Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash

2456711

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 202
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Whoa. You're going to judge someone on the ability to use a totally new software with less features? Have you been in an edit suite? Do you really think they follow a printed step-by-step guide? I know you're exaggerating a little for effect, but do you realise the processes and workflows involved in high-end editing?



    The effort of Apple's teams on FCPX are not unappreciated. They were just misdirected.



    So people who are satisfied with the existing feature set should have had to wait until ALL the features were complete to use FCPX?



    Apple's biggest (and really, only) mistake was discontinuing FCP7. If they had sold it for a year or two, along with FCPX while the latter achieved parity, there would have been no outcry (rightfully so).



    In fact, Apple has gone through a similar transition before. The Mac OS -> Mac OS X transition. Apple did not kill off Mac OS for about 2 years after Mac OS X was available to the public.



    Really silly move on their part, IMO.
  • Reply 22 of 202
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.





    +1. That's likely exactly what was going on.



    Also I'd like to see some numbers and some names. Just how many copies have been sold, how many folks were demanding refunds and who they are. Cause frankly hearing gripes about this or that feature being missing means a lot when it is a studio pro that would actually be using it versus some wedding videographer that has never used said feature and has no reason to but wants to gripe cause he feels he's been cheated since it isn't there.



    You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Ripping out key features of a software



    But they didn't rip out the key features. They ripped out everything but the key features. THe only thing that is a potential issue is the lack of importing from other versions of Final Cut. But then again. you have the disks, reinstall it. If you are worried that it won't run under lion, Sabertooth etc, keep your snow leopard disk too. Most pro shops do anyway. THey don't need that 'feature' right now because no pro is going to change over to software they don't know mid project. That's suicide.



    Not everyone needs Export to Tape or XML and so on. Those that do will get it. Those that don't will whine because they feel they are getting gypped over something they will never use anyway
  • Reply 23 of 202
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?



    Hahaha. Look, my DV video clips actually have their audio in iMovie, I figured FCP X would be better. Sure, better if I want to work on silent home movies - it imported the damned events from iMovie and dumped the audio.* iMovie - no problem. QuickTime - no problem. Handbrake - no problem. FCP X - no audio. WTF!?



    And the thing is, I'm irritated and I'm NOT a professional video editor. Yanking working features out for a 'really solid foundation'... it's like saying Snow Leopard (which implemented major 64-bit and multithreading changes) should have shipped without Finder and networking because, hey, sometimes you just gotta clean things up! Sure, but you're going to alienate users if that's your approach. Not even an import feature for old projects? WTF indeed.



    (And let's for arguments sake say I don't have a time machine to get the same scenes over again with a AVCHD camera...)
  • Reply 24 of 202
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    So people who are satisfied with the existing feature set should have had to wait until ALL the features were complete to use FCPX?



    Apple's biggest (and really, only) mistake was discontinuing FCP7. If they had sold it for a year or two, along with FCPX while the latter achieved parity, there would have been no outcry (rightfully so).



    In fact, Apple has gone through a similar transition before. The Mac OS -> Mac OS X transition. Apple did not kill off Mac OS for about 2 years after Mac OS X was available to the public.



    Really silly move on their part, IMO.



    You quoted my post in your response, I think by mistake. I agree with everything you're saying.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.



    I'll make it easier for everyone. Show me Coppola or the Coen Brothers using FCPX by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).
  • Reply 25 of 202
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Wonder what the legal ramifications of merely continuing to sell FCP7 licenses to existing owners would be? Apple owns it and can do what they want it can't they? Are they thinking of support?



    Some of it is support. They aren't going to add features etc but they will likely fix security issues and some bugs. Especially they went on record that FCP7 will run under Lion. If they find something that prevents that, they will have to fix it or face a PR nightmare



    But the core is actually probably licensing. Folks don't consider that some of these features that were removed could have been tech that Apple doesn't own or isn't public domain. So they had to license it. Removing those things, especially since a lot of them aren't universally needed, is possibly part of what brought costs down. If they allow more seats they could be in violation of licensing agreements that have ended. So they have to sort that out before they say yes. But the owning companies could always say no. Especially if they have created or could create a plug in to give users the same functionality at a better profit.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    I'll make it easier for everyone. Show me Coppola or the Coen Brothers using FCPX by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).



    First off, Indies and Docus are just as much a major release etc as a Studio production



    Second, Folks like Coppola etc aren't stupid. They aren't going to be using a program they don't know. So it is very plausible they won't start working with until the first of the year for anything more than cutting a trailer for practice work or a short film. Same for tv shows etc. Its just how the Pros roll
  • Reply 26 of 202
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    First off, Indies and Docus are just as much a major release etc as a Studio production



    Second, Folks like Coppola etc aren't stupid. They aren't going to be using a program they don't know. So it is very plausible they won't start working with until the first of the year for anything more than cutting a trailer for practice work or a short film. Same for tv shows etc. Its just how the Pros roll



    Hmm... Your post agreed with franktinsley that video professionals should be able to keep up. Then you mentioned Coppola etc. decrying FCPX would be required to show it wasn't suitable. But you also said, but give them a year first.



    Overall this would suggest that lower-end editors should switch to FCPX. Higher-end editors should wait a year... Only thing is, they're the ones that need FCP7 and additional FCP7 seats to continue to do their work.



    So it appears FCPX isn't ready for prime time for high-end editors, either because it is not suitable or because pros need a year to acclimatise. Did I get that right? Will we thus have to wait until next year to see if FCPX is really up to the task or are the reviews and testing done so far by a range of pros sufficient?



    Edit: I'm not trying to be aggressive or a smartass, just sinking my teeth a little into this debate.
  • Reply 27 of 202
    I've been an editor for over 25 yrs. I've seen a lot of tech come and go. I haven't seen FCPX in the flesh, but from the reviews, and knowing what I do about Apple. I can see where they are headed with this but the BIGGER question is....

    How did they get it so WRONG!!



    Large companies can get myopic quickly. Too many yes men, not enough outside input. The seeds of this situation were sown when Apple stopped exhibiting at NAB and severely limited the input they got from users. On top of that I've suspected for some time that when they DID want input they tended to lean more toward film industry editors than broadcast editors. (odd considering Jobs is on the Board of directors of DIsney/ABC) Completely different workflow. There's the rub.



    In Apple's vision of the world physical distribution of content is dead. Therefore who needs IO cards and breakout boxes anymore than we do floppies? Like so many Apple products FCPX sounds like it has a functional yet elegant simplicity about it. It could very well be the editor of the future....



    ...it's just that a lot of us (most of us?) aren't there yet. We work, dare I say it, Differently We need what our workflow demands, a vendor who realizes that and stands with us, and the future can wait until I get this project done.
  • Reply 28 of 202
    justbobfjustbobf Posts: 261member
    So, what happened to Final Cut Pro 8 and 9? Why 10?



    And, if Final Cut Express is no longer available, why keep the Pro designation? Come on!
  • Reply 29 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.



    Not everyone needs Export to Tape or XML and so on. Those that do will get it. Those that don't will whine because they feel they are getting gypped over something they will never use anyway



    I'm sorry but you're wrong. I work in TV and Feature Film editing. Even if someone like the Coen Brothers wanted to edit True Grit on FCPX right now - they couldn't. It's missing too many necessary features: export to tape, edl, omf, audio track assignment, etc... For a high end feature film like True Grit or The Social Network, these features aren't just nice to have - they are necessary. You cannot actually edit the film without them. You need these features in order to work with your sound house, color correction facilities, visual effects houses, etc... In fact, everything that airs on broadcast TV also needs these features. The lower end the production the less necessary these features become. Editors who work in corporate videos, industrials, web productions might be able to get by without these features. But prestige projects like big budget movies must have them.
  • Reply 30 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    Now those do sound like legitimate complaints. But what makes you assume Apple will never update to address them?



    Here's my perspective on FCPX and high end professional film and TV production.



    The truth is that even FCP7 isn't that widely used in high end feature film and broadcast TV. There were exceptions but from personally experience maybe 1 in 5 features films that were released by a major film studio were cut on FCP. Maybe. Almost no scripted TV is cut on FCP because it's missing too many useful features. The majority of FCP users in film and TV are reality TV shows and independent features who are looking to save money.



    A lot of professional FCP editors have been bugging Apple for years to add certain features which would make it more competitive in the film and TV market. For example, FCP7 is still not as good as AVID for shows with multiple editors. And most TV shows have many editors and assistant editors who all need to access the same projects. Instead of addressing these issues in FCPX, they did the opposite. They took out a LOT of features that they NEED. Not want. Not like. NEED.



    I have no doubt that FCPX will get better with updates. I'm sure a lot of these missing features will eventually return. But we're not talking about just a handful of features. We're talking about dozens of crucial things that have been stripped out.



    I think FCPX could eventually win back the feature film market. Given time. MAYBE. But I'm pretty sure they've permanently lost the broadcast TV market. Feature film editors cut one movie then move onto the next project. So they can take a bigger chance on newer editing systems. But TV shows will use the same editing system year after year, season after season. If they purchase an editing system, they want to know that it will still be supported a few years from now when the show is (hopefully) doing great in it's 7th season. If I'm TV post-producer, I'm going to be very wary of spending thousands of dollars to setup a dozen FCPX edit suites for my TV show after what Apple did with FCPX.



    One more thing. Everything I just said applies specifically to the the feature film and broadcast TV market. FCPX could wind up being great for professionals who don't work in those markets and don't need all those features. People who work in things like corporate video, industrials, web content, etc...
  • Reply 31 of 202
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?



    Well, we have a library of thousands of FCP projects that we've produced over the years. They're worth millions of dollars. I'd like to see any editor at all come in and work with any one of those projects in FCPX.



    Hint: It can't be done since those projects can't be imported...yet.



    I'm incredibly happy that Apple has changed direction on this and made FCP7 licenses available again along with announcing features coming soon along with import/export.



    I think a lot of people like you misunderstood the argument all along. Almost every editor I know who tried FCPX, liked it in of itself. There are a ton of things to like about it, and everything new about it is fantastic.



    However, it's not faster or easier if the functionality you need simply isn't there. That's what pros complained about, and Apple heard us and decided to do the right thing by us.



    Personally, I love what we have now for road ahead of us for Final Cut.
  • Reply 32 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    I'll make it easier for everyone. Show me Coppola or the Coen Brothers using FCPX by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).



    I love reading FCP X threads! nvidia2008 is all over them like white on rice!!
  • Reply 33 of 202
    tuckertucker Posts: 1member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.



    How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.



    I'm not sure if you should be commenting here. Your comment about not being able to use iMovieProX by a good editor is way off. If you are a professional race car driver you could certainly drive a Yugo with a turbo engine. But why? It just couldn't do the job. That's the issue. Us professionals have been left with no real option with FCP7 being discontinued and FCPX not even close to being a working substitute.
  • Reply 34 of 202
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Let the resistance from FCP users be proof to the haters that Apple fans aren't "sheeple". When Apple screws up, they will be raked over the coals even more vehemently.



    A very good point nicely put.

    I still maintain that Apple's only screw up was a matter of presentation, for lack of a bettter word. Adding the word Beta to fcpx and announcing a roadmap of some sort (not killing of fcp7 immediately) would have been a better way to introduce the 'future'. It wouldn't have prevented the 'iMovie Pro' criticism, but then that's the kind of criticism that makes people look old and defensive and is best countered with a shrug.
  • Reply 35 of 202
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    You quoted my post in your response, I think by mistake. I agree with everything you're saying.



    Well, I did intend to quote your post, except it was your earlier one. I hadn't even read this post of yours yet (In which case I probably wouldn't have typed my post out).
  • Reply 36 of 202
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    A very good point nicely put.

    I still maintain that Apple's only screw up was a matter of presentation, for lack of a bettter word. Adding the word Beta to fcpx and announcing a roadmap of some sort (not killing of fcp7 immediately) would have been a better way to introduce the 'future'. It wouldn't have prevented the 'iMovie Pro' criticism, but then that's the kind of criticism that makes people look old and defensive and is best countered with a shrug.



    Completely agree. Its really amazing to me that Apple did this. They have been masters at transitions (OS9->OSX, PPC->Intel both of which were far more complex). Coincidentally (?) the other bad transition they had was in the same team (iMovie HD '06 -> iMovie '08).



    Maybe the folks running that division are just too bent on pushing everyone into the future, whether those people like it or not. They make great products (I admit iMovie '08 sucked originally, but with the updates since, its pretty awesome). But they just don't seem to be able to pull off the transitions seamlessly.
  • Reply 37 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.



    How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.



    You have zero idea how a post-production facility works. Zero. None. Absolutely no glimmer of an idea.



    This is some absurd fanboyism that is frankly embarrassing. Apple's not your family. Apple is not your friend. Get over your bizarre need to defend them with utterly illogical and completely childish reasoning.
  • Reply 38 of 202
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post


    I love reading FCP X threads! nvidia2008 is all over them like white on rice!!



    I woke up a bit earlier this morning and am still figuring out what to do with the extra time today...
  • Reply 39 of 202
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.



    That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This is software for PROFESSIONALS, who make a living producing and editing video. You don't replace the software they depend on with a half-finished shell of a product that can't do half of what the professionals need.



    If you are going to rip it up and start over, then don't release the new software until it can fully replace the current software. One of the biggest boondoggles by Apple is that the new software can't import projects from Final Cut Pro 7. Video professionals often have to go back to old footage and re-edit it for new projects. They can't do it with FCP X, and it looks like they will never be able to.



    Apple could get away with something like this with iMovie, since professionals don't make their living from it, but the Final Cut situation is a mess that's going to bite Apple hard. It proves once again that Steve Jobs is not a software person - otherwise he would never have allowed this, or iMovie, or QuickTiume X, or MobileMe, or some of the changes in iTunes (the artwork column is now really small and ugly). If he drove the software people like he drives the hardware people, this wouldn't happen.
  • Reply 40 of 202
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    I never want to see anyone lose his/her job, but this Randy(?) guy who heads Apple's video software development needs to go immediately. He has no clue as to what makes good software. He obviously didn't get feedback from video professionals - how could he ambush them with no multi-cam support, and no importing of FCP 7 files (amng other things)?



    He did thesame thing with iMovie - no importing of iMovie HD files, etc. If iMovie HD no longer works under Lion, then I won't get a new computer, since I need to re-edit those files from time to time.



    And don't forget Quicktime X - ugly, less useful than QT7. Still hasn't been improved as was promised when Snow Leopard was released.



    I never thought computer software would be Apple's Achilles Heel, but it looks that way, unless Jobs cleans house and gets some comptent people in there who understand working on computers, instead of playing around and getting cute.
Sign In or Register to comment.