Originally Posted by v5v
The "littlest thing" can sometimes be a really, really big thing. Losing just one codec or breaking one link can bring down a production workflow. Our system is completely dependant on a feature that most users don't even know about or understand. If Avid suddenly dropped it because most users will never need it we'd be screwed. The availability of features like that are part of the reason we use a "pro" app and not a consumer "equivalent." Avid gets that. Apple didn't.
That's EXACTLY what Avid is doing with the next version of Pro Tools. The "engine" needed a rewrite, so they've sacrificed compatibility with every plug-in ever written for Pro Tools in order to do it. But, unlike Apple, they HAVE reproduced the entire environment. The issue that's got me upset appears to be a marketing decision, not a missing feature. That is, the one middle-tier capability they dropped can still be had just by throwing more money at it. FCPX users didn't have that option. Things that were not included could not be added just by paying more.
Further, it's disingenuous to promote a system as a "professional" solution then say users are whiners when they object to it being dumbed down.
Sure, because the features that should have been there in the first place are now finally available!
That was certainly true for FCP users. They had no choice. Even if they DIDN'T change suppliers and stayed with FCP, it meant learning not just new controls but a completely new operating paradigm. That probably would have been met with grumbles but acceptance if users could still do the work they did before the rewrite. The fact that they couldn't is what escalated the grumbling to growling (and rightly so).
Apple took a chance with FCPX to release what was more of a replacement to FCP Express, but what they did was to repackage it and they released something to get FCP Express users taken care of first because that represents a bigger crowd of people to get used to the new GUI and work flow, etc., the features they pulled out that were add-ons were done because not everyone used them and they figured to sell what the majority of people use, and then add-on extras. They also weren't finished with the more high end features which they DID add after a few updates just like they said. They took out Soundtrack because most people were using either Logic, ProTools and other DAWs and they are far more comprehensive than Soundtack Pro plus Apple reduced the over all price drastically to make it less expensive. Yeah, the Pros got bent out of shape because it didn't multi cam which was added and improved, and other important features that have been added, but the end result for most is a better product. There was also dirt cheap third party app to transfer older projects over.
Well, you can always submit feedback to Apple on features you want and maybe they'll add it later. Apple DOES do that. So don't think that they won't. It doesn't cost you anything to submit feedback through their website. It's there for you to vent, voice your concerns, ideas, suggestions for enhancements, bugs, etc. etc. I use it all of the time and I can say that they do get around to addressing MOST of the requests I've made. I also try to submit professional submissions rather than just being hot headed about it. But I can say that I've had great success in getting things that I've requested added. I'd say that so far, I'm getting about 75 to 80% of what I submit added at some point in time. That's not bad, so far. Some things I suggested, I found out 10 minutes after I pressed the submit button that the feature was actually there, which was even better! I just didn't dig deep enough to realize it. That happens. But they actually do get around to doing it. I think it depends on how high on the importance list it is, how easy it is to do, etc. etc. At least they have the balls to put a feedback site that does get routed to the right group of people and they DO READ IT and do listen. But you or I aren't the only people submitting ideas, they probably get a TON of submissions daily.
Professional? A LOT of Professionals that were whining in the beginning with FCPX later got the enhancements they were waiting for, actually took the time to get used to it, and later came back and said it was worth it. They love it more than the previous version. I've seen people submit reviews where they actually apologized on the app store reviews. Apple just did what they did, but they addressed 99.99% of the issues, but then again, it's not like it's never going to have future updates. So it is now a PROFESSIONAL grade app, it's just giving non-professionals, students the same app to use so when they become professional, they don't have to relearn a different app. Meanwhile, iMovie got better for the non-professional and it believe it or not has been used to create movies that were shown in movie theaters. I think some of the documentaries Michael Moore did were done using an older version of iMovie on an older iMac. So there is proof that even a free video editor that comes with the computer IS capable to create something that has been viewed and I think Moore got Acedemy Awards. Go figure. It's all what the user does with the software that makes it professional or not. Heck, there are some people that will do something professional on Garage Band. It may not be what you or I would use, but if the user can do something using free software bundled with the computer and charge money for their work, then they using it in a professional capacity.
I saw an in depth comparison back when FCPX was first being changed and the person was a college professor that teaches NLP in a reputable college and he was giving his review on the FCPX and Premier and overall, FCPX won and was suggested to be the main focus of future instruction. The areas that Premier won were things he felt Apple would address in future versions and there were things about both that were pretty much equal. But there were aspects that FCPX was far superior to Premier.
Now, obviously these companies are ALWAYS going to be making enhancements,etc. and I think for a professional that's doing serious work, there are some things that each app is better at. one thing that the professor mentioned is that in large work flows, they'll have many people doing different aspects of the total process and it's common for one person to use one app over another, but use all three at some point in time. It's all what you do and need. But not everyone abandoned FCPX. There is a whole new crop of kids getting out of college knowing these apps and they'll use whatever they feel comfortable with and FCPX is one of them.
From my experience dealing with high end professionals, they usually spend time with a new app before they actually put it in a work flow, unless it's a minor update. These apps are NOT always simple updates that just add a couple of features. I would NEVER suggest to anyone in the middle of a large project to upgrade an important application or even the OS right in the middle until it's been given some time to find out what bugs exist, etc.. The main reasons are there are always some minor bugs that have to surface and get fixed first before they become stable enough for production work. Even Avid takes a while when there is new version of OS X before they tell users to use it with ProTools. It's similar to how large corporations upgrade WIndows. Most will NOT upgrade Windows on their employees computers as soon as a new version is released and they sometimes have to wait until Service Pack 1 or sometimes 2 comes out, which can take a year or two. Why? They wait until it's stable enough and they've tested all of their internal apps, know how to train the users, drivers, etc. etc. and they know there will be a minimal amount of issues to deal with.