MS did have a line of "prosumer" photo and video software, it seems like that was swept under the rug within three months. I think they still sell it somewhere, but it's not getting the advertising it would get if they're truly serious about promoting it.
It was called Expression and Media. I still have a copy here, and Media is used by many of my clients for quick libraries of photos, PDFs, contact sheets, etc. I was referring mostly to Office, and it's use in creating books, manuals, etc. While Office is seen by many as a tool for the secretaries and number crunchers of the world... I would almost bet that it is used just as much for "creative" endeavors of all kinds. Whether it's the "right" tool for the job is up for debate.
Quote:
It seems like Corel could be a player if they tried. I don't know if they're a permanently damaged brand, if there's no room for a #2 in the market, like ketchup/catsup, it's either Heinz or it's generic in most people's minds. There might be other contributing factors, such as platforms, the market only seems to accept a certain number of platforms and the network effect pushes out the marginal ones pretty quickly.
Corel has left the ball park for the "amateur league" long ago.
They recently, after almost 3 years, released their new version of Painter. Previously, a "pro" painting program that originated on the Mac, was purchased a number of times, and landed in their basket.
Yes. It is a "basket-case"! It is an example of a "bad port". Considering as well that they released a 64-bit version for Windows, with a "coming sometime for Mac in the future", we can judge that they are working on a way to fork the port, without using proper development and the OSX frameworks.
To be fair... it is better than their last couple of attempts, but it is NOT a Mac program any more than Gimp is a competitor to Photoshop, or even Pixelmator. They even make a "downloader" to download the program itself. How sad is that?
CorelDraw or PhotoPaint I wouldn't touch 'em with a "sound-boom" attached to a mouse! They just plain SUCK and are no competitor to Adobe.
The only competitor to Adobe was Macromedia. I do believe the DOJ should have been a little more awake when they let that happen lock-stock-and-barrel. I think we would still have a healthy software environment for creatives, IF they would have required it to be split up as they did when Macromedia and Adobe bought pieces of Aldus.
Without exception, FCP X is the fastest NLE I have edited on without the assistance of dedicated hardware. That performance gain comes from the program?s native 64-bit toolset and the operating system?s Grand Central Dispatch, which harnesses power from the GPU processing as well as the multicore CPU.
This 64-bit architecture lets FCP X access every byte of RAM, execute true multi-processing across all CPU cores, and unlock GPU-based graphics processing. Because FCP X processing is scalable, it?s always using the maximum power available to your computer, whether it be a MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro tower. Final Cut Pro X finally utilizes every CPU and GPU cycle to accelerate background processes.
That is done while simultaneously archiving the data stream and rendering, transcoding, and moving content in the background?all without bringing your machine to a grinding halt. Now, the extra RAM, disk speed, and powerful graphics card add a noticeable speed boost to your machine.
With that power, tasks like ingesting media become a minor background chore rather than a consuming process. You can immediately start editing in the foreground while the file is being transferred or transcoded for proxy creation, all of which happens in the background.
There?s a noticeable improvement in media handling and responsiveness after the transfer/ingest is complete. This is due to additional processing power being allocated back to application as soon as the Finder has completed its tasks.
*************************************
This is why FCP X was completely rewritten, and now I see the genius of this approach.
Also, if Apple can do this... I am now clamoring for the very same treatment to my every day software: Adobe CS6. In fact, Adobe should have done this with Flash already.
No buts about it. This is the future of what PRO software needs to be to take advantage of the hardware, OS-software and frameworks power, that I mention in an above post.
Apple now has a lot of customers saying, "sorry, the thing you call FCX isn't good enough, but I would buy more copies of FC7 (for new students, seats, whatever)" ... so why not sell it to them?
Make it clear 7 is being phased out as X matures over the next few years, and that it will be sold with limited support and bug fixes; but sell it nonetheless (as that is what some customers want to buy, and they wont buy X).
The fact that Apple demoed the thing a NAB tells me they cared about the status of having a product for the pros. The fact that they took 7 off the shelves tells me they thought X was good enough for pros.
[Look at the iOS App Store. The "top tens" are dominated by video games. That's where the money is, but is that really where the future is? Games? Is Apple's drive for excellence on the hardware front matched on the software front?]
Every point you made in this post has been touched upon.
The current answer for that is that there is no reason to stop using FCP 7 if FCP X does not meet your needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorGonzo
The problem with David Pogue's piece is that he doesn't work in post-production. So it's easy to say "Well some things are different, wait for a few patches and change your workflow. We all learned how to use the Word ribbon, didn't we?"
What was shown at NAB is what FCP X turned out to be
Quote:
In front of 1700 Final Cut Pro users, the presenter said "we want to create great software that you guys can use". How can they use it if it can't even open their project files or support some of the key features they need?
This is a matter of perspective isn't it. Taking the merits of FCP X within itself a lot of reviewers are saying it is a great piece of software. And in its current form doesn't replace FCP 7.
Quote:
One by one, the problems will disappear over time but the fact remains that Apple has created these problems when they had already been solved over the course of the years. Yes, the NAB demo is still awesome and the features are awesome but they shouldn't screw up on the basics like file management. If I have an MP4 called sunny-beach-1121.mp4 then let me reconnect it to ProRes sunny-beach-1121.mov. I don't want to be told it's offline and have to jump through hoops for this basic functionality. People do screw up edits by reconnecting the wrong stuff but those people aren't professionals and it's easy to put right if you have the right features - don't dumb down software designed for people who know what they're doing because chances are, they know better.
What I think your analysis missing is the fact that Apple is recreating FCP from the ground up. Everything is being recreated in that the way things are done in classic FCP are not being transferred directly over to the new FCP.
Whether this is a good thing or bad thing. Time will tell. But its clear that is what Apple is doing.
Quote:
It is a Fuck-up of Colossal Proportions to the power of X. I believe it can be fixed and probably without a fundamental rewrite - they can allow media bins to be tagged and hidden from view, they can change the way media reconnects. Whether they will is a different matter entirely. The software looks so good and it would be a shame if they just act all arrogant about doing things a certain way and lose the respect of the professionals who would appreciate the work and only impress the handycam crowd who won't even see what they did.
I supposed the fuck up. Is in that Apple isn't communicating the future direction of FCP with the wider community.
I'm sure if Apple had stated up front that this is a preview of the direction of FCP. To give editors an opportunity to get used to the new UI and that updates of critical features are coming in the near future. There would have been a lot less reaction.
Its likely Apple knew this backlash was going to happen and just likes to fuck with people.
What was shown at NAB is what FCP X turned out to be
That's what all magicians who use the sleight-of-hand on stage will tell their audience - you saw what you wanted to see. This kind of diversionary tactic is fine for entertainment but in business, it means real money and real jobs. While technically they did ship what they showed, they certainly implied this was the big FCP replacement aimed at people who currently use FCP for a living and they haven't delivered this, yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What I think your analysis missing is the fact that Apple is recreating FCP from the ground up. Everything is being recreated in that the way things are done in classic FCP are not being transferred directly over to the new FCP.
This makes sense when software uses complex data layouts. For example, I wouldn't expect Shake to translate into Motion because there's no direct mapping between non-linear and linear dependency. All NLEs are really storing is clip locations e.g in and out points. That has a direct correlation in FCPX to what was in FCP. The very fact that they demoed the exact same timeline in both at the supermeet shows this.
I suspect the only reason for the lack of FCP 7 support is that (as Apple has stated via Pogue), they don't have the XML API ready yet. But I'd say to ship with iMovie support and force the target audience to wait for the XML API shows a misjudged sense of priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm sure if Apple had stated up front that this is a preview of the direction of FCP. To give editors an opportunity to get used to the new UI and that updates of critical features are coming in the near future. There would have been a lot less reaction.
Sure but they still discontinued the only fully-fledged option. If they'd called it a preview, it would have made that move even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Its likely Apple knew this backlash was going to happen and just likes to fuck with people.
I sincerely hope not, although if they pulled this kind of thing on the consumer crowd, I'd be ok with it. Ship a new version of Pages that doesn't open any of the files from the previous version of Pages. Let's see how that goes down.
Just found an article yesterday with some other info. I imagine Ubillos has had a pretty hectic few days answering email. Like we suspected, he sees Final Cut X as the first step on a journey:
That's cool and I think everyone gets that but people who already know how to ride a bike don't want someone to put the training wheels back on their new bike just 'cos it's new. We know how the new one works too.
Just found an article yesterday with some other info. I imagine Ubillos has had a pretty hectic few days answering email. Like we suspected, he sees Final Cut X as the first step on a journey:
That's cool and I think everyone gets that but people who already know how to ride a bike don't want someone to put the training wheels back on their new bike just 'cos it's new. We know how the new one works too.
Good analogy. What's so alienating about this fiasco is the combination of contempt and condescension that Apple has shown toward one of their heaviest user bases. I think the resentment is not going to diminish, but get worse.
Anyway, Gruber links to Josh Mellicker's piece, plus one from Larry Jordan, (on daringfireball.net):
Okay people--Apple is no longer in the Pro Video Editing business. There isn't enough profit and in this day of You Tube etc., everyone is a film maker. Just move over to Premiere or run Vegas on your Windows partition. No big thing--this is the way the capitalist system works. Apple is now officially a prosumer software developer for video and film.
Well since we didn't get the 64 bit rewrite of FCS this probably also spells the demise of the Mac Pro since prosumers use iMacs. I bought another copy of FCS to add a little bit more capability to the studio and will probably buy another Mac Pro when they discontinue that. I need the slots to run my Black Magic cards. Seems strange though - stocking up on old tech.
That's what all magicians who use the sleight-of-hand on stage will tell their audience - you saw what you wanted to see. This kind of diversionary tactic is fine for entertainment but in business, it means real money and real jobs. While technically they did ship what they showed, they certainly implied this was the big FCP replacement aimed at people who currently use FCP for a living and they haven't delivered this, yet.
I don't know about this analogy.
Magicians use slight of hand to trick the audience into seeing something that isn't real.
While the FCP X demonstrated was literally FCP X. People had expectation that their would be more than what they were shown. Apple never promised that - and no one seemed to ask about any other functionality than what was shown.
Quote:
All NLEs are really storing is clip locations e.g in and out points. That has a direct correlation in FCPX to what was in FCP. The very fact that they demoed the exact same timeline in both at the supermeet shows this.
Yeah but the may not being storing that information in the same type of container.
Quote:
Sure but they still discontinued the only fully-fledged option. If they'd called it a preview, it would have made that move even worse.
I do agree they should help those already using FCS 3 to feel at ease during the transition. People see to have taken it that Apple has completely abandoned FCS3. While it is clearly EOL, Apple has not directly stated its support status for the near future.
Quote:
I sincerely hope not, although if they pulled this kind of thing on the consumer crowd, I'd be ok with it.
I would agree with the accusation that Apple is flexing its arrogance. I cannot think of any company that would be brave (stupid) enough to pull the rug out from under its customers in this way. They would be too afraid that customers would move to a competitor and never come back.
Apple brazenly is not afraid of this outcome. I believe they are so sure of what they have coming in the near future. That they can pull the rug from under their customers and customers won't abandon them.
That's why I say they just like fucking with people.
Magicians use slight of hand to trick the audience into seeing something that isn't real.
While the FCP X demonstrated was literally FCP X. People had expectation that their would be more than what they were shown. Apple never promised that - and no one seemed to ask about any other functionality than what was shown.
There is only so much they can show in the given time slot, and I think it was regarded as a preview and not necessarily the final product. It would seem to me that there were a lot of features that people had no reason to expect would be dropped without at least some notice. And then there was a different group of people that were afraid of iMovie-ization of the software, and I don't remember much of a good response to those worries other than to wait and see the final product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I do agree they should help those already using FCS 3 to feel at ease during the transition. People see to have taken it that Apple has completely abandoned FCS3. While it is clearly EOL, Apple has not directly stated its support status for the near future.
It would seem to me that pulling copies of the previous version is a statement that they are likely going to abandon support for it pretty quickly. Except for operating systems, I don't think Apple has ever made a patch for previous versions of software once they've released its replacement. I wonder what will be done for those that need to wait until the software advances, but also need to add another seat. They can't buy the old software from Apple, supplies from elsewhere will get scarce and the new software won't work with the existing projects.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals." The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.
Sorry, you're wrong. How will those "majority of professionals" hand off their files to DI, sound stage, or color facility? You can't do it. Literally. An application that can't open existing projects, can't handle multicam, doesn't allow you to check colorspace or interlacing on an external display, has no professional output capabilities (it doesn't support EDLs/OMF/XML, so you can't hand off audio tracks to a mixing facility or picture to a color or DI facility), and doesn't allow you to mix audio at all (hello??), is quite patently NOT a professional tool. That's just the truth.
The simple fact is that FCPX, in current form, is not capable of being integrated into a post-production facility, a commercial corporate video environment, or a broadcast setting. Apple isn't even claiming it can be--you'd have to cobble together some awful mess of expensive plug-ins with waterfowl names and as-yet-unreleased AJA cards. You can't possible claim that's a professional solution. It's a bad, expensive hack.
To add insult to injury, they removed essential, use-it-everyday features and did not replace them with anything (e.g. Attributes and Photoshop layer support). And what about Shared Project, which we've been promised for years would be part of the ground-up rebuild? Still no Unity?
If you are the kind of "professional" who never uses a post-house and never mixes audio, then I'm sure you're happy. But the worlds of film, broadcast, and commercial video cannot currently use this tool.
There is only so much they can show in the given time slot, and I think it was regarded as a preview and not necessarily the final product. It would seem to me that there were a lot of features that people had no reason to expect would be dropped without at least some notice. And then there was a different group of people that were afraid of iMovie-ization of the software, and I don't remember much of a good response to those worries other than to wait and see the final product.
Yes I agree. No one expects a company to deprecate a large portion of the usable features in the introduction a new product.
I agree that was shocking. But I think the ensuing hysterics have been completely over the top. Should be interesting for those who study human behavior though.
Quote:
It would seem to me that pulling copies of the previous version is a statement that they are likely going to abandon support for it pretty quickly. Except for operating systems, I don't think Apple has ever made a patch for previous versions of software once they've released its replacement. I wonder what will be done for those that need to wait until the software advances, but also need to add another seat. They can't buy the old software from Apple, supplies from elsewhere will get scarce and the new software won't work with the existing projects.
I would take it as a clear signal they definitely are going to abandon support. Without any clear information on how quickly I wouldn't be too quick to assume until Apple says for sure.
Especially in light of the fact that a large number of features are missing from FCP X.
None of this griping matters. Those who complain can and will wait. It's not like the current version brings people to an editing halt. They are already using it and can continue to do so. Those who aren't complaining will buy or upgrade to the latest version.
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
I don't know anything about video editing, but as a software developer I recently had to change from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 which has a whole new GUI. It took time (watching tutorial videos), and there are still a few menus I miss, but I'm glad I made the change now.
Um, you're missing the point. This is not about learning a new GUI. The point is, without key capabilities like professional output (OMF/EDLs/XML), multicam, the ability to mix audio, and the ability to check colorspace & interlacing on an external display, this tool CANNOT be used in a pro setting. You cannot hand off your files to a mixing facility or a color facility or a DI facility. It cannot be done.
So this is as if Xcode4 made it impossible for you to export your code in a format that could actually be read by a computer. Seriously.
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
Thanks for adding some concrete examples to the discussion. The people who are trying to calm down those who are incensed about getting stiffed by Apple just don't get it. That's ok with me, because I don't want to the discussion to stop. Interesting that this thread is still alive.
Edit: Gruber's not letting it go away either. He links to this nice jab by Ian Betteridge:
I haven't heard any word of CNN or any other large post production facility totally freaking out over this the way some have.
I would imagine most are going about their work the way they were the day before FCP X was launched.
You are right that post companies are evaluating their future direction. With that they should always be evaluating their future direction. Apple will certainly need to shed some light on the future of FCP X for any large company to continue to invest in it as their tool of choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady S
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
I'm not sure what you are implying but if i had to guess i would clarify that 64 bit hardware is simply no advantage unless your software is also compiled for 64 bit, not 32 bit as the current FCS is. Does that make sense?
Comments
MS did have a line of "prosumer" photo and video software, it seems like that was swept under the rug within three months. I think they still sell it somewhere, but it's not getting the advertising it would get if they're truly serious about promoting it.
It was called Expression and Media. I still have a copy here, and Media is used by many of my clients for quick libraries of photos, PDFs, contact sheets, etc. I was referring mostly to Office, and it's use in creating books, manuals, etc. While Office is seen by many as a tool for the secretaries and number crunchers of the world... I would almost bet that it is used just as much for "creative" endeavors of all kinds. Whether it's the "right" tool for the job is up for debate.
It seems like Corel could be a player if they tried. I don't know if they're a permanently damaged brand, if there's no room for a #2 in the market, like ketchup/catsup, it's either Heinz or it's generic in most people's minds. There might be other contributing factors, such as platforms, the market only seems to accept a certain number of platforms and the network effect pushes out the marginal ones pretty quickly.
Corel has left the ball park for the "amateur league" long ago.
They recently, after almost 3 years, released their new version of Painter. Previously, a "pro" painting program that originated on the Mac, was purchased a number of times, and landed in their basket.
Yes. It is a "basket-case"! It is an example of a "bad port". Considering as well that they released a 64-bit version for Windows, with a "coming sometime for Mac in the future", we can judge that they are working on a way to fork the port, without using proper development and the OSX frameworks.
To be fair... it is better than their last couple of attempts, but it is NOT a Mac program any more than Gimp is a competitor to Photoshop, or even Pixelmator. They even make a "downloader" to download the program itself. How sad is that?
CorelDraw or PhotoPaint I wouldn't touch 'em with a "sound-boom" attached to a mouse! They just plain SUCK and are no competitor to Adobe.
The only competitor to Adobe was Macromedia. I do believe the DOJ should have been a little more awake when they let that happen lock-stock-and-barrel. I think we would still have a healthy software environment for creatives, IF they would have required it to be split up as they did when Macromedia and Adobe bought pieces of Aldus.
Final Cut Pro X: the natives get restless
With a link to this article: Doomed Industries in America
Performance
Without exception, FCP X is the fastest NLE I have edited on without the assistance of dedicated hardware. That performance gain comes from the program?s native 64-bit toolset and the operating system?s Grand Central Dispatch, which harnesses power from the GPU processing as well as the multicore CPU.
This 64-bit architecture lets FCP X access every byte of RAM, execute true multi-processing across all CPU cores, and unlock GPU-based graphics processing. Because FCP X processing is scalable, it?s always using the maximum power available to your computer, whether it be a MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro tower. Final Cut Pro X finally utilizes every CPU and GPU cycle to accelerate background processes.
That is done while simultaneously archiving the data stream and rendering, transcoding, and moving content in the background?all without bringing your machine to a grinding halt. Now, the extra RAM, disk speed, and powerful graphics card add a noticeable speed boost to your machine.
With that power, tasks like ingesting media become a minor background chore rather than a consuming process. You can immediately start editing in the foreground while the file is being transferred or transcoded for proxy creation, all of which happens in the background.
There?s a noticeable improvement in media handling and responsiveness after the transfer/ingest is complete. This is due to additional processing power being allocated back to application as soon as the Finder has completed its tasks.
*************************************
This is why FCP X was completely rewritten, and now I see the genius of this approach.
Also, if Apple can do this... I am now clamoring for the very same treatment to my every day software: Adobe CS6. In fact, Adobe should have done this with Flash already.
No buts about it. This is the future of what PRO software needs to be to take advantage of the hardware, OS-software and frameworks power, that I mention in an above post.
Make it clear 7 is being phased out as X matures over the next few years, and that it will be sold with limited support and bug fixes; but sell it nonetheless (as that is what some customers want to buy, and they wont buy X).
The fact that Apple demoed the thing a NAB tells me they cared about the status of having a product for the pros. The fact that they took 7 off the shelves tells me they thought X was good enough for pros.
[Look at the iOS App Store. The "top tens" are dominated by video games. That's where the money is, but is that really where the future is? Games? Is Apple's drive for excellence on the hardware front matched on the software front?]
The current answer for that is that there is no reason to stop using FCP 7 if FCP X does not meet your needs.
The problem with David Pogue's piece is that he doesn't work in post-production. So it's easy to say "Well some things are different, wait for a few patches and change your workflow. We all learned how to use the Word ribbon, didn't we?"
It was the promises made at NAB.
What was shown at NAB is what FCP X turned out to be
In front of 1700 Final Cut Pro users, the presenter said "we want to create great software that you guys can use". How can they use it if it can't even open their project files or support some of the key features they need?
This is a matter of perspective isn't it. Taking the merits of FCP X within itself a lot of reviewers are saying it is a great piece of software. And in its current form doesn't replace FCP 7.
One by one, the problems will disappear over time but the fact remains that Apple has created these problems when they had already been solved over the course of the years. Yes, the NAB demo is still awesome and the features are awesome but they shouldn't screw up on the basics like file management. If I have an MP4 called sunny-beach-1121.mp4 then let me reconnect it to ProRes sunny-beach-1121.mov. I don't want to be told it's offline and have to jump through hoops for this basic functionality. People do screw up edits by reconnecting the wrong stuff but those people aren't professionals and it's easy to put right if you have the right features - don't dumb down software designed for people who know what they're doing because chances are, they know better.
What I think your analysis missing is the fact that Apple is recreating FCP from the ground up. Everything is being recreated in that the way things are done in classic FCP are not being transferred directly over to the new FCP.
Whether this is a good thing or bad thing. Time will tell. But its clear that is what Apple is doing.
It is a Fuck-up of Colossal Proportions to the power of X. I believe it can be fixed and probably without a fundamental rewrite - they can allow media bins to be tagged and hidden from view, they can change the way media reconnects. Whether they will is a different matter entirely. The software looks so good and it would be a shame if they just act all arrogant about doing things a certain way and lose the respect of the professionals who would appreciate the work and only impress the handycam crowd who won't even see what they did.
I supposed the fuck up. Is in that Apple isn't communicating the future direction of FCP with the wider community.
I'm sure if Apple had stated up front that this is a preview of the direction of FCP. To give editors an opportunity to get used to the new UI and that updates of critical features are coming in the near future. There would have been a lot less reaction.
Its likely Apple knew this backlash was going to happen and just likes to fuck with people.
What was shown at NAB is what FCP X turned out to be
That's what all magicians who use the sleight-of-hand on stage will tell their audience - you saw what you wanted to see. This kind of diversionary tactic is fine for entertainment but in business, it means real money and real jobs. While technically they did ship what they showed, they certainly implied this was the big FCP replacement aimed at people who currently use FCP for a living and they haven't delivered this, yet.
What I think your analysis missing is the fact that Apple is recreating FCP from the ground up. Everything is being recreated in that the way things are done in classic FCP are not being transferred directly over to the new FCP.
This makes sense when software uses complex data layouts. For example, I wouldn't expect Shake to translate into Motion because there's no direct mapping between non-linear and linear dependency. All NLEs are really storing is clip locations e.g in and out points. That has a direct correlation in FCPX to what was in FCP. The very fact that they demoed the exact same timeline in both at the supermeet shows this.
I suspect the only reason for the lack of FCP 7 support is that (as Apple has stated via Pogue), they don't have the XML API ready yet. But I'd say to ship with iMovie support and force the target audience to wait for the XML API shows a misjudged sense of priority.
I'm sure if Apple had stated up front that this is a preview of the direction of FCP. To give editors an opportunity to get used to the new UI and that updates of critical features are coming in the near future. There would have been a lot less reaction.
Sure but they still discontinued the only fully-fledged option. If they'd called it a preview, it would have made that move even worse.
Its likely Apple knew this backlash was going to happen and just likes to fuck with people.
Just found an article yesterday with some other info. I imagine Ubillos has had a pretty hectic few days answering email. Like we suspected, he sees Final Cut X as the first step on a journey:
http://www.cambridgecomputershop.co....eviews/?p=2010
That's cool and I think everyone gets that but people who already know how to ride a bike don't want someone to put the training wheels back on their new bike just 'cos it's new. We know how the new one works too.
Just found an article yesterday with some other info. I imagine Ubillos has had a pretty hectic few days answering email. Like we suspected, he sees Final Cut X as the first step on a journey:
http://www.cambridgecomputershop.co....eviews/?p=2010
That's cool and I think everyone gets that but people who already know how to ride a bike don't want someone to put the training wheels back on their new bike just 'cos it's new. We know how the new one works too.
Good analogy. What's so alienating about this fiasco is the combination of contempt and condescension that Apple has shown toward one of their heaviest user bases. I think the resentment is not going to diminish, but get worse.
Anyway, Gruber links to Josh Mellicker's piece, plus one from Larry Jordan, (on daringfireball.net):
http://www.dvcreators.net/what-does-...pro-x-release/
CorelDraw or PhotoPaint I wouldn't touch 'em with a "sound-boom" attached to a mouse! They just plain SUCK and are no competitor to Adobe.
I'll grant PhotoPaint, but what about CorelDraw isn't professional software?
Okay people--Apple is no longer in the Pro Video Editing business. There isn't enough profit and in this day of You Tube etc., everyone is a film maker. Just move over to Premiere or run Vegas on your Windows partition. No big thing--this is the way the capitalist system works. Apple is now officially a prosumer software developer for video and film.
Well since we didn't get the 64 bit rewrite of FCS this probably also spells the demise of the Mac Pro since prosumers use iMacs. I bought another copy of FCS to add a little bit more capability to the studio and will probably buy another Mac Pro when they discontinue that. I need the slots to run my Black Magic cards. Seems strange though - stocking up on old tech.
That's what all magicians who use the sleight-of-hand on stage will tell their audience - you saw what you wanted to see. This kind of diversionary tactic is fine for entertainment but in business, it means real money and real jobs. While technically they did ship what they showed, they certainly implied this was the big FCP replacement aimed at people who currently use FCP for a living and they haven't delivered this, yet.
I don't know about this analogy.
Magicians use slight of hand to trick the audience into seeing something that isn't real.
While the FCP X demonstrated was literally FCP X. People had expectation that their would be more than what they were shown. Apple never promised that - and no one seemed to ask about any other functionality than what was shown.
All NLEs are really storing is clip locations e.g in and out points. That has a direct correlation in FCPX to what was in FCP. The very fact that they demoed the exact same timeline in both at the supermeet shows this.
Yeah but the may not being storing that information in the same type of container.
Sure but they still discontinued the only fully-fledged option. If they'd called it a preview, it would have made that move even worse.
I do agree they should help those already using FCS 3 to feel at ease during the transition. People see to have taken it that Apple has completely abandoned FCS3. While it is clearly EOL, Apple has not directly stated its support status for the near future.
I would agree with the accusation that Apple is flexing its arrogance. I cannot think of any company that would be brave (stupid) enough to pull the rug out from under its customers in this way. They would be too afraid that customers would move to a competitor and never come back.
Apple brazenly is not afraid of this outcome. I believe they are so sure of what they have coming in the near future. That they can pull the rug from under their customers and customers won't abandon them.
That's why I say they just like fucking with people.
Well since we didn't get the 64 bit rewrite of FCS this probably also spells the demise of the Mac Pro since prosumers use iMacs.
Which... are also 64-bit...
I don't know about this analogy.
Magicians use slight of hand to trick the audience into seeing something that isn't real.
While the FCP X demonstrated was literally FCP X. People had expectation that their would be more than what they were shown. Apple never promised that - and no one seemed to ask about any other functionality than what was shown.
There is only so much they can show in the given time slot, and I think it was regarded as a preview and not necessarily the final product. It would seem to me that there were a lot of features that people had no reason to expect would be dropped without at least some notice. And then there was a different group of people that were afraid of iMovie-ization of the software, and I don't remember much of a good response to those worries other than to wait and see the final product.
I do agree they should help those already using FCS 3 to feel at ease during the transition. People see to have taken it that Apple has completely abandoned FCS3. While it is clearly EOL, Apple has not directly stated its support status for the near future.
It would seem to me that pulling copies of the previous version is a statement that they are likely going to abandon support for it pretty quickly. Except for operating systems, I don't think Apple has ever made a patch for previous versions of software once they've released its replacement. I wonder what will be done for those that need to wait until the software advances, but also need to add another seat. They can't buy the old software from Apple, supplies from elsewhere will get scarce and the new software won't work with the existing projects.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals." The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.
Sorry, you're wrong. How will those "majority of professionals" hand off their files to DI, sound stage, or color facility? You can't do it. Literally. An application that can't open existing projects, can't handle multicam, doesn't allow you to check colorspace or interlacing on an external display, has no professional output capabilities (it doesn't support EDLs/OMF/XML, so you can't hand off audio tracks to a mixing facility or picture to a color or DI facility), and doesn't allow you to mix audio at all (hello??), is quite patently NOT a professional tool. That's just the truth.
The simple fact is that FCPX, in current form, is not capable of being integrated into a post-production facility, a commercial corporate video environment, or a broadcast setting. Apple isn't even claiming it can be--you'd have to cobble together some awful mess of expensive plug-ins with waterfowl names and as-yet-unreleased AJA cards. You can't possible claim that's a professional solution. It's a bad, expensive hack.
To add insult to injury, they removed essential, use-it-everyday features and did not replace them with anything (e.g. Attributes and Photoshop layer support). And what about Shared Project, which we've been promised for years would be part of the ground-up rebuild? Still no Unity?
If you are the kind of "professional" who never uses a post-house and never mixes audio, then I'm sure you're happy. But the worlds of film, broadcast, and commercial video cannot currently use this tool.
There is only so much they can show in the given time slot, and I think it was regarded as a preview and not necessarily the final product. It would seem to me that there were a lot of features that people had no reason to expect would be dropped without at least some notice. And then there was a different group of people that were afraid of iMovie-ization of the software, and I don't remember much of a good response to those worries other than to wait and see the final product.
Yes I agree. No one expects a company to deprecate a large portion of the usable features in the introduction a new product.
I agree that was shocking. But I think the ensuing hysterics have been completely over the top. Should be interesting for those who study human behavior though.
It would seem to me that pulling copies of the previous version is a statement that they are likely going to abandon support for it pretty quickly. Except for operating systems, I don't think Apple has ever made a patch for previous versions of software once they've released its replacement. I wonder what will be done for those that need to wait until the software advances, but also need to add another seat. They can't buy the old software from Apple, supplies from elsewhere will get scarce and the new software won't work with the existing projects.
I would take it as a clear signal they definitely are going to abandon support. Without any clear information on how quickly I wouldn't be too quick to assume until Apple says for sure.
Especially in light of the fact that a large number of features are missing from FCP X.
None of this griping matters. Those who complain can and will wait. It's not like the current version brings people to an editing halt. They are already using it and can continue to do so. Those who aren't complaining will buy or upgrade to the latest version.
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
I don't know anything about video editing, but as a software developer I recently had to change from Xcode 3 to Xcode 4 which has a whole new GUI. It took time (watching tutorial videos), and there are still a few menus I miss, but I'm glad I made the change now.
Um, you're missing the point. This is not about learning a new GUI. The point is, without key capabilities like professional output (OMF/EDLs/XML), multicam, the ability to mix audio, and the ability to check colorspace & interlacing on an external display, this tool CANNOT be used in a pro setting. You cannot hand off your files to a mixing facility or a color facility or a DI facility. It cannot be done.
So this is as if Xcode4 made it impossible for you to export your code in a format that could actually be read by a computer. Seriously.
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
Thanks for adding some concrete examples to the discussion. The people who are trying to calm down those who are incensed about getting stiffed by Apple just don't get it. That's ok with me, because I don't want to the discussion to stop. Interesting that this thread is still alive.
Edit: Gruber's not letting it go away either. He links to this nice jab by Ian Betteridge:
http://www.technovia.co.uk/2011/06/h...187-words.html
I would imagine most are going about their work the way they were the day before FCP X was launched.
You are right that post companies are evaluating their future direction. With that they should always be evaluating their future direction. Apple will certainly need to shed some light on the future of FCP X for any large company to continue to invest in it as their tool of choice.
Yes and no. Tell that to CNN, who owns 300 seats and now can't add anymore. Tell that to a large post facility, mapping out their purchase decisions for the next fiscal year. There's a cost to not communicating. Large, professional facilities with millions at stake need to plan longterm. Since Apple has killed the product that works for them, and its current product cannot be used in a professional environment, and it can't or won't provide a roadmap for when it will be able to integrate with professional workflows, the big houses are being forced to plan accordingly.
That means budgets are being revised right now, and they're weighing Avid or Premiere.
Which... are also 64-bit...
I'm not sure what you are implying but if i had to guess i would clarify that 64 bit hardware is simply no advantage unless your software is also compiled for 64 bit, not 32 bit as the current FCS is. Does that make sense?