>>Excellent analysis. Overall, you raise some good points. But what do you have to say to this?<<
Vanni, thanks for the positive comment, but you did strike a couple of nerves, so pardon me if I blather on. I promise there are lots of Avid references/analogies here within the commentary :-)...
>>Avid itself has or is producing low end models to compete with its competitors. Kind of like the cheapo Mercedes Benz's that are on the market now.<<
Just a minute now, I own one of those. Have you ever driven one? The experience is every bit a Mercedes and far superior to the old entry-level 190E class. It's very comfortable, fun to drive and sporty--a luxury car, but not at all like my Grandma's gas-guzzling Mercedes boat. And I certainly wouldn't call a car selling for $39K cheap. Still, I suppose I might be looked down upon by certain 'E' or 'S' class Mercedes owners, just like some Avid Media Composer 8000 owners thumb their noses at the Media Composer 1000 or the MCXpress in order to justify to their clients why they have to charge so much. Never mind that the top-of-the-line Media Composer 8000 costs as much as 5 TIMES Avid's entry-level MCXpress, or 25 TIMES other NLE systems. Does an MC8000 have even close to 5 or 25 times the power/features of "cheapo" systems? Not anymore. It's one thing to offer the best machine in the business (Avid's certainly done this) at the highest price; it's quite another to figure out a way to offer similar features at a lower price point that a much larger customer base will be able to afford. My Mercedes still gets me to the supermarket in comfort and style, and I can put the balance of what I didn't spend on an E or S-class model in the stock market. This is why I have been saying for some time that Avid has a limited market under their current pricing model compared to other NLE competitors. By the way, an entry-level MCXpress is still $25K and up once you add computer, monitors, hard drives, etc.
>>I agree the transition away from the loser Mac environment is tough and crucial. (Who needs Mac's anymore? And who uses them? Art departments and universities. So what. They are not the big spenders.)<<
Why do Wintel users have to boast that Apple is a loser in order to feel like they are the winners? I suspect it was it all those years we Mac snobs kept saying the Mac was superior while IBM compatible users pounded away their arcane DOS commands on green screens. If we wind up with a total monopoly run by Microsoft and Intel, is this really the world you want to live in? "By the way, we know there is a slight mathematical problem with our new chip, but it's very rare so it really doesn't matter..." or "Gee, we've found another security flaw in our browser, but we really think this is the LAST one..." Apple as a competitor is chiefly responsible for forcing the Wintel duopoly to give their users many of the things they now love and take for granted: graphical interface, multimedia, WYSIWYG, plug and play (not quite there yet!), etc. I am for competition and rewarding innovation and quality. I am against monopolies and mediocrity. Yes, I am also a long-time Macintosh user, so I won't bore you with overzealous Mac evangelism. But you can go to: www2.apple.com if you would like to read some facts instead of hyperbole. Yes Apple is in trouble, more due to perception right now than anything else because too many people are afraid they're going out of business (not true by a long shot). I believe they have turned the corner. Apple now has the fastest desktop computers by far (300Mhz, ramping to 400Mhz by fall), the fastest notebook computer (250Mhz, going to 300Mhz), a handheld computer (Newton MessagePad 2000) which is finally delivering on its earlier promises as well as selling like hotcakes, and an $800 student notebook computer (or network computer, if you prefer) that is taking the educational market by storm. Sure, Apple might continue to lose overall market share, so I suppose that makes them a loser to some. But Mercedes has less than 1% of the auto market and they're doing pretty well, aren't they? Market share isn't everything.
Avid's NLE products wouldn't have been possible without Apple. And going forward, the PowerPC platform's advantage will increase even more dramatically in terms of speed and power over Intel's offerings. This is critical to CPU-intensive applications like desktop video, where throughput and speed equates to higher quality video, ability to meet ever-shrinking deadlines and satisfying clients. As an Avid user who has spent a lot of time waiting for relatively simple effects to render, I can tell you that even a modest speed advantage means a great deal when you're talking about a half-hour or more of rendering, especially when you've got a deadline or a client breathing down your neck. Go here: macworld.com to see the chart which shows PowerPC is 30-60% faster overall than a Windows 95 MMX Pentium and an NT Pentium Pro. More specifically, for Digital Video, the PowerPC is 110% faster! And the next generation of PowerPC chips coming out this summer will be even faster. In short, if Avid were to abandon the PowerPC platform while Apple is still a viable company (it most certainly is), it would be the worst blunder since their delay in migrating to the PCI bus.
As I stated in an earlier post, I believe Intel is seeding Avid as the leader in a niche market dominated by Apple because they know that this performance gap is only going to grow larger. Their $15 million cash infusion is cheap insurance that Avid will develop a Media Composer for the Wintel platform. I think a Wintel NLE from Avid will do well considering the size of the market. But in my experience, power users (professional animators, video editors, graphic artists, etc.) tend to go for the highest performance, especially if there is compelling value. And the PowerPC platform will continue to deliver.
Good luck,
D. Kuspa |
