-
Reactions to Apples business model
-
I see Darren’s point.
In 1998, Firewire was a very fast, general-purpose interconnect, sporting a promising roadmap, intended to add respectable expansion across the entire Mac platform, and poised to revolutionize desktop video production.
What was true of Firewire in 1998 is true of Thinderbolt today, right?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “What was true of Firewire in 1998 is true of Thinderbolt today, right?”
And then some. It might change computers as we know them, who knows.
-
[Craig Seeman] ” As a video engineer I maintained both Mac and Windows based Avids. I don’t remember there being a significant price difference.”
In my geography, Macs are twice the price of an off the shelf PC of similar spec. However, I have been rebuilding PCs for my Fairlight system using 12 year old rack mount boxes. So I buy a motherboard, new or extra RAM and a new graphics card and rebuild for about 30% of the price of buying a new MacPro.
Because of that I can afford to update every 3-4 years where I push the Mac cycle time to 5 years. So with a decision pending that might see me move to a Win 7 system, I can build a new system for the money I will get if I sell the MacPro and that includes buying da Vinci software and a new Decklink card. However, if I stick to the Mac, I have a two year old machine, a Kona card to sell and a much more expensive graphics card purchase. The price difference between the same graphics card for Mac and PC is significant.
-
[Walter Soyka] “What was true of Firewire in 1998 is true of Thinderbolt today, right?”
But whereas firewire started with handling DV and had nothing to do with BetaSP or DigiBeta in uncompressed form for input or media file access, Thunderbolt starts out handling ProRes and Uncompressed I/O devices and simultaneous layers of playback from storage. Firewire didn’t represent the high end at the time but Thunderbolt does.
Firewire started with a consumer format that, over time became accept in some pro circles as DV eventually led to DVCProHD. Firewire handled storage but couldn’t match the speed of SCSI RAID. Thunderbolt starts by handling professional codecs and and moves RAID transfer rates higher.
-
[Michael Gissing] “I push the Mac cycle time to 5 years”
That’s why Apple is changing their hardware business model. Your example is why MacPros aren’t very profitable. In order for a “power” machine to be viable for a business model based on growth form Apple’s perspective either it has to be replaced more frequently or sold to more people and the “more” must expand over time.
For example, One might expect a “copper” based Thunderbolt Mac in early 2012. Sometime in 2013 they may be one optical Thunderbolt port added. In 2014 will be a higher bandwidth optical Thunderbolt port added.
As people buy the newer Thunderbolt MacPro replacement they’ll also be replace their “support” Mac, their older MBP and maybe iMacs to Thunderbolt version so they can take advantage of the portability of their Thunderbolt peripherals. Apple needs to create an upward spiral of both replacement and new sales. Of courses we’ll hate it but I suspect that’s going to be part of the thinking about how to make this MacPro replacement work profitably that the current MacPro doesn’t.
You can see how they even attempted to push this with FCPX and GPU compatibility to push sales of newer systems. Although Apple’s site said something to the effect that the Radeon 5770 was only supported on 2010 MacPros forward, people knew that the same card would work fine in their 2006 and 2007 MacPros. There’s no compelling reason to turnover those computers short of the need for the CPU speed bump. And, as some people have said, much of Apple’s software really doesn’t really take advantage of that so unless you’re in the rarified air we you have software that can take advantage of 12 real 24 virtual cores, MacPros don’t turnover at a high rate.
Apple’s answer will be a lower cost but just as powerful computer but the changes in software are going to demand more frequent updates. The changes in Thunderbolt technology will motivate updates especially as 4K cameras creep down in price . . . as the demand for longer cable runs (people have brought up those limits with copper Thunderbolt push turnover.
The MacPro replacement may cost less but Apple is going to push for compelling reasons to have a shorter life cycle. FCPX, Motion, Compressor are going to play a role in that . . . so Apple hopes.
Actually people are looking at it at the wrong angle when they see Apple as a “consumer” company. Although certainly “consumption” is the model. Apple knows the value of creating high turnover with new iPhones and iPads every year and that’s the “consumer” part they’re trying to push into their “pro” line. Each year they must motivate high turnover combined with an expanding base of new customer.
BTW this is where Tim Cook’s meddle will really be tested. From what I understand part of Cook’s skills are related to supply chain management and component pricing. They don’t need potential customers waiting for weeks for backordered devices. They’ve learned to wait which may be part of the reason why iPhone 4S was released a bit later and why you can pick one up without any serious constraints unlike the 4. Also large component orders can drive down prices. The MacPro replacement has to be a motivated purchase and they component order has to be large enough so Apple can have a high margin. Apple is going to wait until they can get what they want (what they think they can get us to want) to make that happen.
This means they may be waiting not only for the next round of Intel CPUs but it may also be timed to the next FCPX update that will require a new computer. I can play guessing games on how that might work. Perhaps multicam simply wont run on any MacPro pre 2009. Perhaps older MBPs and iMacs will be knocked out as well.
Ok so now I nod to the critics in this crowd because what some of you are thinking is dead right. “Why the F*** should I buy a new Mac to use an NLE than still can’t serve my business?” Right you are and that’s why there’s a lot more riding on FCPX than some realize. It’s not just MacPros but a good portion of the computers will or won’t be sold based on FCPX. Keep in mind that maybe even just a 5% hit on sales (the NLE loving portion?) is damaging. It impacts the supply chain. It can impact their need for components. It impacts the margins as a result going forward.
What Apple blew was not simply an NLE that wasn’t quit ready but that FCPX was supposed to drive some portion of Mac upgrades and it didn’t. The response ranged from people like me who paid $250 for a new GPU (which supposedly isn’t supported in my 2008 MacPro) to people who said “I can cross grade to Avid or Premiere for a magnitude less money than buying a Mac with a new GPU to run an NLE which doesn’t meet my business needs.”
In short, FCPX hurt Mac sales. It’s not that Apple doesn’t care about Computers or Pros, it’s that the program designed to drive hardware sales… didn’t. Of course the new Macs sold well and they’re gaining market share, but it’s not as much as it could have been. A lot of turnover didn’t happen. Thunderbolt itself is only a motivator to turnover your Mac if you have a compelling reason to edit on Mac and with an NLE that supports it. Will Avid support the Thunderbolt Video I/O boxes? Will Premiere users turnover their Macs for Thunderbolt . . . or will they move to Windows for nVidia CUDA which some would argue is a more important speed boost?
So in order for the replacement MacPros to be viable, FCPX may have to help drive sales. Thunderbolt has to drive sales. That means third party Thunderbolt development has to be compelling. The model may be a lower cost computer with a shorter life cycle. Thunderbolt’s roadmap might help. It also means Apple’s relationship to Intel is critical. I think all this ties into why we haven’t seen the MacPro replacement yet. What Apple needs to have ready, isn’t ready yet, my guess.
-
[Craig Seeman] ”
That’s why Apple is changing their hardware business model. Your example is why MacPros aren’t very profitable.”I’m glad its my fault and not something crazy like they sell overpriced hardware. What was I thinking:)
Seriously though there is something positive in having a limitation on hardware variables because it makes it easier to get the software robust. I have always let the software determine the hardware when possible and I don’t puts lots of different software on a machine.
All the points about TBolt are noted and they are obvious. I have a machine room with rack units so rack mount boxes are best for me anyway. On the sound post side I use NAS units so the idea of having distributed control and storage is something I have been doing for years anyway.
-
The problem Craig, is that a lot of editors are not very imaginative.
But I agree with you. Exciting times…
-
[Morten Ranmar] “…the community that help them grow into a toy company”
There are still companies who need your help.
I heard AVID wasn’t doing too good.
Now that is some business model – they are dying to help you
help them.(I’m a Pro Tools user!)
-
[Mark Bein] “Now that is some business model – they are dying to help you
help them.(I’m a Pro Tools user!)”
You wouldn’t be saying that if you were a ProTools user – over on the AVID audio forum they are baying for blood (makes what’s going on around here seem very tame!).
https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=310384
Most PT users are hoping that DigiDesign can be rescued from the clutches of (a potentially drowning) AVID …
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
What I find most amazing in this discussion is the way people claim to know how Apple thinks, what they will do, how they budget etc. Complete identification with a company; quite scary.
The facts are that Apple has turned into a massive consumer electronics company generating 95 per cent of their turnover in that area. The pro applications team has seen massive layoffs, FCPX caters for a different market, Macpros seem abandoned.
What makes you think this will play out any different than the Xserve. They dropped it with no proper replacement (and don’t tell me the Minis or current Macpros are a viable alternative, they are not). Lion Server running on a mini will suit some people with certain needs, the rest will shop elsewhere (including Apple themselves as none of their cloud services runs on Apple hard- or software). It’s a small loss compared to the money the make with iphones and ipads and they simply couldn’t care less about your visons of a Super-Mini or other mystical boxes.
And the same, that’s my prediction, will happen with the Macpros. Simply dropped, no replacement. It may see one more upgrade with TB, but if it doesn’t it wouldn’t surprise me. You can get an iMac if it suits your needs, if not Apple will not shed a tear to see the few people go that need something else.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up