Rumor: Apple axed 'evolutionary' 64-bit Final Cut Pro 8 for 'revolutionary' FCPX

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 148
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    After reading a lot of the complaints about Apple not catering to the "pros" anymore, I'd like to just make a few observations, if I might.



    When the Mac Pro was introduced a lot of people, myself included, were very impressed with a computer that finally "got it". It could be upgraded with ease because of it's great design. Hard drives, memory, all sorts of internal bits and pieces ... no problem. There is absolutely no reason that the Mac Pro one bought years ago had to remain the same (waiting for Apple to "re-design it) and about the only thing I think it lacks, even now, is thunderbolt capability, which did not exist then and I think we'll see it on new Mac Pros next year, so the never ending complaints about lack of upgrades to Mac Pro are completely unnecessary and unwarranted, imho.



    As far as FCPX is concerned, it was noted, at the time, to have been designed with digital media in mind and most of the complaints were coming from people who still had a need to work with tape. I can understand that ...... with change comes uncertainty and a degree of discomfort .... but the fact is that the future is digital and to ignore that fact is to invite "obsolescence through ignorance" .... and that has never been a part of Apple's DNA, nor should it be.



    The main difference between Apple and PC (Windows) has usually been that PC tries to drag the past along with it, while Apple has been more than ready to give up some of the past in order to redefine the future.



    Finally, as important as the "pro market" may be ... the fact is there are a whole lot more of "us" than there are of "them". I think Apple can serve both markets .... but there should be no doubt as to who drives sales .... and with it the profit to develop machines capable to service both markets. It's the same reason that there are more "people cars" sold than "race cars".



    Apple has long ago stopped being a niche company .... and I'm glad it has.
  • Reply 42 of 148
    modemode Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post


    From a business perspective, I respect Apple's direction on FCP X: Court hundreds of thousands of amateur/enthusiasts with something more powerful than iMovie that serves 98% of their workflow needs, or satisfy 72 industry professionals with such granular workflows that anything short of Final Cut Pro God Edition would not be enough?



    Final Cut Express.



    I don't think it was so much 'that' Apple changed FCP - but how they went about it.

    Dropping support overnight with no warning and changing direction completely, doesn't usually sit well with enterprise. Enterprise sets the standards and smaller studios follow suit to be compatible.

    Was a bit 'too bold' and a PR nightmare.
  • Reply 43 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Not to forget, you can legally run a single copy of FCP X, Motion 5, Compressor concurrently on 5 Macs.



    That's $400 for 5 seats -- Other NLE suites above are per 1 seat, e.g.



    FCP 7 costs $1,000 per == $5,000 for 5 seats!



    It's actually better or worse than that, depending on who you are. Commercial use is allowed, but the license is tied to the user, not to the hardware. So if you're an individual, you can have it installed on as many Macs as you own and control (no real limit, as far as I'm aware of). If you're a production house, each license is tied to a seat, so five editors would require five licenses each at $400 for the suite. But again, that's tied to the number of editors and not the hardware, so you can have a studio with 20+ Macs and only need to pay for the amount of editors you have.



    Still not a bad deal when you do the math.
  • Reply 44 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    I hate that word.



    You know, I helped cut an independent film a few years ago on Final Cut Pro 6 at the time, and lately I have been saying to myself recently, "Wow, if we had this back then, things would have been so much easier." We spent literally hours color correcting some scenes, and I know that many (not all) could have been fixed in a few minutes with FCPX's automatic color correction. Also, having features like compound clips would have helped prevent the occasional loss of sync from certain video and audio elements as we made changes earlier in the timeline.



    So here's my question - are we less professional if we would have preferred using FCPX over the older systems at the time? Are we not "professionals" if we're not backed by a multi-million dollar studio? I hate this idea that FCPX is only used by "prosumers" simply because it's missing some features. I'd say a lot of us video editors consider ourselves professionals. If FCPX's current feature set works well within your workflow, why not use it? The tool doesn't make the man. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, there's alternatives.



    But seriously, FCPX is not just for "prosumers."



    I am not going to debate the meaning of a word coined by Alvin Toffler, I simply use it as he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer . I neither hate it not like it, it is just a useful term to describe a certain category of users.



    Secondly I didn't say FCProX could not be used by professionals I said it was aimed squarely at those that fit the prosumer profile. Where as 7 was aimed at the full time professionals and also used by prosumers and many hobbyists.



    I use both and I have made my living in the field since non-linear became feasible. I love both but feel 8 finished, would better serve the full time production houses than X. Which by the way isn't me, indeed X probably suits my needs better but I love 7 and would no doubt buy 8 too if it were to become available.



    Dick Applebaum's comments on cost above are well taken. 8 if released should be less expensive for group seats.
  • Reply 45 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    So Apple please go back and finish it! There is room for FCPro 8 and Final Cut X. Just drop iMovie for X and you're all set.



    Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.



    Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.



    Apple, and you, the Apple user have to decide:



    -- stay in the present

    -- focus on the past

    -- focus on the future.



    I believe that Apple made the right decision with FCP X...



    However, they really screwed up by EOLing FCP 7 the way they did...
  • Reply 46 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Filmantopia View Post


    Everyone keeps saying that Apple has made a shift from prosumer to consumer with this software... but I'm not convinced. I think that Apple has simply made an intelligent wager on this paradigm shift with FCPX which has, for the time being, reduced its feature set. However, over time when they regain these features they'll be 5 legs up on other pro editor apps, already prepared to interface with future hardware changes in the industry (such as touch screens).



    And guess who controls the future of hardware in the industry.



    Agree with what you say, but I think you meant "shift from pro to prosumer".
  • Reply 47 of 148
    (AI reported) Apple was scaling Final Cut Studio applications with a significant makeover that would better target Apple's mainstream "prosumer" customer base, rather than high-end professionals.

    This was AI's take. Apple has stated no such intent.

    (just to be clear)
  • Reply 48 of 148
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    ^ True, but Ikea doesn't make good sofas



    I have started getting myself prepared to lose the Mac Pro.



    I have already studied up on the best hardware to make a Hackintosh. And I will also stay on Snow Leopard as long as possible. And when that becomes too difficult I will have to go to Windows I guess. Damn shame, but the writing is on the wall.
  • Reply 49 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.



    Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.



    Apple, and you, the Apple user have to decide:



    -- stay in the present

    -- focus on the past

    -- focus on the future.



    I believe that Apple made the right decision with FCP X...



    However, they really screwed up by EOLing FCP 7 the way they did...



    I wrote that hoping they were reasonably far along with 8 at the time they dropped it for X. Perhaps X could be split into two versions; a more production environment oriented version and the current style. That might solve all the issues.
  • Reply 50 of 148
    You need to change your tagline. Speech, not Speach.
  • Reply 51 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Filmantopia View Post


    Everyone keeps saying that Apple has made a shift from prosumer to consumer with this software...



    Nope. They did it way before this
  • Reply 52 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.



    Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.



    Apple, and you, the Apple user have to decide:



    -- stay in the present

    -- focus on the past

    -- focus on the future.



    I believe that Apple made the right decision with FCP X...



    However, they really screwed up by EOLing FCP 7 the way they did...



    SPEECH...not Speach
  • Reply 53 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Excuse me but Apple is embracing the prosumer market! It may or may not be letting down the folks in the professional market (I will have to wait another year or so to answer that one) but certainly not the prosumers. FinalCut X, as an example, is totally a prosumer product.



    How did the early versions of FCP, say, FCP 1.0 through FCP 3.0 compare in usability to FCP X?



    AFAICT, there are some pros who are using FCP X for a large portion of their work.



    What will today's "pro" do when he finds that the 21st century editor, using FCP X, can deliver as good an editing product, faster and at 1/2 the price.



    ...Isn't that what the $25,000 Avid "pros" were faced with when FCP started to gain acceptance?
  • Reply 54 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    What's courageous about taking the easy path?



    The easy path would have been making a 64 bit FCP7
  • Reply 55 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Nonsense. The MBP update schedule is largely limited by the availability of faster Xeon processors at a reasonable (!) price point and in sufficient quantity for Apple to use. There ARE faster Xeon processors out there, but not much faster, and very hard to get and expensive.



    When Intel has a significant improvement in CPU availability, Apple will undoubtedly update the Pro.



    Steve had a Mac Pro at home. Even though that alone won't sustain a market, he at least seems to value that particular product.
  • Reply 56 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    How did the early versions of FCP, say, FCP 1.0 through FCP 3.0 compare in usability to FCP X?



    AFAICT, there are some pros who are using FCP X for a large portion of their work.



    What will today's "pro" do when he finds that the 21st century editor, using FCP X, can deliver as good an editing product, faster and at 1/2 the price.



    ...Isn't that what the $25,000 Avid "pros" were faced with when FCP started to gain acceptance?



    It is a discussion that's been had over and over in AI.



    Many multi-seat production houses were created to work around FCPro as it was and had input much into the development to suit there needs. Half of all US production was on FCPro (I have no idea what the current numbers are). As you said the EOL was dropped on these companies like a brick and they simply could not change even if X was better, it didn't fit in the work flow as was.



    As I just said above maybe the parts lacking in X for these production houses could be added and a 'Studio Pro X' could be created out of X. Believe me, I am not a luddite, I have bled all the way on Macs from 1984 with arrows in my back and front keeping up with digital technology.
  • Reply 57 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stope View Post


    SPEECH...not Speach







    FIFM!
  • Reply 58 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Watch out. ConradJoe will add you to his Enemies List

    Don't take yourself so seriously. You declare your intention to go back to Windows like the world should take notice? Should I announce my intention to switch brands of motor oil? You know, because its really important for the Internet to know my personal choices! (Yeah right). Apple perhaps made the wrong call, but I thought serious (read: Pro) editors cut on Avid anyway. Oh sure, there were Hollywood editors using FCP, and they've denounced FCPX. But you're not one of them, are you? You're not complaining about Apple borking your editing toolchain. You're complaining about OS X "premiums" and how it cramps your lifestyle choice. If that's the case, then I would say you never valued OS X to begin with. I pay whatever extra it costs to have a Microsoft-free computing experience



    I only announce it for the benefit of Apple product managers. When they are querying Google for "switching back to Windows" they'll see +1 comments about that and understand why. :-) BTW you obviously have an axe to grind with MSFT, I on the other hand pick the tools that work best for me. Some people hate Apple because of Chinese labor conditions. Some people hate MSFT because they are considered an evil capitalist corporation that buys up competitors in monopolistic fashion. Pick the lesser of two evils if you wish, but for me, it's what works best for what I do.
  • Reply 59 of 148
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Ok Zoolander, but how do you expect people to use the software if they can't even see what's on the screen?



    You expect a reply with an opener like that. Into my Ignore List you go!



    I used to own a room full of Barco calibrated monitors, now I'm OK with Apple's monitors. I find the screens just fine. Ever thought of a better designed room or seeing an eye doctor?
  • Reply 60 of 148
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I wrote that hoping they were reasonably far along with 8 at the time they dropped it for X. Perhaps X could be split into two versions; a more production environment oriented version and the current style. That might solve all the issues.



    It's never going to happen. FCP8 will *never* exist, not as developed by Apple anyway. FCPX is the future of this product, love it or hate it, and it will be built upon with new features and capabilities going forward.



    A 64-bit version of Final Cut would require it to be rewritten in Cocoa, as Carbon will never be ported to 64-bit and may have support dropped in OS X all together at some point. No matter how you look at it, Final Cut would need a fresh start, which meant that features from the old program would still not carry over into the new one at launch. Apple decided to take this opportunity to not only rewrite the application, but rethink the entire approach to video editing and solve some of the problems that exist in other NLE systems that are simply inherent to its design and not really something that can be "fixed."



    I'll bet anything that both Adobe and Avid will eventually integrate some of FCPX's concepts into their own suites - things like metadata tags, smart collections, background rendering and skimming to name a few. They won't present a radical shift in paradigm like Apple did, but then again, they really can't either. Apple will be fine if it lost 100% of its professional market, but Adobe and Avid would be killed if they screwed them over. Honestly, Apple's the only company that could have possibly made a huge gamble like this and hope it pays off in the future for both themselves and their users.
Sign In or Register to comment.