Yes, when Steve Jobs bought Logic from Emagic in 2002, it made strategic sense to fortify Apple's "software portfolio" to make Mac hardware more attractive. But that was before the surprising massive success of iPhones in 2007. Now, it seems like sales of Logic would be a insignificant rounding error in Apple's revenue. If Mac software portfolio was that big a deal, I'm not sure why they discontinued Aperture instead of Logic. It seems like there's a bigger market of customers that would catalog and modify photos rather than record music.
Intuit sold off Quicken to a private equity firm and yet Apple continues to own and develop Logic. I like Apple's stewardship of Logic but I can't understand its strategic value to today's Apple.
Anybody have any thoughts on what Logic does for Apple that Aperture didn't?
EDIT to several replies about "enhancing brand image": That's plausible but AVID Pro Tools is even more prestigious than Logic and AVID's market cap is only $250 million. Apple could acquire AVID easily with their ~$200 billion cash on hand to "strengthen Apple's brand among the professionals". People have been speculating this possible acquisition for years but I don't think it will happen. So not sure what Logic does for Apple that AVID Pro Tools doesn't.
Together with Final Cut Pro, Apple wants to have Mac-only exclusive software that is aimed specifically at cool creative professionals to build up the image that trendy creatives use Macs (and you therefore have no choice but to use a Mac, otherwise you won't have the software you need).
Aperture couldn't really compete with Adobe's whole workflow (since Apple didn't have a full-fledged Photoshop competitor). But also, movies and music are "sexier" in a way.
AVID Pro Tools works on Windows so it doesn't do anything for Apple. The whole point is awesome software that works only on Macs.
The day that every single program creatives use runs as Windows as well as Macs, is the day it becomes a lot harder for a lot of people to justify buying a Mac. It's that simple.
(So it's certainly not about any profit from the software directly, and it's also not just a marketing "halo".)
Before Apple bought it, Emagic's Logic ran on both Windows and Mac. After Apple acquired Logic, they immediately discontinued the Windows version. Can't Apple hypothetically run the same playbook and discontinue Pro Tools for Windows?
They don't do it probably because that would be considered a below the belt move and not worth the trouble since the mac is only 10% of its revenue.
As long as they didn't become a monopoly in any specific creative field, it would be fine too.
A literal monopoly is not necessary for a court to determine that a firm can exert significant and durable market power over its competitors and customers.
If a firm is able to achieve and maintain a monopoly solely through lawful and reasonable means, such as producing and offering a superior product at a lower price, it is free to reap the benefits of that fairly-attained monopoly.
That constitutes monopoly and anti-competitive business practices.
But this isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the US hasn't vigorously enforced its own antitrust law in over 20 years, because a policy of "monopolies are good" was adopted in the 80s and has only gotten stronger over the years. (The Microsoft antitrust case of the 1990s was an exception.)
I don’t see how this behavior would be particularly different from John Rockefeller buying up all the means of oil production.
There's also the question of how long would this work. This would stimulate windows DAW market; every software shop would want to sell the next mainstream windows DAW.
It was at that moment that I grew a strong dislike of Apple, having been a real cheerleader for most of the Macintosh's existence.
I mean, that seems like a pretty shitty thing to do to an existing userbase.
I guess they could, but risk generating a lot of ill will. I'm curious how discontinuing Logic was received. Seems very risky.
In the case of one of the schools and a number of the clients, I was the one who broke the news to them - generally greeted by disbelief initially, and then once they had checked up on it, absolute fury. If the intention was to get people to buy Macs so they could keep running Logic, in most cases it backfired spectacularly, and made life-long Apple enemies of those users - many of which either stuck with their old version of Logic for a number of years, or who jumped ship to Cubase (in the case of the schools, software cost would have been dwarfed by hardware cost when you have labs of 30+ computers, let alone trying to persuade a Windows-oriented ICT department to support Macs in any way, shape or form).
But at the same time, I have little sympathy for people who hate Apple for a move like this - regardless of the optics and whether it was intentional.
No one has to use a Mac, but frankly, there’s a reason why the creative crowd does. And, it’s beyond just brand image. They have a clear and complete vision for their software (which yes, breaks at the edges), but overall provides the best foundation for the markets they cater to.
Apple doesn’t want to be hamstrung by people running Windows on shoddy devices for premium software and thus exited that market. They also don’t want to make software for shoddy Android devices, so are conservative where they do.
It’s not an attack on users, but a refocus on the golden path.
I use both - Windows DAW is my studio machine (I have a slave which runs more plugins using Vienna), and a 2015 MBP as mobile and for creating videos/images for books as everything looks better. But I'm in the minority in being cross-platform, which is odd to me.
Which audio software developers are you talking about ?
The ones that are given a chance in June each year to preview the latest OS like all other devs, but decide to turn a blind eye while most indie devs get to work and release steady updates over the summer ?
And then, when asked in September if they're gonna be ready on day 1, reply "you know, there's not even a release date for this new OS thing yet". And then, when the new OS drops in October like clockwork, e-mail their entire user base with "OMG DON'T UPGRADE ! THEY DROPPED THIS BOMB ON US, WOW, TOTALLY UNEXPECTED, HONESTLY ! We'll check this out and let you know maybe, in the meantime DON'T UPGRADE !! APPLE BROKE STUFF AGAIN, DAMN APPLE!". And then, in December or January if you're lucky (or never), finally release a compatible version. Rinse & repeat for year n+1.
Or, maybe you're talking about those audio software developers that were given "only" 2 years notice that, ELEVEN years after macOS 10.6 introduced 64-bit support, it was finally becoming mandatory in Catalina. But they still decided to wait until it was released to believe it, like rabbits in headlights. Tough...
Seriously, audio software developers are the worst. They only get away with this behavior each year because musicians are some the most conservative and risk-averse userbase you can have. If you go to forums like Gearslutz.com, you'll find people asking you in 2020 if it's now safe to upgrade to macOS Sierra, or how to downgrade a brand new MBP to 10.13 because they don't "trust" the new stuff. It's utterly depressing.
Did you just wilfully ignore that part because it doesn't fit with your diatribe?
Extremely small teams = 1 or 2 developers, that still have to be creating new software if they want income. Having to divert their energy to fixing something that Apple decided to break hurts their bottom line.
Regardless of if you think your position is correct, pro-audio users are starting to get tired of Apple's bullshit (which really only started around 10.13 onwards), and I see more and more non-Logic users willing to make the switch to Windows.
The grandparent suggests that conservative users are to blame on this and that's partially true but it's not out of irrationality. If you are charging by the hour, you cannot afford any downtime. Studios run extremely lean teams and don't necessarily have a tech person on hand to fix things. If they find a configuration that works, they're going to stick to it.
For users that do want to upgrade their operating system (and audio users are notoriously bad for staying on old versions, for reasons you already noted) there is a clear upgrade path.
Each year between June-September, I see release notes for indie software like CleanMyMac, Gemini, Hazel... with fixes and improvements for the upcoming macOS. They seem to welcome new stuff with a sense of excitement and eagerness.
In the audio world, there is an attitude of conservatism and an untold expectation that users are always several versions behind, that I haven't seen in any other field I care about.
- those small developers only have 1 or 2 products to update
- audio devs generally have a larger set of products
- audio devs need to keep creating new stuff, it's kind of hard to just rest on your laurels (with some exceptions) in that space
I see it from both sides of the coin: as a user it annoys me that every year my inbox gets crushed under the weight of "DON'T UPGRADE!!!1!" mail outs, and as a solo developer it's hard to update all my products AND find time to create something new. I'd rather not be one of the developers who just sunsets products because they can't be bothered to continue updating them.
They're moving to services now, but they've always mostly been a hardware shop. The software was "just" a "feature".
You don't really believe that. This is specifically the reason Microsoft introduce their flagship device: the Surface Pro... and Google introduce theirs: the Pixel.
These companies don't suck, but their licensing model causes frustrations for even them!
Yea that's really not true at all especially when you can set whatever system requirements you want.
There's nothing spectacular about apple software. It's not any better or worse than windows or android software that has has the same level of investment.
Apple is doing strategic moves to create temporary one-way streets from other platforms to their own and then shut those down before others manage to take advantage. They did that with itunes in the past and they do that periodically with cheaper iphones now.
The same thing happens with software. Shut down the alternative platoforms so you either switch software or you switch platoforms.
There's nothing magical about Apple. Stop trying to justify their decisions, they are not made with your best interests in mind.
I understand, but realistically how could Apple have done otherwise without creating existential problems for itself?
In a nutshell, the marketing stance of Apple has always been, "Our products are the best, and they're all designed to work well together, so use them exclusively and you'll be good." That's the basic value proposition of Apple (whether or not you agree).
Supporting a Windows version of Logic would have undetermined the core value proposition and strategy of Apple. Apple, for better or worse, offers an integrated solution, using both hardware and software that it controls.
One advantage of Apple's integrated, focused approach is that it potentially allows for better and less costly quality control and testing than supporting every OS and every piece of hardware on the market.
So... DarkSky for Android?
Tbh, I'm surprised they hadn't dropped the product already.
along these lines and in the absence of other evidence, in these kinds of peripheral situations it's always a good guess that the peripheral product supports the profits of the parent product, and it's value shows up not only in it's own profits but in the parent products' as well, that it's a flanking product meant to protect the primary.
On a sidenote it has to be mentioned that Logic is just incredible value. I'm an Ableton Live user myself and love it, but the amount of content and the quality of the instruments/effects/tools you get with Logic for such a reasonable price without being expected to pay for an update is unmatched among competing DAWs.
And that is why I will never go back to Mac.
I have found that the time invested in learning how to use a tool is far more valuable than having a tool with a few more features. So with that in mind, I choose to invest my time and money learning how to use open source tools.
I would much rather be an expert in an open source tool rather than some tool that only runs in Apples ecosystem. (Just in case one day I can't use Apple hardware for whatever reason.)
Krita is tops.
Blender is awesome.
Inkscape is getting there.
From there to "Apple bought Logic to lock people to Macs" there is a huge leap of faith. The majority of Mac uses do not use Logic, so if their goal was to lock their users to their ecosystem, this move makes no sense.
Also, there are good and often better alternatives to Logic, including Cubase, which work on all major platforms. So if you don't want to move to a Mac from Windows or Linux for the next Logic version, you have many good options.
Your rationale is valid for avoiding Logic Pro, but not MacOS.
I agree about open source, of course.
Because one day, for other reasons, I might be "forced" to switch back to Mac and I will want to take my tools with me.
> And that is why I will never go back to Mac.
It seems like you've changed your perspective.
Update To clarify: because I don't want to pay a premium for a computer where I am running tools that work well or better on other machines.
Makes sense to me, but.. I don't know, maybe its not logical. I ran Macs as my primary machine for 10 years. Now I have a different perspective and don't want to go back.
* Remember that most people only replace their workstations every 3-4 years. So I'm assuming that the Mac could have an "Apple Tax" of over $1,000. Of course most of their machines are a lot more competitively priced than that.
Edit: Maybe WireGuard? But that's kind of niche.
If you qualify "running" to mean "runs well in an environment the developers will support", there is a lot of software that is only available for Linux.
As long as Macs are the best way to escape from Windows, people are going to buy Macs. It's that simple.
Someone somewhere in Apple decided that holding onto this market was worth it for probably solely the halo effect. I can't think of any other reason and makes no sense from a strictly financial perspective.
Strictly? Not at all. The crown was lost a lot earlier - around the time that digidesign started offering non-hardware versions, and for the same reasons.
I’m curious about your statement that professional-grade audio software had historically been a Mac-only affair. Is that really true? I was using some pretty serious audio production software in Windows as early as 2003. What kinds of software were Mac-only at that point?
Separately it is great that Apple only charge 200 bucks for such sophisticated software
In no universe is Pro Tools more prestigious than any of its competition.
I think Pro Tools is viewed as The Thing That All Studio PHB Managers Purchased At Some Point So It's Reasonable For Studio Techs to Be Trained For. Kind of the "nobody ever got fired for picking IBM" of the music industry. In my opinion, AVID does not have a reputation for making innovative products. See what happened when they acquired Sibelius (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKx1wnXClcI).
My limited experience with the industry suggests that Ableton, Bitwig, and Logic are the Cool Tools for Producing Music, that Cubase (Steinberg) is particularly popular with composers, that FL Studio is the cool low-cost leader among students, and that Reason is The Outsider. Notice which software is not in this list.
For many years pro tools was the only game in town for serious non-linear audio editing, and did not support midi at all.
Around the same time period Logic was the only game in town for serious midi work and didn’t support audio at all.
I wonder where a modern tracker such as Renoise fits in. This one even works on Linux.
Pro Tools as a product only makes sense at scale, with multiple people in the workflow in different locations. Same story for Media Composer compared to other NLEs.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there's hardly any music that isn't electronic these days.
That's true, but you can hardly say the same thing about synths, which seems to be the salient detail.
I think one possible reason / theory is that the resource allocated to Logic is so small ( by today's Apple standard ) none of the management bother about it, and it is not running in direct competition to any of their own Apps ( Aperture with Photos ) or their close allies's ( Adobe ). So the name Logic dont even pops up into management radar and the team decide to keep working on it.
And compared to Final Cut Pro or Aperture against its competitors, I think Logic is doing very well for musicians in many professional market. ( And they are the ones willing to buy Mac Pro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNrG2mwt4Uo.
And in the later video, turns out literally most of his audio kits are ridiculously expensive. And Mac Pro isn't even considered expensive at all. )
I'm not really buying that because they've killed plenty of other things which would also be tiny investments in the grand scheme of Apple. Aperture, Shake and Motion come to mind.
Find it very strange they updated it at this point and really starting to wonder if the reason it still exists isn't something as stupid as by having an offering in the pro-audio space it gives executives more excuse to hang around with famous musicians. I mean it's pretty obvious Cook is celebrity obsessed.
Motion has had continuous updates nearly every time FCP has. They updated it a few months ago. 
You swap out Final Cut with DaVinci Resolve or Adobe Premiere and you're going to have to relearn workflows and keyboard shortcuts, but it's not going to be radically different. You still start by creating audio and video first, and then cutting it all up and putting it back together in your video editing program.
Same with photo software like Aperture or Lightroom. You go out and create photos first, and then you come back and edit and arrange them. Most of what you do is just going to be the same kind of changes, like cropping, adjusting curves, etc.
Logic is different. You might be using Logic from the very first moment when you're writing a song. You might open Logic first, before you even have an idea for your song. It's like a musical instrument, in the sense that it has unique sounds and textures that you can get used to.
All creative software that outputs the level of complexity of a song, video or image is like this. Each has their own algorithms and quirks that end up in the final work in some way. There is nothing uniquely romantic about Logic vs other creative tools.
Plenty of us start the project off right there in the software the project is finished in.
This has nothing to do with algorithms or quirks. This is about different sounds, the different UX for performance, and the different tools for creating sounds. Whether or not you care about this depends on how you use the software, but many people actually do care about this.
You can, of course, use Logic as a simple DAW to record a song that’s already been written. Write your song, come into the studio, fire up Logic and hit record. It’s more or less interchangeable with other respectable DAWs like Reaper when you use it like this. You might notice some differences between the EQ, compressors, reverb, or other plugins. Most people don’t care.
But Logic also comes with a huge library of sounds and presents a particular interface for sound design and performance that isn’t interchangeable with other DAWs. Compare it to something like Ableton or Reason and you’ll get the picture that different people are using their DAWs in radically different ways at the songwriting stage.
> Plenty of us start the project off right there in the software the project is finished in.
Not for Aperture, Final Cut, Shake, or Motion. At least, not in general. Those are the pieces of software I’m talking obut.
The AVID idea doesn’t make much sense as Logic and Final Cut are already integrated into their product lines. I think there’s a certain amount of truth to the brand prestige argument, but I think the more important point is that these capabilities are actually core to Apple's product strategy, they just manifest themselves in unintuitive ways. E.g., Apple's AUv3 strategy would never have worked without GarageBand and GarageBand is Logic.
Look at the price of Logic compared to other DAWs. Apple is almost giving it away for free. It only costs $200 but in contrast comparable DAWs cost many times that. Ableton Live Suite costs $750. Nuendo costs $1000. Etc.
AFAIK Aperture never had such a hardcore following and didn't offer such a unique product. The photography market is clearly dominated by Adobe anyway.
At the time, sure - but none of my friends and contacts who do part-time and professional photography have anything good to say about Adobe Lightroom - the move to Lightroom CC left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, as have the many Cloud-related SNAFUs (apparently a couple of years ago Adobe screwed-up Lightroom's non-destructive edit files and caused a load of people to lose all their Lightroom work - and times when people are unable to authenticate with Adobe so they can't even open the program). Apple would be on to a sure-winner by re-launching Aperture, especially if they give it the visual indexing features present in Apple's existing photo-management products.
In my limited experience, products whose main differentiating factor is being "not the other guy" usually generate a ton of hype, but end up flopping.
Right - you have to have a better product, but Lightroom isn’t Photoshop (i.e. it isn’t impossible to compete with) and Aperture’s codebase already exists. Apple could divert the profits from a single day’s worth of iPhone sales into an endowment for Aperture to keep a halo-effect on their Mac hardware.
After considering Ableton's high prices and competition from Bitwig, I haven't been enthusiastic about paying for a Live Suite upgrade.
But it's still the underdog. If it becomes more popular I'm sure the price will go up at some point.
Of course this is only attractive to a smaller part of the DAW market. People working in recording, mixing and mastering will not find any value in those things.
Also people working in media composing have tended to prefer Cubase or Logic because the arrangement view in Live was pretty bad up to version 10.
Also if you buy a midi controller in many cases you get a free version of Live which is plenty for people getting started.
Logic (besides being one of my favorite DAWs, supporting poly pressure and MPE, etc.) also forms the basis for GarageBand (and MainStage, which I also like.)
GarageBand is a fantastic and widely used program; personally I consider it a "killer app" that makes iPads (and iPhones and Macs) incredibly useful in music education, recording, and performance. The live loops view actually showed up on iOS GarageBand before being added to Logic.
I don't think it costs Apple much to do this.
How much does it cost to keep Logic around? There's engineering/product/design costs, marketing, and training/selling costs in store. The training probably pays for itself and not many staff at Apple Stores are trained anyway. There's very little marketing, so it's entirely possible there is no dedicated marketing resource for Logic.
As for the product/engineering/design, it's well known that Apple is pretty lean on these sorts of things and often has far smaller teams than outsiders expect. I could see this easily being no more than a team of 5 at this point, maybe less. It obviously took a lot more to get it to this point, but with very few features over the last ~5 years, it's possible that it's been iterated enough to just be easy to maintain in its current form (assuming no major changes).
All in maintenance team budget could be <$2m/year (not including store training in this). Apple probably spent that on door handles in the new HQ, and I can see Logic being as important a "halo" project as the HQ door handles.
You are wrong by several orders of magnitude.
Musicians are way more visible as creatives than photographers. Becoming a rock star is a thing, becoming a rock star photographer is... uhm... yeah well no, not the same as a real rock star.
Not really in 2020.
Like many other things involved in this decision, it's the perception that matters, not facts.
That's the point, the "rock" stars aren't making any money in the industry like other pop acts anymore - they're mostly doing their own thing on Patreon and streaming on Twitch.
It's about whether the end result is that the brand gets associated with the idea of "cool creative".
It's a common theme in many areas of Apple after Jobs return, including the whole Apple Store design.
correction! rolling stone not nytimes. edit
What a mess we are in culturally.
I hope she makes an enormous amount of money while she's popular and has a smart enough brain to bank it for when she is not.
PT was pretty much the industry standard ten years ago, but since then there's been a lot of churn to other DAWs - primarily Logic and Cubase, although a lot of dance/rap newcomers use Live and FL Studio.
Bottom line is the resources Apple needs to devote to its media products are barely a rounding error, and the rewards are increased traction with professionals and a few extra hardware sales, especially at the high end.
It's a conservative strategy, and not a terrible one.
The disappointing part is that it could have been part of a consistent product plan ten years ago. Now there's always the worry that Apple will lose interest again for another 5-10 years.
I'm not familiar with Aperture. According to Wikipedia it and iPhotos were abandoned to the benefit of Photos. Not knowing why Apple made this choice, I don't know if doing something equivalent with Logic would make sense.
I do know Logic. It's a well respected DAW and some musicians do buy a Mac just to be able to use Logic. Also, DAWs take a long time term to learn well, so when the time comes for a Logic user to upgrade or replace an old machine, they'll probably buy a new Mac. (More convenient, less hassle.) All this of course helps Mac sales.
And while Mac sales might not be much these days compared to iPhone and iPad sales, the margins on Macs are still high, so why shouldn't Apple continue to sell Macs?
I think you just hit on the test Apple has historically used to decide which pro software to continue developing and which to discontinue.
Logic and Final Cut are both decades-old industry standards that demonstrably sell Mac hardware. Aperture, though? It was too new to have the installed base of either. It debuted around the same time as Lightroom, and as competitive as it may have been, I have a hard time imagining a Windows user in the 2000s specifically eyeing it as a reason to switch to Mac.
I suspect they continue to invest (at least some) into their "pro" software because they have a loyal user-base that they don't want to tick off in the same way they did with their hardware business.
I always assumed that the goal was to strengthen the Apple brand and signal that it's a more suitable system for creative work.
Compare Logic’s cost with a $800/year ProTools subscription and suddenly you might not really mind the fact that the SSD in your new Mac is overpriced. With that price difference it would be illogical to ever move to software that can run on Windows.
Apple still wants to empower the creative community with Finalcut Logic. To ensure if you’re a creator there is a software to support you on the Mac platform.
Now, do they need to do this to sell laptops, does it actually sell significant laptops, are there more people that buy a Mac laptop for Logic than who bought or would have a Mac laptop for Aperture? I dunno. It's also possible they miscalculated with Aperture. Or may be miscalculating now with Logic. Apple can make mistakes or behave irrationally too.
But it's gotta be to sell laptops. (Which is consistent with not charging for the upgrade; it's not about revenue from the software at all). And there are definitely at least some people buying a Mac laptop for Logic. (In a world with decreasing laptop sales in general, as many move phone/tablet only).
Now, with what you say about iPhones... I keep worrying that Apple will decide they don't really care about selling laptops after all someday...
Reducing it all to one cross platform codebase allowed them to make the bundled app a bit more full featured, double down on a few headline mass market features like photos sync and theoretically add more features that are missing from Aperture over time. That said, they’ll probably never duplicate it all, probably don’t want to duplicate it all and they seem to have focused more of their photography effort on iPhone computational photography. Not to mention when Aperture was first released, Pixelmator, Acorn and Lightroom didn’t exist (on the market at least) yet.
Contrast with Logic where there still isn’t a lot like it and part of how you get to be a billion dollar business is by maintaining those hundred million dollar businesses. There’s a lot more YouTubers, DJs and Podcasters out there now, not just musicians and one thing they all have in common is they’re all dealing with audio production.
Positioning aperture alongside final cut and logic, as the power tool for cool creative professionals, would confuse that because of how big photography is for the iPhone.
Edit: also come to think of it, aperture was almost exclusively a tool for managing your photos shot on a dslr. Apple just wants everything to be “shot on iPhone” now so you shouldn’t need that type of legacy workflow.
This thought pattern transcended the PowerPC processor, to the off-the-shelf Intel processors that the competitors used, to the ARM processors the mobile devices used.
Apple continuing that perception with at least software updates can continue to cement their hegemony amongst the minds of people.
They're also good machines without the fluff! But merely showing support for that perception can help retain the premium pricing when even artists across the entire socioeconomic spectrum (heavily weighted to one side) will still prioritize getting Apple devices over other expenses, or at least aspire to and talk about those dreams.
The toolchain part is pretty broad: this includes OS services (audio routing!), outboard hardware, DAWs and video editors, and third party plugins.
When comparing macOS vs. Windows for audio, macOS wins for most people on those axes. Apple wins on OS services (audio routing is super annoying on windows) and on outboard hardware (USB3 works okay, but Thunderbolt is better, and it's a pain to get configured on a Windows machine). DAWs is mostly a wash with the exception of Logic, and third party plugins is a total wash.
Even given that, Logic plays a strategic role in that ecosystem for Apple. As the more expensive option, Apple always runs the risk of being the secondary platform for application authors. Without Logic, other DAW vendors could be free to neglect their offerings on Mac. That ecosystem is healthy right now, but Logic is a key hedge.
Oh, and lock-in is a big thing, too. Logic users may be a minority, but they're firmly locked into the Mac in a way that Reaper users aren't.
Video is different. Many video creatives have made the switch to windows. There were two key reasons they have jumped:
1. Hardware. The Mac Pro was neglected for years, and third party graphics card support has always been better on Windows. Performance isn't paramount, but it does matter.
2. Final Cut Pro X. This completely changed the editing model from under a lot of pros, requiring them to completely rethink their workflows. Since this happened at the same time that hardware support was really bad, a lot of pros thought, "Well, if I'm going to have to rethink my workflow anyway..." It loosened lock-in at a time when the other parts of the platform were pretty weak.
Specifically I'd like to have application A and B play to speakers, and have an output I can record that has application A and my microphone, without sending application B to that output or my microphone to my speakers.
At least to me, this is what "audio routing" implies, so it'd be great if this feature was there and I'd just missed it.
macOS also has the capability to create an aggregate audio device from multiple devices. That's a pretty niche scenario, but I used it and I haven't been able to get something like that working on Windows at all. The fix was to shell out more $$$ to expand the inputs on my interface.
But you can pay money for apps that make it happen, and you can also Homebrew free options like BlackHole. (SoundFlower used to do this, but the more recent MacOS security updates seem to have nuked it.)
On the Mac, you want something like Logic to run, you just go into the Logic preferences, set the output device and the buffer size. You get the low latency you want and other apps are free to use the same device as well. It's the only platform where I consistently get both "all the apps just work without messing with it" and "the pro apps have low latency".
If you want desktop audio recording you can install iShowU or one of the others.
As Windows 10 leads us to the subscription based computer that exists to apply updates as a primary function, that distinction may disappear.
It's an older paper, but the general direction still holds up today:
It seems with live loops a change in workflow is coming to you
This is like the metrics SW engineers keep tabs on for language popularity. More questions in Stack Overflow and number of lines registered in GitHub suggest a language's value separate from, but suggestive of, objective traits.
Photos has a monthly subscription and Music has one, that's why those were kept.
News has a subscription.
They are working on Chess and Dictionary to get subscriptions too. But if you open the about menu, you'll see these have been updated in 15+ years, so it has not been much of a cost to maintain those.
So, by keeping Logic reasonably up-to-date compared to other DAWs, Apple retains my Mac loyalty. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Might be a little ot. But Apple did actually acquired many top visionaries and developers from Avid to Logic team many years ago.
 Lack of Nvidia support means 3D/CAD and video/FX users will choose other brands.
2 - The team is in place, and they are good at it.
3 - They bring internal feedback about latency, driver reliability etc, that makes the platform an excellent one for artists
4 - It is exclusive - so why get Windows when you can get more options on Mac?
I've long had the same question about Claris. At least Logic fits in to Apple's brand thesis; FileMaker would make way more sense at Microsoft or Oracle.
Teach a person how to make a song in Logic Pro X and they must buy your hardware. (so that their workflow doesn't get impacted)
Pro tools first big “unlocking” came when they bought m-audio and then would allow a crippled version of PT to run if you owned certain m-audio hardware.
Logic is part of the portfolio to preserve that image by having as many musicians as possible using Apple hardware and software.
However after trying Ableton for a few weeks (they offer a 90 day trial + 30% discount) I recently switched from Logic and I find the Ableton interface and UX in general much more intuitive for electronic music. In Logic I always had the feeling that there's too much choice and couldn't really get into a flow.
Looking at these screenshots the new features probably sound great and look good but there's simply too much happening on the screen. Honestly Ableton's been a breath of fresh air for me.
I follow a youtube show where producers talk about their mixes and 90% use abelton live.
If you're new to Logic really recommend his YT channel he has one of the most complete Logic training out there and it's all for free. His videos are a great place to start for Logic beginners
I'm a Logic user who creates modern sample-based music at a pretty rapid clip. The Quick Sampler here is pretty much perfect and it's what anyone would expect in 2020 – a tremendous replacement for EXS24.
This was a long time coming and (IMO) makes Logic almost a no-brainer for a lot of people who make music.
 - https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203718
Now Apple, please update your Music Memos app which is rated 3.5 on the App Store, and is holding over 1,000 of my ideas hostage to sync issues.
A stagnant app on your own platform is a broken promise to your users.
"Logic Pro X 10.5 is available today as a free update for all existing users, and is available on the Mac App Store for $199.99 (US) for new customers."
... and the system requirements (doesn't require Catalina):
"macOS 10.14.6 or later"
Still the UX is cluttered and the shortcuts obscure, I find Ableton much cleaner.
It can't be easy for abelton and Steinway to compete with the richest company in the world.
how so? I personally find Ableton to be vastly superior to Logic. Some of these latest Logic updates look like copies of core Ableton workflow / features:
Live Loops : Session View
Drum Machine Designer : Drum Rack
Sampler & Quick Sampler : Sampler & Simpler (also Looper)
If you care about the health of the music software industry spend your money on Ableton Live or Bitwig instead of this.
I despise having computers in front of me when in the zone, but somehow iPads and iPhones don’t bother me. This allows setting up in a different room and going to town.
Sure, this whole release is small potatoes in the larger world of Apple, but for a long-time Logic user like me, today's Christmas. :)
I think overall, Logic has mostly an audience of "hardware" people. As in: musicians who compose and record with hardware, and then mix in Logic. From the top of my head, Calvin Harris and Disclosure use Logic, mostly for putting together recorded audio and mixing, but not really for writing. Also, professional mixers who are used to massive mixing consoles use either Logic, Pro Tools or Cubase. Adele's "Hello" was mixed in Logic. These 3 DAWs have a lot of similarities. One of them is their "skeuomorphic" interface. Why do digital faders look like the real ones? There's no need to. Alos, the arrangement-only view. Or the plugin inserts and bus/aux channeling. But I think all of this emphasizes the need to satisfy the "hardware" audience, who want to have the digital equivalent of their hardware interface.
Ableton on the other hand (and Fruity Loops for that matter) didn't look at the hardware. They created an interface for the digital age. That's why faders are just colored bars. Session view? Genius. Very intuitive. Instrument racks to regroup plugins? Straightforward. You want to do parallel processing? No need for a bus or aux track: just create a second chain in your instrument rack and you've got your parallel processing done. It literally takes 3 clicks to go from a plugin insert to parallel processing. Color-tagging your samples and plugins? Yep. Compare that to Logic where loading a plugin requires you to navigate from dropdown upon dropdown. You can't even group inserts to disable them all at once.
Now I used to go with Logic for my mixing and mastering purposes. Having 2 separate DAWs allowed me to separate the creative from the "engineering" process of mixing. Logic also has great comping features, a nice "flex" mode, a better quantization tool, and nice built-in plugins. Also, the slower workflow felt better for mixing. But now I just do everything in Ableton.
With this update, Logic is going into Ableton territory. Sampler-> Sampler. Quick Sampler->Simpler. Step Sequencer->Session View. But I don't think that adding a few features on top of an outdated workflow will turn me away from Ableton.
It's weird that they're going into that direction because I always felt that there was a clear distinction between Ableton and Logic, and that the lack of crucial Ableton features (like the aforementioned comping) was to not annoy the Logic developers. But now I guess it's open season?
I think it's a reflection of the fact that there are (at least) two different kinds of ways to make music:
1. the "traditional" way of recording individual instruments in a more or less linear fashion
2. curating/compiling pieces of pre-recorded audio, aka samples, and triggering a sequence of them on-the-fly, while recording that sequence.
Each calls for a different set of tools and workflow. Logic's roots are in the former but Ableton tapped into the latter. Logic is trying to appeal to both.
I use Ableton and I also play with Logic, FL and the occasional tracker. I would love to know what you mean with "the vim of DAW" and perhaps if there is a video or text that describes it?
For tutorials: you need to get some Kenny Gioia in your viewing time. It will make the power of REAPER so much more clear:
Now I know what I'm spending the rest of my lockdown doing.
I imagine its one where the vision of the product and what developers actually came up with never really aligned prroperly.
Wich is insane considering the possibilities.
I want to never see my dock on the desktop again, and have it on the touchbar. That was almost possible with the other replyers suggestion but still not perfect.
I'm not an expert but as I understand it, it's because of CoreAudio allowing direct routing of midi (and/or/xor?) audio through the system, while in windows, without an external interface, everything has to pass some sort of queue, adding a simply unusable latency out of the box.
This might have caused the "myth" that Apple is better for audio production.
At the low end, Reaper, Cakewalk, GarageBand (not to mention Cubasis and Auria on the iPad), FL Studio, Reason Essentials, Bitwig 16-track et al. give you amazing capabilities for very little (sometimes no) money.
There is also an amazing wealth of great cheap or free instrument and effect plugins.
Apple is also offering a 90 day trial of Logic (as well as Final Cut Pro) during the pandemic.
(And the late great Avicii famously used FL Studio to great effect. These are amazing and affordable tools that are good enough for everything from podcasts to bedroom recordings to multiplatinum albums to film scores.)
Maybe Trance music is the killer app for Logic or vice-versa. ;-)
I'm launching an IDE for MIDI soon http://ngrid.io.