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's a good point you make, I was wondering about that myself.
It could be that if you are within such a project in such an intensive way, you loose a bit objectivity and cannot anticipate completely what other people might think.
If you don't know that you have to address something than your are not going to do that.
Yeah - WTF is that - how could they not have it work with older FCP but with iMovie
Maybe because iMovie is compatible in such a way that it is possible to do that and that's in contrast obviously (otherwise Apple would have included it right away) with FCP.
And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!
What more do we need to know? : )
Yeah, they seem to have cottoned onto the fact that consumers like low prices and there are a lot of people who don't care about making it in an industry by aspiring to a certain workflow but instead getting a job done. I find it odd though that Apple take polar opposite views regarding hardware and software. 'we can't make a computer for $500 that isn't a piece of junk'. How about 'we can't make a piece of software for under $300 that isn't a piece of junk'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, you can. It takes two programs to do it, but you can play straight from the disc.
You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
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.
They might have been planning to upgrade to FCS 3 in some timeframe around that date though, they might have taken on a set of new staff or planned a production and need to buy more licenses.
I just don't understand why you'd even release software under the name Final Cut Pro that doesn't open Final Cut Pro files or allow any sort of migration. Are they telling these people to just go somewhere else because they're not wanted any more, they just want iMovie users?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yup, how many years later and we're still waiting for QuickTime X to bring back QT7 features?
Even one is too many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
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.
The warning signs of this were all there with Shake too with the team leaving Apple. A similar event may have happened here:
I wonder if they'll end up working at Adobe just like members of the Shake team work at the Foundry.
Anyway, as time goes on I learn to cut Apple more and more slack when it comes to doing really wild things. I've been proved wrong on many occasions with things I never thought would work out well. When you cut them too much slack, they pull a little too hard and I think they did it this time but I can see it working out if they make the right moves.
While I think releasing it so soon and cutting the old one off was premature, it gets everyone's feelings out so they know what to fix from the loudest screams. No multicam doesn't mean you can't do your job because it wasn't there before, it's just harder for now while they fix it. No broadcast monitor support isn't a big deal if you don't finish in Final Cut, that can be left to the colour grading stage.
The only big issues are the hardware support, opening FCP files, import/export and they can fix this any time they want. Say they fixed multi-cam, file import, OMF/XML/EDL by the end of July and launched Lion with the new Quicktime, wouldn't everything die down? I suspect the magnetic timeline might cause some issues with import/export and they should have worked it out before shipping but if they fix it in a couple of months, I think they can get a pass.
You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.
Yep. And yep.
Quote:
Even one is too many.
Hey, at least they're adding them back along with new features. You can actually use QuickTime to save audio files now as opposed to being forced to save an audio-only file as an .MOV...
Hey, at least they're adding them back along with new features. You can actually use QuickTime to save audio files now as opposed to being forced to save an audio-only file as an .MOV...
Quicktime Pro could sort of do that - export > sound to aiff. No AAC/MP3 etc though but iTunes sorted that out. Hopefully it still allows multi-channel audio editing.
Quicktime Pro could sort of do that - export > sound to aiff.
Oh, sure, but that's not really the point. It shouldn't be SO FREAKING STUPID that it can't understand an audio-only file isn't a MOV, particularly when it could open audio-only files and understood they didn't have video tracks at all. There's no exasperated emoticon, so imagine that's one.
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.
From what we are seeing they radically changed everything under the hood of FCP X. In a way they could not have done in the original FCP.
I suppose people would have been happier if the lines blurred more between original FCP and FCP X. Apple is making a hard departure between the two.
Quote:
Editing conventions represent a common shared language. Like I said why haven't we thrown out every convention in human history?
Things do change. Simply because we've had the hammer, the screw driver, or the saw - for hundreds of years does not mean that there isn't room for someone to come up with the nail gun, the drill, or the power saw.
They might have been planning to upgrade to FCS 3 in some timeframe around that date though, they might have taken on a set of new staff or planned a production and need to buy more licenses.
Outside of online rumors they didn't really know when a possible FCS3 would be released to make that type of planning around. You are right though that buying more seats is an issue. At this point Apple might as well allow anyone who owns FCS3 to download as many seats as they need for free. Its reached its EOL at this point.
Quote:
I just don't understand why you'd even release software under the name Final Cut Pro that doesn't open Final Cut Pro files or allow any sort of migration. Are they telling these people to just go somewhere else because they're not wanted any more, they just want iMovie users?
I think that was to make it clear that this is not a transition from the old to the new. The new one is something totally new. That message was heard clearly.
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.
I agree that those questions are perplexing. I can understand why those who depend on FCP for their livelihood are asking a lot of questions about what is going on. At this point Apple isn't providing any answers.
I don't understand the propensity to invent such negative answers to these questions in the vacuum.
Quote:
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).
The first question I would ask about (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) were people actually buying or using them?
Apple's leadership would have needed to talk to its shareholder board about its future plans. If the board thought that Apple leadership was really about to kill its flagship professional product and really alienate a core group of Apple loyalists. I think the board would have made quite a noise about that. Because that narrative makes no sense, it seems obvious to me that something more is going on. We just don't know what it is yet.
I would look at this from the standpoint of knowing that Apple is doing something that they aren't telling the rest of us about. I would look at the fact that those guys are sitting on over $50 billion in cash reserves. No other computer or major electronics manufacturer is sitting on that large a pile of cash. I think it would be safe to assume that someone over there knows what they are doing. They just aren't telling us yet.
I would look at this from the standpoint of knowing that Apple is doing something that they aren't telling the rest of us about. I would look at the fact that those guys are sitting on over $50 billion in cash reserves. No other computer or major electronics manufacturer is sitting on that large a pile of cash. I think it would be safe to assume that someone over there knows what they are doing. They just aren't telling us yet.
If FCPX was an isolated event, Id completely agree with you.
But think back to the Shake cut, Apple left a gaping hole in its product line and Shake users had to simply move elsewhere. Perhaps someone might say "use Motion", but this only would come from a lack of understanding of what each software package can achieve, Motion simply cannot do what Shake could. This isnt a quality issue, Motion works fine for what its meant to do, it simply wasnt designed for high-end compositing, it was designed for animation and some light compositing.
Similarly, the Color cut has left a void, as has the Xserve cut.
That's a good point you make, I was wondering about that myself.
It could be that if you are within such a project in such an intensive way, you loose a bit objectivity and cannot anticipate completely what other people might think.
If you don't know that you have to address something than your are not going to do that.
J.
Wonder why they didn't release a FCPX Beta first. It would have gotten them much useful idea about what the customer's concerns are.
Or, they should have made the move in two step instead of one. Step 1, change to the new interface while keeping most of the underpinning of FCP7, with the few most requested update implemented. Step 2. Completely replace the gut of the program.
Also, thinking back on all those products they simply cut along the way, I wonder why they didn't sell those applications if they want to get away from them. I'm pretty sure it would have gotten them a not so small sum.
From what we are seeing they radically changed everything under the hood of FCP X. In a way they could not have done in the original FCP.
I suppose people would have been happier if the lines blurred more between original FCP and FCP X. Apple is making a hard departure between the two.
The big picture is that there is no reason that had to do with creating a new 64 bit program that has anything to do with most of the functions not currently in FCPX. For example, assignable audio? No, there is no coding that preventing this from being a feature. The world is full of 64 bit DAWs. This was a conscious decision to not include it, to keep this program within its projected scope. Exporting and importing EDL, XML, AAF and OMF had nothing preventing them from being added programming-wise due to the transition. Apple doesn't want to export to nor import from other rigs, which is consistent with how the whole Apple world is. But doing it in the consumer world of mp3 players where you want to sell them content is different from doing it in the pro world where you don't want them to easily work with outsourced creative layers.
I'm not in this post commenting on their wisdom or lack of in this, just pointing out (not to you in particular, please) the fact that it was Apple's choice where most of these new differences landed, not any programming barriers.
The first question I would ask about (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) were people actually buying or using them?
Oh Jeez... : ) Don't mention Shake among FCP editors unless you can deal with them screaming their heads off for an hour and then collapsing in a heap.
Whether people could actually use Shake is something you should never ask of, or put the onus of, on the end user. Shake was a major Apple screwup.
The term leaving a hole in the product line implies that that is a space where they want to compete.
When Apple EOL Shake. They were saying we no longer want to be in the VFX business. EOL Xserve, we no longer want to be in the server business. EOL Color, we no longer want to be in the color grading business.
What I would take away from all of that. Is that from a business standpoint Apple looked at where the market is going, they looked at where their competition is excelling, made the decision on whether they are willing to invest the money and resources needed to continue to compete in that market.
Those products that no longer exist, its a clear sign they decided to no longer compete in that market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4fx
If FCPX was an isolated event, Id completely agree with you.
But think back to the Shake cut, Apple left a gaping hole in its product line and Shake users had to simply move elsewhere.
Similarly, the Color cut has left a void, as has the Xserve cut.
I agree they did make choices about what is included and what is excluded.
I also agree that the UI of FCP X has been simplified for those who are not professional editors.
Ultimately the market will decide if these were good choices or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
I'm not in this post commenting on their wisdom or lack of in this, just pointing out (not to you in particular, please) the fact that it was Apple's choice where most of these new differences landed, not any programming barriers.
They always totally cut off the old product and completely replace it with the new product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu
Or, they should have made the move in two step instead of one. Step 1, change to the new interface while keeping most of the underpinning of FCP7, with the few most requested update implemented. Step 2. Completely replace the gut of the program.
Tries to sort out what's cool, what's missing but could reasonably be added, and the stuff that's just part of the deep structure of the program that completely misses the mark for professional editors.
Again, I wish folks would stop imagining that those latter lapses are somehow just a matter of people getting used to Apple's new thinking and getting over their fear of change, because that's wrong. This program is not intended for, and cannot be used by, professional post houses.
Now, whether that's be design or some kind of massive fuck-up I cannot say. I saw one interesting article that suggested that FCP X is a return to FCPs roots-- a scrappy little bundle of advanced features for indies, prosumers and hobbyists. The argument is that FCPs current status as a broadly deployed pro tool is actually kind of an accident-- Apple really didn't have any designs on that market and just started adding stuff once it started getting used that way. So then when it came time to overhaul things they just dumped all the "pro workflow" stuff because they really never intended to be in that market, and now they're going back to giving artists and tinkerers the best possible tool. Who knows.
But we do know that this software cannot be used by a lot of the people who are using it now. Cannot. It's not a choice.
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.
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?"
But this isn't about cosmetic changes, this isn't about clicking different buttons. This is about the fact I can't open my old projects and FCP7 won't be supported in OS X from now on.
This is about having no way to collaborate on projects with anyone else.
No way to use basic hardware like broadcast-quality external monitors.
No way to use networked storage. I've got hundreds of terabytes of networked storage at work that is constantly being updated.
No way to organize media outside of the ridiculous "Events" feature. Sorry, I'm not doing weddings or vacation videos.
No support for tapes. I've got years worth of tapes to work from on a regular basis.
If I ask a vendor to supply me with a very, very basic list of deliverables, they can do it in FCP7 without any problems. FCPX? Not possible. If someone buys a new Mac tomorrow, with the only version of FCP apple sells, they won't be able to provide what is required of them. That's a problem.
And it's not simply something that can be easily patched-in. The whole structure of the program is for editors working on one computer, without any external drives, who never share anything with other vendors or editors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
It's actually extremely supportable and the internet is full of point-by-point analyses of why it's not fit for professional use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L
There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.
Tell that to Avid's accountants. I'm sure they'd be amused.
And to everyone who hasn't worked in post, who doesn't get why FCPX is such a misstep, let me quote the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Seward
So what do I do when a client sends a 50 year old tape for migration and archive? Do I say, "To bad, no one uses tape anymore."
What do I say when a client asked for the audio stems to be used in a Pro Tools mixdown session? "Oh, you don't really need to do that anymore".
What do I tell the Smoke editor when I can't send him an OMF or XML file anymore? "Oh, you really don't need to do that effect."
And to the client supervising the session, " Oh, don't look at the $25k broadcast monitor anymore, the colors aren't accurate."
To the network that wants an EDL of the session, " Oh, you are so old fashioned".
Professionals give their clients what they want. Professionals don't tell their clients that their workflows are "ancient workflows".
"What do you need, Mr. Client? We are ready to help give you what you need".
Please tell the broadcast networks that they "don't even use tape." And tell that to their face.
They are forgetting a couple of important lessons that Steve has taught us over the years:
1. Steve's REAL genius is usually what he leave OUT of his products.
2. Once people stop whining, they realize that Steve was right all along.
I predict that those who whine will eventually realize. Always have. Always will.
Nobody's whining. Users of FCP are saying "We wish Apple didn't leave the upper tier pro video market"
What are you considering whining? When I say I can't do a multitrack session without multicam support and discrete audio assignment with this because it doesn't offer it? That's not whining. That's like calling me a Fanboy because I prefer Macs. It's ignorant.
Jobs is right as far as what direction Apple goes in for its stockholders. Right all along as far as what works in a video studio? I hope you're not implying that.
Comments
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's a good point you make, I was wondering about that myself.
It could be that if you are within such a project in such an intensive way, you loose a bit objectivity and cannot anticipate completely what other people might think.
If you don't know that you have to address something than your are not going to do that.
J.
Yeah - WTF is that - how could they not have it work with older FCP but with iMovie
Maybe because iMovie is compatible in such a way that it is possible to do that and that's in contrast obviously (otherwise Apple would have included it right away) with FCP.
J.
And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!
What more do we need to know? : )
Yeah, they seem to have cottoned onto the fact that consumers like low prices and there are a lot of people who don't care about making it in an industry by aspiring to a certain workflow but instead getting a job done. I find it odd though that Apple take polar opposite views regarding hardware and software. 'we can't make a computer for $500 that isn't a piece of junk'. How about 'we can't make a piece of software for under $300 that isn't a piece of junk'?
Oh, you can. It takes two programs to do it, but you can play straight from the disc.
You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.
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.
They might have been planning to upgrade to FCS 3 in some timeframe around that date though, they might have taken on a set of new staff or planned a production and need to buy more licenses.
I just don't understand why you'd even release software under the name Final Cut Pro that doesn't open Final Cut Pro files or allow any sort of migration. Are they telling these people to just go somewhere else because they're not wanted any more, they just want iMovie users?
Yup, how many years later and we're still waiting for QuickTime X to bring back QT7 features?
Even one is too many.
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.
The warning signs of this were all there with Shake too with the team leaving Apple. A similar event may have happened here:
http://goo.gl/u7ocW
I wonder if they'll end up working at Adobe just like members of the Shake team work at the Foundry.
Anyway, as time goes on I learn to cut Apple more and more slack when it comes to doing really wild things. I've been proved wrong on many occasions with things I never thought would work out well. When you cut them too much slack, they pull a little too hard and I think they did it this time but I can see it working out if they make the right moves.
While I think releasing it so soon and cutting the old one off was premature, it gets everyone's feelings out so they know what to fix from the loudest screams. No multicam doesn't mean you can't do your job because it wasn't there before, it's just harder for now while they fix it. No broadcast monitor support isn't a big deal if you don't finish in Final Cut, that can be left to the colour grading stage.
The only big issues are the hardware support, opening FCP files, import/export and they can fix this any time they want. Say they fixed multi-cam, file import, OMF/XML/EDL by the end of July and launched Lion with the new Quicktime, wouldn't everything die down? I suspect the magnetic timeline might cause some issues with import/export and they should have worked it out before shipping but if they fix it in a couple of months, I think they can get a pass.
You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.
Yep. And yep.
Even one is too many.
Hey, at least they're adding them back along with new features. You can actually use QuickTime to save audio files now as opposed to being forced to save an audio-only file as an .MOV...
Hey, at least they're adding them back along with new features. You can actually use QuickTime to save audio files now as opposed to being forced to save an audio-only file as an .MOV...
Quicktime Pro could sort of do that - export > sound to aiff. No AAC/MP3 etc though but iTunes sorted that out. Hopefully it still allows multi-channel audio editing.
Quicktime Pro could sort of do that - export > sound to aiff.
Oh, sure, but that's not really the point. It shouldn't be SO FREAKING STUPID that it can't understand an audio-only file isn't a MOV, particularly when it could open audio-only files and understood they didn't have video tracks at all.
At least that's all over now...
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.
From what we are seeing they radically changed everything under the hood of FCP X. In a way they could not have done in the original FCP.
I suppose people would have been happier if the lines blurred more between original FCP and FCP X. Apple is making a hard departure between the two.
Editing conventions represent a common shared language. Like I said why haven't we thrown out every convention in human history?
Things do change. Simply because we've had the hammer, the screw driver, or the saw - for hundreds of years does not mean that there isn't room for someone to come up with the nail gun, the drill, or the power saw.
They might have been planning to upgrade to FCS 3 in some timeframe around that date though, they might have taken on a set of new staff or planned a production and need to buy more licenses.
Outside of online rumors they didn't really know when a possible FCS3 would be released to make that type of planning around. You are right though that buying more seats is an issue. At this point Apple might as well allow anyone who owns FCS3 to download as many seats as they need for free. Its reached its EOL at this point.
I just don't understand why you'd even release software under the name Final Cut Pro that doesn't open Final Cut Pro files or allow any sort of migration. Are they telling these people to just go somewhere else because they're not wanted any more, they just want iMovie users?
I think that was to make it clear that this is not a transition from the old to the new. The new one is something totally new. That message was heard clearly.
We know a migration tool will be coming.
Automatic Duck Pro Export 5.0
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.
I agree that those questions are perplexing. I can understand why those who depend on FCP for their livelihood are asking a lot of questions about what is going on. At this point Apple isn't providing any answers.
I don't understand the propensity to invent such negative answers to these questions in the vacuum.
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).
The first question I would ask about (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) were people actually buying or using them?
Apple's leadership would have needed to talk to its shareholder board about its future plans. If the board thought that Apple leadership was really about to kill its flagship professional product and really alienate a core group of Apple loyalists. I think the board would have made quite a noise about that. Because that narrative makes no sense, it seems obvious to me that something more is going on. We just don't know what it is yet.
I would look at this from the standpoint of knowing that Apple is doing something that they aren't telling the rest of us about. I would look at the fact that those guys are sitting on over $50 billion in cash reserves. No other computer or major electronics manufacturer is sitting on that large a pile of cash. I think it would be safe to assume that someone over there knows what they are doing. They just aren't telling us yet.
I would look at this from the standpoint of knowing that Apple is doing something that they aren't telling the rest of us about. I would look at the fact that those guys are sitting on over $50 billion in cash reserves. No other computer or major electronics manufacturer is sitting on that large a pile of cash. I think it would be safe to assume that someone over there knows what they are doing. They just aren't telling us yet.
If FCPX was an isolated event, Id completely agree with you.
But think back to the Shake cut, Apple left a gaping hole in its product line and Shake users had to simply move elsewhere. Perhaps someone might say "use Motion", but this only would come from a lack of understanding of what each software package can achieve, Motion simply cannot do what Shake could. This isnt a quality issue, Motion works fine for what its meant to do, it simply wasnt designed for high-end compositing, it was designed for animation and some light compositing.
Similarly, the Color cut has left a void, as has the Xserve cut.
That's a good point you make, I was wondering about that myself.
It could be that if you are within such a project in such an intensive way, you loose a bit objectivity and cannot anticipate completely what other people might think.
If you don't know that you have to address something than your are not going to do that.
J.
Wonder why they didn't release a FCPX Beta first. It would have gotten them much useful idea about what the customer's concerns are.
Or, they should have made the move in two step instead of one. Step 1, change to the new interface while keeping most of the underpinning of FCP7, with the few most requested update implemented. Step 2. Completely replace the gut of the program.
Also, thinking back on all those products they simply cut along the way, I wonder why they didn't sell those applications if they want to get away from them. I'm pretty sure it would have gotten them a not so small sum.
From what we are seeing they radically changed everything under the hood of FCP X. In a way they could not have done in the original FCP.
I suppose people would have been happier if the lines blurred more between original FCP and FCP X. Apple is making a hard departure between the two.
The big picture is that there is no reason that had to do with creating a new 64 bit program that has anything to do with most of the functions not currently in FCPX. For example, assignable audio? No, there is no coding that preventing this from being a feature. The world is full of 64 bit DAWs. This was a conscious decision to not include it, to keep this program within its projected scope. Exporting and importing EDL, XML, AAF and OMF had nothing preventing them from being added programming-wise due to the transition. Apple doesn't want to export to nor import from other rigs, which is consistent with how the whole Apple world is. But doing it in the consumer world of mp3 players where you want to sell them content is different from doing it in the pro world where you don't want them to easily work with outsourced creative layers.
I'm not in this post commenting on their wisdom or lack of in this, just pointing out (not to you in particular, please) the fact that it was Apple's choice where most of these new differences landed, not any programming barriers.
The first question I would ask about (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) were people actually buying or using them?
Oh Jeez... : ) Don't mention Shake among FCP editors unless you can deal with them screaming their heads off for an hour and then collapsing in a heap.
Whether people could actually use Shake is something you should never ask of, or put the onus of, on the end user. Shake was a major Apple screwup.
When Apple EOL Shake. They were saying we no longer want to be in the VFX business. EOL Xserve, we no longer want to be in the server business. EOL Color, we no longer want to be in the color grading business.
What I would take away from all of that. Is that from a business standpoint Apple looked at where the market is going, they looked at where their competition is excelling, made the decision on whether they are willing to invest the money and resources needed to continue to compete in that market.
Those products that no longer exist, its a clear sign they decided to no longer compete in that market.
If FCPX was an isolated event, Id completely agree with you.
But think back to the Shake cut, Apple left a gaping hole in its product line and Shake users had to simply move elsewhere.
Similarly, the Color cut has left a void, as has the Xserve cut.
I also agree that the UI of FCP X has been simplified for those who are not professional editors.
Ultimately the market will decide if these were good choices or not.
I'm not in this post commenting on their wisdom or lack of in this, just pointing out (not to you in particular, please) the fact that it was Apple's choice where most of these new differences landed, not any programming barriers.
They always totally cut off the old product and completely replace it with the new product.
Or, they should have made the move in two step instead of one. Step 1, change to the new interface while keeping most of the underpinning of FCP7, with the few most requested update implemented. Step 2. Completely replace the gut of the program.
Tries to sort out what's cool, what's missing but could reasonably be added, and the stuff that's just part of the deep structure of the program that completely misses the mark for professional editors.
Again, I wish folks would stop imagining that those latter lapses are somehow just a matter of people getting used to Apple's new thinking and getting over their fear of change, because that's wrong. This program is not intended for, and cannot be used by, professional post houses.
Now, whether that's be design or some kind of massive fuck-up I cannot say. I saw one interesting article that suggested that FCP X is a return to FCPs roots-- a scrappy little bundle of advanced features for indies, prosumers and hobbyists. The argument is that FCPs current status as a broadly deployed pro tool is actually kind of an accident-- Apple really didn't have any designs on that market and just started adding stuff once it started getting used that way. So then when it came time to overhaul things they just dumped all the "pro workflow" stuff because they really never intended to be in that market, and now they're going back to giving artists and tinkerers the best possible tool. Who knows.
But we do know that this software cannot be used by a lot of the people who are using it now. Cannot. It's not a choice.
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.
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?"
But this isn't about cosmetic changes, this isn't about clicking different buttons. This is about the fact I can't open my old projects and FCP7 won't be supported in OS X from now on.
This is about having no way to collaborate on projects with anyone else.
No way to use basic hardware like broadcast-quality external monitors.
No way to use networked storage. I've got hundreds of terabytes of networked storage at work that is constantly being updated.
No way to organize media outside of the ridiculous "Events" feature. Sorry, I'm not doing weddings or vacation videos.
No support for tapes. I've got years worth of tapes to work from on a regular basis.
If I ask a vendor to supply me with a very, very basic list of deliverables, they can do it in FCP7 without any problems. FCPX? Not possible. If someone buys a new Mac tomorrow, with the only version of FCP apple sells, they won't be able to provide what is required of them. That's a problem.
And it's not simply something that can be easily patched-in. The whole structure of the program is for editors working on one computer, without any external drives, who never share anything with other vendors or editors.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
It's actually extremely supportable and the internet is full of point-by-point analyses of why it's not fit for professional use.
There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.
Tell that to Avid's accountants. I'm sure they'd be amused.
And to everyone who hasn't worked in post, who doesn't get why FCPX is such a misstep, let me quote the following:
So what do I do when a client sends a 50 year old tape for migration and archive? Do I say, "To bad, no one uses tape anymore."
What do I say when a client asked for the audio stems to be used in a Pro Tools mixdown session? "Oh, you don't really need to do that anymore".
What do I tell the Smoke editor when I can't send him an OMF or XML file anymore? "Oh, you really don't need to do that effect."
And to the client supervising the session, " Oh, don't look at the $25k broadcast monitor anymore, the colors aren't accurate."
To the network that wants an EDL of the session, " Oh, you are so old fashioned".
Professionals give their clients what they want. Professionals don't tell their clients that their workflows are "ancient workflows".
"What do you need, Mr. Client? We are ready to help give you what you need".
Please tell the broadcast networks that they "don't even use tape." And tell that to their face.
FCPX is not yet ready for prime time.
They are forgetting a couple of important lessons that Steve has taught us over the years:
1. Steve's REAL genius is usually what he leave OUT of his products.
2. Once people stop whining, they realize that Steve was right all along.
I predict that those who whine will eventually realize. Always have. Always will.
Nobody's whining. Users of FCP are saying "We wish Apple didn't leave the upper tier pro video market"
What are you considering whining? When I say I can't do a multitrack session without multicam support and discrete audio assignment with this because it doesn't offer it? That's not whining. That's like calling me a Fanboy because I prefer Macs. It's ignorant.
Jobs is right as far as what direction Apple goes in for its stockholders. Right all along as far as what works in a video studio? I hope you're not implying that.