He seems to be confirming what I said? That "pro" isn't a market that does much for Apple, by their lights.
There's no way Apple would have put so much work into a product without caring what people think. I think the flaws in FCPX are minor but critical. They just should have been ready for when it shipped.
I think they care what "people" think, I just don't think they care what a few thousand high end professionals think.
File reconnection is a big problem - they do have a built-in feature for proxy editing, so that tackles one part of it but it needs to be more flexible.
I think the important question to ask is how much does Apple really need to change in FCPX before it is functionally indistinguishable from FCP? The list is very small compared to what's in the software. Once the API comes, that's going to fix a huge amount of the big issues. This covers OMF, XML, EDL, migration from FCP 7. If they add in multi-cam, fully custom dimensions & frame rates and custom export inside FCP too it would be nice but what's left after that?
Except this really doesn't feel like a product that just inexplicably left out features, for whatever reasons. It feels like a product that isn't interested
in those features. Not because Apple is evil or has gone out of their way to screw over FCP post houses, but because they decided that they were more interested in writing super powerful editing software for an individual on a single machine than continuing on with a bunch of work flow stuff that benefits a very small group of professional editors.
If Apple didn't care about the market, they wouldn't even make a Mac Pro with 12-cores that reaches so high on the benchmarks ( http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top
), they wouldn't even arrange an event for professionals at NAB and FCPX would have more in common with FCE than FCP - it doesn't. They wouldn't even bother trying to tap the GPU, which is very difficult to do
Well, arguably the Mac Pro soldiers on because it doesn't really cost Apple anything to occasionally update it. They sure haven't put a lot of thought into the design for a while, have they?
Leveraging the GPU, OTOH, give most of their customers a nice boost in performance. As the article I linked to earlier was saying, Apple just defines "Pro" as "more powerful", not "tailored to a certain small market that do specific things."
I think the FAQ at least shows they have heard the issues and they are working to resolve a lot of them. I doubt they could be working harder than they have been to make it what it is already and I certainly don't think development will be winding down now it's out. I think people have far too much invested at this point to dismiss it all so soon. I think there will be a happy ending within the next 3 months.
It was actually the FAQ that tilted me over to the "oh, they actually don't want to do "Pro" anymore" camp.
It's basically, yeah, there are a few things (chiefly multicam) that we're working on, but other than that either deal with it or pay extra for whatever the market may or may not come up with. Some of the proffered work-arounds were already famously bone headed and Apple just went ahead and put them out there: pony up half again more than FCP X cost to get some I/O functionality (assuming you already have the software that runs the plugin), use sound track syncing for mulitcam, etc. Really not calibrated to smooth ruffled feathers, and not in the least contrite. More like, "yeah, we made what we made, we think its great."
Have we switched roles?
Usually I'm knocking the iPad and all the iFocus.
I know, I know.... it's not that I resent the iWorld thing, it's just that I think Apple is becoming a rather different company than they were. I suspect there may be a period as Apple adds power and functionality to iOS and devices where it will feel like they don't care about anything more sophisticated than iWork, but at some point there's going to be FCP X power on an iPad. It won't be tailored for production pipelines, but it will allow someone sitting under a tree to do tremendously sophisticated things.
I think the answer to that question though is yes. Final Cut runs on one platform and if it has traction in the professional editing community then it does in film schools all over the world. Those students will have to buy Macs and as you know, people who buy Macs buy iPhones and iPads and whatever.
If you take away the exclusivity, those students won't be buying Macs at all, they will go for the much cheaper Asus/Acer laptops and get a copy of Avid and hook it up with some Android phone.
I just don't think the people that are bummed are numerous enough to have much impact on the market. It was a point of pride for Mac-heads, but honestly what percentage of Mac or iOS device buyers have any idea or care what software was used to cut a movie or ad campaign?
I don't think Shake would have helped at all because that's a very specialised field but Final Cut has a much broader appeal.
Right, it does have much broader appeal, but the thing is is that it's that very broadness that means that the majority of users will actually benefit from FCP X. They don't need to send things to Colorist for finishing. They don't need to maintain an elaborate infrastructure for collaborative work across varied assets.
But they can cut a feature film in their bedroom, on a MacBook Pro, which is the kind of thing that I think turns Apple on. And more power to them, I just wish they didn't have to abandon their established pro market to keep the focus tight.
And I hope I'm wrong! I hope Apple either adds functionality or is very clear on how one goes about assembling the necessary bits and pro editors come to sing the praises of the new paradigm. Time will tell, although the way Apple played this they're guaranteed to have lost a pretty good chunk of their market, because as everyone keeps saying, they no longer feel like this is a company they can trust to provide a stable roadmap.