3 ms·
Looks good, don't see the drawback for this usecase "These editors aren't working on Macs, per se. They're working around them. Sure, there's an Apple logo in
by TZubiri 2y ago
Looks good, don't see the drawback for this usecase
"These editors aren't working on Macs, per se. They're working around them. Sure, there's an Apple logo in the top-left corner (two, actually), but it feels superfluous, knowing that the software isn’t directly on the machine and it just as easily be running on a Windows or Linux box a thousand miles away"
But the source AND target of the remote connections are both macs, pretty straightforward
- leshenka 2y agothe point they make is that if you're using a remote desktop program to remotely edit videos you don't need a mac on the client side. what would have been a far better PR is if Final Cut offered enterprise solution with "server" part that holds videos and does the heavy lifting and "client" part that works with miniatures doesn't let you export anything to disk and all that
- TZubiri 2y agoSo the criticism is that Apple isn't vendor locking and offers compatibility between OS? Not something I would expect to see on HN
- leshenka 2y agoI'm not advocating for vendor locking, it's not what I said. I said if they wanted to advertise macs for enterprise video editing they should have implemented this in FCP natively. This however wouldn't be vendor locking because remoting would still be an option. Instead they've shown that remote desktop is the most reliable way to do this kind of job because there isn't anything better.