring. And as others have said the Mac presence isn't as strong as it used to be as many of the same tools are cross platform but its still an industry leader in the creative fields. Another advantage the Mac has is how similar all the hardware is. There are very few things that separate a one 2.26ghz 8-core Mac Pro from another which means if you are developing, or shopping for, higher end components like A/V capture cards you have fewer variables to potentially cause problems on Macs than on PCs.
W/regards to the level of hardware professionals need, speed is a wonderful thing but predictability is better which is why most places aren't running the latest and greatest. Once you get the computer running smoothly w/the right combo of versions for the OS, QT, software, 3rd party hardware, etc., you are reluctant to retool things especially if buying a new computer means you need new versions of of your software and hardware. As they say, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. A couple of years ago I still knew of a few places in Los Angeles using G4's running OS 9 (and a similarly old version of Avid) to edit prime time cable or network TV shows. Why? Because the equipment can still do what it needs to do, it's paid for, and the workflow is bombproof.
Lethal
W/regards to the level of hardware professionals need, speed is a wonderful thing but predictability is better which is why most places aren't running the latest and greatest. Once you get the computer running smoothly w/the right combo of versions for the OS, QT, software, 3rd party hardware, etc., you are reluctant to retool things especially if buying a new computer means you need new versions of of your software and hardware. As they say, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. A couple of years ago I still knew of a few places in Los Angeles using G4's running OS 9 (and a similarly old version of Avid) to edit prime time cable or network TV shows. Why? Because the equipment can still do what it needs to do, it's paid for, and the workflow is bombproof.
PPC during it's heyday was more powerful but when Motorola, the company supplying CPUs to Apple, basically stopped further development of the G4 CPU that's when trouble really came calling (and this is why Apple switched to IBM and finally to Intel). Before Steve took over the reigns again Apple looked like it was headed for certain doom so Apple-centric hardware and software companies obviously went "Oh crap" and started work on Windows/x86 versions of there products. When Apple's speed stagnated w/the G4 that was yet another reason companies started losing faith in Apple. The silver lining in this is that because so many companies jumped ship Apple was forced to develop it's own software (I mean, who is going to buy a computer that has no apps) and this is a big reason why Apple has such a strong line up of consumer and professional first party apps.
Lethal
You might not have had registry and driver issues since Windows 98, but I sure have had it with ME, 2000, XP, and so far, In 7 as well. I skipped Vista, thank god. Why do I trust Apple more? Because Apple makes sure that this driver works with the other drivers. If I buy a MSI motherboard, and MSI makes the drivers, and I buy a PNY nvidia card and PNY makes the drivers and they conflict with each other... well theres one bluescreen there.
If I want my PC to look good, I probably could find it. But there is a difference between looking good, and looking professional. I had a meeting with a client a few weeks back. They came in with a write up of what they wanted, and had it on a HP netbook. That screamed cheap and willing to settle for sub-par results for a bit less money. Guess what they turned out to be? Not the client who was willing to pay whatever it took to get the job done.
For me, my mac not only gets the job done consistently everytime and does it the way I want it to, but also looks good to the people I work with. Shows that I care about my outward appearance.
So yeah, macs are made from the same parts as PC's, but its not about the parts. Its about the package, the experience that the Mac provides. Your missing the forests for the trees.
Hi. Perhaps... something that contributes is the nature of the creative industry. We're not talking many big 50+ employee corporations. Creative companies tend to be small studios or individuals. Pretty much all of the design work I've done has been with these set-ups. So.. the plug-n-play aspect of Macs means these individuals and small studios can generally figure stuff out without the need for "IT Support personnel". Most small studios I work for do not employ/contract anyone in a 'support' capacity. Some do, but they're in the minority. It was quite a smart move when Apple shifted the OS onto a UNIX base which is pretty bulletproof and I'll not forget the novelty of being able to crash a bit of software while still printing out a deadline imperative artwork... previous to that the whole thing would have collapsed.
Not to mention the whole ergonomic thing with the keyboard layout. Though I've not come across any designers who articulate it when asked the difference - perhaps it's something instinctive.
Not to mention the whole ergonomic thing with the keyboard layout. Though I've not come across any designers who articulate it when asked the difference - perhaps it's something instinctive.
I'm in the ad biz, and I can tell you this from my perspective- thank GOD we use Macs. I can't imagine having to use Windows for work. It would make me crazy. Macs have such a good rep for being reliable and relatively trouble-free. I can't tell you the last time I had to call IT- maybe once in the last year, and that was to request a new mouse.
I see, thanks. So is there any chance that Apple will switch to a processor company that will give them an edge over x86 hardware in terms of media programing?
None
Media Processing will eventually be accelerated primarily by the GPU. Though Intel has some nice advancements coming to their next generation SIMD architecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
http://softwareprojects.intel.com/avx/
So in short in the near future, with the exception of 3D animation, media processing will go the way of word processing and internet surfing as in power won't matter?
Yes and no. By that I mean when it seems like computers are 'fast enough' a new format seems comes out that requires more computer power. For example, the cost of editing SD video had been falling like a rock for years but then HD video came out and all of a sudden it was like someone rolled back the clock. HD required more powerful computers. It required bigger, faster storage. It required new, expensive monitors, video routers, A/V I/O cards, etc.,. We have HD formats like AVCHD that are so CPU intensive to use that the common practice is to transcode them into another codec. Now that HD is becoming more manageable what do we have on the horizon. 4k editing. 3D stereoscopic editing.
Lethal
Ahh I see. Wait "4K"? IMO that's pretty far away. 720/1080p hasn't taken consumer hold yet. And 3D may very well not catch on.
I do agree with what you are saying though that there will always be something bigger and better for quite some time.
Saying this do you guys think Mac should ditch NVIDIA and have someone make media specific video cards?
I think that's actually a really good idea. Or it would've been a few years ago. Now Apple have now invested so much of the future into Grand Central Station and Open CL and splitting of computer processes between the CPU and GPU, it probably won't happen.
Apple would only ditch Nvidia and "roll their own" if they saw that the features and performance they need were not being developed. GPU design is expensive and it's easier to let someone else handle that financial burden.
I was talking about both the pro and consumer markets.
That's kinda how things used to be but as CPUs and GPUs continued to get faster and cheaper dedicated hardware became too expensive and too old too quick.
Lethal
I see but why would most pro's be worried about 4K or 3D if they have such little ground to stand on? Future proof of "just in case" I assume? Even than so, call me ignorant, but from my observations going "3D" isn't too expensive as all you need is a GTX card and a TV with glasses bundles. Than again 3D is such an undeveloped early technology there is no telling what the future will hold if it truly gets its foot in the door.
So in short the tech arms race has become so cheap, fast, and developed that even if Apple decided to create their own hardware anyway it wouldn't have that much of a leg up over x86 architecture? So it would have been much better to swallow their pride and go with x86 to save millions?
Is this why Mac was so eager to drop the "G" line after G5 because the performance difference between G5 architecture and x86 was thin and getting thinner by every new edition?
"Grand Central Station"?
Aren't there talks of Apple ditching NVidia and switching to someone else? (most likely intel)
3D is not an underdeveloped and new technology. Alfed Hitchcock did it decades ago. Disney 3D though seems to be getting it right this time around though, in my not so professional opinion. Going 3D is not expensive in the consumer aspect. For a professional, think again. Laptops can't work on 3D movies, and most workstations don't work that well from my experience with it.
4k will soon become a problem because of camera's like the Red One. From what I've seen its near impossible to do 1:1 editing with it unless you throw all your money into your machine. And then you need a 4k monitor to check focus etc... $$$
Apple would only ditch nVidia chipsets (aka nvidia designed motherboards) because of a current lawsuit between Intel and nvidia and nvidia most likely won't be able to produce chipsets of the nehalem lineup of processors. Also intel is said to have a graphics chipset coming out that will be as good as the 9400M in the current lineup.
Apple dropped the PowerPC lineup for more then a few reasons. One, the G5 chips were on par or worse then the Intel offerings at the time, and IBM refused, or didn't work on engineering on chip for laptops. Hence why there is a iMac G5, PowerMac G5, but no PowerBook G5. IBM wasn't offering what Apple wanted or needed. Apple might create its own hardware for the iPhone/iPod lines but that might be it.