Adobe courts video professionals in wake of uproar over Apple's Final Cut Pro X - Page 3

Nope. According to the web page you linked (did you read it?) they said it is impossible

Apple didn't merely change the architecture, but dropped API support so plug-ins will have to be rewritten. Without a production-capable platform to write plug-ins for, who would bother?

Again, according to the web page you linked (did you really read it?) they said it will be a feature in the NEXT MAJOR RELEASE. Of course, if FCP7 is dead for however many years THAT takes I highly doubt FCPX will survive as a 'Pro' product.

Hype. Whatever happened to "Real Artists Deliver"

Projects they can't import; video archives they can't use because of FCPX's iTunes-like desire to copy everything to the local volume/project. Given that situation, it's easier to go with Avid. I fail to see why not.

Apple already has had plenty of time. This has been in development for years.

Oh wait a minute...was I just trolled?

What can I say except that I am blown away by by the comments by many in this thread who are viciously defending Apple in what is irrefutably an utter faceplant of a release campaign.

I won't get dragged into this shrill melee, except to add this:

I'm a pro film editor. I currently use FCS3 (FCP7) for 80% of my work.

I'm currently freelancing in a facility that was going to buy 7 new mac pros, all of them kitted out with the new FCPX. The owner was simply waiting for the TB towers rumoured to be coming out in August.

Well, after test-driving the new horror-show of a product, a full stop has been put on that proposition.

Apple will have a couple of months to sort these issues of non-usablity out before the owner can't wait any longer, and Apple will lose a good chunk of business as different workstations are bought and the facility commences a move in a different direction.

Once they invest in alternate tech, they won't look back. Can't afford to. Business realities.

This story is not unique - I know of one other operation that's in an identical boat.

In one fell swoop, Apple reversed a decade of hard earned reputation and customer loyalty in this arena. Every one of my colleagues is FURIOUS.

Whether it matters to Apple or not - whether Steve cares or not - is up for debate, but I believe that Apple had better move quickly to remedy this situation or they WILL lose the professional production market.

And that's too bad, because it's not just about cash-cows and marketshare: the caché of being the tool of choice for creative pros is a Big f***ing Deal.

Shame on Apple for their mind-numbingly poor handling of this transition.

The way this often works in enterprise computing circles is that if you need an unsupported old version you are allowed to buy the new version and 'downgrade' your license to the older product - generally in the face of much vendor grumbling. If Apple were to take that approach it would amount to a huge price cut on FCP7 so might help deal with some of this bad publicity.

Ironically Pixar can't use FCPX for two main reasons: It's software you can't use in huge collaborating teams, due to its lack of import/export. And its software you can't use when you work on films that take many years to finish, for the same reason.

I know you're frustrated, but I have to ask... why?

Apple are a consumer electronics company now. They create products for everyone from teenage girls to soccer moms to kindergarten kids to grandparents.

The way they are moving I just don't think the creative pros market is one of their priorities anymore.

Looking at recent advertisements peppered with "it just works" and "magical" I think they are actively trying to get rid of the "elitist" aura around Apple products. They even seem to be trying to do a complete back flip and become the "tech for everyday people" company.

Here is some food for thought.... How many years was FCPX in development for? How many hundreds (or thousands!) of hands do you think it passed through from conception to release?

Don't you think someone along that chain would have noticed these fundamental problems and the effect they would have and maybe, you know, pointed them out?

Or what about the alternative. That FCPX wasn't a "mistake" and was actually a very well considered and deliberate move by Apple?

This post makes the most sense to me. Thanks Adobe but no thanks.

So people were wrong in assuming that the Pro in the name Final Cut Pro X actually stood for professional? Apple must use a pretty interesting dictionary for them to not think Pro means Pro.

No. That's called Cover Your Ass and trying to save face. Apple was known for "It Just Works". Lot's of people moved to Apple products for that reason. Apple products were powerful. Buyers knew that professionals used Macs and Apple software. Movie goers knew that Apple products were cool enough to make the movies they were watching on the big screen.

That's a lot of PR for Apple.

Now with the release of FCPX and the backlash from the professionals this entire PR image is crumbling. Before it was, "Cool I can use Apple products to make my own movies for Youtube like the Pros use Apple products to make Hollywood movies." Now it is, "Yeah, I can make movies with my Mac but the Pros have to use something else to make real movies."

Who ever is leading the video section of Apple has got to go. If the push is from Jobs, then Jobs should have is head examined.

I stopped using iMovie when Apple changed a useful consumer product iMovie 6 to the current lousy software. For professionals, I'm certain that their views are accurate, just by analogy to my experience with the products from the Apple's video software group.

Any argument that FCPX is new software and one has to keep up with the times is bogus.

User requirements must take precedence over any technical/programmer issues -- no, that is not strong enough. User requirements must dictate software.

On second thought, the problem might be with Steve Jobs. Apple's penchant for quality is one of their critical success factors and should never be abandoned. But, as a user (victim) of some of there software, Pros need control / choice, and non-pros, like me, want similar control/choice at the low end.

Examples. Movies downloaded via Apple TV from iTunes only have the choice of HD rather than SD. One, I don't want to pay the extra price. Two, the file size differences are so great that the HD download must be performed overnight compared to SD, which can be I can stream within 15 minutes of starting the download. Result: I download the SD version to my iPad2 instead.

I was shooting movies of speaker presentations for uploading to a site for members of our group to see. Use of HD for such movies ridiculous. I don't want to spend all night editing and rendering and uploading such movies. I want and need only low quality visuals to be posted, and users only want to receive a low quality, relatively small physical image to their computers. The codecs must render small image files.

I don't care about high quality music. I don't want to pay more for higher quality music, and I can't tell the difference and I don't care even if I could. Good enough is good enough.

Reactionaries... The only true legitimate complaint is that you can't import older FCP projects into the new version. But then again, you still have FCP 7 to do the work you need to, and it will be compatible with lion. Take a deep breath and be patient while you continue to do what you've been doing on the old version until the new features are added. Which they will be, and in short order. Meanwhile Adobe, GFY....

Thanks for the link. Excellent words. Everyone should read these few short sentences. It sums it up better than anyone else could. I'll take the liberty of quoting it, from macrumors:

From Ron Brinkmann, from the original product design team of Shake:

"After the acquisition I remember sitting in a roomful of Hollywood VFX pros where Steve told everybody point-blank that we/Apple were going to focus on giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to but that the relationship between them and Apple wasnt going to be something where theyd be driving product direction anymore. Didnt go over particularly well, incidentally, but I dont think that concerned Steve overmuch :-)"

I am and we have, at work we were waiting for FCPX for new seats, now we just ordered some avid composers, and on pc's. not happy but is apples fault!.

deleted

This is the line that struck me the most, and the best part of his excellent article:

"So if you’re really a professional you shouldn’t want to be reliant on software from a company like Apple. Because your heart will be broken. Because they’re not reliant on you. Use Apple’s tools to take you as far as they can – they’re an incredible bargain in terms of price-performance. But once you’re ready to move up to the next level, find yourself a software provider whose life-blood flows only as long as they keep their professional customers happy. It only makes sense."

Also, why the heck did Apple buy Shake only to kill off arguably the best Hollywood-grade compositing tool of the time? So that *some* of that tech may filter down into iMovie or Final Cut or something?

Apple's mistake was not to add 'BETA' after FCPx, and to announce FCP7 end of life. Much as I think an awful lot of people are being overly dramatic, throwing their arms in the air and declaring end of life for Apple, I do recognize that Apple made a big presentation blunder.

I have no doubt that over time FCPx will gain all the missing features pro's want / need and that the pro-sumer interface so many hate will become acceptable to the sceptics. What I want to know is - assuming the software had the missing features and could talk to studio hardware and software without major work arounds - what is it about the software editors hate. What is it about the iMovieesqueness that makes editors see red? Apple think they have found a better way of working but it seems editors disagree.

deleted

Because FCP stories are generating lots of hits and forum posts. Even the posts in this thread are mostly rehashes of what has been said in the other FCPX threads.

- Jasen.

From what I've read on all the talk of FCPX, it sure strikes me as this:

Those complaining - Video Professionals. You know... the one's who get PAID to do it.

Those saying it's fine, give it time, etc - Video Hobbyists. You know... the one's who DON'T get paid to do it. The one's, more than likely, you find posting videos to youtube.

yeah, ok... that last sentence was just mean...

I think that they may have made a mistake in not releasing some info ahead of time.
Things like:

A reminder that this is all new software, not an upgrade.
A warning that due to the total rewrite, importing of FCP1-7 projects would not be possible.
Which features are being left out in favor of the small percent that need them buying software/plug-ins from the folks that own the patents. Similar to the Flash and Java thing where we should be getting better software from the source. And explaining that that notion and the price drop is why they are doing it.
A warning that some advanced features may not be available at the first launch.

If they had told this up front folks could have not paid money etc. That's why they are really freaking out. They paid for this and they don't know when it will be back to form. They might not even really need the features they are freaking about having 'lost', but they still don't like not having them. People would have also known to go ahead and buy FCS3 if they might need it, more seats etc. Particularly if they were reminded that Apple always cut the old stuff right away.


But before we say that they screwed themselves we need to see some numbers. How many copies sold, how many folks actually created negative reviews, how many naysayers are from the NAB preview, how many are from actual editing houses v those that are living room prosumers. How many of those houses actually use any of the missing features and which ones. and so on.

As for that petition, frankly I don't give it much worth. It's too easy to make tons of gmail etc emails and pad those things with falsely high numbers.



Yep. The real pros know this and planned for it. Just like they planned not to convert all computers over to Lion (or to run split partitions) until they are sure all their stuff will work. It's just the name of the game. Just like paying attention to the various early details, getting that this is an all new UI etc and they will have to relearn before they can start using.

I can't wait for a couple of weeks from now when the first updates start coming out and folks try to claim that it was due to their griping. When in fact it could have been Apple's plan all along.



Folks are bitching for two main reasons

1. They can't import into the FCPX to take advantage of the 64 bit etc and the speed it should be producing for them

2. If they finish something and want to revisit it later their FCP7 might not work anymore. So they would have to start over from scratch. Time is money after all.

The thing is, the editors don't know FCPX yet. It's a week old and these folks are busy finishing the current project. No real pro is going to switch to software he doesn't know when he's got a deadline. And by the time the whole 'revisit' issue comes up, they may have rewritten FCPX in a way that it can import FCP7 projects, created a convertor plug in or some 3rd party figures it out.



Noise Industries for one. Their FXFactory plug in set is one of the most widely used on all platforms. Not only did they make FCPX versions of their stuff but they had it out the day after FCPX launched.



They weren't likely using FCS either. They do 3d animation. That's the land of programs like Maya, Bryce etc. Not FCP which doesn't due annie. So Pixar was likely never using FCS and still won't be.

Yeah no kidding. I'm 28 and I challenge any seasoned "Pro" to an edit off. They can use anything they want and I'll get it done faster and better in FCPX.

Let me assure you that this is exactly what is going to happen in the professional community. Think of all of the uncertainty that FCP X represents to professionals. Avid looks like a much better choice (feature wise and from a future roadmap point of view) than iMovie Pro/FCP X.

We are already thinking about making the transition (to Avid MC). Why wait to see if Apple can or will fix this mess when there are already better solutions from companies that are unlikely to do this kind of thing? FCS 3 for 2 more years and then its onto Avid.

There's the blind fanboi comment true *professionals* were waiting for to laugh at...

It's catering to this cult mentality that will cost Apple the professional creative market... and in real estate and tech the masses typically follow the paths laid down by professional creatives

I think the Apple was right to move to FCPX. However, they should have given the user base a much earlier disclosure of what it will be. They should also have kept FCP7 around during the transition phase where users start to get used to FCPX.

IMHO, Apple really should have handled the transition in two phases.
Phase 1. release this current FCPX, at the same time also release a few long asked for updates to FCP7. Then announce a date in the future, say maybe in 1 year, when FCP7 and associated products will be EOL.
Phase 2. Release updated FCPX with most of the popular features in FCP7. EOL FCP7 and associated products.

Apple is handling this release like their consumer products. Which is completely wrong for a professional application. If Apple's strategic plan see themselves getting out of that market, they should have sold the FCP franchise to someone else. To do anything else would be irresponsible, both to the user base and the share holders.

I use Logic Pro, A LOT more than I use Final Cut, I am a musician. I have just recently started using Logic Pro, and Final Cut, and one thing I seem to miss when it comes to these types of software is, unless there is some crazy new feature or set of tools, why do you even need to upgrade? For example....I have a friend who recorded an entire album, that sounded GREAT and sold well, and it was done a few years ago using the first version of Logic 8. He is now going back in the studio, and using that same version, YEARS AND VERSIONS later not to mention on a MAC that is still running three versions back of Snow leopard with only 2gbs of RAM.....when i asked, will you upgrade to Logic 9? He said, NO, why would I need to? I recorded my last album with features and tools that were just fine, there is nothing new or THAT much better, so I still use 8 and still make great music, and it still sells well, and I save $500.......

I completely understand the frustrations of people who did buy it, and were expecting one thing and got another. And biggest issue I see right now, is the Liscense situtation via the app store thing, but in the case of the example above, and your documentray from 2005, I am missing why you need ANOTHER work station, I thought FCPX, installs next to FCP7 allowing you to still use both. I mean, oscars for editing were won, in 2005 by people using this stuff, so why can't you still make GREAT HIGH QUALITY edits, with software that is a year old.....in other words, if FCPX did not release last week, would your business grind to a halt for some reason?? Would you still be going to Adobe or Avid?

You used FCP7 yesterday, why can't you use it today, and then when new features and things come out in FCPX.whatever - come out, you buy it then?? I guess people HAVE TO HAVE the latest and greatest thing. Or maybe i missing somehthing there. I still know editors that use CS3 to design stuff and they still paid lots of money. I know people that still run business' on Windows XP, I know people who still use excel 2003 and they are high finance business people.

I guess what I am asking is, what about the release of FCPX, now makes everything you did yesterday on FCP7 not work anymore??

There is not a single 'Editor worth their paying for and with half a brain' that switches to using any brand new software immediately after it is released, as a professional and stable environment in which to work with clients.

If folks are that agile and will switch from FCS back to Avid at a drop of a hat then when FCPX is better then they'll switch back. Or to Adobe. Or whatever. No long term loss as long as Apple can execute well enough to make FCPX as much an advantage as the original FCP was.

On the other hand, if folks aren't complete idiots they'll wait a little bit to see how things work out unless they have an immediate need to make any decisions and make whatever transitions as required. Especially if Apple does the smart thing and start to bundle FCP license keys/seats with FCPX.

Frankly, folks willing to resort to childish behavior like calling it iMovie Pro are looking for an excuse to dump money back into Avid anyway so they could feel superior again to prosumers.

Yes, which is why these stories about how folks were all set to buy a whole bunch of Mac Pros and FCPX for their new project sound idiotic.

Even IF FCPX was the 2nd coming of NLE with all the pro features from 7 intact with full import capability from 7 it's STILL going to be buggy and without known work arounds yet for those bugs. That's the last frigging thing you need with a looming deadline is to be the first one to run into a show stopping bug for your workflow that might not get fixed for weeks or months or ever.

Let the other poor sap do the bleeding on the cutting edge.

It is less about changing the layout as it is about features - would you call it change though if a new keyboard left off a couple of letters, some of the of numbers and a few of the punctuation keys we have right now? That would make it a slightly better analogy. Though there are some here who would support anything Apple did like if they decided to drop say the letter "k" because "c" essentially could do the same thing.

I've been following this thread amongst many others, but also I've been doing some research and whilst I'd agree with the points made about backward compatibility and exporting via xml, what I can't agree with is all the shouting over something that, in essence, is a storm in a tea cup.

Apple have handled the launch of FCPX badly, in fact it has been so badly launched that it is a complete disgrace in marketing terms. Apple do appear arrogant, but then so do the 'pros' by passing judgement on a completely new piece of software, without spending any real time getting to learn the new way of doing things.

Apple have misjudged the market and their customer base, because they have made claim to FCPX to be a 'pro' editing suite. Clearly there will be a number of updates to bring it closer to what is needed. Yet, having spent all day watching training videos from a number of individuals, it would appear that FCPX is closer to being a new form of professional editing suite than the complaining 'pros' would have you believe.

Apple have probably realised, unlike the 'pros' that tomorrows editors cut their teeth on iMovie, thus it makes more sense to design a piece of software that naturally follows from one editing suite to another without too much disruption. That scenario makes perfect sense both from a creative point of view and also a long term business direction.

Everyone understands Apple's need for secrecy, but in this case they now need to step forward, hold up their hands and say 'sorry but we got it wrong' Yes, they need to go on the record as saying this is what will happen over the next six months in terms of updates. Those in the complaining 'pro' camp should now be quiet and move on, because it's not helping anyone.

Apple has made a big blunder and I've no idea what they were thinking, and objectively FCPX is a good editing suite, if not a great one yet.

We have been waiting for years for Apple to update FCP7 which is why we waited to see what they would do with the next update but at the same time many editors started testing options like PPro, Avid etc. and given that FCPX does not meet our needs, we will start all new projects on PPro. Adobe has made it incredibly easy to switch - like mapping keyboard shortcuts etc. for FCP users. With its integration with AE, PS and AI and its ability to play some of the newer codecs without transcoding it is a very appealing package and removes the need to be the poor sap on the bleeding cutting edge. And it is available right now - no need to wait for anything to be added in some future update.

Apple's agenda to tie people into the iTunes model has shot them in the foot here.

Apple has made the best software in this category and could even have eliminated any question anyone could ever have of purchasing a Mac - the inclusion of Blu-ray drives.

But Apple doesn't want to support the optical disc format because they have become too greedy. they want everything to be a download from their own servers, with app makers having to give them a sizeable cut for having done nothing.

A workflow that leaves out the DVD or Blu-ray suits apple's agenda and so they are trying to steer indusrty pros in that direction.

Unfortunately for apple, no one wants that crap. Downloads are good. but the optical disc isn't going anywhere.

the magnetic timeline is great, but it could easily have been added to FCP 7 and that product have been given the interface overhaul. If they would have done nothing else, it would have been great.

but instead, they took the professional grade industry standard ruler of them all and gave their competition a reason to laugh.

In my office, I am always having to fight to improve things. Finally went with Macs throughout. Next was FCP. then this happened. One of my colleagues is a Microsoft fanatic and completely anti apple just to be anti apple. guess who won the argument over which video editing software to upgrade to... it won't be made by Apple.

First, people are encouraged to send feedback to Apple. But when Apple adds requested features, the Apple apologists turn around and say "Your complaints don't matter. Apple was planning to add those things anyway".

Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod. Apple was already planning to make a video iPod.

Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET. Apple was already planning to release an iPhone SDK.

Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste. Anybody who wants copy and paste is a whiner. Apple was already planning to add copy and paste.

Apple will not add multitasking to the iPhone. Nobody cares about multitasking. Anybody who wants multitasking is a whiner. Apple was already planning to add multitasking.

Apple will not make a tablet device. Nobody cares about tablet devices. Anybody who wants a tablet device is a whiner. Apple was already planning to make a tablet device.

That, my friend, is exactly the nightmare I had when I first heard him say that.

Instead of increasing the capabilities of Macs, I am afraid the success of the iPhone is going to make Jobs think the thing to do is to make the Mac as dumb as a "smart" phone.

sure, a "smart" phone is smart for a phone, but dumb for a computer.

I think apple is seriously starting to make some missteps that will have ramifications for at least a couple of years. the scary thing is that those mistakes are at the fundamental idealogical level, so they will influence every product to come out of cupertino.

FCP Studio and FCP X can be installed on the same hard drive, but it is not a straightforward process and you have to jump through some hoops:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722


The other concerns are:

If you need additional copies of Final Cut Studio now for your current projects, where do you get them?

If your current Mac or Macs that you use for running Final Cut Studio were to break and they are out of warranty, do you spend the money on out of warranty repairs or do you buy new Macs. If you buy new Macs which require a newer operating system, will they be able to run Final Cut Studio?

It'll be interesting on this. I hope they do start selling it again - FCS 3 has already dried up on eBay (mostly academic licenses left), but it's very unusual for Apple to "undo" stuff (basically admitting they were wrong). It'd be a no brainer at almost any other firm to bring FCS 3 back until FCP X is close to ready, but it seems like a long shot, IMHO - probably the best we could hope for would be additions to corporate licensing with Apple.

You are right about OS9, however I think Apple has changed their policies since then. As an example, my dad had a G5 iMac and he waited to get Leopard until after Snow Leopard was out (not understanding that Snow Leopard had dropped support for the 64 bit G5's), figuring it'd be no problem. But Apple had done the same thing there, all copies of Leopard had been pulled on the day of Snow Leopard release and Apple purchased them back from the channel so you couldn't get them anywhere. On eBay I noticed that they reached 3 times retail (since it was the last PowerPC OS X)...they may have gone higher but I didn't follow it...they're down lower now since alot more people have dropped Leopard. Apple didn't bring Leopard back for the G5 users even though they were screaming. This policy seems to be standard operating procedure for Apple on software releases these days.

I hope Apple brings FCS 3 for sale, but I'd be surprised.

The part that saddens me the most is at the end:

'he is complimentary of Apple's products and describes them as an "incredible bargain in terms of price-performance", but that "if youre really a professional you shouldnt want to be reliant on software from a company like Apple." In the end, he says "your heart will be broken. Because theyre not reliant on you."'

I had the impression that's what some people in charge at Apple cared about - allowing people who have a passion for what they do to do it in the very best way they know how. Not overriding it so that it sells to people who could take it or leave it.

It makes sense from both sides because nobody likes the condescending professionals who talk down to you because you don't know enough about their field of expertise. Nobody ever likes that and their customer-facing Genius bars full of friendly teens and personal shoppers is great to avoid it but it's not necessary to dismiss higher-end development entirely.

Just find people who understand what people genuinely need to do a good job who are open-minded enough to hide it sufficiently from people who will never need it. Mac OS X is the perfect example and why I regard it as the best OS I know of. On the face of it, it's shiny and simple. Underneath it's a full BSD unix system with every tool you can imagine an OS would need. People expect this from apps like Final Cut Pro. Shake had it, Motion does not; Quicktime Pro had it, Quicktime X doesn't in SL and FCPX doesn't have it so far. Power and simplicity make for a great combination when you have enough of both.


Bryce??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKYQ5ibxslI

Pixar still have to cut their films together - they ain't doing that in Maya or... Bryce. They are doing it in (wait for it):

http://www.pixar.com/artistscorner/steve/interview.html

Avid.

Agree with you completely, Apple people still have a hobbiest mentality... In big corporate America where profit margins are slim and training budgets virtually non-existant... Buying software that is not back compatible and missing key pre-existing features, with vague promises of future updates is business suicide... Apple's software team lives in a secret world walled off from the real world and I feel sorry for them... I am sure they are embarrassed about putting out crap ware... Meanwhile another American enterprise gets its name tarnished because of their arrogance... Apple can do way better than this, but unfortunately Steve is off fighting for his life and does not have the time to hold their hands... I wish Steve the best and hope he comes back and put his company back on the right track...

But the most important reason is that Pixar has been using Avid this whole time, not Final Cut Pro.

Its amazing how fast the retail avenues for Final Cut Studio 3 have dried up, at this point there are only a few copies on eBay (just a couple, literally).

I have to agree with what is being said here. Video production is a fast paced business and if you are a studio ... so many people are involved that it's difficult at the best of times to keep the ball rolling on schedule. Schedule is the key word here. It would have been better to release FCPX with all of the capabilities of FCP7 and then some. Those capabilities were there to transcode into the new product ... that would have been a good starting place to move on. That didn't happen and hence, editors, producers, director and the like are looking at an immature NLE. It's interesting to say the least ... but leaves a lot of people scratching their heads. I, for one, have serious $ invested in apple products ... in FCP7 ... in all the plug-ins needed to stay professionally capable ... that is the bottom line! I'm not a big production house but still ... the end of FCP7 leaves me pretty high and dry ... ! I understand the anger and hope Apple gets it together soon!

The point is even IF FCPX met all your needs you'd STILL be an idiot for buying it for immediate use on new projects from paying customers at release. There would be something wrong with it, pretty much guaranteed. It's software. Even software from Apple is buggy.

So the only intelligent decision was between buying more FCS vs new PPro seats. Assuming you did your homework that you wanted PPro and not Avid and were prescient that FCPX was going to be a real horror story (paint me skeptical).

If you really think that FCPX will never improve to meet your needs then yes, transitioning to PPro is the right move but there was no indication of that prior to release.

In actuality, there no real indicator at this moment that FCPX won't improve enough to be usable within a reasonable time frame. When the next release will occur and how much gets added is the first real indicator of how rapidly (or not) FCPX will be supported and improved by Apple.