-
Will Apple abandon pro-users all together?
-
[Bill Davis] “I’ve learned to take all the “it’s NOT for PRO use” talk with a huge grain of salt since I’ve watched countless times as the market decided that something totally inadequate for “professional” work – swept the market and eventually became the darling of the same pros who dismissed it most loudly upon inception.”
I think we should make a distinction between “suitable for professional use” and “built for professional use.” iMacs, which Apple used to explicitly position as the consumer line, are the former; Mac Pros, which contain features and technologies that are ridiculous overkill for both consumers and now many professionals, are the latter.
[Bill Davis] “It seems SO old fashioned when compared to my MacBook Pro that does nearly everything the MacPro does, but without all the attached crap.”
This is where the discussion gets personal and we must all stop speaking in generalities.
You may be able to do nearly everything on your MacBook Pro that you do on your Mac Pro. I am not able to do nearly everything on my MacBook Pro that I do on my Mac Pro, though. Since Thunderbolt can’t help me add RAM or processing cores, it won’t anytime in the future, either.
You’re probably doing mostly video editorial; I’m doing mostly animation, motion graphics, and compositing at larger-than-HD resolutions. We have different goals, different workflows, and different needs.
Chris Kenny is right when he says that most people who used to need a Mac Pro don’t need one anymore. Frank Gothmann is right when he says that some people cannot get their work done on an iMac as well as they can on a Mac Pro. I think they both agree that the workstation market among video pros is a shrinking niche, though they seem to differ on their opinions about whether Apple should cater to that niche.
In other words, if you’re an editor, chances are that you just plain don’t need a workstation anymore, and an iMac or laptop with Thunderbolt expansion will meet all your needs nicely. However, this does not mean that there’s no one in the video industry who would still be willing to pay for more power on the desktop.
The question of Apple abandoning “pro” users is still germane for anyone who can’t reasonably get their work done today on “consumer” hardware.
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 -
[Bill Davis] “I’m doing end of year cleaning in the studio, and I just came across a big box of about 2 dozen AppleTalk boxes and maybe 150 feet of attendant cable.”
Are you sure this is an annual ritual you’re performing there?
[Bill Davis] “It seems SO old fashioned when compared to my MacBook Pro that does nearly everything the MacPro does, but without all the attached crap.”
But when its built-in battery dies out and it goes to replacement service at Apple…
What’s gonna be left in the Studio? 🙂 -
I hear you, and it’s a choice everybody can and has to make. With TB devices largely not being cross platform it would tie me even more not only to Apple hardware but to OSX exclusively. Several key apps I use are Win only so that alone means it is a no-go. Open, compatible, flexible, freedom of choice or walled-in and proprietary. It’s the whole age-old Apple thing that I thought we had left behind with the move to Intel and that now comes back full-swing with virtually everything that Apple does these days.
-
[Frank Gothmann] “It’s the whole age-old Apple thing that I thought we had left behind with the move to Intel and that now comes back full-swing with virtually everything that Apple does these days.
“Oh, now. Come on. You’re just holding it wrong. (ironic emoticon goes here)
-
[Walter Soyka] “You’re probably doing mostly video editorial; I’m doing mostly animation, motion graphics, and compositing at larger-than-HD resolutions. We have different goals, different workflows, and different needs.”
Granted, Walter.
But one of the “keys” here is which is the question the broadest market needs answered?
Walter, I want you to have the solutions you need. I even want you to have an array of choices on how you solve your needs. But (and it’s a HUGE “but”) – I don’t want you to have those solutions if giving those to you means that every single company that makes the solutions has to limit their thinking to how they are going to meet your needs. Because your needs are niche needs. And it’s a shrinking niche.
I actually think that is how innovation gets stifled.
And looking back, you have to admit that the very company that used to be the “outlier” in editing – Apple, eventually re-invented and re-popularized the field to the point where the industry got a LOT healthier. (Remember the cost of an AVID system compared to a FCP rig back in 2006 or so?) that “popularization” led to development – and to the high end migrating to and using the same tools that the industrial and “resume movie” makers largely paid to develop.
So while FCP-X may do nothing for you right now. If it catches fire over the next few years, It is GOING to drive innovation across the industry in ways that I simple don’t think it’s competitors can do.
And in ways that those competitors CERTAINLY can’t do if they have to keep their focus on a shrinking (albeit high end) market such as episodic TV and feature shops.
In this economic environment where the economists have been saying “grow or die” for a decade – I’d like to know how PPro or AVID stand to “grow” when they can’t really offer something that the middle or the low end wants? Are there enough seats at the top of the heap to drive a profitable editing software development industry? I certainly hope so, but I’m concerned.
Their “base” isn’t growing. It’s shrinking. Everyone at the bottom can get free editing tools. In the middle, there’s FCP-X at $350 a seat (with Motion) and there are a few players at the top end fighting for the seats in the commercial editing shops.
That’s a pretty scary scenario for editing as an industry.
I just think it’s time to be very careful out there.
Flux happens. And we’re in the middle of a big one.
FWIW.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Nice post, Bill — an interesting new twist on the conversation.
I’ll preface my response with these basic statements:
Apple is having a wildly successful run in the consumer space, where they have delivered huge innovations by throwing out the rules, ignoring past conventions, and re-imagining existing product categories.
Apple used to cater to creative professionals, but this is a niche, and there is certainly more growth potential for them in the mass market. I fully expect that they will “support” professionals in the future to whatever extent professionals are able to integrate Apple products in their businesses. I doubt they will actively develop for creative professionals with complex needs they way they used to. This is more or less the same “suitable for professional use” versus “built for professional use” distinction I outlined in my first post.
I don’t blame Apple for not being interested in serving my niche needs anymore. They are following the money in broader, lower-margin markets, and doing very well. It’s just business.
[Bill Davis] “But one of the “keys” here is which is the question the broadest market needs answered?”
This doesn’t have to be the question, but it’s the direction Apple has chosen. They are trying to offer their product relatively cheaply to as large a market as possible.
Another equally valid approach is to tailor a much more targeted offering to a much smaller potential market — but selling with higher margins. If Apple takes itself out of competition in some of these niches by not offering needed features, Adobe and Avid would be free to raise their prices (which already reflect a premium over FCPX’s new low, low price). Apple is only a dangerous competitor if they are able to radically undercut for comparable value, as they did with FCP Classic — but given the intangible good will they’ve burned in some circles, they will have hard time offering comparable perceived value even if/when they get the feature set up.
[Bill Davis] “Walter, I want you to have the solutions you need. I even want you to have an array of choices on how you solve your needs. But (and it’s a HUGE “but”) – I don’t want you to have those solutions if giving those to you means that every single company that makes the solutions has to limit their thinking to how they are going to meet your needs. Because your needs are niche needs. And it’s a shrinking niche. I actually think that is how innovation gets stifled.”
Bill, I don’t think the whole industry should be driven by my specific needs any more than I think the whole industry should be driven by the “broad middle” and democratization you’ve espoused. Fortunately, we have a functioning market that is doing a great job of ensuring all of our needs are met at various price points and on various platforms.
I can’t understand your suggestion that innovation gets stifled by trying to build better mousetraps for demanding customers.
I assure you that FCPX does not represent the sum total of innovation in post production. What about products like RED or the Ki Pro? Software packages like NUKE or SCRATCH? DAMs like CatDV or the erstwhile Artbox/Final Cut Server? NLE features like ScriptSync or the Mercury Playback Engine, or Avid’s and Quantel’s experiments in cloud editorial?
[Bill Davis] “And in ways that those competitors CERTAINLY can’t do if they have to keep their focus on a shrinking (albeit high end) market such as episodic TV and feature shops.”
This isn’t my market, so I really don’t know — but how is this shrinking? I know that big traditional post facilities are hurting, but aren’t smaller shops picking up tons of work here? There are more television channels than ever, they all want fresh content, and TV viewership still dominates video consumption [link].
There are also plenty of non-broadcast shops like mine, or plenty of freelancers, all spending several thousands of dollars a year on software licensing.
Do these numbers compare with the size of the mass market? Certainly not — but it doesn’t mean there’s no money or room for innovation in niche markets. Consider the classic Honda/Mercedes Benz analogy, which I think neatly addresses both the opportunities for profit and innovation in smaller, high-margin markets.
[Bill Davis] “So while FCP-X may do nothing for you right now. If it catches fire over the next few years, It is GOING to drive innovation across the industry in ways that I simple don’t think it’s competitors can do.”
Such as?
And so what? My whole argument since FCPX was released was that it’s better to be nimble than faithful. I’m not adopting FCPX exclusively, but I’m not ignoring it either — otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
[Bill Davis] “That’s a pretty scary scenario for editing as an industry.”
Or exciting!
[Bill Davis] “I just think it’s time to be very careful out there.”
Meaning what? Prices are at an all-time low, development and release cycles are shorter than ever, and excluding FCPX, openness is at an all-time high. There’s never been a time in our industry when the penalties for choosing the “wrong” system have been lower.
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 -
[Frank Gothmann] “With TB devices largely not being cross platform it would tie me even more not only to Apple hardware but to OSX exclusively.”
This will change rather soon, no? I thought Apple had an exclusive for only a short while.
Of course, raids will get tricky with the different file systems.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Bill Davis] “And in ways that those competitors CERTAINLY can’t do if they have to keep their focus on a shrinking (albeit high end) market such as episodic TV and feature shops.”
This isn’t my market, so I really don’t know — but how is this shrinking? I know that big traditional post facilities are hurting, but aren’t smaller shops picking up tons of work here? There are more television channels than ever, they all want fresh content, and TV viewership still dominates video consumption [link].
“It certainly isn’t. Television production is vast compared to where it was a quarter of a century ago. And over the last decade–though we’ve been rocked by strikes and economic downturn–we’ve produced, IMHO, some of the best television ever produced. Cable Channels serve niche markets like never before, with very high-quality programing. There are all kinds of new forms of distribution–some competing, some complimentary–and in general, we have a world population that enjoys being entertained by professional show folk. Movies are healthy as well. I see nothing to suggest that either is a shrinking business.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Bill Davis] “So while FCP-X may do nothing for you right now. If it catches fire over the next few years, It is GOING to drive innovation across the industry in ways that I simple don’t think it’s competitors can do.”
Such as?
“
Well,
I think the “elevation” of general purpose video editing into a mainstream form of communication is liable to be transformative. There will always be professional editors with high level skills and business models that drive their work and paychecks. But up to this point in history, it wasn’t really possible for specialized skills such as video editing to spread out of the pro shops and into the larger population. Today, I know a lot of business owners who are increasingly “video fluent.” It’s the guy who owns the dog training operation shooting his own training sessions, editing the results and using it just like the sports teams do to drive performance. It’s the small business woman who figures out that she CAN set up a camera and even if she’s not completely smooth and professional, can do a credible job of demonstrating her new product or service.
There was a point in human history when the ability to read and write was the great distinguisher between those who had the best chance of upward mobility and those who didn’t.
It’s interesting to imagine what “visual communication skills” will enable for people who have them in the future.
As an example, just based on my corporate work over the past few decades, I’ve seen a lot of circumstances where corporate team members with “video chops” moved ahead of competitors who didn’t understand the communicative power of video or who couldn’t face the lights and look capable.
I’m not contending that there’s any direct causal connection between editing skills and general life success. But as video creation skills spread, I bet that we see more and more “non-pros” using the technology to drive the kind of financial and business results that not long ago HAD to rely on specialists.
Just thinking out loud.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I feel a more pertinent question is will pro users abandon Apple all together. Following the angst and the rumours over the past six months, I need a reason to stay with Apple for software and hardware. They have spooked my horses and I have so much more choice than one year ago.
I feel users will make the decision for Apple if they haven’t already decided that demanding crusty old pros are just too hard. If they have decided then shame on them for dragging this agony out for the past six months.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up