-
Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition
-
I wouldn’t equate it to anything to do with mobile. It’s an entirely different market.
Only Apple knows it’s numbers for sure, but it seems certain that Xserve was never a big player in the server space overall, and I don’t think the specialized hardware provided enough of a benefit over burgeoning technologies like Thunderbolt, which was announced on the first Mac not long before or after Xserve was EOL’d.
-
me neither really, X is making proper clear strides – you’d just wonder at the the board level thought process and discussions leading to the removal of professional applications from apple’s core statement. It’s not like any PR appartchik gets to rewrite that statement.
on some level there has to be kremlinology around the removal. A lot of senior people have to be happy in order for that to go: basically why remove those few words?
Funny story: when a major american UK based broadcaster were looking to move on, they reached out to avid, adobe and apple. Adobe won it, avid put a lot of work in, and apple directed them to their website. true story.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Marcus Moore] “I wouldn’t equate it to anything to do with mobile. It’s an entirely different market.”
Apple is in the hardware business though, not the desktop or laptop business (hence the official name change from Apple Computer to just Apple). If they see laptops and desktops as dead-ends in terms of growth how do you think they feel about ancillary product lines to be used in conjunction with laptops and desktops?
I agree that Apple ditched Xserve because it was a niche product in a played-out, niche market that they didn’t perform all that stellar in but I don’t think it was a ThB vs Fibre thing.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “ThB vs Fibre thing”
I imagine the financing and accounting departments ditched the project as having too low of return, and that is a different point of view than, say, selling units, or being techno-advance (even if it’s branding only from Apple *coughing in my fist: HP*). If a unit costs $1 to make and you sell it for $100, then that’s a business you want to keep. But if a unit costs $1 to make and you sell it for — what? 5% margin, 10% margin — what is that Apple number? — well they will ditch it.
Looking at storage for iTunes, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, and Pro Apps, Apple has to figure folks have to store their stuff somewhere and access it remotely (I think that’s Bill’s point).
That does not mean I cannot create my own cloud SAN, and I hope Apple makes the thing that competes with Drobo. OR is it reasonable to believe they will make iCloud.com storage stuffs?
To my eyes, there seems to be an obvious market in that prosumer area for Drobo-like SAN (photographers, graphic designers, musicians, video…there are many people here).
EDIT to add a detail: Today when I downloaded the free U2 album from iTunes, I logged on to my iTunes account and it downloaded to my authorized computer at work. Even we assume the iCloud.com storage would expand, it still (at least currently) means the media has to play from a local machine. To change that means to change the EULA, I believe. It would make the media “radio” and not “licensed.”
-
[Marcus Moore] “Apple ended up being pretty much smack dab on the average.”
Wasn’t “quicker updates” something the evangelists were preaching in year 1?
-
[Bill Davis] “Today’s iCloud aggressive pricing announcements might make that future a bit stronger, tho. “
Has to be aggressive since we know that your nude selfies aren’t secure.
-
[Richard Herd] “To my eyes, there seems to be an obvious market in that prosumer area for Drobo-like SAN (photographers, graphic designers, musicians, video…there are many people here).”
I think this is already happening if you need it.
SANs aren’t just hardware. The hardware part is fairly easy, it’s the software that is much more difficult. You have to make sure that people can’t have read/write access to the same files. If they do have read/write access to the same file, then you have to make sure that one person can’t destroy the other person’s work.
But if you are looking for a small SAN setup, there are many vendors who are offering it these days for affordable prices, more affordable than ever, really. You will also notice that many SAN vendors are coming out with their own hardware packages as well.
Apple’s file system (HFS+) is not best suited for a SAN architecture, which is why XSAN has it’s own file system, and most SANs run off of some sort of NTFS subsystem.
-
[Bill Davis] “While the other A’s are trying to essentially find places in the traditional “sit down and edit” suite based collaborative model, Apple appears to be pushing rather handily into the “It’s happening NOW – lets’ get it live to market” space.
Not to say X can’t play just as well in the sit and edit realm, but there’s a lot more to “collaborative workflows” than just the hollywood movie style gig. “
I would tend to agree with this. Having worked in Avid collaborative systems as well as other non-Avid approaches to shared storage, I can certainly attest to the fact that there are lots of ways to skin the cat. Any and all success that FCP 1-7 had in shared environments will attest to that. Most collaboration is really just “start in one place” and “pick it up later in another”. It’s much less about several editors banging away at the same sequence at the same time.
FCP X is still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to collaboration, but it’s not far off, especially with the shift to libraries. I can easily see sharing projects (without media) via iCloud, just like a Pages document.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Marcus Moore] “Thunderbolt continues to take lumps because it’s not as popular as USB3…. well DUH!”
Although it’s being added to HP and Dell systems as an option now.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Richard Herd] “That bit of internal gossip, it would be nice to know what actually happened.”
I’m not sure about gossip. Apple had a very robust, enterprise-grade operation, with a very active enterprise-level sales team. I’m talking not just sales, but engineers who would design and spec out an installation to bid. This was headed up by Alex Grossman. If you ever saw the Apple NAB booth in that time frame (FCP3-6), the IT infrastructure was very impressive. This was the era when various universities were building supercomputers by linking multiple G5 Xserves, most notably Virginia Tech.
Apple decided to get out of that type of enterprise business and shifted the sales effort to resellers and VARs. Grossman and some of the team left to found Active, which ultimately was folded into Quantum. FWIW – the lead Va Tech guy is the brains behind the Devil and Demon computers that Ted Schilowitz (formerly of RED) is associated with.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up