Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Creator Studio

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 461 posts

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#421

Post by embedding-shape »

weinzierl wrote: post #376
josephg wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Davinci Resolve is free. At least, for the non studio version. (There’s a few studio only features, but almost everything is available in the free version of resolve). And a lot of people want to learn resolve anyway for color grading. Why not just edit in resolve too? Resolve studio is also quite cheap, given you buy it once and own it forever. Including updates. I spent last week helping out at a short filmmaking c…

This, plus: - The studio version of DaVinci is still affordable should you need it. - DaVinci has many good tutorials

+ purchasing any BMD camera and you usually get a "free" license of DaVinci :) That's how I got my license many moons ago.

Now BMD have "prosumer" cameras available too that doesn't cost half a liver, which the second-hand market seems flush with too, so you can grab really good hardware for "cheap", and get excellent software with it too as the license is movable across hosts :)

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#422

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #401
lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> God only knows how much money they invested into the new GUI engine for all their platforms. It was a super expensive bet. What are you basing these claims on?

Stop being so aggressive. You can look at Apple’s own published consent regarding Liquid Glass development. It’s very evident that it was thoughtful and involved.

Topic of discussion was the price of developing and rolling back the new GUI, not how much thought Apple put in it.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#423

Post by embedding-shape »

philipallstar wrote: post #416
hnlmorg wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to get at but your analogy doesn’t really work here because a new chocolate bar would be a new product. Not a different way of buying the same product.

Adding a new option but keeping the old one is not some strategy to counter people criticising them removing the old option.

Every choice a company does is a strategy in some way, for some reason, which has been calculated to make them more money than another choice. This is how 99% of businesses work, and Apple as well.

You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#424

Post by dbbk »

apgwoz wrote: post #320
herrherrmann wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also surprised to not see Photomator included. Wouldn’t it perfectly complement the lineup? I hadn’t thought of such a pessimistic interpretation, but now I’m worried as well …

I think Apple killed Aperture primarily because it was confusing to have iPhoto and Aperture with largely overlapping workflows. Aperture had the loupe view, and side by side comparison stuff, saved color grading tools (I think?), sure, but it wasn’t differentiated enough to justify a Pro designation. I think it makes more sense for Photomator features to be absorbed into Photos… and maybe Photos gets some new Pixelm…

I don't think it's actually confusing to a professional at all

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#425

Post by echoangle »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #422
UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop being so aggressive. You can look at Apple’s own published consent regarding Liquid Glass development. It’s very evident that it was thoughtful and involved.

Topic of discussion was the price of developing and rolling back the new GUI, not how much thought Apple put in it.

The employees aren't thinking for free, making something "thoughtful and involved" is probably expensive, too.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#426

Post by ksec »

concinds wrote: post #364
ksec wrote: post #137

This is Off Topic, but the first thing I notice on that page were those icons for apps with Apple Creator Studio. They look AWEFUL .

It's a massacre. The originals[0] were metaphorical and easy to grasp. These new ones are meaningless, for most of them you can't guess what the app does from the icon. The beautiful 3-axis colorwheel gimbal, gone. The concert access badge, gone. The pressed record award replaced with a disc? Is that the MP3 player app? And Final Cut Pro looks like Windows 11's garbage free ClipChamp! None of them have the gravitas o…

Oh Thank You for the link. Exactly what I am talking about. You dont have to like or agree with every icons beings used previously, but at least they serve its purpose which is easily recognisable.

I saw the new icon and it nearly made me puke. Had it been coming from Google or Microsoft I would have thought oh not surprised.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#427

Post by whywhywhywhy »

alwillis wrote: post #206
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.

> It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number. Apple doesn't work that way. Unlike almost all other tech companies that are organized by divisions, Apple uses a functional organizational structure. So al…

> you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.

This is what I'm saying and why I don't see the point in charging at all for these apps. The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#428

Post by philipallstar »

embedding-shape wrote: post #423
philipallstar wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding a new option but keeping the old one is not some strategy to counter people criticising them removing the old option.

Every choice a company does is a strategy in some way, for some reason, which has been calculated to make them more money than another choice. This is how 99% of businesses work, and Apple as well. You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?

> You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?

If they do this, then still no one will ever have to say something as silly as "they only kept the other option so people won't complain about them removing the other option".

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#429

Post by seec »

steve1977 wrote: post #316
qingcharles wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly interesting that Apple have been pushing Blackmagic's products. They practically rely on Blackmagic software for all their demos when they release some new bit of hardware. They totally conceded on the camera app, for instance.

Also in their behind the scenes for their "Shot on iPhone" videos, usually they show Resolve, Premier or Media Composer, but rarely Final Cut.

That has always been an issue. Pros buy Apple hardware but very rarely commit to Apple software. In my experience, they are perfectly right. Not only can Apple not be trusted to maintain the software to be competitive feature-wise, but they are also very likely to get bored or make some annoying hardware requirement that makes fleet management annoying.

In the end, their creative software is just ok; it's probably best to not rely on it too much if you don't want to get stuck. After they canceled Aperture for no good reason and destroyed the iWork suite while taking forever to even manage feature parity, I'll never rely on or recommend Apple software.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#430

Post by seec »

flenserboy wrote: post #407
apparent wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll be pressured by gdocs and other similar products to not keep too much of this behind a paywall. I already don't know anyone who loves using Pages (every time I share a document I have to export it to .docx, which is annoying), so they're already starting off behind by a bit.

I think many more would be on to Pages if they realized it was more than a simple WP. It's especially great for personal use, where there's no non-Mac sharing needed — there's no simpler layout program out there, & the typographic options are nice to have. If I have something longer/more detailed to put together, that's what ()LaTeX, Inkscape, etc., is for. We need alternate app ecosystems out there, & it's nice that…

It's OK but way too limited for proper layouts and doesn't have enough features for long/complex documents like books.

As it is, it's barely better than GDocs but less convenient, and since people rarely need to print stuff, layout isn't that important.

Post reply on HN