or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe sees 45% sales growth for Mac video tools after Final Cut X exodus
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe sees 45% sales growth for Mac video tools after Final Cut X exodus - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

I won't deny FCPX's shortcomings, and people are going to continue to enjoy ragging on it in the near term, but every time I use it I find more really smart thinking at the core of the program.

It's not ready for everyone yet, but I see the problems of FCPX as more of a mismanagement of customer expectations than a technical one. There's too much great stuff going on in this program for it to be considered a failure by any reasonable person.

People will laugh now, but I'm not sure they'll be laughing so hard in a year or two.

That's what people said about Shake - Apple was coming up with something great (called Phenomenon if memory serves me right). Apple has abandoned the Pro market. I don't begrudge them that - I just wish they would come out and say it and we can all move on. Truthfully, we have already moved on to Adobe for a replacement to FCP and I am starting to look around for an alternative to Logic Pro as that has not received a significant update in years.
post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

Yeah but it took what, 3 years, for them to fix it? Apple doesn't live in a vacuum. There have been grumblings for awhile that Apple was neglecting the professional market.

Yes, but mostly by blathering idiots.

The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.

Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).

Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?

OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky View Post

It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.

Given our investment in the Creative Suite, we will not just jump back to Apple because we DO have a choice. And Apple has lost the trust that they had and they are going to have to show a lot more than one or two updates to win that back. Given their track record with Motion, it is a lot harder to innovate than people think - they have been working on Motion for about 4 years now and it is still no where near competing with After Effects or Nuke.
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

I am starting to look around for an alternative to Logic Pro as that has not received a significant update in years.

Yes, only got like 10 minor updates, got 64 bit et al...

And as we all know music production is constantly updated... EQs, compressors, buses, etc have gone out of style and Logic 9 is obsolete...
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Yes, but mostly by blathering idiots.

The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.

Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).

Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?

OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.

Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Yes, only got like 10 minor updates, got 64 bit et al...

And as we all know music production is constantly updated... EQs, compressors, buses, etc have gone out of style and Logic 9 is obsolete...

Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up. And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program. Even the move to 64 bit, while welcome, was long overdue and did not add to what was in Logic 9.
post #47 of 85
Apple doesn't need the Pro market. It's a lot of work for little gain.

Final Cut Pro X will succeed because most editors don't need to send files elsewhere. Right now it's the vocal minority making it sound like FCPX is the worst thing (and for their needs it is ).

I'm excited about a new code base for FCPX based on modern frameworks.
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 #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

- they have been working on Motion for about 4 years now and it is still no where near competing with After Effects or Nuke.

Motion is not intended to compete with After Effects or Nuke.

Motion is for people who don't want to use After Effects or Nuke.


Quote:
Given our investment in the Creative Suite, we will not just jump back to Apple because we DO have a choice.


Good luck with that.
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.

Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).

Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.

Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.
post #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post

Adobe probably had 5% of the Mac market for video editing. So basically they increased to 7.5%.

45% sound big but rather it sounds like Adobe is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Come on Adobe. Tells us how many copies you sold? Marketshare? Something meaningful?

On top of that. Adobe's awesomeness is not responsible for this growth. They needed Apple to screw up.
post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Motion is not intended to compete with After Effects or Nuke.

Motion is for people who don't want to use After Effects or Nuke.

When it came out, there was a general expectation amongst the professional community that Motion was aimed at the After Effects market but you are right, it did not go that way and seems to be a prosumer product where most people just used the templates.
post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up.

Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program.

Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessagePad2100 View Post

On top of that. Adobe's awesomeness is not responsible for this growth. They needed Apple to screw up.

Em, we also don't have numbers of users buying the new FCPX.

For all we know it could be a wild success with the prosumer market.
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).

Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.

Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.

If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files real time in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can't) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?



Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?

I miss intelligent comments from people who have something to say and don't just defend something that they seem to know nothing about. Spend a little time with packages like Reason, Live and ProTools and you will see that they all have feature that could be implemented in Logic. What bugs are there in CS5.5 that will need to wait till CS6? (I'll give you time to search dearadobe.com to find something ...)
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Em, we also don't have numbers of users buying the new FCPX.

For all we know it could be a wild success with the prosumer market.

Yes, the prosumer market. We are talking about the pro market here. Which based on your earlier comment about what professionals supposedly do and don't do, you should know.
post #57 of 85
I believe Apple has not been a fan of supporting every disparate codec Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC come up with to lock you into their camera lines.

The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.

With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can'tt) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
post #58 of 85
That's great for Adobe. I think some people are not seeing the big picture with the new FCPX. I love it. I've been using FCP since version 4. I am most happy with this newest X version. It finally utilizes all cores and memory in my Mac. Finally, after all these years. It is much easier to use, managing media couldn't be easier, and project management is great too. I find it better in all ways so far, versus older versions. Sure some "pro" features may come back in future updates, but now, and big picture, FCPX wins.
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I believe Apple has not been a fan of supporting every disparate codec Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC come up with to lock you into their camera lines.

The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.

With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.

Given its success, P2 is hardly some disparate codec. But try playing h264 HD off a canon camera in FCP7 vs PPro5.5 and has to be transcoded to ProRes using a utility like Grinder, to play properly on FCP. In PP you copy it over and edit without having to transcode (which can bring in generational loss) is a huge time saver. ProRes does well for editing and archiving but it is not an acquisition codec and no current cameras that I know of use it (though I could be wrong on this) for this purpose.
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky View Post

It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.

I agree 100%. Look back on the history of Apple. We have seen this story many times before .... remember the laughter when iPod was introduced, or Macbook Air (with no optical drive) or the transition from Appleworks to iWorks, iMovie HD to the current iMovie, iPhone, iPad. This is what happens when a company like Apple sees where the industry is going rather than only seeing where the industry is. I was one of the most vocal critics of Apple in the past over some of the things they did .... but their record of being smarter than me, in knowing what was "best for me" .... even before I knew it, has made me have a lot more patience with new Apple decisions .... while I wait for my thinking process to "catch up with Apple".
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by foljs View Post

Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?



Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?

Seems Apple thinks they have something to offer with regards to Logic as an update to X is in the works: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...gic_pro_x.html
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Given its success, P2 is hardly some disparate codec. But try playing h264 HD off a canon camera in FCP7 vs PPro5.5 and has to be transcoded to ProRes using a utility like Grinder, to play properly on FCP. In PP you copy it over and edit without having to transcode (which can bring in generational loss) is a huge time saver.

Yes, there are a long list of codecs that were very popular at one point in time and became less so, because something else better came along. That is only inevitable.

I agree being able to play the codec without transcoding is much faster. At the same time I can see that Apple does not want FCP code base to forever be laden with a bunch of codecs.

Quote:
ProRes does well for editing and archiving but it is not an acquisition codec and no current cameras that I know of use it (though I could be wrong on this) for this purpose.




Arriflex ALEXA


This camera shoots native Pro Res. Many of the television shows you will see this upcoming Fall were shot with it.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes, there are a long list of codecs that were very popular at one point in time and became less so, because something else better came along. That is only inevitable.

I agree being able to play the codec without transcoding is much faster. At the same time I can see that Apple does not want FCP code base to forever be laden with a bunch of codecs.






Arriflex ALEXA


This camera shoots native Pro Res. Many of the television shows you will see this upcoming Fall were shot with it.

Thanks! Good call. I have actually seen some footage shot by the ALEXA but did not think about the codec it was shot on. It looked beautiful as does the picture of the camera!
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes, there are a long list of codecs that were very popular at one point in time and became less so, because something else better came along. That is only inevitable.

I agree being able to play the codec without transcoding is much faster. At the same time I can see that Apple does not want FCP code base to forever be laden with a bunch of codecs.






Arriflex ALEXA


This camera shoots native Pro Res. Many of the television shows you will see this upcoming Fall were shot with it.


Compared with the number of normal, every-day consumers, pretty much nobody uses equipment like that.

Apple will go for the consumer sweet spot in every market. They don't care about niche markets.
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Compared with the number of normal, every-day consumers, pretty much nobody uses equipment like that.

Apple will go for the consumer sweet spot in every market. They don't care about niche markets.

I think you grabbed the wrong end of that stick. FCP X is (obviously) fine with ProRes (up to 4K and 4444). Native editing in quite a few formats too, including h264 from so-called prosumer DSLR (painful with old Final Cut).
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Compared with the number of normal, every-day consumers, pretty much nobody uses equipment like that.

Apple will go for the consumer sweet spot in every market. They don't care about niche markets.

Niche markets attract niche companies .... Apple is not a niche company ... but that does not, in any way, preclude it from developing a service/product that would also be attractive to a niche market. FCP X may/may not fall into that category. I think we'll have to wait awhile to see how this sorts itself out. As always the marketplace will be "the decider".
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #67 of 85
The consumer space is especially terrible about codecs. Camera manufacturers come up with all types of random codecs for consumer cameras and then abandons them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Compared with the number of normal, every-day consumers, pretty much nobody uses equipment like that.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

I agree... and what consumer video maker ever aspires to be just a consumer? Very few... and those that do will be satisfied by iMovie. Every consumer that aspires to be a Pro one day will be recommended Premiere or Avid over FCPX now.

Every film school is going to stop teaching FCP because it's now being considered a dead end for students who one day want a place in the industry.

There is some real genius in FCPX but it has been poorly branded, poorly marketed and Apple has given very little communication to it's established customers about what direction it is taking FCP.

What total bullshit! FCP X is in fact an entirely new paradigm in video editing with extremely powerful and innovative features, and as a v1 iteration has an extremely bright future. The "missing" features will quickly be added. Yes, Apple did a poor job of launching this new product, but the industry still has the old version to use while waiting for the right features in the new one. Further, the biggest single complaint is that it is not backwards compatible. Wake up! You still have the old version to revive and edit your old work / archives. Not a big deal really. Like most of what Apple does, this product is actually going to revolutionize the industry and the non-believers will come around quickly. As to Adobe, they suck just as much as ever. They are a money pit that continuously extorts more money out of their users with overpriced bloatware, and forces their users into expensive upgrades as their older versions can't open docs from newer versions. Meanwhile, Apple will continue to innovate and move the ball forward.
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

Oops! I guess Adobe does do some things better than Apple. Good. The market speaks, a know-it-all corporation responds. Chalk this up as a tiny win for consumer demand / capitalism.

Nice to see Adobe, who only really exist thanks to Apple in the early days, finally come back and pay serious attention to Macs. It says a lot about Apple's market presence.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

I agree 100%. Look back on the history of Apple. We have seen this story many times before .... remember the laughter when iPod was introduced, or Macbook Air (with no optical drive) or the transition from Appleworks to iWorks, iMovie HD to the current iMovie, iPhone, iPad. This is what happens when a company like Apple sees where the industry is going rather than only seeing where the industry is. I was one of the most vocal critics of Apple in the past over some of the things they did .... but their record of being smarter than me, in knowing what was "best for me" .... even before I knew it, has made me have a lot more patience with new Apple decisions .... while I wait for my thinking process to "catch up with Apple".

Brilliantly said! Well done!
post #71 of 85
At least until FCP X gets up to speed and Apple drinks their whole milkshake.




Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Nice to see Adobe, who only really exist thanks to Apple in the early days, finally come back and pay serious attention to Macs. It says a lot about Apple's market presence.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Hey, Apple -- this would be a really good month to provide the 1st FCPX update -- and get off that .0 release level. (One of the promises of FCPX is that it will be easier to upgrade it more frequently).

Yeah that WOULD be nice. Has anyone heard of any third parties releasing any significant plug-ins or add ons to expand FCPXs capabilities? Seems like there were a number of things promised at it's release, but I haven't seen anything yet.
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

What total bullshit! FCP X is in fact an entirely new paradigm in video editing with extremely powerful and innovative features, and as a v1 iteration has an extremely bright future. The "missing" features will quickly be added.

I can't tell if you're joking or if you're Larry Jordan in cognito...
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This camera shoots native Pro Res. Many of the television shows you will see this upcoming Fall were shot with it.

It also can create ArriRAW files at 3.5k. The ProRes will get the job done for most, but the other file types put it squarely in the high end camp as well.
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

What total bullshit! FCP X is in fact an entirely new paradigm in video editing with extremely powerful and innovative features, and as a v1 iteration has an extremely bright future.

How does that matter? This is what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

There is some real genius in FCPX but it has been poorly branded, poorly marketed and Apple has given very little communication to it's established customers about what direction it is taking FCP.

The Apple Newton was revolutionary at the time but Apple poorly communicated the direction it was taking the product and it died on the back of the reputation of its v1.0 product even though later revisions were far superior.

I for one love the new FCPX interface and I'm angry that this product may die because Apple totally stuffed up it's launch. It's getting terrible reviews and according to this article it is possibly flushing market share down the toilet. Apple has a new CEO and he's going to be looking for his own Newton to kill.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

How does that matter? This is what I said: There is some real genius in FCPX but it has been poorly branded, poorly marketed and Apple has given very little communication to it's established customers about what direction it is taking FCP.

I can agree with this part.

Quote:
I for one love the new FCPX interface and I'm angry that this product may die because Apple totally stuffed up it's launch. It's getting terrible reviews and according to this article it is possibly flushing market share down the toilet. Apple has a new CEO and he's going to be looking for his own Newton to kill.

This is the part where you get over hyperbolic.

You do notice that Adobe did not post actual sales numbers. Which means that sales of Premiere are nothing to brag about. This could mean they told 95 copies instead of last years 50 copies. I doubt it really means anything.

I'd guarantee that FCP X has far outsold Premiere in this quarter.
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

It's not ready for everyone yet, but I see the problems of FCPX as more of a mismanagement of customer expectations than a technical one. There's too much great stuff going on in this program for it to be considered a failure by any reasonable person.

Yes but the whingers seem to be anything but reasonable people.

All I can say to the switchers is good riddance and don't let the door slam you on the butt on your way out.

If they want to waste their time on old ways of doing so let them remain dinosaurs... what happened to them again? Oh right they power our cars.
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

I won't deny FCPX's shortcomings, and people are going to continue to enjoy ragging on it in the near term, but every time I use it I find more really smart thinking at the core of the program.

It's not ready for everyone yet, but I see the problems of FCPX as more of a mismanagement of customer expectations than a technical one. There's too much great stuff going on in this program for it to be considered a failure by any reasonable person.

People will laugh now, but I'm not sure they'll be laughing so hard in a year or two.

Exactly my thoughts. How many of the critics has actually even tried to understand why Apple changed what thy did with FCPX? Final cut is an EDITING app. And EDITING is really efficient, fast and even enjoyable in FCPX. I think they did a remarkable job. Looking forward to seeing it mature.
Adobe basically says: "You're conventional. Let your tools be too."
Apple says: "Conventional editing isn't efficient enough. Let us show you the future."
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

At least until FCP X gets up to speed and Apple drinks their whole milkshake.


I'm OK with that, it was not meant as a compliment to Adobe
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

That's what people said about Shake - Apple was coming up with something great (called Phenomenon if memory serves me right).

The shake story though is sad. "Let's buy and kill the cheap amazing post comp app and create a conventional sort of real time messy after effects."
Why did they even buy shake in the first place? No wonder nuke became the natural successor.
I think Apple is afraid of UI's that BENEFIT from being a little complex.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe sees 45% sales growth for Mac video tools after Final Cut X exodus