 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)steve mcqueen w M w ...and 150 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613417 Today 9 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
once apple bought logic, did it get better? or did it just sort of stabilize and stop; become a tape deck as people got into ableton, and perhaps soon, bitwig? it derivatives to the general sense of dread for these "software silos" we all increasingly live within. the hell does anyone need adobe premiere to update sixteen times a month for? any project worth a shit takes longer than that. then there's the issue of, like: why the fuck should i rent a hammer? that is stupid. i want to buy it and hit things. you know, carpentry shark~ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
apple mostly just buys companys 2 neutralize competition, ie they bought logic so they could promote garage band. they bought beats cuz ppl were using beats headphones instead of i pod white earbuds anymore |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
turns out that "acqui-hire" is often just a way to shutter a failed startup without leaving a black spot on the VC's permanent record. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it derivatives to" is gibberish. don't try too hard to sound clever, mate |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was using Logic since 2001. After Apple bought it, they improved performance and workflow style, big time. Then after version 8, it got bloated. Still, best DAW of all, especially considering price. I bought Logic Pro when it was $1000, but now for $200, the default package is fucking amazing. The only plugin I had to buy was a 303 emulator. Apple did/does not care about supporting Garage Band-- at least that's not why they bought Logic. They just wanted to get into the pro audio market, so their hardware would be used to produce pro audio. Main competition at the time was Cubase and Pro Tools (which still required purchasing the PT hardware). Apple buying Logic was for the same reason they developed Final Cut Pro-- to have software that could make Apple into a "pro" brand. Much like Apple developing new audio tech to tie into their software+hardware for increased performance, they also developed codecs to speed up workflow with better quality, for Final Cut Pro, etc. Despite Apple being ultra consumer at this point, they've always developed and supported technology (hardware+software) to increase performance in the long run. Ideally anyway. When the original iMacs came out with no floppy drive, everyone was like WTF?! The Beats ting-- that is a mystery. Perhaps they will release headphones that are somehow better than Sennheiser high-end, put them under the Beats label- etc. But then again, Jobs is gone. He had mad vision skillz. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years, Apple releases a bunch of contrived nonsense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, fair enough, I'm a bit sour grapes here as Apple killed the PC version about a month and a half after I started using it. Went to Cubase, 'cos yeah, PT is/was a bit too rich for mere mortals. So, let's just assume Logic is [software] and I am not trying to chew it out specifically, just make a general point about Apple keeping it on the reservation: Hitching [software]'s wagon to theirs forces both to maneuver in parallel. This is good for [software] in many ways: Apple's not gonna go broke, and as they strive for a smooth experience, they're not gonna pull a Microsoft Paperclip on ya. However, now [software] is now compelled to match Apple's zig-zagging. Like, did they re-skin Logic to meet with Jony Ive's "all skeuomorphs must die" decree? For music-making, that's just irrelevant trim... but it's part of the Apple thing, where everything must be in unison. Like anything corporate, it is steady and well-heeled but also leashed to a lamppost. The guys that made [software[ what it was gradually quit and go write [software 2.0], which Apple eventually buys a year before putting [software 1.0] out to pasture. And this is before you even get into the always-on crap -- you can't get shit done if all the controls are changing every two months. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In a general sense, a major problem with technology (hardware and software), is that there's a feeling of necessity in developers, to "push forward", whatever the fuck that means. Basically, just gotta "improve" things, so people can get excited and buy again. But I guess the main point is "get excited", and that meaning, that people are shit cuz they get bored. I can't imagine what the fuck Logic will be able to do in 10 years. Prolly, every single awesome plugin made, built-in. Prolly some "auto-create your track" feature, to set in outlines for genres. Fuck. Innovation is mostly an illusion. *waaaah* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
art can be just as bad as math in the sense that anything cool you figure out was probably sussed by gauss or newton while they were still in nappies. however, with software and the internet, it's not even been around more than a generation or so, if that. i really don't feel innovation on that "layer" is an illusion at all; there are still loads of open problems -- and not riemann zeta problems, either. more like: now that we have way more CPU power than anyone knows what to do with, what should we do with it? we've only hit that point in the last decade or so. this is all a tangent..... i've been trying to migrate more and more stuff to linux. it feels like trying to go vegan in many ways |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think innovation is more, for the first time using your opposite-hand upside-down to masturbate, rather than connecting your stereo equipment up to your wang for electrosex. The former results in experiencing the self in a new way, with the self-- the latter results in an experience that's relatively new, but ultimately potentially damaging and less-fulfilling. My view is that technology is good, except for when it exists to only push itself abstractly forwards. But I guess that is the organism that is tech. There is limited time and resources, so while it's cool that we have shit on Mars, there are whole cities that could be saved from pain, on Earth. Innovation is realizing that the legs are just as much a weapon as the hands. Well, the main point with tech is that eventually, anything will be possible. But how much of that benefits anybody? As in, actually helping with Happiness. Internet and computers are cool-- the best thing is being able to meet new people. Otherwise, it's mostly a source of entertainment. And without it- and tv- we'd be left with the greatest innovation of mankind-- imagination. It's sad that popular forms of modern entertainment kill imagination. It's sad that Western science has spread the idea that answers are everything. And because of this, all tech now serves to answer the question of how far we can go. And it doesn't even do that well. You speak of Linux-- as you know, Linux is incredible at bringing out performance in older hardware. That is magnificent. Why wasn't such performance possible when the older hardware was current? Because nobody gave a shit about refining the present-- tech is about chasing the future. To me, most of tech is wasteful. I believe that tech should be used to improve life- not just sell new things, and sell new meds- but if I am to show my appreciation for tech, I do admire those who bring out the most from older tech. With modern innovation- innovation!- it's incredible what older tech can do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose it all goes back to the grain mill making flour less of a pain which translated into massive (human) energy cost savings, and then it launched itself as a feedback loop: technology makes it easier for humans to keep themselves fed, which gives them more time (and more incentive) to improve things. once it reached a certain point, you began to hear people say "you can't stop progress" with an exasperated sigh. this is a fair enough criticism -- that, as a species, we are not in control over this feedback loop. we never were. however, that's the global level. i think it's far different when you enter into that feedback loop for yourself -- you make your own tools, which let you make even better tools -- it's fucking jet fuel and it's silly to pass it up. denying yourself that will not have any effect on the global-scale tech feedback loop. the point with linux is... well, it's like this: linux is a farming collective, apple is whole foods, and windows is price chopper. linux food is small and ugly because they don't use pesticides but it's as best you can do without doing it all on your own. whole foods you overpay for everything and this gives you the right to dictate some terms; food is more Martha Stewart. meanwhile, price chopper don't give two shits. it's cheap but you risk mad cow disease. guess this is some rambling point about how, if tech is to be a good thing, individuals need to reject that sort of top-down control and forge their own suit of armor, as it were. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
p.s. annoying engineering dad-ism #3.1419*10^4 -- "fast, good, cheap: pick two" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Shit, man-- really good point about our ability to dictate our involvement in this tech nonsense. The world may be turned miserable with tech, but we don't have to go along with it. Kudoz. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thx. i guess the only thing i have to add is that i respect the fact that reality requires compromise. i do computer stuff for a living, and linux is still a pain in the ass on many levels. you're just trying to get some shit done and apple is far from the worst on the block.... so long as you feel a gentle tug towards doing more, i'm perfectly satisfied. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol moving to linux is like going vegan : P why does linux not have easy .exe thingies? why do i have to go to terminal to do so much stuff? ubuntu could take over the world if the programmers who make it used windows for a few weeks. ubuntu is so much cleaner on teh nets, either that or the viruses are not so destructive and are cleverly hidden also surly cubase is great.. if its like nuendo. cause i like steinberger stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"why does linux not have easy .exe thingies? why do i have to go to terminal to do so much stuff?" "ubuntu is so much cleaner on teh nets, either that or the viruses are not so destructive and are cleverly hidden" You've answered your own question, you fucking fauxtard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the flipside of the apple "it just works" shit -- which windows does better than anyone wants to admit, honestly -- is that guaranteed simplicity tends to thwart longterm complexity. like, you can't race indy 500 in a cheap japanese compact car... but maintaining an indy 500 car ain't cheap, or compact. what saves ya here is that you can pick your battles: dual boot, have two computers, or simply do without some of the stuff linux hasn't fully sorted, yet. then put your focus into creating a custom environment built around your own form, which is the point.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd genuinely be interested to know what you cunts are trying to achieve with your obviously woefully under-performing machines (and by that I do openly make a snide inference about your micro-cock) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you know how max/msp is cool (but difficult) because it breaks down sound generation into a series of raw components and lets you wire them up together into your own interface? imagine that going on with the whole computer. unix is, essentially, the world's most complicated modular. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cool. But what are you trying to do that you currently can't do? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
building my own environment up wires me deep into the structure of it all in a way that using shrink-wrapped software doesn't, which leads me to think of ideas i would otherwise have never gotten anywhere near. there are other things: for example, lucky accidents -- a direct parallel to circuit bending, in a way. while working on that vid, i fat-fingered a command. i told ffmpeg to encode a 720p vid at 10kb/s instead of 1000kb/sec, and for some reason the encoder accepted that sheer lunacy. it was beautiful and abstract and now i'm neck-deep into understanding why it looks like it does and how i can gain control of that. if i may ask you a question: why does messageboard duping get you that you can't get otherwise? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like max too with wires and all that, great fun and makes the user become a real part of the program. I see what you mean EpicMegaMan!! : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The logo uses a zigzag pattern that shows how MPEG video codecs handle entropy encoding." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displdes by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides the video displayed by a widget. This property holds the media object which provides tperty holds the mhe video displayed by a widget. by a widget. This p This property holds troperty holds ts the mhe media oeo dispbject which proect whiject which providcvides the video dispeo dispy a widlayed bect whicy a widdes des des des des des des pldes by a wid the media object w displdes video |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
