The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tim Cook on Mac Desktop commitment Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 12th July 2017
  #1141
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
She's obviously busy writing reviews for all the time saving stuff that she uses.
Yeah. I mean, can you imagine starting a review with "As a busy mom, I’m always looking for ways to automate any part of my life."

"Automate any part of my life"... What does that even mean? Seriously?

Maybe she's some kind of cyborg.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1142
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

- Secondly, you talk about Google harvesting all you information. You don't think that Apple grabs your data? Of course it does. They all do. They need your telemetry data to provide the services you use. When people misunderstand this they lash out at companies X and Y because they're emotionally invested in company Z. But it's pretty much all the same crap.
This is simply not correct. Google's business is to sell user information to ad companies and marketers and other low lives. This is not at all Apple's business model. They sell hardware, software and services and are massively profitable doing this.

You make good other points, please don't make the "all companies are equal when it comes to privacy" argument, because they're not.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1143
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
I've seen macOS "break" my entire rig. Whoever signed off on the release of Sierra should look for a new line of work.
Zero issues in Sierra, which is the best macOS so far and RME wrote special drivers for it for the USB line. Get off that Pro Tools toy now and get a real DAW (Just kidding, use what you want).
Old 12th July 2017
  #1144
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
And? You know you could have just acknowledged that what I and others said was correct, and what you said initially - or implied - was not correct.
What I said was only correct for a little over 98% of phone users. Apologies.


BTW, the numbers are for the US, I'm in Europe, I have never even seen a Windows phone.

I'd be curious about it, I've read good things about them. I'm not surprised there's good integration between Windows Phone and Windows PCs.
Just as it was with the Zune - which I've also never seen IRL.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1145
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
... don't make the "all companies are equal when it comes to privacy" argument, because they're not.
Arguments about privacy are moot. With or without permission by Google, Apple et al, all communications *in the world* are shared by the 5 Eyes (look it up), not to mention other, "competing" nations. There hasn't been any privacy for decades.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1146
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think part of the problem here is that if you are more limited in choices on platform X and end up with a component that is of higher value when you don't actually need or want it then it's a bit disingenuous, or beside the point, to include that in a comparison to Y.

In other words; if a person doesn't care about a 5k display and never ever would pay extra for that feature if s/he had the choice, then a comparison of alternatives should exclude that component or we should allow for a cheaper component with "lesser" spec/quality. That's really the only thing that makes sense practically speaking.

So if the objection is "Yeah, you can put together what amounts to an iMac, but does it have a 5k screen?" then that's just nonsense UNLESS the user(s) actually want or need that quality. The same applies to GPUs.
Yeah, but this is a separate issue as I explained many pages ago. Don't you read all posts before you respond? (Kidding of course).

My point is that you can't complain that "Macs are expensive" and not compare with what you get for your money. What you can do is simply saying that you think the machine offerings from Apple don't make sense for your Pro environment or otherwise are unsuitable. I think that's a perfectly valid point.

Currently, personally I feel the desktop Mac offerings are mostly very unattractive! Except for second hand Trashcans, maybe, or Hackintoshes which make a lot of sense to me at the moment.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1147
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
I like the solitary review by "LauraSJ":

"As a busy mom, I’m always looking for ways to automate any part of my life. Lingon was exactly the app I needed to easily automate the start of my day by opening just the apps I need for work and effeciency. The simple UI is perfect for a beginner like me, and the price is just right for the utility I am getting from it. Excellent choice for time-pressed people who need a quick automation tool."

Yeah, right!
Who cares about user reviews on app store? There are a lot of actual reviews to be found if one is interested in controlling macOS launch agents and daemons with Lingon. If one is so inclined you can also control them from the command line.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1148
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
What I said was only correct for a little over 98% of phone users. Apologies.


BTW, the numbers are for the US, I'm in Europe, I have never even seen a Windows phone.

I'd be curious about it, I've read good things about them. I'm not surprised there's good integration between Windows Phone and Windows PCs.
Just as it was with the Zune - which I've also never seen IRL.
going into [OFF-TOPIC]. zzzzzzz
Old 12th July 2017
  #1149
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
What I said was only correct for a little over 98% of phone users. Apologies.
No, it wasn't. The line of reasoning you're attempting to go down now is inherently illogical. If you take your blinders off and read what you wrote you'll see it.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1150
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Yeah, but this is a separate issue as I explained many pages ago. Don't you read all posts before you respond? (Kidding of course).

My point is that you can't complain that "Macs are expensive" and not compare with what you get for your money. What you can do is simply saying that you think the machine offerings from Apple don't make sense for your Pro environment or otherwise are unsuitable. I think that's a perfectly valid point.
I don't entirely agree. Something is expensive if it contains features you don't feel like paying for. If someone for some reason gets it into their head to only buy American cars, and all American cars include for example air conditioning and an entertainment system, and those two functionalities drive the price up, and the customer wants neither, then 'yes', it's expensive compared to the competition if the latter offers a car that's cheaper and doesn't have those functions.

I mean, would you argue that a Ferrari is somehow NOT expensive simply because of how great it is?

A Mac with a 5k display may make perfect sense because of everything the customer will actually use - it won't magically stop making sense because it has a 5k screen the customer doesn't care about. If the customer is willing to pay then whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that one could build a computer without paying extra for that thing one doesn't want.

Having options is part of the comparison.
Old 12th July 2017
  #1151
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I don't entirely agree. Something is expensive if it contains features you don't feel like paying for. If someone for some reason gets it into their head to only buy American cars, and all American cars include for example air conditioning and an entertainment system, and those two functionalities drive the price up, and the customer wants neither, then 'yes', it's expensive compared to the competition if the latter offers a car that's cheaper and doesn't have those functions.

A Mac with a 5k display may make perfect sense because of everything the customer will actually use - it won't magically stop making sense because it has a 5k screen the customer doesn't care about. If the customer is willing to pay then whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that one could build a computer without paying extra for that thing one doesn't want.

Having options is part of the comparison.
No, it's not if you want to be able to claim that Macs are expensive for what you actually get. It's mostly pointless comparing prices and different computer packages unless they're close in features and functions. You can say "I don't want [to pay for] that", but that doesn't make whatever that is, expensive in itself. I get that it may be a cost that you don't want.

Granted, that a specific package you make yourself can be, doesn't have to be, gotten at a lower price with just what you think you need is an attractive point, but then the comparison is not about prices anymore, but about the alternatives that can be had.

If you have a list of X requirements that Macs do meet and also have other features that come with the package, yet a PC meet this list perfectly, then there's not even a need to consider a Mac.

But you can't claim then that Macs are expensive, unless when they are of course. To do that you must compare everything or you're being dishonest. And with everything I mean everything including build time, downtime, support and 2nd hand resale value. It's called Total Ownership Cost (TOC). Macs used to shine on that, but I think they're not at the moment. But to exaggerate the cost differences outside of TOC, is plain silly.

Use what you want. No-one should care what you use. You're the professional. You make the choices. Right?
Old 12th July 2017
  #1152
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
No, it's not if you want to be able to claim that Macs are expensive for what you actually get. It's mostly pointless comparing prices and different computer packages unless they're close in features and functions. You can say "I don't want [to pay for] that", but that doesn't make whatever that is, expensive in itself. I get that it may be a cost that you don't want.

Granted, that a specific package you make yourself can be, doesn't have to be, gotten at a lower price with just what you think you need is an attractive point, but then the comparison is not about prices anymore, but about the alternatives that can be had.

If you have a list of X requirements that Macs do meet and also have other features that come with the package, yet a PC meet this list perfectly, then there's not even a need to consider a Mac.

But you can't claim then that Macs are expensive, unless when they are of course. To do that you must compare everything or you're being dishonest. And with everything I mean everything including build time, downtime, support and 2nd hand resale value. It's called Total Ownership Cost (TOC). Macs used to shine on that, but I think they're not at the moment. But to exaggerate the cost differences outside of TOC, is plain silly.
You are in fact arguing that a Ferrari isn't expensive. For what you get.

That's not the point I'm debating. I'm sure you're getting a decent amount of stuff etc for the money you pay for an iMac. But why should we care about that? Anyone who is rational looks at what they need and how much it costs to get that using device X versus Y versus Z.

What you're trying to avoid it seems is the fact that in the iMac the screen is built in. Ok, fine. So then the only comparison that's valid is one that includes a similar screen. But we live in the real world though, that's the problem with that line of reasoning. If a DAW user wants a good screen and really cares mostly about everything else then what's silly is saying that the iMac isn't overpriced for that person if the screen he doesn't care about brings up the cost above a PC alternative, and that screen cost can't be avoided.

We live in the real world. Not some purely theoretical one.

Heck, theoretically you could bundle the iMac with the Ferrari, and charge the price of the Ferrari only. It's now a better value than buying both separately, and you certainly can't argue that the iMac is expensive for what you get. Because you also get the Ferrari, which is very valuable in and by itself. So there you go. It's not an expensive iMac package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Use what you want. No-one should care what you use. You're the professional. You make the choices. Right?
Reading this thread I'm not so sure.

Last edited by mattiasnyc; 13th July 2017 at 01:44 AM.. Reason: Fixed attribution
Old 13th July 2017
  #1153
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

@mattiasnyc

You mixed up quotes in your last post, the last one was by Mikael B, not by me.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1154
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I already explained what I meant by 'integration with other computing devices'. Right now, I'm in the process of creating a new (music related) website for myself. I take pics on my iPad, and edit them on iPad. They show up immediately, without any kind of user interaction, in Aperture on my Mac, to be used with Squarespace.

This is just one example where 'integration with other computing devices' that saves a lot of time and hassle.

When I plug in a USB hard disk, it shows up on the desktop, ready to use.
When I plug in a USB stick, I never see a bizarre dialogue that offers to install a driver, it shows up on the desktop, ready to use.

When I add a contact from a new person on my iPhone, it shows up on all other devices, without interaction, and while preserving my privacy (unlike anything from Google, who harvest all information for advertising purposes).

These are just a few of literally countless examples about 'integration with other computing devices'.
It's kind of off topic, and possibly irrelevant to a lot of music creation (relevant to the "business" part though) but the integration between the different Apple devices is a million times better than Microsoft have managed with anything I've seen (I'm willing to be swayed/shown otherwise). My wife is about to buy an iMac purely because she can't stand the way Windows deals with importing and organising photos! Admittedly that's to an iPhone more than her main camera, but still - it's really the benefit of controlling the hardware AND the software. Google come close.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1155
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
We live in the real world. Not some purely theoretical one.

And in the real world, the vast majority of music professionals use Macs. [/endthread]


Last edited by zephonic; 13th July 2017 at 04:18 AM.. Reason: emoji added
Old 13th July 2017
  #1156
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

I am not a music professional but I do use a Mac for making music. It's kind of a "separation of church and state" thing. I work on Windows computers and maintain a network for my day job. Working on a Mac in the studio is helpful for me to switch gears, put the daily grind behind me and get into a creative mode.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1157
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Its a ridiculous argument because it is purely subjective. It allows you to value the iMac's 5k monitor at zero, because you don't don't want a 5k monitor.

If you can put together a system the same as an iMac [with 5k monitor, TB3, USBC etc] for way less than the iMacs price then you can argue the iMac is expensive.

But you can't objectively claim its expensive simply because its not what you want.

That argument would hold for ANYTHING... "Oh this SSL 4000 series buss compressor on eBay is expensive, even at $500, because I can buy an Alesis 3630 for $50 which pumps WAY harder "

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I don't entirely agree. Something is expensive if it contains features you don't feel like paying for. If someone for some reason gets it into their head to only buy American cars, and all American cars include for example air conditioning and an entertainment system, and those two functionalities drive the price up, and the customer wants neither, then 'yes', it's expensive compared to the competition if the latter offers a car that's cheaper and doesn't have those functions.

I mean, would you argue that a Ferrari is somehow NOT expensive simply because of how great it is?

A Mac with a 5k display may make perfect sense because of everything the customer will actually use - it won't magically stop making sense because it has a 5k screen the customer doesn't care about. If the customer is willing to pay then whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that one could build a computer without paying extra for that thing one doesn't want.

Having options is part of the comparison.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1158
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
It's kind of off topic, and possibly irrelevant to a lot of music creation (relevant to the "business" part though) but the integration between the different Apple devices is a million times better than Microsoft have managed with anything I've seen (I'm willing to be swayed/shown otherwise).
I disagree. I think the Win 10 ecosystem is very nicely integrating different devices and software.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1159
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I disagree. I think the Win 10 ecosystem is very nicely integrating different devices and software.
Can you illustrate some examples?
Old 13th July 2017
  #1160
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Can you illustrate some examples?
My son has an Xbox, but we don't have a PC. But from what I understand, you can stream games on the PC from the Xbox and also stream TV and DVD content. The Xbox integrates well with your cable box, so with an Xbox and cable box, you can watch TV on your PC.

You can also do the same stuff between Win phone/tablet and PC that you can with Mac/iPhone/iPad...take calls on the PC, stream content from tablet/phone, etc.

Windows also has the same cloud stuff, so you can sync documents, contacts, etc. between devices.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1161
Lives for gear
 

Wow the horse really bolted on page 31 after that guy misinterpreted the comment about early macs getting carried by Pro Tools hardware as "PCs are better than Macs".

This is why we can't have nice things.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
It's kind of off topic, and possibly irrelevant to a lot of music creation (relevant to the "business" part though) but the integration between the different Apple devices is a million times better than Microsoft have managed with anything I've seen (I'm willing to be swayed/shown otherwise). My wife is about to buy an iMac purely because she can't stand the way Windows deals with importing and organising photos! Admittedly that's to an iPhone more than her main camera, but still - it's really the benefit of controlling the hardware AND the software. Google come close.
Windows does not have a real tool for managing photos, but there are dozens of excellent freeware tools out there for managing photos.
It is unfair to claim the integration is not smooth, as you are using an Apple device. Obviously they care about their ecosystem, it is both an advantage and a disadvantage of using Apple products.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1163
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
Its a ridiculous argument because it is purely subjective. It allows you to value the iMac's 5k monitor at zero, because you don't don't want a 5k monitor.

If you can put together a system the same as an iMac [with 5k monitor, TB3, USBC etc] for way less than the iMacs price then you can argue the iMac is expensive.
Are we adding on the prices of dongles and a PCIe chassis, audio interface for digital audio outs plus centre channel/subwoofer out etc to the price of the iMac, or is the matching features a one way street? Adding AppleCare to match warranties as closely as possible?

What I am saying is that we - audiophiles - can match the performance of an iMac for 1/3 to 1/2 of the price. Playing specific feature bingo is an exercise in futility.

Let's use another use case - scientific computation. I am going to say (with good reason) that you can buy a computer that outperforms an iMac by around 600% for less money. Using different components, because the components in the iMac are woefully inadequate for this purpose compared to what money can buy.

The value of the 5K monitor for both use cases is zero. Nothing is made better and in fact performance is degraded somewhat because it is pushing around 7x the number of pixels my existing FHD monitor needs to.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1164
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Are we adding on the prices of dongles and a PCIe chassis, audio interface for digital audio outs plus centre channel/subwoofer out etc to the price of the iMac, or is the matching features a one way street?
yeah sure, i think adding the cost of at least one Crane Song Hedd to every computer sold is absolutely mandatory
Old 13th July 2017
  #1165
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
yeah sure, i think adding the cost of at least one Crane Song Hedd to every computer sold is absolutely mandatory
There are more audio people using PCIe stuff like UAD-2 than people who want/need a 5K screen. We're matching features here, aren't we? So add the cost of the PCIe chassis or the loss from selling PCIe hardware and buying alternatives.

You made up this game, not me. I said you could get something with the equivalent power of an iMac for 1/3 to 1/2 of the price on an audio forum. Meaning in terms of audio, not pixel count. You know this isn't a Photoshop forum, right?
Old 13th July 2017
  #1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
There are more audio people using PCIe stuff like UAD-2 than people who want/need a 5K screen. We're matching features here, aren't we? So add the cost of the PCIe chassis or the loss from selling PCIe hardware and buying alternatives.

You made up this game, not me. I said you could get something with the equivalent power of an iMac for 1/3 to 1/2 of the price on an audio forum. Meaning in terms of audio, not pixel count. You know this isn't a Photoshop forum, right?
Slightly disingenuous there - I'd wager UAD sell WAY more Thunderbolt accelerators than PCIe cards.

In the pro world, you need PCIe for HDX and that's about it. If we didn't need that, Sonnet wouldn't exist as a company.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1167
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
There are more audio people using PCIe stuff like UAD-2 than people who want/need a 5K screen. We're matching features here, aren't we? So add the cost of the PCIe chassis or the loss from selling PCIe hardware and buying alternatives.
Um, where did you get those numbers from? do you have a link, or just making stuff up?
Apple sells 16million computers each year. There is likely an order of magnitude more people who have bought iMacs to run Logic Pro than people who have bought UAD PCIe cards.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1168
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Slightly disingenuous there - I'd wager UAD sell WAY more Thunderbolt accelerators than PCIe cards.

In the pro world, you need PCIe for HDX and that's about it. If we didn't need that, Sonnet wouldn't exist as a company.
I thought the general discussion was about buying a computer though, not buying our first computers. I'd be willing to wager that there are more UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards still in use than new Thunderbolt devices. So I'm highlighting the potential costs involved for upgraders - who are the majority, most computer sales are not to first time purchasers.

Who are people who tend to already have monitors they are quite happy with too. A lot of whom are PC users who can spend a few hundred bucks on buying new CPU/mobo/RAM instead of buying 5K screens etc over and over again.
Old 13th July 2017
  #1169
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
I thought the general discussion was about buying a computer though, not buying our first computers. I'd be willing to wager that there are more UAD-1 and UAD-2 cards still in use than new Thunderbolt devices. So I'm highlighting the potential costs involved for upgraders - who are the majority, most computer sales are not to first time purchasers.

Who are people who tend to already have monitors they are quite happy with too. A lot of whom are PC users who can spend a few hundred bucks on buying new CPU/mobo/RAM instead of buying 5K screens etc over and over again.
I'm pretty sure everyone understands your point that it's possible to buy a PC for less than the cost of an iMac
Old 13th July 2017
  #1170
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
I'm pretty sure everyone understands your point that you can buy a cheaper PC than a Mac.
Yes, 1/3 to 1/2 the price for the same power for audio, thanks!

edit: actually more like 1/5 of the price in some cases for upgrades with very little waste going on the global electronics slagheap. Thanks for drilling down the point.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump