littleman23408
Dec 3, 03:10 PM
Some of them do but not sure do all of them. I've got several nice rides from those series but they are mainly from higher level series.
Cool, Thanks. You must be pretty far?
Cool, Thanks. You must be pretty far?
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
rjohnstone
Apr 25, 03:11 PM
While I would also like to know why, I'm not sure this is a big deal as it seems to me that the remedy to going to be very simple: a) encryption is on by default, and/or b) flushing the database after, say, six months.
Oh I agree, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
I would still like to know the "why" part. If anything just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Oh I agree, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
I would still like to know the "why" part. If anything just to satisfy my own curiosity.
mmmcheese
Nov 28, 09:09 PM
Anyone who didn't see this coming is a complete idiot...
leekohler
Apr 28, 04:04 PM
Whoa, seriously? Providing both a birth certificate and a local paper announcement of the birth back three years ago is "hazy"?
Yeah, you heard it here first. It was highly suspect, ya know. It was a plot from the day he was born to forge a birth announcement, because the Muslims knew it would be their chance to get one of their own elected. Christ. The stupidity never ceases.
Yeah, you heard it here first. It was highly suspect, ya know. It was a plot from the day he was born to forge a birth announcement, because the Muslims knew it would be their chance to get one of their own elected. Christ. The stupidity never ceases.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 6, 05:04 PM
One thing has me wondering... What's the default aqua wallpaper of Leopard going to be? :confused: :)
DoFoT9
Aug 28, 07:18 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
cmaier
Apr 20, 11:58 AM
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
Not as a separate thing. It's the grid IN COMBINATION with the other things that constitutes the trade dress.
Multimedia
Aug 17, 12:01 PM
when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)I think Apple will add a Dual Clovertown processor option to the Mac Pro BTO page as soon as they can get them. I'm thinking it will be about a $1k option - Minus Two Woodcrests Plus Two Clovertowns = about $1k I thiink.Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, Kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.I'll settle for Dual Clovertown or perhaps a Quad Tigerton - if it's only $2k more - when Leopard ships on board next Spring. :)
So I'm thinking the Dual Clovertown OctoCore will cost about $4,000 plus ram and the Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000 plus ram. Is that a fair guess?
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)I think Apple will add a Dual Clovertown processor option to the Mac Pro BTO page as soon as they can get them. I'm thinking it will be about a $1k option - Minus Two Woodcrests Plus Two Clovertowns = about $1k I thiink.Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, Kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.I'll settle for Dual Clovertown or perhaps a Quad Tigerton - if it's only $2k more - when Leopard ships on board next Spring. :)
So I'm thinking the Dual Clovertown OctoCore will cost about $4,000 plus ram and the Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000 plus ram. Is that a fair guess?
Popeye206
Apr 6, 04:45 PM
Dude, you forgot to use your android fan-filter. :p
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
BaldiMac
Mar 22, 04:00 PM
Oh FFS... Ok, yes, if we're being pedantic, I'll wait until I try both iOS 5 and the Playbook before deciding.
:rolleyes: I wasn't being pedantic. You were the one calling for more rational conversation. I agree. And then you curse and belittle the first reply to your post.
I think it's disingenuous to call iOS lagging compared to the Playbook OS when you know perfectly well that iOS will likely be updated around the same time as the Playbook release. It's been played out over and over again in these forums where a demo of an unreleased product is hailed as so much better than Apple's version that came out almost a year ago. Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine.
:rolleyes: I wasn't being pedantic. You were the one calling for more rational conversation. I agree. And then you curse and belittle the first reply to your post.
I think it's disingenuous to call iOS lagging compared to the Playbook OS when you know perfectly well that iOS will likely be updated around the same time as the Playbook release. It's been played out over and over again in these forums where a demo of an unreleased product is hailed as so much better than Apple's version that came out almost a year ago. Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine.
Spagolli94
Nov 28, 10:51 PM
I was just reading some of the Zune comments on Amazon. Wow. Sounds like a really GREEEEAAAAT product.
The-Pro
Apr 6, 11:57 AM
well the CPU in the 13" macbook air has a 1066 Mhz frontside bus, only the 11" has a 800 Mhz FSB, so that quote thing was wrong :D
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 08:23 PM
Hey Multimedia, Do you record HDTV with EyeTV 500 then encode to H.264 using Handbrake and then do you add it to itunes to manage and organize those shows or movies?
I think this is a neat idea with you have the spare HD room and want to keep shows or events for long time and want to access it fast and easy.I don't use H.264 because the previous max res allowed to go on an iPod with it was 320x240 which would upscale to a TV poorly. Now I will continue to not use it because the file sizes are more than twice what I can make without it.
The author of Handbrake is going to have to make some changes to it before we can use H.264 judiciously. I currently use the FFmpeg 2-pass encoding at bitrates around 750kbps for SD @ 544x400 and 1000kbps @ 624x352 for HD. These are dimensions that fall within the upper limit pixel count that will still load and play on an iPod 230,000. This way they upsacle to a TV well and still play on iPod.
I don't use iTunes much. I am burning DVDs of all these files. 12 one hour shows fit on a DVD @ 351 per 42 minute Ads edited out episode. Movies I can get to 702MB - one CD size each. Personal message me if you need more details.
I think this is a neat idea with you have the spare HD room and want to keep shows or events for long time and want to access it fast and easy.I don't use H.264 because the previous max res allowed to go on an iPod with it was 320x240 which would upscale to a TV poorly. Now I will continue to not use it because the file sizes are more than twice what I can make without it.
The author of Handbrake is going to have to make some changes to it before we can use H.264 judiciously. I currently use the FFmpeg 2-pass encoding at bitrates around 750kbps for SD @ 544x400 and 1000kbps @ 624x352 for HD. These are dimensions that fall within the upper limit pixel count that will still load and play on an iPod 230,000. This way they upsacle to a TV well and still play on iPod.
I don't use iTunes much. I am burning DVDs of all these files. 12 one hour shows fit on a DVD @ 351 per 42 minute Ads edited out episode. Movies I can get to 702MB - one CD size each. Personal message me if you need more details.
donlphi
Nov 28, 11:04 PM
Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
Indo
Aug 26, 11:43 PM
actually when i was in india i read an article saying the center was shut down because the employees were demanding higher wages or something like that.
balamw
Aug 7, 04:36 PM
I'm not comparing it to system restore but to Volume Shadow Copy from Windows Server 2003. File-by-file snapshot by MS 3 years ago!
Again, fundamentally, a feature that existed in VMS over fifteen years ago and had been promised as part of Cairo. It took them over ten years to finally release it in Windows? :p
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
Exactly my thoughts!! Looks like a Trekie (how do you write that??) was let loose :D
Actually had a very Star Wars like feel to it with the angled text. Maybe one of the former Lucasfilm/ILM people from Pixar? :p
"A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a user created a file and overwrote its contents...."
B
Again, fundamentally, a feature that existed in VMS over fifteen years ago and had been promised as part of Cairo. It took them over ten years to finally release it in Windows? :p
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
Exactly my thoughts!! Looks like a Trekie (how do you write that??) was let loose :D
Actually had a very Star Wars like feel to it with the angled text. Maybe one of the former Lucasfilm/ILM people from Pixar? :p
"A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a user created a file and overwrote its contents...."
B
regandarcy
Apr 6, 04:06 PM
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
robotx21
Sep 19, 12:57 PM
I don't know if that's proof or a reason enough to think they'll have more than a chip drop-in, but I'm certainly hoping that it does get announced, and that you're right. :)
Well, like I have said before, brenthaven is releasing new "macbook pro" carrying cases next week the same time around the photokina event, and they are about 1/4" thicker in terms of "minimum/maximum" laptop specifications. This gives me reason to believe the case will be approx. .1-.3 inches thicker than current models, possibly making room for a better graphics card and dvd drive? Don't know...
Well, like I have said before, brenthaven is releasing new "macbook pro" carrying cases next week the same time around the photokina event, and they are about 1/4" thicker in terms of "minimum/maximum" laptop specifications. This gives me reason to believe the case will be approx. .1-.3 inches thicker than current models, possibly making room for a better graphics card and dvd drive? Don't know...
Cameront9
Aug 7, 06:35 PM
I am not hearing impaired, but I often watch TV and movies with the closed captioning on. I cannot really say what about it makes it more enjoyable to me--no one has ever understood why I do it, maybe it has to do with how I process information (I do have trouble listening in lecture classes, maybe a learning disability etc.), but my point is to say that I am also interested in getting closed captioning on iTunes shows.
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
epitaphic
Sep 13, 11:02 AM
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Logically, the next question is if ZFS' 128 bits is enough. According to Bonwick, it has to be. "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."
wow. boiling the oceans. there's a thought that never crossed my mind ;)
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Logically, the next question is if ZFS' 128 bits is enough. According to Bonwick, it has to be. "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."
wow. boiling the oceans. there's a thought that never crossed my mind ;)
Merzie
Jun 8, 11:56 PM
edit: last launch.. whoops
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:07 PM
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!