Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X - Page 6

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Apple-...s&mod=pf-taxes

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.

Seeing as what Apple showed at NAB is exactly what FCP X is where did Apple lie or deceive?

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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?


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.

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