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

1235711

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 202
    jblongzjblongz Posts: 147member
    Editors are complaining as if Apple didn't single handedly REINVENT the movie industry with Final Cut. Obviously they know what they are doing. Various features were stripped to pilot any bug concerns on a greater scale, then add features as plugins/updates. The backlash was uncalled for by many reviewers, most of them were not Pros. The professionals who did complain should have known better to upgrade to a drastically new software mid-project.



    We KEEP FORGETTING, that legacy support /backwards compatibility only hinders the future of innovation. This is why FCP7 sessions are not compatible with FCPX. Get over it. Those who do embrace and accept will be on top of the new capabilities that Apple enables in the road ahead.
  • Reply 82 of 202
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


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



    Apple will certainly update to address the issues. That will only improve FCPX and I think after 2 years make it a better solution for many editors. However, there may be some features that will never make it back due to how they rewrote it. 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.



    And may I suggest, their "needs" in 2 years time will more than likely be completely different than today's? Broadcast? Tape drives? Broadcast proofing monitors?



    Will they "really" need those "features" to broadcast over the Internet and make their shows available on YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, and iTunes? Output to BluRay for the "purists"?



    Will the media co.'s really center their workflows, software and investments for people with old CRT TVs?



  • Reply 83 of 202
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    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?



    Wow. Your posts go from Mars to Pluto to points beyond.

    You obviously have no clue about the field. Why do you keep posting? You're just digging holes for yourself that don't inspire anyone to respond to.
  • Reply 84 of 202
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBlongz View Post


    Editors are complaining as if Apple didn't single handedly REINVENT the movie industry with Final Cut. Obviously they know what they are doing. Various features were stripped to pilot any bug concerns on a greater scale, then add features as plugins/updates. The backlash was uncalled for by many reviewers, most of them were not Pros. The professionals who did complain should have known better to upgrade to a drastically new software mid-project.



    We KEEP FORGETTING, that legacy support /backwards compatibility only hinders the future of innovation. This is why FCP7 sessions are not compatible with FCPX. Get over it. Those who do embrace and accept will be on top of the new capabilities that Apple enables in the road ahead.





    Both of your points are wrong. First of all, none of the "complainers" stuck themselves by deleting FCP and ugrading wantonly. For $300 it was the same non-commiting drop in the bucket it was for the wedding videographer. They have merely been pointing out that it is much further from being a replacement for FCP than others understand. I've read a million posts and have yet to come across a SINGLE one of someone who upgraded mid project. Zero. That didn't happen. Editors aren't stupid.



    Second, no, no, a thousand times no Apple did not leave off 90% of what they did as any prgramming move to the future. The redesign of the engine and interface had nothing to do with it. They could have kept the features but, as they do with photgraphers and all other pro users, the needs of the pros no longer drive the software developement. Apple's goal since at least a decade ago has been to sell as much as possible, not to serve the specific needs of any single faction.



    They wanted simply to make the $300 killer video app. They did. They don't care if you can't use it in a production facility for 75% of what your job is. That was never their goal.

    It was not the 64 bit rewrite that caused FCPX to be what it is.
  • Reply 85 of 202
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.



    Okay, fine. But when they sat down and said "we're starting over from the ground up with a blank file" how did they proceed? They must have had a list of all the features and elements of both iMovie and FCP and started listing what they wanted from each version. Someone consciously made a decision that certain features were not either worth the time to program or necessary for the target audience of the product. There is no limitation of either the new hardware or the programming language that prevented these features from being included.



    It's funny when people feel the need for something "new" when proven methods and protocols perform properly. In my job, I use equipment that relies on RS232 every day (audio-visual control systems). Swapping out this hardware for USB or network based equipment will be a phenomenal expense with no obvious benefit for our end users. If Mitsubishi came along and said "no more serial ports on projectors, you need to grow up and use our new port", they would lose our business.
  • Reply 86 of 202
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post


    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.



    Staaaanley and the rest of you with similar posts:



    WE GET IT! Many of us have read the above post or similar 1000 times or more over the last couple of weeks! Everybody and their grandma knows what's missing... what's coming "soon"... and what's likely never to come, because it will no longer be needed... or because Apple no longer sees the need to cater to the pros.



    I personally think that Apple and it's engineers are looking out well beyond 2 years time. I also believe the rewrite that they are releasing now can and will benefit early adopters if they give it a chance. Those are the pro editers of tomorrow... OK... in 2 years.
  • Reply 87 of 202
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post








    Both of your points are wrong. First of all, none of the "complainers" stuck themselves by deleting FCP and ugrading wantonly. For $300 it was the same non-commiting drop in the bucket it was for the wedding videographer. They have merely been pointing out that it is much further from being a replacement for FCP than others understand. I've read a million posts and have yet to come across a SINGLE one of someone who upgraded mid project. Zero. That didn't happen. Editors aren't stupid.



    Second, no, no, a thousand times no Apple did not leave off 90% of what they did as any prgramming move to the future. The redesign of the engine and interface had nothing to do with it. They could have kept the features but, as they do with photgraphers and all other pro users, the needs of the pros no longer drive the software developement. Apple's goal since at least a decade ago has been to sell as much as possible, not to serve the specific needs of any single faction.



    They wanted simply to make the $300 killer video app. They did. They don't care if you can't use it in a production facility for 75% of what your job is. That was never their goal.

    It was not the 64 bit rewrite that caused FCPX to be what it is.



    Very likely. Anything wrong with that statement?



    BTW: in 2 years time (that magic date!)...



    1) how much will Adobe or Avid be asking for a license to edit tape and legacy projects?



    2 you might see FCP-X5 for $99.- in the App Store... and it will be used for tons of projects from features to "broadcast" (internet) real-time news. Plug-ins galore as well.



    Care to make a side bet with me on which company will be making the most money for it's shareholders? My main money already is on AAPL long the day iPhone was presented
  • Reply 88 of 202
    I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? FCP became the standard tool in many classrooms - it was powerful, stable, affordable and conceptually similar to Media Composer. And students could run it well on their own hardware.



    FCPX isn't a drop in replacement when you are learning or teaching even moderately advanced techniques or team collaboration.



    Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?



    What do you think?
  • Reply 89 of 202
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post




    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.



    But the thing is we REALLY want to be using Apple products. That's part of what we are really upset about is now we can't use an Apple product to do our jobs. Most of us who have been with FCP from the beginning were on Avid and we switched because we could then be ALL APPLE ALL THE TIME. We liked that because we are pros AND fanbois. Media Composer is a great tool and it is the preferred app for serious high level pros. But us Apple geeks adopted FCP anyway and helped build it into something good. Now comes FCP X which is very interesting but it did something bad. It removed functionality. It is not a one to one replacement for the app it supposedly replaces. Now we have to go back to Avid and that makes us sad.
  • Reply 90 of 202
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    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.



    All apple fans aren't the same. This situation has made it very obvious that some apple users are pragmatists and some are apologists and sycophants who feel that apple can do no wrong. And it's made it clear who falls into which category.



    Same thing happened a while back when they released an ipod with no buttons - some hailed it as brilliant but even apple admitted it was a mistake and reverted to a design similar to the earlier shuffle.
  • Reply 91 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    But the thing is we REALLY want to be using Apple products. That's part of what we are really upset about is now we can't use an Apple product to do our jobs.



    Me too, I'd love to be able to work on Apple products, but sadly I can't. I'd also love to be able to work on UNIX systems but increasingly I can't, because Windows has extended their consumer monopoly into enterprise, and the businesses who bet their platform on enterprise are dead or dying.



    You can still use FCP-7 to do your jobs. You may be able to use FCP-X in future to do your jobs. I'll still be stuck on windows - so my sympathy is limited



    I really do get how annoying it is for you guys, and I do feel a little bad for you - but as a developer I admire Apple's willingness to rewrite, even at the cost of features, and I dearly hope that by pushing deeper into the consumer space they will one day reach my part of enterprise.
  • Reply 92 of 202
    jawportajawporta Posts: 140member
    Just call it iMovie Pro or Final Cut Express. Then update Final Cut Pro to be 64 bit and background rendering. That's all we want, you don't need all that eye candy when editing.
  • Reply 93 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    The article says that there are "legal" issues or considerations for Apple to re-release FCP7/FCS to existing customers.



    I have read that one of the reasons that Apple may have written FCPX the way they did was to reduce, or remove the need to license technology from other parties.





    Does anyone know what technologies Apple licenses for FCP7/FCS?





    Here's one possible scenario for the decisions in the evolvement of FCP into FCPX:



    1) Apple buys technology from Macromedia that will become FCP



    2) Over the years, Apple licenses additional technology from others to improve FCP so it can compete with Avid, Adobe, etc.



    3) FCP becomes popular as a "good enough" (and much less-expensive) solution for most pro editors.



    4) Apple realizes that licensed technology is technologically and financially constraining FCP as they move forward.



    5) Apple takes advantage of (or partially justifies) the total rewrite of FCP7/FCS into FCPX to remove whatever licensing issues it can.





    Apple likes to be in control of its own destiny, technologically and financially!





    Does anyone remember the evolution of Apple's support for Display Postscript? For Flash?





    Thoughts?
  • Reply 94 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.



    it will be appreciated in time, and after the kinks are worked out. but to say that people are probably "incompetent" who probably make a living using software, and usually getting things done under TIME pressure, aren't going to be happy to have to go back to day 1 and slow down and relearn is just moronic. thats the difference between actually having to work with applications for a living under pressure and sitting in a coffee shop or at home f****** around with your new shiny mac toy.
  • Reply 95 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.



    Yes, we all want incomplete software without key features released as soon as possible. You probably approved of the initial mobileme rollout as well. The point made in #46 that Apple is no longer interested in the pro market is fair - I just wish they would come out and say it. In addition to moving our video business over to Adobe I am thinking that we will have to move our audio work from Logic Pro to Pro Tools.
  • Reply 96 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


    I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? FCP became the standard tool in many classrooms - it was powerful, stable, affordable and conceptually similar to Media Composer. And students could run it well on their own hardware.



    FCPX isn't a drop in replacement when you are learning or teaching even moderately advanced techniques or team collaboration.



    Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?



    What do you think?



    Was reading a forum where a school in England had just upgraded their MacPro's and had an order in to their retailer for FCP when it was pulled and they are now left with nothing (they don't seem to think that FCPX will be a replacement for FCP 7). The X marks the spot where Final Cut died.
  • Reply 97 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


    I wonder where all this leaves film and media students? Should the schools and students migrate to Media Composer? Premiere (which is pretty good these days)? Stay on FCP7 until FCPX matures?



    Short answer: I think film and media students should learn AVID if they can.



    If you're a film and TV student who wants to work in editorial, then I strongly recommend learning AVID. Even before this debacle the higher end the project the more likely it was going to be an AVID job. I've met a lot of film students looking to break in that I couldn't recommend for jobs because they only knew FCP. After what happened with FCPX there will be even less FCP jobs out there.



    If you're not looking to work in post-production - say you're an aspiring director looking to make their first independent feature that will get into Sundance and land you a 3 picture deal - it's a little more complicated. Right now, FCPX is not suitable for making even indie features. I think it could be two years before it's ready for something like that - if ever. But you don't care about two years from now. You care about that indie feature you want to shoot, right? Right now, FCP7 is still probably the most affordable way to edit an indie feature. But it will be obsolete fast. Plus you're going to be learning a program that I predict will never make it's way back into the feature film and TV market in a big way.
  • Reply 98 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    Yes, we all want incomplete software without key features released as soon as possible. You probably approved of the initial mobileme rollout as well. The point made in #46 that Apple is no longer interested in the pro market is fair - I just wish they would come out and say it. In addition to moving our video business over to Adobe I am thinking that we will have to move our audio work from Logic Pro to Pro Tools.



    Apple's consumer business generates profits on a scale that's orders of magnitudes greater than the Pro industry. It's not that they don't care about the Professionals it's just that you aren't that lucrative.
  • Reply 99 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Apple's consumer business generates profits on a scale that's orders of magnitudes greater than the Pro industry. It's not that they don't care about the Professionals it's just that you aren't that lucrative.



    That's fine - I don't begrudge them that at all - I just wish they would let us know instead of making us wait 4 years hoping for new features and functionality only to be served up what we got in FCPX.
  • Reply 100 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post


    Right now, FCP7 is still probably the most affordable way to edit an indie feature. But it will be obsolete fast. Plus you're going to be learning a program that I predict will never make it's way back into the feature film and TV market in a big way.



    Problem with FCP7 is that unless they have already purchased it, they won't be able to now. Anyone learning FCP 7 in school will have to relearn the software unless they own a copy already. I think your prediction is spot on and given what they did with Shake, I am surprised that they ever gave FCP a chance.
Sign In or Register to comment.