Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X - Page 4

Quicktime Pro could sort of do that - export > sound to aiff. No AAC/MP3 etc though but iTunes sorted that out. Hopefully it still allows multi-channel audio editing.

Oh, sure, but that's not really the point. It shouldn't be SO FREAKING STUPID that it can't understand an audio-only file isn't a MOV, particularly when it could open audio-only files and understood they didn't have video tracks at all. There's no exasperated emoticon, so imagine that's one.

At least that's all over now...

From what we are seeing they radically changed everything under the hood of FCP X. In a way they could not have done in the original FCP.

I suppose people would have been happier if the lines blurred more between original FCP and FCP X. Apple is making a hard departure between the two.


Things do change. Simply because we've had the hammer, the screw driver, or the saw - for hundreds of years does not mean that there isn't room for someone to come up with the nail gun, the drill, or the power saw.

Outside of online rumors they didn't really know when a possible FCS3 would be released to make that type of planning around. You are right though that buying more seats is an issue. At this point Apple might as well allow anyone who owns FCS3 to download as many seats as they need for free. Its reached its EOL at this point.


I think that was to make it clear that this is not a transition from the old to the new. The new one is something totally new. That message was heard clearly.

We know a migration tool will be coming.

I agree that those questions are perplexing. I can understand why those who depend on FCP for their livelihood are asking a lot of questions about what is going on. At this point Apple isn't providing any answers.

I don't understand the propensity to invent such negative answers to these questions in the vacuum.



The first question I would ask about (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) were people actually buying or using them?

Apple's leadership would have needed to talk to its shareholder board about its future plans. If the board thought that Apple leadership was really about to kill its flagship professional product and really alienate a core group of Apple loyalists. I think the board would have made quite a noise about that. Because that narrative makes no sense, it seems obvious to me that something more is going on. We just don't know what it is yet.

I would look at this from the standpoint of knowing that Apple is doing something that they aren't telling the rest of us about. I would look at the fact that those guys are sitting on over $50 billion in cash reserves. No other computer or major electronics manufacturer is sitting on that large a pile of cash. I think it would be safe to assume that someone over there knows what they are doing. They just aren't telling us yet.

If FCPX was an isolated event, Id completely agree with you.

But think back to the Shake cut, Apple left a gaping hole in its product line and Shake users had to simply move elsewhere. Perhaps someone might say "use Motion", but this only would come from a lack of understanding of what each software package can achieve, Motion simply cannot do what Shake could. This isnt a quality issue, Motion works fine for what its meant to do, it simply wasnt designed for high-end compositing, it was designed for animation and some light compositing.

Similarly, the Color cut has left a void, as has the Xserve cut.

Wonder why they didn't release a FCPX Beta first. It would have gotten them much useful idea about what the customer's concerns are.

Or, they should have made the move in two step instead of one. Step 1, change to the new interface while keeping most of the underpinning of FCP7, with the few most requested update implemented. Step 2. Completely replace the gut of the program.

Also, thinking back on all those products they simply cut along the way, I wonder why they didn't sell those applications if they want to get away from them. I'm pretty sure it would have gotten them a not so small sum.

The big picture is that there is no reason that had to do with creating a new 64 bit program that has anything to do with most of the functions not currently in FCPX. For example, assignable audio? No, there is no coding that preventing this from being a feature. The world is full of 64 bit DAWs. This was a conscious decision to not include it, to keep this program within its projected scope. Exporting and importing EDL, XML, AAF and OMF had nothing preventing them from being added programming-wise due to the transition. Apple doesn't want to export to nor import from other rigs, which is consistent with how the whole Apple world is. But doing it in the consumer world of mp3 players where you want to sell them content is different from doing it in the pro world where you don't want them to easily work with outsourced creative layers.

I'm not in this post commenting on their wisdom or lack of in this, just pointing out (not to you in particular, please) the fact that it was Apple's choice where most of these new differences landed, not any programming barriers.

Oh Jeez... : ) Don't mention Shake among FCP editors unless you can deal with them screaming their heads off for an hour and then collapsing in a heap.

Whether people could actually use Shake is something you should never ask of, or put the onus of, on the end user. Shake was a major Apple screwup.

The term leaving a hole in the product line implies that that is a space where they want to compete.

When Apple EOL Shake. They were saying we no longer want to be in the VFX business. EOL Xserve, we no longer want to be in the server business. EOL Color, we no longer want to be in the color grading business.

What I would take away from all of that. Is that from a business standpoint Apple looked at where the market is going, they looked at where their competition is excelling, made the decision on whether they are willing to invest the money and resources needed to continue to compete in that market.

Those products that no longer exist, its a clear sign they decided to no longer compete in that market.

I agree they did make choices about what is included and what is excluded.

I also agree that the UI of FCP X has been simplified for those who are not professional editors.

Ultimately the market will decide if these were good choices or not.

Apple never does anything this way.

They always totally cut off the old product and completely replace it with the new product.

Good summation of the issues here.

Tries to sort out what's cool, what's missing but could reasonably be added, and the stuff that's just part of the deep structure of the program that completely misses the mark for professional editors.

Again, I wish folks would stop imagining that those latter lapses are somehow just a matter of people getting used to Apple's new thinking and getting over their fear of change, because that's wrong. This program is not intended for, and cannot be used by, professional post houses.

Now, whether that's be design or some kind of massive fuck-up I cannot say. I saw one interesting article that suggested that FCP X is a return to FCPs roots-- a scrappy little bundle of advanced features for indies, prosumers and hobbyists. The argument is that FCPs current status as a broadly deployed pro tool is actually kind of an accident-- Apple really didn't have any designs on that market and just started adding stuff once it started getting used that way. So then when it came time to overhaul things they just dumped all the "pro workflow" stuff because they really never intended to be in that market, and now they're going back to giving artists and tinkerers the best possible tool. Who knows.

But we do know that this software cannot be used by a lot of the people who are using it now. Cannot. It's not a choice.

The problem with David Pogue's piece is that he doesn't work in post-production. So it's easy to say "Well some things are different, wait for a few patches and change your workflow. We all learned how to use the Word ribbon, didn't we?"

But this isn't about cosmetic changes, this isn't about clicking different buttons. This is about the fact I can't open my old projects and FCP7 won't be supported in OS X from now on.

This is about having no way to collaborate on projects with anyone else.
No way to use basic hardware like broadcast-quality external monitors.
No way to use networked storage. I've got hundreds of terabytes of networked storage at work that is constantly being updated.
No way to organize media outside of the ridiculous "Events" feature. Sorry, I'm not doing weddings or vacation videos.
No support for tapes. I've got years worth of tapes to work from on a regular basis.

If I ask a vendor to supply me with a very, very basic list of deliverables, they can do it in FCP7 without any problems. FCPX? Not possible. If someone buys a new Mac tomorrow, with the only version of FCP apple sells, they won't be able to provide what is required of them. That's a problem.

And it's not simply something that can be easily patched-in. The whole structure of the program is for editors working on one computer, without any external drives, who never share anything with other vendors or editors.


It's actually extremely supportable and the internet is full of point-by-point analyses of why it's not fit for professional use.


Tell that to Avid's accountants. I'm sure they'd be amused.

And to everyone who hasn't worked in post, who doesn't get why FCPX is such a misstep, let me quote the following:

Nobody's whining. Users of FCP are saying "We wish Apple didn't leave the upper tier pro video market"

What are you considering whining? When I say I can't do a multitrack session without multicam support and discrete audio assignment with this because it doesn't offer it? That's not whining. That's like calling me a Fanboy because I prefer Macs. It's ignorant.

Jobs is right as far as what direction Apple goes in for its stockholders. Right all along as far as what works in a video studio? I hope you're not implying that.

On the subject of seats, people don't really know how to buy FCPX for businesses. If you can authorise up to 5 machines on a single iTunes license, you can possibly get away with 1/5th of the licenses in a business but people still don't want to have an iTunes account per employee or small groups of employees:

https://discussions.apple.com/message/15457293

People are just fumbling around in the dark here about what to do, including the Apple reps selling the software.


I don't think that message was clear at all. The message I heard was that a new Final Cut Pro was coming and that Apple has listened to feedback and delivered on nearly all of it. What happened instead was they delivered an application called Final Cut Pro X that has zero compatibility with Final Cut Pro yet does some things to replace it while leaving out important parts that ensure it can't.

We also don't know if a migration tool is coming from Apple. We know nothing. It's fairly certain one will come along because it just needs XML/EDL import but Apple has said nothing about it. There are times to be silent like when your best-selling phone drops calls by touching the side and there are times to come out and say what the hell is going on. Now is one of those times when people would just like some definitive answers.

- Is FCPX going to get multi-cam and import/export of EDL/XML/OMF and if so, when?
- Can you get a volume license for FCPX and if so, how?


The real kicker with Automatic Duck is that Apple said they worked with them to get their software ready. So Apple helped a company develop a $500 software package to fill in functionality that used to be in Final Cut Pro. Why not just ship it with that functionality in the first place?

There's little money in it for a fickle company like Apple. If you had the faintest clue about what populates pro video houses you'd know there is huge money there for the players, of which Apple is not one. Do you even "know" any professionals? The consumer market is multitudes more fickle than the pro market. Pick up a handful of trade mags. Go to the ads. Look up the financials of the players. The upper tier video production market is made up of companies that wouldn't ring a bell for you if someone was yelling them in your ear with their products sitting in front of you.

Besides, shouldn't you be arguing that pros are too set in their old fashioned ways and refuse to learn new programs? Oh, that's right, they're "fickle".

You don't have a clue.

This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.

What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".


You cannot say but you will infer........

I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.

I would guarantee that the people designing and building FCP know the ins and outs of Avid Media Composer - Adobe Premiere Pro - Sony Vegas, as well as any seasoned pro. I guarantee when they design FCP it is within the context of what their competition is doing.

I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire. I guarantee Apple has had copious amounts of meetings discussing FCP X and what it would look like at launch. For their own strategic reasons they made the choice to release it as it is today.



I don't believe this is true. From the fact that its known when Randy Ubillos was at Adobe working on Premiere, he wanted Premiere to compete with Avid. He left Adobe and joined Macromedia to create FCP because Adobe wasn't interested at the time in competing with Avid.

Over the life of FCP Apple has acquired expensive software tools and folded them into a $1200 package. Apple built an entire ecosystem around FCP. I don't believe this was an accident at all.

Conan FCP editors respond to FCP X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywNG6GXBZuU

I'm saying now that FCP X is here, that message is clear.

I don't recall Apple making any promises about FCP X before it was shown at NAB.



I didn't mean from Apple. 3rd party developers will create them.



At this point there is no way to know that. But I'm sure someone will be happy to create a story of laziness and incompetence to fill in the void.

XServe is dead
Shake is dead
Color is dead
DVD Studio Pro is dead
Soundtrack Pro is dead
Final Cut Server is dead

Now we get FCPX... which is structurally compromised from its very foundation. Fixing it would require a complete reworking of the program from the ground up. It doesn't even support Final Cut projects, only iMovie.

Yeah, I think it's safe to say what this means in the long-term.


I'm sorry... who exactly is "making shit up" here?

Instead of getting secondhand information from columnists, we should be getting information directly and publicly from Apple. Apple should hold a town hall meeting of professional video editors where Randy Ubillos and his team sit on stage, take questions+comments from the professionals and directly address every one of their issues with FCP X. He and his team should also go on record and publicly commit to delivering all those requested features, listing them one by one and providing timelines for delivery of those features. The entire town hall meeting should be available for pubic viewing.

One would hope that Apple is actively involved with the professional editing community. Do Ubillos and his team visit professional tv and movie studios to see the type of work they do so they can understand their needs?

For the next year or however long it takes for FCP X to get all the professional features, Apple should continue to sell and support Final Cut Studio for those businesses which still need to buy the software. FCP X should be priced at less than $100 until it reaches the full functionality of FCP 7.

None of this griping matters.

Those who complain can and will wait. It's not like the current version brings people to an editing halt. They are already using it and can continue to do so.

Those who aren't complaining will buy or upgrade to the latest version.

Can you give an explanation as to why it would need to be totally reworked?


While I haven't been inside Apple's labs to confirm it. Do you honestly believe they only built this one version and nothing else?

At this point you should scroll to all the posts where you've chastised someone for stating any well thought out potential aspect of the future as baseless.


Your do realize all your posts contain mostly assumptions?

As I stated earlier, do you have any idea about the history of Shake? To call it merely Apple end of lifing it as if it was the smartest move to make shows you don't. Apple strung on people who bought into Shake. It would be child's play to find slew of FCP editors who felt royally screwed by that fiasco. That's a TERRIBLE example of strategic EOL. It's a story that you could never find an Apple employee on the project who would characterize it with the positive slant that you ignorantly give it.

Do more than just Google for some random info and jump back into a thread. It exposes you as someone who doesn't even know what the products were and what the history was.

As per the link to the piece I posted, some of the choices in FCP X represent substantial information, in that they can't be viewed as stuff that wasn't finished or that will be built on but choices that mitigate against use in a pro setting.


No, I mean it, but my question is different from yours: whether or not Apple intended to repurpose FCP X for a different demographic or whether they though the pro industry was going to be OK with these choices (or sufficiently OK to wait and see what they do next).


See above, although my idea of what purpose might be afoot and yours are different.


And if that's true it's a huge fuck-up because they just blew their competitive standing. Even if they have elaborate plans they blew their competitive standing. It's not possible to overstate how badly this has gone over, and in that respect it really doesn't matter what you might imagine they have in mind, it's a competitive blunder to release a product this hostile to people you claim they are competing for. In "the context of what their competition is doing", it's a monumental fuck-up.


Ibid. If this is true, why do the "put all your media where you an see it all the time unless you put it on a separate drive which you unmount" thing? That's not a technical problem or a TBA problem or a just hang on while we show you where we're going problem. It's a deal breaker that was designed into the software as a specific choice of how people should edit. It makes sense if you're editing by yourself on a single machine. It makes no sense, none, if you're working with multiple clients in a professional setting. And that's just one example of a number of choices that simply don't work for professional editors. Again, not "get used it", but don't work. And not "will be added later", but "rethinks the fundamentals in a way that doesn't work."

The only possible interpretation is that Apple didn't think it was a problem. The only possible reasons for that are either Apple doesn't see this software being used in that setting, or they became so insular in the development process that they didn't realize the ramifications.


It's been a long time since Randy was outside of Apple. Randy doesn't work day to day as a video editor. It seems entirely possible to me that Randy may have thought he was making an excellent rethink of video editing but because of Apple's culture didn't ever talk to professional video editors about how some of this stuff might fly. In fact, FCP X looks like exactly that-- a very smart, very forward rethinking of how digital video editing is done, that didn't take into account a lot of niggling "on the ground" realities that are less about cool new thinking and entirely about day to day practicalities-- practicalities that emerge from things like working with multiple clients, working with legacy formats and equipment, working with a large staff, etc.


I believe that's possible as well, I just suspect that the intent was different than what you're proposing-- and that's the very charitable explanation.

Just in general, if Apple has such a firm hand on this process, why do you think there's such an unprecedented firestorm of outright contempt? And it is unprecedented. There's been grumbling before, talk of worries about where Apple was headed, etc. But the response from the actual, use it everyday, need to make a living community is practically unanimous: we can't use this, we're done.

Was that Apple's clever plan, do you think? If not, how on earth did they not anticipate this very damaging reaction? If they're totally up on Avid and know exactly what's called for and what's needed, why are they shooting themselves in the foot this way?

"thank you for calling Apple Press Relations office. Your call is very important to us. Please listen carefully to the following menu of options. If you are calling from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek or Fortune, please press 1 now. If you are calling from any other media outlet, please stay on the line and your call will be answered by the next available press agent. (hold music) You call will be answered in 47 days, 12 hours. Please continue holding. Your call is very important to us. (hold music)"

It was the promises made at NAB.

In front of 1700 Final Cut Pro users, the presenter said "we want to create great software that you guys can use". How can they use it if it can't even open their project files or support some of the key features they need?

How many of those people do the team at Apple think use iMovie for anything? None I would expect but iMovie users are the only people with an upgrade path.


They will and we'll see support when the API is published.

Things we know:
Multi-cam is a top priority and is coming.
Project sharing works but you still can't reconnect media properly and according to them won't be fixed. They are saying to copy raw footage to each other because apparently the old reconnect dialog caused problems:

"the old Reconnect dialog box got people into a lot of trouble; they often reconnected a project to the wrong files, or the wrong versions of files. FCPX now assign files a unique identifier"

Cool, so now we have the option to just close the program and go home or start over. That saves a lot of time and effort.

Besides the obvious in-workflow file renaming and editing outside of FCP, one possibility this excludes is I could never edit on a lower-end system e.g laptop or god forbid iPad, send over an EDL-equivalent and rebuild the timeline using the raw source footage (which obviously won't fit on an iPad). Of course if they hear this issue might affect iPad owners, I'm sure they'll jump to the rescue.

Apple says audio track assignment is coming as well as RED support.

You get 3rd-party tape deck control software so this isn't a huge deal. Import from tape, take an export and write to tape.

Apple says EDL is archaic and won't be supported by them but will arrive when the XML API comes. Same with OMF. Automatic Duck isn't a plugin yet, it has to exist as a standalone app and you run it concurrently with FCP.

AJA and Black Magic drivers are coming for monitor output.

One by one, the problems will disappear over time but the fact remains that Apple has created these problems when they had already been solved over the course of the years. Yes, the NAB demo is still awesome and the features are awesome but they shouldn't screw up on the basics like file management. If I have an MP4 called sunny-beach-1121.mp4 then let me reconnect it to ProRes sunny-beach-1121.mov. I don't want to be told it's offline and have to jump through hoops for this basic functionality. People do screw up edits by reconnecting the wrong stuff but those people aren't professionals and it's easy to put right if you have the right features - don't dumb down software designed for people who know what they're doing because chances are, they know better.


It is a Fuck-up of Colossal Proportions to the power of X. I believe it can be fixed and probably without a fundamental rewrite - they can allow media bins to be tagged and hidden from view, they can change the way media reconnects. Whether they will is a different matter entirely. The software looks so good and it would be a shame if they just act all arrogant about doing things a certain way and lose the respect of the professionals who would appreciate the work and only impress the handycam crowd who won't even see what they did.

Marvin, that's a really keen observation, and one that hadn't occurred to me even as I was ranting about their treatment of their software.

It's quite the irony that people chide the hardware aspect and software aspect of Apple use from the polar opposite sides. But as a lifelong Mac user who has stuck with the platform because I favor the OS I agree. They have a decidedly anti-"i" attitude when it comes to their hardware, and and not a speck of the Macintosh seriously thought through, over engineered, no compromise high standard of product when it comes to their software.

Good call : )

Gee, if the author had mentioned that it was pouge up front, I woulda stopped reading and moved along because I know it will just be another typical apple fan boy piece...he is a total shill with no intellectual honesty on the mac side.

But they are the ones that kept Apple in business in the Dark Days. A lot of thanks they are getting.

Amen!

This is a great idea, but frankly they'd probably need heavy security to make sure Ubillos and company make it out... It'd be the right thing to do, but very un-Apple - actually admitting they messed up and reversing actions to help their customers while they fix things is a very mature and brave way to handle things - but doesn't seem like the fruit company I know and like.


Obviously there are two answers here - either they don't (which is crazy) or AppleInsider's previous column from last year was correct and some big wig at Apple decided to retarget the application to the Final Cut Express marketplace (which was EOL'ed on the same day as FCS) and throw the professional market under the bus (but then have marketing act they didn't - which defies common sense) which is crazy. Either way they totally blew it.


Absolutely on Final Cut Studio - Apple should do this immediately (get FCS back and available - they're buying up all the stock from the channel so they could sell it directly if they haven't destroyed it all by now).

Frankly they should call Final Cut Pro X what it should be called (what was in its price point previously) Final Cut Express X and leave it there until its ready to replace FCS (this would have prevented all the problems).

What a mess Apple Management has made of all this.

That Conan Obrian video on it was hilarious, if anyone hasn't seen it go watch it and laugh.

Apple and everyone here says that the future of media is internet streaming on iMacs, Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. So there is no need for Apple to invest time and resources to support high resolution video cameras or advanced editing processes. Professional cinematography with studios full of exotic equipment is a dying art. But all these guys just can't accept the fact that the video of the future will be shot and edited on iPhones and iPads. And since not everybody has a gigabit internet connection, these videos will have to be downscaled anyway. So why bother developing professional tools for the Youtube and Facebook generation?

I'm late to this thread, but... here's my disparate thoughts on the matter.

If this statement is true
...and Apple believes this (apparently they do!)... then the RIGHT thing to do is spin off the pro-divisions and let them scrape out an existence themselves. Not kill the true pro software by "dumbing it down". It should be "smartened up" if anything. And that goes for Apple in this case too!

The least Apple could have done was keep FCP7 Studio alive, update it to support 64-bit, and add a little "bug-wipe" here and there. They could still release FCPX as they have, and give the pros a taste of what they "might" have to look forward to in the future.

The "X" in this case should be for "X"press", not version "10".

There is a definite need for 3 levels of software: consumer, prosumer, and PRO.

Apple has more money than they know what to do with. Why not give some "back" to the pros in the form of "good will" gestures, like keeping FCP7 Studio alive... even if it is at a dev-loss for them? Exactly how much would that cost them? The marketing propaganda from the pros, and especially household names from the movie industry alone, is worth millions. Many millions I would expect.

P***ing these guys off with their immediate access to the media, is really "not Apple's finest hour..." because this is gonna be a month-long series! These guys won't let go as easily as we other creatives have done in the past. Adobe buying up the only other pro design software competitor on the planet, and killing half the purchased software as an example.

Sad fact as I see it, and have stated here many times in other threads:

Professional software development has been dead for the last 5 years or longer. Nothing truly new and groundbreaking has come to market similar to what we witnessed at the end of the 90's and early 2000's.

There are only 3 major software companies in the world today making software for creatives: MS, Adobe, and Apple.

Are we better off... or worse off for that fact?

I include MS because writing is also creative discipline. Look what they have done with Word over the years.

Adobe OWNS the print and graphics market. Look at what they have done between CS2 up to CS5.5. Yes. What HAVE they done?

And now Apple adds to the misery with their pro-apps division and this major snafu and slap in the face. Does SJ know that the guys at his previous company Pixar can't use this software? Does he appreciate getting a call from John Lassiter asking, "WTF Stevie?!!!"

Is Randy Ubillos the right guy for the job of cleaning up this mess that he created? No! And I can all but hope that SJ uses all of his penned-up and choice words telling this guy to take a hike. Probably along the lines of: "See that cliff?.... you know what to do... or do I have to tell you that too?!".

PS: Ubillos has caused Apple a major loss of Image & Corp. Branding to the tune of about 2-3 BILLION $$$'s!!! by my estimate.

Amazing how little the newbies respect the knowledge they don't have, or anyone whose perspective suggests an unnervingly high degree of life experience, and how sensitive they are to perceived slights based on age. Doesn't bode well.

Actually for once, I agree with you.

The 1 Million $ question is: who WERE those pros that said this PRO version of FCP was simply "awesome"... and dropped their jaws?

Could it be that the jaw-dropping was misinterpreted as praise, when in reality it was at the horror of the beast?

Apology: I should know better than to comment on a thread before reading it in full first, so let me be the first to say sorry if this is NOT Randy Ubillos's "baby", and it is rather a strategic repositioning by Apple's directors... and possibly even SJ himself. @TenoBell - consideration taken.

As an APPL stockholder, VAR of sorts ,and consultant integrating Apple's products from iOS to multi-workstation set-ups (print)... I'm just ever so slightly edgy when I see them make what appears to be "slap-to-the-forehead" mistakes. Even if it is in the short-term, leading up to long-term strategic sustainability. I'm on the front as a PR-grunt trying to explain these things to non-tech clients (mostly). Yes... the question always comes up re: investments made today being (somewhat) future compatible. Apple pulling the rug* in this way on the über-pros and their investments, does not bode well for an "ease-in" Monday morning when a couple of my clients see the headlines here in the tech-blogs, regardless whether they're in the print-industry, or just an iPhone blogger.

*Bottom-Line: you just don't DO those things! Apple-fan or not, you have to side with the comment, "this isn't about an iOS change or iPhone here, these setups cost in the 6 figures"... and that's not calculating training costs, partnerships, workflows, and other assorted costs that bean-counters traditionally dismiss and forget.

Townhall meeting: sounds like a plan to me... and someone please find those FCPX-sneak-peek "pros"!!!! I'd like to hear their side of the story... before they get strung up

Geez.... you're just as neurotic... uhm... as I am