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

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    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.



    I agree with that!



    But, there are certainly values to satisfying the pros -- feedback, for one.





    Another is setting a standard with pro solutions -- then, being able to offer a solution to consumers that is easy, inexpensive while "just like the pros"'
  • Reply 102 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I agree with that!



    But, there are certainly values to satisfying the pros -- feedback, for one.





    Another is setting a standard with pro solutions -- then, being able to offer a solution to consumers that is easy, inexpensive while "just like the pros"'



    True. And Pro's are generally more loyal (they have a lot of money tied up in their decision) and consumers are fickle. 5 years ago hardly anyone had a Mac. Now you can't move around Starbucks without falling over one. Five years from now? Who knows.
  • Reply 103 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    Yes... agreed: no small feat.



    HOWEVER... that is ALL they are expected to do, and that is write good software. Now...



    - hows Flash going for them?

    - why kill a better program, and try to bolt on stuff over 6 years with a program like Illustrator vs. FreeHand, and still failing to match today what FH had 10 years ago?

    - At what point will "bolting on" stuff just not work efficiently any more, and a rewrite will be in order?

    - Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.



    1. Adobe is making HTML 5 tools for developers to use.

    2. Illustrator does need work.

    3. PS CS5 is a great piece of software - we have found it to be fast and stable. As for the claim that it could be 10x faster, how do you know that?
  • Reply 104 of 202
    huntsonhuntson Posts: 90member
    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).



    +1000
  • Reply 105 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure

    in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out

    via API as covered in their FAQ.



    What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd

    party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.



    Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?



    So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.



    Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up

    more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.
  • Reply 106 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    Apple has stated that they can't (or won't) build the capability to import FCP7 into FCPX





    At this point in time there is no published capability for anyone (but Apple) to programmatically create an FCPX Project or FCPX Events.



    Hopefully Apple will publish the means to do the above.





    With that in mind, someone could create a useful (if not perfect) conversion tool!





    What does such a tool need to do to be useful?





    Here's what I have for starters -- please add/rate items to the list based on your expertise and needs.





    The soul of a new FCP7/FCPX conversion tool



    Objectives of the tool:

    ? Allow easy experimentation/evaluation of FCPX with familiar, and readily available FCP7 content

    ? Identify areas where FCPX could be used "as is"

    ? Identify missing features/capabilities needed in FCPX

    ? Monitor the utility of FCPX over time -- as enhancements become availability

    ? Have the ability to access legacy FCP7 content in FCPX

    ? Gain assurance that by using FCPX you will not be abandoning FCP7 content





    Minimum requirements:

    ? import (or point to) media clips

    ? preserve clip in and out points

    ? preserve clip metadata

    ? import a single sequence at a time

    ? roughly approximate the track layout as a storyline

    ? export/import XML down to the individual clip level

    ? log anything (such as missing effects) not handled by the import



    Nice to have

    ? recognize layered .psd images

    ? multicamera support

    ? bezier shapes, masks and controls
  • Reply 107 of 202
    bongobongo Posts: 158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure

    in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out

    via API as covered in their FAQ.



    What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd

    party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.



    Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?



    So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.



    Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up

    more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.





    Would'a,Should'a,Could'a-but never did
  • Reply 108 of 202
    stanley99stanley99 Posts: 17member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out via API as covered in their FAQ.



    What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.



    So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.



    You're probably right about Apple deciding to leave these features to 3rd party tools. But that's going to be a non-starter for most of the film and TV editors that I know and work with.



    Truthfully. A lot of features on FCP didn't work that great to begin with. And these are features that were built into the program. To be fair, AVID can be just as bad. Now you tell me that I'm going to need a 3rd party plugin or program to make an EDL, OMF, or export to tape? The chances of problems arising go up 10 fold. And on a tight schedule I don't need those kinds of headaches.



    Look. I think Apple made a very smart move in marketing FCPX towards a consumer audience. I think it will make alot of money for them. But let's talk honestly: FCPX is not a pro application anymore - for better or worse it's now a consumer product.
  • Reply 109 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    It appears the strategy that may be employed with FCPX is to develop an infrastructure

    in FCPX and abdicate control of things like XML, EDL OMF/AAF, Deck Control, laying to tape, Broadcast out

    via API as covered in their FAQ.



    What this means isn't that FCPX isn't Professional because it lacks those features but rather an admission that 3rd

    party tools may prove to be more robust and extensible in the long run than something that would be built in.



    Who would you expect to create updates and new features faster in FCP AJA/BlackMagic or Apple?



    So with FCPX is isn't about Prosumer or Pro it's going to be about the configuration of the program.



    Prosumers will largely be satisified with native tools in FCPX whilst the Professionals will "start" at $299 but end up

    more around standard NLE pricing >$1000 once they've added in the suite of add ons that they need.



    +++ I hope so!



    Apparently, Apple is developing a more robust XML called AXEL to interface FCPX to third-party tools:



    A Brazilian web site has detected import capabilities within FCPX:



    Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2]
  • Reply 110 of 202
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,520member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bongo View Post


    Would'a,Should'a,Could'a-but never did



    All the Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas

    Layin' in the sun,

    Talkin' 'bout the things

    They woulda coulda shoulda done...

    But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas

    All ran away and hid

    From one little Did.

    -Shel Silverstein-
  • Reply 111 of 202
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DylanReeve View Post


    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.



    Keep in mind that FCP7 was part of a $1000 suite. I think it used to be $1200 the version before. It wasn't until FCPX that they put a $300 price tag on it. They chose to lower the price. They could have kept the price and put in the features needed to justify the previous price.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fearless View Post


    You're dead right - no prosumers involved. It's a consumer app.



    I don't agree with that at all. Few consumers are going to pay $300 for an edit program these days. I'd call this at the very least an enthusiast/prosumer app as it is.



    Besides, what consumer has a 4k camera? FCPX can edit 4k footage, something the old software just couldn't I think it's just a matter of Apple not managing expectations. In my opinion, the FAQ they posted several days after launch should have been posted a week before launch so it was clear to prospective buyers what is going on. And because it would take a while for auxiliary programs to take on what Apple has decided to let third parties handle, they should have had a transition plan available where the old suite was available. They at least did that much when OS X was at 10.0 and they introduced their Intel Macs, there was at least a year of transition to make it go as smoothly as possible.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    - Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.



    It sounds like Pixelmator could be a fighting replacement for a lot of Photoshop uses. It uses the Core frameworks and it isn't held back by being multi-platform. It's clearly not a replacement for everyone, but I think people would be remiss to not at least look at it.
  • Reply 112 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    True. And Pro's are generally more loyal (they have a lot of money tied up in their decision) and consumers are fickle. 5 years ago hardly anyone had a Mac. Now you can't move around Starbucks without falling over one. Five years from now? Who knows.



    Actually this is exactly what Apple's business was back in 1995, and it nearly killed them. Pro's as it turns out are fickle, and the loss of a 3rd party tool can suddenly result in your customer base jumping en masse to another platform. All their investment will be dumped in a New York minute if they start to see another platform as the place of the future.



    Consumers have been shown empirically to be a more stable base, and a strategically more valuable one than enterprise because as I mentioned in a previous post, consumer scale trumps enterprise specialism in the end.
  • Reply 113 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Actually this is exactly what Apple's business was back in 1995, and it nearly killed them. Pro's as it turns out are fickle, and the loss of a 3rd party tool can suddenly result in your customer base jumping en masse to another platform. All their investment will be dumped in a New York minute if they start to see another platform as the place of the future.



    Consumers have been shown empirically to be a more stable base, and a strategically more valuable one than enterprise because as I mentioned in a previous post, consumer scale trumps enterprise specialism in the end.



    While I disagree in part, you make some interesting observations that broaden my perspective. Thanks.
  • Reply 114 of 202
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It sounds like Pixelmator could be a fighting replacement for a lot of Photoshop uses. It uses the Core frameworks and it isn't held back by being multi-platform.



    If you had to choose to use either for real serious work, say producing an ad campaign for a large company that will involve print, TV and web then Pixelmator is just not up to the task. At the same time, I meet people who complain about Photoshop but all they need is the red eye correction tool in iPhoto!
  • Reply 115 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    The goal with any device or application is scalability if you want to reach the widest audience.



    For instance RED designed their cameras to be modular (to an extent) so that they didn't have to create too many cameras. You build your camera up to watch you want.



    FCPX is the software version of this. Architected to cover everything from the Prosumer to the Professional (via plugins)



    It makes more sense than trying to build the whole widget yourself.



    Apple July 6th meeting with Editors



    http://finalcut.maccreate.com/2011/0...medium=twitter



    Quote:

    1. FCP XML in/out is coming via 3rd party soon…no FCP 6/7 support project support coming ever it seems…

    2. Ability to buy FCP7 licenses for enterprise deployments coming in the next few weeks…

    3. FCPX EDL import/export coming soon…

    4. FCPX AJA plugins coming soon for tape capture and layback…capture straight into FCPX [events].

    5. XSAN support for FCPX coming in the next few weeks…

    6. FCPX Broadcast video output via #Blackmagic & @AJAVideo coming soon…

    7. Additional codec support for FCPX via 3rd Parties coming soon…

    8. Customizable sequence TC in FCPX for master exports coming soon…

    9. Some FCPX updates will be free some will cost..



  • Reply 116 of 202
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    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.



    First, you need to see past your own home computer in your living room. Editors and companies often have to collaborate with others companies, who in turn send their work to other companies and so forth, all with certain sets of requirements. So their software has to be compatible throughout the entire workflow.



    Second, many of these editors and companies have Macs specifically to run Final Cut Pro which is only available for Macs. If they switch to Premiere or Avid, they might consider switching to PCs since those programs are also available for Windows.



    Third, if they do switch to Premier or Avid for Windows, I guess they can quote your argument about flexibility and "basic computer competency" to the people who complain about losing their Macs.
  • Reply 117 of 202
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


    While I disagree in part, you make some interesting observations that broaden my perspective. Thanks.



    Thanks to you too. I do grok how you folks feel, having been increasingly forced onto tools and platforms that I despise, but I've been the guy asked to port a million lines of geriatric source that has already crossed platforms twice and didn't bring it's structure along for the ride - so I respect the developers' decision.



    Hopefully in a few years you folks will look back on the dark days of FCP-X and laugh about it, because the problems will have vanished one by one leaving solid product in their place. One thing which I think cannot be disputed is that Apple's corporate communications kinda screwed the pooch here.
  • Reply 118 of 202
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    First, you need to see past your own home computer in your living room. Editors and companies often have to collaborate with others companies, who in turn send their work to other companies and so forth, all with certain sets of requirements. So their software has to be compatible throughout the entire workflow.



    Second, many of these editors and companies have Macs specifically to run Final Cut Pro which is only available for Macs. If they switch to Premiere or Avid, they might consider switching to PCs since those programs are also available for Windows.



    Third, if they do switch to Premier or Avid for Windows, I guess they can quote your argument about flexibility and "basic computer competency" to the people who complain about losing their Macs.



    http://www.automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/



    OMF/AAF already supported via a 3rd party.
  • Reply 119 of 202
    stanley99stanley99 Posts: 17member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    The goal with any device or application is scalability if you want to reach the widest audience.



    For instance RED designed their cameras to be modular (to an extent) so that they didn't have to create too many cameras. You build your camera up to watch you want.



    FCPX is the software version of this. Architected to cover everything from the Prosumer to the Professional (via plugins)



    I'm sorry, but I don't agree. FCPX is no longer a viable alternative for feature film and TV editors and in my opinion may never be again. Apple knows this and clearly doesn't mind.



    FCPX may do well in the lower end professional market for certain types of promo editing, industrial editing, web content editing... So in that respect, I will concede that it maybe a "professional" edit system. But Apple has clearly made conscious decision NOT to add many extremely useful features that film and TV editors have been asking about for years. Instead they took out many crucial features. So now film and TV editors are going to have to wait for a few years until there are enough 3rd party plugins to make the program as functional as it was back in 2009 with FCP7. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure no one is going to address all the other functions that film and TV editors have been asking for since then. Furthermore, many of these missing features cannot be solved by plugins. One of the bigger complaints about FCP7 was that it's not nearly as good as AVID for multiple editors. This is a big issue for large movies and TV shows that have dozens of editors and assistants sharing projects and files. A plugin alone won't solve this problem.



    Most TV and film editors are not going to wait for FCPX to get functionality that may never arrive. Apple knows this. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad move on Apple's part. But it's clearly a conscious decision.
  • Reply 120 of 202
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post


    You're probably right about Apple deciding to leave these features to 3rd party tools. But that's going to be a non-starter for most of the film and TV editors that I know and work with.



    Truthfully. A lot of features on FCP didn't work that great to begin with. And these are features that were built into the program.



    Like the 1 frame early/late when laying off to tape? That one dogged us for a long time and still hasn't gone away.
Sign In or Register to comment.