I would concur. You can record high quality encoded audio on your iPhone, audio design on your iPad with your other samples, and add the mixed soundscape into your film on iMac.
I literally know someone in the media industry who’s whole effortless workflow is what makes him a go-to guy for quick and flexible turnaround for audio mastery for films. He works exclusively on apple devices for this exact reason.
I’m not saying it’s impossible another way, but he really likes the ecosystem.
I would entirely agree with this, having watch BBC, NatGeo, History Channel, and more media people who love GDrives, only use Macs, filmed deliverables on iPhone, want Mac Pros for editing etc.
But it would be a stretch to say that support is the result of current macOS. The Mac has always been popular with creatives, since way before it was UNIX-based.
I’d argue the popularity with creatives is largely from being marketed to creatives since its earliest days.
I don’t think it’s just marketing, the early Macs got a lot of performance out of their graphics routines, and then Mac OS had tight integrations with postscript which made it good for graphical design.
I think these days yes a powerful graphics card will get you very far, but overall macOS feels much less hostile to me than windows. I think Linux is kind of a mess for graphics stuff, there are a few good open source tools, but the major design suites aren’t well supported.
but overall macOS feels much less hostile to me than windows.
Sure, but this is a purely subjective measure. Same with Linux.
And the fact is, the Mac has been consistently marketed to creatives since its inception. It is, at the very least, difficult to see how it would have fared without that approach.
The lack of non proprietary art tools is a big reason I didn’t go into digital art / graphic design. GIMP just cannot keep pace and I did not want to shell out $500 a year or more in subscriptions just to be able to do a job with no security that pays pennies.
Its also a big part of why I’m “pro” AI art (I’m actually pretty neutral, I’m not liking that they’re burning down the Amazon to make shitty ads with). I think it’s gonna be a decent tool for artists to automate repetitive tasks like cutting backgrounds out of photos for collages, upscaling / enlarging images, adding background textures to landscapes, touching up acne in portraits, and animating repetitive shots like walking. but right now we’re unethically sourcing the training data and shoving it into anything and everything with 0 regard for how many resources it’s costing to make content that’s shitty anyway.
The other half of my argument “in favor” is that the only thing worse than AI existing is AI only existing in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is plebs not even knowing how it works in addition to them using it to gain an unfair advantage over us. I think we have an opportunity to make sure that the open source tools are decent to begin with instead of letting them have complete control over even more of the creative world.
I believe you, but so far I can spot AI art from a mile away. When I do, I just hit the back button. It’s not interesting. It’s okay when it’s used as a joke for memes. Maybe it’s going to look different in the real world on an advertisement or something. But, really, if I can spot it in the real world, I’ll think the product is fake. I’m definitely the type of person who wont buy if I think that. I’m sure that’s not everybody but, if it is a good percentage is, I’d say companies are going to want to pay real artists. Interesting to see where it all goes.
And a lot of rich people are art dilletants or are able to afford putting their children through expensive art programs with no need to have it pay off. And of course they all buy the “top of the line” (which of course is obviously the most expensive right?) brands.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple plays into it so the cycle is recursive.
Designer here. This is true, but they are also have a seriously good trackpad and good energy use (finally). They work well for design, video and audio, but they are also really nice to operate. It’s a bit like driving a very nice car (which I can’t afford, but have borrowed from a client). Once you get accustomed to it, every other computer—especially laptops—feel like 1980s GM econoboxes.
as someone who switched from a macbook to a g14 with fedora, the trackpad experience is actually surprisingly close on some laptops, I had few issues moving over.
energy efficiency is more something you notice to be better on macs (in most cases) like you pointed out.
for me efficiency is not bad, but macs are clearly ahead
That’s good, how is the support in apps though? I live and die by pinch zooming and quick easy accurate scrolling/panning/rotating in Fusion and most of my graphics apps.
Side note, there are some really nice Mac only or Mac centric graphics apps that are affordable and not shitty subscriptions like the adobe suite. Pixelmator and Sketch are big for my photo retouching and UI designs.
pinch zoom works in inkscape, gimp, rnote and firefox as an example but for other apps also not at all often.
yeah app support is for sure better on macbook i didn’t think about that.
at least new linux apps seem to integrate it more (generally) …
As someone in the video and audio production sphere professionally, you are 100% correct. I have a Mac desktop that I use for any work I do, but I run Mint on a notebook for my own purposes.
Everything that is professionally rendered is offloaded to purpose built hardware. This part of the workflow would not be any different no matter what the creative is using for their workstation.
Sure, in a big 3d animation team, I’m basically a solo animator working with the tools I have immediately on hand. If I had a 5000 GPU Render Farm, then yeah, a Mac as a work station might work, but I’d still rather have a beefier customizable workstation than a Mac.
I would argue macOS owns the creative space (Design, Art and Music)
I would concur. You can record high quality encoded audio on your iPhone, audio design on your iPad with your other samples, and add the mixed soundscape into your film on iMac.
I literally know someone in the media industry who’s whole effortless workflow is what makes him a go-to guy for quick and flexible turnaround for audio mastery for films. He works exclusively on apple devices for this exact reason.
I’m not saying it’s impossible another way, but he really likes the ecosystem.
I would entirely agree with this, having watch BBC, NatGeo, History Channel, and more media people who love GDrives, only use Macs, filmed deliverables on iPhone, want Mac Pros for editing etc.
So you’re saying only cheap profit driven productions use Mac?
Only partially true. VFX for example uses Linux quite a bit, and a lot of web devs use Linux too, or even Windows with WSL.
But it would be a stretch to say that support is the result of current macOS. The Mac has always been popular with creatives, since way before it was UNIX-based.
I’d argue the popularity with creatives is largely from being marketed to creatives since its earliest days.
For sure the commenter was just asking what space MacOS owns
I don’t think it’s just marketing, the early Macs got a lot of performance out of their graphics routines, and then Mac OS had tight integrations with postscript which made it good for graphical design.
I think these days yes a powerful graphics card will get you very far, but overall macOS feels much less hostile to me than windows. I think Linux is kind of a mess for graphics stuff, there are a few good open source tools, but the major design suites aren’t well supported.
Ecosystem capture and youth indoctrination into the walled garden. Mac is great as long as you never push on Tim Cook’s boundaries.
Sure, but this is a purely subjective measure. Same with Linux.
And the fact is, the Mac has been consistently marketed to creatives since its inception. It is, at the very least, difficult to see how it would have fared without that approach.
The lack of non proprietary art tools is a big reason I didn’t go into digital art / graphic design. GIMP just cannot keep pace and I did not want to shell out $500 a year or more in subscriptions just to be able to do a job with no security that pays pennies.
Its also a big part of why I’m “pro” AI art (I’m actually pretty neutral, I’m not liking that they’re burning down the Amazon to make shitty ads with). I think it’s gonna be a decent tool for artists to automate repetitive tasks like cutting backgrounds out of photos for collages, upscaling / enlarging images, adding background textures to landscapes, touching up acne in portraits, and animating repetitive shots like walking. but right now we’re unethically sourcing the training data and shoving it into anything and everything with 0 regard for how many resources it’s costing to make content that’s shitty anyway.
The other half of my argument “in favor” is that the only thing worse than AI existing is AI only existing in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is plebs not even knowing how it works in addition to them using it to gain an unfair advantage over us. I think we have an opportunity to make sure that the open source tools are decent to begin with instead of letting them have complete control over even more of the creative world.
AI art won’t do shit except boot people out of jobs that would require a real artist but won’t have too many people complaining if it is obvious goo.
As for open-source art tools, krita is fantastic and gets used by a lot of professionals.
I believe you, but so far I can spot AI art from a mile away. When I do, I just hit the back button. It’s not interesting. It’s okay when it’s used as a joke for memes. Maybe it’s going to look different in the real world on an advertisement or something. But, really, if I can spot it in the real world, I’ll think the product is fake. I’m definitely the type of person who wont buy if I think that. I’m sure that’s not everybody but, if it is a good percentage is, I’d say companies are going to want to pay real artists. Interesting to see where it all goes.
Writing and game development are creative too
MacOS owns the rich space*
And a lot of rich people are art dilletants or are able to afford putting their children through expensive art programs with no need to have it pay off. And of course they all buy the “top of the line” (which of course is obviously the most expensive right?) brands.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple plays into it so the cycle is recursive.
Designer here. This is true, but they are also have a seriously good trackpad and good energy use (finally). They work well for design, video and audio, but they are also really nice to operate. It’s a bit like driving a very nice car (which I can’t afford, but have borrowed from a client). Once you get accustomed to it, every other computer—especially laptops—feel like 1980s GM econoboxes.
as someone who switched from a macbook to a g14 with fedora, the trackpad experience is actually surprisingly close on some laptops, I had few issues moving over.
energy efficiency is more something you notice to be better on macs (in most cases) like you pointed out.
for me efficiency is not bad, but macs are clearly ahead
That’s good, how is the support in apps though? I live and die by pinch zooming and quick easy accurate scrolling/panning/rotating in Fusion and most of my graphics apps.
Side note, there are some really nice Mac only or Mac centric graphics apps that are affordable and not shitty subscriptions like the adobe suite. Pixelmator and Sketch are big for my photo retouching and UI designs.
pinch zoom works in inkscape, gimp, rnote and firefox as an example but for other apps also not at all often. yeah app support is for sure better on macbook i didn’t think about that.
at least new linux apps seem to integrate it more (generally) …
As someone in the video and audio production sphere professionally, you are 100% correct. I have a Mac desktop that I use for any work I do, but I run Mint on a notebook for my own purposes.
From the mid to late 1990s, definitely. Not so convinced after that.
MacOS vs Windows 11 is an easy choice. Recall alone makes Windows 11 radioactive.
The problem is that the hardware is fairly underpowered to effectively use for any kind of demanding visuals.
Like if I were rendering out a big 3d scene, I’d want something with a fairly beefy GPU to crunch through the renders relatively quickly.
Everything that is professionally rendered is offloaded to purpose built hardware. This part of the workflow would not be any different no matter what the creative is using for their workstation.
Sure, in a big 3d animation team, I’m basically a solo animator working with the tools I have immediately on hand. If I had a 5000 GPU Render Farm, then yeah, a Mac as a work station might work, but I’d still rather have a beefier customizable workstation than a Mac.
No, you wouldn’t.
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize you could just read my mind. I must have been mistaken.
Fuck off dude, no need to be a cuntnugget.