I can understand Autodesk not wanting to bother with Mac development any more. Apple's aggressive and inconsiderate moves make it a pain to even maintain existing app projects on the Mac.
Plus the lack of a pro level desktop machine (excepting the imac pro. all-in-one) isn't helping apple with power users that Autodesk users presumably are. They announced new ones are coming a year ago but still no details or a real release date.
Its a shame as the macos application packaging system makes makes for an easy way distribute and run applications.
Yep -- this kind of touches on some of the issues in the recent thread on the Mac Mini -- Apple's hardware offerings have been diminishing in utility for pro / power users for some time now -- it's like they're intentionally abandoning the pro market. Not surprising that Autodesk is discontinuing support.
They also admitted at a round table that they designed themselves into a “thermal corner” with the last Mac Pro and that they will be introducing another one in 2019.
They "learned" / "understand" / "realise" that they went into a thermal corner "FOUR" years after the product was first released.
Then they made announcement they are going to do a redesign, 4 years after it first released, and the redesign won't be coming out til 2019, 2 years after they made the redesign announcement.
A total of 6 years. That is the amount of care they have for "pro" users.
They then went to release an iMac Pro which many call it an interim solution. An iMac Pro capable of having two 250W chip cooled, Something the community has been calling for years for the iMac ( For so long everyone abandoned the hope already ) and some said was not possible due to cooling requirement. Turns out it wasn't a technical barrier, simply Apple won't make it.
And as rumours goes, it wasn't until a very large studio decide to abandoned the Mac platform due to Mac Pro, and someone who had connection with Apple SVPs and told hem about it, before they realise how much care they have given to the pro users.
Apple forgot that while it was Steve jobs bumping put new strategies and initiative that changed Apple in the long run. It was these pro users whom bleed six colours that kept Apple alive in the first place.
People have been calling for an iMac Pro type hardware “for years”? I doubt very seriously that anyone even wanted something like the iMac Pro before it was released.
And as rumours goes, it wasn't until a very large studio decide to abandoned the Mac platform due to Mac Pro, and someone who had connection with Apple SVPs and told hem about it, before they realise how much care they have given to the pro users.
I doubt very seriously that one studio abandoning a product line that makes less than 10% of thier revenue made Apple panic.
Apple forgot that while it was Steve jobs bumping put new strategies and initiative that changed Apple in the long run. It was these pro users whom bleed six colours that kept Apple alive in the first place.
Things change. The Mac is no longer at the center of Apple’s universe. As far as what Steve thought that Apple’s direction of the Mac should be....
“If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it’s worth – and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago”
>I doubt very seriously that anyone even wanted something like the iMac Pro before it was released.
Not Xeon or EEC Memory, but 150W+ CPU + 150W+ GPU combination on an iMac. iMac could have been powerful, but it never was. Not because we have invested new cooling solution to cool the CPU and GPU, because the iMac were never positioned as such. Steve Jobs wanted the Desktop to be completely silent. And it is still shipping with a HDD as default.
>I doubt very seriously that one studio abandoning a product line that makes less than 10% of thier revenue made Apple panic.
Not a product line, but the whole Mac Ecosystem. Try Disney telling you they are throwing Mac Pro away from their production system. And it is not even 10%, likely 1% of their revenue.
>If you think Jobs was tied to the Mac on his return, you weren’t paying attention.
And the quote was from... 1996? How about a more recent quote.
"Truck" PCs weren't going to go away, Jobs predicted, but "car" tablets would find a place among a larger number of users.
"This transformation is going to make some people uneasy," Jobs said. "People from the PC world, like you and me. It's going to make us uneasy."
If you think Jobs wasn't tied to the Mac on his return, you weren’t paying attention.
Not Xeon or EEC Memory, but 150W+ CPU + 150W+ GPU combination on an iMac. iMac could have been powerful, but it never was. Not because we have invested new cooling solution to cool the CPU and GPU, because the iMac were never positioned as such. Steve Jobs wanted the Desktop to be completely silent. And it is still shipping with a HDD as default.
Before the iMac Pro, the Mac Pro was the computer for professionals. They made a major mistake with the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple never shipped good GPUs in Macs compared to Windows PCs.
Not a product line, but the whole Mac Ecosystem. Try Disney telling you they are throwing Mac Pro away from their production system. And it is not even 10%, likely 1% of their revenue.
If Apple’s missteps were hurting Mac revenue you would see it in their quarterly revenue where they break down the amount of revenue they make on Macs. Looking at the numbers, it hasn’t hurt Mac revenue. I would love to see a more compelling Mac Mini for instance, but I can’t honestly say that not having updated it in 4 years has hurt Apple.
And the quote was from... 1996? How about a more recent quote.
Jobs told people what he would do with Apple and he mostly did just that.
- He milked the Mac and used it as a cash cow
- He gave up competing with Microsoft and made a deal with them.
- He introduced iTunes, iPod, iPhone, and the iPad.
- He even took “Computer” out of the name of the company.
- He delayed the OS release that was suppose to come out in 2007 and moved engineers to the iPhone.
- The only slightly industry changing thing he did with the Mac after 2001 was the MacBook Air and that was overpriced and underpowered for the first two years.
As far as being “tied” to the Mac, he didn’t even use a Mac until 2001 when OS X was introduced. His primary computer was a Dell running Next.
If that were true, they wouldn’t still be supporting the iPhone 5s that was introduced in 2012 with iOS 12 - which will be introduced this year. How many Android phones even get two years worth of updates let alone 6.
It just feels like 15 years from now we're going to be reading articles in the WSJ and NYT headlined "How Tim Cook Pleased The Shareholders While He Destroyed Apple."
With all the political influence, brand awareness, and metric assloads of cash Apple has, it should be the best company in the world. But every day brings more headlines that make it seem like Apple's best days are behind it. It keeps stumbling -- publicly and unnecessarily.
I'm not going to jump on the "Apple was better under/because of Steve Jobs" bandwagon. But this race is Apple's to lose. And the number of small cracks appearing everywhere is becoming disturbing.
It just feels like 15 years from now we're going to be reading articles in the WSJ and NYT headlined "How Tim Cook Pleased The Shareholders While He Destroyed Apple."
My next computer will be a Mac - at the looks of things now, probably an iMac - but if Apple loses the high end Mac market, does it really matter? Around 10% of Apples revenue comes from Macs and even less from high end Macs. If Apple becomes an iOS company and makes the iPad more computer like, it would be a win.
if Apple loses the high end Mac market, does it really matter?
Yes. Because there is far more to life than market share and revenue.
Especially at Apple, where the last two people in charge (Cook and Jobs) have both stated in public that they're committed to making better products, and that money is secondary.
For a company, there is nothing more important than revenue (well net income to be more precise.) Believing any company cares about anything else is naive.
Believing any company cares about anything else is naive.
It's very sad that your experience is so limited. There are plenty of companies that actually care about things other than profit. I had the pleasure of working for one once, and through that was introduced to others.
It’s called “virtue signaling”. Or do you believe that WeWork cares about the environment so much that they are banning meat and that Starbucks cares so much they are getting rid of straws?
At the end of the day, every company is beholden to their investors - who don’t put their money into a company for any other reason besides getting a return.
Or do you believe that WeWork cares about the environment so much that they are banning meat and that Starbucks cares so much they are getting rid of straws?
I know nothing about how WeWork or Starbucks operate because I have never been involved with the management of those companies.
I have been involved with the management of other companies which are truly altruistic. Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist.
I find it inexplicable how people (you are just one example of a trope) say investors are only interested in the returns on their investments. Everybody has different interests, but every person who invests is a human being living in society with many interests - nobody is a pure abstraction whose only interest is profit, and almost nobody even limits their investments to just one stock. For instance, if I own $1000 of stock in an industrial company, is it in my interest for them to dump toxic waste into the river I live next to in order to make a few extra dollars? Is it in my interest for them to commit crimes against a competitor, especially if I also own stock in that competitor?
The idea that companies exist only to make profits by any means possible is the most anti-capitalist, nihilistic concept I can imagine, and I have never been clear on whether anyone sincerely believes it or if it is just a straw man.
How much of a change of direction did the activist shareholders actually influence over the corporation? How much did they raise employee wages? Get a benefits increase? Keep people from being laid off?
And yet and still companies pollute the environment all of the time just not in thier backyard. Of course they care about what happens in thier neighborhood. I’m not anti capitalist by any means. I am just realistic enough not to believe the platitudes of any company - including the one that I work for. The company is just a means to provide me a paycheck. They are not my “family”, management are not my “friends”, a company will pay me as little as they think they can get away with, and they aren’t trying to change the world - even the ones that donate some tiny sliver of thier profit to charity.
There was even a freakonomics episode citing a study that companies that do “virtue signaling” can get people to work harder for less money.
The annual releases are mostly cosmetic and typically only change higher-level details. They haven't made much in the way of substantive changes to the base system since 10.6. At the lower level, it's looking like abandonware.
Apple is notoriously secretive. The "public announcement" of the new Mac Pro was a whole lot of nothing. Not one substantive detail. Am I supposed to wait until its 2019 release before making any commitment to support it? It might be terrible, and there's no information about its specifications. "Waiting in hope" is no good for business and product planning. The hype train might work for phones, but for computer hardware it's a bit pathetic, and leaves me doubting they have a serious plan for it (as if the existing Mac Pro left us in any doubt at all).
The merging of frameworks isn't of the slightest interest if you only develop for MacOS. And the new chipsets aren't particularly noteworthy either; they are just details. As a cross-platform software developer, I really couldn't care less. But I do care about their support for industry-standard APIs.
The annual releases are mostly cosmetic and typically only change higher-level details. They haven't made much in the way of substantive changes to the base system since 10.6. At the lower level, it's looking like abandonware.
How much has Windows and Linux changed during that time? I’m not going to read off the change log of everything that Apple has changed since 10.6
Apple is notoriously secretive. The "public announcement" of the new Mac Pro was a whole lot of nothing. Not one substantive detail. Am I supposed to wait until its 2019 release before making any commitment to support it?
So exactly what do you have to do to support the Mac Pro specifically? Of course they didn’t have any details. They hadn’t started on it st the time. But it still contradicts the narrative that where Apple is headed with the Mac is “unclear”.
It might be terrible, and there's no information about its specifications. "Waiting in hope" is no good for business and product planning.
I can give you hint. It’s going to be a multi core Intel chip. What are you thinking you need to do to support the Mac Pro specifically.
The hype train might work for phones, but for computer hardware it's a bit pathetic, and leaves me doubting they have a serious plan for it (as if the existing Mac Pro left us in any doubt at all).
Seeing they admitted they made a huge mistake with the current Mac Pro.
The merging of frameworks isn't of the slightest interest if you only develop for MacOS.
So the direction of the Mac APIs is of no interest to a Mac developer as is the fact that they are moving away from AppKit? Whether the fact they are merging the frameworks of IOS and MacOS are of interest to one random person on HN doesn’t mean their direction “isn’t clear”. The direction they are moving MacOS - the APIs is clear.
that they are
And the new chipsets aren't particularly noteworthy either; they are just details.
So first it’s not clear and now “just the details” don’t matter.
As a cross-platform software developer, I really couldn't care less. But I do care about their support for industry-standard APIs.
So you’re a “cross platform developer” and you’re overly concerned about the Mac Pro - a tiny sliver of a tiny sliver of the market. But you just said that you didn’t care about the merging of iOS and MacOS as a “Mac only developer”. A “cross platform developer” has much bigger issues than the graphic APIs unless you plan to do something like Electron and anyone should avoid those apps anyway.
How much have Windows and Linux changed since 10.6. Quite a bit. But the MacOS X UNIX userland has not. It's over a decade out of date at this point. I've been increasingly running into portability problems, from missing or non-functional commands and associated command-line options, to long-fixed bugs which they haven't bothered to update. Stuff which has worked on Linux or BSD for the last 9+ years, is failing hard on MacOS. Because it's long out of date. The OpenGL deprecation is just another nail in the coffin.
What do I need to do to support the Mac Pro specifically? Well, it's a wider question than that. It's more like: will I drop MacOS support entirely, or will this have sufficiently decent specification that it's worth re-evaluating dropping it entirely. For that, I would need to know about its GPU and VRAM, max RAM, storage options, connectivity, etc. The CPU itself isn't too exciting. And on top of that, what the software support for the GPU would be like. Such as how well supported it would be by MoltenVk, and the existing deprecated OpenGL drivers. Since I will not be using Metal, I need to know if the workarounds are acceptable, or if the result will be awful.
I'm a cross-platform developer in the typical meaning of the word: cross-platform for desktops/workstations of all common operating systems. Serious visualisation software isn't for phones. If "cross-platform" means MacOS and iOS, then lord help us. iOS devices are toys in this realm. Poor GPUs, not enough memory, storage, or power. Most of Apple's Macs are also woefully underpowered, and that's the big reason for abandoning the platform, because they don't actually make a system worth having for high end usage. While they admitted they made a mistake with the Mac Pro, there's zero information about whether their replacement will be adequate for high end needs, or yet another hot mess. Will they be able to return to function over form? I'm doubtful. But without some concrete and sensible information from Apple, it's looking like complete abandonment from over here.
How much have Windows and Linux changed since 10.6. Quite a bit. But the MacOS X UNIX userland has not.
Still quite vague....
I've been increasingly running into portability problems, from missing or non-functional commands and associated command-line options, to long-fixed bugs which they haven't bothered to update.
So you’re writing software that depends on the shell commands...
Well, it's a wider question than that. It's more like: will I drop MacOS support entirely, or will this have sufficiently decent specification that it's worth re-evaluating dropping it entirely. For that, I would need to know about its GPU and VRAM, max RAM, storage options, connectivity, etc.
You’re basing your software road map on what may appear on the hardware landscape 2 years from now? I hope you didn’t base your development on Intels road map for the last few years....
Since I will not be using Metal, I need to know if the workarounds are acceptable, or if the result will be awful.
If you’re basing your roadmap on a deprecated API, that doesn’t say much about your product planning....
I'm a cross-platform developer in the typical meaning of the word: cross-platform for desktops/workstations of all common operating systems.
So you’re a “cross platform” developer complaining about Unix support on the Mac? How is that Unix support working out on Windows?
What about all the new MacBook Pros just released, the new iMac Pro, and the upcoming new Mac Pro? You may not like these Macs, but Apple's plans seem pretty clear.
You listed a bunch of things Apple has done recently or is doing now, and seem to be insistent that Apple's plans for the future are therefore clear. That is... not a convincing line of argument.
Apple's plans are entirely unclear. Things are deprecated or broken without notice. Surprises were tolerable when they were 90% positive. Now, when most of the surprises involve breaking keyboards, removing USB ports, removing the GC runtime entirely, etc., surprises are utterly unacceptable.
