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

451–460 of 461 posts

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#451

Post by dostick »

dbspin wrote: post #374
bredren wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had thought a main problem for professional video editors w FC had to do with video editor UX philosophy. Something difficult to pivot away from. I’m hand waving there because I’m not a pro but my neighbor is and I don’t recall the details. But I’m curious how you see FC also lost in semi pro to Davinci specifically.

The 'cut' page in DaVinci specifically exists to replicate the FC editing UX. It's an optional way of editing separate from the 'edit' tab.

Oh that’s where Cut comes from. I could never get used to edit in Cut screen.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#452

Post by MattRix »

simjnd wrote: post #445
MattRix wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh not sure I agree. The former icons are definitely unique, but not consistent or cohesive at all, especially when viewed as a group. I think these new icons will grow on people. There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style.

> There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style. Adobe icons are terrible and should not be the standard. Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2 were so much more memorable and recognizable than the lazy minimalist slop we have now. Even the first CS or CS2 icons were a thousand times better. The fact that the company behind the most powerful and popular…

I think we fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of icons is. The point isn’t just to be something that looks cool in isolation.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#453

Post by simjnd »

MattRix wrote: post #452
simjnd wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style. Adobe icons are terrible and should not be the standard. Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2 were so much more memorable and recognizable than the lazy minimalist slop we have now. Even the first CS or CS2 icons were a thousand times better. The fact that the company behind the most powerful and popular…

I think we fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of icons is. The point isn’t just to be something that looks cool in isolation.

Great strawman dude (and even if that was my point, they didn't cool in isolation only, they looked good as part of an entire screen of icons too). The purpose of icon isn't to look cohesive within a brand either.

Look at the new Pixelmator icon: geometric shapes overlayed with Bezier Curve handles at the bottom. What does it look like? Vector design. What does the app do? The exact opposite, raster design, pixel painting. What the previous icon signaled.

The previous Compressor icon: A machine compressing film, because despite the name Compressor is for encoding video files. The new icon? Sure with the context of the label you will understand it's something being squeezed, but what? And without the label?

The previous Final Cut icon was unmistakably a movie slate. The new one almost looks like a radio. Why is the pattern under the body? Why is it only at on the bottom and not the top clapper stick?

How are the new ones superior design? How does it improve on anything? It's forcing everyone to learn new icons that convey are less clear, convey less meaning, look uglier, just to serve the corporate interests of "brand cohesion"?

macOS Tahoe icons are a regression on every single front. I invite you to compare Disk Utility (where is the disk now?), or Migration Assistant (where is the notion of migrating from old to new?). And these are just a few examples.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#454

Post by tomovo »

philistine wrote: post #443
tomovo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Form over function, not a surprise.

A truly well-designed Mac app is not just form, it is function as well. If you think a good Mac citizen is only what it looks like you're not looking at all.

Sadly mac-assedness doesn't automatically mean feature richness or overall robustness. Those are actually quite hard to achieve when you spend half of each year updating the UI widgets to the latest SDK and fixing new performance problems you didn't cause. That should be clear when you compare Affinity Photo and Pixelmator Pro.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#455

Post by btown »

einr wrote: post #375
btown wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among professional-ready DAWs, as far as I know, it's unique in its approach. Pro Tools and FL Studio still don't have score rendering or even MusicXML export! Reaper has limited score rendering/engraving support, but minimal customizability. And on the notation-oriented side, you have things like MuseScore, Finale, etc. where there is an event model, but the UI itself doesn't have mature (or any) support for trackin…

Among professional-ready DAWs, as far as I know, it's unique in its approach. Cubase, surely? I'm pretty sure it has done this for decades unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

Cubase recently revamped their score editor to embed a version of Dorico, so it's better than it was!

https://blog.dorico.com/2024/11/cubase-14-score-editor/

I'm still a Logic Pro fan, but credit where credit's due!

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#456

Post by dbspin »

dostick wrote: post #451
dbspin wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'cut' page in DaVinci specifically exists to replicate the FC editing UX. It's an optional way of editing separate from the 'edit' tab.

Oh that’s where Cut comes from. I could never get used to edit in Cut screen.

Agreed, I hate it.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#457

Post by dwaite »

derefr wrote: post #309
alwa wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Final Cut Pro X has been available for purchase (at the same price, IIRC) for well over a decade now. Pro feathers were ruffled at the time they leapt from FCP7 to FCPX: the $299 price point was something like 1/4 of the going rate for its predecessors, was Apple planning to abandon its pros for the consumer market? Well. Here we are almost 15 years later, and if you paid the one-time price back then, you're still ge…

> At the time, the common wisdom was that they'd go the same route as Adobe: you'd have to buy Final Cut X+1 in a couple years for another $299, and Final Cut X+2 a couple years after that... to their credit, that's not the way it's gone. And that's despite Apple having zero interest in doing things that don't ultimately make them money. I have a theory for how sales of these one-time-purchase yet indefinitely-update…

One beancounter way that I think has been used to justify the strategy - FCX and the like are currently also sold as paid upgrades at time of machine purchase. This is another way to bump up the average price of the computers outside BTO.

It also frames the cost of the software differently, as part of a much larger purchase and as enabling other uses for the new machine. I suspect this is a fairly large sales channel for the software.

That makes me wonder how this new suite strategy (as well as other subscription efforts like AppleCare One) play into the purchase experience going forward.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#458

Post by dwaite »

LegitShady wrote: post #413
addandsubtract wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Microsoft 365 Copilot

Microsoft is renaming the company to copilot, all of its software to copilot, and CEO satya nadella is changing his name to copilot copilot copilot which is also his favourite feature, software, operating system, and the names of his dog, cat, children, and spouse. Soon the company formerly known as Microsoft will turn into a garbage slop Pokémon capable of emoting only with its name, copilot.

If AGI ever does happen, we'll know the chatbots are coming for our jobs when the product is renamed Microsoft Pilot.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#459

Post by dwaite »

albedoa wrote: post #263
BeetleB wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To encourage subscription over perpetual, ongoing or evergreen updates are limited to subscription version. Of course ... ? Before the subscription model, you wouldn't get free Office upgrades.

Yes. That sentence is setup for the speculation in the third paragraph. Folks in this sub-thread are wondering how the one-time price option plays out with Apple Creator Studio.

If you look at Office 365, OneDrive, Teams, SharePoint and Exchange Online as well as AI services and coauthoring are not included in the one time purchase price, as these require ongoing infrastructure supplied by Microsoft.

If you look at Adobe Creative Cloud, you see cloud storage and cloud libraries for maintaining files and assets and sharing them for collaboration, Behance, asset licensing such as Adobe Fonts, and generative AI tooling, as well as a pile of additional apps which were never sold separately. There's also tutorials to help you learn that smattering of apps and plugins.

Apple Creator Studio is a service, so there will likely be at least some product development going to create exclusive functionality - likely in the form of new apps which cannot be bought separately, content packs, AI integrations, additional collaboration features relying on hosted infrastructure, and so on. Since a lot of the storage features and base collaboration are instead part of the iCloud infrastructure, that last point may be a tricky line to walk though.

Re: Apple Creator Studio

#460

Post by seec »

deafpolygon wrote: post #449
seec wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you recommend for long/complex documents like books?

Well, that's a very hard question to answer without additional details.

If it's graphics/presentation heavy, you most likely will need something like InDesign. If there is a lot of math, you'll need something like Latex (typist). If there are a lot of tables, you probably need something like Word to auto-update embeds from Excel. In general, Word will allow you to control features like footnotes/endnotes, tables of figures, etc, much better than Pages ever will.

If it's mostly literature, you can use something like Vellum (https://vellum.pub/)

I don't have a list of solutions ready, but maybe I should make one. This is a complex problem, and the safe answer is usually to just use Word.

The problem with Pages is that it is extremely mediocre at everything while still locking you down to Apple hardware.

The young, foolish version of myself was a rabid Apple fanboy and pushed people to use Pages (back in the day when the iWork suite was paid but cheaper). Then people came back to me with problems that could be solved in Word relatively easily, but I had no answer for with Pages.

After being tired of saying, "no you can't do that" or "that has to be done manually," I stopped advocating for Pages.

I don't do much document preparation nowadays, but I think the ideal solution would be a GUI to bridge between web publishing and paper publishing.

Post reply on HN