In response to Adobe’s decision to drop the Mac version of Premiere, Apple now offers a trade-in program to entice Premiere users to move to Final Cut Pro/Express. If Adobe users trade in their disks with Apple, they will receive a free copy of Final Cut Express, or a $500 rebate for Final Cut Pro. In other Apple multimedia news, Apple released Soundtrack for $299, a music composing application.
Apple Offers Premiere-Trade-In Program
46 Comments
2003-07-17 12:10 pm
Anonymous
How about instead of talking about Apples CURRENT profirs, lets wait till 4th quarter results are out (end of the year) and see how things are going.
Btw, regards to those comments and comparison between a number of companies and Apple. Apple is a niche player who has a share in niche markets. Apple isn’t trying to take on Microsoft. The last time they did that it almost killed the company. Apple is sticking to its CORE area, namely the artistic areas (music, graphics, art etc etc).
You can compare the G5 to the latest and greatest Dell, but the fact remains, the people they are aiming the workstation at are the Joe and Jane Cheapskates, they are targeting a product to those who are willing and able to afford it.
How is Apple going to lose out if they remain in their niche market? as long as they play their cards right, deliver great products, they will maintain and maybe increase their market share in the markets they are concertrating on.
2003-07-17 12:12 pm
Anonymous
it should be..
“the people they are aiming the workstation at aren’t the Joe and Jane Cheapskates”
2003-07-17 1:36 pm
Anonymous
“Btw, regards to those comments and comparison between a number of companies and Apple. Apple is a niche player who has a share in niche markets. Apple isn’t trying to take on Microsoft. The last time they did that it almost killed the company. Apple is sticking to its CORE area, namely the artistic areas (music, graphics, art etc etc).”
Directors have a legal and ethical responsibility to maximise profit and return on assets. Apple is Jobs hobby horse – he doesn’t give a shit about the shareholders just his own ego. If he did care he would have broken up or sold the company long ago.
Apple is a <$4 billion company with a continuous history of marginal profitability. It earns consistently less than bond rates on its assets.
http://securities.stanford.edu/1020/AAPL01/
Summary: According to a Press Release dated October 16, 2001 a complaint was filed chargin Apple and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that on 7/18-19/00, Apple introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful, fast and attractive, coming with exceptionally attractive designs and containing new and revolutionary features. At this time, Apple represented that the development of these new products was completed, they were ready for mass production and would be available in quantity very shortly. Apple claimed this would result in Apple achieving strong revenue and earnings per share (‘EPS’) growth in its 4thQ F00 (to end 9/30/00) and F01. As a result, Apple’s stock climbed to a Class Period high of $64-1/8 in early 9/00, when four top Apple officers sold 370,000 shares of their Apple stock for $22 million. Suddenly, just 20-25 trading days later, on 9/28/00, Apple shocked investors by revealing a huge 4thQ F00 revenue and EPS shortfall due to very poor sales to its education (K-12) market and poor consumer acceptance of its new personal computer products (some of which had been late to market, had defects and lacked features which were essential for market success), resulting in the accumulation of excessive inventories of finished goods in Apple’s distribution channel and Apple having to cancel component part orders and, thereby, incur financial penalties. As rumors of Apple’s troubles circulated prior to and then following Apple’s shocking disclosure, Apple’s stock collapsed from $61-3/64 on 9/20/00 to $25-3/8 on 9/29/00, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13-5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking revelations, a stock decline that wiped out over $10 billion of Apple’s market capitalization in just a few days.
Does this sound familiar? Substitute G5 for G4 and nothing much will have changed.
2003-07-17 2:12 pm
Anonymous
Which is exactly why I said way way back that they should kill off their consumer line and become the SGI of the moderately priced workstation and server market.
Btw, even if Steve Jobs were to liquidate the company right now, I question whether in this current climate how much they would get back in this current economic situation.
Anyway, back to the original topic, what was the point of bringing up the topic of Apples financial health? are you saying that buying a Mac isn’t a good investment as their financial health look shakey? if that is what you are trying to say, why didn’t you just say it?
I for one aren’t anti-Apple or pro-whatever, however, please give me a reason why should suddenly drop what they’re doing and suddenly listen to you?
2003-07-17 2:21 pm
Anonymous
“Anyway, back to the original topic, what was the point of bringing up the topic of Apples financial health? are you saying that buying a Mac isn’t a good investment as their financial health look shakey? if that is what you are trying to say, why didn’t you just say it?”
I began an earlier thread by saying that Apples strategy seemed very high risk – developing software which would be expensive to develop for relatively few sales. I also though it would alienate Adobe further. Apple is in no financial position to upset anyone.
2003-07-17 2:42 pm
Anonymous
The question is, would have Adobe still produced Premier had Final Cut not been made available? Had Final Cut not been made, and Premier pulled from the market, wouldn’t that leave Apple in a higher risk position in that it would not have a video editing application?
The fact of ther matter is that Adobe, rightly or wrongly, has been releasing gradually the idea that they are going to eventually leave the Mac desktop.
One only need to look at the previous statements in regards to performance, the operating system of choice and the whole PowerMac vs PC performance that went down a few months ago.
Apple is now stuck into a position where their main software producer, Adobe, isn’t exactly confident about the future of the Mac as a platform and may leave in the future. What Apple is doing is taking out an insurance policy against any radical move by Adobe or any other software producer in the future.
It would be more financially irrisponsable for Jobs to simply sit back and bet at the mercy of the third party vendors when he has the ability NOW to ensure that the Mac does have a viable future.
We could say the same thing about Safari for example. Why should Apple wait until the third party leaves and have this 6 month gap before something appears for customers to use?
Whether you like it or no, Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place. PC’s ARE a now a viable platform to replace Macs in their current safe haven, and it is up to Steve to try and beat this perception in a two pronged approach. First, to ensure that there is a adquate selection of professional grade software available at a reasonable price – one only needs to look at the $15000 price drop in the latest aquisition, aka Shake.
The second prong is to prove to the graphic community that there is still something “there” which makes them different from the rest. Whether this be a superior product, lower price, better support, greater software selection etc etc. What ever the difference is, Steve has to establish it otherwise Apple is toast. They won’t die a quick death but rather a slow and painful one to the point where nothing occurs.
2003-07-17 3:11 pm
Anonymous
“The question is, would have Adobe still produced Premier had Final Cut not been made available? Had Final Cut not been made, and Premier pulled from the market, wouldn’t that leave Apple in a higher risk position in that it would not have a video editing application?”
Of course they would have kept developing it. It was still a major profit division for them. However, now that competition is so fierce… they decided that tehy can’t compete.
“The fact of ther matter is that Adobe, rightly or wrongly, has been releasing gradually the idea that they are going to eventually leave the Mac desktop.”
What? There is absolutely no data to support this. Adobe’s software as ALWAYS been a staple item on the Macintosh and there are no sighs of that langusishing. You just pulled that one out of your ass.
“One only need to look at the previous statements in regards to performance, the operating system of choice and the whole PowerMac vs PC performance that went down a few months ago.”
What they were comparing was a PC versionof premiere vs a Mac version of premiere. The Mac had slower hardware and the Mac version of premiere was not optomized to take advantage of technologies present in the G4 hence the reason why it was slower and the reason why sales dropped for their premiere product on the Mac. (Most of those sales did NOT go to Windows… Rather, they stayed on the Mac and went to Final Cut…. Hence the implication that PCs are preferred for Premiere.
“Apple is now stuck into a position where their main software producer, Adobe, isn’t exactly confident about the future of the Mac as a platform and may leave in the future.”
You’re misunderstanding…
Adobe’s not questioning the viability of the platform. They questioned their ability to compete against such a superior product. They have said, “Our Video editing software is not as good, so we’re going to leave the video editing market that is taking away are user base.
“What Apple is doing is taking out an insurance policy against any radical move by Adobe or any other software producer in the future.”
You make this sound like Adobe decided to stop producing Premiere because of the viability of the Mac and so Apple started creating an alternative because they need to have video editing software to remain viable.
Again, the truth is that the Mac IS a viable platform, Apple did this because Adobe didn’t take advantage of key G4 strengths, and Adobe is now seeing the result of their incorrect decision.
” It would be more financially irrisponsable”
More irrisponsable? How can something be more irresponsible if the action wasn’t irresponsible to begin with?
“It would be more financially irrisponsable for Jobs to simply sit back and bet at the mercy of the third party vendors when he has the ability NOW to ensure that the Mac does have a viable future.”
It would be irresponsible to have key software to the Mac being produced in such a way to make it look like the Mac is slower… when it most certinly is not.
“We could say the same thing about Safari for example. Why should Apple wait until the third party leaves and have this 6 month gap before something appears for customers to use?”
Safari is ANOTHER example of the effect from Microsoft’s cause. You make it sounds as if the pulling of Explorer was the effect of Safari’s cause. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Microsoft let IE languish and so Apple made a better browser. As a result, Microsoft realized that their software was significantly inferior and dediced it could not compete. Microsoft’s cause led to Apple’s effect… (not the other way around)
“Whether you like it or no, Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place. PC’s ARE a now a viable platform to replace Macs in their current safe haven”
That’s not a rock and a hard place. While PC’s can replace Macs, they same could be so in the opposit direction. Mac’s can replace PCs. For the multimedia markets, the Mac is so far ahead of PCs, very few would be so daft in replacing their Mac with a PCs…
“it is up to Steve to try and beat this perception in a two pronged approach.”
And he’s doing an incredible Job.
“First, to ensure that there is a adquate selection of professional grade software available at a reasonable price – one only needs to look at the $15000 price drop in the latest aquisition, aka Shake.”
That buyout wasn’t a move to assure that software is available, as there was already quality software available for the Mac. The acquisition was done to assure that the best software is on the Mac, and ONLY on the Mac.
“The second prong is to prove to the graphic community that there is still something “there” which makes them different from the rest.
There always was something “there”.The problem was that there was always something, “there” for Windows as well. Now there is not.
Whether this be a superior product, lower price, better support, greater software selection etc etc. What ever the difference is, Steve has to establish it otherwise Apple is toast.”
As does any competitor. (That was a rediculious argument)
“They won’t die a quick death but rather a slow and painful one to the point where nothing occurs.”
Oh no… another, “Apple is dead” prediction.
Let’s see, how many times is that again?
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml
2003-07-17 3:50 pm
Anonymous
“The question is, would have Adobe still produced Premier had Final Cut not been made available? Had Final Cut not been made, and Premier pulled from the market, wouldn’t that leave Apple in a higher risk position in that it would not have a video editing application?”
Of course they would have kept developing it. It was still a major profit division for them. However, now that competition is so fierce… they decided that tehy can’t compete.
If that is the case, why have people slammed it (the idea of Apple aquiring companies)? personally I see it as a good long term strategy to increase profits.
“One only need to look at the previous statements in regards to performance, the operating system of choice and the whole PowerMac vs PC performance that went down a few months ago.”
What they were comparing was a PC versionof premiere vs a Mac version of premiere. The Mac had slower hardware and the Mac version of premiere was not optomized to take advantage of technologies present in the G4 hence the reason why it was slower and the reason why sales dropped for their premiere product on the Mac. (Most of those sales did NOT go to Windows… Rather, they stayed on the Mac and went to Final Cut…. Hence the implication that PCs are preferred for Premiere.
You’re now starting a conspiracy theory that Adobe doesn’t want Apple to be successful, hence, they didn’t produce heavily optimised products for MacOS X?
What next? Microsoft wanted MacOS off the net so they stop producing a web browser?
“Apple is now stuck into a position where their main software producer, Adobe, isn’t exactly confident about the future of the Mac as a platform and may leave in the future.”
You’re misunderstanding…
Adobe’s not questioning the viability of the platform. They questioned their ability to compete against such a superior product. They have said, “Our Video editing software is not as good, so we’re going to leave the video editing market that is taking away are user base.
But there have been a NUMBER of statements. One regards Premier and many others in relation to the performance/price ratio vs what is available on the PC. The PowerMac G5 will claw back alot of customers, however, it will depend on whether Apple is willing to up the speed when new processors become available and are OPEN with the customer base rather than doing what they do now, tell people at the last minute.
Customers want to see a long term plan of where Apple is heading. Where is their consumer line heading? where is their MacOS heading? what are some of the future technologies being developed for further expansion? This builds onto the lack of penetration in the corporate market. There is no long term roadmap that management can look at so that they know roughly what they should expect in 2-3 years time.
” It would be more financially irrisponsable”
More irrisponsable? How can something be more irresponsible if the action wasn’t irresponsible to begin with?
Did you actually READ what I wrote?
“It would be more financially irrisponsable for Jobs to simply sit back and bet at the mercy of the third party vendors….”
That is what I wrote. I completely support Apples aquisitions. The more the better. IMHO, they should buy out Corel next, which has some very good graphic applications such as Painter 8, Corel Draw, Photo-Paint. This would expand their software portfolio by a large amount.
If software can be made a large portion of the profit, that will insulate themselves from any of the shocks that happen in the market. One is more likely to upgrade their software than their hardware on a regular basis.
“We could say the same thing about Safari for example. Why should Apple wait until the third party leaves and have this 6 month gap before something appears for customers to use?”
Safari is ANOTHER example of the effect from Microsoft’s cause. You make it sounds as if the pulling of Explorer was the effect of Safari’s cause. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Microsoft let IE languish and so Apple made a better browser. As a result, Microsoft realized that their software was significantly inferior and dediced it could not compete. Microsoft’s cause led to Apple’s effect… (not the other way around)
Don’t you find it rather convenient that when Safari was released that “suddenly” Microsoft drops support. How about this, maybe Apple and Microsoft actually *talked* about the long term prospects of the Mac business unit and both parties decided that it would be best if Apple produced their own line of “freebies” such as a browser, chatting application etc etc?
“Whether you like it or no, Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place. PC’s ARE a now a viable platform to replace Macs in their current safe haven”
That’s not a rock and a hard place. While PC’s can replace Macs, they same could be so in the opposit direction. Mac’s can replace PCs. For the multimedia markets, the Mac is so far ahead of PCs, very few would be so daft in replacing their Mac with a PCs…
Examples please. We live in the world of GET, Good Enough Technology and whether you like it or not, if the solution is good enough, and gets the job done, how can one justify the extra expense for such a marginal improvement?
SUN has finally got the message and so has SGI, is Apple ready to get the message?
“They won’t die a quick death but rather a slow and painful one to the point where nothing occurs.”
Oh no… another, “Apple is dead” prediction.
That is if there isn’t a clear long term strategy. If they keep building on top of the PowerMac G5 then the future will be rosy, however, if they continue to ship below par consumer models with the G4 chip, customers outside the arts community will question whether or not to hang around. It is a disappointing to see now hardware updates (with the Mac Expo in full swing), heck even remodel an iMac with a G4 1.4Ghz, USB 2.0 and a faster graphics card.
Consumers look at what Apple offers and they as why they should pay AUS$3700 for an iMac 17″ when they could purchase an IBM, Dell or HP with a similar configuration for a lot less.
Sure, the workstation market IS slightly different, but, it all comes back to GET. If it is good enough, then people will go with it. This isn’t saying that Apple is doomed, heck, back in 1997 when Jobs came back on board there were the doom sayers claming that the whole thing would fall to pieces, however, Jobs pulled the company back together again into a something focused. If he can continue using the same focus, then their long term survival is viable.
Btw, I don’t see Apples market share expand, mearly staying static or growing a modest single diget.
2003-07-17 5:31 pm
Anonymous
“If that is the case, why have people slammed it (the idea of Apple aquiring companies)?”
I don’t know.
“personally I see it as a good long term strategy to increase profits.”
Apparently a good strategy for the short term as well…considering how it caused the company’s profits to benefit as a result.
“You’re now starting a conspiracy theory that Adobe doesn’t want Apple to be successful, hence, they didn’t produce heavily optimised products for MacOS X?”
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that Adobe didn’t want Apple to be successful. What I’m saying is that Adobe chose to only optimize Premiere for x86 chips rather than PPC because the market for videographers was tipping to the Wintel side. Apple requested more refinements because it gave the perception that Premiere couldn’t be significantly faster on PPC by taking advantage of such technologies as AltiVec. Because Adobe refused they payed dearly by giving up the what amounts to practically the entire video editing market when Apple took matters into their own hands and competed with Adobe’s premiere and had a landfall success as a result. That market could have been Adobe’s had they listened to Apple.
“What next? Microsoft wanted MacOS off the net so they stop producing a web browser?”
Is that so far fetched? Microsoft dominates the web (through illegal business practices mind you), makes a partnership with the one company the controls the most viable Internet Explorer alternative which would encourage them to discontinue development of that product and then they discontinue development of Internet Explorer? You tell me… is Microsoft trying to make push out all non Internet Explorer browsers? It looks that way to me.
“The PowerMac G5 will claw back alot of customers”
And bring in many new ones as well.
“however, it will depend on whether Apple is willing to up the speed when new processors become available”
Um not sure I understand. Apple typically ups the speed of processors when new ones are available.
“and are OPEN with the customer base rather than doing what they do now, tell people at the last minute.”
The problem with that strategy is that beforehand knowledge of upcoming processors has shown that consumers tend to wait for a new processor if they perceive it to be significantly better. If they have before-hand knowledge and choose to wait then something causes the development of that chip/computer to go off track and the project is delayed, then Apple misses out of sales and the consumer would have been better off buying had he done so without the before-hand knowledge.
“Customers want to see a long term plan of where Apple is heading.”
Apple provides direction with regard to the platform and IBM provides direction with regard to the chip.Apple doesn’t lay out all its cards on the table like Microsoft does because, (as we often see with Microsoft) many of those cards don’t get played and it leaves the consumer with a mis-associated idea of the company’s direction.
Yes, I would love to know about Apple’s upcoming technologies too, but not at the expensive of others moving in on Apple’s territory before the time is right and certinly not at the expense of consumers feeling unsure about Apple’s overall direction should it change at some time down the road.
“Where is their consumer line heading?”
Apple is made that very clear. Apple is making its consumer line of computers a digital hub for consumer electronics and is making hardware that takes advantage of key Apple/Mac strengths while being benefited to the companies iapps
“where is their MacOS heading?”
The same direction that all OSes are (or are trying to go)… one which ads greater efficiency and productivity to the end user.
“what are some of the future technologies being developed for further expansion?”
As much as I want to be privy to this information, I understand why it isn’t divulged. With this type of before-hand knowledge, competitors will try to beat Apple to the punch. Apple’s advantages are in showing that it can do things that other solutions can not. By divulging information such as this they are handing that advantage over to their competitors.
“This builds onto the lack of penetration in the corporate market. There is no long term roadmap that management can look at so that they know roughly what they should expect in 2-3 years time. “
There are other factors involved which has caused Apple to have little presence in corporate sectors little of which has anything to do with misperceptions about Apple’s direction. If anything, the only factor which relates to direction and the corporate sector is a misguided belief that Apple may not be around much longer. That perception was more prevalent in the early stages of the rebuilding of Apple but not so much any more hence the reason why Apple has started to target this sector more agressivly now.
“I completely support Apples aquisitions The more the better. IMHO.”
I misunderstood what you were saying. However, I disagree that Apple should buy out more software developers. Instead, they should buy up developers (or their competition) that are key to Apple viability should they choose not to take advantage of key strengths in Apple hardware and operating system that would give Mac versions of those applications they strengths that they are capeable of.
“They should buy out Corel next, which has some very good graphic applications such as Painter 8, Corel Draw, Photo-Paint. This would expand their software portfolio by a large amount.”
I disagree with this. Photoshop, Illustrator etc are great applications on the Mac. Apple doesn’t want to discourage software development. Acquiring Corel would only cause Adobe to be disenchanted with the Mac and opt to not develop for the platform. That perspective would change quickly if Adobe suddenly let the Mac versions of Illustrator and Photoshop languish as they did with Premiere. Apple gave Adobe a warning… if they should choose to do with other applications what they did with Premiere, Apple will take away these markets as well. Something tells me that Adobe got the message and wont be trying that any time soon. (On a side note, i don’t think Corel has anything up on Adobe and which would make their applications unsuitable for an acquisition target should Adobe ever pull another stunt like they did with Premiere.)
2003-07-17 5:33 pm
Anonymous
“If software can be made a large portion of the profit, that will insulate themselves from any of the shocks that happen in the market. One is more likely to upgrade their software than their hardware on a regular basis.”
Agreed, but ruining successful software relationships without reason is even more damaging. Had Apple created FCP at a time when Adobe was doing well with premiere on the Mac, and taking advantage of key Apple strengths… that would have been wrong. However, the way Apple handled the situation couldn’t have been more idealistic.
“Don’t you find it rather convenient that when Safari was released that “suddenly” Microsoft drops support.”
Microsoft had let Internet Explorer languish for a LONG time. They would have been content to let the IE Mac web browsing experience die a slow miserable death, but with the introduction of Safari which produced a match faster and more standards-compliant product, Microsoft had to kill it off faster lest they be shown up they way Apple did with Adobe’s Premiere.
“How about this, maybe Apple and Microsoft actually *talked* about the long term prospects of the Mac business unit and both parties decided that it would be best if Apple produced their own line of “freebies” such as a browser, chatting application etc etc?”
I suppose anything is possible, but I don’t buy that scenario.
>>>That’s not a rock and a hard place. While PC’s can replace Macs, they same could be so in the opposit direction. Mac’s can replace PCs. For the multimedia markets, the Mac is so far ahead of PCs, very few would be so daft in replacing their Mac with a PCs… <<<
“Examples please.”
So that there’s no misunderstanding, read my statement… “For the multimedia markets…”
Examples include:
DVD Studio Pro
http://www.apple.com/dvdstudiopro/newversion/
Final Cut Pro
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/download/
Logic Platinum Audio
Sound Track
http://www.apple.com/soundtrack/
Shake
“We live in the world of GET, Good Enough Technology and whether you like it or not, if the solution is good enough, and gets the job done, how can one justify the extra expense for such a marginal improvement?”
First of all, there is no “extra expense” when you’re speaking of professional media editing. As a matter of fact, Apple’s professional multimedia hardware is typically around the same price as a PC.
Secondly, the advantage that Apple gives you certainly isn’t marginal. Number 1, their professional hardware is dramatically faster and their software is dramatically better.
“SUN has finally got the message and so has SGI, is Apple ready to get the message?”
Whatever message you’re talking about, Apple “got it” a long time ago… hence the reason why their producing such superior solutions.
“That is if there isn’t a clear long term strategy.”
Apple’s going to die if you don’t know how much faster their hardware is than x86? They’ll die if you don’t know what features they plan on adding to their software?
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
BTW, Apple gives you a long term strategy. The fact that Apple doesn’t divulge their trade secrets before the time is right has nothing to do with not providing a long term strategy.
2003-07-17 5:34 pm
Anonymous
“If they keep building on top of the PowerMac G5 then the future will be rosy, however, if they continue to ship below par consumer models with the G4 chip, customers outside the arts community will question whether or not to hang around.”
That’s ridiculous. Thats like saying that any company that ships computers with consumer-grade processors (every major computer manufacturer on the planet) they we have reason to be concerned for their long term viability.
“It is a disappointing to see now hardware updates (with the Mac Expo in full swing), heck even remodel an iMac with a G4 1.4Ghz, USB 2.0 and a faster graphics card.”
Agreed, but Apple had to show the folks at IDG that they can’t push Apple around. Apple is the star of the Macworld and its in IDG’s best interests to be more accommodating to Apple because of that. Apple decided to make all their major hardware announcements at WWDC instead.
I’m pretty confident that we’ll see iMac G4s brought up to 1.4GHz in the near future. Before, Apple was in a bind, they couldn’t upgrade their iMac’s processors to the level of their professional towers lest they cannibalize the (previously) already-struggling tower lineup. So, Apple had to put a false ceiling on their consumer line of computers.
Now that the G5 has occupied that professional space, Apple is free to Max out the consumer line with high-end G4s.
“Consumers look at what Apple offers and they as why they should pay AUS$3700 for an iMac 17″ when they could purchase an IBM, Dell or HP with a similar configuration for a lot less.”
They could also buy other Macs for a lot less too because (like the PCs you’re comparing the iMac 17″ to) those other Macs have less to offer. However, when you match the PC’s hardware and software to match the Macs specs exactly (or as close as possible) the price will either be slightly more, the same price slightly less or significantly less depending on the computer you are comparing.
“Sure, the workstation market IS slightly different, but, it all comes back to GET. If it is good enough, then people will go with it.”
If that’s the case why is the market (Both Mac and PC users) being driven to Final Cut Pro on a Mac. Premiere on a PC could be had for less (albeit for a much lesser machine) and yet the vast majority (70% is the last figure I recall seeing) are doing digital video editing on a Mac with Final Cut and the numbers are growing.
I’m not neglecting GET as a marketing force because we saw it play out in the 90s and early 00’s. However, there is a rule of thumb when it comes to changing the demographics of an already-populated market. If a competing product is at least 30% better than its competition it has the capability to upset those market dynamics. If the product is only 30% better the transition will occur slowly. However any percentage over 30% will cause the market to transition faster exponentially.
Considering the fact that Adobe maintained the lions share of what made the digital video editing market before and now Apple owns the vast majority of that market and managed to grab it in such a short period of time, it lends credibility to the notion that the “GET” theory doesn’t apply when a product offers significantly more than the competition.
Apple is on the cusp of offering both hardware and software in both consumer and professional markets that IMHO are at least 30% better than the competition (Significantly more in markets such as multimedia) If Apple’s market share increases (if not even only slightly) over the next year, Apple will be achieving its goal.
“If [Steve jobs] can continue using the same focus, then [Apple’s] long term survival is viable.
Survivability is no longer in question. Rather, its how well they’ll thrive.
[i]”Btw, I don’t see Apples market share expand, mearly staying static or growing a modest single diget.”
I anticipate “market share” (not user base) easily expanding at least 5-7 points in the next year. Remember, market share is calculated in relation to the sales of a company’s competitors sales… not the oval user base of their products. Apple’s resurgence will occur at a time when the Windows/Intel world will offer little reason to upgrade. Therefore, if only Mac users decided to open up their checkbooks after waiting several years for Apple’s next generation hardware and software to be aligned, then you have the dynamics to increase market share at least 4 points (again when coupled with the slow PC sales). When you factor in Windows converts to the Mac that figure will go up exponentially. 2004 will be a very exciting time for Apple and its user base.
I doubt Adobe would have much success with a reverse switch to Windows for Final Cut users. Final Cut is a textbook example of killer app. Adobe Premiere is a classic case of cruft.
Smart move on Apple’s part. I have no idea what the full price is for Final Cut Pro, but $500.00 is a lot of money.
In exchange of your dental insurance cancellation, we’ll give you … this BARREL OF BEER !
Hmmmmm.. I don’t know for you, but I think a barrel is a whole lot of beer !
(no point here. just joking. worked late yesterday. still tired)
Final Cut Pro from the Apple store is $999
So this, essentially a competitive upgrade, is a 50% discount. The previous version upgrade is $400 (60% discount), which makes sense.
Final Cut Express is $299.
Final Cut Pro costs $999.00 on the Apple webstore. =)
This promo just did it… the company where I work has been teetering on going all Mac-OSX for our video post production editing studio or going half PC-NT, half Mac-OSX.
When I relayed this news to my supervisor, he finally made the decision to go all Mac-OSX.
Chalk up 20 new Apple/DualG5/OSX/Final Cut video editing bays for the Mac..
I have a feeling many others will follow.
“Final Cut Express is $299”
Press Release: Apple is offering customers who purchase any new Macintosh® computer the opportunity to purchase Final Cut Express at the same time for just $99 (US)—a savings of $200 (US) from the suggested retail price.
woo, yeah.
I got SoundTrack with FCP 4 the day before they were released. I have since spent more time making music than editing with Final Cut! I absolutely love SoundTrack. It is exactly what I have been looking for. I have never tried sound editing before and this program was as easy to learn as any I have ever used. I think it may help to understand the GUI of FCP, but everything is pretty self explanatory:
You have a timeline with multiple layers, and you have your stock music. Drag and drop. Much of the supplied music is looped, so increasing the time of a certain sound is as simple as dragging the edge of the sound. Also, there is a loop editor so you can make your own loops! The effects are really impressive too, everything is done on the fly, and I am really impressed with the quality of the output.
I am a complete beginner when it comes to sound editing, so I have never used stuff like Logic. I cannot compare SoundTrack to anything, so I cannot say if it is truly a “professional” app. I can say it is the best add on for FCP (for my needs) that I can possibly imagine. I finally have some audio to lay over my video tracks! Woohoo!
For anyone that is curious, here’s video QuickTour of SoundTrack:
http://www.apple.com/soundtrack/quicktour/
Very informative if you are unsure about what SoundTrack is.
hmmm, FC Express for free or FCP for half off. Not a bad deal at all.
can you use soundtrack to record music that you play via a mic? Can you then mix your own music with the built in loops? Would this be the right kind of app for music creation like this?
“can you use soundtrack to record music that you play via a mic? Can you then mix your own music with the built in loops? Would this be the right kind of app for music creation like this?”
No, not really… or at least not effectivly the way it sounds like you want to do.
Apple’s logic audio is not only the best tool on the Mac for what you’re talking about, but the best tool for the job period.
http://www.apple.com/software/pro/logic/
However, I realize this software may be overkill and somewhat daunting for some people. If you’re interested in mixing audio on a consumer or almost-pro levels, a better solution is Final Cut Express.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutexpress/
FCE is primarly used for mid-range video editing, but its got some very decent audio editing capabilities built in that are not only very intuitive but also very powerful.
I’m not a mac user and therefore of the above ‘sweeteners’. However, if I was, I wouldn’t be entirely happy with the implications of the OS provider attempting to ‘take over’ the software application market too. One ring to rule them all;)
Tis bad enough with office etc with Win, but at least they don’t also ‘own’ the Intel platform completely, not entirely anyway even if they have ‘plans’ to do so,unlike Apple.
Not even sure if its a good idea for Apple in the long run. Its one thing to leverage super profits out of a market share in excess of 90%, I think I’m right on this,another to sustain such with the minuscule share Apple has. The temptation will be for it to try and leverage more then even Mac users will bare, and we all know how Mac users love to pay over the top
.
Certainly its good strategy for Apple, in the short term, as doubtless they will ‘get away’ with it for a while.
they bought a company tha had a great application for their platform…everyone used it who needed those facilities…adobe got out becasue they could not compete with their crapware (in comparision)
apple, not wanting people to even think about leaving their platform to follow preimeir offers a 500 dollor discount for preimeir users.
that is all that is going on, not some intimidation or anything that MS used back in the old days.
“I wouldn’t be entirely happy with the implications of the OS provider attempting to ‘take over’ the software application market too.”
Normally, neither would I but Apple’s audio and video soltions were produced as a direct result of Adobe not optomizing their software to take advantage of key strengths in Apple hardware.
Not only did Adobe not optomize for the Mac but they chose to only optomize for Windows because Adobe’s multimedia software (previously) narrowly tiped the sales in favor of Windows.
Apple said, “fine, if you woont help us, we’ll help ourselves. just don’t be upset when we take away the entire market.
“Tis bad enough with office etc with Win, but at least they don’t also ‘own’ the Intel platform completely, not entirely anyway even if they have ‘plans’ to do so,unlike Apple.”
Your annalogy doesn’t make total sense. Just because there isn’t clones of Apple’s hardware doesn’t mean that the level of control that Apple *IBM and Motorola* have is greater than that which Microsoft Intel and AMD has.
“Not even sure if its a good idea for Apple in the long run.”
If key software isn’t written in such a way as to take advantage of key advantages that are present in Apple hardware, i don’t see how they could choose to do anything differen’t… this for both short term viability as well as for the long term.
“The temptation will be for it to try and leverage more then even Mac users will bare”
Yet, this software is causing many Windows users to become switchers.
“and we all know how Mac users love to pay over the top”
Do we? How do you figure? Mac’s cost the same price as PCs when the same hadware and software is compared between platforms.
“However, if I was, I wouldn’t be entirely happy with the implications of the OS provider attempting to ‘take over’ the software application market too.”
“Software application market”? That’s a big generalization. Apple has about 18 software titles; only 5 of these are pro apps that compete with others.
“Tis bad enough with office etc with Win, but at least they don’t also ‘own’ the Intel platform completely, not entirely anyway even if they have ‘plans’ to do so,unlike Apple.”
Apple has LESS “ownership” of the platform than MS has over Intel. Don’t comprehend.
“Its one thing to leverage super profits out of a market share in excess of 90%, I think I’m right on this,another to sustain such with the minuscule share Apple has.”
Huh? It’s okay to “leverage super profits” if you have complete control of the market (“in excess of 90%”) but not if you don’t have control? Who says this “sustains” Apple? They make between 1 and 2 billion a quarter in revenue. Only several hundred thousand of it comes from software.
“The temptation will be for it to try and leverage more then even Mac users will bare, and we all know how Mac users love to pay over the top
.”
We are talking about mid- to pro audio and video apps, right? What the hell does any non-audio/video editing user have to do with this? Any dumbass who feels “forced” to buy these apps is a moron. Apple is targeting a creative market that wants and needs these apps (which by the way–they have dramatically reduced the price of FCP, DVDSP, Logic, Shake from what is was before they purchased them)… If Apple encourages non creative pros to enter these markets, good for Apple and these users.
“Certainly its good strategy for Apple, in the short term, as doubtless they will ‘get away’ with it for a while.”
Get away with what? Building a well-built video editor, dramatically improving it, offering it cheaper, creating a new market by making these tools accessible to the mid market when formerly they were pro only, creating an alternative to other products which had stagnated? What? What the hell is Apple gettign away with?
Although I may be wrong the threaded response preceding the last three posts (by Rabalist Moggerq) screams of the same type thinly veiled FUD that we saw from Mistik jogelour last week.
It looks to me like Mistik jogelour is back again… only this time hiding behind a new FUD facade.
Mistik, Rabalist or whatever your name is… take your trolling elsewhere. You are not welcome here.
Very smart move Apple, very smart indeed.
This sounds like a typical Jobism….great in theory but backfires down the track. All this will do is piss off Adobe. Adobe may simply stop further development of its Mac products.
Other vendors will quickly realise that Apple is out to shaft them too and not develop software.
Apple will probably not even break even on development costs of these products – all to lock in Mac hardware purchases. Steve is blind to anything but his baby, the Mac, and will happily run Apple into the ground to perpetuate his distorted dream.
“This sounds like a typical Jobism….great in theory but backfires down the track. All this will do is piss off Adobe. Adobe may simply stop further development of its Mac products.”
Sounds like good business to me. Adobe doesn’t care for Premiere users on Mac and Apple gives abandoned Premiere users heavily discounted prices on software they would probably buy at the full price anyway. As far as Adobe stopping development of Mac products thats not likely given that Mac users account for a significant amount of their revenue.
“Other vendors will quickly realise that Apple is out to shaft them too and not develop software.”
Who?
“Apple will probably not even break even on development costs of these products – all to lock in Mac hardware purchases. Steve is blind to anything but his baby, the Mac, and will happily run Apple into the ground to perpetuate his distorted dream.”
iTunes Music store will break even or be past that point next quarter according to the quarterly earnings conference call, sounds like breaking even to me.
Final Cut is leveraging Apple products heavily in the NLE field sounds like more than break even to me if its moving hardware.
Then there are other pro audio and prosumer audio and video software products that are in the channel that Apple would not have created if demand for those products did not exist. There is also Safari that buys Apple’s freedom from IE. Thats more than break even to me that is a big win. If people buy Macs to run these apps then that is a double win for Apple.
Margin on software is very good, ask Bill Gates. I’m sure you’ve heard of him.
“This sounds like a typical Jobism….great in theory but backfires down the track.”
A did a double take with this one. Its as if you’re saying that Jobs has a reputation for inneffective ideas. I found it so bizarre because in fact the complete opposite is true.
“All this will do is piss off Adobe.”
You’re looking at this the wrong way. You’re seeing this as Apple makeing the “cause” which leads to Adobe’s “affect.”
What you’re seeing is the result of Adobe’s mis-dealings with Apple. (They refused to offer the same level of ompomization for G4 hardware as they did with P4). Back to cause and affect… It was Adobe’s cause which lead to Apple’s affect.
To put it simply, Adobe brought this on themselves.
“Adobe may simply stop further development of its Mac products.”
The old saying goes that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Again, this is Apple responding to Adobe… not the other way around. Should Adobe choose to make any more unwise decisions, Apple will counter them by responding accordinly as they did with their multimedia products.
“Other vendors will quickly realise that Apple is out to shaft them too and not develop software.”
Apple is only competing directly with one major software developer… Adobe (I suppose Microsoft too)… and that was a result of Adobe’s unwise business decions. No software developers think that Apple is going to move in on their turf… (I take that back… Should any of these developers treat Apple unfairly… they will di8sh it right back)
“Apple will probably not even break even on development costs of these products – all to lock in Mac hardware purchases.”
Apple ALREADY HAS broken even on the software… this without even including hardware sales increase as a result of Windows switchers that are migrating to the Mac as a result of such superior software. With the release of such products as Final Cut pro, Final Cut express, Logic Platinum, DVD Studio Pro, Shake etc… Apple has all but entierly swept up the entire professional multi media sector… for both Mac AND Windows AND Linux. This initiative has been INCREDIBLY sucessful.
“Steve is blind to anything but his baby, the Mac, and will happily run Apple into the ground to perpetuate his distorted dream.”
You really don’t get it.
Good move, Apple. Very good move. I like it.
Photoshop killer app……
….if any…
I doubt Adobe would have much success with a reverse switch to Windows for Final Cut users. Final Cut is a textbook example of killer app. Adobe Premiere is a classic case of cruft.
It is amazing how much of copies Adobe gave to Machead its new PC-only rewritten version of Premier for them to call them cruft without lying or anything…. It is just so amazing.
Hey Adobe! I’m a Machead, choose me, choose me!
@rajan r
“It is amazing how much of copies Adobe gave to Machead its new PC-only rewritten version of Premier for them to call them cruft without lying or anything…. It is just so amazing.
Hey Adobe! I’m a Machead, choose me, choose me!”
What are you TRYING to say?
Adobe hasn’t given any copies of the PC-only version Premiere to “Machead” to my recollection.
All the stuff coming out of Adobe lately is nothing but a huge disappointment (Acrobat 6, Illustrator 10, Photoshop 7 etc.). Although InDesign is a great app in principle, but using it on OS X shows just how much Carbon applications suck, especially if they’re so badly done as Adobe is doing them (well Macromedia doesn’t win a medal here either).
Every big vendor that has come up with carbonized versions of their OS X applications has really managed to disappoint me in every possible way (with Apple and FCP being one of the few great exceptions). The interfaces are a half-assed, performance is crap, and stability isn’t all that great either. Not to mention the very bad handling of double byte text, even in the fscking Japanese versions (WTF?!??)
Now funny enough, every time I use a Cocoa app (TIFFany, Create, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner) they just shine, and impress me, they just work so much more seamlessly not only with the OS, but even with each other. Even with apps from different vendors, dragging and dropping things back and forth from applications just works impressively well, they all support Services, Unicode and so forth.
Please stop using Carbon, it just sucks.
P.S.: Adobe once had a version of Illustrator (and I believe even Photoshop) out for NeXTSTEP. In those days the only way to code for NeXSTEP AFAIK was to write it in Objective C. Now I’d love to see Adobe pulling out those ancient versions and use them as the base for some really impressive future versions of their OS X products written completely in Cocoa.
It’s not going to happen? Well, I know, but then maybe someone else might come and take that market away with well written Design/DTP apps for OS X. Cocoa is so much more powerful…
Xcode supports C++ so I wonder. does anyone know? if it does it will be great for porting apps…all those big C++ huses can stop carbonising and begin native coaca apps.
I personally don’t have a problem with Acrobat, Illustrator or Photoshop in OS X. These applications run great. You’re the first person to say otherwise that I’ve ever come across.
Let’s not all jump on Adobe because they recently started acting stupid.. Adobe got their ass handed to them. They would have to be stupid to try and step on Apple’s toes again. Let’s hope they learned ther lesson and work with Apple next time around.
Apple: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/a/aapl.html
gross revenue:$5,809,000,000 (5.809 Billion)
net income:$3,000,000 (3 million! not billion)
Adobe:http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/a/adbe.html
gross revenue:$$3,196,574,000 (3.197 Billion)
net income:$205,761,000 ($205.761 million)
>>>>>>>>>>>>That is Adobe made almost <82 times> the <net income> of Apple.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Adobe has probably written Apple off as a bad joke.
Steve Jobs “certified financial + technical genius” managed a net income of less than 0.05% of gross revenues. That is he made around <$2> for every Mac sold.
Considering the economy Apple is come out very healthy when you factor in store openings, the huge R&D increase that’s bringing us products like the G5, iPod/music store and new PowerBooks, acquisitions, continued advertisement and media exposure, etc. – many in the tech sector are unable to post a profit while Apple is adding to its billions in the bank.
“Adobe has probably written Apple off as a bad joke.”
Adobe: “We’d give you the new version of Premiere, but we decided not to write it for you. Sorry.”
Apple: “We’d give you a cut of the business we’re about to take from you on our platform, but we decided not to write the check. Sorry.”
Im glad Apple did this as its exactly what I asked our rep for as soon as the Adobe announcement was made.
Adobe has decided that not only can it not compete with a better product (its competing when its not bundled for free with the OS), but that it wants to push a much more serious rival’s media software (WMP).
FCP is a great reason to own a Mac, and offering free or inexpensive cross grades to FCP from Premiere on both platforms is exactly what Apple needs to do to stay competitive.
The media technologies are actually the key to the Premiere/FCP battle. Keeping MPEG4 at the front of the game is extremely important to all of us who are interested in seeing open media technologiers (and who don’t want another reason to be stuck on Windows). Having Adobe push Microsoft’s solution (not saying you can’t do anything else – but notice the prominent mention of MS technologies in their PR release for Premiere) is bad for all of us.
My point? Apple competing hard for open media standards via products like FCP is great for those people who will never use either piece of software.
you should check out ableton Live on OS X.
What a killer app.drag and drop loops, effects,etc rewire, and it is rock solid on OS X.
“Considering the economy Apple is come out very healthy when you factor in store openings, the huge R&D increase that’s bringing us products like the G5, iPod/music store and new PowerBooks, acquisitions, continued advertisement and media exposure, etc. – many in the tech sector are unable to post a profit while Apple is adding to its billions in the bank.”
Yeah right…except the BIG 5 are making an absolute killing.
Oracle: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/o/orcl.html
IBM; http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/i/ibm.html
HP: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/h/hpq.html
Dell: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/d/dell.html
MS: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/m/msft.html
Redhat is almost breaking even on only $25 million revenue.
Redhat: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/R/RHAT.html
Even “basket case” Sun had almost double revenue of Apple and returned to profit for the first quarter of 2003.
Sun: http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/s/sunw.html
Microsoft made almost <one thousand times> the profit of Apple on four times the gross revenue. MS made a gross profit four times Apples entire revenue.
Just believe Apple is prospering – and pass the Kool Aide.
If there’s anything we should have learned in the past few years it’s “Don’t believe anythin accountants tell you”.
Just curious, How many times more profit did Enron make than Apple a few years ago?
Sun: