Apple Announces the Fate of Shake 324
Rura Penthe writes "NothingReal, developer of Shake (a high-end video compositing application), was purchased by Apple in February. Until now the fate of Shake on Windows, Irix, and Linux was uncertain at best, but in an email sent out to Shake users, Apple has declared that Irix and Linux versions will be developed at least through 2003. However, the upcoming Windows version will be the last for that platform. Good news for Shake users with Linux render farms like Weta Digital, which used Shake for Lord of the Rings."
(Reminder to Apple users: visit Slashdot's Apple section for more Apple-related news.)
What About After 2003? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What About After 2003? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully they will continue to support both, since OS-X is also a Unix variant. Even if Linux represents a competitive threat to them, it's better to have Linux succeed (and thus have lots of Linux renderfarms) and then Apple can work on getting people to migrate to OSX from Linux in the years to follow. It's a whole lot easer to migrate from Linux -> OSX than Windows -> OSX.
Re:What About After 2003? (Score:1)
Re:What About After 2003? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What About After 2003? (Score:1)
Re:What About After 2003? (Score:2)
a) They're warning users that if they are using the alternate platforms, they might want to start looking for new renderers (if the software no longer seems profitable)
or
b) They are saying that under the name Shake, the program will last till 2003, but when 2003 rolls arround, they hope to have a comprehensive version which will be released under the Apple name and have maybe a new interface and code. Perhaps with an optimised version for OS X.
But It's Not (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, these actions are anticompetitive, but because Apple does not hold any sort of monopoly power, either in the OS market or the 3d rendering market, this move is not the kind of thing that makes one scream "monopolist!" Are you going to be mad at them for not producing Appleworks for Windows? Are you going to be mad at them for not making the iPod, iMovie, etc. available for Windows? These are features added to their product to make it more competitive against a court-confirmed monopoly, and they have every right to do this.
Apple is, quite simply, not to be held to the same standards as Microsoft. Get over it.
Re:But It's Not (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But It's Not (Score:3, Interesting)
> Yes, these actions are anticompetitive, but because Apple does not hold
> any sort of monopoly power, either in the OS market or the 3d
> rendering market, this move is not the kind of thing that makes one
> scream "monopolist!"
No , they are not anticompetitive, they are competitive as all get out! Apple is trying to compete here. It is the underdog. It is trying to expand its market share in hardware and OS, hence its lack of interest in supporting its major OS competitor (who is an evil monopoly-abuser: Microsoft).
Most importantly, Apple acquired this company in the first place as part of its efforts to take on Hollywood (remember that the head of Pixar is Apple's iCEO). Apple's opponent in this market, a very large opponent with very high prices (they make Apple look cheap), is Avid. Apple has great Unix workstations, Final Cut Pro, now has Shake, and can run Lightwave and Maya (and a whole slew of other 3D programs, as well as Photoshop and other goodies). They have a good chance of making a sizeable splash, especially with Jobs' knowledge gleened from his experience with the industry at the helm of Pixar.
The one thing Apple doesn't have is an inexpensive little rack mount unit for the back end cluster. Unless they plan to build one, supporting Linux on the back end would be the smart move. I imagine they either haven't made up their mind on what they are going to do on the back end, or just don't want to tell us about it yet.
If Microsoft is ever to be taken out, Apple and Linux are going to have to learn to get along and work together. There is no time like the present to learn.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
"Mosura", 1961
Rackmount hardware from Apple! (Score:2)
This was from Job's keynote at the WWDC, which you can find in plenty of places.
Re:But It's Not (Score:2)
Apple shouldn't have to continue to support a OS platform that is as out-dated as windows...
Hey, I can try to make excuses for them....
Re:But It's Not (Score:2, Informative)
"Best of all, AppleWorks 6.2 now runs on both Macs and Windows." -apple
Re:But It's Not (Score:2, Insightful)
Last i checked, it didn't take much to get rid of iTunes, or iMovie, or Quicktime. Drag the application's folder to the trash and you're free of it forever. Delete a few extensions (at least in OS 9) and Quicktime is gone.
On my PC, where's the uninstaller for Windows Media Player? Hmm... guess MS forgot one. What about their shit movie editing app? Oh, damn, can't get rid of that either!
Mac = PPC Machine + OS (Score:2)
You can build yourself a Mac if you'd like. There are no motherboards for PPC available, as far as I know, but that's because the market for it just isn't there. But barring that, it's all standard PC components from off the shelf, thrown in to a pretty case. If you think there's a great market for building PPC motherboards for mass consumption, I challenge you to start a company to do just that. But as it stands, there's no way to make money off a generic "Mac" without the OS, because it's just not necessary. Apple adds real value to the hardware with their OS, making it more than just a pretty box. If you want an empty box, then buy an x86 machine. The performance difference won't be so great that you'll really care, I can assure you.
Re:But It's Not (Score:3, Insightful)
Just in case somebody takes this troll seriously, Mac OS X has full support for multiple mouse buttons and context menus. I'm using a Microsoft optical mouse; the extra buttons and scroll wheel work out of the box with no driver needed. Also for future reference, using "MAC" instead of "Mac" is a clear sign that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:But It's Not (Score:3, Funny)
OK tried it... Works fine... your point?
Apple this apple that (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Apple this apple that (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it's funny you mention this. I often fume at how Linux-centric these forums are. it's Linux this and Linux that. I see front page articles dealing with the announcement (or mere spec-bumping) of some piece of handheld electronics that nobody has ever heard of simply because it - can you guess? - happens to have the ability to run Linux. The Linux kernel gets a x.x.x.x.x version number rev. The headline with have multiple exclamation points and shameless affection for it whether the individual has ever used it or not.
Mac news? It's gotten somewhat better over the last few months but it still has a way to go. Apple-related news is still too often posted with undeserved snide remarks. I'm thinking back to the day the iPod was announced. it was instantly pronounced "Lame" before the discussion even began. Oh, that and the fact that sometimes a story involving Apple will suddenly be made into a Linux article. I'm serious! Did you catch the one about Apple suing Sorenson over a deal with Macromdia? In spite of the fact that neither of these three are Linux comanies and none of them make Linux products, Pudge just has to make it Linux-related. Then half the resulting discussion ends up being about that.
Sorry for going off on you man, but you have no idea what it's like being a Mac-using slashdotter. No idea.
Re:Apple this apple that (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen, brother. For instance, I can't understand why some people don't get the fact that OS X is a full-fledged, no-shit Unix operating system that makes the combination of Linux and KDE or Gnome look pretty damn pale in comparison. And then, inevitably, somebody trots out the PowerPC-versus-Pentium thing, as if it mattered which CPU were faster! Don't they get it?
I don't care how fast my computer is. I care how productive and happy I am when I use my computer. And I get more done on my Macs-- from graphic design to video editing to (what I was doing this week) writing Java servlet code-- than I could on any other platform. If I had a n.m GHz Pentium on my desk, it would just spend more time waiting on me.
You know what I think the problem is? I know I'm headed for flame (or flame-bait) country here, but I think it all revolves around territorial alpha-geeks not wanting to admit that they don't understand something.
If I had spent the past five years learning all about Linux-- by reading the source code itself, I guess, 'cause there ain't that much in the way of documentation-- I'd feel pretty good about myself. Pretty cool.
If I then started using OS X-- because it's a better desktop, or because somebody gave me a free Mac, or whatever-- I would have to put myself in a situation where I didn't know more than everybody else. I'd have to do things like reading again, and asking questions. It'd be a severe insult to my pride to have to admit, publicly and openly, that I am not the smartest guy in the world.
Therefore, I would actively avoid OS X, even to the point of publicly ridiculing it. I would continue to advocate using the stuff that I understand to do things that OS X can clearly do better. Because it's just too damaging to my self-esteem to swallow my pride and learn something new.
Re:Apple this apple that (Score:2)
Re:Apple this apple that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple this apple that (Score:2)
Is there any other product outside Linux/UNIX/OSX that is even remotely interesting now? Slashdot is going to reflect what they are interested in at this time.
Linux as the de facto movie making platform??? (Score:1)
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
If we had shake in house instead of composer, we would have a studio of 50+ linux desktops and 250+ linux render boxes.
We have a few macs for photoshop and an NT box for 3D painting. We would have two Avids for editing. We would have some Suns for file serving.
No SGIs would be needed.
Infact, that is our current setup, minus the SGIS we keep to do our composites. And we are producing a 3D feature film. Even our DDR is a linux system.
We could get rid of our Macs for photoshop and use gimp for almost all of the digital painting that is being done. Gimp is almost there. It is not laughed at by the pros. We use it all the time for paint fixes and other quick solutions.
There are still a few, small niche markets for non Linux boxes in the studio. They do have an important roll. But when comparing the amount of systems and the price, they don't compare to the amount that is invested into a Linux solution.
-Tim
Re:Not really. (Score:2)
Is it me? (Score:1)
But why did Apple buy shake? Doesn't Final Cut Pro do pretty much the same thing?
Re:Is it me? (Score:1)
Re:Is it me? (Score:2)
...and we just ported our plug-ins to Shake too. (Score:4, Insightful)
-- SilentTristero
Buying Companies (Score:1)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Small company does well, becomes big company
2: Small company does okay, fades into the background
3: Small company does not do well, disappears from the radar
4: Small company does okay, gets bought by bigger company
Of the four I listed, Apple buying Shake is #4, while #1 is exceedingly unlikely due to poor business management, #2 is probably more likely, and #3 is the most likely.
But NothingReal may have been successful without Apple; Matrix and Lord of the Rings, after all. But there's never a guarantee, even for a company as established as Apple.
Thinking different (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thinking different (AND HOW) (Score:4, Funny)
Something went wrong with your post. The only part that came through was your signature. Please re-send.
Is it really that bad of thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Apple is more likely to focus the Mac towards 3D/Animation/Compositing productivity than Intel ever will. If they keep Shake updated for the latest/greatest Mac machines, then we may end up with some really optimized software.
The main difference between Mac vs. Intel/MS is that the company that makes the hardware also makes the OS. That's why we see products like the Titanium from Mac, but Intel doesn't really have a counterpart. I would expect that if I bought a Mac version of Shake, it'd work really well on both a Desktop and Laptop Mac.
Apple will likely make a laptop geared for Shake users (or at least tweak their line to keep them in consideration...), and that's not a bad thing.
Who knows, this may turn out to be a bright spot for the movie industry.
Re:Is it really that bad of thing? (Score:2)
They already have. It's called the PowerBook G4. Look at the specs, and you'll see that the TiBook is the closest thing you can get to a desktop G4 while staying within the bounds of laptop requirements for size, heat, and battery life.
My friend uses his TiBook for Final Cut Pro and Combustion. Not as a second machine, or something to use on the road; it's his primary platform. His opinion (which is more educated with respect to this video effects and editing stuff than mine) is that the TiBook is good enough to be his only workstation for those kinds of jobs.
Now, for doing Shake specifically, a better 3D graphics card will win big; according to one of the Nothing Real guys I talked to at NAB last month, everything-- right down to the UI buttons and stuff-- is drawn with OpenGL. So a faster 3D card will speed up everything in the program. But again, eventually you get to a point where even the pros say that the TiBook is good enough for full-time work.
Re:Is it really that bad of thing? (Score:2)
Trust me, if they were half the speed of Intel processors, they wouldn't be going anywhere. (This from a guy who uses a 300mhz laptop more than his 1.2 gig Athlon.. hee hee. I guess there's a lot to be said for interface.)
Sounds good (Score:2)
Quicktime... (Score:2, Interesting)
Shake runs on linux
Shake does video
Quicktime is video
Quicktime for linux?
I hope so.
Re:Quicktime... (Score:2)
Lack of Quicktime and Shockwave are at the top of my "Annoying things about Linux" list. Not annoying enough to switch back to Windows, but still.
spensive (Score:2, Interesting)
This is welcomed news (Score:5, Interesting)
We currently have 250+ dedicated render machines. They are all dual proc 800 MHZ to 1.8 GHZ and they are running linux. This is a hefty investment. But to get the same power out of a Mac farm would cost us dearly.
We have looked at Shake. We will probably move to it for our next project. Using Composer right now is slowing us down. We have started end of life our octanes in favor for Linux desktops, but we have to keep them arround because our process relies heavily on Composer with Tinderbox to do depth of field and A over B composites. It is a slow and painful process, but at this time it is cheaper and cost less development time than Shake would.
I am still a little nervous I guess. At the core of the software for Shake, I don't imagine that it would take much work for Apple to continue the Linux port. I can see why they would want to edge out the SGI version in the near future. I have a feeling that the places that don't switch from IRIX to Linux in the next few years will have switched to OS X instead.
Another concern of mine is the state of Alias|Wavefront. They are a good company. Unfortunately, them being owned by SGI causes concern because I do not see a pretty future for that company. There machines are being replaced in several industries. Its true that they have some heavy hitters that are dedicated to them in the data visualization and high end server areas, but I feel that even these places will look at the cost savings of a Linux solution, they will port over and they will not look back.
It makes this an exciting yet delicate time in the animation industry. Being tied to a platform is a necesity because of the investment but it can also seem like a potential downfall of a studio. Heading on the wrong platform at the wrong time can cost you more time and money than you can afford.
-Tim
Re:This is welcomed news (Score:2, Interesting)
Not necessarily, if Apple can do a good job of optimizing the code to use the G4's Altivec unit, you could end up requiring a much smaller farm.
Although the Altivec is almost ideal for cracking rc5 keys, distributed.net's mulitprocessor client speeds [distributed.net] has dual 1GHz G4's processing about four times as much as dual P4 1.8 GHz.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Redundant)
Kind of like how Microsoft was about to terminate office for the mac a few years ago, if Apple didn't agree to bundle IE as the default browser for their OS?
In short, no. There's a difference between terminating a supported platform for a valid business reason, and threatening to terminate a supported platform unless the company developing it does what you say.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be by your arguments, but Mac users (and Apple) would still be hurting a lot.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Double standard? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Double standard? (Score:1, Funny)
Was my response lame? So was your troll.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Well, you are holding Apple to different standards than you hold any other business to.
Don't forget; if you use Judge Pennfield Jackson's criteria for determining Microsoft to be a monopoly, Apple is one as well.
Simon
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
One thing that does occur to me is that Microsoft's monopoly OS gives them the ability to pressure and control harware OEMs into doing thier bidding. Who does Apple get to pressure in that scenario? Themselves?
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Re:Double standard? (Score:1)
How many people really use Shake? A 1000? So Apple just gained 100 - 1000 new PowerMac sales for 2003?
Re:Double standard? (Score:1)
The sad part is that's probably a significant percentage of overall sales.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are correct, and if Apple controlled 90%+ of multiple markets we would scream at them as well. There has been and will be different standards of conduct between smaller companies and large monopolies.
Personally, I think it is unwise to cancel the Windows version. They should offer a low-end Windows version and offer the "premium" features only on the Unix versions to pull more users to their platform.
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like Bungie's game Halo? The one that was presented in Macworld Expo keynotes? The one that was going to be out on Mac, PC, and PS2?
Because after MS bought Bungie, it wound up shipping for X-Box, and, so far, nothing else. (Though Bungie continues to assert [bungie.net] "There WILL be Mac and PC versions of Halo." -- I'll believe it when it ships.)
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
What does Halo have to do with Shake?? (Score:2)
Of course there will be Windows and Mac versions of Halo. Microsoft likes money too much not to make them (and they have an investment in Windows and Apple too, remember?).
And Shake isn't a game. Large studios depend on it. And most of all they depend on its speed. Even the fastest PowerMac can't compete with a quad Xeon (Dual G4s barely manage to edge out a single-CPU Athlon [barefeats.com], and are crushed by the much cheaper Athlon MPs). If Apple kills Shake on the fastest platforms, it kills Shake completely. Studios have deadlines to meet and they certainly aren't going to meet them if they're forced to use Macs for their render nodes. It's not a matter of price or even bang for the buck. It's a matter of bang, period.
I work in animation and post-production and I know what I'm talking about. Half the artists don't even know which OS they are running, and the other half doesn't care. They just want the thing to render as fast as possible. And if you don't believe me (it seems that I'm a troll for not applauding Apple's scorched earth tactics), check out this post [slashdot.org].
Discreet [discreet.com], Eyeon [eyeonline.com] and Silicon Grail [sgrail.com] probably can't belive their luck right now.
RMN
~~~
Halo has sold over 1 million copies (Score:2)
How many other games that cost $350 sold so fast?
(Because it was a release game, you have to factor in that there wasn't really an Installed base of customers)
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
So the PS2 version of Halo would have sold well, if it hadn't been axed to make Halo an X-Box exclusive? Perhaps it would have even sold better as a PS2 title rather than being used as an X-Box draw? (Hmm...using one product to drive sales of another. Why does this idea sound so familiar, especially in the context of Microsoft?)
They're saying it; they're not shipping it. No deeds, just words. By your own logic ("only be on the shelfs [sic] for a month or so on PC [...] hardly make any money at all on the Mac") they apparently don't have any real incentive to ever ship PC or Mac versions!
Not Flamebait. (Score:2)
I took the time to put together a rebuttal to a point of view. There's a large difference between writing that and writing a post intended to make people fight with me about it.
Please reconsider your moderations of the parent post to my reply here.
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Consider: Nearly All Super Mario Games, Sonic the Hedgehog 1 and 2, Twisted Metal and Demolition Derby (I think that was the name, both for Playstation), Tetris, any Zelda game, any Final Fantasy game, any game made by Rare, and so on...
It's not so easy to find PC games that have sold near as much as the console games I have mentioned. The main reason is that console games stay on the shelf a hell of a lot longer. Halo could easily hit 5 million units if the XBOX is reasonably successful. The only thing that'd prevent that is if a new game comes along that generates a hell of a lot of buzz.
MS Project and Outlook? (Score:1)
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Microsoft has already done this several times in the past with both products it developed internally, and products it acquired by buying other companies.
They'll wind up spending less (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to being able to try Shake on my G4.
I wonder what kind of price they'll charge to Irix and Linux users? I would assume it would be more expensive for non-Apple systems.
Curiously enough, this is exactly what I expected (and hoped) they would do. I think you can even look it up somewhere in my earlier messages.
D
Re:Double standard? (Score:2)
Apple's policy is very simple, we release what we think is right, and it's what you will use. If you want things to change, complain to us and if we get enough complaints, change it. But if not, too bad. Yes, Apple pisses some people off by being restricting, but because they insist on one way of doing things, they also remain succesful. Yes, you are being told what you can have. And if you don't want it, you don't have to take it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not a big suprise (Score:2)
Simon.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Strange, not long after their deal with Microsoft has ended, they already have decided to play hardball (with everybody who has helped them gain a DTP market), a game that usually ends with consequences. First Sorensen, now deplementing Windows version, if they make another move in that direction, that would be probably swaping IE for Mozilla.
It's nothing than another try to make (straith edge - gain to Apple) competition loss, but real question is who will gain and who will loss. They will keep Linux and Irix versions for one reason only, not to loose complete movie market clientelle, but on the other hand that means that Apple version will be the only one evolving and other will evolve only to be abandoned.
Apple is either suffering from..... some financial needs we don't know, or some hopes that this is their time to breaktrough. But as it's concerning me they just wanna be second Microsoft.
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
Re:"Reminder to Apple users..." (Score:3, Interesting)
No go. (Score:2)
RMN
~~~
Re:This is why Microsoft makes $$$ and Apple doesn (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I do (Score:2, Flamebait)
I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means exclusive control (of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service). Apple is the only supplier of Mac computers, and effectively controls who can and who can't make hardware for the Mac. They also control the software their clients use (in the same way that Microsoft does).
Which wouldn't be such a big probem, if it wasn't for the ludicrous prices they charge. I work regularly with some old Mac-based Avid editing workstations, and the SCSI AV drives they use cost 4 times as much as the PC models. The drives are exactly the same; the difference is they're not oficially 'certified'. It's not just Apple / Avid doing this, some PC manufacturers do (or are planning to do) the same. I find it very hard to understand why some people scream bloody murder when Microsoft does something, but then applaud when someone else does exactly the same. It's not who, it's what.
As to DVD authoring, I was lucky enough to buy Spruce's DVD Maestro. It does everything that DVD Studio Pro or Scenarist do, and comes with much better documentation (IMO). Plus I get to pick my own MPEG-2 and AC3 encoders and my own DVD recorder, not to mention the rest of the system: Dual Athlon XP 1800+ with 1 GB DDR ECC RAM, 160 GB RAID, real-time Canopus DV editing card, a Pioneer DVR-A03 recorder and a dual-monitor card with fast OpenGL (Radeon 8500). It's about 50% faster than a Dual G4 (depending on the task - for 3D rendering and MPEG encoding it's nearly twice as fast) and cost about the same (but I get faster drives, real-time DV editing, better graphics, a much broader choice of software and the ability to upgrade each component independently). Oh, and I have a floppy drive, too.
I think Apple makes some nice products, but they are overpriced and bind the consumers to Apple's decisions. When I buy a PC I can select each component independently and I don't have to pay for "features" that I don't really need or want. It's kind of like Windows brought to the hardware level. The reason why I would like Windows to come without IExplorer (for example) isn't to "give other companies a chance". It's because I'm not planning to use IE, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
RMN
~~~
Re:I think I do (Score:2, Insightful)
It means exclusive control (of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service). Apple is the only supplier of Mac computers, and effectively controls who can and who can't make hardware for the Mac. They also control the software their clients use (in the same way that Microsoft does).
That reasoning is just asinine. Gee, Porsche is the only company that makes Porsches. They must be a monopoly! Bzzzz! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Re: nope (Score:2)
Thy just have a brand of computer/software that is kind of sucessfull and below 15% market share.
Please read some basic economy introduction to microecomics (or better yet, common sense) and you'll see.
Re:This is why Microsoft makes $$$ and Apple doesn (Score:2)
Re:Where is Your Mind? (Score:2)
you have to remember that if you wanted to, you could manufacture your own
PPC motherboard and generic box and throw Linux on it. There just isn't a market
for these things so no one is doing it. On x86 on the other hand, we've got
every single OEM being forced to put Windows on every single PC, or face being
priced out of the business by Microsoft.
Hm... slightly confusing. First, Windows does not come on every single PC; you can buy PCs without any software, or with Linux (at least where I live you can). Even if it did you could always build your own system (which is easy to do with a PC, and lots of people do just that), and pick your own OS. Macs, on the other hand, always come with Mac OS and, as you said, it's not viable to build a PPC system from scratch.
So the way I see it, hardware-wise, Apple has a much bigger influence over their platform than Microsoft does (although MS also has a big influence over Apple, so in the end they play for both teams).
RMN
~~~
It's the Same Platform (Score:2)
Aside from the PPC vs. x86 comparison, the Mac and Wintel platform is essentially the exact same thing. Sure, Apple's hardware might look nicer, but the underlying stuff is identical.
So, then what is it that specifically makes you want to buy a Macintosh? The look? The platform is the same, processor aside, so what real features do you get out of running on Mac hardware vs. PC hardware? None, really. So, then why are you so concerned with buying a "Mac" with no OS on it? So you can run Linux or BSD? Why not buy an x86 box, given that everything else in the box is essentially the same thing, you lose nothing.
If there really was so much to gain from buying a PPC platform with no OS on it, the product would be there. After all, all that's missing is a PPC motherboard, and someone would make it if it were profitable to do so. But it's not, and if you think it would be profitable to do so, I challenge you to start a PPC motherboard company and see how far you get.
The reality of the situation is that the hardware no longer dictates, on the desktop, what the platform is. The x86 and PPC platforms are identical, except for the chip itself, and this is indicative of the fact the the actual platform people are worried about is the OS itself. Apple is not stopping anyone from producing a blanked PPC box, they are simply unwilling to license their OS out to anyone, because the OS is where the money is. Apple might control what goes in to the default configuration of every single box, but that doesn't make them any sort of monopoly, because you can get, for all intents and purposes, the same hardware platform elsewhere. You won't get the software platform you might want, but that's the value Apple adds to their system (the value is not in PPC vs x86, that I can tell you). And personally, I don't think you can argue that Apple has the right to add value to the machines that they sell. If they didn't, they wouldn't be competitive against the Microsoft monopoly.
Re:It's the Same Platform (Score:2)
Plus, as your argument goes, why doesn't Microsoft make Windows for PPC? Surely, if they did, there would be some market for PPC clones. No one is condemning Microsoft for this, because they do have the right to produce their OS for whatever platform(s) they wish. Apple does the same. The funamental difference in their business model, which is what has kept Apple alive and competitive mind you, is what prevents this from happening.
Apple doesn't have an Office suite to back up their OS sales. It doesn't have expensive dev tools any more. The actual money they make is in the hardware, but the software is the selling point. The Windows world is the exact opposite. Apple can't compete with Microsoft using their same business model. I know you'd love to see OSX on the x86, but that would kill any chance of having OSX around thereafter, which makes complaining about it pointless. Apple has to make money. This is the only way for them to do it.
Because of all this, I can criticize Microsoft for doing something and not Apple for doing the same thing. Apple does not have a monopoly on 3d rendering software, so shake isn't even an issue. And as for hardware, they might have a monopoly on OEM distribution for the PPC platform, but that's because they are the only one right now to try. Microsoft is free to produce Windows for PPC, and someone can build a PPC motherboard and ship Windows on their own box. Or you can even put Darwin or Linux on it. But this company will go out of business, because it's just not viable. Apple producing OSX for the x86 would kill them. Microsoft producing Windows for PPC wouldn't hurt them in the slightest. That's why I can criticize Microsoft, but not Apple. There is a difference.
I blame it on the bytes. (Score:2)
RMN
~~~
Re:I blame it on the bytes. (Score:2)
These decisions aren't arbitrary (most, anyway). The 'formats' business is big business. Just ask Sony why they make 5 new types of plugs each year, and why their 'standards' are often incompatible with the industry standard (SDI vs. QSDI, for example).
RMN
~~~
Re:I blame it on the bytes. (Score:2)
VPC is an emulator, it doesn't do anythign to the hardware.
And yes PCI did exist on the PC when apple adopted it, but when Apple went PCI, PCs wer still using ISA. It's the same thing as USB was on PCs before Apple adopted it, but none of the PC people inlcuded it.
Re:I blame it on the bytes. (Score:2)
Quoting Connectix:
"The PowerPC has a special mode which allows it to simulate little endian mode (the native mode of Intel-compatible processors). On PowerPC processors prior to the G3, however, this mode came at a high performance cost when the data in memory was misaligned. The G3 and G4 processors removed these performance bottlenecks, allowing Connectix engineers to take advantage of this feature."
So as you can see it does do something to the hardware. And, according to Connectix, there is no performance hit by using little-endian bytes on the G3 / G4. Doesn't mean Apple should change the system, but it shows they could if they wanted to.
And yes PCI did exist on the PC when apple adopted it,
but when Apple went PCI, PCs wer still using ISA.
Er... I'm sorry? So did it exist on PCs or not? It doesn't seem very relevant that some motherboards still came with ISA slots (or EISA, or MCA, or VLB for that that matter). The standard existed. When Apple decided to adopt it they knew it would not be compatible with PCI cards designed for PCs. Which is fine; they don't have to make things the same way others do. But somehow they keep forgetting to mention this difference in their specifications (and a lot of people assume they can simply stick any PCI card in a Mac and it'll work).
RMN
~~~
To clear it up (Score:2)
I wouldn't be (too) surprised to see Microsoft porting some software for FreeBSD, for example, if the user base gets a bit larger (if only to claim that there are alternatives to Windows, etc., etc.). In fact, I'm pretty sure they even have Linux ports of some of their programs hidden in some basement just in case they feel the (commercial) benefits suddenly outweigh the (moral) damage.
Unlike Intel, Microsoft doesn't suffer from the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. They don't care about anything half as much as they care about making money. And if there's money to be made somewhere, they'll go there to make it. They can't do it now because of the legal mess they're into and the strategy they're adopting, but if Linux ever manages to grab a relevant market share, do you have any doubt that MS will start selling Linux software? Or even selling Linux itself (bundled with their software, of course). I can see it now... the Red Mond distro, with Ballmux the monkey instead of Tux penguin...
RMN
~~~
Re:To clear it up (Score:2)
Public service? (Score:2)
RMN
~~~
Re:Public service? (Score:2)
"Oceania is at war with EastAsia. Oceania has
always been at war with EastAsia."
Re:This is why Microsoft makes $$$ and Apple doesn (Score:2)
The other possibility is that Apple just enjoys what it does, hence, in the 90's when they tried to go to a PC business model they almost killed themselves and so they returned to the "hacker model". That is, doing what you do because you enjoy it. Apple likes making new, odd and niche computers, M$ does not.
So can you please explain...? (Score:2)
be happy with $? [...]
So what need do they have to buy other companies simply to kill their products, and eliminate the competition?
Sorry but I can't understand what's so good about Apple killing Shake on the PC (it'll start with Windows but other versions will follow).
It it because it "hurts" Microsoft? Does that make it a good thing? In fact it doesn't hurt Microsoft at all. High-end workstations are small business for the OS maker (Microsoft makes about the same money off a high-end workstation as it makes off a home PC). The only people this will hurt is Shake's users. They'll be forced to switch to a different, more expensive, less versatile platform, just to keep using the same program. So they lose.
And a lot of them won't switch (because they rely on other programs, that don't exist for the Mac), so they'll just stop using Shake and move to Combustion or Digital Fusion or some competing product that still runs on Windows. So Shake loses, too.
Besides, since they only make $, Apple doesn't
get viewed with the same resentment that M$ does.
I think you have a point, there. Most people dislike Microsoft not because they are dishonest but because they are successful. For me it's not the amount of money that counts, or who is making it. It's how they make it.
RMN
~~~
Re:So can you please explain...? (Score:2)
Two, they do it for the same reason they keep a tight control over their OS and Hardware, they can optimise them to work together. The reason apple can afford to be behind in the technology curve is because the software that they put out and the hardware are so tightly integrated they have the same comparable speed as the faster technology PCs.
So why did they kill the windows version? Well, it seems to me that the reason they would do that is because Windows is not a platform condusive to graphic and video design (for instance, for a very long time Intel's advertising department was a mac shop). I think that they are killing the windows version because they don't see a profit in it, and they're waiting to see what profits they can pull from Linux and Irix before they make a desicison about it.
Re:Stupid, stupid (Score:2)
And as I tell every PC zealot who complains that the numbers on the mac are slow and that the macs are behind the tech curve, go out, buy one and use it for a while. Do reall work on it. Use it as your primary machine for a few weeks, then tell me what you think. If you don't like the mahcine, sell it, you'll get back most of your money because the resale value of a mac is huge.
And before you ask me if I've done that with a PC, I have. I used a Win2k box as my primary machine for about a month. The only thing I discovered that the PC (1.2 Ghz, 512M, 30G, 32M, DVD) could do that my iBook (300 Mhz, 192M, 6G, 4M[?], CD-ROM) could not do, or not do well was:
a) Play DVDs
b) Play Unreal Tournament and RTCW well.
I was expecting a whole lot more from the PC, and I got very little out of it. And when I got the iBook back. I went back to using that as my primary machine and now my W2K box is a Hotline server remotely administered by the iBook.
Re:Two observations... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) This kind of thing can never happen with free software, because something like Shake probably would not exist in the form of free software. High quality complex (note, complex) software takes money to build, and revenues to support.
Free software is great for simple things, like web, smtp, and other serving daemons. All they have to do is spew out data in accordance with an RFP, and most of them are so mature that they are vastly supperior to commercial alternaitves, simply because they are usually not bloated with useless features.
Case in point, sendmail. (Or qmail, whatever) It's faster then, say, exchange server, more stable, more secure, and just generally works better. Same with Apache vs. say, IIS or iPlanet. In those cases, free software works very, very well.
However, when it comes to complex things like desktop environments, free/open source software generally does not work. Things like non-linear editing suites, 2D manipulation tools like photoshop, and a wrath of other applications that pros use need to be commercial. They need to be protected from their competitors (please don't mention the GPL) and they need to be developed by people who get paid. This is due to the fact that they are very complex, have to deal with proprietary codecs, and provide user interfaces that are easy and intuative to use.
Free software historically does not handle complex apps, proprietary codecs, nor usable interfaces very well at all.
Open-source people do fun stuff that works quickly and doesn't require UI work or licensing or hardware-specific APIs, like servers. They don't do tedious stuff.
2) Apple is denying itself a very tiny market of windows users (don't think they would be doing this if there were 10,000+ users) so they can sell that very tiny market new macs. They are, after all, a hardware company at heart.
Apple may be denying themselves a few bucks in software sales, but they'll make it five times over back in hardware sales, with the bonus of getting a few thousand new users of its platform.
People who make movies are almost never loyal to a given platform (except the mac, ironically). They simply want something that works so they can meet their deadlines.
Re:Two observations... (Score:2)
Do you have an example of Macs being used on movies by a major company? I am not doubting you, but I haven't even heard of it and am pretty curious.
Re:Two observations... (Score:2)
Re:Two observations... (Score:2)
Fate of Shake (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about FreeBSD? (Score:2)
RMN
~~~
Re:Not to be captain obvious, but ... (Score:2)
Re:Abandon Ship.... (Score:2)
I'm curious, how do you think FinalCut Pro would be recieved by the lower-end more budget conscious segment of the market if a substantial portion of shakes functionality was folded into it? Or perhaps as (relatively) inexpensive expansion module/plug-in for FinalCut Pro?