or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program' - Page 2

post #41 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Sounds great except for one tiny issue. Premiere has never been a decent video app itself, let alone a pro video app.

Premiere really "grew up" the last couple versions while FCP essentially stayed the same for the last 4 years. What pros really are sick of is waiting on Apple to deliver what they wanted—64 bit support, native file import, etc. So this migration really started about 2 years ago after FCP 7 came out with virtually no new versions. The sensible thing to do at that time was to assume Apple was really hard at work on an "awesome" version of FCP, at least that's what the rumor mill had mentioned.

The nail in the coffin was not even be able to bring in old files. It would be like if when Adobe moved Photoshop to 64-bit they said "well print is dead so we're killing cmyk support, layers, and the ability to open old projects."

At least by moving to Premiere you would be still be able to open old FCP projects and work a lot of faster. You can even customize the keyboard shortcuts to be FCP shortcuts.
post #42 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Sounds great except for one tiny issue. Premiere has never been a decent video app itself, let alone a pro video app. Leave toy town for baby land, so what exactly is their point?

Sure Premiere has its issues - all the NLE's do. I don't think the point of this promotion is get people to immediately dump their FCP7 investment mid job, but rather seriously evaluate Premiere as an alternative to an upgrade to FCPX.

Right now, you can't buy anymore FCP7's if you need more licenses. And you can't continue your FCP7 work in FCPX, and you can't continue your FCPX work in anything else. And there will be no upgrades, performance enhancements or major bug fixes for FCP7. It's EOL.

So you really have only two options for the future:
(1) Get a new NLE :Avid Media Composer or Premier Pro.
(2) Wait and hope that some time in the next 2 years, FCPX might do most of what FCP7 and the other NLE's can today.

The 50% off deal puts the Premiere Pro bundle at about the same price as After Effects + Photoshop, so you're basically getting Premiere for free, because you were going to buy those two anyway.

And is at least $1500 cheaper than Media Composer. It makes sense to jump on it. If after 1 or 2 small projects, you don't like Premiere Pro, walk away and buy Media Composer. You haven't lost a dime.
post #43 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

They would be extremely stupid not to take advantage of the situation as ANY company would....

Especially since they are on the failing edge of the industry.
post #44 of 151
Well, I for one, took this as an opportunity to see your options and learn the alternative that might just be our only choice soon, if you are a true "pro" that is. All their other software kicks ass . . . well, except Flash on mobile that is.

Hey, I love FCP X, just need options right now. Future is VERY uncertain.
post #45 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Hey Google accepted it apparently. The new Swiffy converter works surprisingly well if you want to convert a small Flash file into a large HTML5 file in order to view on iOS.

well, forget HTML apps in general - apple work so hard to bring *native application* with *cloud functionality* (best from both world) that rest of PC industry can only "wait and see" and start to copy concept in few years...

btw cloud = closed system in any case. question is only who has better
post #46 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

They would be extremely stupid not to take advantage of the situation as ANY company would....

except that adobe has a very long history of producing feature-rich software that is some of the buggiest out there.

they (adobe) should be looking at themselves as their biggest competitor and improving their software—not by increasing features, but perfecting the ones they have and not gouging the customer for a few bells and whistles for every 'update'. (5.5...really? btw, i own legit copies of all their software—and, sadly, pay the upgrade fee.)

it's a reactive move on their part and speaks volumes (i.e., trying to play catch up) about their company mindset.
post #47 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

Very true! And I will gladly support any company that is trying to rid the internet of Flash and encourages the development of HTML5 alternatives.

The internet is a place for open standards that can used by everyone. Even If I did have an Android device, I shouldn't have to wait for Adobe to make a stable version of Flash Player to visit a website! I should just be able to open a browser!

Then you must gladly support Adobe as they are working really hard to provide HTML5 alternatives - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/06....html#comments
post #48 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Then you must gladly support Adobe as they are working really hard to provide HTML5 alternatives - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/06....html#comments

They are not trying to get rid of flash though.
post #49 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

OK, troll. Flash does not work properly on any mobile platform. So I guess Apple is so evil that it fouled-up Flash for its competitors as well as its own platform? Is that your position?

Not meaning to troll, but on moddern smartphone hardware that ive seen, flash in some cases isnt that bad...the problem is bad flash is bad, same as on a laptop or desktop. you may be able to look at a flash based photo viewer with 1 or 2 percent CPU but a flash ad coded to annoy the hell out of the user are what cause problems imho.

having seen flash on some android devices, I can say it isnt too bad, the problem is that I want selective flash, yes to embedded videos, no to 3MB banner ads for example.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #50 of 151
"The competitor to be feared is one who never bothers about you at all, but goes on making his own business better all the time." -Henry Ford

That's not Adobe.

Also, for the people saying that this is a good business move or it's like the get a Mac thing... please.

1) This move simply shows Adobe's desperation.
2) I don't recall Apple offering desperate discounts on their wares for people that didn't like Windows 7 in any of their ads.

Apple's clearly going after the prosumer market. They'll leave Adobe and Avid will fight over the table scraps in the 'pro' market.

Here's a little tip. $300 from a prosumer is worth just as much as $300 from a 'pro'.
post #51 of 151
Apple sells hardware. Premiere requires a machine to run on, so Apple sells more Macs.

Way to go Adobe, you fell for Apple's plan.
post #52 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien987 View Post

So Apple deliberately blocking Flash in iPhones and iPads is a better culture? People should be able to choose whatever they want, no what one person wants.

I of course can choose to pour cooking oil in my gas tank and expect it to run just like it does on 88 octane. NOT.

Apple is waiting on Adobe to prove that they can, with four people rewrite Flash to be a truly mobile function, not just a cobbled together semi-developed piece of dreck that stutters, judders and sucks battery life like a parched vampire.

BTW, try the cooking oil in the gas tank thing once on your car - you will be amazed at the performance.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #53 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakevin. View Post

Side note: Can't wait to see Steve Jobs mention this whole debacle publicly for the first time. Should be like MobileMe all over again, or perhaps his "Stop me if you've seen it" remark at the iPhone 4 keynote when unveiling the design - always a good laugh.

Looking through a number of forums, everyone seems to be giving Steve a pass on somehow this piece of crap software was released 6 months to a year prematurely without his knowledge. Considering Steve's obsessive attention to detail and involvement, medical leave or not, how could he not have known the state of FCPX when it was released?

I'm convinced Steve really doesn't care one bit about the "true pro market" and is more than happy to cede it to Adobe and Avid. If he can get 50% of the iMovie user based to move up to FCPX (iMovie Pro) it will be seen as a colossal financial success.

IMHO releasing FCPX was a calculated business decision and everyone especially Steve was in on it.

Just look to the enterprise/ business market that Apple say they want to play in, but has no credible plan or product offerings.
post #54 of 151
Whatever. I'm sure some of the Pro Editors are conservative enough and short-sighted enough to waste their time converting their workflow from centring on one outdated editing methodology to another one. Meanwhile, Apple is going to cleanup amongst smaller operations and independents - particularly the one-man (Or few-people) operations dominating online video.

Oh Adobe, you and the Pro Editors ditching FCP are a perfect match. You just don't know how to move forward into the future. How's that Flash thing going for you anyway? What's that? Every major monetised video hosting site is taking steps to move to HTML5 and you still haven't shipped a fully functional mobile or even tablet version?

Yeah, good luck Adobe. Apple's going to be laughing all the way to the bank.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #55 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by donarb View Post

Apple sells hardware. Premiere requires a machine to run on, so Apple sells more Macs.

Not unless you run Premiere on, I don't know, a PC.
post #56 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Look folks -- I love Apple. But Apple doesn't handle pro/business users well at all and this FCPX situation is a prime example. It's not that Apple "doesn't care" about pro users. If they didn't care about pro users, then they wouldn't have bothered making FCPX 64-bit,

I see this the other way around. If Apple really cared about Pros they wouldn't have released this pos and EOL's FCP 7. No multi-cam editing. Really Apple? Really? You couldn't add these features before you released this pos?

I think it is pretty obvious where Apple's allegiance lies, and it is not with the pro market. No use wrangling about this and start moving on instead.

Trying both Premiere and Avid MC. Say what you will about Premiere 5.5, but it is a heck of a lot better than FCP X.
post #57 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is exactly what they should do. They are acting like a well run company with this move. As both a capitalist and opportunist I applaud them.

I would normally agree with you, but Adobe is trying to corner a very small segment of the consumer market - the pros. Sachin Agarwal's observations are worth reviewing - especially as he was one of the team that developed FCP for Apple. I won't belabor his comments here, but Adobe IS smart enough to go after the pro editors, (who by the way are NOT universally at all accepting of the Creative Suite approach, but it may be that, or return to the Avid suite), as much of the market as it is. Their advertising is only opportunistic, with all these pros panicking over the new FCPX, they are simply trying to net a few "on the rebound". So I tend to regard them with the same mild contempt I feel for the "friend who hangs around hoping to catch an attractive date after a break-up.

It took quite a while for pro editors to get on the FCP bandwagon anyway, and they did so primarily because it was much more cost effective than Avid (for example). FCP7 is a decent suite and the workflow for it has become entrenched as a part of editing practice.

Right wrong or indifferent, (and I know, personally - having experienced it - what a huge pain it is to have a toolset "pulled out from under you") Apple has decided to go after the larger market of semi-pro and amateur editors with something that resonates better with the larger audience. Just like they did with iMovie, iWorks (remember AppleWorks?).

But here, Sachin explains the thought process better than I can (or care to):
http://sachin.posterous.com/why-appl...inal-cut-pro-x

Pro editors - yes it sux majorly. Thousands of (justifiably)ranting words later - yes that has been made clear to those who are not in the boat with you.

But forgive us if we express just a little delight in the fact that FCPX suddenly is a toolset for the rest of us - and in reality there are many more of us to use it. Hopefully someday it will once again be the suite that will (again) let you do that voodoo that you do so well.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #58 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

But forgive us if we express just a little delight in the fact that FCPX suddenly is a toolset for the rest of us - and in reality there are many more of us to use it. Hopefully someday it will once again be the suite that will (again) let you do that voodoo that you do so well.

Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold? PLEASE don't tell me this is all the fault of whiny people afraid of change, because if anyone is whining, it's the consumer user who just can't understand how pro users could refuse the gift that Steve has bestowed upon them. Don't they see how magical it is?
post #59 of 151
People can choose whatever they want. They can choose not to not buy Apple products. It's a ridiculous argument. It's like me walking into a Mexican restaurant and getting upset if they don't serve Thai food to me, or don't offer it on the menu.

If you buy an Apple product, you know you're not getting flash. So, if flash is something you have to have, buy an Android phone.

One final example, if I bought a Honda Accord, I would not complain to Honda and say that they should be forced to put OnStar in it. That's a competitor's product. Any company is free to shape their products in the way they think it will make them the most money. The worst thing a company could do would be to try to please everyone. It can't be done. It's best to stay focused, stay on purpose and produce a product that you believe delivers the best experience to your customer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien987 View Post

So Apple deliberately blocking Flash in iPhones and iPads is a better culture? People should be able to choose whatever they want, no what one person wants.
post #60 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakevin. View Post

It's a brilliant opportunity for Adobe and one they're really taking seriously. It is indeed exactly like the "I'm a Mac" campaign - as soon as Vista came out and was trashed those ads attacked it and gave users an alternative: to upgrade to a Mac. It's fair marketing on Adobe's part and I think Apple's attacks on its products such as Flash over the year warrant it even further.

I don't like that Apple is falling victim to Adobe for inferior software because it's not true to Apple's form but it's an opportunity Adobe have taken and who could blame them. Plus 50% is great for competition and hence consumers.

Side note: Can't wait to see Steve Jobs mention this whole debacle publicly for the first time. Should be like MobileMe all over again, or perhaps his "Stop me if you've seen it" remark at the iPhone 4 keynote when unveiling the design - always a good laugh.

I don't really think Apple is "falling victim" to anything here. This was a cool, concise delivery of an intended product. It was presented a while back to pro editors, who were in denial apparently about what they were seeing - even while applauding it. They didn't understand what Apple was doing - of course they do NOW. Hence the panic and the unbridled outrage.

But look at the market difference here - you are talking hundreds (or even more generously thousands) of pro editors versus tens of thousand or more of potential prosumers who are shooting video in greater quantities than ever before and rapidly outgrowing the low-end consumer iMovie platform. By revamping FCP into a platform that speaks directly to nearly an order of magnitude more "editors", they generate that much more revenue. Apple sells many, many more iMacs and Macbooks and Macbook Pros than they do Mac Pros. That reflects the market reality better than any other example I can think of.

As for Adobe, they still have to compete with Sony, Avid and Pinnacle, which is not much different than before FCP rose to popularity among pro editors. If they can quickly collect a few more editors by running a firesale on their suite before the emotionality clears and the panic subsides - heck why not.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #61 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

They would be extremely stupid not to take advantage of the situation as ANY company would....

yes they would be. But they were kind of stupid not to start this weeks ago when the preview hit and folks say the interface etc. It was not hidden that this was brand new software not merely an upgrade so the notion of bugs, temporarily missing features etc shouldn't have shocked anyone that has been around Apple for the last few years. It's all standard course.

The moment the first "It looks like iMovie, bleech" messages went out in April, Adobe should have jumped.

As for the talk of refunds etc I suspect that there aren't as many as the stories make it sound like. Or even as high a share of negative reviews as they imply. Happy folks rarely get on boards and blogs to talk about how happy they are. They are too busy being happy. Pissed off folks however, scream and rant. Even when the reason they are pissed off is caused by not doing their homework and having reasonable expections. As Steve Jobs said in one of best emails "It seems like you are looking for someone to be mad at other than yourself". There are elements of that in some of the smack talk, especially by the prosumers that actually thought they were getting $1000 software for $300. Oops.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #62 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by samwell View Post

You really should be heeding your own signature.

That is really a rather pathetic non seqitur. Try again.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #63 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

ast May, AppleInsider was first to report that Apple was scaling its Final Cut Pro software to better fit the "prosumer" market, rather than high-end professionals.

You were wrong about this as you are now by repeating it. It's clear from Apples response and intent before releasing the product that the focus is as firmly on professionals as on anyone else interested in editing.
The point is that pro editing doesn't have to mean that it's awkward and difficult to do without thousands of hours learning it. It can be pro and intuitive and elegant at the same time. This makes it accessible for most people using iMovie and pro editors at the same time and unifies the editing software into one codebase.
As a consequence FCPX will be updated more frequently and will get more features than it's predecessors. It will also be easier to use and faster to learn and work with if you care to learn something new and understand that new software is seldom perfect from the start but in this case will be later on.

J.
post #64 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

I don't really think Apple is "falling victim" to anything here. This was a cool, concise delivery of an intended product. It was presented a while back to pro editors, who were in denial apparently about what they were seeing - even while applauding it. They didn't understand what Apple was doing - of course they do NOW. Hence the panic and the unbridled outrage. .

Are you so sure about that. Perhaps they were not in denial at all but fully understood the score. Most of the comments I have read seem to be more for the prosumers or prosumer wanna bes rather than from true pros. Pros that understood what was happening, know Apple's typical game and prepared by getting any copies of FCP7 etc that they might need for the interim between FCPX's first release (which remember was a week ago) and the post 'field trial' phase when other features were turned back on or the plug ins were ready

The prosumers on the other hand just heard there was a new and much cheaper final cut released and grabbed it without any thought. And hated it cause with the lower cost was a lower feature set etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

You were wrong about this as you are now by repeating it. It's clear from Apples response and intent before releasing the product that the focus is as firmly on professionals as on anyone else interested in editing.

Apple has made it clear for some time that the days of focusing on what the pros need and what as the core guideline of the company is over. They have not hidden that they are about the consumer and the prosumer. That said, their prosumer stuff does come with the ability to be enhanced, via companion apps, plug-ins etc to be used by professionals. But many if not most of those add ons are by 3rd parties, not Apple. This is really that same game. I would not be shocked to find out that many of these missing features like multicam etc are patented by other companies and Apple had to pay a small fortune to bake them into FCS. Which is great for the pros that don't mind the $1000-1200 price tag. But for the prosumers, paying an extra $700 for a half dozen features they might use one of if any is just stupid. So leave that stuff out and let the pros buy it if they need it. The companies with the tech know that there's a market so they will make the needed software (it's probably already in the works). They can pull an Adobe and charge $1000 for something Apple might have paid $200 in licensing for and the pros will pay because they need it.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #65 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat View Post

Apple actually had the same campaign when they brought out final cut. I remember sending in my original Premier disc. Dont remember what the discount was, but it was huge.

But wasn't the entire "Hello, I'm a Mac" campaign about catching PC users fed up with the Windows experience? So yeah no company is immune to doing this sort of thing. I confess I generally dislike Adobe on principle - it's an experiential thing. They've pissed me off so many times with their tools and actions (DON'T ask me about Macromedia!), that I tend to attribute the worst possible motives to what they do. Mea Culpa.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #66 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Hearing people complain about FCP X is similar to my listening my dad complain endlessly when "Regular" (leaded) fuel was discontinued.

Well, it is true damnit! Car engines ran better on leaded gasoline. They were smooth as butter, and never a knock. I think that whole spewing lead into the atmosphere thing was over-rated anyway. Plus those leaded pumps had huge frickin' nozzles that shaved seconds off the refill times.
post #67 of 151
"Switch to us, we have less crappy software."
post #68 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

"Switch to us, we have less crappy software."

Except they don't, which is what's confusing about this.
post #69 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold? PLEASE don't tell me this is all the fault of whiny people afraid of change, because if anyone is whining, it's the consumer user who just can't understand how pro users could refuse the gift that Steve has bestowed upon them. Don't they see how magical it is?

I suspect you will get much of what you want within several months:

Apple has already said they are working on some of the missing FCPX capabilities from FCP7.

Third parties are addressing other missing capabilities and updating their plugins.

Some of what you want may already be there -- just waiting for activation.


Here's an earlier post I made that one of the biggest knockoffs, FCPX unable to import FCP7 files, is being addressed by Apple



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

One of the advantages Adobe is extolling is the ability to open FCP7 XML and import sequences in Premiere -- actually as a best effort with a log of any problems. It looks good!

I found an article that says the FCP7 import is already built into FCPX -- just not activated. Here's the translation from Mac Magazine Brazil (scroll down to the second article):

http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

ping
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #70 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold? PLEASE don't tell me this is all the fault of whiny people afraid of change, because if anyone is whining, it's the consumer user who just can't understand how pro users could refuse the gift that Steve has bestowed upon them. Don't they see how magical it is?

Isn't that the question? Why can't "we" have both? Check out Sachin Agarwal's post (I posted it previously up thread). He explains things better than anyone else. I don't make it the "fault" of pro editors - they are just trying to get work done and suddenly the tool they thought was going to make life easier was a completely different tool. I get that - BTDT - went through the 12-step program to recover too *grin*. Pro editors don't want easy to use tools that work well for the average consumer - because the needs are radically different. Which is why prosumers see it as magical and pro users reportedly see it as a pile of sh*t.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #71 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Yeah, because Apple didn't spend years doing the same crap with the "I'm a Mac" commercials.

Not even close. FAIL.
post #72 of 151
deleted
post #73 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

Isn't that the question? Why can't "we" have both? Check out Sachin Agarwal's post (I posted it previously up thread). He explains things better than anyone else. I don't make it the "fault" of pro editors - they are just trying to get work done and suddenly the tool they thought was going to make life easier was a completely different tool. I get that - BTDT - went through the 12-step program to recover too *grin*. Pro editors don't want easy to use tools that work well for the average consumer - because the needs are radically different. Which is why prosumers see it as magical and pro users reportedly see it as a pile of sh*t.

I read the thread you mentioned!

It was informative... from his perspective.

But he claimed that Apple has no interest in the pros.

How does he know that?

How does he explain Apple bringing several leading pros to Cupertino to show FCPX (under NDA)?

How does he explain Apple making a presentation at NAB (first in several years, AFAIK)?


I believe there were 4 or 5 Apple managers doing the preso to the pros -- why would they bother if they weren't interested in them?


I have worked for several companies at a job level corresponding to Sachin Agarwal's -- basically an employee, a worker.

I have also worked as a team leader and in top management.


My experience is that every level of employee or manager does not (and need not) understand all the intentions, motivations and reasons for the decisions that are made.

I would be surprised if a team leader or first level manager would tell the workers that "Apple isn't interested in the pro market".

What would be gained by telling them (anyone) that?

Rather, I can see the same manager motivating his employees by telling them: "We are going to make FCPX the best Prosumer video editing app available". Maybe adding "It will be so good it will take sales from our competitors pro apps -- maybe even our own FCP".

There is also the need to avoid destroying the motivation of those working the older product, FCP7 -- which will eventually be replaced by the newer product, FCPX.


So, with all that considered, I submit that Sachin Agarwal offered his opinion that "Apple wasn't interested in the pros" -- and wasn't privy to what was Apple's opinion or its intentions.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #74 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Apple has made it clear for some time that the days of focusing on what the pros need and what as the core guideline of the company is over. They have not hidden that they are about the consumer and the prosumer.

Really? I'm sure the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, and Walter Murch would disagree. If Apple was trying to get away from the pro market, why would Apple publicize them using FCP at all, much less devote space on their website evangelizing the software? Apple were doing this right up until FCP X dropped. Why even develop FCPX, take over NAB's FCP Supermeet (full of the kind of folks who most need the features the old FCP had), and show off all the new features? They even showed a timeline of FCP with what looked like the same one in FCP X, leading most pros to believe their old projects would open. When pros actually got the software, they were disappointed.

Quote:
I would not be shocked to find out that many of these missing features like multicam etc are patented by other companies and Apple had to pay a small fortune to bake them into FCS. Which is great for the pros that don't mind the $1000-1200 price tag. But for the prosumers, paying an extra $700 for a half dozen features they might use one of if any is just stupid.

It's not just lack of features. Fundamentally, FCPX is a whole different product. Pros weren't expecting that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold

That's just it. Pros aren't against a simpler way to do things but let them turn that stuff off if they don't need it. If FCP X gave the option for pros to have multiple tracks of video or using the magnetic timeline (by default) and opened old FCP projects I'm sure a lot of the resistance to the new software would have been mitigated. FCP X doesn't even open Photoshop files which a lot of pros rely on for supers.
post #75 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

forgive us if we express just a little delight in the fact that FCPX suddenly is a toolset for the rest of us - and in reality there are many more of us to use it.

You know they both 'suddenly' do pretty much the same thing? You import footage, you put it in your events/bins, drag them into your timeline, you arrange your in/out points and you have an edit.

Final Cut X helps avoid clip collisions and takes care of some of the import for you but you still have to know what you're doing to make a movie worth watching.

Of course that shouldn't put people off buying the cheapest handycam on the market with 1/6" sensors, EIS, 9Mbit compression, on-board mono mic with no wind-cut, filming unscripted takes with no direction, churning it through every FCP filter in the list with the word 'auto' in it, dumping it on Youtube/Facebook and feeling like the next big name in showbiz. I just hope people know to accompany their masterpieces with 'Let The Bodies Hit The Floor' or any of the excellent soundtracks from 009 Sound System.

Sooner or later, people will realise that 'for the rest of us' doesn't mean you can skip the training and just take home the big pay-check. People who make great things don't sit around in their underwear all day watching TV until Apple comes along with the next big revolution so they can do a professional job by pushing a button.

"Don't pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. Don't pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks. Then the doing of your work will be no miracle, but you will be the miracle."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

ping

Are you cooking microwave dinners during your posts or sending your posts to a social network?

I suspect you are virtually checking off the show-stoppers in FCPX. It's good to know FCPX has XML import/export in there somewhere. That will solve a big hurdle in adoption, though should have been ready for when it shipped. Once the other show-stopping elements are fixed, it will be good to go - it needs a few more pings until the turkey's done though.
post #76 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

The functionality loss in FCP is the equivalent of taking kerning and indenting out of Word.

Kerning in Word!?

I can't comment on the FCP issue, but wanting and using kerning features in Word sounds like wanting silk purse performance from sow's ear software. If you want kerning control, use a page layout program, not a word processor. (Although MS is always glad to make their software appear to be all things, for all tasks, for all people!)
post #77 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by backdoc View Post

One final example, if I bought a Honda Accord, I would not complain to Honda and say that they should be forced to put OnStar in it. That's a competitor's product. Any company is free to shape their products in the way they think it will make them the most money.

But if you went to buy a new Honda and found out they no longer offer air conditioning, would you feel obliged to buy it anyhow because of your past experiences with their cars?
post #78 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidmark View Post

Here's a little tip. $300 from a prosumer is worth just as much as $300 from a 'pro'.

Is it really that simple?

Who generates more dollars from theater tickets, movie purchases, TV network deals, merchandising, and everything else beyond the initial $300? Not to mention the PR opportunities.

Who writes the 6 digit and higher purchase orders every year?

As another example, what is more significant? Hearing that the top 10% of a company (CEO's, Executive VP's, Senior VPs, etc) uses Macs, or that the remaining 90% uses PCs?
post #79 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

They are not trying to get rid of flash though.

No. They are going one better - they are giving people (developers and end users) choices as to how they want to create and view content, not how Adobe wants them to view content. I think that is a better way forward than letting one person decide how everyone else should create, view and interact with their media. That said, as an aside to the other comments about Flash on the iPhone, Apple did not release the original iPhone with Flash and people by now should know that if they want or need flash on a mobile device they will need to either not get an iPhone / iPad or use some sort of app like Splashtop to work around the limitation.
post #80 of 151
I think that my comment was misinterpreted, I'm not trying to debate if Flash is good or bad, I'm saying that Apple practices about cutting or attacking other companies (and even its customers) it's exactly the same, so I don't see why would any of you defend Apple and even call Adobe's "culture" bad... Apple is no saint about aggressive business and the Flash blocking, the "I'm a Mac" ads and the Switch promotion against Premiere are perfect examples of this...

And about freedom of choice, I use a Mac because I can do with it whatever I want (at least for now...), I use an iPhone because I still can jailbreak it and install whatever I want, and I use an Android tablet and phone because it even allows me to create my own customized OS to run on it without having to pray to Steve to allow me to do it...

Apple produce great hardware and software but their business model and practices sometimes feel like a dictatorship instead of customer-business relationships.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'