Does anyone suspect Apple will make Final Cut Studio for the PC platform? Seems to make sense now that it's coded for intel processors. It would also open the door for more sales of their product. (though it almost would open the door then for competitors to sell their software for macs)

Just wondering if there's any rumors out there about this.

Jon

I'd be highly upset if they did that. I bought a Mac almost exclusivly to use thier software, and have been putting up with the Adobe products not being native. Now that Adobe is going mac again things are ok but it would still annoy me and push me to possibly get a PC instead and get both. I guess it would be good but from what I see, Apple originated applications dont run so well when they make them windows compatible. QT Pro is pretty buggy in XP, throw in a program or package like FCS and I forsee some serious issues. Although it would make alot of HVX people happy being able to use a PC laptop, and the FCS specifics of P2.

- Kyle

I can't imagine that happening anytime in the immediate future since FCP is one of those things which help sell Mac hardware. Jobs has been adamant about never licensing OSX for other companies, but this is probably the big question. Many people have speculated that he will eventually cave in and license OSX to other PC vendors. Michael Dell was quoted as saying he would love to offer it as an option on their machines.

My personal belief is that someday Jobs will license OSX because it will just be too lucrative to ignore. And since we have it running native on Intel there are obviously no technical barriers anymore (other than supporting lots of other hardware configurations).

But until that happens, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for FCP to show up on your PC...

I would hope it, actually.
And now with Adobe going Mac, it would be nice to see Apple doing the same thing...
I love Final Cut Pro, but I don't have the money to completely upgrade to a Mac for the use of that program alone, so now I work with Adobe Premiere Pro, which I like also, but there is 1 thing that REALLY bugs me (in FCP, you can just, with one button, unlink ALL the audio from the video over the whole timeline. In Premiere Pro you have to do it at each shot... VERY time consuming!)

I was thinking they might. Adobe and Apple seem to have a bit of a software battle going anyway.

To be honest the reason I hope it does, is because the honest truth is, although i'm forced to work on a mac, i love FCP. I want to get a laptop to do edits on the road, but i don't want to invest in a laptop strictly for FCP but also a laptop to have for other things.

I don't mean to get into a debate on whether OSX or Windows is a better platform, just my personal preference to work on a Windows platform because it's so much easier for me to navigate Windows quicker.

That and I can build my own machines and could put a better one together than Mac can offer :(

Jon

Apple is a hardware company. The reason they were able to sell shake for as cheaply as they do...and the reason they sell final cut for as cheaply as they do is to sell macintoshes. They don't intend to make profits on their software, if they did, they would be selling their pro apps for the original prices they were before they bought the software and Macified them.

Apple is a hardware company. iTunes is free, the iPod isn't.

Apple is a hardware company. All of these acquisitions came with painfully substantial price drops...the goal is to grow market share in their hardware by having more high quality software at prices that software companies can't touch because they need to make a profit on their development cycle.

Motion = http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/20/prismo/index.php
itunes = http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/history/2006/01/09/
final cut = http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002feb/bma20020227010464.htm
logic = http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/01emagic.html
shake = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3276/is_200205/ai_n7976536 & http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5933

The future holds:
http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/10/silicon-color-acquired-by-apple-whats.html
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0612proximity.html

Apple is a hardware company. The reason they were able to sell shake for as cheaply as they do...and the reason they sell final cut for as cheaply as they do is to sell macintoshes. They don't intend to make profits on their software, if they did, they would be selling their pro apps for the original prices they were before they bought the software and Macified them.
What Cole said. Apple's very good, and relatively inexpensive, first party software is the incentive they use to sell Apple computers. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple sold its first party Apps at a loss.


-A

For a hardware company they are surely cutting a lot of corners and taking PC hardware over their own. I guess I really don't get it. Ipod's aside their pc's are really just regular pc's now with a mac logo running Mac OSX. If they dont make money off it (which i'm not doubting they dont) then why not just build good pc's like alienware and put a mac logo on it?

OK talking like that will probably get me flammed :) I was just thinking that they were more interested in software sales since hardware traditionally doesn't make as much money, and that they would make more opening it up to the PC platform. I kind of get tired of people telling me Macs are better because they dont crash and are more user friendly, but i remind them that windows hasnt been crashing since 98 first edition and that i would trade control over dumbed down OS intuition anyday.

Just my 2 cents. Dont want to start a mac vs windows debate but i would rather them focus on the software which i think has more going for it then their PC clones running mac osx.

Jon

Does anyone suspect Apple will make Final Cut Studio for the PC platform? Seems to make sense now that it's coded for intel processors. It would also open the door for more sales of their product. (though it almost would open the door then for competitors to sell their software for macs)

Just wondering if there's any rumors out there about this.

Jon

It'll never happen. Apple's software is a showcase for their hardware. The engineering resources required to make any of their Pro apps work on Windows would double their development costs (or worse) for very little potential payback. And it would hurt sales of their high-end (read: profitable) hardware.

OK talking like that will probably get me flammed :)

No it won't because we have a zero tolerance policy for flaming at DVinfo :-)

I was just thinking that they were more interested in software sales since hardware traditionally doesn't make as much money, and that they would make more opening it up to the PC platform

Well I think that Apple has figured out how to make money pretty well as this stock chart shows (Apple is red, Adobe blue, Microsoft green and Dell is yellow):

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=adbe;range=5y;compare=aapl+msft+dell;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;so urce=undefined

Well I think that Apple has figured out how to make money pretty well as this stock chart shows (Apple is red, Adobe blue, Microsoft green and Dell is yellow):

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=adbe;range=5y;compare=aapl+msft+dell;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;so urce=undefined

Point taken. I guess that's why I'm here and Jobs is CEO.

jon

I have no problem with the conversation. Most of the problems the windows world has with the apple world are old misconceptions.

Apple started using commodity PC parts partially due to the "Macs are expensive" argument. This was true at the time...it's becoming much less relevant today and is really coming back to the same thing I've been arguing forever...the difference is user experience and what you're comfortable with.

The second part of apple's decision to go with commodity parts is that these pieces of hardware are where the advancement was being driven by competition. The more proprietary hardware wasn't progressing as quickly as the apple customers wanted and the customers (read: money) were jumping ship.

"Macs are simple...I want control over my system"
Macs are deceptively simple. They are specifically engineered to hide the computery bits from the user. These bits don't magically dissapear when they do this, they just target your parents and grandparents with the interface. As an apple support guy for the past 10 years, the target "creative professional" audience for apple computer doesn't "get" the computery bits when using the computer (boy do I have stories to tell). In the same way a carpenter doesn't need to understand the metallurgy that goes into making a hammer...it's just a tool for many folks.

You can access all of the computery bits of OSX through the terminal and some of the admin/utility applications that access the unixy bits. The power is still there, it's just hidden from the user. I started using computers in 1978. To repair them, you soldered new chips onto the logic board. I have a litany of hardware/software platforms I'm familiar with and have used over the years. The purpose and reason behind the advent of computers...the promise of computers was to make life simpler. By forcing average users to have to understand what is happening is pointedly trying to not live up to that promise (some people don't want the computery bits hidden, and there is nothing wrong with that).

Board masters, please moderate this as you see fit, I am simply trying to explain away some of the historically accurate misconceptions that still plague apple as a company.

It'll never happen. Apple's software is a showcase for their hardware.

Or at least that's the way Apple seems to view it. But now that Apple's hardware is effectively just a PC with a proprietary BIOS chip, there's little reason left not to emphasize the software over the hardware. If Apple could figure out a way to make enough money selling software without worrying about hardware they could do just fine financially, like, say, a certain software company from Redmond. Apple's biggest limitation throughout their history has been insisting on being a hardware company, when it's really their software which makes them what they are.

The reason you WON'T see Final Cut Pro on Windows is the same reason that Apple pulled the great audio editing program Logic from Windows:

On the Mac side, they have a known hardware set.

On the PC side, they'd have to support all the problems with the millions of PC components that are "near-spec" (things that are roughly within specification and often don't work exactly right with each other when combined.... something I suspect is causing a far greater amount of problems with PCs than anyone will admit to. Mostly due to the cheap ways the components are produced.)

With Logic, Apple cut loose 40% of users that were taking up more than 80% of the problems and it's working.....

Or at least that's the way Apple seems to view it. But now that Apple's hardware is effectively just a PC with a proprietary BIOS chip, there's little reason left not to emphasize the software over the hardware. If Apple could figure out a way to make enough money selling software without worrying about hardware they could do just fine financially, like, say, a certain software company from Redmond. Apple's biggest limitation throughout their history has been insisting on being a hardware company, when it's really their software which makes them what they are.
Actually, this has more to do with consumers' perceptions than the company's strategy. Remember, Microsoft sells a huge amount of their software to hardware companies for bundling. I don't know what the split was, but when I was at Microsoft it was an ongoing issue.

And it's not really accurate to say that a Mac is a PC with a different BIOS. Compare the Macbook and Macbook Pro to your average Dell laptop. Even a non-techie can see that the design is a big part of the package.

Beyond all the marketing stuff, there would be major technical hurdles to overcome.

Since Apple has such a small market share for computers overall, they are free to tightly integrate software with the OS and hardware. Any time MS tries to do this, they're smacked around with monopoly lawsuites.

Part of the strength and efficiency of Apple's apps is that they are so closely knit with the OS and hardware. Motion accesses the GPU on video boards directly, the quicktime video engine is integrated into the OS, etc. These bits of code that fuse the Apple hardward, OS and software are not available in Windows. Re-engineering them for windows would be a major technical hurdle with no real benefit for Apple, since ... as has been said ... they're ultimately selling hardware.

As a result, don't expect to see these apps moving over to Windows anytime soon.

And it's not really accurate to say that a Mac is a PC with a different BIOS. Compare the Macbook and Macbook Pro to your average Dell laptop. Even a non-techie can see that the design is a big part of the package.

Apple does a decent job of designing hardware, but without their software few people would care. Would you buy a Dell laptop which was identical to a Macbook Pro except it only ran Windows? Conversely, if you could only get the Mac OS by buying a Dell-like laptop, would you do that? Clearly it's Apple's software which makes them what they are, and their hardware is merely a sidelight to that.

In any case, it's pretty obvious we're not likely to see Apple software available for Windows any time soon. If you want to run Final Cut Pro, you've got no choice but to buy a computer from Apple. At least now that doesn't prevent you from also running Windows software on your Apple PC...

Apple doesn't tend to think in terms of software and hardware...it's all one package to them. Developing/buying software always takes its' cues from what hardware is available to it...and vice verse. Steve Jobs has said many times, they are unique in the marketplace as they are the only company selling the whole "widget". I think this is what makes their approach so contentuous is their apparent lack of regard for how the technology world is supposed to work. harware manufacturers don't write software...and if you write software, you certainly don't make hardware. They do the whole game soup to nuts. This is what they sell. Their software being good is only good because they control the hardware. Their hardware being good is only because it only is supposed to run in the apple universe. Their design is so good because it is made to blend with the software interface as a unified product.

It would hurt apple to turn into a software company...it wouldn't hurt apple to undercut all of their software competitors. If they are offering software that equals or is greater than their competitions...to the point where it's cheaper for the consumer to buy a Mac for running shake than it used to be to buy the software alone, they've just increased their market share...and that is all that counts in public opinion in the technology sector...what does the guy next to me have.

Apple is really good at branding. They sell a lifestyle to encourage their users to use and show off their apple branded hardware in public. Since the public will only buy things it thinks it know or understands, this is the only way to gain ground against all of the competition who all happen to run the same OS.

Their software being good is only good because they control the hardware.

Apple's software is good because it's clevery designed, and that wouldn't change if the software ran on other hardware. Apple may not have any reason to let that happen but they easily could now, and I'd guess there's a lab somewhere at Apple where their software is running just fine on standard PCs with an emulated Mac BIOS.

Remember, for 20 years we were told the Mac OS worked so well because it ran on non-Intel hardware. Now we're told it works so well because, um, what...?

Remember, for 20 years we were told the Mac OS worked so well because it ran on non-Intel hardware. Now we're told it works so well because, um, what...?

I was always told it ran so well because they chose the specific components to support, thereby having more quality control and less bloat due to having to support every possible configuration of hardware ;) . openBSD is an intel based OS...it has been ported to many other Platforms (including the PPC), but this is the basis of NeXT and hence the basis of OSX. The reason it was ported to PPC in the first place (second place if you consider the NeXT Cube) was to work on existing apple hardware which was PPC based at the time. Much more development has happened on the Intel side of the camp in regards to the BSD underpinings of OSX.

Moving to intel was a good move. They moved away from being locked into a non-competitive chip market with the PPC into one that is fighting tooth and nail against AMD and whatever littler ones are out there for the PC buying public's hard earned money. Competition is good for the consumer. I know I was complaining at the lack of speed increases over the previous 10 years of being a mac user.

Don't believe what companies tell you, they are in this to make money...it's their responsibility to their share holders. Apple has made their share holders very happy over the last 15 years. All of the marketing serves one purpose...to sell product. All of the business moves serve one purpose...to sell product.

Apple's product is hardware, All of the software they've been developing/re-developing has been specifically geared toward selling more hardware. They're doing a fantastic job of it...

Now if only that iPhone were out now...

Apple's software is good because it's clevery designed, and that wouldn't change if the software ran on other hardware.
I disagree w/that a bit. Part of the reason Apple's first party software is so good is because they have a very limited (relatively speaking) variety of hardware, drivers, and firmware to deal with. They can spend more time optimizing the software for the hardware because they don't have to worry about supporting the nearly endless combinations of "WinTel" machines out there.


-A

Apple computers really are now just really nice turnkey systems. I have yet to find a PC program that doesn't run well on a Intel Mac. Heck even a lot of the PC based HD boards run well on Intel macs running Windows. I know the Decklink cards have been used in PC form and a AJA Kona card has been used. Now the KONA card is a mac card while the AJA Xena is the PC card but somebody used the Xena drivers with the Kona card on their mac pro running windows and they said it worked great.

It is kind of hard to say Apple is mainly a hardware company when all they are doing now is taking some of the best PC components and building great turnkey PC systems. The only thing on these systems that make them different is the software OS. If you take a Mac pro and a HP 2 cpu dual core xeon and compare the two they are both pretty much the same except for the case. The motherbaord may also be a little different but the same chipsets are being used. So the only thing that is really different between a high end HP work station and a Mac pro is the OS and the bios. Now we start to get into the area of how is Apple any different then a PC user using Linux instead of Windows on thier PC.

As for FCP on a PC I don't see it any time soon. Forget about the hardware, it is the OS that would be hard to write for. Apple and Microsoft are very different and this is where the issue would be. Now perhaps if a new version of Windows was unix based it might become a lot easier.

At some point I'm sure we will see MAC OS ported to a PC. I mean if Windows can be installed on a Intel Mac then why couldn't the opposite happen as well. There really is no reason why it shouldn't work and then we could run FCP on our HP systems. It would be just like a special form of Linux with great media software that isn't free like most other Linux based programs.

So if you want to give up Windows then yes I think there is a future for running FCP on a PC. In fact it is already happening since Intel Macs are pretty much a PC with a special OS.

It is kind of hard to say Apple is mainly a hardware company when all they are doing now is taking some of the best PC components and building great turnkey PC systems.

That's an interesting philosophical argument, but Apple is a hardware company because they make most of their money selling hardware.

That's an interesting philosophical argument, but Apple is a hardware company because they make most of their money selling hardware.

That is very true.

That's an interesting philosophical argument, but Apple is a hardware company because they make most of their money selling hardware.

It's probably pointless to debate this further, but Apple is primarily a hardware company by their own choice, even though it's mostly their software design which got them their claim to fame. If they'd opted to be primarily a software company the technology world might be very different today.

Apple's current market value: ~$83.35B
Microsoft's current market value: ~$291.57B

I for one wish Apple had opted to emphasize software over hardware...

Apple's current market value: ~$83.35B
Microsoft's current market value: ~$291.57B

However, look at the comparative stock chart I posted earlier. So in round numbers, if you invested $1,000 in Microsoft in January 2002 today it would be worth around $900. A $1,000 investment in Apple in Jan 2002 would be worth around $8,700.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. I think Microsoft is facing a basic problem - their operating system is already installed on 95% of the world's computers; where do you go from there? OTOH, Apple only owns something like 4% of the market. So the sky's the limit for them. If they can increase that to 6% it would mean a 50% increase in the number of Macs.

Microsoft is aware of this problem, which is why they are trying to break into new markets with hardware like the xBox and Zune.

Apple only owns something like 4% of the market. So the sky's the limit for them.

Exactly. If they would open up their software to run on the billion or so computers which aren't currently allowed to run the Mac OS, the sky would be the limit for software sales...

Boyd,

I don't know how old you are, but if your memory went back a little farther, you might remember the real value difference in the stocks, not just recently. Take a look at the attached comparison.

I like Apple products. But it is the Apple stock that has faltered over the years, not Microsoft.

It'll never happen.

As others have stated already, Apple deliberately (as a business model) tie their software to a very specific hardware platform. That makes it easier and cheaper for Apple to develop and maintain the software.

Arguments that Apple software is simple and intuitive, hence would sit nicely on non-Mac platforms, are false. Quicktime on Windows has always been clunky, a poor performer and, with the more recent incarnations, stomps all over the OS, forcing iTunes upon the system and leaving a lot of mess behind it when uninstalled.

Apple are very good at marketing their stuff (often deceptively - they have had commercials banned in a number of countries for being misleading) and charging a premium. Apple TV? Oooh, wow! Hmm, can you say "Media Center Edition"?

I'll never understand the "Apple = Good, Microsoft = Evil" thing. They are both multibillion dollar public corporations. They both ultimately do whatever is needed to placate the shareholders.

I don't know how old you are, but if your memory went back a little farther, you might remember the real value difference in the stocks, not just recently.

Heh, I'm probably older than you think ;-) Of course you're right if you want to go back that far. If you bought Microsoft in 1986 and sold in 2000 you would certainly be happy :-) But have you ever heard the disclaimer they put in ads for investments, "Past performance does not indicate future trends" I don't want to come off as a Microsoft basher, I own shares of both companies but my time frame is similar to the chart I posted earlier. And it's tough to compare these companies because they are fundamentally very different.

We're getting pretty far from the topic of this thread, and I'll admit that I'm largely to blame for that.... sorry. But I think the discussion has been civil and it should provide a bit of perspective on why FCP for Windows isn't likely to appear anytime soon.

Apple TV? Oooh, wow! Hmm, can you say "Media Center Edition"?

OTOH, comments like these are more likely to steer this thread in a bad direction....

Hmmm, prior to the advent of the i-pod and i-tunes Apple was drawing most of its' profit from software licenses (Quicktime technology). Don't forget that Apple has been in the PC market for some time with its' database software Filemaker. It's also worth noting that more than a few folks running FMP on Macs have complained that with the latest versions of FMP (7, 8 and 8.5) Apple has been favoring the PC side; perhaps because PC sales outstrip sales for Apple platforms. As the number of Apple machines continues to shrink (there are more people running Windows 98 and ME than there are using OSX) I have no doubt that Apple will start looking at the PC market very seriously - money is money.

It's also worth noting that more than a few folks running FMP on Macs have complained that with the latest versions of FMP (7, 8 and 8.5) Apple has been favoring the PC side; perhaps because PC sales outstrip sales for Apple platforms.

Hmm, I'm not really plugged into the "filemaker community" but I have worked with the software extensively ever since the first version in the 1980's. This summer I did a major re-write of a big shared database which we use to run the production department here at the Opera Company. I have always run Filemaker on the Mac, and continue to do so. But most of our company has moved to PC's, so I needed to support them in this re-write.

I am really happy with Filemaker 8.5 myself. We also deployed a new machine (a Dell server maxxed out with RAM and fast SCSI drives) running Filemaker server 8 and that thing really flies. They have done terrific job optimizing the server, which used to be a real dog in earlier versions. Now my database (which is big, with almost 400 fields and thousands of records) is just as responsive over the network as it is on a local machine, and it's nearly as fast running remotely over DSL as it is on the office LAN.

But my experience is really quite the opposite with the Mac vs PC versions. There are few bugs when running on the PC (or should I say "features") which I haven't been able to resolve yet. Specifically, there are things which don't print correctly under Windows XP, and out IT guys are as baffled as me. Then there's also the fact that PDF's are supported in the Mac version in ways which don't work on the PC, since PDF is a native file format for OSX.
BTW, Apple spun off FileMaker, Inc. as a subsidiary a number of years ago, although they are wholly owned by Apple.

As the number of Apple machines continues to shrink

Well there are a lot of ways to look at market share, but I don't think it's accurate to say the number of Apple machines is "shrinking". Many people don't realize they have around a 12% laptop market share here in the US. In fact, they are announcing earnings today:

http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/01/16/apple-ipod-amazon-tech-cx_df_0117apple.html

Samir Bhavnani, director of research for Current Analysis, says Apple could outpace the 50% year-on-year growth in overall fourth-quarter laptop sales
__________

The previous quarter, Mac sales grew 30% year-over-year

Just to update the notion that Apple's sales are shrinking... from today's earnings report:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/apple-profit-rises-78-ipod/story.aspx?guid=%7BCCF6CF6B%2DD2C6%2D435B%2DA5B2%2DE6D92872F777%7D&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

Macintosh computer sales also surged, rising 40% to $2.4 billion. Mac shipments rose 28% to 1.61 million units, more than double the growth of the overall PC market. The results show that demand for Apple's products remains strong despite stepped-up competition from rivals such as Microsoft Corp

It is kind of hard to say Apple is mainly a hardware company when all they are doing now is taking some of the best PC components and building great turnkey PC systems.
AFAIK what Apple is doing now isn't different from what Apple has always done. They assemble their computers w/parts made by third parties (just like Dell or HP). To the best of my knowledge Apple has never designed and fabricated it's own procs, mobos, RAM, etc.,. The only thing that's different is Apple's move away from the PPC architecture so now they get their CPUs from Intel instead of IBM or Motorola.


-A

I would seriously consider fully reading and following these steps:

http://uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/

**** Jobs, he's always been a proprietary dork when compared to Gates, and for some reason everybody thinks he's this nice guy...well he ain't, he's a greedy and controlling DRM cyborg

Jobs, he's always been a proprietary dork when compared to Gates, and for some reason everybody thinks he's this nice guy...well he ain't, he's a greedy and controlling DRM cyborg

Yes a businessman...and when the whole legit music online thing started out, he was the only one who figured out how to compromise between the "screw the MAN...um..man" attitude and the corporate..."We control it or everyone dies" attitude. But he's a proprietary dork for a reason...he's selling a whole package...if there's a problem with your DELL computer, who do you call...once they answer and find out it's not a hardware problem, who do you call then...if it ends up being a driver problem...who do you call then?

Apple has taken ownership of everything in your computer (assuming you buy through them)...they generally will help you troubleshoot other companies products as well. In order to do this, they have to keep control over the whole package. Which brings us back to the initial point of this thread...the software they write is there to serve the hardware they've tested and chose to be the foundation of the Apple experience...even their packaging espouses this holistic approach to their computer lifestyle they are selling.

<rant>
If you want a PC...buy a PC, stop trying to tell apple what to do...they're doing more for their shareholders right now than most other tech companies...and doing it by doing more for their customers. If they were just any software company...or just any PC manufacturer, they would be competing in a whole different marketplace...one that is already choked with dell and gateway and HP and John Franklin's Discount PC House Custom Cheese Log Powered Windows Box which eventually you find out doesn't have a license to sell Windows from Microsoft...thereby putting you in violation of licensing agreements with MS and having their lawyers stomp on you after the napster police come and steal your daughters for dowloading the newest Jessie McCarthy track from some server in poland.

If you want Final Cut, Get a Mac...Buy a second drive to put windows on so you can play your games that you will lose out on by switching to the Mac...every other piece of software on your windows machine can be replaced with a mac friendly analogue.

In case you can't tell, this discussion frustrates me...mods, feel free to kill this post, but dangit...show me your business acumen before complaining about being wronged by Mr. Jobs and his cohorts. While everyone else was floundering, he found a new way to get it done.
</rant>

OK, OK. I've been guilty of fueling the fire here myself but it seemed like we were having an interesting discussion about the differences between Macs and PC's without getting into a platform war.

But I think this thread has now run its course. There really isn't much more to say about the topic of "Final Cut Studio for the PC platform." So let's move on to something else...