EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Paul Nicholls wrote:
[interesting and *probably* true statements snipped]
> My prediction - Native Instruments will be the next company to
> become a Mac only music software producer.

How much I understood the reasonable arguments from the rest of your post,
believing in that is plain nonsense, IMO, I'd even take a bet.
Apart from Absynth (which was not an N.I. thing originally anyways) all of
their plugins have been developed on Windows and then they were ported to
MacOS. And all of them are actually working better under Windows (tell me
one Mac person being really happy with Reaktor in VSTi mode).
Why in the world should N.I. give up that massive market share? While
Logic/Mac users make up for around 60-70% of Emagic's user base, the figures
for N.I. will most likely look completely different.

Apart from all that:
> The people
> at Apple need killer apps for OS X to make it utterly compelling compared
to
> anything else in the computer world. The killer apps will drive people to
> buy the computer hardware no matter how fast the CPUs are at any given
> moment compare to WinTel machines

Ahem... what "killer" features could those apps have? I mean seriously, any
examples?
IMO we allready have *almost* perfect sequencers. What else do we need?
Sure, there's some flaws and bugs and drawbacks in some areas, but these are
all pretty much minor things. And these are completely OS independent, no
matter which sequencer we're talking about. In the end, if there was a
sequencer combining Logic's handling and Cubase SX's featureset, I couldn't
see what else I'd be wishing for, certainly not much.
There's low latency, there's more or less high end native FX (with the best
ones still to come), there's tons of tracks possible, etc pp.
Now I only want something combining all the good features - and that
certainly isn't any easier on MacOSX, because the things I am missing are
not anything OS specific at all. I don't need CoreAudio/MIDI, I am allready
happy with what's there.
Now all I need is a faster machine and a crashfree environment. I don't care
much about speculations how fast the new G5 will be, it's vapourware,
nothing else. Current high hend PCs however blow any Mac in existance away,
in terms of performance. And stability is not an issue either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested how all that turns out in the end, and
maybe I'll be using a Mac end of next year or so, but I won't believe any
speculations anymore.

Regards,
Sascha

In a message dated 7/9/02 11:33:37 PM, paulnicholls@... writes:

>My prediction - Native Instruments will be the next company to
>become a Mac only music software producer. If buying Emagic seems
>unbelievable, yet happened, there is nothing to suppose that Apple will
>not
>make a similar move in the area of software synths. It makes sense, even
>though Emagic makes great synths and samplers too. Perhaps Mac users should
>even suggest this to Steve, our pal.

Uhhh....please DON'T suggest this!

Cross platform development is the best thing for musicians...period. Many 
people can't afford a powerful Mac system, which by the look of things is 
always going to be a lot less bang for the buck than PC world. The hardware 
that you make music with shouldn't really be that important....it's a 
personal choice, and the key thing is what software you choose to use and of 
course how you ultimately use it.

There's no putting the Windows users to the side, they are here to stay and 
they've got a great platform with XP and these blazing CPUs. There's no going 
back to how things used to be with Mac always a little more on top than 
Windows. At this point, all this corporate junk is just an obstacle for 
musicians to make their music and use the tools without fear.

Secondly, buying companies like this has the potential to do serious damage 
to an independant industry. Computer companies are like 800 pound gorillas 
playing in a tiny field that they could care less about the impact they have 
or the damage they do. Look how much damage Gibson did with Opcode, and they 
are small potatoes compared with Apple, who could easily drop Emagic as fast 
as it picked it up. You notice how low a priority is is to them?...didn't 
even make their News page!

I believe that the additional gains that emagic will make from the Apple 
take-over are minimal at best. After all, all the stuff we are taking about 
for Logic Titanium OSX was already in the works and part of emagic's plan 
before the sell out. I think most of it would have happened anyway....look 
how innovative Emagic has been through the years...they've never needed 
massive outside development help before..why now? 

But equally important is the health of Steinberg, MOTU and Digi. The 
competition of ideas has been incredibly healthy for musicians and this 
industry. It probably would have been very different if there weren't any 
competition. What happens now if Steinberg and MOTU can't compete with Apple 
on the Mac platform, since it is no longer a level playing field? Logic is 
all that's left? That's a hollow victory, since we need the competition to 
keep advancing the future of Logic too!

There is no real benefit that I can see for musicians, to having Apple 
monopolize a virtual instrument company like Native Instruments. 

Keep the independant spirit alive....it's good for everyone and it keeps it 
real.

-EP

PersingEP@... wrote:


> At this point, all this corporate junk is just an obstacle for
> musicians to make their music and use the tools without fear.

Amen!

If there's one thing that has been very important for me in the past, it was
Logic's crossplatform compatibility. Apart from a few minor hassles that I
needed to clear out (CD formats, filenames, SDII conversion) I could allways
swap complete Logic songs with some Mac fellows more or less easily.
Allready owning the (IMO superior in most aspects) DR-008 I even bought
Battery just to add another crossplatform app to my collection.
Regardless of what I'll be using in the future, I will most likely be less
compatible. That can't be a good thing.

Regards,
Sascha

> Regardless of what I'll be using in the future, I will most likely be less
> compatible. That can't be a good thing.

I have to agree with this. Although I'm a Mac user, this throws a REALLY BIG
WRENCH into my collaboration efforts. So much for my production partner and
I living in different parts of the country. Thanks for nothing, Steve Jobs.

Personally, I think both sides of this argument are compelling. But to be
truthful, at this point, I tend to agree with the latter. I'm happy with
Logic. I'm happy that my PC buddies are in sync with me. And the fact of the
matter is (I cringe when I say this as I vastly prefer any MacOS to
Windows), Mac hardware blows at this point. It's a f*%$#@! turtle. What's
the point of being a Mac fan if I can't brag about it anymore (ha, ha).
Seriously though, if I wasn't a graphic designer, I'd probably be thinking
of switching. Seems to me, Mac is making a habit if using outdated hardware
in a lot of respects. Slower RAM among other things. Sure it doesn't suck,
but when compared to a top-of-the-line PC, the specs are far less
impressive. I couldn't care less about a new iMac or eMac. It's worthless to
me. I'd also heard that a 64-bit chip requires a great deal of software
reengineering to achieve compatibility. I may be misinformed about this, but
it's a reasonable theory. The heat issue may be only part of the story. I've
also heard of PC CPUs with 64-bit processing. By the time Apple gets a G5
1.8GHz, PCs will already be over 3-5GHz making the Apple improvements moot.
They are behind. Apple needs faster processors now. It's that simple. So I
guess, all in all, this Emagic takeover is adding insult to injury.

I'm an avid Mac fan. It is a sad day indeed when someone like me stoops to
this level. I mean just look at the destitution and disappointment on this
list alone. A list, I might add, of the cream of the crop of musicians.
This, for the most part, is a list of advanced users and gurus on both
platforms. Now, we are mostly sulking and reeling in shock over something
that is destined to divide all of us for the foreseeable future. I find this
depressing. I have really enjoyed all of the dialog on this list, and the
contributions made by all of you (yes even the opinions I disagreed with).
It made me feel part of a global community of musicians I have developed a
healthy respect for. OK, enough. I'm depressed enough as it is. -Jer

Sacha

You are likely completely correct in that regard. However, I am still
certain that Apple is not finished in its acquisitions of music companies,
so it is likely that somebody is up to be grabbed, the question is who?

Regards

Paul

> From: Sascha Franck <saschafranck@...>
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:02:25 +0200
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [exs] Some reasons why Steve Jobs bought Emagic
> 
> Paul Nicholls wrote:
> [interesting and *probably* true statements snipped]
>> My prediction - Native Instruments will be the next company to
>> become a Mac only music software producer.
> 
> How much I understood the reasonable arguments from the rest of your post,
> believing in that is plain nonsense, IMO, I'd even take a bet.
> Apart from Absynth (which was not an N.I. thing originally anyways) all of
> their plugins have been developed on Windows and then they were ported to
> MacOS. And all of them are actually working better under Windows (tell me
> one Mac person being really happy with Reaktor in VSTi mode).
> Why in the world should N.I. give up that massive market share? While
> Logic/Mac users make up for around 60-70% of Emagic's user base, the figures
> for N.I. will most likely look completely different.
> 
> Apart from all that:
>> The people
>> at Apple need killer apps for OS X to make it utterly compelling compared
> to
>> anything else in the computer world. The killer apps will drive people to
>> buy the computer hardware no matter how fast the CPUs are at any given
>> moment compare to WinTel machines
> 
> Ahem... what "killer" features could those apps have? I mean seriously, any
> examples?
> IMO we allready have *almost* perfect sequencers. What else do we need?
> Sure, there's some flaws and bugs and drawbacks in some areas, but these are
> all pretty much minor things. And these are completely OS independent, no
> matter which sequencer we're talking about. In the end, if there was a
> sequencer combining Logic's handling and Cubase SX's featureset, I couldn't
> see what else I'd be wishing for, certainly not much.
> There's low latency, there's more or less high end native FX (with the best
> ones still to come), there's tons of tracks possible, etc pp.
> Now I only want something combining all the good features - and that
> certainly isn't any easier on MacOSX, because the things I am missing are
> not anything OS specific at all. I don't need CoreAudio/MIDI, I am allready
> happy with what's there.
> Now all I need is a faster machine and a crashfree environment. I don't care
> much about speculations how fast the new G5 will be, it's vapourware,
> nothing else. Current high hend PCs however blow any Mac in existance away,
> in terms of performance. And stability is not an issue either.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm interested how all that turns out in the end, and
> maybe I'll be using a Mac end of next year or so, but I won't believe any
> speculations anymore.
> 
> Regards,
> Sascha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> For a list of places to get free samples please see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

I think it is very unlikely that Apple will be put in a position of being
completely outclassed by WinTel machines. The reason is simply that OS X is
processor independent. If Motorola do not solve their problems then Apple
will simply switch CPUs. Steve Jobs has been adamant about this throughout
OS X development. Dependence on one company will kill Apple. Again, an OS
advantage is the only thing that will keep Apple alive so it will be
interesting to see what they create in that regard.

Paul

> From: HELP@...
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:54:19 -0500
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [exs] Some reasons why Steve Jobs bought Emagic
> 
>> Regardless of what I'll be using in the future, I will most likely be less
>> compatible. That can't be a good thing.
> 
> I have to agree with this. Although I'm a Mac user, this throws a REALLY BIG
> WRENCH into my collaboration efforts. So much for my production partner and
> I living in different parts of the country. Thanks for nothing, Steve Jobs.
> 
> Personally, I think both sides of this argument are compelling. But to be
> truthful, at this point, I tend to agree with the latter. I'm happy with
> Logic. I'm happy that my PC buddies are in sync with me. And the fact of the
> matter is (I cringe when I say this as I vastly prefer any MacOS to
> Windows), Mac hardware blows at this point. It's a f*%$#@! turtle. What's
> the point of being a Mac fan if I can't brag about it anymore (ha, ha).
> Seriously though, if I wasn't a graphic designer, I'd probably be thinking
> of switching. Seems to me, Mac is making a habit if using outdated hardware
> in a lot of respects. Slower RAM among other things. Sure it doesn't suck,
> but when compared to a top-of-the-line PC, the specs are far less
> impressive. I couldn't care less about a new iMac or eMac. It's worthless to
> me. I'd also heard that a 64-bit chip requires a great deal of software
> reengineering to achieve compatibility. I may be misinformed about this, but
> it's a reasonable theory. The heat issue may be only part of the story. I've
> also heard of PC CPUs with 64-bit processing. By the time Apple gets a G5
> 1.8GHz, PCs will already be over 3-5GHz making the Apple improvements moot.
> They are behind. Apple needs faster processors now. It's that simple. So I
> guess, all in all, this Emagic takeover is adding insult to injury.
> 
> I'm an avid Mac fan. It is a sad day indeed when someone like me stoops to
> this level. I mean just look at the destitution and disappointment on this
> list alone. A list, I might add, of the cream of the crop of musicians.
> This, for the most part, is a list of advanced users and gurus on both
> platforms. Now, we are mostly sulking and reeling in shock over something
> that is destined to divide all of us for the foreseeable future. I find this
> depressing. I have really enjoyed all of the dialog on this list, and the
> contributions made by all of you (yes even the opinions I disagreed with).
> It made me feel part of a global community of musicians I have developed a
> healthy respect for. OK, enough. I'm depressed enough as it is. -Jer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> For a list of places to get free samples please see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Frankly, this is very likely true, everything you said here. But I just get
a feeling that this is the direction of Apple in the computer industry over
the next while. I really wonder if XP is just good enough that OS X does not
matter to many people. GigaStudio is an example of a killer app that compels
people to buy a particular platform, that is the PC. I am a Mac user with
EXS 24 but I just bought a PC that I had custom built for me with silent
components to run Gigastudio. I heard rumor that Tascam will be porting it
to the Mac but I can't wait and I do not believe it will happen for at least
a year or much more. Without a similar application to GigaStudio on the Mac
platform I do not think Apple will be as strong in the music field. OS X in
music has to really do something really special in the next while. That is
what I think Apple is up to. Only Apple is motivated enough to push this
sort of exclusive development. I don't think they did such a bad job in
other applications big as they are.

Regards

Paul

> From: PersingEP@...
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:41:54 -0400 (EDT)
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [exs] Some reasons why Steve Jobs bought Emagic
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/9/02 11:33:37 PM, paulnicholls@... writes:
> 
>> My prediction - Native Instruments will be the next company to
>> become a Mac only music software producer. If buying Emagic seems
>> unbelievable, yet happened, there is nothing to suppose that Apple will
>> not
>> make a similar move in the area of software synths. It makes sense, even
>> though Emagic makes great synths and samplers too. Perhaps Mac users should
>> even suggest this to Steve, our pal.
> 
> Uhhh....please DON'T suggest this!
> 
> Cross platform development is the best thing for musicians...period. Many
> people can't afford a powerful Mac system, which by the look of things is
> always going to be a lot less bang for the buck than PC world. The hardware
> that you make music with shouldn't really be that important....it's a
> personal choice, and the key thing is what software you choose to use and of
> course how you ultimately use it.
> 
> There's no putting the Windows users to the side, they are here to stay and
> they've got a great platform with XP and these blazing CPUs. There's no going
> back to how things used to be with Mac always a little more on top than
> Windows. At this point, all this corporate junk is just an obstacle for
> musicians to make their music and use the tools without fear.
> 
> Secondly, buying companies like this has the potential to do serious damage
> to an independant industry. Computer companies are like 800 pound gorillas
> playing in a tiny field that they could care less about the impact they have
> or the damage they do. Look how much damage Gibson did with Opcode, and they
> are small potatoes compared with Apple, who could easily drop Emagic as fast
> as it picked it up. You notice how low a priority is is to them?...didn't
> even make their News page!
> 
> I believe that the additional gains that emagic will make from the Apple
> take-over are minimal at best. After all, all the stuff we are taking about
> for Logic Titanium OSX was already in the works and part of emagic's plan
> before the sell out. I think most of it would have happened anyway....look
> how innovative Emagic has been through the years...they've never needed
> massive outside development help before..why now?
> 
> But equally important is the health of Steinberg, MOTU and Digi. The
> competition of ideas has been incredibly healthy for musicians and this
> industry. It probably would have been very different if there weren't any
> competition. What happens now if Steinberg and MOTU can't compete with Apple
> on the Mac platform, since it is no longer a level playing field? Logic is
> all that's left? That's a hollow victory, since we need the competition to
> keep advancing the future of Logic too!
> 
> There is no real benefit that I can see for musicians, to having Apple
> monopolize a virtual instrument company like Native Instruments.
> 
> Keep the independant spirit alive....it's good for everyone and it keeps it
> real.
> 
> -EP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> For a list of places to get free samples please see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Paul Nicholls wrote:
> 
> I think it is very unlikely that Apple will be put in a position of being
> completely outclassed by WinTel machines. The reason is simply that OS X is
> processor independent. If Motorola do not solve their problems then Apple
> will simply switch CPUs. Steve Jobs has been adamant about this throughout
> OS X development. Dependence on one company will kill Apple. Again, an OS
> advantage is the only thing that will keep Apple alive so it will be
> interesting to see what they create in that regard.

Yeah, OS X for PCs would certainly change the situation! :-)

It'd be like what many of us were hoping for with BeOS: Mac reliability
(?) and ease of use on inexpensive hardware. =8-)

BTW, Paul, do you happen to know where I could read about Jobs'
processor-independent stance?

--- In exs-users@y..., Bill Canty <Bill@C...> wrote:
> Paul Nicholls wrote:
> > 
> 
> OS X for PCs would certainly change the situation! :-)

Yep!  

> It'd be like what many of us were hoping for with BeOS: Mac 
reliability
> (?) and ease of use on inexpensive hardware. =8-)

Well, if the next generation of hardware fails to materialise on time 
(as may already be happening), and OSX really /is/ as good as they 
say, then perhaps its time for them to stop trying to sell niche 
hardware, and become a proper OS company.

> hardware, and become a proper OS company.

No joke. This is why Apple got screwed by MS to begin with. After all these
years, you'd think Steve would try to make a comeback. The dialog in Pirates
of Silicon Valley went something like... (badly paraphrased)

STEVE rants: Apple's operating system is better than Windows!

BILL calmly responds: Don't you get it? It doesn't matter. We won.

I wish I could remember this accurately. The dialogue was so choice. Anyway,
the moral of the story is that, despite Steve's genius, his pride is his
Achilles' heel. If apple ran OSX on an Intel box, they'd pull Windows users
in by the droves. There's so much more money in software than in hardware.
Duh!

Hey, maybe Apple could strike up an OS licensing deal with Walmart (sp?) to
jump start their Intel/Athlon domination. [reference to Lindows OS] Ha, ha!

The only way I'd be more sympathetic to Apple is if the software AND the
hardware were superior. That would justify the hardware price contrast.

I love Apple; I can't believe I'm saying these things. Sorry Igor, sounds
like you (and I'm sure others) are growing weary of this subject. I can't
help myself. It has really peaked my curiosity. -Jer

<HELP@...> wrote:
>> hardware, and become a proper OS company.

>No joke. This is why Apple got screwed by MS to begin with. After all these
>years, you'd think Steve would try to make a comeback. The dialog in Pirates
>of Silicon Valley went something like... (badly paraphrased)
>
>STEVE rants: Apple's operating system is better than Windows!
>
>BILL calmly responds: Don't you get it? It doesn't matter. We won.
>
>I wish I could remember this accurately. The dialogue was so choice. Anyway,
>the moral of the story is that, despite Steve's genius, his pride is his
>Achilles' heel. If apple ran OSX on an Intel box, they'd pull Windows users
>in by the droves. There's so much more money in software than in hardware.
>Duh!

If you have followed Steve's career or read the books like "The Second
Coming of Steve Jobs" you will know that he repeated this error at Next --
building cool looking black boxes priced at 10g's that nobody wanted to
buy. Steve loves hardware -- so much so that he involved himself designing
the minutiae of the state of the art factory to make the Next cube. 

While his OS NextStep really was the next step -- Unix based, great
programming tools etc -- the fact that he ignored the realities of hardware
(economies of scale) and tried to make another integrated solution is
testament to his stubbornness and failure to orient his business interests
to commercial reality. People say that software alone -- it just doesn't do
it for him. At press conferences during this era he would get testy when
the hard questions came and bluster that Next had hardware that would "blow
you all away."

Next became a software company only after they had burned through tens of
millions (mostly Jobs own)  and the major backer, Canon, withdrew further
support. Steve's beautiful factory was mothballed and NextStep was released
as an OS plus tools for x86 hardware. Who knows -- maybe he will go down
this road again. 

M$ is doing enough to alienate everyone with their spyware and their high
prices and their new licencing schemes. Huge organisations (eg Europe,
Britain, Asia etc) are looking at the cost of upgrades and licencing to run
XP and Office XP on tens of thousands of seats and some are deciding enough
is enough. They are going with Linux mostly though. OSX/NextStep may have
missed whatever window it had already. 

Regards,
Murray

Bill,

StepWise is one source of information on OS X and there are many sites where
you can get this type of information. It was about a year and a half ago
when I was looking into this matter because of the problems Motorola was
having ramping up the speed of the G4 chip. At its outset the G4 was far
more powerful than anything in the Pentium world. Although there was
considerable strain between Apple and Motorola at this time I believe the
move to make the OS completely processor independent came earlier. Apple can
port OS X to Intel anytime it wants to. People who develop natively in OS X
can port their software very quickly.

look elsewhere if you want real information on this subject. I'm just a
composer.

Regards

Paul

> From: Bill Canty <Bill@...>
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:58:25 +1000
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [exs] Some reasons why Steve Jobs bought Emagic
> 
> Paul Nicholls wrote:
>> 
>> I think it is very unlikely that Apple will be put in a position of being
>> completely outclassed by WinTel machines. The reason is simply that OS X is
>> processor independent. If Motorola do not solve their problems then Apple
>> will simply switch CPUs. Steve Jobs has been adamant about this throughout
>> OS X development. Dependence on one company will kill Apple. Again, an OS
>> advantage is the only thing that will keep Apple alive so it will be
>> interesting to see what they create in that regard.
> 
> Yeah, OS X for PCs would certainly change the situation! :-)
> 
> It'd be like what many of us were hoping for with BeOS: Mac reliability
> (?) and ease of use on inexpensive hardware. =8-)
> 
> BTW, Paul, do you happen to know where I could read about Jobs'
> processor-independent stance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> For a list of places to get free samples please see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exs-users/links/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>