Apple just created a major PR issue. Why the heck didn't they state everything up front? They should have had a special event or press release to let their intention known. Instead they get everyone upset and ready to ditch the product. Smooth move Apple - not!
That Pogue's comment regarding Apple's method summed it up perfectly. It is a well known fact people just need to understand Apple MO. Mind, people rarely change. We are not in the 1880s any more but I understand the frustration. Still, there are choices and one of them is to wait.
Waiting won't get you the ability to import FCP 7 files.
I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.
Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.
Many in the editing community have to make something called money using this software.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. 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.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.
That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno
Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.
Thank you. I don't understand why folks can't display this basic common sense?
The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release. You would have been in no different situation at all (waiting till multi-camera editing was ready) and in the meanwhile those who did not need it, would have had to wait longer.
Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?
Yes - with a line like pros will love it (sometime last year) I am surprised they would release such a half assed product.
Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.
Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.
Now, it may be that Apple will sell a great many more copies of FCPX than they ever did FCP. There may be an explosion of prosumer and one man shops doing, well, kind of similar work, since FCP X is so adamant about herding you in certain directions, with automated process and limited presets. For a single person on a single machine, who intends to publish online, FCP X is a powerful tool. Wedding videographers and small market media guys are probably going to love it.
But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.
So Apple is going a different way with FCP X, one that has no place in professional edit suites. That's entirely their right. But it's kind of stunning, in that FCP had managed to carve out such a nice chunk of that market, and gave Apple a marquee software presence that helped legitimize the brand among pros.
Now obviously they don't need that kind of "legitimacy" any more, they're thriving in lots markets. Losing the pro post market at this point isn't going to hurt them a bit. But don't imagine that the controversy can be chalked up reactionary old timers. You're just wrong about that. Unless you imagine that the cool new "future" of video editing that Apple is bravely pointing us towards means that every project is done on the fly by individuals with laptops who send the results off to Vimeo or You Tube. That's cool as far as it goes, and it's cool that Apple can provide powerful tools to do those things.
But they're not going to start making feature films, television shows and major ad campaigns that way, and that's a market Apple has just ceded to the competition.
I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.
Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.
Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.
In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.
How can they upgrade at any point with a lacking of older-project compatibility?
I didn't say the standard NLE absolutely positively has to be replaced. No where in that post do I give a hard black or white assessment.
I asked why is it a requirement that we stick with it. Is there no room to try something different?
I know you didn't. But it bears consideration that usually conventions serve us, sometimes they don't. In this case I don't think the ideas or conventions in FCP7 are detrimental. Apple are just being... well Apple with their overzealous belief that they do ALL things better. Really they know all of the polish on FCPX isn't worth what they could have done under the hood in FCP7.
Editing conventions represent a common shared language. Like I said why haven't we thrown out every convention in human history? There is no requirement for us to have conventions other than it'll otherwise cause bedlum when we don't speak the same language. I had that experience when I came from the west coast to the east coast as a lighting director. None of the techs spoke the same language I thought they were idiots, they thought I was an idiot. In fact, we just had a different ways of communicating. Once we spoke a common language it all went smoothly. Conventions are just as important as throwing them out the window when they DON'T serve you, but many Do serve us daily. It just makes life easier. In the case of FCP I think it would have been better severed had Apple just left a handful of features intact in FCPX or put more effort under the hood of FCP7. I'm sure it was easier to do what they did, but they freaked a bunch of loyal supporters out.
PS.
I just read the Pogue blog. I'm convinced you ARE he now.
Even the most ardent apple fan can see that this is a rare but very evident fuck up, They should have waited three months or so to release it, what was the rush anyway?
I realize that you work in a setting where FCP couldnt be used to finish projects, but one thing to consider that I think you are overlooking is that there is a significant amount of content produced that targets smaller audiences even when comparing content that is destined for the big screen or broadcast.
I would strongly argue that there is great value to these works and that these types of projects can indeed be finished in the FCP suite (referring to 7 speciffically, not X). Take for instance any of Ken Burns' works (I realize his team is editing on Avid) or any similar documentary. There really isnt much in these cases that FCS couldnt handle.
Strictly speaking, these ARE professional settings. Since its release, Final Cut was really targeting this low to mid-range professional setting. Its only been in the last few years that the high-end market has even taken a look at what FCP has to offer. Budget obviously plays a large role in determining what tools you have at your disposal, and having low to mid-range tools in the market enables a lot of valuable content to be produced that wouldnt have the opportunity to be created otherwise. Trust me, there is more than "crappy cable" out there.
With that said, as someone who is in a "mid-range" professional setting, Ive felt that FCS has been targeted toward my use quite well. There are several new and improved tools in
FCPX that I think would enable me to produce better quality work, but Im in the same boat as you in terms of being able to depend on FCPX at this time.
To those ranting about the rants:
Its very perplexing to me that Apple seems to be trying to offer features that only the highest end professionals would ever need to utilize (4K?), but then not offer essentials like broadcast monitor support that even mid-range pros depend on. Thats the type of thing that people that actually work in the industry (at any level) are concerned about and what people who dont work in the industry just cant grasp.
In the end, Final Cut is just another tool to get a job done. If a tool cant do what you need, then you have to find another that can. Of course, if you already have a working tool you can keep using that. But software rarely stays stagnant and is always evolving. If a better tool comes along and you can afford it, then it only makes sense to move ahead (at the right time). But if a tool touts a lot of new and improved features that you could take advantage of, but misses the mark on even a single feature that you depend on to get the job done, then it becomes as some have said "unusable" (meaning specifically, you cant use it to get the job done that you need it to).
This isnt about "staying in an archaic workflow that you are comfortable with", its about getting the job done as efficiently and best you can. I would argue that the majority of professional editors are on the higher end of technical know-how, fear of learning a new interface is NOT much of a consideration at all.
One of the fastest ways to lose a client is to say "I cant do that". FCPX appeared to offer more tools to say "yes I can do that", but in other situations just doesn't cut it. The real question is, will it ever? We just dont know.
Personally, Im looking at FCPX with caution. Im obviously sticking with FCP7 for the time being, it works fine even though Im looking longingly at some of X's features. The question is, what happens a bit down the line? Is Apple committed to the market? Will they ACTUALLY provide the missing necessary features? I really hope so. But honestly, recent product cuts (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) make me extremely nervous. Apple says they are committed, but really how many times has Apple said one thing and done another? To my recollection, often (again, refer to product cuts for evidence, you dont cut a product you are committed to).
Sounds like they didn't do their homework. Is Apple caring too little for the professional?
Yes, they care "too little for the professional" --that's why instead of piling incremental stuff and charging multi-1000 dollars for a few lame additions (a la Adobe), they spend the effort and money to rebuild Final Cut Pro and it's frameworks from the ground up, even if missing some stuff in the initial release.
Even the most ardent apple fan can see that this is a rare but very evident fuck up, They should have waited three months or so to release it, what was the rush anyway?
For one, I needed it.
What's YOUR rush, anyway? Can't use FC 7 until an update to FCP X or FCPX 2 is released with the features you need?
Even the most ardent apple fan can see that this is a rare but very evident fuck up, They should have waited three months or so to release it, what was the rush anyway?
For one, I needed it.
What's YOUR rush, anyway? Can't use FC 7 until an update to FCP X or FCPX 2 is released with the features you need?
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. 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.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
Comments
That Pogue's comment regarding Apple's method summed it up perfectly. It is a well known fact people just need to understand Apple MO. Mind, people rarely change. We are not in the 1880s any more but I understand the frustration. Still, there are choices and one of them is to wait.
Waiting won't get you the ability to import FCP 7 files.
I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.
Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.
Many in the editing community have to make something called money using this software.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. 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.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
I disagree.
Well, thanks for sharing your ignorance!
This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.
That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.
Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.
He's correct
Thank you. I don't understand why folks can't display this basic common sense?
The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release. You would have been in no different situation at all (waiting till multi-camera editing was ready) and in the meanwhile those who did not need it, would have had to wait longer.
Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?
Yes - with a line like pros will love it (sometime last year) I am surprised they would release such a half assed product.
It imports older IMovie projects, but not older Final Cut projects. Like it or not, that kind of makes it IMovie Pro.
Yeah - WTF is that - how could they not have it work with older FCP but with iMovie
Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.
Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.
Now, it may be that Apple will sell a great many more copies of FCPX than they ever did FCP. There may be an explosion of prosumer and one man shops doing, well, kind of similar work, since FCP X is so adamant about herding you in certain directions, with automated process and limited presets. For a single person on a single machine, who intends to publish online, FCP X is a powerful tool. Wedding videographers and small market media guys are probably going to love it.
But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.
So Apple is going a different way with FCP X, one that has no place in professional edit suites. That's entirely their right. But it's kind of stunning, in that FCP had managed to carve out such a nice chunk of that market, and gave Apple a marquee software presence that helped legitimize the brand among pros.
Now obviously they don't need that kind of "legitimacy" any more, they're thriving in lots markets. Losing the pro post market at this point isn't going to hurt them a bit. But don't imagine that the controversy can be chalked up reactionary old timers. You're just wrong about that. Unless you imagine that the cool new "future" of video editing that Apple is bravely pointing us towards means that every project is done on the fly by individuals with laptops who send the results off to Vimeo or You Tube. That's cool as far as it goes, and it's cool that Apple can provide powerful tools to do those things.
But they're not going to start making feature films, television shows and major ad campaigns that way, and that's a market Apple has just ceded to the competition.
Finally something I can relate to ----thanks!!!
I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.
Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.
We have a winnah!
I would say yes and no.
Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.
In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.
How can they upgrade at any point with a lacking of older-project compatibility?
Whoa....where is all of that coming from?
I didn't say the standard NLE absolutely positively has to be replaced. No where in that post do I give a hard black or white assessment.
I asked why is it a requirement that we stick with it. Is there no room to try something different?
I know you didn't. But it bears consideration that usually conventions serve us, sometimes they don't. In this case I don't think the ideas or conventions in FCP7 are detrimental. Apple are just being... well Apple with their overzealous belief that they do ALL things better. Really they know all of the polish on FCPX isn't worth what they could have done under the hood in FCP7.
Editing conventions represent a common shared language. Like I said why haven't we thrown out every convention in human history? There is no requirement for us to have conventions other than it'll otherwise cause bedlum when we don't speak the same language. I had that experience when I came from the west coast to the east coast as a lighting director. None of the techs spoke the same language I thought they were idiots, they thought I was an idiot. In fact, we just had a different ways of communicating. Once we spoke a common language it all went smoothly. Conventions are just as important as throwing them out the window when they DON'T serve you, but many Do serve us daily. It just makes life easier. In the case of FCP I think it would have been better severed had Apple just left a handful of features intact in FCPX or put more effort under the hood of FCP7. I'm sure it was easier to do what they did, but they freaked a bunch of loyal supporters out.
PS.
I just read the Pogue blog. I'm convinced you ARE he now.
If history tells us anything, it's 'Avoid Apple Products That Receive Complete UI Makeovers Or An 'X' In Their Name'.
iMovie '08, QuickTime X (though Lion's is bringing features back. QuickTime 7 is still essential, but it's better), and Final Cut Studio X.
Yup, how many years later and we're still waiting for QuickTime X to bring back QT7 features?
I realize that you work in a setting where FCP couldnt be used to finish projects, but one thing to consider that I think you are overlooking is that there is a significant amount of content produced that targets smaller audiences even when comparing content that is destined for the big screen or broadcast.
I would strongly argue that there is great value to these works and that these types of projects can indeed be finished in the FCP suite (referring to 7 speciffically, not X). Take for instance any of Ken Burns' works (I realize his team is editing on Avid) or any similar documentary. There really isnt much in these cases that FCS couldnt handle.
Strictly speaking, these ARE professional settings. Since its release, Final Cut was really targeting this low to mid-range professional setting. Its only been in the last few years that the high-end market has even taken a look at what FCP has to offer. Budget obviously plays a large role in determining what tools you have at your disposal, and having low to mid-range tools in the market enables a lot of valuable content to be produced that wouldnt have the opportunity to be created otherwise. Trust me, there is more than "crappy cable" out there.
With that said, as someone who is in a "mid-range" professional setting, Ive felt that FCS has been targeted toward my use quite well. There are several new and improved tools in
FCPX that I think would enable me to produce better quality work, but Im in the same boat as you in terms of being able to depend on FCPX at this time.
To those ranting about the rants:
Its very perplexing to me that Apple seems to be trying to offer features that only the highest end professionals would ever need to utilize (4K?), but then not offer essentials like broadcast monitor support that even mid-range pros depend on. Thats the type of thing that people that actually work in the industry (at any level) are concerned about and what people who dont work in the industry just cant grasp.
In the end, Final Cut is just another tool to get a job done. If a tool cant do what you need, then you have to find another that can. Of course, if you already have a working tool you can keep using that. But software rarely stays stagnant and is always evolving. If a better tool comes along and you can afford it, then it only makes sense to move ahead (at the right time). But if a tool touts a lot of new and improved features that you could take advantage of, but misses the mark on even a single feature that you depend on to get the job done, then it becomes as some have said "unusable" (meaning specifically, you cant use it to get the job done that you need it to).
This isnt about "staying in an archaic workflow that you are comfortable with", its about getting the job done as efficiently and best you can. I would argue that the majority of professional editors are on the higher end of technical know-how, fear of learning a new interface is NOT much of a consideration at all.
One of the fastest ways to lose a client is to say "I cant do that". FCPX appeared to offer more tools to say "yes I can do that", but in other situations just doesn't cut it. The real question is, will it ever? We just dont know.
Personally, Im looking at FCPX with caution. Im obviously sticking with FCP7 for the time being, it works fine even though Im looking longingly at some of X's features. The question is, what happens a bit down the line? Is Apple committed to the market? Will they ACTUALLY provide the missing necessary features? I really hope so. But honestly, recent product cuts (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) make me extremely nervous. Apple says they are committed, but really how many times has Apple said one thing and done another? To my recollection, often (again, refer to product cuts for evidence, you dont cut a product you are committed to).
Sounds like they didn't do their homework. Is Apple caring too little for the professional?
Yes, they care "too little for the professional" --that's why instead of piling incremental stuff and charging multi-1000 dollars for a few lame additions (a la Adobe), they spend the effort and money to rebuild Final Cut Pro and it's frameworks from the ground up, even if missing some stuff in the initial release.
(Oh, and that was sarcasm).
Even the most ardent apple fan can see that this is a rare but very evident fuck up, They should have waited three months or so to release it, what was the rush anyway?
For one, I needed it.
What's YOUR rush, anyway? Can't use FC 7 until an update to FCP X or FCPX 2 is released with the features you need?
Even the most ardent apple fan can see that this is a rare but very evident fuck up, They should have waited three months or so to release it, what was the rush anyway?
For one, I needed it.
What's YOUR rush, anyway? Can't use FC 7 until an update to FCP X or FCPX 2 is released with the features you need?
If you don't like It then program you own effing editing software.
Oh, I thought so. Be quiet.
So if your favorite restaurant suddenly stopped serving your favorite dish you wouldnt care in the least? You'd learn to make the dish yourself?
If your doctor suddenly refused to see you you'd be ok with it and go to medical school so you could diagnose yourself?
If Apple stopped making Macs, you wouldnt blink and eye and design your own hardware and software instead?
Complaining about complaints seems relatively ironic to me...
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. 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.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
Hear hear !