or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X

post #1 of 217
Thread Starter 
With many of Apple's professional video editing customers up in arms over this week's major revamp of Final Cut, several Final Cut Pro X project managers recently made themselves available to address some of the more prominent concerns surrounding the new software.

Introduced Tuesday as a "revolutionary new version" that "completely reinvents video editing," Apple's $299 Final Cut Pro X stands as a ground-up re-write of the company's industry-leading professional video editing suite Final Cut Studio, targeted at both professionals and advanced consumers, or so-called "prosumers."

In doing so, Apple is laying a solid foundation for the future of video editing on the Mac but starting from scratch has translated to several missing features, incompatibilities with earlier versions of the software, and frustrating changes that have led some in video editing circles to unofficially coin the release "iMovie Pro."

Broadly speaking, response to the software has been mixed, with many iMovie users lauding the upgrade as a more powerful and capable version of the company's consumer-oriented offering, while several of those who make a living off the software are condemning it as unfit for professional use.

In its first public attempt to address some of these concerns, Apple made available to the New York Times a handful of Final Cut Pro X product managers who openly addressed the softwares "missing features," which they believe fall into three primary categories: features that are actually there and have just been moved around, features that Apple intends to restore and features that require a third-party (non-Apple) add-on or plug-in.

For instance, a popular gripe with Final Cut Pro X is its inability to import footage from multiple cameras and jump between those feeds while editing. Project managers for the software acknowledged that multicamera editing was indeed a critical feature of Final Cut Studio and said they plan to restore this feature in an update, calling it a top priority.

Another complaint centers around a lack of direct support for RED digital cameras, which are favorite among filmmakers who want to record incredibly high-resolution video directly to a hard drive. Apple similarly claims that it plans to re-instate this feature and is working with RED to create a plug-in that will deliver native support. In the meantime, it recommends that professionals set their RED cameras to capture video in the QuickTime format, which Final Cut Pro X can import.

Apple also plans to restore the ability to assign audio tracks with a future update to Final Cut Pro X, but in the meantime recommends that editors purchase a $200 utility called Automatic Duck Pro Export 5.0 to create and manage audio tracks automatically when they export to ProTools.

Meanwhile, Apple says that its untrue that editors can't set custom frame rates or frame dimensions with the new software. It maintains that options for both exist when creating a new project via the Import dialog box. And it adds that editors can also change the frame rate or size during export if they're willing to pay an extra $50 for the new version of Compressor also released Tuesday.



It's also untrue that editors can't specify import locations, Apple says. In the Import dialog box, theres reportedly an option called Copy files to Final Cut Events folder" that will leave imported files where they are when deselected.

Still, Apple concedes that some complaints will likely go unrectified. For instance, Final Cut Pro X can't import old Final Cut Pro projects and there's reportedly no plans to address the matter. Instead, editors will need to keep both programs -- Final Cut Pro 7 and Final Cut Pro X-- on their hard drive, and edit the old projects in the old program.

After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded that "Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence" with Final Cut Pro X, which is to "(1) throw out something thats popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something thats slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces."

A full list concerns regarding Final Cut Pro X and the responses from Apple product managers can be seen here. Readers may also be interested in checking out a response to Pogue's piece authored by video professional Richard Harrington.

For what its worth, in May of 2010 -- a full year before the debut of Final Cut Pro X -- AppleInsider issued a lengthy report titled "Apple scaling Final Cut Studio apps to fit prosumers," in which it exclusively revealed that the company's Final Cut Studio suite of video post production apps was "getting a significant makeover to better target the software to the mainstream of Apple's customer base rather than high end professionals."

Within hours, Apple issued a comment dismissing the report.
post #2 of 217
Without multi-camera editing, it's useless to me. I'll wait.
post #3 of 217
Your article just restates David Pogues article. Richard Harrington has posted a full and thoughtful reply;

http://www.richardharringtonblog.com...x_response.php

Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product? Did he ask them how it compares to Premiere Pro, Media Composer or Vegas?

I have a hard time seeing Stephen Bayes defending this release...
post #4 of 217
Quote:
For instance, a popular gripe with Final Cut Pro X is its inability to import footage from multiple cameras and jump between those feeds while editing. Project managers for the software acknowledged that multicamera editing was indeed a critical feature of Final Cut Studio and said they plan to restore this feature in an update, calling it a top priority.

Sounds like they didn't do their homework. Is Apple caring too little for the professional? Consumerism is great because you can sell lots of stuff but it sure seems to mess up lots of good things.
post #5 of 217
That Pogue's comment regarding Apple's method summed it up perfectly. It is a well known fact people just need to understand Apple MO. Mind, people rarely change. We are not in the 1880s any more but I understand the frustration. Still, there are choices and one of them is to wait.
post #6 of 217
I agree with the 'regurgitated' content charge. AI, try calling Apple personally for an interview at least once. If nothing else, you could ask them to comment on the David Pogue article.

Support your articles with original research or just post a link. You are two steps away from outright plagiarism.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded that "Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence" with Final Cut Pro X, which is to "(1) throw out something thats popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something thats slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces."

Pogue is correct.

Apple did the same thing with iMovie.
post #8 of 217
If history tells us anything, it's 'Avoid Apple Products That Receive Complete UI Makeovers Or An 'X' In Their Name'.

iMovie '08, QuickTime X (though Lion's is bringing features back. QuickTime 7 is still essential, but it's better), and Final Cut Studio X.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #9 of 217
I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.

Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by edm81363 View Post

Your article just restates David Pogues article. Richard Harrington has posted a full and thoughtful reply;

http://www.richardharringtonblog.com...x_response.php

Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product? Did he ask them how it compares to Premiere Pro, Media Composer or Vegas?

I have a hard time seeing Stephen Bayes defending this release...
post #10 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.

Apple is doing the right thing to concentrate on the consumer market. The enterprise is a waste of resources.

I'm sure Apple agrees with you. What a darn shame.
post #11 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.

Apple is doing the right thing to concentrate on the consumer market. The enterprise is a waste of resources.

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
post #12 of 217
Even OS X?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If history tells us anything, it's 'Avoid Apple Products That Receive Complete UI Makeovers Or An 'X' In Their Name'.
post #13 of 217
LOL, I agree.

You especially reveal your age if you say "I wanted to go back to Avid anyway".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.
post #14 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Even OS X?



Wow. You got me there. Unless you want to go by Mac OS 10.0. THAT sucked. A lot. But hey, it got better.

And iMovie '08? It became iMovie '09, which was good. And now iMovie '11, which is better.

And QuickTime, as I said, is gaining its features back in Lion.

So, I guess that DOES hold. Avoid the FIRST RELEASE of Apple products that receive UI makeovers or an X in their name. But they'll get better, we promise!

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #15 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Even OS X?

A lot of people thought the early versions of OS X were not as good as OS 9.
post #16 of 217
In other words, Final Cut Pro X isn't ready for full production primetime now, but in a year, most people who are willing to stick it out will have adapted already.

What I do argue is that if you have mission critical work, it's not as if your current version of Final Cut Studio has decided to implode on itself. By the time you will have carefully evaluated the software for your needs, more features will be added and then if critical feature X is missing, you should complain or move elsewhere.

I do find it funny that people say they are going to "move elsewhere" almost ASAP. I mean, what is wrong with what you have now considering you've been using it for several years.

This does point out however that what people fear most is change, but certainly there isn't a person who can't argue that the current interface of Final Cut is the way it should work forever.
post #17 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So, I guess that DOES hold. Avoid the FIRST RELEASE of Apple products that receive UI makeovers or an X in their name. But they'll get better, we promise!

It didn't sound like you were saying the first release. It sounded as if you were saying to avoid the X altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

A lot of people thought the early versions of OS X were not as good as OS 9.

Yes I do remember that. The transition to OS X was magnitudes more disruptive than going from FCP 7 to FCP X.
post #18 of 217
Having used FCP for the past 6 years I was optimistic about this release despite the complaints. Just tried it out, and I really, really am not enjoying it. There is a learning curve and I'm just starting to find my way around, but honestly as a whole the interface and ultimately the workflow process just seems miles behind what was previously possible. It feels glossed up and dumbed down. I'm speaking on the prosumer level, not a true pro, not an imovie user. But had this been a release from another company I would not have paid much interest.

I know it's a 1.0 release and will be updated, but it has a long way to go before I would chose this over FCP7.
post #19 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



Wow. You got me there. Unless you want to go by Mac OS 10.0. THAT sucked. A lot. But hey, it got better.

And iMovie '08? It became iMovie '09, which was good. And now iMovie '11, which is better.

And QuickTime, as I said, is gaining its features back in Lion.

So, I guess that DOES hold. Avoid the FIRST RELEASE of Apple products that receive UI makeovers or an X in their name. But they'll get better, we promise!

Well, at least expect to be imperfectly delighted if you completely dump your existing workflow for a completely new 1.0 product at release.

Which is not the same thing as expecting the end of the world.
post #20 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes I do remember that. The transition to OS X was magnitudes more disruptive than going from FCP 7 to FCP X.

I don't know anything about video editing, but as a software developer I recently had to change from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 which has a whole new GUI.

It took time (watching tutorial videos), and there are still a few menus I miss, but I'm glad I made the change now.
post #21 of 217
The upgrade price of the plug in to export OMFs is $200.

New it is $500
post #22 of 217
Quote:
...it recommends that professionals set their RED cameras to capture video in the QuickTime format, which Final Cut Pro X can import.

Reds do not currently have this capability, the camera will generate QT proxies of the RAW camera files, but those are not the same thing as "video in the QT format".
post #23 of 217
That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.

There's been plenty of rumor though that Apple is working with RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic in building a new support structure for native video files.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe hedge View Post

Reds do not currently have this capability, the camera will generate QT proxies of the RAW camera files, but those are not the same thing as "video in the QT format".
post #24 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.

There's been plenty of rumor though that Apple is working with RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic in building a new support structure for native video files.

No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.
post #25 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

Well, thanks for sharing your ignorance!

This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.

That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.
post #26 of 217
Well depending on your hardware that could be an excruciating slow way to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post

No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.
post #27 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.

Or just transcode the RAW camera files after they've been downloaded from the camera with Red's own software, or work natively with the RAW's in editorial on a souped-up MacPro, either of which are the pre-FCP X standard workflows. I have a feeling that working with Red RAW files will continue to be more hardware-dependent than software-dependent, due to the processing horsepower required for transcoding, and the graphics horsepower required for editing RAW camera files.
post #28 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

Without multi-camera editing, it's useless to me. I'll wait.

Thank you. I don't understand why folks can't display this basic common sense?

The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release. You would have been in no different situation at all (waiting till multi-camera editing was ready) and in the meanwhile those who did not need it, would have had to wait longer.

Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?
post #29 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post

Well, thanks for sharing your ignorance!

This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.

That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.

Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #30 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post

Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.

Sorry, did you read the post I quoted?

THAT was insulting.
post #31 of 217
If you don't like It then program you own effing editing software.
Oh, I thought so. Be quiet.
post #32 of 217
From a legacy standpoint of support tape still does live on. But there is increasing less reason for it to live on. I cannot think of any new camera over the last couple of years that is tape based.

Looking at Steve Jobs skating towards to puck analogy. Everything is clearly moving away from tape. I suppose it can be up for argument how quickly things are moving away from tape.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post

This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.
post #33 of 217
Ever since Apple discontinued the Xserve (and before that Xserve RAID) its become clear that apple are pulling out of the professional market. There may be a Mac Pro refresh coming up but I'm betting it will be the last one, they will tell us the iMac does everything that the Mac Pro can do, Then aperture will get a remake from the ground up that makes it useless for pro's but great for hobbyists.

Fair enough apple is in business to make money, and the money is clearly in the consumer market at the moment, its just such a shame that we wont be able to use Apple products for high end work in the future
post #34 of 217
Cripes. This thread is on it's way to madness. I thought it might be safe to read the only non iOS thread in many moons and get some insight in whether I, a non professional, should try this thing.

Instead we have the usual rudeness and bickering.

Oh well, back to exile. I'll peek in when the new Mac Pro's come out. Maybe we can fight about Blu Ray?
post #35 of 217
FCPX is NOT ready for a professional workflow. Maybe in a year. you have to understand that this is problematic for those of us that often purchase machines for a single job. A new machine outfitted with FCPX will not fit into our workflow the same as FCP7. Therefore we have to rethink our workflow potential. Tha'ts the only problem. If i had to buy 5 offline edit suites tomorrow they probably would be AMC suites and not FCPX suites.

I will say it again FCPX is not ready for prime-time even in a tapeless workflow. I just cut a comedy using RED proxies. I got the EDL from the director, it was cut, approved and then had to be sent to the Ptools engineer (OMF), the colorist XML (who happens to not be working in color) and of course come back as a 4K file to be mastered to multiple formats including, Digital Delivery, film and tape. FCPX would be a nightmare to integrate into the workflow.

Again I have to remind some of you (because you are too young? really?) there is not a feature in existence that is finished in FCP. Not one. FCPX is not ready because it cannot talk to other software yet. Even when it is ready, it'll be like FCP7 today. It'll get used for offline edits and finished elsewhere.That's all FCP was ever for. That and youtube home movies and maybe bad/ cheap cable programing and a few indie movies no one will ever hear of.

Apple should have realized that FCP is an offline tool and it's hugely important that work going in MUST come out in a format other FINISHING programs can understand. It would be like giving your neg cutter in the valley a hard boiled egg and calling it an EDL. It doesn't jive.

I have no addiction to tape personally, (I honestly haven't shot tape in 3 or four years) but allot of people have shot allot of footage on tape. That footage is constantly being recycled, re-edited, re-used etc etc. There was a 30 year investment in tape and you can't just throw it away. It's bad accounting.

Should we all stop using film too because it's old? C'mon!. Allot of people are still shooting and mastering to film as well. Do you shit on the music artists that choose to record their albums to tape as well? Obviously you know nothing about technology, artistic expression and what the various tools allow you to express or you're just a putz.


Sure next year things will be different, everything is always different in a year, but honestly two questions remain...

Does Apple even care to continue with their professional software and features... ( I personally don't see why they would. seems a waste of time a and a vanity effort to me)

If so, How quickly? Apple should speak up to some degree. They haven't in the past, but this is a major overhaul which none of us expected. A timeline of features would be nice or to know if Apple even wants to bother.

Ya know people on AI have said I'm an arrogant prick, but your comments actually surprised and disappointed me. Obviously you have some issues given your attempt at dismissing people because of their age and it only demonstrates that you are in fact the one who feel threatened. I hadn't seen this side of you in your comments. You made the first member of my ignore list. For the record I'm 35 and have no fear about that. I'm just arriving at the age where I am respected and paid for that respect. Therefore, I have no problem rudely inquiring "How old are you asshole?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

Anyone with half a brain would use Avid when it was appropriate. FCP is more or less an offline solution with no hardware support. You are simply mistaken if you think FCP (in whatever form) on a $5k mac can hold it's ground against a full blown Avid suite. In my own self interest I'll only encourage you to stick to your guns


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

LOL, I agree.

You especially reveal your age if you say "I wanted to go back to Avid anyway".
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #36 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post

Sorry, did you read the post I quoted?

THAT was insulting.

yeah, but you still insulted back, and calling someone juvenile just because they aren't a professional video editor, or are somehow below your level? please. two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418

everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.

Look at all those big words you used!

After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded that "Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence" with Final Cut Pro X, which is to "(1) throw out something thats popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something thats slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces."

Sums it all up perfectly. If you really miss the features, nobody's forcing you to buy. Apple will soon restore the ones that are important to people. They really do well in listening to feature requests.
post #37 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by edm81363 View Post

Your article just restates David Pogues article. Richard Harrington has posted a full and thoughtful reply;

http://www.richardharringtonblog.com...x_response.php

Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product? Did he ask them how it compares to Premiere Pro, Media Composer or Vegas?

I have a hard time seeing Stephen Bayes defending this release...

I read the above article and share the nervousness and discontent about the new version. It's not so much that the new version is radically new, but Apple appears to be dropping (or redirecting) all information and references to the previous version. It's fine to have a new version, but in the Pro world you need to support old stuff for a while while people transition to the new stuff and the new stuff gets past 1.0 issues.

If I were an editor faced with transitioning to FCP X with no guarantee that some/many of the features I relied on would be restored, I'd seriously be looking at the competition.

- Jasen.
post #38 of 217
jersey, you should try it. FCPX seems like a great program built on a great engine and as long as you don't need certain standing features, you'll be fine and enjoy it allot from what I can tell. Ignore the bickering. We're just a vocal crowd.


We could start fighting about Bluray now though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

Cripes. This thread is on it's way to madness. I thought it might be safe to read the only non iOS thread in many moons and get some insight in whether I, a non professional, should try this thing.

Instead we have the usual rudeness and bickering.

Oh well, back to exile. I'll peek in when the new Mac Pro's come out. Maybe we can fight about Blu Ray?
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #39 of 217
It imports older IMovie projects, but not older Final Cut projects. Like it or not, that kind of makes it IMovie Pro.
post #40 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

jersey, you should try it. FCPX seems like a great program built on a great engine and as long as you don't need certain standing features, you'll be fine and enjoy it allot from what I can tell.

I probably will. At $299 it is the same price as Final Cut Express so why not.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X