Reality TV heavyweight drops Final Cut Pro for rival Avid
The pioneering TV studio that effectively invented the reality TV genre with MTV's "The Real World" series has switched from Apple's beleaguered Final Cut Pro video editing software, instead choosing a workflow produced by rival Avid.
In a press release on Wednesday, Avid announced that reality TV giant and former Final Cut Pro user Burnim/Murray Productions is now operating the company's professional editing suite, saying that Apple's software is unable to handle the increasingly rigorous demands of professional video production.
?Due to the large volume of media generated by our reality shows, we needed to re-evaluate our editing and storage solutions. At the same time, we were looking for a partner who would understand our long-term needs,? said Mark Raudonis, senior vice president of Post Production at Bunim/Murray.
The Emmy Award-winning production company behind "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Project Runway" will use Avid Media Composer 6 and Avid Symphony 6 editing software, and plans to employ an Avid ISIS 5000 server to store and share data across its multiple workstations.
Burnim/Murray won't need to swap out its existing computers as the Avid software operates in both Windows 7 and Mac OS X environments.
?With the Avid Open I/O, we won?t need to change out any of the hardware from our existing editing stations. Instead it?s just a software install," Raudonis said. "In addition, we?ve always used Pro Tools, so we?re looking forward to saving time and gaining added efficiencies through Media Composer and Pro Tools interoperability,?
Avid Symphony sample system | Source: Avid
The latest news reflects an overall migration away from Final Cut Pro for the professional video community as many editors find that the newest Final Cut Pro X iteration simply can't compete with the tools other non-linear editing (NLE) workflows offer.
When Apple killed Final Cut Server after axing the Xserve and Xserve RAID range of storage products, the future prospects of the editing suite as a professional-level solution were essentially extinguished.
Apple released the completely re-built Final Cut Pro X in June 2011, and was met with controversy as professional filmmakers voiced their discontent with the significant changes made to the software. The outcry was such that an update was quickly rolled out in September to add highly requested features like Xsan and Rich XML support.
The updates were subsequently followed by refunds for dissatisfied customers, while others were given the option to buy the previous generation Final Cut Studio bundle for $999.
The loss of professional business may be expected, however, as AppleInsider reported in 2010 that Apple was rebuilding its video editing software to be more attractive for prosumers. Evidence that a new demographic was being targeted was Final Cut Pro X's $299 price tag, which was a fraction of what previous generations of the software cost.
As a prosumer product, Final Cut Pro X delivers an affordable package that includes some pro-level features like the ability to handle 4K resolutions. By taking familiar attributes from iMovie and interfacing them with 64-bit operations and a cohesive rendering pipeline, the product is more than enough for the conventional consumer.
The software is no doubt cost-effective when compared to "professional level" NLE setups that can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and makes for a compelling option for independent filmmakers when combined with the relatively inexpensive camera kits from RED Digital Cinema.
In a press release on Wednesday, Avid announced that reality TV giant and former Final Cut Pro user Burnim/Murray Productions is now operating the company's professional editing suite, saying that Apple's software is unable to handle the increasingly rigorous demands of professional video production.
?Due to the large volume of media generated by our reality shows, we needed to re-evaluate our editing and storage solutions. At the same time, we were looking for a partner who would understand our long-term needs,? said Mark Raudonis, senior vice president of Post Production at Bunim/Murray.
The Emmy Award-winning production company behind "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Project Runway" will use Avid Media Composer 6 and Avid Symphony 6 editing software, and plans to employ an Avid ISIS 5000 server to store and share data across its multiple workstations.
Burnim/Murray won't need to swap out its existing computers as the Avid software operates in both Windows 7 and Mac OS X environments.
?With the Avid Open I/O, we won?t need to change out any of the hardware from our existing editing stations. Instead it?s just a software install," Raudonis said. "In addition, we?ve always used Pro Tools, so we?re looking forward to saving time and gaining added efficiencies through Media Composer and Pro Tools interoperability,?
Avid Symphony sample system | Source: Avid
The latest news reflects an overall migration away from Final Cut Pro for the professional video community as many editors find that the newest Final Cut Pro X iteration simply can't compete with the tools other non-linear editing (NLE) workflows offer.
When Apple killed Final Cut Server after axing the Xserve and Xserve RAID range of storage products, the future prospects of the editing suite as a professional-level solution were essentially extinguished.
Apple released the completely re-built Final Cut Pro X in June 2011, and was met with controversy as professional filmmakers voiced their discontent with the significant changes made to the software. The outcry was such that an update was quickly rolled out in September to add highly requested features like Xsan and Rich XML support.
The updates were subsequently followed by refunds for dissatisfied customers, while others were given the option to buy the previous generation Final Cut Studio bundle for $999.
The loss of professional business may be expected, however, as AppleInsider reported in 2010 that Apple was rebuilding its video editing software to be more attractive for prosumers. Evidence that a new demographic was being targeted was Final Cut Pro X's $299 price tag, which was a fraction of what previous generations of the software cost.
As a prosumer product, Final Cut Pro X delivers an affordable package that includes some pro-level features like the ability to handle 4K resolutions. By taking familiar attributes from iMovie and interfacing them with 64-bit operations and a cohesive rendering pipeline, the product is more than enough for the conventional consumer.
The software is no doubt cost-effective when compared to "professional level" NLE setups that can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and makes for a compelling option for independent filmmakers when combined with the relatively inexpensive camera kits from RED Digital Cinema.
Comments
The pioneering TV studio that effectively invented the reality TV genre with MTV's "The Real World" series has switched from Apple's beleaguered Final Cut Pro video editing software, instead choosing a workflow produced by rival Avid.
Beleaguered
Love it!
Apple traded thousands of new App Store sales of FCPX for each of a few high end pros that had specific and unusual needs and demands.
But I get it, market share in NLE software only matters when considering high end software sales, while market share in hardware only counts when it involves large volumes of unit sales. That's the only way to write slanted reports that sound worrisome.
When the real effects of this sea change are measured, however, it will effectively neutralize a significant chunk of those efficiency and monetary gains. This is already souring the mood towards Apple. Billions of dollars of revenue from hardware sales for production and post houses will no longer be pointed in Apple's direction, preferring higher performace/cost ratios of PC's running Avid and other platform independent NLE's like Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, and others.
This is a slippery slope and apple just pulled their stakes up out of the ground.
If Apple doesn't support the Mac Pro, it too will get dropped by the pros, then the laptop, then the phone, then Apple will be right back where it was in the 90s, except, it won't have the professionals at it's core.
I'm a professional producer and editor. Since I started in this business, Final Cut Pro had been a rising star in the video world, and I've switched numerous production houses over to FCP, which had huge ramifications for those businesses. Myself and many other companues made a lot of money because of FCP over the years.
When the real effects of this sea change are measured, however, it will effectively neutralize a significant chunk of those efficiency and monetary gains. This is already souring the mood towards Apple. Billions of dollars of revenue from hardware sales for production and post houses will no longer be pointed in Apple's direction, preferring higher performace/cost ratios of PC's running Avid and other platform independent NLE's like Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, and others.
This is a slippery slope and apple just pulled their stakes up out of the ground.
Your contributions to Apple's bottom line are far less than a billion dollars. The video editing industry is tiny. Apple likely made more profit in the last qtr selling iPhones that trying to appease studios that product Reality TV dreck.
Avid stock at time of posting $8.62 per share with a market cap of 332 Million.
Apple at time of posting $413 per share with a market cap of $384 billion
I'm not denigrating anyone in the video community but rather just laying it out there. Video editing isn't coming close to paying the bills.
I'm a professional producer and editor. Since I started in this business, Final Cut Pro had been a rising star in the video world, and I've switched numerous production houses over to FCP, which had huge ramifications for those businesses. Myself and many other companues made a lot of money because of FCP over the years.
When the real effects of this sea change are measured, however, it will effectively neutralize a significant chunk of those efficiency and monetary gains. This is already souring the mood towards Apple. Billions of dollars of revenue from hardware sales for production and post houses will no longer be pointed in Apple's direction, preferring higher performace/cost ratios of PC's running Avid and other platform independent NLE's like Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, and others.
This is a slippery slope and apple just pulled their stakes up out of the ground.
This is interesting...
Mark Raudonis is an early defender of FCPX.
And, FCPX has had one update and is scheduled for another in the next month or so.
Supposedly, there are about 10,000 high-end editors in the industry...
But, there are millions of up-and-coming editors-in-training.
As with the original FCP, FCPX has reduced the cost of entry to 10% of what it was before it appeared on the scene...
The end of the story is yet to be written....
"Editing" is the major of component "post production".
http://www.asymco.com/
Creative adaptation of Avid PR, but "troubling trend"?
Apple traded thousands of new App Store sales of FCPX for each of a few high end pros that had specific and unusual needs and demands.
But I get it, market share in NLE software only matters when considering high end software sales, while market share in hardware only counts when it involves large volumes of unit sales. That's the only way to write slanted reports that sound worrisome.
There is a lot more to Apple's business and strategy than what sells well on the Appstore...
Also just because you don't understand a professional industry does not mean they have "unusual needs and demands".
Apple in their usual cocksure way released FCPX with a complete disregard to the people who actually make a living using their product. Luckily there is competition and other options - though that's beside the point, as personally I don't like the idea of investing time and $$$ into a new platform (Avid)... but it just seems inevitable, the damage has been done.
The slippery slope is figuring out how to build a core business that is not dependent on the PC, while at the same not eroding your current PC sales.
I'm a professional producer and editor. Since I started in this business, Final Cut Pro had been a rising star in the video world, and I've switched numerous production houses over to FCP, which had huge ramifications for those businesses. Myself and many other companues made a lot of money because of FCP over the years.
When the real effects of this sea change are measured, however, it will effectively neutralize a significant chunk of those efficiency and monetary gains. This is already souring the mood towards Apple. Billions of dollars of revenue from hardware sales for production and post houses will no longer be pointed in Apple's direction, preferring higher performace/cost ratios of PC's running Avid and other platform independent NLE's like Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, and others.
This is a slippery slope and apple just pulled their stakes up out of the ground.
For a big summer movie. Visual Effects will be the most expensive part of post production.
I find this interesting:
"Editing" is the major of component "post production".
Your contributions to Apple's bottom line are far less than a billion dollars. The video editing industry is tiny. Apple likely made more profit in the last qtr selling iPhones that trying to appease studios that product Reality TV dreck.
Avid stock at time of posting $8.62 per share with a market cap of 332 Million.
Apple at time of posting $413 per share with a market cap of $384 billion
I'm not denigrating anyone in the video community but rather just laying it out there. Video editing isn't coming close to paying the bills.
Apple are raking it in by selling phones, therefore should not bother with the professional industries they have been supporting for decades? Seems to be the obvious business logic, and it's a shame. The Apple Pro ship is sinking, if not already sunk.
It's been a good 2 years since this was updated:
http://www.apple.com/pro/
Says it all really.
Apple traded thousands of new App Store sales of FCPX for each of a few high end pros that had specific and unusual needs and demands.
But why "traded"? Why would there be a need to trade one for the other? Apple is the biggest freakin' computer company in the world and in the running for the biggest company by market cap, period. They can't do both?
This is the future of the mac line if Apple doesn't step up their game for the professionals.
If Apple doesn't support the Mac Pro, it too will get dropped by the pros, then the laptop, then the phone, then Apple will be right back where it was in the 90s, except, it won't have the professionals at it's core.
In addition to price, one of the biggest arguments used by our educational institutions for not purchasing Apple hardware and software is that it's not what the students will be using in the real world after graduation. So this is just one more thing supporting the anti-Apple argument in education.
Yes, Apple can and will continue to make a killing in the purely consumer market; but there are synergies between the markets and it seems unwise to focus on just one market segment.
"Final Cut Pro X iteration simply can't compete with the tools other non-linear editing (NLE) workflows offer. "
What are the tools you are talking about exactly?
"When Apple killed Final Cut Server after axing the Xserve and Xserve RAID range"
I regret very much that Apple axed the Xserve. But you don't seem to understand the market to judge whether or not axing the Xserve Raid was a good thing or not. Cheap storage with RAID systems become so cheap so that Apple did not really need to compete in this market after it pioneered it first. Because anyway systems which are certified by Apple to work with Xsan are available on the market. Any production studio could use the certified third party hardware for their workflow and actually they have been doing just that since Apple stopped producing the Xserve Raid. I don't see the problem here.
Plus, you don't seem to understand what FinalCut pro Server was or was used for. It was used to browser and manage assets of media stored usually on a San. In the case of Final Cut Server, it used to work with Xsan. But all core features of Final Cut Server are now integrated in FinalCut Pro X. So it is not that Final Cut Server is just gone. And actually, it did not really make sense to have a separate software (with a client written in Java....so not to exist long on Mac OS X anyway) to access shared assets, so making everything all integrated is a very good thing. And now you can access directly any Xsan with FinalCut pro X, so essentially doing what FinalCut Server allowed people to do.
Now again, I regret the Xserver, but every workflow can run on Mac Pros with rackable third party metadata controllers if really needed (like ActiveSan).
"The outcry was such that an update was quickly rolled out in September to add highly requested features like Xsan and Rich XML support."
Yeah sure the sort thing purely aimed at pros for an application you claim to be mainly for consumers. And do you really believe that adding those features was not planned even before FinalCut X was shipped? If you do, your are nuts...
"The updates were subsequently followed by refunds for dissatisfied customers"
Yeah the dudes out there who did not take time to learn the software to the point that they did not realize some features they claimed were missing were just accessible somewhere else in the interface. On the other hand, they took plenty of time to rush out on blogs or to the press to bash Apple just because it is Apple.
"The loss of professional business may be expected, however, as AppleInsider reported in 2010 that Apple was rebuilding its video editing software to be more attractive for prosumers. "
Woah... AppleInsider said us everything..... But wait, the problem is that nothing turned out to be correct. Any claim that FinalCut pro was becoming a prosumer tool is just baseless. It is simply not the case but also the software is full of powerful pro features. Again just see the Xsan support.
"new demographic was being targeted was Final Cut Pro X's $299 price tag"
Isn't that the price drop was also associated with the new software being only distributed via the App store. And hell what? Should powerful software be expensive? I don't think so, see Mac OS X.
"As a prosumer product, Final Cut Pro X delivers an affordable package that includes some pro-level features like the ability to handle 4K resolutions. By taking familiar attributes from iMovie and interfacing them with 64-bit operations and a cohesive rendering pipeline, the product is more than enough for the conventional consumer."
You don't know what you are talking about. Should I mention features like the Magnetic Timeline, Clip Connections, Inline Precision Editor, powerful color grading tools, powerful audio editing tools and powerful XML support which make FinalCut Pro X a pro tool not a toy for your grandmother? Saying that FinalCut pro X which requires its users to master complex video edition notions is a consumer or a prosumer tool is just nonsense.
"The software is no doubt cost-effective when compared to "professional level" NLE setups that can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and makes for a compelling option for independent filmmakers when combined with the relatively inexpensive camera kits from RED Digital Cinema."
Yeah sure, extremely powerful software but cheap. Now, I don't say that everything is fine and nice with FinalCut pro X. A transition so big can't satisfy everyone. Such a new and powerful architecture with a complete interface redesign means that the transition is rough for some users, some features will be back and I believe that the software is more oriented pro users than ever. If it does not satisfy right now the workflow for some studios, fine. They will use something else. But I believe that as time goes, FinalCut pro X will be used more and more by big studios. They can't stay behind and using old architected software.... It will just take time so that today's workflows adapt to the new FinalCut if they decide to make the effort. As more and more third parties cameras and hardware support the new software, adapting the workflow to FinalCut Pro X will be easier.
"It seems that Apple is content with letting companies like Avid control the "professional" NLE market, as no plans have been announced for a more comprehensive Final Cut Pro release."
Really? Seems that you need to be better informed. Apple made is clear that two big missing features, Multicam Editing and Broadcast-Quality Video Monitoring will be available and probably in a more powerful implementation than it used to be with the previous FinalCut Pro. And do you still call such features for prosumers? I don't think so, those are heavy pro features...... In addition to that, Apple made it also clear that they will continue to advance rapidly the software.
Some people in this site are trying to convince us that FinalCut pro is a prosumer tool just because AppleInsider run rumors that the software was shifting to a prosumer tool. It turned out to be wrong and now you guys try to convince the world that it is till true just to save your face....
I'm a professional producer and editor. Since I started in this business, Final Cut Pro had been a rising star in the video world, and I've switched numerous production houses over to FCP, which had huge ramifications for those businesses. Myself and many other companues made a lot of money because of FCP over the years.
When the real effects of this sea change are measured, however, it will effectively neutralize a significant chunk of those efficiency and monetary gains. This is already souring the mood towards Apple. Billions of dollars of revenue from hardware sales for production and post houses will no longer be pointed in Apple's direction, preferring higher performace/cost ratios of PC's running Avid and other platform independent NLE's like Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, and others.
This is a slippery slope and apple just pulled their stakes up out of the ground.
Believe me, Apple has done the math on all of this. With soaring laptop and iPad sales, its time to train the new generation from the ground up with a better way of story driven video editing. I mean no disrespect, but the fuddy-duddy A-B rollers are a dying breed, Apple will define the new way editing should be done in a mobile way. Some of Hollywood'd Directors are now shooting with DSLR incognito with a moving crew.......mobile post production is next and Apple will be ready while the competition struggles to catch up....sound familiar? Apple weighs its every move. Thank goodness the number one company in the world doesn't listen to our opinions about its business model. ;-)
But why "traded"? Why would there be a need to trade one for the other? Apple is the biggest freakin' computer company in the world and in the running for the biggest company by market cap, period. They can't do both?
In addition to price, one of the biggest arguments used by our educational institutions for not purchasing Apple hardware and software is that it's not what the students will be using in the real world after graduation. So this is just one more thing supporting the anti-Apple argument in education.
Yes, Apple can and will continue to make a killing in the purely consumer market; but there are synergies between the markets and it seems unwise to focus on just one market segment.
I have FCP Express, FCP 7/Studio and FCPX.
I am a Prosumer/Amateur editor... Mostly for friends, family and my own amazement.
But, what makes Apple different and able to survive and prosper -- is abandoning legacy dead ends...
FCP 7, et all supports a dying breed... There is little future, opportunity or $ in this endeavor.
Quality, Price and Quick Turn-Around are the driving forces of future NLEs...
There will be an exodus to Avid and Premiere.
Five years from now, the bulk of NLE editing will be done on Macs and Mobiles using FCPX...
...just my opinion!
This is interesting...
Mark Raudonis is an early defender of FCPX.
And, FCPX has had one update and is scheduled for another in the next month or so.
Supposedly, there are about 10,000 high-end editors in the industry...
But, there are millions of up-and-coming editors-in-training.
As with the original FCP, FCPX has reduced the cost of entry to 10% of what it was before it appeared on the scene...
The end of the story is yet to be written....
Agreed. I own a small video production house and have worked in tons of other editing suites over the years. Most of the people who use Avid only continue to do so from their initial investment back in the day. They have to justify spending anywhere from 30-100K on the equipment.
I've edited with both Avid and FCP both for the last 15 years and I'd pick FCP any day over Avid. Its a personal choice but to me Avid is a pain in the ass and FCP feels much more user friendly.