Randall L Rike:

Also, for those of us in film, Apple has stated they absolutely have no intention of offering a sytem similar to Avid's MediaStation Telecine

 

And five years ago I still remember Hillary Clinton saying that she didn't plan to run for president. 

Come on everyone - Apple has been at OS and software development since the days of DOS and Windows 3.1.  If they want stable media sharing they can do it.  But they aren't going to attack an area that Avid is strongest in - even William Wallace didn't storm England in his first attacks.  Apple is playing where they know they'll win.

This is prize fighting - Apple got their butt kicked by Microsoft back in the day.  But they have gotten back up in the ring.  Now they are throwing smarter punches.  As soon as they clean out the indie NLE world guess where their new focus will be?  The Avid stronghold.  And yes children...we will all die.  With this last lethal RED blow I don't think there is a happy ending to this tale.

"Apple has stated they absolutely have no intention of offering a system similar to Avid's MediaStation Telecine (capable of VTR emulation, recording directly to an Avid Unity system for immediate shared use)."

 

Check out Virtual VTR only $1900 then add FCP sever and you can start editing within seconds of start of recording.

http://www.virtualvtr.com/

 

 

jasperfdo:

Now they are throwing smarter punches.  As soon as they clean out the indie NLE world guess where their new focus will be?  The Avid stronghold.

Let's see. Apple is probably making more profit in a day from iPods, i.. , etc than they do from FCS in a year.  So I guess if I were them I would be punching the eyes out of i opportunities. Not trying to dance around a huge ring of R+D expenses looking for a points win with minimal financial gain.

Yeah, I think I remember a fact that said FCS sales were less than 1% of Apple's revenue.  Far less.

So they can go either way.  Throw a lot of cash at R&D and dominate, or not be bothered by such a trivial piece of a market.

 

TCurren:

I've heard different versions from the key players, but the underlying story seems to be wrapped around the fact that Avid wanted to charge RED for use of the DNxHD codec. RED being a small company went with guys who gave support to them for free, yes, that was Apple.

Check your sources Terry - The DNxHD codec source code files are available for FREE to anyone who meets the generally loose requirements.  A program they've had since day one of DNx.  Hell - you could do some developing with DNx

here's the link:

http://www.avid.com/forms/DNxHDinfo.asp

It's more likely that Apple paid for exclusive rights to Red's codec.

FunkyDragon:

Check your sources Terry - The DNxHD codec source code files are available for FREE to anyone who meets the generally loose requirements.  A program they've had since day one of DNx. 

 

No, you need to read the license agreement. It is ONLY free to an end user. All others must pay a fee. Check it yourself:

 

THIS LICENSE IS AN INTERNAL-USE-ONLY LICENSE AND DOES NOT PERMIT DISTRIBUTION OR CREATION OF DERIVATIVE WORKS. IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER INTERESTED IN A SOURCE CODE LICENSE THAT PERMITS DISTRIBUTION AND/OR CREATION OF DERIVATIVE WORKS, PLEASE CONTACT AVID.

<---- Stands corrected.

All others must pay a fee

.- Well the license doesn't literally say that either.

If it's paid, we don't know if it's is incredibly expensive.

Maybe and special arrangement between Avid and the developer?

Why Apple and not, let's say, Adobe or Sony?

They make also a code for Assimilate Scratch, which is VERY expensive.

 

 

 

BTW, Ikegami makes some native DNxHD cameras.

 

"... Check out Virtual VTR ..."

Yeah, just what we need ... another multi-vendor solution.  I have no idea if it really works, but my experience in the past is you usually end up with a lot of finger-pointing.  Everybody is certain "their" product is working fine.  Oops ... just missed a deadline ...

Randall L Rike:

"... Check out Virtual VTR ..."

Yeah, just what we need ... another multi-vendor solution.  I have no idea if it really works, but my experience in the past is you usually end up with a lot of finger-pointing.  Everybody is certain "their" product is working fine.  Oops ... just missed a deadline ...

 

To be fair it works fine and is used in demanding broadcast situations.

 

jasperfdo:

And five years ago I still remember Hillary Clinton saying that she didn't plan to run for president. 

 

 Hmm good point. Apple definitely has the resources to come up with an Unity/Isis/Interplay solution. Question is will they?

What I do not get is that they make a good NLE, try to win the Indie market but lack on the shared storage... an argument given for that is FCP is less then 1% of apple's income... apple does not care... then why is there FCP in the first place? Why try win the whole indie market? Why work together for free with RED? Does apple have another motivation for that? Something like: "buy your indie film from the indie iTunes store"? Or should I look at it another way: do indie film makers not need shared storage?

Jasper, I agree that apple has the power to kill (or buy) avid both with good products and way better marketing. But they are not making a big effort. 

I do not believe avids days are numbered. I don't get those signals out of the market I can see... I see avid products more and more.. OK "indie" here in Greece and Holland where I come is practically non existent...

NICKB:

To be fair it works fine and is used in demanding broadcast situations.

 

 Very interesting product.. thx Nick

But there is a simple point Randall makes which we should not forget. When you broadcast or are a production company that needs to meet deadlines (who doesn't) you want reliability. When you work with multiple software developers you know you increase risk. If the product would have an avid or apple logo on it.. then no finger pointing.

Come to think about it it is not only about shared storage.. its about system integration where apple and avid are very different. Avid does not want to work with 3rd party hard- and software that they haven't supplied themselves. But they do have a complete system.

Apple does the exact opposite. Work together with many 3rd party developers... Most broadcasters and big production houses (Am I correct Larry?, Randall?, BLKDOG?) try to avoid this.

Should my/our attitude change? I.e. will the professional market stay with the single software developers within a system or move towards multiple software developers within a system?

"... So how do they get the Media Composer software to work with the cheap AJA box? ..."

They don't.  The MC is provided to prep sequences (AFE, XML, etc) for import into DS.

jveekeres:

I do not believe avids days are numbered. I don't get those signals out of the market I can see... I see avid products more and more..

 

That is not the result in the US. I hear and see people shifting to FCP constantly, I don't see any going the other way.

 

Just yesterday I heard the the Ellen Degeneres show, which is moving lots, is going all FCP. This is not a good trend for Avid. If they have success with it, then which show will be next?

 

And this is in the town (Hollywood) that is Avid's last real stronghold (other than broadcast).

 

Just so you can compare, at one time CMX was THE standard. So was Moviola at one time.