Yeah but it took what, 3 years, for them to fix it? Apple doesn't live in a vacuum. There have been grumblings for awhile that Apple was neglecting the professional market.
Yes, but mostly by blathering idiots.
The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.
Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).
Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?
OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.
It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.
Given our investment in the Creative Suite, we will not just jump back to Apple because we DO have a choice. And Apple has lost the trust that they had and they are going to have to show a lot more than one or two updates to win that back. Given their track record with Motion, it is a lot harder to innovate than people think - they have been working on Motion for about 4 years now and it is still no where near competing with After Effects or Nuke.
The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.
Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).
Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?
OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.
Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.
Yes, only got like 10 minor updates, got 64 bit et al...
And as we all know music production is constantly updated... EQs, compressors, buses, etc have gone out of style and Logic 9 is obsolete...
Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up. And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program. Even the move to 64 bit, while welcome, was long overdue and did not add to what was in Logic 9.
Apple doesn't need the Pro market. It's a lot of work for little gain.
Final Cut Pro X will succeed because most editors don't need to send files elsewhere. Right now it's the vocal minority making it sound like FCPX is the worst thing (and for their needs it is ).
I'm excited about a new code base for FCPX based on modern frameworks.
Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.
Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).
Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.
Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.
Motion is not intended to compete with After Effects or Nuke.
Motion is for people who don't want to use After Effects or Nuke.
When it came out, there was a general expectation amongst the professional community that Motion was aimed at the After Effects market but you are right, it did not go that way and seems to be a prosumer product where most people just used the templates.
Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up.
Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program.
Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).
Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.
Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.
If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files real time in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can't) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?
Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
I miss intelligent comments from people who have something to say and don't just defend something that they seem to know nothing about. Spend a little time with packages like Reason, Live and ProTools and you will see that they all have feature that could be implemented in Logic. What bugs are there in CS5.5 that will need to wait till CS6? (I'll give you time to search dearadobe.com to find something ...)
Em, we also don't have numbers of users buying the new FCPX.
For all we know it could be a wild success with the prosumer market.
Yes, the prosumer market. We are talking about the pro market here. Which based on your earlier comment about what professionals supposedly do and don't do, you should know.
I believe Apple has not been a fan of supporting every disparate codec Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC come up with to lock you into their camera lines.
The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.
With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can'tt) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
That's great for Adobe. I think some people are not seeing the big picture with the new FCPX. I love it. I've been using FCP since version 4. I am most happy with this newest X version. It finally utilizes all cores and memory in my Mac. Finally, after all these years. It is much easier to use, managing media couldn't be easier, and project management is great too. I find it better in all ways so far, versus older versions. Sure some "pro" features may come back in future updates, but now, and big picture, FCPX wins.
I believe Apple has not been a fan of supporting every disparate codec Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC come up with to lock you into their camera lines.
The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.
With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.
Given its success, P2 is hardly some disparate codec. But try playing h264 HD off a canon camera in FCP7 vs PPro5.5 and has to be transcoded to ProRes using a utility like Grinder, to play properly on FCP. In PP you copy it over and edit without having to transcode (which can bring in generational loss) is a huge time saver. ProRes does well for editing and archiving but it is not an acquisition codec and no current cameras that I know of use it (though I could be wrong on this) for this purpose.
It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.
I agree 100%. Look back on the history of Apple. We have seen this story many times before .... remember the laughter when iPod was introduced, or Macbook Air (with no optical drive) or the transition from Appleworks to iWorks, iMovie HD to the current iMovie, iPhone, iPad. This is what happens when a company like Apple sees where the industry is going rather than only seeing where the industry is. I was one of the most vocal critics of Apple in the past over some of the things they did .... but their record of being smarter than me, in knowing what was "best for me" .... even before I knew it, has made me have a lot more patience with new Apple decisions .... while I wait for my thinking process to "catch up with Apple".
Comments
Yeah but it took what, 3 years, for them to fix it? Apple doesn't live in a vacuum. There have been grumblings for awhile that Apple was neglecting the professional market.
Yes, but mostly by blathering idiots.
The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.
Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).
Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?
OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.
It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.
Given our investment in the Creative Suite, we will not just jump back to Apple because we DO have a choice. And Apple has lost the trust that they had and they are going to have to show a lot more than one or two updates to win that back. Given their track record with Motion, it is a lot harder to innovate than people think - they have been working on Motion for about 4 years now and it is still no where near competing with After Effects or Nuke.
I am starting to look around for an alternative to Logic Pro as that has not received a significant update in years.
Yes, only got like 10 minor updates, got 64 bit et al...
And as we all know music production is constantly updated... EQs, compressors, buses, etc have gone out of style and Logic 9 is obsolete...
Yes, but mostly by blathering idiots.
The same time those complaints of neglect were made, Apple was spending tons of money and devoting resources to build a NEW CODEBASE for video editing for the next X years.
Adobe simply let old bugs live, added some crap new features and a few cool ones to a decade old codebase, and called it a "new product". (Hell, they even bloated their pro software with idiotic stuff like ...Flash support (as if that is the only way to provide customized UI panels)).
Now, who is doing MORE for the pro users? The one rethinking the field and creating a new codebase, or the "extort some money for the latest bi-annual update" one?
OS X first version was the same as FCP X: incomplete, and with missing OS 9 features. And yet it provided the basis for it to be the BEST O.S out there in a few years and even now.
Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.
Yes, only got like 10 minor updates, got 64 bit et al...
And as we all know music production is constantly updated... EQs, compressors, buses, etc have gone out of style and Logic 9 is obsolete...
Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up. And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program. Even the move to 64 bit, while welcome, was long overdue and did not add to what was in Logic 9.
Final Cut Pro X will succeed because most editors don't need to send files elsewhere. Right now it's the vocal minority making it sound like FCPX is the worst thing (and for their needs it is ).
I'm excited about a new code base for FCPX based on modern frameworks.
- they have been working on Motion for about 4 years now and it is still no where near competing with After Effects or Nuke.
Motion is not intended to compete with After Effects or Nuke.
Motion is for people who don't want to use After Effects or Nuke.
Given our investment in the Creative Suite, we will not just jump back to Apple because we DO have a choice.
Good luck with that.
Yes, the crap new features like being able to play footage in native format for years before X ever arrived, the ability to move files back and forth between AE and PPro without having to spend $500 on a 3rd party plugin, multi camera editing, opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5. These kinds of crap new features just suck.
Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).
Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.
Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.
Adobe probably had 5% of the Mac market for video editing. So basically they increased to 7.5%.
45% sound big but rather it sounds like Adobe is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Come on Adobe. Tells us how many copies you sold? Marketshare? Something meaningful?
On top of that. Adobe's awesomeness is not responsible for this growth. They needed Apple to screw up.
Motion is not intended to compete with After Effects or Nuke.
Motion is for people who don't want to use After Effects or Nuke.
When it came out, there was a general expectation amongst the professional community that Motion was aimed at the After Effects market but you are right, it did not go that way and seems to be a prosumer product where most people just used the templates.
Sure you said the same thing about Snow Leopard right and will never update to another OS. It is not that compressors, busses etc go out of style, but that as people innovate you need the software to be updated to keep with the innovation. There are ways to do things faster, easier, more realistically (like the Amp sims) and Logic is just not keeping up.
Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?
And many of the minor updates you mentioned were to fix bugs and not update the core functionality of the program.
Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
On top of that. Adobe's awesomeness is not responsible for this growth. They needed Apple to screw up.
Em, we also don't have numbers of users buying the new FCPX.
For all we know it could be a wild success with the prosumer market.
Native format editing? That's very nice, but hardly new. I'm talking about the new features from 4 to 5/5.5. 99% of the time, Adobe adds some minor crap to the same old codebase. Especially in their other fields with less competition (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc...).
Also, you consider "opening files from CS4 and CS5 in CS5.5" a feature? Yeah, great one, that. Only, FCP always had it too. And multi-camera editing.
Now, the only reason FCP X doesn't open FCP files is because it's a completely new codebase. Otherwise, that is hardly a feature. And multi-camera editing is coming, Apple says. Meanwhile you can use the previous version.
If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files real time in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can't) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?
Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
I miss intelligent comments from people who have something to say and don't just defend something that they seem to know nothing about. Spend a little time with packages like Reason, Live and ProTools and you will see that they all have feature that could be implemented in Logic. What bugs are there in CS5.5 that will need to wait till CS6? (I'll give you time to search dearadobe.com to find something ...)
Em, we also don't have numbers of users buying the new FCPX.
For all we know it could be a wild success with the prosumer market.
Yes, the prosumer market. We are talking about the pro market here. Which based on your earlier comment about what professionals supposedly do and don't do, you should know.
The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.
With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.
If you are using FCP 7 it is new - try playing native p2 files in FCP 7 without a plugin (if you are a pro user you would know that you can'tt) And yes, opening previous project files is a feature considering that you can't do it in FCPX.
I believe Apple has not been a fan of supporting every disparate codec Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC come up with to lock you into their camera lines.
The real kicker is if the camera line of some random codec isn't successful then the camera manufacturer may abandon the camera and the codec. The NLE is left forever supporting that codec because some number of people who've invested in the equipment will continue to use the codec.
With FCP X Apple is clearly cutting through all of that crap and funneling all of those codec into Pro Res.
Given its success, P2 is hardly some disparate codec. But try playing h264 HD off a canon camera in FCP7 vs PPro5.5 and has to be transcoded to ProRes using a utility like Grinder, to play properly on FCP. In PP you copy it over and edit without having to transcode (which can bring in generational loss) is a huge time saver. ProRes does well for editing and archiving but it is not an acquisition codec and no current cameras that I know of use it (though I could be wrong on this) for this purpose.
It's not that FCPX will be a failure; it won't. It's just that Apple handled the transition horribly, which has severely damaged the trust they had engendered in the industry. When FCPX can do what most pros need in terms of multi cam, XML, etc., they will be back, not because of love for Apple, but because competitors using FCPX will be so much more productive, they will have no choice.
I agree 100%. Look back on the history of Apple. We have seen this story many times before .... remember the laughter when iPod was introduced, or Macbook Air (with no optical drive) or the transition from Appleworks to iWorks, iMovie HD to the current iMovie, iPhone, iPad. This is what happens when a company like Apple sees where the industry is going rather than only seeing where the industry is. I was one of the most vocal critics of Apple in the past over some of the things they did .... but their record of being smarter than me, in knowing what was "best for me" .... even before I knew it, has made me have a lot more patience with new Apple decisions .... while I wait for my thinking process to "catch up with Apple".
Really? Care to mention any examples for those innovative "new ways" from Pro Tools, Cubase or Sonar? What exactly do you miss?
Now, if only Adobe took the same care to fix bugs in subsequent versions instead of selling the next CS package, eh?
Seems Apple thinks they have something to offer with regards to Logic as an update to X is in the works: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...gic_pro_x.html