or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash - Page 3

post #81 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Fair enough, they started over, which is commendable. But they forgot to put "back" some essential features. Microsoft Office is full of bloated nonsense, I agree. But unfortunately nobody has really gone for their jugular, even though some have made attempts that got halfway.

Adobe is slightly different... There are a lot of features but CS4 and CS5 are fairly smooth to operate on a recent Mac. Adobe did a lot of re-writing along the way, without having to start from scratch. They did the transition to Intel, then Cocoa and 64-bit as well. No small feat.

Yes... agreed: no small feat.

HOWEVER... that is ALL they are expected to do, and that is write good software. Now...

- hows Flash going for them?
- why kill a better program, and try to bolt on stuff over 6 years with a program like Illustrator vs. FreeHand, and still failing to match today what FH had 10 years ago?
- At what point will "bolting on" stuff just not work efficiently any more, and a rewrite will be in order?
- Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.

Waiting until tomorrow what should be done today, is not Apple's modicum of operation. When does the competition think they will ever catch up, regardless of hardware or software?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #82 of 203
Editors are complaining as if Apple didn't single handedly REINVENT the movie industry with Final Cut. Obviously they know what they are doing. Various features were stripped to pilot any bug concerns on a greater scale, then add features as plugins/updates. The backlash was uncalled for by many reviewers, most of them were not Pros. The professionals who did complain should have known better to upgrade to a drastically new software mid-project.

We KEEP FORGETTING, that legacy support /backwards compatibility only hinders the future of innovation. This is why FCP7 sessions are not compatible with FCPX. Get over it. Those who do embrace and accept will be on top of the new capabilities that Apple enables in the road ahead.

Apple increments product features one bite at a time...hence the logo. Want the next big thing? You're gonna have to pick another fruit from the Apple Tree.

Reply

Apple increments product features one bite at a time...hence the logo. Want the next big thing? You're gonna have to pick another fruit from the Apple Tree.

Reply
post #83 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I know you are asking another poster, but let me chime in on this.

Apple will certainly update to address the issues. That will only improve FCPX and I think after 2 years make it a better solution for many editors. However, there may be some features that will never make it back due to how they rewrote it. As such, there will be some, probably high-end editors, that will stick to FCP7 as long as possible, then switch to something else that meets their needs.

We don't know what exactly will happen. But that doesn't change what has happened with FCPX.

And may I suggest, their "needs" in 2 years time will more than likely be completely different than today's? Broadcast? Tape drives? Broadcast proofing monitors?

Will they "really" need those "features" to broadcast over the Internet and make their shows available on YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, and iTunes? Output to BluRay for the "purists"?

Will the media co.'s really center their workflows, software and investments for people with old CRT TVs?

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #84 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

Wow. Your posts go from Mars to Pluto to points beyond.
You obviously have no clue about the field. Why do you keep posting? You're just digging holes for yourself that don't inspire anyone to respond to.
post #85 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz View Post

Editors are complaining as if Apple didn't single handedly REINVENT the movie industry with Final Cut. Obviously they know what they are doing. Various features were stripped to pilot any bug concerns on a greater scale, then add features as plugins/updates. The backlash was uncalled for by many reviewers, most of them were not Pros. The professionals who did complain should have known better to upgrade to a drastically new software mid-project.

We KEEP FORGETTING, that legacy support /backwards compatibility only hinders the future of innovation. This is why FCP7 sessions are not compatible with FCPX. Get over it. Those who do embrace and accept will be on top of the new capabilities that Apple enables in the road ahead.


Both of your points are wrong. First of all, none of the "complainers" stuck themselves by deleting FCP and ugrading wantonly. For $300 it was the same non-commiting drop in the bucket it was for the wedding videographer. They have merely been pointing out that it is much further from being a replacement for FCP than others understand. I've read a million posts and have yet to come across a SINGLE one of someone who upgraded mid project. Zero. That didn't happen. Editors aren't stupid.

Second, no, no, a thousand times no Apple did not leave off 90% of what they did as any prgramming move to the future. The redesign of the engine and interface had nothing to do with it. They could have kept the features but, as they do with photgraphers and all other pro users, the needs of the pros no longer drive the software developement. Apple's goal since at least a decade ago has been to sell as much as possible, not to serve the specific needs of any single faction.

They wanted simply to make the $300 killer video app. They did. They don't care if you can't use it in a production facility for 75% of what your job is. That was never their goal.
It was not the 64 bit rewrite that caused FCPX to be what it is.
post #86 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.

Okay, fine. But when they sat down and said "we're starting over from the ground up with a blank file" how did they proceed? They must have had a list of all the features and elements of both iMovie and FCP and started listing what they wanted from each version. Someone consciously made a decision that certain features were not either worth the time to program or necessary for the target audience of the product. There is no limitation of either the new hardware or the programming language that prevented these features from being included.

It's funny when people feel the need for something "new" when proven methods and protocols perform properly. In my job, I use equipment that relies on RS232 every day (audio-visual control systems). Swapping out this hardware for USB or network based equipment will be a phenomenal expense with no obvious benefit for our end users. If Mitsubishi came along and said "no more serial ports on projectors, you need to grow up and use our new port", they would lose our business.
post #87 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I work in TV and Feature Film editing. Even if someone like the Coen Brothers wanted to edit True Grit on FCPX right now - they couldn't. It's missing too many necessary features: export to tape, edl, omf, audio track assignment, etc... For a high end feature film like True Grit or The Social Network, these features aren't just nice to have - they are necessary. You cannot actually edit the film without them. You need these features in order to work with your sound house, color correction facilities, visual effects houses, etc... In fact, everything that airs on broadcast TV also needs these features. The lower end the production the less necessary these features become. Editors who work in corporate videos, industrials, web productions might be able to get by without these features. But prestige projects like big budget movies must have them.

Staaaanley and the rest of you with similar posts:

WE GET IT! Many of us have read the above post or similar 1000 times or more over the last couple of weeks! Everybody and their grandma knows what's missing... what's coming "soon"... and what's likely never to come, because it will no longer be needed... or because Apple no longer sees the need to cater to the pros.

I personally think that Apple and it's engineers are looking out well beyond 2 years time. I also believe the rewrite that they are releasing now can and will benefit early adopters if they give it a chance. Those are the pro editers of tomorrow... OK... in 2 years.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #88 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post




Both of your points are wrong. First of all, none of the "complainers" stuck themselves by deleting FCP and ugrading wantonly. For $300 it was the same non-commiting drop in the bucket it was for the wedding videographer. They have merely been pointing out that it is much further from being a replacement for FCP than others understand. I've read a million posts and have yet to come across a SINGLE one of someone who upgraded mid project. Zero. That didn't happen. Editors aren't stupid.

Second, no, no, a thousand times no Apple did not leave off 90% of what they did as any prgramming move to the future. The redesign of the engine and interface had nothing to do with it. They could have kept the features but, as they do with photgraphers and all other pro users, the needs of the pros no longer drive the software developement. Apple's goal since at least a decade ago has been to sell as much as possible, not to serve the specific needs of any single faction.

They wanted simply to make the $300 killer video app. They did. They don't care if you can't use it in a production facility for 75% of what your job is. That was never their goal.
It was not the 64 bit rewrite that caused FCPX to be what it is.

Very likely. Anything wrong with that statement?

BTW: in 2 years time (that magic date!)...

1) how much will Adobe or Avid be asking for a license to edit tape and legacy projects?

2 you might see FCP-X5 for $99.- in the App Store... and it will be used for tons of projects from features to "broadcast" (internet) real-time news. Plug-ins galore as well.

Care to make a side bet with me on which company will be making the most money for it's shareholders? My main money already is on AAPL long the day iPhone was presented
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #89 of 203
I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? FCP became the standard tool in many classrooms - it was powerful, stable, affordable and conceptually similar to Media Composer. And students could run it well on their own hardware.

FCPX isn't a drop in replacement when you are learning or teaching even moderately advanced techniques or team collaboration.

Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?

What do you think?
post #90 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


And Apple's bottom line will be affected just as much. You no longer matter to them, and frankly I think that's what is really upsetting you. People used to think there was a 'halo effect' from design pros that made consumers want Apple computers. Turned out there was a bigger halo effect from the consumer iPod by an order of magnitude.

But the thing is we REALLY want to be using Apple products. That's part of what we are really upset about is now we can't use an Apple product to do our jobs. Most of us who have been with FCP from the beginning were on Avid and we switched because we could then be ALL APPLE ALL THE TIME. We liked that because we are pros AND fanbois. Media Composer is a great tool and it is the preferred app for serious high level pros. But us Apple geeks adopted FCP anyway and helped build it into something good. Now comes FCP X which is very interesting but it did something bad. It removed functionality. It is not a one to one replacement for the app it supposedly replaces. Now we have to go back to Avid and that makes us sad.
post #91 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Let the resistance from FCP users be proof to the haters that Apple fans aren't "sheeple". When Apple screws up, they will be raked over the coals even more vehemently.

All apple fans aren't the same. This situation has made it very obvious that some apple users are pragmatists and some are apologists and sycophants who feel that apple can do no wrong. And it's made it clear who falls into which category.

Same thing happened a while back when they released an ipod with no buttons - some hailed it as brilliant but even apple admitted it was a mistake and reverted to a design similar to the earlier shuffle.
post #92 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

But the thing is we REALLY want to be using Apple products. That's part of what we are really upset about is now we can't use an Apple product to do our jobs.

Me too, I'd love to be able to work on Apple products, but sadly I can't. I'd also love to be able to work on UNIX systems but increasingly I can't, because Windows has extended their consumer monopoly into enterprise, and the businesses who bet their platform on enterprise are dead or dying.

You can still use FCP-7 to do your jobs. You may be able to use FCP-X in future to do your jobs. I'll still be stuck on windows - so my sympathy is limited

I really do get how annoying it is for you guys, and I do feel a little bad for you - but as a developer I admire Apple's willingness to rewrite, even at the cost of features, and I dearly hope that by pushing deeper into the consumer space they will one day reach my part of enterprise.
post #93 of 203
Just call it iMovie Pro or Final Cut Express. Then update Final Cut Pro to be 64 bit and background rendering. That's all we want, you don't need all that eye candy when editing.
post #94 of 203
The article says that there are "legal" issues or considerations for Apple to re-release FCP7/FCS to existing customers.

I have read that one of the reasons that Apple may have written FCPX the way they did was to reduce, or remove the need to license technology from other parties.


Does anyone know what technologies Apple licenses for FCP7/FCS?


Here's one possible scenario for the decisions in the evolvement of FCP into FCPX:

1) Apple buys technology from Macromedia that will become FCP

2) Over the years, Apple licenses additional technology from others to improve FCP so it can compete with Avid, Adobe, etc.

3) FCP becomes popular as a "good enough" (and much less-expensive) solution for most pro editors.

4) Apple realizes that licensed technology is technologically and financially constraining FCP as they move forward.

5) Apple takes advantage of (or partially justifies) the total rewrite of FCP7/FCS into FCPX to remove whatever licensing issues it can.


Apple likes to be in control of its own destiny, technologically and financially!


Does anyone remember the evolution of Apple's support for Display Postscript? For Flash?


Thoughts?
"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 #95 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.

it will be appreciated in time, and after the kinks are worked out. but to say that people are probably "incompetent" who probably make a living using software, and usually getting things done under TIME pressure, aren't going to be happy to have to go back to day 1 and slow down and relearn is just moronic. thats the difference between actually having to work with applications for a living under pressure and sitting in a coffee shop or at home f****** around with your new shiny mac toy.
post #96 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.

Yes, we all want incomplete software without key features released as soon as possible. You probably approved of the initial mobileme rollout as well. The point made in #46 that Apple is no longer interested in the pro market is fair - I just wish they would come out and say it. In addition to moving our video business over to Adobe I am thinking that we will have to move our audio work from Logic Pro to Pro Tools.
post #97 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? FCP became the standard tool in many classrooms - it was powerful, stable, affordable and conceptually similar to Media Composer. And students could run it well on their own hardware.

FCPX isn't a drop in replacement when you are learning or teaching even moderately advanced techniques or team collaboration.

Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?

What do you think?

Was reading a forum where a school in England had just upgraded their MacPro's and had an order in to their retailer for FCP when it was pulled and they are now left with nothing (they don't seem to think that FCPX will be a replacement for FCP 7). The X marks the spot where Final Cut died.
post #98 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?

Short answer: I think film and media students should learn AVID if they can.

If you're a film and TV student who wants to work in editorial, then I strongly recommend learning AVID. Even before this debacle the higher end the project the more likely it was going to be an AVID job. I've met a lot of film students looking to break in that I couldn't recommend for jobs because they only knew FCP. After what happened with FCPX there will be even less FCP jobs out there.

If you're not looking to work in post-production - say you're an aspiring director looking to make their first independent feature that will get into Sundance and land you a 3 picture deal - it's a little more complicated. Right now, FCPX is not suitable for making even indie features. I think it could be two years before it's ready for something like that - if ever. But you don't care about two years from now. You care about that indie feature you want to shoot, right? Right now, FCP7 is still probably the most affordable way to edit an indie feature. But it will be obsolete fast. Plus you're going to be learning a program that I predict will never make it's way back into the feature film and TV market in a big way.
post #99 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Yes, we all want incomplete software without key features released as soon as possible. You probably approved of the initial mobileme rollout as well. The point made in #46 that Apple is no longer interested in the pro market is fair - I just wish they would come out and say it. In addition to moving our video business over to Adobe I am thinking that we will have to move our audio work from Logic Pro to Pro Tools.

Apple's consumer business generates profits on a scale that's orders of magnitudes greater than the Pro industry. It's not that they don't care about the Professionals it's just that you aren't that lucrative.
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 #100 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Apple's consumer business generates profits on a scale that's orders of magnitudes greater than the Pro industry. It's not that they don't care about the Professionals it's just that you aren't that lucrative.

That's fine - I don't begrudge them that at all - I just wish they would let us know instead of making us wait 4 years hoping for new features and functionality only to be served up what we got in FCPX.
post #101 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

Right now, FCP7 is still probably the most affordable way to edit an indie feature. But it will be obsolete fast. Plus you're going to be learning a program that I predict will never make it's way back into the feature film and TV market in a big way.

Problem with FCP7 is that unless they have already purchased it, they won't be able to now. Anyone learning FCP 7 in school will have to relearn the software unless they own a copy already. I think your prediction is spot on and given what they did with Shake, I am surprised that they ever gave FCP a chance.
post #102 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Apple's consumer business generates profits on a scale that's orders of magnitudes greater than the Pro industry. It's not that they don't care about the Professionals it's just that you aren't that lucrative.

I agree with that!

But, there are certainly values to satisfying the pros -- feedback, for one.


Another is setting a standard with pro solutions -- then, being able to offer a solution to consumers that is easy, inexpensive while "just like the pros"'
"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 #103 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree with that!

But, there are certainly values to satisfying the pros -- feedback, for one.


Another is setting a standard with pro solutions -- then, being able to offer a solution to consumers that is easy, inexpensive while "just like the pros"'

True. And Pro's are generally more loyal (they have a lot of money tied up in their decision) and consumers are fickle. 5 years ago hardly anyone had a Mac. Now you can't move around Starbucks without falling over one. Five years from now? Who knows.
post #104 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Yes... agreed: no small feat.

HOWEVER... that is ALL they are expected to do, and that is write good software. Now...

- hows Flash going for them?
- why kill a better program, and try to bolt on stuff over 6 years with a program like Illustrator vs. FreeHand, and still failing to match today what FH had 10 years ago?
- At what point will "bolting on" stuff just not work efficiently any more, and a rewrite will be in order?
- Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.

1. Adobe is making HTML 5 tools for developers to use.
2. Illustrator does need work.
3. PS CS5 is a great piece of software - we have found it to be fast and stable. As for the claim that it could be 10x faster, how do you know that?
post #105 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

i'll make it easier for everyone. Show me coppola or the coen brothers using fcpx by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).

+1000
post #106 of 203
It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure
in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out
via API as covered in their FAQ.

What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd
party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.

Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?

So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.

Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up
more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.
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 #107 of 203
Apple has stated that they can't (or won't) build the capability to import FCP7 into FCPX


At this point in time there is no published capability for anyone (but Apple) to programmatically create an FCPX Project or FCPX Events.

Hopefully Apple will publish the means to do the above.


With that in mind, someone could create a useful (if not perfect) conversion tool!


What does such a tool need to do to be useful?


Here's what I have for starters -- please add/rate items to the list based on your expertise and needs.


The soul of a new FCP7/FCPX conversion tool

Objectives of the tool:
Allow easy experimentation/evaluation of FCPX with familiar, and readily available FCP7 content
Identify areas where FCPX could be used "as is"
Identify missing features/capabilities needed in FCPX
Monitor the utility of FCPX over time -- as enhancements become availability
Have the ability to access legacy FCP7 content in FCPX
Gain assurance that by using FCPX you will not be abandoning FCP7 content


Minimum requirements:
import (or point to) media clips
preserve clip in and out points
preserve clip metadata
import a single sequence at a time
roughly approximate the track layout as a storyline
export/import XML down to the individual clip level
log anything (such as missing effects) not handled by the import

Nice to have
recognize layered .psd images
multicamera support
bezier shapes, masks and controls
"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 #108 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure
in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out
via API as covered in their FAQ.

What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd
party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.

Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?

So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.

Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up
more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.


Would'a,Should'a,Could'a-but never did
post #109 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out via API as covered in their FAQ.

What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.

So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.

You're probably right about Apple deciding to leave these features to 3rd party tools. But that's going to be a non-starter for most of the film and TV editors that I know and work with.

Truthfully. A lot of features on FCP didn't work that great to begin with. And these are features that were built into the program. To be fair, AVID can be just as bad. Now you tell me that I'm going to need a 3rd party plugin or program to make an EDL, OMF, or export to tape? The chances of problems arising go up 10 fold. And on a tight schedule I don't need those kinds of headaches.

Look. I think Apple made a very smart move in marketing FCPX towards a consumer audience. I think it will make alot of money for them. But let's talk honestly: FCPX is not a pro application anymore - for better or worse it's now a consumer product.
post #110 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure
in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out
via API as covered in their FAQ.

What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd
party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.

Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?

So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.

Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up
more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.

+++ I hope so!

Apparently, Apple is developing a more robust XML called AXEL to interface FCPX to third-party tools:

A Brazilian web site has detected import capabilities within FCPX:

Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2]
"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 #111 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Would'a,Should'a,Could'a-but never did

All the Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas
Layin' in the sun,
Talkin' 'bout the things
They woulda coulda shoulda done...
But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas
All ran away and hid
From one little Did.
-Shel Silverstein-
"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 #112 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by DylanReeve View Post

At $300 a seat there's really not much value for Apple in trying to woo that high-end market. Maybe there's 100,000 edit suites in that industry, maybe 200,000 - but that's a tiny slice of the potential pie for Apple.

Keep in mind that FCP7 was part of a $1000 suite. I think it used to be $1200 the version before. It wasn't until FCPX that they put a $300 price tag on it. They chose to lower the price. They could have kept the price and put in the features needed to justify the previous price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

You're dead right - no prosumers involved. It's a consumer app.

I don't agree with that at all. Few consumers are going to pay $300 for an edit program these days. I'd call this at the very least an enthusiast/prosumer app as it is.

Besides, what consumer has a 4k camera? FCPX can edit 4k footage, something the old software just couldn't I think it's just a matter of Apple not managing expectations. In my opinion, the FAQ they posted several days after launch should have been posted a week before launch so it was clear to prospective buyers what is going on. And because it would take a while for auxiliary programs to take on what Apple has decided to let third parties handle, they should have had a transition plan available where the old suite was available. They at least did that much when OS X was at 10.0 and they introduced their Intel Macs, there was at least a year of transition to make it go as smoothly as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

- Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.

It sounds like Pixelmator could be a fighting replacement for a lot of Photoshop uses. It uses the Core frameworks and it isn't held back by being multi-platform. It's clearly not a replacement for everyone, but I think people would be remiss to not at least look at it.
post #113 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

True. And Pro's are generally more loyal (they have a lot of money tied up in their decision) and consumers are fickle. 5 years ago hardly anyone had a Mac. Now you can't move around Starbucks without falling over one. Five years from now? Who knows.

Actually this is exactly what Apple's business was back in 1995, and it nearly killed them. Pro's as it turns out are fickle, and the loss of a 3rd party tool can suddenly result in your customer base jumping en masse to another platform. All their investment will be dumped in a New York minute if they start to see another platform as the place of the future.

Consumers have been shown empirically to be a more stable base, and a strategically more valuable one than enterprise because as I mentioned in a previous post, consumer scale trumps enterprise specialism in the end.
post #114 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Actually this is exactly what Apple's business was back in 1995, and it nearly killed them. Pro's as it turns out are fickle, and the loss of a 3rd party tool can suddenly result in your customer base jumping en masse to another platform. All their investment will be dumped in a New York minute if they start to see another platform as the place of the future.

Consumers have been shown empirically to be a more stable base, and a strategically more valuable one than enterprise because as I mentioned in a previous post, consumer scale trumps enterprise specialism in the end.

While I disagree in part, you make some interesting observations that broaden my perspective. Thanks.
post #115 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It sounds like Pixelmator could be a fighting replacement for a lot of Photoshop uses. It uses the Core frameworks and it isn't held back by being multi-platform.

If you had to choose to use either for real serious work, say producing an ad campaign for a large company that will involve print, TV and web then Pixelmator is just not up to the task. At the same time, I meet people who complain about Photoshop but all they need is the red eye correction tool in iPhoto!
post #116 of 203
The goal with any device or application is scalability if you want to reach the widest audience.

For instance RED designed their cameras to be modular (to an extent) so that they didn't have to create too many cameras. You build your camera up to watch you want.

FCPX is the software version of this. Architected to cover everything from the Prosumer to the Professional (via plugins)

It makes more sense than trying to build the whole widget yourself.

Apple July 6th meeting with Editors

http://finalcut.maccreate.com/2011/0...medium=twitter

Quote:
1. FCP XML in/out is coming via 3rd party soon…no FCP 6/7 support project support coming ever it seems…
2. Ability to buy FCP7 licenses for enterprise deployments coming in the next few weeks…
3. FCPX EDL import/export coming soon…
4. FCPX AJA plugins coming soon for tape capture and layback…capture straight into FCPX [events].
5. XSAN support for FCPX coming in the next few weeks…
6. FCPX Broadcast video output via #Blackmagic & @AJAVideo coming soon…
7. Additional codec support for FCPX via 3rd Parties coming soon…
8. Customizable sequence TC in FCPX for master exports coming soon…
9. Some FCPX updates will be free some will cost..
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 #117 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

First, you need to see past your own home computer in your living room. Editors and companies often have to collaborate with others companies, who in turn send their work to other companies and so forth, all with certain sets of requirements. So their software has to be compatible throughout the entire workflow.

Second, many of these editors and companies have Macs specifically to run Final Cut Pro which is only available for Macs. If they switch to Premiere or Avid, they might consider switching to PCs since those programs are also available for Windows.

Third, if they do switch to Premier or Avid for Windows, I guess they can quote your argument about flexibility and "basic computer competency" to the people who complain about losing their Macs.
post #118 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

While I disagree in part, you make some interesting observations that broaden my perspective. Thanks.

Thanks to you too. I do grok how you folks feel, having been increasingly forced onto tools and platforms that I despise, but I've been the guy asked to port a million lines of geriatric source that has already crossed platforms twice and didn't bring it's structure along for the ride - so I respect the developers' decision.

Hopefully in a few years you folks will look back on the dark days of FCP-X and laugh about it, because the problems will have vanished one by one leaving solid product in their place. One thing which I think cannot be disputed is that Apple's corporate communications kinda screwed the pooch here.
post #119 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

First, you need to see past your own home computer in your living room. Editors and companies often have to collaborate with others companies, who in turn send their work to other companies and so forth, all with certain sets of requirements. So their software has to be compatible throughout the entire workflow.

Second, many of these editors and companies have Macs specifically to run Final Cut Pro which is only available for Macs. If they switch to Premiere or Avid, they might consider switching to PCs since those programs are also available for Windows.

Third, if they do switch to Premier or Avid for Windows, I guess they can quote your argument about flexibility and "basic computer competency" to the people who complain about losing their Macs.

http://www.automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/

OMF/AAF already supported via a 3rd party.
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 #120 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The goal with any device or application is scalability if you want to reach the widest audience.

For instance RED designed their cameras to be modular (to an extent) so that they didn't have to create too many cameras. You build your camera up to watch you want.

FCPX is the software version of this. Architected to cover everything from the Prosumer to the Professional (via plugins)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. FCPX is no longer a viable alternative for feature film and TV editors and in my opinion may never be again. Apple knows this and clearly doesn't mind.

FCPX may do well in the lower end professional market for certain types of promo editing, industrial editing, web content editing... So in that respect, I will concede that it maybe a "professional" edit system. But Apple has clearly made conscious decision NOT to add many extremely useful features that film and TV editors have been asking about for years. Instead they took out many crucial features. So now film and TV editors are going to have to wait for a few years until there are enough 3rd party plugins to make the program as functional as it was back in 2009 with FCP7. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure no one is going to address all the other functions that film and TV editors have been asking for since then. Furthermore, many of these missing features cannot be solved by plugins. One of the bigger complaints about FCP7 was that it's not nearly as good as AVID for multiple editors. This is a big issue for large movies and TV shows that have dozens of editors and assistants sharing projects and files. A plugin alone won't solve this problem.

Most TV and film editors are not going to wait for FCPX to get functionality that may never arrive. Apple knows this. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad move on Apple's part. But it's clearly a conscious decision.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash