Is Apple killing DTP on the Mac?

[rubaiyat]

Given where Apple is heading with both hardware and software, the question arises is Apple giving its old core supporter base the shove?

I base this on:

1. Hardware Apple has only one monitor screen left that can be set to a suitable level for pre-press illumination, the rather expensive Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel). It is also the only non-glossy screen left and looks like it might be the last when it goes.

2. Software All its software rely on the OSX quartz filters for export to .pdf and these are set to produce commercially unprintable output.

3. ColorSync Remains buggy, badly setup and nearly totally undocumented.

4. Fonts Still a mess and unreliable.

5. Slow development It is now 9 years since OSX was introduced and we are still waiting on fixes and it seems that Apple is ignoring the professional user in favor of PC converts and newbies. Requests for fixes in its own suite of applications and OSX seem to be ignored.

6. Apple support is not professionally oriented All my pro questions have been passed around till eventually I get told not to expect any professional solutions because Apple is not really meant for that.

7. Mac Pro models going nowhere These are priced way above all the other models and see little or no advancement from model to model. Any intermediate solutions are killed by Apple, as are alternative graphics cards.

8. Constant switching of ports A cloud remains over the future of FireWire as Apple drops it then replaces it with USB and adds some back, leaving models with no FW support or different ports to all other models. Apple also keeps switching monitor connections, usually for some new poorly supported oddball "standard" that makes it hard to connect up hardware over time.

[fryke]

1.) That doesn't exactly kill DTP. If you're in DTP, you've *always* looked beyond Apple for displays as well. If you simply chose what Apple offered, you didn't actually evaluate. EIZO and others make great displays.

2.) But you're not *actually* creating layouts in Pages, are you?

3.) Yes.

4.) But then there's been font managers since ATM for this exact purpose.

5.) I agree that Apple doesn't exactly answer our calls, but they've provided a lot of support for Quark and Adobe that simply hasn't been made use of. Quartz is not unusable per se.

6.) Strange.

7.) You're wrong here. They're still the powerhouses around the block. Models are updated in a yearly cycle now, and they make use of the newest processor and architecture advances. While the graphics cards offered are not a "wide array", this is mainly ATI and nVidia's fault. It's not like those _couldn't_ produce more Mac compatible cards. It's not like they're not _allowed_ to.

8.) For professional DTP, things have been very consistent. FW 800 has been around for ages, it seems, and is still around in all professional machines. It was only gone from the MBP 15" in its earliest form (one model exactly).

Overall, I'd say the big problem for DTP on the Mac rather is that Apple is pushing forward with photography and video (and professionally so!), which eats away at Adobe. In turn, Adobe doesn't seem to be too interested to further Apple's cause. But in the end, that's Adobe's problem, because Apple seems to be doing quite well. It's a pity that Adobe doesn't grab the chances.

[rubaiyat]

1. EIZO's monitors are extremely expensive and need to be added to the high cost of a Mac Pro. Also see pt 8, the cables keep changing.

2. Yes Pages is being used for layouts, you only have to read Apple's Pages Forum to see how many people are being caught out with unworkable output. I have also confirmed at virtually every Apple store I have entered that Pages is being recommended by Apple staff for commercial DTP amongst other misrepresentations.

4. None of them work as well, fast or reliably as ATM did. The multiple same name but different font formats still cause clashes and font drop-offs.

5. Define unusable. Usable for inkjets and personal laserprinters yes. Everything else it is a running disaster.

6. Frustrating more than strange. It seems they play it both ways, hyping up OSX's abilities then saying it was never meant for the task.

7. I can see little more than the small incremental improvements supplied by Intel. It is Apple's design that makes the wide array of PC graphics cards unusable on the Mac.

8. The uncertainty of FW's future causes a vicious circle of reluctance to buy and low sales. Apple is eternally fiddling with the graphics port which causes compatibility, connection and cost problems.

The failure of OSX to produce commercially printable .pdfs has screwed all the smaller developer's efforts at bringing competition to Adobe and Quark.

[fryke]

Hm. I love this subject. ... About the graphics ports: I don't *REALLY* see the problem. After ADC (Apple Display Connector), Apple went DVI for the professional line. This was true from the TiBook 800 until the last MacBook Pro before the unibody ones. On the PowerMac/Mac Pro side, it's been handled the _same_. Apple is simply *not* constantly changing display connectors, and if you've bought a great EIZO with DVI six years ago, you'll still be able to connect a new professional Mac to it without much of a hitch. At the *most*, you'll have to buy an adapter, but it's not as if you were left out in any way.

I don't get those who claim FireWire's demise. Apple has never said it'll kill FireWire. Like I said: The only case where Apple went wrong here was the earliest MacBook Pro, but that _did_ have FW400, just not FW800. Please don't confuse things here...

The _rumour_ world has long been claiming FW's demise, but I've never agreed on that. I'm pretty sure that _some_ day, another technology will replace FireWire 800, but whether that'll be FW3200 or eSATA or Wireless USB or HumphataBlabla 8000, who cares? I was doing DTP professionally when the iMac came along and got rid of SCSI. I wondered what I'd do about our scanner. See history of computing technology for a laugh, because that scanner soon got replaced by a much less expensive one that connected via USB, and it took better scans as well.

So, again: I really have to *STRONGLY* disagree about the interfaces. Also the graphics cards: If ATI and nVidia can make _one_ card compatible, it can't be that hard to make three or four compatible. I agree that the PC world sees more variations here, but basically, they're all using ATI and nVidia chipsets, anyway, and whatever card you buy today, it'll be too old for Scythe Slayer 3000 next year anyway, but any card will do for basic Photoshop CS5 work. Get over it.

Wow. Am I too angry here? (if so, sorry...)

[fryke]

Oh and once more about EIZO: That was just one example. I wanted to make clear that there's a plethora of displays available for any budget and for any quality-requirements. (I just happen to like EIZO.) The cabling issue is a non-issue, since DVI will work just fine. (It's PCs that want to start using HDMI on some displays and graphics cards, without a real benefit whatsoever in the professional world. Apple stood away from that trend, and rightly so.)

[rubaiyat]

I'm not the only one to notice the problem with Apple's connectors. David Pogue in a recent article had occasion to curse Apple on this one.

I have had Macs for a very long time and it would take me a while to work back through all the many display connectors and what worked with what model. I have had many occasions to regret the incompatibilities, just when I needed to put 2 disparate pieces of hardware together. The adapters, besides being ugly cause their own problems of sourcing the correct ones and working out why they don't always work.

The FW400/800 issue was caused by Apple dropping them when it had the itch to.

It dropped FW off iPods remember, permanently.

It has never dropped USB despite it being inferior.

I am a firm believer in a standard set of hardware and connectors remaining on Macs even if some of it becomes dated or not always used, because it lets developers develop knowing the resources will always be available, not just "sometimes".

[fryke]

So you'd really expect our current intel Macs to still have ADB and RS-422 as well as SCSI. Because developers some 22 years ago had to count on it... No, you say, 22 years is too long? Well: Macs had ADB until the iMac came along in 1997, so it's only 12 years. Hmm... Still too long. But Macs would have _had_ to have ADB in 2000, since Macs still had ADB in 1997, so they'd have to have it today as well, because some developers would be expecting it?

The iMac's dropping of legacy ports is one of the sweetest successes of minimalism in the history of computing.

And again about the monitor adapters: Apple just went roundabout and gave EVERY MAC THE SAME display connector. How's that for thinking about EXACTLY what you described as a problem? While I didn't think it really was one, because there _were_ adapters, now you only need to think about one connector really, and maybe two for the different monitors you have lying around.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by fryke

And again about the monitor adapters: Apple just went roundabout and gave EVERY MAC THE SAME display connector. How's that for thinking about EXACTLY what you described as a problem? While I didn't think it really was one, because there _were_ adapters, now you only need to think about one connector really, and maybe two for the different monitors you have lying around.

I have to agree with rubaiyat on this one.

Because fryke, you said it: They now gave every Mac the same type of connector. Just the thing is, who knows for how long? In one year, they'll again come up with a new connector, claiming that "this is our standard now". A year later, they'll change it again, and there we go, connecting adapter to adapter to adapter to display.

They really should have just left it with either VGA or DVI.

For example, you have an iBook with a mini VGA to VGA adapter, and you go along, connecting your iBook to beamers and whatever with your adapter. Everything fine. Then all of a sudden, you need to connect your iBook to a TV, to watch iTunes TV Shows. So you buy a mini VGA to video adapter. A year later, you buy your first MacBook, since your iBook is already quite slow. Now not only do you need to buy a mini DVI to VGA adapter, but also a mini DVI to video adapter. We're now at 3 adapters. Now, this year, you receive a MacBook Pro with a mini DisplayPort for work. Again, you need to buy a mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter and another mini DisplayPort to video adapter. But, lets not forget your Apple Cinema Display at work. So now you also need a DVI to ADC adapter. Because your TV is also already quite old, you decide to find a new one, but your new TV has a DVI connector, so you go buy a mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter...

You see where I'm going with this?

I know my example is a little extreme, but that's basically how it works.

If Apple wouldn't have changed its connectors so much throughout the years and product lines, it would all be much, much easier. First of all, you'd spend less money, since these adapters range from $20 to $99, and you don't have such a mess of cables lying around.