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 - Page 6

post #201 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Well let's be honest ...you're not going to wow people showing OMF export to Pro Tools or nifty EDL stuff. I think the assumption was this "basic" stuff was in there.

Now let's say XML/EDL/OMF/Full Tape log and capture/Multicam and other stuff was in fact in there you'd have Pros frothing at the mouth talking about how cool the background rendering is or the 4k support or the speed.

It's not 64-bit that's giving FCPX speed it's AV Foundation (Quicktime's 64-bit replacement API) mated to OpenCL and GCD that is powering the core. We're not even running on Lion yet which will probably yield even more performance improvement.

Evolve or perish. If the plucky upstart running FCPX and Logic X (assumed name) can deliver as good a product in half the turnaround time then prosumer or not that's tough competition. Time = $$$


Since when has ANY application update EVER NOT been able to open its own previous version files?

No matter how revolutionary the foundation of the new ground up rewrite is, they are FU*CKING LIARS!

Apple is DOOMED and I'm not kidding. This is the beginning of the end. When Steve passes the torch, the stock will drop by 90 %.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #202 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Since when has ANY application update EVER NOT been able to open its own previous version files?

No matter how revolutionary the foundation of the new ground up rewrite is, they are FU*CKING LIARS!

Apple is DOOMED and I'm not kidding. This is the beginning of the end. When Steve passes the torch, the stock will drop by 90 %.

Hell you can have severe problems trying to open old Indesign or Illustrator files in the latest CS Suite. It happens. Eventually companies break backwards compatibility when it becomes an albatross around their neck.

Who knows maybe the license agreement for FCS will change allow for more installations which would ease some of the issues.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #203 of 217
CNET & CNN reported a petition, currently signed by almost 2100 people, that Apple bring back the old version of FCP, and stop dumbing down their pro product lines. Call it rebellion against the prosumer trend, but it won't make a bit of difference. As others (Spliff Monkey in particular) have pointed out, the film-making and video editing world has a few other choices other than Apple. If it's not a core business line—which could be one of those things that shift over time—then Apple may downgrade the products currently serving that sector to prosumer functionality. Certainly a smaller code base is cheaper to support as well.
post #204 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Consumers are Apple's heaviest user base. The disconnect comes from video editors that somehow still view Apple as the "Beleaguered" company that they have helped save.

Consumers rule the roost now and the Pro stuff is on the periphery. If anyone doubts this look at the quarterly reports. That's not 3 million editors buying Macs every quarter it's consumers.

I don't think Apple has plans to abandon the Pro market but with 70 billion in the bank they don't have to sweat studios moving to Avid or Adobe (both they could buy with cash). Its about return on investment and a new codebase in FCPX and lower pricing lets Apple focus on one program (instead of the FCP Express/Studio ) with a more extensible foundation. I suspect Logic Studio will be the next heavily discounted program.

I chose the words "one of their heaviest user bases" deliberately. I meant it in terms of mindshare, not market share.

No group of users of Mac systems or software depends on their machines, works them harder, than film and video editors, I would wager. More hours per day, more intensely, for more money, or maybe less money in many cases, and under more pressure.

There was a tremendous head of karmic steam, or intellectual/artistic capital, built up on Final Cut, has been for years. We have always been able to point to film editing as a patent refutation that Apple only builds overpriced, stylish toys for brand fetishists.

The trickle-down in serious prestige from Hollywood and New York is of incalculable value in advertising. When some edgy movie won some award, you always read about it on Apple's "hot news headlines."

They just threw all of that away. We will soon read about movies made with FCP X, but there will be corrosive laughter and scorn instead of brotherly/sisterly pride from the veterans.

All they had to do was respect their veterans by not yanking their tools. And say a few words of solidarity.
post #205 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcraec View Post

CNET & CNN reported a petition, currently signed by almost 2100 people, that Apple bring back the old version of FCP, and stop dumbing down their pro product lines. Call it rebellion against the prosumer trend, but it won't make a bit of difference. As others (Spliff Monkey in particular) have pointed out, the film-making and video editing world has a few other choices other than Apple. If it's not a core business line—which could be one of those things that shift over time—then Apple may downgrade the products currently serving that sector to prosumer functionality. Certainly a smaller code base is cheaper to support as well.

Thanks for mentioning this. I read about it somewhere earlier today, was trying to remember where.

Here's a link to the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/finalcut/petition.html

I don't agree with the part about changing the name of FCP X. Let them name it however they want. Just keep the old FCP available and updateable.
post #206 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

We could start fighting about Bluray now though.

Nothing to fight about here.. the new Final Cut X burns bluray with albeit limited menus. I'm willing to be the menu system will get better as I'm sure not only will the main missing features be added back in, but Apple has plans for the new UI. This is a new beginning of a new pro app that Prosumers can use as well. IT IS A BEGINNING!!!! Not and END!!!! Is it ready for studio use??? Not yet, but You may be able to transition to it when the upgrades happen.

The BluRay feature is a surprising step in the right direction as is the ability to burn a DVD in the project as well.

Don't make hasty decisions.
post #207 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by webraider View Post

The BluRay feature is a surprising step in the right direction as is the ability to burn a DVD in the project as well.

And since this has been possible for the last two years...

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 #208 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Hell you can have severe problems trying to open old Indesign or Illustrator files in the latest CS Suite. It happens. Eventually companies break backwards compatibility when it becomes an albatross around their neck.

Sorry but that is just not true. I have never had any problem whatsoever with Adobe products not being backwardly compatible. They have the most elegant import features of any software. inDesign even went as far as to build a utility to import older Quark files. There is just no excuse for not being able to open your own previous version files. Everything would be just fine if they named it iMovie Pro and left the FCS alone.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #209 of 217
Quote:
In the wake of a tidal wave of less-than-positive reviews for Apple's new movie editing software Final Cut Pro X, Apple has begun refunding money to dissatisfied customers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Apple-...s&mod=pf-taxes
post #210 of 217
I didn't say it did mean something. I only stated we haven't directly heard anything from them. On the assertion that they are unhappy with FCP X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Again, same thing. That means nothing.

First of all most video editors that work for humongous networks work 8 hour days, go home to their families and toil far above the fray of version releases. Among the ones I know they're the least likely of all people to post on forums or talk about their work. Just because you don't see stories with bold quotes from employees of CNN in a Mac forum or anywhere in the news means nothing. Plus, you think that having scored a direct iCNN upload from FCPX that anyone who works there would let themselves be quoted as a CNN employee unhappy with it?
post #211 of 217
Seeing as what Apple showed at NAB is exactly what FCP X is where did Apple lie or deceive?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Cool Apple develops a prosumer app. Does that mean that being a liar is justified for the bottom line? They said the professionals were in jaw dropping approval of the update. Then they pull the rug out from under them. Deception has no justification. Liar is liar, no gray area involved.
post #212 of 217
The problem with your chain of logic is that you completely ignore the fact that their is a reason FCP X is not backward compatible with XML. You may not agree with that choice.

But you should be able to acknowledge that their actually is a reason. The only reason you don't is to support your assertion that Apple has made some really random choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sorry but that is just not true. I have never had any problem whatsoever with Adobe products not being backwardly compatible. They have the most elegant import features of any software. inDesign even went as far as to build a utility to import older Quark files. There is just no excuse for not being able to open your own previous version files. Everything would be just fine if they named it iMovie Pro and left the FCS alone.
post #213 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Apple never promised that - and no one seemed to ask about any other functionality than what was shown.

Some things you just expect. No one at Adobe's convention would shove up their hands and shout 'hey, what about PSDs, does Photoshop CS5 still open those? Why haven't you covered that yet Adobe?'. You just expect it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yeah but the may not being storing that information in the same type of container.

We know they aren't using the same file container - they use SQLite db (relational) now and the format FCP used seems to be the same as KeyGrip (has the same header) so very old and likely hierarchical. However, the active data will differ from these storage formats and can still translate from one to the other via XML and they shouldn't have discontinued FCS until that was ready. Also relational models are more flexible than hierarchical so it would be like going from Motion to Shake (less powerful to more powerful) so format translation difficulty is no excuse other than the time it takes to implement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple brazenly is not afraid of this outcome. I believe they are so sure of what they have coming in the near future. That they can pull the rug from under their customers and customers won't abandon them.

That's why I say they just like fucking with people.

You can always look at it that way - if your kids get run over by a bus, you can say 'well God is just testing me'. Or, you can say 'wtf did I do to deserve this?'

Right now FCP users are saying 'wtf did we do to deserve this?' All that's been given to Apple is unwavering commitment to this workflow, no matter how much mould developed on it, there would always be a glimmer of hope that maybe WWDC or NAB would bring a new version and it never came.

When FCPX arrived, it was like having some warm, soft bosom pressed in your face and then being punched in the balls. You're trying to enjoy the softness but you just can't. Final Cut X looks so awesome but everyone who wants it so bad is just on the ground holding their crotch with tears in their eyes. The pain will go away over time but it will be remembered.

Maybe they are trying to weed out the weak ones, the ones who can't handle drastic changes at the drop of a top-hat. But there are times to make these kind of announcements like when you have a new way to build a phone that literally changes everything. When you have a new app that you say changes post-production and yet actually doesn't because the competition already have native codec editing and you take a step back on other features, that's not the time to do this.

I don't think FCPX was a mistake and they have obviously designed a powerful architecture. They may very well show native RED RAW editing at 4K resolution without transcode outputting to a monitor like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/e...nches-start-s/

on the next Mac Pro, which will be hard for others to match. It doesn't change the way this was launched.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

Consumers rule the roost now and the Pro stuff is on the periphery.

It would be very bad for this to happen. Consumers consume content and that comes from somewhere. If the content authors don't have Mac systems, why even bother authoring in formats like MP4 and not just WMV or WebM? They have a big marketshare with iOS but they have no reason to give content creators reasons to turn on them. As Flaneur said, the prestige they have gained from this app is not something they should casually throw away - I don't think they have in absolute terms and I don't think they want to, but they could have taken better steps to avoid it.
post #214 of 217
Let's not just consider professional film makers here for a moment - let's consider the consumer.

What consumer in their right mind is going to pay £180 for the same software which ships FREE with their mac? Especially when you bear in mind they've already spent at least £999 for a new mac to begin with.

It just isn't good business sense - by any means at all.
post #215 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmacbook View Post

What consumer in their right mind is going to pay £180 for the same software which ships FREE with their mac?

Implying that Final Cut Pro X is identical to iMovie isn't good business sense by any means, either.

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 #216 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Implying that Final Cut Pro X is identical to iMovie isn't good business sense by any means, either.

You mean that it doesn't make a good argument, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmacbook View Post

Let's not just consider professional film makers here for a moment - let's consider the consumer.

What consumer in their right mind is going to pay £180 for the same software which ships FREE with their mac? Especially when you bear in mind they've already spent at least £999 for a new mac to begin with.

To say it's the same software undermines your argument and worse, it suggests you might be a troll.

But I'll bite in case you're not. If you were to say that the release was handled poorly, then I think most people can get behind that.

Keep in mind that is the previous price range of Final Cut Express. Also keep in mind that consumers aren't a homogenous group either, you'll probably find more advanced amateurs, enthusiasts, students and part-time or occasional cutters.
post #217 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You mean that it doesn't make a good argument, right?

Yes. : Word-copy analogies only go so far...

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
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