Sad news for film-based photography

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:
(many good points, largely snipped)

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the
placement. The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28%
profit level, and sitting on some cash. They also hold many large
investments in other companies. The only computer maker with a
similar profit level is Sony. All other computer makers are under
20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a company does not need
to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related to good
management and operating efficiency.

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that
Apple has also undercut independent developers by bringing
mainstream apps in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to
do with their losing market share. The major app developers are
already jumping ship and producing only for the Windows environment
(cutting back on their *nix products, too). A computer is a doorstop
without software, and Apple is unlikely to match the capabilities of
the independent software companies to present a line of competing
products.

Other than some games, could you point out some products? I only work
in pre-press, imaging, video editing, some sound editing, and
visually creative projects, so I might be missing some areas not
possible on Apple computers.

I wasn't referring to areas being "not possible", but pointing out that
major independent developers have backed away from supporting the Mac
platform, and I suspect that this may be at least in part due to Apple
deciding to be their direct competitor. One example is Adobe's abandoning
the Mac platform with Premiere, Framemaker, and their recent acquisition
of Syntrillium's CoolEdit Pro, now called Adobe Audition (even though
CoolEdit was never available for the Mac). These are all apps with
significant user bases.

Okay, video editing applications. I started out with AVID, and at one point
they announced they were backing out of MacOS updates. That left some $100k
and up editing places without an upgrade path, which ****ed off many. One of
the original programmers for Adobe Premiere went over to a Macromedia
project code named Final Cut, though prior to much development, Apple bought
out the interest in that, dropped the Windows side of development on it, and
then released Final Cut Pro.

I use Final Cut Pro, though I do much more stills work than video work. It
is a nicely tuned bit of software, and my feeling is that it is easier to
use than Premiere. A different direction is the Discreet family of video
products, most of which I like better than anything Adobe or Apple produce.
Those use to be largely UNIX (IRIX) based products, and recently got ported
to MacOS X (I think there are Windows versions too).

I took a look at Adobe Audition, and it appears to be nice software. Users
bases are one large issue, though I know of some major sound and video
studios still running older software on older computers. There is not often
a need to upgrade when one is getting all the work done quickly and
efficiently. AVID bought DigiDesign, and again makes products for MacOS X
based gear.

Take a look at NAB, or any large video or audio professional conferences,
and you will find most people using Mac OS, and MacOS X. Only in the realm
of 3D and game development are Windows and UNIX machines still in heavy
usage.

All these things are very different than issues the average home user
encounters. Other than virus problems, I would recommend home user to get
Windows based gear, since it is just more common. People are more likely to
get problems solved quicker, since there are few MacOS experts.

I think Adobe is a bit mad at the market share gains of Apple in video, and
recent moves into audio. While I doubt Adobe would kill off MacOS X based
products, since sales means profits, it does seem they are adopting a
Windows based first release approach. Those who want the latest seem like
they might get it first for Windows.

Okay, to get back to the film issue, there is some software that still only
works on older MacOS 9, and has not been ported to MacOS X. Most of this
stuff is high end, and limited market share, but some of this has kept me
largely on the older MacOS 9.2.2. In some ways, Mac OS X still looks like a
beta, and needs some things fixed. I think they will get it right soon, but
many developers are still at a wait and see point.

What makes this tough on film editing is the investment in older hardware,
and some software, might be lost in a transition to newer gear. Direct
digital provides a different path in software and hardware, though loss of
some gear could mean even more reason to stop using film and some scanning
gear, for some (not me).

Anyway, I think we went way off topic, so I will leave it at that. Feel free
to add another commentary, though I will end the software discussion with
this post.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:
(many good points, largely snipped)

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the
placement. The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28%
profit level, and sitting on some cash. They also hold many large
investments in other companies. The only computer maker with a
similar profit level is Sony. All other computer makers are under
20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a company does not need
to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related to good
management and operating efficiency.

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that
Apple has also undercut independent developers by bringing
mainstream apps in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to
do with their losing market share. The major app developers are
already jumping ship and producing only for the Windows environment
(cutting back on their *nix products, too). A computer is a doorstop
without software, and Apple is unlikely to match the capabilities of
the independent software companies to present a line of competing
products.

Other than some games, could you point out some products? I only work
in pre-press, imaging, video editing, some sound editing, and
visually creative projects, so I might be missing some areas not
possible on Apple computers.

I wasn't referring to areas being "not possible", but pointing out that
major independent developers have backed away from supporting the Mac
platform, and I suspect that this may be at least in part due to Apple
deciding to be their direct competitor. One example is Adobe's abandoning
the Mac platform with Premiere, Framemaker, and their recent acquisition
of Syntrillium's CoolEdit Pro, now called Adobe Audition (even though
CoolEdit was never available for the Mac). These are all apps with
significant user bases.

Okay, video editing applications. I started out with AVID, and at one point
they announced they were backing out of MacOS updates. That left some $100k
and up editing places without an upgrade path, which ****ed off many. One of
the original programmers for Adobe Premiere went over to a Macromedia
project code named Final Cut, though prior to much development, Apple bought
out the interest in that, dropped the Windows side of development on it, and
then released Final Cut Pro.

I use Final Cut Pro, though I do much more stills work than video work. It
is a nicely tuned bit of software, and my feeling is that it is easier to
use than Premiere. A different direction is the Discreet family of video
products, most of which I like better than anything Adobe or Apple produce.
Those use to be largely UNIX (IRIX) based products, and recently got ported
to MacOS X (I think there are Windows versions too).

I took a look at Adobe Audition, and it appears to be nice software. Users
bases are one large issue, though I know of some major sound and video
studios still running older software on older computers. There is not often
a need to upgrade when one is getting all the work done quickly and
efficiently. AVID bought DigiDesign, and again makes products for MacOS X
based gear.

Take a look at NAB, or any large video or audio professional conferences,
and you will find most people using Mac OS, and MacOS X. Only in the realm
of 3D and game development are Windows and UNIX machines still in heavy
usage.

All these things are very different than issues the average home user
encounters. Other than virus problems, I would recommend home user to get
Windows based gear, since it is just more common. People are more likely to
get problems solved quicker, since there are few MacOS experts.

I think Adobe is a bit mad at the market share gains of Apple in video, and
recent moves into audio. While I doubt Adobe would kill off MacOS X based
products, since sales means profits, it does seem they are adopting a
Windows based first release approach. Those who want the latest seem like
they might get it first for Windows.

Okay, to get back to the film issue, there is some software that still only
works on older MacOS 9, and has not been ported to MacOS X. Most of this
stuff is high end, and limited market share, but some of this has kept me
largely on the older MacOS 9.2.2. In some ways, Mac OS X still looks like a
beta, and needs some things fixed. I think they will get it right soon, but
many developers are still at a wait and see point.

What makes this tough on film editing is the investment in older hardware,
and some software, might be lost in a transition to newer gear. Direct
digital provides a different path in software and hardware, though loss of
some gear could mean even more reason to stop using film and some scanning
gear, for some (not me).

Anyway, I think we went way off topic, so I will leave it at that. Feel free
to add another commentary, though I will end the software discussion with
this post.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Recently, Nick Zentena posted:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Neil Gould wrote:

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that
Apple has also undercut independent developers by bringing
mainstream apps

Apple started that when they shipped the very first Mac with a word
processor. It more or less killed off some segments of the market.

My Macs didn't come with anything to compete with MS-Word, WordPerfect,
WordStar, or any of a dozen others. To that end, even early MS-DOS
computers shipped with basic word processing capability. But to do
anything sophisticated, you had to buy a word processor, just as with the
Mac.

in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to do with their
losing market share. The major app developers are already jumping
ship and producing only for the Windows environment (cutting back on
their *nix

And Microsoft isn't developing software in many areas that competes
with those developers?

To a point, which is why they keep one foot in court fighting monopolistic
practices. However, MS' biggest entry into professional-level applications
has been through MS-Office. While there are fewer alternatives to Office
than in times past, it still leaves the door wide open for down-stream
developers. Their publishing application, MS-Publisher, is not competitive
against *any* of a dozen professional layout applications. The only
database offerings are Access (which is terrible) and FoxPro, which has
probably *lost* market share since MS acquired it, and for which there are
dozens of better database apps. Further, MS doesn't have a video
production application, an audio production application, DVD authoring, or
anything seriously capable of preparing documents for press. There's
plenty of opportunity for independents, and MS isn't their direct
competitor. There is a benefit to maintaining a larger market share; in a
high tide, all boats float.

Neil

Recently, Nick Zentena posted:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Neil Gould wrote:

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that
Apple has also undercut independent developers by bringing
mainstream apps

Apple started that when they shipped the very first Mac with a word
processor. It more or less killed off some segments of the market.

My Macs didn't come with anything to compete with MS-Word, WordPerfect,
WordStar, or any of a dozen others. To that end, even early MS-DOS
computers shipped with basic word processing capability. But to do
anything sophisticated, you had to buy a word processor, just as with the
Mac.

in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to do with their
losing market share. The major app developers are already jumping
ship and producing only for the Windows environment (cutting back on
their *nix

And Microsoft isn't developing software in many areas that competes
with those developers?

To a point, which is why they keep one foot in court fighting monopolistic
practices. However, MS' biggest entry into professional-level applications
has been through MS-Office. While there are fewer alternatives to Office
than in times past, it still leaves the door wide open for down-stream
developers. Their publishing application, MS-Publisher, is not competitive
against *any* of a dozen professional layout applications. The only
database offerings are Access (which is terrible) and FoxPro, which has
probably *lost* market share since MS acquired it, and for which there are
dozens of better database apps. Further, MS doesn't have a video
production application, an audio production application, DVD authoring, or
anything seriously capable of preparing documents for press. There's
plenty of opportunity for independents, and MS isn't their direct
competitor. There is a benefit to maintaining a larger market share; in a
high tide, all boats float.

Neil

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Anyway, I think we went way off topic, so I will leave it at that.
Feel free to add another commentary, though I will end the software
discussion with this post.

Agreed. To try bringing this back on-topic, I think that the thrust of the
computer-related discussion was to compare a business model that makes
money through higher profit margins to one that makes money through high
volume. From that perspective, it seems that Kodak is opting for the
volume by abandoning the high profit margins.

What does this mean for film? I don't know. However, unlike many who
lament the passing of some of their favorite emulsions, I've found some of
their products that I like even *better* than older films, especially
w/r/t color print films.

Perhaps some smaller company can make a go of it by offering the specialty
emulsions that are being abandoned by the major companies. But, they'll
have to be pretty agile and have deep pockets if the sales volume of
TechPan is any indication.

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Anyway, I think we went way off topic, so I will leave it at that.
Feel free to add another commentary, though I will end the software
discussion with this post.

Agreed. To try bringing this back on-topic, I think that the thrust of the
computer-related discussion was to compare a business model that makes
money through higher profit margins to one that makes money through high
volume. From that perspective, it seems that Kodak is opting for the
volume by abandoning the high profit margins.

What does this mean for film? I don't know. However, unlike many who
lament the passing of some of their favorite emulsions, I've found some of
their products that I like even *better* than older films, especially
w/r/t color print films.

Perhaps some smaller company can make a go of it by offering the specialty
emulsions that are being abandoned by the major companies. But, they'll
have to be pretty agile and have deep pockets if the sales volume of
TechPan is any indication.

Regards,

Neil

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Neil Gould wrote:

My Macs didn't come with anything to compete with MS-Word, WordPerfect,
WordStar, or any of a dozen others. To that end, even early MS-DOS
computers shipped with basic word processing capability. But to do
anything sophisticated, you had to buy a word processor, just as with the
Mac.

MacWrite wasn't the worlds greatest program but it filled the needs of
alot of users. That's the main problem. All those people that were happy
enough with Macwrite. I remember Lotus brought out Jazz and Microsoft Word
but the market was only the people that needed something better then
MacWrite and were willing to pay for it.



To a point, which is why they keep one foot in court fighting monopolistic
practices. However, MS' biggest entry into professional-level applications
has been through MS-Office. While there are fewer alternatives to Office
than in times past, it still leaves the door wide open for down-stream
developers. Their publishing application, MS-Publisher, is not competitive
against *any* of a dozen professional layout applications. The only
database offerings are Access (which is terrible) and FoxPro, which has
probably *lost* market share since MS acquired it, and for which there are
dozens of better database apps. Further, MS doesn't have a video
production application, an audio production application, DVD authoring, or
anything seriously capable of preparing documents for press. There's
plenty of opportunity for independents, and MS isn't their direct
competitor. There is a benefit to maintaining a larger market share; in a
high tide, all boats float.


The problem with Microsoft is they routinally put out stuff good enough
for alot of people but not good enough to really satisfy the demanding
users. They don't need to fully fill a niche they just need to bundle
something that does enough. It's easy for them to poison a market.

Nick

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Neil Gould wrote:

My Macs didn't come with anything to compete with MS-Word, WordPerfect,
WordStar, or any of a dozen others. To that end, even early MS-DOS
computers shipped with basic word processing capability. But to do
anything sophisticated, you had to buy a word processor, just as with the
Mac.

MacWrite wasn't the worlds greatest program but it filled the needs of
alot of users. That's the main problem. All those people that were happy
enough with Macwrite. I remember Lotus brought out Jazz and Microsoft Word
but the market was only the people that needed something better then
MacWrite and were willing to pay for it.



To a point, which is why they keep one foot in court fighting monopolistic
practices. However, MS' biggest entry into professional-level applications
has been through MS-Office. While there are fewer alternatives to Office
than in times past, it still leaves the door wide open for down-stream
developers. Their publishing application, MS-Publisher, is not competitive
against *any* of a dozen professional layout applications. The only
database offerings are Access (which is terrible) and FoxPro, which has
probably *lost* market share since MS acquired it, and for which there are
dozens of better database apps. Further, MS doesn't have a video
production application, an audio production application, DVD authoring, or
anything seriously capable of preparing documents for press. There's
plenty of opportunity for independents, and MS isn't their direct
competitor. There is a benefit to maintaining a larger market share; in a
high tide, all boats float.


The problem with Microsoft is they routinally put out stuff good enough
for alot of people but not good enough to really satisfy the demanding
users. They don't need to fully fill a niche they just need to bundle
something that does enough. It's easy for them to poison a market.

Nick

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:21:45 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Ted Azito wrote:

As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and they
may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's obvious that
it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a decade at least.

Stupidist post I've read in weeks. Maybe we need an award.

Even compared to Spudbucket's lambasting of Nikon and their third-rate
equipment?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:21:45 -0400, Alan Browne wrote the following:
Stupidist [sic] post I've read in weeks. Maybe we need an award.
for his response to Ted Azito's:
As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and they
may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's obvious that
it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a decade at least.

Well, I just don't see it:

As long as the market is there and is demanding a quality product,
someone will make said product.
Well, can't argue with that. No stupidity here.

Personally I hope Kodak dies.
De gustibus non est disputandum

Its complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms,
Nope, looked closely, don't see a crumb of dumb

and they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices.
Not here, either

It's obvious that it has been suffering from corporate
Alzheimer's for a decade at least.
'Tis almost a tautology ...

So, if this was 'the stupidest thing in weeks' the most charitable conclusion
I can draw is that someone has been on a long ocean voyage and wants an award
for staying away from the 'net.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/