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.
On the subject of seats, people don't really know how to buy FCPX for businesses. If you can authorise up to 5 machines on a single iTunes license, you can possibly get away with 1/5th of the licenses in a business but people still don't want to have an iTunes account per employee or small groups of employees:
People are just fumbling around in the dark here about what to do, including the Apple reps selling the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
I don't think that message was clear at all. The message I heard was that a new Final Cut Pro was coming and that Apple has listened to feedback and delivered on nearly all of it. What happened instead was they delivered an application called Final Cut Pro X that has zero compatibility with Final Cut Pro yet does some things to replace it while leaving out important parts that ensure it can't.
We also don't know if a migration tool is coming from Apple. We know nothing. It's fairly certain one will come along because it just needs XML/EDL import but Apple has said nothing about it. There are times to be silent like when your best-selling phone drops calls by touching the side and there are times to come out and say what the hell is going on. Now is one of those times when people would just like some definitive answers.
- Is FCPX going to get multi-cam and import/export of EDL/XML/OMF and if so, when?
- Can you get a volume license for FCPX and if so, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
The real kicker with Automatic Duck is that Apple said they worked with them to get their software ready. So Apple helped a company develop a $500 software package to fill in functionality that used to be in Final Cut Pro. Why not just ship it with that functionality in the first place?
There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.
There's little money in it for a fickle company like Apple. If you had the faintest clue about what populates pro video houses you'd know there is huge money there for the players, of which Apple is not one. Do you even "know" any professionals? The consumer market is multitudes more fickle than the pro market. Pick up a handful of trade mags. Go to the ads. Look up the financials of the players. The upper tier video production market is made up of companies that wouldn't ring a bell for you if someone was yelling them in your ear with their products sitting in front of you.
Besides, shouldn't you be arguing that pros are too set in their old fashioned ways and refuse to learn new programs? Oh, that's right, they're "fickle".
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.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
Quote:
Now, whether that's be design or some kind of massive fuck-up I cannot say.
You cannot say but you will infer........
I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.
I would guarantee that the people designing and building FCP know the ins and outs of Avid Media Composer - Adobe Premiere Pro - Sony Vegas, as well as any seasoned pro. I guarantee when they design FCP it is within the context of what their competition is doing.
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire. I guarantee Apple has had copious amounts of meetings discussing FCP X and what it would look like at launch. For their own strategic reasons they made the choice to release it as it is today.
Quote:
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.
I don't believe this is true. From the fact that its known when Randy Ubillos was at Adobe working on Premiere, he wanted Premiere to compete with Avid. He left Adobe and joined Macromedia to create FCP because Adobe wasn't interested at the time in competing with Avid.
Over the life of FCP Apple has acquired expensive software tools and folded them into a $1200 package. Apple built an entire ecosystem around FCP. I don't believe this was an accident at all.
I don't think that message was clear at all. The message I heard was that a new Final Cut Pro was coming and that Apple has listened to feedback and delivered on nearly all of it.
I'm saying now that FCP X is here, that message is clear.
I don't recall Apple making any promises about FCP X before it was shown at NAB.
Quote:
We also don't know if a migration tool is coming from Apple.
I didn't mean from Apple. 3rd party developers will create them.
Quote:
The real kicker with Automatic Duck is that Apple said they worked with them to get their software ready. So Apple helped a company develop a $500 software package to fill in functionality that used to be in Final Cut Pro. Why not just ship it with that functionality in the first place?
At this point there is no way to know that. But I'm sure someone will be happy to create a story of laziness and incompetence to fill in the void.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
XServe is dead
Shake is dead
Color is dead
DVD Studio Pro is dead
Soundtrack Pro is dead
Final Cut Server is dead
Now we get FCPX... which is structurally compromised from its very foundation. Fixing it would require a complete reworking of the program from the ground up. It doesn't even support Final Cut projects, only iMovie.
Yeah, I think it's safe to say what this means in the long-term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire.
I'm sorry... who exactly is "making shit up" here?
Instead of getting secondhand information from columnists, we should be getting information directly and publicly from Apple. Apple should hold a town hall meeting of professional video editors where Randy Ubillos and his team sit on stage, take questions+comments from the professionals and directly address every one of their issues with FCP X. He and his team should also go on record and publicly commit to delivering all those requested features, listing them one by one and providing timelines for delivery of those features. The entire town hall meeting should be available for pubic viewing.
One would hope that Apple is actively involved with the professional editing community. Do Ubillos and his team visit professional tv and movie studios to see the type of work they do so they can understand their needs?
For the next year or however long it takes for FCP X to get all the professional features, Apple should continue to sell and support Final Cut Studio for those businesses which still need to buy the software. FCP X should be priced at less than $100 until it reaches the full functionality of FCP 7.
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.
Now we get FCPX... which is structurally compromised from its very foundation. Fixing it would require a complete reworking of the program from the ground up.
Can you give an explanation as to why it would need to be totally reworked?
Quote:
I'm sorry... who exactly is "making shit up" here?
While I haven't been inside Apple's labs to confirm it. Do you honestly believe they only built this one version and nothing else?
Can you give an explanation as to why it would need to be totally reworked?
While I haven't been inside Apple's labs to confirm it. Do you honestly believe they only built this one version and nothing else?
At this point you should scroll to all the posts where you've chastised someone for stating any well thought out potential aspect of the future as baseless.
Your do realize all your posts contain mostly assumptions?
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.
As I stated earlier, do you have any idea about the history of Shake? To call it merely Apple end of lifing it as if it was the smartest move to make shows you don't. Apple strung on people who bought into Shake. It would be child's play to find slew of FCP editors who felt royally screwed by that fiasco. That's a TERRIBLE example of strategic EOL. It's a story that you could never find an Apple employee on the project who would characterize it with the positive slant that you ignorantly give it.
Do more than just Google for some random info and jump back into a thread. It exposes you as someone who doesn't even know what the products were and what the history was.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
As per the link to the piece I posted, some of the choices in FCP X represent substantial information, in that they can't be viewed as stuff that wasn't finished or that will be built on but choices that mitigate against use in a pro setting.
Quote:
You cannot say but you will infer........
No, I mean it, but my question is different from yours: whether or not Apple intended to repurpose FCP X for a different demographic or whether they though the pro industry was going to be OK with these choices (or sufficiently OK to wait and see what they do next).
Quote:
I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.
See above, although my idea of what purpose might be afoot and yours are different.
Quote:
I would guarantee that the people designing and building FCP know the ins and outs of Avid Media Composer - Adobe Premiere Pro - Sony Vegas, as well as any seasoned pro. I guarantee when they design FCP it is within the context of what their competition is doing.
And if that's true it's a huge fuck-up because they just blew their competitive standing. Even if they have elaborate plans they blew their competitive standing. It's not possible to overstate how badly this has gone over, and in that respect it really doesn't matter what you might imagine they have in mind, it's a competitive blunder to release a product this hostile to people you claim they are competing for. In "the context of what their competition is doing", it's a monumental fuck-up.
Quote:
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire. I guarantee Apple has had copious amounts of meetings discussing FCP X and what it would look like at launch. For their own strategic reasons they made the choice to release it as it is today.
Ibid. If this is true, why do the "put all your media where you an see it all the time unless you put it on a separate drive which you unmount" thing? That's not a technical problem or a TBA problem or a just hang on while we show you where we're going problem. It's a deal breaker that was designed into the software as a specific choice of how people should edit. It makes sense if you're editing by yourself on a single machine. It makes no sense, none, if you're working with multiple clients in a professional setting. And that's just one example of a number of choices that simply don't work for professional editors. Again, not "get used it", but don't work. And not "will be added later", but "rethinks the fundamentals in a way that doesn't work."
The only possible interpretation is that Apple didn't think it was a problem. The only possible reasons for that are either Apple doesn't see this software being used in that setting, or they became so insular in the development process that they didn't realize the ramifications.
Quote:
don't believe this is true. From the fact that its known when Randy Ubillos was at Adobe working on Premiere, he wanted Premiere to compete with Avid. He left Adobe and joined Macromedia to create FCP because Adobe wasn't interested at the time in competing with Avid.
It's been a long time since Randy was outside of Apple. Randy doesn't work day to day as a video editor. It seems entirely possible to me that Randy may have thought he was making an excellent rethink of video editing but because of Apple's culture didn't ever talk to professional video editors about how some of this stuff might fly. In fact, FCP X looks like exactly that-- a very smart, very forward rethinking of how digital video editing is done, that didn't take into account a lot of niggling "on the ground" realities that are less about cool new thinking and entirely about day to day practicalities-- practicalities that emerge from things like working with multiple clients, working with legacy formats and equipment, working with a large staff, etc.
Quote:
Over the life of FCP Apple has acquired expensive software tools and folded them into a $1200 package. Apple built an entire ecosystem around FCP. I don't believe this was an accident at all.
I believe that's possible as well, I just suspect that the intent was different than what you're proposing-- and that's the very charitable explanation.
Just in general, if Apple has such a firm hand on this process, why do you think there's such an unprecedented firestorm of outright contempt? And it is unprecedented. There's been grumbling before, talk of worries about where Apple was headed, etc. But the response from the actual, use it everyday, need to make a living community is practically unanimous: we can't use this, we're done.
Was that Apple's clever plan, do you think? If not, how on earth did they not anticipate this very damaging reaction? If they're totally up on Avid and know exactly what's called for and what's needed, why are they shooting themselves in the foot this way?
I agree with the 'regurgitated' content charge. AI, try calling Apple personally for an interview at least once. If nothing else, you could ask them to comment on the David Pogue article.
Support your articles with original research or just post a link. You are two steps away from outright plagiarism.
"thank you for calling Apple Press Relations office. Your call is very important to us. Please listen carefully to the following menu of options. If you are calling from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek or Fortune, please press 1 now. If you are calling from any other media outlet, please stay on the line and your call will be answered by the next available press agent. (hold music) You call will be answered in 47 days, 12 hours. Please continue holding. Your call is very important to us. (hold music)"
I don't recall Apple making any promises about FCP X before it was shown at NAB.
It was the promises made at NAB.
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?
How many of those people do the team at Apple think use iMovie for anything? None I would expect but iMovie users are the only people with an upgrade path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I didn't mean from Apple. 3rd party developers will create them.
They will and we'll see support when the API is published.
Things we know:
Multi-cam is a top priority and is coming.
Project sharing works but you still can't reconnect media properly and according to them won't be fixed. They are saying to copy raw footage to each other because apparently the old reconnect dialog caused problems:
"the old Reconnect dialog box got people into a lot of trouble; they often reconnected a project to the wrong files, or the wrong versions of files. FCPX now assign files a unique identifier"
Cool, so now we have the option to just close the program and go home or start over. That saves a lot of time and effort.
Besides the obvious in-workflow file renaming and editing outside of FCP, one possibility this excludes is I could never edit on a lower-end system e.g laptop or god forbid iPad, send over an EDL-equivalent and rebuild the timeline using the raw source footage (which obviously won't fit on an iPad). Of course if they hear this issue might affect iPad owners, I'm sure they'll jump to the rescue.
Apple says audio track assignment is coming as well as RED support.
You get 3rd-party tape deck control software so this isn't a huge deal. Import from tape, take an export and write to tape.
Apple says EDL is archaic and won't be supported by them but will arrive when the XML API comes. Same with OMF. Automatic Duck isn't a plugin yet, it has to exist as a standalone app and you run it concurrently with FCP.
AJA and Black Magic drivers are coming for monitor output.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addabox
In "the context of what their competition is doing", it's a monumental fuck-up.
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.
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'?
Marvin, that's a really keen observation, and one that hadn't occurred to me even as I was ranting about their treatment of their software.
It's quite the irony that people chide the hardware aspect and software aspect of Apple use from the polar opposite sides. But as a lifelong Mac user who has stuck with the platform because I favor the OS I agree. They have a decidedly anti-"i" attitude when it comes to their hardware, and and not a speck of the Macintosh seriously thought through, over engineered, no compromise high standard of product when it comes to their software.
...the Time's David Pogue concluded that ...[/url][/c]
Gee, if the author had mentioned that it was pouge up front, I woulda stopped reading and moved along because I know it will just be another typical apple fan boy piece...he is a total shill with no intellectual honesty on the mac side.
I'm a little pissed at myself for writing such a sarcastic post, but I'm even more pissed at your publication of a piece making it so easy to do. A lot of the ideas in this article are clearly expressed, and you point out at its conclusion that you really had the scoop on the story months ago. Why ruin that good journalism with such inattention to detail? If you expect us to read your articles, we expect you to read them once, carefully, before posting them. Peace.
Instead of getting secondhand information from columnists, we should be getting information directly and publicly from Apple. Apple should hold a town hall meeting of professional video editors where Randy Ubillos and his team sit on stage, take questions+comments from the professionals and directly address every one of their issues with FCP X. He and his team should also go on record and publicly commit to delivering all those requested features, listing them one by one and providing timelines for delivery of those features. The entire town hall meeting should be available for pubic viewing.
This is a great idea, but frankly they'd probably need heavy security to make sure Ubillos and company make it out... It'd be the right thing to do, but very un-Apple - actually admitting they messed up and reversing actions to help their customers while they fix things is a very mature and brave way to handle things - but doesn't seem like the fruit company I know and like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
One would hope that Apple is actively involved with the professional editing community. Do Ubillos and his team visit professional tv and movie studios to see the type of work they do so they can understand their needs?
Obviously there are two answers here - either they don't (which is crazy) or AppleInsider's previous column from last year was correct and some big wig at Apple decided to retarget the application to the Final Cut Express marketplace (which was EOL'ed on the same day as FCS) and throw the professional market under the bus (but then have marketing act they didn't - which defies common sense) which is crazy. Either way they totally blew it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
For the next year or however long it takes for FCP X to get all the professional features, Apple should continue to sell and support Final Cut Studio for those businesses which still need to buy the software. FCP X should be priced at less than $100 until it reaches the full functionality of FCP 7.
Absolutely on Final Cut Studio - Apple should do this immediately (get FCS back and available - they're buying up all the stock from the channel so they could sell it directly if they haven't destroyed it all by now).
Frankly they should call Final Cut Pro X what it should be called (what was in its price point previously) Final Cut Express X and leave it there until its ready to replace FCS (this would have prevented all the problems).
What a mess Apple Management has made of all this.
That Conan Obrian video on it was hilarious, if anyone hasn't seen it go watch it and laugh.
Apple and everyone here says that the future of media is internet streaming on iMacs, Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. So there is no need for Apple to invest time and resources to support high resolution video cameras or advanced editing processes. Professional cinematography with studios full of exotic equipment is a dying art. But all these guys just can't accept the fact that the video of the future will be shot and edited on iPhones and iPads. And since not everybody has a gigabit internet connection, these videos will have to be downscaled anyway. So why bother developing professional tools for the Youtube and Facebook generation?
Comments
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.
On the subject of seats, people don't really know how to buy FCPX for businesses. If you can authorise up to 5 machines on a single iTunes license, you can possibly get away with 1/5th of the licenses in a business but people still don't want to have an iTunes account per employee or small groups of employees:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/15457293
People are just fumbling around in the dark here about what to do, including the Apple reps selling the software.
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.
I don't think that message was clear at all. The message I heard was that a new Final Cut Pro was coming and that Apple has listened to feedback and delivered on nearly all of it. What happened instead was they delivered an application called Final Cut Pro X that has zero compatibility with Final Cut Pro yet does some things to replace it while leaving out important parts that ensure it can't.
We also don't know if a migration tool is coming from Apple. We know nothing. It's fairly certain one will come along because it just needs XML/EDL import but Apple has said nothing about it. There are times to be silent like when your best-selling phone drops calls by touching the side and there are times to come out and say what the hell is going on. Now is one of those times when people would just like some definitive answers.
- Is FCPX going to get multi-cam and import/export of EDL/XML/OMF and if so, when?
- Can you get a volume license for FCPX and if so, how?
The real kicker with Automatic Duck is that Apple said they worked with them to get their software ready. So Apple helped a company develop a $500 software package to fill in functionality that used to be in Final Cut Pro. Why not just ship it with that functionality in the first place?
There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.
There's little money in it for a fickle company like Apple. If you had the faintest clue about what populates pro video houses you'd know there is huge money there for the players, of which Apple is not one. Do you even "know" any professionals? The consumer market is multitudes more fickle than the pro market. Pick up a handful of trade mags. Go to the ads. Look up the financials of the players. The upper tier video production market is made up of companies that wouldn't ring a bell for you if someone was yelling them in your ear with their products sitting in front of you.
Besides, shouldn't you be arguing that pros are too set in their old fashioned ways and refuse to learn new programs? Oh, that's right, they're "fickle".
You don't have a clue.
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.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
Now, whether that's be design or some kind of massive fuck-up I cannot say.
You cannot say but you will infer........
I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.
I would guarantee that the people designing and building FCP know the ins and outs of Avid Media Composer - Adobe Premiere Pro - Sony Vegas, as well as any seasoned pro. I guarantee when they design FCP it is within the context of what their competition is doing.
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire. I guarantee Apple has had copious amounts of meetings discussing FCP X and what it would look like at launch. For their own strategic reasons they made the choice to release it as it is today.
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.
I don't believe this is true. From the fact that its known when Randy Ubillos was at Adobe working on Premiere, he wanted Premiere to compete with Avid. He left Adobe and joined Macromedia to create FCP because Adobe wasn't interested at the time in competing with Avid.
Over the life of FCP Apple has acquired expensive software tools and folded them into a $1200 package. Apple built an entire ecosystem around FCP. I don't believe this was an accident at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywNG6GXBZuU
I don't think that message was clear at all. The message I heard was that a new Final Cut Pro was coming and that Apple has listened to feedback and delivered on nearly all of it.
I'm saying now that FCP X is here, that message is clear.
I don't recall Apple making any promises about FCP X before it was shown at NAB.
We also don't know if a migration tool is coming from Apple.
I didn't mean from Apple. 3rd party developers will create them.
The real kicker with Automatic Duck is that Apple said they worked with them to get their software ready. So Apple helped a company develop a $500 software package to fill in functionality that used to be in Final Cut Pro. Why not just ship it with that functionality in the first place?
At this point there is no way to know that. But I'm sure someone will be happy to create a story of laziness and incompetence to fill in the void.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
XServe is dead
Shake is dead
Color is dead
DVD Studio Pro is dead
Soundtrack Pro is dead
Final Cut Server is dead
Now we get FCPX... which is structurally compromised from its very foundation. Fixing it would require a complete reworking of the program from the ground up. It doesn't even support Final Cut projects, only iMovie.
Yeah, I think it's safe to say what this means in the long-term.
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire.
I'm sorry... who exactly is "making shit up" here?
One would hope that Apple is actively involved with the professional editing community. Do Ubillos and his team visit professional tv and movie studios to see the type of work they do so they can understand their needs?
For the next year or however long it takes for FCP X to get all the professional features, Apple should continue to sell and support Final Cut Studio for those businesses which still need to buy the software. FCP X should be priced at less than $100 until it reaches the full functionality of FCP 7.
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.
Now we get FCPX... which is structurally compromised from its very foundation. Fixing it would require a complete reworking of the program from the ground up.
Can you give an explanation as to why it would need to be totally reworked?
I'm sorry... who exactly is "making shit up" here?
While I haven't been inside Apple's labs to confirm it. Do you honestly believe they only built this one version and nothing else?
Can you give an explanation as to why it would need to be totally reworked?
While I haven't been inside Apple's labs to confirm it. Do you honestly believe they only built this one version and nothing else?
At this point you should scroll to all the posts where you've chastised someone for stating any well thought out potential aspect of the future as baseless.
Your do realize all your posts contain mostly assumptions?
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.
As I stated earlier, do you have any idea about the history of Shake? To call it merely Apple end of lifing it as if it was the smartest move to make shows you don't. Apple strung on people who bought into Shake. It would be child's play to find slew of FCP editors who felt royally screwed by that fiasco. That's a TERRIBLE example of strategic EOL. It's a story that you could never find an Apple employee on the project who would characterize it with the positive slant that you ignorantly give it.
Do more than just Google for some random info and jump back into a thread. It exposes you as someone who doesn't even know what the products were and what the history was.
This isn't what I am arguing. I agree that FCP X as is - is largely unusable for professional editors.
What I disagree with are people creating the story of what that means in long term with no substantial information. That's called "making shit up".
As per the link to the piece I posted, some of the choices in FCP X represent substantial information, in that they can't be viewed as stuff that wasn't finished or that will be built on but choices that mitigate against use in a pro setting.
You cannot say but you will infer........
No, I mean it, but my question is different from yours: whether or not Apple intended to repurpose FCP X for a different demographic or whether they though the pro industry was going to be OK with these choices (or sufficiently OK to wait and see what they do next).
I would guarantee that none of this is accidental or arbitrary - it is all purposeful.
See above, although my idea of what purpose might be afoot and yours are different.
I would guarantee that the people designing and building FCP know the ins and outs of Avid Media Composer - Adobe Premiere Pro - Sony Vegas, as well as any seasoned pro. I guarantee when they design FCP it is within the context of what their competition is doing.
And if that's true it's a huge fuck-up because they just blew their competitive standing. Even if they have elaborate plans they blew their competitive standing. It's not possible to overstate how badly this has gone over, and in that respect it really doesn't matter what you might imagine they have in mind, it's a competitive blunder to release a product this hostile to people you claim they are competing for. In "the context of what their competition is doing", it's a monumental fuck-up.
I would guarantee that Apple has experimental versions of FCP X running in their labs. With all the various bells and whistles that professional editors desire. I guarantee Apple has had copious amounts of meetings discussing FCP X and what it would look like at launch. For their own strategic reasons they made the choice to release it as it is today.
Ibid. If this is true, why do the "put all your media where you an see it all the time unless you put it on a separate drive which you unmount" thing? That's not a technical problem or a TBA problem or a just hang on while we show you where we're going problem. It's a deal breaker that was designed into the software as a specific choice of how people should edit. It makes sense if you're editing by yourself on a single machine. It makes no sense, none, if you're working with multiple clients in a professional setting. And that's just one example of a number of choices that simply don't work for professional editors. Again, not "get used it", but don't work. And not "will be added later", but "rethinks the fundamentals in a way that doesn't work."
The only possible interpretation is that Apple didn't think it was a problem. The only possible reasons for that are either Apple doesn't see this software being used in that setting, or they became so insular in the development process that they didn't realize the ramifications.
don't believe this is true. From the fact that its known when Randy Ubillos was at Adobe working on Premiere, he wanted Premiere to compete with Avid. He left Adobe and joined Macromedia to create FCP because Adobe wasn't interested at the time in competing with Avid.
It's been a long time since Randy was outside of Apple. Randy doesn't work day to day as a video editor. It seems entirely possible to me that Randy may have thought he was making an excellent rethink of video editing but because of Apple's culture didn't ever talk to professional video editors about how some of this stuff might fly. In fact, FCP X looks like exactly that-- a very smart, very forward rethinking of how digital video editing is done, that didn't take into account a lot of niggling "on the ground" realities that are less about cool new thinking and entirely about day to day practicalities-- practicalities that emerge from things like working with multiple clients, working with legacy formats and equipment, working with a large staff, etc.
Over the life of FCP Apple has acquired expensive software tools and folded them into a $1200 package. Apple built an entire ecosystem around FCP. I don't believe this was an accident at all.
I believe that's possible as well, I just suspect that the intent was different than what you're proposing-- and that's the very charitable explanation.
Just in general, if Apple has such a firm hand on this process, why do you think there's such an unprecedented firestorm of outright contempt? And it is unprecedented. There's been grumbling before, talk of worries about where Apple was headed, etc. But the response from the actual, use it everyday, need to make a living community is practically unanimous: we can't use this, we're done.
Was that Apple's clever plan, do you think? If not, how on earth did they not anticipate this very damaging reaction? If they're totally up on Avid and know exactly what's called for and what's needed, why are they shooting themselves in the foot this way?
I agree with the 'regurgitated' content charge. AI, try calling Apple personally for an interview at least once. If nothing else, you could ask them to comment on the David Pogue article.
Support your articles with original research or just post a link. You are two steps away from outright plagiarism.
"thank you for calling Apple Press Relations office. Your call is very important to us. Please listen carefully to the following menu of options. If you are calling from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek or Fortune, please press 1 now. If you are calling from any other media outlet, please stay on the line and your call will be answered by the next available press agent. (hold music) You call will be answered in 47 days, 12 hours. Please continue holding. Your call is very important to us. (hold music)"
I don't recall Apple making any promises about FCP X before it was shown at NAB.
It was the promises made at NAB.
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?
How many of those people do the team at Apple think use iMovie for anything? None I would expect but iMovie users are the only people with an upgrade path.
I didn't mean from Apple. 3rd party developers will create them.
They will and we'll see support when the API is published.
Things we know:
Multi-cam is a top priority and is coming.
Project sharing works but you still can't reconnect media properly and according to them won't be fixed. They are saying to copy raw footage to each other because apparently the old reconnect dialog caused problems:
"the old Reconnect dialog box got people into a lot of trouble; they often reconnected a project to the wrong files, or the wrong versions of files. FCPX now assign files a unique identifier"
Cool, so now we have the option to just close the program and go home or start over. That saves a lot of time and effort.
Besides the obvious in-workflow file renaming and editing outside of FCP, one possibility this excludes is I could never edit on a lower-end system e.g laptop or god forbid iPad, send over an EDL-equivalent and rebuild the timeline using the raw source footage (which obviously won't fit on an iPad). Of course if they hear this issue might affect iPad owners, I'm sure they'll jump to the rescue.
Apple says audio track assignment is coming as well as RED support.
You get 3rd-party tape deck control software so this isn't a huge deal. Import from tape, take an export and write to tape.
Apple says EDL is archaic and won't be supported by them but will arrive when the XML API comes. Same with OMF. Automatic Duck isn't a plugin yet, it has to exist as a standalone app and you run it concurrently with FCP.
AJA and Black Magic drivers are coming for monitor output.
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.
In "the context of what their competition is doing", it's a monumental fuck-up.
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.
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'?
Marvin, that's a really keen observation, and one that hadn't occurred to me even as I was ranting about their treatment of their software.
It's quite the irony that people chide the hardware aspect and software aspect of Apple use from the polar opposite sides. But as a lifelong Mac user who has stuck with the platform because I favor the OS I agree. They have a decidedly anti-"i" attitude when it comes to their hardware, and and not a speck of the Macintosh seriously thought through, over engineered, no compromise high standard of product when it comes to their software.
Good call : )
...the Time's David Pogue concluded that ...[/url][/c]
Gee, if the author had mentioned that it was pouge up front, I woulda stopped reading and moved along because I know it will just be another typical apple fan boy piece...he is a total shill with no intellectual honesty on the mac side.
There is VERY little money in the "professional" market, and they are totally fickle.
But they are the ones that kept Apple in business in the Dark Days. A lot of thanks they are getting.
I'm a little pissed at myself for writing such a sarcastic post, but I'm even more pissed at your publication of a piece making it so easy to do. A lot of the ideas in this article are clearly expressed, and you point out at its conclusion that you really had the scoop on the story months ago. Why ruin that good journalism with such inattention to detail? If you expect us to read your articles, we expect you to read them once, carefully, before posting them. Peace.
Amen!
Instead of getting secondhand information from columnists, we should be getting information directly and publicly from Apple. Apple should hold a town hall meeting of professional video editors where Randy Ubillos and his team sit on stage, take questions+comments from the professionals and directly address every one of their issues with FCP X. He and his team should also go on record and publicly commit to delivering all those requested features, listing them one by one and providing timelines for delivery of those features. The entire town hall meeting should be available for pubic viewing.
This is a great idea, but frankly they'd probably need heavy security to make sure Ubillos and company make it out... It'd be the right thing to do, but very un-Apple - actually admitting they messed up and reversing actions to help their customers while they fix things is a very mature and brave way to handle things - but doesn't seem like the fruit company I know and like.
One would hope that Apple is actively involved with the professional editing community. Do Ubillos and his team visit professional tv and movie studios to see the type of work they do so they can understand their needs?
Obviously there are two answers here - either they don't (which is crazy) or AppleInsider's previous column from last year was correct and some big wig at Apple decided to retarget the application to the Final Cut Express marketplace (which was EOL'ed on the same day as FCS) and throw the professional market under the bus (but then have marketing act they didn't - which defies common sense) which is crazy. Either way they totally blew it.
For the next year or however long it takes for FCP X to get all the professional features, Apple should continue to sell and support Final Cut Studio for those businesses which still need to buy the software. FCP X should be priced at less than $100 until it reaches the full functionality of FCP 7.
Absolutely on Final Cut Studio - Apple should do this immediately (get FCS back and available - they're buying up all the stock from the channel so they could sell it directly if they haven't destroyed it all by now).
Frankly they should call Final Cut Pro X what it should be called (what was in its price point previously) Final Cut Express X and leave it there until its ready to replace FCS (this would have prevented all the problems).
What a mess Apple Management has made of all this.
That Conan Obrian video on it was hilarious, if anyone hasn't seen it go watch it and laugh.