Originally Posted by TenoBell
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".
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.
You cannot say but you will infer........
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).
I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.
See above, although my idea of what purpose might be afoot and yours are different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?