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

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 202
    pbrstreetgpbrstreetg Posts: 184member
    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?



    Video editing is not all about faster and easier. For professional work its also about legacy file support and conversion to a new format and continued support of features. Not gut and renew so that your code is easier to maintain. Video professionals are not interested in what is easier for the programmer. They want what works for them, they are the customer.



    Most of Apple's non-pro customers don't understand this and thats fine. Apple makes iMovie and FCPX for you.
  • Reply 42 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    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.



    Oh Frank, that's just silly, starstruck nonsense.
  • Reply 43 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PBRSTREETG View Post


    Video editing is not all about faster and easier. For professional work its also about legacy file support and conversion to a new format and continued support of features. Not gut and renew so that your code is easier to maintain. Video professionals are not interested in what is easier for the programmer. They want what works for them, they are the customer.



    Most of Apple's non-pro customers don't understand this and thats fine. Apple makes iMovie and FCPX for you.



    Absolutely. I don't care if Apple sells me FCP built on a Steenbeck, if it works.
  • Reply 44 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    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.



    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.



    elroth have you been paying attention sir?



    http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/



    Quote:

    Does Final Cut Pro X support multicam editing?

    Not yet, but it will. Multicam editing is an important and popular feature, and we will provide great multicam support in the next major release. Until then, Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.



    And



    Quote:

    Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

    Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to ?translate? or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you?re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.



    Randy is well aware of what FCPX does and what direction it takes NLE. I'm sure he's not looking back nostalgically at a program on it's last breath (FCP 7) that has already be surpassed by the competition in ways.
  • Reply 45 of 202
    bongobongo Posts: 158member
    XServe has been discontunued...

    iMovie lost a lot of flab(though later gained also) during transition ...

    There is no way to buy multiple seats of FCP from appstore.All downloads should be made directly.

    No physical media for Lion release.....wil be downloaded directly from the net





    And you pros still think Apple supports enterprise.

    Frankly, Apple does'nt need and care about pros.

    There is more money to be ad in the consumer market.

    It is what they do best and it is whatthey excel at.



    Working with pros would entail discussing roadmaps for at least a couple of years to the industry.E.g. how long wil they support a particular s/w.

    I don't see Apple doing that.





    Sorry for all the professionals out there but I think this ship has sailed and sailed for good.And I don't see why Apple should be apologetic about not supporting professionals
  • Reply 46 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PBRSTREETG View Post


    Video editing is not all about faster and easier. For professional work its also about legacy file support and conversion to a new format and continued support of features. Not gut and renew so that your code is easier to maintain. Video professionals are not interested in what is easier for the programmer. They want what works for them, they are the customer.



    Most of Apple's non-pro customers don't understand this and thats fine. Apple makes iMovie and FCPX for you.



    Who said the programming feat was easy? Not only was a Quicktime replacement created from scratch using modern principals but then major application had to be built on top of this nascent media core. It's like trying to assemble a car on a conveyor belt that's being built at the same time.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fearless View Post


    Oh Frank, that's just silly, starstruck nonsense.



    LOL. Read the above quoted posting. Video Editors by and large don't have a freaking clue about software design. Many thought Apple could just "flip a switch" and out popped a 64-bit Final Cut Pro.
  • Reply 47 of 202
    k2directork2director Posts: 194member
    Apple's handling of this was insulting. 12 years of building credibility in the video production/filmmaking community just went up in smoke....if not for the pathetic state of FCP X 1.0 (and it is pathetic), then for Apple's mean-spirited and dismissive way of handling the transition and managing the expectations/fears of legions of customers.



    I have been one of Apple's biggest fans for more than a decade, and personally converted 30-40 people from Windows products to Apple. But I can honestly say that I am feeling *hatred* for the company right now....along with its upper management starting with Steve Jobs.



    You don't treat legions of long-time customers-- who have made huge investments in your products -- like they're cattle, or lemmings. Apple pulled the rug out from under some of its best customers, all the while maintaining its smug, asinine "no-comment" policy, leaving people bewildered, confused and scared. That was completely unnecessary. F**k Apple and f**k Jobs for that.



    Apple may have its eye on the shiny little consumer baubles that have carried it so far over the last few years, but it's a very stupid move to needlessly jettison the professional creative community. Besides buying Mac Pros and vertical apps like Final Cut, creatives buy a lot more Apple gear for the other parts of their "digital lives", and as tech savvy people, they also proselytize Apple products to much wider audiences of friends and family. Apple's retarded bean-counters have no way to objectively measure that, and so they dismiss it and are now throwing it away.



    But a company's fortunes can change very quickly. The coming year could easily see Jobs dead from cancer, and a number of senior executives leaving the company because they were not made CEO, and have attractive offers elsewhere. Throw one or two product missteps into the mix, or an unexpectedly strong competitor, and Apple could find itself vulnerable, and wishing it could lean more on other parts of the business.



    I look forward to all that. Fate has a way of punishing the arrogant...
  • Reply 48 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k2director View Post


    But a company's fortunes can change very quickly. The coming year could easily see Jobs dead from cancer, and a number of senior executives leaving the company because they were not made CEO, and have attractive offers elsewhere. Throw one or two product missteps into the mix, or an unexpectedly strong competitor, and Apple could find itself vulnerable, and wishing it could lean more on other parts of the business.



    I look forward to all that. Fate has a way of punishing the arrogant...



    You look forward to somebody's death because they shipped a product you didn't like? Wow, what a morally superior person you are. Next time a movie pro makes a movie I don't enjoy I guess I should look forward to his painful death right?



    As for fate punishing the arrogant, George Lucas still seems to be doing just fine - so I think we can safely dismiss that idea.
  • Reply 49 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    LOL. Read the above quoted posting. Video Editors by and large don't have a freaking clue about software design. Many thought Apple could just "flip a switch" and out popped a 64-bit Final Cut Pro.



    -arch x86_64



    The fact is Apple could have flipped a switch and built a 64bit binary, though they still would have had issues with any 3rd party plugins if they were passing pointers across their interface. Maybe some issues if they had bad code that explictly assumed 32 bit pointers for file sizes or memory allocation and didn't use 'sizeof'. Most code, even most large projects can be migrated to 64 bit pretty easily- and I say this as somebody who has worked porting very large systems between compilers before.



    Apple didn't want to do that, they wanted to start with a clean page, a new code-base, new user paradigms, full support of new technology not just minimal support. There are good reasons for us programmers to throw away old code and start again, we don't need to blame it on relatively simple architecture transitions.



    Apple's willingness to do this is a big part of what makes them great.
  • Reply 50 of 202
    The mistake I think people make is trying to predict Apple's future approach to FCP X is to assume that they still have any real interest in the "high end" market - people who edit broadcast TV and film.



    Apple sells something like 10 million computers a year. Building a fast and easy to use editor that works well with DSLR video and other consumer/prosumer formats (AVCHD) and selling it cheap is a very sensible business decision.



    At $300 a seat there's really not much value for Apple in trying to woo that high-end market. Maybe there's 100,000 edit suites in that industry, maybe 200,000 - but that's a tiny slice of the potential pie for Apple.



    It doesn't look like FCP X will ever get support for previous project import - that alone is enough to make is seriously impractical for many in that market. The closed ecosystem approach isn't suitable for that market either.



    Apple has been bailing out of low-volume high-difficulty enterprise markets for a while now, and frankly if it can't sell millions they don't seem interested anymore. The way they've chosen to break this to the film and TV professionals who've accepted FCP over the last decade is bizarre and somewhat insulting, but it seems clear that they are "just not that into us" anymore.



    Say what you will about Adobe and Microsoft, but in Office 2010 I can open any Word document I've ever made. In Photoshop I can open and PSD file I've ever made. In Avid Media Composer I can open any edit I've ever made (from at least as far back as 1999). None of those companies would or could draw a line in the sand the way Apple has with FCP X.



    FCP X will get better, and features like Multicam will come, third parties will solve some other problems, but overall it is never going fit into the workflows that FCP7 could in film and TV post production.
  • Reply 51 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    -arch x86_64

    a new code-base, new user paradigms, full support of new technology not just minimal support. There are good reasons for us programmers to throw away old code and start again, we don't need to blame it on relatively simple architecture transitions.



    Apple's willingness to do this is a big part of what makes them great.



    Apple's willingness to do this is a big part of what makes gets them booted from the enterprise time and again. Advocacy for Apple and its products in any media space just got a lot harder - and we're meant to be the Mac's natural home.



    "There are good reasons for us programmers to throw away old code and start again?" Clearly you're a programmer, not a programme maker. How great is it really to tell that to someone who's built a business using tools Apple's just thrown away to start again, with no migration path. I'm sick of hearing people who make this stuff, or pretend to, declaring that we should all go home for a year while they rebuild our house, and if we have all our eggs in one basket we can't be true professionals. Apple's looking like a phone-and-gadget company now, playing to the mall.



    Professional users will rely on them like photographers rely on iPhoto. Not at all.
  • Reply 52 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    I know you are asking another poster, but let me chime in on this.



    As such, there will be some, probably high-end editors, that will stick to FCP7 as long as possible, then switch to something else that meets their needs.



    We don't know what exactly will happen. But that doesn't change what has happened with FCPX.



    High end editors will return to Avid, if they ever left. 48-hour film fests will get shot on iPhones, cut on FCP X, and "Shared". Not much in the way of feature budgets going on there.
  • Reply 53 of 202
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    AppleInsider stop repeating the false and made up statement that FCPX is aimed at 'prosumers'.

    It is as false as your claim that the mini was end of life.



    J.
  • Reply 54 of 202
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The problem I see is that it's admittedly incomplete and not yet ready for everyone, and for those work flows, relies heavily on future third party products that simply aren't there yet. They'd also previously cut off support for anyone trying to bide their time on the previous version while they wait it out. The dust simply hasn't settled, and it can take considerable time for it to do so.



    Between shutting off FCP 7 too early and the almost complete lack of communication initially (and especially during development) Apple has been pretty much run a clinic on how to thoroughly botch the launch what could end up being the release of a revolutionary piece of software. Wait six months to get things sorted out or tell Pros upfront that this is new software that may not initially meet their needs and there wouldn't be the backlash. I don't don't think someone high up at Apple fully understands professionals (it sounds like the final cut team knew this was going to happen) and I fear it might be Jobs.
  • Reply 55 of 202
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


    AppleInsider stop repeating the false and made up statement that FCPX is aimed at 'prosumers'.

    It is as false as your claim that the mini was end of life.



    J.



    At this point of time, it is. It may end up returning to a professional piece of software, but as of launch there are quite a few things that Final Cut studio does better or FCPX doesn't yet do at all. At this point, its a lot closer in functionality to final cut express than final cut pro.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    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.



    Both I'd say. Video professionals are notoriously conservative, but even if they were less resistant to change, Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is not ready for them. It does not do the things that they need it to do.
  • Reply 56 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    LOL. Read the above quoted posting. Video Editors by and large don't have a freaking clue about software design. Many thought Apple could just "flip a switch" and out popped a 64-bit Final Cut Pro.



    We don't need or want an app that matches every latest geek must-have. We get paid to deliver on platforms that work. You want to constantly update your code? Then make a plan, do it incrementally, and make sure it's ready before you throw its predecessor in the trash and empty it. This might be great, watershed app development but it doesn't get rid of deadwood or sort out the new kids from stick-in-the-mud old farts, it just damages workflows and the companies that depend on them.



    No one needed Apple to flip any instant 64-bit switch - it's been 3 years since the last release and a migration path for us, as well as them, would have sorted this. Instead we're left with beta software, which is not cool behaviour, no matter how "revolutionary". You don't line up your 10-year customers and shoot them, then yell for the nearest kids to steal their clothes. Not mature.
  • Reply 57 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


    AppleInsider stop repeating the false and made up statement that FCPX is aimed at 'prosumers'.

    It is as false as your claim that the mini was end of life.



    J.



    Who is it aimed at then?



    If the answer it "professionals" then please clarify what "professionals" means and explain reasoning?
  • Reply 58 of 202
    fearlessfearless Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


    AppleInsider stop repeating the false and made up statement that FCPX is aimed at 'prosumers'.

    It is as false as your claim that the mini was end of life.



    J.



    You're dead right - no prosumers involved. It's a consumer app.
  • Reply 59 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    Just tryin' out my new sig!
  • Reply 60 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fearless View Post


    Apple's willingness to do this is a big part of what makes gets them booted from the enterprise time and again. Advocacy for Apple and its products in any media space just got a lot harder - and we're meant to be the Mac's natural home.



    You used to be Mac's natural home, but that's no longer the case. Apple is increasingly focused on the consumer experience, and I mean that in a good way. Microsoft brings enterprise level kludge to the consumer desktop - Apple brings consumer level radical redesigns to the enterprise.



    The fact is that even in enterprise computing there is an increasing movement towards this approach. Vendors are becoming more aggressive about forcing customers off legacy versions because they've come to the conclusion that the cost of supporting such customers is greater than their value. I work in the enterprise space, primarily Windows & Solaris, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. The situation in the enterprise market had gotten completely out of control - I remember back in 2001 migrating a client onto a new version of a platform and having to beg Sun to give me a license for a antiquated compiler - because the shiny new application wouldn't build except on a compiler that had been obsoleted for a year. Not just no longer sold, not just unsupported, obsoleted.

    Quote:

    How great is it really to tell that to someone who's built a business using tools Apple's just thrown away to start again, with no migration path.



    For the users who are stuck? Not great. For new users to your platform? Potentially great. Movie makers do this too you know, ruin the experience for old consumers for reasons of their own. Don't believe me? I can demonstrate it with just three words. Han shoots first. Still don't believe me? Star Trek (2009). Star Trek is pretty much an exact analogue - an aged platform with a huge customer base but an increasingly baroque architecture is rebooted but at the cost of throwing away masses of the history and enraging many fans. Sold well though. Oh and there's a vague promise that they'll resolve the time-line crap in the sequel, we're all supposed to wait for years for that.

    Quote:

    I'm sick of hearing people who make this stuff, or pretend to, declaring that we should all go home for a year while they rebuild our house, and if we have all our eggs in one basket we can't be true professionals. Apple's looking like a phone-and-gadget company now, playing to the mall.



    Did Apple marry you? Declare undying devotion? Promise to produce you products until they died? Did you promise to never look at Adobe or Avid? No. Apple will continue to do what is in their best interest as a company, and sometimes that will entail upsetting old users. Did it not occur to you how many old Apple developers had to adjust when OS-X came in? They didn't just throw a few video pros to the wolves that day.

    Quote:

    Professional users will rely on them like photographers rely on iPhoto. Not at all.



    And Apple's bottom line will be affected just as much. You no longer matter to them, and frankly I think that's what is really upsetting you. People used to think there was a 'halo effect' from design pros that made consumers want Apple computers. Turned out there was a bigger halo effect from the consumer iPod by an order of magnitude.
Sign In or Register to comment.