The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Apple acquires Silicon Color
macnn.com — Apple has acquired Silicon Color, the company responsible for producing FinalTouch color correction software. Apple will continue to honor maintenance agreements held by current Silicon Color customers until they expire, according to the company, and gains rights to all Silicon Color technology as well as its intellectual property.
fatmike- 415 diggs
- digg it
- NerveBand, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Aww man. I thought the were going make colored iMacs again. I really wanted a green one!
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was a software app bundled with Scitex Jazz+ scanners called FinalTouch that fixed imperfections and small hairs in a photo, sort of like Dust & Scratches on steroids. This must be something completely different since it is video color correction, but when I read the title, I thought Apple was going after Adobe PhotoShop.
:
Too bad. I hope they still do.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was a software app bundled with Scitex Jazz+ scanners called FinalTouch that fixed imperfections and small hairs in a photo, sort of like Dust & Scratches on steroids. This must be something completely different since it is video color correction, but when I read the title, I thought Apple was going after Adobe PhotoShop.
- heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"minimum requirements:
Computer
Apple Power Mac Quad 2.5GHz G5
2GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro 4500FX
Mac OS 10.4.6
Storage
A fast disk subsystem capable of sustaining at least 320MB/s
Displays
2 displays - Minimum resolution of 1280x1024.
For SDI out, a Blackmagic Decklink or AJA Kona is required."
I guess my imac G5 won't be running this any time soon.
320MB/s! a firewire 800 drive at 7200 rpm only gets 100MB/s at best!- tagliare, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And your point is? This is a professional tool to be used by professionals, not something you edit your vacation video with.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You're thinking in MegaBytes, not MegaBits. A megabit is around 128Kb (kilobytes), too sin some overhead and 1Mb = around 10megabits.
So, the 320mb/sec is around 30-35Mb(megabytes)/sec - heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"You're thinking in MegaBytes, not MegaBits. A megabit is around 128Kb (kilobytes), too sin some overhead and 1Mb = around 10megabits.
So, the 320mb/sec is around 30-35Mb(megabytes)/sec"
no, I got the information off of lacie hard drive info. A 7200 rpm drive that is firewire 800 is 90 MB/s. the software requires 320 MB/s. whats the difference? - heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"And your point is? This is a professional tool to be used by professionals, not something you edit your vacation video with."
I happen to have worked in video production, although that is not my job title now. I have worked at a tv station and now work with different producers at times. True, I don't use a $10,000 or $100,000 editing station, but I get my work done. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"This is a professional tool to be used by professionals, not something you edit your vacation video with."
Unless you work for Girls Gone Wild, then your vacation IS your profession. - heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2girls, snowboarding close enough
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1how much did they buy them for?
- willynilly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I don't know, but it's more redundant ***** by Apple.
- heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6-yawn- let me know when apple buys Avid Technologies/digidesign so we can stop the debate of whether avid is better than final cut pro, and erase pro tools off the map.
- lorensingley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Apple + Production = Future Monopoly
- heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6unfortunately in that industry monopoly is the only way to go thanks to "industry standard"
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Monopoly ≠ Bad
Illegal + anticompetative + monopoly = Bad - virtualball, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Im going to pretend like I know what kelly said :)
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd explain it, but it would kindof diminish the funniness of you not knowing... so I'm afraid you're going to have to live in ignorance.
In other words... Ignorance ≠ Bad - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Im going to pretend like I know what kelly said :)"
What he said was pretty simple.
Monopolies, as an economic principal, are not bad, and in fact are damned near necessary to assure certain services (for example, maintaining the roads). Sometimes, doing some jobs is so cost prohibitive and bad business-wise, that if a monopoly didn't exist, the service would never be performed (for example, orphan drugs). Sometimes, companies aren't interested in investing billions of dollars in growing infrastructure overnight, but if the nation needs it, the government is willing to grant companies money to do this (see the Interstate system and the Telephone industry). All of the above are examples of monopoly business ventures, but all of the above have increased our quality of life by hundreds of times.
What IS wrong is when a monopoly uses its unique position to actively get in the way of other companies. For example, Microsoft killing Netscape by refusing to allow Netscape to access parts of Microsoft's APIs necessary to make an effective web browser. This "anticompetitive" behavior, as performed by a company in a monopoly or oligopoly state is defined by the law as grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit, and is illegal. [Whether or not you or the company believes it is fair, it is up to the competitors and the market to decide whether or not certain business practices are anti-competitive. This is why Microsoft's in such murky water when it comes to expanding capabilities of their products].
If Apple started actively preying on prices of other MP3 players in its market, or decided to drop iTunes prices to $0.50/song, these things would be illegal, and anti-competitive, and Apple would be subject to a lawsuit. But it's done none of these things, and despite having prices higher (and in many cases, much higher than competitors with more capable products), it maintains its position. This is a "natural" monopoly, and is considered economically healthy (as natural monopolies rarely last for very long; Sony's Walkman's monopoly was quite a fluke in this way).
But in purchasing a color correction company, I can't see how this puts Apple any closer to being a monopoly player in any market, it just strengthens their products against Adobe's award winning color correction (and helps fix something their applications are commonly criticized for, especially Aperture). - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can I use that in my term paper?
- zigziggityzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4vbsurfer, you're one of those people that uses Wikipedia as a credible source, aren't you.
- krackle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia is a credible source, don't take my word for it though, but Nature (the science journal) has done the leg work to prove it. Check it out:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
Or you could keep spouting non-sense that it isn't and just keep being an unreliable source yourself. - kelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually lowering prices would not be illegal.
The examples you provided were anti competitive... but they were not part of Microsoft's illegal *monopoly* practices.
Microsoft used its (illegally acquired) monopoly in operating systems to gain a monopoly in web browsers. THAT is an illegal monopoly practice.
The iPod is and always has been a portable multimedia product. If they had a monopoly (no they do not have one now) and decided to leverage that monopoly to get into the microwave oven business for example and then dominate it to the point of monopoly status then THAT would be an example of leveraging their (hypothetical) monopoly illegally.
Simply lowering their prices to undercut the competition is very much allowable however. Monopoly or no monopoly. - miker71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Apple + Production = Future Monopoly"
An admission that Windows is too ***** to compete in this niche? - heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1unless your thinking of windows movie maker and paint, sorry no they don't compete. Apple has 4 levels of video editing software from imovie to final cut pro to shake, as well as motion, livetype, dvd studio, etc. sound they have garage band, soundtrack pro, and logic. photo they have aperture. None of these are in competition with any microsoft product.
Video editing software is in competition with mainly just avid, while sound editing in competition from pro tools (also owned by avid). I have used all of them, and it really is just a matter of opinion of which is better (besides pro tools, which is notorious for freezing and losing your data).
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2My hope is that they start doing laser engravings by the time I buy a MacBook.
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wtf? way off track.
- ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ERm... ok... So... Silicon color has a color correction program.
Color correction is about colors.
You have RGB color channels...
Um... you ALSO have Red, green and blue lasers!
LASER ENGRAVING!!!
Only 5 degrees of separation from being ontopic!
- brilliantdays, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think Apple did this for three reasons:
1) To have a great color correction tool inside future versions of Final Cut Pro.
2) And in the new version of Motion, which I'm sure will be "Motion on steroids", with all the great features from Shake, only much more in realtime.
3) And finally: To have even better color tools in Aperture. Add in Core Animation - new in OS X 10.5 - and you have an app that could start competing with Photoshop if that's what Apple want to do.
A bit more about it here: http://brilliantdays.com/finaltouch-in-final-cut-pro/ - miker71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple are not building a monopoly, they are building their brand.
- Cory70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^^^^^^Learn proper english first........and how could it not be a monopoly.....????iam lost at how this is not a ?????
- Cory70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^^^^^^Learn proper english first........and how could it not be a monopoly.....????iam lost at how this is not a ?????
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is