Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mode 
+5
Everything 'professional' related on this site gets the same treatment.
Most of the forum are investors. Thus the attitude of 'Shut up and watch the stock grow'.
That's a sweeping generalisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Conrail
Why did Apple feel the need to add features? Afer all, we were told repeatedly on this site and others that editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change. Is Apple catering to neanderthals now?
I read a lot of the aftermath of the FCPX release and I don't recall this being the overriding impression. There was a wholly too forceful reaction to the release and some wanted to state that they felt that reaction was unfair, and partly because much of what Apple did with FCPX was indeed forward-thinking and good. Don't be so black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
huntson
PLEASE, PLEASE - what is going to happen to video out support - it is written all over the walls that FCP does not have this option and no one has addressed it.
I don't see how this related to my comment in any way. As for video out, the very article you are commenting on says this:
'Apple has also promised two new features coming in "early 2012:" multicam editing and broadcast-quality video monitoring.'
So much of the ludicrous overreaction to FCPX is because people like you aren't paying attention and this is a case in point. Many of the 'missing' features that were complained about were in fact there, just not where they had always been previously. I'm not saying there aren't missing features, there are, I'm just making a point so don't let's have all the 'professionals' jump on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs
Who said, in this site or elsewhere, that "editors who wanted things like XML were just troglodytes and luddites who were afraid of change"?
Now, editors that complain about the UI "dumbing down" are indeed troglodytes afraid of change.
Oh, and editors that suddenly don't understand that their old FC 7 version works just as fine as it did, while needed features are added to future FCPX versions are also "troglodytes afraid of change".
In short, they wanted a new version, as long as it wasn't new enough --i.e the classic Adobe way of piling some stuff on top of bloated 20-year-old codebases and calling it the next version.
Exactly. Nobody called the pros wanting pro features 'troglodytes.' Those wanting more of the same and not seeing that technology has opened up the possibility of a great deal more flexibility were perhaps worthy of the insult.
On a side note, I find it pathetic when people complain that it looks 'too much like iMovie'. Its elitist nonsense. A professional should only care about functionality, not whether their software looks like a less expensive variant. No girl's gonna snog you because your NLE looks expensive. It might look like iMovie because, and this is just a stab in the dark, it was developed by the same man and iMovie was in many ways a test subject for the new FCP features. It does a LOT more than iMovie.
I'm a professional photographer but I don't insist Canon make consumer cameras look like toys so my more expensive bodies look 'more professional'. Silly vanity.
