Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
Ah! Another fan. My daughter and I are addicts.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “ndeed. imploded doom writ large. fire, brimstone, editing companies in flame off the shoulder of orion, psycopathic corporations, dead cats and black pentagrams in cupertino. and so on and so forth.
“Pretty much right on. As–I might add–was the Doctor’s Christmas special. Not enough Pond, though.
-
I don’t understand why you keep harping on Avid financials, post after post after post. Certainly, it is important information, but it is not–by any means–the only factor. And many people do not agree with your stark assessment. I know of no stock analyst recommending “sell.” All I have seen are recommendations of “Hold.” As far as layoffs, its tough times right now. A lot of companies are downsizing. And, I would remind you that a decade ago, Apple was downsizing too.
But hey–let’s look at it this way:
Here in LA, if Avid shut down tomorrow, and no one bought them, and no one bought Media Composer to resell, learning to use Media Composer would still be extremely valuable. I’m pretty certain that the infrastructure exists to support five more years of strong Avid use without any further development of the product. I’m guessing it is the same in New York and London. At this point–half a year after Final Cut X’s release–I have no idea if X will EVER be useful to most of this town, let alone within the next five years.
Why Avid’s potential failure has become a mantra for you, I can only guess. But frankly, it is getting to be a little much.
-
Dude, all I was doing was interpreting something Herb had said because I incorrectly thought that Walter had misunderstood it. Then, you are all over me with your peculiar brand of angry anti-Avid sauce and condescending rhetorical questions.
I do agree with what Herb is saying, btw. But it is just a general point about the value something is given in relation to the return it provides. When the Pro Apps were introduced, they and the equipment sold with them, were a central pillar of Apple’s survival. Now, they are holding up part of the back porch. That doesn’t mean Apple won’t pay attention to them. But, they don’t need to. Before, they needed to. What this basic fact has to do with any of the odd questions or comparisons you threw my way, I don’t know.
-
[Craig Seeman] “[Chris Harlan] “Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there.”
There was a time when Avid primarily sold turnkey expensive Media Composer systems. Now that they’ve become a company that primarily sells hardware such as Unity and Isis systems, etc, would one say they no longer have incentive to sell Media Composer software?
Apple is a hardware company. Maybe you feel they have little interesting in selling computers but the “incentive” behind FCPX is to sell such computers. If they stopped selling computers they wouldn’t have any incentive with FCPX but that’s not the case. Might it be that Apple wants to remain diverse rather than “dependent” on phone sales?
Do you think Adobe’s primary income is from Premier Pro?”
Good God, Craig. The regularity with which you take things out of context and than get heated about them is stunning.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Herb Sevush] “This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the “many compelling reasons not to use FCPX” makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.”
Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It’s pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one.”
I read Herb’s point as being that when Apple primarily sold computers, there was strong incentive for them to continue to develop for the high end. Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there.
-
[Steve Connor] “Not sure that’s correct, FCP only had a tiny fraction of the Feature and the larger broadcasters market. Perhaps that’s why Apple moved in a different direction?
“Much smaller, yes. Tiny, no. At least here in LA. In fact, it was just passing the point where you could drop the “much” off of “much smaller” when FCP X arrived.
-
LOL
-
Hey. Its all possible.
-
[Craig Seeman] “[Chris Harlan] “It is equally silly to wonder if cell phones and tablets are pro or not. If they are useful in business, they will be used in business. In any way that they can be used. Right?”
Thank you very much for arguing my point. There are MANY here who keep saying Apple has become a “consumer” company. That’s absolutely false IMHO. I believe Jobs also said they would simply make the best product and the end users would use.”
Yes, I’m arguing your point. But I’m also saying you don’t have a point to argue. You are hung up on semantics. Are pens consumer or professional devices? Who cares?
[Craig Seeman] “[Chris Harlan] “The argument “If iPhone, then FCP X” is not a valid one.”
It certainly is valid.”
No. It is not. It might be true, but the argument itself is not. By the rules of logic, it just isn’t.
It might work out that way, but it is just a possibility. Maybe people are going to edit on their phones. Maybe they are going to find it a hassle. Maybe the Google pad will eclipse the iPad in the next couple of years. Maybe all kinds of things. What you put forward is a possibility that can be disrupted by many other possibilities.[Craig Seeman] “Seriously, think this thing through. Apple is about ecosystems. Apple is not a consumer company. Apple has become a “commodity” company with a different and more profitable business model in commodification.
Before analyzing anything, look at Apple’s business model, please.
“Damn, you can be condescending. I value your point of view, Craig. Very much. But you also often talk in the type of grand absolutes that I find more than a bit illusory. There is a sharp difference between possible and inevitable.