Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 150
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samwell View Post


    You really should be heeding your own signature.



    That is really a rather pathetic non seqitur. Try again.
  • Reply 62 of 150
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ast May, AppleInsider was first to report that Apple was scaling its Final Cut Pro software to better fit the "prosumer" market, rather than high-end professionals.



    You were wrong about this as you are now by repeating it. It's clear from Apples response and intent before releasing the product that the focus is as firmly on professionals as on anyone else interested in editing.

    The point is that pro editing doesn't have to mean that it's awkward and difficult to do without thousands of hours learning it. It can be pro and intuitive and elegant at the same time. This makes it accessible for most people using iMovie and pro editors at the same time and unifies the editing software into one codebase.

    As a consequence FCPX will be updated more frequently and will get more features than it's predecessors. It will also be easier to use and faster to learn and work with if you care to learn something new and understand that new software is seldom perfect from the start but in this case will be later on.



    J.
  • Reply 63 of 150
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    I don't really think Apple is "falling victim" to anything here. This was a cool, concise delivery of an intended product. It was presented a while back to pro editors, who were in denial apparently about what they were seeing - even while applauding it. They didn't understand what Apple was doing - of course they do NOW. Hence the panic and the unbridled outrage. .



    Are you so sure about that. Perhaps they were not in denial at all but fully understood the score. Most of the comments I have read seem to be more for the prosumers or prosumer wanna bes rather than from true pros. Pros that understood what was happening, know Apple's typical game and prepared by getting any copies of FCP7 etc that they might need for the interim between FCPX's first release (which remember was a week ago) and the post 'field trial' phase when other features were turned back on or the plug ins were ready



    The prosumers on the other hand just heard there was a new and much cheaper final cut released and grabbed it without any thought. And hated it cause with the lower cost was a lower feature set etc.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


    You were wrong about this as you are now by repeating it. It's clear from Apples response and intent before releasing the product that the focus is as firmly on professionals as on anyone else interested in editing.



    Apple has made it clear for some time that the days of focusing on what the pros need and what as the core guideline of the company is over. They have not hidden that they are about the consumer and the prosumer. That said, their prosumer stuff does come with the ability to be enhanced, via companion apps, plug-ins etc to be used by professionals. But many if not most of those add ons are by 3rd parties, not Apple. This is really that same game. I would not be shocked to find out that many of these missing features like multicam etc are patented by other companies and Apple had to pay a small fortune to bake them into FCS. Which is great for the pros that don't mind the $1000-1200 price tag. But for the prosumers, paying an extra $700 for a half dozen features they might use one of if any is just stupid. So leave that stuff out and let the pros buy it if they need it. The companies with the tech know that there's a market so they will make the needed software (it's probably already in the works). They can pull an Adobe and charge $1000 for something Apple might have paid $200 in licensing for and the pros will pay because they need it.
  • Reply 64 of 150
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by See Flat View Post


    Apple actually had the same campaign when they brought out final cut. I remember sending in my original Premier disc. Dont remember what the discount was, but it was huge.



    But wasn't the entire "Hello, I'm a Mac" campaign about catching PC users fed up with the Windows experience? So yeah no company is immune to doing this sort of thing. I confess I generally dislike Adobe on principle - it's an experiential thing. They've pissed me off so many times with their tools and actions (DON'T ask me about Macromedia!), that I tend to attribute the worst possible motives to what they do. Mea Culpa.
  • Reply 65 of 150
    kreshkresh Posts: 379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post


    Hearing people complain about FCP X is similar to my listening my dad complain endlessly when "Regular" (leaded) fuel was discontinued.



    Well, it is true damnit! Car engines ran better on leaded gasoline. They were smooth as butter, and never a knock. I think that whole spewing lead into the atmosphere thing was over-rated anyway. Plus those leaded pumps had huge frickin' nozzles that shaved seconds off the refill times.
  • Reply 66 of 150
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    "Switch to us, we have less crappy software."
  • Reply 67 of 150
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    "Switch to us, we have less crappy software."



    Except they don't, which is what's confusing about this.
  • Reply 68 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold? PLEASE don't tell me this is all the fault of whiny people afraid of change, because if anyone is whining, it's the consumer user who just can't understand how pro users could refuse the gift that Steve has bestowed upon them. Don't they see how magical it is?



    I suspect you will get much of what you want within several months:



    Apple has already said they are working on some of the missing FCPX capabilities from FCP7.



    Third parties are addressing other missing capabilities and updating their plugins.



    Some of what you want may already be there -- just waiting for activation.





    Here's an earlier post I made that one of the biggest knockoffs, FCPX unable to import FCP7 files, is being addressed by Apple







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    One of the advantages Adobe is extolling is the ability to open FCP7 XML and import sequences in Premiere -- actually as a best effort with a log of any problems. It looks good!



    I found an article that says the FCP7 import is already built into FCPX -- just not activated. Here's the translation from Mac Magazine Brazil (scroll down to the second article):



    http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns



    ping



  • Reply 69 of 150
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold? PLEASE don't tell me this is all the fault of whiny people afraid of change, because if anyone is whining, it's the consumer user who just can't understand how pro users could refuse the gift that Steve has bestowed upon them. Don't they see how magical it is?



    Isn't that the question? Why can't "we" have both? Check out Sachin Agarwal's post (I posted it previously up thread). He explains things better than anyone else. I don't make it the "fault" of pro editors - they are just trying to get work done and suddenly the tool they thought was going to make life easier was a completely different tool. I get that - BTDT - went through the 12-step program to recover too *grin*. Pro editors don't want easy to use tools that work well for the average consumer - because the needs are radically different. Which is why prosumers see it as magical and pro users reportedly see it as a pile of sh*t.
  • Reply 70 of 150
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Yeah, because Apple didn't spend years doing the same crap with the "I'm a Mac" commercials.



    Not even close. FAIL.
  • Reply 71 of 150
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 72 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    Isn't that the question? Why can't "we" have both? Check out Sachin Agarwal's post (I posted it previously up thread). He explains things better than anyone else. I don't make it the "fault" of pro editors - they are just trying to get work done and suddenly the tool they thought was going to make life easier was a completely different tool. I get that - BTDT - went through the 12-step program to recover too *grin*. Pro editors don't want easy to use tools that work well for the average consumer - because the needs are radically different. Which is why prosumers see it as magical and pro users reportedly see it as a pile of sh*t.



    I read the thread you mentioned!



    It was informative... from his perspective.



    But he claimed that Apple has no interest in the pros.



    How does he know that?



    How does he explain Apple bringing several leading pros to Cupertino to show FCPX (under NDA)?



    How does he explain Apple making a presentation at NAB (first in several years, AFAIK)?





    I believe there were 4 or 5 Apple managers doing the preso to the pros -- why would they bother if they weren't interested in them?





    I have worked for several companies at a job level corresponding to Sachin Agarwal's -- basically an employee, a worker.



    I have also worked as a team leader and in top management.





    My experience is that every level of employee or manager does not (and need not) understand all the intentions, motivations and reasons for the decisions that are made.



    I would be surprised if a team leader or first level manager would tell the workers that "Apple isn't interested in the pro market".



    What would be gained by telling them (anyone) that?



    Rather, I can see the same manager motivating his employees by telling them: "We are going to make FCPX the best Prosumer video editing app available". Maybe adding "It will be so good it will take sales from our competitors pro apps -- maybe even our own FCP".



    There is also the need to avoid destroying the motivation of those working the older product, FCP7 -- which will eventually be replaced by the newer product, FCPX.





    So, with all that considered, I submit that Sachin Agarwal offered his opinion that "Apple wasn't interested in the pros" -- and wasn't privy to what was Apple's opinion or its intentions.
  • Reply 73 of 150
    spinthis!spinthis! Posts: 16member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Apple has made it clear for some time that the days of focusing on what the pros need and what as the core guideline of the company is over. They have not hidden that they are about the consumer and the prosumer.



    Really? I'm sure the Coen Brothers, David Fincher, and Walter Murch would disagree. If Apple was trying to get away from the pro market, why would Apple publicize them using FCP at all, much less devote space on their website evangelizing the software? Apple were doing this right up until FCP X dropped. Why even develop FCPX, take over NAB's FCP Supermeet (full of the kind of folks who most need the features the old FCP had), and show off all the new features? They even showed a timeline of FCP with what looked like the same one in FCP X, leading most pros to believe their old projects would open. When pros actually got the software, they were disappointed.



    Quote:

    I would not be shocked to find out that many of these missing features like multicam etc are patented by other companies and Apple had to pay a small fortune to bake them into FCS. Which is great for the pros that don't mind the $1000-1200 price tag. But for the prosumers, paying an extra $700 for a half dozen features they might use one of if any is just stupid.



    It's not just lack of features. Fundamentally, FCPX is a whole different product. Pros weren't expecting that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    Why can't we have both? Why does having powerful, easy to use software for new media types, serious amateurs, and non-broadcast types mean we have to leave the pro user out in the cold



    That's just it. Pros aren't against a simpler way to do things but let them turn that stuff off if they don't need it. If FCP X gave the option for pros to have multiple tracks of video or using the magnetic timeline (by default) and opened old FCP projects I'm sure a lot of the resistance to the new software would have been mitigated. FCP X doesn't even open Photoshop files which a lot of pros rely on for supers.
  • Reply 74 of 150
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,612moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    forgive us if we express just a little delight in the fact that FCPX suddenly is a toolset for the rest of us - and in reality there are many more of us to use it.



    You know they both 'suddenly' do pretty much the same thing? You import footage, you put it in your events/bins, drag them into your timeline, you arrange your in/out points and you have an edit.



    Final Cut X helps avoid clip collisions and takes care of some of the import for you but you still have to know what you're doing to make a movie worth watching.



    Of course that shouldn't put people off buying the cheapest handycam on the market with 1/6" sensors, EIS, 9Mbit compression, on-board mono mic with no wind-cut, filming unscripted takes with no direction, churning it through every FCP filter in the list with the word 'auto' in it, dumping it on Youtube/Facebook and feeling like the next big name in showbiz. I just hope people know to accompany their masterpieces with 'Let The Bodies Hit The Floor' or any of the excellent soundtracks from 009 Sound System.



    Sooner or later, people will realise that 'for the rest of us' doesn't mean you can skip the training and just take home the big pay-check. People who make great things don't sit around in their underwear all day watching TV until Apple comes along with the next big revolution so they can do a professional job by pushing a button.



    "Don't pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. Don't pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks. Then the doing of your work will be no miracle, but you will be the miracle."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum


    ping



    Are you cooking microwave dinners during your posts or sending your posts to a social network?



    I suspect you are virtually checking off the show-stoppers in FCPX. It's good to know FCPX has XML import/export in there somewhere. That will solve a big hurdle in adoption, though should have been ready for when it shipped. Once the other show-stopping elements are fixed, it will be good to go - it needs a few more pings until the turkey's done though.
  • Reply 75 of 150
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    The functionality loss in FCP is the equivalent of taking kerning and indenting out of Word.



    Kerning in Word!?



    I can't comment on the FCP issue, but wanting and using kerning features in Word sounds like wanting silk purse performance from sow's ear software. If you want kerning control, use a page layout program, not a word processor. (Although MS is always glad to make their software appear to be all things, for all tasks, for all people!)
  • Reply 76 of 150
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backdoc View Post


    One final example, if I bought a Honda Accord, I would not complain to Honda and say that they should be forced to put OnStar in it. That's a competitor's product. Any company is free to shape their products in the way they think it will make them the most money.



    But if you went to buy a new Honda and found out they no longer offer air conditioning, would you feel obliged to buy it anyhow because of your past experiences with their cars?
  • Reply 77 of 150
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Liquidmark View Post


    Here's a little tip. $300 from a prosumer is worth just as much as $300 from a 'pro'.



    Is it really that simple?



    Who generates more dollars from theater tickets, movie purchases, TV network deals, merchandising, and everything else beyond the initial $300? Not to mention the PR opportunities.



    Who writes the 6 digit and higher purchase orders every year?



    As another example, what is more significant? Hearing that the top 10% of a company (CEO's, Executive VP's, Senior VPs, etc) uses Macs, or that the remaining 90% uses PCs?
  • Reply 78 of 150
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 661member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    They are not trying to get rid of flash though.



    No. They are going one better - they are giving people (developers and end users) choices as to how they want to create and view content, not how Adobe wants them to view content. I think that is a better way forward than letting one person decide how everyone else should create, view and interact with their media. That said, as an aside to the other comments about Flash on the iPhone, Apple did not release the original iPhone with Flash and people by now should know that if they want or need flash on a mobile device they will need to either not get an iPhone / iPad or use some sort of app like Splashtop to work around the limitation.
  • Reply 79 of 150
    alien987alien987 Posts: 2member
    I think that my comment was misinterpreted, I'm not trying to debate if Flash is good or bad, I'm saying that Apple practices about cutting or attacking other companies (and even its customers) it's exactly the same, so I don't see why would any of you defend Apple and even call Adobe's "culture" bad... Apple is no saint about aggressive business and the Flash blocking, the "I'm a Mac" ads and the Switch promotion against Premiere are perfect examples of this...



    And about freedom of choice, I use a Mac because I can do with it whatever I want (at least for now...), I use an iPhone because I still can jailbreak it and install whatever I want, and I use an Android tablet and phone because it even allows me to create my own customized OS to run on it without having to pray to Steve to allow me to do it...



    Apple produce great hardware and software but their business model and practices sometimes feel like a dictatorship instead of customer-business relationships.
  • Reply 80 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    .



    Are you cooking microwave dinners during your posts or sending your posts to a social network?



    I suspect you are virtually checking off the show-stoppers in FCPX. It's good to know FCPX has XML import/export in there somewhere. That will solve a big hurdle in adoption, though should have been ready for when it shipped. Once the other show-stopping elements are fixed, it will be good to go - it needs a few more pings until the turkey's done though.







    The pings are virtual checkoffs as you suspect.



    I, too am confused why they made it available... Except they comitted to June.



    If the import works, reasonably well, I wish they would have activated it.



    Most of the built-in effects in FCP 7 are not yet available in FCPX -- so the import wouldn't be able to do anything but log them as missing. That may have caused more frustration.





    Elsewhere, I've posted that Apple may have done the FCPX release, as they did, to get everybody's attention -- they certainly did that!





    Maybe Apple should have offered FCPX, with import active, as a beta to selected pros...



    That implies knowlegable support staff at Apple...



    I don't recall Apple ever doing a beta with an app.
Sign In or Register to comment.